[Advaita-l] A replica of Adhyasa Bhashya in the Gita Bhashya13.26

[H S Chandramouli]

Raghav Ji,

Namaste.

Reg  << P.S. Would you say there is any other way to atleast hint that
avidyA is
> not-abhAva from adhyAsa bhAShya alone? (Since the avivekena reference has
> to be dispensed with in view of maintaining concordance with gItA bhAShya
> 13.26.? I admit the constraint of adhyAsa bhAShya alone is a bit unfair!
>> ,

Copying below from AdhyAsa BhAshya of Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal.
Translation I think is by Sri Shastri. Not sure if this answers your
question.

<< Mithyajnana is split up as mithya+ajnana, i.e. ignorance which is
mithya, that is, it cannot be described as either real or unreal. This is
the
reason for the wrong identification. By using the word ‘nimitta’ after
mithyajnana in the Bhashya it is pointed out that ignorance is the
material cause (upaadaana kaaranam) of the superimposition. In
Vedantic terminology, the word ‘nimitta’ is used to denote the efficient
cause and the word ‘upaadaana’ denotes the material cause. But in
grammar and also in worldly usage ‘nimitta’ is used to denote material
cause also. In Nyaya several kinds of causes such as samavayi,
asamavayi, nimitta, are mentioned, but in Vedanta only two causes,
nimitta and upaadaana, are accepted. For any effect to be produced a
material cause is necessary. Illusion (bhrama), being an effect, must have
a material cause. In this sentence in the Bhashya there is no other word
to denote the material cause and so the word ‘nimitta’ has been
interpreted by Prakatarthakara as material cause. The word
itaretaraavivekena—meaning, ‘due to non-discrimination between the self and
the
not-self’- has been interpreted as denoting the efficient cause.
Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe,
but it is the material cause only through vivarta or transfiguration and
not parinaama or transformation, Ajnaana is the material cause of the
universe by transformation (parinami-upaadaanakaarana). Ajnaana is a
defect (dosha) and so the word nimitta implies that ajnana is the efficient
cause also.
Can the word mithyajnaana be split up as mithya+jnaana also? The
answer is no, because the word would then mean adhyasa itself, but not
the cause of adhyasa >>.

Being the upAdAna kAraNa, avidyA cannot be of abhAvarUpa.
Regards

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:44 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> > Namaste Venkat ji
> > Thank you.
> > That clarifies the matter. Although I was aware of the
> > mithyAGYAna-nimittaH passage in bhAShya, I was only highlighting the
> > 'avivekena' reference for a reason.
> >
> > But first -
> > From what you, Praveenji and Subbu ji wrote, equating
> > 'vivekAbhAva-nibandhanaH' (gItA bhAShya) with 'avivekena' (adhyAsa
> bhAShya)
> > is fine. And so the idea that these two passage from different texts are
> > replicas is also tenable. That's the main thing.
> >
> > The issue arises if vivekAbhAva-nibandhanaH' and 'avivekena' are both
> > asserted as referring to mUlAvidyA. The latter could conceivably be
> > amenable to that (by taking virodhArtha nanj) but not the former, since
> the
> > abhAva challenge comes in, in the word vivekAbhAva-nibandhanaH.
> >
> > I now recollect why I got interested to this matter. I was party to a
> > discussion a long time back where it was challenged (in a nice way of
> > course !  ) that the adhyAsa bhAShya has no direct reference to avidyA
> > except for the allegedly contrived parsing of mithyAGYAna as mithyA +
> > aGYAnam , rather than mithyA + GYAnam.
> > This was countered by a traditional scholar saying that 'avivekena' also
> > can be interpreted as (causal) avidyA being responsible for the arising
> of
> > adhyAsa. This was not the only argument given by him. But his riposte
> sort
> > of struck me.
> >
> > But in the wake of the desirable need to show harmony across adhyAsa and
> > gItA  bhAShyas, it may not be tenable to hold that aviveka is causal etc.
> > Instead, in  both cases, aviveka is just the temporal continuance of
> > adhyAsa. It's a post-facto observation of human experience of feeling
> bound
> > up with the body-mind, because the viveka-vRtti or vidyA-vRtti born of
> > shravanAdi has not arisen.
> >
> >
> > Om
> >
> > Raghav
> >
> > P.S. Would you say there is any other way to atleast hint that avidyA is
> > not-abhAva from adhyAsa bhAShya alone? (Since the avivekena reference has
> > to be dispensed with in view of maintaining concordance with gItA bhAShya
> > 13.26.? I admit the constraint of adhyAsa bhAShya alone is a bit unfair!
>
>