[Advaita-l] Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance, Deep Sleep

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 13 23:50:05 CDT 2013


Vaartika Prasthaana Vimarsha Prastaavaat Praageva Tu Tatra Vaachakaanaam
Pravesha Saukaryaartham Prathamato Brahma Siddhi Prasthaana Vimarshanam
Apekshyate. Yasmaat Brahmasiddhi Krutaa Anekaa VicaarasaraNyo Vaartike
Tathaivanusrutaaha. Tatratya Shabda Vaakyayukti Jaataani Ca Tatra Tatra
Tathaiva Anukrutaani Lakshyante.

Method Vedanta Page 261 -
Before entering on an examination of the System expounded in Suresvara's
Vartika it is necessary to begin first with an examination of the system of
the Brahma Siddhi of Mandana Misra to help the reader in his approach.
Sometimes the lines of argument found in the Brahma Siddhi are followed in
Suresvara's Vartika just as they stand. Sometimes the actual words, phrases
and arguments are reproduced.

Mandana writing on Ignorance -

Method of Vedanta Page 262 -
'But for Mandana Ignorance means positive error. This emerges for instance
from the passage 'Non apprehension being a non entity cannot be a cause of
anything. It cannot be the cause of erroneous vision or it would cause it
in coma or dreamless sleep. What then is the cause of erroneous vision? Not
non perception but as we have already said beginningless purposeless
Ignorance. It is useless to ask for a cause of beginningless Ignorance.
Because erroneous vision and the impressions it leaves act on each other
mutually as cause and effect our theory can stand'. Brahma Siddhi page 33.
That is to say new erroneous vision leaves impressions which in turn beget
new erroneous visions which in turn beget new impressions and so on. One
may imagine the series of causes stretching back endlessly. '

This is like the Beeja Ankura Cause and Effect.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

> It is clear that any state that is itself a superimposition (adhyAsa,
> avidyA or avidyA-kalpita) is necessarily associated with duality, else
> there would result a contradiction - something that is a superimposition is
> identical with Brahman, the sole reality. Applying this reasoning to the
> deep sleep state (suShupti) (and the other two states as well), it follows
> that this sleep state falls within the realm of dvaita after all, since it
> is after all a superimposition (on the Self).  And what could be the
> duality here? It is Brahman and AvidyA in a seed form. Although, this state
> has been said to lead to "ekatva", this "ekatva" has to be taken only
> figuratively or relative to the two other states, waking and dream, and not
> in an absolute sense. The sleep state has ekatva in the sense there are no
> perceived objects. Nevertheless, it does have avidyA, otherwise it would
> not be a superimposition!
> The upAdhis in the waking state are latent in the sleep state. Shankara
> says as much in his bhAShya on 2.3.31, "evamayamapi buddhisaMbandhaH
> shaktyAtmanA vidyamAna eva suShuptapralayayoH punaH
> prabodhaprasavayorAvirbhavati" Thus, this association with the intellect is
> latent in sleep and dissolution and is manifested again in waking and
> creation. The analogy cited here is that manhood that is latent in a boy,
> but manifests itself fully when the boy comes of age. He also cites the
> Chandogya upanishad 6.9.3 to assert that waking from sleep is because of
> the existence of avidyA in seed form, "suShuptAd
> utthAnamavidyAtmakabIjasadbhAvakAritam".
> So we have: avidyA bIja causes adhyAsa in the waking and dream states, and
> according to followers of SSS, suShupti itself is fashioned by avidyA,
> where avidyA is adhyAsa (tametamevaMlakShaNam adhyAsaM paNDitA avidyeti
> manyante). It follows that the avidyA bIja is also fashioned by adhyAsa .
> This starts to look like the classical case of seed and sprout (bIjAnkura)
> where the seed gives rise to the sprout and the sprout gives rise to the
> seed. Which is the basic cause - the seed or the sprout? One reason why
> Shankara did not emphasize too much either the seed or sprout as the basic
> cause is perhaps because such theories of causation (kArya-kAraNa-bhAva)
> have been refuted in the Alatashanti PrakaraNa of the mANDUkya kArikas
> (example, 4.20). Shankara clearly agrees (4.19) that any theory of
> causation cannot be substantiated (hetuphalayoH kAryakAraNabhAva
> anupapatteH) and that the absence of birth (ajAti) of everything is
> highlighted by the learned. What exists cannot be born, because it always
> is. There is no time when it was not existing and then came into existence.
> What does not exist cannot be born too because it never is.
> 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



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list