Bhavarupa Ajnana Tamas (Ignorance) - Nrsimha Tapini Upanishad and Gita Bhashya

[V Subrahmanian]

In this Upanishad (for which a Shankara Bhashya is said to be there) it is stated that the Tamas, ajnana, ignorance, is an object, vishaya, to the Vishayi, the Sakshi the Atman:

https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/nrisinha.html

बुद्धेर्द्रष्टा प्राणस्य द्रष्टा तमसो द्रष्टा

सर्वस्य द्रष्टा ततः सर्वस्मादन्यो विलक्षणचक्षुषः

साक्षी श्रोत्रस्य साक्षी वाचः साक्षी मनसः साक्षीः

बुद्धेः साक्षी प्राणस्य साक्षी तमसः साक्षी

सर्वस्य साक्षी ततोऽविक्रियो महाचैतन्योऽस्मात्सर्वस्मात्प्रियतम...

In the Bhagavadgita 13.2 Bhashya, Shankara, in a dialogue, establishes that the ignorance, avidya, is something witnessed by the Atman:

यस्य अविद्या, सः तां परिहरिष्यति । ननु ममैव अविद्या । जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम् । 

Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself. Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also yourself who possess it?

यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव । तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति । यदा च एवम् , अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति ॥

In this dialogue Shankara establishes that the Avidya/Tamas/ignorance is a Bhaavarupa entity.  The inviolable rule is: That which is an object is an existent entity.  A non-existent entity cannot be perceived/objectified.  

Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc. 

Thus, on the basis of the Upanishad, the Gita Bhashya and logic, avidya is a bhaava rupa entity.

Those who object to this have mistaken the meaning of 'Bhaava rupa' in the Shaastra.  They think Bhaava rupa means Brahman-Existence.  That such is not the sense in which Shankara uses the term 'vishaya' is well known for those who have studied the shaastra.  The superimposed snake is bhaava rupa, being experienced.  Nevertheless it is not absolutely real like the rope.  

Om Tat Sat  

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Subbuji - PraNAms

And thanks for the reference.

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0mtGDkTVq2tniVqGWb1%3DYga76M%2BWAo-Ga%3DM15Z%2BLzYBA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

As you say, another instance conveying the same idea of avidyA as bhAvarUpa, occurs in another portion of gItA bhAShya 13.2, where avidyA is being described as tamas - a darkness of the nature of a veil or covering.

See the below:

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 ॥

The opponent - The kshetrajna becomes a transmigrating jIva when he is endowed with avidyA.

The siddhAntin - No (the kshetrajna doesn't become a jIva), for avidyA is darkness. Ignorance, which is a mode of the nature of a covering, is the cause for a thing to be known as something other than itself, or confusion about the nature of a thing, or the thing not being known. (It is called darkness), because when light in the form of knowledge is present, it is absent. And when the darkness of the nature of a covering is present, like in the case of cataracts, the three forms of ignorance such as the absence of knowledge, etc are experienced.

That is, ignorance causes the kshetrajna to be mistaken for the jIva, addressing the opponent's charge that the presence of ignorance causes the kshetrajna to become the jIva. The mistake is erroneous, not a real transformation.

The last sentence is crucial - Shankaracharya is saying when the veil of ignorance is present, the three effects of ignorance, being the absence of knowledge, confusion and, misperception are experienced. 

I am of the view that this is another evidence of ignorance not being of the nature of absence of knowledge, in Shankaracharya's opinion. Why?

It is because ignorance is not of the nature of absence that it is being spoken of as a veil, a covering - a positive entity. A covering is not the absence of a thing, it is that which obscures the perception of the thing. In the real world, a covering is simply not the absence of knowledge.

He gives a real world example example -a cataract - the corneal clouding over the eye which is a cause for the absence of perception of objects. Why would he give an example of an existent defect, the corneal clouding, if all Shankara wanted to exemplify was the absence of perception?

Moreover, because avidyA is not the absence of knowledge, it is being differentiated from the three forms of ignorance such as agrahaNa in that sentence - आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः 

To explain - he is saying, when the darkness which is of the nature of a covering is present, the three forms or effects of ignorance such as the absence of experience, etc can be experienced. 

It would be incorrect to postulate that only the absence of a thing leads to the experience of its absence. The experience of absence can also be due to other causes - the presence of a covering or a misperception for example.  That being the case, if the AvaraNa was the absence of knowledge, the sentence would mean - only when knowledge is absent, the thing is not experienced, which is patently untrue.

Thus, the phrase तामसे... आवरणात्मके सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः is also evidence of the AvaraNa being different to agrahaNa.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

A corresponding statement is available in BUB 3-3-1, भुज्यु ब्राह्मणम् (bhujyu brAhmaNam), as well which is copied below

//   यदि ज्ञानाभावः, यदि संशयज्ञानम् , यदि विपरीतज्ञानं वा उच्यते अज्ञानमिति, सर्वं हि तत् ज्ञानेनैव निवर्त्यते ; न तु कर्मणा अन्यतमेनापि विरोधाभावात् । //,

//  yadi j~nAnAbhAvaH, yadi saMshayaj~nAnam , yadi viparItaj~nAnaM vA uchyate aj~nAnamiti, sarvaM hi tat j~nAnenaiva nivartyate ; na tu karmaNA anyatamenApi virodhAbhAvAt | //.

As per this, all three namely j~nAnAbhAva, saMshayaj~nAna , viparItaj~nAna, are addressed by the word aj~nAnam.

The same idea is elaborated in the vArtika of Swami Sureswaracharya also.

BUBV  1-4-440  //  अज्ञानं संशयत्वान्नो मिथ्याज्ञानात्तथैव च । तयोस्तत्त्वविवक्षायामज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते ॥ ४४० ॥ //

//  aj~nAnaM saMshayatvAnno mithyAj~nAnAttathaiva cha | tayostattvavivakShAyAmaj~nAnaM tattvamuchyate || 440 || //

Translation (Hino and Jog) //  Ignorance does not arise from being a doubt, so also (not) from being false knowledge; since, while ascertaining the true nature of the two, their true nature is called ignorance. [440] //.

Same sentiment is expressed in Tai Up Bhashya Vartika of Swami Sureswaracharya as well while using the term अविद्या (avidyA) for अज्ञानम् (aj~nAnam).

TUBV 2-176 to 179.

//  न जानामीत्यविद्याऽनित्या तत्कारणं मता ! स्वप्रसिद्धयैव सा सिद्धयेन्निशौलूकीव वासरे ॥ [176] //

//  //  na jAnAmItyavidyA.anityA tatkAraNaM matA ! svaprasiddhayaiva sA siddhayennishaulUkIva vAsare || [176] //

Translation by Sri Balasubrahmanian  //  Avidya in the form "I do not know", which is impermanent, is considered to be the only cause of the limitations (mentioned above). It is established by the selfluminous consciousness itself, just as (the darkness of) the night is established in the daytime by the consciousness of the owl // .

Notes by Balasubrahmanian ;; It is avidya that makes the all pervasive Self appear as the limited kşetrajna in the body, just as the same avidya makes the cosmic being appear in the individual forms limited by gross and subtle bodies.

Avidya is known to us in our experience (prasiddha), for everyone says: "I am ignorant" (aham ajñaḥ). It is "beginningless" (anAdi). But it can be terminated by the knowledge obtained through a pramANa. Since it is removable by the knowledge obtained through a pramAṇa, it is not pramaņa-siddha (pramANa-nivartyatvAt avidyayaḥ na pramanataḥ siddhiḥ). It is revealed by the self-luminous Witness- consciousness (sākṣibhāsya). Our consciousness is the sole evidence for the existence of avidya in the same way as the consciousness of the owl is the evidence for the existence of darkness which it experiences during the daytime //.

//  अनात्मेती यद्भाति तदविद्याविजृम्भितम् । तस्मादविद्या सांप्युक्ता विद्या त्वात्मैकरूपिणी ॥  [178] //

//  anAtmetI yadbhAti tadavidyAvijRRimbhitam | tasmAdavidyA sAMpyuktA vidyA tvAtmaikarUpiNI ||  [178] //,

Translation by Sri Balasubrahmanian  //  That which is known here as the not-Self is the result of avidya. Hence it can be said that it is also avidya. But knowledge is identical with the Self  (178) // .

Notes ;; If the sole reality that exists is Brahman-Atman, then anything other than Brahman is due to avidya. It is, indeed, a product of avidya. And so the not-Self, whatever it may be, may be characterized as avidya. But knowledge (vidya) is the Self alone //.

//  आत्माग्रहातिरेकेण तस्या रूपं न विद्यते ।
अमित्रवदविद्येति सत्येवं घटते सदा ॥ १७९ ॥ //

//  AtmAgrahAtirekeNa tasyA rUpaM na vidyate |

amitravadavidyeti satyevaM ghaTate sadA || 179 || //,

Translation Sri Balasubrahmanian //  Its nature does not consist in anything other than the non-perception of the Self. Only if it is said that the term avidya is like the term amitra, it is always tenable //

Notes by Sri Balasubrahmanian   //  Avidya is not negative (abhAva), but something positive. It should not be interpreted negatively as the prior non-existence of knowledge (jñāna-prāgabhava). It is a positive entity which conceals the nature of the Self. Concealment (avarana) is what it does; and it constitutes the nature of avidya. The work of concealment will not be possible in the case of a negative entity, what is non-existent. The Advaitin does not admit the existence of any negative entity at all. Therefore, the term avidya does not mean the absence or non-existence of knowledge, since the mere absence or non-existence of knowledge cannot do the work of concealing or veiling the Self.

The word avidya must be explained in the same way as the word amitra is explained. The negative prefix *a*  in the word amitra conveys the idea that the person denoted by the word is other than or opposed to a friend. In the same way, the negative prefix *a* in the word avidya conveys the sense that the thing denoted by the word is something other than vidya  or something opposed to vidya. It does not convey the idea of the absence of vidya.

Anandagiri explains the expression आत्माग्रह (AtmAgraha) which means non- perception of the Self as the concealment of the Self  **आत्मनोऽग्रहो नामाऽऽवरणमाच्छादनं ** (Atmano.agraho nAmA.a.avaraNamAchChAdanaM)  //.

Thus, as per Bhashya as well as Vartika of Swami Sureswaracharya, ,  ज्ञानाभावः (j~nAnAbhAvaH), or equivalent terms often used like अग्रहण (agrahaNa), तत्वाग्रहण (tatvAgrahaNa) etc,  should be understood to mean a भावपदार्थ (bhAvapadArtha ), as ** not allowing (the true nature of the Atman) to be revealed **, and not as an अभावपदार्थ (abhAvapadArtha ), **absence of Knowledge**.

Regards

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 12:31 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Continued....

agrahNa, viparIta-grahaNa and samshaya-jnAna are all products of ajnAna.
> And hence neither of the three can be equated to ajnAna. The usage of word
> ajnAna for the three can be very well done as gold-ornament can as well be
> referred by the word gold.
>

It may also be mentioned that agrahaNa, viparIta-grahaNa and samshaya-jnAna
may all be termed as "AvaraNa-kritya".

It should also be noted that AvaraNa per se is not avidyA rather
avidyA-chit-sambandha and is yogyatA of AvaraNa-kritya.

Advaita-siddhi states:

नास्ति न प्रकाशत इति व्यवहार एवाभिज्ञादिसाधारणः; अस्ति प्रकाशत
इत्येतद्व्यवहाराभावो वा आवरणकृत्यम्

आवरणं च #तद्योग्यता #अज्ञानसंबन्धरूपा सुषुप्त्यादिसाधारणी
आब्रह्मज्ञानमवतिष्ठते ।

Regards.

>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Bhashya vAkya also states as under

// यदि ज्ञानाभावः, यदि संशयज्ञानम् , यदि विपरीतज्ञानं वा उच्यते अज्ञानमिति //.

Reg  // (अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः - please note the word #tat-nimitta //,  there appears to be an alternate rendering of the Bhashya as well, pointed out by Sri SSS. In this, ** तन्निमित्ताः ** is substituted by ** स निमित्ताः **. Sri SSS prefers this rendering.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 5:47 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Chandramouli ji

//  आत्माग्रहातिरेकेण तस्या रूपं न विद्यते ।

अमित्रवदविद्येति सत्येवं घटते सदा ॥ १७९ ॥ //

//  AtmAgrahAtirekeNa tasyA rUpaM na vidyate |

amitravadavidyeti satyevaM ghaTate sadA || 179 || //,

Translation Sri Balasubrahmanian //  Its nature does not consist in anything other than the non-perception of the Self. Only if it is said that the term avidya is like the term amitra, it is always tenable //

Notes by Sri Balasubrahmanian   //  Avidya is not negative (abhAva), but something positive. It should not be interpreted negatively as the prior non-existence of knowledge (jñāna-prāgabhava). It is a positive entity which conceals the nature of the Self. Concealment (avarana) is what it does; and it constitutes the nature of avidya. The work of concealment will not be possible in the case of a negative entity, what is non-existent. The Advaitin does not admit the existence of any negative entity at all. Therefore, the term avidya does not mean the absence or non-existence of knowledge, since the mere absence or non-existence of knowledge cannot do the work of concealing or veiling the Self.

The word avidya must be explained in the same way as the word amitra is explained. The negative prefix *a*  in the word amitra conveys the idea that the person denoted by the word is other than or opposed to a friend. In the same way, the negative prefix *a* in the word avidya conveys the sense that the thing denoted by the word is something other than vidya  or something opposed to vidya. It does not convey the idea of the absence of vidya.

Anandagiri explains the expression आत्माग्रह (AtmAgraha) which means non- perception of the Self as the concealment of the Self  **आत्मनोऽग्रहो नामाऽऽवरणमाच्छादनं ** (Atmano.agraho nAmA.a.avaraNamAchChAdanaM)  //.

Thus, as per Bhashya as well as Vartika of Swami Sureswaracharya, ,  ज्ञानाभावः (j~nAnAbhAvaH), or equivalent terms often used like अग्रहण (agrahaNa), तत्वाग्रहण (tatvAgrahaNa) etc,  should be understood to mean a भावपदार्थ (bhAvapadArtha ), as ** not allowing (the true nature of the Atman) to be revealed **, and not as an अभावपदार्थ (abhAvapadArtha ), **absence of Knowledge

This seems to suggest that agrahaNa = avidyA and it is same as AvaraNa (आत्मनोऽग्रहो नामाऽऽवरणमाच्छादनं). That it is not nirvishesha abhAva like horns of hare is quite clear.

However, the bhAshya-vAkya, uses agrahaNa, viparIta-grahaNa and samshaya-jnAna as a product of their nimitta (timira-dosha/avidyA). And thus makes a distinction. This nimitta is stated as avidyA and is AvaraNa-Atmaka i.e. its very swarUpa is AvaraNa. (तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः ॥ Once AvaraNa-Atmaka is there, there is perception of agrahaNa etc.) (अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः - please note the word #tat-nimitta. The story does not stop at avidyA-traya namely agrahaNa etc. We need to account for their nimitta also.)

The concept is further analysed in Advaita Siddhi where avidyA, AvaraNa and AvaraNa-kritya are distinguished.

So, AvaraNa = avidyA-chit-sambandha 

AvaraNa-kritya = agrahaNa, viparIta-grahaNa and samshaya-jnAna.

Both AvaraNa and AvaraNa-kritya are avidyA-prayukta and hence they can be referred by the word avidyA.

None of these are nirvishesha abhAva like horns of hare. 

Regards.