Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

[Guest guest]

Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

Namaste.

nyAya and vaisheShika schools of philosophy, as also the bhATTa school of pUrvamiimAmsA, recognize abhAva or non-existence as a category and divide it into four types as will be described below. advaita does not recognize abhAva as a category. According to it non-existence is identical with the substratum on which the non-existence of an object is postulated. Thus, when we say that there is no pot on this floor it means that there is only the floor.

Although advaita does not recognize abhAva, it is referred to in the bhAshya of Shri Shankara for refuting the objections of nyAya based on abhAva. Examples of this are found in the bhAshya on br. up. 1.2.1 and taitt. up. bhAshya introduction. An understanding of the four kinds of abhAva according to nyAya is therefore useful for understanding the bhAshya. These are described below.

1. prAg-abhAva- This is the non-existence of a particular pot before (prAg) it was made. This is known as antecedent non-existence. This has no beginning because this particular pot was always non-existent before it was made. But this prAg-abhAva ends as soon as the pot is made. It therefore has an end.

2. pradhvamsa-abhAva—This is the non-existence after destruction. pradhvamsa means destruction. This is known as annihilative non-existence. This begins as soon as the pot is destroyed. But it has no end because the destroyed pot can never come back.

3. atyanta-abhAva—This is the same as limitation in space. An object does not exist at a particular time in any place other than where it is at that time because it is limited in space. This term is applicable only to things which exist somewhere and not to things like the horn of a rabbit which have no existence anywhere at all. This is known as absolute non-existence.

4. anyonya-abhAva- This is actually the difference of one thing from another. A pot is not a cloth. There is anyonya-abhAva between the two. This is known as mutual non-existence.

All the objects in the world have all these four kinds of abhAva, except AkAsha which is all-pervading and cannot therefore have atyanta-abhAva anywhere. They all have a beginning and an end. They are limited in space. Each object is different from all other objects.

But brahman cannot have any of these abhAva's. It has neither origin nor destruction and so it does not have the first two kinds of non-existence. brahman is not limited in space and so it cannot have atyanta-abhAva anywhere. All objects are superimposed on brahman and so no object is different from brahman. It has therefore no anyonya-abhAva.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri--

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 8/17/08, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

1. prAg-abhAva- This is the non-existence of a particular pot before (prAg) it

was made. This is known as antecedent non-existence. This has no beginning

because this particular pot was always non-existent before it was made. But this

prAg-abhAva ends as soon as the pot is made. It therefore has an end.

----------------------

Sastriji - praNAms

 

Beautiful presentation - If I can add to it

 

Hence the object is also defined as - prAgAbhAva pratiyoginI - counter to its

antecedent non-existence before. Therefore every object is a creation. It came

into existence during creation, countering its non-existence before its

creation. Even though it is prAgAbhAva, it is there in potential form, as per

advaita. Hence creation is not a non-existent pot coming into existence as in

asat kaarya vaada but pot existing in potential form coming into existence into

grosser form. Similarly all jiivas are in potential form coming into existence

when the creation manifolds.

 

Since avidya is not created -it is called prAgAbhAva apratiyoginI - that negates

its creation since it is beginningless. On the other hand it can get eliminated

by knowledge. It has no beginning but has an end by the operation of appropriate

pramANa.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Thanks to Sastri-ji and you for your the informative posts on the

four types of abhAva.

 

If you kindly permit me, can I express the following thought?

 

By proclaiming that avidyA is anAdi (beginningless), isn't vedAnta

saying that it has never begun or, in other words, never been created

at all? PramANa belongs to the realm of avidyA. So, the so-called

elimination of avidyA by knowledge gained through pramANa is a non-

occurrence in *reality* which we suppose occurs due to being under

the thraldom of avidyA only! Naturally, therefore, we don't have to

get concerned about the end of something that had never begun at

all. Isn't that the actual knowledge required?

 

A few days back, our Anupam-ji was asking questions about avidyA. I

was wondering if the above understanding would answer his queries

better.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>> Since avidya is not created -it is called prAgAbhAva apratiyoginI -

that negates its creation since it is beginningless. On the other

hand it can get eliminated by knowledge. It has no beginning but has

an end by the operation of appropriate pramANa.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

> Sastriji - praNAms

>

> Beautiful presentation - If I can add to it

>

> Hence the object is also defined as - prAgAbhAva pratiyoginI -

counter to its antecedent non-existence before. Therefore every

object is a creation. It came into existence during creation,

countering its non-existence before its creation. Even though it is

prAgAbhAva, it is there in potential form, as per advaita. Hence

creation is not a non-existent pot coming into existence as in asat

kaarya vaada but pot existing in potential form coming into

existence into grosser form. Similarly all jiivas are in potential

form coming into existence when the creation manifolds.

>

> Since avidya is not created -it is called prAgAbhAva apratiyoginI -

that negates its creation since it is beginningless. On the other

hand it can get eliminated by knowledge. It has no beginning but has

an end by the operation of appropriate pramANa.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Thank you, Sadananda-ji.

I entirely agree with you. Unlike the naiyAyikas who are

asatkAryavAdins, advaita holds that the effect pre-exists in the

cause. Not only that, the effect is nothing but the cause in another

form. So it is not even pariNAma or transformation as the sAnkhyAs

hold.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Sada-ji.

