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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namate Raghav Ji,

AvidyA is adhyasta in Brahman. Being kAraNa, it is always unmanifest. Being
anAdi it itself does not have a *cause* and is not understood to be
*caused*. All its manifest forms, being of the same genre, are all adhyasta
only. Hence these manifest forms are also termed adhyAsa. Where is the
possibility of circularity?
Regards

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 7:36 AM 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin <
advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Namaste Subbu ji and Putran ji
> Thank you for the post about the following.
> In the sentences
> "Brahman as Ishvara imagines/superimposes by His Maya-shakti" and that
> adhyasa that Ishvara imagines we realize has to include the adhyasa that is
> Ishvara!"
>
>  And
>
> 1. avidyA itself is adhyasta on Brahman.
>
> 2. avidyA is the cause of adhyAsa
>
> would semantically sound like circular logic (anyOnyAshraya doSha).
>
> The English idea of "avidyA is adhyasta upon Brahman" should be shown to
> not mean "avidyA is caused by adhyAsa".
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
> Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=NativePlacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_EmailSignatureGrowth_YahooMail:Search,Organize,Conquer&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000945&af_sub5=OrganizeConquer__Static_>
>
> On Mon, 2 Sept 2024 at 10:06 pm, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Putran ji,
>
> It is agreed that Avidya, both the cause and the effect, is adhyasta in
> Brahman.  Hence, the ekam eva advitiyam status of Brahman is never
> compromised.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 7:53 PM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Namaskaram Subbu-ji,
>
> I try to take the middle-ground here. My thinking:
>
> Avidya, adhyasa, maya point to a unitary anirvachaniya vishaya/tattva that
> is coeval (as the kaarana) to the perceived world of duality. In the
> vyavaharika standpoint, they form a triangle and one can give primacy to
> any of them (in which view, the others secondary or 'effect') and obtain a
> "bhava"/perspective/prakriya that each rightly explains the vyavaharika
> standpoint (relative to the primary node we view from) and directs to
> advaita-tattva/Turiya beyond the duality - and the non-contradiction of the
> three perspectives is known from their ultimately mutual anirvachaniyatvam
> in light of sruthi vakya (or aligned logic).
>
> If we take avidya and adhyasa, avidya is the cause (nimitta-upadana) of
> adhyasa (and the imaginations therein) but the positing of avidya is
> inherently an adhyasa on ekameva-adviteeya Brahman. And that adhyasa again
> has avidya as cause... And when we intertwine with the fact that Brahman is
> the adhishtanam, then "avidya causes" is "Brahman as Ishvara
> imagines/superimposes by His Maya-shakti" and that adhyasa that Ishvara
> imagines we realize has to include the adhyasa that is Ishvara!
>
>
>
> Nirguna Brahman is Sat in whose paramarthika standpoint, all duality of
> cause and effect are asat/unavailable/impossible for consideration. Duality
> - so long as it is acknowledged/posited (vyavaharika) - and its necessary
> cause - however we view it - are anirvachaniya/mithya;
>
> thollmelukaalkizhu
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 6:37 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3cNCMhk496yQew8VZWhuUjGxDiY-SDNiRCN5WU%2B89qaA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3cNCMhk496yQew8VZWhuUjGxDiY-SDNiRCN5WU%2B89qaA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q5mdCOXepa8JTUmR%2B8-SoZ7XFuKRxhTy8xgr8gX%2Bx96A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q5mdCOXepa8JTUmR%2B8-SoZ7XFuKRxhTy8xgr8gX%2Bx96A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0jntq_OAHrk81378PHaGgJhOVYKQ_6roQzgccNWoRZ2A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0jntq_OAHrk81378PHaGgJhOVYKQ_6roQzgccNWoRZ2A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/488452515.2883567.1725329177200%40mail.yahoo.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/488452515.2883567.1725329177200%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>