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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Jaishankar Narayanji, our group admin suggested I send a link to this text.
Chapter 2 on mulAvidya & cpt 3 on avidya

http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english/english_books_toc.php?book_id=044&type=english&book_title=Vedanta+Jijnasa
🙏🙏🙏


On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 9:58 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I took up with Smt. Manjushree Hegde and she was kind enough to clarify as
> follows: ""Let me reframe Jaishankarji’s argument for clarity’s sake:
> Very clearly, Jaishankarji’s points out that every vyākhyānakāra argues
> that mūlāvidyā exists as long as the world is perceptible, and does not
> exist ultimately (pāramārthika-standpoint). No vyākhyānakāra argues that it
> exists ultimately (for this would negate “advaita”).
> Jaishankarji also pointed out that the world appears for a jīvan-mukta too
> – he eats, sleeps, and moves like any ordinary person; he addresses the
> questions of sādhaka-s, and sometimes, his body suffers diseases like
> cancer, etc. According to the vyākhyānakāra-s, the only way to account for
> the jivanmukta who exists in this world, and participates in it, is
> mūlāvidyā.
> Thus, according to the vyākhyānakāra-s, mūlāvidyā (the cause) shares the
> nature of the world (the effect) – it is non-existent (ultimately); but as
> long as the world appears, its operation is in play.
> I hope I have not misrepresented the pūrvapakṣa here? If I have, then I’m
> entirely willing to correct myself.
> Let me articulate Swamiiji’s position.
> According to the above arguments, we must accept that a jivanmukta – while
> he understands that the world is only a play — operates in it on the basis
> of mūlāvidyā. It is only after videhamukti that the “play” entirely
> disappears. What is the pramāṇa for the statement that the play will,
> indeed, disappear after videhamukti? Only śruti.
> And this, right here, is Swamiji’s problem. When/if we accept mūlāvidyā,
> we cannot rely on anubhava pramāṇa (whose anubhava, what pramāṇa?); we must
> resort to “argument from authority”— śruti pramāṇa. And this cuts across
> the very foundation of advaita-vedānta, and reduces it to another school of
> philosophy that demands faith/belief for it to be true.
> Advaita vedānta stands on anubhava-pramāṇa, it does not require śruti for
> it to be true. Its sanctity lies in the fact that it is verifiable here&now.
> If mūlāvidyā exists in the three states of jāgrat, svapna and suṣupti— and
> it also exists in a jivanmukta — and only does not exist only in
> videhamukti, how is this verifiable in my experience?
> ---------------------
> When the vyākhyānakāra argues for a mūlāvidyā that exists in suṣupti and
> in a jivanmukta, on what basis is this statement made? On indriyānubhava.
> Which belongs to the field of avidyā. Conclusions that are drawn using
> faulty instruments can only be faulty.
> I’d be happy to elaborate on this point if it is required.
> -----------------------
> I agree that vyākhyānakāra-s rely on adhyāropāpavāda to elucidate their
> points— but the application of the method is carried out differently by
> them.
> Very beautifully, Jaishankarji pointed out that the vyākhyānakāra-s teach
> that kārya-kāraṇa is only an adhyāropa, and ultimately (from the
> pāramārthika-standpoint), the labels stand negated, and this is apavāda.
> Yes, for the vyākhyānakāra-s, the “apavāda” occurs only in videhamukti.
> The adhyāropa is ontologically accepted until such a moment occurs. This
> understanding is vastly different from adhyāropāpavāda as a strictly
> pedagogical technique that by śruti is used to draw the sādhaka-s attention
> to his ever-existing anubhava. Swamiji takes the latter position, and the
> traditional advaitins take the former.
> I could have perhaps articulated this better in my talk. My apologies."
>
> 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
>>
>