[Advaita-l] HH Sri Paramananda Bharathi Swamiji attained mukti

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:30 AM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> Or just take bhAva rUpa avidyA to mean it is abhAva vilakshaNa.
>
> >  Does it mean there is an intermediate status for avidyA between bhAva
> rUpa and abhAva rUpa and which can be termed as  abhAva vilakshaNam ??
> Kindly let me know where can I find the reference in prasthAna traya
> bhAshya.
>
You can take it as tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIyam. Shankara Bhagavatpada
mentions it 2-3 times in the sUtrabhAShya.

>
> The important thing is that ajnAna cannot mean jnAna abhAva.
>
> >  the bhAshyakAra himself clearly describes the avidyA lakshaNa-s i.e.
> agrahaNa, saMshaya & vipareeta pratyaya, we call here agrahaNAtmaka avidyA
> as jnAnAbhAva.  If you have any other definition for this please let me
> know.  And bhAshyakAra in bruhadAraNyaka clearly says : yadi jnAnAbhAvaM,
> yadi saMshaya jnAnaM yadi vipareeta jnAnaM vA uchyate 'ajnAnaM' iti sarvaM
> hi tat jnAnenaiva nivartate.  I am really surprising you are arguing avidyA
> / ajnAna is NOT jnAnAbhAva !!??  or is there any difference between ajnAna
> and avidyA when you are insisting the 'important thing that ajnAna cannot
> mean jnana abhAva !! ??  please clarify.
>

You can call agrahaNAtmaka avidyA as jnAnAbhAva if you want, but all the
brihadAraNyaka bhAShya is saying is *yadi* ajnAnam jnAnAbhAvamiti *ucyate*
tadApi tat jnAnenaiva nivartate, not ajnAnasya jnAnAbhAvatvarUpatvAt tat
jnAnenaiva nivartate. The purpose of the quote is to say that only jnAna
removes ajnAna, not to prove the abhAvarUpatva of ajnAna.


> If so, then one would necessarily need pratiyogi jnAna to cognise abhAva.
> But if jnAna itself is pratiyogi, one would need to know jnAna to cognise
> ajnAna, which is a contradiction in terms.
>
> >  If that is the case how can a jnAni can cognize his avidyAlesha when
> pratiyOgi jnana is there don’t you see any contradiction here ??

No, I don't understand the relevance of that here.


> I would like to look at it this say.  For example in front of me there is
> computer I have the knowledge of its existence on the table.  If some
> housekeeper shifted the computer from its place then I would say computer
> is not there on my table, that means through computer jnana (that it was
> there on my table earlier ) I will now be talking about its absence
> (abhAva).  But when I say I don’t know about computer it is something
> different from 'abhAva'  of the thing on my table.

Of course. The jnAna abhAva is not the abhAva of the thing on the table,
but the abhAva of the jnAna.


> I have the computer shaped  buddhi vrutti  (i.e. sAmAnya jnana of computer
> as just like box etc.)but I will not be having the jnana about the
> intricacies of computer (yathArtha jnana or vishesha jnana) We may call
> this absence of vishesha jnana when having the sAmAnya jnana of computer as
> "abhAva jnana or jnAnAbhAva of computer".

Yes, but visheSha abhava cannot have sAmAnyadharmatvAvacChinna
pratiyogitAkatvam. The pratiyogitAvacChedakam of a visheSha abhava has to
be some visheSha dharma only. So if you say you don't know something
specific about your computer, unless you know what that specific thing is,
you cannot say that you don't know that specific thing. But if you know
that specific thing, you cannot not know it. If you insist that a
particular absence can have a generic attribute of counterpositiveness,
then even a ground with a pot on it can be said to be a ground without pot.


> When we talk about jneya  ajnAna we don’t get any buddhi vrutti about this
> ajnAna hence it is called jnAnAbhAva.  Your contradiction can easily be
> solved when we know that Atman is beyond jnAnAjnAna and advaita jnana is
> too manOvrutti ( Advaita jnAnaM manOvrutti mAtraM, manasyaivevamAptavyaM
> neha nAnAsti kiMchana)

So what?


> What is pratiyOgi jnana here??

pratiyogi is nAnatva vishiShTam. Which jnAna I have through pratyakshAdi.


>
> >  In short since avidyA as such is jneya it cannot  have the existence
> (bhAva) whatsoever in jnAtru (kshetrajna) this has been clarified by
> bhAshyakAra in Geeta bhAshya, nAbhAvO vidyate sataH and if this avidyA is
> bhAvarUpa vastu or that which something vilakshaNam from abhAva it cannot
> be annihilated through vidyA

na hi bhAvAnAM niranvayO nirupAkhyO vinAshaH saMbhavati it is just because
> of the simple fact vidya / shAstra is  jnApakaM na tu kArakaM.
>
That is why it was that said by bhAvarUpa all that is meant is abhAva
vilakshaNam.

>
> Better to say ajnAna is abhAva vilakshaNa padArtha that is sAkshi vedyam.
>
> >  when we already categorized avidyA as 'padArtha' no matter whatever
> nomenclature we tried to label,  it becomes an existent thing.

The term padArtha in nyAya is used for both abhAva and bhAva rUpa vastu. So
there is no requirement that it becomes an existent thing just because of
padArtha. Also, abhAva vilakshaNa does not necessarily mean bhAva either.
In advaita, when we say jagat is sadasat vilakshaNa, we don't say it is sat
just because it happens to be asat vilakshaNa.

If you permit me to say, terming avidyA as abhAva vilakshaNam and it is
> neither bhAva rUpa nor abhAva rUpa,  is just an attempt to obfuscate the
> issue further.  Anyway this is IMHO.  You are welcome to disagree with me.
>

Not sure what you mean by this being an attempt to obfuscate. I have no
need to do any such thing. If you wish to continue this discussion further,
first please withdraw that statement.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
>