SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Swami Prabuddhanandaji is a 50+ year disciple of Swami Chinmayananndaji. He has also studied with Dayanandaji and more recently, SSSSji. He has been giving talks at .Ramana Kendra, New Delhi for decades. Swamiji is a master teacher and advocate of SSSS recognition of Prasthanatraya Bhasya.

Here he is in his prime, discussing silver/shell and one/two moons from Adhyasa Bhasya (first 30 min) comparing mulavidvya with abhavarupa avidya in a simple easy-to-understand manner as claimed to be the way Sankaracharya originally intended. 

https/www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOaOBvtdXw0&t=2650s

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Swami Prabuddhanandaji is a 50+ year disciple of Swami Chinmayananndaji. He has also studied with Dayanandaji and more recently, SSSSji.

 

• Sri Prakashanandendra Saraswati was also earlier with Arsha vidya I think.  Now teaching Sri SSS’s Shuddha shankara Vedanta at Holenarsipur. 

 

He has been giving talks at .Ramana Kendra, New Delhi for decades. Swamiji is a master teacher and advocate of SSSS recognition of Prasthanatraya Bhasya.

 

Ø     Interesting fact about bhAvarUpa avidyA and it’s refutation,  has been accepted by other pundits ‘as it is’ even though they are not so good friend of Sri SSS’s works.  mUlAvidyA is a fabricated theory by later advaitins just to counter the objections of dualists and it hardly finds a place in shankara’s mUla PTB. 

 

Here he is in his prime, discussing silver/shell and one/two moons from Adhyasa Bhasya (first 30 min) comparing mulavidvya with abhavarupa avidya in a simple easy-to-understand manner as claimed to be the way Sankaracharya originally intended. 

 

Ø     Simple easy way !!??  who needs it or who cares it ??  Who needs ‘anubhava sammata svAbhAvika adhyAsa’  when they have the big-big nomenclatures to define and defend bhAvarUpa, brahmAshrita, anirvachaneeya avidyA??  They want to add all types of ‘masala’ to it to have it in a more attractive way to construct logical theories around it 😊 Sri SSS very often says in all through his works : shankara Vedanta is anubhava sammata, shrutyukta vedAnta it is not a product of shushka tarka which neither has the backdrop of shruti, shrutyukta yukti and anubhava,

 

• I really appreciate your patience to pacify the needs of some tyros here and trying to prove credentials of Sri SSS in front of those who left and right passing their adolescent  judgements on saint who dedicated more than 6 decades exclusively in the study of Shuddha shankara vedAnta prakriya viz a viz later vyAkhyAna-s.  Fortunately, Sri SSS when he openly challenged the stand of vyAkhyAnakAra-s then, no one dared to say:  Sorry you don’t know nyAya, you have not understood basic tenets of shankara Vedanta, intentions of subsequent vyAkhyAna etc. so you are not qualified enough to debate with pundita-s like us.  OTOH, after reading Sri SSS’s objections they sincerely tried to defend their position.  Hardly Sri SSS encountered ‘childish’ attacks like this during his time.  Of course they were all well mannered traditional scholars know how to respect a saint and scholar in tradition, and more importantly they were not just armchair philosophers like us. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

त्रिपाद्विभूतिमहानारायणोपनिषत्

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/1s82

This Upanishad, listed in the 108 of the Muktika upanishad, has at least 10 occurrences of the term mUlAvidyA.  The Upanishad has the commentary of an Advaitin Upanishad Brahma Yogin. 

https://archive.org/details/108_Upanishads_with_Sanskrit_Commentary_of_Upanishad_Brahma_Yogin/Dasonapanishads%20with%20Upanishadbrahman%27s%20commentary%20Vol%201/

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/AM7PR06MB662554D1A60AD9244835EEE9848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

It is not just about the word mUlAvidyA, Sri SSS’s contention is about usage of this term and definition of it in vyAkhyAna-s (panchapAdika vivaraNa in particular).  Just coz. nirvana used in kArika it is not Buddhistic text, likewise just coz. MV used in up. It is not vyAkhyAnakAra’s MV 😊 If that is not the case, Sri SSS somewhere jokingly says in Kannada : haladi seere uttikondiruvavarella nanna hendati unda haage 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of V Subrahmanian
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 10:58 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0POjiAbdXjAZj-g%2BAe42YKDWCLWfzA2W96MWsRYMOuWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

Just a curiosity.

You guys reject SAyaNa BhAshya on Rigveda also. Right?

Because Rigveda BhAshya on NAsadIya SUkta clearly says that MAyA is synonym of ajnAna and that it is bhAvarUpa. And SSS ji rejects both of these concepts.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625094B5A21E87807E400CF848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:16 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

It is not just about the word mUlAvidyA, Sri SSS’s contention is about usage of this term and definition of it in vyAkhyAna-s (panchapAdika vivaraNa in particular).  Just coz. nirvana used in kArika it is not Buddhistic text, likewise just coz. MV used in up. It is not vyAkhyAnakAra’s MV

Then, what would the non-vyakhyanakara's meaning be for the Upanishadic term? 

regards

subbu

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625094B5A21E87807E400CF848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You guys reject SAyaNa BhAshya on Rigveda also. Right?

 

Ø     sAyaNa is after shankara right??  Whatever said in mUla not diluted in later works definitely acceptable to us prabhuji.  So, if sAyanAchArya explaining the mUla tattva without going against shankara tattva definitely acceptable to us. 

 

Because Rigveda BhAshya on NAsadIya SUkta clearly says that MAyA is synonym of ajnAna and that it is bhAvarUpa. And SSS ji rejects both of these concepts.

 

Ø     mAyA is not avidyA there are ample evidences within bhAshya.  So, no need to search for any further clarification anywhere else.  Having said that I don’t deny that there are sentences which seem to say avidyA=mAya like vishAnna called as visha.  mAya is anirvachaneeya whereas avidyA is nirvachaneeya.  avidyA is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa whereas it is mAya tattvAnyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeya,at some places maaya explained as avidyA Kalpita, somewhere else avidyAtmaka, yet another place mAya as Ishwara shakti, mAya is brahmAbhinna, mAya is eternal as well.  So as per our books there is hell a lot of difference between avidyA and mAya 😊 By the way you are the man of logic and Sanskrit scholar do you agree both words giving the same meaning in all the contexts to declare that both avidyA and mAya are synonyms??  just curious to know. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Then, what would the non-vyakhyanakara's meaning be for the Upanishadic term? 

 

Ø     If at all some one wants to accommodate the term ‘mUlAvidyA’ it should be jnAnAbhAva only as per Sri SSS.  He never ever accepted something like bhAvarUpa avidyA which is categorically said as upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa by vyAkhyAnakAra-s.  The fourth alien entity called mulAvidyA, which is the mother of all three definitions/types of avidyA and at the same time entirely different from jnAnAbhAva, vipareeta grahaNa, saMshaya has no place in Shuddha shankara Vedanta he reiterates this point everywhere. 

[V Subrahmanian]

All that is only beating around the bush.  It is just like non-Advaitins explaining Nirguna, Advaita, Tattvamasi, etc. of the Upanishads. 

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/AM7PR06MB662567417B04BF9CC03BA9D5848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

// He never ever accepted something like bhAvarUpa avidyA which is categorically said as upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa by vyAkhyAnakAra-s.//

But even Sureshwara categorically said avidyA as upAdAna kAraNa. Why only "vyAkyAnakArAs"? 

//sAyaNa is after shankara right??  Whatever said in mUla not diluted in later works definitely acceptable to us prabhuji.  So, if sAyanAchArya explaining the mUla tattva without going against shankara tattva definitely acceptable to us.//

But, as per you, SAyaNa violated Shankara Tattva. Right? He said in Mantra 3 in NAsadIya BhAshya - आत्मतत्वस्यावरकरवान्मायापरसंज्ञं भावरूपाज्ञानमत्र तम इत्युच्यते । Certainly SAyaNa diluted the Shankara-tattva. Did he not? Please share your view.

//mAyA is not avidyA there are ample evidences within bhAshya.  So, no need to search for any further clarification anywhere else.//

No. I am not searching anywhere. I am just saying that the "manipulation of siddhAnta" is not limited to only vyAkhyAnakArAs but also applied to SAyANAchAryA, an unquestioned authority on Rigveda (except may be by Arya samAjIs). Just wanted the view of SSS' followers on this. 

//By the way you are the man of logic and Sanskrit scholar do you agree both words giving the same meaning in all the contexts to declare that both avidyA and mAya are synonyms??  just curious to know.//

These two words refer to same entity everywhere. Yeah. Both are synonyms. 

Question may arise -- why these two words.

My understanding is -- that entity, which is indicated by the words avidyA or mAyA, is removable by vidyA. Hence, it is called avidyA. Further, that entity does not exist, hence it is called mAyA (yA mA, sA mAyA). So, two indicate two aspects of same entity, these two words are used.

How do I say that? What is the basis?

BhAshyakAra says in MANDUkya - आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः ।

He equates MAyA with avidyA. Also, what exactly is the ramification -- न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः.

Having said that, some of the AchAryAs do distinguish them based on the preponderance of sattva. But none distinguish them fundamentally.

//mAya is anirvachaneeya whereas avidyA is nirvachaneeya.  avidyA is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa whereas it is mAya tattvAnyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeya//

If avidyA is bhAvAbhAva-vilakshaNa, then how is it nirvachanIya?

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/AM7PR06MB662567417B04BF9CC03BA9D5848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

OK as you wish to look at it 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

All that is only beating around the bush.  It is just like non-Advaitins explaining Nirguna, Advaita, Tattvamasi, etc. of the Upanishads. 

 

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/AM7PR06MB662567417B04BF9CC03BA9D5848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3go8aH3BhBVtrvfk72dkYU%3DSxcop2PhGV2M-FykYH6bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Subbu ji.

In Padma PurANa, Uttara KhanDa, chapter 72, verse 177 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56918/page/n181/mode/2up)

सर्वदेवमयो ब्रह्म गुरुर्वाग्मीश्वरीपतिः। अनन्तविद्याप्रभवो मूलाविद्याविनाशकः॥

Regards.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3go8aH3BhBVtrvfk72dkYU%3DSxcop2PhGV2M-FykYH6bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:45 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hari Om Subbu ji.

In Padma PurANa, Uttara KhanDa, chapter 72, verse 177 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56918/page/n181/mode/2up)

सर्वदेवमयो ब्रह्म गुरुर्वाग्मीश्वरीपतिः। अनन्तविद्याप्रभवो मूलाविद्याविनाशकः॥

Thanks for this valuable reference.  But the above verse could either be an interpolation of some post-Shankara advaitin or Veda Vyasa meant something other than what the word would mean to an unwary reader 😀  

I am reminded of an anecdote a renowned Advaitin scholar recounted:  He had a co-vidyarthi, a Ramanuja follower.  One day the Advaitin handed a set of verses to this person and asked for an elucidation. The other one gave a very lucid Advaitic explanation to the verses.  When he was told: Actually these are from the Vishnu Purana, then the friend quickly retorted:  Oh, then the verses don't mean what I said; they have a different meaning. 

One more from the same scholar:  If someone were to deny the patent Advaitic meaning to the verses in the Bhagavatam, etc, I have a question to them:  If Veda Vyasa wanted to depict Advaita, how would he do it? What words, analogies would he employ ? (You can't say 'Veda Vyasa does not know Advaita - even for refuting it'). 

warm regards

subbu     

Regards.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

One of the grounds of rejection employed by SSS ji in his works is - भाष्य-अक्षर-बहिर्भावात्. Since your argument is outside the letters of bhAshya, it is rejected.

I wonder if Adi Shankara Himself comes and says - "look, it is mUlAvidyA itself which I meant in bhAshya, and it is mAyA itself which I meant by avidyA etc" - He would be replied back - your statement is rejected -- भाष्य-अक्षर-बहिर्भावात्

So, 2+2 = 4 is wrong, भाष्य-अक्षर-बहिर्भावात्.

Such persons should be told back - this approach of yours is itself rejectable, भाष्य-अक्षर-बहिर्भावात्. After all bhAshya never said that something can be rejected on account of it not being found within bhAshya. It is your fertile imagination that something can be rejected if it is not present in bhAshya.

This is the approach of fanatics and not of those who want to find truth.

Regards.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, 1:40 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

One of the grounds of rejection employed by SSS ji in his works is - भाष्य-अक्षर-बहिर्भावात्. Since your argument is outside the letters of bhAshya, it is rejected.

That puts not only that specific argument, but everything else started by him also in the same category, because we will ask using tarka if those words have bhAShyAkSharabahirbhAvatva or are they bhAshyAkSharAvachChinna?

This is the approach of fanatics and not of those who want to find truth.

True. The others who fall in such a category and thereby, helped me avoid studying their works, are:

--Prabhupadaji who says that one shouldn't study anyone's purport of Gita because one will understand only as much one is fit to understand Gita in that janma! His purport also fell in the same category suggested to avoid.

--Jiddu K used to say that one doesn't need a guru. By teaching others that, that too standing on a platform, he acted like a guru breaking his own rule or asking others not to follow him.

Ergo, SSS too who urged to avoid anything that is not shuddha shAnkara bhAShya has kept not only vyAkhyAnas away, but made his own works out of it, by being bhAShyAkSharAnavachChinna.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

--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] */

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

But even Sureshwara categorically said avidyA as upAdAna kAraNa. Why only "vyAkyAnakArAs"? 

 

Ø     Yes, Sri SSS discusses this reference in nirAsaH and kleshApahAriNi and explains how this usage of upAdAna kAraNa should not be treated as source for later vyAkhyAnakAra-s mUlAvidyAvAda.  If possible I shall share his explanation and I know you are not ready / willing to listen to it 😊

 

//sAyaNa is after shankara right??  Whatever said in mUla not diluted in later works definitely acceptable to us prabhuji.  So, if sAyanAchArya explaining the mUla tattva without going against shankara tattva definitely acceptable to us.//

 

But, as per you, SAyaNa violated Shankara Tattva. Right? He said in Mantra 3 in NAsadIya BhAshya - आत्मतत्वस्यावरकरवान्मायापरसंज्ञं भावरूपाज्ञानमत्र तम इत्युच्यते । Certainly SAyaNa diluted the Shankara-tattva. Did he not? Please share your view.

 

Ø     First of all please note I have not studied sAyana bhashya on veda-s so my opinion / view is hardly a matter of contention.  OTOH, if it is really a valid observation that  sAyana’s observation is definitely going against mUla shankara bhAshya in this particular context or diluting it to some extent  ( sorry I don’t know what context it is said bhAvarUpAjnAnamAtra tama) then I would definitely don’t have any hesitation to say sAyana bhAshya is not representing shankara’s Advaita siddhAnta in this context. 

 

No. I am not searching anywhere. I am just saying that the "manipulation of siddhAnta" is not limited to only vyAkhyAnakArAs but also applied to SAyANAchAryA, an unquestioned authority on Rigveda (except may be by Arya samAjIs). Just wanted the view of SSS' followers on this. 

 

Ø     My humble prostrations to Sri sAyanaachArya as he might be the authoritative commentator on veda-s but at the same time I would like to understand Sri shankara siddhAnta through bhAshyakAra’s works only as it is self-sufficient for his followers. 

 

These two words refer to same entity everywhere. Yeah. Both are synonyms. 

 

Ø     Invariably giving the same meaning irrespective of contexts in which these terms used at different parts of PTB!!??

 

Question may arise -- why these two words.

 

Ø     Not only question about using two different words but also using avidyA and mAya in compound words !! like avidyA paryupasthApita mAya, avidyA Kalpita mAya, avidyA saMyukta mAya etc. 

 

My understanding is -- that entity, which is indicated by the words avidyA or mAyA, is removable by vidyA. Hence, it is called avidyA.

 

• As per my understanding vidyA is not kAraka only jnApaka it can remove only avidyA not mAya as mAya is brahmAbhinna, vidyA can remove stree vyAmOha ( as vyAmOha is duHkha kAraka) not stree herself…and jnAna does not have that capacity to remove what is already existing.  It can only help us to realize what is there actually.  bhUta vastu Vishaya jnAna.  Stree is pratyaksha pramANita and vyAmOha rahita stree jnAna is avagati jnAna.  One pramANa janita jnAna should not supersede by other pramANa janita jnAna.  Vaividhyate in pratyaksha pramANita, ekatva behind it is shAstra pramANita Samyak jnAna. 

 

Further, that entity does not exist, hence it is called mAyA (yA mA, sA mAyA). So, two indicate two aspects of same entity, these two words are used.

 

Ø     But don’t you prabhuji-s vehemently arguing jagat is tuccha absolutely non existing and with the same breath avidyA is an existing / bhAva rUpa / jadAtmaka shakti which is material cause for adhyAsa etc. ??  I am not able to understand what sort of logic it is!!

 

How do I say that? What is the basis?

BhAshyakAra says in MANDUkya - आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः ।

 

He equates MAyA with avidyA. Also, what exactly is the ramification -- न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः.

 

Ø     If I remember right Sri Subbu prabhuji also had quoted this earlier (some 4-5 years ago) when the same topic was being discussed 😊 I think I have replied at that time that we have to read 3-10 and 3-11 together to understand about the body it becomes clear that avidyA and mAya are not synonymous. When the Atman is realized as one without second the socalled individual body discarlded as imagined due to ignorance but from the pAramArthika drushti the reality of the body is accepted and its creation is explained. 

 

Having said that, some of the AchAryAs do distinguish them based on the preponderance of sattva. But none distinguish them fundamentally.

 

Ø     Fundamentally what is there is brahman and brahman alone so no question of talking all these as per the context etc. So the distinction has been made when we are talking about Ishwaraashrita mAya and jeeva’s disease called avidyA.  In this scenario the distinction is very much required and evident as well in bhAshya. 

 

//mAya is anirvachaneeya whereas avidyA is nirvachaneeya.  avidyA is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa whereas it is mAya tattvAnyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeya//

 

If avidyA is bhAvAbhAva-vilakshaNa, then how is it nirvachanIya?

 

• Sorry the word ‘not’ missed here…I meant to say avidyA is NOT bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa whereas mAya is anirvachaneeya, as bhAshyakAra gives the example of water, foam, bubble etc. while explaining Ishwara tattva or anyatva nature of mAya.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

//Yes, Sri SSS discusses this reference in nirAsaH and kleshApahAriNi and explains how this usage of upAdAna kAraNa should not be treated as source for later vyAkhyAnakAra-s mUlAvidyAvAda.  If possible I shall share his explanation and I know you are not ready / willing to listen to it 😊//

But what stopped him to extend the same privilege to vyAkhyAnakArAs? The fact remains that ajnAna is stated as upAdAna kAraNa by both Sureshwara and VivaraNa. Why this biased treatment to others!!

 

 Ø     First of all please note I have not studied sAyana bhashya on veda-s so my opinion / view is hardly a matter of contention. 

How long does it take to read Bhaskar ji? You can read it now. Go ahead. NAsadIya Suktam is considered to be a fundamental study in advaita vedAnta. 

 

OTOH, if it is really a valid observation that  sAyana’s observation is definitely going against mUla shankara bhAshya in this particular context or diluting it to some extent  ( sorry I don’t know what context it is said bhAvarUpAjnAnamAtra tama) then I would definitely don’t have any hesitation to say sAyana bhAshya is not representing shankara’s Advaita siddhAnta in this context. 

Let us study NAsadIya Suktam and discuss.

  

Ø     My humble prostrations to Sri sAyanaachArya as he might be the authoritative commentator on veda-s but at the same time I would like to understand Sri shankara siddhAnta through bhAshyakAra’s works only as it is self-sufficient for his followers. 

Is the "self-sufficiency" of bhashya some kind of fanaticism? What is it? I want to know. What is the basis of asserting that bhAshya are self-sufficient and nothing else is required? Is it written in bhAshya or is it your irrational belief? From where have you got this idea.

 

Ø     Not only question about using two different words but also using avidyA and mAya in compound words !! like avidyA paryupasthApita mAya, avidyA Kalpita mAya, avidyA saMyukta mAya etc. 

No such usage is there. There is a distinction made between nAma-rUpa and nAma-rUpa-bIja. Wherever it is nAma-rUpa-bIja, it is avidyA-Atmaka, avidyA-lakshaNA. Wherever it is nAma-rUpa, it is kalpita/pratyupasthApita. avidyA-samyukta is identical to avidyA-Atmaka.(अविद्यासंयुक्तमिति - अविद्यात्मकम् इत्यर्थः ।)

 

As per my understanding vidyA is not kAraka only jnApaka it can remove only avidyA not mAya as mAya is brahmAbhinna, vidyA can remove stree vyAmOha ( as vyAmOha is duHkha kAraka) not stree herself…and jnAna does not have that capacity to remove what is already existing.  It can only help us to realize what is there actually.  bhUta vastu Vishaya jnAna.  Stree is pratyaksha pramANita and vyAmOha rahita stree jnAna is avagati jnAna.  One pramANa janita jnAna should not supersede by other pramANa janita jnAna.  Vaividhyate in pratyaksha pramANita, ekatva behind it is shAstra pramANita Samyak jnAna. 

Such understanding is wrong. ajnAna-nAsha comes within the domain of jnApakatva only and not kArakatva. Such avidyA being upAdAna-kAraNa, and upAdAna-nAsha being the cause for upAdeya-nAsha, entire nAma-rUpa cease with avidyA-nAsha and yet it is jnAnapakatva only and not kArakatva. 

 

Ø     But don’t you prabhuji-s vehemently arguing jagat is tuccha absolutely non existing and with the same breath avidyA is an existing / bhAva rUpa / jadAtmaka shakti which is material cause for adhyAsa etc. ??  I am not able to understand what sort of logic it is!!

Sir, that jaDAtmikA-shakti is bhAva-vilakshaNA also on account of bAdhaka-sattva therefor. Why do you forget that?

Ø     If I remember right Sri Subbu prabhuji also had quoted this earlier (some 4-5 years ago) when the same topic was being discussed 😊 I think I have replied at that time that we have to read 3-10 and 3-11 together to understand about the body it becomes clear that avidyA and mAya are not synonymous. When the Atman is realized as one without second the socalled individual body discarlded as imagined due to ignorance but from the pAramArthika drushti the reality of the body is accepted and its creation is explained. 

BhAskar ji. Please tell me. What should have BhAshyakAra written to convince you that avidyA is identical to mAyA? In 1.4.3 BSB, he said -- avidyA hi avyaktam. In MANDUKya, He said - Atmanah mAyA avidyA. How else can anyone state their identity. BhAskyakAra ko kya aur kaise bolna chahiye if He wanted to state their identity.

 

Regards.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji, Thank you for your comments - nice to share to support of SSSSji with you though I'm bit a more relaxed about it. Proud even to be able to access and interact with this level of panditry whether we agree or not. A great student of SSSSji,Prof Keralapuraji, observed that SSSSji was not able to break through despite 30 years of zeal. What hope have we? Personally, I believe satya eva jayate - give it time. pranam. 

--

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%2BBCRotj4VFSoLneBo2vi8C0DSS_%2BAO_77B6KG%3D9xh0i7tQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, You keep bring up Sureswara quoting his varitikas. They are massive - are you cherry picking citations or evaluating the body of work? AJ Alston wrote his dissertation on post-Sankara advaita. Cpt 2 was on Sureswara's Naiskarmya Siddhi. His reference the Vartikas overall through a secondary study I don't recall. Here is his conclusion on creation in Sureswara

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

I keep bringing up Sureshwara because it is so clear and so irrefutable.

It says that avidyA is material cause and that relying upon the material causality of avidyA, Brahman is said to be material cause. (BBV 1.4.371)

There can be nothing more direct than that. How else to say that avidyA is material cause!!

And still SSS ji can claim that avidyA is not material cause. Just plain ridiculous!!

Please note that this verse of Sureshwara from Vartika is quoted by the commentator of Mahabharata and also by Madhusudan Saraswati in his Gita commentary. 

So, at least remove Sureshwara from your list. Direct after Shankaracharya, there is advent of SSS ji, after more than 1000 years of darkness in the whole world, to enlighten about shuddha-shankara-prakriya or shuddha-shankara-tattva. Why to give Sureshwara this privilege? Or is it to bring some semblance of reliability in shuddha-shankara-prakriya while there is obviously none.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHLeMjwLGdE0SDzRdvhsXvbZEMchMdpbtsOdBwaf7V80g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

--No need for sarcasm, please - it's always been sattva vada between us. 

--Alston's study disagrees on Sureswara. One citation doesn't prove a vada

--Unbelievability granted -1000+ years of India's greatest minds mistaken Yet, the argument somehow stands. There are enough pandits since 1929, East and West, emic and etic, that accept SSSS's corrections as valid to continue the debate. Let the jury of time decide, I say.   

regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBW7orfhmhz69gGc6chQR80Xi4gTrzrgbm%2BEtNiF7aBDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

--Alston's study disagrees on Sureswara. One citation doesn't prove a vada

How many citations will suffice? 

Please note that entire work of VArtikakAra has been consistently explained by Anandagiri Swami. Also, VArtikakAra is quoted as pramANa by VivaraNa AchAryAs.

So, we see VArtikakAra as affirming material causality of avidyA. Directly and irrefutably. SSS' followers will need to stretch the limits of their fertile imagination to explain BBV 1.4.371 in any other fashion. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

Those who base their entire kapola kalpita dushprakriya on one sentence in adhyAsa bhAshya complain about one citation. Even if you give more than one citation, still it will not satisfy those who have closed their minds. 

Another funny thing is they will say very confidently that whatever you say is never to be found in PTB as though they are the only ones reading PTB. For example one SSS follower told me avidya is never mentioned as an upadhi in PTB. After I gave one citation it was not enough. Then I gave 2 more and he never responded after that.

Logic also is not their forte. In fact one SSS follower was arguing that logic is not important as it is anyway adhyAropa. Rama Rama!

With love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAu0Yu-EK-6Nk6eSM91KV%3DQmBNu%3DsGSzHAaq7m10TjHTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, 6:15 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

commentary. 

Direct after Shankaracharya, there is advent of SSS ji, after more than 1000 years of darkness in the whole world, to enlighten about shuddha-shankara-prakriya or shuddha-shankara-tattva. 

For some reason, this 1200 years of sampradAya is laughed at, but someone who did so, his and his fanatic following's 30-50-60 yrs of commitment to find faults where none exists should not be criticized! It is being cried for!! And you expect logic from them!

The scholars such as Ms. Hegde should try to defend SSS by studying and responding to Vid.Ramaji's Paper on SSS pointwise, instead of attacking sampradAya using what SSS said. While calling the entire sampradAya as wrong, they quote a praise or two from HH Sringeri as pramANa. Why isn't that  wrong?!

Kind rgds,

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

The scholars such as Ms. Hegde should try to defend SSS by studying and responding to Vid.Ramaji's Paper on SSS pointwise, instead of attacking sampradAya using what SSS said. While calling the entire sampradAya as wrong, they quote a praise or two from HH Sringeri as pramANa. Why isn't that  wrong?!

I feel is the quest is to know truth, there can be an unbiased study. 

In Indian tradition and in any civilised interaction, when a person is unable to answer the opponent's objection, he is duty bound to accept what the other person proved. Becoming answerless and yet to carry on with one's view is a matter of ridicule.

The point is, if you want truth, then being defeated is a matter of joy. At least, now you have got to know truth.

Around six years back, ignorant of the unimaginable depth of VivaraNa AchAryAs, and having restricted myself to only bhAshya, I too had some wrong ideas. When confronted by a VivaraNa scholar, Shri Rahul ji and some on this forum like yourself and Venkatraghavan ji, I immediately understood that I am wrong.

But then that is a matter of joy. At least you won't be wrong any further. And when one comes across the teachings of our AchAryAs, it is impossible to not be immediately convinced by that. It requires an absolutely stubborn, fanatic and biased mind to not surrender before VivaraNa.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, 10:07 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

The point is, if you want truth, then being defeated is a matter of joy. At least, now you have got to know truth.

Very well said. The stalwarts of the order of Bhagavan Mandana Mishra have surrendered the entire darshana owing to this tattvabubhutsayA kathanaM vAdaH.

On a related note, someone had recently sent the following:

*निग्रहस्थानानाम् आवली* । (पराजयस्थानानि, List of lost situations in a debate) 

१ प्रतिज्ञाहानिः 

 त्रिविधा - पक्षहानिः  सात्यहानिः  हेतुहानिः च।

२ प्रतिज्ञान्तरम्

  परोक्तदोषनिवारणाय पूर्वोक्तप्रतिज्ञायां विशेषेण परिष्कारः।

३ प्रतिज्ञाविरोधः

४ प्रतिज्ञासन्यासः

५ हेतु अनन्तरम् 

६ अर्धान्तकम्

७ निरर्धकम्

८ अभिज्ञातार्थम्

९ अपार्थम्

१० अप्राप्तकालम्

११ न्यूनम्

१२ अधिकम् 

१३ पुनरुक्तम्

१४ अननुभाषणम्

१५ अज्ञानम्

१६ अप्रतिभा

१७ विक्षेपः

१८ मतानुज्ञा

१९ पर्यनुज्योपेक्षणम्

२० निर्यनुयोज्यानुयोग्यः अनिग्रहस्थाने निग्रहस्थानाभियोगः

२१ अपसिद्धान्तः 

२२ हेत्वाभासाः

At least you won't be wrong any further. And when one comes across the teachings of our AchAryAs, it is impossible to not be immediately convinced by that.

Such shraddhA or buddhisAmarthya also needs a lot of anugraha. 

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

Ananta Chaitanya

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Namaste Bhaskarji, Thank you for your comments - nice to share to support of SSSSji with you though I'm bit a more relaxed about it. Proud even to be able to access and interact with this level of panditry whether we agree or not. A great student of SSSSji,Prof Keralapuraji, observed that SSSSji was not able to break through despite 30 years of zeal. What hope have we? Personally, I believe satya eva jayate - give it time. pranam. 

 

Ø     Yes, when the surrounding is completely filled with dry logicians where is the place for anubhava sammata shrutyukta tarka??  What Sri SSS’s writes and elaborates is anubhava sammata shrutyukta tarka which bhAshyakAra also emphasized which might be the ‘news’ for mere logicians😊 Anyway we should not stop our efforts to stick to ONLY Shuddha shankara prakriya infact that is what is need of the hour amidst onslaught of mere logicians and passionate followers of some fabricated version of shankara vedAnta in vyAkhyAna-s and to defend that they even ready to throw the silly questions like :  why only shankara bhAshya!!?? And passing comments like following only shankara bhAshya you are a fanatic etc.  I am really surprised to see the mindset of these prabhuji-s they may go to any extent to float their pet theories.  Unfortunately those who have opted exclusive jnAna mArga not exception to this hysterical blabbering  and seems they are yet to travel a long way in their chosen path if not they are no better than us 😊  But anyway, we are noway eligible for any worthy comments on them as we are loukika-s.  May the shrutimAta and bhagavatpAda guide all of us in right path. 

[V Subrahmanian]

https://archive.org/details/naiskarmyasiddhi_201510/page/n117/mode/2up

It is nice to note Sureshwaracharya mentioning the 'was not, is not, will not be' idea in the introduction to this verse in the Naish.siddhi which he says in this Bri.Up.bh.vartika too:

तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्योत्थसंयग्धीजन्ममात्रतः । 

अविद्या सह कार्येण नासीदस्ति भविष्यति ॥ 

The Tattvamasi, etc. passages give rise to that knowledge which dispels the avidya, along with its effects, which is non-existent in all the three periods of time. 

Thus, Sureshwara accepts a causal Avidya and its effects.  

This is from Naishkarmyasiddhi:

Sureshwara does say that in the absolute sense, Atman is never tainted by Avidya. Yet, the effort to free oneself from Avidya, based on the teaching of the Vedanta, which accepts such an Avidya in the relative realm, is also accepted by Sureshwara in the first cited verse of the BBhV.

Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal, in a recent discourse said:  The Adhyasa Bhashya is a document that is so relevant to focus on the closest/immediate cause of suffering/bondage and that is Adhyasa. The shaastra teaches us that the invisible cause can be removed/weakened by addressing the visible effect. Adhyasa and its manifestations are the closest for a seeker to address.  When that is done, the root cause of adhyasa gets weakened. 

This explanation clarifies the Adhyasa bhashya sentence: तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते । तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणं विद्यामाहुः ।   

The effect is referred to by the cause.  Shankara has used this method in the explanation of the KaTha passage महतः परमव्यक्तम् where the word avyaktam is given the meaning: gross body in the Sutra bhashya discussion.  Shankara argues that the gross body is referred to by the name 'avyaktam' since it is the cause of the gross body (through pancha bhutas).  Shankara cites a vedic passage:    

सूक्ष्मं तु तदर्हत्वात् ॥ २ ॥  BSB 1.4.2 (Aanumaanaadhikaranam)

यद्यपि स्थूलमिदं शरीरं न स्वयमव्यक्तशब्दमर्हति, तथापि तस्य त्वारम्भकं भूतसूक्ष्ममव्यक्तशब्दमर्हति । प्रकृतिशब्दश्च विकारे दृष्टः — यथा ‘गोभिः श्रीणीत मत्सरम्’ (ऋ. सं. ९ । ४६ । ४) इति । श्रुतिश्च — ‘तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत्’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । ७) इतीदमेव व्याकृतनामरूपविभिन्नं जगत्प्रागवस्थायां परित्यक्तव्याकृतनामरूपं बीजशक्त्यवस्थमव्यक्तशब्दयोग्यं दर्शयति ॥ २ ॥

Shankara gives this pramana for the concept: effect is denoted by the cause:

1. Rg Veda:  for the word 'ghee' (clarified butter), the word 'cow' is used.

and concludes: 

Bruhadaranya up. 1.4.7 which says:  This (manifest world of names and forms) was avyAkritam.  The causal state of the effect, the manifest world, is avyAkrita the unmanifest. 

Thus, the adhyasa = avidya is to be understood as 'adhyasa, the effect, is denoted by its cause, avidya'.

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/AM7PR06MB6625BFC070936DB261BF2444848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On what basis are you claiming that what the vyAkhyAnakAras have written is mere dry logic and not anubhava sammata shrutyukta tarka? Are you personally aware of their lack of anubhava?

Just calling something 'mere logic' does not make it so. Do you know this position is not backed by the shruti? In fact several shruti statements refer to a bhAvarUpA avidyA. 

Similarly calling something anubhava sammata does not make it so - unless it is your own anubhava, what statement can you make regarding anyone else's? Just having anubhava does not make it valid - one has anubhava of a snake where there is rope. Does that make such an anubhava, prAmANika?

Same goes for the term shuddha shAnkara prakriyA. Sri SSS calls it shuddha shAnkara prakriyA while contradicting all the vyAkhyAnakAras. We are debating whether that name is valid for what he has proposed. Until that is determined for a fact, that is also not prAmANika. 

These are all names and we cannot debate something on the basis of what one calls it, because another person can call it something else. 

If you are not willing to or able to argue your position, that does not make the other person who is willing to argue a "mere logician" or their argument lacking anubhava. That is an unfair characterisation.

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/AM7PR06MB6625BFC070936DB261BF2444848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

On what basis are you claiming that what the vyAkhyAnakAras have written is mere dry logic and not anubhava sammata shrutyukta tarka? Are you personally aware of their lack of anubhava?

 

Ø     Dear prabhuji what Sri SSS talking about is our tarka should be based on shruti and anubhava (not individual anubhava anyway).  When shankara talked adhyAsa he has not given any pramANa vAkya nor based his observation on mere tarka but he talked about adhyAsa purely on the basis of svAbhAvika /naisargika anubhava.  The subsequent theories developed on avidyA / adhyAsa just to counter the dualists objection on avidyA is mainly based on mere tarka not on anubhava.  His (Sri SSS) emphasis is always on anubhava sammata vedAnta siddhAnta not mere tarka pratipAdita theory.  As there is always a limitation to human intellect generated tarka and there is every chance of breaking this tarka at a later stage by more smart logicians.  The place of logic in vedAnta should not override the anubhava and yukti that is embedded in shruti. 

 

Just calling something 'mere logic' does not make it so. Do you know this position is not backed by the shruti? In fact several shruti statements refer to a bhAvarUpA avidyA. 

 

Ø     This socalled bhAvarUpa avidyA is not something holding the motherly position apart from what bhAshyakAra categorically cleared, i.e. jnAnAbhAva, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  So fouth type of ‘leader’ avidyA is alien theory in shankara’s Shuddha Vedanta prakriya declares Sri SSS.

 

Similarly calling something anubhava sammata does not make it so - unless it is your own anubhava,

 

• By the way own or individual (vaiyuktika) anubhava is not the pramANa as you know bhAshyakAra himself clears this doubt by quoting kapila kANAda.  So, please don’t think Sri SSS advocating individual anubhava and asking us to stick to ‘anubhava sammata tarka’. 

 

what statement can you make regarding anyone else's?

 

• As cleared above he is NOT talking about anyone else’s individual anubhava (the samAdhi is one of those individual anubhava). 

 

Just having anubhava does not make it valid - one has anubhava of a snake where there is rope. Does that make such an anubhava, prAmANika?

 

Ø     Please see above.  One may see snake, one may see garland one may see mUtra dhAre as per their respective saMskAra bala, the sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava is not something of this order. 

 

Same goes for the term shuddha shAnkara prakriyA. Sri SSS calls it shuddha shAnkara prakriyA while contradicting all the vyAkhyAnakAras.

 

• He is not contradicting all the vyAkhyAnakAra in all the aspects of Advaita vedAnta this is what most of you prabhuji-s erroneously thinking about him.  He himself reverentially acknowledges the contribution of post shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s wherever it is deserved.    

