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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

//Jnanottama, an early 12th century commentator, interprets this section
quite differently in his ChandrikA commentary to the NS. In fact, the words
that Sri SSS takes to be the siddhAntin's are interpreted by Sri Jnanottama
to be of the pUrvapakshI!//

I have not checked the ChandrikA. I follow ChitsukhAchArya commentary on NS
by DakshiNAmUrti MaTh. It is obvious that NS 3.7 is in response to the
pUrvapkshI, who holds that avidyA is jnAna-abhAva. That view is countered
by AchArya by propounding the bhAvarUpatva of avidyA.

In NS 3.6, it was told by siddhAntI that AtmA-anAtmA-viveka-jnAna is not
enough for realization and mahAvAkya-janya-jnAna is required. This is so
because AtmA-anAtmA-viveka-jnAna presumes bheda. It is result of a
knowledge which has bheda as vishaya. Thus, siddhAntI says:
1. AtmA-anAtmA-viveka-jnAna is also ajnAna-kArya.
2. Through mahAvAkya-janya-jnAna, which has only Brahman as vishaya, avidyA
is negated completely.

In response to this statement by siddhAntI, pUrvapakshI asks --

1. avidyA is jnAna-abhAva. How can there be avidyA-kArya (how can avastu
avidyA have samsAra-kAraNatvam)?
2. Further, there is no such entity as AtmA-anavabodha (ajnAna) different
from mithyA+jnAna. When it is thus absent, how at all are you saying it to
be removed by (mahA) vAkya-jnAna?

In answer to these two queries, NS 3.7 propounds, by bringing the concept
of ajnAta-sat, that both these objections are ill-founded on account on
bhAvarUpa-ajnAna which is different from mithyA+jnAna. ajnAta-sat is to be
understood by bringing in BBV 1.4.371, wherein it is stated that the
kAraNatva of ajnAna is superimposed in Brahman. Since, this is held by
siddhAntI that ajnAta-sat is stated as kAraNa only on account of kAraNatva
of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna, both the objections of pUrvapakshI stand resolved.

SSS ji has accepted the view of pUrvapakshI that avidyA is jnAna-abhAva.

However, 1. for avidyA-kArya, he says -- avidyA is not the kAraNa,
ajnAta-sat is kAraNa. [एवं च अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ?
इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति । अज्ञातसत एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् ।]A sort of
self-contradiction.
Further, he accepts that there is some ajnAna different from mithyA+jnAna
[something not accepted by him when he says
avidyA=mithyA-jnAna=jnAna-abhAva] and hence jnAna (avabodha) can remove
Atma-anavabodha. [तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति
ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः]

So, in a nutshell, there is a khichdi made by SSS ji in accepting some
portion of pUrvapkshI, rejecting his own position (in adhyAsa bhAshya) of
non-acceptance of Atma-anavabodha different from mithyA+jnAna, and then
accepting the kAraNatva of ajnAta-sat but rejecting the kAraNatva of
ajnAna, which is impossible.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.