Paul Hacker on avidyA

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

If you wish to object to SSSS’s refutations, you must go through Hacker, it seems to me.

Paul Hacker has been called one of the most important 20thcentury Indologists by Clooney, Olivelle and Deutsch. He performed an exhaustive philological analysis of Sankara’s Sutra Bhasya Sbh (his student, Sengaku Mayeda, published a similar critical study of Sankara’s Upadesa Sahasri), based on four terms: avidyA, nAmarUpa, mAyA and Isvara.

Here is an excerpt from what he said about avidyA in related to prakriti, bhavarupa, anirvacaniya and anadi

“It follows from what has been discussed up to this pomt that Sankara does not materialize avidya. As a result the adjective jada, which is constantly added to avidya from Padmapada onward (and is used by the Samkhya school as a characterization of prakriti), is missing in Sankara. Moreover, the epithet, bhavarupa, which can be found in Advaita texts from Jnanottama onward, is missing. Avidya is for Sankara not something “insentient” and “having the form of being,” i.e., something positively existent. Even the theory, already current among S.’s contemporaries, that avidya possess a “power of dispersion” (viksepa-sakti) and a “power of concealment” (Avarana-sakti) is foreign to Sbh.

Sankara does not raise avidya to an eternal, metaphysical entity. Correspondingly, he does not use anadi ("beginningless"), constantly used by other authors to characterize avidyA, in connection with this word. To be

sure, he once (Intro.1.1.1) calls adhyasa "beginningless"; otherwise in the SBh as well as in the BS samsara has this predicate. But avidya he refers to only as "natural" (naisargika, IIl,2,15, K 727,8), which is a significantly less precise determ ination than the emphatic anadi.

Nowhere does S. explore the essence of avidyii. He makes only a few definite statements about it 0,1,1, Intro., see above, sec. 1,1). Thus he never calls it anirvacaniya. This expression appears to have come into use during S.'s lifetime as a name for an essential characteristic of avidyA and is subsequently employed by all Advaitins, with the exception of S.'s pupils Suresvara and Totaka, as an epithet of avidya. In the SBh the word occurs only as an adjective of namanipa (see below, sec. 11,4).”

Paul Hacker in Philology and Confrontation, tr. Halbfas p64-5

[jai1971]

Namaste,

Hacker may be a scholar but he seems to be wrong in his assertions. Some of these scholars only base their thesis by reading Br Su Bhashya alone. He says Shankara does not use anAdi for avidyA but let me give a few examples -

अनाद्यविद्याप्रसुप्ताः उत्तिष्ठत हे जन्तवः .. जाग्रत अज्ञाननिद्राया घोररूपायाः सर्वानर्थबीजभूतायाः क्षयं कुरुत । Kata Up 1.3.14 Bh
You beings, who are sleeping in ignorance that has no beginning, arise ...awake— put an end to the sleep of ignorance which is terrible by nature and is the seed of all undesirables.

योऽयं संसारी जीवः, सः उभयलक्षणेन तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना, अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन मायालक्षणेन स्वापेन  mAndUkya kArikA 1.16 Bh

This samsArI jIva who is characterised by both, non-cognition of the reality which is of the nature of a seed and by the cognition of reality differently and by the beginingless activity of sleep characterised as mAyA (avidyA)

As I have already mentioned in my note Shankara does not accept any abhAva (prAg, pradhvamsa etc.) at all. So avidyA cannot be an abhAva and so it has to be asat like this world appearance as it is the bIja / kAraNa of the dvaita samsAra. Shankara also states in more than one places avidyA is vidyA-virodhi. Further Shankara explicitly states in Br Su Bh 3.2.9 and Mand Karika 1.2 Bh that this avidyA bIja has to be there in sleep and pralaya for jIvas to reemerge and without the bIja being present, the Knowledge will become useless as it will not have anything to burn and if bIja is not accepted then mukta purushas may be reborn. 

There cannot be a more emphatic statement of the nature of avidyA than the above.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:16 PM jai1971 <jai...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

Hacker may be a scholar but he seems to be wrong in his assertions. Some of these scholars only base their thesis by reading Br Su Bhashya alone. He says Shankara does not use anAdi for avidyA but let me give a few examples -

अनाद्यविद्याप्रसुप्ताः उत्तिष्ठत हे जन्तवः .. जाग्रत अज्ञाननिद्राया घोररूपायाः सर्वानर्थबीजभूतायाः क्षयं कुरुत । Kata Up 1.3.14 Bh
You beings, who are sleeping in ignorance that has no beginning, arise ...awake— put an end to the sleep of ignorance which is terrible by nature and is the seed of all undesirables.

योऽयं संसारी जीवः, सः उभयलक्षणेन तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना, अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन मायालक्षणेन स्वापेन  mAndUkya kArikA 1.16 Bh

This samsArI jIva who is characterised by both, non-cognition of the reality which is of the nature of a seed and by the cognition of reality differently and by the beginingless activity of sleep characterised as mAyA (avidyA)

The very same examples for the erroneous thinking mentioned by Shankara in the above Karika bhashya -

चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन मायालक्षणेन स्वापेन, ममायं पिता पुत्रोऽयं नप्ता क्षेत्रं गृहं पशवः, अहमेषां स्वामी सुखी दुःखी

 is stated by him in the Mundaka bhashya below: In the Karika bhashya he called it anaadi maayaa, in the below bhashya he calls it avidya: 

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्तृतीयं मुण्डकम्प्रथमः खण्डःमन्त्र २ - भाष्यम्

………शरीरे पुरुषः भोक्ता जीवोऽविद्याकामकर्मफलरागादिगुरुभाराक्रान्तोऽलाबुरिव सामुद्रे जले निमग्नः निश्चयेन देहात्मभावमापन्नोऽयमेवाहममुष्य पुत्रोऽस्य नप्ता कृशः स्थूलो गुणवान्निर्गुणः सुखी दुःखीत्येवंप्रत्ययो नास्त्यन्योऽस्मादिति जायते म्रियते संयुज्यते……… 

regards

subbu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Michael Chandra Cohen prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

At last, happy to find a stage wherein we can talk on some common grounds 😊 Of course with some points to ponder contextually. 

 

“It follows from what has been discussed up to this pomt that Sankara does not materialize avidya. As a result the adjective jada, which is constantly added to avidya from Padmapada onward (and is used by the Samkhya school as a characterization of prakriti), is missing in Sankara. Moreover, the epithet, bhavarupa, which can be found in Advaita texts from Jnanottama onward, is missing. Avidya is for Sankara not something “insentient” and “having the form of being,” i.e., something positively existent. Even the theory, already current among S.’s contemporaries, that avidya possess a “power of dispersion” (viksepa-sakti) and a “power of concealment” (Avarana-sakti) is foreign to Sbh.

 

 

• Yes avidyA is neither jada shakti nor bhAvarUpa, if at all it exists as a jada shakti like a thing it cannot be removed by jnana.  jnana cannot create anything new or cannot destroy anything that already exists OTOH jnana helps us to realize that that there was / is / will never be avidyA as such.  jnApakam hi shAstram na tu kArakaM says bhAshyakAra.  It is bhUta vastu vishaya jnana, the knowledge of a thing that already exists.  Jnana khadga (sword) is not going cut avidyA/ ajnAna like sword cutting the wood, it only reveals the avidyA rahita parishuddha svarUpa of one’s own Atman.  jnAnAgni in geeta bhAshya explained this way by bhAshyakAra. 
• And with regard to AvaraNa and vikshepa shakti-s, as this author rightly observed in the whole of PTB there is nowhere this type of avidyA explained by shankara, neither anywhere he stated avidyA is the shakti of brahman nor he said avidyA shakti has two special powers in addition like AvaraNa and vikshepa.  As per bhAshya avidyA is NOT a shakti, as explained innumerable times before the word shakti of brahman is called as MAYA and to the question is this mAyA something different from brahman??  bhAshyakAra clarifies its tAdAtmya sambandha (shakti-shakta abedha) and for those if this maya is independent from brahman it is avidya kalpita, a figment of avidya adhyArOpita on brahman for the purpose of teaching. 
• As a matter of fact, whenever shankara explains the nature of avidyA he invariably clearly states that avidyA / adhyAsa is natural to human mind.  The nature this avidyA is non-perception (jnAnAbhAva), misconception ( anyathA grahaNa) and doubt (samshaya).  And as per Sri SSS in all through the PTB of shankara the primordial meaning of this avidyA is adhyAsa only and avidyA-s consequences has been used in the scope of adhyAsa only.  The geeta bhAshya AvaraNAtmakatvAt, which shankara uses to denote avidyA is not the same as mUlAvidyAvAdins say.  It is not shakti.  Shankara clearly explains this AvaraNa as tAmasa pratyatya (tAmasO hi pratyaya) pertaining to the antaHkaraNa alone not to brahman or the self  that which mUlAvidyAvAdins passionately holding close to their chest while explaining the concept of avidyA.  The illustration used by bhAshyakAra in taittereeya and bruhad bhAshya to explain the avidyA is ‘cataract’ which is obviously an antaHkaraNa dOsha.  Someone in this list argued that the avidyA to be clubbed with nAma rUpa hence it is a positive entity like nAma rUpa and in what sense it has been said is completely ignored, like avidyA, vidyA is also adhyArOpita on Atman since these transaction of vidyAvidyA is not there in Atman and it is there due to apriori admittance of knowership of Atman.  And both are antaHkaraNa dharma.  See what bhAshyakAra clarifies in Tai. Bha. 2-8 :  which I directly copy from Sri SSS’s English work :
• //quote// Both viveka (discrimination) and aviveka (non-discrimination) are directly intuited to inhere in the ‘antaHkaraNam’ (inner organ, the mind).  It is common knowledge that colour which is perceived is no property of the perceiver.  And avidyA is objectified by one’s own intuition as when one thinks ‘I am ignorant’, my knowledge is not distinct’.  The discrimination due to vidyA is likewise intuited.  Wise ones impart their knowledge to others and these others grasp it.  vidyA and avidyA therefore have to be classed with name and form alone; and name and form are admittedly no properties of Atman. // unquote//
• And Sri SSS again takes the reference from Br.up. bhAshya 4.4.6 and clarified both vidyA and avidyA both belong to the not-self since they can be objectified and that the fact of Atman appearing to possess them as properties is only a false appearance.  So, it is not only avidyA to be added to nAma rUpa but vidyA also since ultimately nothing is the property of Atman as it is nirvishesha.  brahmAshrita avidyA, the vidyA that eradicates both mUlAvidyA and tulAvidyA, adhyAsa has the material cause in the form of mulAvidyA, avidyA shakti prompts brahman to do creation etc. etc. which is famously floating theories in AV tradition conspicuous by its absence in mUla bhAshya. 

Sankara does not raise avidya to an eternal, metaphysical entity. Correspondingly, he does not use anadi ("beginningless"), constantly used by other authors to characterize avidyA, in connection with this word. To be

sure, he once (Intro.1.1.1) calls adhyasa "beginningless"; otherwise in the SBh as well as in the BS samsara has this predicate. But avidya he refers to only as "natural" (naisargika, IIl,2,15, K 727,8), which is a significantly less precise determ ination than the emphatic anadi.

 

Ø     If my above reading right, author does not categorically denying the anAdi aspect of avidyA in PTB instead he is telling it is not as constantly as used by other authors.  He promptly gives the reference from adhyAsa bhAshya where shankara explains this avidyA/adhyAsa is naisargika, anAdi, Ananta and svAbhAvika.  And I don’t think this anAdi, Ananta ( how this is Ananta when jnana destroys the ajnAna!!?? Is another topic for the deliberation.) naisargika adhyAsa has ever been explained as anirvachaneeya by bhAshyakAra. OTOH as said earlier anirvachaneeyatvaM has been attributed to mAyA and NOT avidyA.  Since avidyA is nirvachaneeya (describable).  And as explained above it is not even bhAvarUpa to float the new slogan like : mithA jnana is due to mithyA ajnAna and one is the cause and another is the effect.  jnana cannot annihilate any positive existing thing it does not have that capacity, if avidyA is a positive jada shakti and literally clinging to brahman even before creation no amount of jnana at the jeeva level can destroy it.  jnAnam tu jnApakaM na kArakamiti says shankara in br.up.bh.1-4-10.  It removes only the misunderstanding regard the thing that is existing (yathArtha jnana). When one understands the real nature of rope the correct knowledge regarding that rope neither destroys the snake nor creates the rope afresh.  It only helped us to know the real nature of rope that is already existing.  So holding the avidyA as bhAvarUpa, sanAtani, jada shakti, anirvachaneeya etc. quite contradictory to the common experience and shruti and bhAshya siddhAnta. 

praNAms to all shuddha shankara prakriya followers.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskaraji, Jaishankaraji and Subbuji,

Many thanks for all your infomed responses. Please excuse, but I am replying to all in one ... email.:). 

Bhaskarji,

Of course, you are preaching to the choir but its still nice to be reminded of these thoughts. One of the strongest cases for SSSS is parsimony or simplicity - no need for logical conniving to arrive at yathArtha jnana. Some comments: 

//So, it is not only avidyA to be added to nAma rUpa but vidyA also since ultimately nothing is the property of Atman as it is nirvishesha. // -- inspired clarity - adhyaropa apavada - simplicity.

//adhyAsa has the material cause in the form of mulAvidyA, avidyA shakti prompts brahman to do creation etc. etc. which is famously floating theories in AV tradition conspicuous by its absence in mUla bhAshya. // please, where does avidya shakti prompting Brahman come from? And, I suppose you intended adhyAsa to 'have' the material cause - not cause the material cause - one comes with the other, logically rather than temporally

//OTOH as said earlier anirvachaneeyatvaM has been attributed to mAyA and NOT avidyA.  Since avidyA is nirvachaneeya (describable).// --How is avidyA describable? And I think Hacker has a different understanding of anirvachaneeyatvaM though he does agree it is never attributed to avidyA as is "subsequently employed by all Advaitins, with the exception of S.'s pupils Suresvara and Totaka, as an epithet of avidya". Please see page 71 of cpt 4, "anirvacanIya as a modifier of nAmarUpa" for enumerated uses of the term in BSbh

Lastly, I need help deciphering and responding to prior references by our worthy adversaries, if it not too much to ask:

Jaisankaraji:

अनाद्यविद्याप्रसुप्ताः उत्तिष्ठत हे जन्तवः .. जाग्रत अज्ञाननिद्राया घोररूपायाः सर्वानर्थबीजभूतायाः क्षयं कुरुत । Kata Up 1.3.14 Bh
You beings, who are sleeping in ignorance that has no beginning, arise ...awake— put an end to the sleep of ignorance which is terrible by nature and is the seed of all undesirables.

 

योऽयं संसारी जीवः, सः उभयलक्षणेन तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना, अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन मायालक्षणेन स्वापेन  mAndUkya kArikA 1.16 Bh

This samsArI jIva who is characterised by both, non-cognition of the reality which is of the nature of a seed and by the cognition of reality differently and by the beginingless activity of sleep characterised as mAyA (avidyA)

 

As I have already mentioned in my note Shankara does not accept any abhAva (prAg, pradhvamsa etc.) at all. So avidyA cannot be an abhAva and so it has to be asat like this world appearance as it is the bIja / kAraNa of the dvaita samsAra. Shankara also states in more than one places avidyA is vidyA-virodhi. Further Shankara explicitly states in Br Su Bh 3.2.9 and Mand Karika 1.2 Bh that this avidyA bIja has to be there in sleep and pralaya for jIvas to reemerge and without the bIja being present, the Knowledge will become useless as it will not have anything to burn and if bIja is not accepted then mukta purushas may be reborn. 

Subbuji: 

The very same examples for the erroneous thinking mentioned by Shankara in the above Karika bhashya -

 

चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन मायालक्षणेन स्वापेन, ममायं पिता पुत्रोऽयं नप्ता क्षेत्रं गृहं पशवः, अहमेषां स्वामी सुखी दुःखी

 

 is stated by him in the Mundaka bhashya below: In the Karika bhashya he called it anaadi maayaa, in the below bhashya he calls it avidya: 

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्तृतीयं मुण्डकम्प्रथमः खण्डःमन्त्र २ - भाष्यम्

………शरीरे पुरुषः भोक्ता जीवोऽविद्याकामकर्मफलरागादिगुरुभाराक्रान्तोऽलाबुरिव सामुद्रे जले निमग्नः निश्चयेन देहात्मभावमापन्नोऽयमेवाहममुष्य पुत्रोऽस्य नप्ता कृशः स्थूलो गुणवान्निर्गुणः सुखी दुःखीत्येवंप्रत्ययो नास्त्यन्योऽस्मादिति जायते म्रियते संयुज्यते……… 

Responding directly to Jaisankaraji and Subbuji,

Hacker certainly did base his positions on Sutra bhasya alone, as you mention. Still, that is no small thing. Nyaya prasthana is intended to remedy such confusions as 'anAdi' and 'abavarupa' amidst disparate uses and interpretations. SSSS arguments about anAdhi are prolific. I found 95 references to 'beginningless' in The Heart of Sri Samkara and 208 references in The Method of the Vedanta (both freely available pdf).

One cannot simply depend upon a single citation or two and base their position on such scant evidence. After admitting you never read SSSS, I suggest you take the leap and read or at least consult these texts before rejecting SSSS's positions out of hand.

And as for your one "emphatic statement" referring to avidya in sleep, I offer a few counter citations for your consideration
:

• Therefore, in suṣupti, jīva joins its own svarūpa - say the Brahmajñānis. ChUbh6.8.1
• See also: BrahmaSutra Bhasya BSBh 1.1.9; 1.3.20; 1.4.18; 3.2.7; 3.2.11; 3.3.35; and also BrUBh 2.1.7 (291)
• “At that time (i.e. in dreamless sleep) cause and effect resulting from Ignorance desire, merit and demerit cease” PrUbh4.6.
• “With a view to show that it is in dreamless sleep alone that we find the Self in its form as a deity, liberated from its condition as an individual soul, the argument proceeds further” (ChU Bh. 6.8.1)
• “Where Ignorance, desire and action are absent … This is the form of the Self where it is beyond fear and danger …For Ignorance, which sets up the idea of otherness, is absent.” (BrUbh 4.3.21)
• “that form of the Self which is directly perceived in dreamless sleep, and which is devoid of Ignorance, desire, merit and demerit, is the subject of the discourse here' (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.22)
• Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), namely the mind, the eyes and forms, were all presented by Ignorance as something different from the Self.” (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.23)
• “When, however, that Ignorance which presents things other than the Self has ceased, in that state of dreamless sleep… and It is Ignorance that separates a second entity, and that has ceased in the state of dreamless sleep.” (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.32
• the self has been spoken of as going from the waking to the dream state, and thence to the state of profound sleep, which is the illustration for liberation. Brb h 4.3.34
• How does such a man attain liberation? This is being stated: He who sees the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one without a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intelligence-only this disinterested man has no work and consequently no cause for transmigration Brbh 4.4.6
• But as there is the absence of both the mind and its functions in deep sleep, I am Pure Consciousness, all pervading and changeless. US11.3
• “But when in dreamless sleep that nescience which sets up the appearance of beings other than the Self has ceased, there is no (apparent) entity separated from oneself as another. Then with what could one see, smell or understand what? The One is embraced by one’s own Self as intelligence (prajna), of the nature of self-luminous light. One is then all serene, with one’s desires attained, transparent as water, and all one on account of the absence of any second. For, if a second thing is distinguished, it is distinguished through nescience, and as that has now ceased, what is left is all one.
  //… In the same way, my dear one, because they had no knowledge when they mingled with pure Being, all these creatures likewise, the tiger and so forth, have no knowledge of the fact when they have returned from pure Being. They are not aware, ‘I have returned from pure Being’. Chand. Bh. Vl.ix.l”
•  
• 'Nor can you retort that the apparent nonperception of another in dreamless sleep is due to the mind being engrossed in something different from oneself but changeless, (on the analogy of the arrow-maker so engrossed in the arrow that he is making that he is unaware of anything else). For non-perception in dream is total (in that the sense-organs are withdrawn from the objects of the waking world). Nor can you say that because an ‘other’ is perceived in waking and dream it must be real, for these two states are set up by Ignorance. That "perception-of-another" which characterizes waking and dream is the work of Ignorance~ for it does not occur except in the presence of Ignorance (of the infinitude of the Self). Perhaps you will say that the non-perception characteristic of dreamless sleep is also the work of Ignorance. But this would be wrong as it is the essential nature of the Self” (Taitt.Bh. 2.5.8)

--
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/AM7PR06MB6581DB675601DD13226F42A8841D9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

 Namaste,

Hacker's analysis is useless to me if he has just based it only on Br Su Bhashya as I suspected. It may be a scholarly article and may have some academic use but not useful for a mumukshu.

Regarding avidya being anAdi, it is anyway implied as the avidyA kArya is anAdi so it does not matter how many times it has been mentioned. I did give a couple of references from what I can remember and there may be more.  

Further all the references you have given about sleep are all irrelevant as I am not denying any of them. These references only talk about dvaita not being perceived in sleep including one's individuality, self-ignorance and its kArya. Further in sleep, self is available as just a conscious being without any other perception. But none of these quotations negate the bIja which Shankara and GaudapAda are explicitly talking about to account for the sleeper getting up as the same individual who slept. That 'I Slept', 'I dreamt', 'I am awake' continuity of experience cannot be denied by anyone and it can only be accounted for if a bIja is accepted in sleep. But once you accept it your jnAna-abhAva is gone forever. So I can understand your consternation and trying to wriggle out by quoting irrelevant quotations. Your problem is also because you do not properly understand what is sat and asat as mentioned in BG 2.16 and wrongly think this bIja will somehow cause advaitahaani, but it is only an upAdhi and does not really count.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

.

[V Subrahmanian]

In GK 1.13: the presence of avidya in deep sleep is reiterated:  It is called bija nidraa.  This is what Shankara says as 'sabeeja brahman' in the Mandukya bhashya where jivas resolve during sleep/pralaya.  If this beeja is not accepted, one cannot come back to samsara after sleep/pralaya.  

द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः ।
बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥ १३ ॥
भाष्यम्
निमित्तान्तरप्राप्ताशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थोऽयं श्लोकः — कथं द्वैताग्रहणस्य
तुल्यत्वे कारणबद्धत्वं प्राज्ञस्यैव, न तुरीयस्येति प्राप्ता आशङ्का
निवर्त्यते ; यस्मात् बीजनिद्रायुतः, तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधो निद्रा ; सैव च
विशेषप्रतिबोधप्रसवस्य बीजम् ; सा बीजनिद्रा ; तया युतः प्राज्ञः ।
सदासर्वदृक्स्वभावत्वात्तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधलक्षणा बीजनिद्रा तुर्ये न
विद्यते ; अतो न कारणबन्धस्तस्मिन्नित्यभिप्रायः ॥

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda:

Thus Shankara very clearly explicitly accepts seed state in the deep sleep (seed = potential) and gives reason also to substantiate his stand that is based on the Chandogya Upanishad  that he has cited.  If the seed state is not admitted in deep sleep, Shankara says, one cannot come back to waking. So, the potential of the jiva's samsara is there in the deep sleep.  This is none other than the avidya existing in deep sleep. Shankara also reasons: for Knowledge to destroy/annul/annihilate ignorance, it, the latter, has to be there. This is also strong evidence from Shankara for his accepting avidya in a latent form. Not just that, Shankara makes a rule here: In all the Upanishads wherever the Existence is spoken of, it is not without the seed element.  In other words, the seed-tainted Existence alone is the abode of all beings in deep sleep and dissolution.  So, Shankara says this rule applies universally in Upanishadic literature that speaks of the Cause of the Creation.  

Whatever appears to be the contrary to the above in Shankara's bhashyas elsewhere, on the rule he specifies above, the former has to be seen and understood in this, latter, rule that he has ordained in the above Mandukya Bhashya.

 

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/CAOkLS-HUMnpMfBPqJzaDhiPtbu%3DhvhX8WSHhVysWMuM0_9NPMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

dear jaishankaraji  and subbu ji, pranam

Bija and cause seem to distract. Shankara clearly defines these terms in an unfamiliar way that we need to heed. Non-apprehension, agrahana, is the only cause intended in the karikas. Bhasya on Karika 1.11 defines as appropriate to tradition: 

"Both Viśva and Taijasa, described above, are known as being conditioned by cause and effect, characterised by both non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality. But Prājña is conditioned by cause alone. Cause, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality, is the condition of Prājña. "

Furthermore, SSSS counter argues that positing a temporal, positive, causal ignorance or power in deep sleep renders avidya to really exist, as then it will have existed in all three periods of time and thus not be subject to falsification - anirmoksa paksha

"There are two aspects of Ignorance as conceived by the strict classical Advaitins

(Gau~apid~ Sarpkara, SureSvara): there is failure to apprehend the Self in its true

nature (agrah~), and there is consequent positive misconception (anyathagrah~~ cpo

G.K. 1.13 and 15). Flying in the face of the universal experience that it is failure to

apprehend the rope that is the pre-condition for misapprehending it as a snake, the postSureSvara

Advaitins rejected this teaching, on the ground that failure to apprehend,

conceived as a non-entity, could not produce results. Hence they posited a positive

Ignorance, and had the difficulty of explaining why, since it was beginningless and

uncaused, it was not real. The doctriJ)e of the strict classical Advaitins ,\vas th~ as long

as there is failure to awaken to one's true nature as the Self, misconception and rebirth

\vill continue. But 'Ignorance' in the form offailure to apprehend the Self is only a precondition

for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed, but it is

not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (shakti) in any concrete sense. As S~kara puts

it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real' (tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi

bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and then it \vould be

impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge." HOSS p212 fn 110

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1zyNFYCXMmf-U_s46SmzemdRgYFmGubfwGNBEbedc%3Dow%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022, 1:30 am Michael Chandra Cohen, <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

dear jaishankaraji  and subbu ji, pranam

Bija and cause seem to distract. Shankara clearly defines these terms in an unfamiliar way that we need to heed. Non-apprehension, agrahana, is the only cause intended in the karikas. Bhasya on Karika 1.11 defines as appropriate to tradition: 

"Both Viśva and Taijasa, described above, are known as being conditioned by cause and effect, characterised by both non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality. But Prājña is conditioned by cause alone. Cause, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality, is the condition of Prājña. "

Furthermore, SSSS counter argues that positing a temporal, positive, causal ignorance or power in deep sleep renders avidya to really exist, as then it will have existed in all three periods of time and thus not be subject to falsification - anirmoksa paksha

Namaste

The above reasoning is really flawed. Just because the positive causal ignorance exists in all the three states of waking, etc (not three periods of past, present and future), it doesn't follow that such an ignorance cannot be annulled by knowledge. Why? It is because such an ignorance is an object to the Atman as Shankara has demonstrated through a short dialogue in the BGB 13.2. That which is an object to the Seer Atman is of a lower order of reality and hence false, mithya. Such an objectified ignorance can be falsified by knowledge just as the rope knowledge falsifies the snake.

The non apprehension (cause) that continues in all the three states is an object to the Turiya which is the substrate of the three states along with their cause, Avidya. So there is no way that this cause-effect duality three states is as real as the Turiya of the seventh mantra if the Mandukya. Shankara uses the rope snake analogy to the three states vs Turiya to teach the unreality of the superimposed cause-effect duality of the Prajna and its  two effects. 

Thus the causal ignorance that continues in all the three states does not get the status of the Atman. To think that it is 'as real as Brahman Atman' is simply miscomprehension of Shankara's Bhashya.

regards

subbu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHmVDeK-hpDvmTusOMuWoNB-nzH6PR_REWwKLsRs6zguw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbu ji, pranam

Waking, dream Deep sleep account for all human experience - there is nothing humanly known beyond these three states. If Atman exists alongside Avidya in all three states of experience, they are not two vastus but one thing and that is counter to all Vedanta teaching and reason. Past, present and future are times relevant to the waking state only as are waking space and waking causation. Dream has its own time, space and causation.  That is the message of the Mandukya, the Karika and Sankara's bhasya. Karika 1.2 shows us all experience is captured according to these avasthas even in waking experience alone, "Visva is met with in the right eye which is his place of experience. But Taijasa is inside the mind. Prajna is in the space within the heart. In three ways he exists in the body." 

I find myself frustrated with these conversations. Minds are made up. Evident for an opinion, a view, can be enough to argue some point but never enough to support the entire scope of Bhasyakara's teaching without serving up one convoluted theory upon another in order to justify an existent deceptive power that can't be logically maintained. There is a consistency and simpliciity in Sankara that has been corrupted beyond recognition. SSSS has worked to restore the original teaching but is confounded by the entrenched views we have inherited from our teachers and they from theirs. It seems inconceivable our venerable teachers could be mistakens,  If all the argument and evidence presented by SSSS (particularly to a Kannada speaker) cannot turn one's mind, it is vain indeed to think I might succeed - it is no wonder I find myself frustrated. 

Thy own Self, MCC

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2nLo%3DK%2B75cc6Aqj7VEorPcJa2%2B5Te4F2SYDrVwrAjAmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[jai1971]

Namaste,

See below

On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 01:30:14 UTC+5:30 michaelc...@gmail.com wrote:

dear jaishankaraji  and subbu ji, pranam

Bija and cause seem to distract. Shankara clearly defines these terms in an unfamiliar way that we need to heed.

Jai: Read ghata bhAshya in Br Up 1.2.1 bhAshya and it is all very clearly stated. Nothing unfamiliar to us. 

 

Non-apprehension, agrahana, is the only cause intended in the karikas. Bhasya on Karika 1.11 defines as appropriate to tradition: 

"Both Viśva and Taijasa, described above, are known as being conditioned by cause and effect, characterised by both non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality. But Prājña is conditioned by cause alone. Cause, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality, is the condition of Prājña. "

Jai: Why non-apprehension of Reality? Because avidyA is AvaraNa-atmika as bhagavAn in BG 5th chapter says and bhAsyakAra also says in BG Bhashya and Br Up Bhashya. bhAshyakAra himself argues AvaraNa cannot be abhAva. That is why bhAshyakAra mentions multiple times that avidyA is vidyA-virodhi - opposed to vidya and not absence of vidyA. Further bhashyakAra explicitly rejects all kinds of abhAva and says if you associate any vishesha (quality / activity) with abhAva it is bhaAvarupa only.  

 

Furthermore, SSSS counter argues that positing a temporal, positive, causal ignorance or power in deep sleep renders avidya to really exist, as then it will have existed in all three periods of time and thus not be subject to falsification - anirmoksa paksha

"There are two aspects of Ignorance as conceived by the strict classical Advaitins

(Gau~apid~ Sarpkara, SureSvara): there is failure to apprehend the Self in its true

nature (agrah~), and there is consequent positive misconception (anyathagrah~~ cpo

G.K. 1.13 and 15). Flying in the face of the universal experience that it is failure to

apprehend the rope that is the pre-condition for misapprehending it as a snake, the postSureSvara

Advaitins rejected this teaching, on the ground that failure to apprehend,

conceived as a non-entity, could not produce results. Hence they posited a positive

Ignorance, and had the difficulty of explaining why, since it was beginningless and

uncaused, it was not real.

Jai: This shows the failure on the part of SSS to understand sat and asat as defined BG in 2.16. avidyA is only an upAdhi and does not count. In Br. Up. Bh 3.5.1 the purvapakshi raises the same question 

नामरूपोपाध्यस्तित्वे ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १) ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । १९) इति श्रुतयो विरुध्येरन्निति चेत् — न, सलिलफेनदृष्टान्तेन परिहृतत्वात् मृदादिदृष्टान्तैश्च ; If nama-rupa upAdhi exists does it not go against shruti statements like 'ekameva adviteeyam' 'neha nanasti kinchana'? No. It has been answered by the shruti with water-foam analogy and also clay-pot analogy. 

You need not destroy the pot / foam to know that it only clay / water. But somehow SSS thinks dvaita will become real if its potential form is accepted and if its very perception does not cease permanently. This after Shankara and Gaudapada explicitly state that the potential seed form should be accepted to account for the universal experience of the same individual getting up from sleep.

 

The doctriJ)e of the strict classical Advaitins ,\vas th~ as long

as there is failure to awaken to one's true nature as the Self, misconception and rebirth

\vill continue. But 'Ignorance' in the form offailure to apprehend the Self is only a precondition

for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed, but it is

not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (shakti) in any concrete sense.

Jai: SSS thinks somehow a dravya or shakti means it is real and uses words like concrete. May be he comes from a time when people thought space-time is absolute. Scientists and even lay people know that at sub-atomic level it is all 99% space and this entire macro world is nothing but mAyA appearance. He also has a problem with avidyA being in all periods of time. But time itself is created and is mithyA / asat. You cannot even define  'Now'  in any unit of time. 'Now' which cannot be defined makes up the entire past, present and future. Similarly a point which occupies no space makes up the entire 3-dimensional space. This is mAya.  Shankara in Tai Up Bh 2.1 says 

सर्वेषां हि वस्तूनां कालाकाशादीनां कारणं ब्रह्म । कार्यापेक्षया वस्तुतोऽन्तवत्त्वमिति चेत् , न ; अनृतत्वात्कार्यस्य वस्तुनः । न हि कारणव्यतिरेकेण कार्यं नाम वस्तुतोऽस्ति, यतः कारणबुद्धिर्विनिवर्तेत ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४) एवं सदेव सत्यमिति श्रुत्यन्तरात् ।

Brahman is the cause of all objects starting from space, time etc. If it is said that then Brahman as kAranam will be limited by its own kArya - No. kArya objects are anrita (mithyA / asat - false - ontological term). Other than the kAraNa nothing really exists called a kArya, from which the kArana-cognition is  nullified / removed (refer to the brilliant BG 2.16 Bh to understand this). 'vAchArambhaBam...' in this manner 'sad' vastu alone is satyam (truth - ontological term) from the other shruti.

 

As S~kara puts

it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real' (tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi

bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and then it \vould be

impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge." HOSS p212 fn 110

Jai: What does SSS mean by cancel it through metaphysical knowledge? I think he means the removal of dvaita-perception itself like the removal of rope-snake. This again is a fundamental misunderstanding of the teaching leading to anirmoksha-prasanga. This has affected all his followers too as they are unfortunately waiting for the dvaita-perception to end and become jnAnis.  jnAna-drshti as given by bhagaAn in BG is seeing 'sat as sat and asat as asat'. dvaita is always mithyA in fact because it is perceived. The traditional anumAna is dvaitam mithyA drishyatvAt. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I find myself frustrated with these conversations. Minds are made up. Evident for an opinion, a view, can be enough to argue some point but never enough to support the entire scope of Bhasyakara's teaching without serving up one convoluted theory upon another in order to justify an existent deceptive power that can't be logically maintained.

 

• 😊 😊 It is no wonder you are frustrated.  When you quote shankara with the view points of Sri SSS in mind, you will be comfortably labelled as untraditional (asampradAyavaadi) and your references are irrelevant, out of context, not understood properly, devoid of sAmpradAyik understanding etc. and they are very eager to show your SSS is no way superior to our traditional Acharya-s vyAkhyAnakAra and their interpretation of mUla bhAshya.  Unfortunately, it is always something on personal grounds these opinions have been generated hence long back I desisted myself quoting anything directly from Sri SSS’s works and quoting only relevant bhAshya works in my own language  to face the wrath of some so called sampradaya followers.  Anyway my intention is not to appease these traditional or winning the debate with them but it is for some bystanders who want to have the objective look at mUla bhAshya without prejudiced affiliation to any one sub-division schools of thought in Advaita.  I reckon efforts should continue in that direction.  And I am really happy that you are one of those who are substantiating the mUla shankara’s advaita siddhAnta as enshrined in PTB.  Please continue prabhuji there are some readers who I am sure would be eager to know other side of the story 😊

 

There is a consistency and simpliciity in Sankara that has been corrupted beyond recognition. SSSS has worked to restore the original teaching but is confounded by the entrenched views we have inherited from our teachers and they from theirs. It seems inconceivable our venerable teachers could be mistakens,  If all the argument and evidence presented by SSSS (particularly to a Kannada speaker) cannot turn one's mind, it is vain indeed to think I might succeed - it is no wonder I find myself frustrated. 

 

• As I said above we have to continue our efforts for the majority of mute spectators who are yet to decide whether to take vyAkhyAnakAra-s side or mUla  bhAshyakAra’s side.  For them we have to sincerely provide these information to prove that mUla bhAshya is self-sufficient and it would stand on its own without any fabricated / concocted theories that has been added to it over a period of time  in the name of sampradaya.  

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Just a thought: Are not SSS and Swami Dayananda in agreement with regard to Nirvikalpa Samadhi being not necessary (or even directly relevant) for Jnana? It is not clear how that topic ties into this one where they seem fully opposed. If SSS rejects even the temporary destruction of Dvaita perception in NS, is it correct to say they claim Dvaita perception vanishes in an absolute manner deposit-jnana?

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/0e63d8c4-0095-4971-a655-7dd39213f173n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

If SSS rejects even the temporary destruction of Dvaita perception in NS, is it correct to say they claim Dvaita perception vanishes in an absolute manner deposit-jnana?

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

At the risk of targeting the soft end I dare to say something on this : NO!! Sri SSS never ever said dvaita would have to completely vanish after the dawn of jnana.  As I have said innumerable times jnana does not have the capacity to annihilate anything that is already existing and it does not create anything afresh either.  Sri SSS talks about paramArtha jnana and sadyO mukti in this very janma and says this state of mukti is NOT any vyavahAra abhAva, lOkAteeta or avasthAteeta jnana but it is vyavahAra bAdhita jnana with samyak or Atmaikatva drushti.  OTOH it is some post vyAkhyAnakAra-s great contribution that to literally experience the Advaita ekatva tattva you have to experience it in NS and paramArtha jnana in the jnAni is jnana mAtra (not Atmaikatva darshana) and mukti is a subsequent stage after paramArtha jnana and till you get that mukhya mukti you have to continuously practice that jnana (prasamkhyAna).  And as per some, this mukhya mukti happens only after complete effacement of avidyAlesha and after shedding the mortal coil in other wards mukhya mukti happens ONLY after physical death of jnAni and as long as he is living and seeing dvaita he is endowed with avidyAlesha.  prakaraNa grantha-s like JMV, PD, VC etc. very forcefully insisting the mandatory experience of NS to have the absolute experience of adviteeyaM.  And as per some, shruti and teachings are just instruction manual which needs to be put into test in the practical lab like NS to SEE the result. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Yes we went over the NS topic recently. But then, I recall you being in agreement with Swami Dayananda follower on that topic, now in disagreement Jaishankar-ji. Wondering whether he is mistaken when he says: 

“ You need not destroy the pot / foam to know that it only clay / water. But somehow SSS thinks dvaita will become real if its potential form is accepted and if its very perception does not cease permanently.”

He can reconsider in light of your comments.

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/AM7PR06MB6581FA49023707536723797A841C9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes we went over the NS topic recently. But then, I recall you being in agreement with Swami Dayananda follower on that topic,

 

• If my memory serves me right these Arsha vidyA followers (not traditional vivaraNa school followers) would argue like anything against the mandatory experience of NS.  One of the hardcore follower of Sri Swamy Dayananda infact wrote a lot about this NS and argued vehemently about the authorship of VC since this work is insisting for mandatory experience of NS.  Since Sri SSS also not insisting for this mandatory experience of NS for the practical realization of paramArtha jnana I have agreed with them.  One Sri Sugavanam Krishna ( my FB friend) who is a teacher in AVG says that JMV is a distorted version of shankara vedaanta for all practical purposes this prakaraNa needs to be avoided by shankara Vedanta followers. 

 

now in disagreement Jaishankar-ji. Wondering whether he is mistaken when he says: 

 

• He said he is the follower of prakAshatma yati’s panchapaadika vivaraNa I don’t know which version of vivaraNa he learnt in his gurukula!!??  That is anyway immaterial to me.  As per traditionally ‘known’ vivaraNa sampradaya, No doubt he is a mUlAvidyAvAdi but I don’t know what is his stand on NS.  But with regard how the avidyA get removed or destroyed, the orthodox vivavaraNa school explains it will be removed by tattvajnAna.  By this jnana both avidyA (kAraNa) and its kArya ( effect) will be destroyed so that they donot recur or reappear and it is called nivrutti (freedom).  Interestingly when talking about rajju-sarpa example (nacre and silver) the appearance of sarpa is verily the effect or product of mUlAvidyA and this avidyA does not get destroyed by jnana of rajju at that juncture of jnana the sarpa etc. get merged (laya) in their cause of avidyA that is all.  Alternatively they also introduce tUlAvidyA (avasthArUpa) of mUlAvidyA gets completely destroyed.  And to the question : does duality (dvaita) appear to the jnAni-s or not??  They say though the srushti exist eternally duality does not appear to the jnAni just as to the blind men.  Though there exists colour outside it does not appear to them!!  No adhyAsa (misconception) for him hence no pramAtrutva as a result duality does not appear.  Another alternative is although due to prArabdha karma for the jnAni duality may appear no harm for him. And to him, on certain occasions in asamprajnAta samAdhi (later named as NS) there happens cognition of AtmaikatvaM.  Due to karma vasha duality being seen by jnAni. Since he already got rod of knowership (pramAtrutva) it is as good as not seeing the duality though he is seeing it.  And the propagators of vivaraNa continue to say EVEN AFTER AVIDYA IS REMOVED BY MEANS OF PARAMARTHA JNANA (SELF KNOWLEDGE) the former remains subsists in the form of saMskAra (latent impression) they give example of digbhraanti, dviteeya Chandra darshan etc. and due to which duality also may be seen.  By repeatedly practicing knowledge of reality this avidyA samskAra (avidyAlesha) also gets removed AND AS LONG AS JNANI BEING ASSOCIATED WITH AVIDYALESHA BECOMES ONLY JEEVANMUKTA (IN THE SECONDARY SENSE OR GAUNA MUKTI) AND WHEN THIS AVIDYALESHA TOO IS DESTROYED  THEREAFTER HE GIVES UP HIS PHYSICAL BODY AND BECOMES VIDEHA MUKTA. 
• I don’t know whether this type of Advaita Siddhanta has been taught to AVG followers in their gurukula.  If yes, then only they can claim that they are following the panchapaadika vivaraNa to understand shankara’s Advaita Vedanta.  If not, then it is not traditional vivaraNa prakriya that they are following and simply they are duping themselves by announcing that they are the followers of panchapaadika vivaraNa prasthAna it must be some modern day version of AV and to attach the traditional tag to it they are trying to link themselves with traditional vivaraNa school. 

 

“ You need not destroy the pot / foam to know that it only clay / water. But somehow SSS thinks dvaita will become real if its potential form is accepted and if its very perception does not cease permanently.”

 

• This is gross misrepresentation of Sri SSS’s position that too without knowing anything about his works.  I hope you now understand why I branded some participants here are prejudiced and building a straw man arguments against Sri SSS. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

PS :  those who are doubting whether these are really orthodox vivaraNa stand or just a concocted version of vivavaraNa by Sri SSS,  can refer the works of Sri SSS panchapaadika vivaraNa, mulAvidyA nirAsa, sugama, Vedanta prakriya pratyabhigna, Vedanta vichaarada itihAsa, shankara hrudaya by Sri SSS where he quotes originals from panchapaadika vivaraNa vyAkhyAna. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

And as for your one "emphatic statement" referring to avidya in sleep, I offer a few counter citations for your consideration :

• Therefore, in suṣupti, jīva joins its own svarūpa - say the Brahmajñānis. ChUbh6.8.1

• There are quotes aplenty to substantiate this in PTB and thank you very much of quoting all those.  But who cares??  Not only 10 even hundreds of genuine original quotes would not going to mark any difference.  After all the quotes / references / explanation,  what you could hear is something like : yes, we know all these references, you have quoted all these out of context, your understanding is not as per sampradaya so your quotes are irrelevant here 😊 you might have already seen the responses like this.   This is how the meaningful debate taking place in this list. 
• Anyway, when avidyA in sushupti was discussed earlier, there was a contention based on mAndUkya mantra 6, jeeva appears ( as if) merged in brahman and here in this sushupti state brahman is kArya brahma (not kAraNa / pAramArthika brahma) and this kArya brahma has been elevated to the status of parabrahman hence all these quotes are mere arthavAda!!??.  And mAndUkya mantra 7 which talks about tureeya is what is ultimate and since in sushupti avidyA beeja accepted ( god only knows how it is not agrahaNa or jnAnAbhAva but something positive entity like mUlAvidyA that is clinging to paramAtman) ONLY Atman’s fourth pAda tureeya is accepted as ultimate. 
• And as a matter of fact though in sushupti there is ekatva, sleep in not the sAdhana to attain ekatva.  It is because of the simple fact even though you are one with THAT, you are not aware that you are ONE.  Hence sAdhana is not nidra but SMN of shAstra vAkya and through yukti and sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava we have to realize this ultimate which is avasthAteeta. 
• Sri SSS makes an important observation here in one of his works :
•  
• //quote//Like waking and dream, sleep also presents a mAyic aspect to the manobasic view warped by its partiality for waking.  ( analysing the sleep state from waking and drawing conclusions on sleep state from waking state).  From that thought position we regard sleep as a passing cloud of ignorance in which we are daily enveloped and as a termporary inactivity into which we are daily thrust by nature.  But so soon as we try to assume the philosophy position of the witness of the three states (sAkshi of the three states), this much neglected state comes to have entirely another meaning for us which we can ill afford to ignore.  It is then seen to be an intuition of our true nature diverted of its apparent individuality and its personality and an experience unburdened with the complex psychic machinery of the ego, the mind and the senses. //unquote//
• Lastly avidyA beeja that is supposed to exist in sushupti is not the seed / beeja like a physical seed that would sprout in waking and dream.  Here beeja is abhAva, the abhAva of jnana, not knowing that he is one with THAT.  While talking about sushupti shruti says in that state deva is adeva, veda is aveda etc. and also says this is the lord of all, sarvajna, internal controller, the source of all.  The verse in mAdukya by bhAshyakAra would depict the entire substance of vedantic teaching based on this method of avasthAtraya.  I am just quoting its English translation as found in Sri SSS’s works:
• //quote// that which pervades the worlds through its rays of consciousness spread out and diffused in animate and inanimate beings and thus experiences the gross pleasures and pains in waking, and once more in dreams the subtle ones fancied by mind and born of desire that which absorbs within itself all distinctions and sleeps enjoying bliss, thus causing us through its mAyA to taste all these states – to that which is ‘the fourth’ relatively to this illusory number three, but is absolutely the Highest, immortal, unborn, brahman I make obeisance.//unquote//.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

My Guru Swami Dayananda ji did not think NS is required to be a jnAni. But he was not against Yoga Sadhana as part of Nidhidhyasana. He was mainly against those who advocated Meditation as a means for moksha without considering the Shruti Pramana or those who paid lip service to Shruti and considered it just as manual or guide or map which helps one in 'Vedantic Practice'. For my Guru Shastra has to be handled as a valid means of knowledge and without a proper pramANa-vyApAra (in the form of shravana from a samprAyavit-Guru) just quieting (chitta vritti nirodha) the mind is of no use. He used to say what is required is not lightening the mind (of vrittis) but enlightening the mind (with jnAna-vritti).

This is in keeping with what bhAshyakAra says in Br Up 1.4.7 vidya-sutra bhAshya where he rejects the chitta-vritti-nirodha of yoga darshana as a means of moksha but accepts that mind endowed with and strengthened by means such as tyAga, vairAgya etc. has to be made to recollect the atma-ekatva vijnAna to overcome prior conditioning due to prArabdha which is very powerful.

निरोधस्तर्ह्यर्थान्तरमिति चेत् — अथापि स्याच्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधस्य वेदवाक्यजनितात्मविज्ञानादर्थान्तरत्वात् , तन्त्रान्तरेषु च कर्तव्यतया अवगतत्वाद्विधेयत्वमिति चेत् — न, मोक्षसाधनत्वेनानवगमात् । न हि वेदान्तेषु ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानादन्यत्परमपुरुषार्थसाधनत्वेनावगम्यते 

Later bhAsyakAra says शरीरारम्भकस्य कर्मणो नियतफलत्वात् , सम्यग्ज्ञानप्राप्तावपि अवश्यंभाविनी प्रवृत्तिर्वाङ्मनःकायानाम् , लब्धवृत्तेः कर्मणो बलीयस्त्वात् — मुक्तेष्वादिप्रवृत्तिवत् ; तेन पक्षे प्राप्तं ज्ञानप्रवृत्तिदौर्बल्यम् । तस्मात् त्यागवैराग्यादिसाधनबलावलम्बेन आत्मविज्ञानस्मृतिसन्ततिर्नियन्तव्या भवति ;

He was also not against someone who has done proper vedanata shravana and manana to pursue NS, as some of his sishyas did do that.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 10:23 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

If SSS rejects even the temporary destruction of Dvaita perception in NS, is it correct to say they claim Dvaita perception vanishes in an absolute manner deposit-jnana?

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

At the risk of targeting the soft end I dare to say something on this : NO!! Sri SSS never ever said dvaita would have to completely vanish after the dawn of jnana.  As I have said innumerable times jnana does not have the capacity to annihilate anything that is already existing and it does not create anything afresh either.  Sri SSS talks about paramArtha jnana and sadyO mukti in this very janma and says this state of mukti is NOT any vyavahAra abhAva, lOkAteeta or avasthAteeta jnana but it is vyavahAra bAdhita jnana with samyak or Atmaikatva drushti.  

Jai: This is something new from Bhaskar ji. If I remember correctly around 15 years back the same Bhaskar ji was vehemently arguing with me that jnAni cannot have any dvaita-darshana / vyavahAra and proposed the absurd theory that all jnAni's vyavahAra is only ajnAnis' projections. I think I also quoted Br Su 4.1.15 at that time where Shankara explicitly talks about jnAni's svAnubhava but could not make any dent in his opinion.

This is what shankara says अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् — ब्रह्मविदा कञ्चित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति । कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत ? श्रुतिस्मृतिषु च स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेन एतदेव निरुच्यते । तस्मादनारब्धकार्ययोरेव सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्विद्यासामर्थ्यात्क्षय इति निर्णयः ॥  Giving Swami Gambhirananda's translation below

Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to whether the body is retained (after knowledge) for some time or not by the knowers of Brahman. For when somebody feels in his heart that he has realized Brahman and yet holds the body, how can this be denied by somebody else? This very fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and the Smrtis in the course of determining the characteristics of "the man of steady wisdom"
(sthitaprajna Glta, II. 54). Hence the conclusion is that only those virtues and vices are washed away by knowledge which have not begun to bear fruit.

In fact even recently one Shri. Hisihi Ryo as quoted by Michael Chandra Cohen ji,  also made the same absurd argument that jnAni cannot have any vyavahAra and it is all only ajnAni's projection. 

For SSS followers avidya is vyakta-adhyAsa and avidyA nAsha is destruction of adhyAsa. So they cannot accept any vyavahAra of jnAni. So I don't know on what basis Bhaskar ji is making the above statements. In my interactions with SSS followers including a Sanyasi they are all very clear that jnAni cannot see any dvaita and unfortunately they are all waiting for the dvaita perception to end!

