[Advaita-l] avidya is Agantuka

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Subrahmanian Ji observed


<< So, there is nothing wrong in admitting avidyā (manifested avidyā) to be
adventitious, just like kāma and karma.  Anandagiri's purport is: avidyā is
anādi and hence cannot be said to be āgantuka. Yet, its manifested form is
āgantuka. >> .


Sri Ravi Kiran Ji wanted to know if there is any other similar reference
elsewhere in Shruti/Bhashya to the observation made in this portion of BU
that अविद्या ( avidyā ) is आगन्तुक ( āgantuka) . I understood avidyā in
this query  as referring to Avidyā ( with Capital A ) only as otherwise
there was really no need to refer to Shruti/Bhashyam since manifest form of
Avidyā is always āgantuka only. ( Ofcourse only Sri Ravi Kiran JI has to
confirm if this understanding is correct or not ) . Hence I checked to see
if there is any further clarification in the Bhashyam itself on this issue.
In my understanding the Bhashyam does indeed cover this aspect and
clarifies that the manifest form of Avidyā  only is intended and that
manifest form is ऐकीभावः ( एकीभावाद्धेतोः ).


Regards

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:04 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Sri Ravi Kiran Ji,
>>
>>
>> Reg << In the bhashyam to Br.Up.4.3.22, it is said that ..
>>
>> प्रकृतः स्वयञ्ज्योतिरात्मा अविद्याकामकर्मविनिर्मुक्त इत्युक्तम्,
>> असङ्गत्वादात्मनः, आगन्तुकत्वाच्च तेषाम् ।
>>
>> It has been said that the self-effulgent Ātman which is being described is
>> free from ignorance, desire and work, for it is unattached, while they are
>> adventitious. >> ,
>>
>>
>> This is followedup in the Bhashyam by the following
>>
>>
>> << तत्र एवमाशङ्का जायते ; चैतन्यस्वभावत्वे सत्यपि एकीभावात् न जानाति
>> स्त्रीपुंसयोरिव सम्परिष्वक्तयोरित्युक्तम् ; तत्र प्रासङ्गिकम् एतत् उक्तम्
>> —
>> कामकर्मादिवत् स्वयञ्ज्योतिष्ट्वमपि अस्य आत्मना न स्वभावः, यस्मात्
>> सम्प्रसादे नोपलभ्यते — इत्याशङ्कायां प्राप्तायाम्, तन्निराकरणाय,
>> स्त्रीपुंसयोर्दृष्टान्तोपादानेन, विद्यमानस्यैव स्वयञ्ज्योतिष्ट्वस्य
>> सुषुप्ते अग्रहणम् एकीभावाद्धेतोः, न तु कामकर्मादिवत् आगन्तुकम्   >>
>>
>>
>> ( Translation by Swami Madhavananda ) << Here an objection is raised. The
>> Shruti has said that although the Self is Pure Intelligence, it does not
>> know anything ( in the state of profound sleep ) on account of its
>> attaining unity, as in the case of a couple in each other's embrace. The
>> Shruti has thereby practically said that like desire, work etc, the
>> selfeffulgence of the Atman is not its true nature, since it is not
>> perceived in the state of profound sleep. This objection is refuted by a
>> reference to the illustration of the couple in each other's embrace , and
>> it is asserted that the selfeffulgence is certainly present in profound
>> sleep , but it is not perceived on account of unity ; it is not
>> advetituous
>> like desire, work etc. >>
>>
>>
>> Note the concluding sentence. << न तु कामकर्मादिवत् आगन्तुकम्  >> . The
>> Bhashyam clearly asserts that Avidya ( nonperception ) is not adventituous
>> ( आगन्तुकम् ) like desire,work etc.
>>
>
> In the  bhāṣya sentences we can perceive these points:
>
> 1.  //प्रकृतः स्वयञ्ज्योतिरात्मा अविद्याकामकर्मविनिर्मुक्त इत्युक्तम्,
> असङ्गत्वादात्मनः, आगन्तुकत्वाच्च तेषाम् ।//
>
> avidyā, kāma and karma - three entities have been listed.  आगन्तुकत्वाच्च
> तेषाम्  shows that all the three are included since the word 'teṣām' is in
