ॐ गुरुपरमात्मने नमः

mūlāvidyā vimarśa

This article is based on an internet document titled “MUlAvidya vimarshe (A Critique of Root Ignorance)”. The sanskrit sections have been converted from transliteration to devanāgarī script, and textual references have been verified when possible. A few edits are made to aid readability. Non-technical parts of the discussion have been entirely removed.

Point of view

पक्षः - traditional view accepting मूलाविद्या
विपक्षः - view rejecting मूलाविद्या

Topic 1 – Is bhāvarūpa mūlāvidyā the cause for saṁsāra

पक्षः – भावरूपा मूलाविद्या as the मूल कारण (root cause) for all संसार is consistent with वेदान्त सिद्धान्त based on प्रमाण.

विपक्षः – The अध्यास भाष्य reads “एवं लक्षणं अध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते”. Mutual अध्यास between आत्मा and अनात्मा has been termed “अविद्या”. It is the मूल कारण for all लौकिक and वैदिक व्यवहार. Thus, as the कारण even for this, postulating मूलाविद्या as another कारण वस्तु is भाष्य विरुद्ध.

पक्षः – What is आत्म-अनात्म-अध्यास?

विपक्षः – It is “अहं इदं, मम इदं”, as shown in the भाष्य.

पक्षः – What is the “इदं” in “अहं इदं, मम इदं”?

विपक्षः – The meaning of the word “इदं” is शरीरम्. Since no one experiences “अहं शरीरं”, it is understood that “अहं मनुष्यः, कर्ता, भोक्ता” is the form of अध्यास.

पक्षः – The भाष्य terms this अध्यास as अनाद्यन्त. Are अध्यास-s of the type “अहं मनुषः” considered “अनाद्यन्त”?

विपक्षः – It is not possible for अध्यास-s like मनुष्यः, कर्ता, भोक्ता to be considered अनाद्यन्त. However, the मूल for these – the first अहं-अध्यास – is indeed अनाद्यन्त.

पक्षः – If it is said “अहं-अध्यास is the first अध्यास”, how can it be अनादि? And, since the अहं-अध्यास is absent in सुषुप्ति, how can it be अनाद्यन्त?

[ Note: if it is the first, there was a time before it, and it is not anādi. And absence is only possible when it has ended. ]

विपक्षः – This is termed “नैसर्गिक” in the भाष्य. While not being कार्यरूप, it is the मूल अध्यास. No other (separate) कारण (cause) has been stated for this in the भाष्य.

पक्षः – “इतरेतर-अविवेकेन अध्यस्तः, मिथुनीकृत्य व्यवहारः”. For अध्यास व्यवहार-s like “अहं मनुष्यः” etc., is not इतरेतर अविवेक stated as the कारण in the भाष्य? Since the words अध्यस्त, मिथुनीकृत्य have the same meaning of अध्यास , it is understood from this, that subsequent अध्यास is born from the previous अध्यास , and also it is stated in ईक्षत्यधिकरण भाष्य “देहादिसङ्घाते अनात्मनि आत्मत्वाभिनिवेशः मिथ्याबुद्धिमात्रेण पूर्वपूर्वेण”.

Thus, uttarottara अध्यास-s spring from पूर्वपूर्व अध्यास-s. This अध्यास परम्परा which is कार्यरूप is अनाद्यन्त. It is called “प्रवाहत अनादि”. Since कार्य cannot originate without a कारण, a कारण must be accepted for these कार्य-अध्यास’s. This is termed “मूलाविद्या”.

Since अग्रहण, संशय, विपर्यय which are तामस प्रत्ययरूप, and are कार्य रूप, they cannot be मूलकारण. Words like अविवेक, अग्रहण, अज्ञान, cannot mean अभावरूप … because can it ever be said that संशय, विपर्यय, and knowledge like “अहं मनुष्यः” is of the nature of अभाव. Thus, मूलाविद्या which is the कारण for these भावरूप, must also be भावरूप.

