[Advaita-l] 'Avidya' is not 'only' Adhyasa; it's more than that

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Adhyasa Bhashya is the statement:

तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते । तद्विवेकेन च
वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणं विद्यामाहुः ।

(Adhyasa of such a nature - taking one for another - is understood by the
knowers as Avidya. And the determining the right 'thing' there by
application of proper discrimination is called Vidya.)

The above would give an impression that Shankara holds Adhyasa alone to be
meant by the term Avidya.  But considering other statements of Shankara
elsewhere would render the above conclusion erroneous. For example, in the
Gita Bhashya 13.2 is a yet another famous passage:

अविद्यावत्त्वात् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् इति चेत् , न ; अविद्यायाः
तामसत्वात् । तामसो हि प्रत्ययः, आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः,
संशयोपस्थापको वा, अग्रहणात्मको वा ; विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात् , तामसे च
आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः ॥

Swami  Gambhirananda's translation:

Since ignorance has the nature of covering, *it is indeed a notion born of
tamas;* it makes one *perceive contrarily*, or it *arouses doubt,* or it
leads to *non-perception.* For it disappears with the dawn of
discrimination. And the three kind of ignorance, viz non-perception etc.
[Etc: false perception and doubt.].

From this we know that there are three modes of Avidya: 1. Non-perception -
Agrahana, 2. Wrong perception - viparita grahanam/pratyaya (adhyAsa) and 3.
Doubt.

Here is yet another statement, in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya, 3.3
introduction: This is almost similar to the one above, only with a minor
change in the nomenclature:

 यदि ज्ञानाभावः, यदि संशयज्ञानम् , यदि विपरीतज्ञानं वा उच्यते अज्ञानमिति,
सर्वं हि तत् ज्ञानेनैव निवर्त्यते ;

Whether it is absence of knowledge (jnaana abhava), doubt or erroneous
knowledge - all known by the term Ajnana, all these are dispelled by jnana
alone.

It is interesting that Shankara uses the terms Avidya (in the first two
cited cases) and ajnanam, in the above case, synonymously.

Here too there are three modes of Avidya stated: 1. jnAnAbhAvaH, to be
equated to agrahanam (non-perception),  2. viparIta jnaanam
(misperception/wrong perception, error, bhrama, adhyAsa) and 3. Doubt. All
the three are dispelled by jnAnam.

Thus we have the term Avidya/Ajnanam expressing itself as:

1. Agrahanam - Non-perception.
This results in 2. Wrong-perception (Adhyasa/Viparita jnanam) and 3. Doubt
- samshaya.

Between  2 and 3 the difference is: A person may be in doubt whether the
object he perceives yonder is a human or a stub. He is not settled on one.
There are two alternatives before him.  When he concludes that it is a
human while in truth it is a stub, then he comes under bhrama/adhyasa.
This can happen the other way too.  In any case doubt and error are two
different expressions of agrahanam, non-perception.

So to conclude that *Avidya = Adhyasa only as per Shankara *is wrong.  Such
a conclusion, based on the restricted view of taking just the Adhyasa
Bhashya passage, does not close the door for the mUla avidya or BhAvarUpa
avidya / ajnanam.

From the Gita Bhashya quote it is possible to say that Shankara implies a
fundamental Avidya that lies at the base of the three types of
expressions.  This is analogous to the Brihadaranyaka 2.4.7, etc. analogies
of a veena, dundubhi, etc. musical instruments having a sAmAnya, a basic
default, sound which takes the form of all vishesha, specific sounds that
the instrument gives when played upon.  The default sound is not graspable
unless the specific player-caused sounds are grasped.  The analogy was
given there to teach that everything in creation is Brahman and to grasp
the fundamental foundational Brahman, one has to appreciate the manifest
objects as Brahman. Just because the attributeless Brahman can't be grasped
unless through the manifest forms in creation, one cannot conclude that the
basic Brahman does not exist.

Similarly the basic Avidya that has no distinct feature, expresses itself
as agrahana, viparita grahana and samshaya. That it is Tamas/Tamasic is
stated by Shankara.   Just because it is not grasped unless through its
manifestations enumerated, one cannot conclude that it does not exist.
Shankara says: when Vidya is present, the three expressions do not
persist.  That means Vidya dispels the basic avidya that is at the base of
the three expressions.

warm regards
subbu