[Advaita-l] ajnAna is different from jnAna-abhAva, mithyA-jnAna and mithyA-jnAna-samskAra

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

The lakshaNa of ajnAna have been explained by Chitsukhacharya as
“अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते। तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं
संप्रचक्षते॥”. Thus, ajnAna is bhAvarUpa, anAdi and is sublated by
Atma-jnAna. Without such bhAvarUpa ajnAna, the vyavahAra “nAsti, na
prakAshate” with respect to swaprakAsha-Brahman is not possible. VivaraNa
explains - "अस्ति, प्रकाशते" इत्याद्यभिज्ञादिव्यवहारं प्रति पुष्कलकारणे
सति--"नास्ति न प्रकाशते च" इति योऽयं आत्मतत्त्वालम्बनो व्यवहारः, सः
भावरूपेण केनचित् आत्मनि आवरणमन्तरेण नोपपद्यते; सति पुष्कलकारणे असति च
आवरणे, सन्निहिते घटे "प्रकाशते" इत्यादिव्यवहारदर्शनात्, अतो "नास्ति ब्रह्म,
न प्रकाशते च" इति व्यवहारः अन्यथानुपपत्त्या भावरूपमज्ञानं गमयति इति
अर्थापत्तिः अनुमानं वा समुदायार्थः।

ajnAna is different from jnAna-abhAva, mithyA-jnAna and
mithyA-jnAna-samskAra

Opponent: The word ajnAna is made by combining नञ् with ज्ञान. If we take
the meaning of नञ्  as abhAva, then ajnAna will refer to jnAna-abhAva. If
we take the meaning of नञ्  as virOdhI, then ajnAna will refer to
jnAna-virOdhI i.e. mithyA-jnAna. And if bheda is the meaning of नञ्, then
ajnAna will refer to mithyA-jnAna-samskAra i.e. samskAra which gives rise
to mithyA-jnAna. Either of the three can obstruct the illumination of
Brahman and can ensure the vyavahAra "नास्ति न प्रकाशते च". Therefore,
there is no need to imagine a bhAvarUpa-ajnAna. [VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha:
page 71-72]. VivaraNa says -  ननु अग्रहण-मिथ्याज्ञान-तत्संस्कारेभ्यः अन्यत्
अज्ञानं नाम न पश्यामः, त एव च जीवस्य स्वयंप्रकाशमानमपि ब्रह्मस्वरूपावभासं
प्रतिबध्नन्ति इति. [VivaraNa uses the word अग्रहण which is same as
jnAna-abhAva].

Answer: Not so. On account of the fact that there is non-illumination of
Brahman in sushupti.

Now, it cannot be said that just as there is non-illumination of
purushAntara-jnAna to a purusha, similarly, there is non-illumination of
self-luminous Brahman to jIva. This cannot be said because jIva and Brahman
are one in sushupti. न तावत् सुषुप्तादौ स्वयम्प्रकाशब्रह्मस्वरूपानवभासः
पुरुषान्तरसंवेदनवत् द्रष्टुर्भिन्नत्वात् इति शक्यं वक्तुम्; एकत्वश्रुतेः।

Further, mithyA-jnAna cannot be pratibandhaka in illumination of Brahman in
sushupti, because mithyA-jnAna itself is absent in sushupti. नापि
मिथ्याज्ञानप्रतिबन्धात्; तत्र तस्य अभावात्।

Further, mithyA-jnAna-samskAra just cannot be pratibandhaka, because
mithyA-jnAna-samskAra is never an obstruction to tattva-avabhAsa. It is
seen in the world that despite there being rajata-bhrama-samskAra, there is
shuktikA-jnAna. नापि तत्संस्कारप्रतिबन्धात्; भ्रान्तिसंस्काराणां
तत्त्वावभासप्रतिबन्धकत्वाभावात्, सत्स्वपि रजतभ्रमसंस्कारेषु
शुक्तिकावबोधदर्शनात्.

Further, jnAna-abhAva i.e. agrahaNa can never be pratibandhanka. Because,
if swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva is meant by jnAna-abhAva, then swarUpa-jnAna being
nitya, there can never be its abhAva. And if jnAna-abhAva other than
swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva is meant by jnAna-abhAva, then that is not capable of
obstructing swaprakAsha-Brahma-tattva-avabhAsa. Otherwise, there would be
contingency of obstruction even in mukti. VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha says on
page 73-न तावत् स्वरूपज्ञानस्य नित्यस्य अभावः संभवति। अन्यज्ञानाभावस्तु न
स्वयंप्रकाश-ब्रह्मतत्त्व-अवभास-प्रतिबन्ध-क्षमः अन्यथा मुक्तौ-अपि
प्रतिबन्धप्रसङ्गात्। VivaraNa says on page 63 - नापि अग्रहणप्रतिबन्धात्;
स्वरूपग्रहणस्य नित्यत्वात्, स्वयंप्रकाशमाने संवेदने
तद्विषयकादाचित्काग्रहणस्य अप्रतिबन्धकत्वात्. RijuvivaraNa explains -
“अग्रहणमि”ति स्वरूपग्रहणाभाव:? कदाचिद् ग्रहणाभावो वा? इति विकल्प्य
प्रथमपक्षं दूषयति - स्वरूपग्रहणस्य इति। न द्वितीय इति आह - स्वयंप्रकाशमान
इति। तद्विषय-अग्रहणे विद्यमाने अपि स्वरूप-ग्रहण-प्रयुक्त-व्यवहार-दर्शनात्
इति भावः। The logic adduced is as follows - agrahaNa can be either
swarUpa-grahaNa-abhAva or kadAchid-grahaNa-abhAva. The former is impossible
on account of swarUpa-jnAna being nitya. The latter is not possible either.
This is so because even when there is agrahaNa of
vishaya-of-swaprakAsha-Brahman i.e. objects, there is vyavahAra arising on
account of swarUpa-grahaNa. This is the example of vyavahAra in mukti.
kadAchid-agrahaNa is common to mukti and sushupti. In mukti, despite there
being swarUpa-grahaNa-prayukta-vyavahAra, there is grahaNa-abhAva of
vishaya-of-swaprakAsha-Brahman. If mere kadAchid-grahaNa-abhAva were to be
the pratibandhaka of swaprakAsha-Brahman, then in mukti also, like
sushupti, there would have been non-illumination. But it is seen that there
is swarUpa-grahaNa in mukti. Hence, kadAchid-grahaNa-abhAva cannot be
pratibandhaka either. VivaraNa-upanyAsa says on page 50 - ननु
अज्ञानप्रयुक्तमावरणमस्तु, अज्ञानं तु
अग्रहण-मिथ्याज्ञान-तत्संस्कार-कर्मभ्योऽन्यद् न पश्याम इति चेद् ? न ।
सुषुप्तावात्माऽनवभासानुपपत्तेः;
न हि स्वयम्प्रकाशस्यात्मनो जडाया मनोवृत्तेर्ग्रहणशब्दिताया अभावेन अनवभासो
युक्तः, खद्योताभावेनेव सवितुः । न सुषुप्तौ भ्रान्तिरस्ति । नापि संस्कारः
आवरकः, भ्रान्तिसंस्कारे सत्यपि शुक्तितत्त्वावभासदर्शनात्। The logic adduced
is as under - grahaNa word is used to refer jaDa manO-vritti. By agrahNa,
it would mean manO-vritti-abhAva. By such abhAva, the non-illumination of
Brahman is not possible. It is akin to saying that there is
non-illumination of sun on account of absence of fireflies.

This is also explained by BhagvAn BhAshyakAra when He says in GItA 13.2 -
तामसो हि प्रत्ययः, आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः, संशयोपस्थापको वा,
अग्रहणात्मको वा ; विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात् , तामसे च आवरणात्मके
तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः ॥ When there is a
defect in the nature of tAmasika-AvaraNa such as timira-etc-defect, then
there is perception of three types of avidyA namely agrahNa,
samshaya-upasthApaka and viparIta-grAhaka. That is to say, when there is
AvaraNa, then there is agrahaNa, viparIta-jnAna and samshaya-jnAna. This
clearly shows that AvaraNAtmaka-ajnAna is different from agrahaNa,
mithyA-jnAna and its samskAra. It is like blindfolding a person. When he is
so blindfolded, he cannot see (agrahaNa/jnAna-abhAva), he can doubt a
coconut tree for a palm tree (samshaya-jnAna) or even take a palm tree for
coconut tree (viparIta-jnAna). avidyA stands here for blindfold-cloth which
results in jnAna-abhAva, viparIta-jnAna and samshaya-jnAna.

Therefore, by the reasoning adduced hereinabove, it is clear that ajnAna is
bhAvarUpa and is different from jnAna-abhAva (agrahaNa), mithyA-jnAna and
mithyA-jnAna-samskAra. Thus, the opponent, who is a sarva-sankara-vAdI, is
refuted.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.