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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Jaishankar ji
Thank you very much for the lucid explanation. There is a clear connection
between the previous section and the current section in your
interpretation.

However, a question lingers. The pUrvapakshI had said "अज्ञानं हि नाम
ज्ञानाभावः, तस्य चावस्तुस्वाभाव्यात् कुतः संसारकारणत्वं?" - However, the
siddhAntin in this verse does not say "no, ajnAna is not jnAnAbhAva" nor
does he directly refute this in the proximate section. Why is that?

If we examine the entire third chapter of the NaiShkarmya Siddhi, I think
an answer to that question can be found.

In 3.28, Sureshvaracharya says - "प्रत्यगात्मानवबोधस्यानात्मस्वाभाव्यात्
तदभिनिर्वृत्तश्चायम् (अहं instead of अयं seems to be another reading)
बुद्ध्यादिदेहान्तस्तस्मिन्नात्मत्वमविद्याकृतमेवाऽऽत्मत्वमिवाऽनात्मत्वमपि
साऽविद्यस्यैव".

The phrase प्रत्यगात्मानवबोधस्यानात्मस्वाभाव्यात् is indicative of
ignorance being of the nature of the non-self.

Later in 3.58 there is the direct reference to the presence of ajnAna in
deep sleep. "यदि हि सुषुप्तेऽज्ञानं नाभविष्यदन्तरेणापि
वेदान्तवाक्यश्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनान्यहं
ब्रह्मास्मीत्यध्यवसायात्सर्वप्राणभृतामपि स्वरसत एव सुषुप्तप्रतिपत्तेः
सकलसंसारोच्छित्तिप्रसङ्गो न कैवल्यात्पुनरुत्थानं न्याय्यम्
अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात् |"

Further in 3.59 he describes the antah-karaNa as the product of ignorance -
"एवं तावदविद्योत्थस्यान्तःकरणस्य बाह्यविषयनिमित्तरूपावच्छेदा या अहं
वृत्तिर्व्याप्रियते तयाऽवच्छिन्नं
सत्कूटस्थप्रत्यगात्मोपादनावबोधरूपस्याव्यवधानतया विषयभावम् प्रतिपद्यत इति"

In 3.66 he describes the nature of avidyA
सेयं भ्रान्तिर्निरालम्बा सर्वन्यायविरोधिनी |

सहते न विचारम् सा तमो यद्वद्दिवाकरम् ||
तस्याः खल्वस्याविद्याया भ्रान्तेः सम्यग्ज्ञानोत्पत्तिद्वारेण निवृत्तिः

In 3.77 he says that the ego is also a product of avidyA - अतो
अहमर्थोऽनर्थोपसृष्टत्वादज्ञानोत्थितत्वाच्च हेयेति प्रत्यक्षतोऽवशिष्यते and
in 3.78 - त्वमर्थे प्रत्यगात्मनि प्रागनवबुद्धाद्वितीयता सानेनावबोध्यते |
अतोऽनवबोधनिरासेन तदुत्थस्य सद्वितीयत्वस्य त्वमर्थस्य परोक्षत्वस्य च
तदर्थस्य निरसनात् न वैयधिकरण्यादिचोद्यस्यावसरोऽस्तीति - The word "you" (in
the mahAvAkya You are That) causes the knowledge of the non-duality of the
inner self, previously where there was ignorance in regard to it. It is
through the destruction of this ignorance that the duality associated with
the "you" and the remoteness associated with the "that", which are (both)
born from that (ignorance) are destroyed, and therefore there is no room
for the charge that the words "you" and "that" cannot be put in apposition.

It was shown that words can only apply to things that have guNa, kriyA,
jAti, rUDhi etc, and the Atma cannot have any such associations. If the
words cannot directly refer to the self, how can the sentence "I am
Brahman" produce right knowledge? To this, in 3.105 he says - कथं
पुनरभिधानं अभिदेयेनानभिसम्बद्धम् सदनभिधेयेऽर्थे प्रमां जनयतीति | शृणु -
यथानभिसम्बद्धमपि अनभिधेयेऽर्थेऽविद्यानिराकरणमुखेन बोधयतीत्याह - Listen, a
word that is not connected to the meaning intended to be conveyed by it,
can convey that mean through the removal of ignorance associated with the
meaning.

The implication of this statement is that ignorance necessarily cannot be
of the nature of absence. If the word "Brahman" can only convey produce the
knowledge of Brahman by removing the ignorance of Brahman, ignorance cannot
be of the nature of the absence of knowledge of Brahman - because that
would lead to the problem of anyonyAshraya. To know Brahman, one needs
ignorance (absence of knowledge of Brahman) to be removed. To remove
ignorance (the absence of knowledge of Brahman), one needs the knowledge of
Brahman.

He gives the example of a sleeping man in the sloka in 3.105 and says there
is really no connection between the name and the sleeper, but still, he
wakes up (because calling his name disturbs his sleep). Similar is the case
here (it is through the removal of ignorance, which does not have an
explicable relationship with the self, but still its removal is the only
way for one to wake up to the true nature of the self).

In 3.109 -
इत्येवं चोदयेद्योऽपि जोषयेत्तम् घटादिना |
सदसद्भ्याम् विभक्तोऽसौ पर्यायश्च न चानयोः ||
If someone asks thus (how can the right answer be arrived at using the
false means - ie how can the removal of ignorance produce the knowledge of
the self?), one should direct them to consider pots etc. All of those
things are neither sat nor asat, nor sat and asat, in sequence. (Despite
being mithyA, they have utility within their own domain. Similarly a mithyA
vRtti-jnAna produced by shruti mahAvAkya has utility - it facilitates in
the revelation of the self by removing ignorance).

So on what basis do we admit an avidyA? In Sureshvara's words in 3.110 -
अविद्याप्रसिद्ध्यैव तद्सद्भावसिद्धेरुलूकनिशावदित्यत इदमुच्यते - The
existence of ignorance is only proved by our familiarity with it (no
pramANa can prove it, for the pramANa removes that ignorance) - it is like
the case of the owl finding darkness in the daylight.

In 3.116 he says -
कुतोऽविद्यॆति चोद्यं स्यान्नैव प्राघेत्वसम्भवात् |
कालत्रापरिच्छित्तेर्न न चोर्ध्वं चोद्यसंभवः ||
The question how can ignorance exist is illegitimate both before and after
knowledge. Before knowledge, its presence cannot be contested, and after
knowleddge it stands destroyed in all three periods of time.

Thus, the topic of this chapter is the tattvamasi sentence, and how it
produces the knowledge necessary for liberation. In discussing this, the
opponent had raised the challenge -
(1) there is no ignorance of the Self other than false knowledge, what is
it that is destroyed by the mahAvAkya?
(2) ignorance is nothing but the absence of knowledge, and as ignorance is
a non-entity it cannot be the cause of samsAra

In answer, Sureshvaracharya first goes on to establish that ultimately it
is the self that conveys existence to everything (including samsAra) but it
is the unknown self that is the cause of samsAra. He later goes on to say
that ignorance is of the nature of the non-self (anAtma svabhAvya), that
there exists ignorance in deep sleep, it is the cause of the mind and the
ego. There is no pramANa that reveals ignorance, because the nature of
pramANa-s is antithetical to ignorance, but ignorance itself is well known,
and its existence can only be explained on account of this prasiddhi. The
duality of the inner self, and the remoteness of the paramAtma that are
born from that ignorance are removed through the mahAvAkya shruti. The only
way the mahAvAkya shruti can give rise to the knowledge of the self is
through the denial of this inexplicable ignorance, because words cannot
directly refer to the self, they can only remove the ignorance that
obscures it.

A large portion of the above chain of logic does not work if ignorance of
the self was simply the absence of knowledge.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan