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

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> Namaste
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna

> You said :
>
> Adi Sankara has not propagated the idea of Anirvachaniya Avidya and
> the two Avidyas. But it was started later.
>
>>  shankara/gaudapAda  does talk about kAraNAvidyA & kAryAvidyA at various
> places of their works.  For example you can refer kArikA & shankara
> bhAshya on it.  But I agree that there is no scope for anirvachaneeya
> avidyA in shankara bhAshya.  But since you have some aversion towards
> mAyAvAda, I wish to bring to your notice that shankara does talk about
> mAya and its anirvachaniyatva in sUtra bhAshya.  (tatvAnyatvAbhyAm
> anirvachaniye--clarifies shankara on the concept of mAya).  Anyway,
> according to Sri SSS mAya is not equal to avidyA in shankara bhAshya.
>
For Padmapada and other followers Maya=Avidya=Anirvachaniya=Mithya.
You think Sri SSS will agree to this? He will not agree
Mayavada=Anircahaniya Vada = Mithya Vada. He will not agree to Bhava
Rupa Avidya.

Padmapada and Vachaspati sowed the seed Maya Beeja called as Mula
Avidya in Sankara Advaita and watered it with the Mayavada theory. It
became a Big Tree and very hard to climb for all people. People are
looking at the Big Tree and saying Advaita is only Mayavada. They are
not seeing the Root of the Big Tree is in Brahman.
>
> Holenarsipur Swamiji has written about Vachaspati in Page 101 How to
> Recognize the Method of Vedanta -
>
>>  Please note, the above work of Sri SSS is a comprehensive preamble to
> his Sanskrit work vedAntaprakriya pratyabhigna.  Here Sri SSS mainly
> arguing about the theory 'mUlAvidyA or bhAva rUpa avidyA which is not
> jnAnAbhAva but a material cause for adhyAsa.  I dont think anywhere he
> questions the necessity of mAya and avidyA in shankara bhAshya. So, in
> short, you are quoting Sri SSS completely out of context.
Is Sri SSS using the Anirvachaniya Vada in his arguments? Is he
calling Jagat as Sadasadvilaksana in his arguments? If not he is not
using Mayavada. He is saying indirectly Mayavada is not necessary.

>
>>  Kindly stop mis-quoting Sri SSS to propagate your imagined theory of
> mAyAvAda.
>
I have given his views from the book as it is without changes. I don't
have a theory of Mayavada. As a matter of fact I am arguing we don't
need Mayavada. We have to take out the Maya Beeja Mula Avidya and
become pure Brahmavadis. The Upanishad is showing respect to
Brahmavadis only. It is saying Brahmavadino Vadanti.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh