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

[H S Chandramouli]

Raghav Ji,

Namaste.

“अविवेक” (aviveka) is “जीव ईश्वर ब्रह्म भेद अध्यास” (jIva Ishvara brahma
bheda adhyAsa) while “विवेक” (viveka) is “जीव ईश्वर ब्रह्म अभेद ज्ञान”
(jIva Ishvara brahma abheda j~nAna). This aviveka or adhyAsa is the cause
for all samsAra. This is so according to both the gItA bhAshya as well as
adyAsa bhAshya. There is no contradiction between the two.

Brahman (Chaitanya) being selfreplendent, this adhyAsa cannot be caused
unless there is veiling or covering, partially though, of Brahman. That is
why this veil, mUla-ajnAna, is considered to be bhAvarUpa. And such a
veiling of Chaitanya is not selfcontradictory because the veil is revealed
or illumined by the Chaitanya itself. Common illustration is that of the
veiling of Sun by clouds. Though sun is veiled by the clouds, the existence
of clouds itself is revealed  by the presence of the Sun only.
Regards

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:46 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> (Resending as the first attempt bounced from the advaita-l server due to
> size constraints. Let us see if this works).
>
> Namaste Raghav ji,
> I think your below email was sent only to me and not the list. Sending it
> now.
>
> I had one comment in relation to a sentence in your last paragraph "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."
>
> I will present my understanding, and others can comment / correct it as
> appropriate - but my understanding is that the aviveka referred to in the
> adhyAsa bhAShya is not the *material* cause or upAdAna kAraNa, but it is a
> nimitta kAraNa used in the sense of an accessory cause (not in the sense as
> an efficient cause as is commonly understood). Like the chakra or the daNDa
> in the creation of the ghaTa, aviveka contributes to adhyAsa, without being
> a material cause of adhyAsa,
>
> As said previously, the absence of viveka contributes to adhyAsa through
> the ongoing existence of avidyA. Therefore the denial of causation to
> aviveka is limited to a denial of its material causation.
>
> With reference to your post script:
>
> "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!"
>
> The focus of the adhyAsa bhAShya is on the adhyAsa itself - hence the name.
> It is adhyAsa that is the cause of dvitIya bhAva, and as the brihadAraNyaka
> upaniShad says, dvitIyAdvai bhayam bhavati. When there is avidyA, but no
> adhyAsa, there is no bhayam, dukham etc - e.g. in deep sleep. (This point
> has support from the ratnaprabhA, see below).
>
> That is why, AchArya concludes his adhyAsa bhAShya saying एवमयमनादिरनन्तो
> नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तकः सर्व
> लोकप्रत्यक्षः अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे
> वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते । The anartha hetu he is referring to is the adhyAsa
> that is the central theme of the adhyAsa bhAShya.
>
> Now it may be asked, instead of talking about avidyA which is the root
> cause of samsAra and which is indirectly referred to in the first sUtra,
> why is shankarAchArya talking of adhyAsa instead? The answer is being
> provided by the bhAShyakAra - तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति
> मन्यन्ते । तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणं विद्यामाहुः । - The adhyASa that
> is being referred to here is called avidyA by paNDItAs, on account of it
> being an effect of avidyA and because it (adhyAsa) too is removed by jnAna.
> This is spoken of in the sentence beginning with tadvivekena.
> As the ratnaprabhA says:
>
> ननु ब्रह्मज्ञाननाश्यत्वेन सूत्रितामविद्यां हित्वा अध्यासः किमिति वर्ण्यत
> इत्यत आह -
>
> तमेतमिति ।
>
> आक्षिप्तं समाहितमुक्तलक्षणलक्षितमध्यासमविद्याकार्यत्वादविद्येति मन्यन्त
> इत्यर्थः ।
>
> विद्यानिवर्त्यत्वाच्चास्याविद्यात्वमित्याह -
>
> तद्विवेकेनेति |
>
>
> The ratnaprabhA continues:
>
> तथापि कारणाविद्यां त्यक्त्वा कार्याविद्या किमिति वर्ण्यते तत्राह -
>
> तत्रेति ।
>
> तस्मिन्नध्यासे उक्तन्यायेनाविद्यात्मके सतीत्यर्थः । मूलाविद्यायाः
> सषुप्तावनर्थत्वादर्शनात्कार्यात्मना तस्या अनर्थत्वज्ञापनार्थं तद्वर्णनमिति
> भावः ।
> Even so, instead of talking of the root cause avidyA, why is the avidyA
> which is its effect (ie adhyAsa) being talked about? That is answered with
> "tatra". The adhyAsa is on the basis of what was just said (because it
> shares with ignorance the quality of being removed by knowledge) is of the
> nature of ignorance. The import is that in deep sleep, when avidyA is
> present in its form as mUlAvidyA, there is no experience of the anartha
> (such as kartritva-bhoktritvAdi), whereas when the same avidyA is present
> in the form of its effect (adhyAsa), the very same avidyA is the source of
> anartha. Therefore adhyAsa is being talked about predominantly, not avidyA.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>