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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Chandramouliji, sorry but out of station today - will respond tomorrow

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:57 AM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

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