jeeva or brahma who is the locus for avidyA
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I would like to explain this stand with an example of chair (Sri Putran prabhuji had opted for this example when he was explaining something else, just thought of using the same example to share my understanding). But before that I would like to start with shankara’s clarification with regard to the query : to whom this avidyA ?? In the sUtra bhAshya (4-1-3) without any ambiguity bhAshyakAra clarifies as follows :
To the query : to whom is this ajnAna ?? the answer is : to YOU who is asking this question, you may object this answer by saying that : in the shruti it is stated that I am verily the brahman / Ishwara, is it not?? (so how can it be possible that brahman i.e. me can have the ignorance??) The answer for this is : if you have cognized / realized this truth in that manner, then to no one there is ajnAna whatsoever.
Now, let us see who is having this ignorance when there is no second Chaitanya as such to hold this ignorance apart from ‘akhanda chaitanya’!!??
Let us analyze it with the example of chair. There is a wooden chair – we will address it as Mr.Chair. Mr. Chair is, in fact or in reality is nothing but wood. All other chairs, tables, stools are made-up of that same wood. But Mr. chair takes himself to be the ONLY chair and as long as he (Mr. Chair) under the notion that he is a small/big chair having four legs, I am chair since such and such a time, living in a house, accommodating some restricted place to relax etc. It is Mr. Chair’s ignorance about himself not that he is just being a chair but without realizing that in reality he is nothing but wood. And as a wood sAmAnya (mrut sAmAnya in shruti) this Mr. Chair as wood neither born nor he is going to die someday. Now the question can be raised : who does this avidyA (ignorance) belong to?? Is it not belong to Mr. Chair?? Yes in a work-a-day transaction where Mr. Chair having the parichinna drushti about himself that he is mere chair without realizing that he is ‘common wood’ ignorance does belong to Mr. Chair only. But is not Mr. Chair nothing but wood?? Yes, so can we conclude avidyA belong to wood!!?? No, because of the simple reason wood (mrut sAmAnya) has nothing to do with the notion of chair despite the fact that without wood the chair cannot have any independent existence. Well then the subsequent query would be is not Mr. chair is a chair (Chaitanya with upAdhi), if the answer is yes, then can we say the chair (upAdhi / anAtma) is having avidyA?? NO again coz. the chair itself is nothing but wood. ( just remember for this jagat / nAma rUpa brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa).
Now the important question is : if not wood sAmAnya (Shuddha Chaitanya) and chair (upAdhi / anAtma) are the custodian of avidyA who exactly is this Mr. Chair?? Mr. Chair is the ahamkara-mamakAra which in itself has the notion that it is chair with limited space occupation and separate from wood, and it has the absence of knowledge that it is indeed wood, misconceiving itself as mere chair even though all through its trauma it is wood and nothing but wood. An additional question here is : if Mr. Chair is nothing but wood since when wood started thinking that it is Mr. chair?? (IOW, since when brahman started thinking that he is parichinna jeeva (acquired avidyA) and identifying itself with upAdhi/anAtma!!??) As per Advaita, this is a wrong question to ask, coz. it assumes an absence of avidyA prior to the beatings of avidyA hence bhAshyakAra explains though avidyA is not possible it is seen in vyavahAra it has to be considered anAdi and Ananta and quite natural in day to day transactions ( reference vide adhyAsa bhAshya). Who exactly in need of jnAna to get the mOksha?? Is it wood sAmAnya?? No, coz. it is always nitya Shuddha, buddha mukta jnAna svarUpa, Or the chair?? No, it is upAdhi an inert thing. So then is it Mr. Chair?? Yes, this Mr. chair (jeeva who identifies himself with BMI/upAdhi/anAtma) is the custodian of avidyA, he needs the vidyA to realize that he was/is/will always be the ‘wood sAmAnya’. So when there is a talk about Ashraya and Vishaya for avidyA, invariably it is possible only when there are two (duality) which is again a result of avidyA and there is no talk possible when there is realization by Mr. Chair that both chair and wood are in reality one without second. And in this example, Mr. Chair, chair and wood (mrudghata, mrut, mrut sAmAnya) in reality mrut sAmAnya alone there cannot be any existence apart from THIS (brahman). The chair is non different from wood, if you want to paint this chair, are you painting the chair or wood?? If you say no I am not painting the wood am just painting the chair, then I will ask OK just remove the wood from chair and paint the chair!! Is it possible?? So it is jeeva (Chaitanya / Mr. chair) that is having the painting on chair. It is Mr. Chair (jeeva Chaitanya) that misconceives (adhyAsa) itself as mere tiny chair whereas in reality it is ONLY wood. Mr. Chair needs to realize that he is not mere chair, but table, stool, teapoy etc. (sarvAtma bhAva) that he pervades all and he is indeed all (mruttiketyeva satyaM/sarvam khalvidam brahma) and in this Samyak darshana bhAshyakAra clarifies there is ‘nothing’ that can be labelled as ‘anAtma’. And in this realization there is no question of talks about Ashraya and Vishaya for avidyA. It is coz. of this bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya clarifies as above. Who is having ignorance about what?? It is certainly not the ‘wood’ for which there never is ignorance. And it is not pertains to chair as this chair not even existent apart from wood. Mr. Chair as long as he is having the notion that he is chair is having the ignorance. When he realizes that he is nothing but wood there is no ignorance to anyone whatsoever.
It is because of this reason shAstra teaches us (jeeva /sAdhaka-s) sAdhana, please note we don’t have any doubt whatsoever like is it my avidyA or brahman’s avidyA or I am having the avidyA or I am doing the sAdhana to get rid of avidyA of brahman 😊 It is jeeva (shAreeri) who thinks about himself in bondage and strives for mukti. Yes, in kArika and other places it has been mentioned that it is brahman only in bondage, it is brahman only deluded himself, it is only he does the sAdhana to realize his svarUpa etc. but contextually it has to be understood that shAstra keeping the jeeva svarUpa in mind saying all this to jeeva only it does not mean brahman itself even before jeeva bhAva having the avidyA and needs mukti etc. There is difference in jeeva (shAreeri) and Ishwara (parabrahman) in this sAdhana where even though jeeva is nothing but brahma but brahma is NOT jeeva. paramAtmanO jeevadanyatvaM jeevasya tu ‘na’ parasmAdanyatvaM (daharAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya). In this way the jeeva realizes that his svarUpa is brahman by giving up avidyA/adhyAsa or, IOW, becomes brahman by acquiring the paramArtha jnAna. And not we cannot reverse this order and say that brahman at one point of time becomes jeeva by acquiring avidyA or by losing his svarUpa jnAna. There is a story in shruti about hunter and king ( in bruhadAraNyaka!!??) where hunter (though was the king) did not know that he is king and after realizing that he is indeed king through some reliable sources. If you read that story in that Upanishad you would realize that it is wrong to say that the King (brahman) having acquired ignorance and became a hunter (jeeva)? The right way of understanding this story keeping the jeeva’s separateness in sAdhana, is that the hunter gave up his ignorance and became the King. In fact, he was all through the King only. Similarly, by giving up avidyA, the jeeva realizes that he is brahman and he was brahman and will be brahman all through.
The bottom line of this is very simple, shAstra is there for the sAdhaka jeeva who thinks that he is in bandhana and guide him to realize his svarUpa that he is nitya Shuddha brahman. It’s intention is not to attribute the avidyA to brahman but to get rid of avidyA about brahman / svarUpa in jeeva.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar
PS : I have not proof-read this, so there might be some repetitions, mistakes etc.