RE: mithyAjnAna in relation to BSB

[Guest guest]

Ananda wrote:

 

>Thanks to Subhanu Saxena for his lucid article on adhyAsa. One

>thing that he mentions is the interpretation of mithyAjnAna

>which is the (material) cause (upAdAna) of adhyAsa.

>

>Anandagiri, and GovindAnanda as well, interpret mithyAjnAna

>as mithyA cha tadajnAnaM cha, meaning that which is an unreal

>ignorance. Consider a stock example of illusion such as the

>illusion of the snake on the rope. A person who sees the

>illusory snake is ignorant of the rope. But is this ignorance

>of the rope a real ignorance? No. Because, the snake is not

>real.

 

Thanks Anand for bringing very interesting issues that relate to knowledge

and false knowledge. I do have some concerns and that might be also in the

Shree Subhanu Sexana's interpretation as well. I am sure these are

traditionally accepted too. Some of these aspects Shree Madhusudana might

have clarified in his Adviata Siddhi.

 

mithyAjnAna - in terms of mithyA cha and tadajnAnaM cha- Obviously there are

two aspects involved. one way to look at it is, mithya actually refers to

the snake and tad in the ajnanam refers to the rope, since there is an

ignorance of the rope. Ignorance of the rope may not have anything to do yet

with the reality or unreality of the snake. Hence the reality of the

ignorance of the rope should not be judged based on the snake knowledge.

Forgetting the snake completely at this point, the ignorance is unreal only

on the basis of the fact that that ignorance is subsequently ends when the

knowledge of the rope occurs. Up to this point it is pure non-apprehension

of the reality. And that is the state in the deep sleep - there is no world

projection but only lack of knowledge of everything including myself. When

Shree Ravi posed the question about the deep sleep I evaded discussing these

with the fear it may muddle the issues.

 

Now the next question is that non-apprehension or lack of knowledge of the

reality or in the example non-apprehension of the rope - tad aJNaanaM- is

it upaadana kaaraNa for projecting the rope. If it is so - I do have a

problem. When there is pure non-apprehension, we do not see the world as in

deep sleep - Hence I conclude from this that pure-non-apprehension aspect

or ignorance, which is absence of knowledge, is not just sufficient to

project the world.

 

Therefore we need something else to do the projection or misapprehension -

the second part of your logical deduction. That is the lack of knowledge of

rope is one aspect and projecting the snake is the second, although related

to the ignorance. Can the ignorance project it, to call that as

upaadaanakaaraNa as Shree Subhanu Saxena seems to imply. If I consider

ignorance as not a positive factor, but just the absence of knowledge then

it can not. The second aspect of this ignorance is ' not only I am

ignorant' but 'I am ignorant about my ignorance' - That is I donot know that

'it is a rope' - that is ignorance or lack of knowledge of the rope. But I

am also not aware of that lack of knowledge unless I am aware of something

else! - This aspect can be more clearly seen in the deep sleep - Not only I

have misapprehension, but also have no knowledge of lack of my knowledge.

What I meant is I am not aware of my ignorance. It is like this- if I donot

know chemistry and not even aware of the existence of some thing called

chemistry - I have not only ignorance of chemistry but I am not even aware

its existence (its referring to both chemistry and my ignorance). When

someone asks me - 'do you know Chemistry?' -Now I only do not know chemistry

and but I know that I do not know chemistry. Thus I still have the ignorance

of Chemistry but at least know that there is something called Chemistry that

I do not know.

 

Thus there has to be something besides the ignorance for mis-apprehension or

projection and that should have the capability to mis-apprehend too. This

is where the mind as a extension of the conscious entity comes into picture

for projecting something because of the non-apprehension present. Hence I

would consider upaadaana kaaraNa not the tad aJNaanam but the consciousness

acting through the mind - Hence the justification of - etova imaani buutaani

jaayante ... etc. of the scriptural note that Brahman is the upaadaana

kaaraNa. I am not sure if Shree Saxenaji is on the list - if he is I would

appreciate his comments too on this aspect. Some of these may get clarified

when we take up Sutra 2. There is also the aspect of projection with

igonrance as in the case of jiiva and projection with knoweldge as in the

case of Iswara. To go further - projection of the Iswara, projecting the

world, together itslef is due to ignorance of the jiiva.

 

>Let us analyze this a little further using symbolic logic.

>I cannot resist the temptation to use formal logic, because

>I believe that formal logic can be a good tool in

>understanding many of advaita concepts in a precise manner.

>(Of course, the highly technical language of navya-nyAya

>may also be used, but it is hard for a modern audience to

>understand.) In fact, advaita is never illogical. Only it

>transcends logic. If I have missed some significant point in my

>enthusiasm to capture the definition of adhyAsa in symbolic form,

>please let me know.

>

>Shankara defines adhyAsa as "atasmin.h tadbuddhiH", the cognition

>of something as something else. For example, a rope may be perceived

>as a snake. This definition means:

>

>a) there is something, say X, which is a fact, - symbolically fact(X)

>b) but X is not cognized, - symbolically, (~cognized(X)), the

> operator '~' standing for logical negation,

>c) instead of X, something else Y (which is not X) is cognized,

> - symbolically, cognized(Y),

>d) but this Y is not real, ie. it is not a fact, -symbolically (~fact(Y))

>e) X and Y are two different things; they are not the same, symbolically

> (X != Y)

>

>

>Therefore, adhyAsa(X,Y), superimposition of X and Y, is defined:

>

> fact(X) AND ~cognized(X) AND

>~fact(Y) AND cognized(Y) AND (X != Y)

>

>1) The first line (fact(X) AND ~cognized(X)) means that even though X

>is the fact (the rope, for example) it is not cognized as such.

>Therefore there is an "ignorance" (ajnAna) of the rope as part of

>the adhyAsa. This ajnAna is removed only by jnAna. It is jnAna-nivartya

>as Anandagiri points out. Understanding X as a fact is this jnAna.

>

>2) Again, the second line (~fact(Y) AND cognized(Y) AND

>(X != Y)) means that even though Y, different from X, is cognized,

>it is not real at all. Therefore, there is a mithyA component of

>the adhyAsa in that it has a cognition of something that is not

>real.

 

The part one is referred to non-apprehension.

 

The second part is the mis-apprehension.

 

Now in between 1) and 2) - the creative power of the chaitanya vastu has to

step in to accomplish the second due to the presence of first - which forms

the upaadana kaaraNa.

 

Why and how that occurs is beyond any logical deduction - I prefer to take

the solace in the Shankara's statement - mahadbhuuta anirvachaniiya ruupa!

 

 

>Perhaps this is why mithyAjnAnaM can also be interpreted as "an unreal

>ignorance" as Anandagiri and others in Shankara's tradition do.

 

I am not sure. When realization occurs from Advaita point and from Brahman

reference there is nothing other than Brahman - Hence the whole samsaara as

well as the process of realization, every thing is like a bluff. One can

say 'ignorance I never had, I lost!' - Since Brahman alone is real -

everything is unreal.

 

As Vidhya and even Shankara implies as exmplified by Saxenaji's

interpretation - inquiry should be on Brahman rather than on 'ignorance'!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>In seeing a thing as it really is, fact(X) and cognized(X), there

>is no adhyAsa, no mithyAjnAna. Again, there is no adhyAsa even if

>X is not cognized though a fact, ie. fact(X) AND ~cognized(X), but

>there is only the ignorance (ajnAna) of X. This ajnAna may well be

>real (empirically, of course). There is an adhyAsa precisely when

>A) there is an ignorance of X which is a fact (fact(X) and ~cognized(X))

>AND B) instead there is cognition of something different Y which is not

>a fact (~fact(Y) AND cognized(Y)).

>

>Anand

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

 

Kuntimaddi Sadananda [k_sadananda]

 

Poojya Sadananda-ji,

 

Pranams! I am really feeling happy to read the discussions on Brahma

Sutras. Thank you very much for giving this benefit to all of us.

 

Sincerely,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

>"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava

>

>Poojya Sadananda-ji,

>

>Pranams! I am really feeling happy to read the discussions on Brahma

>Sutras. Thank you very much for giving this benefit to all of us.

>

>Sincerely,

>Madhava

 

Thanks Madhava for your kind words. I am blessed in the process since I am

the one who is getting most of it. My thanks to Ananda, Vidya and Saxena

and Dennis and others who are contributing to the discussions. Together we

can learn using these lists.

 

I request everyone to participate in the discussions and feel free to raise

the issues. That is the only way to learn. As Swami Chinmayanandaji used

to say only question or comment that is stupid is the one that is not asked.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.