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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Dear  Michael Chandra Cohen ji,

You ask - what is Mithya?

Mithya / Asat / Anrtam - these are all ontological terms used by Advaitins
and Bhasyakara. For a definition see BG Bhashya 2.16
न असतः अविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः सकारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम्
अस्तिता ॥ न हि शीतोष्णादि सकारणं प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं वस्तुसद्भवति । विकारो
हि सः, विकारश्च व्यभिचरति । यथा घटादिसंस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं
मृद्व्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत् , तथा सर्वो विकारः कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसन्
। जन्मप्रध्वंसाभ्यां प्रागूर्ध्वं च अनुपलब्धेः कार्यस्य घटादेः
मृदादिकारणस्य च तत्कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत्त्वम् ॥

Also Taittiriya Bhasya 2.1
सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम् । यद्रूपेण
यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम् , ‘
वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४) एवं सदेव
सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।

To summarise - that which is a modification, an effect, available for sense
perception, not separately available from its cause, has beginning (not
available before) and end (not available after), that which after being
ascertained in one form, changes from that - is mithya, asat , anrtam.

Now the world is mithya, asat, anrtam and its cause avidya is also of the
same nature - mithya, asat, anrtam. It cannot be a totally non-existent
jnaana-abhaava. So Vedanta Sara is correct in identfying Maya / Avidya as
kinchit bhavarupa - as real and as existent as the mithya / asat world.
Obviously it has no existence from a Paaramaartika drishti / standpoint.
Does avidya as an upadhi not create dvaita? Shankara has already answered
this in Br. Up Bh 3.5.1
नामरूपोपाध्यस्तित्वे ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १) ‘नेह नानास्ति
किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । १९) इति श्रुतयो विरुध्येरन्निति चेत् — न,
सलिलफेनदृष्टान्तेन परिहृतत्वात् मृदादिदृष्टान्तैश्च ;

The essence of my quotation from 3.5.1 bhashya is - The mithya vyavahaara
(worldly transactions) due to differentiation is there for those who accept
things as different from brahman (ignorant) and for those who do not (the
jnaani). Now according to Swamiji if knowledge destroys vyakta-adhyaasa
(not just ajnaana) then how can he account for statements like these? How
does he even explain Jeevan-mukti?

How can a non-existent thing be a pedagogical tool? It makes immense sense
to say moola-avidya is as real as the world appearance and use it as a
pedagogical tool (adhyaaropa) rather than proposing an abhaava. As the
world is negated, moola-avidya also is destroyed / negated along with it as
mithya / anrtam / asat.

Why ajnaana cannot be jnaana-abhaava has been discussed in Swaaraajya
Siddhi and in Samkshepashaareeraka. I may have to refer the books to get
the exact verses.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 07:25:49 -0500
> From: Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelchandra108 at gmail.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>         <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree
> Message-ID:
>         <CAAz9PvFjjhwR33SJzEhejMZbJbBnjDsO4-nf9-=
> xaKwSYMCZ8g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Namaste Jaishankara Narayan, thank you for your reflections in reply. I
> have taken the liberty of sharing your response on Facebook and will, in
> turn, share here worthy responses.
>
> To  your first point, what is mithya? Vedanta Sara is
> staunchly mulAvidyAvada. .The text lists 5 definitions of maya/avidya all
> of which denote some kind of positive, bhavarupa, existent.
> To your second point, a) please translate Brbh 3.5.1. -- b) " Now the above
> (pedagogical tool) applies exactly to moolavidya. " -- moola avidya is an
> existent, Eshwara's Maya Shakti, a positive bhavarupa avidya and not simply
> a teaching tool?
> To your third point, please be specific, how exactly and where has jnana
> abhava been dealt with?
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 1:02 AM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>