sribhahsya-mahasiddhantha-sapthavidha anupapatthi-anirvachaniyaanupapatthi conti

[Guest guest]

ajnAna cannot prevent the svrupa of brahman from appearing.

 

Nescience, that is , ajnAna is said to prevent Brahman form appearing

and it is experienced, being positive entity. Ramanuja asks whether

ajnAna is first experienced, anubhutham and then prevents the

appearance of Brahman, thirODHAnam or first it prevents the appearance

and then is experienced. This is subjected to anyOnyAsraya dosha,

interdependence, that is, thirODHAnam occurs because avidhya is

experienced and vice versa. It should be remembered here that all the

arguments are forwarded under the assumption that avidhya abides in

Brahamn as it could not abide in the individual self which is also a

product of avidhya.

 

Brahman perceives His own svarupa as He is. If that is prevented from

appearing by ajnAna Brahman should experience ajnAna. If the svarupa is

prevented from appearance by something other than Himself then avidhya

being anadhi there will always be thirOdhaAna. If avidhya is not

different from Brahman it becomes His nature and no removal of it will

be possible, in which case Brahman Himself will disappear like the

silver in the illusion of nacre perceived as silver.

 

Ramnuja asks, 'avidhyayA brahma thirOhithE thath brahma na kimchidhapi

prakAsathe utha kimchith prakAsathE,' when Brahman is prevented from

appearing does He not shine at all or shine a little?If He does not

shine, being the nature of light, prakAsasvrupa, Brahman will cease to

exist. Brahman mUst be consisted of parts to enable shining and not

shining at the same time. Or He must have attributes some of which shine

while others do not. Both alternatives are unacceptable to the advaitin.

Brahman cannot be said to shine dimly because the parts that shine

cannot be dim while those that do not are not seen. Brahman being vivid

in His svarupa, dimness caused by ajnAna cannot result and there is no

need for its removal.

 

Avidhya itself is unreal and the misapprehension is thus due to an

unreal cause. If Brahman is not the base of avidhya it means that the

misapprehension comes about in the absence of real base which will make

advaita non-different from nihilism of Madhyamaikas.