[Rajhoou Upreti]

Guys , is Sureshvaracharya Bhasya on Dakshinamurti very much unknown  ??I heard some guys claiming that its theme match with kashmiri shaivas rather than advaitin siddhantas ,is this one of the reason ??? 

[সপ্ত Rishi]

That allegation has actually been refuted by the great NS.Anantakrishna Sastrigal in his commentary of manasollasa.

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025, 07:48 Rajhoou Upreti, <rajho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys , is Sureshvaracharya Bhasya on Dakshinamurti very much unknown  ??I heard some guys claiming that its theme match with kashmiri shaivas rather than advaitin siddhantas ,is this one of the reason ??? 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B_usDzv%2Bt7G_DA%3DxTKGDM57HT027o-ax3cSo67zxJqeaxMigw%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Actually more than theme, its the words that has been which led to such theories by indologists.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Words like Pratyabhijna etc.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste,

Samkshepa ShArIraka is a profound work by SarvajnAtma muni and is extremely revered in advaita sampradAya. The colossal figures like MadhusUdana Saraswati and NrisimhAshrama have written illuminating commentaries on SS. The shlOkAs of SS not only reveal the deep concepts, they are also very lyrical. I particularly like the pramitAksharA chhanda (प्रमिताक्षरा छन्द) which one can easily sing.

I would like to share 3-4 shlokAs which have just stuck to me for last 3-4 months. These are extremely insightful and conceptually fundamental. And on top of that, one can sing them.

तव गाढमूढतमसा रचितं जगदीशजीववपुषा सकलम्। प्रतिभाति तावददृढं दृढवत् समुदेति यावदवबोधरविः॥२२२॥

This prapancha in the form of world, Ishwara and jIva is constructed by your dense, dark, deluding ignorance. While it is extremely fragile, it appears as solid and firm only so long as the sun of jnAna does not appear.


तव चित्तमात्मतमसा जनितं परिकल्प्यत्यखिलमेव जगत्। तव कल्पनाविरचितः स गुरुस्तव रूपमद्वयमुदाहरति॥२२५॥

Your mind is born from ignorance of Atma. And your mind imagines this entire world. Guru, who is also constructed by your imagination, will explain/teach/make you see your own non-dual nature.


न हि चित्तदृश्यमपि सत्यमिति प्रतिपन्नमस्ति भुवि किञ्चिदपि। रशनाभुजङ्गसदृशं सकलं जगदिन्द्रजालमिति सिद्धमतः॥२२६॥

In this world, nothing whatsoever which is chitta-drishya (object of mind) can be satya. This entire world is like snake in the rope. And therefore, it is proved that it is illusory.


परिकल्पितोऽपि सकलज्ञतया गुरुरेव पूर्णमवबोधयति। परिकल्पितोऽपि मरणाय भवेदुरगो यथा न तु नभो मलिनम्॥२२७॥

The guru, though imagined, is imagined as an omniscient person. And hence he alone explains the complete (Brahman) to you. Despite being imagined, it is only the imagined snake which causes death and not the impurity of the sky!!

Just to get an idea as to how to sing the shlOkAs, I have recorded these. It can be heard at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8hddnubwqt1jnyhiyllxq/Voice-250311_130800.m4a?rlkey=2zg19rabx7fg3hkz19v3fgcss&st=q0bpgidq&dl=0

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhanshu ji,

Please share more, whenever you notice such verses.   Thanks.

regards

subbu 

_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

With your permission I have given some subject heading along with some quick observation from my side.  Hope it is OK with you 😊

तव गाढमूढतमसा रचितं जगदीशजीववपुषा सकलम्। प्रतिभाति तावददृढं दृढवत् समुदेति यावदवबोधरविः॥२२२॥

This prapancha in the form of world, Ishwara and jIva is constructed by your dense, dark, deluding ignorance. While it is extremely fragile, it appears as solid and firm only so long as the sun of jnAna does not appear.

 

• As per shankara / gaudapAda IshwarAnugraha is must even to get Advaita vAsana and he is mOksha pradAta / jnAna pradAta.  He is not our fanciful mental construction.  After the dawn of jnAna jnAni realizes that IshAvAsyaM idam sarvaM not that in the post realization period jnAni would think that Ishwara is the strawman constructed foolishly by me during my dense, dark and deluding ignorance period.  I am afraid the above observation is at best definitely an atheistic statement.  Does the commentator here implying for the paramArtha jnAni there is no Ishwara and he is mere mental product during ajnAna period and a big zero !!??  Kindly note shankara bhagavatpAda is NOT a dry logician he is a saint par excellence.  By the way how MS treated all these statements being himself a great Krishna bhakta?? 

तव चित्तमात्मतमसा जनितं परिकल्प्यत्यखिलमेव जगत्। तव कल्पनाविरचितः स गुरुस्तव रूपमद्वयमुदाहरति॥२२५॥

Your mind is born from ignorance of Atma. And your mind imagines this entire world. Guru, who is also constructed by your imagination, will explain/teach/make you see your own non-dual nature.

 

• Buddhisam / vijnAnavAda at its best here.  If the entire world is mere mental construction of an ajnAni, then more than half of the shruti verdicts should be thrown out of window as useless and it is talking nonsense.  Atleast  vyAkhyAnakAra here could have given the room to think about world differently based on adhikAra bedha…It seems he is not doing it.    

न हि चित्तदृश्यमपि सत्यमिति प्रतिपन्नमस्ति भुवि किञ्चिदपि। रशनाभुजङ्गसदृशं सकलं जगदिन्द्रजालमिति सिद्धमतः॥२२६॥

In this world, nothing whatsoever which is chitta-drishya (object of mind) can be satya.

 

• Yes, it is mere chitta drushya, a perception of qualified/conditioned mind

 

This entire world is like snake in the rope.

 

• Not so, bhAshyakAra clarifies this by using the same analogy (rajju-sarpa) in chAndOgya. 

 

And therefore, it is proved that it is illusory.

 

• Shankara’s Advaita is NOT bhrAntivAda. 

परिकल्पितोऽपि सकलज्ञतया गुरुरेव पूर्णमवबोधयति। परिकल्पितोऽपि मरणाय भवेदुरगो यथा न तु नभो मलिनम्॥२२७॥

The guru, though imagined, is imagined as an omniscient person.

 

• So omniscience of Ishwara / guru, guru as a person etc.is  just my conditioned mind’s imagination and I know that treating my guru as an omniscient is just my imagination / a product of ajnAna 😊

 

 

And hence he alone explains the complete (Brahman) to you.

 

• Why we should not think that the above statement / (wrong) conclusion is just another stretch of my imagination !!??  do you have any valid reason to give any reality to this statement ??

 

Despite being imagined, it is only the imagined snake which causes death and not the impurity of the sky!!

 

Ø     Again how you are giving any validity to these statements when each and every thing is just your conditioned mental construction?? 

 

Just to get an idea as to how to sing the shlOkAs, I have recorded these. It can be heard at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8hddnubwqt1jnyhiyllxq/Voice-250311_130800.m4a?rlkey=2zg19rabx7fg3hkz19v3fgcss&st=q0bpgidq&dl=0

 

Ø     In the imaginary world, imaginary person called Sri SudhAnsnu singing the song of imaginary vyAkhyAnakAra’s shloka-s and asking his imaginary world/listeners  to listen to it 😊 No offence is intended but this is what you get when shankara’s parishuddha Advaita projected in the light of imaginary Ishwara/guru/world 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

With your permission I have given some subject heading along with some quick observation from my side.  Hope it is OK with you 😊

It is certainly ok from my side and you are entitled to have your observations/ideas/understanding. 

As per shankara / gaudapAda IshwarAnugraha is must even to get Advaita vAsana and he is mOksha pradAta / jnAna pradAta.  He is not our fanciful mental construction.  After the dawn of jnAna jnAni realizes that IshAvAsyaM idam sarvaM not that in the post realization period jnAni would think that Ishwara is the strawman constructed foolishly by me during my dense, dark and deluding ignorance period.  I am afraid the above observation is at best definitely an atheistic statement. Does the commentator here implying for the paramArtha jnAni there is no Ishwara and he is mere mental product during ajnAna period and a big zero !!??  Kindly note shankara bhagavatpAda is NOT a dry logician he is a saint par excellence.  By the way how MS treated all these statements being himself a great Krishna bhakta?? 

These verses are best understood in drishTi-srishTi-vAda framework. I can understand the difficulty to appreciate these shlOkAs if one ascribes reality to jIva, jagat and Ishwara.

 

 Buddhisam / vijnAnavAda at its best here.  If the entire world is mere mental construction of an ajnAni, then more than half of the shruti verdicts should be thrown out of window as useless and it is talking nonsense.  Atleast  vyAkhyAnakAra here could have given the room to think about world differently based on adhikAra bedha…It seems he is not doing it.    

VijnAnavAda does have certain things in common with advaita vedAnta, and that has been stated in so many words by AchArya - ‘प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम्’ (मा. का. ४ । २५) इत्यादि एतदन्तं विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम् ।  

Basically bAhya-artha-pratishedha (negation of external objects) is common to advaita and vijnAnavAda. However, advaita accepts Brahman/Self as real substratum of illusory appearance. And here it distinguishes itself from vijnAnavAda.

Whether it is Shruti, Smriti or bhAshya, you will get statements advocating pariNAma, vivarta (SDV as  well as DSV) and ajAti. They are sequential depending on adhikAra-bheda.

 

• Not so, bhAshyakAra clarifies this by using the same analogy (rajju-sarpa) in chAndOgya. 

 

• Shankara’s Advaita is NOT bhrAntivAda. 

Inactive singular Brahman cannot accommodate activity without accepting illusion. 

 So omniscience of Ishwara / guru, guru as a person etc.is  just my conditioned mind’s imagination and I know that treating my guru as an omniscient is just my imagination / a product of ajnAna 😊

 

 Why we should not think that the above statement / (wrong) conclusion is just another stretch of my imagination !!??  do you have any valid reason to give any reality to this statement ??