>

> Thanks to Sastri-ji and you for your the informative posts on the

> four types of abhAva.

>

> If you kindly permit me, can I express the following thought?

>

> By proclaiming that avidyA is anAdi (beginningless), isn't vedAnta

> saying that it has never begun or, in other words, never been

created

> at all? PramANa belongs to the realm of avidyA. So, the so-

called

> elimination of avidyA by knowledge gained through pramANa is a non-

> occurrence in *reality* which we suppose occurs due to being under

> the thraldom of avidyA only! Naturally, therefore, we don't have

to

> get concerned about the end of something that had never begun at

> all. Isn't that the actual knowledge required?

>

> A few days back, our Anupam-ji was asking questions about avidyA.

I

> was wondering if the above understanding would answer his queries

> better.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ____________________

 

Dear Nair-ji,

avidya is the same as mAyA which is the power of the Lord. It is

therefore eternal, without any beginning or end. When a particular

person realizes the Self, mAyA ceases to operate as far as he is

concerned, but, being the power of Ishvara it cannot have any end at

any time. Krishna refers to mAyA as `My mAyA' in the gItA. avidya

being the same as mAyA, we cannot say that it never existed.

There is a shloka which mentions six things as beginningless in

avidya. This is a shloka quoted in many advaitic works. It is as

follows:

jIva Isha vishuddhA cit tathA jIveshvarayorbhidA |

avidyA taccitoryogaH ShaDasmAkam anAdayaH ||

" For us (advaitins) six things are beginningless. These are—jIva,

Ishvara, the pure Consciousness, the difference between jIva and

Ishvara, avidyA, and the union of avidya with pure Consciousness " .

Thus not only avidyA, but even the union of avidyA and Consciousness

is beginningless. It is nowhere stated that when a person becomes a

jnAni he realizes that he was never under the influence of avidyA.

When a person who has mistaken a rope for a snake realizes his

mistake, he does not say " I never had the wrong notion that it was a

snake " . On the other hand he would say " I thought it was a snake,

but now I have realized that it was a mistake " . Thus ignorance of

the rope was there and that made him see a snake, but that ignorance

was removed subsequently. Similarly avidyA was there which made the

person see the world as real, but when he attained Self-knowledge

the avidyA was destroyed.

gItA 5.16 says, " But in the case of those whose ignorance has been

destroyed (nAshitam) by knowledge, their knowledge reveals, like the

sun, the supreme Reality " . Thus here also the ignorance is said to

have been destroyed and not that it was found to be never there.

Regards

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

When a person who has mistaken a rope for a snake realizes his

mistake, he does not say " I never had the wrong notion that it was a

snake " . On the other hand he would say " I thought it was a snake,

but now I have realized that it was a mistake " . Thus ignorance of

the rope was there and that made him see a snake, but that ignorance

was removed subsequently.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I'd like to look at these things little bit differently...In the snake & rope analogy, it would be appropriate to say " I had the wrong knowledge of rope and now I realized that it is indeed rope " ...But in brahma jignAsa, the jnAni cannot say I had ajnAna sometime back & now I realized that I am brahman...IMHO, jnAni's realization would reveal him the fact that there was/is/never will be a time that he is jIva & *after* realization *become* brahman....jnAni realizes that his true svarUpa is brahman only and this brahman can never ever had an ajnAna that can be destroyed with the help of jnAna...So, vidyA, avidyA vyavahAra holds good only in jIva bhAva and jnAni (who is nothing but brahman) would not maintain his avidyAkruta jIva bhAva to declare that 'once upon a time I*had* avidyA " ...In short, dealings of the ignorance (avidyA/ajnAna) and the knowledge (vidyA/jnAna) about the self, is itself in the realm of avidyA or ignorance, they are not related to Atman/jnAni at any point of time.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : I donot want to take up the issue of identification i.e. avidyA = mAya here...I know, Sri shAstri prabhuji would not like to discuss these things in detail with me.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dear Sastri-ji.

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

 

I am afraid I have some disagreement here. The memory of snake

delusion post rope-realizaton cannot be applied verbatim to Self-

Realization. I believe Shri Bhaskarji has effectively articulated

this in his latest post and, at the current stage of my development,

I am compelled to go with him.

 

Nevertheless, I must say that your post was indeed very informative

and reading it was a rewarding experience despite the fact that it

expresses a different opinion. It will certainly induce me to

reflect further on the issue.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

..... It is nowhere stated that when a person becomes a

> jnAni he realizes that he was never under the influence of avidyA.

> When a person who has mistaken a rope for a snake realizes his

> mistake, he does not say " I never had the wrong notion that it was

a

> snake " . On the other hand he would say " I thought it was a snake,

> but now I have realized that it was a mistake " . Thus ignorance of

> the rope was there and that made him see a snake, but that

ignorance

> was removed subsequently. Similarly avidyA was there which made the

> person see the world as real, but when he attained Self-knowledge

> the avidyA was destroyed. ....

[Guest guest]

Namaskar to all!

 

I've been following the thread on " snake & rope analogy " with great

interest and have honestly learnt a lot from the discussions.

 

I am no scholar on Advaitism. However, I would like to express my

feelings here in response to the expressions in this forum on the nature

of 'avidyA' or 'mAyA'. It has been opined that mAyA, just like God, is

without a beginning or an end...this is something I have failed to

convince myself with. I repeat, I consider myself just to be learner.

