[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste
I think you had missed copying the list in your response.

I do not understand what you are talking about in the first paragraph and
how it supports the view that ignorance is of the nature of the absence of
knowledge.

Until I understand that, it is difficult to understand with what purpose
you have presented the second paragraph. As far as I can discern, the
Swamiji is arguing for a changeless sAkshi, which is the witness to both
the presence and absence of knowledge, and against some for of
meta-cognition (a cognition of a cognition). I have no issues with either
of those points.

What I don't understand is how it is relevant to the issue at hand.


Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Sun, 22 May 2022, 11:08 Michael Chandra Cohen, <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sri Venkatraghavan, Namaste. Absence and presence refer to an existent -
> there is no absence or presence of a non-entity. The snake in the rope
> appears but it is the rope alone that can be absent or present. So SSS's
> position remains intact.
>
> And if you wish to distinguish vyavahara and paramartha drsti, please
> consider another insightful passage from SSS's same text,
> "Perhaps you will claim that the knowledge whereby one is aware of the
> rise and loss of knowledge *is knowledge of a kind that is different from
> the knowledge that rises and falls. If so, we ask you further whether this
> second knowledge, which takes cognizance of ordinary knowledge, is or is
> not something that escapes rise and destruction. If it is something that
> undergoes destruction, then there will have to be another cognition to be
> aware of its destruction, and another cognition to be aware of that second
> cognition, and so into infinite regress. Perhaps you will therefore say
> that the second knowledge, by which the first knowledge is known, is itself
> free from destruction, while the first knowledge, which is ordinary.
> knowledge of objects, undergoes destruction. In that case you must explain
> what different point it is about the first knowledge that enables it alone
> to take (external) objects for its province, while eternal changeless
> knowledge does not. And what is this essential element in knowledge,
> implied by both these forms of it, that raises the transient form to
> effective knowledge?" p126
>
> On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 4:14 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sri Michael,
>> The Swamiji in section 131 says:
>>
>> (I'm taking the liberty of splitting this into paragraphs and numbering
>> them for easier comprehension and enumerating the ideas contained for
>> easier reference)
>>
>> "1. However the point was made by the opponent that if it was accepted
>> that the failure-to-awaken, which is not a reality but a negation, was
>> accepted as the cause of wrong knowledge then that would amount to (the
>> absurd position of) accepting that being came out of non-being.
>>
>> 2. But that was not right either. If failure-to-awaken is non-being, do
>> you mean to say that its result, wrong knowledge is real being, that you
>> should query whether being was made to come out of non-being?
>>
>> 3. And one does not get rid of one's difficulties by dismissing
>> 'failure-to-awaken' and summoning positive Ignorance to take its place. For
>> positive Ignorance too must be non-being, since it is capable of being
>> abolished by knowledge. No real being can be demolished by knowledge".
>>
>> 1 is indeed the criticism where we left off a couple of days ago. To
>> this, the above answer from the Swamiji was provided. If we look at 2 and
>> 3, Swamiji is using the terms "being" and "non-being". These essentially
>> correspond to paramArtha sat and vyAvahArika sat respectively.
>>
>> However, there is another classification within vyAvahArika sat, which
>> the Swamiji has ignored - presence and absence. That is, there is a
>> vyAvaharika presence and a vyAvahArika absence. Both presence and absence,
>> being vyAvahArika are, to use Swamiji's terminology, "capable of being
>> abolished by knowledge".
>>
>> So the original charge that we are making is that the "failure to awaken"
>> is a vyAvahArika absence. Ignorance for us a is a vyAvahArika presence.
>> When we debate whether ignorance is bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa, the debate is
>> not whether ignorance is pAramArthika sat or vyAhArika sat - rather the
>> debate - for us - is whether it is a vyAvahArika presence or vyAvahArika
>> absence.
>>
>> So in 1, the question we are asking is - as the "failure to awaken" is a
>> vyAvahArika absence, how can it give rise to a wrong- knowledge whose
>> nature is a vyAvahArika presence? For such a notion is *as absurd* as
>> the one where 'being' can arise from 'non-being'.
>>
>> The reply we would give to 2 is - we are not saying that wrong knowledge
>> is 'being', nor that 'failure to awaken' is 'non-being'. We are saying that
>> 'failure to awaken' is a vyAvahArika absence, and such an absence cannot
>> give rise to a vyAvahArika presence such as wrong knowledge.
>>
>> To 3, our reply is - yes, positive Ignorance is non-being. And it is is
>> capable of being abolished by knowledge. However, such a positive
>> Ignorance, of the nature of a vyAvhArika presence, is capable of resulting
>> in a wrong knowledge which is of the nature of a vyAvahArika presence.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2022, 16:50 Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe SSS generally responds best to the various astute comments
>>> offered by Sri Dwivedula, Bhat & Venkatraghavan. Here is link to a short
>>> reflection in SSS's, The Heart of Sri Samkara, his original abhava rupa
>>> avidya = adhyasa argument. ""In truth, Ignorance is not the effect or
>>> cause
>>> of anything, so the question of its cause is illegitimate". Through the
>>> reasoning contained in section 131, the entire question of need for an
>>> efficient positive cause is rendered moot. In the second link from the
>>> same
>>> text, SSS discusses cause of waking with some profound insight. Please
>>> consider -
>>> https://archive.org/details/TheHeartOfSriSankara/page/n161/mode/2up
>>>
>>> https://archive.org/details/TheHeartOfSriSankara/page/n65/mode/2up?q=39&view=theater
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:41 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Namaste Sri Michael
>>> > I think you got the general point being made that it's not only in the
>>> case
>>> > of brahmAtma GYAnam but also in empirical cases like rope-snake etc
>>> that
>>> > the idea of avidyA as a bhAvarUpa (or yat kincit bhAvarUpa) is being
>>> > maintained.
>>> >
>>> > The consistent position is that all vRttis of bhrama GYAnam (of even
>>> > physical objects like snakes on ropes etc experienced, are a
>>> modification
>>> > or vikAra) of avidyA.
>>> >
>>> > The basic epistemological process of knowledge in vedAnta is different
>>> from
>>> > how most people would view it. It involves removal or destruction of an
>>> > existent entity called avidyA (centred on that particular object) by a
>>> > corresponding vRtti. When the knowledge occurs and a rope is perceived
>>> as a
>>> > rope etc., the vRtti which destroyed the ignorance of the rope
>>> revealing it
>>> > for what it is,  is referred to as an 'antaHkaraNa vRtti'. And when a
>>> rope
>>> > is perceived as a snake, the avidyA itself is modified to assume the
>>> form
>>> > of the snake - it's an 'avidyA vRtti'.
>>> >
>>> > The divergence between avidyA being a bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa entity,
>>> is
>>> > better discussed with empirical cases of bhrama GYAnam like rope-snake
>>> etc.
>>> > It's not just w.r.t Brahman that such an ontological aspect to avidyA
>>> is
>>> > being asserted by mainstream Advaita vedAnta.
>>> >
>>> > Lastly the question of whether adhyAsa itself is bhAvarUpa or not is
>>> moot.
>>> > If it is, then it cannot be sublated, as per the argument against
>>> avidyA
>>> > being bhAvarUpA. If adhyAsa is given empirical reality , then the same
>>> can
>>> > be said for avidyA too.
>>> >
>>> > Also, there is an idea that all cause-effect is "within time" and
>>> hence we
>>> > cannot ask the question "what causes adhyAsa". However this is not
>>> tenable
>>> > because questions such as "what causes the arising of time itself" can
>>> be
>>> > logically and meaningfully framed and need to be addressed, which is
>>> > mUlaaavidyA etc., do.
>>> >
>>> > Om
>>> > Raghav
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Om
>>> > Raghav
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, 20 May, 2022, 2:43 am Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Sri Venkatraghavan, namaste
>>> > > *Something from nothing is good epistemology, bad ontology. avidya
>>> is an
>>> > > epistemological error upon an ontological reality. An epistemological
>>> > > agrahana commonly produces an effect - not knowing the train's
>>> schedule;
>>> > > forgetting the wife's birthday. Name and form is all that accounts
>>> for
>>> > what
>>> > > we call jagat.    *
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 12:40 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>>> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Namaste Praveen ji,
>>> > > > Indeed. That adhyAsa is a samsArahetu cannot be in doubt - asya
>>> > > > *anarthahetoh* prahANAya AtmaikyavidyApratipattaye sarve vedAntA
>>> > > > Arabhyante, says the bhAShyakAra.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > If such an adhyAsa is anartha hetu, it must be bhAvarUpa. If that
>>> is
>>> > not
>>> > > > accepted, then it will be a case of a non-existent thing leading
>>> to a
>>> > > > bhAvarUpa samsAra consisting of kartRtva / bhoktRtva / rAga/ /
>>> dveSha.
>>> > So
>>> > > > whatever is the type of bhAvarUpatva that is conceded by ajnAna
>>> > > > abhAvavAdin-s for adhyAsa and samsAra, is the same bhAvarUpatva
>>> that is
>>> > > > accepted ajnAna bhAvavAdin-s.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > Venkatraghavan
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:15 AM Praveen R. Bhat <
>>> > bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Namaste Venkatji,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM Venkatraghavan S <
>>> > agnimile at gmail.com>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Re the contention that bhAvarUpatva of avidyA is a post Shankara
>>> > > > >> construct, there is a very interesting passage in the
>>> bRhadAraNyaka
>>> > > > bhAShya
>>> > > > >> to the mantra 4.3.20 where the bhAvrUpatva of avidyA is
>>> indicated:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> तथा अविद्यायामप्युत्कृष्यमाणायाम् , तिरोधीयमानायां च विद्यायाम्
>>> ,
>>> > > > >> अविद्यायाः फलं प्रत्यक्षत एवोपलभ्यते — ‘अथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव
>>> > जिनन्तीव’
>>> > > > इति ।
>>> > > > >> When ignorance increases and knowledge is suppressed, the
>>> results of
>>> > > > >> ignorance are directly perceived i.e. - "now, if he feels like
>>> he
>>> > was
>>> > > as
>>> > > > >> though being killed, or as though being overpowered".
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > > ...
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Thanks for the Brihad bhAShya quotations. There is another issue
>>> > that I
>>> > > > > keep pointing out to those who object to avidyA being bhAvarUpa
>>> that
>>> > if
>>> > > > it
>>> > > > > is abhAvarUpa, then it cannot be any kind of kAraNa to anything,
>>> let
>>> > > > alone
>>> > > > > saMsAra. If they argue that mAyA, "different from avidyA" is the
>>> > > kAraNa,
>>> > > > > still adhyAsa has to be accepted as a kAraNa for individuality.
>>> If
>>> > > > adhyAsa
>>> > > > > is same as avidyA, avidyA being abhAvarUpa, and any kind of
>>> kAraNa,
>>> > > would
>>> > > > > leave us with no possibility of rejecting shUnyavAda wholesale! A
>>> > > > > non-existent avidyA/ adhyAsa contributing to any saMsaraNa or
>>> > delusion
>>> > > or
>>> > > > > whatever it contributes to, is no better than shUnyavAda.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Somewhere in Taittiriyabhashya, if memory serves right, Bhagavan
>>> > > > > Bhashyakara says that even Naiyyayika's prAgabhAva is different
>>> from
>>> > > this
>>> > > > > shUnya of yours to a Bauddha pUrvapakSha, the former being a
>>> padArtha
>>> > > > while
>>> > > > > the latter complete non-existence.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > gurupAdukAbhyAm,
>>> > > > > --Praveen R. Bhat
>>> > > > > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should
>>> one
>>> > > know
>>> > > > > That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> > > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For assistance, contact:
>>> > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>> > > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> > >
>>> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> > >
>>> > > For assistance, contact:
>>> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>> > >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> >
>>> > For assistance, contact:
>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>
>>