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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

Reg  <<  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?** >>.*

You asked a question previously.

<<   thus avidya is an existent!   That is a perversion of PTB - please
find supportive citations  >>

I answered by citing from BUB 4-3-20,  a part of PTB. I am asking you if
you find this to be  a satisfactoy  supportive citation from PTB. Please
confirm.
Regards

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 7:47 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>