[Advaita-l] On avidyA being anirvachanIya etc
srirudra at vsnl.com
Fri Nov 18 04:59:16 CST 2011
I just tried to understand the concepts of jnana,ajnana,avidhya and
anirvachaniya etc.The logical analysis appears to be on not on firm
grounds.These things exist not as entities but as qualifiers.Jnanam of
something which is different from the concept of jnanam is
understandable.There is no jnanam of jnanam.So when I say I donot know I
mean I have some inputs but these inputs are not adequate to establish this
is that.So to correctly know the object I do a google.This is Vidhya.Avidhya
literally means absence of study-say mananam/nidhidhyasanam-.A guru helps to
get rid of avidhya.I donot think avidhya is anirvachaniya except in the
context of using it as anadhi or as an axiom.This is not to belittle the
research done by some of our posters.
Just my views on these concepts.R.Krishnamoorthy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raghav Kumar" <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On avidyA being anirvachanIya etc
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy
> <rkmurthy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The tradition consistently maintains that avidyA is sat-asat-vilakShaNa,
>> anirvachanIya, etc. The term "bhAvarUpa" is only used to emphasize that
>> aj~nAna/avidyA is not the same as j~nAna-abhAva.
> SrI lalitAlAlitaH ji also similarly said .
> "See this from haritattvamuktAvalI : tasyAsmAbhirbhAvatvAna~NgIkArAt |
> abhAvavilakShaNatvamAtreNa bhAvatvavyapadeshAchcha |
> - We don't accept aGYAna (as) a positive entity=possessed of
> sattA=bhAva. It is said to be bhAva (only) to differentiate from
> Namaste Ramesh ji
> Some points to consider -
> 1.What is meant by "pure absence of knowledge" which you mentioned? Is
> there any example for the same?
> 2. vidyA too can be shown to be bhAva-abhAva-vilaxaNA along the same
> lines that avidya is shown to be bhAvAbhAva-vilaxaNA in your post. For
> example, when we say, "I know a rose" , this statement is also
> sAmAnya-j~nAna alone. Since the entity called rose enfolds within
> itself infinite layers of knoweldge; I don't know why a rose is red or
> yellow etc, and much else about it. So the statement "I know
> (something about ) a rose" is vidyA which implicitly includes the
> avidyA that "I don't know (much else about) a rose".
> sAmAnya-j~nAna and vishesha-aj~nAna always go hand-in-hand. If we say
> avidyA is anirvacanIyA, then so also is vidyA. Both have to be
> assigned the same label, be it bhAva-rUpA or anirvacanIyA.All
> knowledge about entities is sAmAnya-j~nAna alone and accordingly has
> an unknown particularized dimension to it as well.
> What is not acceptable, as I understand, is that, we cannot say "vidyA
> is bhAvarupA" but "avidyA is abhAva-rUpA" ? Both are in fact
> categorized upon enquiry to be anirvacanIyA.
> In the particular conext of Vedanta, both vidyA and avidyA are
> provisionally bhAva-rUpa. Upon enquiry they are seen as anirvacanIyA..
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list