[Advaita-l] Hacker on bija and creation

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Sri Michael,
I hope you do not mind me intruding into your illuminating conversation
with Sri Sudhanshu. A few points on Hacker's article you kindly posted
before.

1) Hacker says "according to S's only definition, avidyA is the same as
adhyAsa" and quotes the sentence from the adhyAsa bhAshya "tametam
lakshaNam adhyAsam paNDitAh avidyeti manyante". However, that is not true.

As we have shown through multiple quotations provided by Sri Sudhanshu -
wherever avidyA is used in connection with vyAkRta nAmarUpa (manifest names
and forms) in the bhAShya - Shankara has referred to such nAmarUpa as
avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita etc - creations or projections of avidyA
- consistently.

Names and forms are superimpositions (adhyAsAh) on Brahman. Therefore, it
follows to reason that according to Shankara, the adhyAsa that is name and
form, is avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita, a product of avidyA. In the
sentence from the adhyAsa bhAShya quoted by Hacker (tametam lakshaNam
adhyAsam...), Shankara says that wise men consider adhyAsa, the product, to
be identical with avidyA, the cause.

If as according to Hacker, avidyA is the same as adhyAsa, the multiple
references to nAma rUpa being products or creations of avidyA (avidyA-kRta,
avidyA-pratyupasthApita) would be incorrect in every form of causation -
except material causation.

To explain - Normally, it would be inappropriate to refer to a product
(adhyAsa) as its cause (avidyA), if the cause were to be anything other
than a material cause - No one will consider a pot to be a potter, let
alone, wise ones - for example. However, if the cause were to be a material
cause, then it is quite appropriate to refer to a pot made of clay as clay.
Therefore, Shankara must necessarily hold avidyA to be the material cause
of adhyAsa, for the two statements "wise ones consider adhyAsa to be
avidyA", and "names and forms are creations of avidyA" to both hold true
simultaneously.

This is the basis of satkAryavAda In Advaita. It is in this sense of
satkAryavAda, where the effect is identical with its material cause, that
Shankara employs the sentence - "wise men refer to this kind of adhyAsa as
avidyA".

Hacker himself half acknowledges the material causation of avidyA elsewhere
-  "The second expression, avidyAtmaka, is employed with satkAryavAda in
mind: where the upAdhis are formed from avidyA as their prime amatter, they
are "of the nature of avidyA" (avidyAtmaka), since for the satykAryavAdin
the effect or product is identical with the material cause."

Therefore, Shankaracharya is not *defining* avidyA as adhyAsa, rather he is
*referring* to adhyAsa as avidyA.

2) Hacker also says " For S. avidyA is the same as mithyAjnAna, for other
Advaitins it is the cause for it".

This is not true for all advaitins. In the Panchapadika, a commentary on
the Brahma Sutra, Padmapada too equates mithyAjnAna with avidyA, the
material cause of adhyAsa (a).  So too do the authors of the Ratnaprabha
(b), Prakatartha Vivaranam (c), Bhashyabhavaprakashika (d) and the Nyaya
Nirnaya (e).  It is only the bhAmati where the bhAShya reference to
mithyAjnAna, occurring in the phrase mithyAjnAna-nimittah found in the
adhyAsa-bhAShya, is interpreted to mean adhyAsa, which is caused by ajnAna
(f).

Hence, it is not a universal truth that all Advaitins consider avidyA as
the cause of mithyAjnAna - as shown, at least 5 commentators of the Brahma
Sutra Bhashya of Shankara consider avidyA and mithyAjnAna as the same, like
Shankara himself. Therefore, the charge that Shankara's followers differ
from Shankara in considering avidyA and mithyAjnAna to be different, does
not hold.

3) Despite half-acknowledging the material causation of avidyA, Hacker goes
on to say "Nevertheless, in view of the frequency of avidyA-nimitta we
cannot draw the conclusion that S sees a *causa materialis* relationship
here either".

This is a flawed analysis. In the ancient works of Vedanta - ie around the
time of Shankara and previous to his time, the term "nimitta" did not come
to exclusively refer to efficient causation. The clear and exclusive
differentiation in the usage of the terms "nimitta-kAraNa" to mean
efficient causation and "upAdAna-kAraNa" to mean material causation, is a
post Shankara development. Please note - I am referring to a
development in *the
way the terms are used*. I am not rejecting the idea of avidyA's material
causation in Shankara's works (as Hacker and Sri SSS do), or claiming
(again as Hacker and Sri SSS do) an introduction of avidyA's material
causation as an act of post Shankara commentators.