> plural (more than two). If avidyā were to be excluded, the word to convey
> that would have been: tayoḥ.
>
> Apart from that, even in << न तु कामकर्मादिवत् आगन्तुकम्  >> the word
> 'ādi' after kāma and karma stands for some entity, and that, as per the
> context, is avidyā. So, the bhāṣyam is not excluding avidyā from the list
> even here.
>
> Also, Anandagiri, in his gloss to the above says:
>
> यद्यपि न आगन्तुकत्वमविद्यायाः न युक्तम्, तथापि अभिव्यक्ता सा अनर्थहेतुः
> आगन्तुकी इति द्रष्टव्यम् ।
>
> // Even though the adventitiousness of avidyā is not reasonable, yet, the
> manifestation of avidyā, that is the cause of all trouble, is definitely
> adventitious. Thus is to be understood.//
>
> So, there is nothing wrong in admitting avidyā (manifested avidyā) to be
> adventitious, just like kāma and karma.  Anandagiri's purport is: avidyā is
> anādi and hence cannot be said to be āgantuka. Yet, its manifested form is
> āgantuka.
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>>
>> Hence I in my understanding it is not correct to interpret the Bhashyam as
>> suggesting that Avidya is आगन्तुकम् ( adventituous ).
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Namaste Sri Chandramouli Ji
>> >
>> > I had noted your references in earlier e-mail, but had not got chance to
>> > check the same (in the bhashyam and the context in which it is stated),
>> for
>> > the mention of avidya as Agantuka ..Thanks for the clarification
>> >
>> > As we can see in Br.Up bhAshyam, it is said that the svayam jyotistvam
>> of
>> > Atman is not perceived in sushupti, due to ekibhAvam
>> >
>> > ** स्वयञ्ज्योतिष्ट्वस्य सुषुप्ते अग्रहणम् एकीभावाद्धेतोः, न तु
>> > कामकर्मादिवत् आगन्तुकम्
>> >
>> > In that line, it is said while avidya is Agantuka, svayam jyotistvam is
>> > not, as it is the very innate nature of Atman.
>> >
>> > It further states - self-effulgent Atman (in sushupti) is free from
>> > avidya-kAma-karma
>> >
>> > ** अविद्याकामकर्मविनिर्मुक्तमेव तद्रूपम्, यत् सुषुप्ते आत्मनो गृह्यते
>> > प्रत्यक्षत इति
>> >
>> > In this line of thought, was interested to see further refs/elaboration
>> > regarding this mention.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 4:00 PM, H S Chandramouli <
>> hschandramouli at gmail.com
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sri Ravi Kiran Ji,
>> >>
>> >> Have I misundrestood your question when I had replied earlier ?? Does
>> >> your question pertain to the reasons advanced , namely  << for it is
>> >> unattached, while they are
>> >> adventitious. >> , being repeated elsewhere ( shruti/bhashyam ) ?? If
>> so
>> >> , of course my earlier response does not address the question.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
>> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Namaste
>> >>>
>> >>> In the bhashyam to Br.Up.4.3.22, it is said that ..
>> >>>
>> >>> प्रकृतः स्वयञ्ज्योतिरात्मा अविद्याकामकर्मविनिर्मुक्त इत्युक्तम्,
>> >>> असङ्गत्वादात्मनः, आगन्तुकत्वाच्च तेषाम् ।
>> >>>
>> >>> It has been said that the self-effulgent Ātman which is being
>> described
>> >>> is
>> >>> free from ignorance, desire and work, for it is unattached, while they
>> >>> are
>> >>> adventitious.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Are there any other places (Sruti / bhashyam ), where we can find such
>> >>> mention ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>