Mandukya bhashya. Ignorance seed in sushupti
V Subrahmanian
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Myself and Sri Subbu prabhuji have discussed this based on Sri SSS perspective of kAraNAvidyA in sushupti and other vyAkhyAnakAra-s bhAva rUpa mUlAvidyA in sushupti. So it is not for him 😊
Just for the information there is valley of difference in saying there is jnAnAbhAva ( i.e. absence of knowledge that he is one with parabrahman) in sushupti and there is positive entity like mUlAvidyA in sushupti which envelops the brahman itself. In short abhAva of the knowledge that he is one with brahman is not come in the way of his ekatvaM in sushupti whereas existence of bhAvarUpa avidyA which is the upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa would throw us in a helpless situation that there is no way to realize our ekatvaM in any of the avastha and lOkAnubhava or pUrNAnubhava. So unless and until we know the meaning of avidyA beeja shakti as per the context of avasthAtraya prakriya there is no point in either saying that there is ekatvaM in sushupti or astitvaM of avidyA in bhAvarUpa in sushupti. If the prAjna in sushupti is embracing avidyA then shruti would not have said that prajnastu parameshwaraH and who is always / ever free from avidyA (nitya nivruttaavidyatvAt Ishwarasya, he is sarvajna, sarva shakta, paraM etc. So we have to be very careful before hastening to announce that there exists avidyA in sushupti.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
sreenivasa murthy
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/CAKk0Te2Yy%2BZOanREG6LHnbDHkjoskSTV8UcKLhEwbnmEoVV61A%40mail.gmail.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear All,
Just for the record, I would like to register my membership of the 1% brigade!
Having spent the past 2 years reading everything I could find on the topics of ignorance and disappearance of the world on enlightenment, I have finally completed what constitutes Vol. 2 of my ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta’, sub-titled ‘Ignorance and its Removal’. (Sent to the publisher today.) As many will recall, the purpose of this series (4 volumes in total) is to address those issues that cause confusion amongst Advaitins and to clarify Ṥaṅkara’s stance on them, principally using quotations from shruti, GIta, Gaudapada, Ṥaṅkara and Sureshvara to counter the many quotations expressing contrary or conflicting explanations.
In this volume, one of the aspects that I specifically address is the notion of avidyA as a really existent entity and I am afraid that I have to conclude, using reason and common sense, as well as the quotations, that what is meant by ‘ignorance’ is simply ‘lack of knowledge’. Essentially, it is a language problem. So, yes, there is certainly ignorance in the deep-sleep state, simply because the mind is resolved and incapable of having knowledge about anything. But there is no mUlAvidyA, I’m afraid. And I hope that many WILL be convinced if they read all of the arguments. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly be next summer at the earliest before it appears. (Incidentally, I do not consider myself to be an SSS adherent, even though I agree with him on these topics. There are quite a few others where I disagree!)
And, before everyone jumps up and down and starts sending me outraged responses, I have no intention of embarking upon a discussion here. My consideration in the book is at least 70,000 words long and cannot be summarized in a few short paragraphs. Also, I will be on holiday for the next week so unable even to read them. Sorry! I mainly wanted to reassure those readers who were dismayed to think that they were in the 1% who clearly did not understand Advaita!
Best wishes,
Dennis
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1927104624.3849582.1687873635846%40mail.yahoo.com.
Akilesh Ayyar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581994C00B2F5C83EF1BF948427A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
If there is such a thing as “sushupti,” a state which is contrasted to waking and dreaming, then we are already speaking from a perspective of duality.
- Yes, it is from the dualistic vyavahAra only same rule is applicable when we are talking about contrasting nature between tureeya and prAjna 😊
Such a dualistic perspective is itself a manifestation of avidya.
- Yes, all loukika and vaidika vyavahAra is within the realm of avidyA only clarifies bhAshyakAra.
If there is no avidya (and in truth there is no avidya) then neither can there really be said to be any such state called “sushupti” (or for that matter any such thing as a “dualistic perspective”).
Ø Yes, hence it has been said avastha-s (avasthA traya) are adhyArOpita on Atman to prove that he is avasthAteeta (kArika itself clarifies this). However, avasthAtraya vishleshaNa is a prakriya like srushti prakriya, kArya-kAraNa prakriya, sAmAnya-vishesha prakriya, paNcha kOsha prakriya etc. to ultimately prove that Atman / brahman is nirvishesha. Till the realization of this truth all these gymnastics required with the aid of shruti, yukti and anubhava 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
bhaskar
K Kathirasan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/003701d9a912%24234d8a50%2469e89ef0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Just for the record, I would like to register my membership of the 1% brigade!
Ø Me too 😊
to clarify Ṥaṅkara’s stance on them, principally using quotations from shruti, GIta, Gaudapada, Ṥaṅkara and Sureshvara to counter the many quotations expressing contrary or conflicting explanations.
Ø Happy to note that you are choosy here and picking ONLY shankara bhagavatpAda and one later follower of shankara ( vArtikakAra Sri Sureshwara) to share your observations. Just curious what makes you to think like this when plenty of later vyakhyAnakAra-s from their respective schools of thought contributing heavily on this issue in their respective works like bhAmati, paNchapAdika vivaraNa etc. !!??
In this volume, one of the aspects that I specifically address is the notion of avidyA as a really existent entity and I am afraid that I have to conclude, using reason and common sense, as well as the quotations, that what is meant by ‘ignorance’ is simply ‘lack of knowledge’.
- Those who are from 1% camp saying that ‘nobody would get realization by sleeping’ to say that sushupti is itself mOksha 😊 bhAshyakAra would not say that either. But even though you are one with brahman ( there are variant explanations with regard to this ikyam based on 6th mantra of kArika) you are not aware of that ikyaM / ekatvaM, that lack of knowledge is called ‘jnAnaabhAva’ which is the avidyA in abhAva form that exists in sushupti.
Essentially, it is a language problem. So, yes, there is certainly ignorance in the deep-sleep state, simply because the mind is resolved and incapable of having knowledge about anything. But there is no mUlAvidyA, I’m afraid.
- But mUlavidyAvAdins have some explanations to this to justify their stand on the existence of bhAvarUpa mulAvidyA. One of the main argument is, if you say in sushupti there is no avidyA, without any effort of our own you will become brahman so without any shAstra janita jnana avidyA on its own completely annihilated and you will become brahman !! this leads to shAstrAnarthakya dOsha so we have to accept mulAvidyA is there in avyakta rupa even though vyakta adhyAsa (kAryAvidyA) is absent there.
And I hope that many WILL be convinced if they read all of the arguments. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly be next summer at the earliest before it appears.
- Would like to read more on these clarifications from your desk.
(Incidentally, I do not consider myself to be an SSS adherent, even though I agree with him on these topics. There are quite a few others where I disagree!)
Ø That is OK no problem prabhuji, just saw even Sri Kathirasan prabhuji also saying the same thing 😊 We, the socalled, asampradAyavAdin Sri SSS followers would happy to know even not so good friend of Sri SSS’s shuddha shankara prakriya in agreement with this very important aspect of Advaita vedAnta and saying mUlAvidyA as propagated by vyakhyAnakAra-s is not in line with shankara.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Hi Bhaskar-ji,
Just a quick response.
Up until writing this book, I considered myself a VivaraNa Advaitin. But I found a number of so-called ‘translations’ of Ṥaṅkara bhAShya-s which imposed prior (mis-)understanding of some topics and did not translate the words that were there. This habit seems to continue into later writers – a bit like ‘Chinese Whispers’! Hence we end up with ideas like AvaraNa and vikShepa. Also later writers seem to spend inordinate amounts of effort trying to explain and argue their mistaken views.
Ignorance in deep-sleep:
- Ignorance means lack of knowledge, a bit like darkness means lack of photons in the visible electromagnetic spectrum.
- Knowledge takes place in the mind.
- There is lack of knowledge in deep-sleep because the mind is resolved.
- It is only in this sense that there is ‘ignorance’ in deep-sleep. There is no actual entity called ‘ignorance’.
- On awakening or going into dream, the mind becomes active again and continues the related activities (external perception in waking; internal, memory-related in dream).
- If the mind was unenlightened before going to sleep, it is still unenlightened afterwards! No surprise there, then!
- You don’t ‘become Brahman’ in deep-sleep – you are already Brahman, all of the time! You just lack the knowledge.
Best wishes,
Dennis
--
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/AM7PR06MB6581CE79802ECE1D11CF882E8424A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001001d9a994%2400381670%2400a84350%24%40advaita.org.uk.
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
Bhaskar YR
praNAms uttishtata jaagrata bharat prabhuji
Hare Krishna
If you are sick and tired of repeating arguments here, please refer archives plenty of quotes and observations available from both sides. If you are a member of Advaita-L also, there also you will get aplenty previous discussions 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of ????????? ?????? Bharat
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 1:35 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Mandukya bhashya. Ignorance seed in sushupti
|
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w9nMhYptB%2BcdJn0kked702Dn31Ly9seib3ZVnsH3dH4xA%40mail.gmail.com.
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581C54B19B5EC11EF33D4F68424A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sri Kriahnarpanamastu,
If you read my initial post, you will see:
- that I only commented to allay any concerns from those who worried that they were amongst the ‘1%’ and therefore might not understand Advaita; that they might actually not be wrong.
- that I have written of the order of 70,000 words on this subject in the new book, including very many quotations supporting what I say, contradicting what others have said, or pointing out erroneous translations that are very likely to mislead.
- it is impossible to summarize all of this in a few paragraphs and I have no intention of trying to do so.
- that I am on holiday imminently and will not be able to respond.
I apologize for any frustration that this may cause but…
Best wishes,
Dennis
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
--
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/002901d9a9a0%24e119b480%24a34d1d80%24%40advaita.org.uk.
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
I agree entirely!
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of ????????? ?????? Bharat
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 10:36 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Mandukya bhashya. Ignorance seed in sushupti
My problem,starts only when someone starts making a claim but then instead of evidence from the source what we get is either rhetoric or interpretations.(from my experience while reviewing papers)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w--C545zxb%2BVnEBOmCNV%2BwvF9Q8GaGW5BqvmkkbV0_hSw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Just a quick response.
Ø Thanks for taking time to reply 😊
Up until writing this book, I considered myself a VivaraNa Advaitin. But I found a number of so-called ‘translations’ of Ṥaṅkara bhAShya-s which imposed prior (mis-)understanding of some topics and did not translate the words that were there. This habit seems to continue into later writers – a bit like ‘Chinese Whispers’! Hence we end up with ideas like AvaraNa and vikShepa. Also later writers seem to spend inordinate amounts of effort trying to explain and argue their mistaken views.
Ø Interestingly with regard to AvaraNa and vikshepa shakti of avidyA which later vyAkhyAnakara-s introduced in their vyAkhyAna, Sri SSS observed that it is quite alien to the mUla bhAshya sans avaraNAtmakatvaat in geeta bhAshya (conceal nature of avidyA) and says these two powers that sway the brahman is quite an unwanted contribution from later vyAkhyAnakAra-s.
Ignorance in deep-sleep:
- Ignorance means lack of knowledge, a bit like darkness means lack of photons in the visible electromagnetic spectrum.
Ø Incidentally in FB one Sri Sudhanshu shekar prabhuji presented his views about tamas/darkness and argues that it is positive entity not mere abhAva of light. Perhaps Sri Michel prabhuji can share this argument.
- Knowledge takes place in the mind.
Ø And that knowledge has to happen in jAgrat avastha through shAstra and Acharya upadesha and for that we need karaNa like mind. Since in sushupti karaNa is upashanta (upAdhi upashanta sthiti) we have to accept that sushupti is having the avyakta avidyA sans adhyAsa…so says mUlAvidyAvAdins.
- There is lack of knowledge in deep-sleep because the mind is resolved.
Ø Yes, since the mind is laya we have to infer avidyA to there in seed form..arguments goes like this in vyAkhyAnakAra schools.
- It is only in this sense that there is ‘ignorance’ in deep-sleep. There is no actual entity called ‘ignorance’.
- Based on avaraNa and vikshepa powers of avidyA AvaraNa will be there in full force in sushupti though vikshepa absent and that is what conceal the real nature of our svarUpa hence it is a positive shakti (avidyA beeja shakti) counters mUlavidyAvAdin. And it can be noted here according to them it is not mere abhAva (absence) of knowledge it is something positive which is the material cause for the vikshepa / adhyAsa in jagrat and svapna.
- On awakening or going into dream, the mind becomes active again and continues the related activities (external perception in waking; internal, memory-related in dream).
- If the mind was unenlightened before going to sleep, it is still unenlightened afterwards! No surprise there, then!
- Yes this is what said in su.bh.2-1-9, here bhAshyakAra takes both sushupti and samAdhi states and observes that in both states mithyAjnAna is yet to be removed. Quote from Sri SSS ‘ just as in deep sleep and samAdhi there is attained the intrinsic state of absence of distinctions, and yet distinction reappears in waking as before on account of mithyAjnAna not being removed, so also it may well happen in this case (final dissolution / pralaya) also.’. To avoid complete mergence of Atman in sushupti and to propagate avidyA in sushupti there is a statement that in sushupti ONLY partial oneness happens (mAtrayaa paramAtmabhAvaH) and it is not full 😊
- You don’t ‘become Brahman’ in deep-sleep – you are already Brahman, all of the time! You just lack the knowledge.
- Yes, and this is what exactly bhAshyakAra says in su. Bh. tadabhAvAdhikaraNa in 3rd chapter. There is no time when jeeva has not become one with brahman because it is simply his intrinsic nature which cannot be deviated. Since in jAgrat and svapna he (jeeva) is seemingly associated with foreign aspect (upAdhi saMbandha) it is said that he attains his own form in sushupti since there is absent of that associated adjuncts.
And this is not to spoil your free holiday times, just sharing my thoughts, don’t bother to reply.
V Subrahmanian
Hi Bhaskar-ji,
Just a quick response.
Up until writing this book, I considered myself a VivaraNa Advaitin. But I found a number of so-called ‘translations’ of Ṥaṅkara bhAShya-s which imposed prior (mis-)understanding of some topics and did not translate the words that were there. This habit seems to continue into later writers – a bit like ‘Chinese Whispers’! Hence we end up with ideas like AvaraNa and vikShepa. Also later writers seem to spend inordinate amounts of effort trying to explain and argue their mistaken views.
Ignorance in deep-sleep:
- Ignorance means lack of knowledge, a bit like darkness means lack of photons in the visible electromagnetic spectrum.
- Knowledge takes place in the mind.
- There is lack of knowledge in deep-sleep because the mind is resolved.
- It is only in this sense that there is ‘ignorance’ in deep-sleep. There is no actual entity called ‘ignorance’.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Thus, the non-perception of truth is the avidya that Gaudapada and the Bhashya refer to when they say avidya in deep sleep. It is not mere 'non-perception/not knowing things/lack of sensory knowledge' due to the absence of mind in deep sleep.
- Just a curious question not for subsequent debates just for academic interest, first, you said the non perception / tattvAgrahaNa is the avidyA as per gaudapaada and bhAshya in deep sleep. And continued with the same breath you stated “ it is not mere non-perception’. I am not able to understand this’is’ and ‘is not’. Little more elaboration required.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of V Subrahmanian
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 4:49 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Mandukya bhashya. Ignorance seed in sushupti
|
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
--
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/CAKk0Te1JGBpW91FpO6F%2BEnNXEm%3DdLiVWbZtxskQVj9uQ8RSAmA%40mail.gmail.com.
H S Chandramouli
Dear Dennis,
Really do not want to spoil your holiday mood. But felt compelled to just draw your attention to one point made by you.
// Ignorance means lack of knowledge, a bit like darkness means lack of photons in the visible electromagnetic spectrum //.
This is not the position taken in the Shrutis as explained by Sri Bhagavatpada.
BU 3-7-13
// यस्तमसि तिष्ठंस्तमसोऽन्तरो यं तमो न वेद यस्य तमः शरीरं यस्तमोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १३ ॥//
// yastamasi tiShThaMstamaso.antaro yaM tamo na veda yasya tamaH sharIraM yastamo.antaro yamayatyeSha ta AtmAntaryAmyamRRitaH || 13 || //
Bhashya thereon
// योऽप्सु तिष्ठन् , अग्नौ, अन्तरिक्षे, वायौ, दिवि, आदित्ये, दिक्षु, चन्द्रतारके, आकाशे, यस्तमस्यावरणात्मके बाह्ये तमसि, तेजसि तद्विपरीते प्रकाशसामान्ये — इत्येवमधिदैवतम् अन्तर्यामिविषयं दर्शनं देवतासु । //
// yo.apsu tiShThan , agnau, antarikShe, vAyau, divi, Aditye, dikShu, chandratArake, AkAshe, yastamasyAvaraNAtmake bAhye tamasi, tejasi tadviparIte prakAshasAmAnye — ityevamadhidaivatam antaryAmiviShayaM darshanaM devatAsu | //
Translation (Swami Madhavananda) // He who inhabits water,fire,the sky, the air, heaven, the sun, the quarters, the moon and the stars, the ether, darkness – the external darkness which obstructs vision, and light, light in general which is the opposite of darkness //.
AntaryAmi Devata is mentioned in respect of Darkness as well. This is the Shruti PramANa for darkness as BhAvarUpa, an existent entity.
Please do not bother about responding immediately or even early. I am posting now since I am most likely to forget about it later. You may like to respond on your return from the holidays.
Have a nice and enjoyable holiday.
With Best Wishes
Chandramouli
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001001d9a994%2400381670%2400a84350%24%40advaita.org.uk.
V Subrahmanian
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581D2B05B6C0A5A6E8875C88424A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
sunil bhattacharjya
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsGr66vngK51sMfAjVwd1AMrzEH9bLu_SNMpZZYN0M-w7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Subbu-ji,
The points I listed were intended to be simple reasoning, not summarizing the teaching of Ṥaṅkara. And, as you know, this does say that teaching cannot contradict experience or reason.
Can I ask what, other than mind, would be the means of non-perception in suShupti? And what is ‘non-perception of truth’ other than lack of realization in the mind following shravaNa-manana? It is the giving of new names to situations that is precisely the reason why new meanings and interpretations are invented by later writers.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis ji,
The above points, numbered upto 4, is not the correct depiction of Gaudapada and Shankara in the Mandukya: There is a situation called 'tattva agrahanam', non-perception of the ultimate Reality, Truth, the ontological Brahman, which is there in sushupti. This non-perception, along with the perception of duality is there in waking and dream. Thus, the non-perception of truth is the avidya that Gaudapada and the Bhashya refer to when they say avidya in deep sleep. It is not mere 'non-perception/not knowing things/lack of sensory knowledge' due to the absence of mind in deep sleep.
regards
subbu
- On awakening or going into dream, the mind becomes active again and continues the related activities (external perception in waking; internal, memory-related in dream).
- If the mind was unenlightened before going to sleep, it is still unenlightened afterwards! No surprise there, then!
- You don’t ‘become Brahman’ in deep-sleep – you are already Brahman, all of the time! You just lack the knowledge.
Best wishes,
Dennis
--
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/CAKk0Te1JGBpW91FpO6F%2BEnNXEm%3DdLiVWbZtxskQVj9uQ8RSAmA%40mail.gmail.com.
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/006101d9a9c5%240ede4740%242c9ad5c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
In the Bhagavad Gītā 13.2 Bhāṣya, Ṥaṅkara indicates three ‘features’ of avidyā: agrahaṇātmaka – non-perception (agrahaṇa) of the truth; viparītagrāhaka – wrong perception (viparīta) of the truth; saṃśayopasthāpaka – doubtful (saṃśaya) perception of the truth. And he concludes that avidyā is in the mind.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of ????????? ?????? Bharat
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:36 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w-kb524rtZxxXO5SeORK2oiYD6iMVNa7VQqCSrLT1A00g%40mail.gmail.com.
Praveen R. Bhat
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Bhat-ji,
I also do not wish to participate in a never-ending discussion (and I know that these discussions have been going on for centuries!). But, since you are contesting my claim that the AvaraNa-vikShepa differentiation is post Ṥaṅkara, could you point out where, in the quotation you mention, does the ‘vikShepa’ reference occur? I don’t think that anyone would argue that lack of knowledge ‘hides’ the truth! Certainly I never suggested otherwise.
I happily repeat my ‘laughable’ statement. I attempted to read the views of a number of post-Ṥaṅkara authors trying to explain what Ṥaṅkara ‘really’ meant on the subject of ignorance and had to give up on most as they became quite incomprehensible. I like the comment of D. B. Gangolli: “Because there is no purpose served by, or any benefit accruing, from this discussion at all, vis-à-vis the determination of the Absolute, Ultimate Reality of Vedānta, we have given up this subject matter which is purely an exercise – a brain racking one at that – in futility.” Some examples and comments on these ‘mistaken’ views are given in the book (although, of course I appreciate, you are unlikely to read it). [I use the word ‘mistaken’ in a general sense, encompassing also those views which invent new elements which were never propounded by Ṥaṅkara.]
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Praveen R. Bhat
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 4:13 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.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/CACT7j-EwL%3D9Q7-31SZzxUK3qvSwAO-TekBgfqhHfdVMdD9QyfQ%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
Dear Subbu-ji,
The points I listed were intended to be simple reasoning, not summarizing the teaching of Ṥaṅkara. And, as you know, this does say that teaching cannot contradict experience or reason.
Can I ask what, other than mind, would be the means of non-perception in suShupti?
- Knowledge takes place in the mind.
- There is lack of knowledge in deep-sleep because the mind is resolved.
- It is only in this sense that there is ‘ignorance’ in deep-sleep. There is no actual entity called ‘ignorance’.
--And what is ‘non-perception of truth’ other than lack of realization in the mind following shravaNa-manana? It is the giving of new names to situations that is precisely the reason why new meanings and interpretations are invented by later writers.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis ji,
The above points, numbered upto 4, is not the correct depiction of Gaudapada and Shankara in the Mandukya: There is a situation called 'tattva agrahanam', non-perception of the ultimate Reality, Truth, the ontological Brahman, which is there in sushupti. This non-perception, along with the perception of duality is there in waking and dream. Thus, the non-perception of truth is the avidya that Gaudapada and the Bhashya refer to when they say avidya in deep sleep. It is not mere 'non-perception/not knowing things/lack of sensory knowledge' due to the absence of mind in deep sleep.
regards
subbu
- On awakening or going into dream, the mind becomes active again and continues the related activities (external perception in waking; internal, memory-related in dream).
- If the mind was unenlightened before going to sleep, it is still unenlightened afterwards! No surprise there, then!
- You don’t ‘become Brahman’ in deep-sleep – you are already Brahman, all of the time! You just lack the knowledge.
Best wishes,
Dennis
--
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/CAKk0Te1JGBpW91FpO6F%2BEnNXEm%3DdLiVWbZtxskQVj9uQ8RSAmA%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/006101d9a9c5%240ede4740%242c9ad5c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Praveen R. Bhat
But, since you are contesting my claim that the AvaraNa-vikShepa differentiation is post Ṥaṅkara, could you point out where, in the quotation you mention, does the ‘vikShepa’ reference occur?
I don’t think that anyone would argue that lack of knowledge ‘hides’ the truth! Certainly I never suggested otherwise.
I happily repeat my ‘laughable’ statement.
I attempted to read the views of a number of post-Ṥaṅkara authors trying to explain what Ṥaṅkara ‘really’ meant on the subject of ignorance and had to give up on most as they became quite incomprehensible.
I like the comment of D. B. Gangolli: “Because there is no purpose served by, or any benefit accruing, from this discussion at all, vis-à-vis the determination of the Absolute, Ultimate Reality of Vedānta, we have given up this subject matter which is purely an exercise – a brain racking one at that – in futility.”
Some examples and comments on these ‘mistaken’ views are given in the book (although, of course I appreciate, you are unlikely to read it).
[I use the word ‘mistaken’ in a general sense, encompassing also those views which invent new elements which were never propounded by Ṥaṅkara.]
Praveen R. Bhat
Venkatraghavan S
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/006101d9a9c5%240ede4740%242c9ad5c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Simha Hnln
_*"MOOLAVIDYA" - REVIEW OF DISCUSSION -BY Pandiraraja Sri VS RAMACHANDRA SHASTRIGAL*
_*"MOOLAVIDYA" - REVIEW OF DISCUSSION -BY Sri VS RAMACHANDRA SHASTRIGAL*_
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n6RFmBfo0f0cTrOUG-CpX1odEhmDSAgl/view?usp=drive_link
[6/29, 1:32 AM] Simha HNLN:
Am sharing an authoritative authentic technical paper titled
_*"MOOLAVIDYA" - REVIEW OF DISCUSSION -BY Sri VS RAMACHANDRA SHASTRIGAL*_
////
A VERY AUTHORITATIVE AND AUTHENTIC EXPOSITION.
🙏👍🪷👍🙏
[6/29, 1:35 AM] Simha HNLN:
Please don't share these files in public.
This is for your use in annihilating the discussion on MOOLAVIDYA by SSS AND HIS BLIND FOLLOWERS FROM KARYALAYA 😂😂😂
[6/29, 10:02 AM] Subramanian VS Advaita group:
Thanks for the valuable article. I shall read this.
Simha HNLN:
Got it from AMMA'S archives physically.
This will arm you with full capability to put down the opposition view
THEY ARGUE THAT
_*"THERE IS NO MULAVIDYA during SUSHUPTI"*_
[6/29, 11:00 AM] Subramanian VS Advaita group: 🙂🙏y
_
In the Bhashyam for the mantra 7: naantaHprajnam, etc. Shankara says: the three states of waking, dream and sleep, that formed the subject matter of the first six mantras, is unreal, apAramArthikam, product of avidya, like the rope-snake, and is of the nature of seed-sprout (seed (cause) = deep sleep, and the sprout (effect) are the waking and dream. Shankara holds all the three, including the sleep state, to be endowed with Avidya (tattva agrahanam):तस्यापरमार्थरूपमविद्याकृतं रज्जुसर्पादिसममुक्तं पादत्रयलक्षणं बीजाङ्कुरस्थानीयम् । अथेदानीमबीजात्मकं परमार्थस्वरूपं रज्जुस्थानीयं सर्पादिस्थानीयोक्तस्थानत्रयनिराकरणेनाह — नान्तःप्रज्ञमित्यादिना ।Contrasting with the three states (which is actually the entire samsara anubhava, the jagat), the Turiya, Chaturtham, is paaramaarthika, akin to the rope, which is taught as negating the snake-like pAda traya.In that very bhashya, while the mantra negates the sushupti state: na prajnAnaghanam, Shankara says: the state of sushupti is akin to seed, devoid of discrimination, aviveka svarupa (in the waking and dream the distinctions, vivikta, are perceived but not in deep sleep):नप्रज्ञानघनमिति सुषुप्तावस्थाप्रतिषेधः, बीजभावाविवेकस्वरूपत्वात्Thus, in the above statements, Shankara accepts avidya in deep sleep.
--
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/CAKk0Te2Yy%2BZOanREG6LHnbDHkjoskSTV8UcKLhEwbnmEoVV61A%40mail.gmail.com.
उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DOc%2BeuP6gSYPuH%2B_55FLUDyfi%2BtdQ4J8a_u7-eOjVi8g%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DOc%2BeuP6gSYPuH%2B_55FLUDyfi%2BtdQ4J8a_u7-eOjVi8g%40mail.gmail.com.
sreenivasa murthy
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Thanks for the clarification.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1c4KR_HF56gTtSZ9P2542LzWdiUJGj9jjXMeBuMpfJuQ%40mail.gmail.com.
K Kathirasan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/007301d9a9cb%24a21c5000%24e654f000%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Not just in one instance, but he gives the same/similar definitions for Avidya in Brhadaranyaka Up Bhashya 3.3.1 and Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4.1.2 as well. Perhaps the most compelling consistency in definitions across three different bhashya-s.
Ø Now the question is, whether mUlAvidyA, as propounded by paNchapAdika vivaraNakAra / bhAmti prasthAna falls under one of these definitions or it is completely something else!!?? Just as a matter of fact, as per mUlAvidyAvAdins, the avidyA which is the material cause for the adhyAsa is brahmAshrita ( has the locus in brahman) and it is neither agrahaNa, nor anyathAgrahaNa nor saMshaya, something else, some force which has the capacity to envelope brahman itself. The term mUlAvidyA or kAraNAvidyA itself is not the contention but the definition which has been introduced by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s is!!…which is quite extra-terrestrial to shankara bhAshya 😊 so says those who see the mistake in these definitions.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- As usual you are on the point with regard to issue on the hand. Your articulation of thoughts closely resembles our beloved Sri Chitta prabhuji’s eloquent mails. Kindly allow me to share my thoughts.
- Basically you have four observations. i.e.
- (a) witness (sAkshi) can cognize both jnana and ajnAna without any other means.
- (b) Based on Br.up. bh. You are saying : abhAva rUpa avidyA cannot be the cause for the obstruction, self effulgent self can illumine on its own without any obstruction.m
- (c ) vyavadhAnaM depicting the existence of positive avidyA in sushupti as per bhAshyakAra.
- (d) apOhana, the removal of avidyA more appropriate ONLY and only when avidyA is bhAvarUpa and not abhAva of correct knowledge.
Hope this is what you are observing in justification of Astitva of bhAvarUpa avidyA which is neither agrahaNa, nor anyathAgrahaNa nor saMshaya but something different in bhAvarUpa.
Kindly let me know whether I have summarized your points correctly.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste.
For a change, I thought I would give reference to a verse from the vArtika of Swami Sureswaracharya concerning avidyA vis-à-vis PanchabhUtAs and Creation in general, along with the observation by Sri SSS himself thereon.
BUBV 2-4-418
// कार्यात्माऽपचयं गच्छन्यत्र निष्ठां निगच्छति ।
तानि भूतानविद्येति प्राहुस्त्रय्यन्तनिष्ठिताः ॥ //
// kAryAtmA.apachayaM gachChanyatra niShThAM nigachChati |
tAni bhUtAnavidyeti prAhustrayyantaniShThitAH || //
Meaning (Not literal translation ) // All effects ultimately resolve themselves into their root cause. Those well versed in vedAnta have termed the root cause, into which the Elements (PanchabhUtAs) ultimately resolve themselves into, as avidyA //.
In this context, Sri SSS makes the following observation at Foot Note 1, Page 652 of his translation cum commentary on BU (Vol 1).
Translation from kannada to english mine // In BU 1-5-1, the name *satya* has been given to nAmarUpAs. In mUrtAmUrta BrahmaNa also, kAryakaraNAtmaka panchabhUtAs have been addressed by the name of *satya*. It has been stated in BUBV 2-4-418 that vedAntins call these as avidyA ; They should be understood to mean avidyAkalpita //.
Thus even Sri SSS admits that Swami Sureswaracharya has referred to panchabhUtAs as avidyA , although he (Sri SSS) reiterates his opinion that here also it should be understood as avidyAkalpita and not as avidyA. But no specific reasons have been given at least in this place.
Regards
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/11EBA226-A3B5-40A1-A316-0DF89F77F3DD%40gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
--
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/AM7PR06MB6581A901B8E5A2CF9532D843842AA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
S Venkatraman
Venkatraghavan S
--
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/DEB34C4F-49A6-4C4C-977A-F35B287B9C3F%40gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
In the Bhashyam for the mantra 7: naantaHprajnam, etc. Shankara says: the three states of waking, dream and sleep, that formed the subject matter of the first six mantras, is unreal, apAramArthikam, product of avidya, like the rope-snake, and is of the nature of seed-sprout (seed (cause) = deep sleep, and the sprout (effect) are the waking and dream. Shankara holds all the three, including the sleep state, to be endowed with Avidya (tattva agrahanam):तस्यापरमार्थरूपमविद्याकृतं रज्जुसर्पादिसममुक्तं पादत्रयलक्षणं बीजाङ्कुरस्थानीयम् । अथेदानीमबीजात्मकं परमार्थस्वरूपं रज्जुस्थानीयं सर्पादिस्थानीयोक्तस्थानत्रयनिराकरणेनाह — नान्तःप्रज्ञमित्यादिना ।Contrasting with the three states (which is actually the entire samsara anubhava, the jagat), the Turiya, Chaturtham, is paaramaarthika, akin to the rope, which is taught as negating the snake-like pAda traya.In that very bhashya, while the mantra negates the sushupti state: na prajnAnaghanam, Shankara says: the state of sushupti is akin to seed, devoid of discrimination, aviveka svarupa (in the waking and dream the distinctions, vivikta, are perceived but not in deep sleep):नप्रज्ञानघनमिति सुषुप्तावस्थाप्रतिषेधः, बीजभावाविवेकस्वरूपत्वात्Thus, in the above statements, Shankara accepts avidya in deep sleep.
--
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/CAKk0Te2Yy%2BZOanREG6LHnbDHkjoskSTV8UcKLhEwbnmEoVV61A%40mail.gmail.com.
S Venkatraman
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmz5pr8%2BaYGsh-x97Li1agqBydhr1p8ZU%3Dqp5x3V69J7g%40mail.gmail.com.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // How would one describe the cause in terms of the effect - is it the same as the effect? is it different? In advaita we refer to it as tAdAtmya, but it is neither bheda nor abheda //,
Can you please give any reference to this. In my understanding, Cause is not described in terms of the effect at all. It is not necessary either. Effect is the manifest form of the cause which is always unmanifest. I don’t think tAdAtmya relationship between cause and effect is correct when both of them enjoy the same level of Reality. samasattA (समसत्ता). In Advaita SidhAnta, only AdhyAsika tAdAtmya (आध्य्सिक तादात्म्य) is admitted as for example as stated in BSB 2-2-38 copied below.
// ब्रह्मवादिनः कथमिति चेत् , न; तस्य तादात्म्यलक्षणसम्बन्धोपपत्तेः ।//
// brahmavAdinaH kathamiti chet , na; tasya tAdAtmyalakShaNasambandhopapatteH //
This pertains to the relationship between jagat and Brahman wherein Brahman is addressed as the vivarta kAraNa for jagat. Brahman and jagat enjoy different levels of Reality (विषमसत्ता).
Regards
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmz5pr8%2BaYGsh-x97Li1agqBydhr1p8ZU%3Dqp5x3V69J7g%40mail.gmail.com.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste.
For // AdhyAsika tAdAtmya (आध्य्सिक तादात्म्य) is admitted as for example as stated in BSB 2-2-38 copied below //,
Please read
// AdhyAsika tAdAtmya (आध्य्सिक तादात्म्य) is admitted between cause and effect as for example as stated in BSB 2-2-38 copied below //.
RegardsPraveen R. Bhat
Namaste Venkatraman ji,How would one describe the cause in terms of the effect - is it the same as the effect? is it different? In advaita we refer to it as tAdAtmya, but it is neither bheda nor abheda.
Venkatraghavan S
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // How would one describe the cause in terms of the effect - is it the same as the effect? is it different? In advaita we refer to it as tAdAtmya, but it is neither bheda nor abheda //
Can you please give any reference to this. In my understanding, Cause is not described in terms of the effect at all. It is not necessary either.
Effect is the manifest form of the cause which is always unmanifest. I don’t think tAdAtmya relationship between cause and effect is correct when both of them enjoy the same level of Reality. samasattA (समसत्ता). In Advaita SidhAnta, only AdhyAsika tAdAtmya (आध्य्सिक तादात्म्य) is admitted as for example as stated in BSB 2-2-38 copied below.
// ब्रह्मवादिनः कथमिति चेत् , न; तस्य तादात्म्यलक्षणसम्बन्धोपपत्तेः ।//
// brahmavAdinaH kathamiti chet , na; tasya tAdAtmyalakShaNasambandhopapatteH //
This pertains to the relationship between jagat and Brahman wherein Brahman is addressed as the vivarta kAraNa for jagat. Brahman and jagat enjoy different levels of Reality (विषमसत्ता).
Regards
Venkatraghavan S
--
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/CACT7j-G5ta0TLcqtRvVJHaguhfQeneC4j-rkEdUVsr6TCRS3-g%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // How would one describe the cause in terms of the effect - is it the same as the effect? is it different? In advaita we refer to it as tAdAtmya, but it is neither bheda nor abheda //,
Can you please give any reference to this. In my understanding, Cause is not described in terms of the effect at all.
H S Chandramouli
--
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/CAKk0Te2rnhZPPtg8BD45fkxmSdq%2BYyUjN0xDOCaea0ya6u%3DKAw%40mail.gmail.com.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // there is no need to take the position that bhAvarUpa avidyA is different to agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and samshaya, for reasons stated above. As the bhAmatikAra says - न खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं ब्रूमः, किन्तु भेदं व्यासेधाम.//,
I will close from my side with just a few clarifications concerning my understanding.
The quote from bhAmatikAra is an alternative definition (to the one offered by Sri Bhagavatpada) for the word ananyatvam understood as AdhyAsika tAdAtmya (आध्य्सिक तादात्म्य). It is not applicable for ananyatvam understood as cause and effect which is the topic under discussion.
Yes. AgrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and samshaya are manifest forms of unmanifest bhAvarUpa avidyA. They conform to ananyatvam understood as cause and effect relationship, as they enjoy samasattA (same level of Reality) status. Thus AgrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and samshaya are same as bhAvarUpa avidyA.
RegardsVenkatraghavan S
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // there is no need to take the position that bhAvarUpa avidyA is different to agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and samshaya, for reasons stated above. As the bhAmatikAra says - न खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं ब्रूमः, किन्तु भेदं व्यासेधाम.//,
I will close from my side with just a few clarifications concerning my understanding.
The quote from bhAmatikAra is an alternative definition (to the one offered by Sri Bhagavatpada) for the word ananyatvam understood as AdhyAsika tAdAtmya (आध्य्सिक तादात्म्य). It is not applicable for ananyatvam understood as cause and effect which is the topic under discussion.
