DvitiyAdyAya (Part Two) of VyAvahArika Vritti continues

The conviction on appropriating the vyAvahArika itself is complex on it being real or not. Vyavaharika directly takes the meaning empirical reality. This does not anyway miss out to experiment the unrealities. Hence it is left to us that it would not be wrong to handle vyAvahArika as a dimensional ramification which subjects the superimposition of sat and asat (real and unreal) on either of their domains. The film of avidya ( illusion) is a litmus test that experiments both the cases of superimposition. The degree of invariants derived investigates the results of reality or otherwise. VyAvahArika thus constitutes two main inter disciplines in it. They are the parinAma and the vivarta. parinAma derives the differences between the real and unreal postulates of the self while the vivarta formulates the identities of the Ultimate – the Brahman. Hence integration of parinAma and the vivarta enjoins to discern the definition of vyAvahArika (laksana). parinAma initially probes into the characterization of the subject while attributing the object - self . This is known as avidyAkalpita nAmarupa vyavahArikagocaratva – defining the avidya – the illusion and then the characterization of the self, both in the in the coarse of vyavahArika. This clearly points out that illusion is the cause for the perpetual bewilderment of the subject and the subsequent effect that attempts to characterize the object – self, involves the relative distinction between the both. The assumption of the nature of cause is apparently arbitrary. ParinAma vAda is said to be akin to the vyAvahArika hence termed as the doctrine of actual modification. The Mandukya kArika of gaudapAda puts forths a brilliant argument that sets as a case study in validating the actual modification methodology as it says ‘if the unborn (Self) undergoes modification (actual) through Maya and not in any other way. For, if the modifications are to be a reality, the immortal would tend to be mortal’. The soul – self here being arbitrarily immortal, the avidya or mAya – the cause is essentially taken to be unreal. Most of the schools including kumarila Batta, Sankara, Ramanuja accept that the knowledge of the existence of unreality or in other words the knowledge of absence of reality is sought from the proof of non existence termed as anupalabdhi. ( This is in the case of self being ignorant. Schools like naiyayika takes different views ) the treatment of the cause must be with at most care as it would end up to mean infinite regress – ‘ ad infinitum’ termed as upalabdhi. Bhatta, Ramanuja and later advaitins were mainly inclined to anupalabdhi method to conceptualize the cause – self. Shri Sureshwara apprehends the knowledge of the object – self is mere absence of reality and says that avidya is only due to the erroneous knowledge ie., the anyathAjnana and hence proves that the ignorance is not complete absence of knowledge but is the basis of error and doubt. Such a kind of an obscure knowledge is due the kArpanya dhOsha (BG 2.7). Now we have to look upon the nature of actual modification of the object. Pancadasi points out that in the case of actual modification the substratum is never modified. Then in our case the substratum is the nature of self being immortal which is never altered rather the appearance of it being an effect of karma which is so as a result of the so termed anupalabdhi or the obscure knowledge. Hence forth the knowledge of the substratum (self) would apparently annihilate the erroneous knowledge no matter whether it is real or not. Advaitins and VisistAdvaitins take sharp contradictions to contemplate such a demand for annihilation at this particular juncture. Asad vailakshanye satyapi na sadvailaksanyam …

avidyAvritti of vyAvahArika vritti will continue …