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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

"The definition for adhyAsa given in the bhAshya namely << स्मृतिरूपः परत्र
पूर्वदृष्टावभासः >>  << smRRitirUpaH paratra pUrvadRRiShTAvabhAsaH >>
applies to this adhyAsa. The other definition for adhyAsa given in the
bhAshya << अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धिरित्यवोचाम । >>  << adhyAso nAma
atasmiMstadbuddhirityavochAma | >> is applicable to both the types of
adhyAsa covered here."

Namaste Chandramouli ji

1. In the above passage written by you, I understand you to be saying that
the definition of smRitirUpaH pUrvadRShTAvabhAsaH  applies only to the
adhyAsa of viShayas and their dharma-s upon the viShayin? For example I
might regard an object as overly desirable due to the ananda that I
(wrongly understood as) got from that same object in the past. This
obscures the fact that ananda is viShayI dharma and has been adhyasta upon
the object. Is this what you are referring to?

2. Whereas the other definition viz., atasmin-tadbuddhiH applies to both of
the adhyAsa-s viz., the "vishayI dharma -s superimposed on viShaya" type
too.

If the above is correctly presented by me, my question is -

 There are strong samskAra-s created by the past life smRitis of the nature
of taking myself to be what I am not, that I am mortal, small etc. (viShaya
superimposed on viShayI) Aren't these smRitis recorded as deep-rooted
samskAras responsible for imparting a certain momentum to adhyAsa in the
present moment which makes me take myself to be what I am not - i.e., I
superimpose on myself the vishaya-dharmas of mortality etc., due to the
habit created by having made the same mistake in the past. In which case,
the smRitirUpa definition of adhyAsa applies to both the adhyAsa-s?

Om

Raghav


On Sun, 3 May, 2020, 3:37 PM H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Raghav Ji,
>
> Namaste.
>
> Reg << 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 >>,
>
> What I had mentioned earlier was adhyAsa in respect of क्षेत्रज्ञ(kShetraj~na).
> That was because that is the fundamental cause for samsAra. There is the
> adhyAsa in respect of क्षेत्र(kShetra) as well to be considered. What you
> have mentioned above concerns that. What is mentioned by Sri Shastrigal
> concerns that. The definition for adhyAsa given in the bhAshya namely <<
> स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः >>  << smRRitirUpaH paratra
> pUrvadRRiShTAvabhAsaH >> applies to this adhyAsa. The other definition
> for adhyAsa given in the bhAshya << अध्यासो नाम
> अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धिरित्यवोचाम । >>  << adhyAso nAma
> atasmiMstadbuddhirityavochAma | >> is applicable to both the types of
> adhyAsa covered here.
>
> Reg  << 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 >>,
>
> In my understanding avidyA and mAyA are synonymous. Only one entity
> accunts for both the types of adhyAsa.I also think that those who hold
> avidyA to be abhAvarUpa also postulate another entity, perhaps mayA, to
> account or both the types of adhyAsAs. I am not sure though. Others who are
> conversant with that need to clarify or confirm. Trees and rocks being
> pariNAma of avidyA certainly have the same ontological status as avidyA. It
> must also be AvaraNatmikA as otherwise trees and rocks cannot be projected.
> avidyA must necessarily veil the adhisthana Brahma which is existing
> everywhere.
> Regards
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> <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_5237908627758825006_m_-5726855734684573065_m_-67630648072001692_m_-8404234004637328825_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>