[Advaita-l] Imagined Nature of Root Ignorance in Vivaranam

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Ananda Hudli prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I am really pleased to see the balanced approach of your good self  to 
this controversial subject.  However, those who read the explanation of 
vivaraNa school would definitely get an impression that bhAvarUpa avidyA 
or mUlAvidyA has a special status 'other than' normally explained avidyA 
as agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa & saMshaya in shankara bhAshya.  It is because 
of their over emphasis on jnAna virOdhi, avidyA shakti which enjoys the 
same status as brahman and more importantly, according to this school, 
this avidyA shakti or mulAvidyA is neither agrahaNa, nor anyathAgrahaNa 
nor saMshaya nor even saMskAra rUpa. 

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that explanations, whether
they make use of the adhyAropa/apavAda technique or some other, never
claim that adhyAsa or mulAvidyA is real in the sense
that it is on par with Brahman. 

>  but as you know panchapAdika vivaraNa clearly says mulAvidyA is 
brahmAshraya & tUlAvidyA is jeevAshraya.  And this mUlAvidyA has the 
existence in Atma satta / chaitanya.  Do you really think prabhuji,  this 
superior status of avidyA which is almost on par with brahma was required 
for the panchapAdika vivaraNakAra-s when shankara without ambiguity 
clearly said that adhyAsa is anAdi anata, naisargika and mithyApratyaya 
rUpa in adhyAsa bhAshya ?? 


It is only for the purpose of
explanation that these techniques are used and adhyAsa or mUlAvidyA is
given a "bhAvarUpa" status. 

>  but that which is bhAva rUpa cannot be an end to it as shankara 
observes in sUtra bhAshya : na hi bhAvAnAm niranvayO nirupAkhyO vinAshaH 
saMbhavati and in geeta nAbhAvO vidyate sataH..Under this circumstances, 
can it be rational to give bhAvarUpa status to avidyA and its 
uninterrupted existence in sUshupti and its potency to cover even Atman & 
its upAdAna kAraNatva to adhyAsa prabhuji??


ajnAna is different from both existence and nonexistence. However, it is
customarily called bhAvarUpa to indicate (emphasize) that it is different
from nonexistence (absence). (Yet) one cannot infer that it is 
beginningless
*and* non-sublatable like the Atman.

BhAvarUpa clearly means neither pure Sat, like Atman, nor does it mean
an utterly nonexistent entity, such as the horns of a hare. This is
the same as sadasadvilakShaNa, also known as "anirvachanIya."

>  as far as my knowledge goes (I may be wrong anyway) this 
anivachaneeyatva has been explained by shankara with respect to 
avidyAkruta nAma rUpa i.e. mAya, not avidyA itself.  As far as avidyA 
definition is concerned, IMHO, shankara is very clear in his adhyAsa 
bhAshya, tametamevaMlakshaNamadhyAsaM paNditAH avidyeti manyante.  and 
adhyAsOnAmAttasminstatbuddhi and as we all no in geeta bhAshya 13.2 
wherein shankara clearly counts ONLY three lakshaNa-s of avidyA as 
agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa & saMshaya...I dont think shankara categorically 
states this type of avidyA is anirvachaneeya. However, I know most of the 
traditional scholars equates mAya with avidyA unconditionally, they tend 
to argue whatever said with respect to mAya equally applicable to avidyA 
as well as these two words are paryAya pada-s. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar