A talk on avidyA by Manjushree Hegde in YT

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Below is the link.  Please listen to it.

 

https://youtu.be/sk8-uHvOCxo 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

I  believe this talk is a remarkable presentation on the debate between SSS and mulAvidya vada - their historical context, clear statements of both positions, pro and cons of both positions and a worthy resolution. 

Smt. Hegde is a voice to hear, erudite and succinct and a pleasure to listen to regardless of your vada. 

--
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.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

उतमम् । धन्यवादः महोदय।

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

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.

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 6:27 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

--

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• I am really surprised no one addressed these queries sofar!!??  It is just because the talk is coming from Sri SSS’s desk and doubts raised on his stand😊 !!??  not sure though. 

 

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"?

 

• When it has been said avidyA is superimposed (adhyArOpita) it is not only restricted to only one state i.e. sushupti, it has been said with respect to all avastha-s.  It is because of the simple fact that Atman/brahman is avasthAteeta.  AvaraNa, vikshepa etc. which are avidyA shakti ( as propounded by later advaitins) mere superimposition on brahman who is nitya shuddha, buddha, mukta svarUpa.  In this sense vaishwAnara ( the experiencer of waking state, taijasa ( the experiencer of dream state and the prAjna he who is in the state of sound sleep, prajnAna ghana, ekAtma pratyayasAra, the experiencer of bliss  etc. as explained in mAndUkya is just another device in order to negate his limited nature.  The shruti itself subsequently explains how Atman/brahman is beyond these aspects of Atman by saying not of inward,  nor outward nor in either direction and not even prajnAna ghanaM, neither conscious nor unconscious etc. through which shruti saying Atman is free from all specific features.  Please see bhAshya on mAndukya mantra 12 where bhAshyakAra explains how turiya is not a separate state but it is OTOH all encompassing state of Atman.    It is in this sense it has been said avidyA is superimposed in avasthA traya that includes sushupti as well.

 

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.

 

• Your remaining queries, sorry I am not able to get it properly. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Can we say that SSS school regards avidya-shakti or maya to be an adhyasa within the adhyasa of avastatraya? That is to say, avidya as Brahman's shakti is not regarded a necessary corollary to the adhyasa of avastatraya; but rather it is an added adhyasa done in the adhyasa-based jiva, similar to some imagining "God in Heaven" is ruling over us? Instead of "God in Heaven", post-shankara advaitins imagine (superimpose on) Brahman to be possessed of avidya-shakti in order to explain the adhyasa that constitutes avasta-traya?

Whereas the SSS school does not regard avidya/maya as coeval with jagat or the avastatraya. It is not vyavaharika satya and cannot be known as existing through the pramanas. It is an extra superimposition done by the jiva.

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.

?

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

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.

[Bhaskar YR]

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 18^th 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. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oaeaaKtkizR3bb0_aYGPwsUm-x%3Dui319U0ZwXFMzZmaw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• I thought I should address these statement of yours wherein it seems you are under the impression that when dealing with avasthAtraya prakriya, post shankara advaitins have the more legitimate answer since they are advocating the avidyA shakti of brahman or in brahman. 

 

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 !! 

 

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.

 

• It is really quite amusing that brahma is having the avidyA shakti when bhAshyakAra categorically declared that avidyA is not the dharma (an attribute) of even cognizer (vijnAnAtma/kshetrajna) we are attributing this to brahman itself.  See the geeta bhAshya 13-2 for example where he clarifies how it is the problem of karaNa by giving the example of  removing the cataract in eyes. Now the question is : if the avidyA is the problem of mere antaHkaraNa, what is antaHkaraNa ??  this question is quite mute as explained above, as soon as we start asking question like this we are already under the realm of dvaita and accepting our parichinna drushti with upAdhi saMbandha.   And there is no approval whatsoever by bhAshyakAra to the above propounded theory that brahman gives Ashraya to mUlAvidyA or avidyA shakti (which is neither agrahaNa nor anyathAgrahana nor saMshaya nor even the saMskAra rUpa) which is vishesha, which is material cause of adhyAsa, distinct entity from all three aspects of avidyA  and has the locus in brahman since the time immemorial. 

 

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. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

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.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

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.

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)??

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. 

 

•   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.

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.

 

•   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”,

Exactly. For those thinking something separate from Brahman/Self or is "due to adhyasa", for them (astikas) in the context of ignorance, their vyavaharika satya is Brahman+Maya that is projecting the universe and the jiva that is thinking in terms of ignorance. (I say astikas since they have to have shastra jnana to know about brahman as the source of universe in the first place.)

 

• 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. "I am the one who is doing (is cause for) this adhyasa". And the Self seen in the context of your admitted adhyasa is then known as the projector or cause or doer of this adhyasa. But what is the Self? The shastra says it is not the jiva or the mind but is Brahman, the reality of All. Hence, this adhyasa has the Maya of Brahman as root cause. The universe of adhyasa/ajnana is only the vikshepa of Brahman+Maya.

Once adhyasa ceases, so will the need to say "this is due to adhyasa" and along with that will end the association of Maya with Brahman. Maya is as real as the adhyasa you claim is experienced. Because the paramartha jnana has nothing whatsoever apart from Brahman, therefore we say all that we see now in the realm of adhyasa/ajnana including the corollary of Maya, all that are Mithya.

If I understand the pramana methodology, Maya as the shakti of Brahman is affirmed by arthapatti (based on world of ignorance that we experience as if real and the Shastra that says Brahman alone is reality). Note: it is NOT only as soon as we start asking "questions like this" that we are in dvaita-drishti; rather it is for those in dvaita-drishti for whom the question exists and has definite answers within the realm of their ignorance. If you think you are Bhaskar-ji, then the question "Who is your mother?" is directly relevant and has clear answer. Call it unreal but you continue to admit by virtue of your dvaita-drishti that the Self is subject to adhyasa-based drishti and hence have admitted in the Self the power to project such adhyasa-based awareness. Only when you cease with dual-consciousness and have merged with advaita-drishti, it is at that point that adhyasa ceases to be and so will the duality based identification of (Maya in) Brahman. 

Once rope is seen, there is nothing whatsoever there but rope - all notion of snake is gone. But if you talk about "seeing snake" and it being adhyasa on rope, then the cause for the adhyasa is either you or the rope and if rope=self, then the self due to its inherent shakti is projecting that adhyasa as well. You can't escape maya in Brahman as long as you indulge in discussion of how to understand "world" - call it adhyasa or avidya.

(Will have to see your shastra references later. Am recovering from mini-sickness.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Here is another good video of a swami from SSS school detailing their criticisms or disagreements with 'post-shankara advaitins'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mb_Hz3vdNc

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

I listened to the below talk and have a few points to make. The speaker mentions at around 54 min the below

For traditional advaitins adhyaaropa - apavaada is one of the methods the Upanishads use. For them there are other methods like Kaarana-kaarya prakriya, avasthatraya-prakriya, panchakosha-prakriya. But Swamiji shows that these different prakriyas are only varieties of adhyaaropa-apavada.

The above is a complete misrepresentation of the traditional teachers. In every prakriya there is adhyaaropa and apavada without which advaita cannot be established. That is how it was taught to me by my Gurus who are traditional teachers. Even if you take an introductory book like Vedanta Sara the author details shareera-traya, pancha-kosha, avastha-traya and then says 

 एवमध्यारोपः ॥ १३६॥ अपवादो नाम रज्जुविवर्तस्य सर्पस्य रज्जुमात्रत्ववद्वस्तुविवर्तस्यावस्तुनोऽज्ञानादेः प्रपञ्चस्य वस्तुमात्रत्वम् ॥ १३७॥

In kaarana-kaarya prakriya - kaarya is mithya and so negated. The kaaranatvam also is mithya and so negated. In avasthatraya-prakriya experienced world is negated as mithya and the status of being a subject for the experiencer is also negated. In panchkosha prakriya too it is similar.

Further at around 49 min she says

Swamiji says the very concept of avidya itself is adhyaaropa. Further she says Avidya is the primary adhyaaropa - mula adhyaaropa - it has no ultimate ontological status. It is used for a specific purpose (as a pedagogical tool) temporarily and then retracted after its purpose stands served.

Now the above applies exactly to moolavidya. In fact with the above understanding, mithya- ajnaana / moolavidya answers all the ontological and epistemological questions satisfactorily but an atyanta-asat avidya as proposed by Swamiji will lead to serious ontological and epistemological issues. 

Further she claims that Swami ji does not accept the classification of jnaanaadhyaasa and arthaadyaasa. In that case how jeevanmukti can be explained is a puzzle. In fact Shankara clearly accepts that the dvaita perception is there for both jnaani and ajnaani but the jnaani does not take it as tattva. See for example Br. Up 3.5.1 bhashya

अस्ति चायं भेदकृतो मिथ्याव्यवहारः, येषां ब्रह्मतत्त्वादन्यत्वेन वस्तु विद्यते, येषां च नास्ति ; परमार्थवादिभिस्तु श्रुत्यनुसारेण निरूप्यमाणे वस्तुनि — किं तत्त्वतोऽस्ति वस्तु किं वा नास्तीति, ब्रह्मैकमेवाद्वितीयं सर्वसंव्यवहारशून्यमिति निर्धार्यते ; तेन न कश्चिद्विरोधः । 

Finally this idea of avidya being jnaana-abhaava is not new. It has been discussed in different texts and rejected for good reason. But still if some people find such prakriyas help them understand advaita then good luck to them. The traditional teaching method is quite anti-fragile and has answered all kinds criticism already and so it will continue in spite of some new misguided criticisms.  

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--

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.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran Prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• Please bear with me bit busy at office,  expect delays.    

 

For the sake of discussion I did not say I consider avidya as correct answer but that post-shankara advaitins do.

 

• And by doing so, they have treated avidyA on par with brahman and given the Ashraya to it in brahman itself. 

 

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. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

 

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??

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.

 

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 😊

 

Contextual usage is not necessarily making ontological distinction between maya and avidya. I would have to hear from them whether they regard maya and avidya as two distinct shaktis in Brahman in the vyavaharika standpoint, OR whether there is only one unitary shakti admitted in Brahman that in different contexts gets identified in different senses. Fire is good when it cooks your food and bad when it burns your house. If someone calls the fire that burns the house as Hyre and condemns Hyre as evil, it is a type of adhyaropa only and should not be confused as saying really that Hyre is not the same as Fire.

 

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 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). 

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.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

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.

[Bhaskar YR]

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. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

I wrote a bit of words but am seeing (after Jaishankar-ji, Subbu-ji, Michael-ji posts) that the discussion on the topic has expanded to include others, so instead of us going back and forth in a corner, it may be better to participate or follow in that larger discussion (in case the traditionalist camp should decide to commit to doing tarka here). I am also going to see if I can understand and have anything to add to that sequence of posts. 

I just make a quick point below, for now.

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.

It is not "when maya (nama-rupa) is seen with duality". When duality (nama-rupa) is seen separately in any sense whatsoever and one speaks (based on shastra drishti) of Brahman/Self being the non-dual Reality of that duality, then implicit to such a standpoint is the affirmation in Brahman of the intrinsic shakti to project/see itself as that separate or changing nama-rupa duality; and this we call Maya-shakti of Brahman. 

If in that duality-movie, the jiva is said to see this and do that, then the jiva is being associated with its own shakti to manifest in consciousness what it does. Because the jiva's shakti is operating under the spell of avidya or ajnana, it may be referred to as avidya-shakti. 

But this distinction of maya-shakti in Ishvara and avidya-shakti in jiva is superfluous because from the standpoint of knowledge, the entire movie reduces to being the Screen's (Brahman's) projection; and hence the different identifications of shakti reduce to a fundamental shakti in Brahman, that I still refer to as Maya (ala Mandukya karika 2.12) and I think is what traditionalists call Mulaavidya. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 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.