sribhashya-mahasiddhantha-sapthavidha anupapatthi-anirvachaneeya anupapatthi

[Guest guest]

3.Anirvachneeya anupapatthi

 

avidhya can be proved as positive entity by perception.

 

Anirvachneeyatva is explained as being neither sat, existent, nor

asath, nonexistent, but different from both, sadasatvilakshaNam.This

uniqueness, says Ramanuja ,is itself unique, because it cannot be proved

by any pramANa. All cognitions are of things either existing or not

existing.

 

But advaitin contends that avidhya is perceptible as a positive entity

and not as a mere absence of knowledge, or mere antecedent non existence

of knowledge,that is, the ignorance before the rise of knowledge. In the

cognition 'I do not know' it is the perception of ajnAna whereas the

cognition ' I do not know myself or another,' as in deep sleep,denotes

the function of avidhya.

 

Avidhya conceals the true nature of Brahman as being self-proved,

undifferented, unchanging entity with jnAna as his svarupa. This is the

thirodhAna shakthi of avidhya. The other function of avidhya is that it

makes brahman appear as the manifold universe by its vikshepa

shakthi.Hence this is sense perception only, though unreal because it

is caused by avidhya which is also not real. But since it is a positive

entity it cannot be unreal like the horn of a rabbit or a sky flower and

hence it is classified as neither real nor unreal.

 

Avidhya is not the antecedent nonexistence of knowledge jnAna prAgabhAva

vishayah,which can be cognised by anupalabdhi,non-perception, which is

the sixth pramANa of in advaita.

 

[The means of cognition are six in advaita, namely,

perception,prathyaksha, inference, anumAna, sabdha,verbal testimony,

arThApatthi,presumption, and anupalabDhi, non-percepion. the

non-existence of a thing as in the knowledge that 'bhoothale ghato

nAsthi,' there is no pot on the ground, is cognised by anupalabDHi.

Other schools do not accept the last two pramANas of advaita which are

said to be included under inference and perception respectively.]

 

The reason for saying that avidhya is not the absence of knowledge is

that it is cognised while being experienced like that of 'aham

sukhee,Iam happy.' In the cognition 'I do not know,' there is a

perception of ajnAna which requires the knowledge of 'myself' and the

jnAna which is absent.So the cognition is that of ajnAna and therefore

it is positive and not opposed to knowledge of 'myself' or its

knowledge.

 

Ramanuja here interrupts and says that avidhya may be a positive thing,

that,is , not a mere absence, but even if so, it conflicts with Brahman

who has jnAna as his nature, 'bhAvarupamapi ajnAnamvasthu yATHAthmya

avabhAsa rupENa sAkshichaithanyEna viruDHyathE.' Advaitin replies that

avidhya is not oppsed to Brahman but only to the knowledge of Brahman

which removes it. In the case of nacre perceived as silver, the ajnAna

is not opposed to nacre but only to the knowledge of it.

 

If ajnAna is perceived by sense perception then on its removal Brahman

must be perceived by sense perception which is denied by the advaitin.

Reply to this is that all things, sentient and insentient are perceived

by Brahman, the witness- self, sAkshichaithanya, as being existent or

nonexistent. So when the ajnAna is removed by jnana Brahman shines of

its own accord but before that the witness- self manifests itself as the

world, due to ajnAna.

 

Next the advaitin shows that the avidhya is positive through inference