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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Please read the phrase in the email below "and against some for of
meta-cognition" as "and against some form of meta-cognition".



On Sun, 22 May 2022, 11:27 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>