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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Dear MCC ji,

I think whoever you are quoting is confusing existence with perception. See
how Shankara has defined asat / anrtam / mithya in 2.16 BG Bhasya and
Taittiriya - even while being perceived they do not exist independently.
Even in Br Up 3.5.1 Bhasya, Shankara gives the example of salia-phena
(water-foam), mrt-ghata (clay-pot) to refute dvaita due to upaadhi. There
cannot be any advaita-haani by perception of upaadhi-krita-bheda. Also when
you talk of a state of jnaana / jnaani, it is in upaadhi-krita-vyvahaara
only. Every traditional advaitin understands that Brahman is not even a
knower and so one cannot even talk of a state of knowledge with reference
to Brahman. As a jnaani (in a state jnaana) I do not accept the  existence
of things different from Brahman even while perceiving it. So what I said
perfectly fits with what Shankara means and there cannot be any adverse
conclusion. If you maintain it is adverse, then you are making dvaita more
real than what it really is. It may be in line with what Swamiji says, as
he claims vyakta-adhyaasa is destroyed by jnaanam. I have interacted with
SSS followers who are unfortunately waiting for the perception of dvaita to
end and jnaanam to arrive.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 7:21 AM Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> JN Sir, pranam. I am sure there will be more coming but as for your Brbh
> 3.5.1 quote, the following sentence seems to inform your conclusion
> adversely, the jnani knows one only without a second, without interior or
> exterior ...
>
> "We do not maintain the existence of things different from Brahman in the
> state when the highest truth has been definitely known , as the Srutis say
> , " One only without a second " , and " Without interior or exterior " ( II
> . v . 19 ; III . viii . 8 ) . Nor do we deny the validity , for the
> ignorant , of actions with their factors and results while the relative
> world of name and form exists ."
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:25 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've posted your response on Facebook. Let's see what response we get.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:16 PM Jaishankar Narayanan via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> >> 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:
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>
> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>