[Bhaskar YR]

For SSS followers avidya is vyakta-adhyAsa and avidyA nAsha is destruction of adhyAsa. So they cannot accept any vyavahAra of jnAni. So I don't know on what basis Bhaskar ji is making the above statements. In my interactions with SSS followers including a Sanyasi they are all very clear that jnAni cannot see any dvaita and unfortunately they are all waiting for the dvaita perception to end!

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

One more quite evident distortion of Sri SSS’s stand on  jnAni’s sashareeratvaM and his vyavahAra after realizing he is brahman!!??  Anyway it is time to close my shop at office.  Let me have a detailed look about this dvita nAsha Vs dvaita bAdha on Monday.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Bhaskaraji  and Jaishankaraji, pranam. 

Too much input, please be patient with me responding. That said, to inform your last comments I offer the following:

Pujya Swami Dayanandaji on moksa, duality and desire: 

"What kind of karma is necessary, then, for moksa? … The notions of duality which are necessary for performing karma are negated. YOU MAY STILL DO KARMA, but the notion of division, bheda-pratyaya, Is negated. … If you know you are Brahman doing this action, there is no problem. YOU ENJOY DOING IT. Here however it is done by the one who has the notion that AtmA is the doing.”

 “These kinds of binding desires stem from ignorance of the Atma being full, and once Atma is appreciated as full, they cannot be there. ONE MAY HAVE A SIMPLE DESIRE TO DO SOMETHING, just because one is capable of it, as an expression of the Lord’s glory, vibhuti, but that has nothing to do with the sense of desire which is born of inadequacy….

 Similarly here, when the knowledge gained is that I am param brahma and nothing is apart from that, it means that ALL THE WORLDS, including Brahma-loka, ARE INCLUDED.”
page 1705ff Gita Home Study, Swami Dayanandaji

--

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/AM7PR06MB6581425676E5A73056C89FB3841C9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Bhaskar Maharajji, Honored to connect with you here. This group is actually a new discovery, though I've probably been a member for a while. There's much for me to learn: I beg patience from one and all. 

you said:

There are quotes aplenty to substantiate this in PTB and thank you very much of quoting all those.  But who cares??

Here, it may be different but on FB it impressed many ... and it was good manana for me

you said: 

this kArya brahma has been elevated to the status of parabrahman hence all these quotes are mere arthavAda!!?

I think MaU6 is key. sAkshi is taken differently in 'bhasya Sankara' and traditional mulaV people. The latter, as you point out, take sAkshi together with sAkshya, as parabrahman which spells videha mukti to me. The more astute understanding applies adhyaropa apavada as per MaU7. 

ONLY Atman’s fourth pAda tureeya is accepted as ultimate. 

I don't get what you mean here. 

SSSS said:

analysing the sleep state from waking and drawing conclusions on sleep state from waking state)

This is the brillance of Vedanta missed by MV! 

It would be good to gather a detailed list of presumptions, implications and ramifications distinct between Bhasya Sankara and MV. Sugama would be a key source

Bhasyakara said: 

• //quote// that which pervades the worlds through its rays of consciousness spread out and diffused in animate and inanimate beings and thus experiences the gross pleasures and pains in waking, and once more in dreams the subtle ones fancied by mind and born of desire that which absorbs within itself all distinctions and sleeps enjoying bliss, thus causing us through its mAyA to taste all these states – to that which is ‘the fourth’ relatively to this illusory number three, but is absolutely the Highest, immortal, unborn, brahman I make obeisance.//unquote//.

worth memorizing. thanks for sharing _/\_

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed  Self, Jaishankarji, pranam. 

you quoted KaUbh 1.3.14, here's is the entire bhasya;

Sri Shankara’s Commentary (Bhashya) translated by S. Sitarama Sastri
Having thus merged into the purusha, the âtman, all the three, i.e., name, form and karma which are produced by false knowledge and are of the nature of action, agents and fruits, by a knowledge of the true nature of his âtman, as the water in the mirage, the serpent in the rope and the colour of the sky, disappear by seeing the true nature of the mirage, rope and the sky, one becomes free from anxiety and calm, his purpose accomplished. Therefore to know that, arise, Oh, living beings sleeping in beginningless ignorance, i.e., turn towards the acquisition of the knowledge of the âtman; and awake, i.e., put an end to the sleep of ignorance, horrible in form and the seed of all misery. How? Having approached excellent preceptors who know that, realise the âtman taught by them, the innermost and in all, thus ‘I am he.’ This is not to be neglected. Thus, the sruti, like a mother, says from compassion; because the object to be known can be realised only by very subtle intelligence. Why is it stated ‘by subtle in-tellect’’? The edge of a razor is pointed, i.e., made sharp and impassable, i.e., passable with difficulty; as that cannot be walked over by the feet, similarly hard to attain, the intelligent say, is the road of the knowledge of truth. The meaning is that because the object to be known is very subtle, they say the road of knowledge leading to that is not easily attainable.

--Two observations: 1. "produced by false knowledge" - how will you interpret that? 2. It seems to me this bhasya and mantra lend themselves to a eulogist or metaphoric interpretation. Thus, I don't think it is a strong citation supporting your position

you said

As I have already mentioned in my note Shankara does not accept any abhAva (prAg, pradhvamsa etc.) at all. So avidyA cannot be an abhAva and so it has to be asat like this world appearance as it is the bIja / kAraNa of the dvaita samsAra. Shankara also states in more than one places avidyA is vidyA-virodhi. Further Shankara explicitly states in Br Su Bh 3.2.9 and Mand Karika 1.2 Bh that this avidyA bIja has to be there in sleep and pralaya for jIvas to reemerge and without the bIja being present, the Knowledge will become useless as it will not have anything to burn and if bIja is not accepted then mukta purushas may be reborn. 

-- Indeed, BSbh3.2.9 gives SSSS's thinking pause, so I consulted his Heart of Sri Samkara (p163-5) and read where he first sets out your argument, the Vivarana position, exhaustively but then offers what Sankara really said in response. I've copied both sections for your consideration. 

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

The bhAshya vakya is  नामरूपकर्मत्रयं यन्मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितं - name, form and action - the triad which are projected by false ignorance. Further what is said here is not any kind of eulogy. How can a reference to beginning less avidyA be a eulogy of anything. So your argument is not proper.

Regarding SSS quotes, his english prose is not very coherent or intelligible to me. I would prefer the original sanskrit to this kind of writing. Anyway what I get from it is that he is again making irrelevant quotations about what everyone anyway agrees and what he quotes does not refute Br Su Bh 3.2.9 or Mand Up 1.2 bhAshya which is so clear. Everyone agrees that mind and other senses resolve in deep sleep and so there is no perception of any subject-object duality. But that in no way proves that there is no bIja as the bIja is explicitly accepted to prove the continuity of experience  of the one who slept waking up as same individual jIva. I don't think there is much too discuss here further. If you cannot even understand such clear bhAshya it only proves you are too blinded by your own biases. So I think we should it leave it here.

Anyway none of you have answered my point about Shankara not even accepting any kind of abhAva and explicitly saying if you associate abhAva with any vishesha then it becomes bhAvarupa. That in spite of such clear bhAshya SSS went ahead and concocted an absurd jnAna-abhAva only shows he did not study the bhAhsya properly.  

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 10:24 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Blessed  Self, Jaishankarji, pranam. 

you quoted KaUbh 1.3.14, here's is the entire bhasya;

Sri Shankara’s Commentary (Bhashya) translated by S. Sitarama Sastri
Having thus merged into the purusha, the âtman, all the three, i.e., name, form and karma which are produced by false knowledge and are of the nature of action, agents and fruits, by a knowledge of the true nature of his âtman, as the water in the mirage, the serpent in the rope and the colour of the sky, disappear by seeing the true nature of the mirage, rope and the sky, one becomes free from anxiety and calm, his purpose accomplished. Therefore to know that, arise, Oh, living beings sleeping in beginningless ignorance, i.e., turn towards the acquisition of the knowledge of the âtman; and awake, i.e., put an end to the sleep of ignorance, horrible in form and the seed of all misery. How? Having approached excellent preceptors who know that, realise the âtman taught by them, the innermost and in all, thus ‘I am he.’ This is not to be neglected. Thus, the sruti, like a mother, says from compassion; because the object to be known can be realised only by very subtle intelligence. Why is it stated ‘by subtle in-tellect’’? The edge of a razor is pointed, i.e., made sharp and impassable, i.e., passable with difficulty; as that cannot be walked over by the feet, similarly hard to attain, the intelligent say, is the road of the knowledge of truth. The meaning is that because the object to be known is very subtle, they say the road of knowledge leading to that is not easily attainable.

--Two observations: 1. "produced by false knowledge" - how will you interpret that? 2. It seems to me this bhasya and mantra lend themselves to a eulogist or metaphoric interpretation. Thus, I don't think it is a strong citation supporting your position

you said

As I have already mentioned in my note Shankara does not accept any abhAva (prAg, pradhvamsa etc.) at all. So avidyA cannot be an abhAva and so it has to be asat like this world appearance as it is the bIja / kAraNa of the dvaita samsAra. Shankara also states in more than one places avidyA is vidyA-virodhi. Further Shankara explicitly states in Br Su Bh 3.2.9 and Mand Karika 1.2 Bh that this avidyA bIja has to be there in sleep and pralaya for jIvas to reemerge and without the bIja being present, the Knowledge will become useless as it will not have anything to burn and if bIja is not accepted then mukta purushas may be reborn. 

-- Indeed, BSbh3.2.9 gives SSSS's thinking pause, so I consulted his Heart of Sri Samkara (p163-5) and read where he first sets out your argument, the Vivarana position, exhaustively but then offers what Sankara really said in response. I've copied both sections for your consideration. 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Dear Sir, Jaishankarji, please be patient. I will review. In the meantime,

14  Arise! Awake! Approach the great and learn. 

Doesn't that sound eulogistic? Like an American cheerleader! 

But I agree,  HOSS is an extremely difficult text to get through. I suspect Alston had trouble himself. Also, I re-read and fn 106 & 107 are nstrumental in making sense of that particular paragraph. Best to decipher tough sections. 
 
you say: //But that in no way proves that there is no bIja as the bIja is explicitly accepted to prove the continuity of experience  of the one who slept waking up as same individual jIva. //

All seems to hinge on 'continuity of experience' but what exactly is that? Does a material jiva along with his adhyasa continue or does an imagined nAmarUpa adhyasa that includes any concept called jiva, continue? What exactly connects waking perception with waking perception after sleep? 'I wake up next to the same wife year after year,'  should that be your test of continuity? :). What is memory/time? Is adhyasa in time or time in adhyasa? I think we have different ideas of adhyasa. 

SSSS argues tradition teaches that waking state is a bias - it is one among the three states of experience. The error is to equate waking itself with Reality.  With Sleep as Self we don't need a shakti or mUlAvidyA to satisfy sruti, yukti and sarvatrika anubhava.  It's clean - parsimonious!

Abhavarupa deserves a conversation but please, one thing at a time. There are issues from my original Hacker post that haven't been addressed either. Please let's just stay on BSbh3.1.9 - is that OK? 

--

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/CAOkLS-Gbyz2%2BP1A1hn%2B-MY%2BJLLRkb1znixC9dZZC5NYy0kd5PA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

I had asked before what are the exact, original, statements of the post-Shankara Advaitins that gave the impression to SSSS that the Mula Avidya is as real as Brahman, it could not go away by knowledge, etc. that made SSSS conclude that such an avidya would 'shatter the Advaitic Brahman to pieces' (implying that there will be duality and not non-duality)?  Those exact statements, if provided, would help one to examine them and decide on the merits of SSSS's conclusions.

regards

subbu       

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHbUnpCo_MD3mJVdtqmnRC8aocfEdWrHmnW1rpjEB-wXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Dear Michael ji,

Arise Awake is an exhortation by the upanishad to the jIva to understand one's own nature / reality. There is no eulogy or cheerleading here. When Upanishad says awake what is it that I have to wake up from? Is it daily sleep? No. bhAshyakAra beautifully gives the context that it is waking from avidya sleep. How long was this sleep? anAdi - beginningless avidyA sleep. Same is mentioned by GaudapAda as 'anAdi mAyayA suptah yaDa jIvah prabudhyate' in Mand Karika 1.16. So this is not eulogy and you cannot just ignore it. So avidyA is anAdi and it is not abhAva.

Next you are questioning me about jIva's continuity (which is an universal experience) but when Shankara and Bhagavan Krishna are so clear I don't think I need to answer.  See BG verse 2.13

देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा ।
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति ॥ १३ ॥

Just as, how, for an indweller of this body, the jIva, there is childhood, youth, and old age, so too, is the gaining of another body. With reference to that, a wise person does not come to grief. 

bhAshyakAra talks about how when each avasthA (childhood, youth, and old age) which are mutually exclusive come and go, the dehi (indweller of this body) remains the same. Same is true for waking, dream and sleep avasthas too. But in sleep everything resolves into a potential state (bIja) from which one wakes up as the same dehi every time. bhasyakAra clearly says if you don't accept a potential jIva upAdhi in sleep and pralaya too, then the jIva cannot wake up. What is there is to even discuss here I am not clear. These are all simple facts which do not warrant any long winding posts. 

Since SSS already made up his mind about jnAna-abhAva avidyA, he and his followers have to force fit everything to this absurd concoction. Rest of your questions are all irrelevant and unnecessary. You say SSS prakriya is clean. From the irrelevant questions you are asking it makes me think it is really messy trapping people in anirmoksha-prasanga.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Self, Subbuji, Pranam

you write: 

//I had asked before what are the exact, original, statements of the post-Shankara Advaitins that gave the impression to SSSS that the Mula Avidya is as real as Brahman,//

--I'm not sure SSSS ever says mulAvidyA is as real as Brahman , but the idea of a material power causing vyavahara certainly lends itself to some variation of Real captured in the understanding of appearance.  Here, from Method of the Vedanta, we find first a statement of Padmapada, then SSSS's reflection. 

(4) This beginningless Ignorance is referred to in the Vedas, Smrtis, Epics and Puranas as Name and Form, the Undeveloped, Ignorance, Maya, Nature (prakpti), Non-perception, the Unmani¬ fest, Darkness (tamas), the Cause, Dissolution, Power, the Great Sleep (mahasupti). Sleep (nidra), the Indestructible, the Shining Ether. In different places it is spoken of in many different ways. It is spoken of as preventing the mani¬ festation of Consciousness in its true form as the Absolute and then producing the appearance of the individual soul. It is spoken of as the wall on which are painted the pictures of the impressions resulting from our meditations, rituals and acquired skills in previous lives. It is spoken of as that which remains in dreamless sleep as the mere latent impression of its power of projection, concealing the light of Conscious¬ ness. (P.P. p.98 f./20)

Here 'Ignorance' (avidyS) and 'Power ’ (Sakti) are not used as separate words, each meaning Ignorance. Ignorance has already been designated by the compound word 'power-of-Ignorance' (avidya-sakti) in the phrase ’And the power of (i.e. the power called) Ignorance must be admitted'(P.P. p.27/4). And Igno¬ rance, being referred to by the terms 'the Undeveloped' (avyakrta) and so on is clearly affirmed to be the state of the world prior to cosmic projection. It is also referred to as the obstacle which prevents the Absolute from manifesting as the Absolute. The author regards Ignorance in the form of superimpcsition, which was the form in which it was explained by Bhagavatpada Sankara in the introduction to his Brahma Sutra Conrr.sntary, as an effect, and clings to the idea that ’the power of Ignorance' is its material cause. The author of the Pahcapadika. does not use the word Ignorance io desig¬ nate that phenomenon of superimposition or erroneous cognition, which is well known as being subject to correction and cancel¬ lation through knowledge. Why, instead of doing that, he applies the term Ignorance to the Undeveloped Principle, which belongs to the realm of knowable objects, is a mystery. p.388-9

you continue: 

//it could not go away by knowledge, etc. that made SSSS conclude that such an avidya would 'shatter the Advaitic Brahman to pieces' (implying that there will be duality and not non-duality)?  Those exact statements, if provided, would help one to examine them and decide on the merits of SSSS's conclusions. //

I would venture to guess you can respond to your own challenges with SSSS's likely replies better than I. 

On a positive, material cause that can't be overcome by knowledge, I believe the pat answer is 'jnanam tu jnapakam na karAm iti', an actual material something cannot be falsified by knowledge. 

I am not sure what you are referring to with 'etc.' but please let us recognize the vanity of trying to determine the validity of SSSS's correctives piecemeal as we are doing. Like any vyakhyanakara, SSSS presents a systematic and consistent overview of Vedanta. It is unfair to challenge single aspects of a fundamental theological understanding with a few contrasting citations. 

May I suggest, you open some of the more substantial texts of SSSS in Kannada and/or Sanskrit and perform a word search for concepts like, anirmoksa or advaitahani. I think you will have more success than I can with English alone. 

--
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/CAOkLS-E2HKoO2%2BA%3DLvE7yWYg-sh3%3D536kjN5kQRY7WLVgkRbEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Jayasshankar Narayanan,

            My respectful pranams to you.

A thought is coming to me again again.

Please permit me to share it with you.

It is : is it posible to teach Atmavidya based upon

Upanishad mantras only without bringing in the various

concepts like avidya - maya , the various vadas being taught

by the present day vedanta teachers belonging to the various

famous international spiritual institutions?

How were the RuShis teaching Atmavidya during the Vedic and

Upanishadic periods when the various texts like Bhagavadgita,

yoga vasishtha etc and the commentaries and subcommentaries

were not at all there. Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad mantra 4-4-8 reads

thus : aNuH panthA vitataH purANO

              mAgM spRuShTO  anuvitto  mayyaiva ||

What is that path and how one can know it?

Please clarify my doubts and I request you kindly to

reveal that path as mentioned in the mantra  and  how could one know the path.

As a student of of an eminent teacher I am sure you Revered guru

has taught this to you.

This serious request of mine is also made to all the learned Vedantins of

this eminent Group.

Please help me.

I am eagerly awaiting for your response to my request .

With respwectful pranams,

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/CAOkLS-E2HKoO2%2BA%3DLvE7yWYg-sh3%3D536kjN5kQRY7WLVgkRbEw%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Self, Jaishankaraji, pranam

from Katha 3.1.14 bhasya cited by you: "by a knowledge of the true nature of his âtman, as the water in the mirage, the serpent in the rope and the colour of the sky, disappear by seeing the true nature of the mirage, rope and the sky," 
doesn't this early part of the bhasya depict the nature of avidya as non-existent? Why then must you interpret the latter part of the bhasya that I claim sounds metaphoric, to imply an actual positive ignorance, with a greater priority? My point has been that you can probably a find more suitable citation to support your position and indeed SSSS offers a few alternatives in the abstract quoted previously. 

you quote Gita 2.13 

which shows the changing stages of life which is certainly not in dispute. But does 2.13 imply continuity of existence through a seed that survives from childhood to old age and by implication from waking to sleep and back again to waking? Have I stated that  correctly?  If so, it is the same issue addressed in my previous response concerning assumptions involved with a continuity of existence. I admit this is a counter-intuitive position but I argue when read as a systematic theology, it can be shown to be the position entertained by text and tradition. 

you say, // he and his followers have to force fit everything to this absurd concoction. Rest of your questions are all irrelevant and unnecessary. You say SSS prakriya is clean. From the irrelevant questions you are asking it makes me think it is really messy trapping people in anirmoksha-prasanga.//

May I suggest accessing SSSS's thoughts first hand through his texts directly then you will not have to suffer poor English translation, his followers or my irrelevant questions. Arguing with me rather than ever reading SSSS even once, as you admit, seems like inviting absurd concoctions. Failing to study these thoughts directly puts the onerous of your conclusions back upon yourself only. _/\_

//BhasyakAra clearly says if you don't accept a potential jIva upAdhi in sleep and pralaya too, then the jIva cannot wake up. //

. 

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Dear Sreenivasa Murthy ji,

My Guru used to conduct three and half year residential vedanta courses. These courses were actually conducted as a 6 months course and then the extended 3 year course. In the first six months no bhashya or commentaries are taught. Only mula Upanishads, Bhagavadgita and some prakaranas are taught in English. If one is sufficiently qualified as a mumukshu when you started the 6 months course, there is no reason why one cannot be considered a jnAni at the end of the 6 months.  Vedanta itself is very simple. Owning up the knowledge and enjoying the fruits thereof takes some time. 

The concepts like avidyA, mAyA etc are part of Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. So one cannot teach without understanding these as the perceived creation and the subject-object duality has to be explained away. Moksha itself is actually 'accomplishing the accomplished'. If that is so then how did it become unaccomplished? Only due to ignorance. Ignorance is the separation between you and what you want to become (which is already accomplished). And how do I destroy this separation? Knowledge of your reality as it is.  

If you want to become a teacher though, one should be ready to gain a certain level of scholarship by going through the different commentaries and the different debates which happened over the years so that you can answer your students and clear their doubts.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Michael ji,

See below.

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 10:10 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Blessed Self, Jaishankaraji, pranam

from Katha 3.1.14 bhasya cited by you: "by a knowledge of the true nature of his âtman, as the water in the mirage, the serpent in the rope and the colour of the sky, disappear by seeing the true nature of the mirage, rope and the sky," 
doesn't this early part of the bhasya depict the nature of avidya as non-existent?

 

Jai: No. mithyA ajnAnam is required to cover the adhisthAnam and project the snake etc. False knowledge is perceiving the projection as reality. It is not the cause. False Ignorance is the cause, as bhasyAkAra points out in numerous places, which covers the reality of the locus (वस्तुस्वरूपावरणात्मिका हि सा Br Up 1.4.16 BhAshya) and projects the 'not that' (नामरूपकर्मत्रयं यन्मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितं Katha Up Bh 1.3.14).

 

Why then must you interpret the latter part of the bhasya that I claim sounds metaphoric, to imply an actual positive ignorance, with a greater priority? My point has been that you can probably a find more suitable citation to support your position and indeed SSSS offers a few alternatives in the abstract quoted previously. 

you quote Gita 2.13 

which shows the changing stages of life which is certainly not in dispute. But does 2.13 imply continuity of existence through a seed that survives from childhood to old age and by implication from waking to sleep and back again to waking? Have I stated that  correctly? 

 

Jai: Why are you asking me? Please read the bhAshya - देहः अस्य अस्तीति देही, तस्य देहिनो देहवतः आत्मनः अस्मिन् वर्तमाने देहे यथा येन प्रकारेण कौमारं कुमारभावो बाल्यावस्था, यौवनं यूनो भावो मध्यमावस्था, जरा वयोहानिः जीर्णावस्था, इत्येताः तिस्रः अवस्थाः अन्योन्यविलक्षणाः । तासां प्रथमावस्थानाशे न नाशः, द्वितीयावस्थोपजने न उपजन आत्मनः । किं तर्हि ? अविक्रियस्यैव द्वितीयतृतीयावस्थाप्राप्तिः आत्मनो दृष्टा । तथा तद्वदेव देहात् अन्यो देहो देहान्तरम् , तस्य प्राप्तिः देहान्तरप्राप्तिः अविक्रियस्यैव आत्मनः इत्यर्थः । You can also read Br Su bh 3.2.9 and mAndUkya kArikA 1.2 bh again and again till you get it.

 

If so, it is the same issue addressed in my previous response concerning assumptions involved with a continuity of existence. I admit this is a counter-intuitive position but I argue when read as a systematic theology, it can be shown to be the position entertained by text and tradition. 

you say, // he and his followers have to force fit everything to this absurd concoction. Rest of your questions are all irrelevant and unnecessary. You say SSS prakriya is clean. From the irrelevant questions you are asking it makes me think it is really messy trapping people in anirmoksha-prasanga.//

May I suggest accessing SSSS's thoughts first hand through his texts directly then you will not have to suffer poor English translation, his followers or my irrelevant questions. Arguing with me rather than ever reading SSSS even once, as you admit, seems like inviting absurd concoctions. Failing to study these thoughts directly puts the onerous of your conclusions back upon yourself only. _/\_

 

Jai: I am happy being myself with whatever knowledge I have gained from my Guru. I have no doubts at all. So why should I read SSS whose fundamental propositions are jarring to my sensibilities. Why should I torture myself by reading some obtuse prose?  I am not a traditional pandit or a scholar or an academic. Someone who has ambitions of writing a thesis can do all that.  By some prArabdha I came to listen to Smt. Manjushree's video and I thought she was misrepresenting the traditional teaching. So I wrote a post to point it out. That has lead to some discussions etc. I have not been active online for a long time and again may become inactive. I really have no interest even to change your ideas or opinions. If you are happy with a particular prakriya and it works for you then be happy with that. I don't think it will work for me though and it has also not worked for those SSS followers who are still waiting for the dvaita-perception to end! I hope you are not one of those.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Jaishankarji and pranam,

You've asked fine questions that deserve responses more knowledgeable and articulate than I can easily provide though I've tried to deflect to others. The best, of course, is SSSS's Sugama on Sankara's defining adhyasa bhasya. SSSS simplifies the entire tradition to this one text. Everything he argues conforms to the text while refuting mUlAvidyA in much detail. It seems to me, Sugama is more important for manana and exegesis than certainly, Ramanuja's sapta vidha anupapatti and other purvapaksas. . 

Respectfully, mcc 

--

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/CAOkLS-EP2MgmpgaLNaFqmxEb1n3jtGWDCL0Sk32q-Z3hKWkzJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Jayashanker Narayan,

I thank you for your kind response.

Please tell me, do you think that your reply has addressed

the questions I had asked?

I feel that you have not understood my questions.

I do not know the reason for it.

I request you kindly to read my posting again and

check up whether your response has any thing to do

with the contents of my posting.

I thank you again.

With respectful pranams,

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/CAOkLS-HYnST5exkzXwzC_k%2BY1ebG9N4wbJvrmpePT5swkOW8CQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[S Venkatraman]

Namaste Mr Cohen,

Is an English translation of Sugama available? If so from where can I obtain a copy? Thank you very much and regards,

Venkat

Sent from my iPhone

On 11-Dec-2022, at 12:51 AM, Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGgq0qr403PVU23qCDePFxwN_6Hxb8J0L%3DMt_yzbcsNiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Michael ji,

In one of your previous replies you mentioned the below 

Furthermore, SSSS counter argues that positing a temporal, positive, causal ignorance or power in deep sleep renders avidya to really exist, as then it will have existed in all three periods of time and thus not be subject to falsification - anirmoksa paksha

A counter question to you. Where does Shankara say that if something exists in all three periods of time it is real (satya). This is SSS's kapola-kalpita.I think all the problems he sees in traditional teaching is because he did not understand what is satyam and anrita as defined in Tai Up 2.1 Bhashya and BG 2.16 Bhashya.  To remind you in Tai Up 2.1 bhAshya

सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम् । यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम् , ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४) एवं सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।

Swami Gambhirananda's translation: a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, “A mutable thing (like a vessel of earth) exists only in name depending on speech; the earth alone is true” (Ch. VI. i. 4), it has been emphasised that, that alone is true that exists (Ch- VI. ii. 1).

Avidya /Maya has always been presented as pariNami / vikAra - changing / modification and dependent on brahman for its very existence. So it is immaterial if it is there in only waking or in all 3 states. The very fact that avidya bIja in sleep (potential unmanifest form) changes and becomes / manifests as dvaita appearance is good enough to understand it as anritam / mithyA. Further space-time itself is brahma-kArya as bhAshyakAra points out in the same Tai Up 2.1 bhAshya and so mithyA. So this talk of something being in all periods of time making it real is meaningless. In fact something being in time itself makes it anrita.

Further SSS restricting avidyA to only adhyAsa-bhAshya is not proper. He is forced to do it because he could not really accept avidyA as a bIja in sleep which is jIva upAdhi as presented by bhAshyakAra. Anybody with an open mind cannot restrict only to certain portions of certain texts alone for their prakriya. A prakriya should take into account all the Vedanta vakyas in all Upanishads (tat tu samanvayAt) and have an internally consistent account of the individual's experience of the perceived world and should account for jIvanmukta and Guru-shishya vyavahAra properly in adhyAropa and negate everything thoroughly in apavAda.  

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar  

[jai1971]

Dear Sreenivasa Murthy ji,

I think I answered your question by stating that Upanishad mula is good enough to teach Vedanta by a teacher who can handle it as a pramana to a student who is qualified. Regarding Br Up 4.4.8 bhAshyakAra says the ancient Rishis also learned this vidya from the shruti only and not by just tarka. They also must have done shravana, manana etc. from their Guru as we have done now. There is no other way.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Self, Venkataramanji, pranam

I hear a translation is near completion. My own reference are the ongoing English translations of Sri Swami Prakashanandendraji, presently numbering 217! 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMddRSWoHnQY9kX3hpmMgw2WZg0b0fJ82

--
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/7886b0f0-92f6-4993-a512-8c1f9f8da562n%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Self Jaishankarji, pranam, 

I don't know what happened but I can't locate your thread. Luckily I have copied your response from elsewhere:

Namaste Michael ji,

In one of your previous replies you mentioned the below 

Furthermore, SSSS counter argues that positing a temporal, positive, causal ignorance or power in deep sleep renders avidya to really exist, as then it will have existed in all three periods of time and thus not be subject to falsification - anirmoksa paksha

you say: 

A counter question to you. Where does Shankara say that if something exists in all three periods of time it is real (satya). This is SSS's kapola-kalpita.I think all the problems he sees in traditional teaching is because he did not understand what is satyam and anrita as defined in Tai Up 2.1 Bhashya and BG 2.16 Bhashya.  To remind you in Tai Up 2.1 bhAshya

सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम् । यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम् , ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४) एवं सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।

--SSSS's Sugama discusses satyam and anrita in section 3 of the text. Here are some notes that may be informative: 

**tamah and prakash/darkness and light are different, one gets destroyed by the other.  Can you ever mistake light for darkness or darkness for light – impossible. So too atma/anatma = adhyasa. So too satya/anrita -- apt drstantas.
We can mistake object for object, like stump and man but never can we mistake subject for object like light for darkness**

you say: 

Swami Gambhirananda's translation: a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, “A mutable thing (like a vessel of earth) exists only in name depending on speech; the earth alone is true” (Ch. VI. i. 4), it has been emphasised that, that alone is true that exists (Ch- VI. ii. 1).

--Here are SSSS footnote on bhasya for Ch6.2.1 that I believe is relevant to our conversation where the text is explained without need to posit a positive, 'less-real', power of avidya. 

Answer: Not so. Then why the qualification (in the beginning)? What is meant is that even now it is Sat but it is accompanied by differentiation of name and form [6], and is understood (from the śabda-buddhi) by the term 'this' (idam - in the verse idamagra). Before birth, in the beginning, however, it was understood only through the śabda-buddhi of the term Sat. Hence, it is emphasised that 'in the beginning this was Sat only’ [7]. Is there any doubt that an entity can be apprehended before it is said to have such and such name and form? This is exactly as during the time of deep-sleep (suṣupti kāla; description follows). What is meant is that immediately upon waking from deep sleep, one determines the is-ness as - ‘Sat was the only entity (vastu) during deep sleep’ - similarly, (one should apprehend that) it was, in the beginning or before the birth of the universe. It is similar to how all this (jagat) is usually spoken of. Just as in common parlance, when a certain person in the morning while going to another village sees a potter spreading out clay for making jars and other things, and then returning in the afternoon sees in the same place a variety of jars, saucers and other artıcles of diverse kinds, remarks that ‘all this, jar, saucer etc., in the morning (as if) before birth, was nothing but clay and not objects’, so also it is said here ‘in the beginning this was Sat only.' [8] 6. Here the word ‘accompanied' is not to be viewed as a separate entity; there is no jagat without the name and form differentiation. 

7. From the viewpoint of creation, it is to be understood and spoken of as sanmātra (sk: meaning or artha are of two main types - vastumātra or entity and abhidhēya, what is explained and which shines in buddhi).

8.Brahman (in its svarūpa) is not the cause nor it is denoted by sat-śabda. Saying ‘it is cause and is-ness or Sat’ is adhyāropa indicating it is neither an effect (kārya) nor asat. 

you say:

Avidya /Maya has always been presented as pariNami / vikAra - changing / modification and dependent on brahman for its very existence. So it is immaterial if it is there in only waking or in all 3 states. The very fact that avidya bIja in sleep (potential unmanifest form) changes and becomes / manifests as dvaita appearance is good enough to understand it as anritam / mithyA. 

-- pariNama of Brahman? How can Brahman change, transform? Depending upon an imprecise definition of mithyA is one of the problems. Your argument goes that non-existence is total like the horns of hare, therefore the need for mithya to explain that something that ;has material existence. Thus, the world takes on a hierarchy of reality - it is "less real than Brahman or dependent upon Brahman or borrows reality from Brahman' - thus avidya is an existent!   That is a perversion of PTB - please find supportive citations. 

you say: 

Further space-time itself is brahma-kArya as bhAshyakAra points out in the same Tai Up 2.1 bhAshya and so mithyA. So this talk of something being in all periods of time making it real is meaningless. In fa thect something being in time itself makes it anrita. 

--correct, being in time is anrita but existing in all conditions of time is transcendence of time - eternally present. 

Further SSS restricting avidyA to only adhyAsa-bhAshya is not proper. He is forced to do it because he could not really accept avidyA as a bIja in sleep which is jIva upAdhi as by bhAshyakAra. Anybody with an open mind cannot restrict only to certain portions of certain texts alone for their prakriya. A prakriya should take into account all the Vedanta vakyas in all Upanishads (tat tu samanvayAt) and have an internally consistent account of the individual's experience of the perceived world and should account for jIvanmukta and Guru-shishya vyavahAra properly in adhyAropa and negate everything thoroughly in apavAda.  

-- Again we agree - adhyasa bhasya doesn't even mention the three avasthas, so it is incomplete prakriya. But, what I had intended to say was that Sankara's crucial essay succintly characterizes avidya as in no other place and is not disagreed with anywhere in PTB. 

with love and prayers,Jaishankar  

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Michael ji,

See below.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 9:55 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Blessed Self Jaishankarji, pranam, 

I don't know what happened but I can't locate your thread. Luckily I have copied your response from elsewhere:

Namaste Michael ji,

--SSSS's Sugama discusses satyam and anrita in section 3 of the text. Here are some notes that may be informative: 

**tamah and prakash/darkness and light are different, one gets destroyed by the other.  Can you ever mistake light for darkness or darkness for light – impossible. So too atma/anatma = adhyasa. So too satya/anrita -- apt drstantas.
We can mistake object for object, like stump and man but never can we mistake subject for object like light for darkness**

you say: 

Swami Gambhirananda's translation: a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, “A mutable thing (like a vessel of earth) exists only in name depending on speech; the earth alone is true” (Ch. VI. i. 4), it has been emphasised that, that alone is true that exists (Ch- VI. ii. 1).

--Here are SSSS footnote on bhasya for Ch6.2.1 that I believe is relevant to our conversation where the text is explained without need to posit a positive, 'less-real', power of avidya.  

Answer: Not so. Then why the qualification (in the beginning)? What is meant is that even now it is Sat but it is accompanied by differentiation of name and form [6], and is understood (from the śabda-buddhi) by the term 'this' (idam - in the verse idamagra). Before birth, in the beginning, however, it was understood only through the śabda-buddhi of the term Sat. Hence, it is emphasised that 'in the beginning this was Sat only’ [7]. Is there any doubt that an entity can be apprehended before it is said to have such and such name and form? This is exactly as during the time of deep-sleep (suṣupti kāla; description follows). What is meant is that immediately upon waking from deep sleep, one determines the is-ness as - ‘Sat was the only entity (vastu) during deep sleep’ - similarly, (one should apprehend that) it was, in the beginning or before the birth of the universe. It is similar to how all this (jagat) is usually spoken of. Just as in common parlance, when a certain person in the morning while going to another village sees a potter spreading out clay for making jars and other things, and then returning in the afternoon sees in the same place a variety of jars, saucers and other artıcles of diverse kinds, remarks that ‘all this, jar, saucer etc., in the morning (as if) before birth, was nothing but clay and not objects’, so also it is said here ‘in the beginning this was Sat only.' [8] 6. Here the word ‘accompanied' is not to be viewed as a separate entity; there is no jagat without the name and form differentiation. 

7. From the viewpoint of creation, it is to be understood and spoken of as sanmātra (sk: meaning or artha are of two main types - vastumātra or entity and abhidhēya, what is explained and which shines in buddhi).

8.Brahman (in its svarūpa) is not the cause nor it is denoted by sat-śabda. Saying ‘it is cause and is-ness or Sat’ is adhyāropa indicating it is neither an effect (kārya) nor asat. 

Jai: None of the above negate avidyA as asat vikAra. So I don't know what you are conveying. 

you say:
Avidya /Maya has always been presented as pariNami / vikAra - changing / modification and dependent on brahman for its very existence. So it is immaterial if it is there in only waking or in all 3 states. The very fact that avidya bIja in sleep (potential unmanifest form) changes and becomes / manifests as dvaita appearance is good enough to understand it as anritam / mithyA. 

-- pariNama of Brahman? How can Brahman change, transform? Depending upon an imprecise definition of mithyA is one of the problems. Your argument goes that non-existence is total like the horns of hare, therefore the need for mithya to explain that something that ;has material existence. Thus, the world takes on a hierarchy of reality - it is "less real than Brahman or dependent upon Brahman or borrows reality from Brahman' - thus avidya is an existent!   That is a perversion of PTB - please find supportive citations. 

Jai: There are literally 100s of citations. Read BG 2.16, Tai Up 2.1, Tai 2.6.1 etc. We can wake up those who are sleeping but no one can wake those who pretend to sleep.  

you say: 

Further space-time itself is brahma-kArya as bhAshyakAra points out in the same Tai Up 2.1 bhAshya and so mithyA. So this talk of something being in all periods of time making it real is meaningless. In fa thect something being in time itself makes it anrita. 

--correct, being in time is anrita but existing in all conditions of time is transcendence of time - eternally present. 

Jai: Wrong. satya is eternally unchanging presence. You deliberately missed the unchanging which is the crucial part of defining satyam.  avidyA / mAyA is changing vikAra.

Further SSS restricting avidyA to only adhyAsa-bhAshya is not proper. He is forced to do it because he could not really accept avidyA as a bIja in sleep which is jIva upAdhi as by bhAshyakAra. Anybody with an open mind cannot restrict only to certain portions of certain texts alone for their prakriya. A prakriya should take into account all the Vedanta vakyas in all Upanishads (tat tu samanvayAt) and have an internally consistent account of the individual's experience of the perceived world and should account for jIvanmukta and Guru-shishya vyavahAra properly in adhyAropa and negate everything thoroughly in apavAda.  

-- Again we agree - adhyasa bhasya doesn't even mention the three avasthas, so it is incomplete prakriya. But, what I had intended to say was that Sankara's crucial essay succintly characterizes avidya as in no other place and is not disagreed with anywhere in PTB. 

Jia: avidyA is defined only in adhyAsa bhAshya is a patently wrong thing to say. avidyA has been talked about in many places by bhAshyakAra and all of that has to be taken into account while understanding its nature.

I think I have had enough of these discussions and it is getting repetitive by now. I withdraw from these discussions.  

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Jaishankar Narayanan,

I thank you for your kind response.

But I fear you have not answered  the questions which are

straight forward and direct and for which answers were needed.

Probably you might not have anticipated propping of such questions .

I request you to study my posting in depth and clearly

understand the questions in the right spirit and right perspective

so that the answers provided will be in tune with the questions.

With this I close.

With respectful namaskars,

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/CAOkLS-HYnST5exkzXwzC_k%2BY1ebG9N4wbJvrmpePT5swkOW8CQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Jai: None of the above negate avidyA as asat vikAra. So I don't know what you are conveying.

mcc: I did not understand this was your point. Sankara in Gita 2.16 speaks of sat and asat of things, pot and etc. Unless you take avidya to be an existent bhavarupa, there is no vikAra necessary for avidyA to manifest. What is to change? No change in brahman, no change in deep sleep - only appearance - adhyasa - mithya occurs  and with it come jiva, time, space, causation. We find ourselves awake, then dreaming and then with absence of both. The Self remains while appearances come and go like mirage in desert. I thought that would be clear from Ch6.2.1 and certainly from footnotes 7 and 8. 

Jai: There are literally 100s of citations. Read BG 2.16, Tai Up 2.1, Tai 2.6.1 etc. We can wake up those who are sleeping but no one can wake those who pretend to sleep.  

Whatever those citations you note tell, I do not believe any state that avidya is "less real than Brahman or dependent upon Brahman or borrows reality from Brahman' Pray tell what it is exactly you wish to convey.

--
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/CAOkLS-ExxkHPvLN2EcDMA2wctdvP34mJWPd1xyKCoOcvtWidRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Michael ji

Thank you for the welcome and respectful discussion on avidyA having an ontological aspect.  

Since you mentioned Paul Hacker, i wanted to share some lateral context about him which indicate that his Christian theological agenda predisposes him to certain conclusions.

I was  therefore actually surprised to see Paul Hacker being considered a sound resource person for discussions on avidyA being (yatkincit) bhAvarUpA etc. The reason is that Hacker completely dismisses GaudapAda and also Shankara's commentaries on mANDUkya and the rest. He gerrymanders the large corpus of Shankara bhAShyas and only cherry-picks passages from BSB that suit his agenda and considers Advaita as Buddhism in disguise. So much for his extensive study of BSB. Hacker has zero credentials to comment on Shankara since he concludes Advaita is Buddhism in disguise and says that Shankara covers up the meanings of inconvenient passages.

We observe that

1.  there are several passages from shankara bhAShya attesting to the identity of mAyA and avidyA 

2. there are passages distinguishing them.

 Paul Hacker leans towards the second viewpoint even though it is contrary to the hundreds of texts and acharyas who have expounded AV over the last thousand years and taught the *reconciliation of passages of type 1 and type 2 by showing the former to subsume the latter.* 

Unless the living tradition of Advaita pedagogy is considered, two people can just keep going around in circles quoting type 1 and type 2 passages over and over again and whoever has the last quote might feel his view has the upper hand. It becomes an inconclusive wild goose chase.  

Paul Hacker arbitrarily chooses to privilege the second type over the first and so he has to do something illogical viz., he has to ignore GaudapAda and Sri Shankara's other works which clearly assert that avidyA has an ontological aspect too. To do this Hacker has to say that GaudapAda is irrelevant or wrong and that the entire vedanta tradition after Shankara has diverged from ShAnkara vedAnta. By thus "digesting" and dismissing the entire later tradition of teaching Advaita, then Shankara alone can be "dealt with" to show the ultimate superiority of Hacker's passionate adherence to dualistic Christian theology in his thinking. 

For those who may be interested in this background/context, viz., that Paul Hacker's main drive was the pursuit of orientalist, racial and evangelical agendas, this is an interesting article regarding this...

https://www.academia.edu/9270352/The_passion_of_Paul_Hacker_Indology_orientalism_and_evangelism

Excerpt-

"Among the many German scholars -missionaries, Romantics, and Sanskritists fascinated by India the German Indologist Paul remains one of the most elusive (and controversial) figures. Internationally, though problematically acknowledged as an expert on Vedānta, Hacker is paradigmatic of the many problems with German Indology. A vociferous critic of India, a country he visited between 1954 and 1955, Hacker nonetheless obsessed about Indian thought, especially Hinduism. For this volume, examining the history of the cultural encounter between India and Germany, we have chosen to focus on this controversial figure as a way of understanding some of the more problematic aspects of this encounter. In particular, we seek to understand how German Indologists, under the pretense of undertaking a "scientific" analysis of Indian thought, were in fact pursuing Orientalist, racial, and evangelical agendas."

Hacker has figured earlier too in some discussions on Advaita l.

https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2016-September/042368.html

Excerpt

"On page 36 of the book 'Philology and Confrontation' Paul Hacker openly says that Gaudapāda pays obeisance to Buddha in the Kārikā 4.1 and that Shankara "covers up the fact" (that is Paul Hacker's attitude towards Sri Shankara) by struggling to interpret the verse to somehow mean an obeisance to Narayana. There cannot be a greater example of Paul Hacker being a candidate... for Shankara's chastisement: asampradāyavit mūrkhavat upekṣaṇīyaḥ. Elsewhere also he subscribes to the view that Advaita is only Buddhism in disguise. There cannot be a greater insult to the Advaita Acharyas." From earlier post by Subbu ji. Italics mine.

Om

Raghav

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 8:03 pm, Michael Chandra Cohen

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

If you wish to object to SSSS’s refutations, you must go through Hacker, it seems to me.

Paul Hacker has been called one of the most important 20thcentury Indologists by Clooney, Olivelle and Deutsch. He performed an exhaustive philological analysis of Sankara’s Sutra Bhasya Sbh (his student, Sengaku Mayeda, published a similar critical study of Sankara’s Upadesa Sahasri), based on four terms: avidyA, nAmarUpa, mAyA and Isvara.

Here is an excerpt from what he said about avidyA in related to prakriti, bhavarupa, anirvacaniya and anadi

“It follows from what has been discussed up to this pomt that Sankara does not materialize avidya. As a result the adjective jada, which is constantly added to avidya from Padmapada onward (and is used by the Samkhya school as a characterization of prakriti), is missing in Sankara. Moreover, the epithet, bhavarupa, which can be found in Advaita texts from Jnanottama onward, is missing. Avidya is for Sankara not something “insentient” and “having the form of being,” i.e., something positively existent. Even the theory, already current among S.’s contemporaries, that avidya possess a “power of dispersion” (viksepa-sakti) and a “power of concealment” (Avarana-sakti) is foreign to Sbh.

Sankara does not raise avidya to an eternal, metaphysical entity. Correspondingly, he does not use anadi ("beginningless"), constantly used by other authors to characterize avidyA, in connection with this word. To be

sure, he once (Intro.1.1.1) calls adhyasa "beginningless"; otherwise in the SBh as well as in the BS samsara has this predicate. But avidya he refers to only as "natural" (naisargika, IIl,2,15, K 727,8), which is a significantly less precise determ ination than the emphatic anadi.

Nowhere does S. explore the essence of avidyii. He makes only a few definite statements about it 0,1,1, Intro., see above, sec. 1,1). Thus he never calls it anirvacaniya. This expression appears to have come into use during S.'s lifetime as a name for an essential characteristic of avidyA and is subsequently employed by all Advaitins, with the exception of S.'s pupils Suresvara and Totaka, as an epithet of avidya. In the SBh the word occurs only as an adjective of namanipa (see below, sec. 11,4).”

Paul Hacker in Philology and Confrontation, tr. Halbfas p64-5

--
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/CAAz9PvE0apenbzHkgs_wOZ53PAc%2BZi8r_Ti5ayMXFH%3DqDuZC%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Raghav ji,

  Here is a pdf on the topic: Sri Satchidanandendra Sarswati Swaminah (SSS) has studied the Mādhyamika Kārikā-s of Nagarjuna along with the commentary of Chandrakirti and also the Kārikā-s of Gaudapada and given an account of how Advaita and Buddhism differ.

https://adbhutam.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/advaita-and-buddhism-sss.pdf

regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/967548239.4248197.1670817393165%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Several have condemned Paul Hacker claiming Christian reductionism discounts his study on Sankara. If that be the case, I ask Hacker's detractors to indicate where that is the case in his essay on "Distinctive Features of the Doctrine and Terminology of Sankara". Independent of any other writings of Hacker, this study is a scientific appeal to philological analysis and must be looked at independently without prejudice, it seems to me. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCvQ-Y36h3xqii-JlcMtJxiAdO1FOMIV/view?usp=sharing

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1j8O5YejjsNDDxgAiaHV5PLWVHWKiG_dTdk1YRVw6e%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Self Subbuji, pranam

Please tell the title of the text from where your link on SSSS and Buddhism originated from. 

And a special thanks for your awesome services in educating about Sankara Advaita even if we personally disagree on key points 🙏🙏🙏

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:35 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Blessed Self Subbuji, pranam

Please tell the title of the text from where your link on SSSS and Buddhism originated from. 

And a special thanks for your awesome services in educating about Sankara Advaita even if we personally disagree on key points 🙏🙏🙏

Dear Michael ji

I had seen the article long ago by SSSS on Buddhism as a standalone one.  I do not know if it is part of any of his books.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Subbu ji

Thank you for that link to the lucid article written by you. Sri SSS would certainly dismiss Hacker's conflation of Advaita with Buddhism in some of his works. I agree that it makes no sense to study Hacker in order to understand Sri SSS's ideas. 

You and Jaishankar ji have given copious references attesting to the traditional Advaita teaching of avidyA and thanks for them.

I have to admit that the illogicality of saying "if avidyA is present in the deep sleep *avasthA*, then it would mean that avidyA is present in 'all three periods of time' and so it's eternal like brahman" is striking. Confusing continuance in three avasthAs with "trikAla-abAdhitam satyaM" is the source of the error in this particular logic of Sri SSS.  

 Again, even without any reference whatsoever to the deep sleep state, Advaita can be unfolded. Avasthaatraya prakriyA is not indispensable. 

"satyam GYAnam anantam Brahma aham asmi" can be unfolded by closely analysing the waking state itself. That itself (the fact that there are other *complete* prakriyAs unfolding advaitam brahma which do not reference any other avasthA like sushupti), show that it's incorrect to argue that "unless there be a special avasthA being experienced where avidyA is absent, avidyA becomes nityaa" and also "advaita cannot be taught without examining suShupti".

 Hypothetically even if all living beings stated awake all the time without the experience of sushupti, that does not mean Advaita gets contradicted or even that it cannot be taught.

Om

Raghav

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1j8O5YejjsNDDxgAiaHV5PLWVHWKiG_dTdk1YRVw6e%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Raghavji,

Shri Gaudapadacharya and Adi Shankaracharya understood Lord Budddha very well.  That is why ADi Shankara had been called by some scholars as Pracchanna Buddha. In Upanishad, Lord Ram told Hanuman about the need to go to Asamprajna-samadhi. Likewise, Lord Buddha too talked to his Mahayana disciples about the need of the Asamprajna samadhi, which is somewhat akin to the Nididhyasana for achieving the Nirvikalpa or Asamprajna samadhi.

Lord Buddha also said that his teachings will remain  in pristine purity only uptill about 500 years after his departure. So only Nagarjuna was about that time distance from Lord Buddha. We should not take into account the works of the other Buddhist scholars after Nagarjuna.  I read that Lord Buddha also said that after one thousand years of his (Lord Buddha's) departure, there will be a brahmin teacher who will  continue his work in this area. It appears that

Adi Shankara was that brahmin teacher, referred to by Lord Buddha.

My 2 cents

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/967548239.4248197.1670817393165%40mail.yahoo.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Mchael Ji,

Reg  <<  Please tell the title of the text from where your link on SSSS and Buddhism originated from. >>,

Following is the link

<< http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=013&pagenum=0122#page/1/mode/1up >>

Regards