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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

by pramana, I assume you mean the words of sruti. I am not sure avidya, per
se, is subject to pramana as it is an illusion. One would not expect to
subject the snake or mi*rage to pramana, am I right? *


*I would appreciate if it is not too much trouble to simple cite chapter
and verse of text that you believe are contradictory. JN presented Gita
2.16, Tait 2.1 Ch 6.4.1 & 2. I thought I responded adequately to the latter
though JN disagrees. What exactly is aberrant to SSSS in the first two?
Sorry to unnecessarily prolong the conversation though there is yet much to
be covered. *

*Has anyone following this thread actually read Hacker Cpt 4 as previously
linked?*

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 8:04 AM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> Let us bring this discussion to a logical and useful conclusion.
>
> You had asked
>
>  <<   thus avidya is an existent!   That is a perversion of PTB - please
> find supportive citations  >>
>
> Are you now satisfied that there is pramANa in PTB for concluding that
> AvidyA is existent. Please confirm
> Regards
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:11 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>