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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Raghav ji,
I don't think your email to me was sent to the group either. Copying it in
full below for the benefit of everyone else.

To clarify, I am using the term nimitta kAraNa as used in nyAya shAstra,
not in vedAnta. That is, this is a supporting cause - with its presence,
one attains the result. Think of a situation where there is a pratibandha
or an obstacle. Say there is an inhibitor, which prevents fuel from
catching fire. When the inhibitor is present, fuel does not burn even when
in the presence of a lit match. When the inhibitor is absent, and a lit
match is brought in front of the fuel, it catches fire and starts burning.
Thus, the absence of the inhibitor is necessary for the result of fire to
take place.

Similarly here - if viveka is present, the result of adhyAsa cannot take
place. If viveka and other such nimitta-s are (nidrA, etc) absent, and the
upAdAna kAraNa (ajnAna) is also present, then adhyAsa will take place. The
absence of viveka here is the nimitta kAraNa or supporting factor for
adhyAsa.

I am not saying that aviveka is some bhAvarUpa padArtha - it is viveka
abhAva. The bhAvarUpa padArtha is ajnAna, which is the upAdAna kAraNa.

So to answer your question - what is the difference between aviveka and
adhyAsa? - former is one of many nimitta kAraNa-s, latter is kArya.
1) In our dRShTAnta, the pratibandha abhAva is the nimittam, the indhana
(fuel) is the upAdAna kAraNa, and vahni is the kArya.
3) In our dARShTAnta, aviveka is the nimittam, ajnAna is the upAdAna
kAraNa, adhyAsa is the kArya.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:32 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji
> Thank you for sending the mail to the forum. I had actually sent a copy to
> the forum as well separately after noticing that I had sent a reply only to
> you. Not sure if mine went through earlier or maybe the forum only got your
> resent copy of my post...
>
> Btw, I received your older original mail as well as your resent mail. As
> they say paunaH puNyena shravaNam kuryAt and the server is helping with
> that!
>
> On Sat, 2 May, 2020, 4:16 PM Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> 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,
>>
>
> Yes that is helpful.
> Generally the Potter (the intelligent agent) is accorded nimitta kAraNam
> status. Why is it different here?. Only the daNDa or moving chakra is
> nimitta. Is there anything to note regarding the nimitta kAraNa being
> looked at differently here?
>
> Chandramouli ji had quoted a lecture of Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal where
> prakaTArtha vivaraNam of Anubhutisvarupacharya  was mentioned. Maybe this
> Acharya was the pioneer in looking carefully at the nimitta and upAdAna
> kAraNams for adhyAsa?. Sri Sastrigal says that "the word ‘nimitta’ has
> been (in mithyAGYAna-nimittaH) 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." End of quotes.
>
> My observation -
> In a stock example such as a rope-based illusion.
> 1. rope-avidyA is the material cause for the illusory snake or line of
> water.
> 2. What is the efficient cause for the illusory
> snake/line-of-water/bhUChidra?  The samskAra-s and paratra
> pUrvadRShTa-smRtayaH are the efficient cause? Because someone sees a snake,
> others see a line of water etc based on their particular memories? The
> specific mithyA-pratyaya is person-dependent. Or is there some other
> efficient cause other than the smRtayaH?
>
> 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.
>>
>
> There seems to be at first glance some overlap of meaning ( to me,)
> between adhyAsa and the nimitta kAraNam i.e., aviveka. To differentiate
> them clearly, can we say that the actually experienced mental pratyaya-s of
> "aham duhkhii, sukhii, achiever, successful, failure" etc are what are
> denoted as *adhyAsa* (kartRtva-bhoktRtva pratyaya-s)?
>
> On the other hand, the *avidyA" being upAdAna merely sets up the
> stage/platform by embodying us (due to karma) in a body-mind with
> outward-going senses etc., and objects are made available for experience.
>
> Now the 'aviveka' has to figure in addition to avidyA for
> adhyAsa-pratyaya-s to arise. Can we say aviveka, the lack of
> discrimination, becomes manifest by making us assume the aham-idam and
> mama-idam identifications, and sets the potters wheel rotating?
>
>  In that way,  avidyA and aviveka as the two kAraNams give rise to the
> particular mithyA-pratyayas of I am sukhI, duhkhI, achieve fail etc," Is
> that correct? (Particularly, the distinction between *aviveka* and *adhyAsa
> pratyaya-s*.)
>
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>>
>>>>>