[Advaita-l] Holenarsipur Swamiji's remarks and why even Avidya is not necessary for Advaita

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 21:04:03 CST 2012

Namaste Sri Subrahmanian Sri Bhaskar and others

You are saying the person saying Maya is not necessary for
understanding Advaita is a Asampradayavit. He is not following Sankara

Who is Sampradayavit? Who is Asampradayavit? If you say Padmapada is
Sampradayavit I can say no. If you say Vachaspati Mishra is
Sampradayavit I can say no. Why? Because Padmapada is bringing new
concepts into Adi Sankara's teachings. Holenarsipur Swami has written
Padmapada brought in Positive Objective Avidya called as Bhava Rupa
Avidya but Adi Sankara never said that. He never said there is a
Avidya Cause for Adhyasa. He never said there is Anirvachaniya thing
like Sadasadvilakshana.

Vachaspati Mishra brought in things from Mandana Mishra's teachings
into Adi Sankara's teachings. Mandana Mishra is not from Adi Sankara
Sampradaya but different.

In the book How to Recognize the Method of Vedanta page 100
Holenarsipur Swamiji -
'The first of such defenders of Sankara was Vachaspati, whose
sub-commentary the Bhamati inaugurates a version of Sankara's system
widely different from the one presented by the Panchapadika for
instead of staking his all on the objective Avidya he tries to graft
Mandana's views on Sankara's system insofar as that is feasible, but
indirectly accedes to the opinion of the objective-avidya school while
keeping his fidelity to Sankara's Adhyasa doctrine also. In fact, this
Mishra's Advaita is an amalgam of the thoughts of all the three
systems. This he walks close on the heels of Mandana insofar as the
latter's system postulates two Avidyas - cause and effect - both
declared to Anirvachaniya.'

He is arguing two Avidyas the Cause Avidya and Effect Avidya are not
necessary. We have to accept only one Avidya. This is Adhyasa. And it
is not Bhava Rupa Avidya. There is no such thing Anirvachaniya in
Sankara Sampradaya but was brought in by Padmapada and Vachaspati

But we have to see Advaita can be explained using Sagunopasana. Then
we will not even need Avidya at all. Everything is Sat. But we are not
seeing it now. Doing Sagunopasana we can see He is there in
everything. Then we can do Nirgunopasana and realize Sarvam Khalvidam
Brahma. In this line of thinking there is no requirement for Avidya or
Mayavada. Mayavada is a negative approach but the Upasana approach is
Positive Approach. Ramanuja was correct to focus on  Brahman Upasana
but he brought in Acit and Cit. This is not necessary because then we
will not have pure Advaita. There will be three things. Brahman, Cit
and Acit. This is not Upanishad teaching.

We have learn to take the good points from Gurus and follow the correct path.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:37 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Namaste
>> I am showing that Maya is not supported by Adi Sankara below.  Adi Sankara
>> is not agreeing with Gaudapada regarding world and dream. Gaudapada is
>> saying objects in waking are like dream objects. But Adi Sankara has
>> disagreed in Sutra Bhashya. He is saying the objects in waking are real but
>> not imaginary objects like the dream objects.
> This is a topic that is quite commonly misunderstood by many.  There have
> been extensive discussions on this topic in the Advaitin List when one
> (westerner) member would repeatedly bring up this question.  It was Sri
> S.N.Sastri ji who provided a crisp answer (I am saying this in my own
> words):
> // In the Brahmasutra bhashya context Shankara has highlighted the
> 'differences between dream and waking.'  However, in the G.KArikA context
> Shankara has highlighted the similarities between the two states.'  Hence
> there is no room for the mistaken idea that Shankara is differing from
> Gaudapada or that He is contradicting Himself.  If one carefully reads the
> two commentaries with the context in mind one will be able to come out of
> this confusion.  //
> Here is a sample passage from Shankara's BSB ( ('सूचकस्य हि
> श्रुतेराचक्षते च तद्विदः’) -
> After bringing out the specific characteristics of the dream state,
> Shankara says this:
> पारमार्थिकस्तु नायं संध्याश्रयः सर्गो वियदादिसर्गवदित्येतावत्प्रतिपाद्यते   ।
> *नच वियदादिसर्गस्याप्यात्यन्तिकं सत्यत्वमस्ति*   ।
> प्रतिपादितं हिऽतदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यःऽ (ब्र. सू. २.१.१४) इत्यत्र *समस्तस्य
> प्रपञ्चस्य मायामात्रत्वम्*  ।
> प्राक्तु ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शनाद्वियदादिप्रपञ्चो व्यवस्थितरूपो भवति  ।
> //But what we want to show is only this much that in truth, this creation
> in dream is not of the same order of reality as the creation of space etc.
> *And yet the creation of space etc. also has no absolute reality; *for
> under the aphorism, 'The effect is non-different from the cause since terms
> like 'origin' etc. are met with' (BS 2.1.14), *we showed that the whole
> creation is but mAyA.*  But before the realization of the identity of the
> Self with Brahman, creation counting from space etc.m continues just as it
> is, whereas the creation within dream is abrogated every day. //
> Nothing more need to said after Shankara has said the ultimate word.
> Everyone who says anything different from the above can easily be placed
> under the 'asamprAdayavit' category and not listened to.
> subrahmanian.v
>> Kindly see the Journal of Indian Philosophy June 1996  paper by Srinivasa
>> Rao-
>> 'It is universally agreed, at least among all the Advaitic writers,
>> that the empirical world is Mithya, a product of Maya and is also
>> Sadasadvilaksana, i.e. the world is basically different in nature from
>> the Sat-cit-ananda Brahma. This thesis is at best a post Sankarite
>> myth, because, as far as the basic nature of the world is concerned, it is
>> not different from that of Brahman according to Sankara. This point will be
>> argued mainly on the basis of the Sankara's Brahmasutrabhasya, although it
>> can also be heavily corroborated from other major works of Sankara like his
>> Bhasyas on the major Upanisads.'
>> Descendants of Sankara are basically saying this. Brahman is the base for
>> Maya. This Maya is the cause for the World. Maya is the material cause. But
>> Sankara Siddhanta is not saying this.
>> There is no place for Maya in Advaita but only use may be to confuse
>> others in arguments. It is not necessary for serious study of Advaita.



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list