 

We are debating whether that name is valid for what he has proposed. Until that is determined for a fact, that is also not prAmANika. 

 

Ø     I am sorry, it is prAmANika for us who follow him.  Like you prabhuji-s passionately embrace whatever vyAkhyAnakAra-s say, we the followers of Sri SSS too would definitely take his opinion as prAmANika and authentic to determine Shuddha shankara prakriya.  After all he is asking us to go back to mUla not insisting whatever he says is right and final that approach is enough for us to take his words as prAmANika.  bhAshyamekam sharaNam vraja.  If this stand too not palatable to some and calling it as fanaticism we cannot help it but to smile at them. 

 

These are all names and we cannot debate something on the basis of what one calls it, because another person can call it something else. 

 

Ø     Yes, that is the reason why there is a call to go back to mUla and someone asking us to stick to what bhAshyakAra names it and elaborates it.  Do you think this is an unpardonable sin and fanatic approach to understand shankara vedAnta?? 

 

If you are not willing to or able to argue your position, that does not make the other person who is willing to argue a "mere logician" or their argument lacking anubhava. That is an unfair characterisation.

 

Ø     Dear prabhuji whether I am willing to debate or otherwise that is secondary.  Whenever time permits definitely I will show a bit.  What I am trying to say here is what Sri SSS emphasized.  If some one says someone who is standing in front of him :  See, I am going to prove logically you are not in front of me, what sort of debate that would be when it is plainly going against your anubhava!!??  It is upto the individual’s discretion whether to indulge in mere logic based debates like this or sticking to anubhava sammata shruti anugraheeta tarka as mananaM part. 

 

• Kindly pardon me if I said anything harsh. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

//Anyway we should not stop our efforts to stick to ONLY Shuddha shankara prakriya infact that is what is need of the hour amidst onslaught of mere logicians and passionate followers of some fabricated version of shankara vedAnta in vyAkhyAna-s and to defend that they even ready to throw the silly questions like :  why only shankara bhAshya!!??//

What is silly here in asking why "only" ShAnkar BhAshya? How did you get indoctrinated by this idea that you should not refer anything other than ShAnkar BhAshya. Then why on earth do you read what SSS ji wrote. That is not ShAnkar BhAshya either. And if you read SSS to understand ShAnkar BhAshya better, what stops you in extending the same argument to those who read other works to understand bhAshya better.

//And passing comments like following only shankara bhAshya you are a fanatic etc.//

Restricting yourself to only ShAnkar BhAshya without a cogent explanation therefor shows your fanaticism. Otherwise explain your presumption. 

//Unfortunately those who have opted exclusive jnAna mArga not exception to this hysterical blabbering//

I am afraid you have confused jnAna-mArga for intellectual lethargy and fanaticism. As Michael ji said -- "let time be the jury, let time decide". This is an example of intellectual lethargy, when despite becoming answerless, you trod the same path.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Sri SSS’s take on vArtikakAra is very simple and straightforward.  He observes in one of his works : the vArtikakAra has NOT accepted mUlAvidyA as advocated by the vivaraNakAra.  As per vArtika prakriya barring the three aspects of ajnAna for jnAna there is no other obstacle whatsoever.  AjnAna or jnAnAbhAva itself is the essence of the other two variants i.e. misconception and doubt.  So any number of vArtika quotes would simply cannot go against this final stand on avidyA by vArtikakAra.  Sri Vittala shastri talks about these vArtika references and clarifies that these quotes would not help us to prove ‘fourth’ type of avidyA which is conspicuous by its absence in Tai. & bru vArtika and NS.  He further clarified that there is no profound and pronounced differences in vArtika-s when compared to mUla bhAshya. vArtikakAra not only followed mUla bhAshya religiously but also added some yukti-s (logical devices) of bhAshyakAra to further strengthening them.  There are some place there is a talk about upAdAnatva of avidyA etc. but it is not the subject matter of proving avidyA upAdAna kAranatva in that particular context, and here too avidyA is jnAnAbhAva only that leads to adhyAsa.  So, Sri SSS’s followers may please be assured that unlike vyAkhyAna, vArtika followed mUla and elaborated whatever in mUla without introducing some extra alien concepts like bhAvarUpa, jadAtmaka, anirvachaneeya brahmAshrita, sadasatvilakshaNa  mUlAvidyA. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

 

Sri SSS’s take on vArtikakAra is very simple and straightforward.

And erroneous also, emanating out of non-appreciation of straight forward meaning. VArtika says- अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते।। VArtika further says - उपादानं हि बुद्ध्यादेरात्माविद्येति भण्यते। सकृद्विभातं चिन्मात्रं ज्योतिरित्युपदिश्यते।। Whoever on earth translates/interprets that avidyA is not upAdAna kAraNa is himself mistaken and also tries to confuse others.

 

He observes in one of his works : the vArtikakAra has NOT accepted mUlAvidyA as advocated by the vivaraNakAra.

His observation is faulty owing to the promulgation of upAdAna-kAraNatva of avidyA.

 

 As per vArtika prakriya barring the three aspects of ajnAna for jnAna there is no other obstacle whatsoever.  AjnAna or jnAnAbhAva itself is the essence of the other two variants i.e. misconception and doubt.

UpAdAna-kAraNatva of avidyA is bAdhaka-sattva for abhAvatva of avidyA. 

 

So any number of vArtika quotes would simply cannot go against this final stand on avidyA by vArtikakAra.

This "final" stand on VArtika by SSS ji emanates out of fundamental misunderstanding of bhAshya and VArtika. 

 

Sri Vittala shastri talks about these vArtika references and clarifies that these quotes would not help us to prove ‘fourth’ type of avidyA which is conspicuous by its absence in Tai. & bru vArtika and NS.  He further clarified that there is no profound and pronounced differences in vArtika-s when compared to mUla bhAshya.

Ab ye Vitthala ShAstri kaun hain? Unke kahne se kya ho jata hai? "conspicuous by absence" in VArtika? See the following:

1. आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा। आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः प्रयोजकमिहेष्यते।।(BBV 4.3.355)
2. तदात्मज्योतिषेद्धं सन्नित्यमेवावतिष्ठते। उत्पत्तिस्थितिभङ्गानां न वेद्मीति च साक्षित:।। (BBV 4.3.351)
3. आत्माविद्यैव नः शक्तिः सर्वशक्यस्य सर्जने । नातोऽन्यथा शक्तिवादः प्रमाणेनावसीयते ।।
4. अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते।।  (BBV 1.4.371)
5. अज्ञानमात्रोपाधित्वादविद्यामुषितात्मभिः। कौटस्थ्यान्निर्द्वयोऽप्यात्मा साक्षीत्यध्यस्यते जडै:।।  (BBV 1.4.372)
6. अत्यन्ताननुभूतेषु हिमवत्पृष्ठवस्तुषु। जाग्रतोऽनुभवोऽप्येवं सुषुप्तान्न विशिष्यते।। (Sambandha BhAshya VArtika 995)
7. सुषुप्त्याख्यं तमोऽज्ञानं बीजं स्वप्नप्रबोधयोः। स्वात्मबोधप्रदग्धं स्याद्बीजं दग्धं यथाऽभवम्।। (NS 4.43)
   
8. बाह्यां वृत्तिमनुत्पाद्य व्यक्तिं स्यान्नाहमो यथा। नर्ते न्त:करणं तद्वद् ध्वान्तस्य व्यक्ति राञ्जसी।। (NS 4.58)
9. योऽप्यविद्यादिसम्बन्ध: सोऽप्यविद्याप्रकल्पितः। वास्तवसत्वभिसम्बन्धो नोपपत्त्याऽऽत्मनो यतः।। (BBV 4.3.95)
   
10. उपादानं हि बुद्ध्यादेरात्माविद्येति भण्यते। सकृद्विभातं चिन्मात्रं ज्योतिरित्युपदिश्यते।।  
11. अविद्यास्रोतसैवास्य क्रियाकारकताऽऽत्मन:। तत्स्थचैतन्यबिम्बेन भुङ्क्तेऽसौ कर्मणः फलम्।।
    
12. जाग्रत स्वप्न सुषुप्तेषु त्वात्माविद्या मृषा सती। व्यवहारपथं प्राप्ता स्वतःसिद्धात्मसाक्षिका।।
    
13. आत्माभासोऽपि योऽज्ञाने तत्कार्ये चावभासते। कार्यकारणतारूपस्तमप्येषोऽतिवर्तते।।    
    
14. बुध्यादिष्वपि सूक्ष्मेषु यत्सूक्ष्मतममुच्यते। बुध्यादिकारणं नित्यमात्माविद्येति भण्यते।। (348)
    
15. चैतन्याभासावत्प्रत्यङ्मोहान्तात्प्रत्यगात्मनः। बुध्यादेर्विषयान्तस्य सिद्धि: स्यात्साक्षिणस्ततः।।(356) 

vArtikakAra not only followed mUla bhAshya religiously but also added some yukti-s (logical devices) of bhAshyakAra to further strengthening them. 

This you have stated right. But please forget about SSS' explanation which not only violates BhAshya but also explicit words of vArtika. It is in infact brazen to distort the clear words of VArtika. I mean, come on Bhaskar ji. VArtika is saying avidyA is upAdAna kAraNa and you are saying - no, it is not saying. Come on. 

 

There are some place there is a talk about upAdAnatva of avidyA etc. but it is not the subject matter of proving avidyA upAdAna kAranatva in that particular context, and here too avidyA is jnAnAbhAva only that leads to adhyAsa.

Utter hysterical blabbering.

 

  So, Sri SSS’s followers may please be assured that unlike vyAkhyAna, vArtika followed mUla and elaborated whatever in mUla without introducing some extra alien concepts like bhAvarUpa, jadAtmaka, anirvachaneeya brahmAshrita, sadasatvilakshaNa  mUlAvidyA. 

Bekaar ki baat. VArtika, BhAshya and anubhava all certify bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA avidyA which is the material cause of anirvachanIya prapancha.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

What is silly here in asking why "only" ShAnkar BhAshya?

 

• Asking why only shankara in understanding shankara bhAshya, is silly and ridiculous.  After all you should know that we are trying to understand shankara vedAnta through what bhAshyakAra himself said.  If anyone doubts it’s necessity and throwing questions it is kevala ‘bAlisha’. 

 

How did you get indoctrinated by this idea that you should not refer anything other than ShAnkar BhAshya.

 

• First you should come out of clutches of vyAkhyAna influence,  then only you would realize the importance of bhAshya and ONLY bhAshya.  And at that point of time only you would stop raising questions / doubts like this and making nonsense comments like indoctrination/brainwashing etc.  Till that time you can enjoy your rubbish comments like this on those who want to follow shankara and ONLY shankara.  Do I have to remind you that personal attacks like this is the sign of desperation ??

 

Then why on earth do you read what SSS ji wrote. 

 

• Because Sri SSS does not ask us to read / study what he writes but asking us to ‘go back home’.  If you don’t understand this simple task given by him, I don’t know how can I help you!!??

 

That is not ShAnkar BhAshya either.

 

• You can have your own grand imagination on what he writes and advocates that is not my problem.

 

And if you read SSS to understand ShAnkar BhAshya better, what stops you in extending the same argument to those who read other works to understand bhAshya better.

 

Ø     Ayyo raama!!  Where I have said Sri SSS started his own prakriya to understand shankara OTOH Sri SSS asked us to stick to mUlabhAshya when these vyAkhyAnakAra-s themselves indulging in street battle and do not accept one another’s interpretations and opinions.  Do you think his call is fanaticism and an attempt of indoctrination??  Please be sensible before passing the comments like this. 

 

Restricting yourself to only ShAnkar BhAshya without a cogent explanation therefor shows your fanaticism. Otherwise explain your presumption. 

 

Ø    Asking the question about importance of sticking to shankara bhAshya in shankara sampradaya!!??   This is one of the most rubbish comments I have ever heard in shankara sampradaya does not deserve any reply. 

 

//Unfortunately those who have opted exclusive jnAna mArga not exception to this hysterical blabbering//

 

I am afraid you have confused jnAna-mArga for intellectual lethargy and fanaticism.

 

• Again you are out of your mind when passing the comments like this.  Please go back and read what I said under what context about the exclusive jnAna mArga followers and their involvement in belittling other guru-s. 

 

As Michael ji said -- "let time be the jury, let time decide". This is an example of intellectual lethargy, when despite becoming answerless, you trod the same path.

 

Ø     Sri MCC prabhuji is really patient despite your repeated attacks and sarcasms on him.  Perhaps, other way of looking at it is  they have better things to do then answering your queries loaded with mere dry logic.  And you can also note that they are not answerable to each and every nuisance of yours. 

 

• Finally being a good friend of mine ( barring the differences ) I am requesting you restrain yourself from personal attacks.  You would be better served in your purpose of your stay in this group. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

First you should come out of clutches of vyAkhyAna influence,  then only you would realize the importance of bhAshya and ONLY bhAshya.  And at that point of time only you would stop raising questions / doubts like this and making nonsense comments like indoctrination/brainwashing etc.  Till that time you can enjoy your rubbish comments like this on those who want to follow shankara and ONLY shankara.  Do I have to remind you that personal attacks like this is the sign of desperation ??

Sir. None is undermining the importance of bhAshya. But why should one restrict to "only" bhAshya? I mean if some text helps me to understand bhAshya - why should it not be studied? Do you mean we should not study vArtika, Naishkarmya Siddhi? If yes, then why SSS ji commented on NS?  

//Because Sri SSS does not ask us to read / study what he writes but asking us to ‘go back home’.  If you don’t understand this simple task given by him, I don’t know how can I help you!!??//

But how is Naishkamrya Siddhi "home"? If you are restricting only to BhAshya, why are you reading NS?

 You can have your own grand imagination on what he writes and advocates that is not my problem.

This is a non-answer.

 

Ø     Ayyo raama!!  Where I have said Sri SSS started his own prakriya to understand shankara OTOH Sri SSS asked us to stick to mUlabhAshya when these vyAkhyAnakAra-s themselves indulging in street battle and do not accept one another’s interpretations and opinions. 

This can be said in one line by SSS ji - read bhAshya only. Why did he write 10000 pages? What was the need? Go to bhAshya - is sufficient.

 //Do you think his call is fanaticism and an attempt of indoctrination??  Please be sensible before passing the comments like this.//

Yes Bhaskar ji. It is fanaticism and indoctrination because it kills your intellectual capacity by being blind. 

 

 Asking the question about importance of sticking to shankara bhAshya in shankara sampradaya!!??   This is one of the most rubbish comments I have ever heard in shankara sampradaya does not deserve any reply. 

Sir ji. Some basic class-8 grammar book may please be revisited. Question is not about the importance of sticking to bHAshya. Question is about sticking to only bhAshya.

Rest of your comments are being ignored. 

If you can, answer the arguments adduced which show gross misunderstanding by SSS ji of fundamental concepts of pratiyogitA-avachchhedaktaA, bhAvarUpatva of ajnAna proved through anumAna, pratyaksha and NAsadIya Shruti-pramANa and numerous bhAshya and vArtika reference.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Ø      The subsequent theories developed on avidyA / adhyAsa just to counter the dualists objection on avidyA is mainly based on mere tarka not on anubhava. 

This is merely an unsupported assertion ji, not an argument. You have to provide some reason as to why their theory is kevala tarka, because the vyAkhyAnakAras give the counter argument of shruti pramANa "tama AsIt", "anRtena hi pratyUDhAh", smRti pramANa "ajnAnena AvRtam jnAnam", anubhava of suShupti "na kincid avediSham" in addition to the anumAna pramANa for the existence of bhAva rUpA (ie abhAva vilakshaNa) avidyA.

His (Sri SSS) emphasis is always on anubhava sammata vedAnta siddhAnta not mere tarka pratipAdita theory. 

That may be true, but what is being discussed is not kevala tarka pratipAdita, without pramANa support, as you allege.

As there is always a limitation to human intellect generated tarka and there is every chance of breaking this tarka at a later stage by more smart logicians.  The place of logic in vedAnta should not override the anubhava and yukti that is embedded in shruti. 

Indeed - however, again, the vyAkhyAnakAras do not merely state tarka, without also providing shruti and other pramANas.

 

Ø     This socalled bhAvarUpa avidyA is not something holding the motherly position apart from what bhAshyakAra categorically cleared, i.e. jnAnAbhAva, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. 

Shankaracharya hasn't done this - in fact he has done the opposite. Elsewhere he equates avidyA with mAyA, avyaktam etc, which you agree is not jnAna abhAva.

So fouth type of ‘leader’ avidyA is alien theory in shankara’s Shuddha Vedanta prakriya declares Sri SSS.

Not sure what you mean fourth type, but if you mean it is sadasatvilakshaNa, then that is indeed the case. The world is sadasatvilakshaNa, like its upAdAnakAraNa, avidyA.

• By the way own or individual (vaiyuktika) anubhava is not the pramANa as you know bhAshyakAra himself clears this doubt by quoting kapila kANAda.  So, please don’t think Sri SSS advocating individual anubhava and asking us to stick to ‘anubhava sammata tarka’. 

I agree, one's own anubhava cannot be a pramANa.

Same goes for the term shuddha shAnkara prakriyA. Sri SSS calls it shuddha shAnkara prakriyA while contradicting all the vyAkhyAnakAras.

 

• He is not contradicting all the vyAkhyAnakAra in all the aspects of Advaita vedAnta this is what most of you prabhuji-s erroneously thinking about him.  He himself reverentially acknowledges the contribution of post shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s wherever it is deserved.    

By contradiction what I meant to say was that he claimed that mUlAvidyA was an invention of the vyAkhyAnakAras, and has no place in Vedanta.

We are debating whether that name is valid for what he has proposed. Until that is determined for a fact, that is also not prAmANika. 

 

Ø     I am sorry, it is prAmANika for us who follow him.

Correct, I am not doubting your shraddhA in Sri SSS. Of course for you he will be prAmANika. However, when debating with someone who does not agree with Sri SSS' views in this regard, to quote his position here as pramANa is not acceptable. Reasoning has to be provided in support, not merely statements or assertions.

Like you prabhuji-s passionately embrace whatever vyAkhyAnakAra-s say, we the followers of Sri SSS too would definitely take his opinion as prAmANika and authentic to determine Shuddha shankara prakriya.  After all he is asking us to go back to mUla not insisting whatever he says is right and final that approach is enough for us to take his words as prAmANika.  bhAshyamekam sharaNam vraja.  If this stand too not palatable to some and calling it as fanaticism we cannot help it but to smile at them. 

Of course, the bhAShya is prAmANika for me also, but there has to be a recognition that ultimately the basis of the bhAShya is shruti - so your comment about bhAShyekam sharaNam vraja, is more appropriately directed to shruti. Ultimately, we all have to take refuge in the shruti. The bhAshyakAra Himself would agree with this. 

Coming to our situation - where the bhAShya's meaning is being debated, the interpretation of that debated portion has to be in lines of other pramANa-s such as shruti, anumAna etc. One cannot dismiss the use of anumANa here as kevala tarka - it is a necessary means to understand the bhAShya. Otherwise, the two sides will be simply shouting slogans at each other - this is a forum for discussion, not sloganeering or heckling. This necessitates the use of pramANas.

Also, we are not randomly using reasoning to prove some sva-kapola-kalpita-viShaya, that the sky is red, for example ; we are using it in the context of understanding shruti and shAstra (bhAShya). Thus the use of tarka and anumAna is very much justified.

If there is a flaw in the anumAna here, by all means point it out - like Sudhanshu Ji did in the case of Sri SSS' statements where the latter sought to prove that abhAva jnAna does not require pratiyogi jnAna. When that is being done, as a Sri SSS sampradAya follower, you should address the specific charge he has raised, you cannot simply dismiss that reasoning as shuShka tarka. 

 

Also please note that no one is questioning the validity of the bhAShya - we all have the highest reverence for it. But so did the vyAkhyAnakAras also. 

So, let us by all means go back to the bhAShya to understand what Shankaracharya had in mind - but it is not always clear, and it is our duty as shiShyas in shAnkara sampradAya to use all means - ie all pramANa-s available to understand the bhAShya.

Ø     Dear prabhuji whether I am willing to debate or otherwise that is secondary.  Whenever time permits definitely I will show a bit.  What I am trying to say here is what Sri SSS emphasized.  If some one says someone who is standing in front of him :  See, I am going to prove logically you are not in front of me, what sort of debate that would be when it is plainly going against your anubhava!!??

That is true in the example of someone standing in front of you. But here, this is not a case of someone standing in front of you - whether avidyA is jnAna abhAva or abhAva vilakshaNa is not a matter of anyone's experience.

  It is upto the individual’s discretion whether to indulge in mere logic based debates like this or sticking to anubhava sammata shruti anugraheeta tarka as mananaM part. 

Of course, one is free to do as one pleases - but if one is making an assertion, that has to be backed by pramANa. One cannot keep repeating the assertion as an argument, especially when flaws are being pointed against such an assertion.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

• Kindly pardon me if I said anything harsh. 

 

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/AM7PR06MB6625B89B05731128F8A69753848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

//That is true in the example of someone standing in front of you. But here, this is not a case of someone standing in front of you - whether avidyA is jnAna abhAva or abhAva vilakshaNa is not a matter of anyone's experience.//

It is such an important issue to understand. 

While avidyA, per se, is sAkshI-bhAsya and hence undisputedly agreed upon by everyone, its visheshaNAs are not sAkshi-bhAsya. Rather, they are pramANa-gamya.

I mean - no one disagrees with the experience - I am ignorant. Everyone agrees about being ignorant. That ignorance is the object of perception is also admitted by bhAshyakAra-  यदि पुनः अविद्या #ज्ञेया, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव । तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति । यदा च एवम् , अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति ॥

Now, avidyA cannot be pramANa-gamya because pramANa is a remover of avidyA. anupalabdhi is also a pramANa. If avidyA were to be jnAna-abhAva, then it would be anupalabdhi-pramANa-gamya. But then, pramANa being a remover of avidyA, cannot really make avidyA known.

So, avidyA has to be sAkshi-bhAsya. It is prior to pramANa-vyApAra.

And yet, its attributes such as anAditva, bhAvarUptva etc are not sAkshi-bhAsya. Rather they are pramANa-gamya. And that is why, there is so much of discussion about them as to whether avidyA is bhAvarUpa or not etc.

So, pramANa is a must to prove to bhAvarUpatva of avidyA. Its usage cannot be pooh-poohed in the guise of "shushka tarka".

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Excellent points. I was reading a comment by Anandagiri AchArya to the mANDUkya kArikA bhAShya now which says this too.

In commenting on kArika 1.2, Shankaracharya says - निर्बीजतयैव चेत् , सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः, बीजाभावाविशेषात् , ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ; तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।

This bhAShya itself is a pramANa for avidyA being abhAva vilakshaNA, but Anandagiri's TIkA makes many of the points that you have raised below.

To this, Anandagiri AchArya says - अज्ञोऽहमित्यज्ञानमपरोक्षम् । अग्रहणस्य च ग्रहणप्रागभावस्य नापरोक्षत्वमिन्द्रियसन्निकर्षाभावादनुपलब्धिगम्यत्वाच्च । भ्रान्तितत्संस्कारयोश्चाभावेतरकार्यत्वादुपादानापेक्षणादात्मनश्च केवलस्यातद्धेतुत्वात्तदुपादानत्वेनानाद्यज्ञानसिद्धिः । किं च देवदत्तप्रमा तन्निष्ठप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्ता‍नादिप्रध्वंसिनी प्रमात्वाद् यज्ञदत्तप्रमावत् । न च तदभावे सम्यग्ज्ञानार्थवत्त्वम् । क्षणिकत्वेन भ्रान्तेस्तदनिवर्त्यत्वात् संस्कारस्य च सत्यपि सम्यग्ज्ञाने क्वचिदनुवृत्तिदर्शनात् । न चाग्रहणस्य तन्निवर्त्यत्वम् । ज्ञानस्य तन्निवृत्तित्वात् । अतो ज्ञानदाह्यं संसारबीजभूतमनाद्यनिर्वाच्यमज्ञानं ज्ञानस्यार्थवत्त्वायाऽऽस्थेयम् । अन्यथा तदानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गादित्यर्थः ।

Ignorance is directly known in the notion "I am ignorant", whereas the absence of knowledge or the prior absence of knowledge, cannot be directly perceived, because of the impossibility of contact with the senses (with absence), and because absence can only be known by anupalabdhi (1). As both illusion and its latent impressions can only be the product of a non-absent thing, there is the requirement of some material cause for them, and pure self cannot be that cause, a beginningless ignorance as that material cause stands proven. Further, the anumAna "Devadatta's valid knowledge is the destroyer of a beginningless entity which is different to the prior absence of valid knowledge, because it is valid knowledge, like Yajnadatta's valid knowledge", also proves the existence of such an ignorance. In the absence of such an ignorance, samyag-jnAna, right knowledge, can have no utility. As illusions are momentary, one cannot say that the utility of knowledge lies in the removal of illusions (they can lapse even without the rise of right knowledge), and with respect to latent impressions, they can persist even when right knowledge is present. The absence of knowledge is not a thing to be removed by knowledge - whereas knowledge can remove that (a beginningless ignorance). Therefore, a beginningless, anirvAcya ignorance, which is the causal seed of samsAra, capable of being burnt by knowledge, must be accepted for knowledge to have purpose. Otherwise, knowledge will be meaningless - this is the intended meaning of the bhAShya.

(1) anupalabdhi cannot function in deep sleep, the mind being absent, so how can there be pramANa vyApAra then for the revelation of the absence of knowledge?

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%2BBDTJ7C2Jh%2Bnr8yuy5N9OGySiec5BuVyCKFLvMBw%3DZwy1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

//To this, Anandagiri AchArya says - अज्ञोऽहमित्यज्ञानमपरोक्षम् । अग्रहणस्य च ग्रहणप्रागभावस्य नापरोक्षत्वमिन्द्रियसन्निकर्षाभावादनुपलब्धिगम्यत्वाच्च । भ्रान्तितत्संस्कारयोश्चाभावेतरकार्यत्वादुपादानापेक्षणादात्मनश्च केवलस्यातद्धेतुत्वात्तदुपादानत्वेनानाद्यज्ञानसिद्धिः । किं च देवदत्तप्रमा तन्निष्ठप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्ता‍नादिप्रध्वंसिनी प्रमात्वाद् यज्ञदत्तप्रमावत् । न च तदभावे सम्यग्ज्ञानार्थवत्त्वम् । क्षणिकत्वेन भ्रान्तेस्तदनिवर्त्यत्वात् संस्कारस्य च सत्यपि सम्यग्ज्ञाने क्वचिदनुवृत्तिदर्शनात् । न चाग्रहणस्य तन्निवर्त्यत्वम् । ज्ञानस्य तन्निवृत्तित्वात् । अतो ज्ञानदाह्यं संसारबीजभूतमनाद्यनिर्वाच्यमज्ञानं ज्ञानस्यार्थवत्त्वायाऽऽस्थेयम् । अन्यथा तदानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गादित्यर्थः ।//

Exceptional! So nonchanlantly TIkAkAra has used the mighty anumAna to prove the bhAvarUpatva of ajnAna - किं च देवदत्तप्रमा तन्निष्ठप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्ता‍नादिप्रध्वंसिनी प्रमात्वाद् यज्ञदत्तप्रमावत् ।

//This bhAShya itself is a pramANa for avidyA being abhAva vilakshaNA//

Yes. Here, BhAshyakAra explains ChhAndogya and clearly explains that the vyapadesha of sat as cause is always on account of being coupled with bIja. This is what VArtikakAra also confirms in BBV 1.4.371 clearly.

//anupalabdhi cannot function in deep sleep, the mind being absent, so how can there be pramANa vyApAra then for the revelation of the absence of knowledge?//

To obviate such difficulties, some opponents do not accept anupalabdhi itself. But then they fail to explain the mechanism of perception of abhAva. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

Looking at the below message from Bhaskar ji now, I want to know how he or SSS interprets the following TUBV verses from Brahmavalli

परात्मनोऽप्यनन्तस्य क्षेत्रज्ञत्वमविद्यया ।
क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धीत्येवं सत्युपपद्यते ॥ १७५ ॥

न जानामीत्यविद्यैकाऽनित्या तत्कारणं मता ।
स्वप्रसिद्ध्यैव सा सिध्येन्निशौलूकीव वासरे ॥ १७६ ॥

प्रमाणोत्पन्नया दृष्ट्या योऽविद्यां द्रष्टुमिच्चति ।
दीपेनासौ ध्रुवं पश्येद् गुहाकुक्षिगतं तमः ॥ १७७ ॥

अनात्मेतीह यद्भाति तदविद्याविजृम्भितम् ।
तस्मादविद्या साऽप्युक्ता विद्या त्वात्मैकरूपिणी ॥ १७८ ॥

आत्माग्रहातिरेकेण तस्या रूपं न विद्यते ।
अमित्रवदविद्येति सत्येवं घटते सदा ॥ १७९ ॥

Paramatma becomes kshetrajna due to avidya. Avidya is sakshi bhaAsya in the form of 'I do not know' like even the Owl sees the darkness of night as daytime. Avidya cannot be known through pramana as it is like trying to see darkness with the help of a lamp. All anAtma is a projection of avidyA, so it is called avidyA  and vidyA is only in the form of self conscious Atma. It does not exist in any other form other than non apprehension of Atma - it is only tenable if it is said that avidyA is like the term amitra (not friend - which cannot be an abhAva)

There cannot be a clearer evidence than the above to prove that Sureshvara and all other Sampradaya Acharyas were talking about avidyA in the same way. SSS followers should not ostracize Sureshvara too :-)

Namaste,

Jaishankar

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662555348FFE42CEDBDFE545848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Jaishankar ji.

Amazing shlokAs from TUBV. Thanks.

AnandagirI swamI expands the amitra example and includes adharma also, which is so much in usage in day-to-day life. 

नञ् samAs in avidyA is just like amitra and adharma. Mitra-virodhI/mitra-anya and dharma-virodhI/dharma-anya vastu and not an abhAva like pot-abhAva. 

So clear.

Regards 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Jaishankar Ji,

Interestigly, Sri SSS cites, in his text, वेदान्तप्रक्रियाप्रत्यभिज्ञा pages 217-218,  the same TBV shlokas 176 to 179 quoted by you in support of his contention that Swami Sureswaracharya also has supported his view that avidyA means absence of knowledge.

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste. 

Sri SSS adds the following comment against verse 2-179

// [आत्मग्रहणमेव तस्या अनात्मरूपाया रूपम् । अत एव विद्याविरुद्धत्वान अविद्येति तस्या अपि व्यपदेश इत्यर्थः ॥ ] //.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

SSS ji says in the explanation to verse 179 -  आत्माग्रहणमेव तस्या अनात्मरूपाया रूपम्। अत एव विद्याविरुद्धत्वात् अविद्येति तस्या अपि व्यपदेश इत्यर्थः।

Anandagiri Swami - नञस्तर्हि कोऽर्थः स्यात् इति आशङ्क्य - यथा अमित्र-अधर्म-आदौ तदन्यत्वं तद्विरुद्धत्वं वा नञोऽर्थो न तदभावत्वमित्याह - अमित्रवदिति।

SSS ji accepts that avidyA is vidyA-viruddhA and yet holds - avidyA is abhAva! This is something hilarious.

VArtikakAra is explaining that agrahaNa is like amitra, which is not some abhAva - and yet SSS ji can cite this for abhAvatva of avidyA is unfortunate. The very insertion of amitra is to explain the artha of नञ् samas. 

This is called jabardasti.

Also, can you locate where has SSS ji "explained" BBV 1.4.371 - अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य......

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji, Sudhanshu ji,

In the mANDUkya bhAShya 1.11, Shankaracharya says - 

तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणाभ्यां बीजफलभावाभ्यां तौ यथोक्तौ विश्वतैजसौ बद्धौ सङ्गृहीतौ इष्येते । प्राज्ञस्तु बीजभावेनैव बद्धः ।

Here he is describing tattvAgrahaNa as a bIja, and that while the vishva and taijasa are bound by this and anyathAgrahaNa, the prAjna is bound only by the bIja, tattvAgrahaNa. 

Further, he describes the relationship between tattvAgrahaNa and anyathAgrahaNa as the relationship between a bIja (seed) and a phala (fruit). 

It is difficult to imagine how an abhAva-rUpa tattva-agrahaNa can be said to be the basis for the prAjna to be bound, especially so because Shankara explicitly raises the possibility of tattva-agrahaNa to be abhAva-rUpa in mANDukya kAruka bhAShya 1.2 and dismisses it. If you will recall, the discussion is whether the Atma in deep sleep is endowed with such a bIja or not - 

pUrvapakshI - निर्बीजतयैव चेत् , 

siddhAntin - सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः, बीजाभावाविशेषात् , ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ; तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।

If this bIja itself were abhAva rUpa, both the question of the pUrvapkashi (nirbIjatayaiva astu) the hetu given by the bhAShyakAra, बीजाभावाविशेषात्, ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे would be strange. 

What would nirbIja and bIjAbhAva mean if the bIja was abhAva-rUpa-tattva-agrahaNa? The presence of tattvajnAna?  So the pUrvapakshI is asking why is tattvajnAna not present in deep sleep? That would make no sense.

What would the bhAShyakAra's statement muktAnAm punarutpatti-prasangah mean in that case? If in pralaya there was bIjAbhAva, that is, if tattva-jnAna was present in pralaya, mukta-s would end being born again? That is a clearly incorrect statement. Why would the liberated ones possessing tattva-jnAna be born again?

Similarly what would the statement jnAna-dAhya-bIjAbhAve ca jnAna-Anarthakya-prasangah of the bhAshyakAra mean? So the bhAShyakAra is saying if  there was bIjAbhAva, i.e. if tattvajnAna was present, tattvajnAna would be of no use? Again, a strange idea.

Regards,

Venkatarghavan 

--

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%2BBCfhsGW8n%2Bq9J%2Bpm%2BKS%2BroMDJR9imbbmZptOs13khJSHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

There is explicit mention and argument by VArtikakAra in Naishakarmya Siddhi 3.58 where he proves that sushupti has ajnAna.

सर्वानर्थबीजस्यात्मानवबोधस्य सुषुप्ते संभवात् । यदि हि सुषुप्तेऽज्ञानं नाभविष्यदन्तरेणापि वेदान्तवाक्यश्रवणमनन निदिध्यासनान्यहब्रह्मास्मीत्यध्यवसायात्सर्वप्राण भूतामपि स्वरसत एव सुषुप्तप्रतिपत्तेः सकलसंसारो च्च्हित्तिप्रसङ्गः । न च कैवल्यात्पुनरुत्थानं न्याय्यमनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात् । न चान्य एव सुषुप्तोऽन्य एवोत्थित इति शक्यं वक्तुं नाद्राक्षमहं सुषुप्तेऽन्यत्किं चिदपीत्युत्तितस्य प्रत्यभिज्ञादर्शनात् ।

#तस्मादवश्यं #सुषुप्तेऽज्ञानमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । 

ननु यदि तत्राज्ञानमभविष्यद्रागद्वेषघटाज्ञानादिवत्प्रत्यक्षमभविष्यद्यथेह लोके घटं न जानामीत्यज्ञानमव्यवहितं प्रत्यक्षम् । अत्रोच्यते । न । अभिव्यञ्जकाभावात् । कथमभिव्यञ्जकाभाव इति चेच्च्हृणु ।

बाह्यां वृत्तिमनुत्पाद्य व्यक्तिः स्यान्नाहमो यथा ।

नर्तेऽन्तःकरणं तद्वद्ध्वान्तस्य व्यक्तिराञ्जसी ॥ ५८॥

SSS' hold that sushupti has no ajnAna.

When faced with direct statement by VArtikakAra in NS 3.58 that ajnAna in sushupti must be accepted and also MANDUkya 1.2 and 1.11 - they say that ajnAna in deep sleep is accepted from the point of view of waker. But from sushupti's own point of view, the ajnAna is not admitted (whatever that may mean!).

Again they would say that this bIja is jnAna-abhAva and its burning etc is metaphorical. The bondage of prAjna by tattva-agrahaNa is stated to be from the point of view of waker and from prAjna's own standpoint (again, whatever that may mean!), there is no bondage.

They say that in sushupti, there is no ajnAna, and they would quote BrihadAraNyaka 4.3.23 (which refers to absence of vyaktA-avidyA in sushupti and not avidyA per se) for this purpose. The objection and rebuttal by BhAshyakAra in MK 1.2 and 1.11 would be somehow explained away by them as being discussed from the point of view of waker.

Regards.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

I was just about to mention adharma to the example of amitra. Coincidentally, i came across it during the study of bhAShyaratnaprabhA today in a different context!

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] */

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

It is well known that Sri SSS differs from Sri Anandagiri Acharya quite often. Sri SSS is himself an acknowledged expert in Sanskrit. It is difficult to brush aside his translation of the TUBV verse as **jabardasti** !!.

The BUBV verse 1-4-371 is elaborated in his (Sri SSS) commentary KleshApahAriNi on Naishkarmya Siddhi, 3-7 which I have copied below for ready reference.

// ननु बृहद्वार्तिकेऽपि 'अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् । अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुच्यते ।।' (बृ. वा. १-४-३७१ ) इत्यज्ञानस्य द्वैतोपादान- कारणत्वं स्पष्टमुक्तम् । अतः द्वैतस्योपादानापेक्षस्य अभावेर- कारणकत्वमेव ग्रन्थकृदभीष्टमिति प्रतीयते । मैवम्, द्वैतस्य इन्द्रजालसदृशत्वोक्त्या मिथ्याध्यासत्वमेवोक्तमिति । अध्यासस्या- वस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति । न च ग्रन्थकृता क्वचिदप्यध्यासोपादानत्वेन अज्ञानं समुपन्यस्तम्, प्रत्युताधस्ता- दस्माभिरुपपादितनीत्या मिथ्याज्ञानसंशयौ प्रत्यभावरूपाज्ञान- स्यैव कारणत्वमत्राप्युक्तमिति गम्यते । तेन च अज्ञानं समुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मैव कारणम् इति अज्ञातब्रह्मण एव कारणत्वं प्रकृत- श्लोकाक्षरानुगुणमेवोच्यते इत्यवधेयम् । न हि भावाविद्यावादिभिरभ्युपगता अविद्या अध्यासोपादानमिति कुत्रापि वार्तिके कण्ठ- रवेणोक्तम् येन तत्परत्वेनायं वार्तिक श्लोको व्याख्यायेत । न चास्ति प्रकृतश्लोकेऽपि भावाविद्यापरामर्शः । यत् पुनः प्रकृतश्लोकव्याख्यानम् 'सुषुप्तिदशायामेकेनैव सता सर्वस्य सत्त्वम्' इति, यदप्यस्यैव जाग्रद्दशायामपि सर्वोऽप्यर्थः स्वबुद्धिजन्मनः प्रागज्ञात इत्यर्थस्य संप्रतिपन्नत्वात्, तस्य सामान्याकारेणाज्ञातत्वेऽप्यज्ञाताकारस्य ज्ञातत्वायोगात्, अज्ञाताकारस्य चानुवादायोगात् 'ज्ञानाभावविलक्षण- भावरूपाज्ञानेनावृत' इति, तदुभयं श्लोकानुपात्ताधिकावापदुष्ट- मित्यनादेयम् । ननु चाभावरूपाज्ञानस्यावरणत्वाभावेन भावाज्ञाने- नावृत इति व्याख्यातमिति चेत्; वस्तुतत्त्वप्रकाशकत्वाभावमात्रेणापि तथा व्यपदेशोपपत्तेः । //

// nanu bRRihadvArtike.api 'asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam | aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamuchyate ||' (bRRi. vA. 1-4-371 ) ityaj~nAnasya dvaitopAdAna- kAraNatvaM spaShTamuktam | ataH dvaitasyopAdAnApekShasya abhAvera- kAraNakatvameva granthakRRidabhIShTamiti pratIyate | maivam, dvaitasya indrajAlasadRRishatvoktyA mithyAdhyAsatvamevoktamiti | adhyAsasyA- vastutvAt upAdAnAdikAraNApekShA naivAsti | na cha granthakRRitA kvachidapyadhyAsopAdAnatvena aj~nAnaM samupanyastam, pratyutAdhastA- dasmAbhirupapAditanItyA mithyAj~nAnasaMshayau pratyabhAvarUpAj~nAna- syaiva kAraNatvamatrApyuktamiti gamyate | tena cha aj~nAnaM samupAshritya brahmaiva kAraNam iti aj~nAtabrahmaNa eva kAraNatvaM prakRRita- shlokAkSharAnuguNamevochyate ityavadheyam | na hi bhAvAvidyAvAdibhirabhyupagatA avidyA adhyAsopAdAnamiti kutrApi vArtike kaNTha- raveNoktam yena tatparatvenAyaM vArtika shloko vyAkhyAyeta | na chAsti prakRRitashloke.api bhAvAvidyAparAmarshaH | yat punaH prakRRitashlokavyAkhyAnam 'suShuptidashAyAmekenaiva satA sarvasya sattvam' iti, yadapyasyaiva jAgraddashAyAmapi sarvo.apyarthaH svabuddhijanmanaH prAgaj~nAta ityarthasya saMpratipannatvAt, tasya sAmAnyAkAreNAj~nAtatve.apyaj~nAtAkArasya j~nAtatvAyogAt, aj~nAtAkArasya chAnuvAdAyogAt 'j~nAnAbhAvavilakShaNa- bhAvarUpAj~nAnenAvRRita' iti, tadubhayaM shlokAnupAttAdhikAvApaduShTa- mityanAdeyam | nanu chAbhAvarUpAj~nAnasyAvaraNatvAbhAvena bhAvAj~nAne- nAvRRita iti vyAkhyAtamiti chet; vastutattvaprakAshakatvAbhAvamAtreNApi tathA vyapadeshopapatteH | //.

Regards

--

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Thanks for the citation.

Indeed his expertise of Sanskrit is quite at a display here. He can disregard the clear explicit usage of upAdAna-kAraNatva to avidyA even when the shloka is saying and can say  मैवम्, द्वैतस्य इन्द्रजालसदृशत्वोक्त्या मिथ्याध्यासत्वमेवोक्तमिति । अध्यासस्यावस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति । 

Means VArtikakAra is saying - Bhai, ajnAna is upAdAna-kAraNat and SSS ji is saying - no! VArtikakAra does not mean upAdAna-kAraNa because (as per SSS) there is no requirement of upAdAna for adhyAsa. 

What else is called jabardasti!!

If he can do this, then even if VArtikakAra would have said -- avidyA is bhAvarUpa -- he would have said that VArtikakAra did not mean bhAvarUpa.

I mean what is this. Then that way what harm other AchAryAs did. They can also be explained like this. Why this privileged treatment to VArtikakAra? 

//न च ग्रन्थकृता क्वचिदप्यध्यासोपादानत्वेन अज्ञानं समुपन्यस्तम्//

Gazab!! 

//प्रत्युताधस्तादस्माभिरुपपादितनीत्या मिथ्याज्ञानसंशयौ प्रत्यभावरूपाज्ञानस्यैव कारणत्वमत्राप्युक्तमिति गम्यते ।//

He needs to look at bhAshya to understand that abhAva cannot be kAraNa of anything. नाप्यभावः कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत् । Despite such bhAshya vAkya, he can claim that his abhAva-rUpa-ajnAna has kAraNatvam!!

I would leave it at that.. no point in even entertaining this view which is against direct explicit words of bhAshya and vArtika. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Venkat ji,

Thanks for this Mandukya Bhashya quote.  The other significant statement there is:

 तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।

Bhashyakara is making a rule here:  In all shrutis, wherever pralaya and sushupti are dealt with, it has to be understood that the laya happens in the saguna Brahman, which is the KaaraNa Brahman, alone and not in the Nirguna Brahman. Hence there is no scope at all to deny the beejAvasthA in sushupti and pralaya. 

warm regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkfBahkdcxg1kYj%2BSPnbEDK4mnXJ1M1TA%2BxZH_PCS2sQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Subbuji,

Yes ji, very true - it also states that the causation of Brahman is because of that kAraNatva bIja, whose nature Shankara describes as tattva agrahaNa - this tattva agrahaNa's nature cannot be abhAvarUpa.

Elsewhere, in BSB 2.3.31, talking of the same topic he says, सुषुप्तादुत्थानमविद्यात्मकबीजसद्भावकारितम् — ‘सति सम्पद्य न विदुः सति सम्पद्यामह इति ।’

Because that bIja is present, causation is present in Brahman - that bIja is the changing material cause of creation. Similarly, because that tattva-agrahaNAtmaka / avidyAtmaka bIja is present, the jIvas do not realise upon waking up that they were one with Brahman.

He even uses the term bIja-sad-bhAva-kAritam in the BSB. If that bIja was abhAvarupa, Shankara would have meant by this jnAna-abhAva-sadbhAva-kAritam, i.e "it is due to the presence of absence of knowledge", which is another tortured reading of the text, like many others, in that line of argument.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2ZsdKhU01b8xQqcg95oVomcqVOOu-tQzv%3DR9ZHE_ocmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

He seems to be agreeing that avidyA is vidyA-virodhi. Further what he has to say for this BUBhV 1.4.386

यदेव नित्यमज्ञानं मिथ्याज्ञानं तदेव तु ।।
कारणेतररूपेण तयोरव्यभिचारतः ।। ३८६ ।।

Here ajnAna  has been said as nityam which anandagiri says points to its anAditvam. Further it is clearly said this nityam ajnAnam is the cause of mithyAjnAnam. So clearly Sureshvara accepts anAdi bhAvaruptvam of ajnAnam.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOafZrOVtv5KjOsMZbADHpEa4Lyz4-L_%2B8f8zKLKktkgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Thank you for sharing the portions of the Naishkarmya Siddhi in this regard. In fact, there is so much consonance between this and the mANDUkya kArikA bhAShya portions that I shared, it is almost as if SureshvarAchArya was providing a sub-commentary to the kArikA bhAShya here.

Coming to the specific defense provided by Sri SSS to this, that ignorance must be present in deep sleep is made from the standpoint of the waking state - why that statement alone, every statement can only made from the standpoint of the waker. Only the waker can say ignorance is present in deep sleep. There is no waker in deep sleep to make such a statement, and the sleeper cannot make any statement.

Also, according to Sri SSS, ignorance is jnAna abhAva. There is no jnAna in suShupti, ie deep sleep has jnAna abhAva. So even for Sri SSS, such an ignorance is certainly present in deep sleep.  

Sri SSS could have simply said - "by such a statement in the NS, Sureshvaracharya was saying there is the "absence of jnAna" kind of ignorance in deep sleep". The fact that Sri SSS did not do that - but chose to go with the roundabout and frankly inexplicable explanation that the statement was made from the standpoint of the waker - implies that in his heart of hearts, he knew that Shankaracharya and Sureshvaracharya were referring to a bhAvarUpa ignorance only - at least in the waking and dream states.

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%2BBAGDWEqXWZKxTqDY%2B%3D3g8j5wPHNMLWpOVXoaBFqPzS_Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg //  In the mANDUkya bhAShya 1.11, Shankaracharya says - 

तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणाभ्यां बीजफलभावाभ्यां तौ यथोक्तौ विश्वतैजसौ बद्धौ सङ्गृहीतौ इष्येते । प्राज्ञस्तु बीजभावेनैव बद्धः ।

Here he is describing tattvAgrahaNa as a bIja, and that while the vishva and taijasa are bound by this and anyathAgrahaNa, the prAjna is bound only by the bIja, tattvAgrahaNa. 

Further, he describes the relationship between tattvAgrahaNa and anyathAgrahaNa as the relationship between a bIja (seed) and a phala (fruit). 

It is difficult to imagine how an abhAva-rUpa tattva-agrahaNa can be said to be the basis for the prAjna to be bound, especially so because Shankara explicitly raises the possibility of tattva-agrahaNa to be abhAva-rUpa in mANDukya kAruka bhAShya 1.2 and dismisses it //,

I am copying below from वेदान्तप्रक्रियाप्रत्यभिज्ञा of Sri SSS page 185 which I thought briefly touches upon your observation

// तस्माद्वस्तुस्वरूपविवेकाभावेन निमित्तेन मृषाविकल्पन रूपाध्यासस्य लोके दृष्टत्वात् इहाप्यात्मानात्मस्वरूपविवेका भावनिबन्धन एव तदन्योन्या- ध्यास इत्यवगम्यत इत्यनवद्यम् । सोऽयं विवेकाभाव:, अज्ञानम्,अग्रहणम्, अनवबोधः, अनवगमः, अप्रतिबोध: - इत्यादिपर्यायशब्दैरपि ज्ञानाभावबोधकैर्व्यपदिश्यते भाष्ये । कचिच्च मिथ्याज्ञानकारणत्वात् कारणं ,बीजम्, निद्रा, सुप्तिः - इत्यपि । तदपेक्षया मिथ्याज्ञानमेव कार्यम् फलम्, स्वप्न इति च व्यवहृतोऽभियुक्तैः । तद्यथा

कार्यकारणबद्ध ताविष्येते विश्वतैजसौ । प्राज्ञः कारणबद्धस्तु द्वौ तौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः ॥ 12 ॥

द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः । निद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥ १३ ॥

स्वमनिद्रायुतावाधौ प्राज्ञस्त्वस्वननिद्रया । न निद्रां नैव च स्वयं तु पश्यन्ति निश्चिताः ॥ १४ ॥

अन्यथा गृह्णतः स्वप्नो निद्रा तत्वमजानतः | विपर्यासे तयोः क्षीणे तुरीयं पदमश्नुते  ॥ १५ ॥

इति चागमप्रकरणे श्रीगौडपादाचार्याः || //.

While I am not happy with the translation by Alston, for want of a better alternative, I am copying below from his translation, for the benefit of readers who may need it.

// Thus we observe in worldly experience that superimposition as false imagination has absence of discrimination of the true nature of some reality as its prior condition. So we may say that the mutual superimposition of the Self and the not-self has absence of discrimination of the true nature of the Self and the not-self as its sole prior cause. And this absence of discrimination is taught in Sri Sankara's commentaries by a variety of synonymous words implying want of knowledge, such as absence of knowledge (ajñāna), failure to perceive (agrahana), not being aware of (anavagama), not being awake to (anavabodha, apratibodha). Because it is the cause of wrong knowledge, it is sometimes also called cause (kāraņa), seed or sleep (nidra, supti). Wrong knowledge is referred to in the authoritative texts as the 'effect of absence of knowledge, or as its 'result' or as 'dream'.

For example, we find in the First Book of the Karikas of Gauḍapada:

 'Viśva (Consciousness associated with the waking state) and Taijasa (Consciousness associated with the dream- state) are both accepted as being conditioned as cause (nonperception of the Self) and as effect (wrong perception of the Self). Prajña (Consciousness associated with dreamless sleep) is conditioned solely as cause.

Neither cause nor effect (neither nonperception of the Self nor wrong perception of the Self) are found in Turiya (pure Consciousness as such, transcending all states).... Neither Prajña nor Turiya are aware of duality. In this respect they are equal. But Prajña is associated with the seed called sleep. Sleep does not exist in Turiya. Viśva and Taijasa are associated with both sleep and dream (where the word 'dream' is used in a broad sense to include waking experience as well as dream, each being regarded as a species of wrong knowledge). Prajña has sleep, but is free from dream (in the above broad sense). But the enlightened ones see neither sleep nor dream in Turiya. Dream is the state of one who perceives wrongly (anyatha-grahana); sleep (nidra) is the state of one who does not know the truth. When the delusion of these two states no longer occurs, one reaches the plane of Turiya (G.K. 1.11, 13-15)' //.

I would once again stress that I am not a follower of Sri SSS. I am just copying what I thought were relevant responses from the texts of Sri SSS since there have been no such responses so far from others.

Regards

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 6:59 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Jaishankar Ji,

As pointed out by me in another post today, I am not a follower of Sri SSS. But I am very familiar with his works which I refer to regularly since most of them are in kannada with the Sanskrit mUlam also being in kannada script. Wherever I am aware of relevant response from his texts to questions being discussed here, I am just posting the same.

I have not come across any direct reference to the BUBV verse 1-4-386 cited by you. However I believe the response offered in my other post today referring to Venkat Ji’s observations answers your question also. This is based on Sri Krishna Jois’s foot notes on this verse in his kannada translation of BUBV 1-4.

Perhaps the following comment on NS 3-7,  in kleshApahAriNi of Sri SSS also addresses your query.

//  तत्राह 'सन्नज्ञातो भवेत्ततः' इति । अज्ञातत्वं सत्सामानाधिकरण्यम् अविमुञ्चत् सत एव धर्मो न तु घटादीनां मिथ्याज्ञातानामित्यवगम्यते इत्यर्थः । एवं च अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ? इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति । अज्ञातसत एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् । यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्या- वस्तुस्वभावत्वम्, तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् । न हि ज्ञानबाध्यस्य क्वचिदपि वस्तुत्वं संगच्छत इति प्रत्युक्तम् । //

This is purely my guess. May be satisfactory or not.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji. Jaishankar ji. Venkat ji.

//  तत्राह 'सन्नज्ञातो भवेत्ततः' इति । अज्ञातत्वं सत्सामानाधिकरण्यम् अविमुञ्चत् सत एव धर्मो न तु घटादीनां मिथ्याज्ञातानामित्यवगम्यते इत्यर्थः । एवं च अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ? इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति । अज्ञातसत एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् ।

SSS ji is stating that ajnAtatva has sat as its adhikaraNa and hence ajnAtatva is the dharma of sat. Further, he says that ajnAtatva is not the dharma of ghaTa etc. 

SSS ji further says - since kAraNatva belongs to ajnAta-sat (and not to ajnAna) and such ajnAta-sat is not abhAva, hence "how can there be kAraNatva of abhAvAtmaka ajnAna" stands answered.

SSS ji has missed a point here!

ajnAtatva (and also jnAtatva) are dharma of ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya (which is stated as sat by VArtikakAra). This is true. Since ghaTa is superimposed in ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya, the jnAtatva and ajnAtatva appear as dharma of ghaTa, resulting into cognition (ghaTa is known, ghaTa is unknown). This is also true.

However, this ajnAtatva is not an intrinsic dharma of ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya. Rather, it appears as a dharma of ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya on account of adhyAsa of both ajnAna and ghaTa in chaitanya. 

With adhyAsa of ajnAna in sat, the dharma of ajnAna namely kAraNatva, also stands superimposed in sat. And hence, Shruti says ajnAta-sat i.e. ajnAna-adhyAsa-vishishTa-sat has kAraNatva. This is what BUBV 1.4.371 states in unambiguous manner.

Thus, ajnAtatva of sat does not prohibit the claim of kAraNatva as an intrinsic feature of ajnAna. Had kAraNatvam been an intrinsic feature of sat, the claim by SSS would have made sense. However, the very ajnAtatva of sat is AdhyAsika. And teaching ajnAta-sat as kAraNa is by accepting the dharma-adhyAsa of ajnAna, whose dharma is kAraNatva. 

Thus, the AdhyAsika-kAraNatva of ajnAta-sat does not answer a valid objection by siddhAntI as to how can kAraNatva inhere as an intrinsic feature of abhAvAtmaka ajnAna.

Thus, the objection remains - how can ajnAna, which SSS ji holds as abhAva, be a kAraNa!! 

In simple words -- vArtika says -- ajnAna is kAraNa, this ajnAna is adhyasta in Brahman, hence Brahman is kAraNa. And SSS ji comes along and says -- see, ajnAta-Brahman is kAraNa, ajnAna is not kAraNa, and hence the Akshepa is parihrita as to how can abhAvAtmaka-ajnAna be kAraNa. This is really silly. Twisting words straight on face.

यदेव नित्यमज्ञानं मिथ्याज्ञानं तदेव तु ।।

कारणेतररूपेण तयोरव्यभिचारतः ।। ३८६ ।।

This shloka states that mithyAjnAna (mithyA+jnAna) is the kArya and nitya ajnAna is the kAraNa. Further, there is absence of difference between these two on account of being upAdAna-upAdeya which stands proved by anvaya-vyatireka. (अज्ञाने सति एव मिथ्याज्ञानस्य भावः, अज्ञानस्याभावे मिथ्याज्ञानस्याभाव एव). 

Imho, the reference of NS 3.7 does not apply here to BBV 1.4.386. Further, the explanation by SSS ji in NS 3.7 is incorrect.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The citation **तत्राह 'सन्नज्ञातो भवेत्ततः' इति ।** from NS 3-7 and  ** This is what BUBV 1.4.371 states in unambiguous manner** seem to have got mixed up in the response. While commenting on NS 3-7, it may not be appropriate to bring in reference to BUBV 1-4-371.

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/CAH9%3D%2BBDf7nSircmMKe%2Bx65mCxv4a7CORTCu3v8id%2BPppucO%2BKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg // And teaching ajnAta-sat as kAraNa is by accepting the dharma-adhyAsa of ajnAna, whose dharma is kAraNatva //,

If ajnAna is understood as absence of knowledge, are you suggesting that its dharma is kAraNatva ?

Regards

On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 6:01 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%2BBDf7nSircmMKe%2Bx65mCxv4a7CORTCu3v8id%2BPppucO%2BKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

Thank you for sharing the reference from Sri SSS's writings.

Re: तस्माद्वस्तुस्वरूपविवेकाभावेन निमित्तेन मृषाविकल्पन रूपाध्यासस्य लोके दृष्टत्वात् इहाप्यात्मानात्मस्वरूपविवेका भावनिबन्धन एव तदन्योन्या- ध्यास इत्यवगम्यत इत्यनवद्यम् । सोऽयं विवेकाभाव:, अज्ञानम्,अग्रहणम्, अनवबोधः, अनवगमः, अप्रतिबोध: - इत्यादिपर्यायशब्दैरपि ज्ञानाभावबोधकैर्व्यपदिश्यते भाष्ये । कचिच्च मिथ्याज्ञानकारणत्वात् कारणं ,बीजम्, निद्रा, सुप्तिः - इत्यपि । तदपेक्षया मिथ्याज्ञानमेव कार्यम् फलम्, स्वप्न इति च व्यवहृतोऽभियुक्तैः । 

When Sri SSS says  इहाप्यात्मानात्मस्वरूपविवेकाभावनिबन्धन एव तदन्योन्याध्यास इत्यवगम्यत इत्यनवद्यम्, what is the "iha" (here) that he is referring to? Is it deep sleep? 

It cannot be suShupti that he is talking about, in my opinion, because as there is no jnAna of any kind in suShupti, there can be no adhyAsa / mithyAjnAna also in suShupti - at least in Sri SSS's prakriyA, there cannot. As he does not admit the existence of any bhAvarUpa ajnAna, even ajnAna is not superimposed, in his system. 

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/CAEs%2B%2BdPBBO5BLtiFV0XFMsZw7fU25SjthFA7q5SszvjjuSqucA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

Thanks again for all these references to Sri SSS' works. I am responding to you because you had shared his references, not because I consider you to be an SSS follower - your disclaimer in this regard is well noted.

I went back to read your responses to Sri Sudhanshu Ji and Sri Jaishankar ji.

Sri SSS has said this in relation to NS 3-7 (which you had kindly shared) - 

तत्राह 'सन्नज्ञातो भवेत्ततः' इति । अज्ञातत्वं सत्सामानाधिकरण्यम् अविमुञ्चत् सत एव धर्मो न तु घटादीनां मिथ्याज्ञातानामित्यवगम्यते इत्यर्थः । एवं च अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ? इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति । अज्ञातसत एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् । यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्यावस्तुस्वभावत्वम्, तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् । न हि ज्ञानबाध्यस्य क्वचिदपि वस्तुत्वं संगच्छत इति प्रत्युक्तम् । 

With respect to BUBV 1.4.371, Sri SSS has said this (again shared by you)

"ननु बृहद्वार्तिकेऽपि 'अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् । अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुच्यते ।।' (बृ. वा. १-४-३७१ ) इत्यज्ञानस्य द्वैतोपादानकारणत्वं स्पष्टमुक्तम् । अतः द्वैतस्योपादानापेक्षस्य अभावेर- कारणकत्वमेव ग्रन्थकृदभीष्टमिति प्रतीयते । मैवम्, द्वैतस्य इन्द्रजालसदृशत्वोक्त्या मिथ्याध्यासत्वमेवोक्तमिति । अध्यासस्या- वस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति । न च ग्रन्थकृता क्वचिदप्यध्यासोपादानत्वेन अज्ञानं समुपन्यस्तम्, प्रत्युताधस्ता- दस्माभिरुपपादितनीत्या मिथ्याज्ञानसंशयौ प्रत्यभावरूपाज्ञानस्यैव कारणत्वमत्राप्युक्तमिति गम्यते । तेन च अज्ञानं समुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मैव कारणम् इति अज्ञातब्रह्मण एव कारणत्वं प्रकृत- श्लोकाक्षरानुगुणमेवोच्यते इत्यवधेयम् ।"

In both, there is a common reference to avastu-svabhAvatvam of adhyAsa - (1) यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्यावस्तुस्वभावत्वम्, तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् and (2) अध्यासस्यावस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति ।

In Sri SSS' conception, there is no arthAdhyAsa (adhyAsasya avastutvAt), there is only jnAnAdhyAsa, and therefore he does not see the need to establish an upAdAna kAraNa for adhyAsa. 

So when the vArttikakAra says ajnAnam tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamucyate, he interprets this to mean ajnAta brahmaNah eva kAraNatvam - causation is only for the Brahman that is not known.

The question is from whose perspective is Brahman the cause? According to Sri SSS, it has to be the ajnAtA, the non-knower's perspective. So the non-knower of Brahman considers Brahman to be the cause, and because of this, Brahman is the cause.

However, having dismissed ajnAna as the upAdAna kAraNa on account of the dvaita-indrajAla being of the nature of adhyAsa (mithyAjnAna), Sri SSS does not have an answer for why the vArttikakAra uses the word "upAdAna" kAraNa. 

If adhyAsa is only mithyAjnAna, i.e., a jnAnAdhyAsa alone, what is the vArttikakAra's intent in using the word upAdAna kAraNa - is it simply a frivolous usage? 

Secondly in the commentary to NS 3-7, Sri SSS quotes vArttika-s 1.4.437, 1.4.438, 1.4.440 and 1.4.423

मित्युत्पत्तावनुत्पत्तिर्विरोधाद्बाध्यते यतः |

तद्बाधे नाप्यपेक्षास्ति मिथ्याधीबाधनं प्रति || BUBV  1.4.437

मिथ्याधियोऽपि बाध्यत्वमज्ञानैकसमन्वयात् |

मूलध्वस्तौ हतं तच्चेन्मिथ्याधीः किं करोति नः || BUBV 1.4.438

मेयरूपानुरोधित्वं मिथ्यासंशययोर्यदि |

सम्यग्ज्ञानात्तयोर्भेदो गम्यताम् केन हेतुना || BUBV 1.4.439 (Not quoted by Sri SSS here, sharing for completion)

अज्ञानं संशयत्वान्नो मिथ्याज्ञानात्तथैव च |

तयोस्तत्त्वविवक्षायामज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते || BUBV 1.4.440

Sri SSS quotes these and goes on to say, "तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः |"

However, it is not clear how he comes to this conclusion about ajnAna from these BUBV verses. 1.4.437 says that upon the dawn of knowledge (of the self), there is no rise of duality, because the nature of the two (knowledge and duality) is in contradiction, and when that has been sublated, there is nothing else expected for the sublation of adhyAsa.

What is the entity that is referred to as तत् that? We look at the previous verse, which is not quoted by Sri SSS.

तस्मादविद्यासम्भूतं नानात्वं प्रत्यगात्मनि |

ब्रह्मास्मीति तद्ध्वंसान्न क्वचिद्भेदधीर्यतः || BUBV 1.4.436

Therefore, multiplicity in the inner self is born out of ignorance. When that has been destroyed by the knowledge "I am Brahman", there can be no cognition of difference on account of it.

The pronoun "tat" in the phrase "तद्बाधे" of BUBV 1.4.437 therefore is referring to the ajnAna of BUBV 1.4.436, the previous verse. The purpose of 1.4.437 therefore is not to say that there is nothing called ignorance other than adhyAsa as Sri SSS concludes, rather, it is to say that adhyAsa will not persist when its cause, ignorance has been destroyed.   

1.4.438 says that the sublatability of mithyAdhI (adhyAsa) is on account of it having samanvaya with ajnAna, and when the root (ajnAna) is destroyed, what can adhyAsa do to us? 

1.4.439 is ignored by Sri SSS because he things it does not have a role to play in the discussion. However in this verse, the vArttikakAra is hinting at a question - do mithyAjnAna and doubt have ajnAna as its cause or not ? This verse takes the first alternative - If they do not have ajnAna as its cause, and they arise from the knowledge of the object, then there would be no basis to differentiate the two (adhyAasa and valid knowledge).  But this would be clearly incorrect, as we would not know what is valid knowledge and what is invalid.

1.4.440 is taking the alternative, if mithyAjnAna and doubt were caused by ignorance. Now, with this issue itself (whether mithyAjnAna and doubt were caused by ignorance), we had a doubt. Because we had a doubt here (nah samshayAt), it follows that ignorance exists (because how would the doubt arise otherwise). Similar is the case of mithyAjnAna elsewhere - as mithyAjnAna occurs, it too is caused by ignorance and therefore ignorance exists (mithyAjnAnAt tathaiva ca). When we examine the nature of those two (tayoh tattva-vivakshAyAm) - doubt and mithyAjnAna - we arrive at the conclusion that their nature is ignorance (ajnAnam tattvam ucyate).

Therefore when we examine these verses together  - we arrive at the opposite conclusion that Sri SSS arrived at. To recall, he had said तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः - but the vArttikakAra says the opposite - तयोस्तत्त्वविवक्षायामज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते - in examining doubt and adhyAsa, we say that their nature is of ignorance. 

Once again, that ajnAna is the material cause of adhyAsa. 

Now, Sri SSS had also quoted BUBV 1.4.423 in support of his view. That verse says 

किं भोः सदपि मानेन वस्तु साक्षान्निरस्यते |

तस्मिन्निरस्ते किं शेषं यस्मिन् मानस्य मानता || BUBV 1.4.423     

Here the vArttikakAra is asking - if mithyAjnAna were real, would it be sublated or not. Is a real object too sublated by valid knowledge? If it was so sublated, what would remain (if the real could be sublated, nothing at all would remain), that could be the basis for the validity of knowledge? 

Again - Sri SSS takes this verse and interprets this as the basis to argue that तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः - however, the point that the vArttikakAra is making here is not whether mithyAjnAna or ajnAna are the nature of bhAva or abhAva, rather he is saying that a real entity cannot be sublated. We have no problem with that. 

However, the crucial point is none of the verses that Sri SSS quotes, lead us to the conclusion that there is no entity called ajnAna other than mithyAjnAna (adhyAsa), as alleged by Sri SSS.

In fact the opposite is true, by examining the verses BUBV 1.4.436 to BUBV 1.4.440, we arrive at the conclusion that the vArttikakAra's view is that upAdAna kAraNa of mithyAjnAna is ajnAna.

The direct references for the upAdAna kAraNatva of avidyA below - 

1) अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् अज्ञानं BUBV 1.4.371

2) मिथ्याधियोऽपि बाध्यत्वमज्ञानैकसमन्वयात् BUBV 1.4.438 

3) मूलध्वस्तौ हतं तच्चेन्मिथ्याधीः किं करोति नः BUBV 1.4.438

4) तयोः तत्त्वविवक्षायाम् अज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते BUBV 1.4.440

This still leaves how NS 3.7 is to be understood, which I can take up later (if others want to do it, they are free to of course).

 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,

Excellent quotes and refutation. I was about to quote BUBhV 1.4.436 - 440 and refute but you have done it very well. All these convoluted explanations must have been painful to give and leave a certain aruchi on reading. In fact one reputed pandita once told the N.S commentary of SSS is not Kleshapahaarini but Kleshakaarini. If one has a hammer everything is nails for him. 

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmD05a2U6ZP9SQRs1y9YAJ69fbSm_ydMX1d0JfPFMqhHw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you Jaishankar ji.

Separately, would like to hear your views on NS 3-7, especially in light of Sri SSS' commentary. 

Jnanottama, an early 12th century commentator, interprets this section quite differently in his ChandrikA commentary to the NS. In fact, the words that Sri SSS takes to be the siddhAntin's are interpreted by Sri Jnanottama to be of the pUrvapakshI!

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-E7q17F1fP4_7Z%2BjkuazwBxcysiuOunS7TjG4%2BEMuH0NA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Reg // And teaching ajnAta-sat as kAraNa is by accepting the dharma-adhyAsa of ajnAna, whose dharma is kAraNatva //,

If ajnAna is understood as absence of knowledge, are you suggesting that its dharma is kAraNatva ?

Whether ajnAna is treated as bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa, the fact remains that ajnAna has been explicitly stated to be kAraNa at a number of places. So, both of them, who hold ajnAna as bhAvarUpa and those who hold it to be abhAvarUpa, have to answer as to how ajnAna is stated as kAraNa. While those who hold ajnAna to be bhAvarUpa, hold kAraNatva to be a mithyA-bhAva-dharma inherent in ajnAna; those who hold ajnAna to be abhAvarUpa will have to somehow explain as to how ajnAna is stated to have kAraNatva. 

They cannot say (as they said in NS 3.7) that it is the ajnAta-sat which is stated to have kAraNa and not ajnAna as such. They need to explain kAraNatva of ajnAna because the kAraNatva of ajnAta-sat is not intrinsic but AdhyAsika or aupAdhika. SSS' reply that -- since ajnAta-sat has kAraNatva (and not ajnAna), the objection against kAraNatva of abhAva-rUpa-ajnAna stands answered - is incorrect; because the kAraNatva of ajnAta-sat is only on account of kAraNatva of ajnAna.

So, SSS remains duty bound to answer as to how can abhAva-rUpa-ajnAna have kAraNatva. Especially when bhAshya clearly says - नाप्यभावः कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत् ।

He answers it elsewhere, not in NS 3.7. In NS 3.7, he is abject in resolution as demonstrated. Elsewhere he says - AdhyAsa, of course, presupposes ignorance or want of true knowledge. But this is a logical presupposition, a necessary implication of thought. No positive entity like the unfortunate MUlAvidyA can claim precedence in time over adhyAsa; for, as already said, time itself is its product. Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment conceded to exist. The reality of the not-self (anAtman) follows necessarily from its not being adhyAsa, superimposed. I submit this vital aspect of the system to the learned Professor for his deep consideration.

He seeks to dismiss the kAraNatva of avidyA, so duly established in bhAshya and vArtika, as a logical presupposition and an implication of thought. This is his own imaginary idea, not to be found in bhAshya and vArtika, and hence as per his own logic, liable to be rejected, bhAshya-akshara-bahir-bhAvAt. Otherwise, I would ask - what is this "logical presupposition"? Is it Brahman or is it horns of hare? If it is neither, then you are welcome to accept that kAraNatva is a bhAva-mithyA-dharma. Now answer as to how abhAvarUpa-ajnAna has bhAva-mithyA-dharma of kAraNatva. 

//Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment conceded to exist.//

Such statements by SSS ji which he submits for "deep contemplation" shows his ignorance of siddhAnta. He thinks that avidyA is not subject to or originating from adhyAsa. This is not true. In siddhAnta, avidyA is itself adhyasta. It is not an entity which is not subject to adhyAsa. avidyA itself is mithyA and is hence non-existent in that very substratum where it appears i.e. Brahman. Thus, it is not that only avidyA-kArya that are subject to adhyAsa. Even avidyA itself is subject to adhyAsa. So, VedAnta is not "shattered to pieces". 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  // In both, there is a common reference to avastu-svabhAvatvam of adhyAsa - (1) यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्यावस्तुस्वभावत्वम्, तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् and (2) अध्यासस्यावस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति ।//,

And

Reg  // Sri SSS does not have an answer for why the vArttikakAra uses the word "upAdAna" kAraNa. If adhyAsa is only mithyAjnAna, i.e., a jnAnAdhyAsa alone, what is the vArttikakAra's intent in using the word upAdAna kAraNa - is it simply a frivolous usage? //,

Sri SSS points out that the word upAdAna is also used to mean just **cause**, and not necessarily **material cause**. In NS itself, in the introductory upOdghAta, the word upAdAna is used in that sense.

// द्वैतस्य च शुक्तिकारजतादिवत् सर्वस्यापि स्वतःसिद्धाद्वितीयात्मानवबोधमात्रोपादानत्वादव्यावृत्तिः। //

Translation Sri Balasubrahmanian // And duality, which is like the silver seen in a shell, does not cease, because it is caused only by ignorance of the self-established, non-dual Self //.

The following is my observation. Not from Sri SSS.

The word **vastu** is also used to denote **reality** in many places in the vArtika itself. For example

BUBV 1-4-425  // मिथ्याज्ञानं कथं वस्तु न हि मिथ्येति वस्तु सत् । मिथ्या तद्वस्तु चेत्युक्तिर्महतामेव शोभते ॥ //

Anandagiri tIkA  // मिथ्याज्ञानस्य वस्तुत्वमुपेत्योक्तं तदेवासिद्धमित्याह- मिथ्येति । मिथ्या चेन्न वस्तु वस्तु चेन्न मिथ्येत्यत्र हेतुमाह--नहीति । यद्वस्तुसदिष्टं न तन्मिथ्यात्वं गच्छति यत्तु मिथ्या न तद्वस्तु सद्भवति तयोमिथो विरोधा- दित्यर्थः । ननु मिथ्याज्ञानस्य वस्तुत्वं वस्तुत्वात् द्विविधस्यात्र संभवो दुष्टकारणादित्युक्तं तत्राऽऽह - मिथ्येति । न हि व्याहतव्याहरणं महतामुद्भावयितुमुचितमिति भावः ॥ ४२५ ॥//.

Hence avastu-svabhAvatvam of adhyAsa is to be understood as unreality of adhyAsa.

Regards

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:35 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@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/CAL34aEmD05a2U6ZP9SQRs1y9YAJ69fbSm_ydMX1d0JfPFMqhHw%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Pranam to all vidvadjanas,

Maybe the ref.which sss wants to use for "his" meaning of upadana is this

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOvqgdsvUn9uqZ3H%3DTM7iW5CyONVHz%3DaY1hKcxgw-d7NQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  // However, the crucial point is none of the verses that Sri SSS quotes, lead us to the conclusion that there is no entity called ajnAna other than mithyAjnAna (adhyAsa), as alleged by Sri SSS //,

I don’t think that is his conclusion. Yes. He does not admit ajnAna as an **entity**. On the other hand, he is saying that mithyAjnAna (wrong knowledge or adhyAsa) and ajnAna (absence of knowledge) are both present. mithyAjnAna (wrong knowledge or adhyAsa) is the result of ajnAna (absence of knowledge). This ajnAna (absence of knowledge) is removable by jnAna (ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम्). This is in accordance with  the vArtika according to him.

May be I am missing something. But this is how I understood the kannada translation also.

Regards

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:35 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

How else would your translate his words - तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdNHcVE_v-iYkGyhe_qxihDkCEyE8tRK_K8ey3xchp8bCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

//Jnanottama, an early 12th century commentator, interprets this section quite differently in his ChandrikA commentary to the NS. In fact, the words that Sri SSS takes to be the siddhAntin's are interpreted by Sri Jnanottama to be of the pUrvapakshI!//

I have not checked the ChandrikA. I follow ChitsukhAchArya commentary on NS by DakshiNAmUrti MaTh. It is obvious that NS 3.7 is in response to the pUrvapkshI, who holds that avidyA is jnAna-abhAva. That view is countered by AchArya by propounding the bhAvarUpatva of avidyA.

In NS 3.6, it was told by siddhAntI that AtmA-anAtmA-viveka-jnAna is not enough for realization and mahAvAkya-janya-jnAna is required. This is so because AtmA-anAtmA-viveka-jnAna presumes bheda. It is result of a knowledge which has bheda as vishaya. Thus, siddhAntI says:

1. AtmA-anAtmA-viveka-jnAna is also ajnAna-kArya. 

2. Through mahAvAkya-janya-jnAna, which has only Brahman as vishaya, avidyA is negated completely.

In response to this statement by siddhAntI, pUrvapakshI asks -- 

1. avidyA is jnAna-abhAva. How can there be avidyA-kArya (how can avastu avidyA have samsAra-kAraNatvam)? 

2. Further, there is no such entity as AtmA-anavabodha (ajnAna) different from mithyA+jnAna. When it is thus absent, how at all are you saying it to be removed by (mahA) vAkya-jnAna?

In answer to these two queries, NS 3.7 propounds, by bringing the concept of ajnAta-sat, that both these objections are ill-founded on account on bhAvarUpa-ajnAna which is different from mithyA+jnAna. ajnAta-sat is to be understood by bringing in BBV 1.4.371, wherein it is stated that the kAraNatva of ajnAna is superimposed in Brahman. Since, this is held by siddhAntI that ajnAta-sat is stated as kAraNa only on account of kAraNatva of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna, both the objections of pUrvapakshI stand resolved. 

SSS ji has accepted the view of pUrvapakshI that avidyA is jnAna-abhAva. 

However, 1. for avidyA-kArya, he says -- avidyA is not the kAraNa, ajnAta-sat is kAraNa. [एवं च अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ? इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति । अज्ञातसत एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् ।]A sort of self-contradiction.

Further, he accepts that there is some ajnAna different from mithyA+jnAna [something not accepted by him when he says avidyA=mithyA-jnAna=jnAna-abhAva] and hence jnAna (avabodha) can remove Atma-anavabodha. [तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः] 

So, in a nutshell, there is a khichdi made by SSS ji in accepting some portion of pUrvapkshI, rejecting his own position (in adhyAsa bhAshya) of non-acceptance of Atma-anavabodha different from mithyA+jnAna, and then accepting the kAraNatva of ajnAta-sat but rejecting the kAraNatva of ajnAna, which is impossible.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DH04Lti6KiD9wAkGuzcw7x4YgkqAZ9Ru%3DEG2efQPrt7g%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

My anvaya for

// तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः //

would be

// तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण वस्तु अज्ञानं  नाम ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम् नास्ति इति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः//.

Translation // To claim that anything other than mithyAjnAna vastu, by name ajnAna (absence of knowledge), which is removable through jnAna, does not exist is indeed audacious //.

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Can you please give reference to following quoted by you

// Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment conceded to exist //.

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/CAH9%3D%2BBCxaym9H0G8Gn-85a0grvg9OeBfYOK5GXmZJbUy2V%3DfGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,

NS was a text which my Guru Swami Dayananda ji taught during our Gurukulavaasa. It was taught almost at the end of the residential course along with Brahmasutra Chatussutri. 

NS 3.6 is a purvapaksha by sAnkhya who does not accept a kArana-avidya for mithyAjnAna. For Sankhya moksha is atma-anAtma-viveka only, which is only a first step for the Vedantin. The bheda between atma and anatma is real for sAnkhya but we say that bheda, divison and taking anatma as atma and doing adhyAsa (which is mithya-jnAna) itself is due to a kArana-avidya, which is given up / destroyed by the pramAna-janita-jnAna from mahAvAkya. That is said in the second line of NS 3.6

कार्यम् एतत् अविद्याया ज्ञात्मना त्याजयेत् वाचः 

So the discussion is about whether such a kArana avidya is possible or not. The introduction to 3.7 is clearly a poorvapaksha where it is pointed out that mithyAjnAna alone is ajnAna and even if one talks about a kArana avidya, it is not possible as it is only jnAna-abhAva (as per the poorvapakshi) and hence cannot be a kAranA as abhAva cannot cause anything. The poorvapakshi also quotes chandogya 6th chapter to prove his point. For that NS 3.7 is a reply where the acharya brilliantly and succinctly points that ajnAna is there in nirvikalpa-avastha (like sleep, pralaya, moorcha) even though mithyA-jnAna is absent and it has to be the kArana of mithyAjnAna as mithyAjnAna in the form of triputi-bheda is experienced once one comes out of that avastha. This kArnA-avidya exists in the form of ajnAta-sat vastu  which was mentioned as sadvea somya idam agre Aseet (which is brahman seen as avyakta / avyAkrta) in chandogya sixth chapter. In the sat vastu all other vastus are also included and even during waking and dreaming (savikalpa-avasthA) it is the ajnAta-sat alone which is cognised as any object like pot (when one knows pot as pot one does not know it is sadAtma really, so, every cognition only points to the ajnAta-sad-vastu).

This kArana-avidyA has to be accepted as kincit-bhAvarupam as without it brahman alone cannot create anything. But since kArana-avidya is sublated by knowledge it is also not bhAva-vastu like brahman and so it has to be of the same status as its kAryam, mithyA-jnAna (bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa). This is proved by our anubhava also as we get up and recall our experience of not knowing anything in sleep. Bhashyakara also mentions this in Br Up Bh 4.3.6 

सुषुप्ताच्च उत्थानम् — सुखमहमस्वाप्सं न किञ्चिदवेदिषमिति ; 

Of course logically also one has to accept a kArana-avidyA to account for the kArya mithyAjnAna. So NS 3.7 clearly establishes bhAvarupa mulAvidya. I don't know how anyone can interpret it in any other way. My Guru used to say with pun intended that this (mithyAjnAna alone is ajnAna) is not a new view but holeya view (Kannada haleya, in tamil Pazhaiya, in English old). 

He also made it very clear to us that any ajnAna cannot be talked about without knowing some aspect of the pratiyogi. If I ask you, do you know Devadutta and you reply 'I do not know', that reply is possible because you know that Devadutta is not there in the list of people you know already and this much knowledge of pratiyogi is required to talk about any ignorance. So ignorance means always one aspect is known and another aspect is not known. So, therefore it is a covering which has to be bhAvarupa, also mentioned by bhagavan as ajnAnena avrtam jnAnam in Gita. That SSS missed this simple understanding and created a faulty prakriya is a tragedy. His Eskimo quotation was really pathetic as even a high school level student with normal analytical skills should be able to do better than that.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Translation // To claim that anything other than mithyAjnAna vastu, by name ajnAna (absence of knowledge), which is removable through jnAna, does not exist is indeed audacious //.

What is other than Brahman and mithyAjnana vastu that should not be said to "not exist"? Some aspect of nama-rupa and maya? Is it correct that they don't accept mithya as an ontological category even though they accept maya as anirvachaniya (not equivalent to mithya) and avidya-kalpita? See this post of Bhaskar-ji from long back:

https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-April/024391.html

I also don't see how maya is avidya-kalpita, avidya is jnana-abhava that is eliminated in jnana, and still maya and effect nama-rupa are not mithyAjnana vastu and should not be said DNE. 

My conclusion on SSS-team view: 

nama-rupa jagat when seen in Ajnana is "illusory appearance" but the appearance (constituting nama-rupa denotations of Sat) otherwise is satya of Brahman that remains even after the illusion (the wrong perception due to avidya) is removed once Brahman is realised as the adhishtanam of All (duality that does not vanish in jnana). We know only Gold in perception of ring and bangle, but the pratyaksha duality of ring vs bangle denotations of non-dual Gold is satya. 

(But if I am right in this interpretation, how is nama-rupa both satya and anirvachaniya? Perhaps because for the jnani the question does not arise and he knows only Gold in All. There is simply no special diminishing done of nama-rupa as if it can be considered separately from Brahman.)

However there is also a different standpoint of Turiya in which nama-rupa duality is entirely absent from consideration - but we cannot mix/compare/contradict that with the vyavaharika and call the latter mithya. They are both satya standpoints giving different satya knowledge of through different valid pramana. 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 5:46 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Chandramouliji,

How else would your translate his words - तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति?

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/CAEs%2B%2BdOd%2BwGnBRvD83fXarrkLAVSWseOWpgSibzoP6KSSiQ%3Dfg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Jaishankar ji

Thank you very much for the lucid explanation. There is a clear connection between the previous section and the current section in your interpretation. 

However, a question lingers. The pUrvapakshI had said "अज्ञानं हि नाम ज्ञानाभावः, तस्य चावस्तुस्वाभाव्यात् कुतः संसारकारणत्वं?" - However, the siddhAntin in this verse does not say "no, ajnAna is not jnAnAbhAva" nor does he directly refute this in the proximate section. Why is that?

If we examine the entire third chapter of the NaiShkarmya Siddhi, I think an answer to that question can be found. 

In 3.28, Sureshvaracharya says - "प्रत्यगात्मानवबोधस्यानात्मस्वाभाव्यात् तदभिनिर्वृत्तश्चायम् (अहं instead of अयं seems to be another reading) बुद्ध्यादिदेहान्तस्तस्मिन्नात्मत्वमविद्याकृतमेवाऽऽत्मत्वमिवाऽनात्मत्वमपि साऽविद्यस्यैव". 

The phrase प्रत्यगात्मानवबोधस्यानात्मस्वाभाव्यात् is indicative of ignorance being of the nature of the non-self.

Later in 3.58 there is the direct reference to the presence of ajnAna in deep sleep. "यदि हि सुषुप्तेऽज्ञानं नाभविष्यदन्तरेणापि वेदान्तवाक्यश्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनान्यहं ब्रह्मास्मीत्यध्यवसायात्सर्वप्राणभृतामपि स्वरसत एव सुषुप्तप्रतिपत्तेः सकलसंसारोच्छित्तिप्रसङ्गो न कैवल्यात्पुनरुत्थानं न्याय्यम्  अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात् |"

Further in 3.59 he describes the antah-karaNa as the product of ignorance - "एवं तावदविद्योत्थस्यान्तःकरणस्य बाह्यविषयनिमित्तरूपावच्छेदा या अहं वृत्तिर्व्याप्रियते तयाऽवच्छिन्नं सत्कूटस्थप्रत्यगात्मोपादनावबोधरूपस्याव्यवधानतया विषयभावम् प्रतिपद्यत इति" 

In 3.66 he describes the nature of avidyA 

सेयं भ्रान्तिर्निरालम्बा सर्वन्यायविरोधिनी |                                           

सहते न विचारम् सा तमो यद्वद्दिवाकरम् ||

तस्याः खल्वस्याविद्याया भ्रान्तेः सम्यग्ज्ञानोत्पत्तिद्वारेण निवृत्तिः   

In 3.77 he says that the ego is also a product of avidyA - अतो अहमर्थोऽनर्थोपसृष्टत्वादज्ञानोत्थितत्वाच्च हेयेति प्रत्यक्षतोऽवशिष्यते and in 3.78 - त्वमर्थे प्रत्यगात्मनि प्रागनवबुद्धाद्वितीयता सानेनावबोध्यते | अतोऽनवबोधनिरासेन तदुत्थस्य सद्वितीयत्वस्य त्वमर्थस्य परोक्षत्वस्य च तदर्थस्य निरसनात् न वैयधिकरण्यादिचोद्यस्यावसरोऽस्तीति - The word "you" (in the mahAvAkya You are That) causes the knowledge of the non-duality of the inner self, previously where there was ignorance in regard to it. It is through the destruction of this ignorance that the duality associated with the "you" and the remoteness associated with the "that", which are (both) born from that (ignorance) are destroyed, and therefore there is no room for the charge that the words "you" and "that" cannot be put in apposition.

It was shown that words can only apply to things that have guNa, kriyA, jAti, rUDhi etc, and the Atma cannot have any such associations. If the words cannot directly refer to the self, how can the sentence "I am Brahman" produce right knowledge? To this, in 3.105 he says - कथं पुनरभिधानं अभिदेयेनानभिसम्बद्धम् सदनभिधेयेऽर्थे प्रमां जनयतीति | शृणु - यथानभिसम्बद्धमपि अनभिधेयेऽर्थेऽविद्यानिराकरणमुखेन बोधयतीत्याह - Listen, a word that is not connected to the meaning intended to be conveyed by it, can convey that mean through the removal of ignorance associated with the meaning.

The implication of this statement is that ignorance necessarily cannot be of the nature of absence. If the word "Brahman" can only convey produce the knowledge of Brahman by removing the ignorance of Brahman, ignorance cannot be of the nature of the absence of knowledge of Brahman - because that would lead to the problem of anyonyAshraya. To know Brahman, one needs ignorance (absence of knowledge of Brahman) to be removed. To remove ignorance (the absence of knowledge of Brahman), one needs the knowledge of Brahman.

He gives the example of a sleeping man in the sloka in 3.105 and says there is really no connection between the name and the sleeper, but still, he wakes up (because calling his name disturbs his sleep). Similar is the case here (it is through the removal of ignorance, which does not have an explicable relationship with the self, but still its removal is the only way for one to wake up to the true nature of the self). 

In 3.109 - 

इत्येवं चोदयेद्योऽपि जोषयेत्तम् घटादिना |

सदसद्भ्याम् विभक्तोऽसौ पर्यायश्च न चानयोः ||

If someone asks thus (how can the right answer be arrived at using the false means - ie how can the removal of ignorance produce the knowledge of the self?), one should direct them to consider pots etc. All of those things are neither sat nor asat, nor sat and asat, in sequence. (Despite being mithyA, they have utility within their own domain. Similarly a mithyA vRtti-jnAna produced by shruti mahAvAkya has utility - it facilitates in the revelation of the self by removing ignorance).

So on what basis do we admit an avidyA? In Sureshvara's words in 3.110 - अविद्याप्रसिद्ध्यैव तद्सद्भावसिद्धेरुलूकनिशावदित्यत इदमुच्यते - The existence of ignorance is only proved by our familiarity with it (no pramANa can prove it, for the pramANa removes that ignorance) - it is like the case of the owl finding darkness in the daylight.

In 3.116 he says - 

कुतोऽविद्यॆति चोद्यं स्यान्नैव प्राघेत्वसम्भवात् | 

कालत्रापरिच्छित्तेर्न न चोर्ध्वं चोद्यसंभवः ||

The question how can ignorance exist is illegitimate both before and after knowledge. Before knowledge, its presence cannot be contested, and after knowleddge it stands destroyed in all three periods of time.   

Thus, the topic of this chapter is the tattvamasi sentence, and how it produces the knowledge necessary for liberation. In discussing this, the opponent had raised the challenge - 

(1) there is no ignorance of the Self other than false knowledge, what is it that is destroyed by the mahAvAkya?

(2) ignorance is nothing but the absence of knowledge, and as ignorance is a non-entity it cannot be the cause of samsAra

In answer, Sureshvaracharya first goes on to establish that ultimately it is the self that conveys existence to everything (including samsAra) but it is the unknown self that is the cause of samsAra. He later goes on to say that ignorance is of the nature of the non-self (anAtma svabhAvya), that there exists ignorance in deep sleep, it is the cause of the mind and the ego. There is no pramANa that reveals ignorance, because the nature of pramANa-s is antithetical to ignorance, but ignorance itself is well known, and its existence can only be explained on account of this prasiddhi. The duality of the inner self, and the remoteness of the paramAtma that are born from that ignorance are removed through the mahAvAkya shruti. The only way the mahAvAkya shruti can give rise to the knowledge of the self is through the denial of this inexplicable ignorance, because words cannot directly refer to the self, they can only remove the ignorance that obscures it.

A large portion of the above chain of logic does not work if ignorance of the self was simply the absence of knowledge.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

Yes you are right. I had misunderstood Sri SSS' position. 

Sri Sudhanshu pointed me to the line in the kleshApahAriNi where Sri SSS says - न च अज्ञानं विना मिथ्याज्ञानं संशयज्ञानं वा समुपजायते, येन तदतिरेकेण मिथ्याज्ञानम् एव अज्ञानम् इति आग्रहः स्यात्। 

So he seems to agree that there is a mithyAjnAna different to ajnAna and without ajnAna, mithyAjnAna cannot rise - but, presumably, he does not wish to go on to say ajnAna is the material cause of such a mithyAjnAna.

However, this position that there is an avidyA different to mithyA jnAna does appear to contradict his position from the mUlAvidyA nirAsah quoted by Hacker: - 

mitho viruddha svyabhavayor Atma anatmanor yadanyonyatopAdAnam anyonyadharmavattvena Akalanam ca tad etad Atmavido vyavaharanti avidyeti. amum eva adhyAsam avidyeti manyante tattvacintakAh. 

Hacker says "Just as S, Subramanya identifies avidyA and adhyAsa".

In the kleshApahAriNi, he takes the opposite position.

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/CAEs%2B%2BdOd%2BwGnBRvD83fXarrkLAVSWseOWpgSibzoP6KSSiQ%3Dfg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I don’t think Sri SSS takes any different position in KleshpahAriNi. His objection is for considering avidyA as kAraNa for adhyAsa. His position is that any bhAvarUpa avidyA, any such **positive** entity, as kAraNa for adhyAsa takes it outside the purview of adhyAsa. And this is advaitahAni. This is what is stated in the quote cited by Sudhanshu Ji

// Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment conceded to exist //.

This is his consistent refrain in VPP. He brings out that this objection is valid in respect of practically all the commentaries like PanchapAdika, VivaraNa, Ishta Siddhi, Bhamati etc. In an earlier private discussion with an acknowledged authority on SSS works, who was very closely associated with the KAryAlaya as well, I had pointed out that this is practically his only objection highlighted in VPP against all the commentaries, and that we could concentrate on resolving this issue. He had discussed this with others as well and agreed with me that we could just pursue this one issue further. Unfortunately the discussions could not be taken beyond a certain point to a logical conclusion as it was felt that face to face discussions were needed.

I have tried several times to locate this in VPP, because the original Sanskrit version needs to be cited for any meaningful debate. But somehow it has been eluding me.

I feel any headway is possible only if this one issue is resolved. Other issues are really secondary to this.

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

MUlAvidyA NirAsa is his first text dealing with the subject and written long time back. His VPP  was his latest text and covers all the issues dealt with in MN and revised.

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaskaram.

Reg // What is other than Brahman and mithyAjnana vastu that should not be said to "not exist"? //,

AjnAna (Absence of knowledge).

Regards

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

Doesn't Sri SSS admit that there is an avidyA that is the cause of adhyAsa in the kleshApahAriNi whereas he holds that avidyA and adhyAsa are identical in the mUlAvidyA nirAsah quote provided by Hacker? Is Hacker's understanding of Sri SSS' position wrong ? 

See below - in what sense did Sri SSS mean this: 

mitho viruddha svabhAvayor Atma anAtmanor yadanyonyatopAdAnam

anyonyadharmavattvena Akalanam ca tad etad Atmavido vyavaharanti avidyeti.

amum eva adhyAsam avidyeti manyante tattvacintakAh.

Hacker says "Just as S, Subramanya identifies avidyA and adhyAsa".

With respect to this:

// Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment conceded to exist //.

Sri SSS is willing to admit that adhyAsa originates from avidyA in the kleshApahAriNi. 

If Sri SSS is willing to accept that there is no harm to advaita due to adhyAsa, why is there harm to advaita if there is an adhyasta avidyA - because that is what we are talking about.

The avidyA we are talking of is adhyasta, so it is subject to adhyAsa. He himself concedes that adhyAsa originates from avidyA, which in our conception is adhyasta - so adhyAsa (of mind ego etc) does originate from adhyAsa of ignorance only. What is the problem?

There is no second anadhyasta entity for him to worry about. Whether avidyA is abhAvarUpa or adhyasta, there is no harm to advaita.

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/CAEs%2B%2BdOPRX7LU098Dq0OE0v_Oz_3vZGLhAUcsmK0MM-hhNN%3D8g%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I have not read Hacker. Hence I did not comment directly on his statement.

Reg // Sri SSS is willing to admit that adhyAsa originates from avidyA in the kleshApahAriNi //,

Where exactly has he said this. Probably he has said adhyAsa originates from ajnAna ?

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm92RYfcWCL3sQaRQNnk6k4QjiZwyOcXPz4_VrPnLEBGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

Yes, he has said adhyAsa originates from ajnAna. I shared the text a couple of mails ago, but here it is again -  न च अज्ञानं विना मिथ्याज्ञानं संशयज्ञानं वा समुपजायते.

Don't tell me he differentiates avidyA and ajnAna! 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdO5h5u0xwfYM4-BLhRfxRkZ9NH3uaL_uBg7KSQWrcKkrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Yes. Exactly. That is what I suspected. But preferred that you mention it yourself. He does differentiate differentiate avidyA and ajnAna !!! That is the whole issue we are talking about !!

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkJH%3DB7DxfKGTkoyGpADituCzrboki4h%2BGx_pQhZYOxHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Venkat ji,

This is news to me. He doesn't accept a bhAvarupa ajnAna or bhAvarupA avidyA.

So in his system, surely abhAvarUpa ajnAna = abhAvarUpA avidyA?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan QQ

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdNVUap8HzCPLdDGFOxXFh5%3DqbTXe%2BUk4sR7Uy6cBxDqgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Ha ha. You are surely bowled over. You have even addressed me as ** Venkat Ji** !!!

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkEhMCsQXm-X11KanPufEOb0hTAYYR5V2x-wRqhx6jGZw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Haha, I am totally and utterly taken aback by this! 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOxsg_hcSOzguByQufM%2BDxWpvQfZFhsyNd-GY18dsCPXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

 

I am quite sure he does not admit **bhAvarupA avidyA**. I think many quotes have already been cited in this regard.

But about  **bhAvarupa ajnAna** ??. Since I am not giving my understanding here in this thread but only presenting views of Sri SSS, you and others here need to judge.

Regards 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji 

I think I got your name right this time! :)

I don't know much about Sri SSS writings as a whole to make a judgment to be honest. All the AchAryas that I am aware of use the terms ajnAna and avidyA synonymously. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume Sri SSS is doing the same.

bhAvarupA ajnAna / avidyA, according to us, is adhyasta. Therefore the more important point is that there is no harm to advaita with an adhyasta ajnAna / avidyA, as it is not a second entity - it is superimposed itself, and therefore subject to adhyAsa.

Regards

Venkatraghavan 

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 17:27 H S Chandramouli, <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

 

I am quite sure he does not admit **bhAvarupA avidyA**. I think many quotes have already been cited in this regard.

But about  **bhAvarupa ajnAna** ??. Since I am not giving my understanding here in this thread but only presenting views of Sri SSS, you and others here need to judge.

Regards 

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:48 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Haha, I am totally and utterly taken aback by this! 

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 17:17 H S Chandramouli, <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Ha ha. You are surely bowled over. You have even addressed me as ** Venkat Ji** !!!

Regards

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:44 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat ji,

This is news to me. He doesn't accept a bhAvarupa ajnAna or bhAvarupA avidyA.

So in his system, surely abhAvarUpa ajnAna = abhAvarUpA avidyA?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan QQ

--
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/CAEs%2B%2BdO6bUn-XcCM_hd0YQqshnLfYpYeON26OWZFt%3DzB7ja7kA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,

I think by saying तत:  सत्  अञात:  भवेत्   -   Therefore, it is Brahman as sat which is unknown - he has clearly said there is no jnAna abhAva as brahman as  jnAnam is there but it is not known which means it is Avrtam - covered and the cover is there which is kAranam for bheda. Already he has introduced avidya in the first chapter

ऐकात्म्याप्रतिपत्तिर्या  स्वात्मानुभवसंश्रया ।
साऽविध्या  संसृतेर्बीजं  तन्नाशो  मुक्तिरात्मन: ॥७ ॥

That avidyA which is of the nature of not knowing the oneness of Atma and which is located and experienced by one self (Sakshi chaitanya), is the seed for the samsara  and its destruction is one's freedom. 

Also jnAna-abhAva means it is really jnAna-prAg-abhAva but he does not accept any abhAva at all. For example these TUBhV verses from the 1st Chapter are very clear

प्रध्वंसाच्छकलादि स्यात्तच्चानित्यं  घटादिवत् ।
कल्पनामात्रतोऽभावो नैवारभ्यः स कर्मभिः ॥ २९ ॥

By the act of destruction, the effect in the form of potsherds is produced. Like pt etc., it is transient. abhAva which is only an imagination is not produced by action.

आविर्भावतिरोभावैर्धर्मिण्यां मृदि सर्वदा ।
धर्मा घटादयः सर्वे वर्तन्ते न त्वभावगाः ॥ ३० ॥

All objects / qualities such as the pot always inhere in their cause, which is clay whether manifest or unmanifest. They are never non-existent.

नास्त्यभावस्य सम्बन्धः क्रियया वा गुणेन वा ।
निरात्मकत्वान्नैवालं सम्बद्धुं केनचित् क्वचित् ॥ ३१ ॥

abhAva / absence has no relation with action or quality. Since it has no existence it cannot be related to anything anywhere.

तस्मात्स्यात्कल्पनामात्रो व्यवहारप्रसिद्धये ।
प्रध्वंसादिरभावोऽयं शिलापुत्रादिवन्मृषा ॥ ३२ ॥

Therefore abhAva like pradhvamsa etc. (prior, posterior, mutual and absolute nonexistence) are only imaginations for the sake of transactions . It is unreal / illusory like a stone-son.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnHK6e5b%2B65JbtfF%2BdzYWgdPNQwV8oYDiTAd6EY%3Di0xxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji, Venkat ji.

I am just laughing out loud. What fun!!

//Don't tell me he differentiates avidyA and ajnAna! // //He does differentiate differentiate avidyA and ajnAna !!!//

I don't think SSS ji or for that matter any student of advaita can do this. If a quote can be given from his books - it will help.

I was a member of their group for last two-three years. But none mentioned it ever. 

As per my understanding, SSS ji does not distinguish ajnAna and avidyA. He holds mithyA+jnAna and ajnAna (=avidyA) as identical by relying on adhyAsa bhAshya. However, when confronted with situations such as MK 1.11 or NS 3.7, he changes his stand. He seeks to explain this kAraNa-ajnAna as some sort of logical presupposition etc. A lame explanation.

Regards.

[V Subrahmanian]

This statement of the Adhyasa Bhashya is pramANa for them to hold 'as per Shankara, AdhyAsa is Avidya':

तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते । तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणं विद्यामाहुः ।  

regards

subbu  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkEhMCsQXm-X11KanPufEOb0hTAYYR5V2x-wRqhx6jGZw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

That is my understanding of Sri SSS' position vis a vis the adhyAsa bhAShya - i.e. that adhyAsa is the same as avidyA. 

However, in the kleshApahAriNi, he had said न च अज्ञानं विना मिथ्याज्ञानं संशयज्ञानं वा समुपजायते, येन तदतिरेकेण मिथ्याज्ञानम् एव अज्ञानम् इति आग्रहः स्यात्। Without ajnAna, mithyAjnAna (adhyAsa) or doubtful knowledge cannot arise, for us to forcefully insist that mithyAjnAna itself is adhyAsa. This seems to indicate that Sri SSS holds ajnAna to be different to mithyAjnAna.

This leads one to question whether there is a contradiction between the interpretation of the adhyAsa bhAShya and the interpretation of the naiShkarmya siddhi. Sri Chandramouli resolved the contradiction by saying that ajnAna and avidyA are different according to Sri SSS. 

That is, ajnAna which is abhAvarUpa, causes adhyAsa (avidyA) according to Sri SSS. If this is his position, his text should have been called mUlAjnAna nirAsah, not mUlAvidyA nirAsah - because as adhyAsa is the mUla of all anartha, and he says adhyAsa = avidyA, he must necessarily accept mUlAvidyA (i.e Atma-anAtma adhyAsa) so where is the question of its nirAsah? 

Secondly if he really holds adhyAsa = avidyA, he should have no problem with an adhyasta ajnAna either. Because adhyAsa doesnt cause advaita hAni. Both us and he agree with this. Therefore, if he holds adhyAsa  = avidyA, let us take adhyasta ajnAna  = avidyA also, for the same reason that it is adhyasta! Why differentiate between adhyasta ajnAna (ours) and adhyasta avidyA (his)?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2vVX1Cc6RP2EpzR6Z3_eo-jv-Q-UMFZU348w_LD1V%3DQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Venkatji,

Don't tell me he differentiates avidyA and ajnAna! 

This thread has gone beyond hilarious now!! When someone told me that one Swamiji will be teaching NS with TIkA, i said I'm interested, but when he said that he has requested Swamiji to teach Kleshapaharini, i lost interest immediately. As Jaishankar ji quoted, the title of the TIkA is really a misnomer.

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] */

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024, 2:47 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Ha ha. You are surely bowled over. You have even addressed me as ** Venkat Ji** !!!

Hahaha! Thanks all, for a wonderful thread full of publishable scholarly analysis, as well as pulling the rug from under the scholars!

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Jaishankar ji,

Re:

आविर्भावतिरोभावैर्धर्मिण्यां मृदि सर्वदा ।

धर्मा घटादयः सर्वे वर्तन्ते न त्वभावगाः ॥

This vArttika reminds me of these statements from the ghaTa bhAShya BUB 1.2.1.

अपि च, चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो दृष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् । 

abhAva itself is bhAvarupA says the bhAshyakAra!

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-FkYta2yywFfxZXA1rZHnktrxQJfAsnckhzDi_cooa%2BZg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

Reg // What is other than Brahman and mithyAjnana vastu that should not be said to "not exist"? //,

AjnAna (Absence of knowledge).

So his contention is that avidya=ajnana=jnana-abhava - which is anadi but destroyed by jnana - still "exists"? Maybe this is an imperfect translation of "exist", or I guess I don't follow and am not quite keeping up with the other posts. Will read more carefully the following discussions.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

 

Translation // To claim that anything other than mithyAjnAna vastu, by name ajnAna (absence of knowledge), which is removable through jnAna, does not exist is indeed audacious //.

What is other than Brahman and mithyAjnana vastu that should not be said to "not exist"? Some aspect of nama-rupa and maya? Is it correct that they don't accept mithya as an ontological category even though they accept maya as anirvachaniya (not equivalent to mithya) and avidya-kalpita? See this post of Bhaskar-ji from long back:

https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-April/024391.html

I also don't see how maya is avidya-kalpita, avidya is jnana-abhava that is eliminated in jnana, and still maya and effect nama-rupa are not mithyAjnana vastu and should not be said DNE. 

My conclusion on SSS-team view: 

nama-rupa jagat when seen in Ajnana is "illusory appearance" but the appearance (constituting nama-rupa denotations of Sat) otherwise is satya of Brahman that remains even after the illusion (the wrong perception due to avidya) is removed once Brahman is realised as the adhishtanam of All (duality that does not vanish in jnana). We know only Gold in perception of ring and bangle, but the pratyaksha duality of ring vs bangle denotations of non-dual Gold is satya. 

(But if I am right in this interpretation, how is nama-rupa both satya and anirvachaniya? Perhaps because for the jnani the question does not arise and he knows only Gold in All. There is simply no special diminishing done of nama-rupa as if it can be considered separately from Brahman.)

However there is also a different standpoint of Turiya in which nama-rupa duality is entirely absent from consideration - but we cannot mix/compare/contradict that with the vyavaharika and call the latter mithya. They are both satya standpoints giving different satya knowledge of through different valid pramana. 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdP2vLzoWihQx-roBqM0mFaKnu9osvw5hE%3D73LfbTErCtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

abhAva itself is bhAvarupA says the bhAshyakAra!

It is such an important concept to understand.

As we know ghaTa-abhAva is anupalabdhi-pramANa-vedya.

An objection arises: as per siddhAnta, abhAva is not different from adhikaraNa. So, pot-abhAva has to be adhikaraNa-swarUpa. That means, pot-abhAva is identical to the ground. Now, ground is pratyaksha-vedya. So, where is the requirement of anupalabdhi-pramANa?

Ground is pratyaksha. Pot-abhAva is identical to ground. So, pot-abhAva i.e. ground is pratyaksha. anupalabdhi-pramANa is useless.

Here, it is answered. vyAvhArika-vishesha-abhAva is not identical to adhikaraNa. It is a different mithyA vastu (other than ground) and is hence anirvachanIya and triguNAtmaka. And it hence requires a separate pramANa named anupalabdhi as pratyaksha cannot grasp it. (And also pratyaksha is utilised in pratyaksha of ground).

Only pAramArthika-abhAva is accepted in siddhAnta as adhikaraNa Brahman swarUpa.

Further, those siddhAntI who admit all abhAva as adhikaraNa swarUpa, don't admit anupalabdhi at all. However, even in their case, abhAva being identical to locus is bhAvarUpa.

So, vishesha-abhAva is always accepted as triguNAtmak, anirvachanIya and mithyA.

That is why I always wonder, even if SSS ji holds avidyA to be jnAna-abhAva, how does it matter? It still remains mithyA, triguNAtmaka, anirvachanIya.

I have raised this query several times in their group citing the ghaTa bhAshya anumAna of BhAshyakAra, but no sustainable answer came up.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNams

I gave up reading these innumerable posts on the topic.

Can someone summarize the essence in simple terms in a way people like me can understand and appreciate.

Hari Om!

Sada

_______________________________________________
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

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

So his contention is that avidya=ajnana=jnana-abhava - which is anadi but destroyed by jnana - still "exists"? Maybe this is an imperfect translation of "exist", or I guess I don't follow and am not quite keeping up with the other posts. Will read more carefully the following discussions.

My reasoning:

You can't say "Ajnana exists" and also that "Ajnana is the cause for wrong perception which is destroyed by jnana".  The former Ajnana is nothing but denotation of Brahman, the adhishtanam; so to say: "Ajnana exists" is non-different from saying "Brahman is Existence". Whereas in the latter usage, Ajnana is a namarupa denoting the "cause" of wrong perception that vanishes with that world in Jnana. So this Ajnana cannot be said to belong ("exist") or not belong in that world it causes to appear. It is anirvachaniya. The same applies to namarupa in general and Maya. If you identify them in the context of a world that itself you say is an appearance, then they too are part of the appearance and cannot be anything other than anirvachaniya/mithya (wrong perception is that this appearance-context is satya and therefore they are satya as well). If on the other hand, you negate their world-meaning in jnana and consider all as denotation of Brahman, then stop referring back to their world-meaning when claiming they "exist". All you are saying is "Brahman exists" using other words for Brahman; once you say "Ajnana is jnana-abhava and cause for wrong perception", "Maya is cause for namarupa appearance", "fire is red in colour" etc., you no longer have a legitimate claim on "Exist" without running into contradictions.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Also, imo: If the response is that the referenced "word meaning" here is not meant in the context of that world-appearance but rather as a descriptor of the "rupa" part of the namarupa that should be realized as a unitary denotation of Brahman (and not as nama vs rupa), the reply is that the namarupa is still being identified within a world of duality of the so-called Denotations of Brahman. Brahman has been divided as Denotation and Denoted and we are talking about the existence of the Denotations using their differentiated world as the basis/context for identification. This world is mithya and so are the objects (namarupas as denotations of Brahman) identified individually and distinctly within it, that we would have a debate over whether they exist or not.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sri Sadanandaji

Broadly speaking, there are two camps here. One camp believes in the concept of mUlAvidyA and the other camp does not believe in this.

Each camp is presenting arguments and quotes in support of their position.

This is what I understood.

Thank you and Best Regards

Kalyan

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Indeed, abhAva is also adhyasta only. This is similar to the argument that I made. 

What is the harm if avidyA is kincidbhAvarUpa which is adhyasta or jnAna abhAva which is adhyasta? 

I suppose he would fall back to the logical presupposition charge - he would not agree that avidya can logically presuppose  adhyAsa. But even here, he has pretty much admitted in the kleshApahAriNi that an abhAvarUpa ajnAna can logically presuppose adhyAsa -  न च अज्ञानं विना मिथ्याज्ञानं संशयज्ञानं वा समुपजायते. That is, according to him, an (adhyasta?) abhAvarUpa ajnAna can logically presuppose mithyAjnAna, i.e. adhyAsa.

So either he must argue that abhAvarUpa ajnAna is not adhyasta, OR not have a problem with adhyasta kincid bhAvarupa ajnAna , just like he has no problem with an adhyasta abhAvarUpa ajnAna.

In the former, he falls into the bhAvAdvaita camp of maNDana miSra (which he wouldn't tolerate), and in the latter, his whole problem with kincid bhAvarupa ajnAna is nothing but a storm in a teacup.

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%2BBDhRBk21ssSFBakbsQZm0sPk1nPgEW8th0QPG8RYkUGdw%40mail.gmail.com.