[Advaita-l] Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Holenarsipur Swamiji has said in page 78 - 'Maayaa Sabdaha Na Kvacidapi
Bhashye Avidyaaparyaayatvena Nirdishtaha Yathaa Manyate Teekaakaaraha' No
where in the Bhashya Adi Sankara has said Maya is same as Avidya like the
Teekaakaara is thinking.

Who is Ishwara? What is Ishwara's Maayaa? Who is Jeeva?  All this is Avidya
Kalpita. Ishwara and the Maya and Jeeva are all Avidya Kalpita only. They
are CONJURED UP by Avidya. What is Avidyaa? It is Adhyaasa only.

Avidyaa = Adhyaasa . This is a simple point not understood by many people.
Adi Sankara has said -

Tametamevam Lakshanam Adhyaasam Panditaa Avidyeti Manyante. The wise people
think the Superimposition is Avidyaa. There is  not some other Avidyaa
Sakti sitting behind Adhyaasa and causing it.

If Adhyaasa is understood we can understand Ishwara and his Maya Sakti or
Prakruti are CONJURED UP by Adhyaasa. Why? Because I have Adhyaasa of Body
and Mind in Atma I imagine I am a Jeeva and there must be a Ishwara. I
imagine His power. I imagine Ishwara has created this World. I imagine I am
a Jeeva and go from one birth to next. Even Sastra is saying I have to do
good acts for better birth and avoid bad acts. I imagine I am a
transmigrating Soul. But this is all because of Adhyaasa. It is all Avidyaa
Kalpita.

Sutra Bhashya 2 -1 - 14 Avidyaakalpite Naama Roope Tattvaanyatvaabhyaam
Anirvacaneeye Samsaaraprapanceebhoote Sarvajnasya Ishwarasya Maayaa Saktihi
Prakrutiriti Sruti Smrutyorabhilapyete
'Name and Form which constitute the seed of the world of mundane life
CONJURED UP BY AVIDYA as though they were identical with the Omniscient
Lord but which are Undefinable as Reality or other than That are called
'Maya', Sakti (potential energy), and Prakrti (primordial matter) in the
Sruti and Smruti.

'Whereas it has been proclaimed in the Bhashya that name and form CONJURED
UP BY AVIDYA are called Maya the author of the Tika has maintained that the
Avidya Sakti is itself the Maya and that Akasha etc are all names of that
hypothetical Avidya Sakti'. - Page 34

Very Important statement from Adi Sankara in Adhyasa Bhashya - Tametam
Avidyaakhyam Atmaanaatmanor Itaretara Adhyaasam Puraskrutya Sarve Pramaana
Prameya Vyavahaaraa Laukikaa Vaidikaashca Pravruttaaha

All worldly and Vaidika activities are based on this Superimposition of Not
Self and Self on each other. This Superimposition is Avidyaa the Ignorance.

In the Sutra Bhashya you have given अविद्यात्मिका हि
बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी, the Holenarsipur
Swamiji is saying we have say अविद्यात्मिका is अविद्याकल्पिता only. Maayaa
is CONJURED UP BY Avidyaa.



On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:37 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> >
> > Holenarsipur Swamiji has written in Suddha Sankara Prakriya Bhaskara in
> > Page 2 -
> >
> > Tatha Hi Bhagavatpaadaaha Sveeyabhaashyeshu Saankhyaadeeneva Dvaitinaha
> > Prativaaditvena Sveekrutya Niraakarshuhu
> >
> >  Adi Sankara has rejected the Purva Paksha Dvaiti Sankhya theory in his
> > Bhashya.
> >
> > Kimca Bhagavatpaadeeya Bhaashye Vedantavaakyaanaam Aidamparye Nishcetavye
> > 'Ikshater Naa Sabdam' 1 -1 - 5 ityaarabhya Aparisamaptehe
> > Pratipakshareetyaa Vedaantavaakya Vyaakhyaatrushu Madhye Saankhyaa Eva
> > Praadhaanyena Upaattaaha.
> >
> > In Adi Sankara Sutra Bhashya when he is explaining Vedanta Vakyas from
> > Ikshater Na Sabdam 1 - 1 - 5 till the end he is accepting only Sankhya as
> > Chief Purva Paksha. Sankhyas are the Chief Opponents for him.
> >
> > But Post Sankara Advaitis have tried to bring that Chief Purva Paksha
> > Sankhya into Advaita. This is unfortunate.
> >
> > Sankhya is Dvaita only because it has two Chief Factors. Purusha and
> > Prakruti. Sankhya is Dualistic Doctrine. Kindly see Notes below.
> >
> > Post Sankara Advaitis like Padmapada and Vacaspati have tried to make
> > Advaita like Sankhya. They say Brahman and Mula Avidya are both necessary
> > for Advaita. They cannot explain Advaita without the Two Factors.
> >
>
>
> Let us note that even the Veda,   Veda Vyasa and Adi Shankara cannot
> explain Advaita without 'two' factors.  We say 'two' in quotes because the
> 'other', prakRti, is mithyA, being paratantra, that is something having
> only a dependent existence/reality, like a rope-snake,  and therefore not
> countable as the second to the advitIya PuruSha.  In the BSB 1.4.3 Shankara
> says:
>
> तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् । ब्रह्मसूत्रम् १,४.३  ।
>
>
> यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम,
> प्रसञ्ज्येम
> तदा प्रधानकारणवादम्  ।परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था
> जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते न स्वतन्त्रा   । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या , अर्थवती हि सा
> ।
>
> नहि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिद्धयति   ।  शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य
> प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः   ।
>
> मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः   । कुतः   । विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात् ।
>
> अविद्यात्मिका हि बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी
> महासुप्तिः, यस्यां स्वरूपप्रतिबोधरहिताः शेरते संसारिणो जीवाः   ।
>
> तदेतदव्यक्तं क्वचिदाकाशशब्दनिर्दिष्टम् ’एतस्मिन्नु खल्वक्षरे गार्ग्याकाश
> ओतश्च प्रोतश्च’ (बृ. ३.८.११) इति श्रुतेः   ।
>
> क्वचिदक्षरशब्दोदितम् ’अक्षरात्परतः परः’ (मु. २.१.२) इति श्रुतेः   ।
>
> क्वचिन्मायेति सूचितम् ’मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम” (श्वे.
> ४.१०) इति मन्त्रवर्णात् ।
>
> अव्यक्ता हि सा माया, तत्त्वान्यत्वनिरूपणस्याशक्यत्वात् ।
>
> तदिदंऽमहतः परमव्यक्तम्ऽ इत्युक्तमव्यक्तप्रभवत्वान्महतः, यदा हैरण्यगर्भी
> बुद्धिर्महान्  । यदा तु जीवो महांस्तदाप्यव्यक्ताधीनत्वाज्जीवभावस्य महतः
> परमव्यक्तमित्युक्तम्  । अविद्या ह्यव्यक्तम्  । अविद्यावत्त्वेनैव जीवस्य
> सर्वः संव्यवहारः संततो वर्तते   ।
>
>
> The gist of the above quote is: But this primordial state is held by us to
> be subject to the supreme Lord, but not as an independent thing. [This is
> the crucial difference between sAnkhya and Vedanta where in the former this
> Shakti is independent in its activity while in vedanta it is only dependent
> on the Purusha/Brahman/Atman.] Continues Shankara: That state (the
> bIjashakti avasthA) has to be admitted because it serves a purpose.
> Without that latent state, the creatorship of Ishwara cannot have any
> meaning, inasmuch as Ishwara cannot act without His power of Maya, and
> without that latent state the absence of birth for the freed sould cannot
> be explained.  Why? Because liberation comes when the potential power of
> Maya is burnt away by knowledge.  That potential power, constituted by
> avidyA is mentioned by the word 'avyaktam'.  ...
>
>
> Shankara goes on to give a number of shruti passages for the 'existence' of
> the power.  One can see several verses in the Bh.Gita too to this effect,
> one sample being:
>
>
> प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्धयनादी उभावपि । विकारांश्च गुणांश्चैव विद्धि
> प्रकृतिसम्भवान् ॥13. 19 ॥
>
> Here Veda Vyasa, the Lord, says that 'two' - prakRti and puruSha are anAdi
> and all the transformations have come up due to prakRti.
>
>
> To show that this prakRti is mithyA, that is does not enjoy absolute
> existence but only a paratantra satya, we can see the last verse of the
> 13th chapter and its bhashya.
>
>
> Thus the vedanta shAstra happily accepts 'two' for the
> prapancha/samsAra/bandha-mokSha vyavasthA.  Without the 'two' it is
> impossible for anyone, even for Sri SSS, to explain this.  His blaming the
> commentators is only because he has himself not understood the Vedanta
> method of explaining samsara, etc.  One can clearly see from the above
> presentation that Sri SSS's pointing to 'virodha' to the Bhashya from the
> commentators is ill-founded and from even the bhashya vAkyams one can prove
> his theories wrong.  I recently pointed out to the case of a scholar
> viewing Sri SSS's book saying this very thing that I have said above.
>
>
>
>
> In that Post Sankara Advaita Brahman = Sankhya Purusha and Mula Avidya =
> > Sankhya Prakruti.
> >
> > This is wrong. Then Advaita becomes Dvaita like Sankhya.
> >
> > Holenarsipur Swamiji is saying in Page 32 Sankara Vedanta Meemamsa
> Bhashya
> > -
> >
> > 'So far we have seen that there is no reason why the original Bhashya
> > beginning with Mithya Jnana Nimittaha' should not be taken to mean what
> it
> > literally amounts to, - that all human procedure is due to a
> misconception
> > and that the forced interpretation of the statement as referring to a
> > hypothetical Avidya Shakti which is the material cause for all false
> > appearances is far fetched'.
> >
> > [[ If you are seeing Snake in a Rope Padmapada and other Post Sankara
> > Advaitis will say the Material Cause of the Snake is a strange Avidya
> > Shakti. That Avidya Shakti has become the Snake and you are seeing it.
> > Padmapada says Mithyajnana is actually Mithya Ajnana = False Ignorance.
> Adi
> > Sankara has not said this. He has said the Snake is because of a
> > Misconception = Mithya Jnana only. The seeing person has made a Simple
> > Mistake only.  He did not say Snake is because of Mithya Ajnana and that
> is
> > the Material Cause for Snake. ]]
> >
>
> This vAkyam from the bhashyam cited above calls the lie of Sri SSS's
> statement above:  //Why? Because liberation comes when the potential power
> of Maya is burnt away by knowledge.  That potential power, constituted by
> avidyA is mentioned by the word 'avyaktam'.  ...//
>
> Here Shankara is admitting a bAdha for the avidyA by vidyA.  It is
> vidyAvirodhi that is avidyA.  Anything that is set right by knowledge has
> to be mithyA.  Here the power of Maya is burnt by knowledge.  Therefore
> that power and its kAryam has to be mithyA.  Thus there is nothing wrong in
> parsing the compound word 'mithyAjnAnam' as 'mithyA cha tadajnAnam cha' as
> Shankara is very clearly saying in the above cited passage.  In fact the
> very first sutra, brahma jijnAsA, was founded on this principle: since
> Atma-vit, the knower of Atman, goes beyond shoka, it is concluded that
> shoka is mithyAjnAnakAryam (because it needs 'knowledge of Atman' for its
> removal).
>
> regards
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>
> >
> > 'Moreover that the Avidya Shakti which is taken here to be what is meant
> by
> > the Mithyajnana - be it an invention of the author of the Tika himself or
> > borrowed from some foreign tradition and adapted here to propound his
> > theory is altogether opposed to the spirit of the Bhashya, is also seen
> > from the circumstance that this sub commentator attempts to prove the
> > feasibility of its acceptance on the authority of the Pramana Arthapatti
> > (presumption)'.
> >
> > 'For Sankara here expressly declares that all Pramanas or means to valid
> > knowledge in empirical life are based on Adhyasa itself. This is also
> > obvious from the fact that this writer identifies his 'Avidya Sakti' with
> > 'Maya' in direct opposition to the teaching of the Bhashya'.
> >
> > [[ All Pramanas like Pratyaksha are based on Adhyasa. If you are seeing
> > something you are seeing because there is Adhyasa of Body Mind and Sense
> > Organs on Atma. Same for other Pramanas. ]]
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh