[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Dear Venkatraghavan, Namaste.

My response can refer to your comment, "These essentially correspond to
paramArtha sat and vyAvahArika sat respectively."  Terminology is
questionable, i,e,. vyAvahArika 'sat'. The implication of bhavarupa leads
to the consequence of taking vyAvahAra as some kind of 'sat' which enables
categories of 'absence' and 'presence'. My earlier comment questions the
status of vyAvahAra as 'sat' rather than asat or adhyasa.

The same reasoning applies to the earlier topic of efficient and material
causation. I provided the link to section 131 to highlight SSS's
clarification,
"And again, the strict Advaitin accepts (according to the opponent) that
absence of knowledge is the root-Ignorance causing wrong knowledge, and
that wrong knowledge arises from it. In this \vay he accepts that the
existent arises from the non-existent, which contrad~cts received canons of
knowledge. Nor can he claim that he does not teach the rise of being from
non-being by saying that superimposition is a modification of the mind, and
has the mind for its material cause. For the mind itself presupposes a
material cause, and the demand for a first cause cannot on this basis be
satisfied. So, because the strict Advaitin cannot account either for an
efficient or for a material cause of Ignorance, his whole system is faulty.
But all this argument only arises from 'ignorance'. We do not admit that
Ignorance is either the efficient or the material cause of the world, since
it has no real existence at all." Heart of Sri Samkara p135

The passage continues to declare Maya as the apparency of the world as per
Gaudapada, 'The real can undergo production through illusion, but not in
truth. He who holds that such production is real affirms (absurdly) that
that which has already been produced undergoes production' (G.K. 3.27) '

On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 6:29 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>