[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras

[V Subrahmanian]

  The Vedanta teaches that knowledge dispels ignorance. Hence, to be
dispelled, such an avidyā has to be an existent, positive, bhāvarūpa.   If
such ignorance is not admitted to be bhāvarūpa, knowledge cannot dispel
anything.

The BG says: ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषां नाशितमात्मनः ।

Sureshwaracharya  says:

तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्योत्थसंयग्धीजन्ममात्रतः ।

*अविद्या सह कार्येण नासीदस्ति भविष्यति ॥ *

What is noteworthy in this Sureshwaracharya verse is  that avidya, along
with its effects, is addressed by knowledge.  So, here we have avidya, as
karaNa and its effects, karya, that Jnana dispels.

From these we can be sure that avidyā is a positive, existent, bhāvarūpa
entity. There has to be a something that knowledge dispels. And that
something need not be an absolute real. Just because it is dispelled by
knowledge it is jnānanivartya, and therefore prātibhāsika.


On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Praveen ji,
>
> Thanks for the interesting parallel with the vyAkaraNa sUtra and the
> reference from Ratnaprabha. There are many interpretations indeed of the
> tametam evamlakshaNam sentence - none of which consider mUlAvidyA to be
> synonymous with adhyAsa.
>
> Re the contention that bhAvarUpatva of avidyA is a post Shankara construct,
> there is a very interesting passage in the bRhadAraNyaka bhAShya to the
> mantra 4.3.20 where the bhAvrUpatva of avidyA is indicated:
>
> तथा अविद्यायामप्युत्कृष्यमाणायाम् , तिरोधीयमानायां च विद्यायाम् ,
> अविद्यायाः फलं प्रत्यक्षत एवोपलभ्यते — ‘अथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव जिनन्तीव’ इति ।
> When ignorance increases and knowledge is suppressed, the results of
> ignorance are directly perceived i.e. - "now, if he feels like he was as
> though being killed, or as though being overpowered".
>
> Talk of the increase or decrease of something can only apply if the thing
> increasing or decreasing is of the nature of being transactionally
> existent. If it is transactionally non-existent, no degrees of increase or
> decrease are tenable. It is binary - if knowledge is present, ignorance, of
> the nature of the abence of knowledge, is absent and vice versa.
>
> Later on, adhyAsa as a product of avidyA  is being talked about:
>
> अत इदम् अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वमुक्तं भवति — सर्वात्मानं सन्तम् असर्वात्मत्वेन
> ग्राहयति, आत्मनः अन्यत् वस्त्वन्तरम् अविद्यमानं प्रत्युपस्थापयति, आत्मानम्
> असर्वमापादयति ; ततस्तद्विषयः कामो भवति ; यतो भिद्यते कामतः,
> क्रियामुपादत्ते, ततः फलम् — तदेतदुक्तम् । वक्ष्यमाणं च ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव
> भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । १४), (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादि ।
> इदम् अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वं सह कार्येण प्रदर्शितम् ; विद्यायाश्च कार्यं
> सर्वात्मभावः प्रदर्शितः अविद्याया विपर्ययेण ।
>
> In discussing the nature of avidyA, Shankaracharya says that it is that
> which causes the self which is the all, to appear limited (असर्वात्मत्वेन
> *ग्राहयति*), causes things other than the self, which are not really
> present, to appear (अन्यत् वस्त्वन्तरम् अविद्यमानं *प्रत्युपस्थापयति*),
> superimposed finitude upon the self (आत्मानम् *असर्वमापादयति*). The
> causative verbs used in connection with avidyA is indicative of it being
> bhAvarUpa - for, how can the absence of things lead to a positive outcome?
>
> That such an adhyAsa is the product of avidyA is also mentioned above इदम्
> अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वं *सह कार्येण *प्रदर्शितम् ;
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2022, 15:12 Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Venkat ji,
> >
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:13 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > It appears that Hacker's conclusion that avidyA is the same as adhyAsa
> > > rests on the bhAShya sentence "tametam evamlakshaNam adhyAsam paNDitA
> > > adhyAseti manyante". He concludes from this that according to Shankara,
> > > avidyA is the same as adhyAsa, which differentiates him from later
> > > advaitins.
> > >
> >
> > True. Hacker's taking avidyA as adhyAsa literally seems to be the
> starting
> > point for all errors and this very topic has been discussed multiple
> times
> > on this list. Looks like it is a never-ending issue. I'd also like to
> > revisit the same and add a couple of points. A simple way to look at
> > bhAShya statement tam etam evam lakShaNam adhyAsam paNDitAH avidyA iti
> > manyante/ तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते is to say that
> he
> > is quoting someone that he doesn't completely agree. On the vyAkaraNa
> > sUtra, lopaH shAkalyasya, it is said that Panini doesn't agree with lopaH
> > as he states that it is the opinion of Shakalya, but he respects it,
> making
> > it an optional lopaH. Similarly here, Panditas consider adhyAsa as
> avidyA,
> > but Bhagavan Bhashyakara doesn't necessarily agree. The other answer
> would
> > be as seen in the Bhashyaratnaprabha on it which raises a pUrvapakSha so:
> > tathApi kAraNAvidyAM tyaktvA kAryAvidyA kimiti varNyate tatrAha --
> tatreti.
> > tasmin adhyAse ukta nyAyena, avidyAtmake sati ityarthaH/
> >
> > तथापि कारणाविद्यां त्यक्त्वा कार्याविद्या किमिति वर्ण्यते तत्राह -
> >
> > तत्रेति ।
> >
> > तस्मिन्नध्यासे उक्तन्यायेनाविद्यात्मके सतीत्यर्थः । मूलाविद्यायाः
> > सषुप्तावनर्थत्वादर्शनात्कार्यात्मना तस्या अनर्थत्वज्ञापनार्थं
> तद्वर्णनमिति
> > भावः । The reason that the mUlAvidyA/ kAraNavidyA is not described but
> the
> > kAryAvidyA is because its adversities are unknown during deep sleep.
> Since
> > the adversities of the resultant avidyA. adhyAsa are easily known, the
> same
> > is made known of its causal avidyA.
> >
> > On a related note, the endless complaints repeating differences of
> > mithyA +jnAna and mithyA + ajnAna compound split by Hacker and his
> > followers is laughable. The reason is that both jnAna and ajnAna are
> mithyA
> > in the sampradAya. The objection against sub-commentators that they tag
> > avidyA as bhAvarUpa is flawed too, as by disagreeing to mithyAjnAna as
> > mithyA+ajnAna, ajnAna would become non-mithyA and thereby bhAvarUpa
> (their
> > misunderstanding of whatever bhAvarUpa is) for the opponents themselves!
> > The same is not a flaw when sampradAya states that ajnAna is mithyA
> because
> > bhAvarUpa doesn't mean sadrUpa but means it is not asadrUpa = yat kinchit
> > bhAvarUpa.
> >
> > gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> > --Praveen R. Bhat
> > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> > That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>