J Indian Philos DOI 10.1007/s10781-008-9053-9 The Mu¯la¯vidya¯ Controversy Among Advaita Veda¯ntins: was S´ankara_ Himself Responsible? S. K. Arun Murthi Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract The concept of avidya¯ or ignorance is central to the Advaita Veda¯ntic position of S´ankara._ The post-S´ankara_ Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of S´ankara_ with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of S´ankara_ came to be re- garded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidya¯. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Hole- narsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mu¯la¯vidya¯nira¯sah: , particularly with regard to the avidya¯ doctrine. It was his contention that the post-S´ankara_ commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidya¯. This was the idea of mu¯la¯vidya¯ or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mu¯la¯vidya¯ is not to be found in the bha¯:syas (commentaries) of S´ankara_ and is foisted upon S´ankara._ This paper attempts to show that although S´ankara_ may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mu¯la¯vidya¯, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidya¯ left enough scope for the post-S´ankara_ commentators to take such a position on avidya¯. Keywords Adhya¯sa Á Advaita Á Avidya¯ Á Ignorance Á Mu¯la¯vidya¯ Á Veda¯nta Introduction The concept of ignorance, known as avidya¯, is central to the position of Advaita Veda¯nta. S´ankara_ gives an exposition about the nature of avidya¯ in his introduction S. K. A. Murthi (&) School of Humanities, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore 560012, India e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 123 S. K. A. Murthi to the Brahmasu¯tras—the introductory section of his Brahmasu¯trabha¯:sya is 1 traditionally known as Adhya¯sa-bha¯:sya. The bha¯:sya (commentary) of S´ankara_ was further commented upon by the Advaita scholars with the intention of strengthening the viewpoints of Advaita, particularly on the doctrine of avidya¯. These post-S´ankara_ commentators were known as vya¯khya¯nka¯ras. Swami Satch- idanandendra Saraswati (hereafter SS) in the 1930s and forties introduced certain ideas challenging the then prevailing tradition, which turned into a controversy, leading to a debate among Advaita Veda¯ntins regarding the nature of the concept of avidya¯.2 Michael Comans referring to the importance of this debate remarks, ‘‘In fact, if there has been a debate internal to the s´a¯nkara_ tradition of Advaita over the last 50 years, it is the dispute between the protagonists of the views of Sacchida¯nandendra and those who would defend the standard position’’ (2000; p. 249). This dispute was regarding the idea of ‘‘root ignorance’’ (mu¯la¯vidya¯)asa substantive (bha¯varu¯pa), indescribable (anirvacanı¯ya) matter enveloping Brahman and being an obstruction for the realization of Brahman. Martha Doherty has given a lucid exposition of this mu¯la¯vidya¯ debate where she emphasizes the significance of avidya¯ to the Advaita position. The concept of avidya¯ is crucial to the Advaita position, for without it, there is no non-duality (advaita). The perceived duality is sublated as a reality by the knowledge of an underlying non-dual reality. Understanding the duality as real is an error, which is a function of ignorance (avidya¯) of the non-dual reality (2005; p. 210). Further, reviewing the post-S´ankara_ commentators’ interpretation of avidya¯, she shows that they attributed a causal role to avidya¯, which functions as a material cause in concealing the true nature of Brahman. This is referred to as the ‘‘root ignorance’’ (mu¯la¯vidya¯) ‘‘in keeping with its causal status’’ (ibid, pp. 213–214). The concept of avidya¯ is also equated with ma¯ya¯. It is considered to have a power (sakti). It was SS’s contention that such an idea of avidya¯ was alien to the original S´ankara_ commentaries and was foisted on S´ankara_ by the later vya¯khya¯nka¯ras. According to him there was not even an implication of mu¯la¯vidya¯ in the original commentaries of S´ankara._ He holds the post-S´ankara_ commentators, beginning with the author of Pan˜capa¯dika¯ (supposed to be written by Padmapa¯da) and the sub-commentator of this work Praka¯s´a¯tman (who wrote the sub-commentary Vivaran: a) and his protagonists, known as vivaran: aka¯ras, responsible for this misconstrual of S´ankara._ 1 Tradition considers Brahmasu¯tra to be one of the triple canonical texts of Veda¯nta philosophy apart from the Upanis:ads and the Bhagavadgı¯ta¯.S´ankara_ has written commentaries on all these texts. However it should be noted that he never calls the su¯tras of Ba¯da¯ra¯yana constituting the text as Brahmasu¯tra.He calls them as Sa¯rı¯raka Mı¯ma¯m: sa or Veda¯nta Mı¯ma¯m: sa. 2 He published in 1929 a Sanskrit text Mu¯la¯vidya¯nira¯sah: in which he opposed this idea of mu¯la¯vidya¯ foisted on the S´ankara’s_ texts by later commentators. Subsequently he published another book titled San_kara Siddha¯nta in Kannada in 1940. In the preface to the latter work he writes that he has presented there the most important points of the Sanskrit treatise Mu¯la¯vidya¯nira¯sah: . D.B. Gangolli has rendered a free English translation of San_kara Siddha¯nta, which was published in 1996 by Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya. It is this translation that has been consulted for the present paper. Page number references to this work of SS are to this translated work and are indicated as (1940, Tr. Gangolli). 123 The Mu¯la¯vidya¯ Controversy Such a characterization of avidya¯ that is not to be found in S´ankara_ bha¯:syas,SS contends, is due to the total neglect by S´ankara_ scholars of a certain method which S´ankara_ adopted in his exegesis. This is the method of adhya¯ropa apava¯da nya¯ya (method of deliberate superimposition and subsequent rescission/abrogation). In his magnum opus Veda¯nta-prakriya¯-pratyabhijn˜a¯, where he describes the nature of this method in detail, he writes, Brahman or the absolute Reality ever remains the same, unaffected by the superimposition of avidya¯ or its removal. It is for this reason that the s´ruti utilizes different devices suited to remove particular impositions and this accounts not only for the special instances of the ‘Adhya¯ropa-apava¯da’ method… (1964; pp. 54–55) Avidya¯ and ma¯ya¯ are the special instance or application of the method as he sees it (1971; pp. 41–48). Referring to these terms he says, These terms are used in Vedanta for the particular kind of wrong knowledge and the objective phenomena respectively, only as a device to introduce the reader (by means of Adhya¯ro¯pa¯pva¯da) to the transcendental entity or the Witnessing principle called Atman, and not for formulating theories which the system undertakes to defend (ibid, p. 45). SS lays great emphasis on this method. Understanding this method, for him, constitutes the cornerstone of the teaching and unfoldment of Veda¯ntic vision. Commenting on how SS was influenced in this regard, Doherty writes, ‘‘The pre- occupation with methodology and the narrow insistence on one defining method was a significant part of the legacy that Satchidanandendra inherited from these authors’’ (2005; p. 231). What is this method of exegesis that is special to S´ankara_ Veda¯nta and why is this method adopted? The very nature and topic to be dealt with by Veda¯nta necessitates, so it is argued, the adoption of such a method. SS shows that S´ankara_ has made explicit reference to such a method in his Bhagavadg¯ıta¯bha¯:sya as follows: This in accordance with the knowers of the traditional method who say: that which is devoid of specific features is to be explained by the method of deliberate superimposition and rescission.3 The peculiarity of this method consists in adopting a two-standpoint approach for the exposition of Brahman. The two standpoints are the empirical or the transactional standpoint (loka d:r:s:ti or vyavaha¯ra d:rs::ti) and the transcendental or the ‘‘really real’’ standpoint (parama¯rtha d:r:s:ti or sa¯stra d:r:s:ti). The notion of two standpoints is very central to this method. In his exposition, S´ankara_ conveniently shifts from one position to the other in the same occasion and it sometimes becomes very difficult to make out 3 In the Bhagavadg¯ıta¯bha¯:sya passage on sloka XIII.13, S´ankara_ says: tatha¯ hi sam: prada¯yavida¯m: vacanam: -‘adhya¯ropa¯pava¯da¯bhya¯m: ni:sprapan˜ca prapan˜cyate’ (Panoli 1990; p. 169). I have one comment to make here. Adhya¯ropa apava¯da is a methodological principle. Brahmasu¯tras known as the nya¯ya prastha¯na is the text which expounds the principles of Veda¯ntic exegesis and methods. So it would have been more appropriate for S´ankara_ to make a reference to such a method in this text. It is surprising that S´ankara_ has not made any mention to such a method in his Brahmasu¯trabha¯:sya. 123 S. K.