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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Jaishankar ji.

Thanks for the reference. Yes. The agrahNa is of two types. One is
tattva-agrahaNa and the other is, bheda-agrahaNa i.e. dvaita-agrahaNa i.e.
dvitIya-agrahaNa. First one is common to all states of jAgrat, swapna and
sushupti. The latter one, is however, only in sushupti.

One needs to read bhAshya carefully. Otherwise, they will confuse
dvaita-agrahaNa for tattva-agrahaNa and infer incorrect deductions.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 12:36 PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>

-- 
Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com