sribhashya-mahasiddhantha-anirvachaneeya anupapatthi continued.

[Guest guest]

avidhya cannot be proved positive by inference.

 

In the argument to show that ajnana is a positive entity the sAdhya, or

the thing to be proved is given as 'jnAna should be preceded by a

substance which prevents it from appearing and which is removable by

jnAna.' The hethu or reason for such an inference is that the jnAna

shows what is not seen earlier.The example given is that of light which

removes the darkness and shows the objects which were not seen

before.Now, Ramanuja says that this inference is faulty.The hethu viz.

showing something not previously seen, is sAdhana vikala, absent in the

example because the light does not show an object without the rise of

knowledge about the object.That is, when a pot , not previously seen due

to darkness is made visible by the light, the knowledge of the pot is

necessary to cognise it as such. Similarly indriyas are also not capable

of showing the objects but only aid the knowledge that does it.For

instance the light only helps the eye that helps the knowledge by

removing the darkness that prevents perception. The removal of that

alone which obscures,does not bring perception but it is only the

showing of the object as such.

 

Brahman is jnAnamAthra, pure knowledge and cannot be the abode of

avidhya. The ignorance of the shell in the shell-silver illusion does

not reside in the shell but only in the perceiver.For the same reason

the avidhya cannot conceal Brahman. And it cannot be removed by jnAna

because it does not conceal Brahman. Only when the ignorance conceals

the subject of knowledge as in the case of shell-silver, it could be

sublated by that knowledge.

 

Brahman is not the knower as per advaita and hence it could not be the

abode of avidhya which can exist only in the knower.Avidhya cannot cover

brahman who is of the nature of knowledge as it can cover only an object

that is seen and not the knowledge. Brahman is not the subject of

knowledge either because He is not known and if Brahman can be covered

by avidhya He ceases to be mere knowledge but becomes a known subject.

Since avidhya does not conceals what can be known, as in shell-silver,

it cannot be removed by knowledge. Lastly knowledge cannot destroy an

existing thing like the positive avidhya.Further avidhya being thus not

positive entity its definition need not exclude its previous

non-existence. Thus positive avidhya is not proved even by inference.