Kilogram concluded

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

I have investigated and thought about this for another couple of days. I will put together an essay covering my understanding of the entire topic for the book I am currently writing; but I will post this to Advaita Vision. The essay will probably be fairly long and in two or three parts for the blog, so it will be several weeks before the complete material is available – I will then post the link.

 

Meanwhile, here is (what may well be) the essence of my conclusion:

 

This section (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 1.2.1) from Śaṅkara is not concerned with providing a roundabout argument for the positive existence of ‘ignorance’, via the route of demonstrating that ‘darkness’ is a positively existing thing. On the contrary, he is just using his exceptional logical skills to demonstrate that the notion of ‘momentary consciousness’ promulgated by the Yogācāra Buddhists is incoherent.

 

If it makes sense to us to think about the existence of an actual thing like a pot before it has been made or after it has been smashed, then there must be a persistence of consciousness over time. The physical pot may well exist only for a short time but the word ‘pot’ and our ‘fore-knowledge’ and ‘after-knowledge’ of that particular pot are not restricted by the time period. Therefore Kṣaṇika-vāda must be false.

 

‘Darkness’ and ‘ignorance’ do not enter the equation. As usual, it is the post-Shankarans who complicate the issue!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Bhaskar YR]

Darkness’ and ‘ignorance’ do not enter the equation. As usual, it is the post-Shankarans who complicate the issue!

 

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

This is very important observation I reckon.  There is context, there is some topic discussed as ‘subject matter’ (mukhya vrutti) in bhAshya and there is also some topic which is NOT contextually discussed there as mukhya vrutti but as gaUNa vrutti finding the place in bhAshya.  Perhaps upAdAna kAraNa in vArtika needs to be understood in this light of observation.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Dennis ji,

I am afraid in the section of the bhAShya that is under discussion, the opponent is not the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin (the momentary consciousness school), but the naiyyAyika, the logician. 

If you recall, the raison d'etre of the entire ghaTabhAShya is the establishment of satkAryavAda - to justify the upaniShadic statement नैवेह किञ्चनाग्र आसीन्मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीत् - "In the beginning there was nothing whatsoever here, only death existed, enveloping all this".

The logician's contention is that the world (the effect) did not exist prior to its creation - i.e. his position is one of asatkAryavAda. In his view, there was the world's prior absence, prAgabhAva then - and not the world itself in a subtle state, as argued by the satkAryavAdin.

To this, Shankaracharya establishes the causal state of the world prior to its creation by stating that prAgabhAva , prior absence too is not the nature of some existence (not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence. To do this, he uses the principle of induction, thus -

1) anyonyAbhAva, is one of the four types of absence admitted by the naiyyAyika.

2) anyonyAbhAva is of the nature of some existence - the pot which is different to the cloth, is an existent entity different to it.

3) therefore, prAgabhAva and the two other forms of absence, are also of the nature of some existence, different in some form to the entity - like in the case of anyonyAbhAva.

4) that being the case, the world too had some existence prior to its creation.

Yes, there is a discussion refuting the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin, which commences with the words सादृश्यादन्वयदर्शनम् , न कारणानुवृत्तेरिति चेत् and goes on until अतः सिद्धः प्राक्कार्योत्पत्तेः कारणसद्भावः ॥ The object of discussion is the existence of the cause prior to the creation of the effect - which the shUnyavAdin (nihilist) and the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin (momentary consciousness school) reject. ie between the portions of the bhAShya quoted above, the topic is the existence of the kAraNa - satkAraNavAda - against opponents who hold the opposite view - asatkAraNavAda. 

Whereas the discussion that is the subject matter here is not one of the prior existence of the cause (which is denied by the vijnAnavAdin, but accepted by the naiyyAyika), but the prior existence of the effect - which is denied by the naiyyAyika. Therefore, what Shankaracharya chooses to do is use the naiyyAyika's own terms (prAgabhAva etc) and methodology (anumAna) against him to show that even he has to admit the error of his position.

Perhaps we are complicating matters, but it is in trying to follow the flow of the bhAShya. You too will have to justify the reason why the bhAShya flows in the sequence of topics that it does. If not to us, at least to yourself.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
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/000f01dafdd8%2416329d30%244297d790%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Please read the sentence below with the correction in underline.

To this, Shankaracharya establishes the causal state of the world prior to its creation by stating that prAgabhAva , prior absence too is of the nature of some existence (not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence. 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  // To this, Shankaracharya establishes the causal state of the world prior to its creation by stating that prAgabhAva , prior absence too is of the nature of some existence (not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence //,

My understanding is slightly different. The Bhashya follows the same approach as stated in BSB BSB 2-2-11  // इममभ्युपगमं   तदीययैव प्रक्रियया व्यभिचारयति //

// By following this line of argument of the atomists (VaisheshikAs) themselves, the aphorist shows that such a postulate is not invariably true //.

Bhashya follows the line of argument of the naiyyAyika himself and refutes his stand. Advaita SiddhAnta does not admit of some existence to prAgabhAva.

This is in accordance with the talk on this part of the Bhashya by Sri MDS.

As per Advaita SiddhAnta, abhAva is vikalpa only. A few citations below.

TUB , Sambandha Bhashya // प्रध्वंसाभावोऽप्यारभ्यत इति न सम्भवति अभावस्य विशेषाभावाद्विकल्पमात्रमेतत् । भावप्रतियोगी ह्यभावः ।//

BUB 2-2-26  //  ‘नासतोऽदृष्टत्वात्’ इति । नाभावाद्भाव उत्पद्यते । //

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DB-%3DMdVVpb0XTpKWqFMz6LmviLSHPZ-BLdVrA0V-Qo%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

I am not sure how what you have written is different to what I have. Proving that prAgabhAva is of the nature of existence, ie have bhAvAtmakatA, is refuting prAgabhAva.

Regards 

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdM6wShVFO%3DPWypXK1wDSbJWutQocTmxq3h%2Bd7taGZ79EA%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Oh. Fine then. Thanks. I must have evidently misread your statement.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DjN8UY2ttLwGfgYp5ZZTHynyfx91VKEVyD6tudAP30_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

Is it right to say the following for vishesha-abhAva like pot-abhava etc in advaita siddhAnta:

1. prAk-abhAva, dhvamsa-abhAva and anyonya-abhAva are not admitted.

2. only atyanta-abhAva is admitted.

3. This atyanta-abhAva is adhikaraNa-swarUpa and not some other mithyA vastu than adhikaraNa.

For nirvishesha-abhAva like horns of hare:

1. It is nihswarUpa, vastu-shUnya and it is expressed as vikalpa.

Role of anupalabdhi-pramANa

1. abhAva is adhikaraNa-swarUpa. Yet, it cannot be pratyaksha-pramANa-vedya as pratyaksha is utilised for adhikaraNa-jnAna as itself (adhikaraNa) (भूतलत्वेन भूतल-ज्ञान) whereas anupalabdhi is utilised for adhikaraNa-jnAna as abhAva (घटाभावत्वेन-भूतल-ज्ञान)

Wherever the usage of praak-abhAva etc is used in Advaita to define or prove some concept, it is mandatorily by making use of concepts of other system. It does not show our own acceptance of these as some entities.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

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

Dear Venkatraghavan-ji,

 

Thank you – and I certainly would not want to argue with you here. I accept all that you say (and even follow most of it!). However, I was not really interested in the section at all, except to the extent that someone might use it to claim the positive existence of darkness (and hence ignorance).  How about if I change what I wrote to the following? Is this now OK?

 

 

It seems, then, that this section (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 1.2.1) from Śaṅkara is not concerned with providing a roundabout argument for the positive existence of ‘ignorance’, via the route of demonstrating that ‘darkness’ is a positively existing thing. On the contrary, he is just using his exceptional logical skills to refute those philosophies that believe in asatkārya vāda. (The belief that the effect does not pre-exist in the cause, one consequence of which would be that nothing existed prior to creation). In passing, he also counters the claim by the by the Yogācāra or Vijñāna Vāda Buddhists that consciousness is ‘momentary’ (kṣaṇika), meaning that everything is ‘new in every moment’.

 

If it makes sense to us to think about the existence of an actual thing like a pot before it has been made or after it has been smashed, then there must be a persistence of consciousness over time. The physical pot may well exist only for a short time but the word ‘pot’ and our ‘fore-knowledge’ and ‘after-knowledge’ of that particular pot are not restricted  by the time period. Therefore Kṣaṇika Vāda must be false.

 

‘Darkness’ and ‘ignorance’ do not enter the discussion. As usual, it is the post-Shankarans who complicate the issue!

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DB-%3DMdVVpb0XTpKWqFMz6LmviLSHPZ-BLdVrA0V-Qo%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Dennis ji,

I agree with your view that Shankaracharya here is not seeking to comment on whether existence is simply the absence of knowledge or an existent thing. Nor is he seeking to comment on whether darkness is the absence of light or an existent thing.

Rather his aim is to ensure that the opponent cannot argue that the Upanishad is endorsing his position when it says "there was nothing here in the beginning". In doing this, he proves that absence is not a non-existent entity. Rather an existing entity, is mistakenly referred to as absence by the logician.

The question therefore is whether that principle can be extended to the absence of knowledge and the absence of light, or not. Let us leave darkness aside for the moment. If Shankara holds that no absence is absence itself, rather it is of the nature of something existent, is the absence of knowledge an existent thing or the non-existence of knowledge? 

If the absence of knowledge was something non-existent, why is Shankara's logic of the ghaTa bhAShya not extendable here?

If ignorance was not "something existent", why is the self-effulgent Brahman not known by all? 

What is self-effulgence but the revelation of a thing, without the requirement of a cognition? 

If Brahman was self-effulgent, and if the absence of knowledge is something non-existent, what role does cognition (knowledge) and the scripture play in its revelation?

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/005201dafe1b%2407eebef0%2417cc3cd0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Correction: I agree with your view that Shankaracharya here is not seeking to comment on whether ignorance is simply the absence of knowledge or an existent thing.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

I am in agreement with what you said. Except I have a small but important point to make in the context of the following:

//If ignorance was not "something existent", why is the self-effulgent Brahman not known by all? //

I think the requirement is fulfilled by ignorance being non-abhAva. We cannot claim that ignorance must be "something existent".

It is a very important point. That ignorance is a cover-or proves only this much - it is not abhAva. 

One cannot claim that it has to be "something existent".

Actually the words bhAva, abhAva, sat, asat etc have no equivalent words in English because these Sanskrit words in VedAnta have definite connotation which is not the case with English ones. So, even if one does not intend, it is liable to be misunderstood.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

True. By something existent, all I mean is the following that I had said a couple of emails ago:

Not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence. 

It cannot be absence because an absence cannot veil. It cannot be absolutely real like Brahman. It has the same reality as the world.

Regards 

Venkatraghavan 

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBBcHvg2a-ogcKWick5Si70Xh%2Bp%3D%2BzeDCXPf%2BdjA36CVKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

Not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence. 

.......

It has the same reality as the world.

Here also, I would like to pin-point the question. 

What is the relationship between the "subtle form of existence", say E-2, required for ignorance, and "paramArtha-sat" of Brahman, say E-1?

1. Are E1 and E2 identical?

2. Are E1 and E2 different and independent?

3. Are E1 and E2 different but E2 is dependent on E1?

--------------------------------------------------------------

In case of 1, there is loss of non-duality. (Ignorance and Brahman both have same existence)

In case of 2 also, there is clear advaita-hAni. Both ignorance and Brahman have independent existences and also they are of different nature.

In case of 3, because of E2's dependence on E1, there is no independent existence of ignorance apart from Brahman. However, E1 being different than E2 - advaita-hAni can still be alleged.

What is our stand --- there is no existence of ignorance whatsoever. (That is E2 is null and void)

Or,

Ignorance has E2 which is different from E1 but dependent on E1. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Neti neti is the only real answer to these questions. :-)

Akilesh Ayyar

--
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/CAH9%3D%2BBAO2K1Uwm4zr4M%3DtWfrcmFroav68hmJDEVpbK8711w9qw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

There are two answers from two standpoints.

From the only ultimately valid standpoint, i.e, E-1's standpoint, E-2 doesn't exist!

From E-2's standpoint, both E-1 and E-2 exist, and E-2 derives its existence from E-1, so E-2 depends on E-1 for its existence, but E-1 depends on nothing else. E-2 is needed to explain the appearance of the world and why E-1 is not immediately apparent.

There is no harm to advaita ultimately, because the only valid standpoint is E-1's. 

However, because we are concerned with questions and answers, we have to provisionally concede the existence of E-2 until all questions are answered. Both E-2 and the absence of E-2 have the reality of E-2 only. Therefore there is no harm to advaita, whether through E-2 or the absence of E-2. 

Once there is nothing to ask, there is nothing to answer, E-2 has served its purpose and the concession of provisional existence for E-2 that we made, can be withdrawn.

Regards, 

Venkatraghavan 

--
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/CAH9%3D%2BBAO2K1Uwm4zr4M%3DtWfrcmFroav68hmJDEVpbK8711w9qw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Neti neti is the only real answer to these questions. :-)

praNAms

Hare Krishna

                                   

Neti neti (pratishedha vAkya pramANa) used by shruti to address the Chaitanya which is infact not addressable through manOvAk as it is nirvishesha, nirvikAra, niravayava etc.  So if this neti neti used to explain avidyA also it is also become parallel reality to brahman or brahman itself 😊  But adhyAsa is quite nirvachaneeya shankara spent whole chapter to explain this and in this chapter which is exclusively meant for explaining the adhyAsa, bhAshyakAra never ever say at single place it is anirvachaneeya OTOH he has taken great pains to explain it which can be splitted into different headings like adhyAsa pratijnA bhAshyaM, adhyAsa lakshaNa bhAshyaM, adhyAsa saMbhAvana bhAshyaM, adhyAsa pramANa bhAshyaM and upasaMhAra bhAshyaM etc.  So avidyA in general adhyAsa in particular not neti neti category 😊

[putran M]

Neti neti is the only real answer to these questions. :-)

In that spirit, I am reminded of Yagnyavalkya's warning to Gargi :) "IDo not, 0 Gargi, push your inquiry too far, lest your head should fall off. You are questioning about a deity that should not be reasoned about. Do not, 0 Gargi; push your inquiry too far."

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsHjNrWisRq9G%3Di%3D6QRBjzc9JHBfp7mHFMkqya9sSDHdaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence.

 

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

The above is said ( subtle form of existence) which is something different from vyAkruta form of existence (jagat) and paramArtha sat brahman said in the spirit of kinchit bhAva rUpa or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa!!??  Please clarify. 

[Bhaskar YR]

In that spirit, I am reminded of Yagnyavalkya's warning to Gargi :) "IDo not, 0 Gargi, push your inquiry too far, lest your head should fall off. You are questioning about a deity that should not be reasoned about. Do not, 0 Gargi; push your inquiry too far."

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Very sad, here yAgnAvalkya curbing the deep instinctive nature to enquire subtle concepts by gArgi by threatening her with unwanted consequences 😊 Don’t delve deep into avidyA-adhyAsa as if it is really existing and giving it undue importance, it may blow our head ultimately 😊

[Bhaskar YR]

Not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence. 

 

It cannot be absence because an absence cannot veil. It cannot be absolutely real like Brahman. It has the same reality as the world.

 

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

When I read both statements above together, I got one more doubt with regard to subtle existence.  In the first statement you said :  it is NOT the vyAkruta form of existence that is present post its creation ( obviously I think you are referring to ‘vyAkruta jagat’ here) but in the second statement you said this (subtle existence) has the SAME reality as the world!! 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Yes. What we are talking about is the effect, being present in a causal seed form, prior to its creation. It is avyAkRtanAmarUpa, whereas the world is vyAkRtanAmarUpa. It has vyAvahArika sattA (sadasatvilakshaNa), as does the world.

Kind regards, 

Venkatraghavan 

--

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/AM7PR06MB66255EA8EC4DF74B9DF6AB42849C2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg // Not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some subtle form of existence. 

It cannot be absence because an absence cannot veil. It cannot be absolutely real like Brahman. It has the same reality as the world //,

I thought the two,

// not the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation //

and

// It has the same reality as the world //,

are contradictory. They are the same. Identical. It is avidyA/ajnAna/Ignorance alone which manifests as Creation. The difference is only manifest/Unmanifest. It is anirvachanIya. MithyA.

E1 is Satya and E2 is anirvachanIya/mithyA, both well defined in Advaita SiddhAnta.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnrY9Q3W4%2BE85jBBsEvcqcdghj3pv1Zjs8%2BoKW1d4Lh%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji 

No contradiction, we are saying the same thing - The difference lies in vyAkRta form (manifest) of the world and avyAkRta (unmanifest) form of the world, as ignorance. The existence of one is manifest, whereas the existence of the other is not. There is no difference in the order of existence (both vyAvahArika) of the two.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

In the context of the current discussion, pardon me for rephrasing your answer

For // The existence of one is manifest, whereas the existence of the other is not //,

I would state

// The existence of one is manifest, whereas the existence of the other is via that of the other (manifest) //.

The need for this suggestion would be obvious for anyone who has followed this thread.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Many thanks Venkatraghavan ji for the response.

From E-2's standpoint, both E-1 and E-2 exist, and E-2 derives its existence from E-1, so E-2 depends on E-1 for its existence, but E-1 depends on nothing else. E-2 is needed to explain the appearance of the world and why E-1 is not immediately apparent.

Here, I would submit the following for your consideration. If both E1 and E2 exist (from E2 standpoint) - then there is loss of advaita, from E2 standpoint.

So, to preserve advaita, even from the E2 standpoint, E2 should not be admitted.

 

However, because we are concerned with questions and answers, we have to provisionally concede the existence of E-2 until all questions are answered.

Then, provisionally, should we accept loss of advaita.

 

Both E-2 and the absence of E-2 have the reality of E-2 only. Therefore there is no harm to advaita, whether through E-2 or the absence of E-2. 

Yes. But from the E2 standpoint, since E2 is different from E1 (though dependent), there is loss of advaita.

Once there is nothing to ask, there is nothing to answer, E-2 has served its purpose and the concession of provisional existence for E-2 that we made, can be withdrawn.

This means that we are in the standpoint of E1. From which, obviously, E2 is null and void. 

Question is from the standpoint of E2.

Do we accept provisional loss of advaita from the E2 standpoint?

Actually we should word it better. There are two standpoints -- ignorance standpoint and Brahman standpoint. From ignorance-standpoint, E2 and E1 ("subtle form of existence"-of-ignorance and paramArtha-sat-of-Brahman) are admitted. From Brahman-standpoint, only E1 is admitted.

So, from ignorance-standpoint, if E2 and E1 are accepted as different (even though dependent), loss of advaita would remain. 

In my understanding, the reply is as under (kindly share your views):

1. Even from ignorance-viewpoint, there is only E1. There is nothing like E2. E2 is null and void. (Eka-sattA-vAda). Hence, there is advaita. The existence seen in ignorance does not belong to ignorance, but belongs to Brahman.

2. From ignorance viewpoint, there is E1 and E2 (different from but dependent on E1). However, advaita here is spoken vyadhikaraNa-dharma-avachchhinna-tvena. Hence, there is no harm to advaita. [This is not primary advaita siddhAnta. But only tushyatu-durjana-nyAya. This is what is sattA-traividhya-vAda.]

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

In vyAvahAra, we are glad to be dvaitins. This is accepted by all the sampradAya AchAryas.

All of karma kANDa, which presupposes ignorance, is playing out in the realm of dvaita only. The vyAvahArika prAmANya for karma kANDa is on the basis of the acceptance of vyAvahArika dvaita only. If we do not give ignorance provisional existence, we would be open to charge of apramANya to the karma kANDa. 

However there is no advaita hAni because of this, because ultimately all of vyavahAra and the ignorance that it presupposes are sad-vilakshaNa. It is not sat, because it will be ultimately sublated. And when it is sublated, it is a sublation in all three periods of time - so even in vyAvahAra (during the state of ajnAna) it didn't exist.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
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/CAH9%3D%2BBBNvuBd8MYrQn9fiVQQ_ZhThLJ%2Bhdz9go8yEiZP-434ng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Thank you Venkat ji for your response.

If we do not give ignorance provisional existence, we would be open to charge of apramANya to the karma kANDa. 

In sattA-traividhya-vAda, I fully agree with you that provisional existence is granted to ignorance/world. 

But, in eka-sattA-vAda, do we give provisional existence to ignorance/world? Eka-sattA-vAda is not from the standpoint of Brahman. It is still from the ignorance standpoint. So, the onus of explanation of ignorance/world/veil remains on the advaitI. However, he does not give any sort of existence to ignorance/world. We do the vyapadesha of prAtibhAsikatva/vyAvahArikatva without admitting prAtibhAsika/vyAvahArika sattA because we accept san-mAtra-grAhI-pratyaksha. We do not accept any sort of sattva to vyAvAvahArika/prAtibhAsika vastu, rather mere sat-tAdAtmya is accepted.  I think it is a very important point which must be appreciated.

Is that not so? 

May I request you to kindly see page no 7 of the PDF where necessary citation from Shat BhUshanI is mentioned (from page 63 and 90 of Volume 1) https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/eka-satta-vada-vis-a-vis-satta-traividhya-vada.pdf

Please share your views if I have made any errors in my understanding.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Re

"But, in eka-sattA-vAda, do we give provisional existence to ignorance/world? "

In my opinion - The existence of ignorance in ekasattAvAda should be sat-tAdAtmya only. avidyA is sva-para-nirvAhikA and anAdi, so there is no AtmAshraya doSha with that.

Regards 

Venkatraghavan 

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBDjC4oLC7NV2c-CCw2KuHMw%2BG275mr_yFMhm%3DCz%3DAoswQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

There are at least two examples for the sva-para nirvahakatvam concept in the Advaitic texts:

1. Kataka rajaH - the powder of a particular fruit dried, when put in contaminated water, it takes the contamination along with it and settles at the bottom rendering the water pure for use.  The modern Alum does the same.  Water supply departments use alum to clean water because it helps to purify water by removing insoluble substances, suspended clay particles, and heavy stones.

2. Medicine when taken cures the disease and itself gets digested and clears the body 

of the disease and itself. 

The above two are stated in the Vichara sagara, if I remember right.  

The Siddhanta lesha sangraha mentions:

ब्रह्मज्ञाननिवर्तकनिरूपणम्

ननु−अस्त्वेतदेवम् , तथापि सविलासाज्ञाननाशकमिदं ब्रह्मज्ञानं कथं नश्येत् , नाशकान्तरस्याभावात् − इति चेत् , न−यथा कतकरजः सलिलेन संयुज्य पूर्वयुक्तरजोऽन्तरविश्लेषं जनयत् स्वविश्लेषमपि जनयति, तथा आत्मन्यध्यस्यमानं ब्रह्मज्ञानं पूर्वाध्यस्तसर्वप्रपञ्चं निवर्तयत् स्वात्मानमपि निवर्तयतीति केचित् ।

अन्ये तु अन्यन्निवर्त्य स्वयमपि निवृत्तौ दग्धलोहपीताम्बुन्यायमुदाहरन्ति ।

अपरे तु अत्र दग्धतृणकूटदहनोदाहरणमाहुः । 

warm regards

subbu

On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 8:56 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Yes ji. Thank you for the two examples. Laukika reflexive examples like
this show there's nothing illogical or impossible about the idea that
"superimposition of avidyA upon Brahman, is from avidyA standpoint alone",
and not paramArthataH.

Om


On Wed, 4 Sept, 2024, 8:39 pm Venkatraghavan S, <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just thought of another example - to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, a list
> of all lists should include itself too.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Sept 2024, 21:06 Venkatraghavan S, <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Raghav ji,
>>
>> A recursive function / algorithm which calls itself, but also achieves a
>> particular outcome, could be a more modern version of a sva-para-nirvAhaka
>> vastu.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Sept 2024, 20:41 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
>> adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Venkat ji and Sudhanshu ji
>>>
>>> AvidyA is svaparanirvAhikA like the category called "bheda".
>>>
>>>
>>> The idea of AtmAshraya doSha being present in most logical systems and
>>> not
>>> only in traditional nyAya, can we give any other laukika example(s) for
>>> sva-para-nirvAhikA (to say avidyA idea is not subject to
>>> AtmAshraya-doSha).
>>> I mean other examples easier to relate to without entities like "bheda" ;
>>> the SS idea of bheda differentiating both itself from others (sva) as
>>> well
>>> as others (bheda is not a pot) from each other (para - like pot from
>>> cloth).
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> Om
>>> Raghav
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 4 Sept, 2024, 5:21 pm Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDjC4oLC7NV2c-CCw2KuHMw%2BG275mr_yFMhm%3DCz%3DAoswQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>>> > >
>>> > > .
>>> > >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
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

[Akilesh Ayyar]

In his commentary to BG 13.2, Sankara writes:

“(Opponent:) Whose is this avidya?

...

By whomsoever it is seen.

…

(Opponent:) By whom is it seen ?

...

There is no use asking the question, " By whom ?"

…

If you know to what particular entity, not

immediately perceived, avidya is related, of what avail is it to you ?

…

How can you perceive the relation between the Self and avidya? It is not indeed possible for you to perceive your Self as related to avidya, at the same moment (that your Self cognises avidya); for, the cogniser (the Self) acts at the moment as the percipient of avidya. Neither can there be a (separate) cogniser of the relation between the cogniser (the Self) and avidya, nor a separate cognition of that (relation) ;…”

The Self cannot be related to avidya, nor can there be a separate cognizer of avidya outside the Self.,

Sounds a whole lot like neti, neti, doesn’t it? There is something quite inexplicable here which Bhashyakara points out, a puzzle which cannot be explained but only directly seen through.

Akilesh Ayyar

--

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/AM7PR06MB662594DE7C0A3B1DE43F6ED3849C2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste,

//(Opponent:) Whose is this avidya?

...

By whomsoever it is seen.//

Incorrect translation.

//By whomsoever it is seen// --- should be ----//to whomsoever it is seen to belong//.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Raghav ji,

Yes, they show how avidyA causes the adhyAsa (sat tAdAtmya) of both avidyA itself and other things onto Brahman.

So the whole point of avidyA being logically prior to adhyAsa and therefore that invalidating the bhAvarUpatva of avidyA does not fly. It is possible for a recursive superimposition function to cause its own superimposition. 

At the same time, like it is possible to exit any recursion, however deep into it one may be, as long as there is a terminating condition - it is possible to exit the recursion of samsAra adhyAsa even though it may be beginningless, because there exists the terminating condition of brahmajnAna, which puts to an end the reason for the recursion.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Wed, 4 Sept 2024, 23:17 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <raghav...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes ji. Thank you for the two examples. Laukika reflexive examples like this show there's nothing illogical or impossible about the idea that "superimposition of avidyA upon Brahman, is from avidyA standpoint alone", and not paramArthataH.

Om

On Wed, 4 Sept, 2024, 8:39 pm Venkatraghavan S, <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just thought of another example - to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, a list of all lists should include itself too. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Wed, 4 Sept 2024, 21:06 Venkatraghavan S, <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Raghav ji,

A recursive function / algorithm which calls itself, but also achieves a particular outcome, could be a more modern version of a sva-para-nirvAhaka vastu.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Wed, 4 Sept 2024, 20:41 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Venkat ji and Sudhanshu ji

AvidyA is svaparanirvAhikA like the category called "bheda".


The idea of AtmAshraya doSha being present in most logical systems and not
only in traditional nyAya, can we give any other laukika example(s) for
sva-para-nirvAhikA (to say avidyA idea is not subject to AtmAshraya-doSha).
I mean other examples easier to relate to without entities like "bheda" ;
the SS idea of bheda differentiating both itself from others (sva) as well
as others (bheda is not a pot) from each other (para - like pot from cloth).

Thank you.
Om
Raghav






On Wed, 4 Sept, 2024, 5:21 pm Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Venkat ji,

On Wed, Sep 4, 2024, 8:46 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Just thought of another example - to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, a list of
all lists should include itself too.

Muktika includes itself as the last in the list of 108 Upanishads too.

Kind rgds,

--Ananta Chaitanya

/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji,

That's a great example from the shruti itself for the same idea.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Akhilesh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

In his commentary to BG 13.2, Sankara writes:

 

• It is more precisely addressed in sUtra bhAshya 4-1-3 as well, here bhAshyakAra clarifies avidyA belongs to the person who is asking the question about avidyA 😊 when he is realized that he is Ishwara / brahman there is no avidyA whatsoever to anyone.  

 

The Self cannot be related to avidya, nor can there be a separate cognizer of avidya outside the Self.

 

Ø     Yes we have only one Chaitanya there is no second Chaitanya that can have avidyA bhAshyakAra clarifies this too (bruhad bhAshya 1-4-10).  However avidyA is admitted in transactional world for want of jnAna.  It is like jeeva’s antaHkaraNa dOsha (avidyA) to be got rid off through vidyA.  Because it is jeeva who has to acquire vidyA and realize his svarUpa and it is not other way around like brahma acquired avidyA and become jeeva.  And there is no vidyAvidya vyavahAra in Shuddha Chaitanya as it is in itself jnAna svarUpa. 

 

Sounds a whole lot like neti, neti, doesn’t it? There is something quite inexplicable here which Bhashyakara points out, a puzzle which cannot be explained but only directly seen through.

 

Ø     IMHO no need to complicate the issue by giving undue importance to avidyA / adhyAsa which is not there in paramArtha.  Accepting that we have the problem is as good as half solving that problem.  In vyavahAra we are identifying ourselves with dehAtma buddhi (BMI) which is adhyAsa, which is quite natural and anAdi and shAstra helps us to get rid of this problem and show us what we ‘already’ are.  Rope jnAna does not bring new rope nor eliminate the existing snake.  The rope jnAna is just the correct jnAna of already existing rope (bhUta vastu Vishaya jnAna).

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri VenkatrAghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

If ignorance was not "something existent", why is the self-effulgent Brahman not known by all? 

 

What is self-effulgence but the revelation of a thing, without the requirement of a cognition? 

 

If Brahman was self-effulgent, and if the absence of knowledge is something non-existent, what role does cognition (knowledge) and the scripture play in its revelation?

 

Ø     Don’t you think all these questions have been answered by bhAshyakAra himself!!??  No one saying that there is nothing like avidyA in this transactional world!!  If only glittering brahman everywhere why shAstra, why bhAshya??  It is well accepted that within this transactional world we are having some problem like taking one thing for another and suffering hence  shankara highlighted this issue and written the adhyAsa bhAshya.  So adhyAsa is very well admitted in the vyAvahAra as anAdi and naisargika so shAstrAdhyayana, gurupadesha, shravaNAdi sAdhana very much required and mandatory to realize our svarUpa.  The revelations of shAstra is not about Atman it is all about getting rid of our avidyA about the ever existing nitya Shuddha buddha mukta Atman.  I think in bruhad bhAshya 1-4-10 nanvevaM shAstrOpadeshAnarthakyaM eti where bhAshyakAra clarifies the role of shAstra … and in vilakshaNAtvAdhikaraNa bhAshya as well where bhAshyakAra particularly talks about avidyAnivruttiphaladarshana,.  And we all agree the role of shAstra is not like the source of knowledge  with regard to brahman as such and such a thing in the same way it talks about svarga and other celestial abodes and beings.  Again in the above sUtra bhAshya shankara clarifies :the shAstra purports to wipe off the distinctions superimposed on brahman by avidyA, the shAstra does not indeed meant to teach brahman as such and such an object but it teaches brahman as no object at all, being the inmost self and removes all distinctions created by avidyA such as jnAtru, jneya and jnAna. 

Ø    So admitting we are having avidyA is not a problem, problem arises when some one unnecessarily introduces some strange avidyA which is something different from already explained avidyA i.e. agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 10:26 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms Sri VenkatrAghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Ø    So admitting we are having avidyA is not a problem, problem arises when some one unnecessarily introduces some strange avidyA which is something different from already explained avidyA i.e. agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. 

Bhaskar ji, 

An analogy:  The Trimurtis, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the manifestation of One Brahman.  In this scheme there is one Brahman that takes the form of the Trimurtis.  Similarly it is one Avidya that takes the form of the three - agrahana, etc.  That Avidya which is above or underlying the three expressions is what is required to be addressed.  Seen in this way, I think there is no conflict. It is again like the one Turiya, Chaturtham, of the Mandukya, that appears as Vishva (Virat), Taijasa (Hiranyagarbha) and Praajna (Ishwara). 

warm regards

subbu 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662587D45DDDEA9DCBF7BDAD849D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

An analogy:  The Trimurtis, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the manifestation of One Brahman.  In this scheme there is one Brahman that takes the form of the Trimurtis.  Similarly it is one Avidya that takes the form of the three - agrahana, etc.  That Avidya which is above or underlying the three expressions is what is required to be addressed.  Seen in this way, I think there is no conflict. It is again like the one Turiya, Chaturtham, of the Mandukya, that appears as Vishva (Virat), Taijasa (Hiranyagarbha) and Praajna (Ishwara). 

 

Ø     If I remember correctly few years back you said mUlAvidyA is agrahaNa (jnAnAbhAva) only.  I don’t know which context or in which discussion/thread you said that.  Anyway if the mUlAvidyA is just like same Chaitanya behind trimurthi-s, (ekaM sat viprA bahudA vadanti) then there is no need to differentiate this MV from adhyAsa and attributing upAdAna kAraNatva to mUlAvidyA ( as we have admitted hari-hara abedha 😊).  Kindly clarify one simple question : is this mUlAvidyA is something like one of the three aspects of avidyA ??  or something different to all these three types of avidyA??  Is this mUlAvidyA -agrahaNa??  Is this MV – vipareeta grahaNa??  Or is this MV is saMshaya, if this strange MV neither of these three and something different and sitting aloof from all these three and acting as upAdAna kAraNa to one of the aspects of avidyA i.e. adhyAsa, then what exactly is this MV??  For this you say it is anirvachaneeya, it is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa, it is kinchit bhAvarUpa, it is jada/Dravya vastu, it is nAmarUpa beeja shakti which has the potency to even veil brahman while having the Ashraya in brahman itself, you label this as material cause for jagat and some part of this MV as tUlAvidyA as well to see the snake in place of rope etc.  So please clarify which is the final definition of MV according to you. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

If Brahman was self-effulgent, and if the absence of knowledge is something non-existent, what role does cognition (knowledge) and the scripture play in its revelation?

 

Ø     Don’t you think all these questions have been answered by bhAshyakAra himself!!??  No one saying that there is nothing like avidyA in this transactional world!! 

Sri SSS is saying just that - that there is no avidyA. There is only absence of vidyA, is his contention. How can absence prevent Brahman from shining?

If only glittering brahman everywhere why shAstra, why bhAshya??  It is well accepted that within this transactional world we are having some problem like taking one thing for another and suffering hence  shankara highlighted this issue and written the adhyAsa bhAshya.  So adhyAsa is very well admitted in the vyAvahAra as anAdi and naisargika so shAstrAdhyayana, gurupadesha, shravaNAdi sAdhana very much required and mandatory to realize our svarUpa. 

Are you saying that adhyAsa prevents Atma from shining? Is adhyAsa bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa according to you? 

If bhAvarUpa, that is the same as our bhAvarUpa adhyasta avidyA. So why argue against it? Further, whatever problems you have with bhAvarupa  avidyA you will have with bhAvarupa adhyAsa also.

If it is abhAvarUpa, we come back to the same question. How did an abhAvarUpa adhyAsa prevent the self-effulgent Atma from shining?

The revelations of shAstra is not about Atman it is all about getting rid of our avidyA about the ever existing nitya Shuddha buddha mukta Atman. 

What is this avidyA that you are trying to get rid of? Are you getting rid of the absence of vidyA? Or getting rid of adhyAsa? 

So jnAna abhAva causes adhyAsa (samshaya /viparIta jnAna) which somehow prevents the self effulgent Atma from shining, and you need jnAna to remove the samshaya and viparIta jnAna. Essentially this is as good as saying the Atma is not self effulgent.

I think in bruhad bhAshya 1-4-10 nanvevaM shAstrOpadeshAnarthakyaM eti where bhAshyakAra clarifies the role of shAstra … and in vilakshaNAtvAdhikaraNa bhAshya as well where bhAshyakAra particularly talks about avidyAnivruttiphaladarshana,. 

Why is he talking about avidyA nivRtti phala darshana - abhAva doesn't need nivRtti. If this is figurative usage for saying jnAna prApti, then it will lead to the same problem as a denial of self effulgence.

And we all agree the role of shAstra is not like the source of knowledge  with regard to brahman as such and such a thing in the same way it talks about svarga and other celestial abodes and beings.  Again in the above sUtra bhAshya shankara clarifies :the shAstra purports to wipe off the distinctions superimposed on brahman by avidyA, the shAstra does not indeed meant to teach brahman as such and such an object but it teaches brahman as no object at all, being the inmost self and removes all distinctions created by avidyA such as jnAtru, jneya and jnAna. 

Fine. 

Ø   admitting we are having avidyA is not a problem, problem arises when some one unnecessarily introduces some strange avidyA which is something different from already explained avidyA i.e. agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. 

 

Again, what is it that you are referring to as avidyA when you say "admitting we are having avidyA is not a problem"? Is it adhyAsa or jnAna-abhAva? How can you have jnAna abhAva? You can only not have jnAna. What does having abhAva mean?

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

--

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

We can look at MUlavidyA as sAmAnya of which viparita grahana, etc. are visheshas. 

warm 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/AM7PR06MB662515C750CCB87893BEAA24849D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[K Kathirasan]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

I cannot but agree to this point you made: 

"So admitting we are having avidyA is not a problem, problem arises when some one unnecessarily introduces some strange avidyA which is something different from already explained avidyA i.e. agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.”

Especially when this definition occurs in three different places (Br Su Bh 4.1.2, Br Up Bh 3.3.1, Bh Gi Bh 13.2). The fact that Shankara states this thrice means something, at least to me. 

Warmest Regards,

Kathirasan K

--
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/AM7PR06MB662587D45DDDEA9DCBF7BDAD849D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri VenkatrAghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sri SSS is saying just that - that there is no avidyA. There is only absence of vidyA, is his contention.

Ø     I am just wondering where he categorically said like this by overriding his adhyAsa vAda mUlAvidyAvAda !!??  Do you have any specific references from him work prabhuji??

How can absence prevent Brahman from shining?

• jnAnAbhAva does not prevent brahman from shining hence in sushupti where it is admitted absence of adhyAsa, lack of knowledge as well and at the same time Ikyata.  Mere avidyA (jnAnAbhAva) is not anartha hetu, bhAshyakAra clarifies this.

 

If only glittering brahman everywhere why shAstra, why bhAshya??  It is well accepted that within this transactional world we are having some problem like taking one thing for another and suffering hence  shankara highlighted this issue and written the adhyAsa bhAshya.  So adhyAsa is very well admitted in the vyAvahAra as anAdi and naisargika so shAstrAdhyayana, gurupadesha, shravaNAdi sAdhana very much required and mandatory to realize our svarUpa. 

 

Are you saying that adhyAsa prevents Atma from shining? Is adhyAsa bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa according to you? 

 

Ø     When you are seeing the snake in place of rope do you think rope is bereft from its svarUpa?? rAhugrasta sUrya / shining sun behind dark clouds going away from his self-effulgence nature??  adhyAsa does not prevent Atma from shining OTOH adhyAsa is preventing us from seeing the always glittering sun.  Before seeing the rope, during the time of seeing it as  snake (bhrAnti kAla) and after having the correct knowledge of rope in all these scenario rope is rope only there is not even an iota of ‘change’ in rope svarUpa. 

 

If bhAvarUpa, that is the same as our bhAvarUpa adhyasta avidyA. So why argue against it?

 

• This is very strange and somewhat pleasing development in the camp of mUlAvidyAvAdins !!  If you are holding that bhAvarUpa is mere adhyasta then you are not mUlAvidyAvAdin who is talking about upAdAna kAratvam to adhyAsa.  And more importantly if you don’t have any objection in admitting that  it as adhyasta, even Sri SSS does not have any objection in accepting it with the label mUlAvidyA !!  Just I reproduce his Kannada statement with regard to this : 
• //quote // avyAkruta nAma rUpavu jagattina beejavaagiruvudarinda adannu mUlAvidyeyendu yaaraadaru karedare nanage anthavara matavenu asammatavalla.  Adu ellakku kaaraNavaagiruvudarinda adannu moolavennabahudu.  Adare adu adhyastavalla, avidyA kalpitavalla embudu bhAshya viruddhavu, yukti viruddhavu aagiruvudarinda adannu naanu endigu oppalaarenu.  mUlAvidyAvAdavannu etti hididiruva vivaraNAchAryaru kooda ondu kadeyalli “ adu AkAshadalli kappu baNNavu kalpitavaagiruvante Atmanalli kalpitavaagiruttade” endu oppikondiruttaare.  E bhAvagarbhitavAda vAkyada pUrNArthavu vimarshakarellarigU manadattaadare naanu dhanyanu//unquote//  I have taken this reference from Sri SSS’s Kannada book ‘shankara siddhAnta’ last page. 
•  The rough translation of his Kannada observation is :  since the unmanifested (avyAkruta) names and forms is the cause (seed) for the perceived world of duality, if it is called as “moolaavidyA” then that opinion is not unacceptable to me because that avyAkruta names and forms is the main reason for everything hence it can be labelled as ‘mUla’.  But if anyone comes up with the theories like : it is not adhyasta (superimposed) or not avidyAkalpita (kalpita-imagined, misconception due to ignorance etc. then I would never accept such stand as that stand is shruti, yukti and bhAshya viruddha.  Here Sri SSS quotes vivaraNa statement which states avidyA is just imagined in Atman just as black colour imagined in clear space. 
• So, if you prabhuji-s agreeing that mulAvidyA is kevala adhyasta/superimposed/imagined, I think the Sri SSS’s camp does not have any problem in accepting this type of mUlAvidyA 😊 But I don’t think matter is as simple as this in vyAkhyAnakAra-s camp. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Bhaskar prabhuji.

//So, if you prabhuji-s agreeing that mulAvidyA is kevala adhyasta/superimposed/imagined, I think the Sri SSS’s camp does not have any problem in accepting this type of mUlAvidyA 😊 But I don’t think matter is as simple as this in vyAkhyAnakAra-s camp.//

But whence is this doubt that mUlAvidyA is not adhyasta? This is a well-accepted principle.

SSSS ji says //But if anyone comes up with the theories like : it is not adhyasta (superimposed) or not avidyAkalpita (kalpita-imagined, misconception due to ignorance etc. then I would never accept such stand as that stand is shruti, yukti and bhAshya viruddha//

But who has come up with this theory!! Can even a single statement to that effect be provided which says that mUlAvidyA is not adhyasta?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

I am skipping everything else in your email and coming straight to the crux.

If bhAvarUpa, that is the same as our bhAvarUpa adhyasta avidyA. So why argue against it?

 

• This is very strange and somewhat pleasing development in the camp of mUlAvidyAvAdins !!  If you are holding that bhAvarUpa is mere adhyasta then you are not mUlAvidyAvAdin who is talking about upAdAna kAratvam to adhyAsa.  And more importantly if you don’t have any objection in admitting that  it as adhyasta, even Sri SSS does not have any objection in accepting it with the label mUlAvidyA !!  Just I reproduce his Kannada statement with regard to this : 

I think you have not understood in what sense avidyA is said to be upAdAna kAraNa is in this paksha. avidyA is adhyasta / so is its kArya, the world. This is precisely what we have been saying multiple times in multiple emails. You are now turning things around as if it is a new development pleasant to you - this has been the position from day 1 - not just in this forum, but for at least two thousand years, when the panchapAdikAkAra wrote his work! What is mithyAjnAna in mithyA ca tad ajnAnam? mithyA means adhyasta only.

•  The rough translation of his Kannada observation is :  since the unmanifested (avyAkruta) names and forms is the cause (seed) for the perceived world of duality, if it is called as “moolaavidyA” then that opinion is not unacceptable to me because that avyAkruta names and forms is the main reason for everything hence it can be labelled as ‘mUla’.  But if anyone comes up with the theories like : it is not adhyasta (superimposed) or not avidyAkalpita (kalpita-imagined, misconception due to ignorance etc. then I would never accept such stand as that stand is shruti, yukti and bhAshya viruddha.  Here Sri SSS quotes vivaraNa statement which states avidyA is just imagined in Atman just as black colour imagined in clear space. 

Please go back and read my response to Hacker. I have said this pretty much verbatim - avyAkRta nAma rUpa is mUlAvidyA!

Who is coming up with such theories - "it is not adhyasta (superimposed) or not avidyAkalpita ", etc ? mUlAvidyA is adhyasta only. Even in this thread, if you take the time to catch up on the emails, you will see this explicitly in multiple places.

 

• So, if you prabhuji-s agreeing that mulAvidyA is kevala adhyasta/superimposed/imagined, I think the Sri SSS’s camp does not have any problem in accepting this type of mUlAvidyA 😊 But I don’t think matter is as simple as this in vyAkhyAnakAra-s camp. 

It is not just us in this small forum. It is every vyAkhyAnakAra who is saying this only. 

Thank you for admitting that this whole thing is a storm in a teacup - Sri SSS is criticising the vyAkhyAnakAras needlessly, when he is saying the same thing as them!

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Bhaskar ji.

// is this mUlAvidyA is something like one of the three aspects of avidyA ??//

No. The three are effects of avidyA. The three are incapable of veiling Chaitanya. Only avidyA is capable of veiling Atman.

//or something different to all these three types of avidyA??//

Yes. 

/Is this mUlAvidyA -agrahaNa??  Is this MV – vipareeta grahaNa??  Or is this MV is saMshaya, if this strange MV neither of these three and something different and sitting aloof from all these three and acting as upAdAna kAraNa to one of the aspects of avidyA i.e. adhyAsa, then what exactly is this MV??/

It is defined as an entity which is anAdi, bhAvarUpa (bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa) and removable-by-jnAna. It is different from these three. It is upAdAna kAraNa of these three. [अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते । तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते ॥]

For example, suppose someone blindfolds me. Then, I cannot perceive things kept before me. (agrahNa). This does not mean that the blindfold, the veil, is the same as me not perceiving the objects before me. Isn't it?

So, mUlAvidyA is like that blindfold, which is capable of veiling Brahman. The three agrahNa, mithyA-jnAna, viparIta-grahaNa and samshaya, arise on account of it.

If you see the bhAshya, it says -  तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः ॥ It makes a distinction between avidyA-traya and the AvaraNAtmaka-dosha, in whose presence, these avidyA-traya manifest. It shows the distinction of the veil with respect to avidyA-traya.

BhAshyakAra further says - तथा सर्वत्रैव अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः करणस्यैव कस्यचित् भवितुमर्हन्ति, न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ।  Here also, I would draw your attention to the word तन्निमित्ताः in addition to अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्यया. It clearly shows that BhAshyakAra has in His mind not only the avidyA-traya, but also their-nimitta, which is AvaraNAtmaka. 

Thus, as per AchArya, avidyA (which is also stated as mUlAvidyA) is different from these avidyA-traya.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji, 

Some more analogies: Gold and its products bangle, necklace and ring. Clay and its products: pot, jar, saucer.  Pain, for example, is of many types: 

• Acute pain

  This pain can be caused by surgery, broken bones, cuts, or labor and childbirth. It's usually short-term, lasting from minutes to a few months. 

   
• Chronic pain

  This pain can last for more than six months, and can be mild or severe. It can be caused by diabetes, cancer, fibromyalgia, circulation problems, back pain, or headaches. 

   
• Neuropathic pain

  This pain is caused by nerve damage, and can feel like burning, tingling, shooting, or electric shock-like sensations. It can be caused by shingles, sciatica, trigeminal neuralgia, or diabetic neuropathy. 

   
• Nociceptive pain

  This pain is caused by tissue damage or inflammation, and can feel like throbbing, sharp, or aching pain. It can be caused by a sprained ankle, broken bones, or pulled muscles. 

   
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Nociplastic pain

  This pain is caused by 

  • changes in how the nervous system processes pain. It can be caused by fibromyalgia, chronic pelvic pain, tension-type headaches, or chronic low back pain. 

     

  Shankara too gives the same pain example in the BSB:

  
  यथा ‘अस्ति मे हृदये शूलम्’ इत्यतो वाक्यात् गात्रकम्पादिलिङ्गाच्च शूलसद्भावसामान्यमेव परः प्रतिपद्यते, न विशेषमनुभवति — यथा स एव शूली ।
  
  It's about stomach ache in general and its specific manifestation.  

Shankara accepts the forms/manifestations of avidya in the same BSB 4.1.2:  

येषां पुनः निपुणमतीनां न अज्ञानसंशयविपर्ययलक्षणः पदार्थविषयः प्रतिबन्धोऽस्ति, ते शक्नुवन्ति सकृदुक्तमेव  तत्त्वमसिवाक्यार्थम् अनुभवितुमिति, तान्प्रति आवृत्त्यानर्थक्यमिष्टमेव । ...सकृदुत्पन्नैव हि आत्मप्रतिपत्तिः अविद्यां निवर्तयतीति, 

AjnAna, samshaya and viparyaya are the three manifestations of Avidya. This Avidya is dispelled by Atmapratipatti.  Thus One AvidyA itself manifests as three.  Many examples have been given. 

• 
  
• 
  
• The 10 Avataras are basically Vishnu.  

warm regards

subbu

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  

[Bhaskar YR]

Thus, as per AchArya, avidyA (which is also stated as mUlAvidyA) is different from these avidyA-traya.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Would like to hear Sri VenkatrAghavan prabhuji’s views on this.  Very often, whenever I say MV is something fourth type which has been advocated by vyAkhyAnakAra-s,  he used to wonder what is this fourth type which is not popularly known as three aspects of avidyA 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 1:20 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Kilogram concluded

 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDYb0U7g4fUs_gf2xLu765Fem2xRRZDZ%3DBZ8cn_Wau7Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.

I would just make one correction.

//So, mUlAvidyA is like that blindfold, which is capable of veiling Brahman.//

Actually, the statement is not correct. AvaraNa is defined not as avidyA, but as avidyA-chit-sambandha, which is avidyA-prayukta. So, it is avidyA-vyApya but not avidyA itself. 

To that extent the previous post may be modified.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Can you please elaborate on the idea that AvaraNa is avidyA-cit-sambandha? Is there any place this distinction is dealt with?

Can we say avidyA is the veil while AvaraNa is veiling 'process' by which shuddha-cit gets veiled and so we say avidyA-cit-*sambandha* for AvaraNa?

Om

Raghav 

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Thu, 5 Sept 2024 at 2:25 pm, Sudhanshu Shekhar

<sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBDia7qPDr%3DopCtiLTCC%2Bqp1aH0RRSkXgKWqV4f-DJ_MJA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

Our Senior Moderator and philosopher Dennisji posted a message with the title, "A kilogram of darkness!" Probably a more appropriate title could be "A Ton of Darkness" which will likely be more appealing!  It is interesting to note that the role of darkness and how takes the seekers away from the Reality has been discussed in greater length by both the western and eastern philosophers. For example in the topic pertains to "Plato's Allegory of the Cave," Plato uses the cave as a symbolic representation of how the experience of the seekers who live in this world is contrasted with the Reality! The cave is full of darkness and the light is experienced by those who are outside the cave.  Those inside the cave only experience the ton of darkenss due to their ignorance!  Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a social metaphor for how intelligence (especially intelligence that refutes accepted/common knowledge) can expel people from society! Those who live in inside the dark cave can only see shadows and reflections of reality if and when they light some fire! For those in the cave the shadows that they see on the walls of the cave is the Truth and Reality. If one escapes from the cave and experiences the light outside then the escaped person only knows the difference between light and darkness!!

Ignorance is the cause for not recognizing the Reality has been understood by all but Sankara's Advaita philosophy has spelled out in very clear terms.  Implicitly, we all live inside the Plato's cave as prisoners (seekers) relying only on the experiences from our senses and experience only a little of the Nature of Reality. Advaita recognize the fact that to realize the Nature of Reality one has to go beyond the senses!
Ram Chandran

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

AvaraNa-kritya is defined as नास्ति न प्रकाशत इति व्यवहार एवाभिज्ञादिसाधारणः; अस्ति प्रकाशत इत्येतद्व्यवहाराभावो वा आवरणकृत्यम् ।

AvaraNa is defined as आवरणं च तद्योग्यता (आवरणकृत्यस्य-योग्यता) अज्ञानसंबन्धरूपा.

These both are in Advaita Siddhi - avidyAyAh vishayatva vichArah. They are based on VivaraNa statement - अविद्यासम्बन्धत्वादेव आवरणस्य.

BAlabodhinI clearly says on page 1361 - चैतन्ये अविद्यासम्बन्ध एव आवरणम्

//Can we say avidyA is the veil while AvaraNa is veiling 'process' by which shuddha-cit gets veiled and so we say avidyA-cit-*sambandha* for AvaraNa?//

I think AvaraNa is a shakti of avidyA, through which avidyA produces AvaraNa-kritya. In a way, shakti-shaktimAna-abheda tells us that avidyA and AvaraNa would be non-different. Also, avidyA is not a material cause of avidyA-chit-sambandha but merely vyApaka. So, their swarUpa-sambandhatA can also be argued. In fact, at one place, it is asserted also:-

Alternatively, avidyA-chaitanya-sambandha is avidyA-Atmaka i.e. avidyA-mAtra and hence comes within the purview of lakshya. Since there cannot be samyoga sambandha or samavAya sambandha (as it is between avayava-avayavI, guNa-guNI, kriyA-kriyAvat, jAti-vyakti, vishesha-nityadravya) between avidyA and chaitanya, it necessarily has to be swarUpa-sambandha. Since swarUpa-sambandha is sambandhI-anatirikta, it has to be avidyA. Thus, avidyA-chaitanya-sambandha is avidyA itself. Hence, there is no ativyApti.

So, I think much deliberation on AvaraNa-avidyA relationship may not be very productive.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

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

Dear Ram-ji,

 

I, too, was lamenting the fact that there were so few appropriate changes to the subject headings. I seem to remember making a similar complaint many years ago. Current discussions have little to do with my original remarks. (Before anyone makes the comment, I do accept that it is usually desirable to keep the same heading, as I am doing now, so that we can recognize the trail of the discussion but, when the discussion branches or changes into some new aspect, I think the heading should change also.)

 

Your reference to Plato’s ‘Cave’ metaphor seems very appropriate. As I recall this, the people in the cave continue in their depleted environment until someone (the philosopher-teacher) comes down from the outside and explains their situation to them. I.e. not so much ‘removing’ anything from their understanding but telling them what things are really like and giving them a more rational explanation for the figures that they see. The darkness is a metaphor for their lack of the light of knowledge from outside the cave and not a ‘positive’ thing.

 

So, when you say “Those inside the cave only experience the ton of darkness due to their ignorance”, I would rather say that they experience the darkness because there is no light coming in from outside. ‘Ignorance’ is just a word we use for ‘lack of knowledge’ and not an ontological reality.

 

And I guess that comment probably brings the discussion back to its starting point…

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ram Chandran
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 1:00 PM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Kilogram concluded

 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Why is Ignorance as a positive entity posited in the Shrutis?

In all illustrations being presented here, like cave etc, there is already darkness and what is needed is light for knowledge. Here we are faced with an entirely different situation. What is *Existing* is unalloyed Knowledge, meaning that the infrastructure is readily available for anything capable of gaining knowledge to gain it with the help of this Source.  However it is noticed in experience that correct knowledge concerning this  *Entity* itself is not available. There is universally ignorance (partial knowledge) about this *Entity*. This is possible ONLY if there is an obstruction for its correct knowledge to take place. Hence an *obstruction* is stated in the Shrutis, and this is termed Ignorance. This is a fundamental Ignorance because unless this is overcome correct knowledge of the *Entity* cannot take place.

It is only with the help of this *Entity*, whatever knowledge anyone has is enabled. In the absence of this, no knowledge of anything is possible. It is as if everything is covered. Which is what happens in our experience when darkness obtains. Hence this fundamental obstruction is also termed *darkness*. And this ^Darkness* is termed a *positive* entity.

The Shrutis also posit that correct knowledge of this *Entity* is highly beneficial and should be the Goal of life.

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004d01daff9c%24dc01d6a0%24940583e0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Forgot to add. There can be NO ignorance when this *Entity* is not obstructed because it is Self Luminous , and knowledge automatically originates.

Regards

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

Dear Chandramouli-ji,

 

Could you please cite the prasthAna traya reference(s) in which ‘ignorance’ is explicitly stated to be an ontologically existent entity (as opposed to a mental lack or misunderstanding which ‘gives rise to’ misunderstanding or ‘prevents’ understanding). By ‘explicitly stated’, I mean that a literal translation of the Sanskrit is unambiguous and not an ‘interpretation’ based upon the translators wider understanding (e.g. of post-Śaṅkara writers).

 

Such ‘mental lack’ in my view is analogous to my failure to understand Cantonese because I have never made the effort to gain that knowledge. There is no actual ‘obstacle’ (other than maybe the functioning of my aging brain and my total disinterest in pursuing that aim).

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

P.S. Apologies if we have been over all of this before. I do get the feeling of going round in circles!

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of H S Chandramouli

Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 4:26 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdND1PzQa78cZey_cKFSkCpSi%3Duwz-UO8-Haxbit6PUTPw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Dennis ji,

I have provided many references in this note I prepared. You can pick and choose what makes sense to you.

https://www.aarshavidyavarshini.org/downloads/AvidyaIsJnanaVirOdhi.pdf

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/005e01daffb0%2420be4b80%24623ae280%24%40advaita.org.uk.

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

Dear Jaishankar-ji,

 

Thank you – I have in fact already downloaded this. But it consists of 19 pages of Devanagari and involved argument. I am sure these are very convincing and detailed for someone with a similar background to your own. But really, all I wanted was a simple scriptural reference to answer my specific question – X UpaniShad a.b, together with the Sanskrit which provides the explicit statement, together with your translation of that. (Ideally with a word by word literal translation – but I guess I can work that out for myself with a bit of effort). My aim is to see what is being claimed stated by the shruti itself, pure and simple, without involved arguments requiring familiarity with many commentators and post-Śaṅkara rationalization.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-HweWeaEF1vrujv8t2Z8ozajf_YcyyYk_xzJa9rEz8zVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

In Advaita sampradAya, bhAvarUpatva of ajnAna is proved by Shruti pramANa also.

You may like to refer to NAsadIya SUkta mantra 1 and 3.

Mantra 3 states - Tama Asset.

Mantra 1 states - na sat Aseet, na asat Aseet.

That is to say - at the start of the creation, there was neither sat nor asat. But there was tamas. This shows that tamas is neither sat nor asat. And it was.

So, a sat-asat-vilakshaNa tamas (ignorance) is accepted by Rigveda.

I don't know whether it serves your requirement of being explicit. If not, then I would request you to explain mantra 1 and 3.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Dennis ji,

I pointed one example of this to the group just a few days ago.

Brihadaranyaka upaniShad (1.2.1) मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीत् 

mRtyunA = by death 

eva = only

idam = this (the universe, because it is perceived directly, is referred to by the pronoun "this", denoting proximity. Like in janmAdi asya yatah)

AvRtam = covered / enveloped 

AsIt = was

Translation - This (universe) was enveloped by death alone (before its creation).

 

SureshvarAchArya in commenting on this in his brihadaranyaka upaniShad vArttika says 1.2.135 - 

नामरूपादिना येयमविद्या प्रथतेऽसती |

माया तस्याः परं सौक्ष्म्यं मृत्युनैवेति भण्यते || BUBV 1.2.135

nAmarUpAdinA = as names and forms, etc

yA = which 

iyam = this

avidyA = ignorance 

prathate = becomes known (प्रख्याने) / expands (वृद्धौ) (1)

asatI = unreal 

mAyA = mAyA

tasyAh = her (as mAyA is a word in the feminine gender)

param = highest 

soukshmyam= subtle nature 

mRtyunAiva= by death alone

iti = thus (used in the sense of quoting the words of the upaniShad)

BhaNyate = is mentioned

Translation 

This unreal ignorance which becomes known / expands as names and forms etc, is mAyA. Its most subtle aspect is mentioned thus (in the upaniShad with the words) "(all this was enveloped) by death alone".

No interpretation offered. You may take the translation for what it is, or offer an alternative translation of the upaniShad and the vArttika which you feel fits better.

References

(1) Synonyms of prathate in the sense of expansion, vRddhau, वृद्धौ (Source: AkhyAta chandrikA)

1.1.8 

बृंहति वर्धते आप्यायते स्फायते श्वयति ऋध्नोति बर्हति आपूर्यते पुष्यति पोषति ऋद्ध्यति पूषति वंहते मंहते मेध्यति एधते विपोलति नीवति स्थूलयते पीवति मीवति महीयते वठति विपोलयति तीवति क्रमते प्यायते स्फीतीभवति प्रथते क्रम्यते( छ ) प्रसते( छ ) तौति( छ ) तवीति( छ )

2) From the dhAtupATha, for the root prath, in the sense of prakhyAna, 

धातुः → प्रथ् 

मूलधातुः → प्रथ 

धात्वर्थः → प्रख्याने 

गणः → भ्वादिः 

कर्मकत्वं → अकर्मकः 

इट्त्वं → सेट् 

उपग्रहः → आत्मनेपदी 

रूपम् → प्रथते 

3)For meaning of prakhyAna, see:

प्र-°ख्यान neuter gender. the being perceived or known, pāṇini i, 2, 54, Monier Williams Cologne

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/005e01daffb0%2420be4b80%24623ae280%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Dennis ji,

If you are allergic to Devanagari then you can try the attached document. I have removed the Devanagari texts retaining only the roman transliteration.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/006f01daffc7%24de1bce70%249a536b50%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 6:15 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Dennis ji,

I pointed one example of this to the group just a few days ago.

Brihadaranyaka upaniShad (1.2.1) मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीत् 

Dear Venkat ji,

It is interesting that for this Brihadaranyaka 2.1.12 mantra:

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं छायामयः पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा मृत्युरिति वा अहमेतमुपास इति स य एतमेवमुपास्ते सर्वं हैवास्मिंल्लोक आयुरेति नैनं पुरा कालान्मृत्युरागच्छति ॥ १२ ॥ 

Shankara says: 

छायायां बाह्ये तमसि अध्यात्मं च आवरणात्मकेऽज्ञाने हृदि च एका देवता, तस्या विशेषणम् — मृत्युः ; फलं सर्वं पूर्ववत् , मृत्योरनागमनेन रोगादिपीडाभावो विशेषः ॥

Baahya tamas is darkness.  And in the Ajnana, that is deluding/enveloping, and in the mind, there is one Devataa.   Shankara is accepting Ajnana too to be a physical entity which has a presiding deity and that is mRtyu.  

Both external darkness, tamas, and internal ajnAna are held to be specific entities which have a presiding deity.  Surely, this entity can't be an abhAva, non-existent.

Sureshwaracharya too in the above corresponding Vartika says:

छायामये तथाऽज्ञाने बुद्धौ चैकैव देवता ।।
मृत्युकालात्पुरा नास्य व्याधिरप्युपसर्पति ।। ७९ ।।

There is one deity that presides over the external darkness, the ajnAna and the intellect:  mRtyu (death).

warm regards

subbu   

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmNtzdWos%3D1kixUc67REaHVFdeDETLHrcg-kOXefrgbcw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

That is a very interesting consonance between the two brAhmaNas of the same upaniShad. As the adhiShThAna devatA of ajnAna is mRtyu, mUlAjnAna / mAyA itself is called mRtyu in BU 1.2.1.

Regards, 

Venkatraghavan 

Regards 

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1uyXipF7P0FqBc9QZB1E44Q%3Dre-1x3csqgCXiVHsrR_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Venkat ji,

And there is this verse of the Viveka chudamani where the mind itself is called Avidya:

न ह्यस्त्यविद्या मनसोऽतिरिक्ता
मनो ह्यविद्या भवबन्धहेतुः ।
तस्मिन्विनष्टे सकलं विनष्टं
विजृम्भितेऽस्मिन्सकलं विजृम्भते ॥ १७१ ॥

. There is no Ignorance (Avidya) apart from the mind. The mind alone is Avidya, the cause of the bondage of transmigration. When that is destroyed, all else is destroyed, and when it is manifested, everything else is manifested.

So we have this one category where ajnanam and manas are placed together. 

warm regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3D5ktUCzp-1A_-8XtU4C7tM%2BRzMQ5XKjFj5OmryxyfHJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Dennis Ji,

Reg  // Such ‘mental lack’ in my view is analogous to my failure to understand Cantonese because I have never made the effort to gain that knowledge. There is no actual ‘obstacle’ (other than maybe the functioning of my aging brain and my total disinterest in pursuing that aim) //,

The fundamental difference between this and *Consciousness* is being overlooked I think. Cantonese is not svaprakAsha meaning that it is not self revealing. It needs to be known through effort. *Consciousness* is svaprakAsha meaning that it stands *revealed* automatically,effortlessly. Nearest illustration, you don’t need to put in any effort to *know* yourself as *I*. It is automatic and effortless. Not that you do not know this, but I am recapitulating it just to drive home my point. No offence meant.

The only way to prevent such automatic and effortless revelation is by way of an appropriate obstruction. That too partially only. Because the *obstruction* itself needs to be revealed by *Consciousness*. Nearest illustration ; dark clouds obstructing visisbility of Sun. But Clouds themselves need to be revealed by the Sun.

Others have already given many references from the Bhashya for the issue on hand. There may not be any nexessity for me to add any more. However it must be pointed out that for whatever references given, you can be sure there are always other meanings given based on their own interpretations of the fundamental ideas of the Bhashya. So I thought it may be useful to look at how the opposite view handles this issue of *obstruction*, as just *absence of knowledge* is not possible in the presence of Selfrevealing Consciousness. Sri SSS is an ardent advocate of *absence of knowledge* postulate. How is the issue handled in his works? Though I have my own understanding, since I am not a follower of his views on the subject, it would be very useful if some of his followers can present his views here on this issue. In another thread, Venkat Ji had raised this issue and Bhaskar Ji was just responding. But it seems to have hit a hurdle on an extraneous point, and unfortunately not progressing as of now. I do wish you could persuade someone to do so.

Regards

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 9:54 PM <dwa...@advaita.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Chandramouli-ji,

 

Could you please cite the prasthAna traya reference(s) in which ‘ignorance’ is explicitly stated to be an ontologically existent entity (as opposed to a mental lack or misunderstanding which ‘gives rise to’ misunderstanding or ‘prevents’ understanding). By ‘explicitly stated’, I mean that a literal translation of the Sanskrit is unambiguous and not an ‘interpretation’ based upon the translators wider understanding (e.g. of post-Śaṅkara writers).

 

Such ‘mental lack’ in my view is analogous to my failure to understand Cantonese because I have never made the effort to gain that knowledge. There is no actual ‘obstacle’ (other than maybe the functioning of my aging brain and my total disinterest in pursuing that aim).

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

P.S. Apologies if we have been over all of this before. I do get the feeling of going round in circles!

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of H S Chandramouli
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 4:26 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Kilogram concluded

 

Namaste.

Why is Ignorance as a positive entity posited in the Shrutis?

In all illustrations being presented here, like cave etc, there is already darkness and what is needed is light for knowledge. Here we are faced with an entirely different situation. What is *Existing* is unalloyed Knowledge, meaning that the infrastructure is readily available for anything capable of gaining knowledge to gain it with the help of this Source.  However it is noticed in experience that correct knowledge concerning this  *Entity* itself is not available. There is universally ignorance (partial knowledge) about this *Entity*. This is possible ONLY if there is an obstruction for its correct knowledge to take place. Hence an *obstruction* is stated in the Shrutis, and this is termed Ignorance. This is a fundamental Ignorance because unless this is overcome correct knowledge of the *Entity* cannot take place.

It is only with the help of this *Entity*, whatever knowledge anyone has is enabled. In the absence of this, no knowledge of anything is possible. It is as if everything is covered. Which is what happens in our experience when darkness obtains. Hence this fundamental obstruction is also termed *darkness*. And this ^Darkness* is termed a *positive* entity.

The Shrutis also posit that correct knowledge of this *Entity* is highly beneficial and should be the Goal of life.

Regards

 

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Bhaskar YR]

In another thread, Venkat Ji had raised this issue and Bhaskar Ji was just responding. But it seems to have hit a hurdle on an extraneous point, and unfortunately not progressing as of now. I do wish you could persuade someone to do so.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I really very badly wish to spend sufficient time on these discussions and would like to participate  more actively but what to do!!  I am getting salary not to discuss vedAnta but for doing some officially assigned work to me at office 😊 Coming back to the subject, I would once again reiterate that Sri  SSS IMO is NOT jnAna abhAvavAdi and he primarily insisted that adhyAsa is the main cause for all these samsArik turbulations.  So, we can easily term him as ‘adhyAsa vAda’ pratipAdaka and not mere and only jnAnAbhAva pratipAdaka.  According to him all vidyA – avidyA methodologies adopted by shruti etc. is just a basic prakriya i.e. adhyArOpa-apavAda as in brahman there is no vidyA-avidyA vyavahAra.  Now what is avidyA according to him??  I don’t think here he is emphasizing on jnAnAbhAva but he is time and again saying avidyA=adhyAsa and this adhyAsa (ahamidam mamedaM eti nasargikOyaM adhyAsaH mithyApratyaya rUpaH sarvalOka pratyakshaH) is the main / foremost cause for our suffering and to eradicate this adhyAsa all loukika and vaidika teachings are  there.   So, as per SSS avidyA is equal to adhyAsa and mAya is adhyArOpita due to this avidyA.  avidyAkalpita, Again in short, as per Sri SSS bereft of adhyAsa there is no place for adhyArOpa (he feels something else i.e. his mind’s adhyArOpa)  and adhyArOpita (sees a thing which is not there actually -adhyAropita).  And it is also to be noted that though pre-dominant avidyA= adhyAsa only,  after the dawn of jnAna all the three types of avidyA will get eradicated at once as per him.  As you know he quotes bruhad bhAshya (yadi jnAnAbhAvaM….jnAneneva navartate)  and geeta bhAshya 13.2 to substantiate his stand on adhyAsa vAda.  More importantly as per Sri SSS, this avidyA (all the three types) just mere karaNa dOsha and it (avidyA) does not find any place in Atman / brahman / kshetrajna / jeeva as he is trishu kAleshu Shuddha Chaitanya only for which there is no transactions like ignorance or knowledge etc.  It was / is / will ever be absolute consciousness. And from the empirical standpoint ignorance pertains to mind (antaHkaraNa) and that should be as it is as knower has no ignorance. Therefore, what we have been seeing here from the desk of mUlAvidyAvAdins i.e. avidyA is beeja shakti or potency of the self, it has the capability of concealing brahman, it is material cause for the jagat, it is bhAvarUpa/dravyarUpa/existing entity, its Ashraya, subject matter etc. etc. not at all acceptable to him as these new topic introductions is ‘bAshya bAhira’ and not anubhava sammata. 

Now the main question whether Sri SSS accepts agrahaNa (jnAnAbhAva) is the main one or adhyAsa is the pre-dominant one??  Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji seems under the impression that Sri SSS is primarily advocating jnAnAbhAva and there is no place for adhyAsa in his works!!  I am afraid this is gross misunderstanding of his position.  He never ever denied adhyAsa in empirical transactions infact he argued that in a day-to-day transactions ‘adhyAsa’ is the pre-dominant one.  (simply for examply when one first see the snake in rope, he never ever thought due to lack of knowledge of rope right now I am seeing snake, his first cognition of snake (which is adhyAsa) does not surrounded by these jnAnAbhAva notion.  Hence in the transactional world ‘the misconception’ is the pre-dominant one.  He often quotes adhyAsa bhAshya vAkya :  tametaM avidyAkhyaM AtmAnAtmanOritaretaraadhyAsaM puraskrutya sarve pramANaprameyavyavahAraa loukikA vaidikAshcha pravruttAH sarvANi cha shAstrANi vidhipratishedhamOkshaparANi.

Finally for Kannada readers I would like to quote this from one of Sri SSS’s Kannada works :  avidye endare AtmAnAtmara parasparAdhyAsave endu heLiddeve.  Adare avidye emba shabdavu adhyAsavemba shabdakkinta hecchu vyApakavAgiruttade ekendare vidyeyinda endare AtmAnAtmara vivekada beLakininda yaavayaavudu tolaguvudO, vidyeyuntaaguvavarege yaavayaavudu vastuvannu tiLiyagodade musukikondiruvudO antha tAmasapratyayavellavU avidye emba hesarige takkaddaagiruvudu.  Addarinda tappaagi tiLiyuva, athava saMshayavannu taNdOdduva athavaa vastuvannu ariyadiruva pratyayavellavU E arthadalli avidyeye aagiruttade.  …….edarante Atma svarUpada bagge eruva agrahaNa, saMshaya, vipareeta pratyaya E mooru avidyegaLu Atmaikatva vidyeyindale tolaguvudu.  Adare echina kelavaru vyAkhyAnaprasthAnada vedAntigaLu E moorakkinta bereyaagi mattondu avidyeyuntendu kalpisiruttaare. 

If one closely observes Sri SSS emphasis in all his works it is quite evident that Sri SSS accepts that adhyAsa is the root cause of saMsAra and through vidyA when adhyAsa is eradicated simultaneously other two also will go!! As per him there is no time gap between (a) eradication of wrong knowledge and (b) knowing / realizing the right knowledge.  Effort is required just to efface the wrong knowledge about rope once it is done rope knowledge dawns automatically.  As Atma jnAna is not jnAna kArya and it is self-luminous. 

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

Thank you all for the responses to my request for a śruti quotation to support the contention that ignorance is an ontologically existent entity. (Although I cannot say that I feel I now have one.)

 

Thank you to Sudhanshu-ji for the Ṛg Veda reference. Unfortunately, my familiarity with this is zero. A general point here, which is unfortunately likely to raise a few hackles: I tend to ignore all references to gods, supernatural events, etc. unless Śaṅkara’s commentary elicits clear metaphorical relevance to something useful. I’m sure all such things had their relevance to past cultures, but I suggest they are superfluous to today’s seekers. (Rinse my mouth out with vinegar!)

 

I also recall that there was an Advaitin member over 20 years ago who used to respond to practically every post with a comment about ajāti vāda. It used to really annoy me. Now, of course, having written a book on Māṇḍūkya and kārikā-s, there is a tendency to respond similarly! Essentially, though, I do not feel that (effectively) saying that ‘before light, there was darkness’ is very persuasive.

 

Thank you to Venkatraghavan-ji for the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Sureśvara Vārttika references. While it is true that much of Śaṅkara’s teaching derives from this Upaniṣad, it does contain a lot of the ‘supernatural’ stuff I referred to above, being so old. I actually think Sureśvara's Vārttika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa (1368) gives a clearer message. I’m sure someone must have quoted it earlier:

 

अजानं संशयजानं मिश्याजानमिति त्रिकम्

अजानं कारणं तत्र कार्यत्वं परिशिष्टयोः

 

Ignorance, doubt-born knowledge, and mixed knowledge are the triad. Ignorance (ajñāna) is the cause there, while the other two (doubt-born knowledge and mixed knowledge) are effects.

 

But, to my mind at least, the first reference to ajñāna as the cause could equally well be translated as ‘lack of knowledge’ – and makes far more sense. Surely, lack of knowledge is what leads to confusion and all cognitive errors.

 

Thank you to Jaishankar-ji for removing the Devanagari from his erudite document. Unfortunately, the complicated logical argumentation still seems to be there…

 

Thank you to Subbu-ji, for more Br. Up and Vārttika. But this mentions gods and death again.

 

Finally, thank you to Chandramouli-ji. You say that learning Cantonese is not a good analogy because “*Consciousness* is svaprakAsha meaning that it stands *revealed* automatically, effortlessly.” I am bound to ask: why, then, is not everyone enlightened? My understanding is that we need a qualified guru to explain all this to us by interpreting the scriptures.

 

Your point that “*absence of knowledge* is not possible in the presence of Self-revealing Consciousness” is well made. But it does presuppose that ‘ignorance’ or ‘absence’ is an ontological entity. I have probably already said that Vol. 2 of the ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta’ (currently with the publisher) is solely on the topic of ‘Ignorance and its Removal’ and runs to over 100,000 words. Hence the impossibility of stating all my thoughts on the subject here. My understanding of this point is simply that SSS considers that ‘ignorance’ is an epistemological concept and not an ontological one. The epistemological position is that ignorance is purely subjective, dependent upon the mind and affecting how we perceive reality. He says, for example:

 

“If one admits the non-dual principle as the final reality, there is no place for any objections. One cannot impute even a trace of ignorance or of any other defect to the non-dual reality. For the Veda says, ‘What could a person see then, and with what?’(Bṛihad. Up. 2.4.1) In empirical experience, on the other hand, wherever and in whatever way Ignorance is experienced, it must be accepted there in that way. There are no objections to be raised or answered.” (The Method of the Vedanta, A. J. Alston)

 

Finally, as Arun Murthi pointed out in his paper on mūlāvidyā, ‘removing ignorance’ is not the same as ‘removing a thorn’.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Bhaskar YR]

Ignorance, doubt-born knowledge, and mixed knowledge are the triad. Ignorance (ajñāna) is the cause there, while the other two (doubt-born knowledge and mixed knowledge) are effects.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, this is what Sri SSS finds in vArtika, as per him there is no room in vArtika to infer fourth type of avidyA which is sitting somewhere and periodically supplying other three types of avidyA 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Re "Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji seems under the impression that Sri SSS is primarily advocating jnAnAbhAva and there is no place for adhyAsa in his works!!  I am afraid this is gross misunderstanding of his position. "

No. I am not under such an impression at all. I think you have misunderstood my position.

I do not think our discussion has hit a hurdle either, as Sri Chandramouliji stated. I had asked a few questions, to which you responded saying that Sri SSS accepts 

1) a mUlAvidyA that is avyAkRta nAmarUpa. 

2) a mUlAvidyA which is adhyasta.

That is the "bhAvarupA" mUlAvidyA which all the AchAryas have been advocating all this while. There is no disagreement between us and Sri SSS on that aspect. So as far as I am concerned, the discussion is finished. 

I see that you are once again trying to retract the two statements you had made in the previous email. But that is only going in circles and I feel there is no merit in treading ground that has been covered.

If there is something new you want to bring up, please do.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

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/AM7PR06MB66252F2B95E4F7AD9D844FEE849E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Dennis Ji,

Reg  //  I am bound to ask: why, then, is not everyone enlightened? //.

That is the issue we are discussing !!! When I mentioned about the debate between Vevkat Ji and Bhaskar Ji, the question was what was stated by Venkat Ji, copied below for ready reference.

V ;; // If ignorance was not "something existent", why is the self-effulgent Brahman not known by all? //.

The debate did not reach the point of furnishing the answer to this.

I do know that Sri SSS addresses this question directly. But since it would be my understanding of the position of Sri SSS, and not being his follower my understanding could be dismissed as coloured, I suggested that you could persuade some of his followers to present the position taken by Sri SSS. Does he provide an answer which involves absence of any obstruction. The answer provided by Sri Bhagavatpada in our opinion is the obstruction caused by a *positive* entity termed ajnAna, but not understood as merely *absence of knowledge*.

Reg  // Finally, as Arun Murthi pointed out in his paper on mūlāvidyā, ‘removing ignorance’ is not the same as ‘removing a thorn’//,

Common. MūlāvidyāvAdins also never claimed it is same as ‘removing a thorn’. I would dismiss it with contempt. I am surprised that you are giving credence to it.

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001b01db004c%2438c7bc10%24aa573430%24%40advaita.org.uk.

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaskar Dennis, Sadhu Sadhu - your request and the paucity of responses would likely seal the issue for most objective observations, it seems to me. I am sure others will disagree. I also appreciate your position on Sanskrit though I have learned much wrestling with Sudhanshuji's terminology. I

But, I must ask you what specifically you are referring to when you say you don't agree with all that SSSS argues. 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001b01db004c%2438c7bc10%24aa573430%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Dennis ji,

Re:

"Thank you to Venkatraghavan-ji for the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Sureśvara Vārttika references. While it is true that much of Śaṅkara’s teaching derives from this Upaniṣad, it does contain a lot of the ‘supernatural’ stuff I referred to above, being so old. I actually think Sureśvara's Vārttika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa (1368) gives a clearer message."

I fail to see what is supernatural in the vArttika that I have quoted. I think you are being somewhat dismissive, but that is your prerogative.

The discussion is on satkAryavAda. The effect existing in an unmanifest causal form prior to creation, ie it wasn't absent before its creation. The upaniShad says death alone covered the world. Sureshvara says by death, ajnAna is meant. He goes on to say ajnAna expands into the world of names and forms post creation. What is supernatural about this? 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

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/001b01db004c%2438c7bc10%24aa573430%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Dennis Ji,

Reg  // Although I cannot say that I feel I now have one//,

What about the BG 5-15 verse copied below. Does it meet with your requirements.

// नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः ।
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥ //

// nAdatte kasyachitpApaM na chaiva sukRRitaM vibhuH |

aj~nAnenAvRRitaM j~nAnaM tena muhyanti jantavaH || 15 ||//.

Translation  // The Omnipresent neither accepts anybody's sin nor even virtue. Knowledge remains covered by ignorance. Thereby the creatures become deluded // .

Bhashya // …. अज्ञानेन आवृतं ज्ञानं विवेकविज्ञानम् , तेन मुह्यन्ति ‘करोमि कारयामि भोक्ष्ये भोजयामि’ इत्येवं मोहं गच्छन्ति अविवेकिनः संसारिणो जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥ //.

// // …. aj~nAnena AvRRitaM j~nAnaM vivekavij~nAnam , tena muhyanti ‘karomi kArayAmi bhokShye bhojayAmi’ ityevaM mohaM gachChanti avivekinaH saMsAriNo jantavaH || 15 ||//.

Translation // ……..To this the Lord says: Jnanam, knowledge, discriminating wisdom; remains avrtam, covered; ajnanena, by ignorance. Tena, thereby; jantavah, the creatures, the non-discriminating people in the world; muhyanti, become deluded thus-'I do; I make others do; I eat; I make others eat.' //.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Bhaskar YR]

No. I am not under such an impression at all. I think you have misunderstood my position.

 

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Belowis what you said in one of your recent emails addressed to me directly.  Hence I thought you have misunderstood his position.

 

//quote//

Sri SSS is saying just that - that there is no avidyA. There is only absence of vidyA, is his contention. How can absence prevent Brahman from shining?

//unquote//

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Venkatraghavan, 

Can you tell me who states and where it is stated that mulavidya is adhyastha? If that is the case, it's not a mula!  

Regards, 

Michael

p.s. email server issue - forgive the duplication of the message

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625EE761556416D51C5A044849E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Dear Michael ji.

Sorry to interrupt you.

Can you tell me who states and where it is stated that mulavidya is adhyastha? If that is the case, it's not a mula!  

On the contrary, it should be pointed out by you as to whether it has been said that mUlAvidyA is not adhyasta. 

Regards 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste

The counter-argument by those who feel ignorance  is just absence of knowledge would be - 

It's just figurative usage (like being "overpowered" by Sleep). Similarly ignorance "covers" knowledge. 

No matter how many references are shown, as long as one has already reached a "commonsensical" conclusion based on 19th century science that light consists of particles and when there are no particles, it is *by definition* called darkness, no change in position will occur. No discussion can change a person's semantic definitions.

Those who argue for darkness being merely perception of absence miss an important nuance in human perception as was pointed by many of you earlier in this thread. Whenever we experience "absence" such as when we see the absence of a pot on the ground, there are two steps viz., direct perception which exhausts itself in only giving us knowledge of the adhikaraNam viz., the ground. And then there is a second step whereby, (based on contextual need), we *recollect* a pot and then recognize and assert it's absence. This is the anupalabdhi pramANa. 

In the case of the direct experience of darkness, if we say it's just the absence of light, what is the adhikaraNa (locus) where this "absence of light" is experienced. That locus itself  has to be a matter of direct perception. That locus cannot be an abhAva. That is darkness itself. Therefore it is a regular experience that we experience darkness *without* necessarily having to *think* about light. 

Similarly, even when one closes one's eyes, the darkness experienced is a direct perceptual experience in itself. It's not contingent on recollecting the thought of light etc. Such recognition of absence of light is an optional additional datum that one can sense and may indeed occur quite often. 

The knowledge of Darkness occurs,  not by anupalabdhi pramANam. The knowledge of Darkness is by pratyaxa or direct perception. Additionally one may optionally choose to recollect the idea of "light" and assert it's absence. That too is correct but is optional. 

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 5:15 pm, H S Chandramouli

<hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdO54uOb-ck%2BTs_bjikqochR3oz3Ds-UwOdo5LSs%3D1PGrA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

In my book, avidyA and ajnAna are synonymous. In that statement, by avidyA, I was talking about jnAna abhAva. I was not saying he didn't accept adhyAsa. 

Sri SSS says ajnAna is only jnAna abhAva right? There is no existing entity called ajnAna according to him. 

Regards 

Venkatraghavan 

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625EE761556416D51C5A044849E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Please, let us not argue gratuitously - I am only asking for evidence. I have seen the claim made more than once in this forum. For instance,. Sri Venkatraghavan, "I don't think there is any commentator that has held that ajnAna is not adhyastha". If that is the case, then ajnana or mulavidya is not the positive seed shakti but rather a 'product' itself and thus not a 'mula'

regards,

Michael

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1818537031.4571334.1725625991627%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

I asked for the counter-evidence not gratuitously but for a good reason.

Anyway, let it be.

1. MUlAvidyA is mithyA. adhyasta and mithyA are same. If x is mithyA, x is adhyasta.

2. There are two adhyAsa. KAraNa-adhyAsa and kArya-adhyAsa. The adhyAsa wherein avidyA is adhyasta is called kAraNa-adhyAsa. The same is well mentioned in all texts.

You are seeking for evidence where it is said that avidyA is adhyasta. It is in every text everywhere. It is the very fundamental of Advaita. 

That is why I was curious that how even this doubt arose that avidyA cannot be adhyasta. 

In any case, please let me know the texts which are acceptable to you as sufficient evidence.

Regards.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

No need now for evidence. It is clear to me our understanding of mithya is the issue. 'Mithya is mulavidya' is not the same as 'mulavidya is mithya.' Mithya is false; false what? false error, mithya adhyasa or false fact, mithya ajnana/mulavidya. 'False fact' because mulavidya survives the fall of adhyasa; because mulavidya is the cause of mind in DSV; because mulavidya is taken to be something other than Brahman. 

Saying mulavidya is adhyasta only confuses the conversation because it assumes two adhyasa-s. I can't think of anywhere Bhasyakara refers to karya adhyasa but I could be wrong - new call for evidence. 

and btw, absence and darkness are buddhi only - the only bhavarupa of buddhi is Atma. The bhavarupa of absence of jar is the svarupa of jar which is only Atma. The point of satkaryavada is to distinguish Existence from existence/non-existence. Darkness as a bhavarupa does not denote a physical fact. 

Regards, 

Michael

p.s. server issue with Advaita-l hence the duplication - apologies

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBAwgm-CrOA-nWaexX%2BAis9QFbcdJa8Otx0pQMrerxFS5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

First, my sincere thanks to Dennisji for his reply.  The purpose of my posting was to illustrate that the advaita thought process through a variety of topics and discussions are present in both the western and eastern parts of the world.  Most philosophers understood that the fundamental problem is ignorance and goal of all seekers is to realize theTrue knowledge.  Here are some more discussions focusing on the ignorance!

“Kinatru Thavali” is a Tamil Saying which is equivalent to “the Frog in the Well.”  In sanskrit, Kupamanduka-nyaya (कूपमण्डूक)  is expression for “frog in the well.” This is quite relevant for understanding ‘ignorance’ or ajnAna (also avidya) because the Frog in the well only has limited knowledge! The frog at the bottom of the well thinks that the sky is only as big as the top of the well.   Certainly, there are lot more things to explore in the world outside of the well.  The frog at the bottom of the well seems to be content and living inside the well happily. This is the same context for the saying: “Ignorance is Bliss!”

The bottom line is: “Only the Brahman Knows the Brahman” and as seekers our only goal should be to become the Brahman!

Ram Chandran

On Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 11:30:23 AM UTC-4 hschand...@gmail.com wrote:

Namaste.

Forgot to add. There can be NO ignorance when this *Entity* is not obstructed because it is Self Luminous , and knowledge automatically originates.

Regards

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:56 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste.

Why is Ignorance as a positive entity posited in the Shrutis?

In all illustrations being presented here, like cave etc, there is already darkness and what is needed is light for knowledge. Here we are faced with an entirely different situation. What is *Existing* is unalloyed Knowledge, meaning that the infrastructure is readily available for anything capable of gaining knowledge to gain it with the help of this Source.  However it is noticed in experience that correct knowledge concerning this  *Entity* itself is not available. There is universally ignorance (partial knowledge) about this *Entity*. This is possible ONLY if there is an obstruction for its correct knowledge to take place. Hence an *obstruction* is stated in the Shrutis, and this is termed Ignorance. This is a fundamental Ignorance because unless this is overcome correct knowledge of the *Entity* cannot take place.

It is only with the help of this *Entity*, whatever knowledge anyone has is enabled. In the absence of this, no knowledge of anything is possible. It is as if everything is covered. Which is what happens in our experience when darkness obtains. Hence this fundamental obstruction is also termed *darkness*. And this ^Darkness* is termed a *positive* entity.

The Shrutis also posit that correct knowledge of this *Entity* is highly beneficial and should be the Goal of life.

Regards

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 7:36 PM <dwa...@advaita.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Ram-ji,

 

I, too, was lamenting the fact that there were so few appropriate changes to the subject headings. I seem to remember making a similar complaint many years ago. Current discussions have little to do with my original remarks. (Before anyone makes the comment, I do accept that it is usually desirable to keep the same heading, as I am doing now, so that we can recognize the trail of the discussion but, when the discussion branches or changes into some new aspect, I think the heading should change also.)

 

Your reference to Plato’s ‘Cave’ metaphor seems very appropriate. As I recall this, the people in the cave continue in their depleted environment until someone (the philosopher-teacher) comes down from the outside and explains their situation to them. I.e. not so much ‘removing’ anything from their understanding but telling them what things are really like and giving them a more rational explanation for the figures that they see. The darkness is a metaphor for their lack of the light of knowledge from outside the cave and not a ‘positive’ thing.

 

So, when you say “Those inside the cave only experience the ton of darkness due to their ignorance”, I would rather say that they experience the darkness because there is no light coming in from outside. ‘Ignorance’ is just a word we use for ‘lack of knowledge’ and not an ontological reality.

 

And I guess that comment probably brings the discussion back to its starting point…

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ram Chandran

Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 1:00 PM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [advaitin] Kilogram concluded

Namaskar:

Our Senior Moderator and philosopher Dennisji posted a message with the title, "A kilogram of darkness!" Probably a more appropriate title could be "A Ton of Darkness" which will likely be more appealing!  It is interesting to note that the role of darkness and how takes the seekers away from the Reality has been discussed in greater length by both the western and eastern philosophers. For example in the topic pertains to "Plato's Allegory of the Cave," Plato uses the cave as a symbolic representation of how the experience of the seekers who live in this world is contrasted with the Reality! The cave is full of darkness and the light is experienced by those who are outside the cave.  Those inside the cave only experience the ton of darkenss due to their ignorance!  Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a social metaphor for how intelligence (especially intelligence that refutes accepted/common knowledge) can expel people from society! Those who live in inside the dark cave can only see shadows and reflections of reality if and when they light some fire! For those in the cave the shadows that they see on the walls of the cave is the Truth and Reality. If one escapes from the cave and experiences the light outside then the escaped person only knows the difference between light and darkness!!

Ignorance is the cause for not recognizing the Reality has been understood by all but Sankara's Advaita philosophy has spelled out in very clear terms.  Implicitly, we all live inside the Plato's cave as prisoners (seekers) relying only on the experiences from our senses and experience only a little of the Nature of Reality. Advaita recognize the fact that to realize the Nature of Reality one has to go beyond the senses!
Ram Chandran

--

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/004d01daff9c%24dc01d6a0%24940583e0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

It is clear to me our understanding of mithya is the issue..

Indeed.

'Mithya is mulavidya' is not the same as 'mulavidya is mithya.'

Anything which is mithyA is adhyasta. MUlAvidyA is mithyA, hence it is adhyasta.

Mithya is false; false what? false error, mithya adhyasa or false fact, mithya ajnana/mulavidya.

False means something which is not at all there. Just appears. A magician projects a Taj Mahal right before me in thin air. That is false. It is not there, it just appears.

'False fact' because mulavidya survives the fall of adhyasa;

This is not correct. While mUlAvidyA appears even when kArya-adhyAsa isn't there, it itself being adhyasta, cannot be said to survive adhyAsa.

because mulavidya is the cause of mind in DSV; because mulavidya is taken to be something other than Brahman. 

And hence mUlAvidyA is mithyA and is hence ever non-existent.

Saying mulavidya is adhyasta only confuses the conversation because it assumes two adhyasa-s. I can't think of anywhere Bhasyakara refers to karya adhyasa but I could be wrong - new call for evidence. 

All adhyAsa starting from aham-adhyAsa are kArya-adhyAsa and are with beginning. aham-adhyAsa is the first kArya-adhyAsa. ajnAna-adhyAsa is the beginningless kAraNa-adhyAsa. Wherever BhAshyakAra talks of AvaraNa, it is ajnAna-adhyAsa.

and btw, absence and darkness are buddhi only - the only bhavarupa of buddhi is Atma. The bhavarupa of absence of jar is the svarupa of jar which is only Atma. The point of satkaryavada is to distinguish Existence from existence/non-existence. Darkness as a bhavarupa does not denote a physical fact. 

Sorry but these are incoherent.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

I tend to ignore all references to gods, supernatural events, etc. unless Śaṅkara’s commentary elicits clear metaphorical relevance to something useful. I’m sure all such things had their relevance to past cultures, but I suggest they are superfluous to today’s seekers. (Rinse my mouth out with vinegar!)

Why this exclusivity to ShankarAchArya? Any emotional reason? 😀

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

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

Hi Raghav-ji,

 

Great post – hardly any Sanskrit! I was with you most of the way, until you spoke about the locus of darkness. I devote an entire section to the locus of ignorance in the ‘Confusions’ book under Rāmānuja’s āśraya anupapatti in ‘The Seven Great Untenables, but here are a few thoughts on darkness.

 

1) If we are referring to the darkness in a cave, for example, then it would not be unreasonable to say that the locus of the darkness is the cave. 2) However, it would also be reasonable to say that we cannot perceive any locus, since it is dark and we cannot see anything. 3) But I think it really points to the fact that we cannot treat darkness in precisely the same way as we treat either the pot itself or the pot-absence. We know what the pot looks like and we can see the floor and that the pot isn’t on it. But, whilst we know what absence of light is like, we don’t really ‘see’ darkness and we never actually ‘see’ light itself. We don’t see anything when it is dark, and light is what enables us to see.

 

It is all a question of language and its slipperiness. I believe we are seduced into considering darkness as an actual entity, because of common usage over many generations, and therefore treating it in the same way as a pot when it simply isn’t.

 

You say: “the darkness experienced is a direct perceptual experience in itself. It's not contingent on recollecting the thought of light”. I would say that recollection or contingency do not come into it. ‘Perceiving’ darkness is the same thing as recognition of absence of light. It is just that the latter is the correct way of expressing it. As always, we invent a new word in order to provide a simpler way of talking about things and eventually come to believe it its reality.

 

Of course, the whole darkness-light thing is our metaphor for ignorance-knowledge. I don’t know whether anyone has pointed out the similarity before but this reminds me of the phlogiston theory in Chemistry in the 17^th century. It was supposed that, when something burned, a fire-like substance was released from it. They called it phlogiston. Similarly, it seems that the belief in the ontological existence of ignorance is saying that a substance called ‘ignorance’ is given off (or destroyed) when we learn something new. The phlogiston theory had to be abandoned when it was discovered that some metals were heavier after they had burned, which would lead to the conclusion that phlogiston had to have a negative mass. Similarly, if one wants to be whimsical, it could be argued that our ‘knowledge-mass’ is greater after we have learned something new. One could then say that ignorance is therefore equivalent to ‘negative knowledge’. But it makes far more sense to say that there is no such thing as ignorance at all, only lack of knowledge.

 

And I think I am ending my participation in this discussion here. It has consumed many hours over the past few days. Most interesting but I need to get back to some work!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

From: 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 1:33 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Kilogram not yet concluded after all

 

Namaste

 

 

The counter-argument by those who feel ignorance  is just absence of knowledge would be - 

It's just figurative usage (like being "overpowered" by Sleep). Similarly ignorance "covers" knowledge. 

 

No matter how many references are shown, as long as one has already reached a "commonsensical" conclusion based on 19th century science that light consists of particles and when there are no particles, it is *by definition* called darkness, no change in position will occur. No discussion can change a person's semantic definitions.

 

Those who argue for darkness being merely perception of absence miss an important nuance in human perception as was pointed by many of you earlier in this thread. Whenever we experience "absence" such as when we see the absence of a pot on the ground, there are two steps viz., direct perception which exhausts itself in only giving us knowledge of the adhikaraNam viz., the ground. And then there is a second step whereby, (based on contextual need), we *recollect* a pot and then recognize and assert it's absence. This is the anupalabdhi pramANa. 

 

In the case of the direct experience of darkness, if we say it's just the absence of light, what is the adhikaraNa (locus) where this "absence of light" is experienced. That locus itself  has to be a matter of direct perception. That locus cannot be an abhAva. That is darkness itself. Therefore it is a regular experience that we experience darkness *without* necessarily having to *think* about light. 

 

Similarly, even when one closes one's eyes, the darkness experienced is a direct perceptual experience in itself. It's not contingent on recollecting the thought of light etc. Such recognition of absence of light is an optional additional datum that one can sense and may indeed occur quite often. 

 

The knowledge of Darkness occurs,  not by anupalabdhi pramANam. The knowledge of Darkness is by pratyaxa or direct perception. Additionally one may optionally choose to recollect the idea of "light" and assert it's absence. That too is correct but is optional. 

 

Om

Raghav

 

.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

//Anything which is mithyA is adhyasta. MUlAvidyA is mithyA, hence it is adhyasta//

I repeat my issue: what causes the cause? If mulavidya is adhyasta, something had to bring it about.  

//False means something which is not at all there. Just appears.//

False means incorrect, not according to fact. You must be defining mithya as false appearance. What do you mean by appearance? Is this appearance the same as Brahman or different? Is it bhavarupa or 'not at all there'? 

// While mUlAvidyA appears even when kArya-adhyAsa isn't there, it itself being adhyasta, cannot be said to survive adhyAsa.//

Sorry, I am not following. If MV is adhyastha/effect how will it appear without effect? If you are saying mulavidya/mithya is both cause and effect, please define mulavidya as cause. How is it a 'mula' if its an effect. 

//And hence mUlAvidyA is mithyA and is hence ever non-existent.//

We have been discussing how even absence is a bhavarupa, how then is bhavarupa mulavidya, bija shakti, jada mithya, said to be non-existent? That seems to oppose the vyakhyana kara vada. What am I missing? 

//All adhyAsa starting from aham-adhyAsa are kArya-adhyAsa //

I find no cause/effect relationship depicted in Adhyasa Bhasya. Rather vishayi/vishaya or asmat/yusmad are instinctually superimposed, birthless and due to indiscrimination rather than some effect or event. Please find a more precise example where Bhasyakara describes karana adhyasa as opposed to karya adhyasa

//...Wherever BhAshyakAra talks of AvaraNa, it is ajnAna-adhyAsa//

You mention avarana but indiscrimination is enough to cover the truth according to Adhyasa Bhasya and that is not spoken of as an effect but just the nature of superimposition.

And finally, you found my statement incoherent - I will try to clarify. I said, 

 "and btw, absence and darkness are buddhi only - the only bhavarupa of buddhi is Atma. The bhavarupa of absence of jar is the svarupa of jar which is only Atma. The point of satkaryavada is to distinguish Existence from existence/non-existence. Darkness as a bhavarupa does not denote a physical fact.  i

Satkaryavada argues that the One Brahman is what appears as both cause and effect without changing its nature. The implication is that Brahman alone exists and that the appearance of presence and absence of existence and non-existence of objects, of clay and unmanifested jar, are mistaken notions. AS NOTIONS, object and its absence both appear as bhavarupa entities. Bhavarupa however pertains to the jar's svarupa and whether it is present or absent (of course, the only svarupa is Brahman). Absence, per se, is only a bhavarupa when it refers to an actual object but in and of itself cannot denote a physical fact. 

Thus, darkness also is not 'something' opposed to light - it is solely dependent upon light and may be only spoken of metaphorically as covering/avarana light. Light is the only svarupa. SSSSji brought this out briefly in one of the footnotes to the Ghata Bhasya that I shared in a previous email. 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAoXfU2UK3eKx_Y7A4_p4kkzkwxnQeqMKGPXjkNZvOXZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

 
> I repeat my issue: what causes the cause?

avidyA is the cause of adhyAsa. Since avidyA is considered as adhyasta, avidyA is accepted as the cause of itself. It is stated in SiddhAnta Bindu - अनिर्वाच्यम् अनृतं तत्त्वज्ञाननिवर्त्यं च अज्ञानं स्व-पर-अध्यासे कारणम्. That means - anirvachanIya mithyA ajnAna, which is removed by tattva-jnAna, is the cause of swa-adhyAsa (avidyA-adhyasa/kAraNa-adhyAsa) and para-adhyAsa (kArya-adhyAsa). [https://archive.org/details/SiddhantaBinduShriMadhusudanaSarasvati/page/n103/mode/1up?view=theater]

 
> If mulavidya is adhyasta, something had to bring it about.  

We saw that avidyA itself is the cause. That amounts to saying - A causes A. This is referred to as AtmAshraya-dosha.

However, that is inapplicable in case of avidyA. This is because AtmAshraya-dosha is applicable with respect to utpatti (origin), sthiti (sustainance) and jnapti (knowledge). avidyA does not require itself in either of the three. Hence, there is no AtmAshraya-dosha.

1. avidyA does not require avidyA for its origin. Because, there is no origin of avidyA.
2. avidyA does not avidyA for its location because it has Brahman as the locus and not itself.
3. avidyA does not require avidyA for its jnapti because it is known not by itself but by swaprakAsha anAdi sAkshI. Though sAkshI is avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, since upAdhi is kArya-ananvayI, the swarUpa of jnapti is swaprakAsha-chaitanya and not avidyA.

Thus, we see that there is no AtmAshraya-dosha. avidyA is thus eligible to be swa-para-nirvAhikA. There is evidence to that effect:

1. SwaprakAsha-AtmA is swa-para-nirvAhaka.
2. Bheda is swa-para-nirvAhaka.

Thus, we see that the conditions of AtmAshraya-dosha are not satisfied and there are examples of swa-para-nirvAhaka entities. avidyA is another such example.

Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that avidyA is the cause of avidyA-adhyAsa and is capable of doing so on account of it being swa-para-nirvAhikA without AtmAshraya dosha.

> False means incorrect, not according to fact. You must be defining mithya as false appearance. What do you mean by appearance?

Appearance means non-existence in three periods of time in the locus of perception.

 
> Is this appearance the same as Brahman or different? Is it bhavarupa or 'not at all there'?

The appearance is also an appearance. It is non-Brahman. So, mithyA-tva is also mithyA. The appearance-ness of appearance is also an appearance. It also is not at all existent, just appears to exist.

 
> Sorry, I am not following. If MV is adhyastha/effect how will it appear without effect?

MUlAvidyA has the world as its effect. All products starting from ahamkAra are its effects. Even though effects starting from ahamkAra are absent (in sushupti), avidyA survives. So, in sushupti, avidyA-adhyAsa remains without its effect starting from ahamkAra. [Though avidyA-vritti are accepted in sushupti, they are of the nature of kAraNa itself and not kArya like ahamkAra etc. Hence, I am not including them in kArya-adhyAsa. If they are also admitted to be kArya-adhyAsa, that is not damaging either.] In any case, as long as avidyA is accepted, kAraNa-adhyAsa has to be accepted.

 >If you are saying mulavidya/mithya is both cause and effect, please define mulavidya as cause. How is it a 'mula' if its an effect.

Because avidyA is without beginning whereas everything else, starting from ahamkAra, is with beginning. So, the usage of "mUla" is apt. 

 
> We have been discussing how even absence is a bhavarupa, how then is bhavarupa mulavidya, bija shakti, jada mithya, said to be non-existent?

bhAvarUpa is asserted not to posit existence. But to aver difference from asat. Now, asat does not mean mere non-existence. It means something which cannot be perceived in any locus. Like horns of hare. So, the usage of word bhAvarUpa is to only distinguish it from asat like horns of hare, and not to ascribe existence. So, when we say pot-abhAva, it is still a knowable. It is perceived in a locus, say ground. So, it is not asat like horns of hare. Therefore, pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa. This does not imply that it is existent.

Both pot-abhAva and horns of hare are non-existent. While the former can be perceived in a locus, the latter cannot be perceived in any locus. Hence, the former is called bhAvarUpa while the latter is called asat.

>That seems to oppose the vyakhyana kara vada. What am I missing?

How does it oppose?

> I find no cause/effect relationship depicted in Adhyasa Bhasya. Rather vishayi/vishaya or asmat/yusmad are instinctually superimposed, birthless and due to indiscrimination rather than some effect or event. Please find a more precise example where Bhasyakara describes karana adhyasa as opposed to karya adhyasa

This indiscrimination needs to be analysed by you.

> You mention avarana but indiscrimination is enough to cover the truth according to Adhyasa Bhasya and that is not spoken of as an effect but just the nature of superimposition.

Please define AvaraNa and indiscrimination.

> Satkaryavada argues that the One Brahman is what appears as both cause and effect without changing its nature. The implication is that Brahman alone exists and that the appearance of presence and absence of existence and non-existence of objects, of clay and unmanifested jar, are mistaken notions. AS NOTIONS, object and its absence both appear as bhavarupa entities. Bhavarupa however pertains to the jar's svarupa and whether it is present or absent (of course, the only svarupa is Brahman). Absence, per se, is only a bhavarupa when it refers to an actual object but in and of itself cannot denote a physical fact.

What is 'actual object'? What is 'physical fact'?

 
> Thus, darkness also is not 'something' opposed to light - it is solely dependent upon light and may be only spoken of metaphorically as covering/avarana light. 

This has been disproved by specific arguments. You need to present counter-arguments. It has been demonstrated that darkness is neither prakAsha-sAmAnya-abhAva, nor prakAsha-vishesha-abhAva not sarva-prakAsha-abhAva. In the first two cases, in daylight, when there is prakAsha-sAmAnya-abhAva (some light say torch-light is not present) as well as prakAsha-vishesha-abhAva, there should be perception of darkness, which is not the case. In case of sarva-prakAsha-abhAva, you will have to turn on all lights in order to remove darkness, which is an impossibility.

Further, there is anumAna which proves that darkness is not abhAva: तमः शब्द वाच्यो नाभावः, स्वमात्रवृत्तिधर्मप्रकारकप्रतियोगिज्ञानाजन्यप्रत्यक्षविषयत्वाद्, घटवत्।  

These prove that darkness is 'something' that is opposed to light. We should however not confuse that it is existen, when we say it is not abhAva. It is bhAvarUpa which is sat-asat-vilakshaNa and hence non-existent in three periods of time in its locus, i.e. Brahman.

> Light is the only svarupa. SSSSji brought this out briefly in one of the footnotes to the Ghata Bhasya that I shared in a previous email.

SSSS ji did not counter the specific arguments adduced. Merely repeating a belief cannot disprove the argument. Can it?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

I wonder if all these Qs raised against mUlAvidyA being kAraNa occur to SSS followers regarding mAyA also. Whatever resolution works there should work for avidyA also, because in sampradAya, both are same, albeit at vyaShTi and samaShTi level.  Any thoughts?

Unless ofcourse, they consider Maya also to be abhAvarUpa or sadrUpa, same as brahman!! Nothing is likely to surprise me any more after some funny revelations in this thread.

Kind rgds,
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Venkatraghavan S]

Wishing all members a very Happy Ganesh Chaturthi. I pray to Lord Ganesha to remove all the obstacles to our moksha.

Dear Michael ji,

Re

"I repeat my issue: what causes the cause? If mulavidya is adhyasta, something had to bring it about."

Why? Do you agree that superimposition always needs a cause? What is the cause for beginningless superimposition for you?

If you say that the absence of knowledge causes adhyAsa to occur - ie knowledge not rising causes adhyAsa to occur - how can absence cause anything? Shankara has refuted such an eventuality in several places. In the gItA bhAShya for example, he argues that the failure to perform nitya-karma, mandatory rituals, cannot cause the incurrence of sin, on the grounds that the absence of a thing (a failure to perform a ritual being an absence of performance) can never cause any outcome. So how can the absence of knowledge cause superimposition?

To avoid this, you also have to admit that absence of knowledge does not produce adhyAsa. What is the role of the absence of knowledge vis a vis adhyAsa then in your system? You will necessarily have to admit that the role of the absence of knowledge wrt adhyAsa is as a precondition, not as a cause. That is, for adhyAsa to occur, jnAna must be absent.

That is true for us too. 

We too say that mUlAvidyA is adhyasta so long as jnAna hasn't arisen. That is, when jnAna is absent, mUlAvidyA is superimposed. After jnAna arises, one realises that mUlAvidyA that adhyAsa is destroyed and we realise it never existed in any of the three periods of time.

As your precondition of superimposition  - that jnAna is absent - is met in the case of mUlAvidyA's superimposition, what is the untenability in saying that mUlAvidyA is superimposed when jnAna has not arisen? When you do not stipulate the "absence of jnAna" as a cause of adhyAsa, but only as its precondition, what is the untenability here in saying that when jnAna is absent, mUlAvidyA is also adhyasta? Why are you asking us to demonstrate an external cause for avidyA's adhyAsa, when you do not admit an external cause yourself for adhyAsa?

We hold that the superimposition of a beginningless ajnAna does not need a cause distinct to it.

ajnAna is instrumental in its own superimposition. We have also provided examples of this reflexive behaviour in the world. 

e.g. 1) A list of all lists must necessarily list itself too. If that is not admitted, then it would not be a list of all lists. 

Similarly, according to us, ajnAna is the cause of all adhyAsa. So it necessarily follows that it is a cause of its own adhyAsa too.

Further, moksha requires the cessation of all adhyAsa and for all adhyAsa to be removed by jnAna, every adhyAsa must have a foundational defect of the nature of ajnAna, i.e. one that is capable of being removed by jnAna. jnAna can only remove ajnAna. 

If I have double vision that makes me see two moons, knowing that there is only one moon is not going to stop me from seeing two moons. I may know that there is only moon because of right knowledge, but that doesn't solve my problem. The vision of the second moon - the incorrect visual cognition - is not going to stop until the foundational defect in the eye is cleared. The foundational defect that caused the incorrect visual cognition in this case is not capable of being removed by jnAna, so jnAna does not stop me from seeing the second moon until I have had treatment for the eye.

The foundational defect in the case of adhyAsa / samsAra is capable of being removed by jnAna, because it happens to be ajnAna. 

If ajnAna wasn't the cause of adhyAsa, how would jnAna remove adhyAsa? 

If ajnAna wasn't adhyasta, it would be real and wouldn't be removed by knowledge. 

e.g. 2) The difference between a pot and the cloth is also different to the pot and the cloth - it doesn't need a second difference to establish its own (i.e. the difference's) difference with the pot and the cloth - if that is not admitted, it will lead to infinite regress. 

e.g. 3) When we hold that Brahman is the substratum for everything in the world and Narada asks what is the substratum of Brahman, to which Sanatkumara says  स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न महिम्नीति - Brahman supports itself. Or you can say nothing else supports it.

You cannot seek the substratum of the substratum itself. It supports itself by itself.

Similarly, you cannot seek the cause of avidyA's superimposition. It superimposes itself by itself. Or you can say nothing else superimposes it.

Why call it mUla then?

If you are objecting to calling it "mUla" avidyA, Bhaskar ji's previous email translates Sri SSS' writings in Kannada to English. He writes -

" since the unmanifested (avyAkruta) names and forms is the cause (seed) for the perceived world of duality, if it is called as “moolaavidyA” then that opinion is not unacceptable to me because that avyAkruta names and forms is the main reason for everything hence it can be labelled as ‘mUla’. But if anyone comes up with the theories like : it is not adhyasta (superimposed) or not avidyAkalpita (kalpita-imagined, misconception due to ignorance etc. then I would never accept such stand as that stand is shruti, yukti and bhAshya viruddha. "

This is why also we call moolAvidyA as mUla-avidyA. If Sri SSS has no problems calling that mUla for those reasons, what is the issue here?

Also please note that it is accepted within the advaita sampradAya that there are six beginningless entities (ShadasmAkam anAdayah) - 1) jIva, 2) Ishvara, 3) the difference between the two, 4) Brahman (pure consciousness), 5) avidyA and the 6) connection between the two, i.e adhyAsa. There is no need to go looking for causes for any of these, because they are beginningless.

 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Venkatraghavan, 

//Why? Do you agree that superimposition always needs a cause? What is the cause for beginningless superimposition for you?//

'Adhyasa is anadi' means it is timeless. Time arises with adhyasa as does cause and material space. The cause bhasya refers to is not in time, kala krama. but pratipatti krama, logical sequence - if that, then this must be, If adhyasa, then we are not seeing the Self or, because we do not know the Self, there is adhyasa. 

//the failure to perform nitya-karma, mandatory rituals, cannot cause the incurrence of sin//

Not a proper example in that nitya-karma is not the same as 'necessary karma' for which absence of performance certainly does cause sin. 

I think I described above exactly how absence of knowledge is understood as cause. 

When Sankara argues that absence cannot cause an effect, I believe he is referring to ontological absence not epistemological absence - might be worthwhile to access Bhasya to see if I am correct. Epistemological absence constantly causes effects - our failing grade in school due to absence of answers should be evidence enough.

Aso doesn't Sankara argue that absence of pot is a bhavarupa avarana for pot and doesn't an avarana/covering cause effects like in the cover of darkness we trip on the kid's toys?

 //We too say that mUlAvidyA is adhyasta ... //

There are fundamental differences. from Panchapadika 5.15

 

Here we read about ajnana as potency, the negation of jnana and as material cause. This is not the same as Sankara's epistemological adhyasa or simply the mixing up asmat & yusmad. 

//every adhyAsa must have a foundational defect of the nature of ajnAna, i.e. one that is capable of being removed by jnAna.//

This is not the case if we consider mulavidya to be potency and a material cause. How can knowledge resolve a material cause?  

 .   

I will stop here because I think it is necessary to first resolve Padmapada's depiction of a material cause and your position of mulavidya as adhyasta. 

Back to you sir. 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm6S%3DYyxVRS-%2BdmUwTE-rF2NVBJXHt4MUODU6oNhWjhog%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

न ह्यस्त्यविद्या मनसोऽतिरिक्ता
मनो ह्यविद्या भवबन्धहेतुः ।
तस्मिन्विनष्टे सकलं विनष्टं
विजृम्भितेऽस्मिन्सकलं विजृम्भते ॥ १७१ ॥

There is no Ignorance (Avidya) apart from the mind. The mind alone is Avidya, the cause of the bondage of transmigration. When that is destroyed, all else is destroyed, and when it is manifested, everything else is manifested.

So we have this one category where ajnanam and manas are placed together.

I don't think that it is another category where mind and ignorance are being equated. 

In shloka 182, it is said - 

अतः प्राहुर्मनोऽविद्यां पण्डितास्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ।
येनैव भ्राम्यते विश्वं वायुनेवाभ्रमण्डलम् ॥

Starting from 171 to 180, indeed, it prima facie appears that mind and ignorance are being equated. However, the entire discussion is within the scope of manomaya-kosha, and is succeeded by vijnAnamaya-kosha from shloka 186. So, it is unlikely that mind should be equated with ignorance in primary sense.

Further,

1. Anandagiri SwamI says in BrihadAraNyaka bhAshya - यद्यपि सुषुप्तेऽविद्या विद्यते तथाऽपि न साऽभिव्यक्ताऽस्तीत्यनर्थपरिहारोपपत्तिरित्यर्थः । - Though there is avidyA in sushupti, yet it is not manifest.
2. In Anandagiri TIkA on BBV 4.3.1357, it is stated that vyaktA-avidyA is the cause of kartritva etc. It is owing to the absence of vyaktA-avidyA that the absence of avidyA in sushupti is spoken. व्यक्ताविद्या कर्तृत्वस्य हेतुः, न स्वतः तदस्ति, मोक्षाभावप्रसङ्गात्। न च सुषुप्तौ तादृगविद्या तद्भङ्गातन्न तदा कर्तृतेतेत्यर्थ।  The absence of avidyA spoken in sushupti is following sthUla-drishTi. Since in sushupti, avidyA is not known with the division such as in "I am ignorant" - it is stated that there is no avidyA in sushupti. 

   

With this background, we should appreciate that it is the vyaktA-avidyA which is being equated with mind in VC.

In commentary of shloka 182, Chandrashekhar BharatI Swamiji writes - अतः संसृतिमूलकारणत्वान्मनसः मन एव अविद्यां प्राहुः अविद्याकार्यत्वात् केवलाविद्यायाः संसृतिहेतुत्वाभावाच्च।   

So, I feel mind can at best be equated with vyaktA-avidyA and not with avyAkrita-nAma-rUpa-bIja, which is what mUlAvidyA is.

I feel this is necessary to explain because -

1. In SDV, the distinction of mind and ignorance is immense. At every step, they are equated.
2. In DSV, there is no need of mind at all. avidyA itself is enough. One is tempted to equate mind with ignorance in DSV, but in VC, this is the topic of koshAs, which is within the scope of SDV. In DSV, there is no concept of koshAs.
3. In ajAti, mind/avidyA are equally useless as there is no creation.

Therefore, in SDV, we can equate mind with vyaktA-avidyA but not with mulAvidyA.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.   

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael ji

'Adhyasa is anadi' means it is timeless. Time arises with adhyasa as does cause and material space. The cause bhasya refers to is not in time, kala krama. but pratipatti krama, logical sequence - if that, then this must be, If adhyasa, then we are not seeing the Self or, because we do not know the Self, there is adhyasa. 

Ok so? That's what I said your position was too. 

//the failure to perform nitya-karma, mandatory rituals, cannot cause the incurrence of sin//

Not a proper example in that nitya-karma is not the same as 'necessary karma' for which absence of performance certainly does cause sin.

This is clearly incorrect. Absence of performance does not create sin. It has been rejected in the gItA bhAShya.

न तावत् नित्यानां कर्मणामभावादेव भावरूपस्य प्रत्यवायस्य उत्पत्तिः कल्पयितुं शक्या, ‘कथमसतः सज्जायेत’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । २) इति असतः सज्जन्मासम्भवश्रुतेः । , introduction to the third chapter of the gItA bhAShya.

 

I think I described above exactly how absence of knowledge is understood as cause. 

When Sankara argues that absence cannot cause an effect, I believe he is referring to ontological absence not epistemological absence - might be worthwhile to access Bhasya to see if I am correct.

Ultimately cognition is also a thing in advaita. So the absence of cognition is the absence of a thing, and this dichotomy into epistemology and ontology is a false one.

Epistemological absence constantly causes effects - our failing grade in school due to absence of answers should be evidence enough.

Same reason as above. Epistemological absence is ontological absence. 

Further, a fail grade is not an ontological entity - it is simply a symbol assigned to denoted the lack of sufficient marks to pass (i.e. an absence of pass marks) . So if you are going to argue that the absence of knowledge leads to a failed grade as an ontological entity, that is not true. Rather the failure to know leads to a failure to answer which leads to the failure to secure pass marks - absence leading to absence. So the charge that asat cannot lead to sat still stands.

Aso doesn't Sankara argue that absence of pot is a bhavarupa avarana for pot and doesn't an avarana/covering cause effects like in the cover of darkness we trip on the kid's toys?

Well our contention is that any AvaraNa is an ontological thing, not an epistemological absence. In fact the ghaTa bhAShya has already shown how even absence is actually ontological presence, but let us not go there now.

 //We too say that mUlAvidyA is adhyasta ... //

There are fundamental differences. from Panchapadika 5.15

 

Here we read about ajnana as potency, the negation of jnana and as material cause. This is not the same as Sankara's epistemological adhyasa or simply the mixing up asmat & yusmad. 

It is your contention that Shankara only had an epistemological adhyAsa in mind. The onus is on you prove that first and then you can use the quote to justify your argument.

//every adhyAsa must have a foundational defect of the nature of ajnAna, i.e. one that is capable of being removed by jnAna.//

This is not the case if we consider mulavidya to be potency and a material cause. How can knowledge resolve a material cause?  

Because the material cause is a-jnAna -i.e. that which is destroyed by jnAna. Every jnAna is capable of destroying the ajnAna that has the same object as the jnAna. So the jnAna of a pot destroys the ajnAna of a pot etc - once again, it is because jnAna is an inert thing in advaita that removes ajnAna, the veil that obscures the object of jnAna. 

Anyway I think my patience for this discussion has worn thin after more than a month of involvement. I am going to bow out for the moment. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[Suresh Balaraman]

Thank you 🙏 

Suresh Balaraman

On Sep 7, 2024, at 10:17 AM, Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:



Namaste Venkatraghavan, 

//Why? Do you agree that superimposition always needs a cause? What is the cause for beginningless superimposition for you?//

'Adhyasa is anadi' means it is timeless. Time arises with adhyasa as does cause and material space. The cause bhasya refers to is not in time, kala krama. but pratipatti krama, logical sequence - if that, then this must be, If adhyasa, then we are not seeing the Self or, because we do not know the Self, there is adhyasa. 

//the failure to perform nitya-karma, mandatory rituals, cannot cause the incurrence of sin//

Not a proper example in that nitya-karma is not the same as 'necessary karma' for which absence of performance certainly does cause sin. 

I think I described above exactly how absence of knowledge is understood as cause. 

When Sankara argues that absence cannot cause an effect, I believe he is referring to ontological absence not epistemological absence - might be worthwhile to access Bhasya to see if I am correct. Epistemological absence constantly causes effects - our failing grade in school due to absence of answers should be evidence enough.

Aso doesn't Sankara argue that absence of pot is a bhavarupa avarana for pot and doesn't an avarana/covering cause effects like in the cover of darkness we trip on the kid's toys?

 //We too say that mUlAvidyA is adhyasta ... //

There are fundamental differences. from Panchapadika 5.15

 

Here we read about ajnana as potency, the negation of jnana and as material cause. This is not the same as Sankara's epistemological adhyasa or simply the mixing up asmat & yusmad. 

//every adhyAsa must have a foundational defect of the nature of ajnAna, i.e. one that is capable of being removed by jnAna.//

This is not the case if we consider mulavidya to be potency and a material cause. How can knowledge resolve a material cause?  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHdKC1BLAH088pEb-6Y-CPREAv4Fm9mbpk8G6FhRO15rA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

I wonder if all these Qs raised against mUlAvidyA being kAraNa occur to SSS followers regarding mAyA also. Whatever resolution works there should work for avidyA also, because in sampradAya, both are same, albeit at vyaShTi and samaShTi level.  Any thoughts?

I am not sure whether they consider mAyA to be bhAva or abhAva or whether they are unable to say as to whether it is bhAva or abhAva.

avidyA they certainly consider as abhAva. In fact, if I remember correctly, in sugama, SSSS ji has said avidyA to be jnAna- prAk-abhAva.

So, avidyA would be nirvachanIya for them, but mAyA would be anirvachanIya.

Unless ofcourse, they consider Maya also to be abhAvarUpa or sadrUpa, same as brahman!! Nothing is likely to surprise me any more after some funny revelations in this thread.

Problem is that they do not define the terms rigorously. So, vagueness comes.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.