V Subrahmanian
या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी ।
K Kathirasan
--
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/AM7PR06MB65816B1AC9D3C30570384E53842AA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
S Venkatraman
On 03-Jul-2023, at 5:58 PM, K Kathirasan <brahma...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/68202CB6-EFF3-4B53-B320-C5494031E690%40gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Very well said prabhuji. I completely agree with you. For the sAdhaka / mumukshu what is required is shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana to realize his svarUpa. But unfortunately when it comes to ‘manana’ part, we sideline the svarUpa jignAsa and focus our attention on avidyA jignAsa 😊 One of the reasons, I reckon, for this unprovoked enquiry about avidyA is, bhagavatpAda’s preamble to his nyAya prasthAna bhAshya i.e. adhyAsa bhAshya. Why on the earth this bhAshya required as an introduction when our primary is to know/realize brahman who is ever avidyA vinirmukta!!?? Why shankara instead of teaching brahma vidyA first talked about avidyA /adhyAsa?? Is it so important to know the nature of avidyA in the task of brahma jignAsa?? If we see the adhyAsa bhAshya, the answer is perhaps yes!! Though he hardly quotes any shruti / smruti pramANa to justify his stance on avidyA, he explains this to draw the line between reality / paramArtha as indicated in shAstra and the common experience / lOkAnubhava/ pramAtru-pramANa-prameya vyavahAra. And assures that he is going to prove that in the forthcoming sUtra bhAshya how based on this ‘primary error’ all the shAstra vyavahAra and lOka vyavahAra taking place and how it needs to be realized in the light of adhyArOpa-apavAda methodology. So IMO he elaborated this aspect to crystalize the concept of Upanishad pratipAdita brahman who is nirvishesha and how everything else just superimposed on him / it for the pedagogical purpose. But what would you say when this adhyArOpita avidyA itself given the same status as brahman and starting your theory by saying : there is a mUlAvidyA which has the brahmAshraya which is even before creation and prompted / tempted brahman to do creation, which is there is all the three avasthA-s, which is anirvachaneeya etc. Which is nothing but instead of treating the avidyA an epistemological concept it has been unduly mixed up mAya/brahman etc. and depicting it as an ontological entity. I think this unnecessary importance and significance about the concept of avidyA in vyAkhyAnakAra-s works like bhAmati and vivaraNa prompting others to question the role of avidyA in Advaita Vedanta based mUla bhAshya. Yes, I do agree all these are mere dialectics but shankara talked about it while presenting the brahma tattva and cautioned us that even shAstric vyavahAra i.e. including brahman jignAsa also within the sphere of adhyAsa ( taking himself as ‘jignAsu / pramAtru/jnAtru), so knowing the basic problem is important here like rightly diagnosing the disease help us to take the right medicine 😊 Just my thoughts.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Namaste,
Raman_M
namaste,
Perhaps known to most of you, but sharing in case there are some who are unaware.
[Quote From the wikipedia]
The notion of avidyā and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedānta thought: how can avidyā appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness?[170] For Shankara, avidya is a perceptual or psychological error.[96] According to Satchidanandendra Saraswati, for Shankara "avidya is only a technical name to denote the natural tendency of the human mind that is engaged in the act of superimposition."[171] The later tradition diverged from Shankara by turning avidya into a metaphysical principle, namely mulavidya or "root ignorance," a metaphysical substance which is the "primal material cause of the universe (upadana)," thereby setting aside Shankara's 'Unevolved Name-and-Form' as the explanation for the existence of materiality.[96][172] According to Mayeda, "[i]n order to save monism, they characterized avidya as indefinable as real or unreal (sadasadbhyam anirvacanya), belonging neither to the category of being nor to that of non-being."[96] In the 20th century, this theory of mulavidya became a point of strong contention among Advaita Vedantins, with Satchidanandendra Saraswati arguing that Padmapada and Prakasatman had misconstrued Shanakara's stance.[173]
Shankara did not give a 'location' of avidya, giving precedence to the removal of ignorance.[174][note 34] Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of Adi Shankara's Upadesasahasri:
The later
Advaita-tradition diverged from Shankara, trying to determinate a
locus of avidya,[176] with
the Bhamati-school locating avidya in
the jiva c.q. prakriti,
while the Vivarana-school locates it in Brahman.[177][176]
[Unquote]
Raman
ps: If any of you have access to the article of shri S K Arun murthi
titled
The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10781-008-9053-9
and if possible and permissible, kindly share
thank you
_*"MOOLAVIDYA" - REVIEW OF DISCUSSION -BY Pandiraraja Sri VS RAMACHANDRA SHASTRIGAL*
_*"MOOLAVIDYA" - REVIEW OF DISCUSSION -BY Sri VS RAMACHANDRA SHASTRIGAL*_
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n6RFmBfo0f0cTrOUG-CpX1odEhmDSAgl/view?usp=drive_link
[6/29, 1:32 AM] Simha HNLN:
Am sharing an authoritative authentic technical paper titled
_*"MOOLAVIDYA" - REVIEW OF DISCUSSION -BY Sri VS RAMACHANDRA SHASTRIGAL*_
////
A VERY AUTHORITATIVE AND AUTHENTIC EXPOSITION.
🙏👍🪷👍🙏
[6/29, 1:35 AM] Simha HNLN:
Please don't share these files in public.
This is for your use in annihilating the discussion on MOOLAVIDYA by SSS AND HIS BLIND FOLLOWERS FROM KARYALAYA 😂😂😂
[6/29, 10:02 AM] Subramanian VS Advaita group:
Thanks for the valuable article. I shall read this.
Simha HNLN:
Got it from AMMA'S archives physically.
This will arm you with full capability to put down the opposition view
THEY ARGUE THAT
_*"THERE IS NO MULAVIDYA during SUSHUPTI"*_
[6/29, 11:00 AM] Subramanian VS Advaita group: 🙂🙏y
_
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023, 12:46 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the Bhashyam for the mantra 7: naantaHprajnam, etc. Shankara says: the three states of waking, dream and sleep, that formed the subject matter of the first six mantras, is unreal, apAramArthikam, product of avidya, like the rope-snake, and is of the nature of seed-sprout (seed (cause) = deep sleep, and the sprout (effect) are the waking and dream. Shankara holds all the three, including the sleep state, to be endowed with Avidya (tattva agrahanam):
तस्यापरमार्थरूपमविद्याकृतं रज्जुसर्पादिसममुक्तं पादत्रयलक्षणं बीजाङ्कुरस्थानीयम् । अथेदानीमबीजात्मकं परमार्थस्वरूपं रज्जुस्थानीयं सर्पादिस्थानीयोक्तस्थानत्रयनिराकरणेनाह — नान्तःप्रज्ञमित्यादिना ।
Contrasting with the three states (which is actually the entire samsara anubhava, the jagat), the Turiya, Chaturtham, is paaramaarthika, akin to the rope, which is taught as negating the snake-like pAda traya.
In that very bhashya, while the mantra negates the sushupti state: na prajnAnaghanam, Shankara says: the state of sushupti is akin to seed, devoid of discrimination, aviveka svarupa (in the waking and dream the distinctions, vivikta, are perceived but not in deep sleep):
नप्रज्ञानघनमिति सुषुप्तावस्थाप्रतिषेधः, बीजभावाविवेकस्वरूपत्वात्
Thus, in the above statements, Shankara accepts avidya in deep sleep.
--
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/CAKk0Te2Yy%2BZOanREG6LHnbDHkjoskSTV8UcKLhEwbnmEoVV61A%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAE46tBJq3T0Svw4AG1Nb67X%2BMg5n1McPBUBfABrHrrvWJ6BAUg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Raman prabhuji
Hare Krishna
The notion of avidyā and its relationship to Brahman creates a crucial philosophical issue within Advaita Vedānta thought: how can avidyā appear in Brahman, since Brahman is pure consciousness?
Ø Yes, for that matter dualists too raise this objection. Perhaps forethinking these objecttions, bhAshyakAra written adhyAsa bhAshya to clarify his stand about the concept of avidyA. And in short elsewhere, bhAshyakAra himself clarifies when one realizes that the brahman is pure consciousness and he is brahman then there is no avidyA whatsoever to anyone. As per shankara adhyAsa is ‘sarvAnartha hetu’.
