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

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Continued on Page 22

'Besides all the different views cited by the Bhashya evidently refer to
Adhyasa as superimposition of some property on something else to which it
does not really pertain.They only differ about the specific nature of the
superimposition. The sub-commentator overlooks this fact and insists on his
own theory about the nature and causes of the unreal things.

And what is more serious is the fact that he takes no notice of Sankara's
introduction to the illustrations of superimposition which says 'Tatha Hi
Loke Anubhavaha'. 'Accordingly it is a matter of experience' and twists the
original text to refer to the thing which appears as something else.'


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> Sankara Vedanta Mimansa Bhashyam by Holenarsipur Swamiji SSS Page 20 and
> 21 has analysed the Panchapadika Teeka of  the Mithyajnana Nimitta in
> Sankara Adhyasa Bhashya -
>
> Atra Shruta Hanih Ashruta Kalpana Ca Kriyate Teekakarena Iti Sphutam -
> The Teekakara Padmapada is doing Shruta Hani because he is disregarding
> the Bhashya and he is also doing Ashruta Kalpana. He is imagining different
> things not present in the Bhashya.
>
> Panchapadika -
>
> 'The compound word 'Mithyajnana' has to be resolved into Mithya Ca
> Tadajnanam Ca' False Ignorance. Here Mithya means Undefinable. and Ajnana
> means the inert potency of Avidya, in contrast to  consciousness. And the
> word Nimittaha means having that potency as its material cause.
>
> Now this interpretation is vitiated by the following defects -
>
> In the first place it ignores what is expressly stated in the Bhashya and
> inserts something never referred to in the Bhashya. For the Bhashya says
> that all human procedure is due to misconception, but the author of the
> Tika disregards this express statement and makes the original mean that the
> unreal appearance of egoity etc in the Atman is the effect of the material
> cause - a hypothetical potency of Avidya- which inheres in the essential
> nature of Atman and that this cause has to be assumed to be attached to
> Atman for the simple reason that otherwise we cannot account for the
> appearance of false phenomena. In the second place while the objection is
> that the mutual superimposition of the Self and the not Self is against all
> reason, the reply brings in something irrelevant to the context, for it
> says that we have all to assume that there is a hypothetical Avidya potency
> clinging to internal and external things.'
>
>
>


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh