[Advaita-l] ​Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

I would like to offer an input from Shankara's Sutra Bhashyam for the
following point that is clarified below by Smt Manjushree Hegde:



On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 8:29 PM Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> I took up with Smt. Manjushree Hegde and she was kind enough to clarify as
> follows: ""Let me reframe Jaishankarji’s argument for clarity’s sake:
> Very clearly, Jaishankarji’s points out that every vyākhyānakāra argues
> that mūlāvidyā exists as long as the world is perceptible, and does not
> exist ultimately (pāramārthika-standpoint). No vyākhyānakāra argues that it
> exists ultimately (for this would negate “advaita”).
> Jaishankarji also pointed out that the world appears for a jīvan-mukta too
> – he eats, sleeps, and moves like any ordinary person; he addresses the
> questions of sādhaka-s, and sometimes, his body suffers diseases like
> cancer, etc. According to the vyākhyānakāra-s, the only way to account for
> the jivanmukta who exists in this world, and participates in it, is
> mūlāvidyā.
> Thus, according to the vyākhyānakāra-s, mūlāvidyā (the cause) shares the
> nature of the world (the effect) – it is non-existent (ultimately); but as
> long as the world appears, its operation is in play.
> I hope I have not misrepresented the pūrvapakṣa here? If I have, then I’m
> entirely willing to correct myself.
> Let me articulate Swamiiji’s position.
> According to the above arguments, we must accept that a jivanmukta – while
> he understands that the world is only a play — operates in it on the basis
> of mūlāvidyā. It is only after videhamukti that the “play” entirely
> disappears. What is the pramāṇa for the statement that the play will,
> indeed, disappear after videhamukti? Only śruti.
> And this, right here, is Swamiji’s problem. When/if we accept mūlāvidyā, we
> cannot rely on anubhava pramāṇa (whose anubhava, what pramāṇa?); we must
> resort to “argument from authority”— śruti pramāṇa. And this cuts across
> the very foundation of advaita-vedānta, and reduces it to another school of
> philosophy that demands faith/belief for it to be true.
> Advaita vedānta stands on anubhava-pramāṇa, it does not require śruti for
> it to be true. Its sanctity lies in the fact that it is verifiable
> here&now.
> If mūlāvidyā exists in the three states of jāgrat, svapna and suṣupti— and
> it also exists in a jivanmukta — and only does not exist only in
> videhamukti, how is this verifiable in my experience?
> ---------------------
>

Shankara says in the following Sutra bhashya 4.1.15:

The following Bhashya vakya is not about videhamukti but about jivanmukti:

उच्यते - न तावदनाश्रित्य आरब्धकार्यं कर्माशयं ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते ।
आश्रिते च तस्मिन् कुलालचक्रवत्प्रवृत्तवेगस्यान्तराले प्रतिबन्धासम्भवात्
भवति *वेगक्षयप्रतिपालनम् *। अकर्त्रात्मबोधोऽपि हि मिथ्याज्ञानबाधनेन
कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति । *बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं* द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्
*संस्कारवशात्
कंचित्कालमनुवर्तते एव* । अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यं ब्रह्मविदा कंचित्कालं
शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति ।
कथं ह्येकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं *ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं *च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं
शक्त्यते । श्रुतिस्मृतिषु स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेनैतदेव निरुच्यते ।

The above passage is not very difficult to grasp.  In the opening sentence
He says:  Without depending upon the body that has already become available
as a praarabdha phala, Knowledge will not arise. And when it is granted
that it arises, it is but natural that knowledge has to wait (for its
result) till the acquired momentum of that medium exhausts itself out as in
the case of a wheel of a potter; for there is nothing to stop it in the
intervening period.  As for the knowlege of the Atman as akartA, it
destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance.  This
mithyAjnanam, even when sublated, continues for a while owing to past
tendencies like the continuance of the vision of two moons.  (For a man who
had suffered from eye disease, the false idea may persist for some time
even after the defect is removed. )
Moreover, it is not a matter for dispute at all whether the body of the
Knower of Brahman continues to exist for sometime or not. For how can one
contest the fact of another possessing the knowledge of Brahman – vouched
for by his heart’s conviction – and at the same time continuing with the
body?  This very fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and the SmRtis in the
course of determining the characteristics of 'the man of steady wisdom'. //The
Bhashyam original itself is crystal clear in what it intends to convey.  I
have provided the translation too.  Still, in case one feels that Shankara
is not conveying the idea of avidyaa lesha, let me reproduce the Kannada
translation of SSS:ಅಕರ್ತ್ರಾತ್ಮಕ ಜ್ಞಾನವು ಮಿಥ್ಯಾಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಬಾಧಿಸುವುದರಿಂದ
ಕರ್ಮಗಳನ್ನು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.  ಮಿಥ್ಯಾಜ್ಞಾವು ಬಾಧಿತವಾದ ಬಳಿಕವೂ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಚಂದ್ರದ
ಜ್ಞಾನದಂತೆ *'ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರವಶದಿಂದ'* ಕೆಲವು ಕಾಲದ ವರೆಗೆ ಇದ್ದುಕೊಂಡೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದಲ್ಲದೆ
ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಜ್ಞಾನಿಯು ಕೆಲವು ಕಾಲದ ವರೆಗೆ ದೇಹವನ್ನು ಧರಿಸುತ್ತಾನೆಯೇ ಇಲ್ಲವೇ ಎಂಬೀ
ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವಾದ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆಯೇ ಇಲ್ಲ.  ಏಕೆಂದರೆ 'ತನ್ನ ಹೃದಯಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ' ತಿಳಿಯಬರುವ
ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ದೇಹಧಾರಣ ಇವನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬನು ಹೇಗೆತಾನೆ ಇಲ್ಲವೆನ್ನುವದಾಗೀತು?
The salient features of the above crystal-clear translation are:

   - Even after the false knowledge has been sublated, owing to past
   samskAras (avidyaa lesha) that false knowledge continues for some time.
   Just like the vision of double-moon continues even after the eye defect is
   set right.  An example in medical case is: even after a leg has been
   amputated, the amputee experiences for some time the presence of the leg in
   the form of some pain or itching in the non-existent leg.  This condition
   passes off in course of time.
   - The prominent word in the Kannada translation is: samskAra vasha.
   This is what is called avidyaa lesha.
   - This is not the same as avidyaa itself.  mithyaa jnaana is samsaara
   nimitta as the adhyAsa bhAshya itself teaches.  But here the Acharya uses
   the same word to convey a condition that obtains even  AFTER the mithyA
   jnAna has been sublated.  Thus while avidyaa is not desirable but avidyaa
   lesha is unavoidable, even for a Jnani.
   -   The Brahman knowledge anubhava is 'seemita' for the jnaani alone.
   The word 'maatra' of the Kannada translation confirms this.  Thus, the
   jnanam of the jnaani is essentially 'localised' to him alone.
   - prArabdha and the continuance of the body and mind for a jnani is
   confirmed by the Kannada translation.
   - The word 'anuvartate' of the bhashyam is the root for the term
   'bAdhitAnuvRttiH' that conveys avidyaa lesha.

In the Bhagavadgita Bhashya 2.16, Shankara concludes with the note: What is
the teaching for Arjuna in this verse?

 त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि
नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति
मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥

You too Arjuna, following the vision/realization/understanding of the
Aparoksha Jnanins forbear the dualities such as heat-cold to be
'transformation that is non-existent but appears to exist like the mirage
water.

So, it is very clear that this is not videha mukti but jivanmukti: The
understanding is that 'it is a mere appearance, *not real*.'

This is what is meant by 'avidya lesha' by the vyakhyanakaras. This is
evidently not admitted as real, that Sri Swamiji has feared would cut at
the roots of the philosophy of Advaita.

This is in the very clear experience of the Advaitic Jnani, while alive, as
articulated by Shankara in the BSB cited above and in the BGB cited just
above. So, it is surely anubhava pramana that one would have even while
alive.  This is not something that would end in videhamukti but is
experienced as unreal, as per Shankara above, even while alive.  That is
why Shankara states his own experience of 'having the Brahman-realization
and at the same time living in the body', which he challenges anyone to
deny.

This exactly is what is stated in the BG:
सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्ते सुखं वशी ।
नवद्वारे पुरे देही नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन् ॥ १३ ॥ 5.13

Shankara says here: उत्पन्नविवेकज्ञानस्य सर्वकर्मसंन्यासिनोऽपि गेहे इव देहे
एव नवद्वारे पुरे आसनम् *प्रारब्धफलकर्मसंस्कारशेषानुवृत्त्या*देह एव
विशेषविज्ञानोत्पत्तेः । देहे एव आस्ते इति अस्त्येव विशेषणफलम्, विद्वद
विद्वत्प्रत्ययभेदापेक्षत्वात् ॥

The word 'samskara-shesha-anuvrutti' is what is meant by 'avidyalesha'.
This is not something that binds the Jnani; rather it is this power that
sustains the Jnani's sharira till it dies, before which the upbhoga of the
karma that has already begun to fructify is experienced by the body-mind.
Taking the BGB 2.16 above, he experiences it with the awareness that it is
'a mere appearance, just like the mirage water.'

So there is no way anyone in the Advaita parampara says this is real,
something that cuts at the root of Advaita.  A superimposed snake can never
be counted as second to the rope; the rope continues to be the sole entity
there, before, during and after the phenomenon of the sarpa bhrama. And
this is not something anyone has claimed will end 'only in videhamukti'.
Its unreality is experienced even during jivanmukti. This is the anubhava
pramana.  To recall an analogy of Vidyaranya in the Panchadashi, 'a rat,
even while alive, can't kill a cat, what to say of it when it is dead?  The
'avidya-lesha' is akin to the rat; it has been rendered ineffective to bind
the Jnani to samsara. Nor can it render Brahman sadvitiya even while it has
not been dispelled by Jnana.

regards
subbu








>
>