Guest guest Posted December 10, 2007 Report Share Posted December 10, 2007 Namaste Shri Sastri-ji. Thank you, Sir, for your very scholarly response. Well, the approach of the quotes from ignorance to mithyA to anirvacanIya is right. I can't contest it. However, may I humbly point out that I didn't attach such exalted meaning to the word ignorance in my post. The ignorance I meant was the ignorance of the ignoramus who has the least inkling for self- enquiry. His ignorance may be anirvacanIya to the one who knows it and enquiries into it but to the ignoramus himself it is unknown. Where is anirvacanIya for one who is ignorant about his ignorance. Perhaps, he might consider himself to be very wise. One who doesn't know what is anirvacanIya has no sense of anirvacanIyata or anirvacanIyatwam (Kindly correct the noun form - I have ignorance here.). I re-read my post in the light of your explanation. There shouldn't have been any misunderstanding about my actual intent. Shri Sampat need not therefore labour to find Shankara's quotes to substantiate your finding as I fully accept it in the advaitic context. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Shri Nair, > > You have said:-- > > " No, Sir, anirvacanIya cannot be ignorance. The conclusion that this > duality or IshwarA's vibhUti or lIlA is anirvacanIya demands > considerable thinking and analysis on the part of the concluder. It > is a knowledgeable conclusion and not the fool's usual I don't > know " . AnirvacanIya is therefore knowledge, still empirical, which > propels the enquirer into more sublime areas of thought, total > surrender and bhakti. It is the very basis of spirituality, > incidentally, not restricted to Vedanta or India alone. It applies > the world over in as much as it relates to intelligent enquiry about > God and creation " . > > ----------------- > By the above I suppose you mean that ignorance (i.e., the avidyA or ajnAna > of advaita vedAnta) is not anirvacanIya. > > The following statements of eminent advaita AchAryas say just the > opposite:-- > > 1. Padmapada- .one of the four disciples of Sri Sankara- He says in his > work, PanchapAdikA--- mithyA ca tad ajnAnam ca mithyAjnAnam- mithyA iti > anirvacanIyatA ucyate—Meaning--The word 'mithyAjnAnam' used by Sankara in > his adhyAsa bhAshya means ajnAnam which is mithyA. By the word 'mithya' the > quality of being anirvacanIya is stated. In short this means that ajnAna, > which is the same as avidyA is anirvacaniya. and anirvacaniya means the same > thing as mithya. > > 2. Swami Vidyaranaya says in his work 'VivaraNaprameyasangraha' :-- > > anAdi-anirvacanIya-bhAvarUpa-ajnAnam—Meaning—ajnAnam is beginningless, > anirvacanIya, and positive in nature That means, ajnAnam is not just absence > of knowledge, but it is something positive, though it is mithya, i.e., it > cannot be categorized as either real or unreal. This is the view of other > advaita Achryas also. > > 3. Vacaspati misra says in his work 'Bhamati' which is a commentary on > Sankara's bhAshya on brahma sutra—anirvAchya-avidyA—avidyA is anirvAcya, > which is the same as anirvacanIya. > > This has become rather technical, but anirvacanIya and avidyA are also terms > which have specific meanings in vedAnta and have to be understood as having > those meanings. > > Sri Sankara has also described avidyA as anirvacanIya, but I am not able to > quote the references immediately. I would request Shri Sampat to quote them. > > S.N.Sastri > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2007 Report Share Posted December 10, 2007 Dear Shri Nair, Thanks for your reply. My post was meant for the information of all members and was not intended to score a point over you. I wanted to make the vedAntic position clear. Your post gave me the occasion for this (and perhaps to display my learning!). . Best wishes, S.N.Sastri I re-read my post in the light of your explanation. There shouldn't have been any misunderstanding about my actual intent. Shri Sampat need not therefore labour to find Shankara's quotes to substantiate your finding as I fully accept it in the advaitic context. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Namaste Putran-ji. Yours 38468. Sorry for the delay. I was in doubt if I should talk any more on this subject in view of Shri Sastri-ji's authority-based refutation of my rather very lay approach. Having clarified my position to him, I forgot all about your query till this morning when I re-read the thread. I meant the universality of anirvacanIya in a general sense. A number of references can be found in the Holy Quran that express the human mind's VOW over Allah's creation and extol it. I think the Bible is not any different. Of course, they don't go exactly the avidyA - mithyA - anirvacanIya way. However, the anirvacanIya factor is definitely obvious. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ > advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " > <madathilnair@> wrote: > > AnirvacanIya is therefore knowledge, still empirical, which > > propels the enquirer into more sublime areas of thought, total > > surrender and bhakti. It is the very basis of spirituality, > > incidentally, not restricted to Vedanta or India alone. It applies > > the world over in as much as it relates to intelligent enquiry about > > God and creation. _____________________ > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > Can you please elaborate on the above comments? Do you mean it in a > general sense, or do you have in mind specific examples in non- Indian > religions where the concept of anirvachaniya was held as the basis of > spirituality? How did they express this notion? Thanks. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: namastE SrI Sastri ji, You wrote:- > Sri Sankara has also described avidyA as anirvacanIya, but I am not able to > quote the references immediately. I would request Shri Sampat to quote them. > > S.N.Sastri ----------------------- mahASaya, You have really put me to a difficult test ! As you know SrI Sankara does not explicitly state anywhere that avidyA is anirvachanIya. We see that there is a controversy regarding the nature of avidyA. But if we agree to the point that mAyA and avidyA are one and the same, we can definitely conclude saying avidyA/mAyA is anirvachanIya. We have clear-cut references from SrI Sankara's bhAshyAs to say that mAyA and avidyA are non-different. For example:-- Brahma sUtra bhAshya. 1.3.19. Eka Eva paramESvaraH kUTasthanityO vijnAnadhAtur avidyayA mAyayA mAyA vivat anEkadhA vibhavyatE, nAnyO vijnAna dhAturasti iti. Only one highest Lord ever unchanging, whose substance is cognition, and who, by means of avidyA, manifests himself in various ways, just as a Magician appears in different shapes by means of his magical power. >> Here we can observe how SrI Sankara equates mAyA with avidyA straight away! Similarly at another instance SrI Sankara makes it clear that avidyA is also known by the name mAyA:-- >> Brahma sUtra bhAshya. 1.4.3. The existence of such a causal potentiality renders it moreover possible that the released souls should not enter on new courses of existence, as it is destroyed by perfect knowledge. For that causal potentiality is of the nature of *Nescience*; it is rightly denoted by the term 'undeveloped;' it has the highest Lord for its substratum; it is of the nature of an illusion; it is a universal sleep in which are lying the transmigrating souls destitute for the time of the consciousness of their individual character. This undeveloped principle is sometimes denoted by the term âkâsa, ether; so, for instance, in the passage, 'In that Imperishable then, O Gârgî, the ether is woven like warp and woof' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 11). Sometimes, again, it is denoted by the term akshara, the Imperishable; so, for instance (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2), 'Higher, than the high Imperishable.' Sometimes it is spoken of as Mâyâ, illusion; so, for instance (Sve. Up. IV, 10), 'Know then Prakriti is Mâyâ, and the great Lord he who is affected with Mâyâ.' For Mâyâ is properly called undeveloped or non-manifested since it cannot be defined either as that which is or that which is not. ## Although there are numerous such references, the above quoted ones are more than enough to say, avidyA/mAyA is anirvachanIya and avyakta. Now, let us take up the objections posed by the critics of the above view:-- Some say, " mAyA is anirvachanIya whereas avidyA is not " . The reference they show is from SrI Sankara's gIta bhAshya wherein AchArya says, gIta bhAshya.13.2. avidyAyAH tAmasatvAt tAmasO hi pratyayaH AvaraNAtmakatvAt avidyA viparItagrAhakaH samSayOpasthApakO vA, agrahaNAtmakO vA. vivEkaprakASabhAvE tat abhAvAt, tAmasE cha AvaraNAtmakE timirAdi dOshE sati agrahaNAdEH avidyAtrayasya upalabdEH Translation:-- avidyA is of the nature of tamas. Since avidyA has the nature of covering, it is indeed a notion born of tamas; it makes one perceive contrarily, or it arouses doubt, or it leads to non-perception. For it disappears with the dawn of discrimination. And the three kind of avidyA, viz non-perception etc.[false perception and doubt.], are experienced when there are such defects as blindness etc. which are forms of tamas and have the nature of veiling. SrI Sankara further says, tathA sarvatraiva agrahaNa viparIta samSaya pratyayAstannimittaH karaNasyaiva kasyachit bhavitumarhanti, na jnAtuH kSEtrajnasya. Translation:-- Notions like non-perception, false perception, doubt, and their causes should, in all cases, pertain to some organ; not to the perceiver, the Knower of the field. ------------ ## In the above quote, SrI Sankara denies the view that avidyA is a quality of kshEtrajna, the knower of field. He says that, kshEtrajna in reality is ISvara Himself who appears to have become a mundane soul owing to the various adjuncts which are products of avidyA(kSEtrajnasya ISvarasyaiva sataH avidyAkRitOpAdhi bhEdataH samsAritvamiva bhavati). Now the points raised by the critics of the doctrine of abhinnatva of avidyA-mAyA may be summed up as follows:-- (1.) avidyA is only of the nature of tamas while mAyA is triguNAtmaka. avidyA is simply a dOsha of antaHkaraNa and thus it is Subjective. Whereas mAyA is the power of the supreme Lord and is defined precisely as " nAmarUpAtmaka " . Hence avidyA and mAyA are not the same. REPLY:-- There is nothing in this phenomenal existence which is made up of only one guNa. Everything here is triguNAtmaka. Both vEdAntins and sAnkhyans equally agree to this point and it is established even on the basis of gIta. SrI Krishna doesn't ask us simply to go beyond tamas but he asks us to rise beyond all the three guNAs. vide. gIta.14.20.SrI Sankara bhAshya:-- atItya - having transcended, having gone beyond even while living; EtAn - these; trIn - three; guNAn - qualities as have been described, which constitute the limiting adjunct mAyA; and dEhasamudbhavAn - which are the origin of the body, which are the seed of the birth of the body; dEhI - the embodied one, the enlightened one; vimuktaH - becoming free-even in this life; janma-mRityu-jarA-duhkhaiH - from birth death, old age and sorrow; aSnutE - attains; amRitam - Immortality. In this way he attains My nature. This is the idea. ## Further, in dEvI bhAgavatam we find the following verses: anyOnyamithunaH sarvE sarvE sarvatra gAminaH! rAjasO mithunam sattvam sattvasya mithunam rAjaH! tamasaScha api mithunE tE sattvarajasI ubhE! ubhayOH sattvarajasOr mithunam tama uchyate! naiSAmAdiH samprayOgO viyOgO vOpalabhayatE! Translation:-- All the guNAs are mutual consorts. All go everywhere(i.e. are omnipresent). sattva is the consort of rAjas, rAjas is the consort of sattva, both of these sattva and rAjas are the consorts of tamas and tamas is the consort of both sattva and rajas. The first union or disunion of these has never been seen !! -- Translation by SrI Swami virUpAkshAnanda ji. ## Hence, avidyA must also be triguNAtmaka but only with a preponderance of tamas. SrI VidyaraNya in his panchadaSi says:-- I.16. When the element of sattva is pure, Prakriti is known as mAyA; when impure (being mixed up with rajas and tamas) it is called avidyA. brahman, reflected in mAyA, is known as the omniscient ISvara, who controls mAyA. ## Now the view that avidyA is a dOsha of antaHkaraNa is untenable due to the following reasons:-- * antaHkaraNa itself is a product of avidyA. * If you say, avidyA is a dOsha of antaHkaraNa, it amounts to saying, antaHkaraNa can exist even in the absence of avidyA because organs such as eye are seen to exist both, with and without defects. But antaHkaraNa itself being a product of avidyA vanishes on *complete* destruction of avidyA. Hence for a jnAni we assume the persistence of avidyAlESa until his prArabdha is exhausted. Otherwise his body should fall down immediately upon the dawn of realization which doesn't happen according to SrI Sankara. * If avidyA is simply a defect of antaHkaraNa, mere knowing(vidyA) that I am brahman should deliver me ! SrI Sankara in his adhyAsa bhAshyam equates avidya with adhyAsa -- tamEtam evam lakshaNam adhyAsam panDitA avidyEti manyantE. At the same place, he defines vidyA that can destroy this avidyA as, " tat vivEkEna cha vastu svarUpAvadhAraNam vidyAm AhuH " -- The realization of the intrinsic nature of that entity by means of discrimination as vidyA. Again he says, Evam ayam anAdiH anantO naisargikOodhyAsO mithyApratyayarUpaH kartRitvabhOktRitva pravartakaH sarvalOka pratyakshaH. -- Thus this adhyAsa, which has neither beginning nor end, which flows eternally, in the form of a mystery, which propels the agent-ship or enjoyer-ship, is experienced by all. In Bhagavad gIta, we find AchArya saying, phalAvyatirEkAt avagatEH ! Self-realization is inseparable from its result(i.e. cessation of avidyA and its products). Hence, vidyA means Realization of Self or residing in one's own true Self. It is attained through Atma-anAtma vivEka in the form of adhyArOpa-apavAda. It is not the knowledge attained simply through SravaNa as " I am brahman " and " Thou art that " . Now, how to define avidyA? -- As SrI Sankara