[Advaita-l] avidya is Agantuka

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Venkatraghavan,


Namaste.


Reg << I suppose we are debating what
Anandagiri AchArya is referring to by the manifestation of avidya. >>,


Yes. I agree. It is best to limit the scope of the discussion to a specific
issue in order to be focussed.


Reg << Because अविद्या here is described as आगन्तुकं, I was arguing that
this अविद्या is not मूलाविद्या, but it's manifestation, as absence of right
knowledge, or alternatively as wrong knowledge, located in the mind, which
does have a beginning and an end and can be called अगन्तुकं.

Sri Anandagiri is saying that that अभिव्यक्त अविद्या is अनर्थहेतु and it is
the अभिव्यक्त अविद्या that is described as आगन्तुकी by BhagavatpAda.

If the specific context of this भाष्य वाक्य is purely सुषुप्ति, and if
आगन्तुकत्वं
of कारण शरीरं refers only to the अभिव्यक्तं of कारण शरीरं during सुषुप्ति as
you argue, how can such an अभिव्यक्तं be described as अनर्थहेतु by Sri
Anandagiri AchArya? The अनर्थहेतुत्वं of अविद्या is a consequence of its
very nature, and doesn't require its अभिव्यक्तं described as something
occurring during सुषुप्ति. >>,



I am not sure how to understand this. Part of it appears to me to be
consistent with what I have said, but elsewhere it appears to be
questioning my stand but I am unable to segregate the two explicitly. Hence
I thought it best to restate my stand by a little elaboration. Parts of it
or the whole of it may appear to be like carrying coal to New Castle, but I
may be excused for the same as I could not think of any better way of
clarifying my stand unambiguously.



कारण शरीरं of a Jiva constitutes part of मूलाविद्या and comprises the
seventeen parts ( five ज्ञानेन्द्रिय five कर्मेन्द्रियfive प्रणा and मनस्
बुध्धि ) in unmanifest form, carries with it all the karma ( संचित कर्म )
accumulated by the Jiva over countless janmas, beginningless ( अनादि ),subject
to transmigration, survives at all times including pralaya,, has an end
only on Realization. It is not adventitous ( आगन्तुकं ). It has no
experience of any kind whatsoever in this form and has to be associated
with a body to expiate the accumulated कर्म through experience of
sukha,dukha ,pain,pleasure etc. When it does get so associated, the Jiva
identifies itself with that body and has experience in all three states
waking,dream and sleep (जाग्रत् स्वप्न सुषुप्ति). This experience is gained
through the three bodies gross,subtle and causal ( स्थूल सूक्ष्म कारण शरीरं )
respectively in the three states. Notice the use of the term कारण शरीरं here.
It is said to have experience ( in the state of sleep सुषुप्ति ) while in
the earlier use of the term it was stated as not having any form of
experience. Hence in this context it is to be considered as a manifest
( अभिव्यक्त
) form of that unmanifest कारण शरीरं . Also it is not अनादि as associated
with the specific body. It is in this state of सुषुप्ति that the Jiva is
directly in association solely with the Atman, without any distraction in
the form of diversity of Creation ( विक्षेप ) , but is still unable to
realize its identity with the Atman, the cause being आवरण ( ignorance of
one's own true nature ) caused by अविद्या. This is the अभिव्यक्त अविद्या which
is अनर्थहेतु because this ignorance of one's own true nature is the
fundamental cause of all samsara. This is predominantly noticeable only
during सुषुप्ति. In the other two states it is camouflaged by the
distraction caused by the diversity of Creation ( विक्षेप caused by the
same अविद्या ). This I believe is how the statement of Sri Anandagiri
Acharya has to be understood.



I hope this clarifies all the issues raised.



Regards

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sri ChandramouliJi,
>
> "Reg <<  So अविद्या here is not used to represent मूलाविद्या, but simply
> the manifestation of आत्म अज्ञानं, which can be आगन्तुकं. >>,
> I do not think so. मूलाविद्या and आत्म अज्ञानं are synonymous and both
> are not आगन्तुकं."
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I agree - In fact I was just saying that it
> is the  "manifestation" of आत्म अज्ञानं which is आगन्तुकं.
>
> I suppose we are debating what
> Anandagiri AchArya is referring to by the manifestation of avidya.
>
> Pasting this section of AchArya's Tika from the mail that Subrahmanian ji
> had kindly posted in the forum earlier:
>
> "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.//"
>
> Because अविद्या here is described as आगन्तुकं, I was arguing that this
> अविद्या is not मूलाविद्या, but it's manifestation, as absence of right
> knowledge, or alternatively as wrong knowledge, located in the mind, which
> does have a beginning and an end and can be called अगन्तुकं.
>
> Sri Anandagiri is saying that that अभिव्यक्त अविद्या is अनर्थहेतु and it
> is the अभिव्यक्त अविद्या that is described as आगन्तुकी by BhagavatpAda.
>
> If the specific context of this भाष्य वाक्य is purely सुषुप्ति, and if
> आगन्तुकत्वं of कारण शरीरं refers only to the अभिव्यक्तं of कारण शरीरं
> during सुषुप्ति as you argue, how can such an अभिव्यक्तं be described as
> अनर्थहेतु by Sri Anandagiri AchArya? The अनर्थहेतुत्वं of अविद्या is a
> consequence of its very nature, and doesn't require its अभिव्यक्तं
> described as something occurring during सुषुप्ति.
>
> As an aside, Re: "कारण शरीर of a Jiva is no doubt अनादि but is considered
> so in its unmanifest form. ",
>
> In my view, अनादित्वं of कारण शरीरं is not limited to its unmanifest form
> (I'm assuming you are using the same definition of manifestation here too)
> In all three avasthAs the कारण शरीर is present, and as the Jiva is अनादि
> (in all three अवस्थाs), the कारण शरीर is also अनादि, manifest or otherwise.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>