'Avidya' is not 'only' Adhyasa; it's more than that

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Adhyasa Bhashya is the statement: 

तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते । तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणं विद्यामाहुः ।

(Adhyasa of such a nature - taking one for another - is understood by the knowers as Avidya. And the determining the right 'thing' there by application of proper discrimination is called Vidya.)

The above would give an impression that Shankara holds Adhyasa alone to be meant by the term Avidya.  But considering other statements of Shankara elsewhere would render the above conclusion erroneous. For example, in the Gita Bhashya 13.2 is a yet another famous passage:

अविद्यावत्त्वात् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् इति चेत् , न ; अविद्यायाः तामसत्वात् । तामसो हि प्रत्ययः, आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः, संशयोपस्थापको वा, अग्रहणात्मको वा ; विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात् , तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः ॥

Swami  Gambhirananda's translation:

Since ignorance has the nature of covering, it is indeed a notion born of tamas; it makes one perceive contrarily, or it arouses doubt, or it leads to non-perception. For it disappears with the dawn of discrimination. And the three kind of ignorance, viz non-perception etc. [Etc: false perception and doubt.].

From this we know that there are three modes of Avidya: 1. Non-perception - Agrahana, 2. Wrong perception - viparita grahanam/pratyaya (adhyAsa) and 3. Doubt. 

Here is yet another statement, in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya, 3.3 introduction: This is almost similar to the one above, only with a minor change in the nomenclature: 

 यदि ज्ञानाभावः, यदि संशयज्ञानम् , यदि विपरीतज्ञानं वा उच्यते अज्ञानमिति, सर्वं हि तत् ज्ञानेनैव निवर्त्यते ; 

Whether it is absence of knowledge (jnaana abhava), doubt or erroneous knowledge - all known by the term Ajnana, all these are dispelled by jnana alone. 

It is interesting that Shankara uses the terms Avidya (in the first two cited cases) and ajnanam, in the above case, synonymously. 

Here too there are three modes of Avidya stated: 1. jnAnAbhAvaH, to be equated to agrahanam (non-perception),  2. viparIta jnaanam (misperception/wrong perception, error, bhrama, adhyAsa) and 3. Doubt. All the three are dispelled by jnAnam.

Thus we have the term Avidya/Ajnanam expressing itself as:

1. Agrahanam - Non-perception. 

This results in 2. Wrong-perception (Adhyasa/Viparita jnanam) and 3. Doubt - samshaya. 

Between  2 and 3 the difference is: A person may be in doubt whether the object he perceives yonder is a human or a stub. He is not settled on one. There are two alternatives before him.  When he concludes that it is a human while in truth it is a stub, then he comes under bhrama/adhyasa.  This can happen the other way too.  In any case doubt and error are two different expressions of agrahanam, non-perception.

So to conclude that Avidya = Adhyasa only as per Shankara is wrong.  Such a conclusion, based on the restricted view of taking just the Adhyasa Bhashya passage, does not close the door for the mUla avidya or BhAvarUpa avidya / ajnanam.  

From the Gita Bhashya quote it is possible to say that Shankara implies a fundamental Avidya that lies at the base of the three types of expressions.  This is analogous to the Brihadaranyaka 2.4.7, etc. analogies of a veena, dundubhi, etc. musical instruments having a sAmAnya, a basic default, sound which takes the form of all vishesha, specific sounds that the instrument gives when played upon.  The default sound is not graspable unless the specific player-caused sounds are grasped.  The analogy was given there to teach that everything in creation is Brahman and to grasp the fundamental foundational Brahman, one has to appreciate the manifest objects as Brahman. Just because the attributeless Brahman can't be grasped unless through the manifest forms in creation, one cannot conclude that the basic Brahman does not exist. 

Similarly the basic Avidya that has no distinct feature, expresses itself as agrahana, viparita grahana and samshaya. That it is Tamas/Tamasic is stated by Shankara.   Just because it is not grasped unless through its manifestations enumerated, one cannot conclude that it does not exist.  Shankara says: when Vidya is present, the three expressions do not persist.  That means Vidya dispels the basic avidya that is at the base of the three expressions. 

warm regards

subbu

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Well presented.

Also, BhAshyakAra has made following statements:

1. #अविद्याध्यस्तो ब्रह्मण्येकस्मिन् अयं प्रपञ्चो विद्यया प्रविलाप्यत इति ब्रूयात् , ततो ब्रह्मैव #अविद्याध्यस्तप्रपञ्चप्रत्याख्यानेन आवेदयितव्यम् — ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म’ ‘तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । ७) इति — तस्मिन्नावेदिते, विद्या स्वयमेवोत्पद्यते, तया च अविद्या बाध्यते, ततश्च #अविद्याध्यस्तः सकलोऽयं नामरूपप्रपञ्चः स्वप्नप्रपञ्चवत् प्रविलीयते (BSB 3.2.21)
2. रज्जुस्वरूपप्रकाशनेनैव हि तत्स्वरूपविज्ञानम् #अविद्याध्यस्तसर्पादिप्रपञ्चप्रविलयश्च भवति । (BSB 3.2.21)
   
3. एवं च सति, सर्वक्षेत्रेष्वपि सतः भगवतः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्य संसारित्वगन्धमात्रमपि नाशङ्क्यम् । न हि क्वचिदपि लोके #अविद्याध्यस्तेन धर्मेण कस्यचित् उपकारः अपकारो वा दृष्टः ॥ यत्तु उक्तम् — न समः दृष्टान्तः इति, तत् असत् । कथम् ? #अविद्याध्यासमात्रं हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः साधर्म्यं विवक्षितम् । (GItA 13.2)
   
4. न च आत्मनः संसारित्वम् , #अविद्याध्यस्तत्वादात्मनि संसारस्य । न हि रज्जुशुक्तिकागगनादिषु सर्परजतमलादीनि मिथ्याज्ञानाध्यस्तानि तेषां भवन्तीति । (ChhAndogya 8.12.1)
   
5. कथं पुनः स्वरूपे व्यापाराभावे शास्त्रस्य द्वैतविज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वम् ? नैष दोषः, रज्ज्वां सर्पादिवदात्मनि #द्वैतस्याविद्याध्यस्तत्वात् कथं सुख्यहं दुःखी मूढो जातो मृतो जीर्णो देहवान् पश्यामि व्यक्ताव्यक्तः कर्ता फली संयुक्तो वियुक्तः क्षीणो वृद्धोऽहं ममैते इत्येवमादयः सर्वे आत्मन्यध्यारोप्यन्ते । (MANDUkya 2.32)
   

In all these places, BhAshyakAra has made the usage of term "avidyA-adhyAsa". Had avidyA and adhyAsa been identical, this usage of avidyA-adhyAsa would not only have been superfluous but also having the defect of punarukti. It would mean avidyA-avidyA or adhyAsa-adhyAsa, which is meaningless.

The only logical conclusion which can, hence, be derived is as follows - avidyA and adhyAsa have different connotations. 

The adhyAsa is caused by avidyA. The word avidyA-adhyAsa is accordingly explained as avidyayA adhyAsah (अविद्यया अध्यासः). 

This is supported by BBV 1.4.414: #यस्मिंश्चाविद्ययाध्यासः संसारानर्थलक्षणः ।। स्वाभाविक्या कृतो मिथ्या शुक्त्यादौ रजतादिवत् ।। ४१४ ।। 

Also in GItA 13.2 स्थाणुपुरुषौ ज्ञेयावेव सन्तौ ज्ञात्रा अन्योन्यस्मिन् #अध्यस्तौ #अविद्यया.

This implies that avidyA is the cause whereas adhyAsa is the effect due to the use of karaNa-kAraka in avidyA.

In any case, no logical person who follows bhAshya can ever claim that avidyA and adhyAsa are synonyms. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

I try to take the middle-ground here. My thinking:

Avidya, adhyasa, maya point to a unitary anirvachaniya vishaya/tattva that is coeval (as the kaarana) to the perceived world of duality. In the vyavaharika standpoint, they form a triangle and one can give primacy to any of them (in which view, the others secondary or 'effect') and obtain a "bhava"/perspective/prakriya that each rightly explains the vyavaharika standpoint (relative to the primary node we view from) and directs to advaita-tattva/Turiya beyond the duality - and the non-contradiction of the three perspectives is known from their ultimately mutual anirvachaniyatvam in light of sruthi vakya (or aligned logic).

If we take avidya and adhyasa, avidya is the cause (nimitta-upadana) of adhyasa (and the imaginations therein) but the positing of avidya is inherently an adhyasa on ekameva-adviteeya Brahman. And that adhyasa again has avidya as cause... And when we intertwine with the fact that Brahman is the adhishtanam, then "avidya causes" is "Brahman as Ishvara imagines/superimposes by His Maya-shakti" and that adhyasa that Ishvara imagines we realize has to include the adhyasa that is Ishvara! 

Nirguna Brahman is Sat in whose paramarthika standpoint, all duality of cause and effect are asat/unavailable/impossible for consideration. Duality - so long as it is acknowledged/posited (vyavaharika) - and its necessary cause - however we view it - are anirvachaniya/mithya; 

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3cNCMhk496yQew8VZWhuUjGxDiY-SDNiRCN5WU%2B89qaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Putran ji,

It is agreed that Avidya, both the cause and the effect, is adhyasta in Brahman.  Hence, the ekam eva advitiyam status of Brahman is never compromised. 

warm regards

subbu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q5mdCOXepa8JTUmR%2B8-SoZ7XFuKRxhTy8xgr8gX%2Bx96A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Subbu ji and Putran ji

Thank you for the post about the following.

In the sentences

"Brahman as Ishvara imagines/superimposes by His Maya-shakti" and that adhyasa that Ishvara imagines we realize has to include the adhyasa that is Ishvara!"

 And

1. avidyA itself is adhyasta on Brahman. 

2. avidyA is the cause of adhyAsa 

would semantically sound like circular logic (anyOnyAshraya doSha). 

The English idea of "avidyA is adhyasta upon Brahman" should be shown to not mean "avidyA is caused by adhyAsa".

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Mon, 2 Sept 2024 at 10:06 pm, V Subrahmanian

<v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0jntq_OAHrk81378PHaGgJhOVYKQ_6roQzgccNWoRZ2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Raghav-ji,

In my case, I have to emphasize that I am presenting only my logic here; cannot guarantee it conforms to the others and may be based on misunderstandings. I will explain my way of reasoning below.

The circularity is intentionally being pointed out to make the case for anirvachaniyatvam of jagat and adhyasa, avidya, maya, and the whole lot of objects of knowledge pertaining to the vyavaharika standpoint. There is no perfect causal closure to this standpoint once we seek to take into account the paramartha jnana of nirguna/turiya Brahman. Without this jnana coming into picture, we might as well start and end with Ishvara tattva as the satya and allow the intrinsic aspectival duality (of Existence-Consciousness + Maya-shakti) in Brahman or alternately the more formal duality of Brahman and avidya, where avidya is the locus of upadana-nimitta for the world appearance. Perfectly fine.

But when we realize that turiya is satya and even this sort of Ishvaratvam is mithya, then our framework is entirely a case of adhyasa on non-dual Sat. We need not say "it is caused by adhyasa" as much as it is a "case of adhyasa". That is where the circularity restarts, because this primal adhyasa is also posited within the same dream standpoint and is "imagination" or projection by the Sat+Maya (or avidya). Thus this adhyasa is "caused" by avidya or maya, only oops... this avidya/maya is a case of adhyasa... All of it is mithya/anirvachaniya.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/488452515.2883567.1725329177200%40mail.yahoo.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Raghav ji,

I take your point.  What is meant by the first one is:  Avidya is not an ontological real like Brahman and thereby the perceived danger of Brahman losing its Ekam eva advitiyam status.  To ward off such a possibility it is stated that Avidya itself is a superimposition.  Maya is an adhyAropa by the Shaastra in order to explain Ishwara, creation, etc.   

warm regards

subbu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/488452515.2883567.1725329177200%40mail.yahoo.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namate Raghav Ji,

AvidyA is adhyasta in Brahman. Being kAraNa, it is always unmanifest. Being anAdi it itself does not have a *cause* and is not understood to be *caused*. All its manifest forms, being of the same genre, are all adhyasta only. Hence these manifest forms are also termed adhyAsa. Where is the possibility of circularity?

Regards

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 7:36 AM 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/488452515.2883567.1725329177200%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

AvidyA is adhyasta in Brahman.

Any adhyasta entity has avidyA as the cause. If avidyA were to be adhyasta, it would require avidyA as the cause. So, AtmAshraya-dosha can be alleged by the opponent.

 

Being anAdi it itself does not have a *cause* and is not understood to be *caused*.

Opponent can argue that if avidyA does not have a cause, then it cannot be adhyasta. Because adhyasta entity by definition have a cause.

There is no anyonyAshraya-dosha here. But AtmAshraya-dosha can certainly be alleged by the opponent.

The issue is taken up in Samkshepa ShArIraka 1.54 and 1.55. 

The advaita-siddhAnta accepts avidyA as swa-para-nirvAhaka. The example given is that of bheda. Just as bheda, while differentiating pot and cloth, also differentiates itself from pot and cloth, and no AtmAshraya-dosha is applicable, similarly avidyA is also swa-para-nirvAhaka. 

भेदं च भेद्यं च भिनत्ति भेदो यथैव भेदान्तरमन्तरेण ।
मोहं च कार्यं च भिनत्ति मोहस्तथैव मोहान्तरमन्तरेण ॥

Thus, the allegation of AtmAshraya-dosha is answered.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Is avidyA adhyasta or not?

Is avidyA anAdi or not?

Regards

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCwmwqnLFKZYzhqe9ic7yWU%2B7Hf9WuL1eoHNdMmJtA%3DiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Is avidyA adhyasta or not? -- Yes. It is adhyasta.

Is avidyA anAdi or not? -- Yes. It is anAdi.

Regards.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

That is all what I had said earlier.

Regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBQ%2BdfUXAfyGwOsUAM392rw%3D7N%3DWje4bKtDoV5%2B9OEeUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji

Yes there is no circularity once the word adhyAsa in the two sentences is differentiated.

1. avidyA is *adhyasta* on Brahman. (cause which is Unmanifest)

Leading to 

2. The manifest names and forms (also referred to by the collectively by the word "adhyAsa") are adhyasta on Brahman. (Effect which is at Manifest level)

I was only drawing attention to the possible objection of AtmAshraya doSha (as corrected by Sudhanshu Ji) due to use of the word adhyasta for the cause -  (the word is similar to the word 'adhyAsa' which is used for the effect).

Om

Raghav

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Tue, 3 Sept 2024 at 12:57 pm, H S Chandramouli

<hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdONEDMz7p62jfj9PNKxCbKw98-y097Dv3GVsvmef6DZbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji. Raghav ji. Venkatraghavan ji.

We do hold that avidyA is adhyasta on Brahman and that avidyA is anAdi.

But that does not prohibit the opponent from charging us with AtmAshraya-dosha.

There has to be a valid logical answer. We cannot say that we believe thus and hence there is no AtmAshraya-dosha.

In fact, the dualist can respond to SS 1.55 by saying that -- the example of bheda only shows that anavasthA-dosha is inapplicable. The AtmAshraya-dosha is intact.

The response is given thus -- 

1. when the AtmAshraya-dosha of bheda does not cause any harm to prapancha-paramArtha-vAdI, how can it cause any harm to prapancha-mrishAtva-vAdI (advaitI). 

[https://archive.org/details/sankshepasharirakamnrisimhashrampart1a1b234/Sankshepa-Nrisimha%201A/page/n77/mode/2up]

2. Just as AtmA is swa-para-nirvAhaka on account of having jnAna-shakti, ajnAna is also accepted as swa-para-nirvAhaka on account of its own shakti. ajnAna, in siddhAnta, is accepted to be having cichitra shakti.

Overall, the issue is not very simple. The AtmAshraya-dosha is very much chargeable against avaita.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Apologies for typographical error.

//ajnAna, in siddhAnta, is accepted to be having vichitra shakti.//

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // Because adhyasta entity by definition have a cause //,

This rule is applicable only for a sAdi entity. Not for an anAdi entity. That is the definition of anAdi. Insisting on a cause for anAdi is invalid by definition.

Regards

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 3:16 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

In fact there is a more fundamental and different objection in this regard against  practically all Commentators by Sri SSS. But I leave it to any of his followers to bring it up if they so desire.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

 

Reg  // Because adhyasta entity by definition have a cause //,

This rule is applicable only for a sAdi entity. Not for an anAdi entity. That is the definition of anAdi. Insisting on a cause for anAdi is invalid by definition.

1. Is ghaTa-prAk-abhAva anAdi? 

2. Is ghaTa-prAk-abhAva adhyasta?

3. Does ghaTa-prAk-abhAva have avidyA as the cause?

4. Is avidyA avidyA-kalpita?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

First three are abhAva. They are not covered by the definition.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

One can make his rules. But others are not bound to accept them na! Our rules should be open for discussion. Just to remove objections, we cannot change the rules of the game. Can we!

Simple question: Is avidyA avidyA-kalpita?

If yes, then how is it not AtmAshraya? If no, then avidyA no longer remains adhyasta.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Perhaps I made a mistake in mentioning Sri SSS name. He has nothing to do with the earlier observation by me copied below 

//  Reg  // Because adhyasta entity by definition have a cause //,

This rule is applicable only for a sAdi entity. Not for an anAdi entity. That is the definition of anAdi. Insisting on a cause for anAdi is invalid by definition //.

This is purely my understanding. Please ignore my post concerning Sri SSS.

Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

This rule is applicable only for a sAdi entity. Not for an anAdi entity. That is the definition of anAdi. Insisting on a cause for anAdi is invalid by definition //.

 

Ø     After a long gap reading the mails today.  This one caught my attention.  This is interesting to note that even in the rival school there is an opinion that adhyAsa does not need a cause as it is anAdi-ananta and naisargika (svAbhAvika)!!  This is what even Sri SSS also insisting.  So now the question is how this stand of mUlavidyAvAdins suit to their claim that adhyAsa need a material cause!!??  Anyway as per Sri SSS fundamental avidyA (adhyAsa) involved in all our empirical vyavahAra (naisargikOyaM lOka vyavahAraH) does not need a cause as this is anAdi.  Nor there is a burden to prove this adhyAsa vAda through pramANa as this is in our anubhava and more over the convention of the distinction of pramANa-s and prameya-s itself pre-supposes avidyA or adhyAsa.  Without identifying ourselves as pramAtru (which is again adhyAsa) there is no business for pramANa and prameya. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

What I meant was clear. An anAdi entity can be adhyasta without postulation of a kAraNa. However all entities which have origination need a kAraNa. Bhashya talks about origination of AkAsha, vAyu etc. They need a kAraNa as they are sAdi. avidyA is stated to be their kAraNa. kAraNa as well as kArya (effects) are however adhyAsa only. This does not in any way come in the way of mUlAvidyA concept. However as I understand Sri SSS objection is that avidyA is placed outside of adhyAsa in this concept and hence leads to advaitahAni. This is not accepted by the other School. In fact this is what I meant in the other post which I later withdrew. Now that a follower of Sri SSS School has broached the topic, this aspect could be followed up if felt appropriate. It is for others to debate as they deem fit. I will not be participating.

Regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625A33D974C9AAC6B1D0DE784932%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Avidya is not an ontological real like Brahman and thereby the perceived danger of Brahman losing its Ekam eva advitiyam status.

 

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Not for any debate just curious, if the mUlAvAdiyA does not have the ontological status how come it is jagadupAdAna kAraNa??  How come it has the ‘vichitra shakti’ through which it conceals the brahman and at the same time projects something else (avaraNa-vikshepa)??  Don’t you think by attributing the jagadupAdAna kAraNatvaM to mUlAvidyA which is jada shakti, bhUta vastu, Dravya rUpa etc. we are doing the harm to shrutyukta ‘sAkshAt brahmakAraNatva’ ??  BTW you (mUlAvidyAvAdins) are having the stand that there is existence of mUlAvidyA even before the creation and it is also having the locus in brahman (brahmAshraya) and Vishaya also brahman, by saying this don’t you think shruti’s dictum that brahman’s ekamevAdviteeyatvaM at the beginning being diluted here?? 

 

Anyway, I take your explanation as your stand without stretching this further.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste

In deep sleep and praLaya, all (including even SSS ji)  accept that there is no adhyAsa. And with the waking state setting in or with jagat-sRShTi, there is adhyAsa. 

From such a standpoint adhyAsa is not anAdi, since we are able to point to an experienced state, viz., dreamless sleep, where it was not. 

 

Only assuming that time and space (which are avidyA kAyas and this part of adhyAsa) have *already been created* - only subsequent to that, we can say, by courtesy, that,  from the standpoint of janana and maraNa of jIvas etc., we say pUrva adhyAsa of identifying with deha etc.,  leads to uttarAdhyAsa in a perennial cyclical way. 

Kindly correct the above if required

Om

.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

ajnAna-adhyAsa, which is kAraNa-adhyAsa, is anAdi and it ceases on Brahma-jnAna. It is present in deep sleep.

All kArya-adhyAsa, starting from aham-adhyAsa, are sAdi and they cease in deep sleep.

Regards.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/568618255.3097054.1725377487598%40mail.yahoo.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

"adhyasta on/in Brahman" - I take it this means "superimposed on Brahman". Don't really understand what this has to do with cause or effect. 

When we talk of plant's photosynthesis, its cause is the sun. With reference to that plant, that sun is the light that causes it to grow and with reference to that sun, that is the world it llumines and plant it causes to grow. 

When we realize that both the plant and its sun are of a movie, then both the plant and the sun that "caused" it to grow are movie-objects apparently abiding a movie causality. The real cause is the 'real Sun'. But then this "Sun projecting the movie" is the new movie (for it is still duality superimposed on non-dual Sat) and this Sun with reference to that movie is the new 'movie Sun'. There is infinite regress. The movie standpoint is anirvachaniya.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Thank you for the responses.

Yes that upAdhi takes care of the objection, "if adhyAsa is anAdi, and anAdi entity does not have any kAraNa, why does the "mUlAvidyAvAdi" who follows "later vyAkhyAnakAra-s" say that upAdAna kAraNa is required for adhyAsa?" is answered because only kAraNa-adhyAsa is anAdi, not kArya-adhyAsa which is sAdi.

mUlAvidyA = kAraNA-adhyAsa is known clearly in AA paramparA, but is missed in "abhAva-vAda"! If kAraNatva upAdhi is not discerned and only kArya adhyAsa is negated, that leaves kAraNa unaddressed leading to "shattering" of Advaita.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Tue, 3 Sept 2024 at 9:12 pm, Sudhanshu Shekhar

<sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBAB4OjjEWiM9sV-%3Dccmwni3R2%2By87O8zTxtrKxXn0mFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

💖

Sudhanshu reacted via Gmail

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

That Prakriti or Maya or Avidya is anAdi is based on Shruti and Smriti pramana:

ajAm ekAm lohita shukla krishnAm....of the Shvetashvatara, etc. Upanishads teach this Shakti as ajA, that is it is not 'born' of anything.  It is hence anAdi. 

प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि ।   Bha.gita 13.20   Purusha (Atman) and Prakriti are both anAdi. 

And the two 'mixing up'  AdhyAsa bhAshya language: anyonyasmin anyonyaatmakataam

पुरुषः प्रकृतिस्थो हि भुङ्क्ते प्रकृतिजान्गुणान्। कारणं गुणसङ्गोऽस्य सदसद्योनिजन्मसु।।13.22।। ·  says the gita.  This adhyAsa is the cause of samsara. 

So, Prakriti, which Shankara has equated with Maya, avyakta, triguNAtmika, avidyAlakShaNA, etc. and also accepted in the Brahma sutra bhashya:   तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् ॥ ३ ॥ 1.4.3

  

अत्रोच्यते — यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम, प्रसञ्जयेम तदा प्रधानकारणवादम् । परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या । अर्थवती हि सा । न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति । शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः । मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः । कुतः ? विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात् । अविद्यात्मिका हि बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी...  

So,  that prakriti is anAdi is shruti/smriti siddha.  It is essential for Brahman to be jagatkAraNam. Without that Brahman can do nothing says Shankara in the above bhashya.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625D9B15A7D37E0FE5E7DC784932%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Raghav-ji,

 kAraNa-adhyAsa is anAdi, not kArya-adhyAsa which is sAdi.

I assume this does not contradict the satkaryavada post of Venkataraghavan-ji. My understanding: The karana is anadi and the karya is 'known' in the karana prior to its (nimitta) manifestation. This karya-jnana is anadi in the karana that is the upadana for that jnana and the karya-adhyasa (being referred) is specifically the nimitta-karya of the karana where the jnana is uncovered or brought to cognition. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1381457548.3142507.1725380520379%40mail.yahoo.com.