[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re:

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reg  << In your citation, SSS is saying avidya causes samsara and from that
arises maya which accounts for materiality - avidya is the cause of maya! I
don't see the difficulty >>,

Samsara is kArya (effect). mAyA is kAraNa (cause). Thus mAyA cannot arise
from samsara as kAraNa (Cause) cannot arise from kArya (effect).

Also avidyA cannot be the cause of mAyA as both are kAraNa (Cause), and one
kAraNa cannot be the originator for another kAraNa.

Sri SSS does not claim what you have stated either.

My earlier stated contention stands.
Regards

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 12:11 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please excuse formatting. I am having trouble responding to Advaita-l
> emails and had to resort to cut and paste.
>
> Dear Sri Chadramouli, Namaste.
>
>    1. It seems to me, SSS was neither contradicting Sankara nor
>    compromising his own position. Context is all important as Sankara does use
>    terms with nuanced difference and then interchangeably at other times (my
>    earlier Hacker link may provide example). In your citation, SSS is saying
>    avidya causes samsara and from that arises maya which accounts for
>    materiality - avidya is the cause of maya! I don't see the difficulty.
>
>
>  H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.comHide
> To Michael Chandra Cohen michaelchandra108 at gmail.com
>
> Pranams Sri Cohen,
>
> Please feel free to use sir in place of sri if you feel more natural and
> comfortable with it. Better still, drop both of them altogether and be
> really natural. No issues.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I haPlove oriented my understanding  of the
> Advaita Sidhanta based on mUlAvidyA because that is what is advanced by Sri
> Bhagavatpada. There is no better way to explain my position to you than to
> start with Sri SSS himself.
>
> I am citing from the Introduction by Sri SSS in his text on KathOpanishad,
> page vi, in kannada under the title “what is avidyA”, which I have
> translated to English here
>
> Quote  << Although the AchArya has indeed used at some places the terms
> avidyA and mAyA as synonymous terms, since apart from deliberating  that
> avidyA is mithyAjnAna which is destroyed by vidyA (AdhyAsa BhAshya) and
> that mayA is the seedform of nAmarUpa imagined through avidyA
> (avidyAkalpita) (BSB 2-1-14) ;  again further in a sUtra bhAshya initiated
> for deliberating upon the meaning of the term **avyakta **, two versions
> are separately presented ;; on the one hand taking the stand that **avyakta
> is mAyA ** and on the other hand  ** avyakta is avidyA ** (BSB 1-4-3),-- it
> becomes clear that in shAnkara prasthAna avidyA belongs to the realm of
> knowledge (jnAnakOti) while mAyA belongs to the realm of objects
> (jnEyakOti). Hence ** avidyA is the seed for samsAra ** needs to be
>  understood as cause for samsAra while ** avyakta is the seed for jagat **
> needs to be understood as avyakta being the upAdAna kAraNa >>. Unquote
>
> Sri SSS has presented the issue as one of self-contradiction in the
> bhAshya which he has preferred to resolve by accepting an interpretational
> view of the BhAshya (his own interpretation) rather than the direct view
> (avidyA and mAyA are synonymous terms) stated in the BhAshya. This is in
> contravention of the generally accepted rule which calls for accepting the
> direct statements and interpreting others in line with this. Indeed that is
> what the other commentators have adopted. Once this is done, there is no
> selfcontradiction either in the BhAshya.
>
> In this context (jnAnakOti and jnEyakOti), I am tempted to link it to one
> of your observations in the thread in the Forum.
>
> <<  *Something from nothing is good epistemology, bad ontology. avidya is
> an
> epistemological error upon an ontological reality. An epistemological
> agrahana commonly produces an effect - not knowing the train's schedule;
> forgetting the wife's birthday. Name and form is all that accounts for what
> we call jagat.    * >>
>
> My understanding is that by epistemology you are referring to
> **jnAnakOti** while ontology refers to **jnEyakOti**. As broughtout above,
> avidyA or mUlAvidyA includes both epistemology (jnAna) and ontology
> (jnEya). I am not elaborating as it is selfexplanatory.
>
> I will limit myself to just this one reason for my leaning towards
> mUlAvidyA in this note. In my understanding, Sri SSS has been obliged to
> make compromises at so many points in the BhAshya just to sustain this one
> fundamental postulate of his which I think is contradictory to the bhAshya
> itself. As brought out above, he even has to present the bhAshya itself as
> selfcontradictory just to sustain this one postulate of his.
>
> I leave it at this for the present. You may like to consider.
> Pranams and Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>