Draft Version 3.

0 (Total document; mantra-s not transliterated) – Mar

2014:

MUlAvidya vimarshe (A Critique of Root Ignorance)

Representatives of AdhyAtma Prakasha Karyalaya located in Holenarsipur
have been propagating their objections over the last about fifty years to the mUlAvidya
which has been accepted by the traditional vedanta sidhanta sampradaya. In this regard
the traditionalists have published several treatises (grantha-s) in support of their views.
In spite of this, the said representatives have continued to argue out their case over and
over again. It is recognized that such continued vAda/counter-vAda in this regard may
not lead to any conclusion. Therefore, with the good intention of arriving at a possible
conclusion/convergence in this regard a joint meeting of the representatives from both
sides was organized on 24/25 February 1976 at Sri Sringeri Shankar Mutt, Bangalore in
the holy presence of the two Jagadgurus of Shringeri Sharada Peetham.

The traditional view was presented by Ved Br Sri V S Ramachandra Shastri

and Ved Br Sri Krishna Jois. Ved Br Sri S Vithala Shastri ( honored with Vedanta
Shiromani etc titles ) represented the AdhyAtma Prakasha Karyalaya. Scholars Ved Br
Sri Patanakara Chandrashekhara Bhat, Hosakere Anantha Murthy , B Rama Bhat and
kavi Narasimha Bhat moderated the discussions.

The first issue taken up for the debate was: Is the view that bhAvarUpa
mUlAvidya is the cause for samsAra consistent with Sri Bhagavatpada sidhAnta or not.

It was agreed by all the discussants that no scriptural texts other than Sri
Bhagavatpada's prasthAnatraya bhAShya and Sri Sureswaracharya’s vArtika would be
admitted as valid pramaNa-s. With this understanding, the debate commenced.

Traditional view is designated as " paksha " and AdhyAtma Prakasha view is
denoted as " vipaksha " hereunder.

Paksha :: bhAvarUpa mUlAvidya as the root cause (mUla kAraNa in original)

for all samsAra is consistent with vedAnta sidhAnta based on pramANa-s.
 Vipaksha :: << evamlakshanamadhyAsam panditah avidyeti manyante >> as
appearing in the adhyAsa bhAShya of Sri Bhagavatpada, mutual adhyAsa between
Atma and anAtma has been termed "avidya" and it has been unambiguously declared
as the root cause (mUla kAraNa in original) for all mundane (laukika) and vaidika
vyavahara-s. As the cause (kAraNa in original) even for this, postulating mUlAvidya as
another kAraNa vastu is bhAShya virudha.

Paksha :: Which is this Atma/anAtma adhyAsa ?

Vipaksha :: It is shown as " ahamidam, mamedam " in the bhAShya itself.

Paksha :: Alright. which is this "idam" in this ?

Vipaksha :: Meaning of the word "idam" is sharIra. But as no one has the
experience as "aham sharIram " , it is understood that "aham manushyah, karta,
bhokta” is the form of adhyAsa.

Paksha :: Alright. The bhAShya terms this adhyAsa as "anAdyananta." Will

adhyAsa-s of the type "aham manushyah" etc. be "anAdyananta" ?

Vipaksha :: It is not possible to term adhyAsa-s like "manushyah, karta ,

bhokta" as anAdyananta. But the root (mUla in original ) for these , the first "aham"
adhyAsa is anAdyananta.

Paksha :: If it is said "aham adhyAsa is the first one", then how can it be
termed anAdi ? Also as this ahamadhyAsa is absent in sushupti, how to term it
"anAdyananta" ?

Vipaksha :: This has been called "naisargika" in the bhAShya. Therefore, while
not being kAryarUpa, it is the root (mUla in original) adhyAsa. No other (separate)
cause (kAraNa) has been stated for this in the bhAShya.

Paksha :: << itaretarAvivekena adhyasta , mithunikritya vyavaharah >> For

adhyAsa vyavahara-s like "aham manushyah" etc., is not itaretarAviveka stated as the
cause (kAraNa in original) in the bhAShya ? Since the words adhyasta , mithunikritya
have the same meaning of adhyAsa , it is understood from this that subsequent
adhyAsa is born from the previous adhyAsa , and also it is stated in IkshathyadhikaraNa
bhAShya << dehadisanghate anAtmani Atmatvabhiniveshah mithyabudhimatrena
pUrvapUrvena >> .

From this, it is quite clear that uttarottara adhyAsa-s spring from pUrvapUrva
adhyAsa-s. This adhyAsa parampara which is of kAryarUpa is anAdyananta. This only
is called "pravahatah anadi" . Since without kAraNa, kArya cannot be originated, for all
these adhyAsa-s of the nature of kArya, a kAraNa must necessarily be accepted. This is
termed "mUlAvidya." Since agrahaNa, samshaya , viparyaya which are of tAmasa
pratyarUpa being also of the nature of kArya , they cannot be mUlakAraNa. From words
like aviveka, agrahaNa, ajnAna meaning of abhavarUpa cannot be accepted; because
can it ever be said that samshaya,viparyaya, knowledge like "aham manushya" is of the
nature of abhAva ? It is conclusive that mUlAvidya which is the kAraNa for these which
are of bhAvarUpa should also be of bhAvarUpa only.

Vipaksha :: If it is contended that bhavarUpa mUlAvidya is the kAraNa for

adhyAsa, then it follows that this mUlAvidya is not adhyastha, which then cannot be
negated by tatvajnAna , hence leading to dvaita as also anirmoksha. jnAna can only
reveal the true nature of a vastu, it is not capable of creating or destroying any vastu. Is
it not?

Paksha :: Not examining the vedanta sidhanta properly leads to this type of
doubt. << brahmaikameva paramartha satyam >> is a very famous vedanta sidhanta ,
whatever differs from this ( bhinna ) is not real. Therefore, even though mUlAvidya is
bhAvarUpa, since it is still unreal, there is no contra-evidence (anupapatti in original) for
its negation (nivarta in original) by tatvajnAna.

Avastava, kalpita, Aropita, adhyasta, mayika, Avidyaka are all synonymous terms.

Is the avidya you are referring to as adhyAsa, adhyasta or not ? If it is not

adhyasta, then dvaita/anirmoksha becomes inevitable (aparihArya in original). If it is
adhyasta, then a cause has to be postulated for it. The same question will then arise
with respect to that cause also leading to anirmoksha or anavastha dosha. If “adhyAsa“
itself is considered as of adhyasta svarUpa, then the same answer can be advanced
in respect of mUlAvidya also.

All kArya kAraNa bhAva-s are vyavahAric and hence aparamartha only.
There is this bhAShya sentence << paramarthAvasthayum kuta eva vA srishtih ? ;
grihitetyatvAtmaikatve sarvavyavahara parisamaptirevasyat >>. In the vyavahAric
state, since kArya and kAraNa have the same status, for kAryadhyAsa-s which are of
bhAvarUpa, bhAvarUpa adhyAsa also called mUlAvidya is thus established.

Also in the bhAShya << smritirUpah paratra purvadrushtavabhasah >> meant

to define adhyAsa lakshaNa, it is stated that all avabhAsa-s of the nature of adhyAsa
are born out of materials like samskara-s of past experiences etc., just like in memory.
Hence it is made clear that all these belong to kAryarUpa adhyAsa parampara.
Otherwise how is it possible to harmonize (samanvaya in original) the visheshaNa
“mithyajnana nimittah“ ?

Vipaksha :: From the term “mithyajnana nimittah“ it is understood that

adhyAsa is self-produced (sanimittaka in original , please let me know if translation is
correct ), it is the ground (nimitta in original, please confirm if translation is correct ) . It is
not necessary to consider it as the kAraNa for adhyAsa.

Paksha :: Do not the words “nimitta “ “kAraNa“ being synonymous have the
same meaning ? While being so, it is not proper to say “only nimitta, not kAraNa“. Also
both nimitta karaNatva and upAdana kAraNatva are implied (vivakshita) here.
mithyAjnana is nimitta kAraNa for adhyAsarUpa kArya in the form of dosha ( as in
original. Please let me know the correct translation) ; since it is available in the kArya
also (svarUpanvaya in original) it serves as the upAdana kAraNa too. The inert quality
(jAdya dharma in original) available in the kAraNa is noticed (anvaya in original) in the
kArya.

Vipaksha :: Since adhyAsa does not depend upon (apeksha in original) any
upAdana kAraNa, why is it necessary to advance mUlAvidya as its kAraNa ?

Paksha :: << adhyAsashcha vina hetum na loka upapadyate >> this sloka
from Sri Sureswaracharya’s vArtika states that adhyAsa is dependent on a kAraNa
(karanapeksha in original). Also In the vArtika << asya
dvaitendrajalasyayadupadanakaranam /// ajnanam tadupashritya brahma
karanamuchyate >> it is clearly specified that ajnAna is the upAdAnakAraNa for
dvaitadhyAsa. Here if ajnana is considered as of abhAvarUpa like jnanAbhAva /
agrahaNa, how to substantiate it as upAdAna kAraNa ? Is not upAdAna kAraNa of the
same type of kAraNa (anvayi kAraNa in original. Let me know if translation is correct).
Is abhAva understood (anvita in original) in all dvaita prapancha ? Also do we not have
the bhAShya << abhavadbhavotpattiriti sarvapramANa vyakopah >>.

Note ;; Vipakasha representatives were not able to answer this satisfactorily.

***************
Part – 2

Paksha :: That bhAvarUpa mUlAvidya is beginningless and is the material

cause for all dualistic creation is unambiguously stated in the sUtra bhAShya . The
bhAShya for the sUtra << tadadhinatvAdarthavat >> is as follows. <<
parameswaradhinAtviyamasmabhih …………. , tatvAnyatvanirupanasya >> ( blanks to
be filled in from the bhAShya itself ) . In the sidhAnta which has accepted satkArya
vAda, causal state of the effect is considered as its prAgavastha. In the above
bhAShya, it is explained that the prAgavastha of Creation ( kAraNa) is under the control
of Iswara and since without this Creator status is not possible for parameshwara, it is
the “ shaktirUpa “ of parameswara. With this, it is established that this prAgavastha is
the material cause of Creation and also is of bhAvarUpa.This alone is also stated to be
the seed power ( bIjashakti) responsible for samsAra bandha. It is also explained that
this seed power is of the nature ( swarUpa ) of avidya, is avyakta, mAyAmaya,
mahAsuShupti, and cover of their swarUpa for samsArin-s. It is also stated that this
alone is referred to in shruti-s as AkAsha, akshara, mAyA etc. Is any other pramANa
needed for proving mUlAvidya as consistent with the bhAShya ?

bhavarUpa mUlAvidya responsible for Creation is consistent with vArtika

also. << paroaviveko bhoothanA mAtmAvidyeti bhanyate ; atmAvidyaiva nah shaktih
sarvashakyasya sarjane >> . In this vArtika, atmAvidya is stated to be ajnAna (avivekah
in vArtika ) which is the cause ( parah in vArtika ) for all jIva-s ( sakala bhUta-s) ; and
also the Causal Power for entire Creation. Any number of verses can be adduced for
confirming that bhAvarUpa mUlAvidya which is the Root Cause for entire Creation is
consistent with bhAShya/vArtika. But following the sthalIpulAka nyAya since the current
issue is already established further elaboration is not necessary.

An analysis of the state of sushupti also leads to the establishment of this

mUlAvidya .

Vipaksha :: << satA sowmya tadA sampannobhavati >> From this shruti,
it is understood that “ In sushupti jIva is sampanna meaning he attains the state of
Oneness ( ekIbhAva) because of non-differentiation ( abheda ). In that state no one has
experience of any type of duality. Here it is not possible to accept the existence of either
avidya or adhyAsa apart from Atman.

Paksha :: In sushupti if anything responsible for samsAra does not exist ,

then how one who has established Oneness with brahman again wakes up and gets
entangled in samsAra ? Alternatively, if entanglement is possible without any cause,
then it is possible for a mukta also to get entangled in samsAra , leading to anirmoksha
situation ( prasanga ).

Vipaksha :: Not so. Even though satsampatti ( correct translation ??? ) is

obtained in sushupti, since this satsampatti has been achieved without getting rid of the
avidya/adhyAsa called mithyAjnAna, there is provision for again getting into waking
state. Since a mukta is rid of avidya due to tatvajnAna, he does not get into samsAra
again.

Paksha :: As per the bhAShya << nahi jIvasya kadAchitsatsampattirnAsti

>> jIva is essentially always satsampanna, not just in sushupti. From verses like <<
pragnah kAranabadhah , sati sampadya na viduh >> , it is understood that even in
sushupti, ajnAna which is the cause for bandha does exist.

Vipaksha :: These verses are not meant to conclude that seed power
exists in sushupti. On the other hand they are pointing out that there is no purpose
served in attaining satsampatti without getting rid of mithyAjnAna, these verses convey
that it is essential to attain tatvajnAna.
 Paksha :: Has this opinion been expressed anywhere in shruti or bhAShya
or kArika or vArtika ? This is purely one’s own imagination ( swakapola kalpita ) . In the
bhAShya << sushuptAvasthAyAm upAdhikrutavisheshAbhAvAt svAtmani praline iva _ iti
_ ‘ svam hyapitho bhavati ‘ _ ityuchyate >> it is made clear by the term “ iva “ that in
sushupti jIva does not have Oneness with mukhya brahman as in the state of mukti. In
the Gaudapada kArika also it is clear that prajna who has attained the state of sushupti
is bound by this causal avidya << prajnah kArana badhah >> .

Anticipating the doubt that if in sushupti jIva really ( vastutah ) attains

identity with brahman then the same jIva cannot return to the waking state just as the
same drop of water cannot be recovered once it is dropped into an ocean of water the
bhAShya << yuktam tatra vivekakAranAbhAvat jalabindoranudharanam, iha tu _
vidyate vivekakAranak karma cha avidyA cha _ iti vaishamyam >> clearly states that
bondage causing karma and avidya exist in sushupti. But in this state since neither
karma nor avidya in the form of its effect adhyAsa is established by experience, it is
concluded that these are present in a subtle form. This subtle form is mUlAvidya.

Further, anticipating the doubt << yadi budhiguna sAratvAt Atmanah

samsaritvam kalpyeta, tatah budhiviyoge asamsAritvam prasajyeta >> meaning “ if it is
contended that Atma is bound by samsAra only when associated with budhi as upAdhi
not by itself then since there is no association with budhi during sushupti and praLaya
jIva does not have samsAra at that time “ , the bhAShya << neyam
doshapraptirAshankaniyA ! ka smAt? YAvAdAtmabhAvitvAdbudhi samyogasya
! yAvAdayamatmA samsareebhavati yavAdasya samyagdarshanena samsAritvam na
nivartate tAvAdasya budhyA samyogo na shyamati >> offers the answer ( samadhAna)
to this doubt. This bhAShya means that as long as Atman is a samsAri meaning as long
as samsAritva of Atman is not removed by Realization ( samyagdarshana ) till then he is
not rid of association with budhi. Even if it is conceded as opined by the pratipaksha that
in sushupti Atman has attained ( sampannah) Oneness with brahman, since they also
do not agree that samsAritvam is then got rid of through Realization
(samyagdarshana), it has to be accepted that association with budhi is not quietened
even during that time. Since this association with budhi is not experienced in a gross
form, it stands established that this is present in subtle form. This then is mUlAvidya.

**********
Part 3:

Anticipating that the vipakasha representatives could demand further proof

for clarifying this issue without any ambiguity, the bhAShya is cited to eliminate any
such ambiguity. << sushupta pralayoh na shakyate budhisambandhah Atmanah
abhyupagantum _ ‘ sata somya tadA sampanno bhavati svamapito bhavati ‘ _ iti
vachanat I tatkatham yAvAdAtmabhAvitvam budhi sambandhasya ? >>. The doubt is
<< since there is shruti statement that Atman attains oneness with brahman who is his
swarUpa during sushupti and praLaya , how is it consistent with the claim that as long
as Atman exists he continues to have association with budhi ? >> . The bhAShya which
resolves this doubt is as follows. << yatha loke pumstvAdeeni bijAtmanA
vidyamAnAnyeva bAlyadishu, anupalabhyamAnAni, avidyamAnavAdabhipreyamAnAni,
YauvanAdishthAavirbhavanti ; NAvidyamAnAnyutpadyante, shandAdeenAmapi
tadutpattiprasangAt ; evamayamapi budhi sambandhah, shaktyAtmanAvidyamAna eva
sushupta pralayoh, prabhodha prasavayorAvirbhavati >> Meaning << The same virility
etc ( pumstvadi ) which are not noticeable during boyhood etc, which appear to be
nonexistent at that time , but which were existing in seed form then get revealed at the
time of youth etc ; something nonexistent does not get created. Otherwise it would
mean that even eunuchs can get manliness ( pumstva) at the time of youth. Similarly,
the same association with budhi which is existing in a potential form ( shaktirUpa )
during sushupti and praLaya reappear during waking and sRRiShTi times. >> . This
potential ( shakti rUpa ) only is mUlAvidya or mAya prakRRiti. Accordingly in this
manner mUlAvidya is proclaimed unambiguously in the bhAShya.

Vipaksha :: There are bhAShya statements which mean that that in

sushupt,i jIva attains Realization ( mukhya brahmasampatti ) . If it is contended that
there is avidya during this time, then it would be opposed to these bhAShya statements.

Paksha :: Have not bhAShya statements been presented which show

that avidya which is the cause for samsAra is present during sushupti ? The following
bhAShya also can be considered << mithyAjnananimittashcha bandhah, na
samyajnAnAdrute visramsitumarhati I tasmAt, tatprakrutitvepi , sushuptipralayavat,
beejabhAvAvasheshaivaishA satsampattih I >> . It is stated here that during sushupti
and praLaya mUlAvidya continues to remain in seed form.

Apart from this, jIvanmukti has been accepted in sidhAnta. If jIvanmukti is

not accepted, brahmavidyA sampradAya ( traditional teaching of Self-Knowledge ) will
only be an ignorant tradition ( ajnAparampara) . It will also be opposed to the Gita
statement << upadekshyanti te jnanam jnaninastatvAdarshinah >> . That in jIvanmukti
state even though mithyAjnAna is negated ( bAdhita ) by tatvajnAna it continues to
remain ( anuvRRitta) in the form of samskAra is clearly propounded by this bhAShya <<
badhitamapi tu mithyAjnAnam samskAravashAtkanchitkAlamanuvartate eva >>.

Maintaining that for a tatvajnAni this is established experientially (

anubhavasidha) ; and hence cannot be disagreed using arguments like << how can
there be ajnAna when jnAna has arisen ? When there is ajnAna how can it be said that
there is jnAna ? >> Sri Bhagavatpada has unambiguously declared <<
apicha_naivatra vivaditavyam_’brahmavidA kanchitkAlam shariram dhreeyate nadA I
dhreeyate’_itiI katham hyekasya svahrudayapratyayam brahmavedanam
dehadharanam cha parena pratiksheptum shakyeta ? I >>
 Considering that _ 1. it is stated in Gita <<jnAnena tu tadajnAnam
yeshAm nAshitamAtmanah >> meaning << jnAna arises and then it destroys ajnAna
>> ; 2. It is stated that in jIvanmukti even after the rise of jnAna till the extinction of
prArabhdha karma ajnAna continues ( anuvRRitta ) ; It is clear that this ajnAna which is
the cause for samsAra is of bhAvarUpa ( really existing ) only and not abhAvarUpa
(really non- existing ) as contended by the Vipaksha. If ajnAna is considered as
absence ( abhAva ) of jnAna, then it can never exist after the rise of jnAna.

Accordingly, It was quite clear that mUlAvidya, which is the root cause for
samsAra, which has been accepted by the entire community of vidwan-s, is fully
consistent with the bhAShya/vArtika works accepted by the vipaksha as pramANa.
Then, the representatives of vipaksha agreed to the same without raising any further
objections.