Imagined Nature of Ignorance in Vivaranam

[subhanu saxena]

Sri Ananda wrote:“However, we
have to accept that there is ignorance, avidyA in dreamless sleep too,
else, we end up with the theory that everyone gets liberated in sleep, only
to return to the state of bondage upon waking.”

Namaste

By stating there is a bhava-rupa avidya in deep sleep implies it is not imagined, which contradicts Vivaranam and Suresvara kalpyavidyaiva matpakshe in SV 183. Shankara also clarifies in BSB 2-1-9 that we talk of a possible objection that all would become liberated on waking if ignorance were not present simply because our false notions have not been removed. This point is made by Suresvara in NS also where he tells us that the mind is not present to reveal it in deep sleep, nothing more. When we are in the clutches of ignorance then the false notion that is our ignorance infuses all our discussion of the 3 states. For these are themselves superimpositions to be rescinded. So, postulating an avidya outside the realm of superimposition in a superimposed state makes no sense also. Also nobody has the experience upon waking “I experienced a bhava-rupa-avidya”.Sri Anand: “There are shruti statements, such as the nAsadIya
sUkta (tama AsIt), which point out the existence of this causal avidyA in
the beginning of Creation.”

In fact this is not how tamas is defined within Shankara’s tradition. Fortunately Suresvara has given us an explicit definition in BUBV 1.3.341 “chidAbhAsam tmao jneyam ‘nAjnAsiSam’ IkSaNAt”, in BUBV 4.3.1530 “budhyAdAveva yujyate”, and NS 2.32 “bhrAntyA bhrAntyA”, that tamas is simply a falsely imagined notion of the nature of “I do not know”, and nothing more.

[Side Note, The Taittiriya Brahmana rescension has an interesting word change in nAsadIya sUktan, often described by Western Scholars as an error. In TB 2-8-9-4we find “tamasas tan mahinAjAyataikam” instead of “tapas as tanmahinAjAyataikam” in RV. I am not so sure this is an error. The TB version states that the act of creation is illusory, imagined through ignorance, which is consistent with Vedanta tradition].

Here we get to the crux of the issue: Does the orthodox tradition place mulavidya within or outside the scope of superimposition. Sri Subramanian has come closest to clarifying this, but in Sri Swamiji’s time there were certainly divergent opinions within the tradition on this point.

Anand it would be great if you could provide Advaita-Siddhi references if they exist with explicit statements as to whether mulavidya is imagined or not and whether it is within the realm of superimposition or not, and whether there is s temporal relationship postulated between mulavidya and adhyasa or not, since advaita-siddhi took great pains to try and resolve the various views at that time. Siddhanta lesha sangraha may have references too but I have been unable to locate them in either work.

Regards
Subhanu

[V Subrahmanian]

Post by subhanu saxena
Sri Ananda wrote:“However, we
have to accept that there is ignorance, avidyA in dreamless sleep too,
else, we end up with the theory that everyone gets liberated in sleep, only
to return to the state of bondage upon waking.”
Namaste
By stating there is a bhava-rupa avidya in deep sleep implies it is not
imagined, which contradicts Vivaranam and Suresvara kalpyavidyaiva
matpakshe in SV 183.

I think it has been clarified enough times that the term 'bhAva rUpa
avidyA' does not imply that it enjoys a status equal to the Brahman of
Advaita. It is just like Advaita according a vyAvahArika satyam to the
world/samsara till moksha, thereby giving it a certain 'bhAvarUpatvam' to
distinguish it from the atyanta abhAva asat analogous to a hare's horn
etc. I would not think that the pUrvAcharyas who admitted a bhAva rUpa
avidyA at the root of the samsara adhyasa were so irresponsible as to
accord it a paramArtha satya status. The very term 'mithyAjnAnanimittaH'
as it would be parsed as 'mithyA cha tadajnAnam cha, tannimittaH' clarifies
this point amply.

