[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'BhAva' cannot be a product of 'abhAva' - Shankara

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

BhAshyakAra has made following statements:

   1. #*अविद्याध्यस्तो* ब्रह्मण्येकस्मिन् अयं प्रपञ्चो विद्यया प्रविलाप्यत
   इति ब्रूयात् , ततो ब्रह्मैव #*अविद्याध्यस्तप्रपञ्चप्रत्याख्यानेन
*आवेदयितव्यम्
   — ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म’ ‘तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । ७)
   इति — तस्मिन्नावेदिते, विद्या स्वयमेवोत्पद्यते, तया च अविद्या बाध्यते,
   ततश्च #*अविद्याध्यस्तः* सकलोऽयं नामरूपप्रपञ्चः स्वप्नप्रपञ्चवत्
   प्रविलीयते (BSB 3.2.21)
   2. रज्जुस्वरूपप्रकाशनेनैव हि तत्स्वरूपविज्ञानम्
#*अविद्याध्यस्तसर्पादिप्रपञ्चप्रविलयश्च
   *भवति । (BSB 3.2.21)
   3. एवं च सति, सर्वक्षेत्रेष्वपि सतः भगवतः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्य
   संसारित्वगन्धमात्रमपि नाशङ्क्यम् । न हि क्वचिदपि लोके
#*अविद्याध्यस्तेन *धर्मेण
   कस्यचित् उपकारः अपकारो वा दृष्टः ॥ यत्तु उक्तम् — न समः दृष्टान्तः इति, तत्
   असत् । कथम् ? #*अविद्याध्यासमात्रं* हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः
   साधर्म्यं विवक्षितम् । (GItA 13.2)
   4. न च आत्मनः संसारित्वम् , #*अविद्याध्यस्तत्वादात्मनि* संसारस्य । न हि
   रज्जुशुक्तिकागगनादिषु सर्परजतमलादीनि मिथ्याज्ञानाध्यस्तानि तेषां भवन्तीति ।
   (ChhAndogya 8.12.1)
   5. कथं पुनः स्वरूपे व्यापाराभावे शास्त्रस्य द्वैतविज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वम् ?
   नैष दोषः, रज्ज्वां सर्पादिवदात्मनि #*द्वैतस्याविद्याध्यस्तत्वात्* कथं
   सुख्यहं दुःखी मूढो जातो मृतो जीर्णो देहवान् पश्यामि व्यक्ताव्यक्तः कर्ता
   फली संयुक्तो वियुक्तः क्षीणो वृद्धोऽहं ममैते इत्येवमादयः सर्वे
   आत्मन्यध्यारोप्यन्ते । (MANDUkya 2.32)

*In all these places, BhAshyakAra has made the usage of term
"avidyA-adhyAsa". Had avidyA and adhyAsa been identical, this usage of
avidyA-adhyAsa would not only have been superfluous but also having the
defect of punarukti. It would mean avidyA-avidyA or adhyAsa-adhyAsa, which
is meaningless.*

The only logical conclusion which can, hence, be derived is as follows
- *avidyA
and adhyAsa have different connotations*. The adhyAsa is caused by avidyA.
The word avidyA-adhyAsa is accordingly explained as avidyayA adhyAsah
(*अविद्यया
अध्यासः*). This is supported by BBV 1.4.414: #*यस्मिंश्चाविद्ययाध्यासः*
संसारानर्थलक्षणः ।। स्वाभाविक्या कृतो मिथ्या शुक्त्यादौ रजतादिवत् ।। ४१४ ।।
Also in GItA 13.2 स्थाणुपुरुषौ ज्ञेयावेव सन्तौ ज्ञात्रा अन्योन्यस्मिन्
#*अध्यस्तौ
#अविद्यया.*

This implies that avidyA is the cause whereas adhyAsa is the effect due to
the use of karaNa-kAraka in avidyA.

*Therefore, to aver that avidyA and adhyAsa are defined to be identical is
contradicted by the usage of BhAshyakAra in the above mentioned places. *

Now, BhAshyakAra has also made the statement - तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता
अविद्येति मन्यन्ते । This means that the learned ones regard adhyAsa as
avidyA.

Thus, despite different literal connotation of avidyA and adhyAsa, the
learned ones regard adhyAsa as avidyA.

Now, a cause can be either upAdAna or nimitta. While none regards the
effect pot as potter/wheel/stick which are all nimitta for pot, everyone is
unanimous in accepting that pot is nothing but clay, its upAdAna.

A jeweller would very easily accept that despite gold and necklace having
different literal connotation -- necklace is nothing but gold. While an
ordinary purchaser may put in great value in ornament, the tattva-darshI
jeweller knows that necklace is nothing but gold. In his stock register, he
would not mention the number of necklaces - but the weight of gold.

Similarly, the very fact that BhAshyakAra (a) uses avidyA as the cause of
adhyAsa and (b) regards adhyAsa to be nothing but avidyA --- clearly
implies that avidyA is the upAdAna-kAraNa of adhyAsa.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.