sribhashya-mahasiddhantha-sapthavidha anupapaytthi-anirvachniya anupapatthi cont

[Guest guest]

avidhya a positive entity is argued through inference.

 

Next the advaitin shows that the avidhya is positive through

inference.The knowledge that is valid is preceded by a substance . This

substance is other than the previous non-existence of the knowledge and

covers the subject of the knowledge. This substance which is in the same

place as the knowledge is removable by the knowledge. This is the

positive ajnana. Hence avidhya is a positive substance removed by jnAna

rising from vedanthavAkyas such as 'thathvamasi' like the darkness is

removed when a brilliant light is brought in.

 

The advaitin proceeds to show that darkness, thamas, is a positive

substance to counter the objection 'AlokaabhAva mAthram cA rupadarsana

abhAvamathram va thamah;na dravyAntharam, thath katHam bhAvarupa ajnAna

sADHanE nidarsanathayA upanyasyatha, the darkness is the absence of

light or non-perception of rupa and how can that be cited as an example

to prove the positive avidhya. Thamas is a substance which is sometimes

thin and sometimes thick and it is perceived and lends itself to

expressions like 'thamah chalathi,the darkness moves and neelam

thamah,darkness is blue'etc. Also because it cannot be included among

other substances, namely, the five elements ,time soul, mind and

direction. [This has been refuted by the school of logicians already].

 

Ramanuja objects that positive ajnAna is not perceived by sense

perception in the experience 'aham ajnah, mam anyamcha na janami,' nor

it can be proved by argument. AjnAna must be of someone or some thing.

If 'I ' is known then the knowledge of svarupa of 'I' will remove the

ajnAna 'I do not know myself and others.' If the 'I' is not known, then

it cannot be perceived because it will not be known as to whom or of

whom or what it is about. Advaitin may reply that only the vivid

knowledge is opposed to avidhya but the knowledge of the person to whom

and of whom the avidhya exists is not vivid and hence it can co exist

with such knowledge.

 

This can be understood as follows:In the perception 'aham ajnah, mAm

anyam cha na jAnAmi' there is a knowledge of 'I' but it is not vivid. In

the case of rajjusarpa, the rope seen as a snake,the rope is vivid

knowledge but it is seen as 'idham,this' which can coexist with

ignorance of the rope.This ignorance projects an illusory perception of

a snake. The knowledge of the serpent or 'this' is not opposed to

ignorance, avidhya, of the knowledge of the rope.

 

Ramanuja says that this explanation applies to jnanapragabhAva,prior

non-existence of knowledge also. Before the knowledge arises there is

the absence of knowledge which is jnAnaprAgabhAva.Only the vivid

knowledge of the real nature is opposed to it and not the knowledge of

that where it abides and the subject of the knowledge.

 

To explain this we can again resort to the rope-snake example.Before the

rope is known there is the absence of the knowledge that it is rope,

which is removed when the knowledge or the rope dawns.So the prAgabhAva

of the jnAna that it is rope is opposed to the jnAna of the rope.But the

knowledge of the abode of jnana ,namely the rope, is not vivid but seen

as 'this, which is the subject of the knowledge which has not yet

arisen.So,says Ramanuja, ajnAna is not a positive entity but only the

absence of jnAna.

 

AjnAna must mean either the absence of jnAna, or other than jnAna or

opposed to jnAna. In all these cases it requires that the nature if

jnAna should be known, says Ramanuja.'ajnAnamithi

jnAnAbhAvah;thadhanyah;thadvirOdhi vA, thrayANAm api

thatsvarupajnAnApekshA avasyAsrayaNeeyA.'

 

Advaitin contends citing the example of darkness that it can be seen

even without knowing about light at all. But Ramanuja insists that when

thamas, darkness is known as the absence of light the knowledge of light

is a prerequisite. Moreover ajnAna is acknowledged as the absence of

knowledge by advaitin also when it is said to be removed by jnAna.

Henceavidhya is not a positive entity.