[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[H S Chandramouli]

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 6:19 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Cohen.
>
> As I had mentioned to you earlier, I am weary of discussing views of Sri
> SSS in open Forums. But unfortunately you posted in this Forum excerpts
> from our mail correspondence which were meant to be personal mails. I will
> limit myself to just stating my understanding of Sri SSS on any questions
> you may pose without any intention of challenging other understandings of
> the same or entering into any discussions on the same. I hope you
> appreciate my position.
>
> Reg  <<  Please, where have I mistaken SSS's understand - much appreciated
> >>,
>
> What I had stated in my earlier post is essentially the same as what you
> have cited copied below
>
> << Introductions page 52
>
> In his commentation of the Sutra devoted to the elucidation of the
> connotation of the term Avyakta (S. B. 1-4-3), Sankara gives two
> alternative interpretations, one treating it as the objective Maya and the
> other as the subjective Avidya or ignorance, thus disclosing that he does
> not identify the two concepts. Hence I have explained the passage treating
> of svabhavAvikAjnAna (1-1-20) as meaning that the innate ignorance of man,
> is responsible for all the evils of mundane life, while the passage on
> Avyakta (1-3-11), I have interpreted to describe the seed or material cause
> of the world (sarvasya jagato bijamavyAkritasatattvam ) in conformity with
> the Brhadiranyaka (1-4-7) and the Sutra-Bhasya (2-1-14) already cited.
> AmarakOsha, the dictionary of Samskrita synonyms,  is favourable to either
> interpretation and so, the context alone can justify the meaning we choose.
> Again the Bhasya (1-3-12) which describes Atman as enveloped in
> Avidya-Maya, I have, taken to mean that the Self, appears, as the
> individual soul, to be enveloped by the conditioning adjuncts such as the
> organs of sight or hearing which, in reality, are the products of Maya, the
> figment of A vidya. The critical reader alone can judge as to which of the
> two views - the one identifying A vidya and Maya, and the other,
> distinguishing them as subjective and, objective - appeals to him as being
> consistent with the spirit of Sankara's Bhasya >>.
>
> Also
>
>  <<  Perhaps you will claim that the notion that Ignorance undergoes
> parinama transformation is not foreign to Sri Samkara for he says, 'But the
> Absolute becomes subject to modification (parinama) and to all empirical
> experience through distinctions consisting of name and form, manifest and
> unmanifest, which are imagined through Ignorance and are indeterminable as
> being the reality itself or as being anything different' (8.S.Bh
> <http://8.s.bh/>. 2.1.27, S.S.B. 2.26). But this is wrong. For one must
> observe that, since the distinctions are said to be 'imagined through
> Ignorance', the notion that Ignorance undergoes modification must itself be
> imagined through Ignorance. All mention of modification is made to conform
> to the practical standpoint conditioned by Ignorance. The meaning implicit
> in· the passage from the commentary quoted is that from the standpoint of
> the highest truth there is no transformation (parinama)  >>.
>
> The portion from above  ** But this is wrong. For one must observe that,
> since the distinctions are said to be 'imagined through Ignorance', the
> notion that Ignorance undergoes modification must itself be imagined
> through Ignorance ** is what I had stated in my earler post as  ** avidyA
> kalpita **.
>
> In my understanding, Sri SSS does not admit in the above mAyA as **
> arising ** (as you had mentioned in your earlier post ) from avidyA, but is
> ** imagined  through avidyA **. I think there is a difference between the
> two. Hence understanding avidyA and mAyA as having the relationship of
> cause and effect as per Sri SSS, as you have concluded is, in my
> understanding, a mistake. You may like to consider.
>
> In my understanding, the above quotes from Sri SSS are his interpretation
> of the Bhashya. Other commentators have interpreted differently. But this
> interpretation contradicts, as I had broughtout in my  earlier post, the
> direct statements by Sri Bhagavatpada treating avidyA and mAyA as one and
> the same or synonymous. Sri SSS himself has admitted to such statements by
> Sri Bhagavatpada, as highlighted by me earlier.
>
> I hope I have clarified my understanding of your questions.
> Regards
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:16 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chandramouli Namaste,
>> On Maya and Sankara - First, from Hacker's study of Brahma Sutra Bhasya -
>> the source of all citations; the second, SSS on maya and causation. Please,
>> where have I mistaken SSS's understand - much appreciated.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>