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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

AvidyA is adhyasta in Brahman.
>
Any adhyasta entity has avidyA as the cause. If avidyA were to be adhyasta,
it would require avidyA as the cause. So, AtmAshraya-dosha can be alleged
by the opponent.



> Being anAdi it itself does not have a *cause* and is not understood to be
> *caused*.
>
Opponent can argue that if avidyA does not have a cause, then it cannot be
adhyasta. Because adhyasta entity by definition have a cause.

There is no anyonyAshraya-dosha here. But AtmAshraya-dosha can certainly be
alleged by the opponent.

The issue is taken up in Samkshepa ShArIraka 1.54 and 1.55.

The advaita-siddhAnta accepts avidyA as swa-para-nirvAhaka. The example
given is that of bheda. Just as bheda, while differentiating pot and cloth,
also differentiates itself from pot and cloth, and no AtmAshraya-dosha is
applicable, similarly avidyA is also swa-para-nirvAhaka.

भेदं च भेद्यं च भिनत्ति भेदो यथैव भेदान्तरमन्तरेण ।
मोहं च कार्यं च भिनत्ति मोहस्तथैव मोहान्तरमन्तरेण ॥

Thus, the allegation of AtmAshraya-dosha is answered.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.