[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Gita bhashya excerpt proves Avidya is Bhavarupa
narayana145 at yahoo.co.in
Wed Dec 21 09:01:21 EST 2022
>From the ongoing discussions, the following conclusions may be drawn ;(1) only a miniscule number , may be1% of the number, support and defendSri SSS'S views on Avidya.(2) nearly 98% of the members are against the views of Sri SSS on Avidya.
Since the majority of the members belong to the second group,one can declare that their standpoint is correct.A certificate may please be issued to them that theyhave won the debate.
Now, is it possible to put an end to these dialogues?
With respectful namaskars, Sreenivasa Murthy who Wants Atmajnana and NOT Jnana on AVIDYA
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, 5:10 pm Jaishankar Narayanan, <jai1971 at gmail.com>
> Even the following bhashya from Tai Up Bhashya says the same
> अविद्या च स्वानुभवेन रूप्यते - मूढोऽहम् अविविक्तं मम विज्ञानम् इति । तथा
> विद्याविवेको अनुभूयते । उपदिशन्ति च अन्येभ्य आत्मनो विद्यां बुधाः । तथा च
> अन्ये अवधारयन्ति । तस्मात् नामरूपपक्षस्यैव विद्याविद्ये नामरूपे च ; न
> *avidyā ca svānubhavena rūpyate - mūḍho'ham aviviktaṃ mama vijñānam iti **।
> **tathā vidyāviveko anubhūyate **। **upadiśanti ca anyebhya ātmano vidyāṃ
> budhāḥ **। **tathā ca anye avadhārayanti **। **tasmāt nāmarūpapakṣasyaiva
> vidyāvidye nāmarūpe ca ; na ātmadharmau* - Tai Up 2.8.5 Bh
> And ignorance is ascertained by such forms of its perception as, “I am
> ignorant”, “My knowledge is indistinct”. Similarly, the difference of
> knowledge (from the Self ) is perceived, and the enlightened people
> communicate the knowledge of the Self to others; and so, too, others grasp
> it. Accordingly, knowledge and ignorance are to be ranked with name and
> form; they are not attributes of the Self.
> Further the Katharudra Upanishad, which is quoted by Bhashyakara in Br Up
> 3.5.1 Bhāṣya, has the following verse
> प्रत्यगात्मानमज्ञानमायाशक्तेश्च साक्षिणम् ।
> एकं ब्रह्माहमस्मीति ब्रह्मैव भवति स्वयम् ॥ १२॥
> pratyagātmānamajñānamāyāśakteśca sākṣiṇam ।
> ekaṃ brahmāhamasmīti brahmaiva bhavati svayam ॥ 12॥
> He who realizes his own Self, which is the witness of the power called
> ignorance and mAyA, knowing
> ‘I am Brahman alone ’ becomes Brahman Itself
> The inner self is the witness of ajñāna shakti. How can this shakti
> witnessed by the inner self be abhāva?
> with love and prayers,
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 1:16 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> In the Gita bhashya 13 chapter Shankaracharya through a short dialogue
>> demonstrates that avidya is objectified and not the property of the
>> observer consciousness. This is what clinches the case in favour of
>> Avidya being Bhava rupa according to Shankaracharya as he includes Avidya
>> along with the experiences of misery etc. This very chapter has
>> categorised Kshetra as consisting of of the five elements and the
>> elemental world outside, the organs through which we experience the
>> outside world and, most importantly, the emotions such as desire,
>> anger, misery which are included in Kshetram that is distinct from the
>> observer Chaitanya consciousness, the Kshetrajna.
>> Surely for those who hold that Avidya is jnanabhava and not any bhaava
>> rupa category, there is the responsibility of proving that desire,
>> hatred, etc. that are experienced by all are also some 'abhava' and not
>> The following is the translation the whole dialogue by Swami
>> The terms in the Bhashya that clinch the issue are:
>> यदा च एवम् , *अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः* न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित्
>> दुष्यति ॥
>> (Therefore Avidya, misery, etc. do not taint the observer Consciousness
>> (that is, they are not the property of Atman but the dharma of the anatman,
>> यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव ।
>> If avidya is observed, jneya, just like any other jneya, Avidya is jneya
>> for sure (and not the Knower, jnaata, consciousness)
>> There is no doubt that iccha, dvesha, etc. are jneya.
>> One cannot club abhava with bhava. Since Shankara clubs avidya with
>> iccha,dvesha, etc. which are all indisputably bhaava, it goes without
>> saying that for Shankara avidya too is bhava. If that were not so, he
>> should not have clubbed avidya with iccha etc. that are clearly antahkarana
>> dharmas. This also answers the objection that the talk of 'locus' for
>> avidya is a post-Shankara concept. Shankara clearly localizes avidya to
>> antahkarana along with iccha, devesha, etc. Also, here Shankara holds
>> avidya to be located in the jiva: jivaashrita avidya. In the
>> Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10 'aham brahma asmi' bhashya, Shankara accepts avidya
>> to Brahman. Thus Brahmaashritaa avidya is also accepted by Shankara. All
>> these concepts are not post-Shankara products.
>> So, Shankara holds avidya to be an observed, just like misery, desire,
>> etc. are saakshi vedya. So, by no means can avidya, like iccha, dvesha, be
>> an abhava rupa. By including Avidya in the same category of iccha, etc.
>> Shankara has held Avidya to be bhava rupa.
>> Oh! Sir, if being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. are qualities of the Self,
>> how is it that they are directly perceived? Or how can they be alities of
>> the Knower of the field? If the conclusion be that all that is known
>> constitutes the field, and that the one who knows is verily the knower of
>> the field, then, to say that being ignorant, sorrowful, etc.are the
>> qualities of the knower of the field and that they are directly perceived
>> is a contradictory statement having only ignorance as its basis. Here, (the
>> opponent) asks: To whom does ignorance belong? (The answer is that) it
>> belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced! Objection: In whom is it
>> perceived? Reply: Here the answer is: It is pointless to ask, 'In whom is
>> ignorance experienced?' Objection: How? Reply: If ignorance be perceived
>> (by you), then you perceive its possessor as well. Moreover, when that
>> possessor of ignorance is perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom
>> is it perceived?' For, when an owner of cattle is seen, the estion, 'To
>> whom do the cattle belong', does not become meaningful. Objection: Well, is
>> not the illustration dissimilar? Since, the cattle and their owner are
>> directly perceived, their relation also is directly perceived. Hence the
>> estion is meaningless. Ignorance and its possessor are not directly
>> perceived in that manner, in which case the estion would have been
>> meaningless. Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of
>> ignorance with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of
>> ignorance? Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, therefore it
>> should be got rid of. Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of
>> it! Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself. Reply: In that case, you
>> know ignorance as also yourself who possess it? Opponent: I know, but not
>> through direct perception. Reply: If you know through inference, then how
>> is the connection (between yourself and ignorance) known? Surely it is not
>> possible for you the knower to have at that time ['When you are knowing
>> your own ignorance.'] the knowledge of the relation (of the Self) with
>> ignorance which is an object of knowledge; ['After having perceived
>> ignorance as an object of your knowledge, how can you who continue to be
>> the knower cognize yourself as the knower of that ignorance? For this would
>> lead to the contradiction of the same person becoming the subject and the
>> object of cognition.'] because the cognizer is then engaged in cognizing
>> ignorance as an object. Besides, there cannot be someone who is a
>> (separate) cognizer of the relation between the knower and ignorance, and a
>> separate cognition of that (relation), for this would lead to infinite
>> regress. If the knower and the relation between the knower and the thing
>> known be cognizable, then a separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him,
>> again, another knower has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer
>> would have to be imagined! Thus, an infinite regress becomes unavoidable.
>> Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is
>> verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not
>> become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known,
>> therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by
>> anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by
>> such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc.
>> End quote.
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list