Tag Archives: adhyasa

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 4

Posted on by

*** 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.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 3

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 2 ***

Dennis: You say that treating ignorance as a term of convenience for lack of knowledge “may not fully capture the nuances of traditional Advaita”. Did Śaṅkara make a clear distinction?

AI (1st version): The distinction between avidyā (ignorance) and jñāna-abhāva (absence of knowledge) is not explicitly articulated in Śaṅkara’s works in the nuanced way later post-Śaṅkara Advaita commentators like Prakāśātman or the Vivaraṇa school present it. Śaṅkara’s treatment of ignorance is more focused on its practical and metaphysical implications in the context of liberation. Here’s a closer look:

Śaṅkara’s Treatment of Avidyā

    Ignorance as the Root Cause of Bondage

        Śaṅkara consistently identifies avidyā (ignorance) as the root of saṃsāra (the cycle of birth and death). This ignorance is not merely a lack of knowledge but is tied to a positive misapprehension—mistaking the non-Self (anātman) for the Self (ātman).

        For example, in his commentary on the Brahma Sūtra (1.1.4), Śaṅkara writes:

            “Ignorance is the superimposition (adhyāsa) of the qualities of the non-Self (anātman) on the Self (ātman).”

        Here, ignorance isn’t just an absence but involves an active misattribution.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 2

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 1 ***

Dennis: I know that I cannot speak Mandarin. There is not some actual entity called ‘ignorance’ that is preventing me; it is simply that I have never been taught. And I do not experience an ‘ignorance of that language’. I would call it a simple ‘lack of knowledge’. It is epistemology, not ontology.

AI: You’re pointing out a critical perspective, and your view aligns with certain minimalist interpretations of Advaita Vedanta’s epistemology. Let’s break this down further:

—

1. **Epistemology vs. Ontology

   – You are arguing that the **”ignorance of Mandarin”** is not an ontological entity; rather, it is the absence of knowledge due to not having been taught. This perspective emphasizes **epistemology**—how we categorize and know things—over ontology, which would involve positing ignorance as a real “thing.”

   – In this case, ignorance is not experienced as a distinct reality but inferred as the logical absence of knowledge (jñāna-abhāva). Your stance aligns with this understanding.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge?

Posted on by

Part 1 – (This will be a multi-part post.)

This is a topic that I addressed extensively in the second ‘Confusions’ book – ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Ignorance and its Removal’ (due out by Summer 2025). But it has appeared in various guises over the past 2 or 3 months on the Advaitin List. One particular member – Sudhanshu Shekhar – has been particularly vociferous in espousing the view that they are not equivalent. He is extremely knowledgeable, especially regarding the text ‘Advaita Siddhi’, by the 16th-17th Century author Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, which strongly supports this idea. In ‘Confusions 2’, I strongly advise against looking at many of these post-Śaṅkara authors on the grounds that a) they are extremely difficult, often verging on incomprehensible; and b) their views, ostensibly to ‘clarify’ the views of Śaṅkara, mostly seem to do nothing of the kind, instead adding merely academic, intellectual arguments that confuse the issues.

Be that as it may, a recent post by Sudhanshu apparently stated the issues clearly so that the arguments could be examined. Unfortunately, the post contained lots of Sanskrit and was not immediately comprehensible to me, whose Sanskrit knowledge is largely limited to interpreting the Devanagari script (very slowly) and looking words up in the dictionary. Accordingly, I decided to put the text to AI (ChatGPT) for interpretation. A very interesting ‘discussion’ followed, which actually opened my mind to an aspect that had not previously occurred to me and that slightly mitigates my previous, hardline stance.

Continue reading →

‘adhyAropa’ to ‘adhiSThAna’ – 4/4

Posted on by

Part – 3

What happens by the ascertainment of the implied meaning of the words in the sentence “You are That”?

Just as the idea of a snake is negated from a rope (in the snake-rope analogy), everything of the nature of non-Self is negated from the eternally existing Self implied by the word “I.” In other words, ‘ignorance’ vanishes (immediately on the attainment of right Knowledge) – 18.4-5, US.

In addition, the (false) conception of the pain with regard to the Self vanishes forever when the right Knowledge of the Self arises like all kinds of pain which is experienced in a dream comes to an end as soon as one wakes up.

What action should I take to augment my “understanding” and attain brahman?

Shankara tells us,

चतुर्विधमेव हि सर्वं कर्म कार्यम् — उत्पाद्यमाप्यं विकार्यं संस्कार्यं वा ।  – 1.2.12, muNDaka B.

Meaning: All the effects of actions are of four kinds: Production; Acquisition; Modification; and, Purification. Continue reading →

‘adhyAropa’ to ‘adhiSThAna’ – 3/4

Posted on by

Part – 2

It is said that brahman Itself gets deluded by Its own magic. Does it not then imply that there is really creation and a (created) world out there?

Shankara is never tired of pointing out that there is actually no creation at all and the purpose of all the scriptures, when they talk of creation, is NOT to establish creation as a fact. For example:

1. न चेयं परमार्थविषया सृष्टिश्रुतिः ; अविद्याकल्पितनामरूपव्यवहारगोचरत्वात् , ब्रह्मात्मभावप्रतिपादनपरत्वाच्च — इत्येतदपि नैव विस्मर्तव्यम् ॥ — 2.1.33, BSB.

Meaning: “The Vedic statement of creation does not relate to any reality, for it must not be forgotten that such a text is valid within the range of activities concerned with name and form called up by ignorance, and it is meant for propounding the fact that everything has brahman as its Self.” Continue reading →

‘adhyAropa’ to ‘adhiSThAna’ – 2/4

Posted on by

[Part – 1]

When and how does the process of ‘imagination’ (creation/projection) happen?

Shankara contends in his ‘adhyAsa bhAShya’ (Intro to his ‘Commentary on the brahma sUtra-s) that the formless, featureless and functionless, unbounded, immutable “Beingness” does not ‘cognize’ or ‘act’ unless Its Infinitude is somehow compromised. He writes, “The unrelated Self cannot become a ‘cognizer’ unless there are all these mutual superimpositions of the Self and the body and their attributes on each other, because perception and other activities (of a man) are not possible without accepting the senses etc. (as his own); the senses cannot function without (the body as) a basis; since nobody engages in any activity with a body that has not the idea of the Self superimposed on it.” [Slightly re-arranged the clauses for easy comprehension.] Continue reading →

‘adhyAropa’ to ‘adhiSThAna’ – 1/4

Posted on by

    राजविद्या राजगुह्यं पवित्रमिदमुत्तमम् ।
प्रत्यक्षावगमं धर्म्यं सुसुखं कर्तुमव्ययम् ॥  — 9.2, BG.

[This is the Sovereign Knowledge, the Sovereign Profundity, the best sanctifier; directly realizable, righteous, very easy to practice and imperishable.]

What is this world that is available for our experience?

“The world is a ‘superimposition’ (adhyAropa). In other words, it merely appears to be present but does not really exist. It is like ‘casting forward’ a non-existing or unreal “form” (objects) onto the Eternal, Immutable and Real ‘Substratum’ (adhisThAna) or the Supreme Self,” avers the Advaita Vedanta. Because of our inherent inability to know what “exactly” is out there, our intellect ‘confabulates’ what could be present out there and ‘externalizes’ the internally imagined ‘form’ as a projection.

Shankara in his introduction to the Vedanta aphorisms (sUtra-s) explains to us that this ‘superimposition’ is natural (naisargika) to us – i.e., it exists from our birth itself. Left to itself uninvestigated, adhyAsa seems to have no locatable or known beginning-point (hence, anAdi); nor an end-point (hence, ananta).

No meaningful answer can be given to a question like “What is north of North Pole?” Similarly, a point of ‘beginning’ cannot be indicated for something which is outside of our familiar time-space dimensionality. “anAdi” also implies that it lies beyond our time-space framework. As a result, we find ourselves inexorably caught up in its snares and suffer the consequences as helpless victims trapped within the jaws of a mighty ‘diaphanous power.’

A superimposition or a projection is, however, an ‘action.’ There cannot be an ‘action’ without an ‘agent’ who does the act.

If I am just a ‘victim’ and not the doer of this projection, who is the ‘agent’ that does the ‘superimposition’? Continue reading →

Imaginary ‘mokSha’ for Imagined ‘bandha’ – Shri P. Neti – 3/3

Posted on by

[Continued from Part – 2]

Question 3: The body that (notionally) housed previously a seeker….

Please Sir, body does not really house Consciousness. Not even the so-called limited consciousness. But it is Consciousness in which body appears just like any other object – and this is easily graspable even to the so-called limited consciousness, with a bit of subtle and impartial observation.

Question 3 (Contd.): … who is now liberated, (the body) is just a part of the ‘world’ which only exists as an “appearance” in the perception of the ‘ignoramuses.’ That body is now ‘without’ anyone as a claimant of ‘ownership’ to it. …

Let it be so. What is the problem if there is no claimant of ownership to a body?, I ask the ignoramuses. Continue reading →

Only ‘mukti,’ No ‘mukta’ — Shri P. Neti – 2/3

Posted on by

[Continued from Part – 1]

Does this all amount to showing disrespect or arriving at too quick an intellectual claim that “I am brahman and after all this guru (of mine) is also my dream character?”

The answer is that it will never be the case for a proper adhikAri.

It is always like how  bhagavatpAda Shri Shankara expresses in a concluding salutation for mANDUkya kArikA:

यत्प्रज्ञालोकभासा प्रतिहतिमगमत्स्वान्तमोहान्धकारो

मज्जोन्मज्जच्च घोरे ह्यसकृदुपजनोदन्वति त्रासने मे ।

यत्पादावाश्रितानां श्रुतिशमविनयप्राप्तिरग्न्या ह्यमोघा

तत्पादौ पावनीयौ भवभयविनुदौ सर्वभावैर्नमस्ये ॥  —  verse 3, Shankara at the end of mANDUkya kArikA. Continue reading →