[Advaita-l] Is the agrahaNa (jnAna abhAva) in sushupti, a product of mUlAvidyA??

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

The bhAvarUpa avidyAvAdins say mUlAvidyA is mother of all other three types
> of avidyA and thus mUlAvidyA is 'different' from these three types of
> avidyA and jnAna abhAva type of avidya i.e. agrahaNa is also a product of
> mUlAvidyA.


Yes sir. This is what BhAshyakAra says in GItA bhAshya when he says - when
there is AvaraNa, there is avidyA-traya. So, agrahaNa is distinguished from
AvaraNa.

IOW, the agrahaNa which has been accepted in the state of sushupti is just
> an effect (kArya) of kAraNAvidyA (mUlAvidyA).


Yes sir. However, agrahaNa can be either bheda-agrahaNa or tattva-agrahaNa.
The former is present only in sushupti. The latter is always present. When
avidyA-traya is used, it is tattva-agrahaNa.

Sri SSS quotes the following bhAshya vAkya from taittireeya Upanishad (2-8)
> to refute the baseless theory of mulAvidyAvAdins :
>
> sushuptegrahaNamapyavidyAkrutamiti chet??  Na svAbhAvikatvAt, dravyasya hi
> tattvamavikriyA, parAnapekshatvAt, vikriyA na tattvaM, parApekshatvAt, na
> hi kArakApekshaM vastunastatvaM, satOvisheshaH kArakApekshaH, visheshashcha
> vikriyA, jAgratsvapnayOshcha grahaNaM visheshaH, yaddhi nAnyApekshaM
> svarUpaM, tattasya tattvaM, yadanyApekshaM na tattatvaM anyAbhAve abhAvAt
> tasmAt svAbhAvikatvAjAgratsvapnavanna sushupte visheshaH.
>
> If it is asked agrahaNa (not knowing / jnAnAbhAva) in sushupti is also a
> product (effect) of avidyA alone. Is it not??  Here it is to be noted that
> bhagavatpAda directly answering the question, which mulAvidyAvadins holding
> as siddhAnta (i.e. agrahaNa is also a product / effect of mUlAvidyA) he
> clarifies : NOT SO!! For it is but natural (svAbhAvika).  For an entity not
> undergoing any change or transformation is its svarUpa / svabhAva (very
> essential nature of that entity/being) for these is no need of another
> thing for it.  Undergoing changes is not svabhAva for another thing is
> needed for that purpose.  Whereas for the svabhAva of a vastu no kAraka
> (agent of action) WHATSOEVER is needed.  He explains like this and
> concludes : therefore because of the reason that in shushupti the fact of
> not knowing is svAbhAvika (natural) it is NOT vishesha / product / effect
> (a special feature) born out of something else (here in this case
> mulAvidyA).
>

Now, this is grave mistake by SSSS ji. Is it not? This is what happens when
you take the word अग्रहण and don't understand which agrahaNa is being
talked about.

Sir, when bhAshya said agrahaNa as avidyA-traya, it means tattva-agrahaNa
i.e. basically ब्रह्म-स्वरूप-अनवभास.

When TaittirIya says agrahaNa in sushupti, it means bheda-agrahaNa. It is
talking about bheda-grahaNa-abhAva.

So, basically SSSS ji confused tattva-agrahaNa and bheda-agrahaNa.

Bheda-agrahaNa is present only in sushupti but not in jAgrat and swapna.

Tattva-agrahaNa is present in sushupti, jAgrat and swapna. It is always
present. As long as time appears, tattva-agrahaNa appears. Not so with
bheda-agrahaNa. Bheda-agrahaNa appears only in sushupti.

Question is taittirIya is -- is bheda-agrahaNa of sushupti swAbhAvika OR
avidyA-krita? Means, even though bheda is there, there may be
bheda-grahaNa-abhAva due to avidyA. That is denied by AchArya. His point is
- bheda itself is not present in sushupti and it is not that
bheda-grahaNa-abhAva is illusorily created by avidyA. That is well accepted
in siddhAnta because merger of entire world in avidyA is accepted in
sushupti. And abhAva being adhikaraNa-swarUpa in siddhAnta,
bheda-grahaNa-abhAva is identical to Brahman.

The same time further emphasized by bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya : when
> there is no distinctive cognition or qualified knowledge in sushupti there
> does not exist any other special feature whatsoever (tAvatsushuptaM na
> kvachitvishishyate).  Because of the reason that therein one has indeed
> become merged with sadrUpa brahma ( the ultimate / Shuddha Chaitanya/pure
> existence), it is quite reasonable to say that he does not see anything.
>

Sir, sadrUpa Brahman means avidyA-vishishTa-Brahma. See MANDUkya - यद्यपि
सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव
प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः *सच्छब्दवाच्यता* च । So, this does not deny absence of
avidyA in sushupti.

I think with this clear cut definition and clarification by bhAshyakAra
> about agrahaNa in sushupti,  we can comfortably close the mUlAvidyA case
> and conclude and refute the baseless assertions like mulAvidyA is the
> mother of other three types of avidyA and it is like Atman existing in all
> the three states uninterruptedly etc. etc.   It is simply bAshyabAhira and
> need to mention shuruti, yukti and anubhava viruddha too.
>

सर, अब मैं क्या बोलूँ? You are unable to distinguish तत्त्व-अग्रहण and
भेद-अग्रहण. You have taken the word agrahaNa and turned mango into
tamarind. आम का इमली बना दिए आप।

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.