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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

>
> <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>>
>
Namaste ji

>
> This aviveka or adhyAsa is the cause for all samsAra.
>>
> In the above sentence you wrote, having the phrase "aviveka or adhyAsa", I
> was
> trying to see what the idea of aviveka being the nimitta kAraNa for a
> given adhyAsa implies, which was mentioned by Sri Mani Dravida Sastrigal
> quoting prakaTArthakAra.
>
> For example we could examine the rope illusions or desert illusions and
> see what is avidyA (upAdAna kAraNam), what is aviveka (nimitta kAraNam) and
> adhyAsa (kAryam). The last two viz., the nimitta kAraNam and kAryam seem
> very similar and I was trying to delineate them. The past smritis, and
> samskAras engendered by them, would figure in this scheme? (as the nimitta
> kAraNa, perhaps?) - that's my question. The idea of pUrva adhyAsa being the
> (efficient?) cause of uttara adhyAsa also is relevant here.
>
> 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.
>>
> This idea of avidyA having vyAvahArika reality like mAyA is subtle and
> takes time to understand. Its more intuitive to accept that objects in a
> dualistic world are mithyA (through kArya-kAraNa-ananyatva-nyAya) but it's
> not obvious that avidyA is not merely an absence ; it has some ontological
> status and that it is AvaraNatmikA, i.e., it is only, "as mithyA as", trees
> and rocks! It not less real than trees and rocks.
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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>
>> <#m_2831566186987954026_m_-8404234004637328825_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>