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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji,
Indeed. That adhyAsa is a samsArahetu cannot be in doubt - asya
*anarthahetoh* prahANAya AtmaikyavidyApratipattaye sarve vedAntA
Arabhyante, says the bhAShyakAra.

If such an adhyAsa is anartha hetu, it must be bhAvarUpa. If that is not
accepted, then it will be a case of a non-existent thing leading to a
bhAvarUpa samsAra consisting of kartRtva / bhoktRtva / rAga/ / dveSha. So
whatever is the type of bhAvarUpatva that is conceded by ajnAna
abhAvavAdin-s for adhyAsa and samsAra, is the same bhAvarUpatva that is
accepted ajnAna bhAvavAdin-s.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:15 AM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkatji,
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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".
>>
> ...
>
>
> Thanks for the Brihad bhAShya quotations. There is another issue that I
> keep pointing out to those who object to avidyA being bhAvarUpa that if it
> is abhAvarUpa, then it cannot be any kind of kAraNa to anything, let alone
> saMsAra. If they argue that mAyA, "different from avidyA" is the kAraNa,
> still adhyAsa has to be accepted as a kAraNa for individuality. If adhyAsa
> is same as avidyA, avidyA being abhAvarUpa, and any kind of kAraNa, would
> leave us with no possibility of rejecting shUnyavAda wholesale! A
> non-existent avidyA/ adhyAsa contributing to any saMsaraNa or delusion or
> whatever it contributes to, is no better than shUnyavAda.
>
> Somewhere in Taittiriyabhashya, if memory serves right, Bhagavan
> Bhashyakara says that even Naiyyayika's prAgabhAva is different from this
> shUnya of yours to a Bauddha pUrvapakSha, the former being a padArtha while
> the latter complete non-existence.
>
> 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] */
>