avidyA and advaita

[Guest guest]

There was some discussion of the concept of

avidyA (ignorance) and its place in Advaita philosophy

recently. I think it is important for us to understand

avidyA as seen by the Advaita school.

 

Ramakrishnan or Vidyasankar, can you give us a brief

overview of what avidyA is, its place in Advaita, and

some of the problems in understanding it?

 

After that we can understand Visistadvaita's criticism

and/or understanding of it.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

[ Forwarded to the Bhakti List by me, Mani. Please note: some abstruse details

of Vedanta philosophy ensue below. Please skip if not interested. Also please

note that Ramakrishnan is just presenting the Advaita viewpoint objectively,

and does not intend to start an argument. He notes how one can conclude for

or against this concept of adviyA. ]

 

Mani Varadarajan <mani wrote:

> Ramakrishnan or Vidyasankar, can you give us a brief

> overview of what avidyA is, its place in Advaita, and

> some of the problems in understanding it?

 

Mani, I attempted to be brief, but it turned out quite long. If you

feel this would be of interest to the bhakti list, please forward it.

Thanks.

 

- ----

- ---------

 

Abbreviations:

 

R: Sri rAmAnuja

Sh: Sri sha.nkara

Su: Sri sureshvara

V: Sri vedAntadeshika

 

NaiSi: naishhkarmyasiddhi

TUBhVa: taittirIya upanishhad bhAshhya vArtika of Su

SVa: sambandha vArtika of Su

BUBhVa: br^ihadAraNyaaka upanishhad bhAshhya vArtika of Su

 

- --------------------------------

 

[Apologies for the somewhat long mail]

 

I'll give a summary of the my understanding of avidyA as

expounded in the works of Su. It is a well known fact that on

most of the important points (like avidyA) Su follows Sh closely.

I will not be giving the original Sanskrit verses. I will assume

that the interested people have access to the original texts.

 

The thread of reasoning follows the following steps:

 

1. By the method of anvaya-vyatireka (agreement-difference), the

three states are examined. It is shown that it is impossible to

establish the existence of any real entity other than the self.

The second chapter of the NaiSi of Su contains an elaborate

discussion.

 

2. avidyA is not established by any of the means of knowing

(pramANA-s). Su says that the person who would want to establish

avidyA by any pramANa would also see the darkness in the interior

of a cave with a lamp (TUbhVa 2.177). avidyA does not stand the

scrutiny of the pramANa-s (SVa 2.181-182).

 

3. So what is avidyA and why is avidyA predicated? Su raises the

pUrvapaxa that if it is admitted that brahman has avidyA, then it

is a defect. And if brahman is free from avidyA, then knowledge

which results in moxa, is futile (SVa 2.175-176). The answer is

that avidyA is predicated based purely on experience (anubhava)

and thus involves no contradictions. How? As seen from point 1,

the existence of real entities other than the self is impossible

to establish. However, empirically, the world is experienced and

hence avidyA is predicated. The analogy Su gives is the blueness

of the sky resembling the petals of a blue lotus (BUBhVa

1.4.333).

 

My explanation of this analogy is as follows: It is already known

that ether does not possess the quality of color. However, the

blue color of the sky (ether) is seen and accepted. Thus the

acceptance of the blue color is based on anubhava only. In other

words, we have a case of abhAsa. The existence of avidyA is

similar.

>From the standpoint of brahman, avidyA does not make any sense

(SVa 2.176-177). Just like the blueness of the sky, it is accepted

on anubhava only. Su says that any other position involves a

prolixity of assumptions, each of which involve some

contradiction or the other. For advaitins only avidyA is assumed

and that is solidly based on anubhava (SVa 2.182-183).

 

The following are important observations:

 

1. Note that the predication of avidyA comes after the process of

anvaya-vyatireka. avidyA is not some ontological category which

is established by means of dialectics, as was attempted by some

later advaitins.

 

2. Obviously advaita and vishishhTadvaita part ways right at

point 1 given above. Both systems use anubhava, etc to arrive at

diametrically opposite conclusions right here. The reason for

this can be found by examining some pertinent points made by R.

More attention is paid these days to V's shatadUshhaNi, which

builds and sometimes expands on R's original arguments. I have

somewhat glibly stated point 1. It is a useful exercise to go

through the arguments of Sh and Su and examine them in the light

of R's objections. IMO, at the end of this exercise, one accepts

either R's position or Sh's position. If the latter is accepted,

Sh's arguments on avidyA follow naturally. If the former is

accepted, almost all the objections in the shatadUshhaNi follow

naturally.

 

Of course, some of the objections by V is also related to the

expositions found in texts like ishhTasiddhi and so on. I don't

hold the view of Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati that expositions

by later advaitins are to a large extent useless. I definitely

feel they have their place, but IMO the essential simplicity of

Sa is not found among later advaitins. So I want to concentrate

only on Sa and Su.

 

3. I will note here that the examination of the three states is

extremely important in understanding Sh and Su. Understanding the

position of avidyA in advaita is very closely tied to this. I'll

write this up in detail in the next few months, and will be

posting it on the advaita list. For those who are impatient, the

following references should be useful:

 

A. anvaya-vyatireka:

 

1. NaiSi, chapter 2.

2. Wilhelm Halbfass, "Studies in Kumarila and Sankara," Studien

Zur Indologie und Iranistik, Monographie 9, Reinbek 1983.

3. Wilhelm Halbfass, "Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in

Indian thought," SUNY Albany, 1991.

 

B. Some important references to avidyA in Su's works:

 

TUBhVa 2.170-180, SVa 175-191, BUbhVa 1.4.328-347, NaiSi 2.50-53,

NaiSi 3.5-8, 3.57-72.

 

C: Examination of three states:

 

1. Most comprehensive treatment given in mANDUkya and gauDapAda

kArikA bhAsshya-s (for chapters 1, 2 and 3) of Sa.

2. See also brahmasUtra bhAshhya for sUtra-s 3.2.1-10, 2.2.28-29

(the latter is incidentally one of the most misunderstood

writings of Sa).

3. bhAshhya to bR^ihadAraNyaka 4.2-4.3.19. Su's vArtika-s on

these.

 

D: Some useful books and translations:

 

1. Swami Satcidanandendra Saraswati, "Essays on Vedanta,"

Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holenarsipur, 1971.

2. R. Balasubramanian, "The Taittiriyopanishad Bhashyavartika of

Suresvara," University of Madras, 1984.

3. T. M. P. Mahadevan, "The Sambandha Vartika of Suresvaracarya,"

University of Madras, 1958.

 

 

------- end -------

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ramakrishna,

 

I should say first that I am not familiar in Sanskrit and

the following observation is based on English commentaries

by scholars such as S. Dasgupta and P. T. Raju.

>3. So what is avidyA and why is avidyA predicated? Su raises the

>pUrvapaxa that if it is admitted that brahman has avidyA, then it

>is a defect. And if brahman is free from avidyA, then knowledge

>which results in moxa, is futile (SVa 2.175-176). The answer is

>that avidyA is predicated based purely on experience (anubhava)

>and thus involves no contradictions. How? As seen from point 1,

>the existence of real entities other than the self is impossible

>to establish. However, empirically, the world is experienced and

>hence avidyA is predicated. The analogy Su gives is the blueness

>of the sky resembling the petals of a blue lotus (BUBhVa

>1.4.333).

>

>My explanation of this analogy is as follows: It is already known

>that ether does not possess the quality of color. However, the

>blue color of the sky (ether) is seen and accepted. Thus the

>acceptance of the blue color is based on anubhava only. In other

>words, we have a case of abhAsa. The existence of avidyA is

>similar.

>

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, The analogy presented above

seems to be more akin to Ramanuja's theory.

 

"According to Shankara, The defect, avidya hides its own nature

and produces various appearances and can neither be described as

being nor as non-being: for it cannot be being, since then the

illusion and the realization of its being an error would be

inexplicable, and it cannot be non-being since the world-

appearance as well as its realization as being wrong, would be

inexplicable" - A History of Indian Philosophy, S. Dasgupta.

 

Ramanuja refutes this by saying that all Knowledge is real and

the so called avidya is also knowledge produced by percepton. If

you percieve that the ether is blue, because of the sky, it can

be no longer avidya, as the assumption that ether is blue is

based on the association of it to the fact the sky is blue.

 

 

Ramanuja's says that avidya is impossible as it must

lean on some other thing for its support. He goes on to say

that if avidya is inexplicable, then there would be neither

illusion nor its correction. So it has to be perception.

 

So your analogy seems to be more in line with Ramanuja's theory.

 

To me the major difference between the two schools is, Shankarites

do not admit the theory of illusion as one thing appearing as

another, while Ramanujists explain that as a real knowledge

learned by perception and is corrected once the illusion

is realized.

>3. I will note here that the examination of the three states is

>extremely important in understanding Sh and Su. Understanding the

>position of avidyA in advaita is very closely tied to this. I'll

>write this up in detail in the next few months, and will be

>posting it on the advaita list. For those who are impatient, the

>following references should be useful:

>

 

 

I look forward to this post.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Venkatesh K. Elayavalli Cypress Semiconductor

Data Communications Division 3901 N. First St. MS 4

Phone: (408) 456 1858 San Jose CA 95134

Fax: (408) 943 2949

 

email: elayavalli (external)

Home Page Location: http://www.srivaishnava.org

 

 

 

_____________

Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com