[Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

[V Subrahmanian]

In Kannada there is a saying:

A person was not in good terms with his son-in-law.  So he hated the idea of
referring to him as his son-in-law.  He always said 'he is my daughter's
husband'.

I find the case of mUlAvidya rejection and accepting the very same
inevitable concept in another form under another name such as jnAnAbhaava or
abhAvarUpa kAraNa is no different from the above analogy.

The case with avidya lesha is also the same.  The samskara that operates
cannot be  wished away.  One may not like the term 'avidya lesha', but the
fact of it is there.  No other meaning for the term 'samskara' of the
Bhashya in this context is possible to be adduced.  The Ratnaprabha has said
it accurately to ward off any apprehension about the mUlAvidyA being
present: vikShepaka-avidyAlesha eva tat-samskAraH.  The 'AvaraNa' aspect of
avidya has been dispelled by the samyagjnAna.  So there is no possibility of
that to linger.  But the samskAra of having had the
dvaita/nAnAtva/projecting power darshana will be there till the fall of the
body.  This samskara sustains jivanmukti.

Om Tat Sat

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Venkata Subramanian <
venkat_advaita at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Without going into any merit, if one were to dismiss a lofty thinking of
> this calibre as Mulavida nirasa so easily by the quible of a few
> words...this is a classic example.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Venkat.
>
> Sadgurubhyo Namah.
>
> --- On Fri, 16/4/10, Anand Hudli <ahudli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Anand Hudli <ahudli at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book
> `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.
> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Date: Friday, 16 April, 2010, 9:12 PM
>
>
> >This book of krishna Jois has in turn been effectively answered by Sri
> Vittala Shastri in his - Mulavidya Bhashya Vartika Virudha.  >By the way,
> Krishna Jois Sharma himself was a disciple of Sri Holenarsipuram Swamigal.
>
> Pt. Krishna Jois himself says very clearly that if the effort of the
> mulAvidyAnirAsa work is to disprove mUlAvidyA that is
> vAstavika (real), there is nothing that contradicts schools such as the
> vivaraNa and bhAmatI schools. In fact, such an
> effort helps the vivaraNa and bhAmatI schools. However, if the effort is to
> disprove mUlAvidyA as a vyAvahArika satya or
> mithyA entity then the effort is wasted! "viphalashcha prayAsaH" as Krishna
> Jois says.
> The same comment applies to all other books in the same line as the first
> one.
>
> Anand
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>