*** Go to Part 3 ***
Dennis: But surely adhyāsa is the result of lack of knowledge and there is no need to postulate an existent entity called ‘ignorance. When we encounter a coiled rope on the dark path in the jungle ahead, we do not see it clearly (lack of knowledge). It is a natural tendency of the mind to try to make sense of partial perception, and self-preservation would warn us to be wary of snakes. There is no justification at all to start proposing āvaraṇa and vikṣepa powers of an imaginary thing called ‘ignorance’.
AI: Your argument is compelling and aligns with a more minimalist, practical understanding of Advaita Vedanta, focusing on **epistemology** rather than invoking metaphysical constructs. Let’s analyze your perspective and how it interacts with Śaṅkara’s framework.
1. Adhyāsa as the Result of Lack of Knowledge
You are entirely correct that **adhyāsa (superimposition)** can be explained as a natural consequence of incomplete or unclear perception (**lack of knowledge**). For example:
– In the rope-snake analogy, the misapprehension of the rope as a snake arises from:
1. Inadequate perception of the rope (a partial, unclear perception due to dim light).
2. The mind’s natural tendency to project a plausible explanation (snake) based on prior conditioning and instincts (like self-preservation).
This explanation does not require positing an independent **”ignorance”** with veiling (āvaraṇa) and projecting (vikṣepa) powers. Instead, the process can be understood as:
– **Epistemological:** A gap or lack in clear perception (*ajñāna* or *jñāna-abhāva*).
– **Psychological:** The mind’s tendency to project based on incomplete data and habitual tendencies.
—
2. Śaṅkara’s View: Why Does He Invoke Ignorance?
Śaṅkara, in his *adhyāsa bhāṣya* (introduction to the *Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya*), explicitly describes **adhyāsa** as a universal phenomenon arising from **avidyā**. However:
– He does not treat **avidyā** as a fully ontological entity but rather as an experiential reality (*mithyā*).
– His invocation of ignorance (avidyā) serves as a conceptual tool to explain why the non-Self (anātman) is mistakenly identified with the Self (ātman).
That said, your critique is valid: Śaṅkara himself does not go as far as later Advaita thinkers (like Padmapāda) who elaborate on **āvaraṇa (concealing)** and **vikṣepa (projecting)** powers of avidyā. Śaṅkara’s presentation remains closer to your simpler explanation in many respects.
—
3. The Problem with Āvaraṇa and Vikṣepa
Later Advaitins, especially in the Vivaraṇa tradition, introduce **āvaraṇa** (veiling) and **vikṣepa** (projecting) as functional attributes of **avidyā**. While these ideas help systematize ignorance’s role, they can feel like unnecessary metaphysical constructs, particularly when:
1. **Natural Processes Explain the Phenomenon:**
– Partial perception and mental projection (as in the rope-snake analogy) can be fully explained without invoking “powers” of ignorance.
– The mind’s natural tendency to fill gaps (a psychological process) suffices.
2. **Overcomplication without Utility:**
– Proposing additional metaphysical layers like veiling and projecting might obscure rather than clarify how ignorance operates.
—
4. Śaṅkara’s Simpler Framework
Śaṅkara’s explanation of **adhyāsa** can still accommodate your view:
– He states that the erroneous superimposition of the non-Self onto the Self arises from **a lack of direct knowledge of the Self** (*ātma-ajñāna*).
– This lack leads to misapprehension, which he describes as “anādi” (beginningless) but correctable through knowledge (*jñāna*).
– Śaṅkara does not explicitly ascribe independent powers (āvaraṇa/vikṣepa) to ignorance in his core texts. These elaborations were likely added to address polemical concerns raised by critics of Advaita, especially during later scholastic developments.
—
5. Your View: A Minimalist Alternative
Your approach—treating ignorance as a **lack of knowledge** without ontological baggage—works well if:
1. **Adhyāsa Is Seen as Natural:**
– Misapprehension arises naturally from incomplete or unclear perception.
2. **Knowledge Is the Solution:**
– Direct realization (*aparokṣa-jñāna*) removes this misapprehension without needing to “destroy” ignorance as a separate entity.
—
6. Justification for Simplicity
1. **Unnecessary Hypotheses:**
– Invoking veiling/projecting powers of ignorance seems unnecessary when the mind’s natural tendencies and incomplete perception suffice to explain the phenomenon.
2. **Śaṅkara’s Own Texts Support Simplicity:**
– Śaṅkara’s language in foundational texts like the *Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya* does not demand these later elaborations. Instead, he focuses on how knowledge of the Self removes the mistaken superimposition.
—
Conclusion: Are Āvaraṇa and Vikṣepa Necessary?
From your perspective, and even from a reading of Śaṅkara’s core works, there is no strict need to posit metaphysical powers of ignorance. Instead:
– **Ignorance (avidyā)** can be understood as a convenient term for describing the **lack of direct knowledge** of the Self.
– **Adhyāsa** can be explained by natural epistemological and psychological processes, without metaphysical constructs like āvaraṇa and vikṣepa.
Your critique aligns with a simpler and potentially more faithful interpretation of Śaṅkara’s original Advaita Vedanta while avoiding over-systematization introduced by later scholasticism.
Dennis: Is it not the case that Śaṅkara’s explanation for the rope-snake problem and for mistaking the Self to be the body-mind is adhyāsa? And adhyāsa is explained as sadasadvilakṣaṇa or ‘mixing up’ real and mithyā. So what you are claiming is that it is an existent entity, avidyā, that ‘causes’ adhyāsa. Is it not perfectly reasonable to say rather that it is a ‘lack of knowledge’ that triggers the adhyāsa? Why do we have to postulate some new entity that no one actually experiences? Surely it is ‘not knowing that it is a snake’ that causes the mind to imagine a snake? And ‘not knowing that I am Brahman’ that causes the mind to conclude that I am the body-mind?
[Note that I put this question without having adequately studied the earlier responses and consequently there is some repetition in the answer!]
AI: Your argument is well-reasoned and aligns with a simplified, epistemologically grounded understanding of Śaṅkara’s Advaita. Let’s critically assess whether Śaṅkara’s explanation of **adhyāsa** (superimposition) requires postulating an entity like **avidyā**, or whether it can be more reasonably explained as a mere **lack of knowledge** (*jñāna-abhāva*).
—
1. Adhyāsa in Śaṅkara’s Framework
Śaṅkara indeed identifies **adhyāsa** as the fundamental problem in his *adhyāsa bhāṣya* (introduction to the *Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya*). Here’s how he explains it:
– **Definition of Adhyāsa:**
Adhyāsa is the mistaken superimposition of one thing onto another, such as the rope mistaken for a snake. It is the conflation of the **real (sat)** with the **unreal (mithyā)**.
– **Adhyāsa and the Self:**
The individual mistakenly identifies the Self (ātman) with the non-Self (anātman), such as the body, mind, and ego, due to this superimposition.
Key point: Śaṅkara does not explicitly describe **avidyā** in his *adhyāsa bhāṣya* as a metaphysical entity. Instead, he treats it as the **reason or cause** for superimposition.
—
2. Can Lack of Knowledge Explain Adhyāsa?
Your suggestion that adhyāsa is simply triggered by a **lack of knowledge** (*jñāna-abhāva*) rather than an existent entity called **avidyā** is indeed reasonable:
1. **The Rope-Snake Analogy:**
– The error occurs because one **does not know** the object is a rope. This absence of knowledge (*ajñāna*) leads the mind to project a snake, based on prior conditioning and partial perception.
– The error does not require an independent, positive force like avidyā. Instead, it arises naturally as the mind tries to make sense of incomplete information.
2. **The Self and the Body-Mind:**
– Similarly, “not knowing that I am Brahman” (absence of self-knowledge) leads the mind to identify with the body, mind, or ego. This process can be explained as:
– A **lack of knowledge** about the Self.
– The natural tendency of the mind to identify with the apparent or visible (the body-mind).
—
3. Why Does Śaṅkara Postulate Avidyā?
Śaṅkara introduces **avidyā** as the cause of adhyāsa, but the way he describes it aligns closely with your view of a lack of knowledge:
– **Avidyā as Mithyā:**
Śaṅkara explicitly states that avidyā is **mithyā**—neither absolutely real (*sat*) nor absolutely unreal (*asat*). It exists only as long as knowledge (*jñāna*) is absent. This aligns with the idea that avidyā is not an ontological entity but a conceptual tool to explain the phenomenon.
– **Experiential Reality of Adhyāsa:**
Śaṅkara emphasizes that adhyāsa is experientially real (we experience “I am this body”), even though it is ultimately false. The term **avidyā** encapsulates this mix of **lack of knowledge** and **misapprehension**.
In this sense, Śaṅkara’s avidyā might not differ much from your proposed **lack of knowledge**, except in how it is framed for teaching purposes.
—
4. Post-Śaṅkara Complications
The later elaborations on **avidyā** introduce metaphysical constructs like:
– **Āvaraṇa (veiling):** The power of ignorance to conceal the truth.
– **Vikṣepa (projection):** The power of ignorance to create false appearances.
These developments make avidyā sound like an independent entity with powers, leading to the kind of ontological overreach you’re critiquing. However:
– Śaṅkara’s original teachings do not explicitly describe these “powers.”
– Your critique applies more to these later scholastic developments than to Śaṅkara’s foundational view.
—
5. The Practical Perspective
– **In the Rope-Snake Example:**
The error is explained perfectly by incomplete knowledge (not knowing it’s a rope) combined with mental projection (conditioning to imagine a snake). There is no need to posit an additional “veiling power.”
– **In the Case of the Self:**
The error arises because one does not know the Self directly. This lack of knowledge leads to identification with the body and mind. Again, no independent entity called avidyā is necessary.
—
6. Śaṅkara and Your Perspective
It’s reasonable to interpret Śaṅkara’s **avidyā** as a conceptual shorthand for describing the absence of knowledge and its consequences, rather than a metaphysical “thing” causing adhyāsa:
– Śaṅkara would likely agree that **not knowing the Self** is the root of the problem.
– The term **avidyā** is pedagogical, not ontological. It helps explain the experiential nature of bondage without requiring it to be a tangible entity.
—
Conclusion
Your critique—that adhyāsa arises from **lack of knowledge** rather than a metaphysical entity called avidyā—is entirely defensible, especially when read in the light of Śaṅkara’s original texts. Śaṅkara’s **avidyā** can be understood as a teaching tool to address the phenomenon of mistaken identity rather than as a separate, existing cause.
The additional postulation of **āvaraṇa** and **vikṣepa** by later Advaitins complicates matters unnecessarily and goes beyond Śaṅkara’s minimalist, epistemological framework. Your interpretation aligns with Śaṅkara’s simpler, direct approach and avoids ontological inflation.
*** Go to Part 5 ***