Locus of ignorance

[Guest guest]

But there is a specific mention of ASraya in another sentence. Sankara says

in

his commentary on brahmasUtra 1.4.3—tadadhInatvAdarthavat—that avidyaa is

'parameSvarASrayA'. i.e. it has brahman as ASraya.. This seems to be the

only place where Sankara has spoken specifically of the locus of avidyA.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Since I am writing this mail from office, I am unable to find what exactly

is there in the context with regard to avidyA's brahmAshraya......But if my

memory serves me right, I think first chapter's fourth pAda's first three

adhikaraNa's (including anumAnAdhikaraNa ...is it first adhikaraNa?? not

sure ) mainly deals with the refutation of both sAnkhyA's pradhAna tattva

& pUrvapaxin's statement that avyakta is equal to pradhAna. The sUtra

mentioned above should be there in one of those three adhikaraNa-s ( most

probably in the first adhikaraNa since this is the third sUtra of the

fourth pAda). Anyway, I shall have a detailed look at it at home.

 

As said earlier, since there is NO dealings such as vidyA and avidyA in

absolute non-dual brahman, it is but logical to think that avidyA is ONLY

in lOka vyavahAra where jIva thinks that he is katru & bhOktru..So, it can

be concluded that from the standpoint of vyavahAra, the locus of ignorance

or ignorance pertains to the mind alone and that should be as it is.

Shankara confirms this in adhyAsa bhAshya while describing the adhyAsa

lakshaNa : naisargikaH adhyAsaH *mithyApratyayarUpaH, katrutva bhoktrutva

pravartakaH sarva lOka pratyakshaH etc. etc. ....Here adhyAsa has been

defined as *mithyApratyaya rUpaH* which is very important, shankara says

in taitirIya upanishad that both knowledge and ignorance are objects

(vishyA) like colours etc. as attributes of the mind. Accordingly both

knowledge and ignorance are to be treated with name & form ( since they are

perceived as an object) and since in brahman there is no nAma & rUpa

vikAra, shankara concludes, they are not attributes of self. Here

according to shankara, ignorance is the modification of the antaHkaraNa

(internal instrument or mind). Hence the dealings of the ignorance and the

knowledge, location of this ignorance, subject matter of avidyA, cause &

effect relationship etc. etc. are within the sphere of avidyA or ignornace,

these are not anyway related to nitya shuddha buddha mukta absolute

non-dual brahman to assert that ignorance has the Ashraya of brahman!! If

avidyA has the Ashraya of brahman itself & not pertains to the mind, it is

but impossible to remove/eradicate avidyA by any amount of vidyA because

*brahmAshraya* theory makes ignorance as real as brahma...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the informative summary on the different positions on

the ashraya of avdidya, as well as their proponents. Could you perhaps

quickly explain what the difficulty with each position (ie: Brahman as

ashraya and jiva as ashraya) is said to be.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

 

 

 

This will require a detailed explanation. I shall prepare and send it as

soon as possible.

 

S. N. Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sastriji:

 

Thanks for your scholarly posts on the the subject of the locus of

ignorance. I look forward to read your detailed explanations in the

near future.

 

I want to bring to the attention of the list members about an

interesting quotation attributed to Confucius:

 

" When you do not know a thing, admit that you do not know it--this is

knowledge. "

 

This quotation is quite subtle and it assetains that the locus of

ignorance is " intelligence, rather Superintelligence " which is none

other than the Brahman!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> This will require a detailed explanation. I shall prepare and send

it as

> soon as possible.

>

> S. N. Sastri

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

I am asking these questions in order to understand your position and

not for the sake of refutation, so please take them in that spirit. I

do not want to start the whole mulavidya topic again, but I would be

interested in having some specific doubts about what you are saying

resolved.

 

When you say avidya is an antahkarana-vritti alone, it naturally

follows that in states where there are no vrittis, there is no

ignorance. However, it is observed that re-emmerging from these states

(where all vrittis are absent), mithya-pratyaya also resumes. In the

case of the brahmanistha, once liberation is gained, mithya-pratyaya

never again resumes. Without positing mulavidya, how do you explain

this? What is the cause that leads to the reemergence of avidya in the

case of ordinary people but is presumably absent in the case of the

brahmanistha?

 

I have another question as well. If avidya is in the form of

antahkarana vritti, then how can you say that avidya is not something

positive? Surely, vrittis are directly percieved and are a part of

prakriti, just like a pot?

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji and Respected Shastri-ji

Pranams.

 

Thank you Shastri-ji for those references. I agree with Bhaskar-ji

that this question of assigning a locus for avidya itself flawed. I

humbly feel that the reason Bhagwan Shankara never addresses this is

not because he may have wanted to " avoid " the issue, but precisely

because any elaboration on a locus for avidya would be fallacious.

 

Pranams Rishiji,

You wrote

" In the case of the brahmanistha, once liberation is gained,

mithya-pratyaya never again resumes. Without positing mulavidya, how

do you explain this? What is the cause that leads to the reemergence

of avidya in the case of ordinary people but is presumably absent in

the case of the brahmanistha? "

 

Whenever any knowledge is gained, even in a secular domain, there is

really no " gain " of a new entity, after all nothing comes into

existence from a priori non-existence - it is simply removal of one's

ignorance regarding that particular knowledge.

Once having gained this knowledge - let us say of Russian - one cannot

say that the prior " ignorance " of Russian was a separate entity -

which then went away. Similarly when it comes to self-knowledge, there

is really no gain of any new knowledge, as you very well know. There

is " only " removal of false notions regarding that which is always " known " .

 

 

In this context, I reproduce a earlier message of mine on this topic.

 

 

To understand the issue of where is the locus for avidya let us take a

story of a pot, lets say his name is Mr.Pott.

 

Mr.Pott is in reality clay, the same clay that all other claypots are.

He takes himself to be only the pot. As long as he entertains a notion

that he is a pot he is small, he has aged 20 years since he was born,

lives in a poor home, has lost some of the colour on his head, etc..

Now avidya is Mr.Potts ignorance about himself not being just a pot,

but in reality being clay. And as clay he is neither born nor will he

die - na jaayate mryate va kadacit.. Now if you ask who does this

ignorance belong to? The answer is - it belongs to Mr.Pott. Well isnt

Mr.Pott clay? Yes. Then does the ignorance belong to clay. No. The

clay never has anything really to do with the " pot notion " , although

without the clay, the pot cannot have any subtantive existence.

 

Well then isnt Mr.Pott also a pot.

Yes

Then does the ignorance belong to the pot.

No again.

The pot by itself is nothing but clay.

Then who is Mr.Pott.

He is the I-sense that feels itself to be " a " pot separate from clay,

and doesnt recognize itself to be clay even though all along it is

clay, and nothing but clay.

 

When did it get ignorant? This is a WRONG question because it assumes

an absence of ignorance prior to the onset of ignorance which is

impossible.

Who needs the right knowledge to get liberated?

The clay? No

The pot? No

Mr.Pott - Yes!

 

When you link avidya and atman in any sense of a relationship, you are

linking two things which share no relation really. It is like saying

the clay lights up Mr.Potts ignorance. Assigning a locus for avidya is

possible only when there are two distinct realities - not when both

pot and clay are in essence one. For example, there are two sides to a

coin, and yes - you can assign a locus to the head - one side vs the

other. In the case of avidya, this cannot be done - because what is

real, what IS is always the clay alone.

 

The pot is nondifferent from clay. If you mark a large " X " on the pot

are you marking it on clay or the pot? If you say the pot, then one

can say, OK remove the clay and lets see the X mark on the pot now -

see the difficulty in doing this? The X marks are none other than

mind, intellect, etc etc. Yes they all belong to the pot- but there

really is no pot - only clay! What Mr.Pott needs to realize is that he

is not the pot, that these marks he thinks are his are also in reality

nothing but clay which he himself his. There is no question of the

clay needing to make the pot-ignorance of Mr.Pott its object. How can

you objectify ignorance? It is truly absurd to postulate.

 

And for the sake of argument even if one were to do this, then that

means you had ignorance about ignorance itself - because now that

ignorance has been resolved, and this can only result in infinite

regress.. Who will see this ignorance for what it is? Certainly not

the clay for which there never is ignorance. Certainly not the pot

which is not even existent Certainly not Mr.Pott because he himself

already IS what he is ignorant about. To use a different analogy, it

is like saying the tenth man must first see his ignorance about being

the tenth man as an object before he can be satisfied that he indeed

is the tenth man.

 

Avidya is never " real " . It is not " unreal " either because after all

poor Mr.Pott thinks he is small and old, and in so doing reveals the

workings of avidya. But this is a mere notion on his part. With the

dawn of knowledge from an appropriate means of knowledge (i.e.Ma

Shruti), this ignorance is once and forever dispelled. He realizes he

is clay, not then, in the future, but in and through all times forever

in the past and forever in the future. And again, ignorance did not

" create " the pot. The clay is the ONLY material cause for the pot.

