[Advaita-l] A replica of Adhyasa Bhashya in the Gita Bhashya13.26

[Venkatraghavan S]

(Resending as the first attempt bounced from the advaita-l server due to
size constraints. Let us see if this works).

Namaste Raghav ji,
I think your below email was sent only to me and not the list. Sending it
now.

I had one comment in relation to a sentence in your last paragraph "But in
the wake of the desirable need to show harmony across adhyAsa and gItA
bhAShyas, it may not be tenable to hold that aviveka is causal etc."

I will present my understanding, and others can comment / correct it as
appropriate - but my understanding is that the aviveka referred to in the
adhyAsa bhAShya is not the *material* cause or upAdAna kAraNa, but it is a
nimitta kAraNa used in the sense of an accessory cause (not in the sense as
an efficient cause as is commonly understood). Like the chakra or the daNDa
in the creation of the ghaTa, aviveka contributes to adhyAsa, without being
a material cause of adhyAsa,

As said previously, the absence of viveka contributes to adhyAsa through
the ongoing existence of avidyA. Therefore the denial of causation to
aviveka is limited to a denial of its material causation.

With reference to your post script:

"P.S. Would you say there is any other way to atleast hint that avidyA is
not-abhAva from adhyAsa bhAShya alone? (Since the avivekena reference has
to be dispensed with in view of maintaining concordance with gItA bhAShya
13.26.? I admit the constraint of adhyAsa bhAShya alone is a bit unfair!"

The focus of the adhyAsa bhAShya is on the adhyAsa itself - hence the name.
It is adhyAsa that is the cause of dvitIya bhAva, and as the brihadAraNyaka
upaniShad says, dvitIyAdvai bhayam bhavati. When there is avidyA, but no
adhyAsa, there is no bhayam, dukham etc - e.g. in deep sleep. (This point
has support from the ratnaprabhA, see below).

That is why, AchArya concludes his adhyAsa bhAShya saying एवमयमनादिरनन्तो
नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तकः सर्व
लोकप्रत्यक्षः अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे
वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते । The anartha hetu he is referring to is the adhyAsa
that is the central theme of the adhyAsa bhAShya.

Now it may be asked, instead of talking about avidyA which is the root
cause of samsAra and which is indirectly referred to in the first sUtra,
why is shankarAchArya talking of adhyAsa instead? The answer is being
provided by the bhAShyakAra - तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति
मन्यन्ते । तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणं विद्यामाहुः । - The adhyASa that
is being referred to here is called avidyA by paNDItAs, on account of it
being an effect of avidyA and because it (adhyAsa) too is removed by jnAna.
This is spoken of in the sentence beginning with tadvivekena.
As the ratnaprabhA says:

ननु ब्रह्मज्ञाननाश्यत्वेन सूत्रितामविद्यां हित्वा अध्यासः किमिति वर्ण्यत
इत्यत आह -

तमेतमिति ।

आक्षिप्तं समाहितमुक्तलक्षणलक्षितमध्यासमविद्याकार्यत्वादविद्येति मन्यन्त
इत्यर्थः ।

विद्यानिवर्त्यत्वाच्चास्याविद्यात्वमित्याह -

तद्विवेकेनेति |


The ratnaprabhA continues:

तथापि कारणाविद्यां त्यक्त्वा कार्याविद्या किमिति वर्ण्यते तत्राह -

तत्रेति ।

तस्मिन्नध्यासे उक्तन्यायेनाविद्यात्मके सतीत्यर्थः । मूलाविद्यायाः
सषुप्तावनर्थत्वादर्शनात्कार्यात्मना तस्या अनर्थत्वज्ञापनार्थं तद्वर्णनमिति
भावः ।
Even so, instead of talking of the root cause avidyA, why is the avidyA
which is its effect (ie adhyAsa) being talked about? That is answered with
"tatra". The adhyAsa is on the basis of what was just said (because it
shares with ignorance the quality of being removed by knowledge) is of the
nature of ignorance. The import is that in deep sleep, when avidyA is
present in its form as mUlAvidyA, there is no experience of the anartha
(such as kartritva-bhoktritvAdi), whereas when the same avidyA is present
in the form of its effect (adhyAsa), the very same avidyA is the source of
anartha. Therefore adhyAsa is being talked about predominantly, not avidyA.

Hope this is helpful.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:13 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji
> Thank you.
> That clarifies the matter. Although I was aware of the
> mithyAGYAna-nimittaH passage in bhAShya, I was only highlighting the
> 'avivekena' reference for a reason.
>
> But first -
> From what you, Praveenji and Subbu ji wrote, equating
> 'vivekAbhAva-nibandhanaH' (gItA bhAShya) with 'avivekena' (adhyAsa bhAShya)
> is fine. And so the idea that these two passage from different texts are
> replicas is also tenable. That's the main thing.
>
> The issue arises if vivekAbhAva-nibandhanaH' and 'avivekena' are both
> asserted as referring to mUlAvidyA. The latter could conceivably be
> amenable to that (by taking virodhArtha nanj) but not the former, since the
> abhAva challenge comes in, in the word vivekAbhAva-nibandhanaH.
>
> I now recollect why I got interested to this matter. I was party to a
> discussion a long time back where it was challenged (in a nice way of
> course !  ) that the adhyAsa bhAShya has no direct reference to avidyA
> except for the allegedly contrived parsing of mithyAGYAna as mithyA +
> aGYAnam , rather than mithyA + GYAnam.
> This was countered by a traditional scholar saying that 'avivekena' also
> can be interpreted as (causal) avidyA being responsible for the arising of
> adhyAsa. This was not the only argument given by him. But his riposte sort
> of struck me.
>
> But in the wake of the desirable need to show harmony across adhyAsa and
> gItA  bhAShyas, it may not be tenable to hold that aviveka is causal etc.
> Instead, in  both cases, aviveka is just the temporal continuance of
> adhyAsa. It's a post-facto observation of human experience of feeling bound
> up with the body-mind, because the viveka-vRtti or vidyA-vRtti born of
> shravanAdi has not arisen.
>
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
> P.S. Would you say there is any other way to atleast hint that avidyA is
> not-abhAva from adhyAsa bhAShya alone? (Since the avivekena reference has
> to be dispensed with in view of maintaining concordance with gItA bhAShya
> 13.26.? I admit the constraint of adhyAsa bhAShya alone is a bit unfair!
>
>
>>>