[Advaita-l] Question about Sri Vidyaranya's JMV & jnani matra

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Apr 2 08:12:13 EDT 2019

praNAms Sri Anand Hudli prabhuji
Hare Krishna

>  After reading Sri MS's stand on leshAvidyA I am just finding it very difficult to reconcile with shankara's clarification on the concept of  avidyA in his prasthAna traya bhAshya.  If the definition like below need not be reconciled with mUla bhAshya then it would be appropriate to take this below as a separate theory on avidyA which is an attempt to refute the dvaitins' objections.  

In the VedantasiddhantamuktAvalI, an objection is raised against leshAvidyA and continuance of the body of the jnAni according to prArabdha. 

>  I have not read this work.  Hence asking.  Who is raising this ubjection??  A dvaiti or an advaiti from other school of thought within Advaita??  

In support of prArabdha, examples such as an arrow released from a bow, a wheel that is no longer in contact with the rod that caused initial rotation of the wheel, etc. are cited. 

>  Yes, in shankara bhAshya also we can find example similar to this.  Example in Br.up. bhAshya 1.4.7.  

This leshAvidyA is also called saMskAra or a trace remnant of the avidyA that was destroyed by jnana. The objector says the examples are not applicable because the material cause (upAdAnakAraNa) is, eg. arrow, is not destroyed in those examples, whereas the material cause of avidyAlesha, which is avidyA, has been destroyed in the present case. So avidyAlesha cannot exist at all, without avidyA, its material cause. Hence, the body cannot continue after the rise of jnAna. 

>  prabhuji, do you think it will be appropriate to link continuation of the body of the jnAni with his leshAvidyA ??  Is it legible  to link his karma with his remnants of avidyA??  Is it ok with the tradition that taking prArabdha and avidyA lesha are synonyms??  

The most convincing answer to this objection is, not surprisingly, found in the fourth pariccheda of advaitasiddhi, under the topic jIvanmuktyupapatti, page 890 in Mm. Anantakrishna Sastri's edition. Madhusudana Sarasvati says this saMskAra or avidyAlesha, though an effect (kArya), does not have a material cause! It is like destruction (dhvamsa).

>  Kindly pardon me prabhuji, not able to understand this fully in its context.  If possible kindly elaborate.  

It is also like avidyA itself, having Brahman only as its locus, and independent of avidyA.  saMskAraH kAryo .api dhvaMsa iva nirupAdAnakaH avidyA iva shuddhAtmAshrita iti na avidyAsApekShaH.

>  Then why we should have the sentence as above??  //quote // This leshAvidyA is also called saMskAra or a trace remnant of the avidyA that was destroyed by jnana.//unquote//.  If the avidyA being discussed here is  entirely an independent entity, why it has to be labelled as leshAvidyA??  If this avidyA is independent of avidyA itself and has the locus in brahman, then there must be two types of avidyA.  One is brahmADhishtAna avidyA and second one is popularly known avidyA which is in the form of agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  brahmAdheena or brahmAdhishtAna avidyA which is independent of avidyA reminds me the mUlAvidyA or kAraNAvidyA or bhAva rUpa avidyA which should not to be treated as tulAvidyA of jeeva.  Am I right thinking like this prabhuji??  Again seeking your clarification.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list