Sridharaswamin cites Sureshwaracharya's Naishkarmyasiddhi

[V Subrahmanian]

Sridhara Swamin cites the Naishkarmyasiddhi.  Pl. see the following images.  Here is the English translation:  

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

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

तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्योत्थसंयग्धीजन्ममात्रतः । 

अविद्या सह कार्येण नासीदस्ति भविष्यति ॥ 

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

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Harunaga Isaacson <harunaga...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 8:33 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Looking for identifying a verse
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

This seems to be a sort of variant of Naiṣkarmyasiddhi 2.53. 

Harunaga Isaacson

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 9:12:21 AM UTC+1, V Subrahmanian wrote:

Namaste

While commenting on the Srimadbhagavatam shloka 4.22.28, Sridhara Swamin cites a verse which is not traceable to its source:

The verse he cites is after 'तदुक्तम्' above.   दृश्यानुरंजितं.....

Any help in this quest is welcome.

warm regards

subrahmanian.v

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c0a0d3d5-f991-46f2-938e-71706f9151cb%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

This is the image of the N.S 2.53 with introduction:

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

 

• And perhaps, this is the reason why Sri SSS insists that Sri Sureshwara as vArtikakAra is the only true follower of Sri bhAshyakAra.  Unlike bhAmati and vivaraNakAra who are the proponents of brahmAshrita avidyA (mUlAvidyA which has the locus in brahman itself) Sri Sureshwara says both avidyA (kAraNa) and adhyAsa (kArya) were never ever there because of the simple fact that Atman is eternally jnana svarUpa any taints (mala like avidyA) in it is not admissible anytime.  Not knowing this (jnAnAbhAva) is the kAraNa for the kArya (adhyAsa) i..e ahamkara (or jeeva bhAva/parichinnatva) and mamakAra. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[S Venkatraman]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

I need a clarification. According to my limited knowledge, I think between Bhamati ad Vivarana acharyas, one felt that Brahman was the locus of Avidya and the other Jiva. You seem to suggest both thought Brahman was the locus. Could you please clarify? Thanks and regards,

Venkat

On 19-Jan-2023, at 10:46 AM, 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

 

<image001.png>

• And perhaps, this is the reason why Sri SSS insists that Sri Sureshwara as vArtikakAra is the only true follower of Sri bhAshyakAra.  Unlike bhAmati and vivaraNakAra who are the proponents of brahmAshrita avidyA (mUlAvidyA which has the locus in brahman itself) Sri Sureshwara says both avidyA (kAraNa) and adhyAsa (kArya) were never ever there because of the simple fact that Atman is eternally jnana svarUpa any taints (mala like avidyA) in it is not admissible anytime.  Not knowing this (jnAnAbhAva) is the kAraNa for the kArya (adhyAsa) i..e ahamkara (or jeeva bhAva/parichinnatva) and mamakAra. 

 

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/AM7PR06MB6581FEA3E697C2121322FBB084C49%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

The quotation of NS by Subbuji is only in from the pAramArthika perspective as even the translator says "in reality". This has nothing to do with the Ashraya discussion of Bhamati and Vivarana as they also agree that in pAramArthika, AtmA has no relation to avidyA whatsoever. The same Bhagavan Sureshvaracharya who is said to be the "only" true follower of Bhagavan Bhashyakara says that the Ashraya of avidyA is brahman and accepts bhAvarUpa avidyA in the same NS (ref: 2.97, 3 intro)!

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraman prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I need a clarification. According to my limited knowledge, I think between Bhamati ad Vivarana acharyas, one felt that Brahman was the locus of Avidya and the other Jiva. You seem to suggest both thought Brahman was the locus. Could you please clarify? Thanks and regards,

 

Ø     Yes prabhuji, as per bhAmati ( based on Sri SSS’s observation as I have not studied this school independently) avidyA is jeevAshrita and as per this school in the jeeva there are anAdi avidyA-s like kAraNa (viveka AgrahaNa) & kAryAvidyA ( as a result of lack of discriminative knowledge adhyAsa / misconception).  However like mUlAvidyAvAdins they do accept kAraNAvidyA in sushupti and pralaya in sUkshma shakti rUpa (subtle form of avidyA shakti) it is as good as accepting the brahmAshrita avidyA opines Sri SSS.  And if I remember right in one of his works Sri SSS observes that one of the post vyAkhyAnakAra in bhAmati school (after classical vAchaspati’s bhAmati)  categorically endorses the mUlAvidyA ( I think that work is called ‘kalpataru’ but not sure).  So, I said both are proponents of mUlAvidyA in brahman. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[putran M]

Namaskaram Praveen-ji and others,

Does this Naishkarmyasiddhi teach according to a particular subschool of Advaita (which one?) and uphold viewpoints (on mulaavidya, samadhi, etc.) that are controversial or rejected by other subschools? Or is that also subject to interpretation? Reading Praveen-ji's mail gives me that impression (of being subject to interpretation) since earlier I had thought since SSS school found Sureshvaracharya agreeable, surely the position would be clear in his works that ashraya of avidya is not Brahman.

Also, Alston's work is readily available online. https://tomdas.com/2021/10/09/sri-suresvara-advaita-vedanta-summarised-naishkarmya-siddhi/

but 2:97 (page 124) seems to have nothing to do with ashraya of avidya in Brahman. What is the precise quote for "2.97, 3 intro"?

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/CACT7j-Fmc2PtGqThc0vw8jayYpmk7yqGEV8GkP2nkJLujS%2B2Jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Putranji,

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:53 PM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Praveen-ji and others,

Does this Naishkarmyasiddhi teach according to a particular subschool of Advaita (which one?) and uphold viewpoints (on mulaavidya, samadhi, etc.) that are controversial or rejected by other subschools? Or is that also subject to interpretation? Reading Praveen-ji's mail gives me that impression (of being subject to interpretation) since earlier I had thought since SSS school found Sureshvaracharya agreeable, surely the position would be clear in his works that ashraya of avidya is not Brahman.

Bhagavan Sureshvaracharya may discuss many views, but his own view is very much inline with vivaraNa.

Also, Alston's work is readily available online. https://tomdas.com/2021/10/09/sri-suresvara-advaita-vedanta-summarised-naishkarmya-siddhi/

I prefer Sanskrit or Indian language translations but if I have to go for translation in English, I'd prefer Prof R. Balasubramanian any day.

but 2:97 (page 124) seems to have nothing to do with ashraya of avidya in Brahman.

I meant intro to the 2.97 verse as well as the chapter 3 intro as follows:

 

What is the precise quote for "2.97, 3 intro"?

"What is the ontological status of this avidya which is the cause of the world? By way of answer to this question. Sureśvara uses two qualifications— "pratibimbita" and "avicarita-siddha-with regard to avidya. While the former term conveys the idea that avidya is adhyasza Le. what is superimposed, the latter suggests that it is anirvacaniya or durmiripa It means that avidya, which is the source of the world according to Advaita, has neither independent existence nor reality. Inasmuch as it is the cause of the world, it cannot be a negative entity in the sense of absence of knowledge (jñānābhāva); it is something positive (bhāvarūpa). While the existence (sattā) and knowledge (pratiti) of objects are always dependent on the Self. the existence and knowledge of the Self are never dependent on objects."

"ignorance cannot, indeed, be the locus of ignorance. Even if it were possible, what change could this ignorance bring about in the locus which is of the nature of ignorance? The not-Self does not have the possibility of attaining knowledge; should there be this possibility, it could be said that ignorance, which is by nature the negation of knowledge, is located in it. Further, since the not-Self is a product of ignorance, [it cannot be the locus]. Indeed, what exists earlier cannot be located in that which itself comes into being from that [earlier] thing. There is also the reason that the not-Self has no nature of its own independently of ignorance. Owing to these very reasons, it should be known that ignorance is not about the not-Self. Thus, the not-Self is not the locus of ignorance, nor does ignorance have the not-Self as its content.

It has, therefore, to be concluded as the only remaining alternative that the Self alone is the locus of ignorance [as well as the content of ignorance], for it is seen that the Self has the experience "I am ignorant." Also, there is the Śruti text, "Revered Sir, as I am, I know only the mantras; I know not the Self." The Self is not of the nature of ignorance, because it is consciousness alone by its essential nature. Also, ignorance can produce a change in it such as lapse of knowledge. Attainment of knowledge too is possible in it since it is the source of knowledge [through the vṛtti of the mind]. Further, it is not a product of ignorance because it is of the nature of the immutable Self. Since the Self, being independent of ignorance, exists by itself, it is proper to say that the Self alone is the locus of ignorance.

What, then, is the content of ignorance, which is located in the Self? We say that the Self is the content [of ignorance]."

The view is clearly Vivaranamata. Of course, one may always say that it is the Prof's opinion and not what Sureshvaracharya means by those words; I have no arguments with them. I would only request all to stay with avichAritasiddha then, simply undersood as it is siddha as long as it is avichArita. Elsewhere, Bhagavan vArtikakAra says vichAranna sahate (avidyA). abhAvarUpa needs no vichAra even. Only bhAvarUpa needs vichAra.

PS: for a lack of a better word, avidyA/ ajnAna is translated by the Prof as ignorance which gives the idea that it is abhAvarUpa, but as you can see the good Prof uses the word ignorance and says it is bhAvarUpa nonetheless, explaining beautifully that it is by nature "the negation of knowledge". That is, virodhArthe na~n in the word avidyA!

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Does this Naishkarmyasiddhi teach according to a particular subschool of Advaita

 

• No, atleast as per Sri SSS, he says after analyzing both bhAmati and vivaraNa, sureshwara’s vArtika is true to mUla bhAshya and there is no profound and pronounced differences between mUla bhAshya and taitereeya and bruhad vArtika.  And he (sri SSS) further clarifies vArtikakAra not only followed the sentences / doctrine of bhAshyakAra but he also introduced some additional logical devices (yukti-s) to strengthen and elaborate the mUla bhAshya. 

 

(which one?) and uphold viewpoints (on mulaavidya, samadhi, etc.) that are controversial or rejected by other subschools?

 

• As per Sri SSS, no vArtikakAra has not accepted mUlAvidyA as described by paNchapAdika vivaraNa and repeated practice of jnana (even after the dawn of paramArtha jnana / prasaMkhyAna) as propagated by bhAmatikAra too not acceptable to vArtikakAra. 

 

 

Or is that also subject to interpretation? Reading Praveen-ji's mail gives me that impression (of being subject to interpretation) since earlier I had thought since SSS school found Sureshvaracharya agreeable, surely the position would be clear in his works that ashraya of avidya is not Brahman. 

 

• And with regard to vArtikakAra’s prakaraNa naishkarmya siddhi, Sri SSS has written Sanskrit commentary ‘kleshApahAriNi’ in this he has dealt these issues in detail by amply quoting from saMbandha, taitereeya, bruhad vArtika.  If possible this week end I will have to good look at it try to say something on Monday. 
•  However the main intention of Sri SSS is to derive the bhAshyArtha by using the mUla bhAshya itself because vyAkhyAnakAra-s have introduced various methodologies or theories and declaring “this is what mUla bhAshya says and this is the real meaning or import of the original bhAshya”.  To clear this Sri SSS insists bhAshyamekaM sharaNaM vraja.  Let shankara himself clarify what he says.  😊