Post by subhanu saxena
Shankara also clarifies in BSB 2-1-9 that we talk of a possible objection
that all would become liberated on waking if ignorance were not present
simply because our false notions have not been removed.

Shankara talks of the presence of a bIjashakti/bIjAvasthA in deep
sleep/pralaya, for example, in the bhashya to the very second kArikA of the
first chapter of mandukya. The Sat/Brahman present in deep sleep/pralaya
is admitted to be endowed/tainted with 'jIvaprasavabIjAtmakatvam'. He does
not say that this bIja is just false notions. Elsewhere in the BSB He has
elucidated this as a certain shakti in which the jiva-s are under the spell
of ignorance and as it were in deep sleep - prasuptAH. The same idea is
again contained in the 'anAdimAyayA suptaH' verse of the mandukya. In fact
there He goes to further elucidate that the anAdi mAyA is in the form of
'tattva apratibodha rUpa' which is the bIja (present in deep sleep and in
the other two) and separates it from anyathAgrahaNa rUpa (which is present
in waking and dream). So, the 'false notions' apply to the anyathAgrahaNa
rUpa which are distinguished from the tattva apratibodha rUpa bIja.

Post by subhanu saxena
This point is made by Suresvara in NS also where he tells us that the mind
is not present to reveal it in deep sleep, nothing more. When we are in the
clutches of ignorance then the false notion that is our ignorance infuses
all our discussion of the 3 states. For these are themselves
superimpositions to be rescinded. So, postulating an avidya outside the
realm of superimposition in a superimposed state makes no sense also. Also
nobody has the experience upon waking “I experienced a bhava-rupa-avidya”

Nor is that anybody has the experience upon waking 'I experienced a abhAva
rUpa avidyA'. In fact the very experience that 'I did not know anything'
implies that there was 'something' that enveloped me/my senses/mind. If it
(the enveloping power) were 'nothing', there would have been no anubhava of
it/its effect at all. 'asat chet na pratIyeta.' So, by force, everyone will
have to admit a certain avidyA that is ultimately false but available for
experience.

The very fact the shaastra addresses this avidyaa with a view to rescind it
implies its bhAvarUpa status (not equal to the paramArtha satya brahman).
If this avidyA were to be of the nature of a hare's horn (atyanta asat) it
would be impossible to the shAstra or the sAdhaka to deal with it; for
'asat chet na pratIyeta.' Its pratIti, anubhava, is amply established by
Shankara in the Gita bhashya and in another place thru a dialogue. This
alone is what is meant by the term 'bhAva rUpa.' And that it is not
paramArtha sat is also clear since its bAdha is admitted: sat chet na
bAdhyeta. So there cannot be a real objection to the term bhAvarUpa when
used to denote avidyA.

Post by subhanu saxena
.Sri Anand: “There are shruti statements, such as the nAsadIya
sUkta (tama AsIt), which point out the existence of this causal avidyA in
the beginning of Creation.”
In fact this is not how tamas is defined within Shankara’s tradition.
Fortunately Suresvara has given us an explicit definition in BUBV 1.3.341
“chidAbhAsam tmao jneyam ‘nAjnAsiSam’ IkSaNAt”, in BUBV 4.3.1530
“budhyAdAveva yujyate”, and NS 2.32 “bhrAntyA bhrAntyA”, that tamas is
simply a falsely imagined notion of the nature of “I do not know”, and
nothing more.

'tama *AsIt,* tamasA gULhamagre' is the expression there in that
mantra/sUkta that talks about the bhAvarUpatva status of the tamas.
Otherwise the 'AsIt' itself would be redundant. In fact in a deriding way
Vidyaranya says in the Panchadashi:

( भूतविवेकोनाम-
द्वितीयः परिच्छेदः |)भगवत्पूज्यपादाश्च शुष्कतर्कपटूनमून् |
आहुर्माध्यमिकान्भ्रान्तानचिन्त्येऽस्मिन्सदात्मनि ||२५||
अनादृत्य श्रुतिं मौर्ख्यादिमे बौद्धस्तपस्विनः |
आपेदिरे निरामत्वमनुमानैकचक्षुषः ||२६||शून्यमासीदिति ब्रूषे सद्योगं वा
सदात्मताम् |
शून्यस्य न तु तद्युक्तमुभयं व्याहतत्वतः ||२७||
न युक्तस्तमसा सूर्यो नापि चासौ तमोमयः
|*सच्छून्ययोर्विरोधित्वाच्छून्यमासीत्कथं वद *||२८||
वियदादेर्नामरूपे मायया सति कल्पिते |
शून्यस्य नामरूपे च तथा चेज्जीव्यतां चिरम् ||२९||If it is said, in
order to ward off this defect,

that avidyA is not a shUnyapadArtha, then one admits its

bhAvarUpatva from the back door. That is

what will earn one the benediction: जीव्यतां चिरम् .

Post by subhanu saxena
Regards

subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

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

For assistance, contac

[Anand Hudli]

Dear Shri Subhanuji,

Post by subhanu saxena
Here we get to the crux of the issue: Does the orthodox tradition place mulavidya within or outside the scope of superimposition. Sri Subramanian has come closest to clarifying this,
but in Sri Swamiji’s time there were certainly divergent opinions within the tradition on this point.

Yes, all avidyA, whether it is mulAvidyA or avasthAjnAna, is after all
a superimposition. See, for example, the siddhAnta lesha sangraha
(Pariccheda 1, 19.4) remark on mulAvidyA:
ghaTaM na jAnAmi iti ghaTajnAnavirodhitvena ghaTajnAne sati
ghaTAjnAnaM nivRttamiti tannivartyatvena cAnubhUyamAnaM na
mUlAjnAnam.h| shuddhacaitanyaviShayasya tajjnAnanivartyasya

ca tasya tathAtvAyogAt| kintu ghATavacchinnacaitanyaviShayaM
mUlAjnAnasya avasthAbhedarUpamajnAnAntaramiti tannAsha evAbhibhavaH |

Clearly, we use the term mUlAvidyA to denote that it is a
superimposition over shuddhachaitanya or Pure Consciousness, thus
distinguishing it from other illusions such as the snake over a rope.

The viShaya or content of ajnAna is different here. In the case of the
snake over rope illusion the viShaya is rope, while in the case of
mUlAvidyA, the viShaya is shuddhacaitanya.
When the illusion of a snake over a rope ends, due to the knowledge
of the rope, it certainly does not mean mulAvidyA is destroyed. The
avidyA of the rope is called avasthA ajnAna or tUlAvidyA.

In English, mUlAvidyA is primal ignorance while avasthA ajnAna is
modal ignorance.

The divergences among advaitins may have been due to different answers
to the followup question:
Whose is this superimposition-mUlAvidyA? Does it belong to Brahman or the jIva?

To reiterate, there is a need to distinguish superimposition on the
Self from other superimpositions. Else, we have the following dilemma,
if we treat all superimpositions as the same. To remove
a simple illusion of a snake over a rope, it takes nothing less than
BrahmajnAna! Or, if the illusion is removed, by knowledge of the rope,
it is equivalent to realizing the Self! In fact, we read
about such objections from opponents in polemical treatises.

The advaita texts anticipate these questions and have answered them
well. For example, the panchapAdika vivaraNa says:

मूलाज्ञानस्यैव अवस्थाभेदाः रजताद्युपादानानि शुक्तिकादिज्ञानैः
सहाध्यासेन निवर्तन्त इति कल्प्यताम् ।
The material causes (upAdAnAni) of the illusory silver, etc. may be
considered to be modes (or states, avasthA's) of the mUlAvidyA. These
avasthA-ajnAnas are sublated along with the (respective) adhyAsa by
knowledge of nacre, etc. (ie. the substratum of the illusion).

Post by subhanu saxena
By stating there is a bhava-rupa avidya in deep sleep implies it is not imagined, which contradicts Vivaranam and Suresvara kalpyavidyaiva matpakshe in SV 183. Shankara also clarifies in BSB 2-1-9
that we talk of a possible objection that all would become liberated on waking if ignorance were not present simply because our false notions have not been removed.
This point is made by Suresvara in NS also where he tells us that the mind is not present to reveal it in deep sleep, nothing more. When we are in the clutches of ignorance then the false notion
that is our ignorance infuses all our discussion of the 3 states. For these are themselves superimpositions to be rescinded. So, postulating an avidya outside the realm of superimposition in a
superimposed state makes no sense also. Also nobody has the experience upon waking “I experienced a bhava-rupa-avidya”.

Agreed, the three states of sleep, dream, and waking are themselves
superimpositions, but then, why would a principal upaniShad be devoted
to description of the three states, if we are able to brush them aside
so easily? The analysis of the three states is crucial for
understanding advaita. If we treated all superimpositions as one,
then advaita philosophy becomes extremely terse and, consequently,
open to many questions.
It would not satisfy the aspirant who seeks answers to many classical
questions. If we said, Brahman is the sole reality, everything else
is a superimposition, where is the need to explain Creation, for
example?
Where is the need to elaborate on Vedanta sUtras such as "janmAdyasya
yataH"? All systems must make a sincere attempt to answer such
questions. This is a fundamental premise. In the process of finding
answers
to such questions, it becomes necessary to distinguish between primal
and modal superimpositions.

Anand
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

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

For assistance, contact:
listmaste

[Shyam]

Pranams to all participants of this thread.
The topic had previously been discussed on the advaitin list and I am reproducing here my perspective.

The body-mind-intellect [that the jivatman is habitually acquainted with] is a construct (sanghAtA).
That the construct conceals is a given.

When you examine deep sleep the construct is dormant, while the concealing constant
-  an effect thus engendered exacts an agency. 
 
This is what Sankara refers to, when he talks about an effect without a cause
- na hi aakasmiki kasyachid utpattih sambhavati atiprasangat - in his Sutrabhashya
- both in the context of sushupti as well as Cosmic pralaya, in strikingly similar language.
 
1.3.30
This world when being dissolved (in a mahapralaya) is dissolved to that extent ONLY
that the Shakti (causal potentiality) of the world remains Shaktyavashesham Eva
 
- and (when it is produced again) it is produced from the root of that Shakti alone
- shakti MOOLAM EVA cha prabhavati ;
 
otherwise we should have to admit an effect
without a cause itaratha aakasmikatva prasangatvat.
 
Here we find Shankara defining for us Shakti as that Primordia Cause
unto which this entire manifest Srshti dissolves unto and
from which alone spurts forth another cycle of this manifold Nature.
 
The term the Acharya uses in this context is mula Shakti.
Compare this with another instance elsewhere in the Sutrabhashya
where-in is described our "everyday" pralaya - aka sushupti.
2.3.30-31.
 
"But, an objection is raised, in the states of deep sleep and pralaya
no contact of the Self with the buddhi can be acknowledged,
since scripture declares that 'then he becomes united with the True,
he is gone to his own' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1),
and as then all modifications have avowedly passed away.
How then can it be said that the contact with the buddhi exists as long as the Self?
 
--To this objection the following Sûtra replies.
 
On account of the appropriateness of the manifestation of that (contact)
which exists (potentially); like virile power.
 As in ordinary life virile power and so on, existing potentially only in young children,
and being then looked upon as non-existing, become manifest at the time of puberty
and do not originate at that time from previous non-existence,
because in that case they might originate in eunuchs also; 
 
So the connection of the soul with the intellect exists potentially merely during deep sleep and pralaya,
and again becomes manifest at the time of waking and the time of creation.
 
Because nothing can be assumed to spring up unless from something else
na hi aakasmiki kasyachid utpattih sambhavati atiprasangat;
Otherwise we should have to suppose that effects spring up without causes. 
 
That the rising from deep sleep is due to the existence of SEED avidya
- avidyatmakabeeja sadbhavakaaritam - scripture also declares,
'Having become merged in the True they know not that they are merged in the True.
Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion or a wolf,' (Ch. Up. VI, 9, 2; 3)."
 
If we extend this example of a lion and a wolf to our "rope-snake" – we have a rope having an innate
sense of identity as a snake,. and every night this rope goes to deep sleep where its "snake-"ity is fully resolved unto itself.
And only svarupa aka rope is, plus a blank "absence" - jnana abhava –
absence [of rope-svarupa-knowledge] on the part of a [snake] intellect that is itself fully resolved -
in other words rope plus a barren void.
 
How does a "snake-intellect" now re-emerge from this vacuous void and then, rather audaciously,
disengage from the embrace of svarupA rope is a question that requires an agency or cause.
 
In characterizing and defining such a anirvachaneeya mula avidyA or beeja shakti alone does Sankara clarify in the Sutrabhashya
 
"For that causal potentiality is of the nature of Avidya - avidyatmika hi sa beejashakti;
it is rightly denoted by the term 'undeveloped; avyakta shabda nirdeshya'
it has the Supreme Lord for its substratum Parameshwara ashraya;
it is of the nature of an illusion Maya - mayi; it is a universal sleep Mahasushupti
in which are lying the transmigrating souls sansarino jeeva
destitute for the time of the consciousness of their individual character svarupapratibodha rahita. 
 
Sometimes, again, it is denoted by the term Akshara, the Imperishable; so, for instance (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2),
'Higher, than the high Imperishable.'

Sometimes it is spoken of as Maya - mayeti suchitam - so, for instance (Sve. Up. IV, 10),
'Know then Prakriti is Maya, and the Supreme Lord is the Master of Maya' For Maya is properly called
undeveloped - Avyakta hi sa Maya - since it cannot be defined either as that which is or that which is not
tattvanyatvanirupanamya-ashakyatvat.
 
The statement of the Katha Up that 'the Avyakta is beyond the Mahat' is
based on the fact of the Mahat originating from the Avyakta, if the Mahat be the intellect of
Hiranyagarbha. If, on the other hand, we understand by the Mahat the individual soul, the statement is
founded on the fact of the existence of the individual soul depending on the Undeveloped
avyaktaadheenatva jeevabhavasya, i.e. Avidya. Avidya hi avyaktam. And it is because of the possession
of ignorance by the individual that all kinds of emprical behavior continue forever jivasya sarvahsanvyavahara.

How painstakingly does the Acharya apply the same coat of hue in brush after brush! Here-in we find such a
vivid all-encompassing presentation from the benevolence of our beloved Acharya.

That Primordial Power is Beeja Shakti.
That beeja Shakti is Avidya.
This avidya, this Shakti is termed Avyakta.
This Avyakta is alone Maya.
This Maya is also called Akshara, the Imperishable.
Maya is also called Prakrti.
Avyakta is Avidya alone

And this Shakti/Maya/Avidya/Prakrti/Avyakta can neither be characterized as Real nor Unreal, and it has
for its substratum the Supreme Lord Parabrahman.
 
Hari OM
Shri Gurubhyo namah
Shyam
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Anand Hudli <***@hotmail.com>
To: advaita-***@lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 6:35 AM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Imagined Nature of Ignorance in Vivaranam

Dear Shri Subhanuji,

Post by subhanu saxena
Here we get to the crux of the issue: Does the orthodox tradition place mulavidya within or outside the scope of superimposition. Sri Subramanian has come closest to clarifying this,
but in Sri Swamiji’s time there were certainly divergent opinions within the tradition on this point.

Yes, all avidyA, whether it is mulAvidyA or avasthAjnAna, is after all
a superimposition. See, for example, the siddhAnta lesha sangraha
(Pariccheda 1, 19.4) remark on mulAvidyA:
ghaTaM na jAnAmi iti ghaTajnAnavirodhitvena ghaTajnAne sati
ghaTAjnAnaM nivRttamiti tannivartyatvena cAnubhUyamAnaM na
mUlAjnAnam.h|  shuddhacaitanyaviShayasya tajjnAnanivartyasya

ca tasya tathAtvAyogAt| kintu ghATavacchinnacaitanyaviShayaM
mUlAjnAnasya avasthAbhedarUpamajnAnAntaramiti tannAsha evAbhibhavaH |

Clearly, we use the term mUlAvidyA to denote that it is a
superimposition over shuddhachaitanya or Pure Consciousness, thus
distinguishing it from other illusions such as the snake over a rope.

The viShaya or content of ajnAna is different here. In the case of the
snake over rope illusion the viShaya is rope, while in the case of
mUlAvidyA, the viShaya is shuddhacaitanya.
When the illusion of a snake over a rope ends, due to the knowledge
of the rope, it certainly does not mean mulAvidyA is destroyed. The
avidyA of the rope is called avasthA ajnAna or tUlAvidyA.

In English, mUlAvidyA is primal ignorance while avasthA ajnAna is
modal ignorance.

The divergences among advaitins may have been due to different answers
to the followup question:
Whose is this superimposition-mUlAvidyA? Does it belong to Brahman or the jIva?

To reiterate, there is a need to distinguish superimposition on the
Self from other superimpositions. Else, we have the following dilemma,
if we treat all superimpositions as the same. To remove
a simple illusion of a snake over a rope, it takes nothing less than
BrahmajnAna! Or, if the illusion is removed, by knowledge of the rope,
it is equivalent to realizing the Self! In fact, we read
about such objections from opponents in polemical treatises.

The advaita texts anticipate these questions and have answered them
well. For example, the panchapAdika vivaraNa says:



The material causes (upAdAnAni) of the illusory silver, etc. may be
considered to be  modes (or states, avasthA's) of the mUlAvidyA. These
avasthA-ajnAnas are sublated along with the (respective) adhyAsa by
knowledge of nacre, etc. (ie. the substratum of the illusion).

Post by subhanu saxena
By stating there is a bhava-rupa avidya in deep sleep implies it is not imagined, which contradicts Vivaranam and Suresvara kalpyavidyaiva matpakshe in SV 183. Shankara also clarifies in BSB 2-1-9
that we talk of a possible objection that all would become liberated on waking if ignorance were not present simply because our false notions have not been removed.
This point is made by Suresvara in NS also where he tells us that the mind is not present to reveal it in deep sleep, nothing more. When we are in the clutches of ignorance then the false notion
that is our ignorance infuses all our discussion of the 3 states.  For these are themselves superimpositions to be rescinded. So, postulating an avidya outside the realm of superimposition in a
superimposed state makes no sense also. Also nobody has the experience upon waking “I experienced a bhava-rupa-avidya”.

Agreed, the three states of sleep, dream, and waking are themselves
superimpositions, but then, why would a principal upaniShad be devoted
to description of the three states, if we are able to brush them aside
so easily? The analysis of the three states is crucial for
understanding advaita.  If we treated all superimpositions as one,
then advaita philosophy becomes extremely terse and, consequently,
open to many questions.
It would not satisfy the aspirant who seeks answers to many classical
questions.  If we said, Brahman is the sole reality, everything else
is a superimposition, where is the need to explain Creation, for
example?
Where is the need to elaborate on Vedanta sUtras such as "janmAdyasya
yataH"? All systems must make a sincere attempt to answer such
questions. This is a fundamental premise. In the process of finding
answers
to such questions, it becomes necessary to distinguish between primal
and modal superimpositions.

Anand
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

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

For assistance, contact:
***@advaita-vedanta.org
मूलाज्ञानस्यैव अवस्थाभेदाः रजताद्युपादानानि शुक्तिकादिज्ञानैःसहाध्यासेन निवर्तन्त इति कल्प्यताम् ।
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

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

For assistance, co

[V Subrahmanian]

Post by Shyam
Pranams to all participants of this thread.
The topic had previously been discussed on the advaitin list and I am
reproducing here my perspective.
The body-mind-intellect [that the jivatman is habitually acquainted with]
is a construct (sanghAtA).
That the construct conceals is a given.
When you examine deep sleep the construct is dormant, while the concealing constant
- an effect thus engendered exacts an agency.
This is what Sankara refers to, when he talks about an effect without a cause
- na hi aakasmiki kasyachid utpattih sambhavati atiprasangat - in his Sutrabhashya
- both in the context of sushupti as well as Cosmic pralaya, in strikingly
similar language.
1.3.30
This world when being dissolved (in a mahapralaya) is dissolved to that
extent ONLY
that the Shakti (causal potentiality) of the world remains
Shaktyavashesham Eva
- and (when it is produced again) it is produced from the root of that Shakti alone
- shakti MOOLAM EVA cha prabhavati ;
otherwise we should have to admit an effect
without a cause itaratha aakasmikatva prasangatvat.
Here we find Shankara defining for us Shakti as that Primordia Cause
unto which this entire manifest Srshti dissolves unto and
from which alone spurts forth another cycle of this manifold Nature.
The term the Acharya uses in this context is mula Shakti.
Compare this with another instance elsewhere in the Sutrabhashya
where-in is described our "everyday" pralaya - aka sushupti.
2.3.30-31.
"But, an objection is raised, in the states of deep sleep and pralaya
no contact of the Self with the buddhi can be acknowledged,
since scripture declares that 'then he becomes united with the True,
he is gone to his own' (Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1),
and as then all modifications have avowedly passed away.
How then can it be said that the contact with the buddhi exists as long as the Self?
--To this objection the following Sûtra replies.
On account of the appropriateness of the manifestation of that (contact)
which exists (potentially); like virile power.
As in ordinary life virile power and so on, existing potentially only in
young children,
and being then looked upon as non-existing, become manifest at the time of puberty
and do not originate at that time from previous non-existence,
because in that case they might originate in eunuchs also;
So the connection of the soul with the intellect exists potentially merely
during deep sleep and pralaya,
and again becomes manifest at the time of waking and the time of creation.
Because nothing can be assumed to spring up unless from something else
na hi aakasmiki kasyachid utpattih sambhavati atiprasangat;
Otherwise we should have to suppose that effects spring up without causes.
That the rising from deep sleep is due to the existence of SEED avidya
- avidyatmakabeeja sadbhavakaaritam - scripture also declares,
'Having become merged in the True they know not that they are merged in the True.
Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion or a wolf,' (Ch. Up. VI, 9, 2; 3)."
If we extend this example of a lion and a wolf to our "rope-snake" – we
have a rope having an innate
sense of identity as a snake,. and every night this rope goes to deep
sleep where its "snake-"ity is fully resolved unto itself.
And only svarupa aka rope is, plus a blank "absence" - jnana abhava –
absence [of rope-svarupa-knowledge] on the part of a [snake] intellect
that is itself fully resolved -
in other words rope plus a barren void.
How does a "snake-intellect" now re-emerge from this vacuous void and
then, rather audaciously,
disengage from the embrace of svarupA rope is a question that requires an agency or cause.
In characterizing and defining such a anirvachaneeya mula avidyA or beeja
shakti alone does Sankara clarify in the Sutrabhashya
"For that causal potentiality is of the nature of Avidya - avidyatmika hi sa beejashakti;
it is rightly denoted by the term 'undeveloped; avyakta shabda nirdeshya'
it has the Supreme Lord for its substratum Parameshwara ashraya;
it is of the nature of an illusion Maya - mayi; it is a universal sleep Mahasushupti
in which are lying the transmigrating souls sansarino jeeva
destitute for the time of the consciousness of their individual character
svarupapratibodha rahita.
Sometimes, again, it is denoted by the term Akshara, the Imperishable; so,
for instance (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2),
'Higher, than the high Imperishable.'
Sometimes it is spoken of as Maya - mayeti suchitam - so, for instance (Sve. Up. IV, 10),
'Know then Prakriti is Maya, and the Supreme Lord is the Master of Maya'
For Maya is properly called
undeveloped - Avyakta hi sa Maya - since it cannot be defined either as
that which is or that which is not
tattvanyatvanirupanamya-ashakyatvat.
The statement of the Katha Up that 'the Avyakta is beyond the Mahat' is
based on the fact of the Mahat originating from the Avyakta, if the Mahat
be the intellect of
Hiranyagarbha. If, on the other hand, we understand by the Mahat the
individual soul, the statement is
founded on the fact of the existence of the individual soul depending on the Undeveloped
avyaktaadheenatva jeevabhavasya, i.e. Avidya. Avidya hi avyaktam. And it
is because of the possession
of ignorance by the individual that all kinds of emprical behavior
continue forever jivasya sarvahsanvyavahara.
How painstakingly does the Acharya apply the same coat of hue in brush
after brush! Here-in we find such a
vivid all-encompassing presentation from the benevolence of our beloved Acharya.
That Primordial Power is Beeja Shakti.
That beeja Shakti is Avidya.
This avidya, this Shakti is termed Avyakta.
This Avyakta is alone Maya.
This Maya is also called Akshara, the Imperishable.
Maya is also called Prakrti.
Avyakta is Avidya alone
And this Shakti/Maya/Avidya/Prakrti/Avyakta can neither be characterized
as Real nor Unreal, and it has
for its substratum the Supreme Lord Parabrahman.

Namaste

And by going the reverse way, in Parabrahman is superimposed the
Shakti/Maya/Avidya/Prakrti/Avyakta which is anAdi anirvAchyA. And this
potentially becomes the nAma-rUpaatmakam jagat/samsara. A few days ago I
had presented in this forum two instances of 'anAditva' of both avidyA and
mAyA coming from the Acharya's words. The former is from the Kathopanishad
mantra 'utthiShThata jAgrata' where the opening words of the bhAshyam are
'anAdyavidyAprasuptAh..'. And the anAditva of mAyA is from the Mandukya
kArikA 'anAdimAyayA suptaH. ' We can see the correspondence in the
description of both mAyA and avidyA: it is a suptiH. A sleep where the
undercurrent is mAyA/avidyA. Thus both are tamas. In Advaita this
shakti/avidyA is admitted purely for the sake of explaining
creation/samsara. Shankara has explicitly said in another BSB that
'without this shakti Brahman will be unable to engage in creation.' So, it
is a shAstrakRta adhyAropa in Brahman. And since Brahman alone appears as
the jiva, it is again the shAstrakRta adhyAropa of avidyA in Brahman to
explain jiva's samsara. This point is made clear in the Br.Up.1.4.10
bhashya (aham brahma asmi context). So, it is settled beyond doubt that
both mAyA and avidyA are a shakti superimposed in Brahman to explain
creation/samsara. The apavAda of this shakti comes about in the aparoksha
jnanam (bhUtaprakRtimoksham...Bh.G.13th last verse). Thus the contingency
of advaita hAni will never arise since the shakti is admitted ONLY as an
adhyAropa.

regards
subrahmanian.v

Post by Shyam
Hari OM
Shri Gurubhyo namah
Shyam