Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 advaitin , Venkata Subramanian <venkat_advaita wrote: > > Interestingly I read that " Ajnana " is JnanAbhava for the Naiyakikas - especially the Navya Nyayikas. > > Thanks & Regards, > Venkat. > > Sadgurubhyo Namah. Namaste. While I have not studied the nyAya shAstra, I have a question on what you have said: 'ajnAna' is said to cause samsara. samsaara is a bhAva vastu. Shankaracharya is quite emphatic about this. His bhashya on the Bhagavadgita 2.16 is a proof of this. All objects have 'sat' for their basis and even when the objects are destroyed the 'sat' is not. When they exist they are experienced as 'ghaTaH san', etc. The Bhagavadgita is full of verses proving this. If ajnAna is abhAvarupa, of the nature of non-existence, how can it be the 'cause' of anything? Is there any example to show this? Can a vandhyAputra sire any progeny? Shankaracharya, in His Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya for the ShIkShAvalli makes a very significant statement: //anyathA hi abhAvAd bhAvotpattiH iti sarvapramANa-vyAkopaH ....// The meaning is: '...otherwise, if it is suggested that an existent thing originates from non-existence, this would be against ALL pramana-s. Sureshwaracharya in his vartika for this sentence of the bhashyam writes four verses explaining the meaning and confirming the bhashya purport. How would one account for an ajnAna that is abhAvarUpa to produce a samsara, adhyAsa, samshaya, etc. all of which are experienced by all of us as 'existent'? SAyanAcharya, while introducing the Taittiriya Aranyakam, writes: //na hi bhrama-hetau avidyaayAm nivRttAyAm nirhetuko bhramah sambhavati.// Meaning: When avidyA, ignorance, the CAUSE of bhrama, adhyAsa, error, is dispelled, there will be no longer any error, since there is no longer any cause. The question is: How can avidya, if it is abhAvarUpa, be the CAUSE of bhrama? Most importantly how can anyone destroy avidya if it is abhAvarUpa? Can anyone destroy a hare's horn? It will not,cannot, be a candidate for any vyavahara. It would be like saying: 'A vandhyaaputra is causing immense trouble. Pl. send your army to tackle him.' Regards, subbu > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 avidyA is not abAvarUpA but mithyAjnAnarUpa. What causes saMsAra is the mistaken notion of the Atman as something else. As Shankara says, atasmin tadbuddhiH. Further, avidyA is not in the same category as hare's horn, which is said to be alIka or fictitious. avidyA is sadasadvilakShaNa, different from both sat and asat. That is why it is called anirvachanIyA, ie. cannot be described as sat or asat. A hare's horn is asat, whereas Brahman is sat. The confusion between alIka and anirvchanIya concepts is at the root of many objections raised by opponents of advaita. My advaitasiddhi website discusses this in detail. (www.advaitasiddhi.org). This is addressed in the very first definition of unreality. Anand advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > advaitin , Venkata Subramanian <venkat_advaita@> wrote: > > > > Interestingly I read that " Ajnana " is JnanAbhava for the Naiyakikas - especially the Navya Nyayikas. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Venkat. > > > > Sadgurubhyo Namah. > > Namaste. > > While I have not studied the nyAya shAstra, I have a question on what you have said: > > 'ajnAna' is said to cause samsara. samsaara is a bhAva vastu. > Shankaracharya is quite emphatic about this. His bhashya on the Bhagavadgita 2.16 is a proof of this. All objects have 'sat' for their basis and even when the objects are destroyed the 'sat' is not. When they exist they are experienced as 'ghaTaH san', etc. > > The Bhagavadgita is full of verses proving this. > > If ajnAna is abhAvarupa, of the nature of non-existence, how can it be the 'cause' of anything? Is there any example to show this? > > Can a vandhyAputra sire any progeny? > > Shankaracharya, in His Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya for the ShIkShAvalli makes a very significant statement: > > //anyathA hi abhAvAd bhAvotpattiH iti sarvapramANa-vyAkopaH ....// > > The meaning is: '...otherwise, if it is suggested that an existent thing originates from non-existence, this would be against ALL pramana-s. > > Sureshwaracharya in his vartika for this sentence of the bhashyam writes four verses explaining the meaning and confirming the bhashya purport. > > How would one account for an ajnAna that is abhAvarUpa to produce a samsara, adhyAsa, samshaya, etc. all of which are experienced by all of us as 'existent'? > > SAyanAcharya, while introducing the Taittiriya Aranyakam, writes: > > //na hi bhrama-hetau avidyaayAm nivRttAyAm nirhetuko bhramah sambhavati.// > > Meaning: When avidyA, ignorance, the CAUSE of bhrama, adhyAsa, error, is dispelled, there will be no longer any error, since there is no longer any cause. > > The question is: How can avidya, if it is abhAvarUpa, be the CAUSE of bhrama? Most importantly how can anyone destroy avidya if it is abhAvarUpa? Can anyone destroy a hare's horn? It will not,cannot, be a candidate for any vyavahara. It would be like saying: 'A vandhyaaputra is causing immense trouble. Pl. send your army to tackle him.' > > Regards, > subbu > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 advaitin , " ahudli " <anandhudli wrote: > > avidyA is not abAvarUpA but mithyAjnAnarUpa. What causes saMsAra is the mistaken notion of the Atman as something else. As Shankara says, atasmin tadbuddhiH. Further, avidyA is not in the same category as hare's horn, which is said to be alIka or fictitious. avidyA is sadasadvilakShaNa, different from both sat and asat. That is why it is called anirvachanIyA, ie. cannot be described as sat or asat. A hare's horn is asat, whereas Brahman is sat. > > The confusion between alIka and anirvchanIya concepts is at the root of many objections raised by opponents of advaita. > > My advaitasiddhi website discusses this in detail. (www.advaitasiddhi.org). This is addressed in the very first definition of unreality. > > Anand Namaste Anand ji, Thank you for that accurate, tradition-friendly explanation. My post was directed at those who hold that 'what causes adhyAsa is an abhAvarUpa entity'. I asked those natural questions that this view could throw up. Sri Krishna says in the Gita: ajnAnena aavRtam jnAnam tena muhyanti jantavaH How could an abhAvarUpa ajnAna succeed in enveloping jnAna? Can a vandhyAputra shake hands with anyone? //jnAnena tu tadajnAnam yeShAm nAshitamAtmanaH// How can jnAna destroy an abhAvarUpa ajnAna? The Gita says: ajnAnam is tamaH kAryam, an effect of tamas, tamoguNa of prakRti. If ajnAna is abhAvarUpa, how can it be a kArya of tamas? Can anyone produce non-existence? Shankara's definition/lakshaNa of avidyA is perfect: tAmaso hi pratyayaH avidyA agrahaNaatmikaa, viparItagrAhako vA samshayopasthApako vaa... How can agrahaNAtmaka (which word Shankara has in one place substituted by the term 'jnAnAbhAva') ajnAna be abhAvarUpa, being a tAmasa pratyaya? He also has said that ajnAna/avidyA is experienced by everyone. How can an abhAvarUpa entity be experienced by anyone? Has anyone experienced a sky-flower or vandhyAputra? Pranams subbu > > advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v@> wrote: > > > > advaitin , Venkata Subramanian <venkat_advaita@> wrote: > > > > > > Interestingly I read that " Ajnana " is JnanAbhava for the Naiyakikas - especially the Navya Nyayikas. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Venkat. > > > > > > Sadgurubhyo Namah. > > > > Namaste. > > > > While I have not studied the nyAya shAstra, I have a question on what you have said: > > > > 'ajnAna' is said to cause samsara. samsaara is a bhAva vastu. > > Shankaracharya is quite emphatic about this. His bhashya on the Bhagavadgita 2.16 is a proof of this. All objects have 'sat' for their basis and even when the objects are destroyed the 'sat' is not. When they exist they are experienced as 'ghaTaH san', etc. > > > > The Bhagavadgita is full of verses proving this. > > > > If ajnAna is abhAvarupa, of the nature of non-existence, how can it be the 'cause' of anything? Is there any example to show this? > > > > Can a vandhyAputra sire any progeny? > > > > Shankaracharya, in His Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya for the ShIkShAvalli makes a very significant statement: > > > > //anyathA hi abhAvAd bhAvotpattiH iti sarvapramANa-vyAkopaH ....// > > > > The meaning is: '...otherwise, if it is suggested that an existent thing originates from non-existence, this would be against ALL pramana-s. > > > > Sureshwaracharya in his vartika for this sentence of the bhashyam writes four verses explaining the meaning and confirming the bhashya purport. > > > > How would one account for an ajnAna that is abhAvarUpa to produce a samsara, adhyAsa, samshaya, etc. all of which are experienced by all of us as 'existent'? > > > > SAyanAcharya, while introducing the Taittiriya Aranyakam, writes: > > > > //na hi bhrama-hetau avidyaayAm nivRttAyAm nirhetuko bhramah sambhavati.// > > > > Meaning: When avidyA, ignorance, the CAUSE of bhrama, adhyAsa, error, is dispelled, there will be no longer any error, since there is no longer any cause. > > > > The question is: How can avidya, if it is abhAvarUpa, be the CAUSE of bhrama? Most importantly how can anyone destroy avidya if it is abhAvarUpa? Can anyone destroy a hare's horn? It will not,cannot, be a candidate for any vyavahara. It would be like saying: 'A vandhyaaputra is causing immense trouble. Pl. send your army to tackle him.' > > > > Regards, > > subbu > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 praNAms Hare Krishna avidyA is not abAvarUpA but mithyAjnAnarUpa. > yadi jnAnAbhAvaH, yadi saMshaya jnAnaM yadi vipareetajnAnaM vA uchyate ajnAnam iti sarvaM ..says shankara in bruhadAraNyaka. but I dont know whether there is any difference between avidyA & ajnAna here to say avidyA is NOT jnAnAbhAva but ajnAna IS!!! What causes saMsAra is the mistaken notion of the Atman as something else. As Shankara says, atasmin tadbuddhiH. Further, avidyA is not in the same category as hare's horn, which is said to be alIka or fictitious. avidyA is sadasadvilakShaNa, different from both sat and asat. > As far as I know, shankara attributes tatvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachaneeya to the concept of mAya & not to avidyA...Anyway, we have beaten this issue somany times earlier...no need to open it on a fresh screen, just tempted to say something after seeing my beloved Sri Ananda Hudli prabhuji's mail first time in this list :-)) 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.