Re: avidyA and advaita
From the Bhakti List Archives
• July 13, 1999
Dear Sri Ramakrishna, I should say first that I am not familiar in Sanskrit and the following observation is based on English commentaries by scholars such as S. Dasgupta and P. T. Raju. >3. So what is avidyA and why is avidyA predicated? Su raises the >pUrvapaxa that if it is admitted that brahman has avidyA, then it >is a defect. And if brahman is free from avidyA, then knowledge >which results in moxa, is futile (SVa 2.175-176). The answer is >that avidyA is predicated based purely on experience (anubhava) >and thus involves no contradictions. How? As seen from point 1, >the existence of real entities other than the self is impossible >to establish. However, empirically, the world is experienced and >hence avidyA is predicated. The analogy Su gives is the blueness >of the sky resembling the petals of a blue lotus (BUBhVa >1.4.333). > >My explanation of this analogy is as follows: It is already known >that ether does not possess the quality of color. However, the >blue color of the sky (ether) is seen and accepted. Thus the >acceptance of the blue color is based on anubhava only. In other >words, we have a case of abhAsa. The existence of avidyA is >similar. > Please correct me if I am wrong, The analogy presented above seems to be more akin to Ramanuja's theory. "According to Shankara, The defect, avidya hides its own nature and produces various appearances and can neither be described as being nor as non-being: for it cannot be being, since then the illusion and the realization of its being an error would be inexplicable, and it cannot be non-being since the world- appearance as well as its realization as being wrong, would be inexplicable" - A History of Indian Philosophy, S. Dasgupta. Ramanuja refutes this by saying that all Knowledge is real and the so called avidya is also knowledge produced by percepton. If you percieve that the ether is blue, because of the sky, it can be no longer avidya, as the assumption that ether is blue is based on the association of it to the fact the sky is blue. Ramanuja's says that avidya is impossible as it must lean on some other thing for its support. He goes on to say that if avidya is inexplicable, then there would be neither illusion nor its correction. So it has to be perception. So your analogy seems to be more in line with Ramanuja's theory. To me the major difference between the two schools is, Shankarites do not admit the theory of illusion as one thing appearing as another, while Ramanujists explain that as a real knowledge learned by perception and is corrected once the illusion is realized. >3. I will note here that the examination of the three states is >extremely important in understanding Sh and Su. Understanding the >position of avidyA in advaita is very closely tied to this. I'll >write this up in detail in the next few months, and will be >posting it on the advaita list. For those who are impatient, the >following references should be useful: > I look forward to this post. Regards, Venkatesh K. Elayavalli Cypress Semiconductor Data Communications Division 3901 N. First St. MS 4 Phone: (408) 456 1858 San Jose CA 95134 Fax: (408) 943 2949 email: elayavalli@hotmail.com (external) Home Page Location: http://www.srivaishnava.org _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
- Next message: Krishna Kalale: "RE: SrI deSika stotra-s - 17. SrI acyuta Satakam - Part 3."
- Previous message: T.G. Mohan Kumar: "tattva-hita-purushArtham audio tape by Smt. Radha"
- Maybe in reply to: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian: "Re: avidyA and advaita"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]