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

[V Subrahmanian]

Can the word mithyajnaana be split up as mithya+jnaana also?

Actually those who do not subscribe to the 'muulaa avidyaa' have opposed
the 'mithyaa cha tadajnaanam cha' and favored the 'mithyaa cha tad jnaanam
cha' as this would give them the meaning adhyasa for that word without the
need for an avidya that is the cause of the adhyasa.

regards

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:51 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>