Avidya and Adhyasa Reply to Rishiji

[Guest guest]

Ref: Digest No. 2748 (Msg.No.21) dt 4 Jan 2006

 

Namaste Rishi ji:

 

 

 

That's an excellent justification for vichara on the avidya-related terminology.

You have put forward two positions that look as though they are two different

positions. Let us examine the correctness of such a perception:

 

RishiH uvaacha: The Rishi said:

 

I will try to explain how the different positions on avidya, adhyasa,

 

etc... make a big difference on a practical level.

 

 

 

Position 1.If one thinks of avidya as an anirvachaniya power that is neither

the same nor different from Brahman but veils Brahman, then one's understanding

of the world is that it is a product of this universal, mysterious avidya

shakti. Its an illusion created by this bhava-rupa avidya. If a problematic

desire arrises, you can perhaps look at the object of desire as an illusion

created by this avidya.

 

 

 

Reply:

 

Regarding position no.1 where the world is seen as a product of Avidya, it looks

as though (even though you have not said that or perhaps not even meant it) the

aspirant won't/can't do anything about the problematic desire apart from merely

looking at the object of desire as an illusion created by avidya. It may seem

that the aspirant puts the onus on the 'not-I' avidya and that is the end of it.

But see what Bhagavan teaches:

 

 

 

PrakRteH kriyamanaani gunaiH karmaani sarvashaH |

 

Ahankara-vimudhaatma karta aham iti manyate || Gita 3rd. 27

 

(Actions are brought about in all cases by the energies of Nature. He whose

mind is deluded by egoism thinks 'I am the doer')

 

The Commentary: Nature: Prakriti…..It is by the gunas or the modifications of

Nature, manifesting themselves as the body and the senses that all our actions,

conducive to temporal and spiritual ends, are done…..one who identifies himself

with the body etc….thinks: I am the doer.

 

Tattva-vit tu mahabaho gunakarmavibhagayoH |

 

GunaaH guneshu vartante iti matvaa na sajjate || 28

 

He who is versed in the classification of the gunas and their respective

functions holds that the energies as sense-organs move amid the gunas as

sense-objects but not the self. Thus holding, he forms no attachment for

actions.

 

After giving out the actual state of things, He goes on to give out the vital

teaching, relevant to our discussion:

 

SadRsham cheshtate svasyaaH PrakRterjnaanavaanapi |

 

PrakRtim yaanti bhuutaani nigrahaH kim karishyati || 33

 

Even the man of knowledge acts according to his own nature; it needs no saying

that an ignorant man acts according to his own nature…What shall coercion in the

shape of prohibition avail…nature is irresistible.

 

 

 

At this juncture Shankara intervenes and raises an objection:

 

If every being acts according to its own nature only - and there is none that

has no nature of its own - then, there being possibly no scope for PERSONAL

EXERTION (purusha-kaara or purushaprayatna), the Teaching (saastra) would be

quite purposeless.

 

 

 

Shankara introduces the next verse as a reply to this above objection:

 

 

 

Indriyasyendriyaarthe raga-dveshau vyavasthitau |

 

Tayor-na vasham aagachhet tau hyasya paripanthinau || 34

 

Commentary:

 

As regards all sense-objects such as sounds, there necessarily arises in each

sense love for an agreeable object, and aversion for a disagreeable object. Now

I shall tell you where lies the scope for personal exertion and for the

Teaching. He who would follow the Teaching should at the very commencement rise

above the sway of affection and aversion. For what we speak of nature

(prakriti) of a person draws him to its course only through love and aversion.

He then neglects his own duties and sets about doing those of others. When on

the other hand, a person restrains these feelings by means of their enemy –

viveka jnana is the enemy, for it is inimical to mithya jnana, the source of

affection and aversion – then he will become mindful of the Teaching only, no

longer subject to his own nature. Wherefore, let none come under the sway of

these two; for they are his adversaries, obstacles to his progress in the right

path, like thieves on the road.

 

 

 

 

 

Rishiji:

 

Position No.2: If on the other hand, one thinks of the world as an illusion that

one has personally superimposed upon Brahman, the way of looking at things

changes somewhat. It is no longer a mysterious universal ignorance that has

produced this and that, but it is the individual who creates things of the world

whereas really there is only Brahman devoid of absolutely everything.

 

 

 

The realist positions would look at things completely differently

 

since the world can be directly seen as Brahman, with only the

 

seperation from Brahman being unreal. The position I was taught is

 

similar since it holds that there are no things but only

 

cognition/knowledge and this is essentially Brahman.

 

 

 

Reply:

 

In the Manishapanchakam, the second verse reflects the 2nd position:

 

 

 

Brahmaiva Aham, idam jagat cha sakalam chinmaatra-vistaaritam

 

Sarvam chaitad-avidyayaa trigunayaa sesham mayaa kalpitam…..

 

Meaning: I am Brahman. This entire universe is none other than Brahman. All

this is imagined by me through the avidya made of three gunas.

 

 

 

Now the question: If you say that one has personally superimposed on Brahman

the objective world, why was the problematic desire also superimposed? Would

anybody willingly create problems for himself? So, the element of ignorance has

to be admitted as shown in the above verse. Whether through the front door or

through the back door, avidya does make an entry and it has to be countered.

The method of countering the problematic desire has to be the same in both

cases.

 

 

 

AT the cosmic level, Bhagavan says: Mayaa adhyakshena PrakRtiH suuyate

sa-chara-acharam (Gita 9th. 10) By Me presiding, PrakRti produces the universe

comprising the moving and unmoving objects. Shankara specifies: My Maaya,

trigunaatmikaa avidyaalakshanaa prakRtiH….

 

And in the 13th Ch. PurushaH PrakRtistho hi Bhunkte prakRtijaan Gunaan..(21).

Shankara comments: Because Purusha, the experiencer, is seated in PrakRti, in

avidya or nescience….because he identifies himself with the body and senses

which are emanations of PrakRiti..

 

 

 

Thus it can be seen that wherever creation is spoken of, the Gita and Shankara

bring in the element of Avidya.

 

 

 

TAILPIECE, JUST TO SMILE !!

 

When I was thinking of the so many many places both in the Gita and other

scriptures and Shankara's own works like Sridakshinamurti stotram,

vivekachudamani, etc.etc. where the mention of the creating power Avidya occurs,

it would be no wonder if soon we are informed that the Gitaacharya,

Vyasaachaarya and the Shankara of the prakaranagranthas - all must be

post-Shankaran for none of them has understood Shankara correctly!!

 

 

 

Warmest Regards

 

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian-ji,

 

Refer your post 29694

 

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

> TAILPIECE, JUST TO SMILE !!

>

> When I was thinking of the so many many places both in the

> Gita and other scriptures and Shankara's own works like

> Sridakshinamurti stotram, vivekachudamani, etc.etc. where

> the mention of the creating power Avidya occurs, it would

> be no wonder if soon we are informed that the Gitaacharya,

> Vyasaachaarya and the Shankara of the prakaranagranthas -

> all must be post-Shankaran for none of them has understood

> Shankara correctly!!

 

 

I am herewith solemnly declaring that I am not holding the

Gitaacharya, Vyasaachaarya and the Shankaracharya of the

prakaranagranthas to be post-Shankarans. Now with your permission

(which I shall take the liberty of assuming that you have given me) I

shall proceed to not only smile but also to say a few words with

regards to what you have said.

 

To begin the tale, I shall have to tell you that after having read

the tailpiece attached to your post I found myself in a situation

where I was smiling more widely than you might have expected that

anyone here will do. To tell you the truth truthfully my smile smiled

when I came to know about this creative power that avidya has now

come to have. Before anybody here may rush to conclude otherwise I am

making haste to point out that what I am saying here has nothing to

do with the World Teacher Shankara while it has much to do with the

amazement that I felt when discovering that the nature of avidya has

now undergone a change to give it a creative power whereby it is now

transformed from the obscuring and destructive no-thing that it once

was into becoming something immensely more wonderful like a thing

that actively does creating. That is why I smiled.

 

I had always thought before now that it was in the nature of vidya to

make it possible to create and in the nature of avidya to make it

possible to obscure and make things go awry. I thought I knew that it

was through vidya and not through avidya that I had learnt how to

drive a car and how to make an airplane. I also knew that by having

avidya with regard to the aforementioned arts and sciences, I could

neither drive a car nor build an airplane though I could very well

have the result of the car being banged into something that I had not

intended to bang, or to have a jumbled piece of many things that

together could neither fly nor do anything else of use to me. But

what I knew then is now in doubt after you have presented your post

to us.

 

What do I create when I am in sleep is a question for which I

find 'no thing' as an answer.

 

I do not also understand the mystery of how this thing you call

vikshepa comes to be posterior to this thing that you call avarana. I

with all sincerity beg you to enlighten me on how this is so. I have

always been thinking that once vikshepa is there, the viksheped thing

could be mistaken or obscured, but I am even now unable to think how

mistaking no thing at all can come to be. It would then be a case of

there being no mistake since no thing is mistaken. But I am now

puzzled in my mind because you said in your post that the mistake is

there before any thing is there to be mistaken. Again, as I have said

earlier hereinabove, all this that I say has nothing to do with what

Advaita Vedanta is, but I feel that it has something to do with being

dressed or undressed properly for attending the entrance test that

the World Teacher has introduced for seeking admission to the course

called brahma-jignasa in which Advaita is established by being

revealed instead of by being taught. Without passing this entrance

test I feel that it may not be possible to make the many pieces of

the jig-saw puzzle that is given in the class to be assembled into

their proper places so that the puzzle gets solved.

 

Thank you for giving me your ears.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan