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

[H S Chandramouli]

Raghav Ji,

Namaste.

Reg << In the above sentence you wrote, having the phrase "aviveka or
adhyAsa", I was

trying to see what the idea of aviveka being the nimitta kAraNa for a given
adhyAsa implies, which was mentioned by Sri Mani Dravida Sastrigal quoting
prakaTArthakAra.

For example we could examine the rope illusions or desert illusions and see
what is avidyA (upAdAna kAraNam), what is aviveka (nimitta kAraNam) and
adhyAsa (kAryam). The last two viz., the nimitta kAraNam and kAryam seem
very similar and I was trying to delineate them. The past smritis, and
samskAras engendered by them, would figure in this scheme? (as the nimitta
kAraNa, perhaps?) - that's my question. The idea of pUrva adhyAsa being the
(efficient?) cause of uttara adhyAsa also is relevant here >>,

What I had mentioned earlier was adhyAsa in respect of क्षेत्रज्ञ(kShetraj~na).
That was because that is the fundamental cause for samsAra. There is the
adhyAsa in respect of क्षेत्र(kShetra) as well to be considered. What you
have mentioned above concerns that. What is mentioned by Sri Shastrigal
concerns that. The definition for adhyAsa given in the bhAshya namely <<
स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः >>  << smRRitirUpaH paratra
pUrvadRRiShTAvabhAsaH >> applies to this adhyAsa. The other definition for
adhyAsa given in the bhAshya << अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धिरित्यवोचाम ।
>>  << adhyAso nAma atasmiMstadbuddhirityavochAma | >> is applicable to
both the types of adhyAsa covered here.

Reg  << This idea of avidyA having vyAvahArika reality like mAyA is subtle
and takes time to understand. Its more intuitive to accept that objects in
a dualistic world are mithyA (through kArya-kAraNa-ananyatva-nyAya) but
it's not obvious that avidyA is not merely an absence ; it has some
ontological status and that it is AvaraNatmikA, i.e., it is only, "as
mithyA as", trees and rocks! It not less real than trees and rocks >>,

In my understanding avidyA and mAyA are synonymous. Only one entity accunts
for both the types of adhyAsa.I also think that those who hold avidyA to be
abhAvarUpa also postulate another entity, perhaps mayA, to account or both
the types of adhyAsAs. I am not sure though. Others who are conversant with
that need to clarify or confirm. Trees and rocks being pariNAma of avidyA
certainly have the same ontological status as avidyA. It must also be
AvaraNatmikA as otherwise trees and rocks cannot be projected. avidyA must
necessarily veil the adhisthana Brahma which is existing everywhere.
Regards


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> <#m_-67630648072001692_m_-8404234004637328825_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>