PDA

View Full Version : Locus of Avidya



wundermonk
30 May 2012, 02:24 PM
Hello everyone:

This thread is NOT meant to develop into a passionate debate until the wheels come off! :) The idea is to simply lay out different philosophical positions held by different schools of Advaita.

There are (atleast) two schools of Advaita - Bhamati and Vivarana. These schools differ from each other in the question of - what is the locus of Avidya? The possibilities are - the individual jiva OR Brahman. In this thread, over time, we can discuss the various arguments put forth by its proponents.

The Bhamati view is that the jiva is the locus of Avidya. The Vivarana school [which believes that Brahman is the locus of Avidya] argues against this using three arguments:

(1)Even if it is considered that the jiva and avidya are beginningless and neither one holds temporal precedence over the other, the very concept of jiva and avidya arise only if one has not realized Brahman - i.e. as long as one is stuck in the perspective of multiplicity. Hence, it follows, that jiva derives its existence from avidya while avidya does not necessarily require the notion of jiva for its existence. Thus, the relationship between jiva and avidya is not one of cause and effect but rather that of the relationship between the pervader [avidya] and the pervaded [jiva].

(2)If avidya is said to have its locus in the jiva and the jiva is, by definition, a blend of Brahman plus the internal organ [manas], it means that avidya is present in Brahman and/or the internal organ. With the internal organ itself being considered an effect/of the nature of avidya and the fact that Brahman's essence is untainted with avidya, it would mean that avidya is a separate ontological entity in itself, which all Advaitins would reject.

(3)The Vivarana claims that in the deep sleep state, there is experience of avidya. Why? Upon waking, a person says - "I did not know anything when I was asleep". However, there is no concept of jiva-hood in deep sleep. If avidya can be directly experienced in the absence of the conception of jiva-hood, this shows that the jiva cannot be the locus of avidya.

Personally, I find argument (3) not that convincing. If jiva is the locus of avidya, why should it be the case that we will experience avidya always together with the conception of jiva-hood? As for (1), I do not think it is completely clear why avidya does not require the notion of jiva for its existence. (2), IMO, is a stronger argument.

Any thoughts?

wundermonk
30 May 2012, 02:55 PM
The Bhamati school was expounded by Vachaspati Mishra [~10th Century C.E.]. The entire text [~31 MB] can be found here (http://asi.nic.in/asi_books/778.pdf).

List of many other Sanskrit documents in English can be found here (http://sanskritdocuments.org/scannedbooks/asiallpdfs.html).

Interestingly Bhamati was the name of Vachaspati Mishra's wife. He seems to have dedicated his magnum opus in her honour.

philosoraptor
30 May 2012, 03:10 PM
What an interesting discussion this will be! Though I don't plan to participate much, I will be following with interest.

Philosoraptor

brahman
31 May 2012, 07:01 AM
Hello everyone:

This thread is NOT meant to develop into a passionate debate until the wheels come off! :) The idea is to simply lay out different philosophical positions held by different schools of Advaita.

There are (atleast) two schools of Advaita - Bhamati and Vivarana. These schools differ from each other in the question of - what is the locus of Avidya? The possibilities are - the individual jiva OR Brahman. In this thread, over time, we can discuss the various arguments put forth by its proponents.

The Bhamati view is that the jiva is the locus of Avidya. The Vivarana school [which believes that Brahman is the locus of Avidya] argues against this using three arguments:

(1)Even if it is considered that the jiva and avidya are beginningless and neither one holds temporal precedence over the other, the very concept of jiva and avidya arise only if one has not realized Brahman - i.e. as long as one is stuck in the perspective of multiplicity. Hence, it follows, that jiva derives its existence from avidya while avidya does not necessarily require the notion of jiva for its existence. Thus, the relationship between jiva and avidya is not one of cause and effect but rather that of the relationship between the pervader [avidya] and the pervaded [jiva].

(2)If avidya is said to have its locus in the jiva and the jiva is, by definition, a blend of Brahman plus the internal organ [manas], it means that avidya is present in Brahman and/or the internal organ. With the internal organ itself being considered an effect/of the nature of avidya and the fact that Brahman's essence is untainted with avidya, it would mean that avidya is a separate ontological entity in itself, which all Advaitins would reject.

(3)The Vivarana claims that in the deep sleep state, there is experience of avidya. Why? Upon waking, a person says - "I did not know anything when I was asleep". However, there is no concept of jiva-hood in deep sleep. If avidya can be directly experienced in the absence of the conception of jiva-hood, this shows that the jiva cannot be the locus of avidya.

Personally, I find argument (3) not that convincing. If jiva is the locus of avidya, why should it be the case that we will experience avidya always together with the conception of jiva-hood? As for (1), I do not think it is completely clear why avidya does not require the notion of jiva for its existence. (2), IMO, is a stronger argument.

Any thoughts?





Dear wundermonk,

This question may naturally arise in every seekers, but

It is absurd to agree that the avidya exist in One Consciousness.

It is not individual either, the locus of avidya, for the reason that the individual is fundamentally one with the One consciousness.

It cannot be the universe for the reason that it is mere superimposition; as the avidya is a ‘negative consciousnesses’ always associate with conscious existence.

It does not exist anywhere at all.

If you think there is something called avidya exist, that must be in you.(This must be the stand of Sankara in this issue)

Recommended Read: Bhagavad Gita Chapter-XIII Commentary by Sankara (Sankara Bhashya)
Love:)



+Ve

Sahasranama
31 May 2012, 07:33 AM
The Bhamati school was expounded by Vachaspati Mishra [~10th Century C.E.]. The entire text [~31 MB] can be found here (http://asi.nic.in/asi_books/778.pdf).

List of many other Sanskrit documents in English can be found here (http://sanskritdocuments.org/scannedbooks/asiallpdfs.html).


An unrelated request, but do you happen to know where to find commentaries of Vijnana Bhikshu on the Brahmasutra (or his other works)?

wundermonk
31 May 2012, 09:19 AM
An unrelated request, but do you happen to know where to find commentaries of Vijnana Bhikshu on the Brahmasutra (or his other works)?

A google search led me here (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9JKqtwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Vijnana+Bhikshu%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hn3HT9fZKMXVrQfb4ujGDg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg).

I am not sure if the book is still in print or not though or even how to get it.

wundermonk
31 May 2012, 12:55 PM
If you think there is something called avidya exist, that must be in you.(This must be the stand of Sankara in this issue)

Chapter 13 does indeed have a very interesting discussion on this issue.

Clearly the relationship of avidya with jiva/Brahman is not perceptible. If it were, the question of whose is Avidya can be easily answered without the need for dialectics of any sort. On this, there is agreement. So, if at all there is a relationship it needs to be inferred.

Shankara argues that the relationship cannot be inferred. Per Advaita [I could be wrong here, so I invite corrections] what is perceived is Avidya. Thus, avidya is an object of perception. If avidya is an object of perception, where is there room to perceive the relationship between avidya and the perceiver? One would have to admit another perception whose object is the relationship between the perceiver and Avidya. So, the perceiver has a perception whose object is the relationship between the perceiver and avidya. Once this is admitted, it sets up an infinite regress. The only way out is to conclude that avidya is knowable [it is an object of knowledge] and the perceiver is the knower and he cannot become the known. This being the case, the self [the knower] is never affected by such entities as avidya, pain, sorrow, etc.

ZarryT
31 May 2012, 01:33 PM
I'd subscribe to a view most like [2], whereby all that which is contained in jiva is necessarily contained in Brahman. Rather than considering avidya as an entity, it is more like a device; it's that which 'maintains the game', where attainment of moksha is 'breaking the game'.

brahman
02 June 2012, 01:22 AM
Chapter 13 does indeed have a very interesting discussion on this issue.

Clearly the relationship of avidya with jiva/Brahman is not perceptible. If it were, the question of whose is Avidya can be easily answered without the need for dialectics of any sort. On this, there is agreement. So, if at all there is a relationship it needs to be inferred.

Shankara argues that the relationship cannot be inferred. Per Advaita [I could be wrong here, so I invite corrections] what is perceived is Avidya. Thus, avidya is an object of perception. If avidya is an object of perception, where is there room to perceive the relationship between avidya and the perceiver? One would have to admit another perception whose object is the relationship between the perceiver and Avidya. So, the perceiver has a perception whose object is the relationship between the perceiver and avidya. Once this is admitted, it sets up an infinite regress. The only way out is to conclude that avidya is knowable [it is an object of knowledge] and the perceiver is the knower and he cannot become the known. This being the case, the self [the knower] is never affected by such entities as avidya, pain, sorrow, etc.





Dear wundermonk,



wundermonk: avidya is an object of perception

Can't say who is correct, will explain it in my way;

From the standpoint of the absolute, what appears has no existence of its own, and thus unreal.

For eg, upon seeing an ornament we, for an unspecified reason, overlook or forget or neglect the gold and take the ornament for real. Similarly when the world is perceived, we forget that it is Brahman that appears as the world. Thus we take the real for unreal. Such a defect seems natural with everyone’s knowledge.

Sankara terms this erroneous defective vision as Avidya.

Upanishads uses a kind of proto language, in which neither definitions nor analogies can help the seeker, if one does not possess the imaginative intuitive insight. With such an insight the seeker arrives at the notion of Vidya, which is the positive counterpart of the defective vision called Avidya.

Once these two ambivalent poles are related dialectically and not merely as in a mechanistic fashion, one arrives at the full vision of the absolute which is neither positive nor negative.

Love:)