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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Subbuji,  In the first instance,   BUB 4-3-20, perhaps SSSS is observing
the distinction between svarupa and svabhava. In the second case with
Sureswara, isn't it enough to say that the verse requires further
examination. Alston also notes the  kAraNA sharIram appears only once
in PTB.

I don't see  what the problem is with avidya having effects. The idea of
effect itself presupposes name and form which presupposes
adhyasa/superimposition and occurs due to an absence of knowing the
Self/agrahana (as stated in Karikas). So, the effect of avidya, as it were,
is not temporal, material but a logical sequence (sanskrit?). In this way
of understanding the effect of avidyA is mAyA. I think JN pursues the same
type of objection

Does that make sense within this context?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:34 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji, pranam
> I don't know what it is I said that you are responding to but I will take
> your post under advisement and get back to you. 🙏
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:15 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:03 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Michael Ji,
>>>
>>> You made the following statements in your response to JN Ji
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Following  forms part of BUB 4-3-20
>>>
>>> <<  इदम् अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वं सह कार्येण प्रदर्शितम्  >>
>>>
>>> <<  idam avidyAyAH satattvaM saha kAryeNa pradarshitam  >>
>>>
>>> Translation by Swami Madhavananda  <<  Thus the nature of ignorance with
>>> its effects has been set forth  >>
>>>
>>> Unless AvidyA is BhAvarUpa, can we talk of **its effects**? . Would you
>>>  consider this  adequate  BhAshya pramANa  for AvidyA  as BhAvarUpa or
>>> existent as you term it.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is very interesting to see how Sri SSS covers this  portion in his
>>>  kannada translationIn/commentary  of the Bhashya. Sri SSS covers this
>>> under the heading  **AvidyA is not the nature of Atman** (Not the
>>> स्वाभाविकधर्म  svAbhAvikadharma).  He puts the word  **सह** (saha)  in
>>> the
>>> Bhashya within brackets and in a Footnote mentions that this word
>>> **appears
>>> to be unnecessary**.
>>>
>>> He translates the whole sentence as follows
>>>
>>> (Translation mine)  << That this is the tatva of AvidyA has been shown
>>> through the effects (kArya)  >>
>>>
>>> Sri SSS makes the following observation in a Footnote
>>>
>>> <<  Since the Nature of AvidyA (अविद्यास्वरूप avidyAsvarUpa)  has not
>>> been
>>> dealt with here, it will be inappropriate to translate the Bhashya as
>>> **along with its effects**. Therefore we  are of the opinion that it is
>>> unnecessary to include the word  **सह** (saha) >>.
>>>
>>
>> What about this verse by Sureshwara, which contains the expression
>> 'avidyaa saha kaaryena...'?
>>
>> तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्योत्थसंयग्धीजन्ममात्रतः ।
>> *अविद्या सह कार्येण नासीदस्ति भविष्यति ॥ *
>>
>> The Tattvamasi, etc. passages give rise to that knowledge which dispels
>> the avidya, along with its effects, which is non-existent in all the three
>> periods of time.
>>
>> There is an instance of the word  'kAraNA sharIram' (Causal body, apart
>> from gross and subtle bodies for a jiva) in the  Ishavasya Upanishad
>> bashya. Sri SSS finding that irksome has given a footnote that this is
>> perhaps a later addition to the bhashya.
>>
>>
>> https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=kannada&book_id=089&pagenum=0026#page/32/mode/1up
>>
>>  शुद्धं निर्मलमविद्यामलरहितमिति कारणशरीरप्रतिषेधः ।   Isha. Up. Bh. 8th
>> mantra.
>>
>> Sri SSS, on this page, in a footnote No.4, remarks that the word  'kAraNA
>> sharIram'  is to be taken as Avidya which is the one that causes that one
>> is embodied. He further remarks this 'kAraNA sharIram'  is not found in any
>> of the prasthana traya corpus. So its appearing here is to be examined by
>> the knowledgeable ones.
>>
>> regards
>> subbu
>>
>>
>>> I have come across several instances wherein alternate  versions of the
>>> Bhashya are presented  under Footnotes. Sri SSS has in fact regularly
>>> listed them throughout his texts on PTB. But this is a rare case wherein
>>> the Bhashya itself is sought to be amended by a Commentator observing
>>> that
>>> some parts are considered  (by the commentator) **unnecessary** and hence
>>> deleted !!!  This is considered as  **ONLY commentary strictly adhereing
>>> to
>>> the Bhashya** ??
>>>
>>> The link ID  to the translation/commentary
>>>
>>> <<
>>>
>>> http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=kannada&book_id=098B&pagenum=2b0279#page/483/mode/1up
>>> >>
>>>
>>> BUB 4-3-20, Book page 433/434.
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Regards
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>
>>