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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Reg  << In this way of understanding the effect of avidyA is mAyA >>,

I had pointed out the mistake in this understanding earlier also. Sri SSS
himself does not admit this. According to him, mAyA is AvidyAkalpita, not
effect of AvidyA. If you concede any **effect** for AvidyA, mAyA or
anything else, it becomes a kAraNa and hence bhAvarUpa.

point noted, thanks though in certain context, there is a 'logical
sequence', "with this, is that" (is it pratisopana? ) and I vaguely
remember SSSS making this point somewhere.

Reg  << I don't see  what the problem is with avidya having effects >>,

If AvidyA  is admitted to **have** effects, it becomes a kAraNa (cause)
which is exactly what Sri SSS does not admit. According to him, AvidyA is
AdhyAsa  itself, and AdhyAsa  is an effect. According to Sri SSS, being
anAdi, there is no need to posit a kAraNa (cause) for this AdhyAsa .  Hence
Sri SSS does not admit  the reading  **saha kAryeNa** (**along with its
effects** ) and  prefers to delete **saha** in the Bhashya and just retain
** kAryeNa** in the Bhashya BUB 4-3-20  I had mentioned in my post.

Yes, I see your point and it is well taken - bhasya should not dismiss key
terms in the original.  My point suggested avidya having effects was its
svabhava thus saha while the svarupa of avidya could not be described with
the term saha. I noticed the svabhava/svarupa distinction was made by
SSSS. 🙏

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 7:25 AM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> Reg  <<  Does that make sense within this context?  >>,
>
> No. It doesn’t.
>
> Reg  << In this way of understanding the effect of avidyA is mAyA >>,
>
> I had pointed out the mistake in this understanding earlier also. Sri SSS
> himself does not admit this. According to him, mAyA is AvidyAkalpita, not
> effect of AvidyA. If you concede any **effect** for AvidyA, mAyA or
> anything else, it becomes a kAraNa and hence bhAvarUpa.
>
> Reg  << I don't see  what the problem is with avidya having effects >>,
>
> If AvidyA  is admitted to **have** effects, it becomes a kAraNa (cause)
> which is exactly what Sri SSS does not admit. According to him, AvidyA is
> AdhyAsa  itself, and AdhyAsa  is an effect. According to Sri SSS, being
> anAdi, there is no need to posit a kAraNa (cause) for this AdhyAsa .  Hence
> Sri SSS does not admit  the reading  **saha kAryeNa** (**along with its
> effects** ) and  prefers to delete **saha** in the Bhashya and just retain
> ** kAryeNa** in the Bhashya BUB 4-3-20  I had mentioned in my post.
> Regards
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>