[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

So, do you hold that bhAshya presents avidyA as cause of adhyAsa for those who want to see in the prism of kArya-kAraNa-vAda?


Ø     kAraNAvidyA is agrahaNa and kAryAvidyA is adhyAsa for those who want to see the cause behind everything and this has been said in kArika, how sushuptAtma is with agrahaNa and Vishwa and taijasa with both.  But as per bhAshyakAra adhyAsa is anAdirananta…when it is said anAdi and svAbhAvika no one try to find the cause of it.

What is your position?


(i)                  avidyA is identical to adhyAsa


  *   since adhyAsa is the anartha hetu, avidyA in the sense of adhyAsa widely used across PTB.


(ii)                avidyA is cause of adhyAsa.

  *   svarUpa jnAna abhAva results in taking myself as dehavAn.


(iii)              In paramArtha (i), but in vyavAhara (ii)?

  *   In pramArtha you are not supposed to talk anything about vidyAvidyA, and in vyavahAra it is mere karaNa dOsha.  Go back to 4-1-3 sUtra bhAshya see bhAshyakAra’s clarification.  If you ask anything about avidyA, its ashraya etc. I say to YOU who are asking this question.  Do you think nirguNa and nirvishesha brahman asking these questions about avidyA and its Ashraya!!??

Please clarify your position.

>     Look at your experience before playing anything with bhAshya :  what would be the reason behind seeing the snake instead of rope??  Is it not lack of knowledge of an existing thing and seeing one thing for another??

I will come to my explanation a little later. Let us first examine your claim of abhAva as a cause of adhyAsa.


Ø     I have said this more than one example, how my jnAnAbhAva would give the ‘Aspada’ for the adhyAsa without being the material cause.


Please check the adhikaraNa and get back. Because BhAshya clearly negates any possibility of abhAva being stated as a cause of anything.

I reckon like ghata bhAshya which you have quoted to prove even abhAva is also bhAva completely out of context, this one too in all probability of the same order.

Make a study and come back. I have merely reproduced bhAshya which presents anumAna - both in BSB 2.2.26 and also in ghatA-bhAshya. You know that anumAna is a pramANa. You need to repudiate it if you want to hold a contrary view. You cannot wish away fire-smoke-anumAna by citing context. You need to repudiate the anumAna.

And that vishesha-abhAva is bhAvarUpa is proven by BhAshyakAra in ghatA-bhAshya through irrefutable anumAna. I don't know how you refuse to accept that even without refuting the anumAna.


Ø     anumAna pramANa should be anubhava sammata but your contention fails to meet this fundamental requirement.

Because for me, the cause of bhrAnti (adhyAsa) is abhAva-vilakshaNa ajnAna. So, no contradiction with bhAshya. Simple.


Ø     For you it is simple but for me Kalpita avidyA is bhAvAbhava vilakshana, anirvachaneeya etc. quite ridiculous explanation when bhAshyakAra himself counted the avidyA lakshaNa in the sense of nirvachaneeya  and said avidyA is in the form of either agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa or saMshaya.  For me if you say it is not abhAva since you say it is abhAva I say it is bhAva or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa, I say if it is not abhAva then it is bhAva only there is no intermediatory state for avidyA that can be labelled as ‘bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa’ and ‘anirvachaneeya’ as well.

Let us revise some basic concepts. For any kArya, there are some asAdhAraNa-kAraNa and several (in fact nine) sAdhAraNa-kAraNa. Space and time are two such sAdhAraNa-kAraNa (except of course in case of space and time themselves).


  *   As I told several times kArya-kAraNa prakriya itself comes under the domain of adhyAsa hence adhyAsa is not an event in time that got originated at a particular point of time and prior to that there is kAraNa rUpa avidyA only.  Like in dream, both kAraNa-kArya appear simultaneously without any time-bound status.


So, in case of cobweb example, space is that sAdhAraNa-kAraNa. As you might agree, space is not abhAva. So, that does not really help.


  *   As others do, you too stretched this example beyond its intended meaning.  I don’t think further explanation needed on this.  And to the rest of your logical arguments that pratibandhaka abhAva etc. I would like to say my observation is based on anubhava sammata it is quite logical to me and enough for believing the possibility of adhyAsa without its material cause as bhAva rUpa or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa or anirvachaneeya or brahmAshrita avidyA.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar