[Advaita-l] avidya is Agantuka

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Ravi Kiran Ji observed


<< Sorry, I am unable to get this same understanding from the above
bhAshyam, as the main discussion is not about Avidya or manifest form of
Avidya, but regarding the self effulgence of Atman -  though the Atman is
Self-effulgent ( by nature), why it is not perceived in deep sleep? and
explanation is given as , because of ऐकीभावः ( एकीभावाद्धेतोः ) . >>.


The direct and brief answer answer to this question is << Atman IS
PERCEIVED ( experienced ) but NOT RECOGNIZED as such in deep sleep >>. ( I
have used the word “ perceived “ in a difference sense here as compared to
the translation by Swami Madhavananda to bringout its distinction from “
recognition “ ). How ?? Atman is perceived ( experienced ) in its Ananda ( आनंद
) swarupam by the Jiva , but not recognized ( at that time ) due to the
covering ( आवरण ) aspect of Avidya ( अविद्या ) . This is concluded by the
recollection of the Sushupti ( सुषुप्ति ) state on waking. ऐकीभावः (
एकीभावाद्धेतोः
) is the result of आवरण which is an aspect of Avidya ( अविद्या ). This
should clarify my stand on the issue.


Sri Subrahmanian Ji observed


<< 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.// >>.


I am not aware what Sri Anandagiri has commented on the succeeding portion
of the Bhashya cited by me earlier including ऐकीभावः ( एकीभावाद्धेतोः). I
believe he would have clarified somewhere ( in the succeeding portion of
the Bhashya ) that manifestation of Avidya is only in its covering ( आवरण )
aspect as far as Sushupti is concerned. In the absence of such
clarification, the above statement by itself would lend itself to the
interpretation that avidya ( in its vikshepa form ) is manifest in Sushupti
as well. Perhaps Sri Subrahmanian Ji could clarify.


Regards



On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, verily avidya (अविद्या) is inclusive, as clearly seen in the above
> statement in bhAshyam.
>
>
>>  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.
>>
>
> Thanks for this clarification.
>
>
>>
>> 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.//
>>
>
> Interesting to see Anandagiri's interpretation of bhAshyam.
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>