Kaarana Avidya/bhaavarupa Avidya

[Guest guest]

A brief discussion on kArana-avidya/BhAvarupa Avidya

 

 

 

 

The Gaudapada Kaarika uses the terms Nidra/kaaranam/beejam/Agrahanam for the

Praajna state.

 

 

 

Pl. refer to Aagama Prakaranam Kaarika verses 13,14, 15,and 16. And the

bhashyam. In this 16th verse anAdi MAyayaa …The Bhashyam says,

...Tattva-apratibodha-rupena bijAtmanA,(for Praajna), and AnyathAgrahanena(for

the taijasa-vishwa) cha AnAdikAlapravRttena..etc. ..In the next para of the

same bhashyam Shankara says: YasmAt janmAdiKARANABHUTAAM avidyAtamabijam nidrA

vidyate…

 

What more proof is required for KAARAna-avidya?

 

Then he says there itself: Tannimittatvaat Anyathaagrahanasya. Thus Anyathaa

grahanam is preceded by, caused by, the Kaarana avidya.

 

My taking up the Mandukya model was just to analyse the adhyasa/adhyaropa

meanings and not for any other purpose. I found it to be a very convenient

model for our discussion.

 

 

 

Bhaskarji says:

 

....with this we will analyse the analogy of rope and

 

snake...After the dawn of knowledge, the mis conception of snake will

 

go and we will get the real nature of the rope..

 

 

 

Reply:

 

Is this the sequence? Dawn of knowledge is itself the knowing the

'visheshaamsha' – this is rope. It is this 'visheshaamsha' pertaining to the

object in front that was not grasped. This is what was spoken as

non-apprehension. The idam amsha was known already. When the visheshamsha is

known by the help of the light, the non-apprehension is no more there, and as a

result, the mis-apprehension automatically goes. I did not have to show it

separately, as the immediate result of gaining knowledge is removal of

ignorance. Once ignorance has gone, its effect, mis-apprehension, automatically

goes.

 

 

 

Bhaskarhi continues:

 

..But, according to you,

 

this

 

knowledge is not sufficient...coz. this knowledge has helped us only

 

to

 

remove mis-conception (adhyAsa) and NOT non-apprehension

 

(avidyA)...in

 

the analogy where did you show the annihilation of avidyA...inspite

 

of

 

correct knowledge of rope, still non-apprehension (avidyA) staring at

 

our

 

face which needs to be removed...at what stage and through which

 

knowledge can this non-apprehension (avidyA) be removed?? if the

 

both

 

(non & mis apprehension) are going simultaneously there is no need to

 

identify it differently...if it is totally different from one

 

another...the father avidyA (non-apphrehesion) will ever be there

 

despite

 

removal of misconception..

 

 

 

Bhaskarji further says:

 

...that which is bhAva rUpa cannot be

 

removed

 

from any amount of knowledge!! you know krishna explicitly says this

 

in

 

gIta & shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

 

 

 

Reply:

 

 

 

Regarding the most misunderstood term BhAvarupa Avidya, let me present my

understanding:

 

Firstly, the portion 'bhAva' in the term is understood by many, as evidenced by

you, as an ever-existent one. This is the mistake. In Advaita, we accept a

'vyaavaharrika sattaa' for the prapancha. Although from the paramarthika,

ultimate standpoint, there is Advitiya Brahman alone, yet for the purpose of

shastra ,loukika vyavahara to go on and even for adhyatma saadhana to take

place, we do not negate the world as non-existent. We do consider the world to

be an existent entity and not a non-existent vastu like a hare's horn. Once

such a parlance-real world is admitted, there has to be a cause for the world to

originate from and exist in and dissolve. 'Raathriyaagame praliiyante, punaH..

etc. of the Gita. When an 'existent' world is admitted, the cause also has to

be 'existent' only. It cant be an abhAva from where the bhAva prapancha

originates. So the Shastra admits a cause. 'AjAmekAm lohita (rajas), shukla

(sattva),krishnAm (tamas)janayantIm sarUpAm' This ajA (feminine

gender) is the cause made up of trigunas and it generates the world that is

also of its kind only, triguna. Na tadasti prithivAyAm va divi deveshu va

punah..in the gita says that there is no object in the three worlds that is

bereft of the three gunas.

 

 

 

Although the causal Avidya is termed bhAvarupa, a positive entity, only to

distinctly show it to be not an abhaavapadartha (which is an impossibility!), it

is not equated to the Sattaa of Brahman, the paramartha sattaa. The bhaavarupa

avidya only enjoys vyaavahaarika sattaa. On the dawn of Brahmajnaanam, this

avidya is immediately destroyed. The BrahmAkAravritti arises abruptly, promptly

destroys the AvaranAtmikA avidya, and the effects of avidya in the form of

identification etc. also go. In the YathaidhAmsi samiddhogniH..of the Gita 4th.

ch. 37th sloka, what Anandagiri says is significant: In the world, a knowledge

procured destroys the ignorance pertaining to that object. In the same way, the

jnanam pertaining to the Brahmaatman that is bereft of any activity whatsoever,

destroys the ignorance pertaining to such a Brahman and destroys simultaneously

the doership, etc. that existed in that person as a result of that ignorance.

 

 

 

So, there is no risk of 'ignorance staring at one's face for ever'for those who

hold avidya as bhAvarupa.

 

 

 

When the Shaastra teaches us to acquire Brahman Knowledge to eradicate Avidya,

it cannot be meaning a non-existent entity. It gives lakshanas for the avidya

for us to understand its nature and put in the necessary means to eradicate it.

Surely what lakshana can be given to the barren-woman's son? Even the greatest

of archers, Arjuna, cant aim at and hit a hare's horn.

 

 

 

In this context, I remember there is a discussion in the Shaastra on Tamas,

darkness. I do not mean the ignorance-tamas. What I mean is the physical

darkness that we talk as 'pitch darkness'. Is it an absence of Tejas or a

positive physical 'object' observable by the eye? Do blind people experience

this pitch darkness that sighted people experience? Will anyone pl. enlighten us

on this darkness as per science and as per shaastra? Does the tarkashaastra

discuss this? CRN ji, Rishiji, Sundarji, or any other, pl. come out with

information on this. I think the bhaavarupa avidya status will become clear by

examining this 'similarity' that I have assumed.

 

 

 

Pranams,

 

subbu

 

 

 

 

Photos

Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,

whatever.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, V Subrahmanian

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

>

>

> In this context, I remember there is a discussion in the Shaastra

on Tamas, darkness. I do not mean the ignorance-tamas. What I

mean is the physical darkness that we talk as 'pitch darkness'. Is

it an absence of Tejas or a positive physical 'object' observable by

the eye? Do blind people experience this pitch darkness that sighted

people experience? Will anyone pl. enlighten us on this darkness as

per science and as per shaastra?

>

 

Namaste,

 

The reference may be to the following? :

 

http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/brihadaranyaka.html

 

IV-iii-6: When the sun and the moon have both set, the fire has gone

out, and speech has stopped, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the

light for a man ?' `The self serves as his light. It is through the

light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns.' `It is

just so, Yajnavalkya'.

 

Two famous saints who became blind in infancy, Surdas and

Gulabji Maharaj, had the gift of the 'divya or prajna chakshu' that

outshone the learning of scholars.

 

Where physical light perception is possible for those born

blind, then the inference would follow that its absence would

produce the same effect (pitch darkness) as in those with sight.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Ref post 29748

 

 

Namaste:

 

You write :

 

( Two famous saints who became blind in infancy, Surdas and

Gulabji Maharaj, had the gift of the 'divya or prajna chakshu' that

outshone the learning of scholars.)

 

Outstanding examples two self realized saints who were born

physically blind. This is a timely reminder to all of us who are

gifted with the power of sight - two physical eyes. But what use are

these physical eyes that cannot have the vision of God. Of all forms

of blindness , Spiritual blindness is the worst.

 

Katha Upanishad says that even those who are gifted with eyesight

should cover their eyes. ( avritta chakshu )

 

The self-existent damned the out-going senses. Therefore one sees

externally and not the internal Self. Someone (who is) intelligent,

with his 'eyes turned away', desirous of immortality, sees the inner

Self.(Katha upanishad-2.1.1)

 

http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/katha.html

 

In this verse, sadhaks are advised to turn their eyes away from sense

objects and to focus on the 'Light' shining in the self.

 

Thank you for this quotation from Brihadarnayaka upanishad which is

really an 'eye' opener in this discussion. ( Atman eva asya jyotir

bhavati).

 

Regards

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri V. Subramanian prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

First, prabhuji, I would like to request you to address my mail fully, so

that repetition of the same thing again & again to prove a point can be

avoided...if you pick & choose some parts of the mail, it is very

difficult for me to see the context of it & also I've to assume that for

whatever you have not commented is acceptable to you...so, to avoid this

confusion, I humbly request you to atleast answer wherever clarification

sought by me.

 

Now to your mail prabhuji:

 

VS prabhuji:

 

A brief discussion on kArana-avidya/BhAvarupa Avidya

 

The Gaudapada Kaarika uses the terms Nidra/kaaranam/beejam/Agrahanam for

the Praajna state.

 

Pl. refer to Aagama Prakaranam Kaarika verses 13,14, 15,and 16. And the

bhashyam. In this 16th verse anAdi MAyayaa ?The Bhashyam says,

...Tattva-apratibodha-rupena bijAtmanA,(for Praajna), and

AnyathAgrahanena(for the taijasa-vishwa) cha AnAdikAlapravRttena..etc.

...In the next para of the same bhashyam Shankara says: YasmAt

janmAdiKARANABHUTAAM avidyAtamabijam nidrA vidyate?

 

What more proof is required for KAARAna-avidya?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, please note I am not disputing the word *kAraNAvidyA* I am

raising my objection with your interpretation i.e. kAraNa -avidyA or

mithyA-ajnAna*...and I am not disputing that from vyAvahArik drushti

(adhyArOpa drushti) jIva in the form of vishwa & taijasa are suffereing

from anyathAgrahaNa & prAjnA from agrahaNa...I am having doubt your

interpretation that agrahana+anyathAgrahaNa etc. etc. since shankar himself

says avidyA itself is in the three forms i.e. agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa &

saMshaya...where is the question of preceding adhyAsa etc. does not

shankara say in gItAbhAshya avidyA is of three types??

 

VS prabhuji:

 

Then he says there itself: Tannimittatvaat Anyathaagrahanasya. Thus

Anyathaa grahanam is preceded by, caused by, the Kaarana avidya.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly quote the original text in sanskrit...y'day I searched kArikA

bhAshya a lot to find where shankara saying this order of

avidyA-adhyAsa...the quote tannimittatvAt anyathAgrahaNam does not prove

anything of that sort of an order...Also kindly let me know whether

shankara specifically bifurcated the compound word *kAraNAvidyA* as kAraNa

+ avidyA ???

 

VS prabhuji:

 

My taking up the Mandukya model was just to analyse the adhyasa/adhyaropa

meanings and not for any other purpose. I found it to be a very convenient

model for our discussion.

 

bhaskar :

 

But I've shown you how this order of nonaprehension & mis conception is

against *lokAnubhava*...& I have also asked you some questions about

kAraNAvidyA in sushupti..but you have not commented on those points...

 

VS prabhuji :

 

 

Bhaskarji says:

 

....with this we will analyse the analogy of rope and

 

snake...After the dawn of knowledge, the mis conception of snake will

 

go and we will get the real nature of the rope..

 

 

 

Reply:

 

Is this the sequence? Dawn of knowledge is itself the knowing the

'visheshaamsha' ? this is rope. It is this 'visheshaamsha' pertaining to

the object in front that was not grasped. This is what was spoken as

non-apprehension. The idam amsha was known already. When the visheshamsha

is known by the help of the light, the non-apprehension is no more there,

and as a result, the mis-apprehension automatically goes. I did not have

to show it separately, as the immediate result of gaining knowledge is

removal of ignorance. Once ignorance has gone, its effect,

mis-apprehension, automatically goes.

 

bhaskar :

 

If that is the case, what is the purpose behind holding the theory that

non-apprehension is the material cause of mis-apprehension?? when bhagavad

pAda emphatically saying that the empirical transaction of I and mine is

caused due to mithAjnAna what is the reason for bringing in between an

alien concept like kAraNa vidyA and declaring this kAraNAvidyA/mUlAvidyA is

the material cause of adhyAsa. Are you saying with one shot of knowledge

both kAraNA vidyA & its baby adhyAsa both will go at once?? are you

accepting here there is no avidyAlEsha after the dawn of this knowledge??

 

Further, you are telling after the dawn of knowledge (shuktikAjnAna) the

rajata (misconception) is destroyed and side by side the non-apprehension

(agrahana / karaNA avidyA) also disappears...in that case can you say this

is equal to brahma/AtmasAkshAtkAra prabhuji?? Please be kind enough to

answer all these questions to remove my doubts.

 

VS prabhuji:

 

Bhaskarhi continues:

 

..But, according to you, this knowledge is not sufficient...coz. this

knowledge has helped us only to remove mis-conception (adhyAsa) and NOT

non-apprehension

(avidyA)...in the analogy where did you show the annihilation of

avidyA...inspite

of correct knowledge of rope, still non-apprehension (avidyA) staring at

our face which needs to be removed...at what stage and through which

knowledge can this non-apprehension (avidyA) be removed?? if the both (non

& mis apprehension) are going simultaneously there is no need to identify

it differently...if it is totally different from one another...the father

avidyA (non-apphrehesion) will ever be there despite

removal of misconception..

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, once again I am asking you the same question...what is the point in

holding avidyA-adhyAsa separately when both are going at one shot??

 

VS prabhuji :

 

< snip >

 

So, there is no risk of 'ignorance staring at one's face for ever'for

those who hold avidya as bhAvarupa.

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks a lot for your clarification on bhAva rUpa avidyA...it is acceptable

that you are holding this from transactional reality...but my question is

why this complication of *order* of avidyA & adhyAsa?? that too after

accepting that both of them will be eradicated by one shot of knowledge??

Moreover, avidyA pertains to antahkaraNa if at all you accept its existence

in vyavahAra...but how far it is fair to keep it intact even in the absence

of antaHkaraNa in sushupti?? what will be the locus (Ashraya) of avidyA in

sushupti then??

 

Pranams,

 

subbu

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar