On ignorance, consciousness, knowing and nescience, and ego

Brahman only gets birth and rebirth. He only is the individual self, Of him only there is the knowledge of “I” etc. Therefore, it is established that individual self is one only with nescience as his adjunct.

What is ignorance? It cannot be said that it is sublet able by knowledge
as well as beginningless positive.

We say the ignorance of the material cause of silver is also beginning-less because it has its locus in the beginning-less Consciousness.
Or, ignorance is the material cause of an illusion..

Ignorance is negatible directly by the character of knowledge.
The follwoing six are accepted to be beginning-less: Jiva, Iswara, Pure Consciousness, difference between Jiva and Iswara, Avidya and its relation with Consciousness.

As regards ignorance, “I am ignorant, I don’t know me and anything “, (general perception) and I don’t know what you said (particular perception), “So far I had been in deep sleep. I did not know anything (inferential deep sleep perception) – these are just evidences.
One knowing the ignorance of an object starts discussion to remove it. This is
common experience.

(Sadya) – The knowledge defined by mental state under dispute; is along with another substance, belongs to its own place, will be negated by it, veils its object, and is different from its own antecedent negation.

(Hetu) Because it illuminates a meaning that was previously not illuminated.

(Drishtantha) – Like the light that appears first amidst darkness.

It is said, As persons who are ignorant about treasures do not get it even though walking over it again and again. So also, all these creatures do not realize Brahman although they reach daily (during sleep) this world of Brahman because they are carried away by untruth.
It is said (upanishads) they are carried by untruth as the following…
They are covered by snow,
In the beginning there was darkness,
Maya is to be understood as Prakriti,
There is one unborn being red, white and black,
Those who dwell in nescience,
There is further cessation at the end of the non-reality of the world.
These are evidences on ignorance in the Srutis.

The otherwise incompatibility of non-illumination of unsurpassed Brahman bliss of Jiva is also evidence for ignorance.

That nescience is known through Sakshin and not illuminated by pure
Consciousness. Sakshi is Consciousness reflected in nescience.
Therefore it is said that nescience like Rahu is illuminated by the Consciousness which it conceals. (Rahu conceals the sun/moon during an eclipse and it is illiuninated by the sun/moon.)
By this it should not be said that nescience is not known sometime; this is acceptable, since in concentration, this has been accepted.

Pure consciousness is the particular point of nescience.
It has been said, Pure Consciousness is the particular point and object of nescience. All that come into being after nescience can neither be a particular point nor object of
nescience which exists before them. Therefore, because of the distinction due to nescience, only in Consciousness, the state of being liberation and worldliness and omniscience and limited knowledge can be compatible.

What is meant by cognizer of everything is the consciousness that which cognizes everything and not the omniscience of Brahman therefore, the omniscience is in the qualified Consciousness and that is not possible without nescience.

Scholars think that Jiva is the particular point of nescience just as the pot exists in the space limited by itself. Therefore there is no harm in jiva being the particular point of nescience.

It is only the Pure Consciousness which is the object of nescience. Since it is not imposed, there is no mutual dependency. Since it is self-luminous, it is possible for nescience to veil its light. Nothing else is because everything else is product of
nescience and has no light, there is no scope to veil.

Ahamkara (ego or that which creates “i-ness”) is known to be with desire etc… In deep sleep there is no desire etc. and there is no experience of “I”. So, Ahamkara is different from the Self, who is experienced as the particular point of nescience.

Then, therefore, instruction on Ahamkara, then therefore, instruction on Atma – instructs separately. This is evidence for separateness.
Ahamkara is in the form of a knot with two parts; one of the sentient and the other insentient.
Although in the insentient part, the intellect, there is the agency and with this qualification, the intellect, without superimposition on the sentient part, the cognition “I am the agent ” is not possible. Therefore, super-imposition is necessary.
Therefore, agency is superimposed on the Self.

Ahamkara has two parts. As in the case of the superimposition of the mind along with agency etc, on the Consciousness part, the body and organs along with Brahminhood, deafness etc is superimposed on the Self. This is possible. Therefore, in Self, the superimposition of body and organs etc. is compatible.
Therefore, from the cognition of the common cowboy onwards of “I am white” etc – the mind is superimposed on the Self. Similarly, the superimposition of the body and its properties is proved.

Different from, existence, absolute nothing, and existence and absolute
nothing
When it is incapable of being described as existence and absolute nothing, it is also incapable of being described as existence cum absolute nothing.
It is subletable at a given point. These definitions are possible without doubt.
Like in the opinion of Logicians, conjunction and its absence of difference and absence of difference, the existence cum absolute nothing and its absence, are not contradictory.
Therefore, the common shell-silver indeterminability definition is not incompatible.

In perception, “the silver shone as non-real (false).”
(Sadhya) The thing under dispute is different from existence, from absolute nothing and existence cum absolute nothing,
(Reason) Because it is subject to sublation or it seems to be the result of defect. As an example Brahman.
The thing under dispute, shell-silver etc, if it were existence, it would not have been sublated, if it were absolute absence of existence, it would not be cognized. But it is sublated and also is cognized by perception… Therefore , it is different from existence and absolute absence of existence and hence it is indeterminable..

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: