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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Vartika also mentions the agrahaNa as dvaya-abodha which is bheda or dvaita
agrahaNa.

अस्त्येवैतद्द्वितीयं चेद् ग्रहणात्स्वप्नबोधयोः ॥ ५६५ ॥
अविद्योत्थानतो नैवं तदा तद्भावभावतः ।
द्वयाबोधः सुषुप्तेऽपि त्वज्ञानादिति चेन्न तत् ।
स्वाभाविकत्वात्तस्यापि निमित्तस्यानपेक्षणात् ॥ ५६६ ॥
अन्यापेक्षं हि यद्रूपं न तत्तस्य स्वतो भवेत् ।
विक्रियाऽविक्रिया त्वस्य तत्त्वमन्यानपेक्षणात् ॥ ५६७ ॥
स्वप्नवन्न सुषुप्तोऽतः स्वत एवाद्वयत्वतः ।
द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्न लोपः स्यात्सत्यमेवं श्रुतेर्वचः ॥ ५६८ ॥

astyevaitaddvitīyaṃ ced grahaṇātsvapnabodhayoḥ ॥ 565 ॥
avidyotthānato naivaṃ tadā tadbhāvabhāvataḥ ।
dvayābodhaḥ suṣupte'pi tvajñānāditi cenna tat ।
svābhāvikatvāttasyāpi nimittasyānapekṣaṇāt ॥ 566 ॥
anyāpekṣaṃ hi yadrūpaṃ na tattasya svato bhavet ।
vikriyā'vikriyā tvasya tattvamanyānapekṣaṇāt ॥ 567 ॥
svapnavanna suṣupto'taḥ svata evādvayatvataḥ ।
draṣṭurdṛṣṭerna lopaḥ syātsatyamevaṃ śrutervacaḥ ॥ 568 ॥

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 9:21 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>