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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:32 AM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar Ji,
>
> I just noticed the following from one of your posts in Advaitin (I am not a
> member in that group).
>
> <<  Kindly let us know whether this scholar have spoken anything about
> avidyA=mAya when he is citing the meanings and grammatical forms.  If yes,
> had he quoted any justification for this conclusion?? >>.
>
> It may be of interest to note Sri SSS himself has admitted to this
> equation. Please refer  to **Introduction**  by Sri SSS in his text on
> KathOpanishad, page vi, in kannada under the title “what is avidyA”, which
> I have translated to English here
>
> Quote  << *Although the AchArya has indeed used at some places the terms
> avidyA and mAyA as synonymous terms*, since apart from deliberating  that
> avidyA is mithyAjnAna which is destroyed by vidyA (AdhyAsa BhAshya) and
> that mayA is the seedform of nAmarUpa imagined through avidyA
> (avidyAkalpita) (BSB 2-1-14) ;  again further in a sUtra bhAshya initiated
> for deliberating upon the meaning of the term **avyakta **, two versions
> are separately presented ;; on the one hand taking the stand that **avyakta
> is mAyA ** and on the other hand  ** avyakta is avidyA ** (BSB 1-4-3),-- it
> becomes clear that in shAnkara prasthAna avidyA belongs to the realm of
> knowledge (jnAnakOti) while mAyA belongs to the realm of objects
> (jnEyakOti). Hence ** avidyA is the seed for samsAra ** needs to be
>  understood as cause for samsAra while ** avyakta is the seed for jagat **
> needs to be understood as avyakta being the upAdAna kAraNa >>. Unquote
> (Emphasis mine).
>


In the bhashya to the very last verse of the 13th Chapter of the BG,
Shankara says:

भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च, भूतानां *प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या**,* तस्याः
भूतप्रकृतेः मोक्षणम् अभावगमनं च ये विदुः

Here Avidya is stated to be Avyakta.

In the Vivekachudamani we have:

अव्यक्तनाम्नी परमेशशक्तिः
अनाद्यविद्या त्रिगुणात्मिका परा ।
कार्यानुमेया सुधियैव माया
यया जगत्सर्वमिदं प्रसूयते ॥ १0८ ॥

Here Avyakta and avidya are stated to be the same.

regards
subbu

>
> Link to above
>
> <<
>
> http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=kannada&book_id=091&pagenum=0001#page/8/mode/1up
> >>
>
> Sri SSS has preferred to present an interpretational view of the BhAshya
> (his own interpretation) rather than the direct and explicit view (avidyA
> and mAyA are synonymous terms) stated in the BhAshya. This is in
> contravention of the generally accepted rule which calls for accepting the
> direct statements and interpreting others in line with this. Also such an
> interpretation leads to the conclusion that the Bhashya is
> selfcontradictory.
> Regards
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 6:32 AM Jaishankar Narayanan via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>