What I feel is that in stead of saying that 'mAyA' is the power of God,

it would be appropriate to say that mAyA has been created (by God)

through His power...it's a manifestation of His power. And whatever that

has been created must have a beginning and, therefore, an end, too. It

can be dissolved into non-existence. But still, it is often said to be

without a beginning in the relative sense because it is not known

definitely as to when was it created or when did it come into existence.

But, only God, nothing else, can be without a beginning or an end. Any

other view to the contrary leaves room for dualism, even if it is

something that is created with His power.

 

Kind regards! Jai Guru!

 

Pravesh

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Dear Sastri-ji.

>

> Thanks for the detailed explanation.

>

> I am afraid I have some disagreement here. The memory of snake

> delusion post rope-realizaton cannot be applied verbatim to Self-

> Realization. I believe Shri Bhaskarji has effectively articulated

> this in his latest post and, at the current stage of my development,

> I am compelled to go with him.

>

> Nevertheless, I must say that your post was indeed very informative

> and reading it was a rewarding experience despite the fact that it

> expresses a different opinion. It will certainly induce me to

> reflect further on the issue.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________________

>

>

> advaitin , " snsastri " sn.sastri@ wrote:

>

> .... It is nowhere stated that when a person becomes a

> > jnAni he realizes that he was never under the influence of avidyA.

> > When a person who has mistaken a rope for a snake realizes his

> > mistake, he does not say " I never had the wrong notion that it was

> a

> > snake " . On the other hand he would say " I thought it was a snake,

> > but now I have realized that it was a mistake " . Thus ignorance of

> > the rope was there and that made him see a snake, but that

> ignorance

> > was removed subsequently. Similarly avidyA was there which made the

> > person see the world as real, but when he attained Self-knowledge

> > the avidyA was destroyed. ....

>

[Guest guest]

I consider myself just to be learner.

What I feel is that in stead of saying that 'mAyA' is the power of God,

it would be appropriate to say that mAyA has been created (by God)

through His power...it's a manifestation of His power. And whatever that

has been created must have a beginning and, therefore, an end, too. It

can be dissolved into non-existence. But still, it is often said to be

without a beginning in the relative sense because it is not known

definitely as to when was it created or when did it come into existence.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

In advaita, the conclusive definition of the concept of mAya is not possible..Hence it has been put under *anirvachanIya* category..However, shankara himself says mAya is Ishwara shakti in gIta bhAshya...(see for example in 13th chapter verse 19)..And shruti also says Ishwara is mAyavi and prakruti is mAya...but these terminologies hold good when we see the world as separate from nondual self through avidyA..In this scenario of perception, we say, non-dual self is Ishwara / mAyAvi and his creative power is mAya...So, it cannot be said that Ishwara has created mAya intentionally..OTOH mAya is conjured up by avidyA where we think this world is the creation of Ishwara. shankara has given the definition of mAya in kArika : sA cha mAya na vidyate mAya iti avidyAmanasya akhyA...(mAya does not exist, the idea being that the term *mAya* relates to something non-existing*)....I hope this would help you to understand the concept of mAya upto some extent...However, you can wait for more authoritative clarifications from scholars of this forum...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Shree Nairji and Bhaskarji - PraNAms

As I understand,

 

1. Shree Sastriji has provided the correct advaitic position. First,  any

ignorance has to be beginningless but will end with knowledge. If I am ignorant

of chemistry, when did my ignorance of chemistry begin if one asks, the valid

answer is  from the beginning I did not know chemistry. If ignorance has a

beginning, then before it began I was knowledgable; if so, how I can I become

ignorant again. When I learn chemistry, my ignorance of chemistry is gone. Hence

beginningless ignorance of chemistry is ended with knowledge of chemistry.

2. Epistemologically knowledge is eternal; this applies  not only to the

knowledge of Brahman but to all objective knowledge too. Avidya that is anaadi

appears to cover the knowledge from the point of jiiva, when I say I do not know

chemistry, the knowledge of chemistry which is eternal is covered 'as though' by

the vial of ignorance.  The vial of ignorance is removed slowly when appropriate

pramaaNa operates.  The vial is not on knowledge it is in the vision of the

jiiva who is unable to see the knowledge due to ignorance veiling him.

 

Thus knowledge that is ever present gets revealed by appropriate

pramaaNa. PramaaNa is operated by a pramaata. Hence knowledge is revealed only

to the one who is operating the pramaaNa.   This applies to either chemistry

knowledge or Brahman knowledge.  The statement is the same, since the vial of

ignorance that is covering the vision of the truth is removed for the pramaata.

 

Hence I can say the knowledge that is ever present is now revealed to me when I

used the appropriate pramaaNa. The same applies to Brahman, only with the

condition that in this case, the knowledge includes the understanding the

pramaata, pramaaNa and prameye are all Brahman only.  Hence unlike the case of

chemistry where the knower of chemistry is different from the known chemistry,

here the Brahma jnaani, in gaining the knowledge of Brahman becomes Brahman. 

But jnaani is still an upahita chaitanya like pot space - (see my recent post on

knowledge series -15). Even though pot-space recognizes that I am the total

space, due to the constraints of the pot-walls, it can still operate at

vyavahaara level and say I am pot space and I know that I am total space too.

Upaadhiis will be there till prarabda is gone.  One can say that Upaadhis are

mainited by Iswara himself for loka kalyaNam.  Hence jnaani can say I am a

realized person in these upaadhiis and

I have realized that I am the totality that includes the upaadhiis. Otherwise

there will not be a realized master to teach.  When teaching is going on the

teacher sees the student and teaches him that there is no duality whatsoever

including the teacher-taught duality.

Hence jnaani can claim at vyavahaara level that the ignorance that he had is

gone. In fact when the student realizes, he prostrates to the teacher and says

because of his grace he is able to gain the knowledge. Mundaka Up in the end

glorifies that jnaani.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

I'd like to look at these things little bit differently. ..

[Guest guest]

praNAms to everyone in this group and sashtaang praNAms to

Sastri-ji who initiated a wonderful discussion.

 

> I'd like to look at these things little bit differently...In the snake &

> rope analogy, it would be appropriate to say " I had the wrong knowledge

> of rope and now I realized that it is indeed rope " ...But in brahma jignAsa,

> the jnAni cannot say I had ajnAna sometime back & now I realized that I am

> brahman...IMHO, jnAni's realization would reveal him the fact that there

> was/is/never will be a time that he is jIva & *after* realization *become*

> brahman....jnAni realizes that his true svarUpa is brahman only and this

> brahman can never ever had an ajnAna that can be destroyed with the help of

> jnAna...So, vidyA, avidyA vyavahAra holds good only in jIva bhAva and jnAni

> (who is nothing but brahman) would not maintain his avidyAkruta jIva bhAva

> to declare that 'once upon a time I*had* avidyA " ...In short, dealings of

> the ignorance (avidyA/ajnAna) and the knowledge (vidyA/jnAna) about the

> self, is itself in the realm of avidyA or ignorance, they are not related

> to Atman/jnAni at any point of time.

 

I have a couple of points to make to Shri Bhaskar-ji and Shri Nair-ji (who

asked a very pertinent question). Please excuse my mistakes as I am just

a beginner.

 

1. Brahman exists beyond time. It can be considered to be in the true

" timeless scale " .

 

2. avidya, by definition is a mis-apprehension, and is only in the

framework of time.

 

3. When it is said that avidya is anAdi, it does not mean that avidya

jumps into the realm of timelessness. it just means that no one

can never pinpoint and say that the mis-apprehension began

NOW, where NOW refers to a particular point of time. Its causality

etc make the mAya aspect as anirvachaniiya.

 

4. The jnAni, when he says " previously I had a mis-apprehension and

now I did not " , he is talking within the framework of time. Clearly,

this is a vyAvaharic statement, though at a *higher level* for people

who still are unable wallowing in mis-identification.

 

5. A jnAni, when he says " there never was avidya " , he is obviously

talking in the pAramarthic level. This cannot be used for teaching

purposes, like the ajAtivAda statements of gaudapAdAcharya.

 

With these above statements, I see no contradiction in Shri Sastri-ji's

statements. Please point out the disagreement.

 

praNAms again.

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

5. A jnAni, when he says " there never was avidya " , he is obviously

talking in the pAramarthic level. This cannot be used for teaching

purposes, like the ajAtivAda statements of gaudapAdAcharya.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I dont have any specific observations on your points 1 to 4...However, I would like to humbly submit that there is lot of difference in saying jnAni never ever had avidyA & jnAni would not say there was never avidyA while teaching...Ofcourse, there is avidyA & that is the reason why all these discussions :-)) But point here is whether jnAni after *becoming* brahman (brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati...so he is brahman itself) can assert I am brahman NOW but sometime back this brahman had avidyA?? dont you think brahman is trikAla abhAdita satya?? how can a jnAni (who is nothing but consciousness initself) still identifies himself in avidyAkruta upAdhi and say this this chaitanya had the avidyA ??As you know, there is no vidyAvidya vyavahAra in brahman...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Pravesh K. Singh " <praveshksingh wrote:

> I am no scholar on Advaitism. However, I would like to express my

> feelings here in response to the expressions in this forum on the nature

> of 'avidyA' or 'mAyA'. It has been opined that mAyA, just like God, is

> without a beginning or an end...this is something I have failed to

> convince myself with. I repeat, I consider myself just to be learner.

 

Namashkaar Shri Pravesh-ji,

 

This is my understanding. The learned members of the group will

correct it.

 

Consider someone walking on a thin circular line, with a large

radius. Ever since he knew, he was always walking on the circle.

 

Everyone knows that there exists no point on such a circle, which

can be termed as " the beginning " . The more someone walks on the

circle to find its beginning, he finds that there is no beginning at all!

 

In fact, his assumption that the circle has a beginning is erroneous.

The search for the beginning of the circle, while remaining all the

time on the cicle, involves more walking on the circle. To the outsider,

it will seem ridiculous. This is the concept of beginning-less of

the mAya-cycle.

 

The walker usually asks: " when will the walking end? It seems endless "

The person outside will say walk out using the asanga as shastra

(detachment as weapon).

 

Once that someone walks out of the circle, they can be asked:

" where did you walk out of the circle? " He will point to a location

on the circle, while himself remaining outside the circle.

 

This is my understanding of the concept of timelessness of mAya.

 

Namaste

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Baskarji -PraNAms.

 

I have done that exhaustively in the post 15 on knowledge and the means of

knowledge series, posted only last week. 

 

No.  It does not violate what shankara says -since he was there for us to teach

advaita vedanta - without the upahita caitnya, we would not have been blessed so

much.

 

Remember Krishna's statement -pandavaanam dhananjaH - I am Arjuna among the

pandavaas. Being himself Arujna how can he teach Arjuna? We cannot say Krishna

was not a jnaani? - Jnaani can operate with duality and from that vyavahaara

reference, the statement is that ignorance that I had is no more - is valid;

Jnaani sees the duality but not take the duality as reality - as long as we

undersand the reference state from which the statement is made, the statement is

valid.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

Could you please elaborate bit more how this stand of yours is different from

that of bhatruprapancha' s bhEdAbhEda vAda?? The above is what exactly shankara

refuted in bruhadAraNyaka upanishad bhAshya...

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> 5. A jnAni, when he says " there never was avidya " , he is obviously

> talking in the pAramarthic level.

 

praNAms Shri Bhaskar-ji,

 

Please replace the word 'jnAni' with 'guru' in my statement #5.

 

Now, kindly excuse me from this discussion.

 

praNAms again,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Hari Om!

 

Sada-ji and all others, my humble pranams to all of you for this

beautiful discussion.

 

And I must say I agree with Madathil-ji here. The post rope-

realization might sound nice but from the absolute stand point, what

ever little I learned from my teacher, no such thing...

 

Can the ever resplendent Glorius SUN know the presence of Darkness?

then where is darkness? we know absence of Sun *is* darkness. But

if we tell the Sun that there is Darkness and if the Sun listens to

our bodha looks around for darkness --- he is never going to find it

because where he is.... IT IS NOT THERE... BRAHMAN ALONE EXISTS.

 

 

Love & Light,

Madhava

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Dear Sastri-ji.

>

> Thanks for the detailed explanation.

>

> I am afraid I have some disagreement here. The memory of snake

> delusion post rope-realizaton cannot be applied verbatim to Self-

> Realization. I believe Shri Bhaskarji has effectively articulated

> this in his latest post and, at the current stage of my

development,

> I am compelled to go with him.

>

> Nevertheless, I must say that your post was indeed very

informative

> and reading it was a rewarding experience despite the fact that it

> expresses a different opinion. It will certainly induce me to

> reflect further on the issue.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________________

>

>

> advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote:

>

> .... It is nowhere stated that when a person becomes a

> > jnAni he realizes that he was never under the influence of

avidyA.

> > When a person who has mistaken a rope for a snake realizes his

> > mistake, he does not say " I never had the wrong notion that it

was

> a

> > snake " . On the other hand he would say " I thought it was a

snake,

> > but now I have realized that it was a mistake " . Thus ignorance

of

> > the rope was there and that made him see a snake, but that

> ignorance

> > was removed subsequently. Similarly avidyA was there which made

the

> > person see the world as real, but when he attained Self-

knowledge

> > the avidyA was destroyed. ....

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji, Sastriji, Nairji, Bhaskarji and other Satsandhis:

 

From the ongoing discussions, I have the following understanding:

Both Nairji, Bhaskarji states the facts of Paramarthika Sathya where

as Sadaji and Sastriji (correctly) states the facts of Vyavaharika

Sathya. I don't believe that advaitins have no disagreements with

regard to advaitic position of the Paramarthika Sathya. But we the

advaitins do have disagreements or misunderstandings, clarifications

and criticisms (as we have been illustrating them through more than

41,000 postings in this list) and consequently the postings by Sadaji

on " Knowledge and means of Knowledge " are timely and very relevant.

We are also fortunate to get supporting facts on Advaita Philosophy

by Sastriji in enhancing our knowledge. Most of the time, as Jivas,

we enjoy tossing the facts of Paramarthika Sathya to Vyavaharika

Sathya and vice-versa and even this is due to the spell of mAyA!

 

Here is what I believe that we know about the Paramarthika Sathya

(Absolute Reality):

(1) The Brahman alone exists.

(2) The Brahman alone knows the Brahman.

(3) By knowing the Brahman, everything else that need to be know

become known.

 

There is no proof for this statement and this knowledge about the

Brahman is from the Vedas. (Shastra Pramana)

 

Sastriji has beautifully eplained the advaitic position regarding the

Vyavaharika Sathya (Relative Reality):

 

jIva Isha vishuddhA cit tathA jIveshvarayorbhidA |

avidyA taccitoryogaH ShaDasmAkam anAdayaH ||

 

" For us (advaitins) six things are beginningless. These are—jIva,

Ishvara, the pure Consciousness, the difference between jIva and

Ishvara, avidyA, and the union of avidya with pure Consciousness. "

 

Let me state my understanding of what is being stated, what we can

say and what we can't explain: First, I believe that we everything

that we discuss, state and conjecture are parts and parcel of

Vyavaharika Sathya. Also we know nothing more other than the above 3

statements that derive from the Vedas regarding the Nature of

Brahman. Though we may be able to state the Truth expressed by the

above 3 statements using alternate equivalent facts that may be more

appealing but the essence will remain the same.

 

What we can say or conjecture:

a: The appearance of the existence of Vyavaharika Sathya is due to

mAyA

b: Jnani gets liberated from the spell of mAyA.. Once again we may

be able to state the same Truth using alternate but equivalent facts

that could be more appealing.

c: Most importantly, all such statements, theorems, corollaries and

examples will also fall within the Vyavaharika Sathya.

d: Also our understanding of the Paramarthika Sathya also falls

within the Vyavaharika Sathya. What does this mean? This means that

we need to go back and read the advaitic position posted by Sastriji

about the six things that are beginningless!

 

What we can't explain? I believe that as Jivas, we don't know the

nature of the Brahman and consequently we can't identify who is a

Jivamukta or who is nota Jivamukta. As a Jiva, we don't know the

Paramarthika Sathya except that we can either accept or reject its

existence. This verse states that within a family, if one person

knows the Brahman, not only that person, but also all the family

members gets the spill-over effects.

 

The Mundaka Upanishads contain many profound statements on the Nature

of Brahman and let me quote this profound statement which is

applicable to all list members who are part of the `advaitin family!'

 

" He who knows the Brahman becomes the Brahman. No one ignorant of

Brahman is ever born in his family. He passes beyond all sorrow. He

overcomes evil. Freed from the fetters of ignorance he becomes

immortal. " (3.2.9)

 

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Shree Maadhava - PraNAms

 

As I see it

 

One has to be careful from what reference the statement is made. From Brahman

point the whole discussion has no meaning.

 

Hence the reference is from the jiiva and jiivan mukta point only. Even though

everything is Brahman - a jiiva-hood arises due to ajnaana. From his point only

all the discussion is valid. That there is a creation and the creation is due to

Brahman with maaya as upaadhi, etc, all are valid from vyavahaara point only.

 

Consciousness illumines even the ignorance also - so it is not opposite to

ignorance; nay it is not opposite to anything. We are able to talk about

ignorance only because we are conscious of it - that I do not know that I am

Brahman since I am taking myself as jiiva. All the nine yards of karma and

upaadhiis etc follow.

 

Realization is only by jiiva -in fact occurs only in the mind of jiiva since all

pervading Brahman need not have to realize - it is ever shining principle.

 

I who take myself that I am jiiva or this and this have to recognize that it is

due to my ignorance of my real nature, I am in fact the pure consciousness

because of which I am even conscious of this and this as well as the ignorance

because of which I am taking myself to be this and this. When I shift my

attention (using the mind) to that consciousness that I am and firmly establish

myself in that, I recognize my real nature. Now as long as upaadhiis exists (due

to praarabda karma) I can still transact with the upaadhiis as my upaadhiis.

Thus knowing very well I am pure consciousness Brahman, I can still operate at

local entity as mukta jiiva, teaching those who come to me for knowledge. Hence

the declaration by the teacher that ignorance that I had is no more is valid

with reference to the mind that is making the statement.

 

Pure Brahman- neither has ignorance not has to raalize anything since there is

nothing to realize. Vedanta which is also para vidya teaches the jiiva about his

true nature.

 

Consciousness that is all pervading illumines the same way both jnaani as well

as ajnaani. Only the difference is jnaani knows that he was ajnaani before and

due to the grace of his teacher now knows his real nature while the others is

still struggling.

 

According to advaita, as long as upaadhiis are there, the upahita caitanya is

there to illumine the local upaadhiis, jnaani operates as jnaani and ajnaani

operates as ajnaani. That is one uses as equipments as equipements to be used

while the other takes himself to be the equipments. jnaani knows that he was

doing that same thing before hence he has infinite compassion to the student who

came to learn vedanta.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Madhava Turumella <madhava wrote:

 

 

Can the ever resplendent Glorius SUN know the presence of Darkness?

then where is darkness? we know absence of Sun *is* darkness. But

if we tell the Sun that there is Darkness and if the Sun listens to

our bodha looks around for darkness --- he is never going to find it

because where he is.... IT IS NOT THERE... BRAHMAN ALONE EXISTS.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> I'd like to look at these things little bit differently...In the

snake &

> rope analogy, it would be appropriate to say " I had the wrong

knowledge

> of rope and now I realized that it is indeed rope " ...But in brahma

jignAsa,

> the jnAni cannot say I had ajnAna sometime back & now I realized

that I am

> brahman...IMHO, jnAni's realization would reveal him the fact that

there

> was/is/never will be a time that he is jIva & *after* realization

*become*

> brahman....jnAni realizes that his true svarUpa is brahman only

and this

> brahman can never ever had an ajnAna that can be destroyed with

the help of

> jnAna...So, vidyA, avidyA vyavahAra holds good only in jIva bhAva

and jnAni

> (who is nothing but brahman) would not maintain his avidyAkruta

jIva bhAva

> to declare that 'once upon a time I*had* avidyA " ...In short,

dealings of

> the ignorance (avidyA/ajnAna) and the knowledge (vidyA/jnAna)

about the

> self, is itself in the realm of avidyA or ignorance, they are not

related

> to Atman/jnAni at any point of time.

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

> PS : I donot want to take up the issue of identification i.e.

avidyA =

> mAya here...I know, Sri shAstri prabhuji would not like to discuss

these

> things in detail with me.

