Two kinds of dualists

Śaṅkara’s imagined opponent is a dvaitin and a dehātma-vyatirikta-vādin, who holds that the ātman is distinct from the body as the kartā-bhoktā-jñātā (doer, enjoyer and knower), the agent and experiencer of sukha-duḥkha-moha-icchā (contentment, discontentment, confusion, desire) and so on. He should be distinguished from the dehātmavādin dvaitin, who holds that the ātman is identical with the body though distinct from īśvara. For the dehātma-vyatirikta-vādin, the ātman is distinct from the body in that, unlike the former, the latter is subject to the six modifications (ṣaḍvikāra) including old age and death. He is also not unfamiliar with the idea of superimposition. In his view, the dehātma-vādin comes to grief because he superimposes on the ātman the six modifications occurring in the body. In the view of the dehātma-vyatirikta-vādin, Arjuna would be a dehātma-vādin who is taught precisely this lesson by Kṛṣṇa, when he is instructed that the ātman does not undergo birth, old age, death, and so on. For Śaṅkara, the dehātma-vyatirikta-vādin’s view would be relatively superior but in need of further development. Inasmuch as kartṛtva-bhoktṛtva-jñātṛtva are knowables and one can imagine a self as doer, an enjoyer and a knower, these too become qualities that belong to the kṣetra and which get superimposed upon the kṣetrajña through ignorance. He is thus extending dehātma-vyatirikta-vādin’s point further, when he argues that:

If the dharmas, such as contentment (sukha), discontentment (duḥkha), confusion (moha), desire (icchā) and so on, of the knowable, [that is of] the kṣetra such as the body, belong to the knower, then a special cause (hetu) must be declared as to [how] some dharmas of the knowable kṣetra [can] belong to the ātman naturally, whereas others such as old age and death, which are imposed through ignorance, do not. The inference is that they cannot [belong naturally to the ātman] because they are superimposed [on the ātman] by ignorance, like old age and so on, because they are characterized by the potential of being grasped (upādeyatva) or relinquished (heyatva), and so on.

Two kinds of pseudo-pundits

Corresponding to the dehātma-vādin and the dehātma-vyatirkta-vādin, Śaṅkara cautions against two types of pseudo-pundits. First, those who perceive the ātman in the kṣetra, i.e., in the body, leading to claims of “I am thus” (ahamevam) and “this is mine” (mamaivedam). In Śaṅkara’s view, if they were to realise [the ātman as the] immutable (avikriya) kṣetrajña, then they would not hanker after action (karma) and enjoyment (bhoga) thinking “may this be mine” since action and enjoyment are mutable (vikriya). Such being the case, the fool hankering for fruits undertakes action. The enlightened person, on the other hand, who perceives the ātman as immutable, finding no reason to undertake actions (pravṛtti) due to the absence of any hankering for results, and ceasing the activities of the aggregate of the body and the organs, approaches nivṛtti “cessation of action” (BhGŚBh 194).

The second variety of pseudo-pundits holds that kṣetrajña is īśvara and kṣetra is his sphere, different from him. The ātman, on the other hand, is a saṃsārin subject to happiness and suffering. Liberation from saṃsāra is its goal, which is accomplished by abiding in the essential form (svarūpa) of the kṣetrajña īśvara, having gained a direct experience of him by concentration (dhyāna) and by the thorough knowledge of the kṣetra and kṣetrajña. In Śaṅkara’s view, the one who understand thus and the one who teaches thus, is not a kṣetrajña [i.e, an enlightened person]. Rather, he is a degraded teacher (paṇḍitāpasada), who thinks he renders saṃsāra, mokṣa and the śāstras meaningful. He is a destroyer of the self (ātmahā), who is deluded himself and deludes others as well. From not belonging to a tradition (saṃpradāya) engaged in ascertaining the meaning of the śāstras, he falsifies śruti and imagines what is not contained therein (ibid: 195).

This dialogue is unnecessarily convoluted but its import is fairly straightforward. Perhaps, Śaṅkara is just having a go at his opponents. The question “whose avidyā is it” or rather “who is the subject of avidyā?” is meaningless because subject-hood only arises subsequent to avidyā. The very concept of knowership (jñātṛtva), which is the basis of any knowledge including that of avidyā and its possessor, is possible only in the context of avidyā. No subject-hood exists outside avidyā from which vantage point certain knowledge can be obtained about avidyā or its possessor. So even when the opponent says “avidyā is mine,” which is to say “I am the knower (jñātā) of myself as possessed of avidyā,” he is already operating under the influence of avidyā! The idea that knowership (jñātṛtva) is itself the consequence of avidyā is clarified below.

Since avidyā is an abstract concept, the question “whose avidyā is it?” requires further unpacking. Since avidyā involves a mutual superimposition (adhyāsa) between the perceiver and the perceived, what is being interrogated is the identity of the being who is doing the superimposition. In third-person superimpositions that involve a perceiver confusing between two perceived objects, the ignorance belongs to the perceiver i.e., it is clear that it is the perceiver who is doing the superimposition. But in first-person superimpositions that involve the perceiver and the perceived, to whom does it belong i.e., who is the agent of the superimposition? To the opponent, it appears as if it would be himself, i.e., the perceiver (just as it is in the case of third-person superimpositions) but as Śaṅkara shows this is not borne out by either pramāṇa – perception or inference. What Śaṅkara does not mention here (but is clear from the next passage) is that the perceiver, as the agent of knowledge, cannot be the cause of avidyā because it is itself the consequence of it; in the absence of avidyā it would not possess any agency, even that of a knowing subject (jñātṛtva). What Śaṅkara does reiterate in conclusion is the incorrectness of trying to remove avidyā as if it was a defect one possessed:

The object of knowledge (jñeya), avidyā or whatever else, is the object of knowledge (jñeya); and the subject of knowledge (jñātṛ) is the subject of knowledge (jñātṛ) and can never become the object of knowledge (jñeya). This being the case, the subject of knowledge (jñātṛ kṣetrajña) can never be tainted by avidyā, suffering (duḥkha), etc.

In other words, the concept of avidyā is like the proverbial raft that must be eventually abandoned. The opponent is obsessed with removing (parihāra) it but in Śaṅkara’s view this would be neither possible, for it is the very foundation on which the removing subject (parihartṛ) stands; nor necessary, for the knowledge that the eternally pure and immutable ātman cannot be affected by faults of the kṣetra should really be enough.

As the definition of avidyā found in the introduction to the BSŚBh shows, Śaṅkara treats it as a matter of fact borne out by normal experience, whose existence does not require any further proof. It is self-evident that a subject and an object of experience would have to be distinct from each other for the experiential event to occur. In spite of this, if the subject holds, and quite intuitively so, that the object is its own self, as one would maintain with regards to the body “I am this,” then some ignorance is at work here.

In cases of third-person superimposition, where a perceiver mutually superimposes two perceived objects, a subject possessed of ignorance can be identified. But in a first-person superimposition, where the perceiver and the perceived object are mutually superimposed, then no subject possessed of ignorance can be identified. So the question “whose avidyā is it?” becomes meaningless. In fact, no kind of reflection on avidyā is possible; rather, it would be counter-productive, for the subject-hood of the self, that would be the pre-requisite for any reflection, is itself a product of avidyā. In other words, avidyā cannot become the object of reflection of any subject because the subject-hood of the latter is itself consequent to its entry into avidyā. The whole point of the avidyā thesis is to teach that the ātman is not a saṃsārin in the ultimate sense and therefore any effort expended to bring about a cessation of saṃsāra is futile. To then endeavour to bring about a cessation of avidyā, as the opponent desires to do, would be to repeat the same error, to fail to realise that the ātman is the immutable being whose essential form is immutable consciousness (avikriya vijñānasvarūpa) and not the knowing subject (vijñātṛ) afflicted by avidyā.

The conclusion of this long debate expounding avidyā as the basis of saṃsāra and its peculiar nature, against which no effort can prevail, is to confirm the futility of karma as a means of liberation from saṃsāra. This agrees with the fundamental teaching that Śaṅkara attributes to the BhG in the introduction: