praNAms
Hare Krishna
Below is the link. Please listen to it.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658146E8413A7906EFF4707D84009%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
--
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I did hear the lecture once. On second listening: What does she or the swami mean by, Avidya is only a superimposition and it is "not present in sushupti"?
Is sushupti (sleep state?) in the realm of avidya or vidya that we talk about avidya being not present in it? On the other hand, if we allow for distinct identification of states experienced by a jiva such as waking, dream, deep sleep, then are we not dealing with the Brahman mentioned in Brahmasutra 1.1.2, as the origin/source of the duality we experience? In that case, it is realized as Ishvara or Brahman in conjunction with projective power of maya, and maya=avidya as per other traditionalists (?). But all that is vyavaharika satya only. I am not well versed in the subtleties of this debate and hence don't see the problem.
When one talks about snake, some say the rope projects/appears as if the snake and others say the seer (again rope!) superimposes snake on rope. One who knows it as rope only stops talking (thinking) about it as a snake that needs to be re-understood as rope. In the context of the latter fact, we say the snake is mithya and rope is satya.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581ED8FFE29FBA95FE00BE084049%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
At the outset it has to be noted that as per SSS’s stand avidyA and mAya both are not synonyms it is different. mAya is avidyAkruta, avidyA pratypasthApita, avidyAtmaka but NOT avidyA itself. And his main contention against later vyAkhyAnakAra-s (like bhAmati, paNchapAdika vivaraNa) is brahmAshrita avidyA, bhAva rUpa avidyA or kAraNAvidyA which is the upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa (misconception). And ‘avidyA shakti’ which has been explained by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s in the form of AvaraNa and vikshepa as per Sri SSS does not have the locus (Ashraya) in brahman. The socalled distinction between mUlAvidyA (brahmAshrita) and tUlAvidyA (jeeva’s adhyAsa) too not required but as per vyAkhyAnakAra-s this mUlAvidyA has itself been there even before the projection of jeeva/jagat and has the locus in brahman itself. If we could hear that talk once again carefully we could come to know how avidyA is mere superimposition on brahman and how it has been employed in brahma jignAsa. ( she gives the example of 17 elephants). And in avasthAtraya, sushupti there is absolute merge with brahman (no upAdhi hence no adhyAsa) but jeeva yet to realize this truth or lacking this truth (jnAnAbhAva) comes back to waking state as avidyAvanta only. And how he comes back from sushupti state ( absolute state) to waking state as avidyAvanta bhAshyAkAra himself explains. And yes as per this talk ( as per works of Sri SSS) all these prakriya-s ( creation, kArya-kAraNa, avasthAtraya, vidyA-avidyA, bandha-mOksha etc.) comes under the big umbrella of adhyArOpa which shAstra subsequently withdraws (apavAda) when the purpose of upanishad siddhAnta Atmaikatvam and its realization is served. With this light of teaching ignorance of truth (jnAnAbhAva in sushupti) and misconception of truth (anyathAgrahaNa or adhyAsa in waking and dream) are thus the two misconceptions hypothetically imputed to the self for the sake of convenience in teaching (like 18th elephant in the example). 1-18 of kArika says vikalpO vinivartet kalpitO yadi kenachit, upadeshAdayaM vAdO jnAte na vidyate, misconception would be sublated if it is really an imagination of a particular person. All this is ONLY a device employed for the purpose of teaching there will be no duality whatsoever when the realization dawns. So avasthAtraya or any other prakriya or any assumption of specific features is only a device for the purpose of teaching. That is what that lady insisting when narrating Sri shankara and Sri SSS’s stand on avidyA.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar YR
|
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of putran M
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 1:08 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree Hegde in YT
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oaeaaKtkizR3bb0_aYGPwsUm-x%3Dui319U0ZwXFMzZmaw%40mail.gmail.com.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
From whence (or whose) this adhyasa is not a question that has a correct answer - except again as adhyasa.
For the post-shankara advaitins however, there is a correct answer and it is avidya-shakti of Brahman, as real as the avasta-traya that it/He projects.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Bhaskar YR
|
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of putran M
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 1:08 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree Hegde in YT
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oaeaaKtkizR3bb0_aYGPwsUm-x%3Dui319U0ZwXFMzZmaw%40mail.gmail.com.
From whence (or whose) this adhyasa is not a question that has a correct answer - except again as adhyasa.
- Infact Advaita vedAnta does not have to answer these questions, to whom is avidyA (avidyA Ashraya)??
- About which thing is there avidyA (avidyA vishaya) ?? etc. donot arise as these questions would sprout with prior admission of dvaita and this dvaita is itself avidyaka (born out of ignorance) or adhyasta ( superimposed/misconceived) and it is not real. So, it is to be noted the question itself is not correct when we correctly understand the Advaita siddhAnta.
- However, bhAshyakAra, for the sake of advaitins who still thinking in such a way that : due to avidyA dvaita is there by Advaita jnana / vidyA Atmaikatvam being established etc. would clarify that avidyA is for those who are still asking the question about avidyA Ashraya. Just see Su. Bh. 4-1-3, you may ask : to whom is the ajnAna?? The answer is : “to you who is asking this question”,
- you may counter this by asking : am I not Ishwara as per shruti, how can I have avidyA?? Then we say if you realize this truth in that manner (i.e. ahaM brahmAsmi, tattvamasi etc.) then to no one there is ajnAna whatsoever. If at all brahman itself having the avidyA shakti ( which you are assuming as correct answer) then bhAshyakAra would have mentioned this avidyA shakti in brahman and would not have said there is no avidyA whatsoever after realization. As per Sri SSS adhyAsa itself is avidyA (adhyAsa bhAshya) and avidyA in the form of jnAnAbhAva is not anartha hetu but adhyAsa is !!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658146E8413A7906EFF4707D84009%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Putran Prabhuji
Hare Krishna
For the sake of discussion I did not say I consider avidya as correct answer but that post-shankara advaitins do.
In fact, I don't use the word avidya in my writings generally and stick to Maya.
Since I have read others mention that avidya = Maya, I assume there is no contradiction with them.
But I can certainly try to defend their position from the logical standpoint.
Ø You are welcome prabhuji, since so called ‘traditional view point’ is the dominating force in understanding intricacies of Advaita vedAnta. But it is better to keep in our mind that it is not logical necessity to prove avidyA based on any pramANa…Hence bhAshyakAra does not provide any pramANa for it and explains it purely based on day to day experience.
I said "adhyasa" which you seem to admit is a fact of experience.
Once you label something as "adhyasa" that is error or needs correcting with knowledge, you are no longer in Advaita and very much facing dvaita. If from this dvaita you seek to realize advaita, then the questions are relevant in the realm of dvaita that you already are dealing with.
Ø Yes that is what I said below, and answer provided by bhAshyakAra with regard to avidyAshraya and vishaya (object) is based on this stand point only.
- About which thing is there avidyA (avidyA vishaya) ?? etc. donot arise as these questions would sprout with prior admission of dvaita and this dvaita is itself avidyaka (born out of ignorance) or adhyasta ( superimposed/misconceived) and it is not real. So, it is to be noted the question itself is not correct when we correctly understand the Advaita siddhAnta.
Again, you are confusing the context of ignorance and knowledge.
In the context of ignorance, Bhaskar-ji has a human mother and the world/universe has Brahman+Maya=Ishvara as its foundation/source. If you say "this is due to adhyasa", then that adhyasa also has Brahman+Maya as cause - since there is nothing apart from Brahman.
If you are particular about not implying causality to Brahman, then you have to say anirvachaniya Maya is cause.
Ø mAya cannot exist independently from brahman, when we talk about creation we have to accept the bhAshyakAra stand that there is abedha between shakti and shakta, kArya & kAraNa. But I don’t know how this topic would help us to prove the existence of avidyA that too logically. Are we not talking about shAstra drushti here!!??
Sure, you can call this "adhyaropa" only. But once you accept Brahma satyam and sarvam kalu idam brahma (and statements like BS 1.1.2) AND you talk about adhyasa, then you can't escape attributing causality for your adhyasa in that Maya-shakti of Brahman.
Ø See putran prabhuji if we see the adhyAsa bhAshya the explanation is quite clear there. adhyAsO nAma atasmin tadbuddhiH ityavOchAma, the material cause for this adhyAsa never ever talked by bhAshyakAra instead he clarifies this is there because mithyAjnAna nimittaH and this is naisargika and this is lOka vyavahAra. We don’t and should not ask the question why this adhyAsa or since when this adhyAsa or what is the cause of this adhyAsa, if we say 2x2=8, that is our wrong knowledge s with regard to correct knowledge of tables and no sane person would ask the question since when you are having this wrong knowledge and what is the cause of this wrong knowledge!! Every sane person would know this wrongknowledge about tables is because of absence of correct knowledge (jnAnAbhAva) and nothing else. It is in this sense bhAshyakAra said in adhyAsa bhAshya, adhyAsa is svAbhAvika and naisargika. And because of this simple reason he never ever tried to explain this adhyAsa by attributing the upAdAna kAraNa in the form of mUlAvidyA or bhAvarUpa avidyA or kAraNAvidyA which is different from jnAnAbhAva and which has the locus in brahman itself. But vyAkhyAnakAra-s found it difficult to explain the concept of avidyA when other schools raising the objections about Advaita vedAdanta who are simultaneously talking about both avidyA and at the Atmaikatva wrongly pasted the avidyA to the brahman itself to counter the objections.
you may counter this by asking : am I not Ishwara as per shruti, how can I have avidyA?? Then we say if you realize this truth in that manner (i.e. ahaM brahmAsmi, tattvamasi etc.) then to no one there is ajnAna whatsoever. If at all brahman itself having the avidyA shakti ( which you are assuming as correct answer) then bhAshyakAra would have mentioned this avidyA shakti in brahman and would not have said there is no avidyA whatsoever after realization. As per Sri SSS adhyAsa itself is avidyA (adhyAsa bhAshya) and avidyA in the form of jnAnAbhAva is not anartha hetu but adhyAsa is !!
SSS is wrong here. Once you admit adhyasa, it belongs to the Self as there is nothing apart from Self.
In fact, I don't use the word avidya in my writings generally and stick to Maya.
- From this should I assume at least you are not treating avidyA is a synonym to mAya??
Since I have read others mention that avidya = Maya, I assume there is no contradiction with them.
- Yes they have their own justification to do so but contextual usage of these terms bhAshya vAkya-s would tell us the different story. One is visha (poison) another is anna (rice) at least as per mUla bhAshyakAra. And avidyA is NOT equal to mAya, is not only the stand of Sri SSS but other Acharya-s too have this opinion, and interestingly who are not so good friend of Sri SSS view points 😊
But I can certainly try to defend their position from the logical standpoint.
Ø You are welcome prabhuji, since so called ‘traditional view point’ is the dominating force in understanding intricacies of Advaita vedAnta. But it is better to keep in our mind that it is not logical necessity to prove avidyA based on any pramANa…Hence bhAshyakAra does not provide any pramANa for it and explains it purely based on day to day experience.
I said "adhyasa" which you seem to admit is a fact of experience.
- Yes, adhyAsa is basically taking one thing for another (atasmin tadbuddhiH – adhyAsa bhAshya) and it is quite natural tendency (svAbhAvika) of the human mind (vide adhyAsa bhAshya), the experience or behavior based on this mis-conception in day to day transactions too quite natural to human being and animals ( again vide adhyAsa bhAshya) And in adhyAsa bhAshya itself bhAshyakAra promptly admits that AtmAnAtma is just like tamaHprakAsha mixing of it is not possible ( the mixing of satyAnruta) but since we are experiencing it we have to accept it. (see adhyAsa bhAshya). And after explaining all about adhyAsa he says this is what is called avidyA by pundits.
Once you label something as "adhyasa" that is error or needs correcting with knowledge, you are no longer in Advaita and very much facing dvaita. If from this dvaita you seek to realize advaita, then the questions are relevant in the realm of dvaita that you already are dealing with.
Ø Yes that is what I said below, and answer provided by bhAshyakAra with regard to avidyAshraya and vishaya (object) is based on this stand point only.
- About which thing is there avidyA (avidyA vishaya) ?? etc. donot arise as these questions would sprout with prior admission of dvaita and this dvaita is itself avidyaka (born out of ignorance) or adhyasta ( superimposed/misconceived) and it is not real. So, it is to be noted the question itself is not correct when we correctly understand the Advaita siddhAnta.
Again, you are confusing the context of ignorance and knowledge.
- No, I am talking about the transactions / doubts in the realm of avidyA kshetra that would arise in the Advaita jignAsu and how it is irrelevant when that same jignAsu understands the real doctrine of Advaita vedAnta.
In the context of ignorance, Bhaskar-ji has a human mother and the world/universe has Brahman+Maya=Ishvara as its foundation/source. If you say "this is due to adhyasa", then that adhyasa also has Brahman+Maya as cause - since there is nothing apart from Brahman.
- I reckon this is smart mixing of vyavahAra and pAramArthika drushti to construct a topic for discussion on avidyA 😊 Yes in vyavahAra drushti I the socalled bhaskar have the BMI and interacting with another BMI called Sri Putran prabhuji and these different BMI-s staging a play on the platform of Ishwara srushti. And both these BMI-s are the ‘followers’ of Advaita vedAnta (AtmaikatvavAda) and one fine day if at all they realize absolute reality of AtmaikatvaM then they would realize there was/is/will never ever be avidyA and there is brahman ONLY and nothing else. And this bhAskar would realize that that putran was not different from this bhAskar even when he was in vyavahAra (there exists no snake at any point of time when there is actually rope). And it is because of this reason bhAshyakAra said avidyA is for YOU who is asking this question and there is no avidyA if you realize that you are brahman/Ishwara.
If you are particular about not implying causality to Brahman, then you have to say anirvachaniya Maya is cause.
Ø mAya cannot exist independently from brahman, when we talk about creation we have to accept the bhAshyakAra stand that there is abedha between shakti and shakta, kArya & kAraNa. But I don’t know how this topic would help us to prove the existence of avidyA that too logically. Are we not talking about shAstra drushti here!!??
Sure, you can call this "adhyaropa" only. But once you accept Brahma satyam and sarvam kalu idam brahma (and statements like BS 1.1.2) AND you talk about adhyasa, then you can't escape attributing causality for your adhyasa in that Maya-shakti of Brahman.
Ø See putran prabhuji if we see the adhyAsa bhAshya the explanation is quite clear there. adhyAsO nAma atasmin tadbuddhiH ityavOchAma, the material cause for this adhyAsa never ever talked by bhAshyakAra instead he clarifies this is there because mithyAjnAna nimittaH and this is naisargika and this is lOka vyavahAra. We don’t and should not ask the question why this adhyAsa or since when this adhyAsa or what is the cause of this adhyAsa, if we say 2x2=8, that is our wrong knowledge s with regard to correct knowledge of tables and no sane person would ask the question since when you are having this wrong knowledge and what is the cause of this wrong knowledge!! Every sane person would know this wrongknowledge about tables is because of absence of correct knowledge (jnAnAbhAva) and nothing else. It is in this sense bhAshyakAra said in adhyAsa bhAshya, adhyAsa is svAbhAvika and naisargika. And because of this simple reason he never ever tried to explain this adhyAsa by attributing the upAdAna kAraNa in the form of mUlAvidyA or bhAvarUpa avidyA or kAraNAvidyA which is different from jnAnAbhAva and which has the locus in brahman itself. But vyAkhyAnakAra-s found it difficult to explain the concept of avidyA when other schools raising the objections about Advaita vedAdanta who are simultaneously talking about both avidyA and at the Atmaikatva wrongly pasted the avidyA to the brahman itself to counter the objections.
you may counter this by asking : am I not Ishwara as per shruti, how can I have avidyA?? Then we say if you realize this truth in that manner (i.e. ahaM brahmAsmi, tattvamasi etc.) then to no one there is ajnAna whatsoever. If at all brahman itself having the avidyA shakti ( which you are assuming as correct answer) then bhAshyakAra would have mentioned this avidyA shakti in brahman and would not have said there is no avidyA whatsoever after realization. As per Sri SSS adhyAsa itself is avidyA (adhyAsa bhAshya) and avidyA in the form of jnAnAbhAva is not anartha hetu but adhyAsa is !!
SSS is wrong here. Once you admit adhyasa, it belongs to the Self as there is nothing apart from Self.
- First refer to the bhAshya I quoted from taitereeya and sUtra bhAshya. Then we decide who is wrong and who is right. Seeing the dviteeya Chandra, seeing the nacre in place of shell, seeing the snake in place of rope is not the problem of kshetrajna but it is the problem of defective karaNa dOsha.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65815A921146E985C3F9924B840D9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Putran Prabhuji
Hare Krishna
No, you should not assume that. Just that I am fine thinking in terms of a maya-shakti in Brahman when there is any discussion of duality and don't need to contextually call it avidya-shakti. I switch to adhyasa or ajnana in jiva contexts but if beckoned will point out the underlying positing of maya in Brahman, as I did in the part of my mail that you did not respond to. This is just how I process advaita in my mind; you can call it a type of adyaropa that I am comfortable with.
Ø So basically you are saying brahma/IshwarAshrita mAya and jeevAshrita avidyA/ajnAna. Probably I might have missed that post. Yes it is because of this reason we say avidyA is not mAya. When mAya (nAma rUpa) is seen with duality it is the problem of jeeva who sits in his own BMI and taking the external world as a separate entity from him. This is called jeeva’s avidyA for which mAya which is abhinna from Ishwara ( upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa of this jagat) is the platform. When this jagat seen separate from its adhishtAna it is called avidyA drushti.
I gave a defense in the earlier mail that was based on my assumption that avidya when said to have ashraya in Brahman is only maya labeled differently according to certain jiva-context, and otherwise may be used in the adhyasa-type (lack of knowledge) sense as well (where ashraya is not the point of emphasis).
Ø I would like to reiterate that when we are talking about Ishwara shakti it is his shakti that is mAya (mama mAya says krishna in geeta) if this mAya termed as avidyA then we have to say Ishwara has the avidyA and saying mama avidyA…But Ishwara is as per Advaita nitya shuddha buddha mukta svarUpa and he is the purest (parishuddha). avidyA which is in the form of jnAnAbhaava is eka rupa in all and this jnAnAbhAva (absence of knowledge) would lead to misconception. avidyA as per geeta bhAshya is of three types agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. Apart from this there is no other type of avidyA which has the locus in brahman and which has the suffix ‘shakti’.
I am going to stop here since there appears to be a basic misunderstanding on what is meant by avidya by the traditionalist and I don't want to argue for or against something that I may have mistakenly assumed about their position.
Ø panchapAdika vivaraNa would give the complete definition of this brahmAshrita avidyA. Kindly refer panchapAdika prasthAna and vivaraNa on it.
Ø So basically you are saying brahma/IshwarAshrita mAya and jeevAshrita avidyA/ajnAna. Probably I might have missed that post. Yes it is because of this reason we say avidyA is not mAya. When mAya (nAma rUpa) is seen with duality it is the problem of jeeva who sits in his own BMI and taking the external world as a separate entity from him. This is called jeeva’s avidyA for which mAya which is abhinna from Ishwara ( upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa of this jagat) is the platform. When this jagat seen separate from its adhishtAna it is called avidyA drushti.
I gave a defense in the earlier mail that was based on my assumption that avidya when said to have ashraya in Brahman is only maya labeled differently according to certain jiva-context, and otherwise may be used in the adhyasa-type (lack of knowledge) sense as well (where ashraya is not the point of emphasis).
Ø I would like to reiterate that when we are talking about Ishwara shakti it is his shakti that is mAya (mama mAya says krishna in geeta) if this mAya termed as avidyA then we have to say Ishwara has the avidyA and saying mama avidyA…But Ishwara is as per Advaita nitya shuddha buddha mukta svarUpa and he is the purest (parishuddha). avidyA which is in the form of jnAnAbhaava is eka rupa in all and this jnAnAbhAva (absence of knowledge) would lead to misconception. avidyA as per geeta bhAshya is of three types agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. Apart from this there is no other type of avidyA which has the locus in brahman and which has the suffix ‘shakti’.
I am going to stop here since there appears to be a basic misunderstanding on what is meant by avidya by the traditionalist and I don't want to argue for or against something that I may have mistakenly assumed about their position.
Ø panchapAdika vivaraNa would give the complete definition of this brahmAshrita avidyA. Kindly refer panchapAdika prasthAna and vivaraNa on it.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65815B28D9BA5C8BA9367459840C9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.