Fwd: [Advaita-l] ​Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree

[V Subrahmanian]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com>

Namaste

I would like to offer an input from Shankara's Sutra Bhashyam for the following point that is clarified below by Smt Manjushree Hegde:

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 8:29 PM Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

I took up with Smt. Manjushree Hegde and she was kind enough to clarify as
follows: ""Let me reframe Jaishankarji’s argument for clarity’s sake:
Very clearly, Jaishankarji’s points out that every vyākhyānakāra argues
that mūlāvidyā exists as long as the world is perceptible, and does not
exist ultimately (pāramārthika-standpoint). No vyākhyānakāra argues that it
exists ultimately (for this would negate “advaita”).
Jaishankarji also pointed out that the world appears for a jīvan-mukta too
– he eats, sleeps, and moves like any ordinary person; he addresses the
questions of sādhaka-s, and sometimes, his body suffers diseases like
cancer, etc. According to the vyākhyānakāra-s, the only way to account for
the jivanmukta who exists in this world, and participates in it, is
mūlāvidyā.
Thus, according to the vyākhyānakāra-s, mūlāvidyā (the cause) shares the
nature of the world (the effect) – it is non-existent (ultimately); but as
long as the world appears, its operation is in play.
I hope I have not misrepresented the pūrvapakṣa here? If I have, then I’m
entirely willing to correct myself.
Let me articulate Swamiiji’s position.
According to the above arguments, we must accept that a jivanmukta – while
he understands that the world is only a play — operates in it on the basis
of mūlāvidyā. It is only after videhamukti that the “play” entirely
disappears. What is the pramāṇa for the statement that the play will,
indeed, disappear after videhamukti? Only śruti.
And this, right here, is Swamiji’s problem. When/if we accept mūlāvidyā, we
cannot rely on anubhava pramāṇa (whose anubhava, what pramāṇa?); we must
resort to “argument from authority”— śruti pramāṇa. And this cuts across
the very foundation of advaita-vedānta, and reduces it to another school of
philosophy that demands faith/belief for it to be true.
Advaita vedānta stands on anubhava-pramāṇa, it does not require śruti for
it to be true. Its sanctity lies in the fact that it is verifiable here&now.
If mūlāvidyā exists in the three states of jāgrat, svapna and suṣupti— and
it also exists in a jivanmukta — and only does not exist only in
videhamukti, how is this verifiable in my experience?
---------------------

Shankara says in the following Sutra bhashya 4.1.15:

The following Bhashya vakya is not about videhamukti but about jivanmukti: 

उच्यते - न तावदनाश्रित्य आरब्धकार्यं कर्माशयं ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते । आश्रिते च तस्मिन् कुलालचक्रवत्प्रवृत्तवेगस्यान्तराले प्रतिबन्धासम्भवात् भवति वेगक्षयप्रतिपालनम् । अकर्त्रात्मबोधोऽपि हि मिथ्याज्ञानबाधनेन कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति । बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत् संस्कारवशात् कंचित्कालमनुवर्तते एव । अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यं ब्रह्मविदा कंचित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति ।
कथं ह्येकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्त्यते । श्रुतिस्मृतिषु स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेनैतदेव निरुच्यते ।

The above passage is not very difficult to grasp.  In the opening sentence He says:  Without depending upon the body that has already become available as a praarabdha phala, Knowledge will not arise. And when it is granted that it arises, it is but natural that knowledge has to wait (for its result) till the acquired momentum of that medium exhausts itself out as in the case of a wheel of a potter; for there is nothing to stop it in the intervening period.  As for the knowlege of the Atman as akartA, it destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance.  This mithyAjnanam, even when sublated, continues for a while owing to past tendencies like the continuance of the vision of two moons.  (For a man who had suffered from eye disease, the false idea may persist for some time even after the defect is removed. ) 

Moreover, it is not a matter for dispute at all whether the body of the Knower of Brahman continues to exist for sometime or not. For how can one contest the fact of another possessing the knowledge of Brahman – vouched for by his heart’s conviction – and at the same time continuing with the body?  This very fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and the SmRtis in the course of determining the characteristics of 'the man of steady wisdom'. //

The Bhashyam original itself is crystal clear in what it intends to convey.  I have provided the translation too.  Still, in case one feels that Shankara is not conveying the idea of avidyaa lesha, let me reproduce the Kannada translation of SSS:

ಅಕರ್ತ್ರಾತ್ಮಕ ಜ್ಞಾನವು ಮಿಥ್ಯಾಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಬಾಧಿಸುವುದರಿಂದ ಕರ್ಮಗಳನ್ನು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.  ಮಿಥ್ಯಾಜ್ಞಾವು ಬಾಧಿತವಾದ ಬಳಿಕವೂ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಚಂದ್ರದ ಜ್ಞಾನದಂತೆ 'ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರವಶದಿಂದ' ಕೆಲವು ಕಾಲದ ವರೆಗೆ ಇದ್ದುಕೊಂಡೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದಲ್ಲದೆ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಜ್ಞಾನಿಯು ಕೆಲವು ಕಾಲದ ವರೆಗೆ ದೇಹವನ್ನು ಧರಿಸುತ್ತಾನೆಯೇ ಇಲ್ಲವೇ ಎಂಬೀ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವಾದ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆಯೇ ಇಲ್ಲ.  ಏಕೆಂದರೆ 'ತನ್ನ ಹೃದಯಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ' ತಿಳಿಯಬರುವ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ದೇಹಧಾರಣ ಇವನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬನು ಹೇಗೆತಾನೆ ಇಲ್ಲವೆನ್ನುವದಾಗೀತು? 

The salient features of the above crystal-clear translation are:

• Even after the false knowledge has been sublated, owing to past samskAras (avidyaa lesha) that false knowledge continues for some time.  Just like the vision of double-moon continues even after the eye defect is set right.  An example in medical case is: even after a leg has been amputated, the amputee experiences for some time the presence of the leg in the form of some pain or itching in the non-existent leg.  This condition passes off in course of time. 
  

• The prominent word in the Kannada translation is: samskAra vasha.  This is what is called avidyaa lesha. 
  

• This is not the same as avidyaa itself.  mithyaa jnaana is samsaara nimitta as the adhyAsa bhAshya itself teaches.  But here the Acharya uses the same word to convey a condition that obtains even  AFTER the mithyA jnAna has been sublated.  Thus while avidyaa is not desirable but avidyaa lesha is unavoidable, even for a Jnani.  
  

•   The Brahman knowledge anubhava is 'seemita' for the jnaani alone.  The word 'maatra' of the Kannada translation confirms this.  Thus, the jnanam of the jnaani is essentially 'localised' to him alone.

• prArabdha and the continuance of the body and mind for a jnani is confirmed by the Kannada translation.

• The word 'anuvartate' of the bhashyam is the root for the term 'bAdhitAnuvRttiH' that conveys avidyaa lesha.  

In the Bhagavadgita Bhashya 2.16, Shankara concludes with the note: What is the teaching for Arjuna in this verse?

 त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥

You too Arjuna, following the vision/realization/understanding of the Aparoksha Jnanins forbear the dualities such as heat-cold to be 'transformation that is non-existent but appears to exist like the mirage water. 

So, it is very clear that this is not videha mukti but jivanmukti: The understanding is that 'it is a mere appearance, not real.'

This is what is meant by 'avidya lesha' by the vyakhyanakaras. This is evidently not admitted as real, that Sri Swamiji has feared would cut at the roots of the philosophy of Advaita.     

This is in the very clear experience of the Advaitic Jnani, while alive, as articulated by Shankara in the BSB cited above and in the BGB cited just above. So, it is surely anubhava pramana that one would have even while alive.  This is not something that would end in videhamukti but is experienced as unreal, as per Shankara above, even while alive.  That is why Shankara states his own experience of 'having the Brahman-realization and at the same time living in the body', which he challenges anyone to deny.

This exactly is what is stated in the BG:

सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्ते सुखं वशी ।
नवद्वारे पुरे देही नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन् ॥ १३ ॥ 5.13

Shankara says here: उत्पन्नविवेकज्ञानस्य सर्वकर्मसंन्यासिनोऽपि गेहे इव देहे एव नवद्वारे पुरे आसनम् प्रारब्धफलकर्मसंस्कारशेषानुवृत्त्यादेह एव विशेषविज्ञानोत्पत्तेः । देहे एव आस्ते इति अस्त्येव विशेषणफलम्, विद्वदविद्वत्प्रत्ययभेदापेक्षत्वात् ॥

The word 'samskara-shesha-anuvrutti' is what is meant by 'avidyalesha'.  This is not something that binds the Jnani; rather it is this power that sustains the Jnani's sharira till it dies, before which the upbhoga of the karma that has already begun to fructify is experienced by the body-mind. Taking the BGB 2.16 above, he experiences it with the awareness that it is 'a mere appearance, just like the mirage water.' 

So there is no way anyone in the Advaita parampara says this is real, something that cuts at the root of Advaita.  A superimposed snake can never be counted as second to the rope; the rope continues to be the sole entity there, before, during and after the phenomenon of the sarpa bhrama. And this is not something anyone has claimed will end 'only in videhamukti'. Its unreality is experienced even during jivanmukti. This is the anubhava pramana.  To recall an analogy of Vidyaranya in the Panchadashi, 'a rat, even while alive, can't kill a cat, what to say of it when it is dead?  The 'avidya-lesha' is akin to the rat; it has been rendered ineffective to bind the Jnani to samsara. Nor can it render Brahman sadvitiya even while it has not been dispelled by Jnana. 

regards

subbu

      

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Prasanth Neti's updated link, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nOxJ6CDZUEfZ2Kol2ncRHHjMT1z3UbA9/view

[putran M]

Namaskaram, 

I see Prashant’s discussion on vikara as something to focus on. I gave some related arguments in my discussion with Bhaskar-ji.

“When duality (nama-rupa) is seen separately in any sense whatsoever and one speaks (based on shastra drishti) of Brahman/Self being the non-dual Reality of that duality, then implicit to such a standpoint is the affirmation in Brahman of the intrinsic shakti to project/see itself as that separate or changing nama-rupa duality; and this we call Maya-shakti of Brahman.”

Calling it vikara and epistemological error does not escape the ontological affirmation of Maya in Brahman. You have already admitted the latter when you begin your vikara explanation for duality “in any sense whatsoever”. 

“ Once you admit adhyasa, it belongs to the Self as there is nothing apart from Self. "I am the one who is doing (is cause for) this adhyasa". And the Self seen in the context of your admitted adhyasa is then known as the projector or cause or doer of this adhyasa. But what is the Self? The shastra says it is not the jiva or the mind but is Brahman, the reality of All. Hence, this adhyasa has the Maya of Brahman as root cause. The universe of adhyasa/ajnana is only the vikshepa of Brahman+Maya.”

“The self-effulgent Self imagines Itself through Itself by the power of Its own Maya. The Self Itself cognizes the objects. Such is the definite conclusion of Vedanta.” MK 2.12.

All this is still vyavaharika standpoint founded on “shastra drishti”. Maya is not adhyaropa in this standpoint as Gaudapada hits us on the head should we doubt it. It or Ishvara=Brahman+Maya is the fundamental ontological reality of this standpoint. 

In advaita drishti or paramarthika standpoint of Brahman mentioned in shastra, there is no room for duality in any sense whatsoever, that we need to call it epistemological error or as having ontological cause. It is a knowledge or awareness that is realized as being underlying non-negatable truth even in the experience of vyavaharika. The jnani who has had advaita drishti or knows this standpoint as denoting sathya relates therefore to the mind-reflected vyavaharika standpoint (including the corresponding attribution of maya in Brahman) as being mithya - not unreal for it is experienced now and not real for it vanishes in advaita drishti. On the same basis, he may call the vyavaharika standpoint (the movie believed by ajnani or known as appearance/projection by jnani) to be adhyasa like the snake that is seen now and vanishes in the vision or knowledge of rope. This however cannot be mixed into trying to talk of (nama-rupa) in any vyavaharika sense but adamantly negating causality for it in Brahman. Such attempts miss the point which is Self-realization or advaita jnana and not dvaita vichara.

(I realize the last para can be nitpicked but wanted to present the main argument from my side.)

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/96c4fd64-6117-4413-aa02-e00ba50fa903n%40googlegroups.com.

[putran M]

Prasanth-ji’s

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I see Prashant’s discussion on vikara as something to focus on. I gave some related arguments in my discussion with Bhaskar-ji.

 

Ø     I am getting confused who said what here.  My request to you is make it clear who said what and for which what is the reply when you are pasting something from some other source and replying it here.  Sometime in my official laptop I cannot open certain links / sites due to some official constraints. Anyway I remembered you had said below in one of your previous mails and asked in turn to refer some bhAshya vAkya-s.  Here is one more attempt from my side :

 

“ Once you admit adhyasa, it belongs to the Self as there is nothing apart from Self. "I am the one who is doing (is cause for) this adhyasa".

 

• This is what I said an admixture of vyavahAra and paramArtha.  There are three parts in the above first statement :
• (a) once you admit adhyAsa :  admission of adhyAsa and asking question about it happens only in the realm of avidyA only, is it not??
• (b) it belongs to the self : not proven yet as we are still still assuming the locus in self when we are still unaware of real nature of self!!
• ( c) there is nothing apart from self :  this is the siddhanta from the shAstra-s paramArthika drushti which yet to be realized by the questioner who is concluding (wrongly) that the problem pertains to ‘him’ actually belongs to ‘HIM’. 
•  Now with regard to these assumptions,  are we ( ajnAni-s) capable enough to find the logical answers on our own??  Or should we seek the answer from Acharya, who we consider as authority??  Let us see what that authority would say in his commentary.  See sutra bhAshya :4-1-3, see geeta 13-2, see tait up. bha. 2.8.  Out of these quotes I would just quote from Tai,up. Bh.:  both viveka and aviveka are directly intuited to inhere in the antaHkaraNa.  It is common knowledge that colour which is perceived is no property of the perceiver.  And avidyA is objectified by one’s own intuition as when one thinks I am avidyAvanta, my knowledge is not distinct,.  The discrimination due to vidyA is likewise intuited.  Wise ones impart their knowledge to others and these others grasp it.  vidyA and avidyA therefore have to be classed with name and form alone and name and form are “admittedly NO properties of Atman”.  This position made more clear by bhAshyakAra elsewhere by clarifying :  if it is argued that being the locus or not being the locus of avidyA, is certainly a specific feature of Atman just as blindness due to cataract or freedom from that blindness is a specific feature of a person, we say : NO, for being ignorant by himself has been expressly denied in the case of Atman/self by the shruti he thinks as it were, he moves as it were etc. It is here clarified by bhAshyakAra that both vidyA and avidyA belong to the not-self since they can be objectified and that the fact of Atman appearing to possess them as properties is ONLY a false appearance.  ( quoting from one of Sri SSS’s works).

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

 

Ø     I am getting confused who said what here.  My request to you is make it clear who said what and for which what is the reply when you are pasting something from some other source and replying it here.  Sometime in my official laptop I cannot open certain links / sites due to some official constraints.

I was giving a general response after reading certain passages (especially page 2 where Prasanth-ji talks of vikara)  in the file sent by Michael-ji. I hope you are able to read that file. The file was written in response to the posts of Jaishankar-ji here and in advaita-l. I was wondering why you did not respond to him yourself.

 

Anyway I remembered you had said below in one of your previous mails and asked in turn to refer some bhAshya vAkya-s.  Here is one more attempt from my side :

Actually you did not attempt to reply to this part at that time. I count this as the first attempt.

 

 

“ Once you admit adhyasa, it belongs to the Self as there is nothing apart from Self. "I am the one who is doing (is cause for) this adhyasa".

 

• This is what I said an admixture of vyavahAra and paramArtha.  There are three parts in the above first statement :

Yes that is a fact for those who try and explain the world and start talking "Brahman" in the middle of it. We are all in that boat and not the charvakas who reject shabda altogether. Because we seek to explain duality (referring to something called adhyasa or avidya) and affirm Brahman as reality, Maya as adjunct of Brahman will remain a part of our explanation. 

 

• (a) once you admit adhyAsa :  admission of adhyAsa and asking question about it happens only in the realm of avidyA only, is it not??

Shankara talks of adhyasa, Gaudapada talks of imagination. That is enough. The jnani can admit of adhyasa in vyavaharika context, whether we call it the realm of Maya or avidya.

 

• (b) it belongs to the self : not proven yet as we are still still assuming the locus in self when we are still unaware of real nature of self!!

Not so. See MK 2.12. Gaudapada does the "mixing" that you claim is wrong to do. It is the Self who imagines the objects including whatever else that you call adhyasa. 

You are not distinguishing the projection of movie from the story-content in the movie. One can take the standpoint of 1. Light and naught else, 2. Light projecting a movie-show, 3. Content of that movie.

The ajnani is in standpoint 3. He is subject to adhyasa. The contents of his imagination is due to epistemological error.

Standpoint 1 is the paramarthika standpoint or "advaita-drishti", where the "real nature of self" shines unto itself as only Reality/Existence.

Standpoint 2 however is fact of experience for the jnanis who have the firm awareness "I am the All" pervading and clarifying their reflected awareness-of-all. It is not an unreal nor a real standpoint, for the dualistic awareness-of-all remains even amidst knowledge of nondual adhishtana and gets negated only in the context of that knowledge, in advaita-drishti. The jnani's standpoint that "This is a movie, the reality is Light" is what allows a Shankara or a Krishna to participate in that movie and call it adhyasa on Light.

But implicit to Standpoint 2 is the fact that the Light has an intrinsic Power to Project the movie that is being affirmed as such. Let me re-emphasize: The association of Maya in Brahman is the Reality of this standpoint; and the standpoint is not merely epistemological error, it has an ontological presence that is neither real nor unreal (i.e. mithya). This standpoint 2 and its Brahman+Maya fusion reality gets transcended only in Standpoint 1, but it is not adhyasa in itself. If you have dvaita-drishti and indulge in discussion/questions on duality, then you are faced with having to resolve Standpoint 3 and the fall-back is either the Silence of Standpoint 1 or the affirmation of adhishtana as Self=Brahman+Maya in Standpoint 2 - which is what Gaudapada expresses in MK 2.12. Gaudapada is not a prey to adhyasa here; he is only presenting the ultimate (shastra-based) truth (Self=Brahman+Maya) as it is known and knowable for the vyavaharika standpoint.

 

• ( c) there is nothing apart from self :  this is the siddhanta from the shAstra-s paramArthika drushti which yet to be realized by the questioner who is concluding (wrongly) that the problem pertains to ‘him’ actually belongs to ‘HIM’. 

The problem is the inability or unwillingness to understand/accept the fact of Standpoint 2 mentioned above. The movie is in no way whatsoever different or apart from Light, and yet there is a standpoint of reflected awareness where the movie is seen as if dual and known in that context as the Play of Light - without contradicting the substratum-knowledge that there is only Light. Light in that standpoint has inherent power to project the movie. But it is also accepted that there is the higher or real (paramarthika) Standpoint 1 where the "movie" is entirely sublated in awareness of Reality Light - and in this standpoint, there is no question of "power" adjunct to Light.

It is not that a jnani referencing duality is obligated to posit Maya alongside and should not speak in terms of Standpoint 1. He can certainly do so for the sake of instruction and to point out advaita-drishti wherein the Self is realized as sole Existence/Reality. But it is nonsensical to explicitly negate Maya in Brahman even while referencing duality otherwise: this is where the mixing of standpoints gets done in an erroneous manner.

• See sutra bhAshya :4-1-3, see geeta 13-2, see tait up. bha. 2.8.  Out of these quotes I would just quote from Tai,up. Bh.:  both viveka and aviveka are directly intuited to inhere in the antaHkaraNa.  It is common knowledge that colour which is perceived is no property of the perceiver.  And avidyA is objectified by one’s own intuition as when one thinks I am avidyAvanta, my knowledge is not distinct,.  The discrimination due to vidyA is likewise intuited.  Wise ones impart their knowledge to others and these others grasp it.  vidyA and avidyA therefore have to be classed with name and form alone and name and form are “admittedly NO properties of Atman”. 

Name and form are not properties of Atman or even having distinct identifiability in Standpoint 1, but if you affirm them as above, then you are dealing with dvaita drishti and the vyavaharika standpoint only. And there, you can either be operating in adhyasa/ajnana based Standpoint 3 or jnana based Standpoint 2. In the latter case, name-form universe has valid identification as the vikshepa or imagination of the Self- whether their projection is attributed to Ishvara or to jiva in standpoint 3, they have the common reduction to being the projection/imagination of Brahman+Maya in Standpoint 2. And this is truth so far as any reference to name-form is done.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

• This position made more clear by bhAshyakAra elsewhere by clarifying :  if it is argued that being the locus or not being the locus of avidyA, is certainly a specific feature of Atman just as blindness due to cataract or freedom from that blindness is a specific feature of a person, we say : NO, for being ignorant by himself has been expressly denied in the case of Atman/self by the shruti he thinks as it were, he moves as it were etc. It is here clarified by bhAshyakAra that both vidyA and avidyA belong to the not-self since they can be objectified and that the fact of Atman appearing to possess them as properties is ONLY a false appearance.  ( quoting from one of Sri SSS’s works).

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65810858AD95BE756325EC7F840F9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaste,

Keeping aside the scholarly discussions on Avidya by many in this thread, I came across this claim that traditional advaitins barring Sureshwaracharya have misunderstand Avidya and therefore all post advaitins have misrepresented Shankara. See here:  https://youtu.be/sk8-uHvOCxo?t=356

So, advaitin scholars after floundering for 1200 years waited for a 20^th messiah to arrive? This claim is so farfetched it is bordering on the ridiculous.

Is this the claim that there were no realized Jnanis for 1200 years post Shankara? Absolutely we know this is not the case.

If you reverse engineer this - those who obtained Jnana did so even with totally misunderstanding Shankara’s Avidya then it means Shankara’s texts are not a necessary and mandatory requirement for Realization.

This also means all this scholarly knowledge of Avidya is mainly relevant for someone doing a Phd or wanting to gain an intellectual understanding rather than Moksha Sadhana. Am I missing something here?

Regards,

Sundar Rajan

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-o9knQ3H3aOkMgAuJPJ8b_YJmrR%2BmKnh5YeUNaVkW7VyA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

People from the place, where Sureshvaracharya lived in his purvashrama, could not agree with the result of the debate, which Sureshvaracharya lost. Vacaspati Mishra was also such a person, who was hostile to Adi Shankara. 

It seems some scholars do see disagreements between the stands of Adi Shankara and  Vacaspati Mishra.  

My 2 cents

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/408101708.2458909.1669311635630%40mail.yahoo.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

What do our group members feel? Was not Shri SSS  also of a similar opinion. I mean did Shrii SSS, a great scholar of Advaita, not see differences between the views of Adi Shankara and Vasacpati Mishra in some cases?

[Bhaskar YR]

did Shrii SSS, a great scholar of Advaita, not see differences between the views of Adi Shankara and Vasacpati Mishra in some cases?

 

praNAms Sri Sunil prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Definitely yes prabhuji.  In one of his works he clearly states bhAmatikAra is the follower of maNdana Mishra (brahma siddhikAra) and presented his own prakriya by drawing heavily from this work. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of sunil bhattacharjya
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2022 3:38 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] ​Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree

 

Warning

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_d-8yAO%2BNmM%2BA94ZMv2d_EtcCHsQKPZaKU-ScA-vOmrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bhaskarji

You wrote

In one of his works he clearly states bhAmatikAra is the follower of maNdana Mishra (brahma siddhikAra) and presented his own prakriya by drawing heavily from this work.

It will be nice if you can kindly tell us the name of the particular work of Shri SSS, you are referring to

Secondly, I understand that Shri Mandana Mishra and Shri Vishvaroopa  could have been  the two Purvashrama names of Shri Sureshvaracharya. Any comment?

Krishnam Vande, Jagadgurum

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658103CC9A747DB0F3711A3584129%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Before this issue ( shankara used avidyA and mAya as paryAya/samAnArthaka) taking extra wings out of equation I have to clarify as per Sri SSS : “ shankara, the prasthAnatraya bhAshyakAra IS NOT using avidyA and mAyA as synonyms”.  In fact this is what he is insisting in the katha shruti bhAshya instroduction :  people might get into delusion that as per shankara both avidyA and mAya are one and the same but that is not the case.  Before saying Although the AchArya has indeed used at some places the terms avidyA and mAyA as synonymous terms.

 

In this very introduction Sri SSS explained what is avidyA as per shankara (infact that forms the first para and  Sri chandramouLi prabhuji translated from the middle of the second para.  I don’t think Sri SSS assuming anything on his own for not treating avidyA and mAya as one by bhAshyakAra, infact he himself quotes the sUtra (1-4-3) wherein in that adhikaraNa (sAnkhyA-s pradhAna has been discussed and how shareera to be treated as avyakta and how hiraNyagarbha shareera to be treated as mAya etc.) So contextually he may use both avidyA and mAya alternatively but as per bhAshyakAra avidyA is subjective and has been explained as the natural tendency of the mind to superimpose the self and the non-self (AtmAnAtma -satyAnruta mithuneekaraNaM) on each other (adhyAsa bhAshya and in the first para of this introduction Sri SSS says this) and mAya is the name given to prakruti or name and form in seed form (beeja rUpa) which gives rise to all the different vyakta nAma rUpa.  It definitely requires a careful study of whole adhikaraNa to understand the real purport of the sUtra 1-4-3 and after that reader would be convinced that this is not mere concoction of Sri SSS to hoot his own horn but OTOH he is trying to convey the real purport of that adhikaraNa bhAshya. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

Bhaskar YR

 

From: H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 1:20 PM
To: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] ​Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree

 

Warning

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

Namaste.

 

There are any number of such references available. However Sri SSS in his translation of BSB 2-1-14 in kannada, PDF page 770, Book page 731, Foot Notes 1 and 2, declares words like अविद्याकृत , अविद्यात्मक , अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापित should be understood as being used in the sense of अविद्याकल्पित. Also terms  अव्यक्त , अव्याकृत, अक्षर are synonymous with माया  which  has been declared as  अविद्याकल्पित. Meaning thereby that they are all to be understood as  imagined through avidyA. Hence instead of getting into prolonged discussions on what is meant by such equations, I have cited Sri SSS himself admitting to Sri Bhagavatpada considering avidyA and mAyA as synonymous terms in the Bhashya.

 

Regards