defines it in adhyAsa bhAshyam -- " tamEtam avidyAkhyam Atma anAtmanOH itarEtara adhyAsam.. " -- ..The superimposition mutually on the Self and non-Self, known thus as avidyA.. avidyA exists even in the absence of antaHkaraNa as is evident from the deep sleep experience. It itself being a product of avidyA, antaHkaraNa aids in the removal of avidyA. SrI vAsudEva yati gives an example to explain this:-- The light of the sun fosters the growth of grass. But the same sunlight, when it passes through a powerful lens, can burn it. So sunlight, though not opposed to grass, becomes opposed when it passes through the medium of lens. Though the light is the same, there arises opposition between them in these different conditions. Similarly, though the svarUpa jnAna of brahman in itself has no opposition to ignorance, there arises opposition between them when the svarUpa jnAna enters into vrittis and becomes one with them. During realization, the vritti jnAna, after completing its work of destroying ignorance and its results, disappears and ceases to exist. An example will clarify this: To clarify water you put alum in it. When the water has become clear the alum also dissolves and disappears. Only pure water remains. In the same way, the vrittis destroy themselves after doing their work, and the knowledge element in them remerges in the svarUpa jnAna. Then there is only non-duality. In this way knowledge destroys ignorance. We have already seen how SrI Sankara equates mAyA with avidyA Swami Vivekananda says:-- >> All that is real in nature is Brahman, only it appears to be this variety, or nature, through the superimposition of Maya. Maya being illusion cannot be said to be real, yet it is producing the phenomena. If it be asked, how can Maya, herself being illusion, produce all this, our answer is that what is produced being also ignorance, the producer must also be that. How can ignorance be produced by knowledge? So this Maya is acting in two ways as nescience and science (relative knowledge); and this science after destroying nescience or ignorance is itself also destroyed. This Maya destroys herself and what remains is the Absolute, the Essence of existence, knowledge, and bliss.<< ----------------------- (To be Continued......) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Continued from previous post.. >> 2nd Objection:-- avidyA is " described " as agrahaNa, viparItagrahaNa and samSaya. So it is not anirvachanIya. REPLY:-- viparItagrahaNa and samSaya are secondary things which arise after agrahaNa. agrahaNa is the essence of avidyA. It exists in all the three states of jIva. SrI Sankara says in his mANDUkya kArikA bhAshya I.5:-- darSanAdarSanavRittyOH svApasya tulyatvAt sushuptagrahaNArtham yatra supta ityAdi viSEshaNam thavA trishvapi sthAnEshu tattvApratibOdhalakshaNaH svApO viSishTha iti pUrvAbhyAm suShuptam vibhAjatE. Translation:-- Since sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality is a common feature of the two states (jAgrat and svapna) where there are presence and absence (respectively, of perceptible gross objects), therefore the adverbial clause, 'where the sleeper' etc., is used in order to keep in view the state of deep sleep. Or since sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality, is equally present in all the three states, deep sleep is being distinguished from the earlier two states. -- Translation from SrI Chittaranjan Naik ji's article. ## Thus, " supti " or slumber is the very feature of jIva which exists in all the three states and deep sleep is particularly characterized by marked absence of anyatAgrahaNa and samSaya. Here, an objection could be raised as, if avidyA exists in all the three states, how can brahman be established as absolutely real and non-dual? Reply:-- mANDUkya upanishad extends the normal definition of " sat " (i.e. trikAlAbhAdhita) to say, " That alone is 'sat' which remains uncontradicted even after the dawn of perfect knowledge when avidyA vanishes. " Thus turIya can be figuratively spoken of as a fourth *state* in order to supplement the already existing three states only to prove that brahman exists even after the cessation of avidyA ! >> We know that avidyA is anAdi. SrI Sankara uses the word, naisargika which denotes the anAditva of avidyA. Similarly, jIva-hood is also anAdi. Now if we consider pralaya, SrI Sankara says that even after pralaya, avidyA remains in its causal state. It cannot be possible if avidyA is solely a defect of antahkaraNa because antahkaraNa dissolves during pralaya. In aitarEya upanishad bhAshya we find SrI Sankara saying, " The three dreams of ISvara are Waking, Dreaming and Deep Sleep states are the three dreams of ISvara " . -- traya svapnAH jAgratsvapnasushuptAvasthAH. He again says, " It is in these abodes(Waking - Right eye; Dreaming - Mind; Deep Sleep - Ether in the heart) that ISvara mistaking himself as jIva, the individual soul, sojourning alternatively and long lost in deep sleep, the operation of the congenital nescience is not awakened though subjected to the severest hammerings of sorrow caused by thousands upon thousands of calamities. " ## Hence it is proved that avidyA is not simply a defect of antaHkaraNa as it is seen to exist in Deep Sleep also where antaHkaraNa is absent. >> Now let us take up the question, " Whose is avidyA " ? SrI Sankara himself raises this question in brahma sUtra bhAshya but doesn't answer in precise terms. As such there is no answer to this question. SrI Sankara goes on saying to whom this avidyA " is not " , but he never mentions clearly to whom/what this avidyA is ! The probable reason is that any sort of positive affirmation would lead to " circulus in probando " (or) " circular reasoning " . And this possibility of circular reasoning brings as a logical necessity, the anirvAchyatva of avidyA. Can we say SrI Sankara escapes from answering the question by saying " anirvachanIya " ? Swami Vivekananda says, * How can the perfect become the quasi-perfect; how can the pure, the absolute, change even a microscopic particle of its nature? But the Hindu is sincere. He does not want to take shelter under sophistry. He is brave enough to face the question in a manly fashion; and his answer is: " I do not know. I do not know how the perfect being, the soul, came to think of itself as imperfect, as joined to and conditioned by matter. " But the fact is a fact for all that. It is a fact in everybody's consciousness that one thinks of oneself as the body. The Hindu does not attempt to explain why one thinks one is the body. The answer that it is the will of God is no explanation. This is nothing more than what the Hindu says, " I do not know. " * " We can use the words, " I do not know " in two senses. In one way, they mean that we are lower than knowledge, and in the other way, that the thing is above knowledge. " Now SrI Sankara in brahma sUtra.2.1.7. says the same:-- * As the PurANa says: " Do not apply reasoning to what is unthinkable! The mark of the unthinkable is that it is above all material causes. " Therefore the cognition of what is supersensuous is based on the holy texts only. ----------------------------- Now I would like to speak out some personal views regarding the authenticity of the words of the Post-Sankara advaitins, As quoted by respected SrI Sastri ji, if SrI padmapAda, the foremost disciple of SrI Sankara himself says, " avidyA is anirvachanIya " . (or) if SrI surESvara says, " There is avidyA in sushupti " , who are we to refute them? When we say, padmapAda was wrong or surESvara was wrong, it amounts to saying that SrI Sankara was NOT a competent preceptor ! Because, as we all know guru-Sishya relationship(at least in advaita tradition) is such that the guru takes the whole responsibility of his disciple and teaches him the absolute truth and thus leads him towards mOksha. If SrI padmapAda and SrI sureSvara could not understand SrI Sankara's philosophy being the direct disciples of SrI Sankara for around 15(?)years how can we dream of understanding SrI Sankara just by reading his literary works?? I remember a small incident quoted in the memoirs of Swami Nikhilanandaji who is well known for his translations of works like mANDUkya upanishad with gauDapAda kArika, In January 1916 Swami Premananda and Swami Brahmananda(Direct disciples of SrI Ramakrishna) and few other monks left for East Bengal. They visited Kamakhya(a famous place for Mother worship), Mymensingh and Dhaka. On this occasion Brahmananda laid the foundation stone of Ramakrishna Mission in Dhaka. While there the swamis stayed at Agnes Villa and met some revolutionaries who were fighting for India's freedom. Swami Nikhilananda was then a college student and connected with a revolutionary society. He wrote in his memoirs:-- One morning I went to the Villa with two members of our revolutionary society. Swami Premananda took us to a small room in which there were two beds. Swami Brahmananda was seated on one of them. Swami Premananda took his seat on the other. After saluting Swami Brahmananda we sat on the floor. Swami Premananda introduced us to Swami Brahmananda and said to him: " Maharaj, look at these men. They are all fine boys, but completely misguided. They have become revolutionaries in order to serve India. Please give them right advice. " Usually very reserved, Swami Brahmananda asked us in an earnest voice to give up the method of violence and follow in the footsteps of Swami Vivekananda. He said that we must first build our character and only then take up the service of the country. By way of illustration he said: " If gunpowder is damp it will not explode. However you may try to ignite it, you will only be wasting match sticks. But if the powder is dry, one match will be enough to produce the explosion. " He emphasized that Swami Vivekananda was a real patriot and that we should follow his instructions. " But, sir, " I said, " you have not understood Swami Vivekananda. We read in his books that he wants us to shed our blood for India's freedom. That is what the revolutionaries are doing. You have not understood Swami Vivekananda's teachings. " That was too much for Swami Premananda. " You idiot! " he exclaimed. " You do not know with whom you are talking. We knew Swamiji for over twenty years. We ate together, played together, talked together, and discussed our plans of work together -- and we have not understood him! And you fools have read a few pages of his books and understand him completely! " Then, addressing Swami Brahmananda, he said: " Maharaj, did you hear that? He said that you did not understand Swamiji. Do you think he has the intelligence of a horse? Let me see if he can carry me on his back! " Suddenly he left his bed and asked me to go down on all fours. Sitting on my back, with his feet hanging down on both sides, he asked me to take him round the room, as if I were a real horse. I did as I was asked. After a minute or two he dismounted and said to me that everything would be all right. Swami Brahmananda looked at the whole affair benignly and again advised us first to moult our character. We left the room -- and that was the end of my connection with the revolutionary society!! ## After reading this incident, I feel, SrI padmapAda and SrI surESvara would do the same thing with any one who says that these great disciples of SrI Sankara had not understood the philosophy of their respected Guru ! :-)) Finally, let us not forget that SrI Sankara was an avatAra purusha!! !! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !! YOURS, SAMPATH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 Namaste. Ref: Posts 38499, 38563 and 38564. All our bhASyAs have been pulled out from the filing cabinet and spread on the table " for the information of Members and to make the vedantic position clear " . (Or, is it an over-zealous over-kill to prove the other guy wrong?) The conclusion: avidyA is anirvacanIya and mithyA is also anirvacanIya. If mithyA is anirvacanIya by authority, there is nothing under the Sun now left for us to describe in words because everything we have is mithyA. What is our Captain Shri Dennis-ji, therefore, trying to do? Compiling a list of definitions for novices to Advaita? Oh, what a futility in the light of the above conclusion! But, he seems to have succeeded in his attempts. Instead of mere definitions, he is getting solid essays from different enthusiastic contributors! Ramesh-ji has written at length on mithyA itself which our scholars avow is indescribable. How come? Well, there is the authority of Padmapada, Sureshwara and also Shankara (admitted indirectly though!). I cannot question their wisdom, for, if I question, there is a threat of punishment in 38564. I may have to trot on my four carrying our scholars on the back Sw. Nikhilanada-ji style. That would be a funny scene. I am better advised not to attempt such a feat at my rather very late age. Let me, therefore, try to understand the question in a manner the lay laity like me can understand by trying to define the above two terms. I see that I can attempt these one-liners whatever the scholars have to say: avidyA: Not knowing my real nature which makes me accept the world as real. mithyA: All that I objectify both internally and externally or all that is known to me. These are to-the-point definitions and, therefore, basic descriptions. One each for each term. Several other similar descriptions for the terms from different angles are possible with our knowledge of Vedanta. If so, both avidyA and mithyA are not strictly indescribable. They are describable. They are so because I conclude advaitically that I have avidyA and because I experience a mithyA world populated by mithyA objects. Then, what did Padmapada, Sureshwara et al mean? They probably meant that the `cause' or `origin' of avidyA which erects mithyA is indescribable because it can't be known. That is why avidyA is described as anAdi. Mind you all, even anAdi is a description. Shri Subhanu Saxena's thinking (quoted below) in his commentary on Adhyasya Bhashya probably points in this direction. QUOTE In the <pa~nchapaadikaa> sub-commentary, attributed to Padmapada, the word <mithyaa-j~naana> is explained as " <mithyaa cha tat aj~naanaM cha> " , meaning an unreal ignorance. The other way to decompose this word is as " <mithyaa cha tat j~naanam cha> " , meaning a misconception, or false knowledge. Using the former definition, the sub-commentator has explained that the cause of this <adhyaasa> or <avidyaa> is some other material cause [ <upaadaana kaaraNa> ] that he defines as a mysterious <avidyaa shakti>, that is indescribable [ <anirvachaniiya> ], and inert [ <jaDaatmikaa> ]. The later writers have used the term <muula-avidyaa>, or Root Ignorance, for this material cause, and equate it with the term <maayaa>. This gives a different flavour to the nature of <avidyaa> than a literal reading of <mithyaa-j~naana>. The question as to whether Shankara really meant just false knowledge or something more mysterious is the subject of great debate. This is not the place to go into this in detail. QUOTE Our scholars have already passed final judgment on a matter of great debate between post-Shankara advaitins. Only something about which we have and can have no knowledge is indescribable. The only thing I find fitting this description is the vedantic enigma or paradox of the one and only one, immutable Brahman vis-a-vis a mithyA universe of diversity. Upon self-realization, the paradox is understood to have not existed at all. No amount of words have ever been able to explain and resolve this conundrum to the satisfaction of the mithyA world and we can never ever reasonably hope to have an empirical answer to it.. The paradox per se is, therefore, the only thing truly anirvacanIya. AnirvacIyata points at an empirical impossibility. It has relevance only in the mithyA which demands describability on everything. Avidya is an element that we bring in to explain the paradox standing on our mithyA platform. In reality, it is a non-existent entity brought in to explain a non-existent paradox. It is fully describable with mithyA words. All the same, I can admit that it is not fully understandable due to its being termed anAdi. But, its existence from the point of view of the mithyA world is a foregone vedantic conclusion. We ought therefore to be cautious in our eagerness to call all and everything anirvacanIya by reading convenient meanings into the words of our sages. One man's opinion! PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 nairji : After reading your long and elaborate post on this subject this Shakti is tempted to quote these immortal words of Sri Ramana Maharishi with your kind permission ... " The universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. " so , Mithyam and Satyam are only concepts just as you and i are concepts ! Smile :-) may i quote verse 16 of chapter 2 of the Srimad Bhagvad Gita nairji ? nasato vidyate bhavo nabhavo vidyate satah ubhayor api drsto 'ntas Dtv anayos tattva-darsibhih Swami Gambirananda translates this verse thus : Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth. Hope , this clears up the clouds surrounding the concepts of Mithyam and Satyam ! the main drawback of all these discussions is we got stuck on Drishtantas - pot , clay , gold , ornaments , snake , rope, barren woman , blue lotus etc etc etc ..... enjoy - for a Shakti the world is always real for all this is HER DIVINE PLAY - KSHETRAJANA ! LOVE AND REGARDS One shaktis's exalted opinion ! Enjoy - only 10 days to Merry Xmas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 Nairji - PraNAms. I must say you have provided an indescribable description of what is mithyaa. Let me put my understanding on the ununderstandable! --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: > The conclusion: avidyA is anirvacanIya I am not sure if this is correct. Ignorance or avidya is lack of knowledge and if you ask me whether I know gaagaabuubu - I must say that I do not know and also I know that I do not know. I know my ignorance which is essentially the lack of knowledge. Then which part of avidya is anirvacaniiyaM? When did my ignorance of gaagaabuubu started - I must say that I did not know it from the beginning of my own existence in this world. Hence it is anaadi - in fact ignorance of any thing is anaadi. But when I come to know gaagaabuubu, then my ignorance is gone with the knowledge of gaagaabuubu. But we know that which exists cannot cease to exist (naabhaavo vidyate sataH). So if we apply that law, then if ignorance was existing before, it cannot go - it is a violation of the rule, unless that law cannot be applied to ignorance - why? It is not of sat swaruupam. But I know I have it - so it is not asat or non-existent either - Ignorance is also mithyaa - mithyaa is sat asat vilaxanam - that which is neither sat nor asat - is mithyaa. Hence ignorance itself comes under mithyaa. >and mithyA is also anirvacanIya. I will drop 'also' in the above statement - mithyaa is sat asat vilaxanam - that is the definition - it is neither sat nor asat, nor sat and asat - sannapyasanna ubyayaatmikaano. Madusuudhana Saraswati in his Advaitasiddhi provides 5 definitions of falsity. > If mithyA is anirvacanIya by authority, there is > nothing under the > Sun now left for us to describe in words because > everything we have > is mithyA. - That includes the sun too. Shankara says anything perceived is mithyaa - dRisyatvaat -Hence all pramaaNas that operate where there is pramaata, prameyam and pramaaNa - all come under mithyaa only - that include even the Vedas too as a part of para vidya. What is our Captain Shri Dennis-ji, > therefore, trying to > do? Compiling a list of definitions for novices to > Advaita? Whatever that can be defined is mithyaa too - since whatever that can be defined is an object of knowledge and therefore mithyaa. > Let me, therefore, try to understand the question in > a manner the lay > laity like me can understand by trying to define the > above two terms. > I see that I can attempt these one-liners whatever > the scholars have > to say: Nairji - whatever you understood is mithyaa too since you understood! Remember the sat part you cannot understand - since those who understand it understand it not! and asat part there is no need to understand since it is not there! > avidyA: Not knowing my real nature which makes me > accept the world > as real. That is an explanation after the fact! Since I seem to take the world as real and I am 'this' - Scripture points out that I do not know who I am since I am taking what I am not as I am. - This is because if we know that we are ignorant, half of the problem is already solved. Not only we do not know, we do not know that we do not know - and there lies our big problem and that is samsaara. > mithyA: All that I objectify both internally and > externally or all > that is known to me. Partly true since in everything I know, there is sat part and asat part. Partly I know the truth partly I take it as something else - hence adhyaasa involves satyam plus asatyam mixture. Pure ignorance is bliss but half knowledge is dangerous. That is what our true position. I know myself too as existent and conscious entity - and that is true - but I do not know I am ananda swaruupam too and that is what I am looking far all the time. > If so, both avidyA and > mithyA are not > strictly indescribable. They are describable. They > are so because I > conclude advaitically that I have avidyA and because > I experience a > mithyA world populated by mithyA objects. What is indescribable is logical explanation for Brahman, who is pure absolute consciousness, to appear as many constituting conscious entities and unconscious world. That is anirvachaniiyam - How one becomes many - that is the maayaa shakti which is indescribable since it is there as long as one sees many. The same thing is described by Bhagavaan Ramanuja as Liila vibhuuti of the Lord where he does not agree of any thing that is mithyaa - for him that which is not sat is asat and that which is asat is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 Namaste Sadaji. Your message 38587. May I respectfully point out that you don't seem to have read the complete thread. The conclusion that avidya is anirvacanIya is not mine. I was quoting others who conlcuded so by qoting authority. If you think that it is incorrect, I am with you. I am also in full agreement with whatever you have said in the remainder of your post. I have no doubts about what is mithya. In fact, your whole post represents the opinion I have always held. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Nairji - PraNAms. > > I must say you have provided an indescribable > description of what is mithyaa. Let me put my > understanding on the ununderstandable! > > --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote: > > > The conclusion: avidyA is anirvacanIya > > I am not sure if this is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Madusuudhana Saraswati in his Advaitasiddhi provides 5 definitions of falsity. praNAms Hare Krishna Yes, avidyA/adhyAsa cannot be categorized as *anirvachanIya*, because shankara himself has taken trouble to explain this concept in his preamble to sUtra bhAshya...Surprisingly same is the case with mAya/mithyA also...shankara here at one place says that mAyA is anirvachanIya (tattvAnyatvAbhyAm) but at the same time he also describes it as avidyAkruta, Ishwara shakti, avyAkruta etc. etc. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.