[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Does the Vivarana argument lead to an existent avidya? SSSS's comment

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Michael ji.

> Prakasatman in the Vivarana:
>
> “But we know through presumption (arthapatti) that that which is
> beginningless, and false, and the material cause of false superimposition,
> and related to the Self, cannot he anything other than Ignorance. The point
> being made is that the existence of false superimposition forces us to
> presume the existence of false Ignorance as its material cause, since false
> superimposition could not arise from any other source. (cited in SSSS, The
> Method of Vedanta p759)
>
Everything is perfect. Just one point for clarification -- the "existence"
of superimposition and the "existence" of ignorance are not their own. The
existence is (of) substratum which appears coupled with superimposition and
ignorance.

--*Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati’s comment:*
>
> If Ignorance is known, directly through immediate experience, then it
> ought not to be a matter of dispute amongst argumentative philosophers.
>
The appearance of ignorance is  not a matter of dispute between anyone,
much less between argumentative philosophers. Even an eight years old
cowherd boy on Alps mountain says without any doubt "I am ignorant. I don't
know what you told." So, appearance of ignorance is not a matter of
dispute. The adjectives of ignorance are subject matter of dispute because
they are not known through immediate experience (pratyaksha).

> The sustained attempt (by Prakasatman) to explain Ignorance with the help
> of the various means of cognition (perception at M. V. 239, 1-2, inference
> at 23S, 3, presumption a+ 233,4,5, revelation at 239,6) appears to be
> misguided, as it can only end in representing it as existent.
>
SSSS ji failed to understand the teaching of VivaraNa on account of
misguided fundamentals. VivaraNa uses the various means of cognitions to
demonstrate the ignorance-qualified-with-specific-adjectives and not
ignorance *per se*. Further, the very fact that existence belongs not to
ignorance but to the substratum shows the hollowness of SSSS ji's statement.

> There is no dispute amongst mankind in general that they are subject to
> ignorance, nor are they concerned whether such ignorance should be labelled
> existent or non-existent. Nor are all the philosophers in contention agreed
> that they experience positive, indeterminable Ignorance, conceived as
> something over and above individual illusion (and as its cause). Ordinary
> people of the world have such experiences as 'I do not know', 'I am in
> doubt' and 'I am confused’ and experience non-perception, doubt and wrong
> perception as varieties of (ordinary everyday) ignorance, sometimes
> positive, sometimes negative, while con tending philosophers, and
> reflective observers generally who do not happen to agree with Prakasatman
> and his school, openly deny the existence of indeterminable positive
> Ignorance as taught in his system.
>
The so-called philosophers of the world and ordinary people of the world
have no idea that there is an ignorance by which this entire world is born.
They cannot fathom it in any stretch of their imagination that some
ignorance can give birth to this entire world (अनात्मनः च
अज्ञानप्रसूतत्वात्, Naishkarmya Siddhi) . So, we are not concerned with
their denial or acceptance. We are mumukshu and seek to attain jnAna which
is covered by ajnAna. In order to do that, we need to understand the nature
of ajnAna. Without knowing the problem, you cannot solve it. So, knowing
the nature of ignorance is crucial in VedAnta.

Nor is there any mention, direct or indirect, anywhere in Sri Sankara's
> commentaries, of any positive Ignorance other than the triad of
> non-perception, doubt and wrong perception. This is a point that must be
> carefully considered.”
>
First of all, SSSS ji has not understood VivaraNa and hence his usage of
the word "positive" is itself misleading. It has been explained that
ignorance is neither bhAva nor abhAva because of bAdhaka-sattva for both.
It is different from bhAva as well as abhAva. It is called bhAvarUpa so as
to distinguish it from abhAva. I am not at all sure whether SSSS ji knows
this. If he knew it, then he should have said so in his writings. If he did
not know this, his understanding of VivaraNa is flawed and hence not worthy
of analysis and response. Further, a bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa avidyA is
present at every step of ShAnkara BhAshya.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.