Why? The bhAShyakAra himself uses the term nimitta without strictly meaning
efficient causation in a plethora of places. Just as a very small sample,
see BSB 1.1.2 "प्रतिनियतदेशकाल*निमित्त*क्रियाफलाश्रयस्य", "विशिष्टदेशकाल
*निमित्ताना*मिहोपादानात्",  BSB 1.1.4 "धर्माधर्मतारतम्य*निमित्तं*" , BSB
1.1.5 "चेतनत्वात्सत्त्वोत्कर्ष*निमित्तं* सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपन्नमित्यनुदाहरणम्",
BSB 1.1.23 "सतस्तत्त्वानवबोध*निमित्तो*" -  this is a very small selection
of the vast number of results that show up for the word "nimitta" in just
the BSB. There are many more references where the term nimitta does not
mean efficient causation. Therefore, the mere use of the term does not
necessarily imply that efficient causation is meant or material causation
is denied.

Therefore, a word frequency based analysis is not something that we can
rely on to conclude that Shankara rejected material causation when he used
the term "avidyA-nimitta".

4) Hacker says "in his (Shankara's) case, avidyA is never designated as
material cause of the physical world". However this is an incorrect
conclusion.

In BSB 1.4.3, Shankara says "अविद्यात्मिका हि
बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या", meaning, the causal power, referred to by
the word avyakta, is of the nature of avidyA. In KathopaniShad Bhashya
1.3.11, he says "अव्यक्तं सर्वस्य जगतो बीजभूतमव्याकृतनामरूपं", meaning,
avyakta, being unmanifest name and form, is the causal seed of the world,.

Hacker himself acknowledges that "In any case, there are several places in
the SBh where namarupe are quite clearly understood as a kind of prime
matter or primal state of the world. They are called in this reading "the
undeveloped namarupe".

Hacker is referring to BSB 1.1.5 "तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये नामरूपे
अव्याकृते व्याचिकीर्षिते इति ब्रूमः". Shankara here is using the term
avyAkRte nAmarUpe, which Hacker translates as "the undeveloped namarupe",
which in Hacker's words is a "kind of prime matter", i.e. a material cause.

Putting BSB 1.4.3, KaTha 1.3.11 and BSB 1.1.5 together, the conclusion that
we are invariably drawn to is that according to Shankara - avyakta, *whose
nature is avidyA *(BSB1.4.3), which cannot be said to either be identical
to Brahman or different from it, which is "undeveloped namarupe" (BSB
1.15), is the causal seed of the world's names and forms (Katha 1.3.11) - *ie
avidyA, as unmanifest names and forms, is the material cause of the world,
which is manifest names and forms.*

This is half acknowledged by Hacker when he says "the occassionally
occurring expressions avidyA-bIja and avidyAtmaka suggest, strictly
speaking,  a relationship of material causation". However, in light of the
"occassional occurrence" of the former two expressions in contrast to the
frequency of "avidyA nimittah", Hacker erroneously concludes that the
"strict interpretation" of the terms avidyAtmaka and avidyA-bIja as
material causation, has to be set aside.

But as we have shown, the frequency of the usage of a term "nimitta" is no
basis to conclude that material causation is denied - nimitta has been used
even more frequently by Shankara to mean "cause" in a general sense, and
not to mean efficient causation, or deny material causation, at all. The
meaning and the context of each usage is to be separately analysed, and one
cannot apply a general rule that "nimitta" can never mean material
causation, according to Shankara - especially when there is contrary
evidence of Shankara referring to avidyAtma-bIja-shakti to mean a material
cause.

5) Interestingly Shankara refers to this avyAkRta nAma rUpa as
"tattva-anyatvAbhyAm-anirvachanIye" in the BSB 1.1.5 quote referenced
above. Hacker says "he (Shankara) never calls it (avidyA)
anirvachanIya...In the SBh the word occurs only as an adjective of
nAmarUpa".

However, as shown in point 4 above, the anirvachanIya avyAkRta nAma rUpa of
BSB 1.1.5 *is* the anirvachanIya avidyA that we are referring to -
precisely because the avyAkRta nAma rUpa, which is avyakta (per the
statement of the identity - avyaktam...avyAkRtanAmarUpam in KaTha 1.3.11),
is avidyAtmikA (per the statement of the bIja shakti referred to as avyakta
being avidyAtmikA in BSB 1.4.3).


Clearly, there are several points raised by Hacker, as well as by Sri SSS -
whose scholarship, monumental efforts and devotion to the bhAShyakAra are
unquestionable - that are valid. However, the central themes of our
discussion, namely whether the identity between avidyA and mAyA, as a
consequence of which avidyA being the material cause of creation,
necessarily requiring avidyA to not be of the nature of absence, are all
well founded on a closer analysis of the prasthAna-traya-bhAShya of
Shankaracharya.

I think I will stop here in the interests of time - I do not feel the need
to criticise Hacker, or heavens forbid, Sri SSS, for criticism's sake. The
purpose of this exercise is to merely prove the points above. Therefore, I
do not feel the need to quote Hacker's entire paper verbatim and disprove
every aspect of that work that I disagree with - just enough to accomplish
my purpose.

*Non-Shankara-bhAShya references to mithyAjnAna occurring in the adhyAsa
bhAShya*
(a) PadmapAdAchArya - Panchapadika "मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः इति । मिथ्या च
तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानम् । मिथ्येति अनिर्वचनीयता उच्यते । अज्ञानमिति च
जडात्मिका अविद्याशक्तिः ज्ञानपर्युदासेन उच्यते । तन्निमित्तः तदुपादानः
इत्यर्थः ॥"
(b) Ramananda Yati - Ratnaprabha, "अध्यासस्योपादानमाह - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्त
इति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानं तन्निमित्तमुपादानं यस्य स
तन्निमित्तः । तदुपादानक इत्यर्थः ।"
(c) AnubhUtisvarUpAchArya, Praktartha Vivaranam, Page 12,
Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani
Dravid Shastrigal
(d) ChitsukhAchArya, Bhashya-Bhava-Prakashika, Page 12,
Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani
Dravid Shastrigal
(e) Anandagiri AchArya, Nyaya Nirnaya, Page 12, Sharirakamimamsabhashyam
with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani Dravid Shastrigal
(f) Vachaspati Mishra, Bhamati, "पूर्वकालत्वसूचितमध्यासस्य व्यवहारकारणत्वं
स्फुटयति - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः व्यवहारः । मिथ्याज्ञानमध्यासस्तन्निमित्तः ।
तद्भावाभावानुविधानाद्व्यवहारभावाभावयोरित्यर्थः ।"

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, 21:59 Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
> I replied personally without noticing your public response. So I'm
> repeating.
>
> Namaste Sudhanshuji, Hacker mentions namarupa bijashakty-avastham from
> BSbh1.4.2-3 (text 2) in the abstract in my previous message.
>
> and here's another quote of particular reference on Namarupa and Avidya
> p74ff, "
> The renderingol avidyii into a material thing, the prime matter of the
> cosmos, was already widespread prior to S. in Vedantic and Vai�cyava
> cirdes. 33 He rejected it, to be sure, not with an explicit refutation but
> by means of his linguistic usage. That is to say, S. clearly always strove
> to follow the Upaniiads closely in his method of thought and terminology.
> But one simply cannot extricate the theory of avidyil as prime matter from
> those texts. On the other hand, one can base the theory of namarripa as the
> world seed on Upani�adic passages if, as shown above, one interprets them
> from the standpoint of the satkaryavada. Moreover, in pural)ic thought
> avidya is only another name for pralq-ti and does not connote an illusion.
> S. thus could have feared that the word would have been misunderstood in a
> dualistic-realistic sense had he employed it in the sense of "prime
> matter.'
> "
> Only proving Hacker's observations are FUNDAMENTALLY mistaken and not
> merely topically in error can you claim a superior understanding of bhasya.
> Hacker makes SSSS easy with an accounting of evidence and a technician's
> exegesis.
>
> Have you read Hacker? Maybe a point by point analysis - point you on the
> map :)
>
> regards, michael
>