[Advaita-l] Meet on Advaita Vedanta in Bangalore - May 7 to 8. 2013

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM, vinayaka ns <brahmavadin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
>
> >
> > When this highlighted sentence of the bhAShyam which explicitly says that
> > there is avidyA that is the differentiating factor for the jIva, the
> party
> > that does not accept this made a protest saying that:
> >
> > 1. Sri SSS had given a footnote to that bhashya (as usual) to give it a
> > different interpretation.
> >
> > 2. The above bhAShya has to be seen as gauNa, the mukhya being the ones
> in
> > the Br.up. Bhashya which forms the basis for them to conclude that there
> is
> > no avidyA for the jiva in suShupti.
> >
> >
> >
> Are there any other instances where BSB is treated as gauNa and is made
> subservient to the Upanishad bhAshyas? Especially w.r.t. key issues like
> avidyA in sushupti/samAdhi abhyAsa etc?
>

Shri Bhaskar ji has earlier stated that those BS bhAShya sentences like
'avidyA hi avyaktam,  mAyaa hi avyaktam' are gauNa and the mukhya avidyA is
the one in the adhyAsa bhAShya which says avidya is adhyAsa.

In fact during the discussion the hosting party also tried to place before
the assembly their view: According to Shankara 'sadyo mukti' or nothing
remaining over once the Truth is realized is the mukhya view and all talk
of prArabdha, etc. is only gauNa.  But the visiting scholars did not give
this view any cognition.  Moreover, according to the bhAShya, sadyo mukti
is the one that is just different from krama mukti.  It is not the sadyo
mukti that is defined as 'there is no world / body for the mukta the moment
realization dawns.'  It would be interesting to note that in the Br.Up.
bhashya 1.4.10 Shankara writes just after the portion where He says: 'even
for the jnani, sometimes.....'

//Etena  samyagjnAnAnantarameva sharIrapAtAbhAvaH kasmAdityetat parihRtam'//

[Thus the objection 'why not the body die immediately after realization'
has been addressed.]

Anandagiri writes for this:  ...jnAnAnmokShe tajjanmamAtreNa sharIram
sthitihetvabhAvAtpatediti sadyomuktipakSham pratyAha - Eteneti.

[Since it is held that 'Knowledge confers liberation', even as knowledge
arises let the body, owing to there being no support for its sustenance,
die.  Such a 'sadyomukti' view is refuted by the Bhashyam sentence cited
above.]

Even as I was closing this post, I saw Shri Bhaskar ji's post and thought
will respond to it here itself:

He said:  // We can get plenty of quotes from sUtra bhAshya itself
to strengthen the case that there is no mUlAvidyA or kAraNa rUpa avidya
(which is not abhAva rUpa) in sushupti since the jeeva here in this state
attains / merges in that secondless tattva.  For example in sUtra bhAshya
3.2.7 (before 3.2.9) in sUtra bhAshya  shankara clearly says
'swamapeetObhavati' shankara clarifies here, swa means Atma,
apeethobhavati means he attains his own self.  If there really exists
something 'anishta' called mUlAvidyA can jeeva attains this mergence??
Further in that same sUtra shankara says satha soumya thada sampanno
bhavati (at the time of sushupti the individual jeeva merged in brahman),
and in 2.3.18 sUtra and in bri.up. 4.3.23 too shankara clarifies
yadwaithannapasyanthi pasyanvai thannapasyanthi, not knowing anything in
sushupti is because of 'ekatvaM'.   I can still quote plenty of references
like this from sUtra bhAshya itself, so sUtra bhAshya too like
bruhadAraNyaka clearly says there is no avidyA (in bhAva rUpa which is NOT
jnAnAbhAva) as such !! //

My response:

On of the main points taken up for discussion was the Br.bhAShya on
sushupti/moksha and as said above the contention was 'the jIva merges in
Brahman/Atman during sushupti and hence there is no avidyA then'.  The
response to that was that when Shankara says 'there is no avidyA then' it
only means, as Shankara has said too: bheda pratyupasthApaka ajnAna
abhAvAt' [that ajnana that projects duality is not there].  That does not
mean that the ajnAna that is not projection too is not there.  Projection
is not there because the sAmagri, indriyas and mind, are resolved there.
That is all the bhashya wants to say.

I remembered another bhashya vAkyam that I have presented on this and other
forum several times, which I brought to the notice of MDS and he had kept
it to show them but the appropriate opportunity never came.  That bhashyam
is:

Shankara is saying this Himself: see mAnDUkya kArikA bhAShya for the very
second kArikA in the first chapter.  Shankara cites the Chandogya mantra:
prANabandhanam hi somya manaH and raises a question:  Is it not the Brahman
that is spoken of in the mantra 'sadeva somya idam agre AsIt' the one
indicated by the word 'prANa' here?  And answers 'Yes. there is no problem.
bIjAtmakatva-abhyupagamAt sataH - the Sat Brahman before creation is
admitted  by the shruti as *endowed with the jIvaprasavabIja*.
...nirbIjatve chEt sati lInAnAm sampannAnAm suShuptapralayayoH punarutthAna
anupapattiH syAt. [If the Sat into which the jivas merge during deep sleep
and pralaya is not the one with the bIja, seed, for their re-emergence,
there will be no way they can re-emerge.]  And further in this very
BhAShyam Shankara gives a ruling:

tasmAt sabIjatva abhyupagamenaiva sataH prANatva vyapadeshaH
*sarvashrutiShu* cha kAraNatvavyapadeshaH'  [ Therefore, it is only by
admitting that the Sat is sopAdhika that It is called prANa, and in ALL
shruti passages It is spoken of as the kAraNa.]

In this bhAShya Shankara implies that '*wherever* there is talk of jiva
merging in Sat/Brahman/Atman during sleep/praLaya, that Sat is NOT the
nirupAdhika/shuddha/nirbIja one; it is the sopadhika/sabIja
Sat/Atman/brahman.  Therefore the Br.Up.mantra/bhashya that is held as
pramANa (and the various sutra bhashya vakyas shown above) are all subject
to this Rule shown in the Mandukya bhashya by Shankara.  This prevails upon
all else, for there is a bAdhaka here and all the other vAkyams from the
other bhashyams are to be correctly understood keeping this in mind.
Certainly there is no confusion/ambiguity with reference to this mandukya
sentence.  Shankara gives the reasons too: if it is the nirbIja, shuddha,
sat/brahman/ATman where jIvas merge in sleep/pralaya, there is no way they
can come back.  This is prabala yukti that subdues all other yuktis/vAkyam
pramANas.    This is stressed because those who hold that there is no
avidya in sushupti base their conclusion on the reasoning: the jiva merges
in Brahman/atman (which is generally thought to be shuddha) and therefore
one with It and how can there be any avidyA taint in the jiva then?  This
reasoning is uprooted by the above Shankara vakya in the mAnDUkya.

I would like to mention here that during the discussion Vidwan
Krishnamurthy SastriNaH very emphatically stated: The avidyA that we are
talking about, and you are opposing, is NOT satya.  We have made it clear
umpteen times that for us avidyA is mithyA.  We use the term/adjective
'bhAvarUpa' ONLY to differentiate it from the cases of abhAva like hare's
horn.  And this is explicitly stated by the ChitsukhachArya  (he recited a
verse from there).  So, the opposition to bhAvarUpa avidya is based on the
wrong understanding that it is real.  That such mistaken view is at the
base of their opposition was being highlighted by the SastrinaH.




regards
subrahmanian.v

>
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Vinayaka
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>