your question

[Guest guest]

Anup:

your argument Re: Anirvaachaniya avidya in Advaita.

 

anup>> Sudarshan,

anup>> I think mysteriousness exists one way or the other once again. if

anup>> bondage is out of karma, then the question would be how did the first

anup>> karma take place? whether it is the will of god, leela or whatever,

anup>> once again, the mysteriousness come out. I think focussing on the

anup>> importance of anirvachaniya is as unimportankt as piking on the

anup>> "original karma" in all the three philosophies.

anup>> regards,

anup>> anup.

 

Let me attempt to show that it is not the same level of inexplicability

we are talking about.

 

Almost all schools of philosophy that believe in Karma (theistic and

atheistic)

have the problem of the First Cause. The Upanisads say that Karma is Eternal,

ie.

beyond space & time. (as time is a phenomena within actualised prakruti).

Before time

itself is born or instituted, the Self and Prakruti are related and dependent

on Brahman.

Brahman, Self, Prakruti & Karma are all Eternal (without a beginning). The only

possible

explanation we can give to this Eternal business is that this is not within our

capacity (logical) to describe it fully. (I say fully because at least

partially

we can rationalise that there is "a" possibility of "a" condition where time

does not exist). Whatever explanation one gives it still is not Fully

convincing.

Yes. Hence "Eternal" refers to the inability of logic to comprehend

this aspect. Agreed.

 

Now lets come to the Advaita concept of Anirvaachaniya. This concept is Not

talking about the First cause of karma. It is Not talking about the

inexplicabilty

of why the Self got entangled in Samsara in the first place. It is talking

about the

existence of the world as we see it. It is saying that the world around us,

the

phenomenal world is unreal, the self is unreal and everything that goes with

prakruti

is unreal. This "appearance" of reality (world etc) is attributed to one

"avidya"

which is supposed to be the fundamental cause. This "avidya" is supposed to put

a

"veil" over reality and hence misleads. The inexplicability referred to here is

the

inexplicability of this notion of avidya in the context of the prevailing

advaitic

view that nothing other than Brahman exists. (Note the context, this is

important)

It basically glosses over the world and the finite selves as unimportant.

By positing this view that Brahman alone exists and everything else is unreal,

Advaita

falls into problematic situations with regards to 1) Ontological status of

avidya,

2) Cause and effect of avidya, 3) Status of elimination of avidya etc.

This is in Addition to the problem of the "Eternal" karma described above.

 

Every "model" of the Upanisadic idea tries to explain it's concepts by

positing one

thing or another. The point is when one can logically refute a model and show

there

is another way to explain the existence of the world, the self etc., then one

has to

consider this refutation seriously. No system can be logically Perfect. One has

to see

which one is better than the rest. (relatively). Within our capacities to

reason and rationalise, if one can offer an alternative to the existence of the

phenomenal world then one has to look into it. The creation of the "model" of

Karma

is supposed to attack the problem of entanglement, misery etc, one faces in

this

lifetime.

 

Visistadvaita has refuted this "world-phenomenon-theory" which is supposedly

anirvaavachniya, as untenable, due to self-contradictions.

 

First-karma is NOT the will of God or Leela etc that you mention above. Karma

is

attached to the Self due to it's freedom of choice and it can get rid of it

by contemplating on Brahman. This freedom-of choice has always been there and

it's wrong actions get it entangled in Samsara.

The "leela" refers to Brahman's conscious will to actualise or bring

forward the Real world where the Self can exercise it's "freedom" (hopefully

"correctly")

to achieve freedom from Karma.

ie. It is God's Gift of mercy to the self to redeem itself.

 

Wherever possible one has to Focus on the problems of one "model" or another

to explain what is untenable in that system. If it is explainable it does NOT

fall into the "Eternal" category. If it is not explainable by any logical means

whatsoever but the concept is essential to explain other subsequent concepts

then

it falls into the "Eternal" category. The point is to remove all self

contradictions

within a "model" (self contradictions such as Avidya in Advaita). The existence

of

the "Eternal" category is Not a self contradiction.

Consider it as an "irreducible axiom" which is essential to explain further

Upanisadic concepts, but this axiom itself is not contradicted by anything else

we know. (perception, inference, Sabda)

 

Hence I think focussing on the Advaitic Anirvaachaniya avidya is very much

important and does not fall into the same category as First-Karma.

 

regards,

-sudarshan

[Guest guest]

Anup:

One clarification to my earlier mail.

 

sudarshan>> the "Eternal" category is Not a self contradiction.

sudarshan>> Consider it as an "irreducible axiom" which is essential to explain

further

sudarshan>> Upanisadic concepts, but this axiom itself is not contradicted by

anything else

sudarshan>> we know. (perception, inference, Sabda)

 

What I should have said here is:

 

Consider it as an "irreducible axiom" which helps to explain other

Upanisadic concepts, but whatever is posited due to this axiom (resultant

or consequent concepts) are not self contradictory.

 

 

PS: This is all with a view to coherently interpret all of the Ideas in the

Upanisads

without exclusive bias towards any one Aphorism, thereby presenting one

non-contradictory corpus of thought.