[Advaita-l] A replica of Adhyasa Bhashya in the Gita Bhashya13.26 (V Subrahmanian)

[Ryan Armstrong]

ignorance is false, is it not?

On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 18:27, michael via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Isn't the parsing of mithyAjnana into mithya ajnana a tautology = "false
> ignorance"? Which makes no sense
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:51 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Raghav Ji,
> >
> > Namaste.
> >
> > Reg  << P.S. Would you say there is any other way to atleast hint that
> > avidyA is
> > > not-abhAva from adhyAsa bhAShya alone? (Since the avivekena reference
> has
> > > to be dispensed with in view of maintaining concordance with gItA
> bhAShya
> > > 13.26.? I admit the constraint of adhyAsa bhAShya alone is a bit
> unfair!
> > >> ,
> >
> > Copying below from AdhyAsa BhAshya of Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal.
> > Translation I think is by Sri Shastri. Not sure if this answers your
> > question.
> >
> > << Mithyajnana is split up as mithya+ajnana, i.e. ignorance which is
> > mithya, that is, it cannot be described as either real or unreal. This is
> > the
> > reason for the wrong identification. By using the word ‘nimitta’ after
> > mithyajnana in the Bhashya it is pointed out that ignorance is the
> > material cause (upaadaana kaaranam) of the superimposition. In
> > Vedantic terminology, the word ‘nimitta’ is used to denote the efficient
> > cause and the word ‘upaadaana’ denotes the material cause. But in
> > grammar and also in worldly usage ‘nimitta’ is used to denote material
> > cause also. In Nyaya several kinds of causes such as samavayi,
> > asamavayi, nimitta, are mentioned, but in Vedanta only two causes,
> > nimitta and upaadaana, are accepted. For any effect to be produced a
> > material cause is necessary. Illusion (bhrama), being an effect, must
> have
> > a material cause. In this sentence in the Bhashya there is no other word
> > to denote the material cause and so the word ‘nimitta’ has been
> > interpreted by Prakatarthakara as material cause. The word
> > itaretaraavivekena—meaning, ‘due to non-discrimination between the self
> and
> > the
> > not-self’- has been interpreted as denoting the efficient cause.
> > Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe,
> > but it is the material cause only through vivarta or transfiguration and
> > not parinaama or transformation, Ajnaana is the material cause of the
> > universe by transformation (parinami-upaadaanakaarana). Ajnaana is a
> > defect (dosha) and so the word nimitta implies that ajnana is the
> efficient
> > cause also.
> > Can the word mithyajnaana be split up as mithya+jnaana also? The
> > answer is no, because the word would then mean adhyasa itself, but not
> > the cause of adhyasa >>.
> >
> > Being the upAdAna kAraNa, avidyA cannot be of abhAvarUpa.
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:24 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Can the word mithyajnaana be split up as mithya+jnaana also?
> >
> > Actually those who do not subscribe to the 'muulaa avidyaa' have opposed
> > the 'mithyaa cha tadajnaanam cha' and favored the 'mithyaa cha tad
> jnaanam
> > cha' as this would give them the meaning adhyasa for that word without
> the
> > need for an avidya that is the cause of the adhyasa.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Yes. That is right. That is an alternate view.They also contend that
> >> avidyA is abhAvarUpa.
> >
> >
> Regards
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


-- 
Regards

Ryan Armstrong
+27 82 852 7787
ryanarm at gmail.com