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

[H S Chandramouli]

Reg  << If ignorance covers/veils Chaitanya then we are faced with the
paradox of knowledge compromised and powerless to overcome that which veils
it - I believe Ramanuja might have called that Tirodhananupapatti >>,

If Sri Ramanujacharya has indeed taken pains to refute it, that is proof
enough that it is part of Advaita Sidhanta !!

Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:45 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaskar.
>
> Reg  << If ignorance with a capital "I" stands as a positive entity
> comparable with another positive entity, chaitanya, that perverts all
> advaita - two entities >>,
>
> No sir. That is what advaita is all about. I have not said that the
> ontological status of the two,Ignorance and Chaitanya, are same or
> comparable. They are definitely different. Chaitanya has the ontological
> status of “Satya” or “PAramArthika” while Ignorance has the ontological
> status of “MithyA” or “vyAvahArika”.
>
> Reg  << And if mithya gives ajnana an ontological status then Jnana will
> not be able to eliminate an actually existing thing >>,
>
> The ontological status of mithyA means it is of the nature of an
> appearance of existence and not actually existing thing. It can be and is
> eliminated by jnAna.
>
> Reg  << If ignorance covers/veils Chaitanya then we are faced with the
> paradox of knowledge compromised and powerless to overcome that which veils
> it - I believe Ramanuja might have called that Tirodhananupapatti >>,
>
> Sri Ramanujacharya might have said so. I have not studied his Darshana in
> any great detail. We are discusiing Advaita Sidhanta. The covering or
> veiling is from the standpoint of anything that is produced subsequently.
> They will be unable to get a clear picture of Consciousness till the veil
> is eliminated. That elimination is what is termed Realization in Advaita
> Sidhanta.
>
> Reg  << No, I think your explanation is a stretch and ignores
> Bhagavatpada's statement that aviveka/indiscrimination is the cause of
> mixing up the notions/pratyaya of I and you/subject and object >>,
>
> This veiling is the fundamental cause of all samsAra and goes under the
> term “Mula ajnAna” or “MulAjnAna”. This veiling is called its (Ignorance)
> AvaraNa power.The same Ignorance has another power associated with it
> termed VikshEpa power. It projects Consciousness, along with itself,  as
> Creation (again with an ontological status same as that of itself, namely
> mithyA), full of variety,heterogeneous though Consciousness itself is
> Ekarasa,homogeneous. Aviveka/indiscrimination is the result of the above
> veiling and is the cause of mixing up the notions/pratyaya of I and
> you/subject and object.
>
> Reg  << Indiscrimination certainly is not a positive ontological entity
> no less than any other notion can be said to really exist - we have then
> have to say that even dream tiger really exists >>,
>
> I hope this has been answered above.
> Regards
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:06 PM <mc1 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> aum, thank you for your thoughtful replies however my doubt remains. If
>> ignorance with a capital "I" stands as a positive entity comparable with
>> another positive entity, chaitanya, that perverts all advaita - two
>> entities. If ignorance covers/veils Chaitanya then we are faced with the
>> paradox of knowledge compromised and powerless to overcome that which veils
>> it - I believe Ramanuja might have called that Tirodhananupapatti. And if
>> mithya gives ajnana an ontological status then Jnana will not be able to
>> eliminate an actually existing thing.
>>
>> No, I think your explanation is a stretch and ignores Bhagavatpada's
>> statement that aviveka/indiscrimination is the cause of mixing up the
>> notions/pratyaya of I and you/subject and object. Indiscrimination
>> certainly is not a positive ontological entity no less than any other
>> notion can be said to really exist - we have then have to say that even
>> dream tiger really exists.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>
>> <https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>