A smart inference by Shankara

[V Subrahmanian]

In the commentary to the BGB for this verse:

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् ।
कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥ २१ ॥

(He who knows that the Atman is indestructible and eternal can never be a doer nor can cause any action.)

Shankara makes a statement: 

विदुषः कर्मासम्भववचनात् यानि कर्माणि शास्त्रेण विधीयन्ते तानि अविदुषो विहितानि इति भगवतो निश्चयोऽवगम्यते ॥

From the Lord's words that action is impossible for  the Jnani who has realized himself as the Atman that does not have body, mind and instruments (which alone are the factors involved in action) , it follows that the Lord's accepted position is that action enjoined by the scripture is directed at the ignorant one, ajnani (who identifies with the body mind complex).  

This is very significant and reminds one of the similar statement in the Adhyasa bhashya where he says that the scripture enjoining action and prohibition and that scripture concerning liberation - operates in the domain of avidya:

तमेतमविद्याख्यमात्मानात्मनोरितरेतराध्यासं पुरस्कृत्य सर्वे प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारा लौकिका वैदिकाश्च प्रवृत्ताः, सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि विधिप्रतिषेधमोक्षपराणि ।    

Om tat sat 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

aum and pranam Subrahmanianji, What struck me in your selection was " who has realized himself as the Atman that does not have body, mind and instruments." It seems then there is no individual to see the world as Atman. Is this obvious or am I missing something?

 

--
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/CAKk0Te0zttRXrQMYEUUiMC2OrDCs%3Dw-k%3Dy5E5KYjr0AfqQyP%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:15 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

aum and pranam Subrahmanianji, What struck me in your selection was " who has realized himself as the Atman that does not have body, mind and instruments." It seems then there is no individual to see the world as Atman. Is this obvious or am I missing something?

Pranam 

The verse itself says that there is this individual (who is still in the body) who has realized his true nature, for whom the Lord denies action absolutely.  In another verse in the fourth chapter the Lord says:  Even if he is seen to be very deeply involved in action, he is truly a non-doer, not doing anything at all.  Again in the fifth chapter we have the Lord saying:  He, the realized one, inhabiting the nine-gated city, the body, remains there without doing anything himself nor causing anything to be done.  

These are some very unambiguous statements for the continued existence of the individual, who has indeed transcended the erstwhile individuality.  

warm regards

subbu 

 

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 7:27 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the commentary to the BGB for this verse:

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् ।
कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥ २१ ॥

(He who knows that the Atman is indestructible and eternal can never be a doer nor can cause any action.)

Shankara makes a statement: 

विदुषः कर्मासम्भववचनात् यानि कर्माणि शास्त्रेण विधीयन्ते तानि अविदुषो विहितानि इति भगवतो निश्चयोऽवगम्यते ॥

From the Lord's words that action is impossible for  the Jnani who has realized himself as the Atman that does not have body, mind and instruments (which alone are the factors involved in action) , it follows that the Lord's accepted position is that action enjoined by the scripture is directed at the ignorant one, ajnani (who identifies with the body mind complex).  

This is very significant and reminds one of the similar statement in the Adhyasa bhashya where he says that the scripture enjoining action and prohibition and that scripture concerning liberation - operates in the domain of avidya:

तमेतमविद्याख्यमात्मानात्मनोरितरेतराध्यासं पुरस्कृत्य सर्वे प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारा लौकिका वैदिकाश्च प्रवृत्ताः, सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि विधिप्रतिषेधमोक्षपराणि ।    

Om tat sat 

--
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/CAKk0Te0zttRXrQMYEUUiMC2OrDCs%3Dw-k%3Dy5E5KYjr0AfqQyP%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGBkMuOHGy%2BtgnaXPkKsPuvFXHijgEpVvExHx4zqCLzbw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji and Subbu ji,

We should make the division in the model upfront:

1. The whole discussion is valid in SDV. Here, jnAnI is an individual who is controlled solely by prArabdha as his sanchit and AgAmI karma have been destroyed by jnAna. Such a person has attained sarvAtma-bhAva and is called jIvanmukta.

2. In DSV, all such portions related to jnAnI and jIvanmukta are considered arthavAda. PrArabdha and jIvanmukti are thus admitted only as a means to eulogise Brahma-vidyA and are not accepted factually. In DSV, it is admitted that there has never been a jnAnI as world is being perceived. 

3. In ajAtivAda (apavAda-drishTi), this discussion itself would not arise.

Regards 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Pranam Sri Subramanian ji, I have copy/pasted on a Facebook group and will reply with any that seems interesting. 

Pranam Sudhanshuji,  You have indicated elsewhere that it is bhavarupa avidya that accounts for DSV, that is, avidya precedes DSV.  I don't see how knowledge that is contingent on a drastr's buddhi can dispel its own causal ignorance. Effect can't eliminate cause - pot's demise is irrelevant to clay - clay is unchanged. 

Other thoughts based on Prof Timalsina's determinations below. First, there is scant evidence from either the Upanisads or Bhasya outlying DS as a vada or prakriya. Then in the second selection, Madhusudana defines drsti as 'consciousness conditioned by ignorance'. Can you provide Bhasya with this kind of interpretation? How to explain asparsa, asanga Atma conditioned by anything? Adhyasa is simply a mixing up.

Bha. 

s 

T

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBDpQoFsNdw_Gvz3ZLSKtugUYG6fdTeO98xGvEMY7y5KOA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhamshu ji,

Thanks for the classification.  That helps in understanding more about Ontology.  However, Shankara's focus is in making the aspirant a sthita prajna.  With this in view Shankara has articulated in more places than one, the experience of the Jnani:  BSB 4.1.15:

अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् — ब्रह्मविदा कञ्चित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति । कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत ? श्रुतिस्मृतिषु च स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेन एतदेव निरुच्यते । 

Here Shankara says: A Jnani will have the aparoksha anubhava of (1) being Brahman and (2) at the same time be in a body too. No one can deny this, continues Shankara, 'This alone is spoken of as Sthitaprajna lakshana in the shruti and smritis.'

For, without that direct knowledge/experience there is no way one can be sure that he is not in bondage.  Hence, apart from the ontology, there is great emphasis laid on achieving sthita prajnatva in the canonical Advaitic texts.

warm regards

subbu 

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDpQoFsNdw_Gvz3ZLSKtugUYG6fdTeO98xGvEMY7y5KOA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Respected Michael ji.
PranAms.

//You have indicated elsewhere that it is bhavarupa avidya that accounts for DSV, that is, avidya precedes DSV.//

Both DSV and SDV accept srishTi. This srishTi is impossible without avidyA. So, both DSV and SDV have to admit avidyA. This avidyA is bhAvarUpa i.e. bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA for both DSV and SDV. It is not a question of avidyA "preceding" DSV. SrishTi is contingent on avidyA, be it SDV or DSV. So, DSV requires avidyA, that much is the claim. There is no "preceding" or "succeeding" here.

//I don't see how knowledge that is contingent on a drastr's buddhi can dispel its own causal ignorance.//

In DSV, buddhi, mind, body, world etc are not distinct stuff. The knowledge which removes avidyA, is Chaitanya, which is reflected in akhanDAkArA-vritti i.e. AtmAkArA-vritti, i.e. a vritti which does not have non-Chaitanya as its object. For e.g. sun is an illuminator of grass. But when it is refracted through a lens, it burns the same grass. Similarly, Chaitanya is illuminator of avidyA. But when it reflects in AtmAkArA-vritti, it burns avidyA. There is nothing incongruent in this.

//Effect can't eliminate cause - pot's demise is irrelevant to clay - clay is unchanged.// 

It is not the effect that is eliminating the cause. It is the Chaitanya reflected in effect which is eliminating the cause. So, the remover is not the effect but Chaitanya. So, there is no incongruence.

//First, there is scant evidence from either the Upanisads or Bhasya outlying DS as a vada or prakriya.//

Wherever bhAshya or Upanishad equate waking and dream, it is the DSV which is being talked about. It is this simple. Waking different from dream, it is SDV. Waking identical to dream, it is DSV. I am sure you can find hundreds of places where dream and waking are equated in bhAshya. They are all DSV. The simplest is AItareya -- trayah swapnAh.

//Then in the second selection, Madhusudana defines drsti as 'consciousness conditioned by ignorance'. Can you provide Bhasya with this kind of interpretation?// 

Conditioning here means reflection. That there is reflection of Chaitanya is admitted in bhAshya. चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बरूपेण जीवेन (ChhAndogya BhAshya). 

Please note that avidyA is accepted from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame of reference of Brahman, there is no avidyA. VArtikakAra says - अविद्यास्तीत्यविद्यायामेवासित्वा प्रकल्प्यते । ब्रह्मदृष्ट्या त्वविद्येयं न कथञ्चन युज्यते इति ॥

So, reflection is admitted from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame of reference of Chaitanya, there is no avidyA and hence, no reflection.

This avidyA is never without the reflection of avidyA. It is always illuminated by the reflection of Chaitanya. VArtikakAra says - आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा। आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः प्रयोजकमिहेष्यते।। (BBV 4.3.355 )

//How to explain asparsa, asanga Atma conditioned by anything? Adhyasa is simply a mixing up.//

Now, this reflection/conditioning is only from the frame of reference of avidyA whence Chaitanya appears as though conditioned. From the frame of reference of Chaitanya, there is no avidyA. Hence, asparsha, asanga AtmA is valid.

Further, even from the frame of reference of avidyA, avidyA is mithyA.That also implies asparsha, asanga AtmA. Mirage-water does not wet the desert. Does it?

adhyAsa is mixing up. Certainly. So?

Regards.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFFcvd_fYV0Z6FdHVaLn-9WDJGmuwV-TtCqTTfa%3DX8szw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

A model takes into account all aspects. Ontology and also other related aspects of sAdhanA.

//However, Shankara's focus is in making the aspirant a sthita prajna.  With this in view Shankara has articulated in more places than one, the experience of the Jnani.//

This is true. However, it must be appreciated that this concept of sthita-prajna itself is applicable only in SDV. These references are accepted merely as arthavAda in DSV as these seek to eulogize Brahma-vidyA.

SiddhAntalesha Sangraha says-  एको जीवः । तेन चैकमेव शरीरं सजीवम् । अन्यानि स्वप्नदृष्टशरीराणीव निर्जीवानि । तदज्ञानकल्पितं सर्वं जगत् । तस्य स्वप्नदर्शनवद्यावदविद्यं सर्वो व्यवहारः । बद्धमुक्तव्यवस्थापि नास्ति जीवस्यैकत्वात् । शुकमुक्त्यादिकमपि स्वाप्नपुरुषान्तरमुक्त्यादिकमिव कल्पितम् । अत्र च सम्भावितसकलशङ्कापङ्कप्रक्षालनं स्वप्नदृष्टान्तसलिलधारयैव कर्तव्यम् − इति ।

This is so clearly articulated. The dream-analogy is like the stream of water. Using this stream of water, one should clean the mud in the form of all possible doubts. The sthita-prajna is just like an imagined person in the dream in whom sthita-prajnatA is imagined.

//For, without that direct knowledge/experience there is no way one can be sure that he is not in bondage.  Hence, apart from the ontology, there is great emphasis laid on achieving sthita prajnatva in the canonical Advaitic texts.//

Again, imho, this is valid only in SDV. Such direct experience/knowledge still requires a reflecting medium, buddhi, which is a product of avidyA. That is why, SDV accepts avidyAlesha, and rightly so. 

However, such is not the case with DSV where singular jIva is admitted. When avidyA goes, it goes in totality leaving no remnant in the form of buddhi (or anything else) so as to have a direct experience certifying non-bondage. There is no perception post-jnAna. 

Advaita Siddhi mentions - जीवैक्यस्य प्रमाणसिद्धत्वे संसारोपलम्भ एवातः पूर्वं तत्त्वज्ञानानुत्पत्तौ प्रमाणम् । The ongoing perception of world is proof enough that so far, none has tattva-jnAna. Same is stated in SLS and also in VSM.

So, while in SDV, certainly AchArya's words can be understood as you explained. But in DSV, they must be seen as arthavAda.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbhuji, Here is a response to your recent comment on individuality of the jnani

Avinasi, etc. are applicable to Atman, not jiva (which is Atman superimposed by body, anatman, which is perishable). Purushah must be Atman identical with Brahman, not jiva. Even if Gita says otherwise, the rule is that Sruti prevails over Smrti in the event of a conflict. BS and Gita are derivative, not Rishi vakyas. Gita tries to encompass all views current at the time of its compilation

And then to both Subbhuji and Sudhanshuji, 

Smt Manjusree Hegdeji recently published in Philosophy EAST WEST on the primary role of adhyaropa apavada in Sankara’s Advaita. In one section of the paper she discusses the intention behind BSB 4.1.15 as to remaining prarabdha karma as continuation of karma in jivanmukta. This is a consistent but diversely interpreted theme in the corpus of post Sankara Advaita from Vimuktatman, Sarvajnatman, Citasukha, Prakasatman and finally to the thinking of “Madhusūdana Sarasvatī—and his commentator Brahmānanda Sarasvatī—(who) declare videhamukti as ‘paramamukti,’ hierarchically superior to jīvanmukti (AS, p. 892ff).” 

Hegde argues videhamukti is not primary bhasya teaching and the BSB 4.1.15 should be understood an adhyaropa to negate atman’s transmigration. She writes, “Here, it must be remembered that apavādas are themselves adhyāropas—as false and deliberated as the statements they contradict. To take them at face value and conclude that the world literally “fades away akin to a dream” post-gnosis would be incorrect—it would imply that (a) gnosis is a real occurrence that results from/in the elimination of ignorance, (b) that ignorance is a genuine entity to be obliterated, etc.; this would contravene the basic tenet of Advaita Vedānta that the “goal” is eternally attained. Thus, the discourse on jīvanmukti ought not to be construed as an affirmation or negation of jīvanmukti; rather, it is a mechanism to dissipate delusions surrounding the concept of mokṣa.”

She ends the section with a quote from SSSSji, ““Failing to see that the convention of the eschatological mukti is only a concession to the Vyāvahāric view that man has a body, the Vyākhyāna schools have succumbed to 18 the belief that release is really an event in time to be attained after exhausting all karmas,” (Saraswati 1998, p. 43).”

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBCHi%2B5nSgUZ2UzgHZE2p_331brot5cdbdkMOcjezw8kyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Both (followers of) SSS ji and Manjushree Hegde ji should first clarify as to which prakriyA they are talking about. Whether it is SDV, DSV, ajAti, eka-jIva-vAda, aneka-jIva-vAda, sattA-dvaividhya-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda, eka-sattA-vAda etc? We have different theories for different models catering to different adhikArIs. This is mentioned by BhAshyakAra in MANDUkya -  यापि बुद्धैः अद्वैतवादिभिः जातिः देशिता उपदिष्टा, उपलम्भनमुपलम्भः, तस्मात् उपलब्धेरित्यर्थः । समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् । वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति ; न तु परमार्थबुद्ध्या ।

//Failing to see that the convention of the eschatological mukti is only a concession to the Vyāvahāric view that man has a body, the Vyākhyāna schools have succumbed to 18 the belief that release is really an event in time to be attained after exhausting all karmas//

Such statement by SSS ji attributing "failure" and "succumbing" by post-Shankara AchAryAs shows his ignorance of siddhAnta as propounded in sampradAya. SiddhAnta upholds ajAti as the only truth and speaks of SDV and DSV as means to lead thereto. Jivanmukti-videhamukti is valid in SDV which paves the way to DSV wherein jIvanmukti is treated as arthavAda. This in turn leads to ajAti which is the ultimate truth.

Failure by SSS ji in appreciating the siddhAnta as being differently propounded to different aspirants depending on their adhikAritvam as enunciated by BhAshyakAra has resulted in SSS ji's succumbing to usage of fertile imagination to be propagated in the name of siddhAnta.

Has SSS ji anywhere acknowledged the fact that jIvanmukti is treated as arthavAda in siddhAnta? You should check it from SSS ji followers and must come back. If he has not acknowledged it, then it speaks volumes about his correct representation of siddhAnta as presented by later AchAryAs.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:14 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbhuji, Here is a response to your recent comment on individuality of the jnani

Avinasi, etc. are applicable to Atman, not jiva (which is Atman superimposed by body, anatman, which is perishable). Purushah must be Atman identical with Brahman, not jiva. Even if Gita says otherwise, the rule is that Sruti prevails over Smrti in the event of a conflict. BS and Gita are derivative, not Rishi vakyas. Gita tries to encompass all views current at the time of its compilation

Namaste

Surely, I have not said that the epithet 'avinashi' applies to the jiva.  It is indeed for the Atman as the Shruti says and as even the Gita explicitly says.  

Purusha is also the Nirguna Brahman/Atman and not the jiva. But in this Gita verse:

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् ।
कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥ २१ ॥

(He who knows that the Atman is indestructible and eternal can never be a doer nor can cause any action.)

the word 'purusha' occurring in the second line is undeniably referring to the Jnani who has the jnana that the Atman is avinashi, nitya, aja and avyaya.  Such an informed person, purusha, will not be deluded that the act of killing (even if the body mind complex would indulge in such an act in a battle) is 'being done / performed by me (Atman)'.

That is the whole crux of the discourse about the Sthita prajna, whom Shankara says, is a person who has realized his true nature, but continues to live in the body.  Surely, either Shankara, or the Shruti or the Gita, would never ever conceive of a situation where the dawn of knowledge marks the death of the person to whom such knowledge has arisen.  

The fundamental mistake of SSS is the following:

The view of Sri Sacchidanandendra Saraswati SwaminaH (SSS)

The following is what SSS says in the ‘Reply’ to a scholar’s article on MUlAvidyA:

// AdhyAsa, of course, presupposes ignorance or want of true knowledge. But this is a logical presupposition, a necessary implication of thought. No positive entity like the unfortunate MUlAvidyA can claim precedence in time over adhyAsa; for, as already said, time itself is its product. Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment conceded to exist. The reality of the not-self (anAtman) follows necessarily from its not being adhyAsa, superimposed. I submit this vital aspect of the system to the learned Professor for his deep consideration.//

The highlighted portion reveals where SSS has erred: He has misunderstood the bhAvarUpa avidya as having the same status of Brahman, which the proponents of that term (bhAvarUpa) never ever even implied. Upon this fundamental error SSS has built an edifice that his followers are struggling to sustain. For a person exposed to the traditional Bhashya sampradaya, this error of SSS is quick to be spotted.

SSS's effort to 'save' Advaita from such a misunderstood 'post-Shankara' tainting of the Shankaran Advaita, has resulted in so much of confusion for his followers. Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan once remarked to the effect 'if SSS thinks that the post-Shankaran Advaitins have gravely erred, he must remember that he is also post-Shankara.'

warm regards

subbu

 

 

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Subbu ji and Ananta Chaitanya ji

Thank you for your posts.

 Their assertion is that 

"We cannot even ask the question, what is the cause of adhyAsa. Because all cause-effect relations are within adhyAsa. So when such a 'reflexive' question *cannot even be asked*, where is the question of postulating any answer as a cause called avidyA? At best, we can say pUrva adhyAsa causes uttarAdhyAsa.  So an avidyA which is not a product of adhyAsa becomes on par with Brahman."

The advaita tradition otoh says, we can and do ask  questions related to the Timeless Awareness while we are within time. There is nothing wrong with the question - "what is the cause of time itself?" Not just that , we can even talk of the arising of time and space of our universe while functioning within space-time. 

Om

Raghav 

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

 

 

--
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/CAKk0Te0hqDYEtA-Zxn-WSr_m2TF9z7Qu1kZZcVP%3DxwUrdfDFZA%40mail.gmail.com

[Bhaskar YR]

the fact that jIvanmukti is treated as arthavAda in siddhAnta?

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Due to severe time constraints, I am not able to actively participate in these discussions till next week.  Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji said jeevanmukti is kevala eulogy (arthavaada) in advaita siddhAnta.  I could hardly see any endorsement or refutation of this statement from other modern day scholars!!! would some, who are busy in attacking Sri SSS and his understanding of the shankaraadvaita and later vyAkhyAnakAra-s manipulations,  mind to comment on this please. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:15 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

 

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.

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBDqKyTMrccf4erUm%3DTriN92bYQW1R3L4-QCT%2BU_zhJtJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reg **positive** term for avidyA.

Any number of scholars like Prof Hiriyanna, Prof Suryanarayana Shastri, Dr Kunhan Raja, Prof TMP Mahadevan, Alladi Mahadeva Shastri etc have termed avidyA as **positive** in many of their texts.

Sri Goda Venkateswara Shastrinah, in his talks covering Advaita Siddhi, terms avidyA/ajnAna as **positive** entity (using the English word) at many places. He specifically mentions, concerning bhAva-vilakshaNa of avidyA,  that the word **bhAva** here should be understood as Brahman, and that it is meant to distinguish them as both are termed anAdi.

Regards

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:36 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Bhaskar ji
The statement that jIvanmukti is arthavAda is in the framework where only
paramArtha sattA is taught.

 I do understand it's disconcerting to hear it out of context that there
have never been other jnAnIs.

But then so is the kArikA 2.32
"na nirodho na cotpattir na baddho na ca sādhakaḥ |
na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityeṣā paramārthatā ".

We have got used to hearing this kArikA and understand it in the context of
it being a pAramArthika statement made at the end of teaching. Please note
that there is a certain context where this statement has to be taught by a
Guru to a shishya who is not yet a jnAnI. So the student who is not yet a
jnAnI has to nevertheless try and appreciate the meaning and implication of
this statement even while still in vyavahAra - when he is making the
cognitive jump or transition to pAramArthika understanding. So it's not as
if this statement 2.32 serves no purpose for the student and can only be
made by a jnAnI. That's not so. This statement is quite relevant even for a
student of the higher order.

The same holds for the ekasattAvAda statement that which denies
multiplicity of jIvas.

It's like hearing in a dream from a dream Guru, that no one has woken up
far.

Om
Raghav










On Wed, 14 Aug, 2024, 4:44 pm Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <

> email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:
> advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDqKyTMrccf4erUm%3DTriN92bYQW1R3L4-QCT%2BU_zhJtJQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDqKyTMrccf4erUm%3DTriN92bYQW1R3L4-QCT%2BU_zhJtJQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> >.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

The word "positive" can be used for denoting "bhAvarUpa". That is not the issue as long as it is understood that bhAvarUpa is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa. All the respectable names which you have taken would certainly have meant bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa by their usage of "positive". 

Sri Goda Venkateswara Shastrinah, in his talks covering Advaita Siddhi, terms avidyA/ajnAna as **positive** entity (using the English word) at many places. He specifically mentions, concerning bhAva-vilakshaNa of avidyA,  that the word **bhAva** here should be understood as Brahman, and that it is meant to distinguish them as both are termed anAdi.

The word bhAva includes Brahman within its connotation. It does not exclusively refer to Brahman as it is evident from Advaita Siddhi. If we were to exhaustively define bhAva, then it refers to Brahman, vyAvahArika-avidyA-kArya, prAtibhAsika-avidyA-kArya and it excludes the four abhAvAs.

Please see the following from Advaita Siddhi:

1. न च – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि, परस्परविरोधादिति – वाच्यम् ; भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः, परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति । 

Here, there is bAdhaka sattva for bhAvatva of avidyA by the anumAna -- विनाशी #भावः सादि:, #घटवत्. This shows that ghaTa has bhAvatva. Thus, vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya has bhAvatva.

2. #ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वसमानाधिकरणाभावविलक्षणत्वेनाविद्यायाः सादित्वसाधने ‘अजामेकाम्’ ‘अनादिमायये’त्यादिशास्त्रविरोधः, अनादित्वसाधकेन ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वे सति भावविलक्षणत्वेन सत्प्रतिपक्षश्च, #भावत्वस्योपाधित्वञ्च.

Here, AchArya states bhAvatva as the upAdhi in the anumAna presented by the opponent. The anumAna uses shuktirUpya as the drishTAnta (refer BAlabodhinI). By the definition of upAdhi -- sAdhya vyApakatve sati sAdhana avyApakatvam -- bhAvatva is accepted to be present in shuktirUpya. Thus, it is concluded that prAtibhAsika-avidyA-kArya has bhAvatva.

3. Brahman has bhAvatva. That goes without saying. I need not give instances therefor.

You can refer to LaghuchandrikA and BAlabodhinI, the two texts on which I based my opinion.

It is a subtle point. I would welcome further comments on this. And I would request a conclusion.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // The word bhAva includes Brahman within its connotation. It does not exclusively refer to Brahman as it is evident from Advaita Siddhi //,

I certainly did not mean that the word bhAva refers exclusively to Brahman in Advaitic texts, let alone AS. I meant that in this specific context, bhAva vilakshaNa of avidyA in the lakshaNa statement context, bhAva refers exclusively to Brahman ** अनादिभावरूपत्वे सति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम् **. Here avidyA considered is अनादि.

Reg  // Here, there is bAdhaka sattva for bhAvatva of avidyA by the anumAna -- विनाशी #भावः सादि:, #घटवत्. This shows that ghaTa has bhAvatva. Thus, vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya has bhAvatva //,

That is exactly the point. Here avidyA considered is सादि.

Regards

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBBN7FnT2usbVRhHCoT2-R6ExsH-b5i8kPAw%3DQ0y%2BDWMGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

In other words, when referring to मूलाविद्या or मूलाज्ञान, they are bhAvarUpa. When it is stated that they are  bhAva vilakshaNa, the word bhAva addresses Brahman. And since it is declared as abhava vilaksaNa also, it is considered a positive entity, And not just a negative concept.

I would hasten to clarify that I am not stating this in the context of whether मूलाविद्या or मूलाज्ञान itself obtains. My post is only meant for those who subscribe to the मूलाविद्या or मूलाज्ञान prakriyA.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

//I meant that in this specific context, bhAva vilakshaNa of avidyA in the lakshaNa statement context, bhAva refers exclusively to Brahman ** अनादिभावरूपत्वे सति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम् **. Here avidyA considered is अनादि.//

Our discussion is within this context only. And here only all my argument is adduced as stated in previous e-mail. BhAva in bhAva-vilakshaNa refers to Brahman, vyAvakArika and prAtibhAsika avidyA-kArya excluding four abhAvAs and obviously tuchchha.

Reg  // Here, there is bAdhaka sattva for bhAvatva of avidyA by the anumAna -- विनाशी #भावः सादि:, #घटवत्. This shows that ghaTa has bhAvatva. Thus, vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya has bhAvatva //,

//That is exactly the point. Here avidyA considered is सादि.//

Sir, please go through the text carefully. avidyA is defined to be anAdi and vinAshI. If it were to be bhAva, then like ghaTa, which is both vinAshI and bhAva, it would have been sAdi. That is violation with definition.

Hence, it is concluded that avidyA is not bhAva. This anumAna is the bAdhaka in the bhAvatva of avidyA.

This anumAna shows that ghaTa has bhAvatva as meant in the lakshaNa bhAva-vilakshaNa.

Hence, your claim that bhAva in the lakshaNa refers exclusively to Brahman is erroneous.

Regarda.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // Sir, please go through the text carefully. avidyA is defined to be anAdi and vinAshI. If it were to be bhAva, then like ghaTa, which is both vinAshI and bhAva, it would have been sAdi. That is violation with definition.

Hence, it is concluded that avidyA is not bhAva. This anumAna is the bAdhaka in the bhAvatva of avidyA //,

 I am probably reproducing your own quote in one of your earlir posts

// न च – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि, परस्परविरोधादिति – वाच्यम् ; भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः, परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति । //.

Notice ** तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ **.

Regards

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBAf4TiqYE3n%2BqYqLyiPf3YuoJGcARPR1nPmD5vVTq6rwA%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu JI,

avidyA is both अनादि as well as विनाशी. Hence ** तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ **.

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The following may be relevant also.

// अत्र ब्रूमः, रूप्योपादानाज्ञानमप्यनादिचैतन्याश्रितत्वादनाद्येव //.

To that  extant, my earlier statement

//  Reg  // Here, there is bAdhaka sattva for bhAvatva of avidyA by the anumAna -- विनाशी #भावः सादि:, #घटवत्. This shows that ghaTa has bhAvatva. Thus, vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya has bhAvatva //,

//That is exactly the point. Here avidyA considered is सादि.//  //

needs to be corrected. Sorry for the oversight.

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Complete quote as under

// अत्र ब्रूमः, रूप्योपादानाज्ञानमप्यनादिचैतन्याश्रितत्वादनाद्येव, उदीच्यं शुक्त्यादिकं तु तदवच्छेदकमिति न तत्राव्याप्तिः । भावत्वं चात्राभावविलक्षणत्वमात्रं विवक्षितम् //.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji and other learned members.

I would like to present the argument in simpler language for benefit of everyone including myself. I would request other learned members to kindly go through the write-up and please comment whether what is explained makes sense.

avidyA is defined as jnAna-nivartyA, anAdi and bhAvarUpa. अनादि भावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते। तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते।।

BhAvarUpa is explained as both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa. न च – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ #भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि, परस्परविरोधादिति – वाच्यम् ; #भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन #तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः, #परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति ।

The bone of contention is regarding the ambit of word "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa as a constituent of bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.

While Chandramouli ji holds that "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refers only to Brahman, I hold it to also include prAtibhAsika-avidyA-kArya such as shuktirUpya and vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya such as ghaTa.

The discussion in Advaita siddhi makes it amply clear that "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa include ghaTa and shuktirUpya and does not merely refer to Brahman.

The issue is extremely important and requires full attention for clear understanding.

How exactly does "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refer to ghaTa? 

The siddhAntI says that there are bAdhaka for accepting bhAvatva of avidyA as well as for accepting abhAvatva of avidyA. Due to the presence of bAdhaka, one is constrained to accept that avidyA is both bhAva-vilakshaNa as well as abhAva-vilakshaNa. In this context, siddhAntI presents an anumAna

विनाशी भावः सादि:, घटवत् . 

SiddhAntI says that it is a rule that whichever entity is both vinAshI and bhAva, then it has to be sAdi. He gives an example of घट , which has both vinAshitva and bhAvatva resulting into sAditva. 

Now, avidyA is accepted as vinAshI and anAdi. If avidyA were to be bhAva, then by this anumAna, it would turn to be sAdi. That will be contradictory to definition. 

Hence, avidyA cannot be accepted as bhAva.

Now, the anumAna took ghaTa as drishTAnta and accepted bhAvatva to be present therein. Based on this, the bhAvatva of avidyA was rejected.

It is thus amply clear that bhAva in bhAva-vilakshaNa accepts ghaTa as an example of bhAva, which is rejected for avidyA being bhAva-vilakshaNa.

Hence, it is proved that vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya such as pot is included in the ambit of word "bhAva".

Please refer to the first para in page 1097: https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n451/mode/2up

How exactly does "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refer to shuktirUpya?

The opponent gives an anumAna to prove that avidyA cannot be anAdi. It says, whatever is jnAna-nivartya and abhAva-vilakshaNa is necessarily sAdi. For example, shuktirUpya, which is negated by knowledge and is abhAva-vilakshaNa. Similarly, since avidyA is accepted to be abhAva-vilakshaNa as well as jnAna-nivartyA, it must be sAdi. Hence, the lakshaNa which said that avidyA is anAdi is asambhava.

SiddhAntI replies that the anumAna presented is sOpAdhika anumAna. Here upaadhi means something which is vyApaka of sAdhya but non-vyApaka of sAdhana. He goes on to state that bhAvatva is the upAdhi. 

He says that since bhAvatva is present in drishTanta i.e. shuktirUpya, but is absent in paksha i.e. avidyA, this anumAna is faulty anumAna. 

This statement by siddhAnti proves that shuktirUpya is accepted as bhAva. (दृष्टान्ते शुक्तिरजते भावत्वं वर्तते। पक्षीकृतायामविद्यायां भावत्वं नास्ति।)

Please refer to page 1095: https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n449/mode/2up

Thus, to the best of my ability, I have demonstrated that the word "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa covers both vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika avidyA-kArya.

This seems so obvious to me. I would request other members to comment whether they see any problem in this?

If someone asks -- how can such an avidyA - which is both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa - be upAdAna of bhAva such as ghaTa and shuktirUpya and upAdAna of abhAva such as pot-abhava.

Then the answer is:

Complete sAjAtya in upAdAna and upAdeya is not required. Some sAjAtya is required.

So, bhAva such as ghaTa and shuktirUpya as well as avidyA have abhAva-vilakshaNatA in common.

abhAva such as pot-abhava and avidyA have bhAva-vilakshaNatA in common.

So, there is no incongruity in avidyA being the upAdAna of both bhAva-avidyA-kArya and abhAva-avidyA-kArya despite itself being both bhAva-vilakshaNA and abhAva-vilakshaNA.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

The explanation makes sense to me. 

I haven't followed the discussion, so I don't know if Chandramouliji is restricting the meaning of bhAvatva to Brahman alone or not.

I guess the implication of this is that avidyAkArya is anirvachanIya because it is sadasatvilakshaNa, while continuing to be "bhAva". avidyA is anirvachanIya while it is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa!

This is the main charge that SSS and his followers and dvaitins level against vyAkhyAnakAras and advaita, respectively - their argument is that if something is abhAva-vilakshaNa, it must be contradictory to advaita. 

To dvaitins, the answer is that despite the world being bhAva, it is still only sadasatvilakshaNa.

When that is the case, the answer to SSS is even more straight forward - avidyA is not even bhAva in our construct, so for it to contradict sat-advaita is a complete impossibility!

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

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/CAH9%3D%2BBARy9Ja8P0dnWTo0WgJE6hhnt7VtHFHmmrpHp6-3pyo-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

Many thanks for your comments.

//I guess the implication of this is that avidyAkArya is anirvachanIya because it is sadasatvilakshaNa, while continuing to be "bhAva". avidyA is anirvachanIya while it is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa!//

Precisely.

//This is the main charge that SSS and his followers and dvaitins level against vyAkhyAnakAras and advaita, respectively - their argument is that if something is abhAva-vilakshaNa, it must be contradictory to advaita.

 

To dvaitins, the answer is that despite the world being bhAva, it is still only sadasatvilakshaNa.

When that is the case, the answer to SSS is even more straight forward - avidyA is not even bhAva in our construct, so for it to contradict sat-advaita is a complete impossibility!//

True. MAdhvAs are replied by avidyA being sat-asat-vilakshaNA while SSS' are replied by showing avidyA to be bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA.

What surprises me is this -- despite so clear articulation by AcharyAs following VivaraNa -- that even a class eight student can understand --- why do they keep on repeating same merit-less argument mindlessly, even after being shown the argument.

I mean siddhAnta says -- avidyA is bhAva-vilakshaNA and abhAva-vilakshaNA. How can someone (SSS') say that "look here --- vyAkhyAnakAra is saying avidyA is bhAva. They are violating advaita." 

Isn't it hilarious? 

I wonder if it is absence of cognitive capacity to understand the argument adduced, or stubborn refusal to put the intellectual faculties to use or sheer unconcern for knowledge or a combination of all of these!

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji

I mean siddhAnta says -- avidyA is bhAva-vilakshaNA and abhAva-vilakshaNA. How can someone (SSS') say that "look here --- vyAkhyAnakAra is saying avidyA is bhAva. They are violating advaita." 

Isn't it hilarious? 

I wonder if it is absence of cognitive capacity to understand the argument adduced, or stubborn refusal to put the intellectual faculties to use or sheer unconcern for knowledge or a combination of all of these!

No, I don't think it is absence of cognitive capacity. 

The idea that one has somehow unlocked a hitherto forgotten meaning of the bhAShya which everyone else has misunderstood, that one possesses a secret that everyone else has lost, is an intoxicating one. Secret societies around the world have thrived on this human need.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

--
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/CAH9%3D%2BBDY1SyY_NX1_tnZfXM2QBgnvK%2BK%3DqLeP%3DLUZyR2YrPcXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

//The idea that one has somehow unlocked a hitherto forgotten meaning of the bhAShya which everyone else has misunderstood, that one possesses a secret that everyone else has lost, is an intoxicating one. Secret societies around the world have thrived on this human need.//

Very well analysed.

Regards.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

The main point of discussion was as copied below from my initial post on the topic

//  Reg **positive** term for avidyA.

Any number of scholars like Prof Hiriyanna, Prof Suryanarayana Shastri, Dr Kunhan Raja, Prof TMP Mahadevan, Alladi Mahadeva Shastri etc have termed avidyA as **positive** in many of their texts.

Sri Goda Venkateswara Shastrinah, in his talks covering Advaita Siddhi, terms avidyA/ajnAna as **positive** entity (using the English word) at many places. He specifically mentions, concerning bhAva-vilakshaNa of avidyA,  that the word **bhAva** here should be understood as Brahman, and that it is meant to distinguish them as both are termed anAdi //.

Rest of the discussion was incidental.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkhYTv90UhDEm93FzRajnY9mEKwTKUDcij4dcGP8bwgLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji

I don't fully follow all the terminology in these discussions. Am used to sat etc. but not bhava etc. 

However, "positive" was one issue where I had pointed out a discrepancy between Sudhanshu-ji and Venkataraghavan-ji earlier and asked for clarification and consensus. In his recent reply, Sudhanshu-ji stated "The word "positive" can be used for denoting "bhAvarUpa". That is not the issue as long as it is understood that bhAvarUpa is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa. All the respectable names which you have taken would certainly have meant bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa by their usage of "positive". " 

I took it as acceptance for its usage provided potential confusion is avoided.

The other issue that is the main topic now was also indicated by you before. Whether sat, asat mithya/anirvachaniya cover everything to be talked about; (and whether bhava, abhava, their vilakshana constitute a different carving out of "everything" or are equivalent to sat etc.)

From what I am reading, they denote something different even though the totality of both constructs is "everything". So the union of Bh U aBh U B-ab-Vil = Sat U asat U mithya (which is what you also seemed to assert); but Bh is not same as Sat, etc.

One question is whether English writers like you mentioned have translated and discussed bhava, abhava, their Vilakshana, and if so, also their difference or equivalence with sat, asat, mithya. Since understanding the same siddhanta but in terms of bhava etc. seems central to post-shankara acharyas, we would expect previous scholarship on how these terms are same or different from sat etc.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOrGvU7oUyOaDD_VeN0MWHxqpy5b19D7sHi1to9vNWb3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

but Bh is not same as Sat, etc.

One question is whether English writers like you mentioned have translated and discussed bhava, abhava, their Vilakshana, and if so, also their difference or equivalence with sat, asat, mithya.

Seems you addressed this at least with reference to Goda Shastrinah, who seems to have the opinion that bhava denotes sat only. That would suggest some sort of difference in understanding - that there is not a universal consensus among scholars (if we include some of our members among them); and I think was the basis for Sudhanshu-ji's follow-up posts.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Putran Ji,

As I mentioned earlier, the word *positive* for avidyA is used quite often in english texts covering Advaita SiddhAnta. I have not come across anywhere any specific mention of bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa in respect of such usage. Prof Hiriyanna does indeed mention in one place that the word bhAvarUpa for avidyA is generally used in Advaita SiddhAnta as connoting *not abhAvarUpa*. I tried my best to locate this reference but somehow it has eluded me this time round. I will certainly provide it any time I locate the same.

Just saw your latest post. Sri Goda Shastrinah referred to only the specific instance of lakshaNa/definition of avidyA while identifying bhAva with *sat* or *Brahman*. It was not in any universal sense. My understanding also is the same.

In my view, the word bhAva, unless otherwise stated, is in fact used in literature to denote all entities in Creation. Perhaps in all DarshanAs as well. In Advaita SiddhAnta of course it covers all anirvachanIya entities. The difference between these entities and avidyA is that all these are produced, have a beginning (sAdi)  while avidyA is anAdi. But both are subject to destruction (sAnta). Since Brahman/*Sat* is the only other entity which is also anAdi, there is a specific need to distinguish between them. Hence in the definition of avidyA, where it is stated to be bhAva vilakshaNa, the word bhAva is to be understood as addressing Brahman/*Sat*. Sri Goda Shastrinah referred to only this specific definition of avidyA while making this statement. Whether it is applicable elsewhere was not covered by him in his talk.

Reg  // One question is whether English writers like you mentioned have translated and discussed bhava, abhava, their Vilakshana, and if so, also their difference or equivalence with sat, asat, mithya. Since understanding the same siddhanta but in terms of bhava etc. seems central to post-shankara acharyas, we would expect previous scholarship on how these terms are same or different from sat etc //,

To the best of my knowledge they are covered only in texts which are highly polemical in nature, and not in general texts covering Advaita SiddhAnta.

Regards 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-o3r-Ba3%2BLP3SCN8gLu2QWt2bs8ji8vQ%3D-3Hz0Eb7_ArA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

Not sure if it was addressed to me, but I fail to understand the relevance of quoting some English writers referring to avidyA as a positive entity.

It is clear from the Advaita Siddhi that avidyA is neither bhAva nor abhAva. If someone refers to it as positive, what does that have to with our discussion?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOrGvU7oUyOaDD_VeN0MWHxqpy5b19D7sHi1to9vNWb3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg //  Not sure if it was addressed to me, but I fail to understand the relevance of quoting some English writers referring to avidyA as a positive entity.

It is clear from the Advaita Siddhi that avidyA is neither bhAva nor abhAva. If someone refers to it as positive, what does that have to with our discussion? //,

What exactly are you referring to. I am perplexed. I never thought of anything you wrote on the subject. 

Regards

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

I was referring to your previous email, which appeared to be a reply to my first email on the 18th of August, as it appeared in response to that email - I think you have removed both those emails in this chain. 

In my email, I was agreeing with Sudhanshu ji's analysis of the Advaita Siddhi portion on the definition of avidyA, where the siddhikAra had interpreted "bhAva" to refer to presence in general and not necessarily paramArtha sat.

To this, your email in reply had said that the main point of the discussion was that various scholars had referred to avidyA as positive and in particular, that Goda Venkateshwara Shastry's view was that bhAva referred to Brahman. 

I didn't understand the relevance of that response. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Sudhanshu Ji had posted his analysis of certain issues which had arisen during the course of our discussion on the appropriateness of the use of the word *positive* in respect of the word avidyA. He had addressed his post to me as well as others seeking a response. As I was not keen on continuing with those issues which I considered as secondary topics which had comeup incidentally during the course of our discussion concerning the main issue, I just wanted to revert back to the main issue. In that connection, in my response to the post by Sudhanshu Ji, I just drew attention to the main issue at hand by just copying my initial post covering reference to various scholars addressing  avidyA as positive and also to  Sri Goda Venkateshwara Shastry's talk. That was the relevance of my post you have referred to.

Regards

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 4:08 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Chandramouliji,

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Putran Ji,

Reg  // One question is whether English writers like you mentioned have translated...... //,

Just wanted to clarify that all the writers I had mentioned are Indians and  not English writers. But the texts I had referred were written by them in english language.

Regards

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 6:02 PM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-o3r-Ba3%2BLP3SCN8gLu2QWt2bs8ji8vQ%3D-3Hz0Eb7_ArA%40mail.gmail.com.