[Advaita-l] Fw: Presupposition of an agent of action and errors thereof

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

praNAms Sri Siva Senani Nori prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Since I too donot have ardour (chapala) for any debate, let me rest my case
with few comments (still big!!:-)) on your mail..This is not for any
records, this is only for your information.

SSN prabhuji:

* Bhaskarji, the above is a classic example of "proof by repetition" and
lack of consistency. Most of the above material is repeated (not
intentionally I understand; I guess you just get irritated that others
don't understand you, and just let go from first prinicples all over again
- while that is understandable, it hampers any useful discussion and just
increases the entropy in the world)

bhaskar :

Yes, it's been repeated intentionally coz. you have never cared to give any
valid comment except hand waving explanations like "this does not prove
that, that does not prove this " and making some sarcastic remarks like
*reality show continues, pseudo communication goes on" etc. etc.  (BTW I
did not know sarcasm is the part of this discussion!!!) I was expecting an
open/worthy feed back from a scholar like you for my personal mail
*anubhava according to shankara* but you simply labelled it as *pseudo
communication* & washed off your hands...

SSN prabhuji :

to which the proper response is to reproduce the eight quotes from the same
samanvayAdhikaraNa saying quite the opposite, which I do at the end of the
mail.

bhaskar :

you are showing these quotes to me as if I am *dead against* to shruti
pramANa :-))  Actually none of the quoted sentences from samanvayAdhikaraNa
prove that *anubhava* is NOT a pramANa in brahma jignAsa...it only
emphasizes the fact that shruti is *a* pramANa in brahma jignAsa & how
shruti *reveals* the nature of brahman. Ofcourse, from my side I dont have
any disagreement with it!! AND the quotes provided by you donot disprove
that *anubhava* is also a pramANa in brahmajignAsa..as you know *anubhava
as a pramANa* has the endorsement of bhagavadpAda himself in the second
sUtra itself.

BTW, what is your explanation for the the below express statement of
shankara in the same tattu samanvayAt sUtra?? (1-1-4)  " Therefore all
injuctions and *all other means of knowledge end with the *dawn of the
intuition* that I am brahman...For when the intuition of the secondless
Atman, neither to be accepted or shunned, arises, pramANa-s cannot continue
to thrive, since there will be neither a knower nor objects to be known
then "

And again in sUtra bhAshya (4-1-3) : " Since there is the text beginning
with 'here the father ceases to be father ' which says 'the vEda-s are no
vEda-s (bruhadAraNyaka 4-3-22), *non-existence of even shruti is
*certainly* accepted by us* in the state of enlightenment "

Here in the above quotes, shankara is emphatically declaring that the
conception of the finality of knowledge in intuition (which you are
vehemently denying without any support from bhAshya vAkya) and extinction
of all means of knowledge i.e. including shAstra.

SSN prabhuji :

If an  hierarchy was introduced, it is from Sri Gangolli's translation of
Sri SSS's statement that "anubhava is the kingpin among pramANas".

bhaskar :

If you know Kannada, I suggest you one book *vEdAntArtha sAra saMgraha* by
Sri SSS..In this book he explicitly takes this question : how *anubhava* is
also a pramANa & what is meant by the statement 'brahmajnAna should
culminate in *anubhava* alone etc.... In this Sri Swamiji says that
according to shankara one part of the universal intuitive experience is for
the purposes of deliberation a pramANa....( Page :38 he writes in Kannada :
sArvatrikAnubhavada yEka dEshavu (ondu bhAgavu) vichArakke pramANa;
AtmaikatvajnAnavu sArvatrika pUrNAnubhavadalli konegANuttade - yembudu
AchAryara Ashaya)...Kindly note here in this context, the word *pramANa*
does not at all denote that this is also one among the empirical valid
means of knowledge i.e. pratyaksha, anumAna etc. since all these pramANa-s
are to be accounted witnin the boundaries of *avidyA* only.  In the present
context when we say *anubhava is also a pramANa*it implies that it is a
*means* for determining the *tattva* (reality) after intuitve deliberation
and pUrNa anubhava is that resultant intuitive experience evolved out or
deduced from that deliberation.  (in the same book Page No. 38 he writes :
pramANavendare illi vichAramaadi tattvavannu nirNayisuvudakke saadhanavu;
pUrNAnubhavavu vichAradinda yErpaduva phalarUpavAda jnAna). Sri SSS, in the
same book subsequently deals with the subject matter *anubhavAdayascha*,
what is the meaning of *Adi* here apart from anubhava etc..

SSN prabhuji :

Since Sri Gangolli has not yet been proven to have mis-translated, we need
to assume that he was faithful, and that is the source of the hierarchy.
Even so, conceding that such is indeed your contention, what does the very
next sentence say? Again, quoting in full: "Having said this, I once again
insist that shAstra is_not_a_pramANa *directly* revealing the nature of
brahman." This assertion begs a question as to what is the pramANa that
directly reveals the nature of Brahman.


bhaskar :

As shankara himself admitted nothing in this world that can reveal the
*real nature* of brahman...coz...(please note I am once again repeating the
same since you are ignoring the shruti quotes/shankara bhAshya vAkya-s : //
Because brahman which we are *talking* here cannot be expressed by words or
sentences, for it has no genus, no quality, no action or any other specific
feature that we can attribute him in an effort to
objectify it. and Atman or self as is well-known, is no adventitious thing
for any one, for he is self-established  (na hyAtma AgantukaH, kasyachit,
svayaMsiddhatvAt) //)

SSN prabhuji:

The answer, the reader is expected to supply, is of course, "intuit" /
sArvatrikAnubhava etc. according to the followers of Sri SSS..

bhaskar :

and you can add : 'according to the followers of *shankara siddhAnta'


bhaskar :
If the innate avidyA does not pertains to antaHkaraNa (mind) then question
invariably follows for whom this avidyA pertains to??

