Guest guest Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 Rishi wrote on Aug 22, 2007--- 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. avidyA (ignorance) exists only from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the pAramArthika standpoint there is nothing but brahman and so avidyA has no existence at all. Questions about the locus and content of avidyA arise only on the vyAvahArika plane. In my previous post I had pointed out that there are two views about the locus of ignorance. One view is that the locus of ignorance is brahman. One objection to this view is that, since brahman is of the nature of knowledge, ignorance which is the very opposite of knowledge cannot abide in the same locus. The answer to this is that 'svarUpa-jnAna' which is the very nature of brahman is not inimical to ignorance. It merely reveals ignorance, but does not destroy it. It is only vritti-jnAna that destroys ignorance. The difference is illustrated by an example. The sun's rays falling on hay directly cannot burn the hay; but if the sun's rays are passed through a lens they burn the hay. Another objection is, since brahman is without a second, how can ignorance, which is different from it be located in it? The answer to this is that from the standpoint of brahman there is no ignorance at all. It is only a superimposition on brahman, like the illusory snake on the rope, and cannot, therefore, be reckoned as a real entity different from brahman, just as the superimposed snake cannot be considered as an entity different from the substratum, rope. The other view about the locus of brahman is that it is located in the jIva. One objection to this view is that the notion of 'jIvahood' derives its existence from ignorance and so it cannot be the locus of ignorance. Another point is that the jIva is a blend of brahman and the mind and the mind is a product of ignorance. Yet another objection is that in deep sleep there is no jIvahood, but still there is ignorance, as evident from one's recollection on waking up that he knew nothing during sleep. The answer that the proponents of the theory of the locus being in the jIva give to these objections is that it is the jIva who experiences ignorance and so it must be located in him. The following statement of SrI Sankara in the bhAshya on brahmasUtra 4.1.3 seems to support this view, " Who is it that has this ignorance? We say that it is you yourself who ask thus " . The first view is held by vivarana which is a sub-commentary by prakASAtman on the commentary on the sUtrabhAshya by padmapAda. The second is the view of vAchapatimiSra in his work bhAmatI which is a commentary on the sUtrabhAshya. Several others have written commentaries on sUtrabhAshya and have given divergent views on various points. Their devotion to Sankara is exemplary and each one of them says that his view has support in the bhAshya. S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 namaste sastri ji " parameSvara is not dependent on avidyA .Only avidyA is dependent on parameSvara " is this not other acharyAs call? but taittariyopanishat says parameshwara as sathyam,gnAnam,anantham... how could there be avidya, i know there is some tricky confusion here, kindly elaborate on this thanks On 8/22/07, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote: > > How can there be anyonya ASraya? parameSvara is not dependent on avidyA. > Only avidyA is dependent on parameSvara. So there is no mutual dependence. > Sastri > > > On 8/22/07, narendra sastry <narendra.sastry wrote: > > > > namaste sastri ji > > > > you said > > > > " 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. " > > > > does this not let to anyOnyAshraya dosha as per madhva and ramanuja?, > > can we take " parameSvarASrayA " of avidya in vyavahArika sath? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/22/07, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri > wrote: > > > > > -- cheers Narendra P. Sastry, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 Everything is divine! The so called " avidya " is created by ParameSvara so the process of diversity begins and people feel " separate individuals " and the work of samsara goes on. Indeed, wise people go beyond avidya and seek realization. Of course, realization comes through " Anugarh " - descend of Divine Grace. Pranam! Virendra. narendra sastry <narendra.sastry wrote: namaste sastri ji " parameSvara is not dependent on avidyA .Only avidyA is dependent on parameSvara " is this not other acharyAs call? but taittariyopanishat says parameshwara as sathyam,gnAnam,anantham... how could there be avidya, i know there is some tricky confusion here, kindly elaborate on this thanks On 8/22/07, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote: > > How can there be anyonya ASraya? parameSvara is not dependent on avidyA. > Only avidyA is dependent on parameSvara. So there is no mutual dependence. > Sastri > > > On 8/22/07, narendra sastry <narendra.sastry wrote: > > > > namaste sastri ji > > > > you said > > > > " 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. " > > > > does this not let to anyOnyAshraya dosha as per madhva and ramanuja?, > > can we take " parameSvarASrayA " of avidya in vyavahArika sath? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/22/07, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri > wrote: > > > > > -- cheers Narendra P. Sastry, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 Dear Sastriji, Thank you for your detailed reply, I really appreciate it as I am sure the other list members do as well. Please do not feel pressured to answer these questions, I understand that they can be time consuming. What is the difference between ashraya and adhishthana in this context? If we talk about the ashraya of avidya, is it the same as talking about the adhishthana of avidya? We always say that Brahman is the adhishtana of all antahkarana vrittis for example, and yet it never possesses the attributes of these vrittis. Would the Acharyas following the Vivarana accept that Brahman is unaffected by avidya in this way or are they neccesarily saying that Brahman is ignorant (though apparently)? Another question: When the Bhamati Acharyas say that jiva is the ashraya of avidya, what do they mean by jiva? Do they mean chaitanya in association with the karya-upadhi or do they mean the " entity " denoted by the aham-vrittis in the antahkarana (ie: whoever the jiva takes himself to be). Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.