[Advaita-l] Sringeri AchAryas on the vivaraNa - the cause of adhyAsa (3)

prem d p prem_d_p at yahoo.co.in
Fri Apr 6 00:38:42 CDT 2007

  Dear Sri Anand Hudliji,
  I am very grateful for this series on ‘adhyasa’ by you
  and would like to request some clarifications as below:
  Sri Anand Hudli:
  PadmapAdAchArya says that the avidyA shakti, the power of
  avidyA, must necessarily be accepted. This leads us to
  the concept of bhAva-rUpa-ajnAna, the ajnAna that is not
  merely an absence of jnAna or knowledge, but something that is positive in nature (bhAva-rUpa).
  It seems to me that mere absence of jnana would lead to
  the negation of the Seer. This is inadmissible as it
  leads to a pure materialistic essence for the Universe.
  Consciousness being what it is, a Seer has to be and has
  to see. Hence adhyasa. Jnanam is Truth is Existence.
  ... is my understanding correct?
  Sri Anand Hudli:
  ajnAna is different from both existence and nonexistence.
  However, it is customarily called bhAvarUpa to indicate
  (emphasize) that it is different from nonexistence
  (absence). (Yet) one cannot infer that it
  is beginningless *and* non-sublatable like the Atman.
  I am not clear about the last sentence above. Is it that
  inference by induction is impossible because this is not
  observable ie. sublation itself is postulated as
  dissolution of the drk-drsya dichotomy(?). Inference by
  deduction, of course, would have to base itself on 
  Also it seems to me that the difference from 
  non-existence of bhava-rupa is possible only if
  pragabhavam is also realized to be different from kevala
  abhavam. Am I right here? Also avidya is anAdi but may
  be ended and hence sublatable (?).
  Sri Anand Hudli:
  The shruti statements, "Darkness was" (Rig Veda nAsadIya
  sUkta), and "mAyA is understood to be prakR^iti 
  (nature)" (shvetAshvatara upaniShad), also affirm that
  ajnAna (as bhAvarUpa). By the word "darkness", an absence
  of knowledge is not stated because (the shruti) excludes
  (such an) absence by declaring "Non-existence (asat) was
  not there" and "Darkness was."
  This ‘Darkness’, how does it relate to Avyakta and the
  Triguna nature of Prakriti?
  Who is the Seer of this ‘Darkness’? Is this primordial
  ‘Darkness’ realized as ‘Mithya’ by its Seer
or is it that
  ‘Darkness’ is non-different from ‘Mithya’?
  The Darkness is in the eye of the Seer and the 
  ‘Seer-of-Darkness’ is in the heart of Darkness (?).
  Sri Anand Hudli:
  ...the world. which is a combination of names and forms,
  existed in its causal state, bhAvarUpa ajnAna, before
  creation. The world of names and forms is a product of
  this bhAvarUpa-ajnAna, and not different from it.
  However, the Bhavarupa-Ajnana itself has no causal
  relationship with Brahman (?).

 Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list