Kaarana avidya etc.

[Guest guest]

Ref.Message: 17

 

Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:16:30 +0530

 

bhaskar.yr

 

Re: Kaarana Avidya/bhaavarupa Avidya

 

(Responses to Sri Bhaskarji's questions are given inbetween- subbu)

 

 

 

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??

 

 

 

Reply: In the Bhagavadgita 13rh ch.2nd sloka there is this vaakyam: 'Taamaso hi

pratyayaH aavaranaatmakatvaat avidyaa vipariitagraahakaH, samshayopasthaapako

va, agrahanaatmako va'. It is true that Acharya has said that the three are

manifestations of Avidya. What has to be noted in this vaakyam is: Avidyaa

vipariitagraahakaH = Avidya is that which causes viparitagrahanam. Avidya is

that which causes samshaya. Avidya is the one that causes agrahanam. If we

take agrahanam as the cause of anyathaagrahanam, then a causal state before

anyathaagrahanam is established. Or if avidya is itself taken as a cause of

agrahanam, then also a cause prior to even agrahanam is established. This only

strengthens the case in favour of basic or mula avidya. In any case, it is

common knowledge that unless agrahana is there, there cannot be anyatha-grahana

or samshaya. We already considered the rope-snake example where the agrahana of

the rope alone caused the anyatha-grahana. I think this point

you agree. Let us see this from the anubhava that I detailed. When the right

knowledge of the rope arises due to shining of light, what do we feel? 'Oh I

did not know this.' This happens every day. In the office someone points out a

mistake and shows us where we went wrong. When we are convinced that he is

right, what do we feel? Oh if only I had noticed this fact, the mistake would

not have occurred. This proves that agrahanam precedes anyatha-grahanam. Even

in samshaya, supposing we see a five-foot vertical figure at some distance on a

foggy day. We are not certain as to what that figure is. So we are infested

with the doubt, samshaya, is it a man or is it a pillar? Here also, the reason

for the doubt is definitely not grasping with certitude that figure that we

notice. Of course I admit the possibility of agrahana meaning totally not

perceiving anything at all. Supposing it is pitch dark on the road. A man has

dropped his purse by mistake. It is quite possible that

he does not notice it at all when he returns to locate it. This is because of

the pitch darkness that has enveloped the whole area. In this case also, there

is the possibility of the man thinking: May be I have lost it somewhere else.

 

 

 

But in the kaarikas that we are considering, the Acharya explicitly mentions

that agrahanam is the cause of anyatha-grahanam. In the bhashyam for the 15th

kaarika, in the second para he says: ataH tayoH kaarya-kaarana-sthaanayoH

anyatha-grahana agrahanalakshanaviparyaase kaarya-kaaranabandharupe…..He says:

anyatha-grahana is the kaarya and agrahana is the karana. He further says, the

kaarya-bandha persists in vishwa taijasa and the kaaranabandha persists in the

prajna.

 

 

 

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 ???

 

 

 

Reply:

 

The bhashyam for the 16th kaarika of the agama prakaranam starts like this:

 

Yo'yam samsArI jivaH sa tattva-apratibodharupena bijaatmanaa,

anyathaagrahanalakshanena cha Anaadikaalapravrttena Maayalakshanena svapnena …

 

Here, tattva-apratibodharupena bijaatmanaa is referring to the praajna state.

This is stated first, so this is the state no.1.

 

Anyathaagrahanena cha refers to the other two states, taijasa-vishwa. These are

the states no.2.

 

In the end of the bhashyam, just prior to the last sentence, he says:

 

tannimittatvaat anyathaagrahanasya. The sentence prior to this starts:

 

Yasmaat janmaadi-kaarana-bhuutam avidyaa-tamobijam nidraa (na) asmin (in the

Turiya) vidyate ityanidram. He is giving an explanation to the word anidram

of the kaarika. Anidram is that in which the nidraa meaning the cause

(janmaadiKaaranabhutam avidyaa which is of the nature of the seed of darkness)

of janma etc. does not exist. Then after stating what is Asvapnam, He states:

Anidram hi tat turiyam. Turiyam is indeed not associated with the nidra that

was explained in the previous sentence. Then he says: ataH eva asvapnam.

Therefore, (BECAUSE the turiyam is not associated with nidra that is the avidya

that is the cause of janma,etc,) it, the turiyam, is asvapnam. Here is that

statement tannimittatvaat anyathaagrahanasya. In the 15th verse

anyathaagrahanam was shown as the characteristic of svapnam (taijasa-vishwa).

Here he states, tat=nidraa-rupa janmaadi karanabhuta avidya,

 

nimittatvaat=because of avidya being the cause of anyathaagrahanam.

 

If the samastapada tannimittatvaat is to be de-compounded, it will appear as:

tadeva nimittam iti tannimittam. tannimittasya bhaavaH tannimittatvam. tasmaat

tannimittatvaat. Finally the meaning is: tat nidra rupa avidya = tattva

apratibodha rupa agrahanam. nimittam = hetu, kaaranam. Kasya?

anyathaagrahanasya=svapnasya. The order that transpires is: agrahanam first and

anyathaagrahanam next.

 

 

 

On p.70 of the Kannada book on Mandukyopanishad published by the Adhyatma

prakasha karyalaya, the translation available for the above sentence is: Huttu

muntaadadakke kaaranavaagiruva avidye mappina biijavaaada nidreyu ivanalli

(turiyanalli) iruvudilla. Aa nidreye (that was spoken of as agrahana while

discussing the prajna in the earlier verses) anyathaagrahanavemba kanasige

kaaranavu.

 

 

 

Karanaavidya is not the word of Acharya. It is my word only. Because I had

mentioned about adhyasa as kaarya-avidya I had to specify the kaarana-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 :

 

The detailed explanation above I think will give you the answer.

 

 

 

 

 

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??

 

 

 

Reply:

 

There is the famous Vaartika verse:

 

Tattvamasyaadi-vaakyottha-samyagdhIjanma-mAtrataH |

 

Avidya saha-kaaryena naasiidasti na bhavishyati ||

 

Note the word 'samyagdhii-janma-maatrataH. In one shot it gets sublated, that

is the certitude that 'it is mithya' gets established in such a person. In

fact, the Acharya even says that such a certitude persists even in svapna for a

jnani. Avidya lesha is a fact of experience of the jivanmukta. We have the

famous sutrabhashya vakyam where the Acharya alludes to his own anubhava: Katham

hi ekasya svahrudaya-pratyayam brahmavedanam, dehadhaaranam cha parena

pratiksheptum shakyate.(IV.1.15) 'How can someone's heartfelt certitude that he

has realized Brahman and yet holds the body be denied by someone else?' In any

case, this anuvrutti of the mithyajnanasamskara does not affect his knowledge.

 

 

 

Bhaskarji:

 

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:

 

Kindly note the change in sequence that I pointed out above. It is avidya

nivritti first. Avidyaa saha-kaaryena means avidyaa along with its effects.

 

 

 

Bhaskarji 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??

 

 

 

Reply

 

Actually the 'order' is not a complication. It is a clarification. The absence

of order alone is the complication. If and only if one is convinced of the

order in the example, one can appreciate it in the daarshtantika.

 

There are those who say that nama japa will lead to mukti. Some say karma done

as a puja will result in mukti. And so on. But when you offer a framework in

Vedanta to show the entire scheme of the cause, nature and the result of

samsara/Atmajnana, there have to be no loose ends. Just because Atmakaravritti

eradicates samsara should one desist from mentioning the cause? Theoretically

speaking, if the basic avidya is not eradicated, what guarantee is there that

the adhyasa will not come up again? In sleep we do not experience samsara. But

on waking it comes up. If the eradication of basic ignorance is not accepted,

the case will be similar to this. If you do not mention explicitly the cause of

adhyasa, a thinking aspirant will not be convinced of your scheme. As a

concession, he may conclude that your not explicitly admitting a cause for

adhyasa only means that you are admitting it implicitly.

 

 

 

Bhaskarji:

 

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??

 

 

 

Reply:

 

Generally it would appear that the antahkarana is absent in sushupti. But there

is more to this perception than what it would appear to be. It is not that the

entire antahkarana is absent in sleep. In the Taittiriya scheme, the manomaya,

vijnanamaya and the anandamaya koshas are actually different vrittis of the one

antahkarana only. In sushupti the aspects of manomaya and vijnanamaya alone

merge in their kaarana, avidya. The anandamaya aspect does not merge. The

(i)saushupta sukha and the (ii) saushupta ajnana that are alluded after waking

up by the vijnanamaya-jiva were actually grasped during sushupti by this

anandamaya-aspect of the antahkarana. This is brought out in the Sri Ramakrishna

Tika for the Panchadashi Chapter 11 verses 62, 63.

 

 

 

Dear Bhaskarji, I think I have made a fair attempt in clarifying the issues that

arose out of this discussion. If you feel that there has not been any or

adequate clarification, the conclusion is that either I have been poor in

communicating my ideas or that I do not have the right answers to your

questions. Either way it is better in your own interests to seek clarifications

elsewhere, either from other members of this List or from outside. Kindly

excuse me from writing further on the topic of Mulavidya.

 

Pranams,

 

 

 

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos

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

whatever.

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Subramanian prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Your Mesg. dated 20th Jan'06...I donot know mesg. no.

 

After 10 ten days I am seeing the mails in my mail box...Hence, delay in

reply...Since you are not interested to continue this discussion any more,

I too would like to rest my case with few comments about mUlAvidyA.

 

After reading kArika quotes provided by you (Agama prakaraNa 11 to 15 ) in

your previous mail, what I understood is non-perception (avidyA) is the

ignorance and mis-understanding (anythAgrahaNa) or doubting (saMSaya) is

effective ignorance...but noway, by reading of these kArikA-s , we can

conclude that this *non-perception* is the material cause (upAdAna kAraNa)

of adhyAsa/anyathAgrahaNa/saMshaya. From all your mails, you are implying

that mUlAvidyA is the material cause for the universe (reference vide your

mail to Sri chitta prabhuji on vivartavAda), ahaNkAra and more importantly

you are attributing material cause for three types of avidyA-s too i.e.

AgrahaNa, saMSaya and anyathAgrahaNa (misconception)...this is quite

evident from the way you have interpreted gIta 13-2 quote. And at the same

time you are saying this kAraNa avidyA or mUlAvidyA is kalpita one & with

one stroke of jnAna both avidyA & adhyAsa give way....First of all if the

mUlAvidyA is kalpita it would/can not be a material cause for adhyAsa

(misconception) as you are insisting in all your mails...on the other hand,

it it is really a material cause for adhyAsa, it cannot be a

*kalpita*...and this material cause miserably pertains to brahman

alone!!!...Since it is a positive thing (bhAva rUpa) it is impossible to

remove by any amount of knowledge!!

 

As has been said earlier, in our antaHkaraNa there is ignorance with

respect to the outer objects. When we have the *correct knowledge* of

object at that very same time (jnAna sama kAle) arises in our mind. That

being the case, to imagine that avidyA encompasses the outer things (see

again your reply to Chittaprabhuji where you have used the terms like

*avaraNa* / pitch dark which covers the objects etc. etc.) is quite absurd

in my opinion...No one says that when I know the thing the encompassed

avidyA on that thing is removed...instead, everyone says that I have got a

knowledge regarding the thing and my ignorance is gone.. This is what

*lokAnubhava* I was talking in my previous mail...

 

Though shankara has stressed more than one time in all through his

prasthAna trayi bhAshya that *brahma vidyA completely distroyes avidyA...it

is really strange to see the contradictory opinion of *avidyAlEsha*

(residue to ignorance) even after the dawn of knowledge...According to

this, there is no *sadyO mukti* or jIvanmukti in advaita & one has to leave

his body (!!??) to realize kEvalAdvaita jnAna or pUrNa jnAna !!!

 

More importantly you have not answered my question with regard to existence

of kAraNa avidyA in avsthA traya..I asked you if it is existed in all the

three states what is the problem in accepting it as a parallel reality to

Atman?? By accepting *avidyAlESha* you are forcing us to believe Atma

jnAna requires an exalted state like nirvikalpa samAdhi etc. etc.

 

Coming back to your analysis of sushupti, you are implying that antahkaraNa

in the form of anandamaya kOsha does exists to give us the knowledge of

sukhAnubhava & avidyAnubhava* (refer your subject mail)..and indirectly you

are saying in suShupti every thing merges in mUlAvidyA alone (bIja rUpa

kAraNa avidyA)..if that is the case, what is the cause for the waking to

occur once again?? According to your explanation, no other cause

whatsoever apart from mUlAvidyA exists at all is it not?? We cannot say

here the *saMskAra* (latent impression) alone which has merged in avidyA is

the cause...because the question "what is the motive force as the cause for

its activation?? needs to be answered without disturbing the non-dual

nature of Atman...is it possible prabhuji??

 

Anyway, enough said on this...Since my accessibility to the system is

limited I too, donot want to drag this any further ...if you really

interested to know the problem in accepting mUlAvidyA in shankara's

advaita...I request you to study my parama guruji's sanskrit work

*mulAvidyA nirAsa* or *sugama*...

 

Thanks a lot for spending your precious time with me.

 

Humble praNAms once again,

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar