Locus of ignorance

[Guest guest]

Shri Bhaskarji,

I must confess I am unable to understand the objection raised by you

(reproduced below). What I have said is not some original view of mine.

Please see the commentaries of vAchaspati miSra and Anandagiri on the

bhAshya on this sUtra. VAchaspati says: brahman is the ASraya of avidyaa

not in the sense of its locus, but in the sense of its content. And jIva

alone is the locus of avidyaa. Anandagiri says: It (avidyaa) is not located

in the jIva, because jIvahood itself is only 'kalpita'. avidyA is located

only in brahman.

 

Please see also page 74 of the Introduction to the book 'The

samkshepaSArIraka of sarvajnAtman' by the renowned scholar Dr. N.

Veezhinathan, published by the Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced Study in

Philosophy, University of Madras. This is a point accepted by all scholars.

Not being learned enough to give my own interpretation of the bhAshya and

its commentaries, I go by what persons recognized as erudite scholars say.

If you do not accept the views of these scholars and wish to give your own

interpretation, I am not in a position to say any thing more.

S.N.Sastri

 

 

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

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On the other hand, ignorance, just like creation, cannot be separate from

Brahman, by definition, since there cannot be anything other than Brahman.

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, this is what exactly Sri Shankara says in bruhadAraNyaka upanishad

bhAshya (1-4-10). Here shankara accepts that there is an avidyA in the

matter of brahman. He says here, due to the existence of this avidyA & for

the eradication of the same, vidyA has been instructed with an intention

of cognizing brahman. Shankara gives here the example of silver & shell

(rajata & shukti ) and explains, if there is no misconception & if no one

sees shell as silver, there is no need for teachings such as " This is a

shell alone..not silver " ...Liwewise, if there was no avidyA with regard to

brahman then the shAstra would not have declared that brahman is the ONLY

reality (shankara quotes couple of shruti maNtra-s here). Here pUrvapaxin

raises an objection & say, we did not say that just as the silver is

misconceived in the shell, in brahman that thing which is not its dharma

(quality / attribute) is not misconceived; we only say brahman is not an

ignorant one who is responsible for superimposing a dharma which does not

belong to it!! shankara concludes this dialogue & says through vEdAnti :

it may be accepted if it is your opinion that brahman is neither ignorant

not associated with delusion...BUT especially if you say that APART FROM

BRAHMAN THERE EXISTS ANOTHER CHETANA (SENTIENT BEING) WHO IS BHRANTA (

DELUED ONE) WHO IS AJNA (IGNORANT) THEN WE DONOT AGREE WITH THAT

CONTENTION.

 

It is quite evident from the above dialogue that all these issues like

avidyA, the object for avidyA and the Ashraya for avidyA etc. are in truth

projected by avidyA itself. If we analyse properly, although it is

absolute truth that there is no Ashraya (locus) whatsoever for ignorance,

for the purpose of carrying out intuitive deliberation between Atman &

anAtman, shankara has expressed that because avidyA is a pratyaya (a mental

concept) it is nothing but antaHkaraNa dOsha (defect). A relevant

reference for this shankara's stand is available in gIta bhAshya too. One

can find it in the 13th chapter, 2nd verse.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

This is a point accepted by all scholars. Not being learned enough to give

my own interpretation of the bhAshya and

its commentaries, I go by what persons recognized as erudite scholars say.

If you do not accept the views of these scholars and wish to give your own

interpretation, I am not in a position to say any thing more.

 

praNAms Respected Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly forgive me if at all I hurt your feelings...My intention was not to

object your/later vyAkhyAnakAra-s view points..It was just intended to get

more insightful clarification on those view points from your

goodself...Apart from that, as you have mentioned in the lead post that

there is contradiction in the opinion of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s with regard

to this issue in particular & somany other issues in general...it is my

humble opinion that in the event of any mutual contradictions between two

different vyAkhyAnakAra-s, we should necessarily follow or adopt an opinion

which has full support of the original assertions of Sri shankara

bhagavadpAda in his prasthAna traya bhAshya. It is in that spirit, I have

tried to express my opinion with the support of shankara's quotes from

gIta, taitirIya, bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya. If my attempt gives you an

impression that I am propagating my own views, I offer my apologies

prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar