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

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Venkatraghavanji - PraNAms
I am aware that the avidya is considered as bhavaruupa.
I had posted in the past (around 2000) a series on Adhyasa Bhashya based on my notes taken during Swami Paramarthanandaji Brahmasutra classes. It used to be available on Adviatin's website. 
Experientially, however, I still have a problem in accepting the bhaavaruupa aspect of avidya.
Taking the rope/snake case, partial knowledge, I mean, is the satya amsha - that there is an object out there which is, say, 5ft, and coiled and lying on the alley. 
There is a partial ignorance since I do not have complete attributive knowledge of the object out there. 
Now, the question is, does the ignorance projects or my mind with chidaabaasa (upahita chaitanyam) projects the snake based on memory and saadRisyam of a snake and the rope? 
Ignorance is only covering the knowledge while the vikshepa is by the upahita chaitnya, even though the cause for projection by the mind is the partial ignorance of the object out there. In essence, the viskhepa shakti comes from the upahita chaitanya or the activated mind due to chidaabhaasa. 
For the case of the Self, I know I am sat and chit but not ananda which is limitless. 
This is at vyashti level.
At samashti level, avidya, we call it as maaya shakti. There the total mind or Iswara with mayyashakti projects - Iswara we can call Him as upahita Chaitanya at the global level. 
The same thing can be visualized for the dream projection where the global mind is the waker's mind and jiiva's mind in the dream is the mind of the dreamer-subject where he also has ekonavishati mukhaH as Mandukya Up. says.
One can argue that the mind itself is projection due to avidya - Here we are embedded in the cyclic process with anynonya aashrya,  leaving it as anirvachneeyam. 
tat aikshataa, etc statements before creation do not refer to avidya but contemplative meditation for creation by Iswara. 
In essence, my problem is in accepting the bhaavaruupa avidya than abhaaaruupa avidya. Experientially this does not seem to be valid as it is in the rope/snake case.  
I am aware of the tradition of accepting the bhaavaruupa avidya.
Just voicing my concern. Some of the above aspects may have been pointed out by SSS, but I have not studied his works, perhaps Bhaskarji may be able to clarify. 
Hari Om!Sadananda



 

    On Friday, May 1, 2020, 02:23:46 PM GMT+5:30, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 Pranam Sadaji,
I didn't quite understand what you meant by the phrase partial jnAna abhAva
- do you mean partial abhAva of jnAna, or abhAva of partial jnAna? Also
what jnAna are we referring to?

The difference into vyaShti and samaShTi itself being on account of the
differences in the upAdhi, and the upAdhi itself being a result of avidyA,
the adhyAsa of the nature of satyAnRte mithunikaraNam should occur even
before the differences into vyaShTi and samaShTi emerge.

However, you are right that the "ahamidam mamedam iti naisargikoyam
lokavyavahara" refers to the vyaShTi level.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Fri, 1 May 2020, 03:21 Kuntimaddi Sadananda, <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Venkatraghavanji - PraNAms
>
> Thanks for this post.
>
> As a side note, I always wonder why jnaana abhaava itself can cause
> vikshepa shakti. Partial Jnaana abhaava may be a cause but vikshepa should
> be located in upahita chaitanya either at vyaShTi level for praatibhaasika,
> and samShTi level for vyaavaahirka adhyaasa. SatyaanRita mithuneekaraNam
> should be occurring at the upahita chaitanya level only for any adhyaasa.
>
> Just thinking.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 30, 2020, 11:24:14 PM GMT+5:30, Venkatraghavan S via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
> Namaste Raghav ji,
> I don't think this refers to vivekajnAna abhAva being a (upAdAna) kAraNa of
> the samyoga.
>
> Rather, AchArya is saying that because of the absence of discrimination
> between what is the self (or rope) and what is the non-self (or snake), one
> ends up with the samyoga of the two, meaning the mixing up of the self for
> the bon self and vice-versa.
>
> If that viveka was there, the ajnAna would not survive its presence,
> therefore
> in the absence of the viveka, ajnAna is present, and consequently gives
> rise to the adhyAsa.
>
> One clearly cannot say jnAnAbhAva gave rise to the adhyAsa, because katham
> asata: sajjAyeta? (As AchArya says here
> itself तस्य यथोक्तसम्यग्दर्शनविरोधात् अपगच्छति मिथ्याज्ञानम् - how will an
> absence go? Ergo it cannot be an absence).
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020, 18:11 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > A follow up sentence I missed - the word "causative" is better written as
> > 'causal' indicating its latency and absence of direct observability.
> >
> > Again, any corrections are welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Apr, 2020, 9:59 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
> > raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste Praveen ji
> > > A doubt here -
> > > 1. You wrote - I think the Panchami just means hetu here.
> > >
> > > 2. I’d be a little careful using it as a causative for adhyAsa as it
> > might
> > > accrue the same flaw ajnAna being abhAvarUpa! 😊
> > > (I am intrigued...!)
> > > 3. And then concluded with nibandhanam = kAraNam
> > >
> > > Are not the ideas of "hetu", "causative factor" and "kAraNam"
> > > interchangeable , or am I missing something here?
> > >
> > > I think if you could elaborate point 2, it should clarify the entire
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Also to check if the following ways of putting it are correct, please
> let
> > > me know.
> > > 1. adhyAsa is caused by avidyA
> > > 2. avidyA is the hetu for the occurrence of adhyAsa.
> > > 3. avidyA is the kAraNam for adhyAsa.
> > >
> > > Om
> > >
> > > Raghav
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Apr, 2020, 9:41 PM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l, <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Namaste Raghav ji,
> > >> (Thanks Subbuji for the OP)
> > >>
> > >> From: Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l
> > >>
> > >> Can we counter the objection (by just looking at this reference) that
> > >> aGYAna is GYAnAbhAva? Since the abhAva reference is there in this gItA
> > >> passage -  "तद्विवेकज्ञानाभावात्
> > >> अध्यारोपितसर्परजतादिसंयोग..." .
> > >>
> > >> Would it be logical to say that the Panchami prayoga in
> > >> vivekaGYAna-abhAvAt
> > >> itself implies a causative factor for adhyAsa?
> > >>
> > >> >>> I think the Panchami just means hetu here. I’d be a little careful
> > >> using it as a causative for adhyAsa as it might accrue the same flaw
> > ajnAna
> > >> being abhAvarUpa! 😊
> > >>
> > >> Also in  विषयविषयिणोः भिन्नस्वभावयोः इतरेतरतद्धर्माध्यासलक्षणः संयोगः
> > >> क्षेत्र
> > >> क्षेत्रज्ञस्वरूपविवेकाभावनिबन्धनः, a point to consider is whether the
> > word
> > >> nibandhaH can be taken as the "seat" or "basis" or "origin" - again
> all
> > >> these have the causative sense. (...the other meaning of nibandhanaH
> as
> > >> "fastening" or "tying together" is also there of course). So we could
> > say
> > >> अध्यासलक्षणः संयोगः विवेकाभावनिबन्धनः  (विवेकाभावः यस्य निबन्धनः सः
> > >> विवेकाभावनिबन्धनः).
> > >>
> > >> >>> क्षेत्रस्वरूप-क्षेत्रज्ञस्वरूपयोः विवेकस्य अभावः निबन्धनं = कारणं
> > >> यस्य संयोगस्य सः संयोगः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञस्वरूपविवेकाभावनिबन्धनः। I
> urge
> > >> those interested to read Bhagavan Anandagiri’s TIkA on it ending
> nicely
> > >> with सम्यग्ज्ञानात् अज्ञानतत्कार्यनिवृत्त्या मुक्तिः, इति स्थिते,
> > फलितमाह-
> > >> य एवमिति
> > >>
> > >> Kind rgds,
> > >> --Praveen R. Bhat
> > >> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
> > know
> > >> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >>
> > >> For assistance, contact:
> > >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org