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

[V Subrahmanian]

Since the following post is disallowed in Advaita l, pl. read the same
here:  https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/KBkygubNdC0

regards
subbu

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelchandra108 at gmail.com>


Namaste

I would like to offer an input from Shankara's Sutra Bhashyam for the
following point that is clarified below by Smt Manjushree Hegde:



On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 8:29 PM Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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?
> ---------------------
>

Shankara says in the following Sutra bhashya 4.1.15:

The following Bhashya vakya is not about videhamukti but about jivanmukti:

उच्यते - न तावदनाश्रित्य आरब्धकार्यं कर्माशयं ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते ।
आश्रिते च तस्मिन् कुलालचक्रवत्प्रवृत्तवेगस्यान्तराले प्रतिबन्धासम्भवात्
भवति *वेगक्षयप्रतिपालनम् *। अकर्त्रात्मबोधोऽपि हि मिथ्याज्ञानबाधनेन
कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति । *बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं* द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्
*संस्कारवशात्
कंचित्कालमनुवर्तते एव* । अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यं ब्रह्मविदा कंचित्कालं
शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति ।
कथं ह्येकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं *ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं *च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं
शक्त्यते । श्रुतिस्मृतिषु स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेनैतदेव निरुच्यते ।

The above passage is not very difficult to grasp.  In the opening sentence
He says:  Without depending upon the body that has already become available
as a praarabdha phala, Knowledge will not arise. And when it is granted
that it arises, it is but natural that knowledge has to wait (for its
result) till the acquired momentum of that medium exhausts itself out as in
the case of a wheel of a potter; for there is nothing to stop it in the
intervening period.  As for the knowlege of the Atman as akartA, it
destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance.  This
mithyAjnanam, even when sublated, continues for a while owing to past
tendencies like the continuance of the vision of two moons.  (For a man who
had suffered from eye disease, the false idea may persist for some time
even after the defect is removed. )

>
>