[Advaita-l] FW: ​Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Yes. He has quoted from those texts verbatim. That is according to him. I
have not verified myself though. There is no reason to suspect to the
contrary.

Ragards

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022, 21:07 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the inputs so far. Are the actual passages from Bhamati or
> Vivarana texts cited by SSS verbatim while he gives his opinions on them?
>
> Regards
> subbu
>
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022, 7:12 pm H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste.
>>
>> I had occasion to debate with a very well versed person on works of Sri
>> SSS concerning this topic of mUlAvidyA. He had shared the discussion with
>> others as well. It was agreed that the the main text we will concern
>> ourselves with would be  the Vedanta Prakriya Pratyabhijna of Sri SSS. I
>> had gone thru the english translation of the same by Alston and presented
>> that the ONLY reason advanced by Sri SSS in that text for rejecting the
>> mUlAvidyA concept was exactly the one I have cited in my previous post. I
>> am unable to locate it at present in that text. He agreed that is the case
>> and it was decided that we will proceed further on that basis.
>> Unfortunately the discussion had to be discontinued midway due to
>> unforeseen circumstances.
>>
>> Just for information
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 6:54 PM H S Chandramouli <
>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Subrahmanian Ji,
>>>
>>> Reg  <<  I had asked before what are the exact, original, statements of
>>> the post-Shankara Advaitins that gave the impression to SSSS that the Mula
>>> Avidya is as real as Brahman, it could not go away by knowledge, etc. that
>>> made SSSS conclude that such an avidya would 'shatter the Advaitic Brahman
>>> to pieces' (implying that there will be duality and not non-duality)?
>>> Those exact statements, if provided, would help one to examine them and
>>> decide on the merits of SSSS's conclusions >>,
>>>
>>> I am giving reference to two texts by Sri SSS, one in kannada and the
>>> other one in Sanskrit which address your above question.
>>>
>>> First one in kannada, Commentary on BSB Appendix 2, link ref
>>>
>>> <<
>>> http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=kannada&book_id=101A_3&pagenum=0001#page/21/mode/1up
>>> >>
>>>
>>> Section 4, **Adhyasa is termed Avidya by Panditas**, Book page 18
>>> onwards. On page 20, Sri SSS concludes, inter alia, as follows (lines 14 to
>>> 17).
>>>
>>> (Translation mine)  << Further, as per this argument, since AvidyA ,
>>>  the cause of AdhyAsa,  will not be an   AdhyAsa kArya, it  thereby
>>>  qualifies as an anadhyasta  or satya  entity. Then it will be false to
>>> term it jnAnavirOdhi >>.
>>>
>>> The second one in Sanskrit is from the text **Sugama** by Sri SSS. It is
>>> a detailed commentary on AdhyAsa Bhashya by Sri SSS. Most of the kannada
>>> text  mentioned  above is reflected here as well. It may therefore be
>>> useful for those who are not well versed in kannada.  Link ref
>>>
>>> <http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=sanskrit&book_id=008&pagenum=0016#page/67/mode/1up
>>> >
>>>
>>> Section 33. Conclusion of the refutation by Sri SSS on the statements
>>> of  post-Shankara Advaitins  on the topic presented in the immediately
>>> preceding couple of  Sections.
>>>
>>> <<  अथाऽनध्यस्तः, तदा परमार्थ एव स्यान्न विद्यानिवर्त्य
>>> इत्यनिष्टमापद्यते । न चैवं शङ्क्यम् -
>>> अध्यासस्तत्संस्कारश्चेत्युभावप्यध्यस्तावेव ।  >>
>>>
>>> <<  athA.anadhyastaH, tadA paramArtha eva syAnna vidyAnivartya
>>> ityaniShTamApadyate | na chaivaM sha~Nkyam -
>>> adhyAsastatsaMskArashchetyubhAvapyadhyastAveva | >>
>>>
>>> The above portion reflects exactly the same sentiment as in the kannada
>>> version cited above.
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>