[Advaita-l] bhavarupa citations

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:19 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-08-16 9:06 GMT+05:30 Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Namaste
>>>
>>> 2017-08-15 23:29 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of the sentences from Shankara's commentary are:
>>>>
>>>> तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना, अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन
>>>> मायालक्षणेन     Mandukya kārikā 1.16
>>>>
>>>> तामसो हि प्रत्ययः, आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः, संशयोपस्थापको
>>>> वा,
>>>> अग्रहणात्मको वा ;   Bh.Gita 13.2
>>>>
>>>> There are many others:
>>>> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/bhaavaroopa-ajnanaavidya/
>>>
>>>
>>> Since ajnAna/avidyA/mAya is only kalpitam (imagined), avastu, not an
>>> entity by itself ( distinct, separate or different from Atman/Brahman),
>>> what does it substantiate/signify when termed as bhaava roopa or some other
>>> term ?
>>>
>>
>> The need to term it 'bhaava rupa' arises from the fact that ajnana as a
>> cause, if admitted as an abhaava, non-existence, cannot be held to bring
>> about the effect of samsara. Hence an existent causal ajnana is required,
>> although mithya ultimately, to account for the effect. The Mandukya teaches
>> three levels: causal or beeja, and subtle (dream) and gross (waking). That
>> is why deep sleep is associated with ajnana. All three are within the
>> relative and Turiya the nirgunam alone transcends these.
>>
>
> Yes, since ajnAna is not removed after deep sleep ( sat sampatti )
> experience (lion wakes up as lion etc), it is accepted that ajnana is
> present in sushupti  .. is this causal ajnana ( beeja or avidyA shakti)
> differentiated from the waking/dream ajnana, in any way ?
>
> If so, how and where, they differ?
>
> Through samyak (Turiya) jnAna arising in waking through sruti shravana, is
> it considered, all variants (if considered so) of ajnana ( beeja or the
> ajnana in waking/dream) are sublated/destroyed completely and not needing
> any other practice to destroy the causal ajnana separately?
>

Sureshwaracharya says:

When the right knowledge has arisen through the mahavakya, avidyā, along
with its effects, is not, was not, will not be.

regards
vs

>
>
>