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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

This demand is because SSS prakriya followers deny any Ontological status
to Asat / Anrta / Mithya as defined by Bhashyakara and only talk about an
epistemological error by wrongly interpreting the rope-snake, shell-silver
analogies. If you are not able to teach using the analogies given in Shruti
and Smriti then your prakriya is Shruti / Smriti Virodha.

Bhasyakara uses rope-snake, shell-silver analogies only to point out the
AvaraNa and vikshepa shakti of ajnAna. This analogy cannot be extended to
say that world will vanish like snake for the jnAni. But that is what SSS
implies by denying jnAni's svAnubhava as a jnAni and making dvaita
perception itself as an error to be removed.

This is because of a misunderstading of what is sat and asat and the nature
of a tattvadarshi as revealed in the Gita and Upanishads. SSS fails to
understand jnAni is Brahman but Brahman is not a jnAni.

Bhagavan says in BG2.16

उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः

Bhashyakara writes

एवम् आत्मानात्मनोः सदसतोः उभयोरपि दृष्टः उपलब्धः अन्तो निर्णयः सत् सदेव
असत् असदेवेति, तु अनयोः यथोक्तयोः तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ।

Atma /sat and anAtma / asat both are seen and they both have been
ascertained as 'sat is sat' and 'asat is asat' by the tattvadarshis /
jnAnis.

Similarly in BG 4.18

कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः ।
स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु स युक्तः कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥

One who sees akarma in karma and karma in akarma is a buddhimAn

Bhagavan does not say seeing karma itself is bandha. So perception of
duality is not a problem but satya-anrta-mithunee-karanam is the problem
and viveka buddhi is to see 'sat as sat' and 'asat as asat' and akarta as
sat and karta as asat. This is the traditional teaching and SSS has
completely missed this and made dvaita more real by saying jnAni cannot
perceive duality leading to anirmoksha-prasanga.

Unfortunately sincere mumukshus are caught in a trap by this prakriya and
are waiting lifelong for dvaita perception  to end.

With love and prayers,
Jaishankar

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:00 PM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> Since Rope-Snake / Shell-Silver is nowhere to be found in the Upanishads
> commented by Shankara, Gita and Brahmasutra and only clay-pot, gold-lump
> and iron-nail cutter is found in the Upanishad, please present your reply
> with these instead of rope-snake analogy. I think then it will be clear
> what Ontology and epistemology are and how they are related to each other
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Frankly, I am unable to understand this demand.  Why this demand when
> bhAshyakAra himself used these (rajju-sarpa / shukti-rajata) examples in
> his commentaries??  Well, if at all there is drastic difference between
> these two analogies ( i.e. clay-pot & rope-snake) that would be, IMO,
> kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM in clay-pot analogy and kAraNa-s no relation with
> that of appearing mithyA kArya in rajju-sarpa. But need more elaboration
> from your side for this particular demand and what would be the
> consequences if we use rajju-sarpa in place of clay-pot.  But it is better
> to keep in mind some of the traditional presenters have argued that both
> analogies are serving the same purpose in Advaita prakriya.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> Bhaskar YR
>
>
> Since Rope-Snake / Shell-Silver is nowhere to be found in the Upanishads
> commented by Shankara, Gita and Brahmasutra and only clay-pot, gold-lump
> and iron-nail cutter is found in the Upanishad, please present your reply
> with these instead of rope-snake analogy. I think then it will be clear
> what Ontology and epistemology are and how they are related to each other.
>
>
>