Deep Sleep is Nondual Self with objections refuted, SSSS
Michael Chandra Cohen
Vidyasankar Sundarean once pointed out that this one issue alone of avidya and deep sleep can resolve (SSSS) Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati's re-establishment of Sankaracharya's Teaching versus post-Sankara Vedanta.
Avasthatraya Prakriya - Suśupti (Deep Sleep)
(from talk on: 5-9-53)
"Having considered the doctrine of Brahman as the cause of the universe, as established in the Brahma Sūtras, we now turn to the tre
atment of the avasthātraya prakriyā—the analysis of the three states of consciousness—within that text.
In all the Upaniṣads, it is unequivocally declared that in suṣupti (deep sleep), the jīva (individual self) becomes one with the Paramātman (Supreme Self). Nowhere in śruti do we find a teaching that avidyā (ignorance) persists in suṣupti. Rather, the consistent experience is that “nothing is seen, nothing is heard, nothing is known.” The question arises: What is the reason for this absence of cognition?
Some modern interpreters of Śaṅkara propose that a so-called bhāvāvidyā (a positive, existing ignorance) veils the jīva. But the śruti offers no support for this view. Instead, it states:
na tu tadvitīyam asti tato'nyad vibhaktaṁ yat paśyet (Bṛh. 4.3.23)
“There is nothing separate from the Self there—if there were, would he not see it?”
This śruti makes it clear that the absence of duality is the reason for non-perception in suṣupti, as was discussed earlier.
The Role of Deep Sleep in the Brahma Sūtras
Let us now examine how the Brahma Sūtras approach this topic. In the fifth adhikaraṇa of the first chapter, the sūtrakāra considers the scriptural statement:
sadeva somyedamagra āsīt (Chāndogya Up. 6.2.1)
“O Somya, in the beginning this was Existence alone, one without a second.”
A doubt arises: Does this “sat” (Existence) refer to Brahman or to Pradhāna, the primordial matter of the Sāṅkhya system?
According to Sāṅkhyas, Pradhāna is the root cause from which emerge successive evolutes like mahat (intellect) and ahaṅkāra (ego). But according to Vedānta, sat refers to Brahman, from whom arise the five great elements and all beings. The context of the passage supports the Vedāntic view: it speaks of sat thinking, being called the Self, and serving as the ground of liberation. If Pradhāna were meant, a different soteriology would have to be introduced—yet no such view is found in śruti.
Hence, the siddhāntin affirms that sat here is indeed Brahman. Immediately following this conclusion, the sūtra 1.1.9—svāpyayāt—is introduced.
The Meaning of Svāpyayāt (1.1.9)
What is the significance of this sūtra?
The term svapiti—“he sleeps”—is derived from svāpyaya, meaning “merging into one's own self.” The śruti teaches that the jīva, in deep sleep, merges into sat, the ground of Being. Since Pradhāna is inert, it cannot be regarded as the jīva’s own nature (sva), nor can one meaningfully say that the conscious jīva merges into the unconscious Pradhāna. Therefore, the only meaningful interpretation is that the jīva returns to its true nature—Brahman—in deep sleep. This merging is not a destruction but a cessation of adjunct-based distinctions.
Śaṅkara writes in this context:
sa upādhi-dvaya-uparamē suṣuptāvasthāyām upādhi-kṛta-viśeṣābhāvāt svātmani pralīna iva iti; svaṁ hy apīto bhavatīti ucyate
“When the two upādhis (gross and subtle bodies) cease in the state of deep sleep, and distinctions caused by adjuncts are absent, the jīva appears to be merged into its own Self. Therefore, it is said that he attains his own Self.”
Thus, in suṣupti, there is no perception not because of the presence of ignorance but because of the absence of duality.
Refuting the Notion of Avidyā in Deep Sleep
We must now turn to a crucial clarification regarding suṣupti (deep sleep): it has been explicitly stated that no upādhi (limiting adjunct) exists for the jīva in deep sleep. Yet, some modern commentators, deviating from both śruti and bhāṣya, argue that since avidyā (ignorance) persists as an upādhi in deep sleep, the union of jīva and Brahman cannot be accepted—and if it were accepted, they claim, it would entail connecting avidyā to Brahman itself. To support this, they point to the bhāṣya phrase svātmani pralīna iva (“as if merged in one’s own Self”) and interpret it as suggesting partial or apparent merger: “Because the projective power of avidyā has subsided, he is as if merged in Brahman; but since the veiling power remains, he is still not fully merged.”
This interpretive effort is futile. Śaṅkara, commenting on the sūtra tadabhāvo nāḍīṣu tacchruterātmani ca (3.2.7), clearly states that the jīva merges into Brahman in deep sleep. We must pay particular attention to the following passage from that bhāṣya:
api ca na kadācij jīvasya brahmaṇā sampattir nāsti svarūpasy anapāyitvāt | svapna-jāgaritayor tūpādhi-samparka-vaśāt para-rūpāpatim ivāpekṣya tad-upaśamāt suṣupte svarūpa-aparavakṣyate | ataś ca suṣuptāvasthāyāṁ kadācit satā sampadyate kadācin na sampadyata iti ayuktam.
“Moreover, there is never a time when the jīva does not attain union with Brahman, because his essential nature is inalienable. In the states of dream and waking, due to contact with the upādhi, the jīva appears to take on a different form. But with the cessation of upādhi in suṣupti, he attains his essential nature. Hence, it is incorrect to say that sometimes he merges with sat and sometimes does not.”
The meaning of this passage is luminous and undeniable: since the jīva’s essential nature is Brahman, and since the essential never departs, there is no moment when the jīva is not in union with Brahman. However, due to the temporary assumption of a different appearance caused by upādhis in waking and dream, the disappearance of those upādhis in suṣupti is described as the attainment of one’s own Self. Thus, to speak of “partial merger” in suṣupti is fundamentally misguided. There is no trace here of avidyā persisting in deep sleep. On the contrary, it is declared with the finality of a bell ringing: there is no upādhi in Brahman.
A Clear Statement from Śaṅkara on the Absence of Avidyā
Furthermore, Śaṅkara continues in the same commentary, explaining the absence of awareness in deep sleep as follows:
upādher upaśāntatvāt satā sampanno na vijānāti iti yuktam.
“Because the upādhi has subsided, he has become one with sat; hence, it is appropriate that he does not know anything.”
Where then is the scope for arguing that avidyā is the cause of non-cognition in suṣupti?
Ajātaśatru’s Teaching and the Vedāntic Position
Let us now turn to another sūtra (1.4.18) and its bhāṣya, which refer to the conversation in the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa Upaniṣad between the brāhmaṇa Bālāki and the king Ajātaśatru. Bālāki, proposing that various puruṣas dwelling in the sun, moon, etc., are Brahman, concludes that prāṇa is the true Brahman. The king, dismissing Bālāki’s view, seeks to teach the higher Brahman.
He awakens a sleeping man and asks Bālāki, “Where was this person sleeping? From where did he return?” Bālāki has no answer. The king responds: when one sleeps dreamlessly, he abides in the Self—from which all things, including prāṇa and the world, arise.
Śaṅkara writes in his commentary:
suṣuptikāle ca pareṇa brahmaṇā jīva ekatāṁ gacchati | parasmāc ca brahmaṇaḥ prāṇādikaṁ jagat jāyata iti vedānta maryādā.
“In the state of deep sleep, the jīva becomes one with the Supreme Brahman. From that same Brahman, prāṇa and the world originate—this is the doctrine of Vedānta.”
Here too, any notion of separation between jīva and Brahman is rejected. The division arises only due to avidyā in waking and dream. Śaṅkara further writes:
tasmād yatrāsya jīvasya niḥsaṁbodhatā-svacchatā-rūpaḥ svāpaḥ, upādhi-janita-viśeṣa-jñāna-rahitaṁ svarūpam, yataḥ taṁ svarūpam āgamanaṁ, so’tra paramātmā veditavyatayā śrāvita iti gamyate.
“In that Supreme Self, where the jīva’s sleep is of the form of pure, unknowing clarity—devoid of any knowledge shaped by upādhi—and from which he emerges, it is that Supreme Self which is pointed out in the śruti as the object of realization.”
Refuting Modern Reinterpretations
Modern reinterpretations of this passage are wholly unsatisfactory. Some commentators twist this clear teaching into “He has a kind of purity—as if pure, likepure like a liberated soul,” and claim that real purity is absent because laya (dissolution) and distraction remain. What is one to say to this? Even if the Supreme grants a boon, such an interpreter would refuse to bestow it!
Not only is the bhāṣya’s assertion of identity with Brahman dismissed, but Bādarāyaṇa’s own doctrinal intention—identifying the paramātman in the vedya-vākya (declarative sentence)—is also lost. This alone is cause for sorrow.
Conclusion: The Sleeping Self Is the Supreme Self
In support of Śaṅkara’s reading, the Brhadāraṇyaka passage cited by both sūtrakāra and bhāṣyakāra is:
ya eṣo’ntar hṛdaya ākāśaḥ saḥ śete (Brh. 2.1.17)
“He sleeps in the space within the heart.”
And Śaṅkara comments:
ākāśa-śabdena para eva sva ācyate | tasmin sve ātmany ākāśe śete svābhāvike asaṁsārike.
“By the word ākāśa, the Supreme Self is indicated. In that Supreme, natural, and non-transmigratory Self, he sleeps.”
What clearer statement could there be?
Resolution of Objections Concerning Deep Sleep and Liberation
Having established that the jīva becomes one with the Supreme Self (Paramātman) in suṣupti (deep sleep) and re-emerges from the same upon awakening, the sūtra and bhāṣya raise a pertinent objection (pūrvapakṣa): If true union with Brahman occurs in deep sleep, why does liberation (mokṣa) not result automatically? Why does the jīva, like a drop of water merged in the ocean, reappear and re-enter saṃsāra?
Śaṅkara offers several responses to this question. Though we cannot explore them all here, two crucial statements from the bhāṣya on Sūtra 3.2.9 are illuminating:
iha tu vidyate vivekakāraṇaṁ karma cāvidyā ca iti vaiṣamyam
“Here (in the case of the jīva), there exist distinguishing causes—namely karma and avidyā. A drop of water merged into the ocean has no such causes.”
This clarifies that the distinction between jīva and Brahman is due to upādhi-based factors—karma and avidyā—which are absent in the case of a water drop. Hence, the jīva continues to experience re-embodiment.
Further:
sadeva tūpādhi-samparkāt jīva ityupacaryate ityasakṛt pañcitam | evaṁ sati yāvat ekopy upādhigatā bandhān vṛttis tāvad eka-jīva-vyavahāraḥ — sa evāyam upādhiḥ svāpa-prabodhayor bīja-aṅkura-nyāyena iti ataḥ sa eva jīvaḥ pratibudhyate iti yuktam
“It has been repeatedly explained that Brahman itself is figuratively called jīva due to its contact with the upādhi. As long as the same upādhi persists, bondage continues, and the same jīva is referred to in both deep sleep and waking, just as a seed and sprout represent two states of the same entity. Therefore, it is proper to say that the very same jīva awakens after sleep.”
Clarifying the Role of Avidyā and Buddhi
Because this passage mentions avidyā among the causes of reappearance, some interpreters have erroneously concluded that avidyā continues in suṣupti. But since Śaṅkara mentions both karma and avidyā and considering that karma clearly does not operate in deep sleep, it is improper to assume that avidyā exists there in the same active sense. The sentence is metaphorical, pointing to the continuity of the upādhi, not its activity.
The natural question then arises: If avidyā is not the upādhi that persists, what is?
Śaṅkara answers directly:
paramārthatas tu na jīvo nāma buddhy-upādhi-sambandha-parikalpita-svarūpa-vyatirekeṇa asti
“From the standpoint of the highest truth, there is no such thing as a jīva apart from the Paramātman; it is merely a construct based on association with the buddhi (intellect) as upādhi.”
And how does this association arise?
mithyājñāna-puraḥsaraḥ ayam ātmanaḥ buddhy-upādhi-sambandhaḥ
“This relationship with the buddhi arises from false knowledge (mithyājñāna).”
This false association, existing in seed form even during suṣupti and cosmic dissolution (pralaya), manifests again upon waking:
ayam api buddhi-sambandhaḥ śakty-ātmanā vidyamāna eva suṣupta-pralayayoḥ punaḥ prabodha-prasavayoḥ āvirbhavati
“This connection with buddhi, though latent in deep sleep and dissolution, reappears upon waking.”
Thus, in suṣupti there is no experience of the world; in jāgrat (waking), the world with its differentiated objects reappears—its source being avidyā. If this avidyā were intrinsic to the Self, it could never be eliminated. The truth is that the Self is untouched by the three states (avasthātraya) and by avidyā.
To express this insight, Śrī Gauḍapāda declares in his Kārikā:
anādimāyayā supto yadā jīvaḥ prabudhyate |
ajam anidram asvapnam advaitaṁ budhyate tadā (Gau. Kā. 1.16)
“This jīva, asleep under beginningless māyā, upon awakening through true knowledge, realizes himself as unborn (aja), sleepless (anidra), without dreams (asvapna), and non-dual (advaita).”
The Nature of Union (Sampatti) in Suṣupti
To complete the analysis of suṣupti, we cite the Chāndogya Śruti:
satā somya tadā sampanno bhavati (Ch. 6.8.1)
“O Somya, in that state, he becomes one with sat (Being).”
What is the nature of this sampatti (attainment)? It is not samyoga-sambandha (conjunction, as when one object newly joins another), nor is it samavāya-sambandha (inherent relation, as between substance and quality). Śaṅkara clarifies this in the bhāṣya on Sūtra 3.2.34:
buddhy-upādhi-sthāna-viśeṣa-yogād udayasya viśeṣa-vijñānasya upādhi-upaśame ya upaśamaḥ sa paramātmanā sambandhaḥ iti upādhi-apekṣayā upacaryate, na parimita-tvāpēkṣayā
“Due to the upādhi of the buddhi, differentiated knowledge arises. When that upādhi subsides, the cessation itself is figuratively called a ‘relation’ with the Paramātman, not because the jīva is finite, but merely for the sake of instruction.”
Thus, Śaṅkara states that all upādhis subside in suṣupti, and the union with the Paramātman is not a real change or a new event, but a recognition of what already is.
And yet, some interpreters continue to insist that the avidyā-upādhi persists in deep sleep—establishing a novel doctrine contrary to the bhāṣya. Those who seek truth must reflect on this carefully.
Even when the term upaśama (cessation) is used, some argue that the upādhi is not fully dissolved but only temporarily dormant (unmanifest). Since the relationship with the upādhi arises from mithyājñāna, they hold that it remains until true knowledge (jñāna) dawns. This may be granted.
But the crucial question remains: Is the jīva ultimately distinct from the Paramātman?
On the Absence of Upādhi in Deep Sleep: Clarifying the Bhāṣya
To contemplate thus is to prepare the mind for Self-knowledge (ātma-jñāna). Therefore, even if avidyā appears to exist in suṣupti (deep sleep) from the deluded standpoint of the worldly intellect, it does not exist from the standpoint of śruti (scripture). In fact, while examining suṣupti, it is never appropriate to assert the continued presence of an upādhi or avidyā. To emphasize this, the commentator clearly states in the next sūtra:
“svam apīto bhavati iti svarūpa-sambaddham enam āmananti | svarūpasya cānapāyitvāt na nara-nagara-nyāyena sambandho bhavati | upādhi-kṛta-svarūpa-tirobhāvāt tu svam apīto bhavati ity upapadyate”
“The statement 'he merges into his own Self' is an affirmation of the Self's intrinsic nature. Since that nature is never lost, the relationship is not like a man walking into a city. Rather, the sense of merging arises because the upādhi-caused obscuration of the true nature disappears.”
Deep Sleep and Samādhi: No Essential Difference
According to the Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya, the conclusion regarding suṣupti is that there is no upādhi present there, and the jīva truly becomes one with Brahman. Therefore, there is no essential difference between suṣupti and samādhi; in both states, from the standpoint of ultimate reality (paramārthika satya), the jīva abides in unity with the Paramātman.
From the standpoint of the ignorant, however, avidyā is projected as if it persists. Some interpret Gaudapāda as distinguishing suṣupti from samādhi, thereby implying a doctrinal difference between him and Śaṅkara. But this is a misunderstanding. Their views are in perfect agreement. The perceived divergence arises not from their teachings but from our own misapprehension.
Numerous bhāṣya passages across the Prasthāna-traya affirm the unity of the Sūtra and Upaniṣad traditions concerning suṣupti. For one familiar with the method of the bhāṣya, this harmony is self-evident. But for those less accustomed to its study, doubts may arise: “Can everyone with discriminative power recognize whether Śaṅkara’s doctrine is unanimously supported here or not?”
No Real Relation Between Self and Non-Self
The apparent relation between the Self (ātman), the witness (sākṣin), and the non-Self—intellect, senses, body—is not a real relation. This is in full accord with our actual experience. Moreover, the absence of upādhi in suṣupti is not merely scriptural—it is experientially verifiable. Everyone who sincerely contemplates in accordance with experience (anubhava-anusandhāna) will arrive at the non-dual conclusion that the Self alone is real.
But it is a mistake to claim that we become Brahman in suṣupti. Animals, birds, and even insects experience suṣupti, yet they do not attain liberation through it. Why? Because Brahmatva (the nature of Brahman) is not something that must be acquired—it is our eternal nature. As the avadhūta-s declare:
“If you say ‘Fire!’ I will enter—
You are Brahman even now.”footnote, please
But merely being Brahman does not grant fulfillment. Liberation is attained only through the clear and certain knowledge (jñāna) that “I am the non-dual Self.”
The Distinction Between Sleep and Knowledge
We are fulfilled by the knowledge that “I am the non-dual Self,” not by suṣupti alone. This is why Gauḍapāda asserts a difference between the state of deep sleep and the state of realization. Madmen awaken from suṣupti still mad. But when the knowledge arises—“I am Brahman, untouched by the three states”—then, regardless of age, gender, or education, one becomes a jñānī.
The belief that “I possess states” is itself avidyā, a dream-like sleep. But the direct insight, “I am the eternal, stainless Self, without any state,” is vidyā-samādhi. Through that vidyā, one realizes the Self as ānanda-svarūpa—eternal bliss itself.
To reiterate: the supposed relation between the Self and non-Self adjuncts like buddhi (intellect), body, or senses is not a real relation. This conforms not only to scriptural teaching but also to a well-considered analysis of our own experience."
Universally Accepted Teachings of Sankaracharya, draft translation, Sri Kumarji
V Subrahmanian
//Śaṅkara writes in his commentary:
suṣuptikāle ca pareṇa brahmaṇā jīva ekatāṁ gacchati | parasmāc ca brahmaṇaḥ prāṇādikaṁ jagat jāyata iti vedānta maryādā.
“In the state of deep sleep, the jīva becomes one with the Supreme Brahman. From that same Brahman, prāṇa and the world originate—this is the doctrine of Vedānta.”
Here too, any notion of separation between jīva and Brahman is rejected.//
And -
//Śaṅkara writes in this context:
आकाशे च हृदि प्राज्ञस्त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थितः ॥ २ ॥ 1.2
2. Viśva is met with in the right eye which is his place of experience. But Taijasa is inside the mind. Prajña is in the space within the heart. In three ways he exists in the body.
कथं प्राणशब्दत्वमव्याकृतस्य ? ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । २) इति श्रुतेः । ननु, तत्र ‘सदेव सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १) इति प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ; नैष दोषः, बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः । यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च । यदि हि निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं ब्रह्माभविष्यत् , ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । ३) ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १) ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १ । ४) इत्यवक्ष्यत् ; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३ । १२) इति स्मृतेः । निर्बीजतयैव चेत् , सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः, बीजाभावाविशेषात् , ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ; तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः । अत एव ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २) ‘सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २) ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १) ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ३ । ६) इत्यादिना बीजत्वापनयनेन व्यपदेशः । तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य तुरीयत्वेन देहादिसम्बन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां पारमार्थिकीं पृथग्वक्ष्यति । बीजावस्थापि ‘न किञ्चिदवेदिषम्’ इत्युत्थितस्य प्रत्ययदर्शनाद्देहेऽनुभूयत एवेति त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थित इत्युच्यते ॥
Objection: Why should the Unmanifested be called Prana (Vital Force)?
Answer: Because of the Vedic text, "O good- looking one, (the individual soul, conditioned by) the mind is surely tethered to (that is to say, has for its goal) Prāṇa” (Ch. VI. viii. 2).
Answer: That is no valid objection. for Existence was assumed there in a state of latency. Though in that sentence the Existence-Brahman is called Prāna, still that Existence (-Brahman) is called Prāṇa as well as Existence without ruling out the state of Its being the source of the emergence of individual beings. Had the seedless (non-causal) state of Brahman been meant, the text would have declared, "Not this, not this" (Br. IV. iv. 22, IV. v. 15), "From which speech turns back" (Tai. II. 9). "That (Brahman) is surely different from the known, and, again, It is above the unknown" (Kc. I. 4), and so on, as it is also stated by the Smrti, "It is called neither existence nor non-existence" (G. XIII. 12). If Brahman in Its seedless (non- causal) state be meant there, then the individuals that merge in It in deep sleep and dissolution cannot reasonably re-emerge, and there will be the possibility of the freed souls returning to take birth again, for in either case, the absence of cause is a common factor. Besides, in the absence of any seed (of worldly state) to be burnt by the knowledge (of Brahman), know- ledge itself becomes useless. Hence Existence is referred to as Prāņa (in the Chandogya Upanishad) and It is spoken of as the cause in all the Upanishads by assuming It (for the time being) to be the seed of others.
And it is because of this that It is referred to by eliminating Its causal state in such Vedic texts as: "Superior to the superior Unmanifested" (Mu. II. i. 2), "From which speech turns back" (Tai. II. 9). "Not this, not this" (Br. IV. iv 22), etc. The supremely real state, free from causality, relation with body etc., and modes of waking etc., of that very entity that is called Prajña, will be spoken separately in its aspect as the Turiya (Fourth). The causal state, too, is verily experienced in the body, inasmuch as an awakened man is seen to have such a recollection as, "I did not know anything (in my deep sleep)." Hence it is said, "Tridha dehe vyavasthitaḥ- existing in three ways in the body".
Michael Chandra Cohen
Hence to accept the nature of the seed form as ‘Mulaavidyaa’ will be incongruous. For the present, it is enough and we will show more defects of this theory elaborately on another occasion.
Locating the causal state in Brahman and dealing with its nature as revealed by words:
For the present it is important to take it that the nature of Atman is in the seed form of the universe which is conjured up by misconception i.e. Avidya and it is then called Praana and also as the cause of the universe. In the Shruti also it is said: “Praajna is the place of origin and the dissolution of all beings” (Mantra No.6), but when the Shruti wants to describe the real nature of Atman as absolute, in all the places it deliberately omits the causal nature i.e. having the seed form of the universe (which is conjured up by Avidya). The following utterances of the Shruti are in support of the above statement:
1) “He is superior to the (other) superior”, meaning He is superior to immutable (Avyaakrita) which is called superior ‘Akshara’. It is said here that having the seed form is conjured up by Avidya, which is called Akshara also and Self is ever devoid of all modifications (Mundaka 2-2).
2) “He is birthless, externally and internally” (Mundaka 2-1-2) Here it is meant that He has neither birth by any cause within Him nor by any external agent apart from Him. So He is ever birthless.
3) “Failing to reach which, words turn back along with the mind” (Taithiriya: 2-9-1). Here it is explained that words and the mind can only describe the relationship between the cause and the effect, but the Brahman is beyond the concepts of causation itself, and words and concepts (mind) are incapable of comprehending the real nature of Brahman. In this way the Shruti clearly negates causation in Brahman.
4) “Not this; not this” (Bri. 2-3-6). Here the visible, invisible and their impressions in Brahman are all negated, who is ever devoid of all mundane qualities like the cause and the effect.
In this way all Shrutis have concluded that Brahman is ever devoid of all adjuncts, by negating the seed form of the universe which is conjured up by Avidya, i.e. misconception, in Brahman. Therefore it is utterly wrong to consider that the cause and the effect are both real and that it is so taught by Shastra. In all the Upanishads first the causation is superimposed on Brahman to facilitate to know the real nature of Brahman, but after this objective is achieved, later the causation superimposed earlier is rescinded. This is called the method of rescission. Therefore the proficient traditionalists declare: “That which is devoid of all duality is described by the method of ‘Adhyaaropa-Apavaada’ i.e. by superimposition and rescission (See BG Bh: 13-13). The Shruti which has been quoted earlier by the opponent, namely, “That is infinite and this is infinite” etc. (Bri 5-1-1) does not denote that the cause and the effect (i.e. Brahman and the world) are real. On the other hand, the real meaning of this Shruti is as follows: Brahman who is supreme and ever devoid of all adjuncts, Himself is said to appear as the universe, which is manifested through names and forms, thereby giving room for a view that He appears to come within the scope of relativity (dualistic dealings). At the time of the appearance also He is ever infinite in His true nature. Hence it is said so in the Upanishads: ‘This is infinite’. ‘This’ means that the universe in its true nature as Brahman is indefinite and not in its differentiated form (in its manifested form) circumscribed by the limiting adjuncts. From the infinite Brahman the effect (universe) appears to emanate or emerge. Though Brahman appears as if He has taken the form of the universe (effect); even then in reality He does not give up his true nature because the effect is conjured up by ignorance (Avidya). Hence by the knowledge of Brahman if the apparent separateness (which is created by Avidya) has been annulled or falsified, then the infinite Brahman alone remains, like a lump of salt, as pure consciousness, homogeneous and absolute (see Bhashya about this Mantra Brih-5-1-1).
In this way it is to be understood that the seed form of the universe is conjured up by Avidya. (the manifested universe is conjured up by Avidya and hence it is called an effect. From the standpoint of this manifested world the unmanifested seed form is also imagined as the cause and is considered as if it is related to the Self. Hence seed form is also conjured up by Avidya and the unmanifested seed form of the universe is called the cause of the manifested world. Owing to this adjunct of the seed form, Atman is called Praajna). This seed form is eradicated by knowledge of the Self and then the nature of Praajna will be cognized as ever devoid of the seed form and beyond all duality. Thus it is appropriate to say here that the nature of Praajna is unmanifested Self. Avyaakritaatma, from the standpoint of superimposed seed form of the universe, though by nature He is in this way called Praajna and cause for the universe, though by nature He is absolute. Using this reasoning Shankara states in his Bhashya: “That very entity that is called Praajna, will be spoken of separately as Turiya (fourth), who is free from causality, relation with body etc., and free from modes of waking etc.,”. And Gaudapada also says (Karika 1-10): The Lord eradicates all sorrows”. In these stanzas he confirms that the true nature of Praajna is Turiya. From the standpoint of superimposed seed form of the universe the very Turiya appears as Praajna. So there is no incongruity if Praajna is described as Avyaakritaatma or Praana.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1D2QbyOa%2BmQ2Hj6m_YOVT0rg0F8A-DnKWAcNpY_soA2Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Jaishankar Narayanan
Namaste,
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhaskar YR
Humble praNAms Sri Acharya Jaishankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
In addition to what Subbu ji has mentioned the following clearly point out that Sushupti is not what is claimed by SSSS and his followers.
Ø It can be noted that Sri SSS did not say take sleeping pills, go to sushupti and get mOksha either 😊 Sri SSS does speak about existence of avidyA in sushupti as well that too based on bhAshya itself but NOT in the sense mUlavidyAvAdins. The definition of beeja rUpa avidyA in sushupti, drastically differs from what mUlavidyAvAdins say and what bhAshyakAra offers!!
1. Bhashyakara clearly talks about a kArana-sharIra in Ishavasya Upanishad Bhasya for the 8th mantra
शुद्धं निर्मलमविद्यामलरहितमिति कारणशरीरप्रतिषेधः ।
śuddhaṃ nirmalamavidyāmalarahitamiti kāraṇaśarīrapratiṣedhaḥ ।
Pure, without any taint/dirt, without the taint of avidyA/ignorance, the kArana-sharIra (causal body) negation
2. In Brhadaranyaka 4.4.34 Bhashya it is clearly stated that sleep is only a drshtAnta (analogy) for moksha and the next prakarana is started to show moksha which is the daarshtaantika (that which is revealed through an analogy).
तत्र च बुद्धान्तात् स्वप्नान्तरम् अयमात्मा अनुप्रवेशितः ; तस्मात् सम्प्रसादस्थानं मोक्षदृष्टान्तभूतम् ; ततः प्राच्यव्य बुद्धान्ते संसारव्यवहारः प्रदर्शयितव्य इति तेन अस्य सम्बन्धः
tatra ca buddhāntāt svapnāntaram ayamātmā anupraveśitaḥ ; tasmāt samprasādasthānaṃ mokṣadṛṣṭāntabhūtam ; tataḥ prācyavya buddhānte saṃsāravyavahāraḥ pradarśayitavya iti tena asya sambandhaḥ
3. If sleep has no difference with moksha why even call it a state of experience and talk about atmasvarUpa as turIya. Instead mAndukya Upandishad should have named Atma as tritIya.
Ø All these have been successfully dealt by Sri SSS in his works. His works like gaudapAda hrudaya, bruhadAraNyaka upanyAsa maNjari, maNdUkya rahasya vivrutti, avasthAtraya Chandrika comprehensively address these very issues. And how the sushupti avasthA has been viewed from different standpoints.
I have not seen proper answer for these from SSSS followers. They keep repeating quotations which shows the similarity of sleep with moksha as though it answers the above questions.
Ø When you have Sri SSS works at your disposal why do you want to listen to his followers?? Give it a try to atleast understand his view point from his own works.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
//Thus, in suṣupti, there is no perception not because of the presence of ignorance but because of the absence of duality. //
- If someone is wondering that the above statement is just Sri SSS’s misguided announcement, it is better to bring to their notice that it is said by none other than bhAshyakAra himself. Those who studied the shankara’s stand with regard to this would understand that ‘no perception’ is because of ‘ekatvaM’ and this ekatvaM, though there not known not because of existence/presence of ignorance (bhAvarUpa / kAraNA vidyA / beeja rUpa avidyA shakti etc. grand contribution of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s) but abhAva of that knowledge (jnAnAbhAva). bhAshyakAra further clarifies : when one is alone (ekaM without second) when one is free from all qualified knowledge, there cannot be the transaction of knowing himself. The eye does not see itself; one cannot sit on one’s own shoulder, fire does not burn itself. Now the question is if he (prAjna) is merged in brahman (para brahman) in sushupti, why he is not aware of it?? For this bhAshyakAra answers in chAndOgya shruti : the process of merging is NOT that the jeeva entering a house as an outsider in other words, the jeeva has not entered into brahman like water in cloth. Here the water and cloth are different though wet cloth is there duality is quite obvious. But it is not like that, jeeva’s merging with brahman is like merging into it dissolving his individual identity like the juice of a flower (pushpa rasa) merging into the honey losing its identity. Therefore he is not aware of even that!!
- And this is the jeeva’s true svarUpa asserts bruhadAraNyaka. The nature of the Jīva in the state of sushupti when he is free from all the upAdhi-s and therefore he the jeeva is griefless, desireless, and all alone without a second (ekamevAdviteeyaM, ekAtma pratyaya sAra ekibhUta etc.) and this is his svarUpa / real nature. Here the father is not father, the mother is not mother, the devata is not devata, the thief is not thief, the killer of bhrUna (foetus) is not killer, the chandAla is not chandAla, the sanyasi is not saNyAsi, the veda is not veda and the tapasvi is not tapasvi. Here he is connected neither with puNyA nor pApa etc. Same thing repeated in other words by bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya : sati saMpannasthAvattadekatvAnna vijAnAteeti yuktaM, it is but reasonable that jeeva merged in pure being is not conscious because of absolute unity.
- And with regard the ruling statement of shankara that merging only with kAraNa brahman not pure brahman in sushupti, shankara nowhere states that kAraNa brahman is a ‘separate’ brahman resides in sushupti and Shuddha brahman is something aloof from it and that needs to be ‘seen / realized’ in some other peculiar state (according to some in samAdhi, according to some other after the physical death). But the fact remains that there is no time when jeeva has not become one with brahman, it is because it is his (one’s) intrinsic nature which cannot be alienated. ONLY in the view of the seeming foreign aspect (qualified knowledge) which he assumes in Svapna and jAgrat due to contact with upAdhi-s it is proposed to say that he attains his own form on the dissolution of that foreign aspect. Again this is not the declaration of Sri SSS but bhAshyakAra himself clarifies this in sUtra bhAshya.
- Having said all this Sri SSS in detail explains what is the difference between prAjnA and tureeya etc. with the detailed references from maNdUkya, kArikA, bruhadAraNyaka, chAdOgya etc. paramArtha chitAmaNi a Kannada book is very relevant here to understand Sri SSS’s stand point on avasthA traya.
Michael Chandra Cohen
//// (A) In any case, as you (V. Subramanian/Subbu) importantly quoted a bhāṣya passage (a meta-analysis)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625417F6AC1F9A8082AB7D78470A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Michael Chandra Cohen
Translated from Kannada by DeepSeek is this 5 part abstract from Pages 293–303 of 'Sri Shankara Bhagavatpadara Sarva Sammatha Upadeshagalu' by Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji.
### Article 131: June 10, 2025
#### Chapter 38: The Process of the Three States – Deep Sleep (Sushupti)
We previously examined the cause of the universe as stated in the *Brahma Sutras*. Now, it is time to analyze the process of the three states (waking, dream, deep sleep) within it. All Upanishads unanimously declare that in deep sleep, the individual soul merges into the Supreme Self (*Paramatman*). No scripture teaches that ignorance (*Avidya*) exists in deep sleep. It is universally known that in deep sleep, one perceives nothing, hears nothing, and knows nothing. What causes this ignorance? Some modern followers of Shankaracharya claim that "affective ignorance" (*Bhavavidya*) envelops the soul then. But the scriptures state otherwise:
> *"Na tu taddvitīyamasti tato'nyadvibhaktaṁ yatpaśyet"*
> ("There exists nothing separate from the Self; if there were, one would perceive it").
The absence of duality (*Dvitiya Abhava*) is why nothing is perceived. Earlier, this was explained.
Now, let us see what the *Brahma Sutras* say about deep sleep. The fifth section (*Adhikarana*) begins by discussing the Vedic verse:
> *"Sadeva somyedamagra āsīt"* (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1)
> ("In the beginning, dear one, this was Existence alone").
Is this "Existence" (*Sat*) Brahman or primal matter (*Pradhana*)? The Sankhya school identifies *Pradhana* as *Sat*, from which intellect (*Mahat*), ego (*Ahamkara*), etc., emerge. Vedanta holds Brahman as *Sat*, from which elements (*Bhutas*), etc., arise. The text resolves:
- Since "Existence deliberated" implies consciousness,
- Scripture calls it the Self (*Atman*),
- Liberation (*Moksha*) is granted to those established in the Self,
- If *Pradhana* were meant, liberation methods would differ (but none are mentioned).
Thus, "Existence" is Brahman.
Next, *Sutra 1.1.9* ("*Svāpyayāt*") states:
> "One is called *Svapiti* (sleeper) because he merges (*Apyaya*) into his own Existence."
The sentient soul (*Jiva*) cannot merge into insentient *Pradhana*. Hence, the *Sat* into which the soul merges in sleep must be Brahman. Shankaracharya’s commentary (*Bhashya*) clarifies:
> *"Sa upādhidvayoparame suṣuptāvasthāyam upādhikṛtaviśeṣābhāvāt svātmani pralīna iva"*
> ("When the two limiting adjuncts—gross and subtle bodies—cease, the soul in deep sleep, devoid of distinctions caused by adjuncts, merges into its own Self").
**Crucial note:** The *Bhashya* explicitly states *no adjuncts exist in deep sleep*. Later commentators wrongly claim ignorance (*Avidya*) persists as an adjunct, preventing full unity with Brahman. This contradicts the scriptures.
*(Continued...)*
---
### Article 132: June 11, 2025
The phrase "*svātmani pralīna iva*" ("merges into one’s own Self") is misinterpreted by some as "seeming merger, not actual." They argue:
- *Projecting power (Vikshepa Shakti)* vanishes, so the soul *seems* merged;
- *Concealing power (Avarana Shakti)* remains, preventing full merger.
This is incorrect. Shankaracharya unequivocally states in *Brahma Sutra 1.1.9*:
> *"Api ca na kadācit jīvasya brahmaṇā saṁpattirnāsti svārūpasyānapāyitvāt"*
> ("The soul’s unity with Brahman is eternal; its nature never ceases. Due to adjuncts in waking/dream, it *appears* distinct. In sleep, adjuncts subside, and it reverts to its true nature").
Thus, the soul does not "sometimes unite, sometimes not." **There is no ignorance in deep sleep.** The *Bhashya* further explains why no awareness exists then:
> *"Upādher upaśāntatvāt satyeva saṁpanno na vijānātīti yuktam"*
> ("Merged in true Brahman, with adjuncts destroyed, not knowing anything is logical").
**Hence, there is no room for ignorance as a cause.**
Now, consider *Kaushitaki Upanishad* (1.3–4): King Ajatashatru questions Brahmin Bālāki about a sleeping man:
> *"Kvaiṣa etad bālāke puruṣo'śayiṣṭa kva vā etadabhūt kuta etadāgāt?"*
> ("Where was this person in sleep? From where did he return?").
Bālāki cannot answer. The king explains:
> "The person rests in the Self (*Atman*). From this Self, prana, deities, and worlds arise."
Shankaracharya’s commentary affirms:
> *"Suṣuptikāle ca pareṇa brahmaṇā jīva ekatāṁ gacchati"*
> ("In deep sleep, the soul attains oneness with Brahman. From Brahman, prana, etc., emerge—this is Vedanta’s doctrine").
**Thus, the soul truly unites with Brahman in deep sleep.**
*(Continued...)*
---
### Article 133: June 12, 2025
**Objection:** If the soul fully merges in Brahman during sleep, wouldn’t sleep itself liberate? Why does one return to samsara? A drop merging in the ocean cannot be retrieved!
**Reply (Bhashya 3.2.9):**
> *"Iha tu vidyate vivekakāraṇaṁ karma cāvidyā ceti vaiṣamyam"*
> ("Discrimination arises from karma and ignorance—absent in the ocean-drop analogy. Soul and Brahman are non-different").
Brahman appears as the soul due to adjuncts (*Upadhis*). Shankaracharya explains:
> *"Sadeva tūpādhisamparkāj jīva iti upacaryate"*
> ("Brahman is called *Jiva* due to association with adjuncts").
As long as the same adjunct persists (like a seed-sprout), the soul "sleeps" and "awakens." Some cite the term *Avidya* here, but:
- *Karma* and *Avidya* are mentioned together;
- *Karma* is absent in sleep (contradicting experience).
Thus, *Avidya* in this context **does not imply its presence in deep sleep.**
*(Continued...)*
---
### Article 134: June 13, 2025
**Q:** What is this adjunct (*Upadhi*) persisting in sleep?
**A:** The connection with intellect (*Buddhi*) is imagined due to false knowledge (*Mithyajñana*). Shankaracharya states:
> *"Paramārthatas tu na jīvo nāma buddhyupādhisambandhaparikalpitasvarūpavyatirekeṇāsti"*
> ("Ultimately, no soul exists apart from Brahman; the intellect-connection is illusory").
This connection persists *potentially* (*Shaktya*) in sleep/dissolution and re-manifests in waking/creation. Ignorance (*Avidya*) causes this appearance. Gaudapada’s *Karika 1.16* declares:
> *"Anādi māyayā supto yadā jīvaḥ prabudhyate \|
> Ajamanidramasvapnam advaitaṁ budhyate tadā"*
> ("When the soul awakens from beginningless Maya-dream, it realizes: 'I am birthless, sleepless, dreamless, non-dual!'").
**Thus, the intellect-connection belongs to beginningless Maya.**
Sleep (*Sushupti*) and meditation (*Samadhi*) are identical in essence: both involve unity with Brahman. The difference lies only in the ignorant perspective.
*(Continued...)*
---
### Article 135: June 14, 2025
**Final Synthesis:**
The *Chandogya Upanishad* (6.8.1) states:
> *"Satā somya tadā saṁpanno bhavati"*
> ("He becomes united with Existence").
Shankaracharya explains this "union" (*Sampatti*):
> *"Buddhyupādhisthānaviśeṣayogād udbhūtasya viśeṣavijñānasyopādhyupaśame ya upaśamaḥ sa paramātmanā sambandha"*
> ("The cessation of special knowledge due to dormant adjuncts is *figuratively* called 'union with Brahman'—not literal connection").
**Conclusion of Sushupti Analysis:**
1. **No adjuncts** (*Upadhis*) exist in deep sleep.
2. The soul **truly unites** with Brahman.
3. Sleep and *Samadhi* are **essentially identical**; differences exist only for the ignorant.
4. **Ignorance** (*Avidya*) is **not present** in deep sleep per Shankaracharya’s original teaching.
**Epilogue:**
Sleep alone does not confer liberation. Animals sleep but gain no Self-knowledge. As Sri Chidanandavruta declares:
> *"You are already the Supreme Brahman!"*
Liberation comes only through **Self-knowledge** (*Atmajnana*): realizing "I am the birthless, sleepless, non-dual Self beyond all states." This alone grants eternal bliss.
*(End of Sushupti Analysis by SSSSji)*
Bhaskar YR
**Crucial note:** The *Bhashya* explicitly states *no adjuncts exist in deep sleep*. Later commentators wrongly claim ignorance (*Avidya*) persists as an adjunct, preventing full unity with Brahman. This contradicts the scriptures.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
They not only contradict the scriptures they also contradict the bhAshyakAra. I was totally surprised to see absolute silence and some members’ appreciation of the discovery that there is mithyA vastu darshana in sushupti. Just because it is logically proved 😊 OTOH, shruti and bhAshyakAra clarifies : the individual jeeva who is in deep sleep has become pure consciousness without the second. He does not see anything because the second thing to see does not exist although he is capable of seeing. And here in this state the individual jeeva enters his OWN real atman i.e. para brahman becomes free from body and senses and thus becomes happy. akartA sukhi bhavati because Atma svam AtmAnAm “paraM brahma” pravishya vimuktha karyakAraNasaMghAthaH..
There are aplenty of shruti and bhAshya vAkya-s like this and they some how found some erroneous conclusions by brushing all these under mUlAvidyA carpet and declaring it is NOT upAdhi rahita sthiti but upAdhi upashAnta sthiti, though it is like that (upAdhi upashAnta sthiti) there is no problem in accepting oneness in sushupti😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
.
V Subrahmanian
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Kalyan Chakravarthy
Namaste Sri Bhaskarji
Bhaskar YR
Namaste Sri Bhaskarji
Ø praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji
Ø Hare Krishna
I am sympathetic to the view that there is no avidya in deep sleep.
- And it is not just a whimsical thinking of some tiny jeeva but it is the observation by both shruti and bhAshyakAra. Hence sushupti avasthA is used as drushtAnta to explain the state of tureeya. Now the question is what is the difference and similarities between tureeya and prAjna?? What is the need of introduction of tureeya when prAjna himself is the parabrahman in sushupti ?? These queries need to be addressed jeeva who is having the upAdhi saMbandha. It is that jeeva with upAdhi who will see the duality in waking and dream. It is that jeeva only who embraces the paraM in sushupti by getting detached himself from upAdhi. So seeing no duality is SAME in both prAjnA and tureeya says kArikAkAra and at the same breath highlights difference between prAjnA and tureeya. Here he clarifies the Non-cognition of duality is common to both prAjnA and tureeya. Nidra (beeja nidra) in the form of cause is associated with prAjnA but it is not found in tureeyAtman at all (kArikA 1.13).and the knowing that he is non-dual (advaya) in his nature and he is sarvadruk is tureeya and whereas even though he is brahman ‘not-knowing’ the same is prAjnA. Hence avidyA in agrahaNa rUpa (jnAna abhAva) accepted in prAjnA as the jeeva enters the sushupti state without getting this knowledge of ekatvaM. So, for all practical purposes it has been said though sushupti is Atman’s abode we are not going to get our svarUpa jnAna just by going to sleep. If that is the case, we can simply throw the sAdhana part out of window and achieve the ultimate by just going to sleep 😊 So as long as we consider the Vishwa ( the waker) is having the jnAna abhAva and resultant adhyAsa, we have to accept that the jeeva associated with Vishwa who enters the sushupti as prAjnA is having the jnAna abhAva type of avidyA though he is free from ‘seeing the duality’ and ekatvam with brahman. Here again prAjnA is having the ignorance that is absence of right knowledge. And it has to be eradicated through the rise of right knowledge it has to take place only in the extravert or Vishwa in his intellect. Hence as long as this Vishwa has not acquired the right knowledge the shAstra accepts the jnAna abhAva (agrahaNa) type of avidyA in prAjnA. But when the sushupti viewed from its own view point bhAshyakAra very clearly clarifies : anyatvena kAmya mAnAH yathA jAgrat svapnayOH tasya Atmaiva, anyatvapratyupasthApakahetOH avidyAyAH abhAvAt (bruhad bhAshya). So we have every reason to declare that sushupti is avidyA rahita state when it is viewed from its own view point with the help of shAstra and bhAshya without giving the special and biased heed to waking state.
But then, what causes the sleeping person to wake up the same as before?
- With the above backdrop now we can understand how and why bhAskara who goes to sushupti comes back as bhAskara (same individual) only 😊 The problem can be resolved when we first define clearly the jeeva in relation to an upAdhi, then only the question how come same jeeva wakes up from sleep, would be meaningful. Who is jeeva here? Is not shAstra saying brahman itself is figuratively called as jeeva in relation to upAdhis?? So bhAshyakAra clarifies as long as the relation with this upAdhi continues, we refer to him as one particular jeeva, like with upAdhi specially meant for me I am bhAskara etc. . In relation to another upAdhi that you have you are called with some other name and will be treated as a different jeeva. With this jeeva upAdhi drushti Ishwara would take the responsibility to link the respective avidyA kAma karma to individual jeeva after waking even though he is ONE in sushupti. And it may be noted that avasthA-s is for jeeva and jeeva svarUpa is avasthAteeta, nirvishesha brahman.
Michael Chandra Cohen
Translation:
"He (the Bhāṣyakāra / commentator) will separately (पृथक्) explain that tam abīja-avasthām (that seedless state), which belongs to the very one denoted by the word 'Prājña' (i.e., the deep sleeper), as Turīya, which is the absolute (pāramārthikī), free from connection with body etc., and devoid of waking and other states."//
//Further, to say that sushupti is stated as bIja from the frame of reference of ignorance but as turIya from the frame of reference of truth -- is misleading.
It is true that sushupti is stated as bIja from the frame of reference of ignorance. However, from the frame of reference of truth, there is no sushupti at all. To selectively aver sushupti as turIya from the frame of reference of truth is erroneous.//
Agreed but we are only trying to convey sastra's view for which there is no avidya in deep sleep.
May I suggest this section in the translation of SSSS, Mulavidya Nirasa where he makes a thorough argument based on tarka 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/7b35405e-6a64-42a3-806a-2e41e03385d4n%40googlegroups.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA%3DtUv8m0B_iXW0QdhjD8rkrXxg8EtjnFCdEY6Ru691Ow%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Yes, we agree completely - from avidya drsti, there is avidya in deep sleep; from paramarthika, no avidya, no deep sleep.
Where we differ is on sastrika's view.
H S Chandramouli
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66257F7401318910D1CB75F08473A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
H S Chandramouli
Michael Chandra Cohen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOU6cgLVbKarWHsVGcydDKn-vnStDZKVZP%2BFz38n7QUxA%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDLx_UcmsQa1FCShc72jhcJYunCEQaB17Ed59xb2jbB_Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Jaishankar Narayanan
Michael Chandra Cohen
Here is a re-post of an unbiased, non-sectarian, non-polemic etic view on some of the issues SSSS raises. It comes as a series of scholarly confirmations. I think it is a necessary read and reflection for all jijnasu-s. I hope you agree.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-GqFwr1JKhA95ksMOj53L2oZpPGu6VYcQCHOg%2BhXV2u2A%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBGmo6nkqhf1XRPKOJk1SavQ4W6W9bk40pdkzKXb07CWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Reg // So as long as we consider the Vishwa ( the waker) is having the jnAna abhAva and resultant adhyAsa //
and
// So bhAshyakAra clarifies as long as the relation with this upAdhi continues, we refer to him as one particular jeeva //,
and similar statements in your post, are you suggesting that as per Sri SSS, ** jnAna abhAva ** is the UpAdhi for jeeva ? Please clarify . It is possible I have misunderstood you. If not, please indicate what is the upAdhi you have mentioned, as per Sri SSS.
Ø Since you are familiar with Sri SSS’s works you know how he accepts agrahaNa in sushupti. IOW, jnAna abhAva is not an objectively existing one like upAdhi to say jnAna abhAva is an upAdhi. It is just absence of right knowledge. Sri SSS in one of his Kannada works says : sushuptiyalli yaava upAdhiyu ellavembudu ellara anubhavadalliyu eruttade. Addarinda Aga adviteeya brahma svarUpavanne jeevanu padediruttaanendu heluvudakke yaava addiyu eruvudilla. Now with regard to the question whether this avidyA (jnAna abhAva) is the cause for the anyathA grahana (qualified knowledge)?? Sri SSS quotes taittereeya bhAshya 2-8. Hope you are aware of that bhAshya portion. So in upAdhi upashanta sthiti agrahaNa has been accepted to exist in sushupti. This existence is not in the sense of mUlAvidyAvAda who declaring that the agrahaNa is here in sushupti is mUlAvidyA which is an existing one in bhAva rUpa which is upAdAna kAraNa, which is brahmAshrita etc. He (Sri SSS) further clarifies about the word ‘beeja’ and the common meaning of kAraNa and it should be taken in the farfetched / distorted meaning like upAdAna kAraNa. upAdhi means denendriyAntaHkaraNa which will be merged in brahman in sushupti or will be in dormant state sushupti. He further clarifies from the paramArthika drushti for the jagat and nAma rUpa brahman is the upAdhi hence tureeya is called sarvadruk / sarvaM so it is sensible to say in sushupti it will be merged in its svarUpa. Where as if we give any objective existence to avidyA also (unlike jnAna abhAva) then for the ekatvaM we have to merge this avidyA with brahman, by that it (avidyA) will be the svarUpa of brahman and what purushArtha you are going to get by realizing this type of brahman who is having this avidyA as its svarUpa 😊 ??
Sudhanshu Shekhar
This existence is not in the sense of mUlAvidyAvAda who declaring that the agrahaNa is here in sushupti is mUlAvidyA...
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Acharya Sri Jaishankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
If you agree avidya 'exists' in sushupti then we are in agreement as, whatever exists is bhAvarupa.
- But while asserting it is bhAvarUpa, you (mulAvidyAvAdins) tagged the term and trying to clarify it is not bhAvarUpa in strict sense whereas it is just bhAvAbhavavilakshaNa, just to prove that it is not abhAva we are saying it is bhAvarUpa… is it not??. So categorically you cannot conclude that it is indeed bhAvarUpa because you are explaining the nature of this bhAvarUpa avidyA as : satasat vilakshaNa, anirvachaneeya, it is not bhinna or abhinna from brahman not even bhinnabhinna, it is not sAvayava nor it is niravayava nor it is ubhayAtmaka etc. etc. and finally you say it is sAkshi siddha !! 😊 So we know the struggle and stress mulAvidyAvAdins undergo to push their pet theory mUlAvidyA which is conspicuous by its absence in PTB.
So there is no need to castigate the acharyas in the parampara after Shankara.
- If some of the post shankara advaitins followed religiously their mulAchArya and his bhAshya without any inventions / fabrications there was absolutely no need for any castigation..is it not prabhuji??
I don't have any doubts in the knowledge which was handed down to me by my Guru.
- Same here prabhuji,
So, I have no motivation to read any works of SSSS other than to refute whatever is written there,
- This prejudiced mind set sometimes brings havoc in considering what is shuddhAdvaita as advocated by bhagavatpAda. And to refute his works you don’t have to go by what his ‘followers’ say about it. If you want to meaningfully and rationally refute his works better quote his original works and his followers that was what I was trying to convey. Don’t you think it is a worthy request??
which will be vitanda and which I am not interested in.
- So without reading anything in original you have already concluded it is vitanda !! very nice prabhuji 😊
If what is said by SSSS makes sense to you then it is fine with me. It does not make any sense to me though.
Ø If one is without any proper verification concluding something wrongly, really does not make any sense to me either.
- Kindly pardon me if the intend of my observation is hurting. But it is quite unfortunate that even full time sAdhaka-s / vedAntins like you having this type of pUrvAgraha on some of the Acharya-s.
Bhaskar YR
So, as per your understanding of mUlAvidyA-vAda, agrahaNa is mUlAvidyA?
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
No not at all, it is you (mulAvidyAvAdins) who say agrahaNa which is accepted as jnAna abhAva is just another offspring of ‘main mother’ mUlAvidyA which is upAdAna for the subsequent qualified (vishesha / dvaita ) knowledge, so according to you even jnAna abhAva is also a product of bhAvarUpa avidyA. You (MAV) declaring that this agrahaNa in sushupti signifies here in the context of mUlAvidyA. For us, agrahaNa is simply jnAna abhAva NOT definitely objectively existing mUlAvidyA like chair, table in a room to say in sushupti also there is mithyA vastu darshana 😊
Sudhanshu Shekhar
No not at all, it is you (mulAvidyAvAdins) who say agrahaNa which is accepted as jnAna abhAva is just another offspring of ‘main mother’ mUlAvidyA which is upAdAna for the subsequent qualified (vishesha / dvaita ) knowledge, so according to you even jnAna abhAva is also a product of bhAvarUpa avidyA.
You (MAV) declaring that this agrahaNa in sushupti signifies here in the context of mUlAvidyA.
For us, agrahaNa is simply jnAna abhAva NOT definitely objectively existing mUlAvidyA like chair, table in a room to say in sushupti also there is mithyA vastu darshana 😊
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Yes. agrahaNa is also a product of bhAvarUpa avidyAa.
Ø 😊 yes I know that is the reason why I said mUlAvidyA’s children are jnAnAbhAva, saMshaya and anyathAgrahaNa.
You (MAV) declaring that this agrahaNa in sushupti signifies here in the context of mUlAvidyA.
Ambiguously worded. agrahNa is different from mUlAvidyA i.e. avidyA. Period.
Ø And this agrahaNAtmaka (tattvAgrahaNa) avidyA is what accepted in sushupti both by bhAshyakAra and kArikAkAra. There is not even an iota of trace about this mother of three types of avidyA in bhAshya or kArikA. It is only in the superfluous imagination of vyAkhyAnakAra-s.
For us, agrahaNa is simply jnAna abhAva NOT definitely objectively existing mUlAvidyA like chair, table in a room to say in sushupti also there is mithyA vastu darshana 😊
I was just interested in correct depiction of mulAvidyA. I proceed to do that as under.
MUlAvidyA is different from agrahaNa, mithyA-jnAna and the samskAra thereof. That is to say - avidyA is different from agrahaNa, samshaya and viparIta-grahaNa. It is like an AvaraNa, which results in agrahaNa and anyathA-grahaNa.
Ø Yes, it is the well known definition of mUlAvidyA existing since ages in the books of vyAkhyAna. But as per shankara there are only three types which is natural for human mind. And when the knowledge dawns all these three types of avidyA go…ignorance whether it is jnAnAbhAva or vipareeta pratyaya or saMshaya tat jnAnenaiva nirvartyate…So for us, the shankara followers, the alien concept like mulAvidyA is not required and there in bhAshya as well.
AchArya says in GItA bhAshya - तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः। (When there is AvaraNa, there is the perception of the three avidyAs namely agrahaNa, viparIta-grahaNa and samshaya). Here, please note, AvaraNa is different from avidyA-traya. That is what is mUlAvidyA which is AvaraNa.
Ø We have already spilt enough ink on clearing this AvaraNAtmakatvAt which is tAmasO hi pratyayaH…not anyway at any stretch of imagination matches with the MAV. It is just tAmasa pratyaya pertaining to the intellect or antaHkaraNa alone. And it is NOT brahmAshrita having the potency to even cover / conceal the brahman to say that even before there is jeeva bhAva brahman is covered by this avidyA….do you think a thin layer of wood (avidyA) can cover the freely and liberally burning agni?? And moreover if the MA is really an existing solid thing / Dravya rUpa / bhAvarUpa etc. even jnAna will not come to rescue because it does not have the capacity to remove the existing thing!! jnAnam tu jnApakaM na kArakamiti says bhAshya. jnAna has no capacity to destroy any positive thing or create any new thing. It only reveals what is there already. The correct knowledge of rajju neither destroys existing snake nor creates rope afresh. It only removes the misunderstanding / misperception about what exactly is there. When jnAna dawns to darkness / avidyA…don’t you see in the same geeta bhAshya there is clarification Viveka prakAsha bhAve tadabhAvAt.
- Anyway we have done this charvita charvaNa aplenty times earlier and I don’t think any fresh approach would bring us any meaningful / anubhava sammata conclusion/justification from logicians😊
Sudhanshu Shekhar
H S Chandramouli
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66254190FA649DA662F66F488472A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Jaishankar Narayanan
Namaste Subbu and Raghav,Here is Prasanth Neti's response to your quotes on Sankara's bhasya to Mandukya Karika 1.2:Morever, the objection as below is also meaningless://// If sleep has no difference with moksha why even call it a state of experience and talk about atmasvarUpa as turIya. Instead mAndukya Upandishad should have named Atma as tritIya. ////It is meaningless because, when AtmasvarUpa is mentioned as turIya, the siddhanta is clear that it is after all “Māyā sankhyā turīyam” as bhagavan bhashyakara puts it in the mangalācharaNa shloka of kārika bhāshya. Therefore this worry about ātmasvarUpa running into danger of becoming trItiya (the third) but not turIya (the fourth) is unnecessary - the sankhyā is māyā sankhyā after all!
Bhashyakara as I pointed in same portion of karika 1.2 bhāshya clearly says:तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य तुरीयत्वेन देहादिसम्बन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां पारमार्थिकीं पृथग्वक्ष्यति।
Prājña is tritIya from waking standpoint. However, from standpoint of truth (i.e. from its own standpoint) that itself is said to be the truth (again “the fourth!” from waking standpoint).I think this is sufficient enough reply for all objections together.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Prājña is tritIya from waking standpoint. However, from standpoint of truth (i.e. from its own standpoint) that itself is said to be the truth (again “the fourth!” from waking standpoint).
Michael Chandra Cohen
Jaishankar, have you looked at that article I posted a few days back. Any reaction?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBBoK3zWxN0qY%3DrSJJFSrvVtUZSh0CsvaeHW3yYQJffPA%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael Chandra Cohen
Prasanth Neti
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna
One thing I am not able to understand is why he does not want to directly participate in the discussion here in this group, that too when he is willing to answer / clarify the objections raised here?? Just curious to know. You take the objections raised here to him, he writes the reply somewhere else, you bring it back to this group and if anything written in turn again you will have to convey the same to him to his place of reading and again sharing his reply written somewhere else !! Don’t you think it is little tedious for you prabhuji??
V Subrahmanian
Namaste Sudhanshu ji
Thank you for highlighting the fact that even waking experience minus its
upAdhitva lands us on sat-brahma alone, not only deep sleep analysis.
This business of “suShupti from its own standpoint” is understood and not
to entirely disagree with SSS on that but it cannot be stretched to make it
look like suShupti alone is some kind of indispensable dvitiya
agrahaNa experience whose analysis alone brings about jnAnam. In fact,
hypothetically, even if there are only two types of experiences jAgrat and
svapna- their analysis through Shruti is sufficient to land us on advaitam
brahma aham asmi.
Deep sleep prakriya is sometimes wrongly treated as indispensable to the AA
prakriyA. Sure its helpfulness is not denied. But this was what Sri Swami
Dayananda Saraswati Ji would say in many contexts - to be wary of
over-emphasising the importance of deep sleep!
Even when waking experience involving Time is carefully looked at in the
light of Shruti, its mithyAtvaM is directly appreciated. That
this single moment (the present moment of experience) is Timeless Awareness
is arrivable including the mithyAtvaM of time and thus of cause-effect
relationship too. So we could equally clearly assert that “ if we analyse
the present moment experience *from its own standpoint* rather than from
the usual waking-state standpoint, even then time itself resolves and there
is only advitIyaM brahma appreciated here and now.”
Sri Ramana Maharshi would say -
भूतं भविष्यच्च भवत्स्वकाले
तद्वर्तमानस्य विहाय तत्त्वम्।
हास्या न किं स्याद्गतभाविचर्चा
विनैकसंख्यां गणनेव लोके ॥ १५ ॥
bhūtaṃ bhaviṣyac-ca bhavat-svakāle
tad-vartamānasya vihāya tattvam।
hāsyā na kiṃ syād-gata-bhāvi-carcā
vinaika-saṃkhyāṃ gaṇaneva loke ॥ 15 ॥
The past (the having been, the gone) and the future (the to become) are the
present (being) in [their] own time.
Relinquishing the Truth of what is presently existing (the present),
Will it not be laughable, repeatedly thinking over (discussion) [what is]
gone [and] will be,
Like counting without the number one, in the world? (15)
Om
Raghav
Bhaskar YR
Hare Krishna
I am sorry Michael ji, but no amount of “Hackery” can change the fact that if suShupti was shuddha brahman, it should by all standards of common sense be called tritiya not turIya .
> prAjna is tureeya only and likewise Vishwa and taijasa too tureeya only, do you want us to see 'tureeya' in some separate exalted or mysterious state / Avastha?? Tureeya is the naija svarUpa of all these three states and hence he is also called avasthAteeta. You cannot simply assume the absence of tureeya in the three states and giving him the separate aloof state apart from these three states which shuruti asks us to analyze to know the true svarUpa of tureeya. Dvaita grahaNa is there in both waking and dream (misconception) and in deep sleep dvaita grahaNa will not be there on account of 'ekatvaM' but without knowing this ekatvaM ( jnAna abhAva), when these two (agrahaNa and anyathAgrahaNa) ceases one is said to be attained the state of the fourth (tureeya) so says kArika. So, tureeyatvaM is the inherent nature of prAjnA, Vishwa and taizasa and tureeya is NOT a separate entity. It is from this view point it has been pointed out by bhAshyakAra and shruti that no ignorance whatever is seen to be actually lurking in sushupti, for Atman of the nature of Shuddha Chaitanya alone remains there, but ignorant mistake and look upoin him as enveloped in ignorance from the waking point of view. And as there can be no misconception (adhyAsa) without avidyA (jnAnAbhAva) underlying it, the SAME ATMAN should be considered to maintain himself free from jAgrat and Svapna. Hence shruti says for the tureeya the socalled states are his dreams (trayee svapnAH - Itareya).
Sudhanshu Shekhar
> prAjna is tureeya only and likewise Vishwa and taijasa too tureeya only,
do you want us to see 'tureeya' in some separate exalted or mysterious state / Avastha?? Tureeya is the naija svarUpa of all these three states and hence he is also called avasthAteeta.
You cannot simply assume the absence of tureeya in the three states and giving him the separate aloof state apart from these three states which shuruti asks us to analyze to know the true svarUpa of tureeya.
Dvaita grahaNa is there in both waking and dream (misconception) and in deep sleep dvaita grahaNa will not be there on account of 'ekatvaM' but without knowing this ekatvaM ( jnAna abhAva), when these two (agrahaNa and anyathAgrahaNa) ceases one is said to be attained the state of the fourth (tureeya) so says kArika.
So, tureeyatvaM is the inherent nature of prAjnA, Vishwa and taizasa and tureeya is NOT a separate entity.
It is from this view point it has been pointed out by bhAshyakAra and shruti that no ignorance whatever is seen to be actually lurking in sushupti, for Atman of the nature of Shuddha Chaitanya alone remains there, but ignorant mistake and look upoin him as enveloped in ignorance from the waking point of view.
And as there can be no misconception (adhyAsa) without avidyA (jnAnAbhAva) underlying it, the SAME ATMAN should be considered to maintain himself free from jAgrat and Svapna. Hence shruti says for the tureeya the socalled states are his dreams (trayee svapnAH - Itareya).
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Raghav prabhuji
> prAjna is tureeya only and likewise Vishwa and taijasa too tureeya only,
Excellent. That’s exactly the point. I am happy to see you echoing Sudhanshuji’s and Jaishankarji’s point about this made earlier.
Ø Yes, it is because bhAshyakAra himself says this 😊
All three states are ultimately appreciated by Shruti pramANa as Turiya and initially before shastra vicAra clarifies the matter, are accepted as afflicted with avidya.
Ø Yes, but tattvAgrahaNa avidyA i.e. jnAnAbhAva does not come in the way of presenting that sushupti is abode of Atman and Atman attains brahmasvarUpa alone in sushupti. There should not be any doubt from the shAstra drushti we have to treat sushupti avasthA is something elevated avasthA when compared to other two states.
Jaishankar Narayanan
Many of the propositions in the SSSS prakriya fail the test of common sense.
First is abhAva as a bija / kArana. BhashyakAra does not accept any vishesha-abhAva at all and considers them to be bhAvarupa. But they propose a jnAna-abhAva which is the bijA even in sushupti. Bhaskar ji even claims that abhAva can be a cause and produce an effect, but bhAshyakAra has clearly written in both Taittiriya and BG Bhashya that 'akarane pratyavAyah' is not tenable as abhAva cannot cause anything. The analogy he gave was that the parent's absence causes children to do mischief. Absence cannot cause anything. It is the nature of children to do mischief and your presence constrains them. In the shastra it is said that the presence of Mani, Mantra, Aushada etc causes the fire to not burn. Applying Bhaskar ji's logic we have to say that the absence of Mani, Mantra, Aushada etc has caused the fire to burn!
Second is the refusal to differentiate between the drshtAnta (analogy) and dArshtAntika (that which is revealed through an analogy), particularly with reference to sleep and turiya. I think they have to do that as according to them jnAna-abhAva is there in sleep and so there cannot be any difference between sushupti and turiya on the basis of an abhAva. Whenever we point to clear bhAshya statements or GaudapAda kArikA they give umpteen quotations to show sushupti and turiya are the same. Obviously there will be similarities between a drshtAnta and dArshtAntika and we have no dispute with all these quotations. But based on these similarities to claim that the drshtAnta and dArshtAntika are the same is really not common sense. My Guru Swami Dayananda ji used to say to teach Vedanta avastha-traya prakriya is not necessary as most upanishads and BG do not use this prakriya. In fact one vAkya from kenopanishad (2.4) and one verse from BG (2.16) is good enough to teach satyam-mithya and the vision of Vedanta.
Thirdly they accept mAyA as anirvachineeya but it is an effect of jnAna-abhAva. Further they have an allergy for any mithyA-vastu which is considered as bhAvarupa. Even after being explained that bhAvarupa is to be understood like smritirupa i.e. 'as though existent', they say how can some mithyA vastu which is solid/concrete be negated by jnAna. In fact the negation depends on the type of jnAna and the pramANa which reveals it. I would say even quantum physics negates our understanding of solid, liquid, gas etc as everything is 99% space at quantum level and also all matter is only energy, which aligns with mAyA-shakti (avidyA-shakti) being the upAdAna even according to our shAstra. If bhAvarUpa mithyA mAyA/avidyA can be the upAdAna for all elementals starting from space onwards and if it is negated as mithyA by Upanishad vAkya-janita jnAnam, how can it be questioned by anybody?
Fourth is what is this jnAna-abhAva, which is the cause of samsAra? It cannot be svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva as it is nitya and svayamprakAsha. So the jnAna-abhAva is vritti-jnAna-abhAva which will be there even after the so-called jnAnam takes place as vritti is only momentary. So jnAna-abhAva will continue and so moksha is not possible (anirmoksha-prasanga).
There are many more such illogical claims but when unable to counter the defective reasoning the only recourse for them is to shift to pAramArthika and say this is all adhyAropa / mAyA anyway.
I am sorry Michael ji, but no amount of “Hackery” can change the fact that if suShupti was shuddha brahman, it should by all standards of common sense be called tritiya not turIya . It definitely raises the “hackles” of those who are arguing in good faith. That is why Jaishankarji was constrained to point out that this mAyA saMkhyA justification for use of 4 instead of 3 is tantamount to sophistry.
Michael Chandra Cohen
--There is no cause/effect in the Absolute nor time/space. Cause/effect is imagined only. Even in DSV, C/E is imagined. Not recognizing the ever-evident Self is abhava avidya. Abhava avidya is not something but a logical account for what appears. It is not kala krama but the presupposition to the adhyasa that must be recognized by the question itself - pratipatti krama. Not acknowledging this distinction clouds your interpretation of avidya and maya as cause and effect - a notion of Post Sankara Advaita only.
--Umpteen quotations should be convincing but apparently we need to determine Bhasyakara intention in these quotations.
//Thirdly they accept mAyA as anirvachineeya but it is an effect of jnAna-abhAva. //
Respectfully, Michael Chandra
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-EqRyL7g2tZ0GuXSQdtSvMEPpijsO4NtRE2yyMV-Z6eEA%40mail.gmail.com.
Jaishankar Narayanan
Namaste Jaishankarji,A simple and I hope, quick response.//First is abhAva as a bija / kArana.//
--There is no cause/effect in the Absolute nor time/space. Cause/effect is imagined only. Even in DSV, C/E is imagined.
Not recognizing the ever-evident Self is abhava avidya. Abhava avidya is not something but a logical account for what appears.
It is not kala krama but the presupposition to the adhyasa that must be recognized by the question itself - pratipatti krama. Not acknowledging this distinction clouds your interpretation of avidya and maya as cause and effect - a notion of Post Sankara Advaita only.
//But they propose a jnAna-abhAva which is the bijA even in sushupti.//When sushupti is spoken of from the perspective of the waking state, sushupti supporting an avyakta anirvacaniya bija, may be considered
however, so many other texts speak of sushupti as "the Self alone liberated from jivatvam" or "jiva joins its own svarupa". I can paste a dozen or more collected quotes that I'm sure you've seen and somehow discounted. Bhasyakara's intended teaching is clear, imho.
//Whenever we point to clear bhAshya statements or GaudapAda kArikA they give umpteen quotations to show sushupti and turiya are the same. Obviously there will be similarities between a drshtAnta and dArshtAntika and we have no dispute with all these quotations. But based on these similarities to claim that the drshtAnta and dArshtAntika are the same is really not common sense. //
--Umpteen quotations should be convincing but apparently we need to determine Bhasyakara intention in these quotations.I ask you, what is the argument they are routinely/always drshtAnta and what argument to take them literally?
//Thirdly they accept mAyA as anirvachineeya but it is an effect of jnAna-abhAva. //Again, the notion cause and effect when all is adhyasa only. Anirvacaniya is interpreted differently by Post Sankara Advaita and by Prasthanatraya Bhasya. Kindly consult SSSS, Hacker, Alston, Potter and that short paper I've referred more than once that summarizes and confirms several of the difficulties SSSS discovered. IMHO, these emit studies are critical to an impartial interpretation of some very technical issues. The link again,
//Further they have an allergy for any mithyA-vastu which is considered as bhAvarupa. Even after being explained that bhAvarupa is to be understood like smritirupa i.e. 'as though existent', they say how can some mithyA vastu which is solid/concrete be negated by jnAna. //This is a fair point but when you say mithyA-vastu is bhAvarupa - you give it a positive identity and that morphs into 'relative reality' or as something that can't be known as real or unreal but a bhavarupa. Though Padmapada defines a material bhavarupa avidya, I recognize later authors somehow shifted that into a quasi-ontological entity.
But, only an error can or need be falsified - the rope exists, the snake is an error only - a mistaken conception that hallucinates with fear etc. But, a bhavarupa appearance of snake must remain appearing even when it is determined to be unreal. The outcome of that thinking is Videhamukti, gauna mukti - a kind of upasana.
//Fourth is what is this jnAna-abhAva, which is the cause of samsAra? It cannot be svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva as it is nitya and svayamprakAsha. So the jnAna-abhAva is vritti-jnAna-abhAva which will be there even after the so-called jnAnam takes place as vritti is only momentary. So jnAna-abhAva will continue and so moksha is not possible (anirmoksha-prasanga). /--Sir please, this is not the argument of SSSS. I've already disclaimed your view on causation. Any vritti is adhyasa only - quite clear in SSSS and Bhasya. Please do educate yourself better on SSSS and not rely on second hand sources.
Respectfully, Michael Chandra
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Acharya Jaishankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- Hope you would bear with my tone in this mail prabhuji. No one can withstand personal attacks on one’s guru or parama guru.
Many of the propositions in the SSSS prakriya fail the test of common sense.
- Prabhuji, you said you don’t want to study Sri SSS prakriya and here without reading anything about it you are concluding that his prakriya fails the test of common sense😊 quite amusing to say the least.
First is abhAva as a bija / kArana. BhashyakAra does not accept any vishesha-abhAva at all and considers them to be bhAvarupa. But they propose a jnAna-abhAva which is the bijA even in sushupti.
- Tattva apratibodha accepted in prAjnA i.e. in the form of jnAnAbhAva. tattvaapratibOdhamAtram eva hi beejaM praajnatve nimittaM, not saying by me or Sri SSS, it is said by bhAshyakAra while commenting on kArika. And there is no room to infer here there is material cause for this apratibOdha in the form of bhAvarUpa mUlAvidyA.
Bhaskar ji even claims that abhAva can be a cause and produce an effect,
- My dear prabhuji, how abhAva can give the room for adhyAsa has been explained several times, if you are not able to understand it I cannot help it 😊 It is not kAraNa – kArya sambandha that is intended here like avidyA is an existing thing and it delivers the baby called adhyAsa….It is only mUlAvidyAvAdins who is propagating this illogical theory that anirvachaneeya mUlAvidyA is the mother of three types of avidyA.
but bhAshyakAra has clearly written in both Taittiriya and BG Bhashya that 'akarane pratyavAyah' is not tenable as abhAva cannot cause anything.
- Don’t you think your ananubhava / abhAva of Sri SSS works and its understanding causing the wrong conclusions (mithyA jnAna) about him and his works 😊 adhyAsa is anAdi, naisarkika and svAbhAvika lOka vyavahAra due to absence of svarUpa jnAna, don’t you understand this simple thing that too being a full time vedAntin prabhuji??
The analogy he gave was that the parent's absence causes children to do mischief. Absence cannot cause anything.
- Yes I have given this example to say that jnAnAbhAva is not the upAdAna kAraNa for my kids mischief. It is only ‘Aspada’ that my kids behave mischievously in my absence. If you don’t understand this simple example then I don’t know in what way I can help you. I have also given another example an empty space would give room to cobweb formation and we should not decide that empty space is material cause for cobwebs. Again I am not saying this nor Sri SSS, it is vArtikakAra who is saying jnAnAbhAva is the Aspada / kAraNa (just for the conveying purpose, don’t pull my legs again for saying abhAva is kAraNa 😊) and without the absence of correct knowledge mistaken knowledge can never ever arise. In simple terms for your ready reference, the avidyA is in the form of jnAnAbhAva is nothing short or nothing more than the ignorance of the jeeva about himself. Call it ajnAna or agrahaNa, avidyA is solely this from the abhAva perspective.
It is the nature of children to do mischief and your presence constrains them.
- That is not the point here, please understand the example, it is said that my absence is NOT the material cause for their mischief. If you say it is their svAbhAvika nature then also it is well and good, no need for any upAdAna kAraNa for that and this is what bhAshyakAra too said adhyAsa is naisargika lOka vyavahAra and svAbhAvika. So in both ways your attack on my example is meaningless.
In the shastra it is said that the presence of Mani, Mantra, Aushada etc causes the fire to not burn. Applying Bhaskar ji's logic we have to say that the absence of Mani, Mantra, Aushada etc has caused the fire to burn!
- That is your wrong example originated due to your intention to see everything within the realm of kAraNa-kArya frame work. If you are still not clear about jnAnAbhAva avidyA and resultant adhyAsa, it is just like this : jnAnAbhAva avidyA makes room for wrong understanding (mithyA-jnAna, BTW please note it is not mithyA ajnAna as you advocate in mUlAvidyA theory) in the jeeva about himself as deha, buddhi, ahamkara etc. Instead of knowing himself as brahman or IOW due to the absence of real nature of himself jeeva thinks that he is body, which he is not. And this understanding is the root of all sorrows / saMsAra. Is it clear now or you want me to still simplify it!!??
Second is the refusal to differentiate between the drshtAnta (analogy) and dArshtAntika (that which is revealed through an analogy),
- If you don’t see sAdrushya between drushtAnta and dArshtAntika there is no meaning in saying drushtAnta would reveal the purported meaning of dArshtAntika. For the adhyAsa rope-snake, nacre-silver, dviteeya Chandra analogies given if these analogies do not have anything about adhyAsa these analogies simply go meaningless. Likewise, to convey the real nature of Atman (adviteeyatvaM) shAstra and bhAshyakAra gives the drushtAnta of deep sleep and samAdhi. BTW, why particularly sushupti drushtAnta given while explaining Atma sthAna / mOksha by shAstra and bhAshyakAra do you ever given any thought to it??
particularly with reference to sleep and turiya.
- My dear prabhuji, we have already discussed the difference between tureeya and prAjnA that does not anyway make you to conclude that sushupti is NOT the right drushtAnta when bhAshyakAra himself giving this example. By the way can you give any worthy drushtAnta which is fool proof to prove tureeya??
I think they have to do that as according to them jnAna-abhAva is there in sleep and so there cannot be any difference between sushupti and turiya on the basis of an abhAva.
- First read and understand what has been written in this regard and jump to the conclusions. If you still have any doubt about difference and similarities between prAjnA and tureeya please refer kArikA and kArikA bhAshya.
Whenever we point to clear bhAshya statements or GaudapAda kArikA they give umpteen quotations to show sushupti and turiya are the same. Obviously there will be similarities between a drshtAnta and dArshtAntika and we have no dispute with all these quotations.
- If that is the true stand of yours, do you still think your above attacks on Sri SSS and his perspectives is any worthy refutations??
But based on these similarities to claim that the drshtAnta and dArshtAntika are the same is really not common sense.
- No one saying paramArtha jnAni and sleeper are one and the same. Please stop this baseless allegations on us.
My Guru Swami Dayananda ji used to say to teach Vedanta avastha-traya prakriya is not necessary as most upanishads and BG do not use this prakriya.
- Do you mean to say your guru said shruti and bhAshyakAra wasted time and energy about it?? Do I have to show you where in geeta bhAshyakAra talks about the avasthAtraya prakriya??
In fact one vAkya from kenopanishad (2.4) and one verse from BG (2.16) is good enough to teach satyam-mithya and the vision of Vedanta.
- Do you want me to highlight what bhAshyakAra says in his introduction to mAndukya Upanishad??
Thirdly they accept mAyA as anirvachineeya but it is an effect of jnAna-abhAva.
- mAyA is anirvachaneeya this is what bhAshyakAra says. But mAyA is not your pet theory bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa bhAva rUpa avidyA 😊
Further they have an allergy for any mithyA-vastu which is considered as bhAvarupa.
- We have allergy to bhAshya bAhira / anubhava viruddha theories which would distraught the very beauty of mUla shankara bhAshya which is shruti, yukti and anubhava sammata.
Even after being explained that bhAvarupa is to be understood like smritirupa i.e. 'as though existent', they say how can some mithyA vastu which is solid/concrete be negated by jnAna.
- Mind you, you are not only the propagator of jnAnAdhyAsa but arthAdhyAsa as well.
In fact the negation depends on the type of jnAna and the pramANa which reveals it.
- And by giving various pramANa-s you are trying to establish the solid existence of bhAva rUpa / Dravya rUpa avidyA which is uninterrupted even in ekAtma pratyayaM. It is due to this you treat even darkness as a solid thing like chair and tables 😊
I would say even quantum physics negates our understanding of solid, liquid, gas etc as everything is 99% space at quantum level and also all matter is only energy, which aligns with mAyA-shakti (avidyA-shakti) being the upAdAna even according to our shAstra.
- I don’t know anything about science, but mAyA shakti is NOT avidyA shakti at any stretch of your imagination 😊 mAyA shakti is IshwarAbhinna, and if this shakti is avidyA then your brahman will always be endowed with avidyA and he needs to be addressed as avidyAvanta and instead of calling him sarvashakta you have to call him ‘most stupid entity’ on the earth 😊
If bhAvarUpa mithyA mAyA/avidyA can be the upAdAna for all elementals starting from space onwards and if it is negated as mithyA by Upanishad vAkya-janita jnAnam, how can it be questioned by anybody?
- My dear prabhuji, you have the pet theory that avidyA is brahmAshrita and it conceals even brahman through its shakti, no amount of jeeva level sAdhana can eliminate this brahmAbhinna avidyA coz. even before the jeeva / nAma / rUpa this avidyA has to be there in brahman itself..So no amount of second tier sAdhana at jeeva level can eliminate the avidyA that exists even before jeeva.
Fourth is what is this jnAna-abhAva, which is the cause of samsAra?
- Again the cause of saMsAra is not jnAna abhAva but adhyAsa, the jnAnAbhAva is not the motivator. avidyA in the form of jnAnAbhAva is not responsible for differentiation because it is uniform. (prAgabhAva, pradhvaMsa, atyanta anyOnya abhAva etc. is not talked here) na cha avidyA kevalA vaishamyasya kAraNaM ‘ekarUpatvAt’ clarifies bhAshyakAra. The cause of saMsAra, sukha-duHkha etc. is due to adhyAsa thinking about himself as kartru-bhOktru etc.
It cannot be svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva as it is nitya and svayamprakAsha. So the jnAna-abhAva is vritti-jnAna-abhAva which will be there even after the so-called jnAnam takes place as vritti is only momentary. So jnAna-abhAva will continue and so moksha is not possible (anirmoksha-prasanga).
- Ha! Ha! What a conclusion…don’t think worthy of any response.
There are many more such illogical claims but when unable to counter the defective reasoning the only recourse for them is to shift to pAramArthika and say this is all adhyAropa / mAyA anyway.
Ø So in your books there no paramArtika, no adhyArOpa-apavAda etc. it is only in Sri SSS books is it??
- I once again asked for the forgiveness, but I never expected a full time sAdhaka in the jnAna mArga is so prejudiced like this about a sAdhu-sanyAsi who spent more than 6 decades in the path of jnAna mArga.
Jaishankar Narayanan
praNAms Sri Acharya Jaishankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- Hope you would bear with my tone in this mail prabhuji. No one can withstand personal attacks on one’s guru or parama guru.
Many of the propositions in the SSSS prakriya fail the test of common sense.
- Prabhuji, you said you don’t want to study Sri SSS prakriya and here without reading anything about it you are concluding that his prakriya fails the test of common sense😊 quite amusing to say the least.
First is abhAva as a bija / kArana. BhashyakAra does not accept any vishesha-abhAva at all and considers them to be bhAvarupa. But they propose a jnAna-abhAva which is the bijA even in sushupti.
- Tattva apratibodha accepted in prAjnA i.e. in the form of jnAnAbhAva. tattvaapratibOdhamAtram eva hi beejaM praajnatve nimittaM, not saying by me or Sri SSS, it is said by bhAshyakAra while commenting on kArika. And there is no room to infer here there is material cause for this apratibOdha in the form of bhAvarUpa mUlAvidyA.
upAdAna-kArana is defined as follows in different traditional texts
1. कार्याभिन्नकारणं – The cause which is non-different from the effect like even the clay is non-different from clay-pot.
2. कार्यान्वितम् कारणं - The cause which inheres in the effect like even the clay inheres in the clay-pot.
3. कार्याधारत्वे सति कार्यजनिहेतुः – that which becomes the cause for the production / creation of the effect being the support / foundation / basis of the effect.
