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

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Subramanian,


>I think you will have to go through the recent exchanges consisting of a
>number of quotes from Shankara's bhashyam to understand the Advaita
>prakriya.

I went through all of them, and they show that from a logical standpoint,
the concept of maya is necessary. But they do not show in the least that a
sAdhaka of advaita needs to know about mAyA for getting moksha. If
knowledge of maya is necessary for moksha, then sruti would have said mAyA
vid Apnoti param.

>Put in simple terms: Advaita as taught by Shankara cannot be
>taught by anyone/practiced by anyone without the concepts of
>mAyA/avidya/ajnana/moha/mithyatva, etc. in place.

Let us not put mAyA and moha in the same basket now. They can be used in
very different senses. Also, let us define our terms properly. mithyatva
itself is used in multiple contexts. In the first usage, something is
called mithya because it is anitya. This usage of mithya is more or less
essential for sAdhaka (which is why you find this mentioned at many times
in the sruti and smriti) in order to differentiate between the Self and the
non-Self.

But the other usage of the word mithya is in the context of something being
sublated by knowledge of brahman, like the knowledge of rope sublating the
knowledge of the snake. This kind of mithyatva leads to multiple
definitions of reality (by the way, multiple realities originally was a
buddhistic concept, found in mUla-mAdhyamika kArIka of nAgArjuna). This
second definition of mithyatva is essential for explaining advaita from a
logical standpoint, but is not essential for a sAdhaka for moksha (which is
why you hardly find it mentioned *explicitly* in the sruti or smriti).

Regards
Kalyan


On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:40 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Kalyan K <kalyankc.81 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sri Subramanian,
> >
> >
> > >>On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at
> > gmail.com <http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >>wrote:
> >
> > >>* Namaste*>>**>>* There is a third way also. Adi Sankara has sanctioned
> > Sagunopasana in*>>* some places. We can start with Sagunopasana and move
> to
> > Nirgunopasana*>>* keeping Mayavada away.*>>**
> > >The above has no basis in the shAstram.  'Moving' to Nirgunopasana is
> > >impossible without negating the guNas earlier meditated upon.  This
> > >negation is not achieved without resorting to mAyA/mithyAtva.  Adi
> > >Shankara's recommending saguNopasana is not at the cost of jettisoning
> > >mithyAtvanishchayaH of the guNa-s/saguNabrahman.
> >
> >
> > I do not exactly understand what you are suggesting above, but I think it
> > would be incorrect to say that saguNopAsana does not lead to moksha.
>
>
> I am not suggesting that saguNopAsana does not lead to mokSha.  I am aware
> of the scriptural/Advaitic stand that saguNopAsana, through the method of
> krama mukti, does lead to moksha.  But it is crucial to remember that even
> in this krama the final mukti/moksha is had ONLY through nirguNa brahma
> vidyA (in brahmaloka).  All I am saying in the above reply to Sri Venkatesh
> is about the 'movement' from saguNa upAsana (consisting of karma yoga and
> upasana) to nirguNa brahmavichAra IN THIS LIFE ITSELF is not without the
> concept of mAyA which is essential for the transition from saguNa to
> nirguNa.
>
>
> > I also feel that while the concepts of mAya etc. are definitely necessary
> > to explain advaita (from a logical point of view), the necessity of these
> > concepts for a sAdhaka is debatable.
> >
>
> I think you will have to go through the recent exchanges consisting of a
> number of quotes from Shankara's bhashyam to understand the Advaita
> prakriya.  Put in simple terms: Advaita as taught by Shankara cannot be
> taught by anyone/practiced by anyone without the concepts of
> mAyA/avidya/ajnana/moha/mithyatva, etc. in place.
>
> On your observation:  //the necessity of these concepts for a sAdhaka is
> debatable.// let me mention that for a saadhaka of the non-advaitic schools
> these concepts may not be necessary since for them moksha is not advaitic;
> there is a replica of samsara/duality/dependence in moksha in their
> schools.  Hence the avoidability of these concepts could be possible/valid
> in their systems.
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>