SSN prabhuji :
* Interesting. I think this is a valid point of discussion. The answers
given by various schools are that ISvara is the locus of avidyA and that
ISvara is the content of avidyA.

bhaskar :
Kindly pardon me..I am more interested in knowing what shankara offers for
this question...not other schools...shankara himself says in sUtra bhAshya
*Ishvara* & his ishitavya are valid only in vyAvahArika satya...so what is
vyAvahAra then??

SSN prabhuji :

* The four posts above show another technique. I start off asking where Sri
Sankara says that avidyA is natural to the mind, as opposed to being merely
natural. The discussion is veered off to something altogether different,

bhaskar :

My dear prabhuji, for this digression, I am sorry to say you only to be
blamed...I asked you if not upAdhi what else is the locus of avidyA in
vyavahAra??  for that you answered *some other schools* will say *so & so*
& brought in Ishwara...Where did I ask you what other schools say on this
issue?? what is the need for you to bring in other schools here in our
discussion??  should I say this is another trick to pass  the buck on
others:-))

SSN prabhuji :

with neither the quote being supplied nor it being admitted that Sri
Sankara does not say that "avidyA is natural to the mind".

bhaskar :

What happened to my earlier quotes from gIta & taitirIya??  Have you
already forgotten your assurance that you are going to *contextually*
analyse & discuss these two quotes in detail??   Please note (repetition!!)
in gIta & taitirIya upanishad bhAshya shankara very clearly said avidyA
pertains to antaHkaraNa..the onus is on you to explain me why it is not
antaHkaraNa and it is something else!!   Anyway, here are two more for your
further analysis : in gIta bhAshya shankara explains avidyA as *tAmasa
pratyaya*  Kindly tell me what is the origin of pratyaya if it is not
antaHkaraNa??  and in *utkrAntigati adhikaraNa* sUtra bhAshya shankara
argues why upAdhi to be accepted (not as adhyAsa) to  do brahma jignAsa.
Untill you come up with detailed analysis of these bhAshya vAkya-s & prove
it otherwise, dont ask me for bhAshya vAkya reference... I think I've
supplied enough already :-))

bhaskar :

you have ignored by first sentence i.e. vidyA & avidyA is *upAdhi*
vyavahAra...if not I request you to come out with a better logical
explanation which is in line with anubhava. We shall take from there
on...Until then it is better to accept what is offered by shankara with
regard to avidyA without inventing new thories.

SSN prabhuji :

* Very well, let us consider the word upAdhi as well. Even with vidyA and
avidyA being upAdhi vyavahAra, it does not follow that avidyA is natrual to
the mind.

bhaskar :

See this is how you have been refuting my views...you simply concluded that
*it does not follow that avidyA is natrual to the mind* without even
bothering to explain what is upAdhi & how it does not follow what I said!!
I am happy to accept your judgement on my view points prabhuji but with
proper justification :-))

SSN prabhuji :

As to theories, if I am inventing a new theory, please let me know what
that is, as to my knowledge I am not.

bhaskar :

My observations are :

(a) influenced by *erudite scholar's lucid paper* you are announcing that
avidyA is not pertains to antaHkaraNa

(b) in contradiction to shankara's express statements, you are declaring in
shruti we should have mere *faith* &  in an effort to uphold the supremacy
of shruti you are belittling the role of anubhava in brahma jignAsa.

SSN prabhuji :

* Please read my original sentence carefully. All that I am saying is that
Sri Sankara does not presuppose an atahkaraNa to do the cognizing,
perceiving and memorizing. He has merely stated the types of adhyAsa - and
they are valid irrespective of whether avidyA is natural to the mind, or
merely natural, especially because mind itself is one such ahdyAsa.

bhaskar :

Please note you are telling antaHkaraNa (mind) is itself another adyAsa in
a totally out of context here...you cannot always interpret
antaHkaraNa=adhyAsa...for example in gIta bhAshya shankara says,
shamadamAdi susaMskruta mana Atma darshane karaNaM...you know the
consequences if we interpret mana=adhyAsa here...More of this in my
subsequent mail on antaHkaraNa...

bhaskar :
Where did I say we have to *bar those terms* in the discussion...I dont
have any problem with terminologies used in those two schools & usage of
the same in our discussion...I only said since shankara himself refuted
those schools of thought (pUrvamImAmsa & nyAya)let us not bring in those
theories in our discussion...

SSN prabhuji:

* You are right, and I was wrong, you had not barred the terms but only
said that you have not studied them and do not use hi-funda words.

bhaskar :
Though you are sarcastic in your above comment, you said the truth  that
you are wrong in interpreting my words.  For your ready reference this is
what I had said in my lead post :

// quote //

So, in my mail, there wont be any hi-funda terminologies of avidyA-s like
epistemic or ontic while explaning the
nature of it. There wont be explanations for dry logic's (shushka tarka)
objections like chakrAshraya dOsha, anyOnyAshraya dOsha & AtmAshraya dOsha,
there wont be deliberation on whether avidyA is epistemic or ontic or both
or none etc.. ..

// unquote //


Enough said....let me take leave....

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar