Adhyasa-Adhyaropa discussion with Bhaskar ji

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji:

 

We will resume our discussion on Adhyasa. From your two postings so far on

this topic, I understand that you consider:

 

adhyasa and avidya as meaning the same

adhyasa and adhyaropa are different

adhyasa precedes adhyaropa and is the cause for adhyaropa

Right?

 

You also say that the misconception stage is avidya/adhyasa and the wrong

cognition stage is the adhyaropa. I am unable to understand the difference

between misconception and wrong cognition. You seem to be making the difference

between the mental state first and the second in the outside the mind, at the

sense level.

In anubhava, however, we recognise a non-apprehension state. When the torch

light is flashed and we see that it is only a rope, our reaction is: Oh! I did

not know this! If only I had known this, all this 'galata' would not be there.

This 'not knowing' in the first place, although only realised later, is the

non-apprehension part of bhrama which has to be admitted. This not knowing is

what has been termed 'avarana'. Then what follows is the mis-apprehension.

This is the vikshepa. In other words, the non-apprehension is ignorance: I did

not know what it was. Mis-apprehension is the Error.

 

The Mandukya up. provides us a beautiful scheme, verily a template, for

understanding this:

 

1.Turiya 2. Praajna 3. Taijasa 4. Vishwa

 

For our present discussion we shall not consider the Turiya. The Kaarika uses

the terms Nidra/kaaranam/beejam/Agrahanam for the Praajna state. And the terms

Svapna/karyam/ankura (not popular)/Anyathaa-grahanam to denote the

Taijasa-Vishwa combine. The idea is that there is Ignorance alone in the

Praajna state and Ignorance+Error in the Taijasa-Vishwa states. Ignorance,

non-apprehension, agrahanam of the vastu leads to Error, mis-apprehension,

anyathaa-grahanam of that vastu as something else.

 

If, as you contend, adhyasa which is synonymous with avidya ( preceding the

adhyaropa), and involves a mental activity of misconception which you had

described in your first post as 'a feeling', which is the kaaranam of the wrong

cognition or the 'actual seeing' of the snake, where would you place the

adhyasa/avidya in the above template? Obviously it cannot be in the Praajna

state as you have not admitted a non-apprehension, agrahanam, state at all in

your scheme. You start from mis-conception , for which, right now click Tools

and see the thesaurus. It gives two words: 'misapprehension' and 'error' among

others, which we have used in the Taijasa-Vishwa state!! There will be a

question, what caused the misconception (your meaning: adhyasa/avidya)? Will you

say Avidya? or Maya? In that case you will have to say what is this avidya which

resulted in the adhyasa/avidya. And you will not be able to put anything in the

Prajna state legitimately as you have 'exhausted' , ie. used up

avidya by making it a synonym for adhyasa.

 

Instead, if the Mandukya scheme is adopted, there will be no difficulty at

all. The first non-apprehension, Agrahanam, 'I did not know' is placed in

Praajna and the mis-apprehension, anyathaagrahanam spoken of by the various

examples in the Adhyasa bhashyam, can be put in the Taijasa-Vishwa state.

 

The question that remains to be answered is: How to explain the

bhaashyavaakyam: Tametam Evam-lakshanam Adhyasam Avidya iti panditaaH manyante?

Perhaps this sentence is what led you to conclude Adhyasa is synonymous with

Avidya.

 

In the complete Bhashyam literature, the Acharya uses terms like this:

1.Avidya-pratyupasthaapita-kaarya-karanopaadhi-nimitto'yam …(Sutra Bhashya

1.2.5.20).

2.Avidya-adhyasta….

3.Avidya-adhyaaropita…

4.Avidya-kalpita… (Parameshwarastu Avidya-kalpitaat shaariiraat….anyaH

(Su.Bh.1.1.6.17)

 

It may be noted that in all such places, the term avidya is compounded

(samasta-pada) with the other words : adhyasta, adhyaaropita, etc. Evidently,

in the compound, the two terms cannot mean the same. The translation for the

first cited sentence is: ….is based on the limiting adjunct of body and

senses, conjured up by ignorance…..

(conjured means pratyupasthapita and ignorance is avidya.)

For the sentence cited under 4. above, the translation is: Iswara is

different, to be sure, from the one, imagined through ignorance…. ( imagined

means kalpita.)

 

And the samaasa, to the best of my limited knowledge of the language cannot

be explained in any other way in this context : Avidyayaa

pratyupasthaapita…Avidyayaa kalpita.. Avidyayaa adhyastha…Avidyayaa

adhyaaropita..etc.

 

The above sentences were taken up to show that : The Acharya distinguishes

Avidya, ignorance, non-apprehension, agrahanam, from adhyasa, adhyaropa,

kalpanam, pratyupasthaapanam, etc. which all mean error, mis-apprehension,

anyathaagrahanam. Here we are able to see the cause is avidya and the effect is

adhyasa, adhyaropa, etc. Herein is the Kaarana-avidya mentioned by the

Acharya.

 

In the Adhyasabhashya vaakyam, cited above, Tametam Evam-lakshanam Adhyasam

Avidya iti panditaaH manyante, the Acharya is referring to Avidyaa-karyam as

what is adhyasa. This clarification is quite logical and has also been pointed

out by the Ratnaprabha vyakhyaanam for this portion. But why does the Acharya

call adhyasa by this name, Avidya? Let us consider this real-life example:

A teacher gives a test to the students. A boy gives all wrong answers. The

teacher reacts: This is sheer ignorance!! What have u been doing in the class

when the concept was being explained?

Thus to call avidya karyam as avidya is quite appropriate and this is what the

Ratnaprabha has also pointed out.

 

There is another difficulty, Bhaskar ji, in considering adhyasa and avidya as

synonymous. As we have seen above, adhyasa is vyakta avastha, whereas as per

your earlier explanation,'there is a feeling that it is a snake..etc' there is

already mind activity. Whereas, non-apprehension, the Prajna avastha, is

avyakta avastha, also called avaakrta avastha., the state prior to the

manifestation of nama-rupa. So, for this reason also the two are not the same.

 

To conclude, on the lines of the method shown by Sri Vidyaranya swami in the

Panchadasi 6th chapter, we can 'run' the concept of Adhyasa through a certain

process with a view to know about it comprehensively. He says, by considering

the hetu=cause, svaruupam=nature and kaaryam=effect of a thing on hand, we can

know about it clearly:

 

The hetu, cause of adhyasa is : Avidya , ignorance, avivekena… as the

Adhyasabhashyam itself says.

The svarupam, nature of adhyasa is: Atasmin tad buddhiH; anyathaa grahanam,

misapprehension.

The karyam, effect of adhyasa: All the undesirable results it leads to

mentioned by the word: anartha by the adhyasabhashyam itself at the end:

anarthahetoH. Anartha is the effect and its hetu is adhyasa and its hetu in

turn is avidya.

 

Bhaskarji, all through the discussion, I imagined as though both of us were

sitting in a class when the Acharya had gone out for a short break .

 

Pranams.

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less