[Advaita-l] [advaitin] One more 'samskara' employed by Shankara in the GB for avidya lesha

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.


>    - I am really surprised our tArkika vedAnti Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji has
>    not uttered even a single word on this avidyA lesha and continuance of
>    jnAni’s body even after paramArtha jnAna.
>
>
The write-up was well-written and was in accordance with siddhAnta.


>
>    - I would like to see his explanation in the light of his declaration
>    that anAtma is avidyA prasUta and anAtma being jada cannot accommodate or
>    give shelter to avidyA.
>
>
We need to appreciate the meaning of avidyA-lesha. As we know, avidyA
causes different results.  That is due to shakti of avidyA. Three of such
shakti of avidyA are quite salient:

   1. अपरोक्षप्रतिभासयोग्यार्थाभासजनिका shakti through which avidyA gives
   birth to artha-AbhAsa which have the capacity of being the object of
   aparOksha-pratibhAsa.
   2. प्रपञ्चे पारमार्थिकत्वादिभ्रमहेतु shakti through which avidyA causes
   an illusion of pAramArthika-reality in prapancha.
   3. प्रपञ्चे अर्थक्रियासमर्थत्वसम्पादक shakti through which avidyA
   enables artha-kriyA-kAritva in prapancha.

Now, with vidyA, 2 and 3 go whereas 1 does not go.

Now, even when I know that mirage is nothing but desert, still mirage
refuses to go. Whereas, in case of rope-snake, with rope-knowledge, snake
goes. This is because in mirage-water is sOpAdhika-bhrama.

Similarly, world-Brahman-illusion is sOpAdhika-bhrama and prArabdha is the
upAdhi.

Thus, when prArabdha goes, 1 also goes.

And thus, 1 is called avidyA-lesha.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are all anAtmA, but jnAna is unable to produce its effect in
case of 1 because of prArabdha as upAdhi. BhAshyakAra has also explained
this in BSB wherein he says that despite prArabdha is avidyA-prasUta, it is
not contradictory to vidyA. And hence vidyA does not remove prArabdha,
despite it being avidyA-kArya.

Thus, we understand avidyA-lesha.


>    - BTW, I am unable to understand on what grounds one can say one is
>    paramArtha jnAni and at the same time he  is still having avidyA lesha
>    (remnants of ignorance)…
>
>
Just as you don't treat a knower of mirage as ajnAnI despite his perception
of mirage, similarly you cannot say a tattva-vit as ajnAnI just because he
sees the avidyA-kArya.

The paramArtha-jnAnI is one who has no illusion of reality in the seen
world. Since 2 and 3 are removed, he is qualified to be called
paramArtha-jnAnI. All effects of avidyA are absent in him. 1 is like a
roasted seed. It cannot do any harm. So, he is eligible to be called
paramArtha-jnAnI.

And thus the distinction of sadyOmukti and jIvanmukti also become
meaningful. MunDaka Shruti says --  भूयश्चान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्ति. Please
note the word ante.. also, tasya taavat eva chiram etc. So, the distinction
between jIvanmukti and sadyOmukti are explained through avidyAlesha.


>
>    - Even if he has tip of the hair of avidyA then he has to be
>    considered as avidyAvanta only and not paramArtha jnAni declares
>    bhAshyakAra.
>
>
BhAshyakAra says that even if a tip of hair is considered to be different
from oneself, then that is avidyA. यत्तु सर्वात्मभावादर्वाक्
वालाग्रमात्रमपि अन्यत्वेन दृश्यते — नाहमस्मीति, तदवस्था अविद्या. As one can
appreciate, this comes within the realm of 2 and 3. Since these are absent,
there is no contradiction with bhAshya.


>    -   And I don’t know since when this trend of linking avidyA with
>    continuance of jnAni’s body due to prArabdha etc.  We have discussed about
>    jnAni’s body etc. earlier as well without any amicable conclusion.  The
>    examples like dighbhrAnta, arrow that already left bow its momentum etc.
>    have already been discussed in length.  And it is also explained jnAni’s
>    socalled body and identification of jnAni’s individual body, his activities
>    etc. are only in the view of outsiders / ignorant ones / bystanders.  But
>    it is time and again insisted that duality of paramArtha jnAni and his
>    interactions with world etc. due to avidyA lesha by citing the references
>    like below 😊
>
>
The main point is this. Body is anAtmA. And anAtmA is avidyA-kArya. Also,
prArabdha is anAtmA. Hence, prArabdha is also avidyA-kArya.

One cannot talk of prArabdha without keeping avidyA.


>
>    - All these bhAshya quotes which are emphasizing jnAni’s embodiedness
>    ( sashareeratvaM) should be understood in the light of samanvayAdhikaraNa
>    bhAshya since as per siddhAnta deha is mere adhyArOpita on Atman And
>    ashareeratvaM is the svabhAva of Atman.  Here in this adhikaraNa bhAshya,
>    pUrvapaxi asks : bodilessness can come to the paramArtha jnAni ONLY after
>    the falling off of the body (death) and not to one who is living.  For this
>    siddhAnti replies : no, sashareeratvaM is only on account of
>    misconception.  Therefore embodiedness being only due to the misconception,
>    it is to be concluded that bodilessness is the very nature of a wise one
>    (paramArtha jnAni) even he is living!!  dehAvAn eva lakshyate, his acts
>    like bhikshAcharya etc. is only in the view of bystanders etc. bhAshyakAra
>    himself clarifies.  So, it is siddhAnta viruddha if one says jnAni is
>    avidyAleshavanta 😊  BTW this does not suit at all to those who
>    propagate the theory of bhrAnti vAda and jagat Kalpita vAda.
>
>
It all boils down to how you define jnAnI. When it is said that jnAnI has
avidyA-lesha, it is said from avidyA-drishTi only. Not from Brahma-drishTi.

If you accept body-mind-complex for jnAnI, then you accept prArabdha and
hence avidyA-lesha *ipso facto* stands accepted.

If you do not accept body-mind-complex for jnAnI and you are talking from
Brahma-drishTi, then there are no jnAnI, no ajnAnI as the drishya is not
there.

So, there is really no confusion in this regard.

Whatever is written above is in srishTi-drishTi-vAda model.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.