The nature of mUlAvidyA as per mUlAvidyAvAdins

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Sri SSS before taking the mUlAvidyA for refutation explains the nature of this in one of his works by extensively quoting from panchapAdika and panchapAdika vivaraNa by prakAshAtmayati.  But as per modern day vyAkhyAnakAra followers : this mUlAvidyA is saMskAra rUpa, something like jnAnAbhAva, kinchit avidyA, adyArOpita just for pedagogical purpose etc.  The readers may note that at that point of time flexible versions like above which we are seeing today about mulAvidyA in this group were not there.  So what Sri SSS objecting is what is said in these works as below :

 

svarUpa of avidyA :

 

( a) there exists in Atma Chaitanya which is anAdi, anirvachaneeya

(b) It is dependent on beginningless chaitanyasatta hence it is anAdi

( c) it is neither sat nor asat hence anirvachaneeya

(d) other names : nAma rUpa, avyAkrita, mAyA, prakruti, agrahaNa, avyakta, tamas, kAraNa, laya, shakti, mahAsupti, nidra, akshara, AkAsha etc.

( e) it has AvaraNa shakti hence AtmasvarUpa not known

(f) it has vikshepa shakti as well capable of showing one thing for another

(g) cause for the appearance of this world

(h) this avidyA does not mean it’s an abhAva, nor agrahaNa nor saMshaya nor it is saMskAra (impressions of saMskAra)

(i) it is jnana virOdhi, bhAvarUpa cause for all samsara

(j) it exists in all the states invariably (in kAraNa rUpa in sushupti and kArya-kAraNa rUpa in waking and dream).

(k) it is the material cause for adhyAsa,

 

And to prove the existence of this type of avidyA and to prove this is not abhAva there are 5 different types of pramANa-s

 

For this Ashraya is Atman/brahman

 

And he also elaborately clarifies the vivaraNa stand with regard to subject matter of avidyA, how this avidyA removed, what is the svarUpa of vidyA which removes this avidyA, why and how does the jnAni see the duality even after the dawn of paramArtha jnAn, when this duality disappear etc. 

 

So, it is better to keep these things in mind when we are studying the Sri SSS’s refutation of mUlAvidyA. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

Source : Sri SSS’s Kannada book : Shankara Siddhaanta

 

Bhaskar YR #4A, 5 & 6 2nd Phase Peenya Industrial Estate Bangalore 560058, Karnataka, India Phone: +91808395181 E-mail: bhask...@hitachienergy.com www.hitachienergy.com

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Bhaskar ji  for making these points.  Have you or has anybody come across citations from Shri SSS'  works  where he quotes the  later commentators  who have  explicitly said that the mula avidya and or avidya lesha  is  trikaala abaadhya, absolutely real as Brahman is.

Such a statement / citation seen in his works  may kindly be  reproduced along with reference. That will help a lot. From the points that you have listed this element is not brought out and hence this request.

Thanks  and regards

subbu

--
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/AM7PR06MB658153BD3623F7BA9C1C21DA840F9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks Bhaskar ji  for making these points.  Have you or has anybody come across citations from Shri SSS'  works  where he quotes the  later commentators  who have  explicitly said that the mula avidya and or avidya lesha  is  trikaala abaadhya, absolutely real as Brahman is.

Such a statement / citation seen in his works  may kindly be  reproduced along with reference. That will help a lot. From the points that you have listed this element is not brought out and hence this request.

 

Ø    I have not come across such an explicit statement in Sri SSS’s works (  I may not be aware of it!!)  But in one of his works (if I remember right) he asks :  since mUlAvidyAvAdins accept the existence of this mUlAvidhyA ( definition (j) in my previous mail) in all the three states (avasthAtraya) why we should not say it is on par with brahman??  And further enquires if the mUlAvidyA does not exist in the state of nirvikalpa samAdhi, how the experiencer of NS get back to waking (normal) state?? what is the nimitta for his coming back??  If experiencer of NS does not come back and if at all NS is the absolute state (devoid of any avidyA including mUlAvidyA) and if we say person who experiences this does not come back and merges in that state forever, who will be there for us to explain the muktAnubhava??  If the tUlAvidyA (jeeva level) is eradicated through jnana how jnAnavirOdhi mUlAvidyA which has the brahmAshraya can be eradicated that too when it is not antaHkaraNa dharma?? 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

kudos dear Bhaskarji, Exactly what this discussion needed is background on the whole argument and you presented succinctly. I hope Jaishankara Narayanji and V. Subramanyanji will be kind enough to stipulate OR amend your enumeration of the ideas that originated with Padmapada, Sankara's direct disciple, that continue in vogue today in all popular Advaita tradition and who we are calling MulAvidya vada. 

It is a privilege to follow this assemblage of pundits and seekers.  🙏  🙏  🙏 

--

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/AM7PR06MB6581593DB3B50E821A1D3039840F9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

See below

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 2:48 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Sri SSS before taking the mUlAvidyA for refutation explains the nature of this in one of his works by extensively quoting from panchapAdika and panchapAdika vivaraNa by prakAshAtmayati.  But as per modern day vyAkhyAnakAra followers : this mUlAvidyA is saMskAra rUpa, something like jnAnAbhAva, kinchit avidyA, adyArOpita just for pedagogical purpose etc.  The readers may note that at that point of time flexible versions like above which we are seeing today about mulAvidyA in this group were not there.  So what Sri SSS objecting is what is said in these works as below :

 

svarUpa of avidyA :

 

( a) there exists in Atma Chaitanya which is anAdi, anirvachaneeya

(b) It is dependent on beginningless chaitanyasatta hence it is anAdi

( c) it is neither sat nor asat hence anirvachaneeya

(d) other names : nAma rUpa, avyAkrita, mAyA, prakruti, agrahaNa, avyakta, tamas, kAraNa, laya, shakti, mahAsupti, nidra, akshara, AkAsha etc.

( e) it has AvaraNa shakti hence AtmasvarUpa not known

(f) it has vikshepa shakti as well capable of showing one thing for another

(g) cause for the appearance of this world

 

   JN: All the above are acceptable

(h) this avidyA does not mean it’s an abhAva, nor agrahaNa nor saMshaya nor it is saMskAra (impressions of saMskAra)

   JN: This avidyA manifests itself as jnana-abhAvA, agrahana, samshaya etc. So it can be called with all these names

(i) it is jnana virOdhi, bhAvarUpa cause for all samsara

(j) it exists in all the states invariably (in kAraNa rUpa in sushupti and kArya-kAraNa rUpa in waking and dream).

(k) it is the material cause for adhyAsa,

   

   JN: All the above are acceptable 

   

  I only want to add that this avidyA is as real or as false as the world it manifests. Since SSS followers have allergy to the word bhAvarUpa we can call it asat as defined by Bhasyakara in BG Bh 2.16.

 

And to prove the existence of this type of avidyA and to prove this is not abhAva there are 5 different types of pramANa-s

 

For this Ashraya is Atman/brahman

 

And he also elaborately clarifies the vivaraNa stand with regard to subject matter of avidyA, how this avidyA removed, what is the svarUpa of vidyA which removes this avidyA, why and how does the jnAni see the duality even after the dawn of paramArtha jnAn, when this duality disappear etc. 

 

So, it is better to keep these things in mind when we are studying the Sri SSS’s refutation of mUlAvidyA. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

Source : Sri SSS’s Kannada book : Shankara Siddhaanta

 

Bhaskar YR #4A, 5 & 6 2nd Phase Peenya Industrial Estate Bangalore 560058, Karnataka, India Phone: +91808395181 E-mail: bhask...@hitachienergy.com www.hitachienergy.com

 

--

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/AM7PR06MB658153BD3623F7BA9C1C21DA840F9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

Let me answer the below questions as the other questions become irrelevant if you understand this

Question: since mUlAvidyAvAdins accept the existence of this mUlAvidhyA ( definition (j) in my previous mail) in all the three states (avasthAtraya) why we should not say it is on par with brahman??

Answer: It does not exist independently like brahman. It exists as asat as defined by Bhasyakara in 2.16 of BG Bhashya and Tai Up Bh 2.1 and as vikara as defined in Chandogya 6th chapter. So its existence does not count as real existence. It is called as exists only in the sense that it is perceived unlike a Vandhyaa-Putra in which category falls the jnAna-abhAva proposed by SSS.

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/AM7PR06MB6581593DB3B50E821A1D3039840F9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.