विपक्षः – If it is contended that भावरूप मूलाविद्या is the कारण for अध्यास, then it follows that this मूलाविद्या is not अध्यस्त. It then follow that it cannot be negated by तत्त्वज्ञान. This leads to द्वैत, and अनिर्मोक्ष. ज्ञान can only reveal the true nature of a वस्तु. It is not capable of creating or destroying any vastu.

पक्षः – “ब्रह्मैकमेव परमार्थसत्यं” is a well known वेदान्त सिद्धान्त. Whatever differs from this is not real. Therefore, even though मूलाविद्या is भावरूप, it is still unreal. Thus, there is no अनुपपत्ति (contra-evidencefor its निवर्तन by तत्त्वज्ञान.

अवास्तव, कल्पित, आरोपित, अध्यस्त, मायिक, अविद्याक are all synonymous terms.

Is the अविद्या you are referring to as अध्यास, अध्यस्त or not? If it is not अध्यस्त, then द्वैत/anirmoksha becomes inevitable (aparihArya in original). If it is अध्यस्त, then a cause has to be postulated for it. The same question will then arise with respect to that cause also leading to अनिर्मोक्ष or अनवस्था दोष. If “अध्यास“ itself is considered as of अध्यस्त स्वरूप, then the same answer can be advanced in respect of मूलाविद्या also.

All कार्य कारण भाव-s are व्यावहारिक and hence अपरमार्थ only. There is this भाष्य sentence “परमार्थावस्थायां कुत एव वा सृष्टिः? … गृहीते त्वात्मैकत्वे बन्धमोक्षादिसर्वव्यवहारपरिसमाप्तिरेव स्यात्”. In the व्यावहारिक state, since कार्य and कारण have the same status, for कार्याधास-s which are of भावरूप, भावरूप अध्यास – also called मूलाविद्या – is thus established.

Also in the भाष्य “स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः” meant to define अध्यास लक्षण, it is stated that all अवभास-s of the nature of अध्यास are born out of materials like संस्कार-s of past experiences etc., just like in memory. Hence it is made clear that all these belong to कार्यरूप अध्यास परम्परा. Otherwise it is not possible to harmonize (समन्वय in original) the विशेषण “मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः“.

विपक्षः – From the term “मिथ्याज्ञानमीत्त “ it is understood that अध्यास is सनिमित्तक (self-produced). It is the निमित्त. It is not necessary to consider it as the कारण for अध्यास.

पक्षः – Do not the words “निमित्त“ and “कारण“ being synonymous have the same meaning? Thus we cannot say “only निमित्त, not कारण“. Both निमित्त कारणत्व and उपादान कारणत्व are implied (विवक्षित) here. मिथ्याज्ञान is निमित्त कारण for अध्यास रूप कार्य in the form of दोष. Since it is available in the कार्य also (स्वरूपान्वय in original), it serves as the उपादान कारण too. The inert quality (जाड्यधर्म) in the कारण has अन्वय in the कार्य.

विपक्षः – Since अध्यास does not depend upon (अपेक्षा in original) any उपादान कारण, why is it necessary to advance मूलाविद्या as its कारण?

पक्षः – “अध्यासश्च विना हेतुं न लोक उपपद्यते“. This sloka from श्री सुरेश्वराचार्य’s वार्तिका states that अध्यास is dependent on a कारण (कारणापेक्षा in original). Also In the वार्तिका सुरेश्वराचार्य says “अस्त द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुच्यते॥“ This clearly states that अज्ञान is the उपादानकारण for द्वैताध्यास. If अज्ञान is taken to be अभावरूप like ज्ञानाभाव / अग्रहण, how can it be उपादान कारण? The उपादान कारण is of the same type of कारण (अन्वयि कारण in original. Is अभाव अन्वित at all in द्वैत प्रपञ्च? There is also the भाष्य statement “अभावाद्भावोत्पत्तिरिति सर्वप्रमाणव्याकोपः”

Part 2

पक्षः – That भावरूप मूलाविद्या is beginningless and is the material cause for all dualistic creation is unambiguously stated in the सूत्र भाष्य . The भाष्य for the सूत्र “तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् is as follows.

परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या । अर्थवती हि सा । न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति । शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः । मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः । कुतः ? विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात् । अविद्यात्मिका हि बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी महासुषुप्तिः, यस्यां स्वरूपप्रतिबोधरहिताः शेरते संसारिणो जीवाः । तदेतदव्यक्तं क्वचिदाकाशशब्दनिर्दिष्टम् — ‘एतस्मिन्नु खल्वक्षरे गार्ग्याकाश ओतश्च प्रोतश्च’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ८ । ११) इति श्रुतेः; क्वचिदक्षरशब्दोदितम् — ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २) इति श्रुतेः; क्वचिन्मायेति सूचितम् — ‘मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्’ (श्वे. उ. ४ । १०) इति मन्त्रवर्णात् । अव्यक्ता हि सा माया, तत्त्वान्यत्वनिरूपणस्याशक्यत्वात् ।

In the सिद्धान्त which has accepted सत्कार्यवाद, causal state of the effect is considered as its प्रागवस्था. In the above भाष्य, it is explained that the प्रागवस्था of कारण (Creation) is under the control of ईश्वर and since without this “creator” status is not possible for परमेश्वर, it is the “शक्तिरूप“ of परमेश्वर. With this, it is established that this प्रागवस्था is the material cause of Creation and also is of भावरूप.This alone is also stated to be the seed power (बीजशक्ति) responsible for संसार बन्ध. It is also explained that this seed power is of the स्वरूप (nature) of अविद्या, is अव्यक्त, मायामय, महासुषुप्ति, and cover of their स्वरूप for संसारी-s. It is also stated that this alone is referred to in श्रुति-s as आकाश, अक्षर, माया etc. Is any other प्रमाण needed for proving मूलाविद्या as consistent with the भाष्य?

भावरूप मूलाविद्या responsible for creation is consistent with सुरेश्वराचार्य’s वार्तिका also. “परोऽविवेको भूतानामात्माविद्येति भण्यते। आत्माविद्यैव नः शक्तिः सर्वशक्यस्य सर्जने॥“ 4.3.1784 . In this वार्तिका, आत्माविद्या is stated to be अज्ञान (अविवेक in the वार्तिका) which is the cause (परः) in वार्तिका) for all जीव-s ( सकल भूत-s) ; and also the causal power for the entire creation. Any number of verses can be adduced for confirming that भावरूप मूलाविद्या which is the root cause for the entire creation is consistent with भाष्य/वार्तिका. But [we are here] following the स्थालीपुलक न्याय (sampling rule). Since the current issue is already established, further elaboration is not necessary.

An analysis of the state of सुषुप्ति also leads to the establishment of this मूलाविद्या.

विपक्षः – “सता सोम्य तदा संपन्नो भवति”. From this shruti, it is understood that “In सुषुप्ति, जीव is संपन्न, meaning he attains the state of एकीभाव (Oneness) because of अभेद (non-differentiation). In that state, no one has experience of any type of duality. Here it is not possible to accept the existence of either अविद्या or अध्यास apart from आत्मा.

पक्षः – In सुषुप्ति, if anything responsible for संसार does not exist , then how one who has established Oneness with ब्रह्मन् again wakes up and gets entangled in संसार ? Alternatively, if entanglement is possible without any cause, then it is possible for a मुक्त also to get entangled in संसार , leading to अनिर्मोक्ष.

विपक्षः – Not so. Even though सत्संपत्ति is obtained in सुषुप्ति, since this सत्संपत्ति has been achieved without getting rid of the अविद्या/अध्यास called मिथ्याज्ञान, there is provision for again getting into waking state. Since a मुक्त is rid of अविद्या due to तत्त्वज्ञान, he does not get into संसार again.

पक्षः – As per the भाष्य, “न हि जीवस्य कदाचित् सत्संपत्तिर्नास्ति”, जीव is essentially always सत्संपन्न, not just in सुषुप्ति. From verses like “प्राज्ञः कारणबद्धस्तु” and “सति संपद्य न विदुः”, it is understood that even in सुषुप्ति, अज्ञान which is the cause for बन्ध does exist.

विपक्षः – These verses are not meant to conclude that seed power exists in सुषुप्ति. On the other hand they are pointing out that there is no purpose served in attaining सत्संपत्ति without getting rid of मिथ्याज्ञान. These verses convey that it is essential to attain तत्त्वज्ञान.

पक्षः – This opinion has not been expressed anywhere in श्रुति, भाष्य, कारिका or वार्तिका.

In the भाष्य, “सुषुप्तावस्थायामुपाधिकृतविशेषाभावात् स्वात्मनि प्रलीन इवेति ‘स्वं ह्यपीतो भवति’ इत्युच्यते”, it is made clear by the term “इव“ that in सुषुप्ति जीव does not have Oneness with मुख्य ब्रह्मन् as in the state of मुक्ति. In the गौडपाद कारिका also it is clear that प्राज्ञ who has attained the state of सुषुप्ति is bound by this causal अविद्या – “प्राज्ञः कारणबद्धस्तु”.

Anticipating the doubt that if in सुषुप्ति जीव really (वस्तुतः) attains identity with ब्रह्मन् then the same जीव 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 भाष्य, “युक्तं तत्र विवेककारणाभावात् जलबिन्दोरनुद्धरणं, इह तु विद्यते विवेककारणम् — कर्म च अविद्या च, इति वैषम्यम्” clearly states that bondage causing कर्म and अविद्या exist in सुषुप्ति. But in this state, since neither कर्म nor अविद्या in the form of its effect अध्यास is established by experience, it is concluded that these are present in a subtle form. This subtle form is मूलाविद्या.

Further, anticipating the doubt “बुद्धिगुणसारत्वादात्मनः संसारित्वं कल्प्येत, ततो बुद्ध्यात्मनोर्भिन्नयोः संयोगावसानमवश्यंभावीत्यतो बुद्धिवियोगे सति आत्मनो विभक्तस्यानालक्ष्यत्वादसत्त्वमसंसारित्वं वा प्रसज्येतेति” meaning “if it is contended that आत्मा is bound by संसार only when associated with बुद्धि as उपाधि, and not by itself, then since there is no association with बुद्धि during सुषुप्ति and प्रलय, जीव does not have संसार at that time“, the भाष्य says “नेयमनन्तरनिर्दिष्टदोषप्राप्तिराशङ्कनीया । कस्मात् ? यावदात्मभावित्वाद्बुद्धिसंयोगस्य”.

“यावदयमात्मा संसारी भवति, यावदस्य सम्यग्दर्शनेन संसारित्वं न निवर्तते, तावदस्य बुद्ध्या संयोगो न शाम्यति” offers the answer (समाधान) to this doubt. This भाष्य means that as long as आत्मा is a संसारी – meaning as long as संसारित्व of आत्मा is not removed by संयग्दर्शन (realization), till then he is not rid of association with बुद्धि. Even if it is conceded as opined by the प्रतिपक्ष that in सुषुप्ति आत्मा has attained (संपन्न) Oneness with brahman, since they also do not agree that संसारित्वं is then got rid of through Realization (सम्यग्दर्शन), it has to be accepted that association with बुद्धि is not quietened even during that time. Since this association with बुद्धि is not experienced in a gross form, it stands established that this is present in subtle form. This then is मूलाविद्या.

Part 3

पक्षः - We can furthur examine the भाष्य – “ननु सुषुप्तप्रलययोर्न शक्यते बुद्धिसम्बन्ध आत्मनोऽभ्युपगन्तुम् , ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति स्वमपीतो भवति’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । १) इति वचनात् , कृत्स्नविकारप्रलयाभ्युपगमाच्च । तत्कथं यावदात्मभावित्वं बुद्धिसम्बन्धस्येति”.

The doubt is “Since there is श्रुति statement that आत्मा attains oneness with ब्रह्मन् who is his स्वरूप during सिषुप्ति and प्रलय, how is it consistent with the claim that as long as आत्मा exists, he continues to have association with बुद्धि?”.

The भाष्य which resolves this doubt is as follows. “यथा लोके पुंस्त्वादीनि बीजात्मना विद्यमानान्येव बाल्यादिष्वनुपलभ्यमानान्यविद्यमानवदभिप्रेयमाणानि यौवनादिष्वाविर्भवन्ति । न अविद्यमानान्युत्पद्यन्ते, षण्डादीनामपि तदुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गात् — एवमयमपि बुद्धिसम्बन्धः शक्त्यात्मना विद्यमान एव सुषुप्तप्रलययोः पुनः प्रबोधप्रसवयोराविर्भवति”. Meaning, “The same पुंस्त्वादि (virility etc) 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 पुंस्त्व (manliness) at the time of youth. Similarly, the same association with बुद्धि which is existing in a potential form (शक्तिरूप) during सुषुप्ति and प्रलय reappear during waking and सृष्टि times”. This potential (शक्तिरूप) only is मूलाविद्या or माया. Accordingly, in this manner, मूलाविद्या is proclaimed unambiguously in the भाष्य.

विपक्षः – There are भाष्य statements which mean that that in सुषुप्ति, जीव attains Realization (मुख्य ब्रह्म) . If it is contended that there is अविद्या during this time, then it would be opposed to these भाष्य statements.

पक्षः – Have not भाष्य statements been presented which show that अविद्या which is the cause for संसार is present during सुषुप्ति? The following भाष्य also can be considered. “मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तश्च बन्धो न सम्यग्ज्ञानादृते विस्रंसितुमर्हति । तस्मात् तत्प्रकृतित्वेऽपि सुषुप्तप्रलयवत् बीजभावावशेषैव एषा सत्सम्पत्तिरिति”. It is stated here that during सुषुप्ति and प्रलय, मूलाविद्या continues to remain in seed form.

Apart from this, जीवन्मुक्ति has been accepted in सिद्धान्त. If जीवन्मुक्ति is not accepted, ब्रह्मविद्या स्रंप्रदाय (traditional teaching of Self-Knowledge ) will only be an ignorant tradition (अज्ञापरम्परम्परा) . It will also be opposed to the Gita statement “उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः”. That in जीवन्मुक्त state even though मिथ्याज्ञान is negated (बाधित) by तत्त्वज्ञान it continues to remain (अनुवृत्त) in the form of संस्कार is clearly propounded by this भाष्य, “बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्संस्कारवशात्कंचित्कालमनुवर्तत एव”.

Maintaining that for a तत्त्वज्ञानी this is established experientially (अनुभवसिद्ध); and hence cannot be disagreed using arguments like “how can there be अज्ञान when ज्ञान has arisen? When there is अज्ञान how can it be said that there is ज्ञान?”, श्री भगवत्पाद has unambiguously declared “अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् — ब्रह्मविदा कञ्चित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति। कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत?”

Considering that (1) It is stated in गीत “ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषां नाशितमात्मनः” meaning “ज्ञान arises and then it destroys अज्ञान”; (2) It is stated that in जीवन्मुक्ति, even after the rise of ज्ञान till the extinction of प्रारब्ध कर्म अज्ञान continues (अनुवृत्त), it is clear that this अज्ञान which is the cause for संसार is of भावरूप (really existing) only and not अभावरूप (really non-existing ) as contended by the विपक्षः. If अज्ञान is considered as absence (अभाव) of ज्ञान, then it can never exist after the rise of ज्ञान.