 

Again how you are giving any validity to these statements when each and every thing is just your conditioned mental construction?? 

  

In the imaginary world, imaginary person called Sri SudhAnsnu singing the song of imaginary vyAkhyAnakAra’s shloka-s and asking his imaginary world/listeners  to listen to it 😊 No offence is intended but this is what you get when shankara’s parishuddha Advaita projected in the light of imaginary Ishwara/guru/world  😊

All such doubts stand answered in accordance with dream-analogy. Just as in the dream one thinks of omniscient Ishwara as having created the world, and Guru as imparting vidyA etc, similarly now.

BhAshyakAra proves it - जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । दृश्यत्वादिति हेतुः । स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यम् , तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः । तस्माज्जागरितेऽपि वैतथ्यं स्मृतमिति निगमनम् ।  

SiddhAnta Lesha Sangraha clinches it - अत्र च सम्भावितसकलशङ्कापङ्कप्रक्षालनं स्वप्नदृष्टान्तसलिलधारयैव कर्तव्यम्.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

These verses are best understood in drishTi-srishTi-vAda framework. I can understand the difficulty to appreciate these shlOkAs if one ascribes reality to jIva, jagat and Ishwara.

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Be practical prabhuji, do you want to do sAdhana by holding the shallow theories like Ishwara and guru just your conditioned mind construction?? Don’t you want to approach shrOtreeya brahmanishTa guru?? Don’t you want to have a sadguru who can lead you in the right path of realization?? Don’t you want to do guru seva (tadviddhi praNipAtena, pariprashnena sevaya) and ask for his blessings?? Do you say to your guru : even though you are just a mental construction of mine, I am just imagining you as the person and listen to your teachings which is again I know is illusory etc.?? Likewise when you are doing your ishta devata archana, pooja, dhyAna do you carry the ideas like you are nothing after my realization, unfortunately I am worshipping you during my avidyA period that too binding myself to the SDM!!?? You can say hundred and one things to logically prove Ishwara and guru big zero after realization but as long as you are sincere sAdhaka Ishwara is your karmaphala dAta, guru is our kArnuNya murthy, shAstra is our ultimate source...just you cannot come out of this sAmpradAyik method of learning and realization even though you might succeed in proving all are your imagination with mere logic.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna prabhu ji.

Be practical prabhuji, do you want to do sAdhana by holding the shallow theories like Ishwara and guru just your conditioned mind construction??  Don’t you want to approach shrOtreeya brahmanishTa guru??  Don’t you want to have a sadguru who can lead you in the right path of realization??  Don’t you want to do guru seva (tadviddhi praNipAtena, pariprashnena sevaya) and ask for his blessings??  Do you say to your guru :  even though you are just a mental construction of mine, I am just imagining you as the person and listen to your teachings which is again I know  is illusory etc.??

I am not saying this to shrOtriya BrahmanishTha guru. It is the other way round. He says so. And he says so to remove my hard and firm belief that he is real. 

Likewise when you are doing your ishta devata archana, pooja, dhyAna do you carry the ideas like you are nothing after my realization, unfortunately I am worshipping you during my avidyA period that too binding myself to the SDM!!??  You can say hundred and one things to logically prove Ishwara and guru big zero after realization but as long as you are sincere sAdhaka Ishwara is your karmaphala dAta, guru is our kArnuNya murthy, shAstra is our ultimate source...just you cannot come out of this sAmpradAyik method of learning and realization even though you might succeed in proving all are your imagination with mere logic. 

These are all sequential understanding Bhaskar ji. The sAdhanA as per my understanding is this - समस्तं कल्पनामात्रमात्मा मुक्तः सनातनः। इति विज्ञाय धीरो हि किमभ्यस्यति बालवत्।।18.7।।

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

Reg  // You can say hundred and one things to logically prove Ishwara and guru big zero after realization but as long as you are sincere sAdhaka Ishwara is your karmaphala dAta, guru is our kArnuNya murthy, shAstra is our ultimate source...just you cannot come out of this sAmpradAyik method of learning and realization even though you might succeed in proving all are your imagination with mere logic //,

It is illogical to claim that the issue can be proven logically simply because the topic itself is out of bounds for logic. However I am not arguing on that point. But surely there is no basis for claiming that SDV must be followed by DSV to attain the Goal of Advaita Siddhanta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada. Even Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati, in his text Siddhanta Bindu, clearly states that the sAdhaka can follow SDV to reach the Goal. I am  posting this just to caution the beginners especially not to fall a prey to such misleading declarations. No offence meant to followers of DSV.

Regards

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625C9F9C120AF7DB9D7947D84D12%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati is the proponent of one version of DSV. Just for information of some who may not be aware of this.

Regards

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Rather than joining in this discussion (for the record, I agree with Bhaskar-ji’s objections), I thought I would ask ChatGPT how it is possible for seekers to argue in favor of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda with ‘others’. I have had definite problems with ChatGPT before, as I have mentioned, but it gave what I thought was a very good answer in this case. (It almost made me think that DSV is a reasonable stance!). I have just posted the discussion to my website if anyone wants to read it. (Around 1200 words, so a bit too long to post here).

 

https://www.advaita-vision.org/d%e1%b9%9b%e1%b9%a3%e1%b9%adi-s%e1%b9%9b%e1%b9%a3%e1%b9%adi-vada/

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

//Please share more, whenever you notice such verses.//

Sure. Noted.

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

But surely there is no basis for claiming that SDV must be followed by DSV to attain the Goal of Advaita Siddhanta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada. 

Please refer to the commentary by MS on verses 2.90 and 2.91 of Samkshepa ShArIraka. 

Basically three drishTi have been propounded. pariNAma-drishTi, vivarta-drishTi and paripUrNa-drishTi. Here, pariNAma-drishTi is adhyArOpa and vivarta-drishTi is its apavAda. Further, vivarta-drishTi when considered vis-a-vis paripUrNa-drishTi is adhyArOpa and paripUrNa-drishTi is apavAda. Thus, we see that vivarta-drishTi has two attributes, it is apavAda vis-a-vis pariNAma-drishTi and it is adhyArOpa vis-a-vis paripUrNa-drishTi. That is why vivarta-drishTi is also called vyAmishra-drishTi. (Refer SS 2.87 and 2.88)

Further, vivarta-drishTi is also of two types. One, wherein several mumukshu are admitted and second where only one mumukshu is admitted. These refer to SDV and DSV respectively. [Refer SS 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86 and 2.91]

At one point of time, the aspirant can have only one drishTi. These drishTi are therefore sequential. MS writes in the commentary to SS 2.88 - एवं परिणाम-आदि-दृष्टीनाम्-एक-अधिकारिणि क्रमवर्त्तिनीनां मोक्ष-उपयोग उक्तः। Subsequently, MS says 2.91 - अथ-शब्द-सूचित एकविध एव अधिकारी तस्य क्रम-भाविन्यः एता दृष्टयः इति अस्मन्मतम्.

So, it is clear that these are the progressive drishTis which mumukshu comes to attain. Thus, DSV follows SDV and ajAti, which is the paripUrNa-drishTi is the ultimate apavAda of vivarta which is mOksha.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

//Final Thoughts

While Śaṅkara does not explicitly propose dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, later Advaitins, particularly Prakāśānanda, provide systematic arguments for it. If you are looking for a simple yet traditional exposition, Vedānta-siddhānta-muktāvalī is a key text. However, if you want to stay within Śaṅkara’s framework, his bhāṣya-s do not fully support this view.//

The main siddhAnta of ShAnkara BhAshya is ajAti-vAda. Rest all are intermediate explanations. Wherever BhAshya equates waking and dream, that is DSV. Wherever it distinguishes waking and dream, that is SDV. I am sure you would have noticed these two mutually exclusive propositions in bhAshya. Generally the majority of people experience difficulty in accepting DSV. And hence Shruti and Smriti primarily deal with SDV. That is the reason for the predominance of SDV related material everywhere.

Chatgpt conversation has fundamental errors which I do not wish to point out on account of it being useless.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I don’t know what ChatGPT offered you, you yourself said (or someone else) said that AI gives the answer as per the needs of questioner or depends on the intended style of question.  Perhaps you would be getting different answer if you frame the question like : what are the problems in accepting the DSV in Advaita Vedanta or as per shankara’s PTB.  I definitely say it wont throw the answers like : DSV is the superior module when compared to SDV and SDV  is just for tyros 😊

 

First of all to say it is all just mind game in DSV, where does this mind come at first place??  If there is no objectives out there how even DSV can be advocated??  If we say in DSV, consciousness using the ‘mind’ and creating all these outside non-existing world, are we not already accepting some instrument/tool (here it is mind) which is ‘creating’ outside phantasy??  From where this instrument has been originated at the first place to say there is only drushti before srushti ??  Does this ‘drushti’ has an independent existence apart / aloof from srushti ??  Don’t you think here drushti-srushti or srushti of animals etc.-drushti of the pramAtru just mutual observers??   All these might have been explained logically in various vyAkhyAna-s to prove the superiority of DSV over SDV but I don’t think it is within the framework of PTB.  And even if we say like in dream, chitta and chitta grAhya objects simultaneously existing in dreamer, the duality will not cease to exist both in waking and dreaming state to say DSV is better than SDV.  Hence I don’t think there is any valid logical reason to prove one particular module superiority over other and one is meant for only dull wits and another one is for the intellectually superiors.  But when it is accepted it is brahman and brahman alone ( ekAtma bhAva) as per shruti we realize that whatever is there in ‘front’ of us is also brahman and there is nothing apart from brahman.  Here we are accepting the shruti verdict that for the existing world brahman is the abinna nimittopadAna kAraNa and we are also worshipping the Ishwara’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence qualities without daring to conclude : Hi, Ishwara, you are just my conditioned mind imaginary construction, you don’t have any existence!!?? 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 3:01 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Quotes from samkshepa shaareeraka

 

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.

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000601db93fa%24909320f0%24b1b962d0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
It has been a while!

It is not the formulation of DSV that so much diverts from Bhasya, it is rather the notion of a substantial avidya that precedes as the "cause" of mind and DSV that is not warranted in Sankara's Advaita. How is a causal avidya to be remedied if its effect is mind? 

regards, michael

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBD2%3DLTTmR6NmGxOLbvgh9HxcOOi7kjiysJBukCWTLpV6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

How is a causal avidya to be remedied if its effect is mind? 

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

The answer is very simple from the desk of MVV-s, it is brahmAshrita avidyA from which originates nAma rUpa.  Case closed 😊

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

regards, michael

 

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 5:45 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Dennis ji.

//Final Thoughts

While Śaṅkara does not explicitly propose dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, later Advaitins, particularly Prakāśānanda, provide systematic arguments for it. If you are looking for a simple yet traditional exposition, Vedānta-siddhānta-muktāvalī is a key text. However, if you want to stay within Śaṅkara’s framework, his bhāṣya-s do not fully support this view.//

The main siddhAnta of ShAnkara BhAshya is ajAti-vAda. Rest all are intermediate explanations. Wherever BhAshya equates waking and dream, that is DSV. Wherever it distinguishes waking and dream, that is SDV. I am sure you would have noticed these two mutually exclusive propositions in bhAshya. Generally the majority of people experience difficulty in accepting DSV. And hence Shruti and Smriti primarily deal with SDV. That is the reason for the predominance of SDV related material everywhere.

 

Chatgpt conversation has fundamental errors which I do not wish to point out on account of it being useless.

 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBD2%3DLTTmR6NmGxOLbvgh9HxcOOi7kjiysJBukCWTLpV6w%40mail.gmail.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE07PiRGEhb1JafSC8gbc317H%3DtWnqSe_kAJo678Cochg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Both mind and ignorance are illusory and the casuality mentioned between them is equally illusory. So, no objection can possibly arise. 

There is nothing like "substantial" avidyA. There is only "illusory" avidyA. Meaning thereby, avidyA appears while it is ever non-existent in the substratum where it appears (i.e. Self).

Please note that casuality is illusory in advaita vedAnta. This is a central point.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
Thank you for you quick and simple response. What is this illusion you are referring to? Please explain. Is not mithya ajnana nimittah, a positive, material cause that is said to account for adhyasa and samsara? How is that said not to be a cause? If this mithya ajnana nimittah were just an illusion, it would conclude with the dispelling of the ignorance. However, mulavidya vada holds that even with removal of adhyasa there remains a residue called avidya-lesha that conditions the "individual" jnani (what can possibly account for individuality with the fall of avidya?) who thus must continue to interact with samsara until the fall of his body. Does not Madhusudhana Maharaj accordingly advocate videha mukti as a superior liberation to jivanmukti? 

regards 

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCEkYi6y9oO-vxvkCie2s49it4hn8sukh1zs54_R7Bq2g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

 

What is this illusion you are referring to? Please explain.

Both avidyA and avidyA-kArya (effects of avidyA) are illusions. That means, they are non-existent in the substratum where they appear. 

Also, the very causality, using which we connect avidyA and avidyA-kArya, is illusory. This is a central point on which I don't see much application of mind. I wish a separate post is initiated and a discussion on illusoriness of causation takes place. Importantly on the ramifications thereof. That is a life-changing-attitude imho.

 

Is not mithya ajnana nimittah, a positive, material cause that is said to account for adhyasa and samsara? How is that said not to be a cause?

avidyA is the material cause. However, it is bhAvarUpa, meaning thereby neither bhAva nor abhAva. To highlight its difference from abhAva, it is called bhAvarUpa (like bhAva). However, it is not bhAva either.

If this mithya ajnana nimittah were just an illusion, it would conclude with the dispelling of the ignorance.

If the illusion is nirupAdhika, then and then only the illusion is dispelled by knowledge of substratum.  For example, rope-snake. If the illusion is sOpAdhika, then removal of upAdhi is also required. For e.g. crystal-flower. (Even if you know that crystal is colourless, you continue to see red crystal if flower is present).

In DSV, avidyA-adhyAsa is nirupAdhika and is hence dispelled with the knowledge of substratum.

In SDV, however, prArabdha is accepted and is treated as an upAdhi. Since prArabdha is accepted as the upAdhi, the sOpAdhika-illusion goes only when prArabdha exhausts.

However, mulavidya vada holds that even with removal of adhyasa there remains a residue called avidya-lesha that conditions the "individual" jnani (what can possibly account for individuality with the fall of avidya?) who thus must continue to interact with samsara until the fall of his body.

The continuance of sOpAdhika-bhrama does not imply that the person is conditioned/in bondage. You can continue to see mirage despite knowing that it is not water, but only a mirage. Similarly, you can continue to encounter avidyA-lesha and prArabdha without being conditioned by it. You can be liberated despite there being avidyA-lesha.

avidyA-lesha does not bind you. Just as mirage does not bind, despite its appearance, to the person who knows that it is a mirage.

Does not Madhusudhana Maharaj accordingly advocate videha mukti as a superior liberation to jivanmukti? 

avidyA-lesha, prArabdha, jIvanmukti are the concepts advocated in SDV. They are inadmissible in DSV. 

One can have gradations in jIvanmukti and videhamukti. That is not damaging because the person stands liberated due to AV-1 (akhanDAkAra-vritti) only. It is only the absence of prArabdha, due to which AV-2 (charama-akhanDAkAra-vritti), is said to result in videha-mukti. The gradation of jIvanmukti and videhamukti is only on account of presence and absence of vikshepa-caused-by-prArabdha. That is why expression of bliss is subdued in jIvanmukti but not in videhamukti.

I would request you to ponder over sOpAdhika and nirupAdhika-adhyAsa. BhAsyakAra hints on these two in adhyAsa bhAshya by saying the following -   शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवदिति . Here, silver-shell is nirupAdhika-adhyAsa whereas two-moons are sOpAdhika-adhyAsa. Similarly, world-Brahman is sOpAdhika-adhyAsa in SDV which necessitates avidyA-lesha, whereas the same in nirupAdhika-adhyAsa in DSV and hence does not require avidyA-lesha.

For those who wish to know about it, the following may be useful:

4(a) sopAdhika-adhyAsa

If in case of an adhyAsa, there is an presence of upAdhi as kAraNa, then such an adhyAsa is known as sopAdhika-adhyAsa. upAdhi here refers to bheda-hetu. For e.g. in the case of the illusion of two moons, the finger acts as upAdhi. In case of difference between jIva and Brahman, avidyA acts as the upAdhi as it is the cause of difference and is hence bheda-hetu. The same avidyA is merely hetu in ahamkAra-AtmA-aikya-adhyAsa but is not bheda-hetu. Hence, avidyA is not an upAdhi there.

PurNAnandIya clarifies – ‘यावत्कार्यमवस्थायिभेदहेतोरुपाधीते’त्यभियुक्तवचनेन यो भेदहेतुः स उपाधिरिति नियमो ह्यनुभवसिद्धः यथा चन्द्रे ह्यनेकचन्द्रत्वे अङ्गुल्यादिस्तथा चाहङ्कारात्मनोरैक्याध्यासे अविद्यादेः भेदकत्व-अभावात्-न-उपाधित्वं किन्तु हेतुत्वमात्रं, तस्यैवाविद्यादेः ब्रह्मजीवान्तर-भेदकत्वात्-तदध्यासे तूपाधित्वं, तस्मान्निरुपाधिकः सोपाधिकश्चेति द्विविधोऽध्यास इत्यभिप्रेत्यावतारयति – आत्मनीति । जीवादन्यो जीवान्तरं ब्रह्मजीवभिन्नमिति, ब्रह्मणि जीवभेदस्य सोपाधिकस्याध्यासे, चैत्रो मैत्राद्भिन्न इति परस्परजीवभेदस्य, सोपाधिकस्याध्यासे च दृष्टान्तमाहेत्यर्थः ।

Such sopAdhika-adhyAsa is not extinguished merely by the jnAna of adhishThAna i.e. vishesha but also by removal of upAdhi.

4(b) nirupAdhika-adhyAsa

The adhyAsa where there is no upAdhi as kAraNa is termed as nirupAdhika-adhyAsa. Such adhyAsa is removed on the knowledge of adhishThAna. For e.g. the illusion of silver on shell is nirupAdhika-adhyAsa.

BhAshyakAra gives the example of both of these adhyAsa in the following line –  शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवदिति .

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

<< However, mulavidya vada holds that even with removal of adhyasa there remains a residue called avidya-lesha that conditions the "individual" jnani (what can possibly account for individuality with the fall of avidya?) who thus must continue to interact with samsara until the fall of his body. >>

Per my understanding, avidya-lesha is an explanation given to the 'observed' continued functioning of the jnani's BMI, as observed by and from the perspective of an ajnani. This presupposed the jnani-ajnani distinction as well. Avidya-lesha is accepted as long as the distinct limited individuality of the ajnani is maintained. Avidya-lesha is 100% vyavaharika just as mithyajnana and moksha-jnana.

prostrations,

Vikram

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCYf%2B_XHSq355izuMrNxpDgh%3DXm_B-KRzVtgz102n6DFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu JI,

Sri MS lists the different vAdAs like Pratibimba vAda, AbhAsa vAda, Avachheda vAda etc (all SDV) and then adds DSV as well (his version)  while terming it the Principal Vedanta SiddhAnta  **मुख्योवेदान्तसिद्धान्त एकजीववादाख्यः I इममेव च दृष्टिसृष्टिवादमाचक्षते I ** (mukhyovedAntasiddhAnta ekajIvavAdAkhyaH I imameva cha dRRiShTisRRiShTivAdamAchakShate I ) (The Principal Vedanta Siddhanta is termed Eka jIva vAda. This is also called DSV).  Surprisingly one of them, falling under the SDV category, is attributed to Samkshepa ShArIraka itself citing verse 1-36 and states that the MahAvAkya relevant for this vAda is **aham brahmAsmi**. The relevant lakshaNa applicable in understanding this is jahallakshaNa. You may like to check.

Even in such a context, Sri MS concludes by quoting BUBV 1-4-402

//  यया यया भवेत्पुंसां व्युत्पत्तिः प्रत्यगात्मनि।।
सा सैव प्रक्रियेह स्यात्साध्वी सा चानवस्थिता ।। ४०२ ।। //

//  yayA yayA bhavetpuMsAM vyutpattiH pratyagAtmani||

sA saiva prakriyeha syAtsAdhvI sA chAnavasthitA || 402 || //.

Meaning (not literal translation) // All methods which lead to the Knowledge of the Self are good and  can be followed //.

Sri MS does not suggest that SDV must be followed by DSV etc for Realization, and that any of the  methods   can be followed as befits the sAdhaka. There are no **progressive drishTis which mumukshu comes to attain** as concluded by you.

Anyway, we have seen of late that there are too many issues dealt with in  texts like Advaita Siddhi, VivaraNa etc on which our respective understandings have widely differed. The above is perhaps an addition to the list. I have not studied Samkshepa ShArIraka or its commentary by Sri MS in any detail. Nor do I propose to do so now. However I am fairly certain that our respective understandings of those texts concerning the topic under discussion would equally be divergent.  

Having said that, I have no qualms on what I have stated in my earlier post on SDV vis a vis DSV and do wish that others are wary of the claims.

Regards

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

//Both avidyA and avidyA-kArya (effects of avidyA) are illusions.//
Indeed, however you haven't answered precisely what is this illusion? Is it simply adhyasa, taking what is real for what is not real? Is there something that is established prior to superimposition? Kindly clarify. 

//avidyA is the material cause. However, it is bhAvarUpa, meaning thereby neither bhAva nor abhAva. To highlight its difference from abhAva, it is called bhAvarUpa (like bhAva). However, it is not bhAva either.//
If avidya is neither bhavarupa nor abhavarupa, please convey how you are defining it. 

//(Even if you know that crystal is colourless, you continue to see red crystal if flower is present)...
,,,In DSV, avidyA-adhyAsa is nirupAdhika and is hence dispelled with the knowledge of substratum.//

These are contradictory. To whom and with what faculty does red crystal remain visible when avidya-adhyasa is dispelled? 

//The continuance of sOpAdhika-bhrama does not imply that the person is conditioned/in bondage. You can continue to see mirage despite knowing that it is not water, but only a mirage. Similarly, you can continue to encounter avidyA-lesha and prArabdha without being conditioned by it. You can be liberated despite there being avidyA-lesha.//

If this is so, advaita loses it's non-duality and violates Bhasya's teaching as there cannot be partial ignorance and partial knowledge. Ramakrishna's example of wet paint applies. One residing in a freshly painted room is bound to get paint on himself. 
HH SSSS further argues, "But this does not appear to be correct The question that has to be asked is, 'If the enlightened person is aware of himself as having worldly experience, and if he has practical

experience of the world like any other denizen of it, how could he avoid belief in its reality?'
If the reply is given that he merely conforms to a trace (samskara) of Ignorance but knows
through his metaphysical kno\vledge that it is false, then Ignorance (avidya) has not ceased in

his case, and he should not be called an enlightened person (vidvan)." pg 20 HOSS

//One can have gradations in jIvanmukti and videhamukti.//
You will have to provide Bhasya citations that support gradations in the Absolute.  Rather, I read, 
sad ekam eva advitīyam - "Existence alone was there, one without a second."    
neha nānāsti kiñcana - "Here, there is no diversity whatsoever."  

//Similarly, world-Brahman is sOpAdhika-adhyAsa in SDV which necessitates avidyA-lesha, whereas the same in nirupAdhPika-adhyAsa in DSV and hence does not require avidyA-lesha.//
Again please provide Bhasya citations that depict this distinction between SDV-DSV and sopadhika-nirupadhipika. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdXCVES2YVKi43vTDyxTB12QDG43kKaRs3VDGuDJ%2B-TVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Sri MS does not suggest that SDV must be followed by DSV etc for Realization, and that any of the  methods   can be followed as befits the sAdhaka. There are no **progressive drishTis which mumukshu comes to attain** as concluded by you.

I have given exact statement of MS in the commentary of SS which states this.

I have not studied Samkshepa ShArIraka or its commentary by Sri MS in any detail. Nor do I propose to do so now. However I am fairly certain that our respective understandings of those texts concerning the topic under discussion would equally be divergent.  

My statements were based on SS and commentaries thereupon by MS and NrisimhAshrama Swamiji. 

Having said that, I have no qualms on what I have stated in my earlier post on SDV vis a vis DSV and do wish that others are wary of the claims.

The claim was as per the text. It was a bold claim. But in line with SS. I am open for correction but some proper rebuttal should be there. If someone rejects SS, I am not interested. Rejecting SS necessitates the rejection of such reject-or himself.

However, accepting SS and not accepting progressive drishTi is simply impossible as per my understanding of SS.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vikram, 

//Per my understanding, avidya-lesha is an explanation given to the 'observed' continued functioning of the jnani's BMI, as observed by and from the perspective of an ajnani. This presupposed the jnani-ajnani distinction as well. Avidya-lesha is accepted as long as the distinct limited individuality of the ajnani is maintained. Avidya-lesha is 100% vyavaharika just as mithyajnana and moksha-jnana.//

I agree, "100% vyavaharika" but post-Sankara Advaita necessarily demands the positing of avidya-lesa for the jnani to maintain the material seed of ignorance and samsara in the form of Eshwara srsti despite jiva-srsti falsification.  Kindly consider the following: 

"To the proposition that even after Ignorance has been brought to an end through metaphysical knowledge it is reasonable to suppose that it returns (or otherwise one cannot
account for the empirical experience of the person liberated in life), the author of the Pancapadika replies, 'No; Ignorance can continue in the form of an impression' (HH SSSS, Mulavidya Nirasah.151,2) (Vivarana p414)"

"We affirm the existence of a modicum of Ignorance (avidya- leSa) after enlightenment. For it is admitted that the body even of an enlightened person persists for a time. And the persistence of a baby depends on hunger and thirst, which in turn depend on perception of difference, which in turn is rooted in Ignorance. (Ishta Siddhi. p.74)"

"So we have to accept that the appearance of a body, etc., (sense-organs and mind) in the case of the enlightened person is due to a modicum of Igno¬ rance. We have already explained (M.V.229,8) how there can be a partial burning up of Ignorance of the Self. (I.S. p.76)"

"The doctrine that, in the case of the enlightened person, the body and ego-sense and so on persist on account of an impres¬ sion of Ignorance, Like the trembling and so on that may per¬ sist after knowledge of the rope, is expounded in the Pahca- padika (M.V.151,2;1S3,6) , the Brahma Siddhi (B.Sid. p.134, cp. M.V.101,2 and the Bhamati (M.V.204,4). Here in the Ista Siddhi it is clear that the attempt to prove the persistence of a modicum of Ignorance (avidya-leSa) is introduced to re¬ fute that doctrine of an impression (avidya-samskara). The modicum of Ignorance is definitely Ignorance (as opposed to a mere impression of Ignorance). But the question of how a modicum of Ignorance could remain over after the rise of meta¬ physical knowledge is nowhere considered. HH SSSS MVN p731"

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:23 AM Vikram Jagannathan <vikky...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdXCVES2YVKi43vTDyxTB12QDG43kKaRs3VDGuDJ%2B-TVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Michael ji, 

<< But the question of how a modicum of Ignorance could remain over after the rise of meta¬ physical knowledge is nowhere considered. >>

I agree with your quoted statements, but I am questioning the above concern in postulating avidya-lesha. It appears that because I possess avidya, I tend to 'see' a jnani functioning and attribute avidya-lesha to the jnani. In reality the jnani's atma-svarupa does not experience any avidya or avidya-lesha whatsoever. Therefore it is not that a jnani 'experiences' avidya-lesha despite full enlightenment. Similarly, once I transcend my avidya and realize the paramarthika reality, I will not experience any more avidya or avidya-lesha in me or around me.

This easily fits in with DSV - my avidya results in the postulation of the so-called avidya-lesha to a jnani. In the case of SDV - the presumption that srishti exists, postulates some sort of avidya to begin with, within which framework avidya-lesha exists. Either case, avidya-lesha is a concept that is embedded within the realm of avidya. And, within the realm of avidya, the question on how avidya-lesha remains after the apparent rise of jnana is insignificant.

Bottomline is that as avidya-lesha is accepted 100% within vyavahara (by Swami Sankaracharya and all post acharyas), there is no bearing on its acceptance (or not), on the fully enlightened pure paramarthika state of a jnani.

I will stop with this.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFoO3X5S1VkARA1r6ZwbXJQONpZnEGj%3D85CxQfm2imtKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vikram, 

Sir, with all due respect, are you able to provide Prasthanatraya bhasya citations that support these statements of a  "partial-continuing-perception of difference avidya" after enlightenment?

"'No; Ignorance can continue in the form of an impression' "

"For it is admitted that the body even of an enlightened person persists for a time...which in turn depend on perception of difference"?

 "there can be a partial burning up of Ignorance of the Self."

  As Swamiji says, "But the question of how a modicum of Ignorance could remain over after the rise of meta¬ physical knowledge is nowhere considered. "  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLeX%3DTajkS8zLVnmYcZxaWQ4k6wu%3D3wg3iMzm1DA0ZZsSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Michael ji,

<< Prasthanatraya bhasya citations that support these statements of a  "partial-continuing-perception of difference avidya" after enlightenment >>

To begin with, this phrase needs a clarification. This should not be misunderstood that a jnani after enlightenment has a partial-continuing-perception of difference due to avidya. The continuation of some avidya after enlightenment, that is attributed to a jnani, is only from the perspective of other ajnani who is engulfed in avidya, with respect to the observed BMI of the enlightened jnani. There is no continued perception of any avidya (not even an iota) whatsoever for the jnani themselves. After enlightenment, there is no more cognition of the jnani's erstwhile BMI. It is Brahman alone. This distinction / clarity is important.

Having said so, there are a few direct references for the partial burning of the ignorance / avidya / karma in PTB. Bhagavan Bhashyakara says that Prarabdha Karma (which is nothing but avidya) continues to operate in and as the jnani's BMI under the influence of its own momentum, like an arrow shot. This avidya is incubated by the BMI's past actions and operates as the BMI's present and future experiences. There is no impact to the state & nature of enlightenment.

BU:1.4.7

बाढम् — यद्यप्येवम् , शरीरारम्भकस्य कर्मणो नियतफलत्वात् , सम्यग्ज्ञानप्राप्तावपि अवश्यंभाविनी प्रवृत्तिर्वाङ्मनःकायानाम् , लब्धवृत्तेः कर्मणो बलीयस्त्वात् — मुक्तेष्वादिप्रवृत्तिवत् ; तेन पक्षे प्राप्तं ज्ञानप्रवृत्तिदौर्बल्यम् । तस्मात् त्यागवैराग्यादिसाधनबलावलम्बेन आत्मविज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ततिर्नियन्तव्या भवति ; न त्वपूर्वा कर्तव्या ; प्राप्तत्वात् — इत्यवोचाम

Translation by Swami Madhavananda: 

It is true, but nevertheless, since the resultant of past actions that led to the formation of the present body must produce definite results, speech, mind and the body are bound to work even after the highest realisation, for actions that have begun to bear fruit are stronger than knowledge ; as for instance an arrow that has been let fly continues its course for some time. Hence the operation of knowledge, being weaker than they, (is liable to be interrupted by them and) becomes only a possible alternative. Therefore there is need to regulate the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by having recourse to. means such as renunciation and dispassion ; but it is not something that is to be originally enjoined, being, as we said, already known as a possible alternative.

BU:1.4.10

यत्तूक्तं विपरीतप्रत्ययतत्कार्ययोश्च दर्शनादिति, न, तच्छेषस्थितिहेतुत्वात् — येन कर्मणा शरीरमारब्धं तत् , विपरीतप्रत्ययदोषनिमित्तत्वात् तस्य तथाभूतस्यैव विपरीतप्रत्ययदोषसंयुक्तस्य फलदाने सामर्थ्यमिति, यावत् शरीरपातः तावत्फलोपभोगाङ्गतया विपरीतप्रत्ययं रागादिदोषं च तावन्मात्रमाक्षिपत्येव — मुक्तेषुवत् प्रवृत्तफलत्वात् तद्धेतुकस्य कर्मणः । तेन न तस्य निवर्तिका विद्या, अविरोधात् ।

Translation by Swami Madhavananda:

You said, the first consciousness docs not remove ignorance, because we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature to knowledge together with its effects persists. This is wrong, for the residue of Prarabdha work is the cause of the persistence of the body after knowledge. In other words, that resultant of past work which led to the formation of the present body (Prarabdha), being the outcome of false notions and the evils (of attachment etc.), is able to bear fruit only as such, i.e. as coupled with those notions and evils ; hence until the body falls, it cannot but produce, as part of one's experience of the results of past work, just so much of false notions and the evils of attachment etc., for the past work that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and must run its course like an arrow that has been shot. Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for they are not contradictory.

BG:13.23

ज्ञानोत्तरकालभाविनामेव सर्वकर्मणाम् इति चेत् , न ; सङ्कोचे कारणानुपपत्तेः । यत्तु उक्तम् ‘यथा वर्तमानजन्मारम्भकाणि कर्माणि न क्षीयन्ते फलदानाय प्रवृत्तान्येव सत्यपि ज्ञाने, तथा अनारब्धफलानामपि कर्मणां क्षयो न युक्तः’ इति, तत् असत् । कथम् ? तेषां मुक्तेषुवत् प्रवृत्तफलत्वात् । यथा पूर्वं लक्ष्यवेधाय मुक्तः इषुः धनुषः लक्ष्यवेधोत्तरकालमपि आरब्धवेगक्षयात् पतनेनैव निवर्तते, एवं शरीरारम्भकं कर्म शरीरस्थितिप्रयोजने निवृत्तेऽपि, आ संस्कारवेगक्षयात् पूर्ववत् वर्तते एव । यथा स एव इषुः प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तानारब्धवेगस्तु अमुक्तो धनुषि प्रयुक्तोऽपि उपसंह्रियते, तथा अनारब्धफलानि कर्माणि स्वाश्रयस्थान्येव ज्ञानेन निर्बीजीक्रियन्ते इति, पतिते अस्मिन् विद्वच्छरीरे ‘न स भूयोऽभिजायते’ इति युक्तमेव उक्तमिति सिद्धम् ।

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda:

Objection: May it not be that ‘all actions’ means those that are undertaken after Illumination?
Reply: No, for there is no reason for the restriction (of the meaning). On the other hand, as for the statement, ‘just as actions that have produced the present birth and are already active in producing their results do not get dissipated even after Illumination, similarly it is not reasonable that actions which have not commenced producing their results should get dissipated,’—that is wrong.
Objection: Why?
Reply: Since they have already begun producing results, like an arrow that has been shot: As an arrow, freed earlier from a bow for hitting a target, even after piercing through the target comes to a stop only after falling down as a result of the dissipation of its initial momentum, similarly, actions that produced the (present) body verily continue, even after fulfilling the purpose of maintaining the body, to exist as before until the dissipation of their inherent tendencies. But, as that very arrow, when it has not acquired the momentum needed for action, when it has not been shot even though fixed on the bow, can be withdrawn, similarly, actions which have not begun yielding their results may be rendered unproductive by Knowledge, even while existing in their receptacle. Hence, it is established that, it has been reasonable to state that on the fall of the present body of an enlightened person, ‘He is not born again.’

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvErFThAp0qYJsbosH8fjhgfLfK%2BB9bNHKqTaUwJcLwNLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // Rejecting SS necessitates the rejection of such reject-or himself //,

I am not sure what SS or the commentator on the same, Sri MS, have to say on the topic. Any interpretation of Advaita Siddhanta,  as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada, which involves  **progressive drishTis which mumukshu comes to attain** is in my view certainly  hopelessly contrary to the SiddhAnta. Indeed I deem it a blessing if such a vAda  were to reject me on its own, even if I were to inadvertently  get ensnared by it. God’s Grace.

Regards

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vikram,

Thank you for the quotes with Sanskrit. However, as you noted we need to distinguish between the view from ignorance and the view from enlightenment. Your quotes refer only to the former. 

BU1.4.7:

"आत्मविज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ततिर्नियन्तव्या भवति — The continuity (santati) of the recollection (smṛti) of Self-knowledge (ātma-vijñāna) is to be regulated (niyantavyā bhavati)\"

This is counsel directed to the adhicari not to one who has removed avidya. 

Bhasya prior to your BU 1.4.10 quote declares samakala eva - the arising of absolute nonduality upon the fall of ignorance without the possibility of a trace of ignorance remaining like light removing darkness: 
"Because this result, the attainment of Brahman,
immediately follows the knowledge....Hence, the effects of

ignorance being impossible in the presence of the
knowledge of Brahman, like the effects of darkness in
the presence of a lamp,...If the first consciousness
of the Self does not remove ignorance, neither will
the last (at the time of death), for they are alike consciousness of the Self."

The last quote from the Gita likewise does not address Avidya-lesa but the perspective from the ignorant viewing Enlightenment. 

I do not believe there are suggestions anywhere in bhasya of a remaining residue of avidya after the dawn of brahmajnanam. 
Consider Gambhirananda's foreword to his Brahma Sutras, "His pranas do

not depart; they get resolved even here (B.S. IV. ii. 12). On
Brahman-realization, one is freed from all sin (B.S. IV. i. 13).
The one who is released in this life is called a /ivan-mukta. His
body continues till the Prarabdha lasts. Prarabdha is the karma
which has begun to fructify and is responsible for the present
body. That the body of the Jivan-mukta continues till Prarabdha
lasts is stated only from the standpoint of those who are yet unreleased.
The truth is that for the mukta there is no body at all.The knower of Brahman realizes the absolute non-difference
from Brahman (B.S. IV. ii. 16). When one has gained
release, there is no more involvement in samsiira, no more return

to the cycle of birth and death ( B.S. IV. iv. 22)." xii 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdhgmwDqtFjE0X10rHJaxe5RE8Z6yenvnsSzkQ%3D9n8HRg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Namaste Vikram,

Thank you for the quotes with Sanskrit. However, as you noted we need to distinguish between the view from ignorance and the view from enlightenment. Your quotes refer only to the former. 

 

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I would be very eager to hear from our beloved Sri Subbu prabhuji with regard to this.  When the jnAni’s BMI was discussed in length, he was the one who was very passionately argued against it is ONLY from the point of bystanders.  As per him jnAni-s individuality, his own BMI, his own  avidyA etc. would continue due to his prArabdha and avidyAlesha and it_is_not_just onlookers ( ignorants) perception. 

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

Yes, you are correct. Per PTB, Avidya-lesha is always from ignorance alone. But this is the view of all post acharyas too!

Note: The next two paragraphs state Advaita siddhanta, in alignment with post acharyas, per my current understanding. Please do peruse through, but please hold on to any comments / clarifications / objections / questions for the time being. In the subsequent paragraph, there is a reflection prompt. Let's discuss that point first and come to an alignment prior to continuing the core topic. This is just to give a structure to our discussion and not in any way patronizing.

Advaita Siddhanta:

Here is the crux of the problem. Defining enlightenment as paramarthika, it is a misunderstanding to consider that after enlightenment, from the enlightenment perspective, avidya-lesha exists. Neither Swami Sankaracharya nor post acharyas state this. We agree on the former, but disagree on the latter. This is incorrect.

