Prasanth Neti
Top contributor
Michael ji
//// How can a prior non-existence be established temporally to the non-existence of Self knowledge? Time/prior is only established though adhyasa which itself presupposes jnana abhava. ////
It is from the [or to the] viewpoint of adhyasa (mithya-jñāna) alone jñāna-abhāva (absence-of-Self-knowledge) makes sense as prāk-abhāva, because, time is already pre-supposed into the adhyasa standpoint.
That means, that very adhyasa / mithya-jñāna itself is what we point to as ‘jñāna-abhava’ and teach the seeker that with raise of knowledge, the absence of knowledge goes away (i.e. mithya-jñāna goes away). That much only.
We do not mean to locate jñāna-abhava outside adhyasa / mithya-jñāna (i.e. we do not locate it as an entity outside clutches of adhyasa) that anyone can point to it as a dosha by saying that it is prior to time.
That is why to us whether one calls it as mithya-jñāna or lack of knowledge or doubtful knowledge, we do not care. All that we are interested in is pointing to it in anubhava (without establishing it through pramanas) and while doing so, emphasise that it gets removed with raise of knowledge.
Recall in Brihadaranyaka 3.3.1, Bhagavatpāda says:
“” यदि ज्ञानाभावो, यदि संशयज्ञानं यदि विपरीतज्ञानं वा उच्यते अज्ञानमिति, सर्वं हि तज्ज्ञानेनैव निवर्त्यते। “”
“” In whatever way we talk of ignorance, whether it is absence of knowledge or doubt or wrong knowledge, all of them are removable by knowledge. “”
Moreover, to us neither adhyasa nor lack of knowledge are material-like in nature - both of them are of the nature of knowledge - both are epistemic.
The jñāna-abhāva which exists prāk (prior) to raise of knowledge can be ***for all practical purposes*** taken as prāk-abhāva.
There is no difficulty in understanding this abhāva. Simply “look at” mithya-jñāna - that is lack of knowledge.
Always note that, the nature of ‘sea-shell appearing as silver’ (superimposition) is merely that of false knowledge (विपारीतज्ञानमात्रम्). It is not a product of a positive insentient material like indescribable ignorance. If it would have been a product of a positive insentient material like indescribable ignorance then it can never be merely that of false knowledge (विपारीतज्ञानमात्रम् i.e. विपरीतग्रहणमात्रम्), because what is the basic nature of cause will also be basic nature of its effect.
In the same way, when we say ‘ignorance about sea-shell is removed’, the nature of such removal is merely raise of true knowledge of sea-shell (शुक्तिज्ञानोदयमात्रम्). There is no removal / destruction of material like indescribable ignorance.
To sum up, both ignorance (false-knowledge) and its antidote knowledge (i.e. true knowledge) have ‘knowledge’ as its nature but not any material like insentient indescribable entity as its nature.
Bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāshya 1.4.7:
यथा गृह्यमाणाया अपि शुक्तिकाया विपर्ययेण रजताभासाया अग्रहणं विपरीतज्ञानव्यवधानमात्रम्, तथा ग्रहणं ज्ञानमात्रमेव, विपरीतज्ञानव्यवधानापोहार्थत्वाज्ज्ञानस्य; एवमिहाप्यात्मनोऽलाभः अविद्यामात्रव्यवधानम्; तस्माद्विद्यया तदपोहनमात्रमेव लाभः, नान्यः कदाचिदप्युपपद्यते। तस्मादात्मलाभे ज्ञानादर्थान्तरसाधनस्य आनर्थक्यं वक्ष्यामः।
Trans. Sw. Madhavananda: Just as when a mother-of-pearl appears through mistake as a piece of silver, the non-apprehension of the former, although it is being perceived all the while, is merely due to the obstruction of the false impression, and its (subsequent) apprehension is but knowledge, for this is what removes the obstruction of false impression, similarly here also the non-attainment of the Self is merely due to the obstruction of ignorance. Therefore the attainment of It is simply the removal of that obstruction by knowledge; in no other sense it is consistent. Hence we shall explain how for the realisation of the Self every other means but knowledge is useless.
- Love
- Reply
- Edited
3![]()
![]()
