The root cause of suffering is the jīva’s identification with the body. Is this identification real? This question is pertinent, because the pure ātmā is immutable or unchangeable. If bondage is in its essence, or svarūpa, then that bondage can never be removed, because that would violate the ātmā’s immutabiity.
The functions of vidyā and avidyā
In Anuchheda 54, Sri Jīva Goswami examines the following verse in the context of explaining the nimitta part of māyā:
vidyāvidye mama tanū viddhy uddhava śarīriṇām |
bandha-mokṣa-karī ādye māyayā me vinirmite || [bhā.pu. 11.11.3]
O Uddhava, know that knowledge (vidyā) and ignorance (avidyā) are My two forms [energies], created by My māyā. They are beginningless and cause the bondage and release of the embodied beings, (sb 11.11.3)
This verse explains that the avidyā part of māyā puts the jīva in bondage, that is to say, the jīva is forced to undergo birth and death in different life forms, enduring the results of its karma. Conversely, the vidyā part of māyā leads the jīva to liberation from bondage.
Now, both vidyā and avidyā are said to be ‘created’ (vinirmite) by māyā in the verse. Does this mean then that these are not beginningless? The answer is ‘no’, because the word ādye is used in the verse as an adjective of vidyāvidye, which Sri Jiva takes to mean anādī or beginningless. Thus, the word vinirmite simply means ‘manifest’, and not ‘created’.
There is a problem with this. Liberation begins at some point and never ends (ananta). So how can the word anādī or beginningless be used for liberation?
Bondage is the beginningless absence of awareness of liberation
Sri Jiva writes:
jīvasya svato muktatvam eva – the jīva is liberated in its own inherent nature.
That is, the bondage of the jīva is not in its svarūpa. As such, bondage can come to an end. But then does the bondage even exist? He writes:
bandhas tv avidyā-mātreṇa pratītaḥ
There is but an appearance of bondage due to avidyā alone.
Thus, there is only apparent bondage- it is not actually present in the ātmā. Further,
vidyodaye tu tat prakāśate mātram | tato nitya eva mokṣa iti bhāvaḥ|
When knowledge arises, the liberated state is simply brought to light. So, the intended sense is that liberation is the jīva’s permanent state.
This topic can be understood with the famous rope and snake analogy. When we mistake a rope in a dimly lit room for a snake, the snake does not factually exist- it is not real. The rope is real. In the same way, bondage of the jīva is not factual. It only appears to be so.
Bondage is the beginningless absence of awareness of the jīva’s liberated state. Liberation is the factual beginningless state of the jīva. In this way, the word beginningless can be applied to both liberation and bondage.
Categories: jīva-tattva
In SB (11.11.3 ) Sri Krsna explicitly states that both vidya and avidya, which are synonymous with jnana and ajnana respectively, are products of maya. In Bhagavad Gita (14.17) Sri Krsna makes it more explicit, while using the word jnana and ajnana for vidya and avidya:
sattvat sanjayate jnana? rajaso lobha eva ca
pramada-mohau tamaso bhavato ‘jnanam eva ca
Jnana springs from sattva, and from rajas only greed arises. Likewise, from tamas arises inattention, delusion, and ajnana.
Of these two: avidya and vidya, which one is higher? Or are they equal? Why then avidya wins, dominates over vidya and does it beginningless?
See this
https://www.jiva.org/beginningless-avidya-coupled-with-vidya/
Sir, I read that article two times this year. Could you please explain why ajnana (product of tamas) subdued jnana (product of sattva) beginningless? Both are anadi, both are generated by Maya, so why tamas is prominent by default for jiva? Why not sattva by default?
Tamas is not necessarily dominant. Sattva can also dominate. They fluctuate continuously, and have been doing so since beginningless time.
Tamas results in ajnana. Sattva results in jnana.
Ajnana results in bondage. Jnana results in liberation.
So, if ajnana and jnana fluctuate continuously, and have been doing so since beginningless time, then bondage and liberation also have been fluctuating since beginningless time, haven’t they?
No because there are two types of liberation. Liberation after death and liberation while alive. Liberation after death can only happen if Bhakti is also performed. ‘Liberation while alive’, can refer to predominance of sattva or jnana but does not necessarily result in liberation after death. This is explained in the Bhagavad Gita. This is also what is meant by the verse- aruhya krichrena param padam tatah patanti..
Thank you. Could you please translate three other verses? I have a translation by BBT, but not confident in its correctness.
ŚB 11.11.1
श्रीभगवानुवाच
बद्धो मुक्त इति व्याख्या गुणतो मे न वस्तुत: ।
गुणस्य मायामूलत्वान्न मे मोक्षो न बन्धनम् ॥ १ ॥
śrī-bhagavān uvāca
baddho mukta iti vyākhyā
guṇato me na vastutaḥ
guṇasya māyā-mūlatvān
na me mokṣo na bandhanam
ŚB 11.11.2
शोकमोहौ सुखं दु:खं देहापत्तिश्च मायया ।
स्वप्नो यथात्मन: ख्याति: संसृतिर्न तु वास्तवी ॥ २ ॥
śoka-mohau sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ
dehāpattiś ca māyayā
svapno yathātmanaḥ khyātiḥ
saṁsṛtir na tu vāstavī
ŚB 11.11.4
एकस्यैव ममांशस्य जीवस्यैव महामते ।
बन्धोऽस्याविद्ययानादिर्विद्यया च तथेतर: ॥ ४ ॥
ekasyaiva mamāṁśasya
jīvasyaiva mahā-mate
bandho ’syāvidyayānādir
vidyayā ca tathetaraḥ
O highly intelligent [Uddhava], bondage through beginningless ignorance and its alternative through knowledge exist only for this jīva , who is indeed a unitary [integrated] part of Me. ( SB 11.11.4 )
Depictions of the jīva as bound or liberated are relative to the jīva’s identification with, or transcendence of, the guṇas , which are subordinate to Me, yet such portrayals have no basis in reality. (SB 11.11.1)
These are Babaji’s translations. I did not find 11.11.2 from him- I will have to study the commentaries before I can translate it.
Thank you very much. 11.11.2 is similar with buddhism and advaita, isn’t it?
Not according to Sri Visvanatha. Here is his commentary
śoka-mohau sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ dehāpattiś ca māyayā |
svapno yathātmanaḥ khyātiḥ saṁsṛtir na tu vāstavī ||
atra bandhasya mithyātva-prakāraṁ darśayati—loka-mohāv iti | dehāpattir dehād dehāntara-prāptiḥ | dehasyāpattir āpan mṛtyur vā | māyayā māyikopādhi-sambandhena avidyayā | māyikopādhir antaḥkaraṇe sūkṣma-dehe jīvasya abhimānād eva tadīya-dharmāṇāṁ śoka-mohādīnām api svīyatvena grahaṇam ity arthaḥ | ataḥ śoka-mohādimattva-lakṣaṇā saṁsṛtir na vāstavī na vastu-bhūtā | śoka-mohādīnāṁ māyā-sṛṣṭatvena satyatve’pi tat-sambandhasya jīve avidyā-kalpitatvān mithyātvam ity arthaḥ | yathā ātmano buddheḥ khyātir vivartaḥ svapno mithyā, tathā ||2||
Beautiful! So, could you please translate 11.11.2?
śoka-mohau sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ dehāpattiś ca māyayā |
svapno yathātmanaḥ khyātiḥ saṁsṛtir na tu vāstavī ||
As dreams, being an error [khyati] of the buddhi [atmanah], are false [i.e. the dream-events although real in the mind do not actually happen to the dreamer], in the same way, lamentation, delusion, happiness, distress, and death, are due to avidya [characterized by acceptance of these qualities, which belong to the body, as one’s own], [i.e.] the passing of the jiva (samsrti) [through these states of existence] is not real [i.e. the atma does not lament or die; all these are real states but of the body alone]