[Advaita-l] avidya is Agantuka

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri Chandramouli-ji,
That was a very helpful summary, thank you.

In your view, and correct me if I'm mistaken, the कारण शरीर's "experience"
(of आनन्द?) during सुषुप्ति, is the "manifestation" referred to by Sri
Anandagiri. Would you consider the कारण शरीर as unmanifest during the
जाग्रत् and स्वप्न अवस्थाs?

How would you treat the activation of संस्कार वासनाः by various stimuli
during the dream/waking states - they are located in the कारण शरीर, but
such a कारण शरीर would be unmanifest in the dream/waking states?

Also, आत्म अज्ञानं exists in all three states, and in all three states it
is अनर्थहेतु, is it not? I accept that विक्षेप exists only in the latter
two states and आवरण exists in all three. I think you are saying that आवरण
becomes apparent only in सुषुप्ति - however my contention is that one is
intensely aware of "I" in the waking and dream states too - and unless one
has शास्त्र जन्य आत्म ज्ञानं, that "I" is not understood to be आत्मा -
isn't this आवरणं ?

Thanks for a very enlightening discussion. I'm really enjoying this, but
I'm afraid others may not share this view. Should we take it offline?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan S
On 11 Jan 2016 08:16, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>