 

Bhaskar-ji,

We who have studied vedAnta know intellectually that we are brahman

even now and that the world has no reality. But the difference

between us and a jnAni is that we still look upon the world as real

and we are affected by the joys and sorrows which we consider as

coming to us from the world, while the jnAni is not affected.

Suppose one of us attains Self-realization. Will he then say, " I

always looked upon the world as unreal and I was not affected by

joys and sorrows even before I attained Self-realization " ? If he

says so, and if it is a true statement, then it means that he was a

realized person even earlier and did not get Self-realization only

now. Being always brahman is one thing and knowing it, as an actual

experience, is another thing. The jnAni was no doubt brahman even

before he attained Self-knowledge, but he experiences it only after

realization. Before that he did not experience it and so he had

ignorance. He, like all of us, considered the world to be real and

was affected by joys and sorrows. The past cannot be changed. The

fact that he was ignorant earlier cannot be erased by the subsequent

attainment of Self-knowledge.

It does not make any difference to the above arguments whether

avidyA is considered as the same as mAya or different. I am aware of

the difference in views among traditional AchAryas on this point.

But I need not go into all that now.

What I have said above is from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the

pAramArthika standpoint there is nothing other than brahman. There

is no jIva and no ignorance.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Pranams to ALL,

 

The fact that an actor gets carried away, at a certain moment, by his

interpretation of a role in a certain play, doesn't mean that he is

that character. He may realize afterward that the emotions of that

character " became " his emotions due to his identification with the

role, but on further enquiry he realizes that those emotions where not

" real " , since they were connected to a level of reality (the play)

that has no connection whatsoever with his own personal life.

Identification with the role was the factor creating the make-believed

" reality " . From this, we deduce that the actor " may " say that he was

miserable at one point of the play, but in reality his misery was

based on identification, rather than to a real situation. The fact is

he was never miserable.

(By the way, maybe even to interpret that role he was paid several

million dollars, he even forgot that!!)

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Consciousness that is all pervading illumines the same way both

jnaani as well as ajnaani. Only the difference is jnaani knows that

he was ajnaani before and due to the grace of his teacher now knows

his real nature while the others is still struggling.

>

> According to advaita, as long as upaadhiis are there, the upahita

caitanya is there to illumine the local upaadhiis, jnaani operates

as jnaani and ajnaani operates as ajnaani. That is one uses as

equipments as equipements to be used while the other takes himself

to be the equipments. jnaani knows that he was doing that same thing

before hence he has infinite compassion to the student who came to

learn vedanta.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Sadananda-ji,

As you and Ram-ji have pointed out, the difference between

vyAvahArika and pAramArthika has alwys to be kept in mind. Otherwise

there will be confusion.You have answered the point correctly. After

realization the jnAni sees everything as brahman. There is no world

and no avidyA for him. But before realization he was also deluded by

avidyA as we are now.That is why it is called realization-- he has

realized that he was under a delusion.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

I am afraid we are again on the very old trodden path!

 

I agree with you till your following statement:

 

QUOTE

 

The same applies to Brahman, only with the condition that in this

case, the knowledge includes the understanding the pramaata, pramaaNa

and prameye are all Brahman only.

 

UNQUOTE

 

To my line of thinking, BrahmajnAna is not a " knowledge that includes

an understanding " . The brahmavid is jnAna and, therefore, brahman

only and there is no scope there for pramAta, pramANa and prameya

with none of the three ever having existed at all. In that Knowledge

there is no memory of the veil of ignorance that was removed because

there was no veil in it in the first place for a removal to have

taken place.

 

The veil, its removal, and the thinking that there will be a remnant

memory when it is removed - all these are avidyA and in the field of

avidyA only.

 

My understanding tells me that I am Pure Awareness in reality and

this world of plurality, the result of avidya, that I confront is a

precipitation in that Awareness. The precipitation introduces a jIvA

(ego)-world split. BrahmajnAna of Advaita connotes the total

dissolution of that precipitation whereby only the homogeneity of

Pure Awareness remains. There is then no more a world of ajnAnis

down there remaining or clamouring to be emancipated by me. Even if

an iota of a memory of the samsAra remains, then I would say that the

precipitation has not ended.

 

Thus, one cannot correlate brahmajnAna with chemistry knowledge.

This applies to Mounaji's example too.

 

I, therefore, find it difficult to vote for an opinion that allows

for *jnAnis* to move around in the realm of avidya for the mission of

loka kalyAnam. By this, I am not questioning the existence in our

midst of sages like Shankara, Bh. Ramana Maharshi et al. I am only

saying that such sages existed and many such exist is only part of

avidyA only. Even the understanding they impart is avidyA only till

one Self-realizes, whereafter there are no more any understandings,

teachers, avidya and a memory of them.

 

Till then no one is jnAni. All are 'to be jnAni' or 'future jnAni'.

 

I notice that in the last para of your message, you have used the

words " Hence jnaani can claim at vyavahaara level " . JnAni has no

business with vyavahaara is my contention.

 

As I told Sastri-ji, your post too was very informative and I very

much appreciate your having kindly responded so very nicely and

elaborately.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>> Hence I can say the knowledge that is ever present is now revealed

to me when I used the appropriate pramaaNa. The same applies to

Brahman, only with the condition that in this case, the knowledge

includes the understanding the pramaata, pramaaNa and prameye are all

Brahman only.  Hence unlike the case of chemistry where the knower of

chemistry is different from the known chemistry, here the Brahma

jnaani, in gaining the knowledge of Brahman becomes Brahman.  But

jnaani is still an upahita chaitanya like pot space - (see my recent

post on knowledge series -15). Even though pot-space recognizes that

I am the total space, due to the constraints of the pot-walls, it can

still operate at vyavahaara level and say I am pot space and I know

that I am total space too. Upaadhiis will be there till prarabda is

gone.  One can say that Upaadhis are mainited by Iswara himself for

loka kalyaNam.  Hence jnaani can say I am a realized person in these

upaadhiis and

> I have realized that I am the totality that includes the

upaadhiis. Otherwise there will not be a realized master to teach. 

When teaching is going on the teacher sees the student and teaches

him that there is no duality whatsoever including the teacher-taught

duality.

> Hence jnaani can claim at vyavahaara level that the ignorance that

he had is gone. In fact when the student realizes, he prostrates to

the teacher and says because of his grace he is able to gain the

knowledge. Mundaka Up in the end glorifies that jnaani.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastri ji, Sada ji, Madathil ji and others,

 

Nice discussion is going on here. I was away for some time and could

not follow it up. Let me go through the discussion and come back with

my opinions about it.

 

With regards,

Anupam.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All Participants in this thread.

 

It is heartening to note that all of us now admit the need to clearly

distinguish between vyAvahArika and paramArthika. So far, so good.

 

Now, there is one more point we all must heed. JnAni being Brahman,

there is no way a shiSya still languishing in avidya can have any

transactions with Him. So, the shiSya's guru, be he Shankara or Bh.

Ramana Himself, is only a vyAvaharik representation (projection, I

think, would be a better word) in the realm of avidya.

 

Loka kalyANaM is the want of the still wanting. Not of a jnAni. (He

cannot be accused of compassion because He has nothing aside of Himself

to be compassionate with.) So, the gurus who roam about triggerring

auspiciousness all over through writings, lectures, meditation camps,

audio-video, MP3s, and other Groups, etc. are all the projection

of the wanting ignorant. [i am (ignorant!), Advaitin is.]

It is wrong on our part to mix our Gurus, however exalted they are in

sature, with jnAni.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

> BrahmajnAna of Advaita connotes the total

> dissolution of that precipitation whereby only the homogeneity of

> Pure Awareness remains. There is then no more a world of ajnAnis

> down there remaining or clamouring to be emancipated by me. Even

if

> an iota of a memory of the samsAra remains, then I would say that

the

> precipitation has not ended.

 

Reminds me two beautiful quotes from scriptures:

 

1. What happens after realization from Easavasya:

 

" sa paryagaat sukram akaayam avrinam

Asna viram shuddham apaapavidham

Kavihi manisheehi paribooh suyamboohu

Yaathaathathyatho arthaan shashvatheebyaha samaabhyaha "

 

Brahman (HE who realized) is all-pervading, self-luminous, without

subtle body, without wounds, without sinews, pure (without

ignorance), without any sin, seer beyond the time and space,

controller of the mind, above all, that is self-existent. The Self

or He has allotted duties rightly to the eternal creators (during

the start of creation).

 

 

2) What is that state of Advaita:

 

" naanthaha prajnam nabahishprajnam na ubhyayathaha prajnam

na prajnaanaGhanam na prajnam naaprajnam

adhrishtyam avyavahaariyam agraahyam alakshnam

achintyam avyapadeshyam ekathma pratyayasaaram

prapancha upashamam shaantham shivam advaitam

chathurtham manyanthae sa aathma sa vijnaeyaha " - Mandukya

 

" It is not that which is conscious of the internal subjective world,

nor that which is conscious of the external world, nor that which is

conscious of both, nor which is mass of consciousness, nor that

which is simple consciousness nor is it unconsciousness. It is

unseen by any sense-organ, beyond empirical dealings,

incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable, unthinkable,

indescribable, essentially by of the Self alone, negation of all

phenomena, the peaceful, the auspicious and the non-dual. This is

what is considered as the fourth Turiya. This is the Atman and this

is to be realized. "

 

As I learnt it the Bhrahman (or the one who realized Brahman)

becomes the PURE himself. An analogy of Mirror is given here. You

go in front of a mirror and it reflects your own self. So if I look

black in Mirror I can't blame the mirror for reflecting me black. I

am naturally black. Mirror will not have any memory of who is

standing infront of him.

 

I think my edge here is that I do not want to give any kind of

validity to Maya / avidya.

 

Is there a vyavaharika level at which the Bhahman behaves in the

world? I don't think so. Then how could you explain the great

masters like Sri Shankara, Sri Ramana, Swamy Chinmayananda and

Swamini Saradapriyananda? Incidentally I have asked this very same

question my teacher Swamini Saradapriyanandaji when I was living in

the Ashram and learning Upanishads. She told the following " you

think I exist, so I AM... the moment you walk out of this Ashram I

exist only in your memory... Even though I cease to exist, I still

exist as long as you exist, the moment you cease to exist you and me

will exist in someone elses memory... From the absolute reality, I

never cease to exist as there is no such thing called -- coming in

to existance ---

it is you --- out of avidya --- falsely thinking I came in to

exististance... So look from that standpoint "

 

Love & Light,

Madhava