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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

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.
>

Fine. So this kAraNAvidyA i.e. agrahaNa is adhyAsa or not? Precisely answer.

svarUpa jnAna abhAva results in taking myself as dehavAn.
>

Bhaskar prabhu ji. I have demonstrated in previous mail that such a
position is untenable. There is no response presented against the argument.

In addition thereto, please also note that swarUpa-jnAna is nitya. How can
there be any abhAva thereof! This phrase swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva itself is
untenable!! In VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha, when the opponent tried to
present what you are presenting, AchArya replies the same - jnAna-abhAva
cannot mean swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva because swarUpa-jnAna is nitya. तृतीये तु
न तावत् *स्वरूपज्ञानस्य नित्यस्याऽभावः *सम्भवति । *अन्यज्ञानाभावस्तु न
स्वयम्प्रकाशब्रह्मतत्वावभासप्रतिबन्धक्षमः* । It basically says that
jnAna-abhAva can be either swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva or some other jnAna-abhAva.
While swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva is impossible on account of nityatva of
swarUpa-jnAna, other jnAna-abhAva just cannot be capable to obstruct the
effulgence of self-luminous Brahman.

So, you will need to explain how can there be abhAva of nitya swarUpa-jnAna.



>
>    - 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!!??
>
>
For paramArtha, you are very correct. In vyavahAra, since karaNa is anAtmA
and is hence avidyA-prasUta (अनात्मनश्चाज्ञानप्रसूतत्त्वात्), avidyA cannot
have antah-karaNa as its Ashraya.

In fact prabhu ji, if you see the very first post of this thread, I quoted
bhAshya to show that avidyA itself is adhyasta in AtmA.*ह्यविद्यया
स्वात्मन्यध्यस्तया . *So, please note that BSB 4.1.3 references are by
doing anuvAda of our adhyAsa. Like, when iron ball is put in fire, then the
iron ball becomes capable to burn and we say -iron burns. Similarly,
avidyA-Ashrayatva and karaNa are both adhyasta in AtmA and hence
avidyA-Ashrayatva appears to belong to karaNa.

That is why it is incorrect to hold that avidyA-Ashrayatva is posited to
belong to karaNa as a siddhAnta. The siddhAnta is presented in KaTha
Upanishad wherein avidyA itself is stated to be adhyasta in AtmA.

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.
>

There is nothing ridiculous about it prabhu ji. If you read the bhAshya a
little more carefully, then you will note the following - *तामसे च
आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति* अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः. So, these
avidyA-traya are available only when there is an AvaraNAtmaka-dosha such as
timira etc. avidyA is such a tAmasa vastu. Please see. None of three
avidyA-traya are capable to cause AvaraNa. Only when there is AvaraNa,
there is avidyA-traya. The AvaraNa is avidyA, what we call as mUla-avidyA.
तामसो हि प्रत्ययः, आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः, संशयोपस्थापको वा,
अग्रहणात्मको वा.

Regarding bhAva/abhAva, it is also an issue of definition I feel which
leads to difficulty in accepting what is being said. Once definitions are
clear, I don't see any logical problem in understanding.


>
>    - 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.
>
>
You are right that kArya-kAraNa-bhAva itself is within the ambit of
adhyAsa. However, please note that adhyAsa itself can be understood as
kAraNa-adhyAsa and kArya-adhyAsa. While avidyA-adhyAsa is kAraNa-adhyAsa,
the adhyAsa beginning with aham-adhyAsa is kArya-adhyAsa. [
निष्कलङ्कचैतन्यैकताने निरंशानन्दैकरसे अज्ञानादिसाक्षिणि *अनादिसिद्धेऽपि
अज्ञानाध्यासे*, *कादाचित्कमध्यासमाश्रित्य आह--अहमिति तावत् प्रथमोऽध्यासः*
इति।।]- VivaraNa.

You cannot wish away avidyA-adhyAsa because bhAshya itself says that avidyA
is adhyasta. *ह्यविद्यया स्वात्मन्यध्यस्तया *


>
>    - 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.
>
>
No prabhu ji. I did not stretch the example. I merely showed that
pratibandhaka-abhAva can be stated to be cause in case of cobweb but not in
case of adhyAsa on account of non-satisfaction of definition.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.