avidyA (lack of knowledge) is bhAva rUpa or abhAva rUpa!!??
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
The below is written by me in whatsapp group where some of the very dedicated Advaita jnAna mArga sAdhaka-s involved and arguing that ghata abhAva is same as jnAna abhAva and hence some sort of objectivity can be attributed to jnAna abhAva (lack of knowledge). With regard to this I shared my thoughts. I am just sharing the same message in this group as well. Seeking the permission of Sri Sada prabhuji to use term like ‘gAgAbubu’ which has been introduced by him during some discussion 😊
//quote//
I always hesitant and guilt to discuss vedAnta with someone who practically living the life of vedAnta as I am not full time vedAntin nor that pious and dedicated gruhastha sAdhaka. However that does not stop me from sharing my thoughts with the like minded people and this can be treated as an independent message without addressing any particular query / objection. Now the question : why the absence of jnAna cannot be accepted as bhAva rUpa since we know that (bhAva) we dont know!! This objectification of jnAnAbhAva itself sufficient to prove jnAnAbhAva itself a bhAvarUpa in our mind and after the jnAna (which is again bhAvarUpa, a vrutti in mind) udaya this jnAna virOdhi bhAvarUpa ajnAna goes away...seems everyone satisfied with this type of explanation as this has been presented by some. However first of all one should realize the jnAna what we are talking about is not objectifiable jnAna and objectification of this Atma jnAna is not possible at any stretch of our imagination. So holding this jnAna as an object in our mind and with that proving avidyA also which is basically lack of knowledge as bhAvarUpa is totally illogical and untenable. Why because of the simple reason there is no corresponding vrutti rUpa jnAna in our mind when we are talking about some gAgabubu (something strange/alien we have not heard anything about and having absolutely no idea)...The absence of jnAna in this way cannot be perceivable like ghata abhAva coz. we are talking about very ghata jnAna abhAva not mere ghata abhAva. The person who never ever heard anything about an object called 'gAgAbubu' would not get vrutti jnAna / bhAva corresponding to it as he has complete absence of knowledge of the thing called 'gAgAbubu'. Similarly when our teacher talks about Atman we accept it that there is Atman but due to lack of knowledge about Atman we are not able to get any corresponding (tat saMbandhita) form in our intellect. This is called jnAnAbhAva. In the ghata abhAva the non-existence of ghata as per with its objective knowledge is called ghata abhAva (absence of object in general sense). The absence of any form / picture in intellect of a thing heard through someone is called the absence of knowledge of that object. In the misconception (adhyAsa bhrAnti samaye) like seeing the snake in place of rope we have the form of snake in place of rope which is called 'wrong knowledge' and after bhrAnti nirasana (after the dawn of knowledge) we have the right picture of rope in our intellect. Where as in the scenario of lack of knowledge of anything there is no vrutti rUpa jnAna in our intellect at all. Hence avidyA (not knowing) is always called as jnAnAbhAva and it is not an objectively existing thing. And some one just to avoid error of attributing vinAsha to an existing thing argue avidyA is said as bhAva just to drive home the point it is NOT abhAva...but they have miserably failed to logically prove the intermediatory position of this avidyA which is neither bhAva nor abhAva. They illogically use the mundane examples like ghata and ghata abhAva to prove jnAna abhAva as ghata abhAva. But unlike ghata-ghata abhAva, the ajnAna and AtmajnAna is directly opposed to each other. Just because this avidyA has been known to the ajnAna as existing, they attributed objectivity to ajnAna which is distinctly different from the example of objectivity of the pot and its abhAva and concocted the bhAvarUpa/jadAtmaka/objectively existing theory of avidyA on the basis of that it is perceived by the ajnAni-s as existing!! what more to say about this!!??
//unquote//
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Rammohan Subramaniam
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
![Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjV3zfBxUiQk8vu0f_4V-frfH3yRVCouuaL1M-a_s8ZbCMlAV7k=s40-c-mo)
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
Rammohan Subramaniam
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/DefzgE2FvvE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-HkqDK1mdKazHa2c9pnbSunKgDbCMdhMgUqSjwcwGDdrA%40mail.gmail.com.
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
Hari Om" vidyAvirodhinI avidyA,"It should have been " avidyA virodhinI vidyA " not the other way around purely based on the construct of the terms.
Only when vidya is there can there be avidya of that vidya or its purport.
Rammohan Subramaniam
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/DefzgE2FvvE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-E8Ec2JEM%3D9Pc5P8NcisNBmMsZSWvHY3eT10S7wXkbd%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
Hari OmThere are two avidya - one is I do not my true nature and another is I think I am such and such or so and so. The second is due to first one and then Vyavahara - Kartha and Bhokta Bahva and Karma Phala or Vasana. The second one is removed by Viveka and the knowledge or Vidya required for it gained by Uttara Mimamsa. At the end of which both Vidya and Avidya will go away.The first one which is unreal is only a Illusion , when second ignorance vanishes - then the Upanishad Mahavkaya will allow one to glide into the truth. Here there is no destruction of Avidya but only the realization of one's true nature - just as a dreamer sheds his dream identity and gains one's true Waker nature.OmRammohan--On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 10:30 AM Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati] <bhatp...@gmail.com> wrote:--On Sun, Jul 14, 2024, 9:38 AM Rammohan Subramaniam <rammohan.s...@gmail.com> wrote:Hari Om" vidyAvirodhinI avidyA,"It should have been " avidyA virodhinI vidyA " not the other way around purely based on the construct of the terms.It is stated based on vyAkaraNa, taking the appropriate meaning of na~n from the 6 possible meanings, as taught by Advaita sampradAya. The title of the thread is the context. As for vidyA opposing avidyA, you're stating the obvious! Vedanta is uttara mImAMsA, which is pUjita vichAra based on the construct of the terms only. Opposing avidyA is possible only when avidyA exists, be it mithyA.Only when vidya is there can there be avidya of that vidya or its purport.!!
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/DefzgE2FvvE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-E8Ec2JEM%3D9Pc5P8NcisNBmMsZSWvHY3eT10S7wXkbd%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAHg2XdakH7FefcRjp7VYpmx%2B9Hm86QC-VH%3DLKbc6RqBC2NOccg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Rammohan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
There are two avidya - one is I do not my true nature and another is I think I am such and such or so and so.
- Without resorting to sarcasm in a nitpicking style I could see the intention in which you have written above. One is avidyA as jnAnAbhAva and another one is, as a result, a wrong knowledge (adhyAsa) so you are talking about two different aspects of the same one!! One is kAraNAvidyA another one is kAryAvidyA. These two aspects of avidyA are very much appreciated in classical Advaita works along with third aspect of avidyA i.e. saMshaya (doubt).
The second is due to first one and then Vyavahara - Kartha and Bhokta Bahva and Karma Phala or Vasana.
- Yes for seeing the snake in rope (adhyAsa) the ‘Aspada’ is lack of knowledge of rope. By the way not in the sense of material cause which is pet theory to some advaitins 😊
The second one is removed by Viveka and the knowledge or Vidya required for it gained by Uttara Mimamsa. At the end of which both Vidya and Avidya will go away.
Ø adhyAsa is the avidyA as per adhyAsa bhAshya while avidyA (jnAna abhAva) is eka rUpa to one and all, it is adhyAsa which is troublesome explains bhAshyakAra.
The first one which is unreal is only a Illusion , when second ignorance vanishes - then the Upanishad Mahavkaya will allow one to glide into the truth. Here there is no destruction of Avidya but only the realization of one's true nature - just as a dreamer sheds his dream identity and gains one's true Waker nature.
Ø Here my understanding is slightly different, here jnAna or realization of svarUpa is the kArya janita phala it is just eradication of siddha vastu ajnAna. Realization of svarUpa jnAna to be understood as mere eradication of avidyA/ajnAna.
Rammohan Subramaniam
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/DefzgE2FvvE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625ED36A770C5A102D4322A84A12%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
I shall copy-paste my response on this discussion on WA later.
1) Just like any shAstra study is not the translation or meaning of the mUla words only, similarly, the study of bhAShya is not mere translation or meaning of the bhAShya words only. For that, study of TIkA is needed, which is really studying the bhAShya, be it by those who follow Bhamati or Vivarana sampradaya. Pls stay away from people who tell you that either of these have advaitahAni. It is shocking to read such nonsense here! Kindly remember that those who disrespect sampradAya or Acharyas gain nothing.
2) For understanding bhAShya also, vyAkaraNa is needed. avidyA is a-vidyA, where अ is नञ् and it has 6 meanings, not only one. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Also what bhAvarUpa avidyA means is not sat. So nAsato vidyate bhAvaH, etc, will not help, nor will the bhAShya there. Else, abhAvarUpa avidyA leading to saMsAra would reduce advaita siddhAnta to nihilism of shUnyavAdI Buddhists!! Therefore, tarka is needed as well. When Bhagavan Bhashyakara uses a hetu in panchamI, there is a vyApti hidden. That vyApti should be questioned and understood to know what it means; that is not possible without tarka. The various vyAkhyAs and TIkAs do justice to it till our buddhi submits completely to that bhAShya. This is the magic of the sampradAya, which the non-sampradAya teachers don't even have a whiff of. (काणादं पाणिनीयं च सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम्।)
3) The corollary to 2 above is that discussion or debate is possible only on a common ground of accepted axiom/proof. If one says bhAShya alone is proof by considering that it's word means only this much as a dictionary-meaning or even worse, a translated meaning in any other language, no discussion is possible. Such a person has no other angle that vyAkaraNa gives. This has to be earned with respect to such shAstra.
4) Tarka gives a discipline of following the thought to completion, not randomly picking bhAShya to one's own benefit. If an inquiry is on a particular aspect of the mUla or bhAShya, that inquiry should be followed with a query that is sambaddha, connected, not with a random throw of some sentence somewhere else. The hetu can come from somewhere else but within the thread of the inquiry. That is possible only with tarka study or at the very least the TIkA that shows how bhAShya is woven as a beautiful mAlA, an alankAra to mUla.
In the end, I just want to say: to know the benefit or lack of it in something, you have to study that something, not just sit out, listen to someone else and let it go. bhAShya is a deep ocean of knowledge. Its breadth cannot be limited to mere translation of the same. When we open up our minds to possibilities as to what all bhAShya is, we can see more and more, even beyond the TIkAs at times! That is shAstrakRpA through sampradAyakRpA. Let us be satpAtra and earn it, and not mere empty vessels that someone bangs on and we end up making noise!
तस्यैते कथिता हि, अकथिताश्च, अर्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मनः। 🙏🏽
As to those who study tarka and say it's not useful, the same would apply to bhAShya as some ppl say tattvabodha is enough, others say mahAvAkya is enough, etc. We can only wish all of them well. As for one's self-interest, one should study everything the sampradAya teaches till one knows one is free! Although nothing more is needed, nothing less will do either!! अवगतिपर्यन्तं ज्ञानम्।
gurupAdukAbhyAm.
gurupAdukAbhyAm,
Ananta Chaitanya
(PS: pls do not read anger towards or hurt from anyone in the above)
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
To view this discussion on the web visit
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
One of my WA friends shared this after I shared Sri MCC prabhujji’s findings in ChatGPT
//quote//
Adi Shankaracharya's commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and the classic Upanishads are central to understanding his views on avidya (ignorance). His treatment of avidya is nuanced and can be seen as addressing both positive ignorance and the mere absence of knowledge. Here’s how these interpretations can be reconciled:
Positive Ignorance vs. Absence of Knowledge
Positive Ignorance:
Adi Shankaracharya often describes avidya as a kind of positive ignorance, which is an active misunderstanding or misperception of reality. This is evident in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (commentary on the Brahma Sutras), where he explains that avidya leads to the superimposition of attributes (like name, form, and action) on the ultimate reality, Brahman. This superimposition is a positive force that causes individuals to perceive duality and multiplicity in the non-dual Brahman.
Example: In his commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.1.4, Shankaracharya explains that due to avidya, people perceive the self as limited and subject to birth, death, and suffering, rather than recognizing the self as the infinite, changeless Brahman.
Absence of Knowledge:
Shankaracharya also addresses avidya as a mere absence of true knowledge (ajnana). In this context, avidya is simply the lack of awareness of the true nature of the self. When the light of true knowledge (jnana) arises, this ignorance is dispelled.
Example: In his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, Shankaracharya illustrates that the self is ever-pure and free, and ignorance is merely the absence of this realization. The removal of ignorance is like the removal of darkness by light.
Reconciling the Interpretations
Contextual Application:
The reconciliation of these interpretations lies in the contextual application of Shankaracharya’s teachings. When discussing the nature of avidya in the context of the individual’s misperception of reality, Shankaracharya often uses the concept of positive ignorance. This emphasizes the active role of avidya in creating the illusion of duality.
In contrast, when discussing the process of spiritual liberation, Shankaracharya frames avidya as an absence of knowledge. Here, the focus is on the removal of ignorance through the acquisition of true knowledge, akin to removing darkness by introducing light.
Analogies and Illustrations:
Shankaracharya uses various analogies to illustrate these concepts. For example, he compares avidya to a rope mistaken for a snake (positive ignorance), where the false perception (snake) actively obscures the reality (rope). On the other hand, he also compares avidya to darkness, which is simply dispelled by the light of knowledge (absence of knowledge).
Philosophical Coherence:
Shankaracharya’s dual approach to avidya maintains philosophical coherence within Advaita Vedanta. By addressing avidya both as positive ignorance and as the absence of knowledge, he provides a comprehensive explanation for the experience of bondage and the process of liberation. The active misperception caused by avidya explains why individuals are trapped in samsara, while the mere absence of knowledge highlights the simplicity and directness of achieving moksha (liberation) through self-realization.
Conclusion
Adi Shankaracharya’s treatment of avidya as both positive ignorance and the mere absence of knowledge can be reconciled by understanding the contexts in which he applies these interpretations. In explaining the cause of bondage, avidya is often depicted as positive ignorance that actively misleads individuals. In the context of liberation, avidya is the absence of knowledge that is dispelled by the light of true understanding. This dual approach allows for a nuanced and complete understanding of ignorance and its resolution in Advaita Vedanta
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Jaishankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I had written a note on this a couple of years back and sent it to this group. No one has rebutted any of the points mentioned in that. Recirculating it again.
- Thanks for sharing this write-up prabhuji. I will definitely have a look into it and come back if anything I have to say and if you could permit me I will also share your article with some of Sri SSS’s followers who restricted their contributions only in FB 😊
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
Can you discuss avidya related to its muula avidya -
The question focussed is the vishepa aspect of avidya - is the projection by the mind or avidya itself - The example of rope/snake indicates that the mind is involved.Appreciate expressing your understanding of Advaita Vedanta.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
draShTA is never the mind, because it is jaDa, but chaitanya associated with the mind, that is, chidAbhAsa-vishiShTha-chaitanya.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1899376449.927589.1721218677338%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Ananta Chaitanya Ji,
Would it not be appropriate to understand draShTA as अन्तःकरणावच्छिन्न अज्ञात चैतन्य (antaHkaraNAvachChinna aj~nAta chaitanya) or अन्तःकरणावच्छिन्न आवरणयुक्त चैतन्य (antaHkaraNAvachChinna AvaraNayukta chaitanya). chidAbhAsa is generally associated with pramAta.
Regards
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-Ga1q5%3DQOz7PqW%2B8RYp%2B3C_2KAq5eBvk-PVbo4wYH0Rog%40mail.gmail.com.
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
Would it not be appropriate to understand draShTA as अन्तःकरणावच्छिन्न अज्ञात चैतन्य (antaHkaraNAvachChinna aj~nAta chaitanya) or अन्तःकरणावच्छिन्न आवरणयुक्त चैतन्य (antaHkaraNAvachChinna AvaraNayukta chaitanya)chidAbhAsa is generally associated with pramAta.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Ananata Chaitanya Ji,
Thanks for the response. My understanding of Vichara Sagara is that while jIva includes both draShTA and pramAtA, the two are different by themselves. Anyway I will leave it at that.
Regards
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-HzkmEQ-tyH%3DPX4ez4SHp8BAO1Hw1J4buJCVMQSRHsTdA%40mail.gmail.com.