Mr.Pott's ignorance about him being a limited pot is beginingless and

hence there is no creation of someone creating it as we have already seen.

 

The adhyasa is this only - that Mr.Pott mistakes the pot for a pot

without realizing it is clay. As clay not only is he immortal, but he

is nonseparate from the whole clay-universe, and, to go one step

further, the entire clay-universe is arising from him alone and will

dissolve unto him alone. " Mayyeva sakalam jaatam.. mayyeva sakalam

jaatam mayi sarvam pratishtitam, mayi sarvam layam yaati.. "

 

Suffice to say, the simplest and really the only answer to any

question on avidya's locus will be " i " or me. " i " who is ignorant am

the locus of avidya because " i " know not that really speaking " i " am " I "

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> But there is a specific mention of ASraya in another sentence.

Sankara says

> in

> his commentary on brahmasUtra 1.4.3†" tadadhInatvAdarthavat†" that

avidyaa is

> 'parameSvarASrayA'. i.e. it has brahman as ASraya.. This seems to be the

> only place where Sankara has spoken specifically of the locus of avidyA.

>

> Hence the dealings of the ignorance and the

> knowledge, location of this ignorance, subject matter of avidyA, cause &

> effect relationship etc. etc. are within the sphere of avidyA or

ignornace,

> these are not anyway related to nitya shuddha buddha mukta absolute

> non-dual brahman to assert that ignorance has the Ashraya of

brahman!! If

> avidyA has the Ashraya of brahman itself & not pertains to the

mind, it is

> but impossible to remove/eradicate avidyA by any amount of vidyA

because

> *brahmAshraya* theory makes ignorance as real as brahma...

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

--- shyam_md <shyam_md wrote:

 

> Thank you Shastri-ji for those references. I agree

> with Bhaskar-ji

> that this question of assigning a locus for avidya

> itself flawed. I

> humbly feel that the reason Bhagwan Shankara never

> addresses this is

> not because he may have wanted to " avoid " the issue,

> but precisely

> because any elaboration on a locus for avidya would

> be fallacious.

 

PraNAms to all and Shree Shastriji, my humble

prostrations.

 

It is good to know how the advaitic masters analyzed

the problem.

 

I would like to present my understanding.

 

The fact remains that I do not know that I am Brahman

and am longing for happiness outside, since I consider

myself as finite being; the ignorance of my true

nature is evident. It is not logic here but is a

fact. It is inconsequential whether someone accepts

this or not, since my ignorance does not depend on it

or eliminated by it.

 

When I realize that I am Brahman, I alone realize that

I am Brahman; even though in that realization, I

realize that there is nothing that is real other than

'I', and everything else other than 'I am' is only

apparent and not really real. The other jiivas that

are apparent (from my reference) have to realize on

their own (from their reference). Even though I

realize that even the apparent realization of others

is only apparent from my stand point, but is real from

their stand point! If you look at the problem as it

stands, the lack of knowledge is centered on

individual jiiva; even though it is universally

present at jiiva-jagat framework; realization is at

individual jiiva level and not at collective level.

But in the realization at jiiva level, he also

realizes that he engulfs the collective in the sense

that he is Brahman that pervades everything and there

is nothing other than him. In the realization of

oneness that I am Brahman, the validity for the

independent collective existence as well as their

ignorance reduces from realty to apparent reality; and

therefore no absolute reality.

 

Does Brahman have ignorance; he cannot have since

there is no sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas to

say Brahman is locus. On the other hand, ignorance,

just like creation, cannot be separate from Brahman,

by definition, since there cannot be anything other

than Brahman. Notional creation cannot exist without

the corresponding notional ignorance, which we can

call it as maaya from the totality point. Maaya is

brought in only to explain the creation that is

notional but is taken as real. When the notional

ignorance is taken as real by a jiiva, ignorance is

then locussed on the jiiva until realizes that

creation, ignorance all are notional and not real and

that he is really no other than Brahman, one without a

second.

 

Shankara in his adhyaasa bhaaShya clearly implies that

the error or adhyaasa is at the jiiva level, as

Bhaskarji pointed out, which is of the nature of

sat-asat vilakshaNam at the same time is a combination

of sat and asat - styaanRita mithuniikaraNam adhyaasam

- involves mixing of sat and asat or anRit.

 

From epistemological point, when I say I know my

ignorance, or I know that I do not know Brahman, is it

a knowledge of a positive quantity, or knowledge of

the lack of knowledge of a quantity - or knowledge of

the absence of knowledge - or technically is it bhaava

ruupa or abhaava ruupa - sad-asad vilakshanam involves

negation of both bhaava and abhaava or acceptance of

both - or negation of both. Shankara resorts to

anirvacaniiyam or inexplicable.

 

I will leave it to Shree Shastriji to educate us

further on this issue.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

Avidya centered on jiiva is accepted by Bhagavaan

Ramanjua as the root cause of samsaara. For him, the

avidya involves lack of knowledge of his true nature

that he is limited and depedent and Lord is unlimited

and independent and jiiva depends on the Lord of his

happiness. In mukti he enjoys the infinite happiness

along with the Lord, while serving the Lord.

Otherthan the creative power, he enjoys all the powers

of the Lord.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

<<Sankara says in his commentary on brahmasUtra

1.4.3-tadadhInatvAdarthavat-that avidyaa is 'parameSvarASrayA'. i.e. it has

brahman as ASraya.. This seems to be the only place where Sankara has spoken

specifically of the locus of avidyA. The word 'ASraya' in this sentence has

however been interpreted in different ways by post-Sankara Advaitins.

vAchaspatimisra says that ASraya here means 'content' and not 'locus'.

Anandagiri takes this word to mean 'locus'. This sentence is the basis on

which these two advaitins have come to the different conclusions mentioned

above.>>

 

Many thanks for the above reference - I have included this information in

the book, with a reference to your post.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

I am asking these questions in order to understand your position and

not for the sake of refutation, so please take them in that spirit. I

do not want to start the whole mulavidya topic again, but I would be

interested in having some specific doubts about what you are saying

resolved.

 

 

 

Humble praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I think, I am noway qualified enough to educate your goodself on these

issues prabhuji. I think Sri shyAm prabhuji has beautifully addressed your

questions beyond any doubt...I dont think I can do anything better than

that. Here, it is worth contemplating on the below sentence of Sri shyAm

prabhuji mail, i.e. : *Assigning a locus for avidya is possible only when

there are two distinct realities*..I think while discussing the locus of

avidyA this statement should always be there in our mind. Strictly

speaking, the two questions ' to whom is avidyA' ? 'about which matter or

thing is there avidyA'?? in truth, should not arise at all in advaita

siddhAnta. The above mentioned questions & finding shelter for avidyA etc.

as Sri shyAm prabhuji mentioned, should come ONLY if we take the two

distinct realities..In short, these questions raise their hood only in

dvaita!! Since advaita vEdAnta repeatedly announcing that the whole scope

of duality (dvaita) is superimposed /misconceived on non-dual Atman and is

avidyaka, the people who raises these questions on avidyA should accept the

fact that they have not properly understood the profound truth of

shankara's parishuddha advaita vEdAnta. But it is a prevalent belief that

due to avidyA duality has come into being and by means of Atmaikatva vidyA,

the nondual ultimate reality of advaita gets established...For the people

who have belief system like this, poses the above questions by literally

assuming the *existence* of avidyA. To appease the inquisitive mind of

these people, shankara gives the tricky answer that 'avidyA belongs to

*you* who is asking questions about avidyA' .... Subsequently, shankara

makes an important observation that if we cognize that the questioner is

brahman itself according to shruti, then there is no *avidyA* to anybody

whatsoever...Here Shankara clearly implies that in brahman, there is no

avidyA and avidyA & its related questions are possible only in vyavahAra

where duality has its influence. If avidyA has the brahmAshraya, I think

this would have been the right place for shankara to declare it...

 

While on the subject, I hereby humbly submit that Sri Sastri prabhuji's

yesterday's quote from the vEdAnta sUtra (1-4-3) commentary is NOT about

the subject matter of *locus of ignorance*....Here subject matter is

refutation of sAnkhya's theory that avyakta is equal to pradhAna & pradhAna

has the vEdic acceptance. Here shankara contextually makes it clear that

avyakta has the dependence on Ishwara...shankara here uses the words like,

paramEshwarAdhIna & paramEshvarAshraya etc. etc. just to drive home the

point that this avyakta cannot be comparable with that of sAnkhyA's theory

of pradhAna which is independent in its nature. I am still wondering how

this can be the valid reference for *locus of ignorance*...I request Sri

Sastri prabhuji to throw more light on this reference.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar