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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,

NS was a text which my Guru Swami Dayananda ji taught during our
Gurukulavaasa. It was taught almost at the end of the residential course
along with Brahmasutra Chatussutri.

NS 3.6 is a purvapaksha by sAnkhya who does not accept a kArana-avidya for
mithyAjnAna. For Sankhya moksha is atma-anAtma-viveka only, which is only a
first step for the Vedantin. The bheda between atma and anatma is real for
sAnkhya but we say that bheda, divison and taking anatma as atma and doing
adhyAsa (which is mithya-jnAna) itself is due to a kArana-avidya, which is
given up / destroyed by the pramAna-janita-jnAna from mahAvAkya. That is
said in the second line of NS 3.6

कार्यम् एतत् अविद्याया ज्ञात्मना त्याजयेत् वाचः

So the discussion is about whether such a kArana avidya is possible or not.
The introduction to 3.7 is clearly a poorvapaksha where it is pointed out
that mithyAjnAna alone is ajnAna and even if one talks about a kArana
avidya, it is not possible as it is only jnAna-abhAva (as per the
poorvapakshi) and hence cannot be a kAranA as abhAva cannot cause anything.
The poorvapakshi also quotes chandogya 6th chapter to prove his point. For
that NS 3.7 is a reply where the acharya brilliantly and succinctly points
that ajnAna is there in nirvikalpa-avastha (like sleep, pralaya, moorcha)
even though mithyA-jnAna is absent and it has to be the kArana of
mithyAjnAna as mithyAjnAna in the form of triputi-bheda is experienced once
one comes out of that avastha. This kArnA-avidya exists in the form of
ajnAta-sat vastu  which was mentioned as sadvea somya idam agre Aseet
(which is brahman seen as avyakta / avyAkrta) in chandogya sixth chapter.
In the sat vastu all other vastus are also included and even during waking
and dreaming (savikalpa-avasthA) it is the ajnAta-sat alone which is
cognised as any object like pot (when one knows pot as pot one does not
know it is sadAtma really, so, every cognition only points to the
ajnAta-sad-vastu).

This kArana-avidyA has to be accepted as kincit-bhAvarupam as without it
brahman alone cannot create anything. But since kArana-avidya is sublated
by knowledge it is also not bhAva-vastu like brahman and so it has to be of
the same status as its kAryam, mithyA-jnAna (bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa). This
is proved by our anubhava also as we get up and recall our experience of
not knowing anything in sleep. Bhashyakara also mentions this in Br Up Bh
4.3.6
सुषुप्ताच्च उत्थानम् — सुखमहमस्वाप्सं न किञ्चिदवेदिषमिति ;

Of course logically also one has to accept a kArana-avidyA to account for
the kArya mithyAjnAna. So NS 3.7 clearly establishes bhAvarupa mulAvidya. I
don't know how anyone can interpret it in any other way. My Guru used to
say with pun intended that this (mithyAjnAna alone is ajnAna) is not a new
view but holeya view (Kannada haleya, in tamil Pazhaiya, in English old).

He also made it very clear to us that any ajnAna cannot be talked about
without knowing some aspect of the pratiyogi. If I ask you, do you know
Devadutta and you reply 'I do not know', that reply is possible because you
know that Devadutta is not there in the list of people you know already and
this much knowledge of pratiyogi is required to talk about any ignorance.
So ignorance means always one aspect is known and another aspect is not
known. So, therefore it is a covering which has to be bhAvarupa, also
mentioned by bhagavan as ajnAnena avrtam jnAnam in Gita. That SSS missed
this simple understanding and created a faulty prakriya is a tragedy. His
Eskimo quotation was really pathetic as even a high school level student
with normal analytical skills should be able to do better than that.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:40 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Jaishankar ji.
>
> Separately, would like to hear your views on NS 3-7, especially in light
> of Sri SSS' commentary.
>
> 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!
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>