[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Mandukya bhashya. Ignorance seed in sushupti

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,
Some other thoughts from the mANDUkya bhAShya - I'm sure you know all this
already, but thought that articulating this would be helpful, most of all,
to me.

The 13th and 16th kArikA-s and their bhAShya-s are particularly helpful.

द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः ।
बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥ १३ ॥

निमित्तान्तरप्राप्ताशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थोऽयं श्लोकः — कथं द्वैताग्रहणस्य
तुल्यत्वे कारणबद्धत्वं प्राज्ञस्यैव, न तुरीयस्येति प्राप्ता आशङ्का
निवर्त्यते ; यस्मात् बीजनिद्रायुतः, तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधो निद्रा ; सैव च
विशेषप्रतिबोधप्रसवस्य बीजम् ; सा बीजनिद्रा ; तया युतः प्राज्ञः ।
सदासर्वदृक्स्वभावत्वात्तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधलक्षणा बीजनिद्रा तुर्ये न विद्यते ;
अतो न कारणबन्धस्तस्मिन्नित्यभिप्रायः ॥

If we look at the first sentence in the bhAShya - Shankaracharya says both
the turIya and prAjna are equivalent in that the dvaita agrahaNa is
similarly applicable to both prAjna and turIya. Then, why is causal bondage
only for the prAjna and not the turIya? The answer is given in the kArikA
itself, it is because prAjna is bIjanidrA yutah. He then explains the term
nidrA in the kArika to mean tattva-apratibodhah, the same term used to
describe avidyA.

If such a tattva apratibodha was abhAvA rUpa, then as both prAjna and
turIya equally have abhAvarUpa tattva apratibodha (dvaita agrahaNasya
tulyatvAt), there would be no basis to differentiate between the two.

A bhAva rUpa tattva pratibodha in the turIya is not accepted, so that
cannot be the basis to differentiate prAjna from tutIya. Therefore, we are
left with no choice but to conclude that a bhAvarUpa tattva apratibodha is
present in prAjna, which is why it is different from turIya.

It is for this reason that the tattva apratibodha is called bIja (causal
seed), and the prAjna as endowed with such a bIja - bIjanidrA *yutah* says
gauDapAdAchArya.

The twin powers of avidyA are explained in a later kArikA and bhAShya:

अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते ।
अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदा ॥ १६ ॥

योऽयं संसारी जीवः, सः उभयलक्षणेन तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना,
अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन मायालक्षणेन स्वापेन, ममायं पिता
पुत्रोऽयं नप्ता क्षेत्रं गृहं पशवः, अहमेषां स्वामी सुखी दुःखी क्षयितोऽहमनेन
वर्धितश्चानेन इत्येवंप्रकारान्स्वप्नान् स्थानद्वयेऽपि पश्यन्सुप्तः, यदा
वेदान्तार्थतत्त्वाभिज्ञेन परमकारुणिकेन गुरुणा ‘नास्येवं त्वं हेतुफलात्मकः,
किन्तु तत्त्वमसि’ इति प्रतिबोध्यमानः, तदैवं प्रतिबुध्यते । कथम् ?
नास्मिन्बाह्यमाभ्यन्तरं वा जन्मादिभावविकारोऽस्ति, अतः अजम् ‘सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो
ह्यजः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २) इति श्रुतेः, सर्वभावविकारवर्जितमित्यर्थः ।
यस्माज्जन्मादिकारणभूतम् , नास्मिन्नविद्यातमोबीजं निद्रा विद्यत इति अनिद्रम्
; अनिद्रं हि तत्तुरीयम् ; अत एव अस्वप्नम् , तन्निमित्तत्वादन्यथाग्रहणस्य ।
यस्माच्च अनिद्रमस्वप्नम् , तस्मादजम् अद्वैतं तुरीयमात्मानं बुध्यते तदा ॥

Here he describes mAyA as ubhayalakshaNatmikA - a) tattva apratibodharUpeNa
bijAtmanA and b) anyathAgrahaNa lakshaNena - and says that both are anAdi.
These are the very same AvaraNa and vikshepa shakti-s of avidyA spoken of
by later commentators.

He later explains the description of turIya as anidram with the sentence -
नास्मिन्नविद्यातमोबीजं निद्रा विद्यत इति अनिद्रम् ;  *turIya is called
anidram because nidrA, the causal seed of darkness that is ignorance is not
present in it.*

If avidyA was jnAna abhAva, then the jnAna whose absence is being referred
to here must be the jnAna that is born from shravaNa manana nididhyAsana
(as Sri Dennis admits in the other email), ie vRttijnAna and not
svarUpajnAna.

The implication of such a supposition is this - If Shankaracharya had
admitted to avidyA being vRttijnAna abhAvarUpa, then turIya as anidram
would have to mean "being endowed with vRttijnAna" because the absence of
the absence of vRttijnAna is the presence of vRttijnAna. This obviously
cannot be correct, because the neither vRtti nor its absence are present in
turIya.

Therefore, bIjanidrA must mean bhAvarUpa tattva apratibodha, the prAjna is
endowed with such a bIjanidrA, the turIya is not endowed with such a
bIjanidrA and hence is referred to as anidram.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023, 08:16 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> In the Bhashyam for the mantra 7: naantaHprajnam, etc. Shankara says: the
> three states of waking, dream and sleep, that formed the subject matter of
> the first six mantras, is unreal, apAramArthikam, product of avidya, like
> the rope-snake, and is of the nature of seed-sprout (seed (cause) = deep
> sleep, and the sprout (effect) are the waking and dream. Shankara holds all
> the three, including the sleep state, to be endowed with Avidya (tattva
> agrahanam):
>
> तस्यापरमार्थरूपमविद्याकृतं रज्जुसर्पादिसममुक्तं पादत्रयलक्षणं
> बीजाङ्कुरस्थानीयम् । अथेदानीमबीजात्मकं परमार्थस्वरूपं रज्जुस्थानीयं
> सर्पादिस्थानीयोक्तस्थानत्रयनिराकरणेनाह — नान्तःप्रज्ञमित्यादिना ।
>
> Contrasting with the three states (which is actually the entire samsara
> anubhava, the jagat), the Turiya, Chaturtham, is paaramaarthika, akin to
> the rope, which is taught as negating the snake-like pAda traya.
>
> In that very bhashya, while the mantra negates the sushupti state: na
> prajnAnaghanam, Shankara says: the state of sushupti is akin to seed,
> devoid of discrimination, aviveka svarupa (in the waking and dream the
> distinctions, vivikta, are perceived but not in deep sleep):
>
> नप्रज्ञानघनमिति सुषुप्तावस्थाप्रतिषेधः, बीजभावाविवेकस्वरूपत्वात्
>
> Thus, in the above statements, Shankara accepts avidya in deep sleep.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2Yy%2BZOanREG6LHnbDHkjoskSTV8UcKLhEwbnmEoVV61A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2Yy%2BZOanREG6LHnbDHkjoskSTV8UcKLhEwbnmEoVV61A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>