[Advaita-l] Imagined Nature of Root Ignorance in Vivaranam
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu Aug 23 07:15:30 CDT 2012
praNAms Sri Ananda Hudli prabhuji
I am really pleased to see the balanced approach of your good self to
this controversial subject. However, those who read the explanation of
vivaraNa school would definitely get an impression that bhAvarUpa avidyA
or mUlAvidyA has a special status 'other than' normally explained avidyA
as agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa & saMshaya in shankara bhAshya. It is because
of their over emphasis on jnAna virOdhi, avidyA shakti which enjoys the
same status as brahman and more importantly, according to this school,
this avidyA shakti or mulAvidyA is neither agrahaNa, nor anyathAgrahaNa
nor saMshaya nor even saMskAra rUpa.
However, we must not lose sight of the fact that explanations, whether
they make use of the adhyAropa/apavAda technique or some other, never
claim that adhyAsa or mulAvidyA is real in the sense
that it is on par with Brahman.
> but as you know panchapAdika vivaraNa clearly says mulAvidyA is
brahmAshraya & tUlAvidyA is jeevAshraya. And this mUlAvidyA has the
existence in Atma satta / chaitanya. Do you really think prabhuji, this
superior status of avidyA which is almost on par with brahma was required
for the panchapAdika vivaraNakAra-s when shankara without ambiguity
clearly said that adhyAsa is anAdi anata, naisargika and mithyApratyaya
rUpa in adhyAsa bhAshya ??
It is only for the purpose of
explanation that these techniques are used and adhyAsa or mUlAvidyA is
given a "bhAvarUpa" status.
> but that which is bhAva rUpa cannot be an end to it as shankara
observes in sUtra bhAshya : na hi bhAvAnAm niranvayO nirupAkhyO vinAshaH
saMbhavati and in geeta nAbhAvO vidyate sataH..Under this circumstances,
can it be rational to give bhAvarUpa status to avidyA and its
uninterrupted existence in sUshupti and its potency to cover even Atman &
its upAdAna kAraNatva to adhyAsa prabhuji??
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
*and* non-sublatable like the Atman.
BhAvarUpa clearly means neither pure Sat, like Atman, nor does it mean
an utterly nonexistent entity, such as the horns of a hare. This is
the same as sadasadvilakShaNa, also known as "anirvachanIya."
> as far as my knowledge goes (I may be wrong anyway) this
anivachaneeyatva has been explained by shankara with respect to
avidyAkruta nAma rUpa i.e. mAya, not avidyA itself. As far as avidyA
definition is concerned, IMHO, shankara is very clear in his adhyAsa
bhAshya, tametamevaMlakshaNamadhyAsaM paNditAH avidyeti manyante. and
adhyAsOnAmAttasminstatbuddhi and as we all no in geeta bhAshya 13.2
wherein shankara clearly counts ONLY three lakshaNa-s of avidyA as
agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa & saMshaya...I dont think shankara categorically
states this type of avidyA is anirvachaneeya. However, I know most of the
traditional scholars equates mAya with avidyA unconditionally, they tend
to argue whatever said with respect to mAya equally applicable to avidyA
as well as these two words are paryAya pada-s.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list