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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Self, Dear Jaishankarkji and V Subrahmanianji, Pranam and thanks
for your response to Smt's talk and defense. You may know I have  copied
and pasted this conversation in a Facebook group. Several worthy
contributions to the discussion have been posted. Here is one response from
Prasanth Netiji you may find interesting,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rXqOvGb5dFcz30HKRlDJzdO3EBHvMrh/view

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:48 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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. )
>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>