Bhaskar ji even claims that abhAva can be a cause and produce an effect,
- My dear prabhuji, how abhAva can give the room for adhyAsa has been explained several times, if you are not able to understand it I cannot help it 😊 It is not kAraNa – kArya sambandha that is intended here like avidyA is an existing thing and it delivers the baby called adhyAsa….It is only mUlAvidyAvAdins who is propagating this illogical theory that anirvachaneeya mUlAvidyA is the mother of three types of avidyA.
but bhAshyakAra has clearly written in both Taittiriya and BG Bhashya that 'akarane pratyavAyah' is not tenable as abhAva cannot cause anything.
- Don’t you think your ananubhava / abhAva of Sri SSS works and its understanding causing the wrong conclusions (mithyA jnAna) about him and his works 😊 adhyAsa is anAdi, naisarkika and svAbhAvika lOka vyavahAra due to absence of svarUpa jnAna, don’t you understand this simple thing that too being a full time vedAntin prabhuji??
The analogy he gave was that the parent's absence causes children to do mischief. Absence cannot cause anything.
- Yes I have given this example to say that jnAnAbhAva is not the upAdAna kAraNa for my kids mischief. It is only ‘Aspada’ that my kids behave mischievously in my absence. If you don’t understand this simple example then I don’t know in what way I can help you. I have also given another example an empty space would give room to cobweb formation and we should not decide that empty space is material cause for cobwebs. Again I am not saying this nor Sri SSS, it is vArtikakAra who is saying jnAnAbhAva is the Aspada / kAraNa (just for the conveying purpose, don’t pull my legs again for saying abhAva is kAraNa 😊) and without the absence of correct knowledge mistaken knowledge can never ever arise. In simple terms for your ready reference, the avidyA is in the form of jnAnAbhAva is nothing short or nothing more than the ignorance of the jeeva about himself. Call it ajnAna or agrahaNa, avidyA is solely this from the abhAva perspective.
It is the nature of children to do mischief and your presence constrains them.
- That is not the point here, please understand the example, it is said that my absence is NOT the material cause for their mischief. If you say it is their svAbhAvika nature then also it is well and good, no need for any upAdAna kAraNa for that and this is what bhAshyakAra too said adhyAsa is naisargika lOka vyavahAra and svAbhAvika. So in both ways your attack on my example is meaningless.
In the shastra it is said that the presence of Mani, Mantra, Aushada etc causes the fire to not burn. Applying Bhaskar ji's logic we have to say that the absence of Mani, Mantra, Aushada etc has caused the fire to burn!
- That is your wrong example originated due to your intention to see everything within the realm of kAraNa-kArya frame work. If you are still not clear about jnAnAbhAva avidyA and resultant adhyAsa, it is just like this : jnAnAbhAva avidyA makes room for wrong understanding (mithyA-jnAna, BTW please note it is not mithyA ajnAna as you advocate in mUlAvidyA theory) in the jeeva about himself as deha, buddhi, ahamkara etc. Instead of knowing himself as brahman or IOW due to the absence of real nature of himself jeeva thinks that he is body, which he is not. And this understanding is the root of all sorrows / saMsAra. Is it clear now or you want me to still simplify it!!??
प्राज्ञः कारणबद्धस्तु द्वौ तौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः ॥ १. ११ ॥
prājñaḥ kāraṇabaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyataḥ ॥ 1. 11 ॥
Second is the refusal to differentiate between the drshtAnta (analogy) and dArshtAntika (that which is revealed through an analogy),
- If you don’t see sAdrushya between drushtAnta and dArshtAntika there is no meaning in saying drushtAnta would reveal the purported meaning of dArshtAntika. For the adhyAsa rope-snake, nacre-silver, dviteeya Chandra analogies given if these analogies do not have anything about adhyAsa these analogies simply go meaningless. Likewise, to convey the real nature of Atman (adviteeyatvaM) shAstra and bhAshyakAra gives the drushtAnta of deep sleep and samAdhi. BTW, why particularly sushupti drushtAnta given while explaining Atma sthAna / mOksha by shAstra and bhAshyakAra do you ever given any thought to it??
particularly with reference to sleep and turiya.
- My dear prabhuji, we have already discussed the difference between tureeya and prAjnA that does not anyway make you to conclude that sushupti is NOT the right drushtAnta when bhAshyakAra himself giving this example. By the way can you give any worthy drushtAnta which is fool proof to prove tureeya??
I think they have to do that as according to them jnAna-abhAva is there in sleep and so there cannot be any difference between sushupti and turiya on the basis of an abhAva.
- First read and understand what has been written in this regard and jump to the conclusions. If you still have any doubt about difference and similarities between prAjnA and tureeya please refer kArikA and kArikA bhAshya.
Whenever we point to clear bhAshya statements or GaudapAda kArikA they give umpteen quotations to show sushupti and turiya are the same. Obviously there will be similarities between a drshtAnta and dArshtAntika and we have no dispute with all these quotations.
- If that is the true stand of yours, do you still think your above attacks on Sri SSS and his perspectives is any worthy refutations??
But based on these similarities to claim that the drshtAnta and dArshtAntika are the same is really not common sense.
- No one saying paramArtha jnAni and sleeper are one and the same. Please stop this baseless allegations on us.
My Guru Swami Dayananda ji used to say to teach Vedanta avastha-traya prakriya is not necessary as most upanishads and BG do not use this prakriya.
- Do you mean to say your guru said shruti and bhAshyakAra wasted time and energy about it?? Do I have to show you where in geeta bhAshyakAra talks about the avasthAtraya prakriya??
In fact one vAkya from kenopanishad (2.4) and one verse from BG (2.16) is good enough to teach satyam-mithya and the vision of Vedanta.
- Do you want me to highlight what bhAshyakAra says in his introduction to mAndukya Upanishad??
Thirdly they accept mAyA as anirvachineeya but it is an effect of jnAna-abhAva.
- mAyA is anirvachaneeya this is what bhAshyakAra says. But mAyA is not your pet theory bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa bhAva rUpa avidyA 😊
Further they have an allergy for any mithyA-vastu which is considered as bhAvarupa.
- We have allergy to bhAshya bAhira / anubhava viruddha theories which would distraught the very beauty of mUla shankara bhAshya which is shruti, yukti and anubhava sammata.
Even after being explained that bhAvarupa is to be understood like smritirupa i.e. 'as though existent', they say how can some mithyA vastu which is solid/concrete be negated by jnAna.
- Mind you, you are not only the propagator of jnAnAdhyAsa but arthAdhyAsa as well.
In fact the negation depends on the type of jnAna and the pramANa which reveals it.
- And by giving various pramANa-s you are trying to establish the solid existence of bhAva rUpa / Dravya rUpa avidyA which is uninterrupted even in ekAtma pratyayaM. It is due to this you treat even darkness as a solid thing like chair and tables 😊
I would say even quantum physics negates our understanding of solid, liquid, gas etc as everything is 99% space at quantum level and also all matter is only energy, which aligns with mAyA-shakti (avidyA-shakti) being the upAdAna even according to our shAstra.
- I don’t know anything about science, but mAyA shakti is NOT avidyA shakti at any stretch of your imagination 😊 mAyA shakti is IshwarAbhinna, and if this shakti is avidyA then your brahman will always be endowed with avidyA and he needs to be addressed as avidyAvanta and instead of calling him sarvashakta you have to call him ‘most stupid entity’ on the earth 😊
If bhAvarUpa mithyA mAyA/avidyA can be the upAdAna for all elementals starting from space onwards and if it is negated as mithyA by Upanishad vAkya-janita jnAnam, how can it be questioned by anybody?
- My dear prabhuji, you have the pet theory that avidyA is brahmAshrita and it conceals even brahman through its shakti, no amount of jeeva level sAdhana can eliminate this brahmAbhinna avidyA coz. even before the jeeva / nAma / rUpa this avidyA has to be there in brahman itself..So no amount of second tier sAdhana at jeeva level can eliminate the avidyA that exists even before jeeva.
Fourth is what is this jnAna-abhAva, which is the cause of samsAra?
- Again the cause of saMsAra is not jnAna abhAva but adhyAsa, the jnAnAbhAva is not the motivator. avidyA in the form of jnAnAbhAva is not responsible for differentiation because it is uniform. (prAgabhAva, pradhvaMsa, atyanta anyOnya abhAva etc. is not talked here) na cha avidyA kevalA vaishamyasya kAraNaM ‘ekarUpatvAt’ clarifies bhAshyakAra. The cause of saMsAra, sukha-duHkha etc. is due to adhyAsa thinking about himself as kartru-bhOktru etc.
It cannot be svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva as it is nitya and svayamprakAsha. So the jnAna-abhAva is vritti-jnAna-abhAva which will be there even after the so-called jnAnam takes place as vritti is only momentary. So jnAna-abhAva will continue and so moksha is not possible (anirmoksha-prasanga).
- Ha! Ha! What a conclusion…don’t think worthy of any response.
There are many more such illogical claims but when unable to counter the defective reasoning the only recourse for them is to shift to pAramArthika and say this is all adhyAropa / mAyA anyway.
Ø So in your books there no paramArtika, no adhyArOpa-apavAda etc. it is only in Sri SSS books is it??
- I once again asked for the forgiveness, but I never expected a full time sAdhaka in the jnAna mArga is so prejudiced like this about a sAdhu-sanyAsi who spent more than 6 decades in the path of jnAna mArga.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
Michael Chandra Cohen
The Vivaraṇa school of Advaita Vedānta (founded on Padmapāda’s Pañcapādikā and elaborated in the Vivaraṇa sub-commentaries) diverges significantly from Swami Satchidānandendra Saraswati’s (SSSS) interpretation of Śaṅkara, particularly in its understanding of cause and effect (kārya-kāraṇa-bhāva). Here is a detailed comparative analysis between the Vivaraṇa view and the SSSS/Śuddha-Śaṅkara view, with precise doctrinal contrasts and citations from authoritative texts.
🟡 I. Core Differences in the Understanding of Causality
| Aspect | Vivaraṇa School | SSSS (Śuddha-Śaṅkara View) |
|---|---|---|
| Brahman’s Role | Brahman associated with Māyā is the material and efficient cause (upādāna + nimitta) of the world. | Brahman is not truly a cause; causality is adhyāsa, imposed through avidyā alone. |
| Mūlāvidyā (root ignorance) | Affirmed as a positive beginningless entity that is indescribable (anirvacanīya), located in Brahman, and causes the projection of the world. | Rejected entirely — SSSS insists mūlāvidyā is a non-Śaṅkaran interpolation postdating Śaṅkara. |
| Cause–Effect Status | Empirical (vyāvahārika) causality is accepted as necessary for explaining the world’s manifestation. | Cause-effect relation is notional and only due to ignorance, not even empirically valid ultimately. |
| Explanation of Creation | The world is a projection (vivarta) by avidyā (mūlāvidyā) associated with Brahman. | The world is superimposition due to mutual adhyāsa; no real or even empirically valid creation exists. |
| Māyā as Upādhi | Māyā is a positive, beginningless, indefinable power that limits Brahman and produces names/forms. | Māyā is not a power; it is a conceptual error (bhrānti) born of superimposition, not a real upādhi. |
🟢 II. Authoritative Citations
📘 Vivaraṇa School Citations
-
Padmapāda, Pañcapādikā (on Brahmasūtra 1.1.1):
māyā hi nāma anādi-brahmāśrita-anirvacanīya-śaktiḥ… saguṇasya brahmaṇaḥ kārya-janakatve nimitta-upādāna-rūpeṇa vyavasthitā.
Translation: Māyā is a beginningless, indescribable power, dependent on Brahman, which functions as both the efficient and material cause of the world.
-
Prakāśātman’s Vivaraṇa:
mūlāvidyāyāṁ satyāṁ sarva-vyavahāraḥ sambhavati.
Translation: All empirical activity becomes possible only if mūlāvidyā exists.
-
Brahmānandī, in Kalpataru (on BS 2.1.14):
mūlāvidyā saguṇa-brahmaṇi vartate... tayā jagat pariṇatam.
Translation: Mūlāvidyā exists in saguṇa Brahman and from it the world has evolved.
📕 SSSS Rebuttals
-
Mūlāvidyānirāsa, p. 13:
“na kvāpi Śaṅkarabhāṣye mūlāvidyā-śabdaḥ prayuktaḥ... idam sarvaṁ prakalpitaṁ vivartam, na tu vastu-pariṇāmaḥ.”
Translation: Nowhere in Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya is the term mūlāvidyā used. All this is imagined appearance (vivarta), not real transformation.
-
Vedānta Prakriyā Pratyabhijñā (VPP), p. 93:
“kāraṇa-kārya-bhāvaḥ adhyāsitaḥ — na tu satyaḥ; yāvat avidyā, tāvat vyavahāraḥ.”
Translation: The relation of cause and effect is superimposed, not real. As long as ignorance persists, transactional life continues.
-
Adhyāsa Bhāṣya Commentary (by SSSS):
“adhyāsa eva sarva-vyavahāra-bījam... prapañcasya mūla-kāraṇaṁ iti yad ucyate, tad avidyā-dṛṣṭyā matam.”
Translation: Superimposition alone is the seed of all worldly activity. When it is said that Brahman is the cause of the world, it is so only from the standpoint of ignorance.
🔴 III. Philosophical Consequences
| Consequence | Vivaraṇa | SSSS |
|---|---|---|
| Creation of World | Requires mūlāvidyā as causal basis | Creation is unreal, a mistaken appearance (vivarta) |
| Brahman’s Involvement | Brahman with māyā-śakti creates world | Brahman remains untouched by the world |
| Status of Empirical World | Mithyā, but has structured causal dependence | Mithyā, but with no real dependence, only adhyāsa |
| Path to Liberation | Removal of mūlāvidyā through aparokṣa-jñāna | Removal of adhyāsa through clear discrimination (viveka) |
✅ Conclusion
| Summary | Vivaraṇa | SSSS |
|---|---|---|
| Affirms mūlāvidyā | Yes – as the cause of appearance of jagat and jīva | No – considers it a post-Śaṅkara error |
| Brahman as cause | Saguṇa Brahman + Māyā = cause of the universe | Brahman is never the cause; cause-effect is projected through adhyāsa |
| Causal explanation of the world | Essential, based on anirvacanīya-khyāti and mūlāvidyā | Entirely mithyā, not even a valid empirical relationship |
| Śaṅkara’s authentic view (SSSS) | Vivaraṇa view distorts Śaṅkara by inserting causal models absent in bhāṣya | Restores Śaṅkara’s pure epistemological non-dualism based on adhyāsa and vivarta-vāda |
If you'd like, I can also show specific Upaniṣadic passages that Vivaraṇa and SSSS interpret differently in light of this debate (e.g., tat tvam asi, satyam jñānam anantam, māyāṁ tu prakṛtiṁ vidyān).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-Ei%2Bqs7k-aDm5WcSwjan_oTSRObwgExCtt3K3s5EpoitA%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael Chandra Cohen
V Subrahmanian
Mūlāvidyānirāsa, p. 13:
“na kvāpi Śaṅkarabhāṣye mūlāvidyā-śabdaḥ prayuktaḥ... idam sarvaṁ prakalpitaṁ vivartam, na tu vastu-pariṇāmaḥ.”
Translation: Nowhere in Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya is the term mūlāvidyā used. All this is imagined appearance (vivarta), not real transformation. //
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te37ntfh4wCxyrc2E7ysFVgHiayE16U%2B8EyRT2ujaM5aQg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
//
1. Mūlāvidyānirāsa, p. 13:
“na kvāpi Śaṅkarabhāṣye mūlāvidyā-śabdaḥ prayuktaḥ... idam sarvaṁ prakalpitaṁ vivartam, na tu vastu-pariṇāmaḥ.”
Translation: Nowhere in Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya is the term mūlāvidyā used. All this is imagined appearance (vivarta), not real transformation. //
A counter to that, would be, to reproduce from the rival schools of Advaita: Nowhere in the Principal Upanishads, the Bh.Gita and the Brahma sutras are the terms 'adhyāsa, adhyāropa-apavāda, anirvachaniya, etc.' are used.
Ø So bhAshyakAra used these terms irrationally and without any support from any upanishads in his bhAshya 😊 BTW, adhyArOpa-apavAda used in Upanishad I don’t remember the Upanishad name now. mUlAvidyA which is fourth (tureeya 😊) which gives birth to three types of avidyA is conspicuously absent in both PTB and Upanishads. Atleast for the terms mentioned above as ‘counter’ have the support in PTB but mUlAvidyA neither finds a place in PTB nor in shruti-s. It really absurd that shankara anuyAyi-s doubting these terms, its usage and significance in the zeal of defending something extraneous to shankara bhAshya 😊
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Yes, the mere absence of terms like mulavidya from Bhasya and adhyasa. etc from sruti does not deny their possibility but it does put a further burden of proof to explain intention.
- Yes, the context in which it is explained and its role in jignAsa etc. is what matters, and most importantly mUlAvidyA as interpreted by later vyakhyAnakAra-s does not serve any purpose and Advaita siddhAnta as advocated by mUlAchArya remains quite intact even without it, it is quite unnecessary in shankara bhAshya or understanding the nature of avidyA. Whereas OTOH, adhyAsa though does not found any place in any of the Upanishads or sUtra-s, shankara taken all the pains to explain this term exhaustively in his preamble to sUtra and most of the places in his PTB. It is also worth noting that while explaining the adhyAsa he avoids citing any pramANa or logic as it is quite evident in our day to day transactions. Hence he gives normal / lOkArUdhi examples to define this terms without resorting to some classical and logical references.
What about the rest of the Chat's presentation? Are its definitions and distinctions accurate, do you think?
- What would be the answer you are expecting from them?? Don’t you think the answer that you are going to get is quite obvious here 😊
Bhaskar YR
|
Māyā as Upādhi |
Māyā is a positive, beginningless, indefinable power that limits Brahman and produces names/forms. |
Māyā is not a power; it is a conceptual error (bhrānti) born of superimposition, not a real upādhi. |
praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna
mAya as per vivaraNa not different from avidyA, it is anirvachaneeya avidyA shakti that limits brahman. So here mAya can be used as synonym with avidyA and as per them brahman’s upAdhi is avidyA / mAya. Whereas as mAya as a separate thing from brahman is not accepted by Sri SSS in srushti prakriya, it is not brahmAbhinna to say that mAya is brahman’s upAdhi / shakti. It is a adhyAsa to think about mAyA as upAdhi to brahman to make the avyAkruta (unmanifest) as vyAkruta. In one of his works he observes that in shruti-s like chAdOgya, bruhadAraNyaka and other shruties teach the essential unity of the world with the non-dual Atman or brahman are appealed to. It follows that the apparent world as we are aware of is only the effect of mAyA and is ‘essentially identical with and has no ‘independent’ existence apart from brahman. The effect with qualities like sound etc. never exists ‘except’ in its essential forms as the cause whether now or before the creation. To strengthen this stand Sri SSS quotes araMbhaNAdhikaraNa bhAshya and highlights the bhAshyakAra’s conclusion : therefore it must be concluded that just as ghatAkAsha, patAkAsha and other apparent spaces are NOT other than the ONE mahAkAsha, for that appearances are of the nature of being perceived and vanishing, undefinable in their apparent nature, so also this manifold world of the experienced and experiences is NOT other than brahman in essence. And he finishes his observation with this note : the clarification of the concept of mAyA is to be found nowhere else except oin shankara’s exposition. Empirically speaking, mAyA is the causal potentiality of the world projected by avidyA or superimposition, it is but a special aspect of brahman which evolves itself into the world. But brahman in its true and real nature is above all causation.
V Subrahmanian
praNAms
Hare Krishna
//
1. Mūlāvidyānirāsa, p. 13:
“na kvāpi Śaṅkarabhāṣye mūlāvidyā-śabdaḥ prayuktaḥ... idam sarvaṁ prakalpitaṁ vivartam, na tu vastu-pariṇāmaḥ.”
Translation: Nowhere in Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya is the term mūlāvidyā used. All this is imagined appearance (vivarta), not real transformation. //
A counter to that, would be, to reproduce from the rival schools of Advaita: Nowhere in the Principal Upanishads, the Bh.Gita and the Brahma sutras are the terms 'adhyāsa, adhyāropa-apavāda, anirvachaniya, etc.' are used.
Ø So bhAshyakAra used these terms irrationally and without any support from any upanishads in his bhAshya 😊 BTW, adhyArOpa-apavAda used in Upanishad I don’t remember the Upanishad name now.
regards
mUlAvidyA which is fourth (tureeya 😊) which gives birth to three types of avidyA is conspicuously absent in both PTB and Upanishads. Atleast for the terms mentioned above as ‘counter’ have the support in PTB but mUlAvidyA neither finds a place in PTB nor in shruti-s. It really absurd that shankara anuyAyi-s doubting these terms, its usage and significance in the zeal of defending something extraneous to shankara bhAshya 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662536D3D183C63401418AE58445A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
Also, the avidya lesha is mapped by the PSA to Shankara's 'samskara' in the bhashya
praNAms Hare Krishna
No mUlAvidyA is NOT even saMskAra rUpa, please if you don’t know that please refer vivaraNa’s explanation about the ‘mUlAvidyA’.
V Subrahmanian
Also, the avidya lesha is mapped by the PSA to Shankara's 'samskara' in the bhashya
praNAms Hare Krishna
No mUlAvidyA is NOT even saMskAra rUpa, please if you don’t know that please refer vivaraNa’s explanation about the ‘mUlAvidyA’.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662539222B7B758630C33C378445A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Acharya Jai Shankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I am not offended by your tone. I appreciate your passionate but insufficient defence of your Guru's propositions. See below.
Ø Thanks for this encouragement 😊 yes any amount of defense is not sufficient when we have already decided it is wrong 😊 So no surprise in your comment.
- Prabhuji, you said you don’t want to study Sri SSS prakriya and here without reading anything about it you are concluding that his prakriya fails the test of common sense😊 quite amusing to say the least.
Jai: I have studied a little bit and I am studying a lot of what his followers are writing here. I think that is good enough.
Ø Then just keep in mind you are just trying to refute ( you are failing in that also anyways 😊) what his followers saying not Sri SSS directly. So you can make your (wrong) conclusions on what his followers saying not on Sri SSS. I hope you agree a bit and piece study selectively does not serve the meaningful purpose of refutation.
Jai: I think instead of material cause you should use upAdAna. Such usage of English words are confusing you. UpAdAna kAraNa always need not be material. For example mAyA is the upAdAna for the entire subtle world and also akAsha onwards in the physical world. Can you call it material?
Ø No I call it as brahma shakti and there is no difference between brahma and its shakti. Whereas in your books mAyA and avidyA are samAnArthaka pada, you are saying brahma having the avidyA as his upAdAna. So this is untenable when shanakara saying there is no bedha between shakti and shaktivanta.
upAdAna-kArana is defined as follows in different traditional texts
1. कार्याभिन्नकारणं – The cause which is non-different from the effect like even the clay is non-different from clay-pot.
- > We don’t say kAraNa is non-different from kArya we say effect is non different from cause
2. कार्यान्वितम् कारणं - The cause which inheres in the effect like even the clay inheres in the clay-pot.
> Yes there is no independent existence of the effect apart from its cause.
+
3. कार्याधारत्वे सति कार्यजनिहेतुः – that which becomes the cause for the production / creation of the effect being the support / foundation / basis of the effect.
Now in all these definitions there is no mention of whether upAdAna is a material like solid, liquid, gas, plasma etc.
- Don’t you think the kArya pot is made up of material clay?? And in the jagat or srushti prakriya, brahman is the both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa (abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa). I don’t know how do you bring this theory to prove mUlAvidyA is upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa. You may educate me further on this.
It is the cause which is found wherever the effect is found.
- But adhyAsa is not an effect like pot is an effect of kAraNa clay. adhyAsa is not kriya kAraka phala, it does not happen or originated at some point of time to say there was some kAraNa which gives birth to kArya adhyAsa. It is anAdi. anAdiH anantaH naisargikOdhyAsaH, sarva lOka pratyakshaH is the clarification.
In fact, the effect cannot even be cognised without cognising the upAdAna-kAranA. Even modern science says that matter can be both wave and particle (anirvachanIya) and also matter and energy are interchangeable. So, in reality a cause need not be a material in the sense we normally understand at the macro level, which is all only an appearance / Maya. Since adhyAsa cannot be cognised without adhisthana-avidya being there so, it is the upAdAna kAraNa of adhyAsa.
Ø All these definitions fits only if you accept adhyAsa is kArya. It is just mithyA pratyaya rUpa, pratyaya here is cognition a wrong cognition. It is all about our wrong cognition about Atma / real svarUpa. Which is anAdi not the result of some kArya-kAraNa prakriya. There is no sAdrushya between Atma and anAtma here to prove kArya kAraNa prakriya, it can not be logically proved either but it is there in your anubhava so you have to accept it. There is no particular kAraNa for this naisargika / svAbhAvika anAdi adhyAsa.
So Tattva apratibodha as a kAraNa is acceptable to you which 'exists' as an AvaraNa as explained by Bhagavan in BG 5.15. BhashyakAra also says in his bhAshya that ajnAna covers the tattvajnAna. This makes sense as tattvajnAna is already there in mAyA-shabala sarvajna Ishvara but it has to be covered by the same mAyAshakti as avidyA for jIva to do vyavahAra as an individual samsAri.
Ø It has already been said that agrahaNa that exist in sushupti means not cognizing this is the common meaning that can be adduced to it as jeeva enters sushupti being avidyAvanta ( yet to get the jnAna). But you are trying to push the theory of mulAvidyA, taking beeja as mulAvidyA which is upAdAna KAraNa, convers / conceals brahman itself in sushupti even in the absence of jeevatva, it has the locus (Ashraya) in brahman and have the potency to cover brahman itself etc. etc. these theories are no need to mention quite alien to Shuddha shankara vedAnta.
Jai: SSSS claims that adhyAsa / avidya is only atasmin tadbuddhih as given in AdhyAsa-bhAshya. This atasmin tadbuddhi which is kArya-adhyAsa ends every night during sleep and starts every time one wakes up. So it cannot be anAdi, naisarkika etc. So you have to accept a kAraNa adhyAsa which is anAdi, naisarkika etc (mulAvidya) as mentioned by kArika and bhAshyakAra in Mandukya which gives rise to the kArya which dvaita-grahaNa.
Ø Again some superfluous theory about adhyAsa. adhyAsa has another adhyAsa is quite untenable here. And finding the kAraNa mUlAvidyA is also not quite in line with adhyAsa as explained by bhAshyakAra in adhyAsa bhAshya. As said kArya as adhyAsa and kAraNa as mUlAvidyA is dvaita and this whole thing of duality is adhyAsta ( a misconceived notion). So please note unless there is misconception you cannot start query about these things.
Jai: There is no absence of correct knowledge. Correct knowledge already exists in Ishvara upAdhi and it is covered for jIva. The correct knowledge has to already exist potentially for even jIva to make an effort to gain that correct knowledge.
- Please note jeeva has to make an effort to eradicate his wrong knowledge so that the right knowledge shines on its own. As his very svarUpa is jnAnaM which is self-effulgent. If you know / realize that you have the correct knowledge of your svarUpa there is no avidyA whatsoever to anyone. And you are not supposed to say jeeva is not supposed to suffer from the absence of correct knowledge. You are seeing silver in place of nacre that is there is teaching this is a nacre not silver. Same way, due to the absence of knowledge of your svarUpa you are taking anatman as Atman, so shAstra instructed you tattvamasi. shAstra would not have instructed that brahma is one and all this is verily brahman, all this is Atman alone etc. if you already have the correct knowledge of your adviteeyatvaM. So you have to accept that in lOka vyavahAra you are seeing snake due to lack of knowledge of rope and in shAstra vyavahAra you are devoid of your svarUpa jnAna and hence taking your self as something else.
So it is absurd to talk about absence of correct knowledge although an ajnAni may say 'I don't have knowledge of something' which is due to AvaraNa.
Ø Ayyo rAma, it is not rocket science, your ajnAna about your self is just because of absence of correct knowledge about yourself.
Jai: It is absurd to claim that abhAva makes room for anything as only existing things can make room or cause something to manifest. And if abhAva makes room why should it be only jnAna-abhAva and not gagabugan abhAva? Further I am not seeing everything in kAraNa-kArya framework but it is GaudapAda and Shankara
कार्यकारणबद्धौ
ताविष्येते
विश्वतैजसौ
।
प्राज्ञः
कारणबद्धस्तु
द्वौ
तौ
तुर्ये
न
सिध्यतः
॥
१. ११
॥
kāryakāraṇabaddhau tāviṣyete viśvataijasau
।
prājñaḥ kāraṇabaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyataḥ ॥ 1. 11
॥
- Here also kAraNa (beeja nidra) is jnAna abhAva, kArya is dvaita grahaNa. I think this kArika we have already discussed based on mAndUkya Rahasya vivrutti. Here kArya means what is produced. What is produced? Wrong knowledge about oneself. kAraNa means that which causes this. What is that? Ignorance about himself !! is it not?? That is jnAna abhAva. vishwa and taijasa are bound by both ignorance and wrong knowledge. But prAjnA is bound only by ignorance (here also please note only individuals are to be taken). prAjnA does not understand others,either unchanging or changing - that is, neither the dual world outside nor himself whereas other two understand both. They have both jnAnAbhAva and vipareeta grahaNa ( dvaita grahaNa) in them. There is no wrong knowledge (dvaita grahaNa) in prAjna. Why? Because wrong knowledge comes on the screen only in the intellect and prAjnA has no connection with it as he will be in upAdhi upashAnta sthiti. But he has the jnAnAbhAva about himself. Now the question is : is not ignorance also only in the intellect (antaHkaraNa dOsha) ? yes, but as long as there is adhyAsa in the bahirprajna Vishwa and antaH prajnA taijasa, it must be accepted that even prAjnA also has the ignorance in the form of jnAnAbhAva. Again, don’t forget ignorance here means absence of right understanding (jnAnAbhAva) it is neither jeeva rUpa / bhAvarUpa kAraNAvidyA as explained by vyAkhyAna school. So the right knowledge is the pratiyOgi of this absence. Further, the presence of wrong knowledge (adhyAsa) or the rise of the right knowledge (jnAnOdaya) is only in the antaHkaraNa/ intellect since all these are antaHkaraNa dosha that is in the bahirprajna. In that sense, ignorance (jnAnAbhava) is also only in this extrovert knower. Therefore, prAjnA from that perspective who is disconnected or disassociated with the upAdhi-s / intellect has really no ignorance refer geeta bhAshya 13.2 for further details about kshetrajna. In short, as long as the jeeva does not acquired this right knowledge, the shAstra accepts ignorance in the prAjnA as well. You have to understand this kArika’s kArya-kAraNa from this perspective.
Jai: Again raising strawman arguments. I am the one who is saying sushupti is the drshtAnta and turiya is the dArshtAntika as mentioned by bhAshyakAra in Br Up Bhashya. You people are the ones who are claiming there is no difference between sushupti and turiya based on similarities. We accept all the similarities but also the difference which is sushupti being kāraṇabaddha.
Ø Again it is clear that you are trying to draw something without canvas, it has been said umpteen times the sleeper who went to sleep with avidyA is not paramArtha jnAni. So please get your understanding right before framing accusations against us.
Jai: Please enlighten me as, from my memory I don't think there is any systematic usage of the avastha-traya in BG or the bhAshya. In the bhAshya there are couple of references to sushupti in 2.69 and 18.66 though.
Ø Atleast you must remember that there is mention of sushupti in geeta bhAshya, is this sushuptAtma is not one of the avasthA traya prakriya entity?? So please abstain your self from saying avasthAtraya prakriya is only is very few Upanishads and can be avoided in brahma jignaasa.
Jai: Please enlighten us. Although I have read that bhashyam I would like to know your take on that.
Ø I am sitting here in office and writing this mail not in my personal library. So please check it yourself what bhAshyakAra says about this smallest Upanishad and kArika bhAshya introduction. If I am right here bhAshyakAra says mAdukya is the ‘summary of the essence of all vedAntic teaching’ (vedAntArtha sAra saMgraha bhUtaM edam) or something like that. And there would be exhaustive discussion and quotes from prashna, kevan, bruhadAraNyaka, chAndOgya etc. about this sushuptAtman in particular and avasthAtraya in general.
Jai: It is not my pet theory. There is enough bhAshyA, kArikA, vArtika and Upanishad vAkyAs to arrive at this conclusion. It is in keeping with the advaita sampradAya.
Ø IMO and in the opinion of Sri SSS the Shuddha shankara siddhAnta would be better served if we deduct this mUlAvidyA vAda.
- Mind you, you are not only the propagator of jnAnAdhyAsa but arthAdhyAsa as well.
Jai: What is the issue here? There is sopAdhika and nirupAdhika adhyAsa and what happens when jnAna takes place can be explained in terms of jnAnAdhyAsa and arthAdhyAsa. Is there anything wrong in this?
Ø You say there is anirvachaneeya vyutpaati of sarpa in rajju, giving it an existing status. Which cannot be eradicated by any amount of jnAna. jnAna’s function ends revealing what is existing there, it has neither creates nor destroys anything afresh.
Jai: It is simplistic to say brahman will become avidyAvanta. Whatever is mAyA for Ishvara can be avidyA for jIva like whatever is magic for mAyAvi appears real to onlookers.
Ø Atleast from this you should accept mAya is Ishwaraadheena and avidyA is jeeva’s suffering, so as a result mAya is something different from avidyA.
Jai: Again simplistic assumptions. It is not my pet theory but bhashyakAra's. Read 1.4.10 Br Up Bhashya properly.
Ø Produce it here and share your understanding we will discuss it further.
Jai: This quotation from BSBh 2.1.36 is actually saying avidyA alone is not the cause for differences in creation as it is common (ekarUpa) to all and along with karma induced by vAsana which is anAdi it becomes the cause for samsAra. Now how can an abhAva combine with an existing vAsana induced karma? So it has to be bhAvarupa avidyA along with anAdi vAsana induced karma one becomes samsAri.
Ø What is your definition of ekarUpa ajnAna.
Jai: If you don't have a response you can laugh it off but that is not an answer.
Ø Some questions do not deserve any answer when question is framed with some pUrvAgraha.
Jai: Again using strawman arguments. Invoking of paramArthika and claiming everything is adhyAropa and mAya to escape from illogical and unreasonable claims is done by SSSS followers as a routine.
- So again you are not agreeing everything is just adhyArOpa on nishkriya / nirvishesha brahman!! shAstra upadesha is there to get rid of avidyA. Whatever logical explanations you give you have to always keep in mind that these are fundamental things in vedAnta.
This is my experience for more than 25 years, both in person and in online discussions. Recently done by Prashant Neti ji by claiming numbers are mithyA and so no importance should be given when shruti denotes atman as turIyA.
- Again you are indulging in boxing with air ( in Kannada we say gALi yodane guddAta) without understanding the tureeya svarUpa and his all pervasiveness you are trying to come to some illogical conclusions as above. I suggest you please read what has been written there atleast if you have any meaningful intention to refute it and stop reading between the lines.
Jai: In jnAna-mArga there is no room for emotions. If something is wrong it has to be seen as wrong. That is not prejudice. It is viveka.
Ø Yes that is what makes me to call spade as spade with all love and affections.
Bhaskar YR
I said avidya lesha is samskara of Shankara in the sutra bhashya.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
So it is (avidyAlesha) is NOT mUlAvidyA, that is what you mean to say here?? Please elaborate what is the difference between mUlAvidyA and avidyAlesha?? Is this traces of avidyA is not part and parcel of mother of all avidyA i.e. mUlAvidyA??
Bhaskar YR
I said avidya lesha is samskara of Shankara in the sutra bhashya.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
And how this avidyA lesha, saMskAra in ‘paramArtha jnAni’ can fit in DSV, which is as per some superior to SDV. Here bhAshyakAra (as per you) not talking about some ordinary avidyAvanta-s but clarifying that this traces of avidyA can be found in paramArtha jnAni!!?? what does it mean?? Is it not proving that this paramArtha jnAni is some one different from other jeeva-s who are full fledged avidyAvanta-s?? Is it not implying that even after paramArtha jnAna there is an individuality to some one and who is still identifying himself with his own BMI (or traces of avidyA) and he is also having the darshana of avidyA lesha with himself and complete avidyA in some other jeeva-s ?? Please note you have already denied these things are not just from bystander’s perspective but it is indeed the status of paramArtha jnAni. So, even after paramArtha jnAna the socalled SDV continues, jnAni will be having prArabdha karma phala, he is having avidyA lesha, he will be getting mOksha after eradication of this remnants of avidyA…here avidyAlesha something related to continuation of BMI of jnAni as the result of his prArabdha karma phala which already started giving its results, that means to get that avidyA lesha rahita jnAna he has to shed his mortal coil that means you are still giving undue importance to deha, which is not at all there as per ajAta vAda. Don’t you think by mentioning saMskAra you are indirectly accepting, janma, karma, karma phala etc. to even this paramArtha jnAni who is already realized that the jagat, Ishwara, other jeeva-s, IshwarAnu graha, Ishwara kAruNya etc. etc. just fancy stories in shAstra and bhAshya and shAstra and bhAshya too are just his own imagination in bhrAnti lOka ?? I am not exaggerating anything here, according to some logicians who want to deduce shruti siddhAnta with mere logic, it is just some fancy story told by shAstra and bhAshyakAra not at all real in some other module i.e. DSV. To say the least treating shAstra and bhAshyavachana like this is just a plain blasphemy. Poor Ishwara does not find even a little space in this scheme of things. A nAstika vAda.
V Subrahmanian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662526EA04CD439945CCD3118445A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
'Avidyalesha' is not mūlāvidya.
- OK, noted. avidyAlesha is something other than mUlAvidyA. Am I right??
The latter is dispelled by aparoksha jnana.
- Here you are saying that the latter (mUlAvidyA) will be effaced / eradicated by aparOksha jnAna. Am I right??
By this much the Jnani does not die. The body mind complex will live out its destined tenure.
- That means after the eradication or complete annihilation of mUlAvidyA jnAni does not die and he would continue with his BMI as destined by his prArabdha. Am I right??
Avidya lesha is that power that sustains the post-Jnana life.
- In saMskAra rUpa you are trying to say this right?? Obviously this saMskAra rUpa avidyA should have locus (ashraya) in paramArtha jnAni right?? which is that Ashraya, what is that going to give shelter to avidyA lesha ?? Is it not his antaHkaraNa?? If yes, what is that antaHkaraNa apart from mUlAvidyA?? Or avidyAlesha itself is antaHkaraNa?? Is prArabdha karma phala which is resulting in paramArtha jnAni’s BMI itself is avidyAlesha ?? is prArabdha karma phala = avidyAlesha?? What exactly the vivaraNa here, please elaborate.
That's what Shankara calls samskara. Shankara says it is on the basis of this post-Jnana life that it is called sthita prajna lakshana in the shruti/smritis. The BG shloka 'nava dvArE purE dEhi naiva kurvan na kArayan' is the statement of jivan mukti. So, your charge // means you are still giving undue importance to deha // is directed at Shankara and the Shaastra.
Ø The above can be discussed after getting the clear idea about the difference between avidyAlesha in saMskAra rUpa and mUlAvidyA and jnAni’s antaHkaraNa and his prArabdha karma phala.
Bhaskar YR
'Avidyalesha' is not mūlāvidya.
- OK, noted. avidyAlesha is something other than mUlAvidyA. Am I right??
The latter is dispelled by aparoksha jnana.
- Here you are saying that the latter (mUlAvidyA) will be effaced / eradicated by aparOksha jnAna. Am I right??
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Just a further follow up couple of queries…whether this avidyAlesha is kArya of mUlAvidyA or not?? It seems you are implying that the avidyA lesha is not kArya of mUlAvidyA (kAraNa) because you are accepting its continuation ‘even after’ eradication of its kAraNa…if not do you mean to say there is continuation of kArya even after elimination of its kAraNa!!??
And if this avidyAlesha is not mUlAvidyA, it has to be one of the other three types of avidyA i.e. saMshaya, agrahaNa or anyathAgrahaNa is it not?? What type of avidyA would remain in paramArtha jnAni as avidyAlesha??
Please clarify this also.
Jaishankar Narayanan
praNAms Sri Acharya Jai Shankar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Ø No I call it as brahma shakti and there is no difference between brahma and its shakti. Whereas in your books mAyA and avidyA are samAnArthaka pada, you are saying brahma having the avidyA as his upAdAna. So this is untenable when shanakara saying there is no bedha between shakti and shaktivanta.
- Don’t you think the kArya pot is made up of material clay?? And in the jagat or srushti prakriya, brahman is the both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa (abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa). I don’t know how do you bring this theory to prove mUlAvidyA is upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa. You may educate me further on this.
अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् ।।
अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुत्यते ।। १.४.३७१ ।।
asya dvaitendrajālasya yadupādānakāraṇam ।।
ajñānaṃ tadupāśritya brahma kāraṇamutyate ।। 1.4.371 ।।
Brahman is said to be the cause resorting to (from the standpoint of) ignorance which is the cause of the magic show of duality.
It is the cause which is found wherever the effect is found.
- But adhyAsa is not an effect like pot is an effect of kAraNa clay. adhyAsa is not kriya kAraka phala, it does not happen or originated at some point of time to say there was some kAraNa which gives birth to kArya adhyAsa. It is anAdi. anAdiH anantaH naisargikOdhyAsaH, sarva lOka pratyakshaH is the clarification.
Ø All these definitions fits only if you accept adhyAsa is kArya. It is just mithyA pratyaya rUpa, pratyaya here is cognition a wrong cognition. It is all about our wrong cognition about Atma / real svarUpa. Which is anAdi not the result of some kArya-kAraNa prakriya. There is no sAdrushya between Atma and anAtma here to prove kArya kAraNa prakriya, it can not be logically proved either but it is there in your anubhava so you have to accept it. There is no particular kAraNa for this naisargika / svAbhAvika anAdi adhyAsa.
Jai: SSSS claims that adhyAsa / avidya is only atasmin tadbuddhih as given in AdhyAsa-bhAshya. This atasmin tadbuddhi which is kArya-adhyAsa ends every night during sleep and starts every time one wakes up. So it cannot be anAdi, naisarkika etc. So you have to accept a kAraNa adhyAsa which is anAdi, naisarkika etc (mulAvidya) as mentioned by kArika and bhAshyakAra in Mandukya which gives rise to the kArya which dvaita-grahaNa.
Ø Again some superfluous theory about adhyAsa. adhyAsa has another adhyAsa is quite untenable here. And finding the kAraNa mUlAvidyA is also not quite in line with adhyAsa as explained by bhAshyakAra in adhyAsa bhAshya. As said kArya as adhyAsa and kAraNa as mUlAvidyA is dvaita and this whole thing of duality is adhyAsta ( a misconceived notion). So please note unless there is misconception you cannot start query about these things.
Ø Ayyo rAma, it is not rocket science, your ajnAna about your self is just because of absence of correct knowledge about yourself.
Jai: It is absurd to claim that abhAva makes room for anything as only existing things can make room or cause something to manifest. And if abhAva makes room why should it be only jnAna-abhAva and not gagabugan abhAva? Further I am not seeing everything in kAraNa-kArya framework but it is GaudapAda and Shankara
कार्यकारणबद्धौ ताविष्येते विश्वतैजसौ ।
प्राज्ञः कारणबद्धस्तु द्वौ तौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः ॥ १. ११ ॥
kāryakāraṇabaddhau tāviṣyete viśvataijasau ।
prājñaḥ kāraṇabaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyataḥ ॥ 1. 11 ॥
- Here also kAraNa (beeja nidra) is jnAna abhAva, kArya is dvaita grahaNa. I think this kArika we have already discussed based on mAndUkya Rahasya vivrutti. Here kArya means what is produced. What is produced? Wrong knowledge about oneself. kAraNa means that which causes this. What is that? Ignorance about himself !! is it not?? That is jnAna abhAva. vishwa and taijasa are bound by both ignorance and wrong knowledge.
- But prAjnA is bound only by ignorance (here also please note only individuals are to be taken). prAjnA does not understand others,either unchanging or changing - that is, neither the dual world outside nor himself whereas other two understand both. They have both jnAnAbhAva and vipareeta grahaNa ( dvaita grahaNa) in them. There is no wrong knowledge (dvaita grahaNa) in prAjna. Why? Because wrong knowledge comes on the screen only in the intellect and prAjnA has no connection with it as he will be in upAdhi upashAnta sthiti. But he has the jnAnAbhAva about himself. Now the question is : is not ignorance also only in the intellect (antaHkaraNa dOsha) ? yes, but as long as there is adhyAsa in the bahirprajna Vishwa and antaH prajnA taijasa, it must be accepted that even prAjnA also has the ignorance in the form of jnAnAbhAva. Again, don’t forget ignorance here means absence of right understanding (jnAnAbhAva) it is neither jeeva rUpa / bhAvarUpa kAraNAvidyA as explained by vyAkhyAna school. So the right knowledge is the pratiyOgi of this absence.
nirātmakatvānnaivālaṃ sambaddhuṃ kenacit kvacit ॥ 1.31 ॥
abhAva / absence has no relation with action or quality. Since it has no existence, it cannot be related to anything anywhere.
काणादानां हि असतः भावः, सतश्च अभावः, इति इदं मतम् अभागवतम् । अभागवतमपि न्यायवच्चेत् को दोषः इति चेत् , उच्यते — दोषवत्तु इदम् , सर्वप्रमाणविरोधात् ।
Jai: Please enlighten me as, from my memory I don't think there is any systematic usage of the avastha-traya in BG or the bhAshya. In the bhAshya there are couple of references to sushupti in 2.69 and 18.66 though.
Ø Atleast you must remember that there is mention of sushupti in geeta bhAshya, is this sushuptAtma is not one of the avasthA traya prakriya entity?? So please abstain your self from saying avasthAtraya prakriya is only is very few Upanishads and can be avoided in brahma jignaasa.
Jai: Please enlighten us. Although I have read that bhashyam I would like to know your take on that.
Ø I am sitting here in office and writing this mail not in my personal library. So please check it yourself what bhAshyakAra says about this smallest Upanishad and kArika bhAshya introduction. If I am right here bhAshyakAra says mAdukya is the ‘summary of the essence of all vedAntic teaching’ (vedAntArtha sAra saMgraha bhUtaM edam) or something like that. And there would be exhaustive discussion and quotes from prashna, kevan, bruhadAraNyaka, chAndOgya etc. about this sushuptAtman in particular and avasthAtraya in general.
- Mind you, you are not only the propagator of jnAnAdhyAsa but arthAdhyAsa as well.
Jai: What is the issue here? There is sopAdhika and nirupAdhika adhyAsa and what happens when jnAna takes place can be explained in terms of jnAnAdhyAsa and arthAdhyAsa. Is there anything wrong in this?
Ø You say there is anirvachaneeya vyutpaati of sarpa in rajju, giving it an existing status. Which cannot be eradicated by any amount of jnAna. jnAna’s function ends revealing what is existing there, it has neither creates nor destroys anything afresh.
yo'yaṃ laukiko vaidikaśca vyavahāraḥ sa utpannavivekajñānasya sthitaprajñasya avidyākāryatvāt avidyānivṛttau nivartate, avidyāyāśca vidyāvirodhāt nivṛttiḥ, ityetamarthaṃ sphuṭīkurvan āha — BG 2.69 intro Bhāṣya
Here Bhāṣyakāra clearly states अविद्यायाश्च विद्याविरोधात् निवृत्तिः - avidyāyAsca vidyāvirOdhAt nivrttih - avidyā being opposed to vidyā - its destruction.
Jai: It is simplistic to say brahman will become avidyAvanta. Whatever is mAyA for Ishvara can be avidyA for jIva like whatever is magic for mAyAvi appears real to onlookers.
Ø Atleast from this you should accept mAya is Ishwaraadheena and avidyA is jeeva’s suffering, so as a result mAya is something different from avidyA.
मूढोऽयं नाभिजानाति लोको मामजमव्ययम् ॥ ७. २५ ॥
mūḍho'yaṃ nābhijānāti loko māmajamavyayam ॥ 7. 25 ॥
Jai: Again simplistic assumptions. It is not my pet theory but bhashyakAra's. Read 1.4.10 Br Up Bhashya properly.
Ø Produce it here and share your understanding we will discuss it further.
Jai: This quotation from BSBh 2.1.36 is actually saying avidyA alone is not the cause for differences in creation as it is common (ekarUpa) to all and along with karma induced by vAsana which is anAdi it becomes the cause for samsAra. Now how can an abhAva combine with an existing vAsana induced karma? So it has to be bhAvarupa avidyA along with anAdi vAsana induced karma one becomes samsAri.
Ø What is your definition of ekarUpa ajnAna.
Jai: Again using strawman arguments. Invoking of paramArthika and claiming everything is adhyAropa and mAya to escape from illogical and unreasonable claims is done by SSSS followers as a routine.
- So again you are not agreeing everything is just adhyArOpa on nishkriya / nirvishesha brahman!! shAstra upadesha is there to get rid of avidyA. Whatever logical explanations you give you have to always keep in mind that these are fundamental things in vedAnta.
V Subrahmanian
praNAms
Hare Krishna
'Avidyalesha' is not mūlāvidya.
- OK, noted. avidyAlesha is something other than mUlAvidyA. Am I right??
The latter is dispelled by aparoksha jnana.
- Here you are saying that the latter (mUlAvidyA) will be effaced / eradicated by aparOksha jnAna. Am I right??
By this much the Jnani does not die. The body mind complex will live out its destined tenure.
- That means after the eradication or complete annihilation of mUlAvidyA jnAni does not die and he would continue with his BMI as destined by his prArabdha. Am I right??
Avidya lesha is that power that sustains the post-Jnana life.
- In saMskAra rUpa you are trying to say this right?? Obviously this saMskAra rUpa avidyA should have locus (ashraya) in paramArtha jnAni right?? which is that Ashraya, what is that going to give shelter to avidyA lesha ?? Is it not his antaHkaraNa?? If yes, what is that antaHkaraNa apart from mUlAvidyA?? Or avidyAlesha itself is antaHkaraNa?? Is prArabdha karma phala which is resulting in paramArtha jnAni’s BMI itself is avidyAlesha ?? is prArabdha karma phala = avidyAlesha?? What exactly the vivaraNa here, please elaborate.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662527C4B9862EC6F3A5194A8445A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.