[Advaita-l] [advaitin] SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

Thanks again for all these references to Sri SSS' works. I am responding to
you because you had shared his references, not because I consider you to be
an SSS follower - your disclaimer in this regard is well noted.

I went back to read your responses to Sri Sudhanshu Ji and Sri Jaishankar
ji.

Sri SSS has said this in relation to NS 3-7 (which you had kindly shared) -
तत्राह 'सन्नज्ञातो भवेत्ततः' इति । अज्ञातत्वं सत्सामानाधिकरण्यम् अविमुञ्चत्
सत एव धर्मो न तु घटादीनां मिथ्याज्ञातानामित्यवगम्यते इत्यर्थः । एवं च
अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ? इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति । अज्ञातसत
एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् । यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्यावस्तुस्वभावत्वम्,
तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् । न हि ज्ञानबाध्यस्य क्वचिदपि वस्तुत्वं संगच्छत
इति प्रत्युक्तम् ।

With respect to BUBV 1.4.371, Sri SSS has said this (again shared by you)
"ननु बृहद्वार्तिकेऽपि 'अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् । अज्ञानं
तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुच्यते ।।' (बृ. वा. १-४-३७१ ) इत्यज्ञानस्य
द्वैतोपादानकारणत्वं स्पष्टमुक्तम् । अतः द्वैतस्योपादानापेक्षस्य अभावेर-
कारणकत्वमेव ग्रन्थकृदभीष्टमिति प्रतीयते । मैवम्, द्वैतस्य
इन्द्रजालसदृशत्वोक्त्या मिथ्याध्यासत्वमेवोक्तमिति । अध्यासस्या- वस्तुत्वात्
उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति । न च ग्रन्थकृता क्वचिदप्यध्यासोपादानत्वेन
अज्ञानं समुपन्यस्तम्, प्रत्युताधस्ता- दस्माभिरुपपादितनीत्या
मिथ्याज्ञानसंशयौ प्रत्यभावरूपाज्ञानस्यैव कारणत्वमत्राप्युक्तमिति गम्यते ।
तेन च अज्ञानं समुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मैव कारणम् इति अज्ञातब्रह्मण एव कारणत्वं
प्रकृत- श्लोकाक्षरानुगुणमेवोच्यते इत्यवधेयम् ।"

In both, there is a common reference to avastu-svabhAvatvam of adhyAsa -
(1) यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्यावस्तुस्वभावत्वम्, तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् and
(2) अध्यासस्यावस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति ।

In Sri SSS' conception, there is no arthAdhyAsa (adhyAsasya avastutvAt),
there is only jnAnAdhyAsa, and therefore he does not see the need to
establish an upAdAna kAraNa for adhyAsa.

So when the vArttikakAra says ajnAnam tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamucyate,
he interprets this to mean ajnAta brahmaNah eva kAraNatvam - causation is
only for the Brahman that is not known.

The question is from whose perspective is Brahman the cause? According to
Sri SSS, it has to be the ajnAtA, the non-knower's perspective. So the
non-knower of Brahman considers Brahman to be the cause, and because of
this, Brahman is the cause.

However, having dismissed ajnAna as the upAdAna kAraNa on account of the
dvaita-indrajAla being of the nature of adhyAsa (mithyAjnAna), Sri SSS does
not have an answer for why the vArttikakAra uses the word "upAdAna" kAraNa.

If adhyAsa is only mithyAjnAna, i.e., a jnAnAdhyAsa alone, what is the
vArttikakAra's intent in using the word upAdAna kAraNa - is it simply a
frivolous usage?

Secondly in the commentary to NS 3-7, Sri SSS quotes vArttika-s 1.4.437,
1.4.438, 1.4.440 and 1.4.423
मित्युत्पत्तावनुत्पत्तिर्विरोधाद्बाध्यते यतः |
तद्बाधे नाप्यपेक्षास्ति मिथ्याधीबाधनं प्रति || BUBV  1.4.437

मिथ्याधियोऽपि बाध्यत्वमज्ञानैकसमन्वयात् |
मूलध्वस्तौ हतं तच्चेन्मिथ्याधीः किं करोति नः || BUBV 1.4.438

मेयरूपानुरोधित्वं मिथ्यासंशययोर्यदि |
सम्यग्ज्ञानात्तयोर्भेदो गम्यताम् केन हेतुना || BUBV 1.4.439 (Not quoted by
Sri SSS here, sharing for completion)

अज्ञानं संशयत्वान्नो मिथ्याज्ञानात्तथैव च |
तयोस्तत्त्वविवक्षायामज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते || BUBV 1.4.440

Sri SSS quotes these and goes on to say, "तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण
नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः |"

However, it is not clear how he comes to this conclusion about ajnAna from
these BUBV verses. 1.4.437 says that upon the dawn of knowledge (of the
self), there is no rise of duality, because the nature of the two
(knowledge and duality) is in contradiction, and when *that* has been
sublated, there is nothing else expected for the sublation of adhyAsa.

What is the entity that is referred to as तत् *that*? We look at the
previous verse, which is not quoted by Sri SSS.
तस्मादविद्यासम्भूतं नानात्वं प्रत्यगात्मनि |
ब्रह्मास्मीति तद्ध्वंसान्न क्वचिद्भेदधीर्यतः || BUBV 1.4.436
Therefore, multiplicity in the inner self is born out of ignorance. When
that has been destroyed by the knowledge "I am Brahman", there can be no
cognition of difference on account of it.

The pronoun "tat" in the phrase "तद्बाधे" of BUBV 1.4.437 therefore is
referring to the ajnAna of BUBV 1.4.436, the previous verse. The purpose of
1.4.437 therefore is not to say that there is nothing called ignorance
other than adhyAsa as Sri SSS concludes, rather, it is to say that adhyAsa
will not persist when its cause, ignorance has been destroyed.

1.4.438 says that the sublatability of mithyAdhI (adhyAsa) is on account of
it having samanvaya with ajnAna, and when the root (ajnAna) is destroyed,
what can adhyAsa do to us?

1.4.439 is ignored by Sri SSS because he things it does not have a role to
play in the discussion. However in this verse, the vArttikakAra is hinting
at a question - do mithyAjnAna and doubt have ajnAna as its cause or not ?
This verse takes the first alternative - If they do not have ajnAna as its
cause, and they arise from the knowledge of the object, then there would be
no basis to differentiate the two (adhyAasa and valid knowledge).  But this
would be clearly incorrect, as we would not know what is valid knowledge
and what is invalid.

1.4.440 is taking the alternative, if mithyAjnAna and doubt were caused by
ignorance. Now, with this issue itself (whether mithyAjnAna and doubt were
caused by ignorance), we had a doubt. Because we had a doubt here (nah
samshayAt), it follows that ignorance exists (because how would the doubt
arise otherwise). Similar is the case of mithyAjnAna elsewhere - as
mithyAjnAna occurs, it too is caused by ignorance and therefore ignorance
exists (mithyAjnAnAt tathaiva ca). When we examine the nature of those two
(tayoh tattva-vivakshAyAm) - doubt and mithyAjnAna - we arrive at the
conclusion that their nature is ignorance (ajnAnam tattvam ucyate).

Therefore when we examine these verses together  - we arrive at the
opposite conclusion that Sri SSS arrived at. To recall, he had
said तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति
ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः - but the vArttikakAra says
the opposite - तयोस्तत्त्वविवक्षायामज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते - in examining
doubt and adhyAsa, we say that their nature is of ignorance.

Once again, that ajnAna is the material cause of adhyAsa.

Now, Sri SSS had also quoted BUBV 1.4.423 in support of his view. That
verse says

किं भोः सदपि मानेन वस्तु साक्षान्निरस्यते |
तस्मिन्निरस्ते किं शेषं यस्मिन् मानस्य मानता || BUBV 1.4.423
Here the vArttikakAra is asking - if mithyAjnAna were real, would it be
sublated or not. Is a real object too sublated by valid knowledge? If it
was so sublated, what would remain (if the real could be sublated, nothing
at all would remain), that could be the basis for the validity of
knowledge?

Again - Sri SSS takes this verse and interprets this as the basis to argue
that तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति
ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः - however, the point that the
vArttikakAra is making here is not whether mithyAjnAna or ajnAna are the
nature of bhAva or abhAva, rather he is saying that a real entity cannot be
sublated. We have no problem with that.

However, the crucial point is none of the verses that Sri SSS quotes, lead
us to the conclusion that there is no entity called ajnAna other than
mithyAjnAna (adhyAsa), as alleged by Sri SSS.

In fact the opposite is true, by examining the verses BUBV 1.4.436 to BUBV
1.4.440, we arrive at the conclusion that the vArttikakAra's view is that
upAdAna kAraNa of mithyAjnAna is ajnAna.

The direct references for the upAdAna kAraNatva of avidyA below -
1) अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् अज्ञानं BUBV 1.4.371
2) मिथ्याधियोऽपि बाध्यत्वमज्ञानैकसमन्वयात् BUBV 1.4.438
3) मूलध्वस्तौ हतं तच्चेन्मिथ्याधीः किं करोति नः BUBV 1.4.438
4) तयोः तत्त्वविवक्षायाम् अज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते BUBV 1.4.440

This still leaves how NS 3.7 is to be understood, which I can take up later
(if others want to do it, they are free to of course).

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan