ajnAna and moksha: bhagavadgItAbhAShya 13.2

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

BhagavatpAda shri shankarAcArya has written many bhAShyA-s

which form the foundation for understanding of advaita.

His adhyAsabhAShya and bhAShya on Br^ihadAraNyaka upanishad

stand out as gems in His many writings. Apart from these,

it is said that His bhAShya on brahmasUtra 1.1.4 and on

bhagavadgItA 13.2 are examples of clarity of explanation,

in anticipating all possible objections and presenting

the answers in a logical and precise way. My question is

on seeking further clarification on some aspects of bhAShya

on BG 13.2.

 

In answering an objection raised by an opponent (that the

scriptures can become purposeless), shri shankara replies

(and I am quoting from swami Gambhiranandaji's presentation,

p504 & 505)

 

"... No, since it is not logical that the Self should have

different states. If this were possible at all, then the

states of bondage and freedom of the Self should be

simultaneous or successive. As to that, they cannot occur

simultaneously, since they are contradictory - like rest

and motion in the same object. Should they occur successively

and without being caused, then thre will arise the contingency

of there being no Liberation; if they occur through some cause,

then, since they do not exist inherently, there arises the

contingency of their being ultimately unreal. In this case

also the assumption becomes falsified.

 

Moreover, when ascertaining the precedence and succession of

the states of bondage and Liberation, the state of bondage will

have to be considered as being the earlier and having no beginning,

but an end. And that is contrary to valid means of Knoledge.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Similarly it will have to be admitted that the state of Liberation

has a beginning, but no end - which is certainly opposed to

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

valid means of Knowledge. And it is not possible to establish

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

eternality for something that has states and undergoes a change

from one state to another. ...." [my emphasis of the underlinings

above. GM].

 

Now, my question is: I have thought avidyA (ignorance) is anAdi

(without beginning), but avidyA vanishes on dawning of Knowledge.

That is, avidyA has no beginning, but an end is a logical

statement, albeit in the vyavahArika. shri shankara seems

to be saying above that that understanding is not correct.

 

I can see that the SELF is not touched by either avidyA or moksha.

Also, I see that avidyA and moksha are not states of the Self.

Is that what shri shankara is saying in the above statement?

 

Or is He saying " per se "that avaidyA has no beginning, but

an end" is contrary to Knowledge"? What is meant by "contrary

to valid means of Knowledge? Is there a shruti statement which

He is referring?

 

Can we correlate or find relevance for the above with the

statement by GauDapAda in the kArikA-s - "Adau ante ca yAn

nAsti, vartamAnepi tat tathA" that which was not there at the

beginning and is not going to be there at the end, may just

as well be considered not there at the present.

 

I would be grateful for any clarifications or alternate

viewpoints on the above. I think the gItAbhAShya 13.2 is

a must-read for serious students of advaita.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--------------------------------