Locus of ignorance

[Guest guest]

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

 

cheers

Narendra P. Sastry,

 

 

 

I have already answered this point in my prev post. The relevant extract is

given below:

 

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.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

PraNAm Sri.Sadananda gAru,

 

 

I'm back from my vacation to India and finally got a chance to catch

up with these interesting topics. If I may comment on some of the

points here;

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> 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.

 

Sir, how is it a fact?

 

IMO, your consideration of `I do not know that I am Brahman is a

fact' is not acceptable. The very term `Brahman' is something not

given as a fact in day to day life but coming only after analysis of

the vEdAnta. It is not at all a given fact. Otherwise, an atheist or

unorthodox wouldn't have any dispute on the very notion and

existence of Brahman, let alone one has identity with Brahman or

otherwise. So, given this, whether I am Brahman or otherwise is not

at all a fact but something coming from logic and shruti pramANa of

vEdAntins.

 

So also, notion of `I am limited' is not a wrong notion at all, but

rather it is a given experience and and it is indeed *a fact* for

all. Thinking that my true nature is not limited but something else

is not a fact but a logic of some.

 

>It is inconsequential whether someone accepts

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

> or eliminated by it.

>

 

True. One's ignorance (factual or imagined) does not depend on

acceptance or denying by another person.

 

An atheist might as well hold the same argument and say that there

is no ignorance about self at all. Because, for him day-to-day

experience can't establish an ever lasting entity called `Self'. He

also say that it is inconsequential whether someone accepts this or

not. Thus, there is no distinguishing criteria between an atheist's

position and that of an vEdAntin who holds such position as you hold

above.

 

 

> 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).

 

So also, from your reference, you have the duality of `I' who is

realized and `others' who are not realized. How do you account for

this duality? Even if you consider so called `others' are apparent

and not real, then how do you account for new duality of `real'

and `apparent'?

 

 

>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!

 

Then again the problem of nagging duality of `real' and `apparent'

even in the state of the realization!

 

>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 isn't it the very `jIva' bhAva is the result of ignorance (of

whom?) to begin with?

 

So what is correct understanding then, jIvahood is due to

ignorance? Or Ignorance is for jIva?

 

> 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.

 

Same problem as mentioned above of duality of real and apparent.

 

>

> 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.

 

What I understood from the above is that there are no two

metaphysical reals such as `Brahman' and `avidya' and thus there is

no meaning in finding the locus of avidya. Thus, the very issue of

locus of avidya is mute from pAramArthika point of view.

 

Then this shifts our focus from finding locus of avidya to finding

reality status of this avidya.

 

It raise the question of what is the reality status of

this `avidya'? As noted above it is not pAramArthika reality at

all. Only option we left with is positing vyavahArika reality to

this avidya. In vyavahArika reality there are two things such as

avidya and jIva and thus we can safely posit jIva as the locus of

this avidya. Problem solved and everybody is happy.

 

But this raises fresh difficulties in answering the reality status

for this vyavahArika domain itself.

 

Is this `vyavahArika' domain itself a pAramArthika reality? Or an

apparent notion in itself?

 

It can't be former, for it compromises the very nondual nature of

pAramArthika and causes duality of `vyavahArika' and `pAramArthika'

in nondual pAramArthika state.

 

If we consider the later option, then it amounts to the fallacy of

anyOnAshraya other Acharyas have of criticized about. It is said in

the doctrine that vyavahArika jIva-jagat bhAva is due to the avidya.

However, if this avidya itself positioned under vyavahArika, it is

the case of anyOnAshraya.

 

>

> 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.

>

 

If avidya has been classified as anirvAchaniiyam, then it begs an

important question; how do we know that this avidya is root cause of

this samsaara and removal of leads realization? This means we know

something about the nature of avidya when it comes to understanding

this samsaara and liberation from it, but the same time, it is

anirvAchaniiyam when it comes to addressing the problem of locus to

it?

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Sastri gAru,

 

 

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

 

> 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.

 

But isn't this very vyAvahArika standpoint of jIva-jagat caused due

to avidya? This is exactly the criticism of anyOnAshraya dOsha

raised by other Acharyas, as I understood.

 

If there were to be the case where this vyAvahArika standpoint

itself is `real' from pAramArthika standpoint, then above answer

addressing the locus of avidya were to be satisfactory.

 

But such position attracts fresh difficulties. It would lead to

positing duality of V-P standpoints, which is really `real' and

compromises nondual reality in the final analysis.

 

>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.

 

That means, nirvishEsha Brahman has vishEshaNa-s (duality)

of `svarUpa-jnAna' and `vritti-jnAna'?

 

 

>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.

>

 

But in this rope-snake analogy, there are two reals; viz the one

which was substratum of superimposition (the rope) and the other

which was making the superimposition (the deluded perceiver). The

substratum rope itself was never making the superimposition.

 

In jIva-jagat adhyAsa prakriya, who is the deluded perceiver? It is

not jIva, for jIvahood itself is nothing but an superimposition on

substratum nirvishEsha Brahman.

 

 

> The second 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 statement of SrI Sankara in the bhAshya on

> brahmasUtra 4.1.3 is quoted in support of this view, " Who is it

that has

> this ignorance? We say that it is you yourself who ask thus " .

>

 

I am sorry, how is this addresses the objections you have mentioned.

Please elaborate.

 

 

> S.N.Sastri

>

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

But such position attracts fresh difficulties. It would lead to positing

duality of V-P standpoints, which is really `real' and

compromises nondual reality in the final analysis.

 

praNAms Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I was just wondering, how many times we, advaitins, have heard these type

of objections from dvaitins?? how many times, we, the advaitins,

supplied clarifications to the ever unsatisfied minds of dvaitins?? :-))

Prabhuji, kindly tell me, what sort of *satisfactory / convincing* answer

you are expecting from us (advaitins)?? We know very well that we can

never ever convince a dvaitin with an advaitic answers:-))...and a dvaitin

firmly believes that whatever advaitin gives answer from his own school of

thought would be absolute rubbish & these answers, he think, never ever

satisfy the demands of shruti, yukti (logic) & anubhava. Under these

circumstances, even after the ages of this same old history, why dvaitins

still want to have the clarifications from the advaitins for their never

ending objections ?? It is really mystifying for me !! I know, Sri Sastri

prabhuji & Sri Sadananda prabhuji would definitely try to answer your

queries/objections...but tell me frankly, would those answers once for all

erase all your doubts on advaita?? I dont think so..it goes on and on

......Anyway, I leave it to the discretion of Sri Sastri prabhuji & Sri

Sadananda prabhuji whether to address your objections or not ...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar.

[Guest guest]

Srinivas - PraNAms.

 

With the name like that and I am being a

sreevaishnavate I cannot but bow down to you. My

praNAms to your again and again. I do not know if you

know Shree Kulashekara Alwar's poem - majjanmah

palamidam madhukaiTa bhaare ..

 

However, as a friendly reminder, I would like to also

mention that this adviatin list not a vaadavali list.

Your acceptability of the statements as dvaitin is not

of the list concerns. Since this being exclusively

catered to advaita as expounded by Shankara, any

discussion of dvaitin's point is only allowed at the

discretion of the moderators if it helps to clarify

advaita. I am not going to address individual points

you have raised but address from general stand point

for clarification.

 

You have raised the same standard objecttions of

dvaitin and VishishhTaadvaitin as Shree Bhaskar has

noted. Bhagavan Ramanuja made seven untenables

against avidya of advaita Vedanta in his mahaa

purvapaksa of Shreebhaashya. What you discussed has

already been addressed by many advaita masters as well

as in this list serve before. I have no interest to go

into that detailed discussion here. If an advaitin

asks for clarification, I would answer them to the

best I can, since he wants to know and does not want

to debate. I have least interest in debates that is

why I left vaadaavali list. If things stated in this

in my post are not acceptable to you, I have no

problem. Let that be so.

 

Now, I am taking liberty to address few points you

have raised, not for any debate, but as clarification

of my post.

 

Let me ask a retorical question.

 

Do you know that you are Brahman, one without a

second?

 

Choice 1.

'Yes I do' if you say, then scrpture says 'knower of

Brahman becomes Brahman', hence no ignorance what so

ever. - therefore no further discussion about

ignorace is required. This dicussion also stops.

 

Brahman cannot have any ignorance. And as you have

pointed, he is unqualified, as only finites can be

qualified. Qualification is that which distinguishes

one object from the other - Since there is no sajaati,

vijaati and swagata bhedas in Brahman, one cannot

qualify Brahman. Brahman, the very word means

infiniteness. If an advaitin or scriptures uses

qualifications they are only for upaaya or as

upalaxana to communicate. All communcations can take

place only in vyavahaara. These qualifications are

only pointers. That he is 'unqualified' is not a

qualification of Brahman. If you say, 'I do not

believe in vyavahaara' - I have no problem since it is

not my problem - since it is your vyavahaara.

 

Choice 2.

 

If you say you do not know that you are brahman,

and/or that 'you are brahman' is not accepatable to

you which also proves that 'you do not know that you

are Brahman'- then you yourself have just proved my

point - that ignorance that 'you are brahmnan' rests

in you. Obviously you are the locus of that ignorance.

All I can say is 'Hay Sree Srinivas' wake up and

realize that you are Brahmman - tat tvam asi.

 

If you say 'that is not acceptable to you' - I have no

problme either- when you are ready to accept it, come

back to this advaitin list -adviata as I have pointed

earlier is 'non-duality inspite of apparent duality'

since there is nothing other than Brahman and if I

note something other than brahman, then that is it is

only apparent and not real - If I take the apparent

duality as reality then that is my confusion - If I do

not belief that I am even confused - that means my

confusion is even deeper.God can only save me. The

apparent dualilty scripture says is just like the

dream world - just like the creation - as Shree

Shastri gaaru has just explained in his post. When we

say Brahman is the locus of ignorance, that ignorance

is not of sat swaruupa. It is only mithyaa just like

the apparent world of plurality. Apparent plus real

does not make dviata like gold plus ring are not two.

Ontological status of Gold, the material cause for

ring, is different from that of ring. Similarly the

ontological status of Brahman is different from that

of ignorance, maaya, even the world that is the

outcome of the ignorance that I am brahman or you are

brahman.

 

Since ignorance is not sat swaruupam, it can disapper

when the knowledge takes place (sat is that which

cannot disapper naabhaavo vidyate sataH) Hence Brahman

plus ignorance is not duality like gold plus ring -

vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naama dheyam - loham iti eva

satyam- similarly the notion that ring is different

from the gold - creation is differnt from creator etc.

(This discussion is for the ignorant only not for the

one who knows that he is Brahman).

 

Brahman can illumine even ignorance too, since when

you say 'I am ignorant' the knowledge that you are

ignorant is illumined by the consciousness that you

are, since you are conscious of your 'ignorance'.

Hence arguments that light and darkness do not go

together do not apply here - It is similar to the

statments: 'I cannot see any thing here since it is

pitch dark here as three is no light. - But that

darkness you can see - and the light in which you can

see that it is pitch dark is not opposite to that

pitch darkness. That light of consciousness, is the

consciounss Brahman that can illumine even the

ignorance. Otherwise you cannot say 'I am ignorant'

 

Ignorance should have locus. It is obvious that one

who does not know that I am Brahman, is the locus of

ignornace. Since there is nothing other than Brahman,

the one who say he does not know brahman and the

ignorace because of which he does not know brahman,

all rest in Brahman only, since there is nothing other

than Brahman. These statements that appear to be

contradictory are made from different ontological

status. That is why one has to understand corretly

'scriptural statements' as well as adhyaaropa apavaada

and when it says tat tvam asi and aham brahmaasmi and

ayam aatmaa brahman and neha naanaasti kinchana,

sarvam khalu idam brahma, brahma vit brahmaiva

bhavati, etc, etc. Hence in Avadhuuta Gita, Bhagavan

Dattatreya says ' IswaarungRaat eva pumsaam adviata

vaasana' - only by the grace of God one can have the

adviata vaasana.

 

Until then Shree Srinivas - My praNams to you.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

 

> I'm back from my vacation to India and finally got a

> chance to catch

> up with these interesting topics. If I may comment

> on some of the

> points here;

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivasji:

 

By definition, Truth is eternal and doesn't require the acceptance or

rejection by anyone including you! Truth self reveals to those who

have strong faith and conviction. This is a fact whether you agree or

disagree with it.

 

According to Nyaya Shastra, a disputation which is held with the only

purpose for the demolition of the opponent's standpoint is known

as " Vitanda Vada. " The viewpoint that you have expressed in your

posts to Sadaji and Sastriji points to that direction. The list has

requested you on numerous occasions not to engage in Vitanda Vada and

you seem to ignore them and want to engage in endless debates.

 

As a knowledgeable scholar, you are aware that this list focuses on

Shankara's Advaita Philosophy. Most of us in this list know that

Advaita philosophy is not accepted by Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhawa and

we don't need any debate to establish why there is disagreement. Such

debates do not bring any insights. If you still want to proceed with

debates, please consider conduct it through the list by

the name vAdAvaLi.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p

wrote:

>

>

> IMO, your consideration of `I do not know that I am Brahman is a

> fact' is not acceptable. The very term `Brahman' is something not

> given as a fact in day to day life but coming only after analysis

of

> the vEdAnta. It is not at all a given fact.