One more 'samskara' employed by Shankara in the GB for avidya lesha

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is yet another instance of Shankara employing the concept of 'samskara' (inherent tendencies) (also called 'avidyA lesha) to explain the continuance of the Jnani's body.  

The earlier reported two places where Shankara admits the concept of avidyA lesha:   https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2024-November/062698.html

BGB 13.23

यत्तु उक्तम् ‘यथा वर्तमानजन्मारम्भकाणि कर्माणि न क्षीयन्ते फलदानाय प्रवृत्तान्येव सत्यपि ज्ञाने, तथा अनारब्धफलानामपि कर्मणां क्षयो न युक्तः’ इति, तत् असत् । कथम् ? तेषां मुक्तेषुवत् प्रवृत्तफलत्वात् । यथा पूर्वं लक्ष्यवेधाय मुक्तः इषुः धनुषः लक्ष्यवेधोत्तरकालमपि आरब्धवेगक्षयात् पतनेनैव निवर्तते, एवं शरीरारम्भकं कर्म शरीरस्थितिप्रयोजने निवृत्तेऽपि, आ संस्कारवेगक्षयात् पूर्ववत् वर्तते एव । यथा स एव इषुः प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तानारब्धवेगस्तु अमुक्तो धनुषि प्रयुक्तोऽपि उपसंह्रियते, तथा अनारब्धफलानि कर्माणि स्वाश्रयस्थान्येव ज्ञानेन निर्बीजीक्रियन्ते इति, पतिते अस्मिन् विद्वच्छरीरे ‘न स भूयोऽभिजायते’ इति युक्तमेव उक्तमिति सिद्धम् ॥ २३ ॥

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda: 

On the other hand, as for the statement, 'just as actions that have produced the present birth and are already active in producing their results do not get dissipated even after Illumination, similarly it is not reasonable that actions which have not commenced producing their results should get dissipated,'- that is wrong. Objection: Why? Reply: Since they have already begun producing results, like an arrow that has been shot: As an arrow, freed earlier from a bow for hitting a target, even after piercing through the target comes to a stop only after falling down as a result of the dissipation of its initial momentum, similarly, actions that produced the (present) body verily continue, even after fulfilling the purpose of maintaining the body, to exist as before until the dissipation of their inherent tendencies. But, as that very arrow, when it has not acquired the momentum, needed for action, when it has not been shot even though fixed on the bow, can be withdrawn, similarly, actions which have not begun yielding their results may be rendered unproductive by Knowledge, even while existing in their receptacle. [The internal organ bearing the reflection of Consciousness.] Hence, it is established that , it has been reasonable to state that on the fall of the present body of an enlightened person, 'He is not born again.'

warm regards

subbu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

• I am really surprised our tArkika vedAnti Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji has not uttered even a single word on this avidyA lesha and continuance of jnAni’s body even after paramArtha jnAna. I would like to see his explanation in the light of his declaration that anAtma is avidyA prasUta and anAtma being jada cannot accommodate or give shelter to avidyA.  BTW, I am unable to understand on what grounds one can say one is paramArtha jnAni and at the same time he  is still having avidyA lesha (remnants of ignorance)…Even if he has tip of the hair of avidyA then he has to be considered as avidyAvanta only and not paramArtha jnAni declares bhAshyakAra.  And I don’t know since when this trend of linking avidyA with continuance of jnAni’s body due to prArabdha etc.  We have discussed about jnAni’s body etc. earlier as well without any amicable conclusion.  The examples like dighbhrAnta, arrow that already left bow its momentum etc. have already been discussed in length.  And it is also explained jnAni’s socalled body and identification of jnAni’s individual body, his activities etc. are only in the view of outsiders / ignorant ones / bystanders.  But it is time and again insisted that duality of paramArtha jnAni and his interactions with world etc. due to avidyA lesha by citing the references like below 😊
• All these bhAshya quotes which are emphasizing jnAni’s embodiedness ( sashareeratvaM) should be understood in the light of samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya since as per siddhAnta deha is mere adhyArOpita on Atman And ashareeratvaM is the svabhAva of Atman.  Here in this adhikaraNa bhAshya, pUrvapaxi asks : bodilessness can come to the paramArtha jnAni ONLY after the falling off of the body (death) and not to one who is living.  For this siddhAnti replies : no, sashareeratvaM is only on account of misconception.  Therefore embodiedness being only due to the misconception, it is to be concluded that bodilessness is the very nature of a wise one (paramArtha jnAni) even he is living!!  dehAvAn eva lakshyate, his acts like bhikshAcharya etc. is only in the view of bystanders etc. bhAshyakAra himself clarifies.  So, it is siddhAnta viruddha if one says jnAni is avidyAleshavanta 😊  BTW this does not suit at all to those who propagate the theory of bhrAnti vAda and jagat Kalpita vAda.

 

Here is yet another instance of Shankara employing the concept of 'samskara' (inherent tendencies) (also called 'avidyA lesha) to explain the continuance of the Jnani's body.  

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.

• I am really surprised our tArkika vedAnti Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji has not uttered even a single word on this avidyA lesha and continuance of jnAni’s body even after paramArtha jnAna.

The write-up was well-written and was in accordance with siddhAnta. 

 

• I would like to see his explanation in the light of his declaration that anAtma is avidyA prasUta and anAtma being jada cannot accommodate or give shelter to avidyA. 

We need to appreciate the meaning of avidyA-lesha. As we know, avidyA causes different results.  That is due to shakti of avidyA. Three of such shakti of avidyA are quite salient:

1. अपरोक्षप्रतिभासयोग्यार्थाभासजनिका shakti through which avidyA gives birth to artha-AbhAsa which have the capacity of being the object of aparOksha-pratibhAsa.
2. प्रपञ्चे पारमार्थिकत्वादिभ्रमहेतु shakti through which avidyA causes an illusion of pAramArthika-reality in prapancha.
3. प्रपञ्चे अर्थक्रियासमर्थत्वसम्पादक shakti through which avidyA enables artha-kriyA-kAritva in prapancha.
   

Now, with vidyA, 2 and 3 go whereas 1 does not go. 

Now, even when I know that mirage is nothing but desert, still mirage refuses to go. Whereas, in case of rope-snake, with rope-knowledge, snake goes. This is because in mirage-water is sOpAdhika-bhrama.

Similarly, world-Brahman-illusion is sOpAdhika-bhrama and prArabdha is the upAdhi.

Thus, when prArabdha goes, 1 also goes.

And thus, 1 is called avidyA-lesha.

So, 1, 2 and 3 are all anAtmA, but jnAna is unable to produce its effect in case of 1 because of prArabdha as upAdhi. BhAshyakAra has also explained this in BSB wherein he says that despite prArabdha is avidyA-prasUta, it is not contradictory to vidyA. And hence vidyA does not remove prArabdha, despite it being avidyA-kArya.

Thus, we understand avidyA-lesha. 

• BTW, I am unable to understand on what grounds one can say one is paramArtha jnAni and at the same time he  is still having avidyA lesha (remnants of ignorance)…

Just as you don't treat a knower of mirage as ajnAnI despite his perception of mirage, similarly you cannot say a tattva-vit as ajnAnI just because he sees the avidyA-kArya.

The paramArtha-jnAnI is one who has no illusion of reality in the seen world. Since 2 and 3 are removed, he is qualified to be called paramArtha-jnAnI. All effects of avidyA are absent in him. 1 is like a roasted seed. It cannot do any harm. So, he is eligible to be called paramArtha-jnAnI.

And thus the distinction of sadyOmukti and jIvanmukti also become meaningful. MunDaka Shruti says --  भूयश्चान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्ति. Please note the word ante.. also, tasya taavat eva chiram etc. So, the distinction between jIvanmukti and sadyOmukti are explained through avidyAlesha.

 

• Even if he has tip of the hair of avidyA then he has to be considered as avidyAvanta only and not paramArtha jnAni declares bhAshyakAra.

BhAshyakAra says that even if a tip of hair is considered to be different from oneself, then that is avidyA. यत्तु सर्वात्मभावादर्वाक् वालाग्रमात्रमपि अन्यत्वेन दृश्यते — नाहमस्मीति, तदवस्था अविद्या. As one can appreciate, this comes within the realm of 2 and 3. Since these are absent, there is no contradiction with bhAshya.

•   And I don’t know since when this trend of linking avidyA with continuance of jnAni’s body due to prArabdha etc.  We have discussed about jnAni’s body etc. earlier as well without any amicable conclusion.  The examples like dighbhrAnta, arrow that already left bow its momentum etc. have already been discussed in length.  And it is also explained jnAni’s socalled body and identification of jnAni’s individual body, his activities etc. are only in the view of outsiders / ignorant ones / bystanders.  But it is time and again insisted that duality of paramArtha jnAni and his interactions with world etc. due to avidyA lesha by citing the references like below 😊

The main point is this. Body is anAtmA. And anAtmA is avidyA-kArya. Also, prArabdha is anAtmA. Hence, prArabdha is also avidyA-kArya.

One cannot talk of prArabdha without keeping avidyA. 

 

• All these bhAshya quotes which are emphasizing jnAni’s embodiedness ( sashareeratvaM) should be understood in the light of samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya since as per siddhAnta deha is mere adhyArOpita on Atman And ashareeratvaM is the svabhAva of Atman.  Here in this adhikaraNa bhAshya, pUrvapaxi asks : bodilessness can come to the paramArtha jnAni ONLY after the falling off of the body (death) and not to one who is living.  For this siddhAnti replies : no, sashareeratvaM is only on account of misconception.  Therefore embodiedness being only due to the misconception, it is to be concluded that bodilessness is the very nature of a wise one (paramArtha jnAni) even he is living!!  dehAvAn eva lakshyate, his acts like bhikshAcharya etc. is only in the view of bystanders etc. bhAshyakAra himself clarifies.  So, it is siddhAnta viruddha if one says jnAni is avidyAleshavanta 😊  BTW this does not suit at all to those who propagate the theory of bhrAnti vAda and jagat Kalpita vAda.
  

It all boils down to how you define jnAnI. When it is said that jnAnI has avidyA-lesha, it is said from avidyA-drishTi only. Not from Brahma-drishTi. 

If you accept body-mind-complex for jnAnI, then you accept prArabdha and hence avidyA-lesha ipso facto stands accepted. 

If you do not accept body-mind-complex for jnAnI and you are talking from Brahma-drishTi, then there are no jnAnI, no ajnAnI as the drishya is not there.

So, there is really no confusion in this regard.

Whatever is written above is in srishTi-drishTi-vAda model.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Whatever is written above is in srishTi-drishTi-vAda model.

 

• And this is inferior explanation when compared to DSV and ajAta…So paramArtha jnAni as explained in SDV somewhat inferior to the jnAni in DSV and AV.  😊

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

• And this is inferior explanation when compared to DSV and ajAta…So paramArtha jnAni as explained in SDV somewhat inferior to the jnAni in DSV and AV.  😊

No. srishTi-drishTi-VAda model is not an inferior model. The model is a suitable model. However, it is for people who have great attachment to kArya-kAraNa-bhAva, who are unable to appreciate the identity of waking/dream/sushupti. 

However, one needs to sublate SDV to arrive at DSV. And then sublate DSV to arrive at already-present ajAti.

Samkshepa ShArIraka, 2.86, states it - परिणाम इत्यथ विवर्त इति बहवोऽहमेव च मुमुक्षुरिति । परिपुष्कलं च परमं पदमित्यवगत्य तिष्ठति महिम्नि निजे ॥८६॥

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhanshu ji,

विवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।
व्यवस्थितेऽस्मिन् परिणामवादे स्वयं समायाति विवर्तवादः ॥ 

चिवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।I think it is from the SankshepashAreeraka.  

[The doctrine of transformation (Sankhya) is the one that just precedes the doctrine of transfiguration (vivarta) of the Vedanta.  Once the former is well grasped, the latter falls in place by itself.]

The Ratnaprabha for BSN 2.1.14 at the end quotes a verse in this connection: कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम्  (source not provided). [‘The unprepared aspirant understands only the ‘creation, transformation’ scheme whereas the one who has purified his mind of all dross is able to appreciate the ‘transfiguration’ vivarta of Atman/Brahman as appearing as the world and jIva-s.’]

PS:  ‘भूयश्चान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्तिः’(श्वे. उ. १ । १०) is Shvetashvatara Upanishad (not Mundaka).

warm regards

subbu

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAXai5PU4%3DFdvJx%2Bo1Bng3k%2BnDFYiuFAfkvPm6WMZed4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

However, one needs to sublate SDV to arrive at DSV. And then sublate DSV to arrive at already-present ajAti.

 

• I don’t think this type of hierarchical structure of teaching is there in shankara vedAnta.  Ofcourse all the three socalled modules and its intricacies can be understood by following either one of the modules.  The SDV module IMO accommodates the theistic approach to shankara vedAnta.  It first explains that the cause of the Jagat namely, Brahman, is very different in features from the Jagat. Like brahman is Chaitanya and jagat is jada/anAtma etc.  But it also explains that it as a rule that an unknown thing is to be conveyed through the known (stulArundhati nyAya). Therefore, the scriptures takes us to Brahman starting only from the Jagat which is familiar to us as we are on day to day basis dealing with it. The sOpAdhika upAsya brahma, upAsana, dhyAna etc. are with respect to this sOpAdhika Brahman with Jagat as Its adjunct. The attributes to  sOpAdhika brahma are told only with respect to Jagat and jeeva. And  the next level of in this same module is understanding of Brahman is through its features–satyaM, jnAnam and anantaM. Notice again that these are again mentioned with respect to the same jagat and jeeva relations. In the subsequent step we will understand that every perceivable object of the transactional world which you termed as anAtma is only brahman in their intrinsic nature. Hence I said for the vyAvahArika jagat brahman is the kAraNa (satyanchAnrutaMcha satyamabhavat).  It would then follow as as result that Brahman alone exists from the pAramArthika drushti. Which is explained as Atmaikatva darshana, samyagdrushti, sarvAtma bhAva.  So SDV, DSV AV type of realizations are within the module of SDV only wherein Ishwara kAruNya, AchAryAnugraha given the utmost importance. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

विवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।

व्यवस्थितेऽस्मिन् परिणामवादे स्वयं समायाति विवर्तवादः ॥ 

 

I think it is from the SankshepashAreeraka.  

Indeed. It is SS 2.61.

 

The Ratnaprabha for BSN 2.1.14 at the end quotes a verse in this connection: कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम्  (source not provided). [‘The unprepared aspirant understands only the ‘creation, transformation’ scheme whereas the one who has purified his mind of all dross is able to appreciate the ‘transfiguration’ vivarta of Atman/Brahman as appearing as the world and jIva-s.’]

This is SS 2.89.

Here, I wish to point out a few things. 

All the three, namely pariNAma-vAda, vivarta-vAda (which contains both DSV and SDV) and ajAti-vAda are within the fold of VedAnta. However, they are the sequential tools. Like karma-yOga is the tool to jnAna-yOga. We cannot say that karma-yOga is inferior to jnAna-yOga. Similarly, it is in the case of all these three.

Now, a special mention about pariNAma-vAda. What exactly is this? It is explained beautifully in commentary on SS 2.86 by Madhusudan Saraswati Swamiji. 

अथशब्दोक्तोऽधिकारी प्रथमं सृष्टिवाक्यादिसमन्वयालोचनेन ब्रह्मैव प्रपञ्चोपादानं मृदिव घटस्येत्यवगच्छति, उपादानतैव अत्र परिणामगिरा विवक्षिता। अथ तदनन्तरमारम्भणाद्यधिकरणन्यायेन निषेधवाक्यतात्पर्यालोचनेन सृष्टिवाक्यार्थो विवर्त इत्यवगच्छति पूर्वबुद्धिं विना ब्रह्मणि प्रपञ्चस्य विवर्तत्वनिश्चयासम्भवात्। यत्र यदवगतं तत्रैव तन्निषेधे तस्य मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयेन तस्य विवर्तत्वं निश्चीयेतेति ब्रह्मणि प्रपञ्चासञ्जकपरिणामधीरपेक्षितैव । न वा प्रपञ्चस्य विवर्तत्वधियमन्तरेण शुद्धात्मसाक्षात्कारो भवेत्। एवमविचारावस्थायां जीवबहुत्वज्ञानमपि दृष्टादृष्टद्वारेण मुमुक्षाद्वारा तत्रोपयुज्यत इत्याशयेनाह— बहव इति । मुमुक्षव इति विपरिणतानुषङ्गः, जीवा इत्यर्थः । इति चेति सम्बन्धः । इत्यनेन प्रकारेण परिपुष्कलं पूर्णं परमं शुद्धं पदं स्वस्वरूपमिति चावगत्य निजे महिम्नि तिष्ठति, अतः परिणामादिधियोऽप्यस्ति साक्षात्कार उपयोग इत्यर्थः । । ८६ ।। 

So, the clay-pot analogy and Brahman as being the upAdAna of world like clay the upAdAna of pot, is what is referred to as pariNAma-vAda. This also has definite place in the sAkshAtkAra of Brahman. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Many thanks for your response Sudhanshu ji.  It gives very useful information.

regards

subbu

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBkUFHjZKK0iChOZjyKNNwoBbbSs4HVucbwctp3hdJg7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.

•  In the subsequent step we will understand that every perceivable object of the transactional world which you termed as anAtma is only brahman in their intrinsic nature. 

What does it mean Bhaskar ji? 

When we say anAtmA is Brahman, then it has been explained in all VedAnta texts to mean bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. It like स्थाणुरयं पुरुषः. It means that - there is no ghost, there is only post.

So, when Shruti tells "anAtmA is Brahman" or "sarvam is Brahman", then it is the bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya which is applied in VedAnta. It simply means -- anAtmA is non-existent, only Brahman is.

I think you have clay-pot analogy in the mind. And as clay is the "essence" of pot, you think Brahman is the essence of anAtmA. However, that is not the case. That is not possible because activity is needed for clay to appear as pot. Singular inactive Brahman cannot appear as anAtmA.

That is why VedAnta teaches bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya.

So, while in the first step, we do the Atma-anAtma-viveka, in the second step, the very anAtmA is treated as mithyA.

Also the sequential step is well brought out in MANDUkya - समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् । वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति ; न तु परमार्थबुद्ध्या ।

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

 

[Bhaskar YR]

•  In the subsequent step we will understand that every perceivable object of the transactional world which you termed as anAtma is only brahman in their intrinsic nature. 

 

What does it mean Bhaskar ji? 

 

Ø      It means satyanchaanrutaM cha satyamabhavat, yadidaM kiMcha…seeing the shruti siddhAnta mruttiketyeva satyaM. 

 

When we say anAtmA is Brahman, then it has been explained in all VedAnta texts to mean bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. It like स्थाणुरयं पुरुषः. It means that - there is no ghost, there is only post.

 

Ø     No ghost, no post, so misconception it is the bhUma drushti sarvaM khalvidaM brahma.

 

So, when Shruti tells "anAtmA is Brahman" or "sarvam is Brahman", then it is the bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya which is applied in VedAnta. It simply means -- anAtmA is non-existent, only Brahman is.

 

Ø     Yes it is only brahman there is nothing that can be called as anAtma, infact bhAshyakAra clarifies this in chAndOgya. 

 

I think you have clay-pot analogy in the mind. And as clay is the "essence" of pot, you think Brahman is the essence of anAtmA. However, that is not the case. That is not possible because activity is needed for clay to appear as pot. Singular inactive Brahman cannot appear as anAtmA.

 

Ø     Mrudghata is not my example it is given by shruti and clarifies mruttiketyeva satyaM in the kArya-kAraNa prakriya…So here in this analogy mrut sAmAnya is not jada as you are implying here.  And that activity is prompted by jeeva’s pUrvakruta avidyA kAma karma.  See sUtra bhAshya. 

 

That is why VedAnta teaches bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya.

 

So, while in the first step, we do the Atma-anAtma-viveka, in the second step, the very anAtmA is treated as mithyA.

 

• Yes, what is there within Atma is not anAtma what we think outside of the Atman is mithyA.  Jagat is NOT outside of Atman. 
• It is time to shut-down my office laptop, see you on Monday if my official time permits.  Till then Hari Bol, may the Almighty give us the jnAna, bhakti, viveka, let us all pray Sri VaikuTa nArAyaNa on this auspicious day of vaikunTa ekAdashi. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

 

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms - Just interjecting my 2c - Not following these discussions since these too many for me to read.

I understand Bhaskarji's point.

Mithyaa is defined as sat - asat vilakshanam - it is not real but also not unreal. 

Hence, every perceived object 'exists' for one to perceive - otherwise, it will be like vandhyaa putraH.

Hence existence part provides the substantantive for the perceived object. What is negated is the naama ruppaatmakam - names and attributes - as they are vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH - the loham has to exist to support that naama and rupaa of the ornaments. 

Hari Om!

Sada

--

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 visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDQpio-zVaGun5scP3ga%2Bn%3DDnLB1-Mu%3DzMuHfAS64F6dA%40mail.gmail.com

.