All acharyas postulate avidya-lesha only from ignorance perspective. No one ever says that after enlightenment, with the realization of the true nature of ultimate reality, as brahman, the jnani’s atma-svarupa / brahman-svarupa experiences avidya-lesha. Hence my earlier statement that avidya-lesha is 100% vyavaharika. This is the view of all Advaita acharyas. If anyone were to say that after enlightenment, from the enlightenment perspective there is avidya-lesha, this amounts to Dvaita and not Advaita.

But then, what do the post acharyas actually mean? Before we delve deeper, let me ask this question.

Reflection prompt: For whom is the world or vyavahara perceived as mithya? 

1. We all agree that prior to realization, we are ajnani. 

2. After realization, it is Brahman alone - “brahma-veda brahmaiva bhavati” - quoting Mundaka Upanishad. 

3. Summarizing, we have a) before realization - ajnani, and b) after realization - Brahman alone. 

4. We also agree that for an ajnani, the world or vyavahara is taken to be satya (ajnana drishti) and not as mithya. 

5. Does it then mean that for Brahman vyavahara is mithya? 

6. If you say yes, then you are a dvaitin. 

7. If you say no - for Brahman, there is no point of any vyavahara whatsoever, then this is Advaita siddhanta; but then the question remains, for whom is vyavahara mithya? 

8. ‘He’ whosoever perceives vyavahara as mithya, the perception of vyavahara, to begin with, is due to avidya-lesha. 

9. The perception as ‘mithya’ (and not as ajnana satya) is due to jnana drishti. 

10. Who is this ‘he’? Is this ‘he’ vyavaharika or paramarthika? 

Please reflect on these questions and share your opinion; we will discuss further.

Hopefully this reflection will also clarify Bhaskar ji’s misunderstanding of Subbu ji’s statement.

prostrations,

Vikram

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 4:48 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Vikram,

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vikram, 

I appreciate sharing with you. 
// it is a misunderstanding to consider that after enlightenment, from the enlightenment perspective, avidya-lesha exists ... All acharyas postulate avidya-lesha only from ignorance perspective. No one ever says that after enlightenment,    //

I thought it was clear that the vakyakhyanakara-s quotes I posted yesterday took avidya-lesa as a condition following Brahma Jnana. Consequently, it seems jivanmukti became secondary to videha jivanmukti. I have misplaced Madhusudhana Saraswati's quote saying as much but from too quick a glance the quote below appears to confirm. 

The 'avidya perspective' is surely not intended here either in the Vivarana of Prakashatma Yati: 

"Reply: No. Even though ‘tattvajnana’ can put an
end to the activity of avidya, still there can be the conti-
nuance (anuvritti) of avidya for some time. Even after
the ‘agrahana’ is removed there is present its samskara...

"//...Now avidya is the upadana for all its products save its samskara.
...  Till this arises the samskara remains for some time and there takes place
the ‘videha mukti’ (liberation after the body is dissolved).
This is not at all opposed to our doctrine. (p373-4 Sastri transl)"

Your 10 prompts, 
//5. Does it then mean that for Brahman vyavahara is mithya?// 
This is an odd question. Nirguna Brahman knows no vyavahara. The implication results in duality (6) for me who thinks there is vyavahara, who thinks there is Brahman.  Mithya is discussed below

//He’ whosoever perceives vyavahara as mithya, the perception of vyavahara, to begin with, is due to avidya-lesha.
If vyavahara is perceived there is avidya.  Either we are ignorant or we are not. It is not like a 1/2 eaten meal.  As long as we do not know the Self, we are dukkhi-s including the Enlightened-with-avidya-lesha! The point being that 'avidya-lesa' is a defective concept as was shown in Swamiji's quote yesterday. 

//9. The perception as ‘mithya’ (and not as ajnana satya) is due to jnana drishti. //
Herein, I believe, lies the difference in our understanding of Bhasya. What is mithya? Bhavarupa perception or branti? If the former, then avidya lesha is necessary to justify perception after the negation of avidya. If however, ignorance is "merely" an error, there really isn't anything to negate!  That is how mithya needs to be understood which goes to number 5 above.  

This primacy of adhyaropa/apavada as prakriya is commonly discounted.   

Regards, 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLcg3%3Dof-L1q7kFi%2BRGECpcz%2BzXbQZYT5BLSYwJBz%2BU3Xg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Michael ji,

<< I thought it was clear that the vakyakhyanakara-s quotes I posted yesterday took avidya-lesa as a condition following Brahma Jnana. Consequently, it seems jivanmukti became secondary to videha jivanmukti. I have misplaced Madhusudhana Saraswati's quote saying as much but from too quick a glance the quote below appears to confirm. >>

We will revisit this point in a bit. But, before delving deeper on this core point, my questions on point #10 are still outstanding. Thank you for your comments on points #5, #8 and #9. But could you please provide a definitive answer / opinion to #10. From your comments to #5, it looks like you agree that this entity perceiving vyavahara as mithya is not the absolute Brahman; but the questions are still open. The questions again are - For whom is the world or vyavahara perceived as mithya? Is this entity perceiving the mithya vyavahara, vyavaharika or paramarthika or a combination of both?

prostrations,

Vikram

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Vikramji, 

For whom is the world or vyavahara perceived as mithya? Is this entity perceiving the mithya vyavahara, vyavaharika or paramarthika or a combination of both?

Sankara in Gita 13.2 responding to the same question - wrong question:

BGbh 13.2

Oh! Sir, if being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. be qualities of the Self, how is it that they are directly perceived? Or how can they be qualities of the Knower of the field? If the conclusion be that all that is known constitutes the field, and that the one who knows is verily the knower of the field, then, to say that being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. are the qualities of the knower of the field and that they are directly perceived is a contradictory statement having only ignorance as its basis.

Here, (the opponent) asks: To whom does ignorance belong?

(The answer is that) it belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced!

Objection: In whom is it perceived?

Reply: Here the answer is: It is pointless to ask, 'In whom is ignorance experienced?

Objection: How?

Reply: If ignorance be perceived (by you), then you perceive its possessor as well. Moreover, when that possessor of ignorance is perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom is it perceived?' For, when an owner of cattle is seen, the question, 'To whom do the cattle belong', does not become meaningful.

Objection: Well, is not the illustration dissimilar? Since, the cattle and their owner are directly perceived, their relation also is directly perceived. Hence the question is meaningless. Ignorance and its possessor are not directly perceived in that manner, in which case the question would have been meaningless.

Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of ignorance with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of ignorance?

Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, therefore it should be got rid of.

Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of it!

Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself.

Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also yourself who possess it?

Opponent: I know, but not through direct perception.

Reply: If you know through inference, then how is the connection (between yourself and ignorance) known? Surely it is not possible for you the knower to have at that time ['When you are knowing your own ignorance.'] the knowledge of the relation (of the Self) with ignorance which is an object of knowledge; ['After having perceived ignorance as an object of your knowledge, how can you who continue to be the knower cognize yourself as the knower of that ignorance? For this would lead to the contradiction of the same person becoming the subject and the object of cognition.'] because the cognizer is then engaged in cognizing ignorance as an object. Besides, there cannot be someone who is a (separate) cognizer of the relation between the knower and ignorance, and a separate cognition of that (relation), for this would lead to infinite regress. If the knower and the relation between the knower and the thing known be cognizable, then a separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him, again, another knower has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer would have to be imagined! Thus, an infinite regress becomes unavoidable. Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc.

 DSV if you prefer. 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLcS9Hw0skLXFWA5Y%2BnyZW6Mqc8Uvo3hAo_oXKnPGDU%3DEA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Thanks for sharing Acharya Shankara’s reference, Michael ji. But may I request you to please share your definitive opinion for the questions?

The root question is for whom is the world or vyavahara perceived as mithya? This is jnana-drishti and not ajnana-drishti. Consequently, this is different from “whose is ignorance” question.

prostrations,

Vikram 

On Mar 14, 2025, at 4:58 PM, Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFhpwJ_E4TcdqpUS8YoVGk_k2ZZtmEXh58OOm_4XDXs%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vikram, 

Sir, my response is as Sankara's - the question itself is mistaken. "If the knower and the relation between the knower and the thing known be cognizable, then a separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him, again, another knower has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer would have to be imagined! Thus, an infinite regress becomes unavoidable."

Consider Sureswara, "

Sures. Tait Vart2.8

AvidyA which appears to be well-established in our experience is not really established by any pramAna. Thought is prasiddha, it is not pramAna prasiddha (Balasub. Comm)

Suresvara NS 3.66

seyam bhAntir nirAlambA sarva-nyAya-virodhInI
shate na vicAram sA tamo ya-vad divAkaram

This ignorance is without a cause and violates all rules and reasons. It no more brooks investigation than darkness brooks the light of the sun."

And we have moved far afield from avidya-lesha though surely, you see now that it indeed is intended post-jnanam which you agree is untenable but yet advocated by several post-Sankara commentators.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

<< the question itself is mistaken >>

With all due respect, your response does not answer the question. The question itself is fairly simple, straightforward and definitely not mistaken. As clarified earlier, this is not the same as the question of locus of ignorance. One of the unique features of Advaita Siddhanta is the mithyatva of the world or vyavahara. This mithyatva is said to be realized on gaining moksha-jnana. It is thus a logical question to ask - for whom is the world or vyavahara perceived as mithya.

<< And we have moved far afield from avidya-lesa though surely, you see now that it indeed is intended post-jnanam which you agree is untenable but yet advocated by several post-Sankara commentators. >>

Not so. Let me take this opportunity to share my understanding, and perhaps close out my participation in this thread.

PTB at several places talks about a jivanmukta jnani appearing to function under the influence of prarabdha Karma. This function is for the BMI and not for the atman. This prarabdha Karma is termed by post acharyas as avidya-lesa as Karma is verily avidya itself. Jivanmukta jnani, by definition, is a jnani who appears to function as if like an embodied jiva, but is indeed liberated from the shackles of bondage unlike an ajnani jiva. It is for such a jivanmukta jnani for whom the world or vyavahara is perceived as mithya. This is purely vyavaharika. This is the definitive answer to my question #10.

A jnani, on realization of Brahman, is verily Brahman itself. For Brahman there is no more any perception or vyavahara whatsoever. A jnani is indeed pure Brahman. The perception of vyavahara as mithya is only with respect to the jnani's functioning BMI, functioning under the influence of prarabdha Karma or avidya-lesa, and observed from the perspective of other ajnani bystanders. This aligns with Subbu ji's statement and hopefully clarifies Bhaskar ji's misunderstanding of the same. A functioning jivanmukta is _both_ under the influence of prarabdha Karma / avidya-lesa _and_ from the perspective of onlookers.

<< I thought it was clear that the vakyakhyanakara-s quotes I posted yesterday took avidya-lesa as a condition following Brahma Jnana. Consequently, it seems jivanmukti became secondary to videha jivanmukti. >>

In my opinion, this is an unwarranted misunderstanding of the post acharyas. All the quotes you have posted are accurate and align with PTB Advaita Siddhanta. More on this below. It is correct that avidya-lesa is a condition following Brahma-Jnana, but this avidya-lesa pertains not to the jnani-svarupa-Brahman (paramarthika), but only to the jivanmukta's functioning BMI. If you agree to the role and scope of prarabdha Karma to a jivanmukta, that is precisely the role and scope of avidya-lesa too to a jivanmukta. Jivanmukti is secondary to videhamukti purely from the BMI perspective. Jivanmukti and videhamukti are 100% vyavaharika and completely irrelevant to jnani / Brahman.

Reviewing your quotes and comments,

<< "To the proposition that even after Ignorance has been brought to an end through metaphysical knowledge it is reasonable to suppose that it returns (or otherwise one cannot account for the empirical experience of the person liberated in life), the author of the Pancapadika replies, 'No; Ignorance can continue in the form of an impression' (HH SSSS, Mulavidya Nirasah.151,2) (Vivarana p414)" >>

It looks like the purvapaksha is missing a negative participle; perhaps a typo. The response is accurate. When a jnani is indeed Brahman in paramarthika, and when a jnani's BMI is perceived by others to continue to function in vyavaharika, the latter is said to be under the influence of avidya or prarabdha Karma.

<< "We affirm the existence of a modicum of Ignorance (avidya- leSa) after enlightenment. For it is admitted that the body even of an enlightened person persists for a time. And the persistence of a baby depends on hunger and thirst, which in turn depend on perception of difference, which in turn is rooted in Ignorance. (Ishta Siddhi. p.74)" >>

If you substitute avidya-lesa with prarabdha Karma, this quote would be in perfect alignment with PTB. Enlightenment leads to paramarthika, but the BMI of an enlightened person is still purely vyavaharika.

<< "So we have to accept that the appearance of a body, etc., (sense-organs and mind) in the case of the enlightened person is due to a modicum of Igno¬ rance. We have already explained (M.V.229,8) how there can be a partial burning up of Ignorance of the Self. (I.S. p.76)" >>

For an ajnani, all three Karmas (sanchita, prarabdha, agami) are in operation. The ajnani is said to be engulfed in complete avidya. Whereas for a jivanmukta jnani, sanchita and agami Karma are burnt-out, retaining only prarabdha Karma alone. This is clearly stated in several places in PTB. This is referred to as the partial burning of Karma / avidya. The operating prarabdha Karma, which indeed is an minuscule aspect of complete avidya, is termed as 'avidya-lesa' by post acharyas. There is absolutely no conflict or deviation from PTB.

<< "But the question of how a modicum of Ignorance could remain over after the rise of meta¬ physical knowledge is nowhere considered. HH SSSS MVN p731" >>

Just a simple and complete misunderstanding on the author's behalf. If you could explain how prarabdha Karma is said to persist after the dawn of tattva-jnana, despite other Karmas being burnt-out, then the same is the explanation here.

<< "No; Ignorance can continue in the form of an impression" >>

Agreed; avidya-lesa, as impressions / vasanas, continues in the form of prarabdha Karma.

<< "For it is admitted that the body even of an enlightened person persists for a time...which in turn depend on perception of difference" >>

Agreed; the continuation of BMI due to prarabdha Karma / avidya-lesa, is purely vyavaharika wherein perception of difference persists.

<< "there can be a partial burning up of Ignorance of the Self." >>

As explained earlier, this denotes the burning up of sanchita and agami Karma, while prarabdha Karma / avidya-lesa persists.

<< "Bhasya prior to your BU 1.4.10 quote declares samakala eva - the arising of absolute nonduality upon the fall of ignorance without the possibility of a trace of ignorance remaining like light removing darkness:" >>

Correct, as this part of the bhashya pertains to the jnani who is verily now Brahman. This is paramarthika and clearly there is no avidya or avidya-lesa whatsoever.

<< The last quote from the Gita likewise does not address Avidya-lesa but the perspective from the ignorant viewing Enlightenment. >>

Enlightenment (enlightened person) being perceivable by an ignorant is indeed the play of prarabdha Karma /  avidya-lesa! In the absence of prarabdha Karma /  avidya-lesa, Enlightenment is just pure Brahman and incapable of being viewed by the ignorant.

<< I do not believe there are suggestions anywhere in bhasya of a remaining residue of avidya after the dawn of brahmajnanam. >>

PTB clearly states the continuation of prarabdha Karma after the dawn of brahmajnanam. That is itself the remaining residue of avidya or avidya-lesa.

<< "Even though ‘tattvajnana’ can put an end to the activity of avidya, still there can be the continuance (anuvritti) of avidya for some time. Even after the ‘agrahana’ is removed there is present its samskara..." >>

Yes, this explains the continued manifestation of the BMI of a jivanmukta jnana after the dawn of tattva-jnana. This manifestation of BMI is 100% vyavaharika.

<< "Till this arises the samskara remains for some time and there takes place the ‘videha mukti’ (liberation after the body is dissolved)." >>

Yes, prarabdha Karma persists until it is exhausted.

<< Either we are ignorant or we are not. It is not like a 1/2 eaten meal.  As long as we do not know the Self, we are dukkhi-s including the Enlightened-with-avidya-lesha! >>

No. You are missing the category of cognition of mithyatva. An ajnani is ignorant; Brahman is not. But there is the jivanmukta, who though actually enlightened appears to function under the limited influence of ignorance. Sukha and dukha are antahkarana vrittis and are experienced by ajnani and jivanmukta. While an ajnani believes the sukha-dukha to be real, a jivanmukta understands it to be mithya.

<< The point being that 'avidya-lesa' is a defective concept as was shown in Swamiji's quote yesterday. >>

No. avidya-lesa is not a defective concept, but a misunderstood concept. It is quite natural that one who misunderstands avidya-lesa to begin with, mistakes it to be a defective concept! This is quite similar to Dvaitins & Visishtadvaitins mistakenly considering mithyatva to be a defective concept!

<< What is mithya? Bhavarupa perception or branti? If the former, then avidya lesha is necessary to justify perception after the negation of avidya. If however, ignorance is "merely" an error, there really isn't anything to negate. >>

I do not wish to enter into a discussion of whether avidya is bhavarupa or abhava. Irrespective of whether mithya is bhavarupa perception or branti, if a jivanmukta is perceived to function under the influence of prarabdha Karma, then that in itself is the influence of avidya-lesa. This prarabdha Karma needs to be negated through its exhaustion. One can now consider the said mithya perception of a jivanmukta to either be bhavarupa perception or branti; doesn't change the outcome.

I have hopefully explained and reconciled all of your quotes and comments, in complete alignment with PTB. As revered vivarana-acharya says, "This is not at all opposed to our doctrine". Any apparent conflict is merely that person's fundamental misunderstanding of Advaita Siddhanta.

Thank you for engaging in this discussion, which I see as a wonderful mananam for me.

prostrations,
Vikram

[Bhaskar YR]

. This aligns with Subbu ji's statement and hopefully clarifies Bhaskar ji's misunderstanding of the same.

 

praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Perhaps you may not be aware of arguments put forth by Sri Subbu prabhuji when that topic was at its peak.  I have forgotten in which list it has taken place, Sri Subbu prabhuji himself should come forward here to clarify what he had said at that time 😊

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vikram, 

Thank you for taking the time and making a good effort to address our issues. 
Simplifying perhaps, here is HH SSSS clarifying the objection to avidya-lesha - start in the middle of the page. 

https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra/page/n855/mode/2up

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Indeed, however you haven't answered precisely what is this illusion?

Illusion is the English word for mithyA. The word mithyA i.e. illusion has been extensively discussed and precisely defined. In simple words, if x appears in y and yet x is ever non-existent in y, then x is stated to be mithyA.

 

Is it simply adhyasa, taking what is real for what is not real?

That is within the domain of illusion. But that is only part of the illusion. Taking rope to be a snake is definitely an illusion, but not in the primary sense. We see a snake in place of rope. The snake is mithyA. Because though snake (x) appears in rope (y), x is ever non-existent in y.

Now, there is a snake-jnAna also. However, it is not immediately evident that it is an illusion. But if we properly understand x and y here, then we will come to know that even this is an illusion.

So, artha-adhyAsa (snake) is a straightforward illusion. JnAna-adhyAsa (snake-jnAna) is not immediately evident as to how it is illusory. We can discuss.

So, illusion/mithyAtva and adhyAsa does have a subtle distinction. Their definitions are different.  

MithyAtva (illusion) can be defined as:

1. सत्त्वात्यन्ताभावासत्त्वात्यन्ताभावरूपधर्मद्वयवत्त्वं मिथ्यात्वम्;
2. प्रतिपन्नोपाधौ त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वं  मिथ्यात्वम्;
3. ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वं मिथ्यात्वम्;
4. स्वाश्रयनिष्ठात्यन्ताभावप्रतयोगित्वं मिथ्यात्वम्.

adhyAsa on the other hand is defined as: स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः ।
Here, स्मृतिरूपः is taTastha-lakshaNa (as it does not appear in kAraNa-adhyAsa i.e. avidyA-adhyAsa) and “परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः” is swarUpa-lakshaNa as it appears in both kArya-adhyAsa and kAraNa-adhyAsa.

 

Is there something that is established prior to superimposition? Kindly clarify. 

MithyAtva is a feature which tells us about something which is seen/known. Whether it is artha-adhyAsa (snake) or jnAna-adhyAsa (snake-jnAna), they are both adhyAsa and they are both illusory. But their connotation is different.

 

//avidyA is the material cause. However, it is bhAvarUpa, meaning thereby neither bhAva nor abhAva. To highlight its difference from abhAva, it is called bhAvarUpa (like bhAva). However, it is not bhAva either.//
If avidya is neither bhavarupa nor abhavarupa, please convey how you are defining it. 

I am defining it precisely in this fashion only. That which is neither bhAva nor abhAva, which is sublated by jnAna and which is beginningless is avidyA.

अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते । तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते ॥

//(Even if you know that crystal is colourless, you continue to see red crystal if flower is present)...
,,,In DSV, avidyA-adhyAsa is nirupAdhika and is hence dispelled with the knowledge of substratum.//

These are contradictory. To whom and with what faculty does red crystal remain visible when avidya-adhyasa is dispelled? 

What is contradictory? Prior and after the dispelling the avidyA-adhyAsa, the redness-of-crystal is known by sAkshI. There has been an elaborate discussion earlier on this topic.

 

//The continuance of sOpAdhika-bhrama does not imply that the person is conditioned/in bondage. You can continue to see mirage despite knowing that it is not water, but only a mirage. Similarly, you can continue to encounter avidyA-lesha and prArabdha without being conditioned by it. You can be liberated despite there being avidyA-lesha.//

If this is so, advaita loses it's non-duality and violates Bhasya's teaching as there cannot be partial ignorance and partial knowledge. Ramakrishna's example of wet paint applies. One residing in a freshly painted room is bound to get paint on himself. 

There is no loss of non-duality as avidyA is accepted as illusory in siddhAnta and hence it is ever non-existence in the substratum of its appearance, i.e. Self. So, non-duality is not compromised. 

HH SSSS further argues, "But this does not appear to be correct The question that has to be asked is, 'If the enlightened person is aware of himself as having worldly experience, and if he has practical experience of the world like any other denizen of it, how could he avoid belief in its reality?'

If you put a finger before your eyes and concentrate on the finger, you will see two moons. As long as the finger is present, you will see two moons. It does not matter whether you know that there is one moon. This is what a sOpAdhika bhrama is. It does not go unless the upAdhi goes. In case of jIvanmukta (in SDV), prArabdha is the upAdhi. As long as it is there, one sees the world.

However, there is no AvaraNa-shakti of avidyA present. He is not deluded. He does not hold that the seen world is real. Just as even though you see two moons, you don't confuse that there are two moons. Once you know mirage as mirage, you are not deluded despite seeing mirage. 

Even though you have practical experience of mirage like any other denizen of it, you can avoid the belief in the reality of mirage-water. Similarly, in SDV.

So, SSSS ji is incorrect in holding that if someone perceives x, he cannot avoid the belief in the reality of x. That is negated by mirage-example.

 

If the reply is given that he merely conforms to a trace (samskara) of Ignorance but knows through his metaphysical kno\vledge that it is false, then Ignorance (avidya) has not ceased in his case, and he should not be called an enlightened person (vidvan)." pg 20 HOSS

SSSS ji is incorrect here because the term "enlightened person" can be used  since the covering of the avidyA stands removed by jnAna. Please note, in SDV, jnAna is remover of AvaraNa-shakti only. It is not contradictory to the vikshepa-shakti. PrArabdha, which comes within the ambit of vikshepa, in fact paves the way for jnAna and is non-contradictory therewith. So, the term "enlightened" can be very well used for jIvanmukta since AvaraNa stands removed. Like in case mirage-water.

In 4.1.15 BSB, AchArya says the following:

//One can have gradations in jIvanmukti and videhamukti.//
You will have to provide Bhasya citations that support gradations in the Absolute.  Rather, I read,  sad ekam eva advitīyam - "Existence alone was there, one without a second." neha nānāsti kiñcana - "Here, there is no diversity whatsoever."  

Shruti says - ‘तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (छा. उ. ६ । १४ । २)
BhAshya says -  यथा च वर्तमाना ब्रह्मविदः आरब्धभोगक्षये कैवल्यमनुभवन्ति.
AchArya says, present-knowers-of-Brahman experience kaivalya after the destruction of prArabdha.

There are hundreds of statement wherein distinction is made between "liberation when prArabdha is present" and "liberation when prArabdha is absent". These two are jIvanmukti and videhamukti respectively. The gradation of manifestation-of-bliss is only on account of vikshepa-caused-by-prArabdha. There is no distinction in bliss per se.

 

//Similarly, world-Brahman is sOpAdhika-adhyAsa in SDV which necessitates avidyA-lesha, whereas the same in nirupAdhPika-adhyAsa in DSV and hence does not require avidyA-lesha.//
Again please provide Bhasya citations that depict this distinction between SDV-DSV and sopadhika-nirupadhipika. 

BhAshya says - शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवदिति.

Here, two examples are given; silver-shell and two moons. Can you find a distinction between the two examples? While the former is removed by knowledge, the latter is not removed by knowledge. So, you will have to admit that in some cases, adhyAsa is not removed by mere knowledge. You need removal of something else. That is sOpAdhika-adhyAsa.

We need to apply mind to understand bhAshya. It is not a quotation-competition. We need to understand what AchArya said by applying our mind.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Yesterday, I mistakenly responded to the wrong Subject heading. To remedy, I'll paste/copy your earlier reply to my mislabeled response below. Further,  

Sir, I am overwhelmed with all this material. Kindly indulge me if I pick and choose isolated statements and post with a new subject heading. Our conversations are rich and I have learned much 🙏🙏🙏.

Regards, michael

Namaste Michael ji.

If it is non-existent it can't appear, like hare's horn.  So that isn't a proper definition.

A non-existent snake appears. Appearance is not contradictory to non-existence. So, the definition is valid.

Non-existence along with non-appearance is called asat. Non-existence (in the substratum) along with appearance is called mithyA (illusion).

 

If you mean it appears like rope/snake then what is snake? Is the perception of snake separate and independent from the conception of snake? Therein lies mulavidya mithya and abhavarupa avidya. MVM considers the conception to be subject to falsification while the perceptions are not. Hence mAyA continues to appear despite the fall of avidya. That is mulAvidya mithya, no? 

Words like perception and conception are being used by you without much clarity as to what they mean.

Please keep things simple. Whether it is mUlAvidyA or the kArya of mUlAvidyA, they are all mithyA. That means, they are ever non-existent despite their appearance.

 

//That (adhyasa) is within the domain of illusion. //

You are saying, illusion is something other than adhyasa or namarupa/thoughts/ and perceptions. That's what HH SSSS calls bhavarupa avidya. Instead, words/perceptions ARE the illusion within the domain of Brahman. 

I am saying that the words "adhyAsa" and "mithyA" have different connotations. It turns out that whatever is mithyA is also adhyasta (superimposed). And whatever is adhyasta, is mithyA. But the words have different connotations.

Let us understand it like this. Whatever is changeable, is illusory. However, the word "changeable" and "mithyA" have different connotations. Through logic, we prove that if x is mithyA, then x is changeable and vice versa.

//So, artha-adhyAsa (snake) is a straightforward illusion. JnAna-adhyAsa (snake-jnAna) is not immediately evident as to how it is illusory. We can discuss.//

Artha adhyasa then is a positive something relative to sublatable jnana-adhyAsa. Instead, the distinction itself is adhyasa. 

No. artha-adhyAsa comes within the domain of bhAva. However, since it is mithyA, it is ever non-existent in the substratum of its appearance. So, it is not a positive something. A positive something cannot be non-existent in three periods of time. However, a mithyA bhAva padArtha is non-existent in its substratum in all three periods of time.

//MithyAtva (illusion) can be defined as: ... //

I have not seen these 4 definitions before but obviously Navya Nyaya logical attempts to define something called nothing. It's existence is logical not experiential. 

You experience an illusory snake, don't you? You experience avidyA, don't you? So, the appearance of avidyA and avidyA-kArya, which are both mithyA, is very much experiential.

 //kArya-adhyAsa and kAraNa-adhyAsa// 

kArya and kAraNa imply there is something prior to adhyAsa. Instead, kArya/kAraNa are themselves adhyAsa. 

avidyA, like bheda, is swa-para-nirvAhaka. This has been discussed.

Further, since causation itself is illusory, the linkage between avidyA and avidyA-kArya is itself a non-existent appearance. There is not and there cannot be any causality between any two x and y. Period.

//That which is neither bhAva nor abhAva, which is sublated by jnAna and which is beginningless is avidyA.//

--Ramanuja there is nothing in experience that isYneither bhAva nor abhAva.

Ramanuja needs to apply mind on sAmAnyatah sAkshi-pratyaksha in the form of "अहमज्ञः", visheshatah sAkshi-pratyaksha in the form of "त्वदुक्तमर्थं न जानामि" and saushupta sAkshi-pratyaksha in the form of "एतावन्तं कालं न किञ्चिदवेदिषम्, सुखमहमस्वाप्सम्". On account of these experiences, the claim of Ramanuja has no tenability.

--Yes, 'sublated by jnana' is Sankara's definition. 

--Beginningless - Though not stated here, I believe you consider anadi to be a temporal term. Instead, anadi can be taken as 'not in time'. 

When we say anAdi, we are speaking within a temporal frame. Time is defined as avidyA-chit-sambandha.

 

//अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते । तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते //

Does this indicate bhavarupa avidya or can it be understood as beginningless error? 

Yes, it states the lakshaNa of bhAvarUpa avidyA. avidyA-adhyAsa can be stated as beginningless error. There is no harm.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.  

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA9E1%2BDUQLywybmx9cNGapj8Kp8i28NfUroswUjChkSBg%40mail.gmail.com.