Ø Yes, this stand ofcourse based on what bhAshyakAra himself said in his adhyAsabhAshya. adhyAsa is naisargika, svAbhAvika and quite evident in day to day life transaction. And he also clarified that this adhyAsa is avidyA.
."[171] The later tradition diverged from Shankara by turning avidya into a metaphysical principle, namely mulavidya or "root ignorance," a metaphysical substance which is the "primal material cause of the universe (upadana)," thereby setting aside Shankara's 'Unevolved Name-and-Form' as the explanation for the existence of materiality.[96][172] According to Mayeda, "[i]n order to save monism, they characterized avidya as indefinable as real or unreal (sadasadbhyam anirvacanya), belonging neither to the category of being nor to that of non-being."[96] In the 20th century, this theory of mulavidya became a point of strong contention among Advaita Vedantins, with Satchidanandendra Saraswati arguing that Padmapada and Prakasatman had misconstrued Shanakara's stance
- avidyA is anirvachaneeya, it is neither sat nor asat, nor tattva, nor attatva, but it is brahmAshrita, it is mUla, it is root cause etc. are the later additions to the definition of avidyA/ adhAsa which hardly finds any substance in mUla bhAshya. Sri SSS says this is because unwarranted equalization of avidyA with mAya.
Shankara did not give a 'location' of avidya, giving precedence to the removal of ignorance
Ø However shankara clarified there is no transactions like vidyAvidyA in brahman. The upasiddhAnta from this is quite evident.
.[174][note 34] Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of Adi Shankara's Upadesasahasri:
K Kathirasan
--
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/AM7PR06MB6581315B58EC51700A230A20842EA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Venkatraghavan S
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/D4B9D7A7-C682-478F-BC8C-3D45D01105D6%40gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Kathirasan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Thanks for your clarification. Yes, for the sincere sAdhaka / mumukshu what is required is a shrotreeya / brahmanishTa guru, his personal guidance as per sampradaya and shAstra. One to one personal contact and his personal guidance is enough for the shishya’s self aggrandizement (AtmOnnati) according to his adhikAra.
But why some still insisted for the clarity of avidyA ‘as per’ shankara Advaita is just because that would help those who want to know shuddha shankara Vedanta prakriya, though it is mere academic I don’t think it is absolute unnecessary in vedAnta jignAsa. The emphasis has special significance since those theories floating with the tag of shuddha shankara Vedanta within themselves drastically differs and belittle each other. Yes, these things hardly a matter of concern those who genuinely indulged in Atma svarUpa jignAsa. But for those who baffled to see the various methodologies conceived by various commentators and those who are identifying themselves with absolute minorities ( just 1% out of 100% ) in sampradaya would be eager to know more about shankara prakriya as enshrined in mUla bhAshya. I humbly believe this attempt regarding determination of bhAshyArtha would help them in the process of ‘mananaM’. Ofcourse, everyone would agree mananam has to take place with shruti, shrutyukta tarka and sarvatrika pUrNAnubhava ( an universal experience of everyone). In this scenario (if not in the guru-shishya teaching method exclusively meant for realization) there is no problem in carrying out the deliberation on the enigmatic concepts like mAya, avidyA, mithya, adhyAsa, asat etc. to determine the contextual usage of these terms in PTB. Yes, I once again reiterate that it is purely polemic in nature but I reckon it is never ever out of syllabus of Advaita doctrine especially when those vyAkhyAnakAra-s, who themselves scholars, venerable and knowers of traditional methods, do not accept one another’s interpretations / vyAkhyAna!!. When someone say I am from vivaraNa school it is obvious that he has some reservations against bhAmati and vice versa. So some after seeing all this given the final and worthy call : when shankara bhagavatpaada himself there why others!!?? Go back to shankara, shankara bhAshyamekaM sharaNaM vraja.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
However, the issue that I have is when later commentators have sought to address this question - in reaction to challenges to Shankara's presentation of advaita by various other schools –
- I think this is very important observation. Later commentators addressed some of the issues and elaborated some concepts to clarify some issues raised by various other schools in general and dualists in particular against shankara’s presentation of those same concepts. Yes, Sri SSS also points out this in one of his works.
that interpretation has been cast by a few as something that is fundamentally extrinsic / contradictory to the bhAShyakAra's presentation, in effect, positioning the later vyAkhyAnakAra-s as deliberately going against the views of the pre-eminent teacher in our tradition.
- It may be noted this has happened within the tradition itself i.e. between bhAmati and vivaraNa prasthAta ( Sri SSS says vArtika prasthAna is an exception to this) long time before others finding them at fault when presenting the shuddha shankara prakriya. bhAmati vyAkhyAnakAra has been abused as ‘mandana prushta sevi’ just because his over reliance on mandana’s brahma siddhi and vivaraNa’s vyAkhyAna termed as ‘gArdaba gaana’ by bhAmati vyAkhyAnakAra just because to counter the below belt comments of vivaraNa on bhAmati. So, these inner confrontational movements were existing within the traditional circle and some unbiased sampradayavids attempted reconciliation to bring these rivalries on a common platform but in vain. Example, Sri Appayya deekshitar’s SLS.
We have seen echoes of those charges in this very thread itself.
Ø The main person insisting his followers to ‘go back to shankara’ Sri SSS says, it would be better to stick to genuine Advaita sampradaya it should be given all the value and importance and better than all others’ opinions the siddhanta expressed by the bhAshyakAra in his PTB. And we can always consider the Advaita siddhAnta established on the basis of the mere logical devices adopted by vyAkhyAnakAra-s for the purpose of refutation of dualists’ objections as just another opinion on Advaita which may not be in line with mUla bhAshya. And he further observes that, because of this, whenever, in any context, there exist any disparity of opinion among vyAkhyAna ( mainly written to counter dualists) we should follow ONLY original opinion expressed by mUla bhAshyakAra since it is self-sufficient to deduce any complicated concept within siddhAnta.
These discussions therefore are primarily to challenge such a view.
Ø I am trying to prepare some notes on avidyA in sushupti based on Sri SSS’s works like gaudapAda hrudaya, mAndUkya rahasya vivruttiH, avasthAtraya Chandrika, paramArtha chintAmaNi etc. But kindly note not to challenge the 99% but to show what 1% would think on these terms. To show this I have only one source i.e. Sri SSS’s works and I am entirely dependent on that sole source (ofcourse backed by mUla bhAshya) to present my views as against plenty of traditional sources and supports which vehemently and vociferously declaring otherwise. But I think, as before, I should give it a try in my free time without leaving it in the middle citing the reason that it is not necessary to deliberate on these issues in brahma jignAsa 😊
Venkatraghavan S
- It may be noted this has happened within the tradition itself i.e. between bhAmati and vivaraNa prasthAta ( Sri SSS says vArtika prasthAna is an exception to this) long time before others finding them at fault when presenting the shuddha shankara prakriya. bhAmati vyAkhyAnakAra has been abused as ‘mandana prushta sevi’ just because his over reliance on mandana’s brahma siddhi and vivaraNa’s vyAkhyAna termed as ‘gArdaba gaana’ by bhAmati vyAkhyAnakAra just because to counter the below belt comments of vivaraNa on bhAmati. So, these inner confrontational movements were existing within the traditional circle and some unbiased sampradayavids attempted reconciliation to bring these rivalries on a common platform but in vain. Example, Sri Appayya deekshitar’s SLS.
We have seen echoes of those charges in this very thread itself.
Ø The main person insisting his followers to ‘go back to shankara’ Sri SSS says, it would be better to stick to genuine Advaita sampradaya it should be given all the value and importance and better than all others’ opinions the siddhanta expressed by the bhAshyakAra in his PTB. And we can always consider the Advaita siddhAnta established on the basis of the mere logical devices adopted by vyAkhyAnakAra-s for the purpose of refutation of dualists’ objections as just another opinion on Advaita which may not be in line with mUla bhAshya. And he further observes that, because of this, whenever, in any context, there exist any disparity of opinion among vyAkhyAna ( mainly written to counter dualists) we should follow ONLY original opinion expressed by mUla bhAshyakAra since it is self-sufficient to deduce any complicated concept within siddhAnta.
These discussions therefore are primarily to challenge such a view.
Ø I am trying to prepare some notes on avidyA in sushupti based on Sri SSS’s works like gaudapAda hrudaya, mAndUkya rahasya vivruttiH, avasthAtraya Chandrika, paramArtha chintAmaNi etc. But kindly note not to challenge the 99% but to show what 1% would think on these terms. To show this I have only one source i.e. Sri SSS’s works and I am entirely dependent on that sole source (ofcourse backed by mUla bhAshya) to present my views as against plenty of traditional sources and supports which vehemently and vociferously declaring otherwise. But I think, as before, I should give it a try in my free time without leaving it in the middle citing the reason that it is not necessary to deliberate on these issues in brahma jignAsa 😊
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/AM7PR06MB6581818EACA6B58D6A4412AD842EA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Venkatraghavan S
putran M
Sorry - wanted to say "where the import of the bhAShya is doubtful, one can take the vyAkhyA-s also".
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmTZLXoS8mmzYBf2%3DA%2B0GPeaexW94h4CpK_G7Tf3NXX_g%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 7:37 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:Sorry - wanted to say "where the import of the bhAShya is doubtful, one can take the vyAkhyA-s also".Namaskaram,I have not followed closely this round of discussion. But I understand, the traditional schools that hold such positions on "mithya" and "avidya" are not doing so because the bhashya is doubtful at places. Their stand is that the import of the Upanishads as expounded in the bhashya is that avidya is synonymous with maya ultimately or that there is an ontological category of mithya.
There is no concession here.
Vivarana has its understanding, Bhamati has its; and SSS has his. It is doubtful to us only.
Praveen R. Bhat
There is a hidden depth to Shankaracharya's writing which is not always immediately apparent, which is clarified when one reads the commentaries. That is all that is being implied.
Bhaskar YR
Vivarana has its understanding, Bhamati has its; and SSS has his. It is doubtful to us only.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Yes, your observation is quite accurate and in a way, Sri SSS is not an exception to this 😊 Let us take an example of ‘X’ aspect in a main text book. Digest (1) says X is ‘a’ and by explaining the X through ‘a’ claims that it would ease the difficulty in understanding the X aspect in main text. Digest (2) says Oh!! No, ‘X’ in the main text should be understood as ‘b’ and it is not ‘a’!! and the authors of Digest (2) would explain and claim that the X aspect we have to understand through ‘b’ only and that would ease the difficulty in understanding the ‘X’ in main text and also helps us to realize the ‘drawbacks’ of thinking the X as ‘a’ in Digest (1) 😊 And there starts the squabble between the authors of Digest (1) & (2). After seeing all this, some other publication would come up with the suggestion and clarification that in the main text itself the X aspect has been explained without giving any room for any doubt and it is in itself self-sufficient and we have the detailed explanation of all the related X aspect issues at various places in the main text itself and depending on the context we have to understand this X aspect without ‘disturbing’ the main or fundamental purpose (uddesha) of main text. And, here, no need to mention those who want to know the main intent of main text about aspect ‘X’, the last option is quite appealing 😊 And I think this is self-explanatory in this context to understand that why would insist ONLY mUla bhAshya and why not sub-commentaries.
Bhaskar YR
is that avidya is synonymous with maya
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
While Sri SSS categorically rejects this claim I have seen in the Advaita works itself the enigmatic term mAya has been explained differently at different places considering the different contexts. Here are some of those explanations :
- mAya is avidyAkruta
- mAya is Ishwara shakti
- mAya is brahmAnanya
- mAya is anirvachaneeya & mithyaa
- mAya is a thing which is not actually there.
- mAya is tuccha & heena in vyavahAra
- mAya is atyanta abhAva vastu ( like hare’s horn) in paramArthika
- mAya is nothing but parabrahman since there is abedha between shakti and shaktivanta
And recently I have seen 3 more definitions from 3 different perspectives, source panchadashi shloka : mAya is tuccha & atyanta abhAva (6&7 above), mAya as per logic it is mithyA and anirvachaneeya (4) and mAya is very much real from the transactional view point.
Raman M
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati issued an appeal (Vijn˜apti) to all scholars in 1961and called for a debate on this issue. Doherty refers to this Vijn˜apti (2005; p. 212, fn. 9) and gives the names of scholars for and against the views of SS (ibid, p. 213, fn. 10) in that debate.
- Yes this was there and apart from personally inviting scholars for debate, Sri SSS has also written letters to various scholars across India with regard to his stand against mUlAvidyA and got the answers from them as well and replied to their queries and objections. It seems Karyalaya has the printed details of these debates.
She, in the same paper, makes a reference to ´a¯rada¯Pı another debate initiated by Sr:ngerı¯S ¯t:ha in 1976 to settle the issue of mu¯la¯vidya¯ (p. 223). It is clear from Doherty that Sringeri Pı¯t:ha was against the views of SS on mu¯la¯vidya¯.
- And Marta Doherty (most probably a follower of SDS of Arsha vidya) herself against the stand of Sri SSS has written extensively about Sri SSS’s mUlAvidyAnirAsa. And I myself talked to her with regard to this and got the paper from her (softcopy) which I provided to Sri jnAnaprasUnandendra Saraswati who answered all the objections raised in her paper in support of mUlAvidyA vAda.
But D. B. Gangoli whom she alsocitesinsomeothercontextinthesamepapermentionsthattheSr:ngerı¯JagadguruhadvisitedSSandgot clarified SS’s view and was fully satisfied with it (1997; p. 30).
- This is not 100% sure. But in a small booklet in Kannada ‘ mulAvidyA bhAshya vArtika viruddha’ the author Sri Vittala shastri ( Sri jnaanaanandendra Saraswati, direct disciple of Sri SSS) observes, it was about to conclude that the concept of mUlAvidyA as explained by vykhyAna-s is not in line with mUla bhAsya at divya sannidhaanaM. But it is not clear what exactly came in between to conclude anything in substance.
Then what was the need for organizing a debate by Sr:ngerı¯Pı¯t:ha after the passing away of SS? It appears there is some apparent contradiction here. 5 This debate continues till date on a low key in private circles and only restricted to scholars of older generation within the state of Karnataka (erstwhile Mysore state). The main followers of this view of SS were Veda¯nta s´iroman:i S. Vittala Sastri, Veda Brahma Sri H.S. Laksminarasimhamurthy, Sri Devarao Kulkarni and D.B. Gangolli.
- All are from Sri SSS’s school only 😊 Atmanandendra Saraswati, jnana prasunandendra Saraswati, Sri Mattur Ashwattha Narayana avadhani, Sri ChandramouLi avadhani (brothers, both are now taken sannyasa) and Sri KG Subbaraya sharma some more names that can be added to this list.
However his followers did not seriously pursue with vigour on this issue though they were committed to such a view. When the author of this paper in his personal talk with Laxminarasimhamurthy had raised the issue of mu¯la¯vidya¯, he said that the fight which ensued in the debate between the two sides was so bitter that he does not want to rake up the issue any more. The monastic institutions like Sringeri, considered to be the centre of Advaitic learning use all their power and influence to suppress such intellectual debates.
Ø Yes I have heard about this in one of the vedAnta shibira at HN Pur that Sringeri authorities would not invite scholars who follow Sri SSS’s perspective whenever there is vidvat gOshti.