[Advaita-l] avidya is Agantuka

[Ravi Kiran]

Sri Chandramouli Ji

Pl clarify the last statement of your below response:

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:04 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
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 above objection, question is raised wrt "the selfeffulgence of the
Atman", as in -

>> the selfeffulgence of the Atman is not its true nature, since it is not
perceived in the state of profound sleep

Here, the objectioner, is equating the selfeffulgence with desire, work
etc, in the sense that it is Agantukam.

This is refuted by the Advaitin ( as seen above)

Also, in the above assertion:

>> 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. >>

Here, << it is not perceived on account of unity>>, ït" refers to
selfeffulgence of Atman in Sushupti ( as clearly stated स्वयञ्ज्योतिष्ट्वस्य
सुषुप्ते अग्रहणम्)

In continues and concludes as -  न तु कामकर्मादिवत् आगन्तुकम् - it is not
advetituous like desire, work etc.

Here, why do you interpret ït" as Avidya , and not as "selfeffulgence of
Atman" is not advetituous like desire, work etc ? Avidya was never the
objection raised, it was always wrt the selfeffulgence of Atman..

Is it not more appropriate the concluding ït" to refer to the "selfeffulgence
of Atman", which is verily the subject in question, as seen in this entire
discussion thread in the bhAshyam.

Pl clarify..


Thanks

>
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>