[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[Anand Hudli]

Two questions may be asked of avidyA (ignorance). For example, if a person
does not know a pot, we may say he/she has ignorance regarding the pot. In
other words, the locus (Ashraya) of ignorance is the person while the
content (viShaya) of ignorance is the pot itself. Basically, the locus is
the answer to the question: Who has the ignorance or who is ignorant? The
content is the answer to the question: What is the ignorance regarding? We
may ask the same two questions of ignorance regarding Brahman. Who has
avidyA? What is the avidyA regarding? In this case, all advaitins agree
that the content (viShaya) of avidyA is Brahman, but not so on the first
question. According to the VivaraNa school, the locus of avidyA is Brahman,
but the bhAmatI school takes the locus of avidyA to be the individual soul
(jIva). Shankara says in his sUtra bhAShya (1.4.3): avidyātmikā hi
bījaśaktiravyaktaśabdanirdeśyā *parameśvarāśrayā* māyāmayī mahāsuptiḥ,
yasyāṃ svarūpapratibodharahitāḥ śerate saṃsāriṇo jīvāḥ / . Here Shankara's
position that avidyA has its locus (Ashraya) in Ishvara has been
interpreted by bhAmatIkAra vAcaspati mishra as jIvAdhikaraNApyavidyA
nimittatayA viShayatayA vA IshvaramAshrayata iti IshvarAshrayetyucyate na
tu AdhAratayA vidyAsvabhAve brahmaNi tadanupapatteH. Although avidyA is
spoken of as having Ishvara (Brahman) as the Ashraya, what is meant is that
the content of avidyA is Brahman, not the locus of avidyA, because it is
not possible for Brahman, whose nature is vidyA (knowledge), to be the
locus of avidyA. Besides, Shankara has also hinted that the jIva is locus
of avidyA in his sUtra bhAShya 4.1.3: kasya punaḥ ayam aprabodha iti cet
/ yas tvaṃ pṛcchasi tasya ta iti vadāmaḥ /, if you ask - whose is avidyA?
We say it is yours who ask thus. Again, in the gItA bhAshya, Shankara says
as much (13.2): avidyA kasya, yasya dRshyate tasyaiva. Whose is ignorance?
It is his by whom it is seen.

Therefore, vAcaspati declares (1.1.4), na avidyA brahmAshrayA, kintu jIve,
sA tvanirvacanIyetyuktam, tena nityashuddhameva brahma, the locus of
ignorance is not Brahman, but the individual soul, jIva. And that avidyA
has been stated to be anirvacanIyA, not definable as sat or asat. It
follows that Brahman is ever pure (i.e. not tainted by ignorance). An
objection is also met by vAcaspati. It is said that jIva is Brahman with
avidyA as the upAdhi. However, according to bhAmatI, jIva is also the locus
or substratum of avidyA. Therefore, there is a circular dependency between
the two. We cannot understand the concept of jIva without avidyA and we
cannot understand the concept of avidyA without jIva. It is  therefore not
possible to establish either concept. As stated by vAcaspati, this
objection is, avidyopAdhibhedAdhIno jIvabhedo, jIvabhedAdhinashca
avidyopAdhibheda iti parasparAshrayAdubhayAsiddhiriti. And he answers the
objection by citing the example of the seed and sprout (bIjAnkura nyAya).
The seed is the cause of the sprout and the sprout is the cause of the
seed. But we accept this in everyday life, because it is impossible to say
which came first - the seed or the sprout. Both are without a beginning,
anAdi. So vAcaspati says that because of the anAditva of jIva and avidyA,
both have to be accepted as established. anditvAdbIjAMkuravadubhayasiddheH.

Anand