[Advaita-l] Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

In continuation. There is no contradiction here. Just as in the case of
traditional view of avidyAlesha after destruction of avidyA.

Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:26 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>
> Since the subsequent portion mentions
>
> // Mithyaa  jnaana …..which are falsified by virtue of jnaana (jnaana
> baadhita)…..//
>
> It would be quite in order to understand avidyA and mithyaa jnaana as
> meaning the same.
>
> You may like to refer to my response to Bhaskar Ji also.
> Regards
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 3:38 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouliji,
>>
>> Yes, I meant avidyAlesha. I added the quotes around avidyA because my
>> understanding was that the opponents to avidyAlesha were conflating
>> avidyAlesha with avidyA, leading them to object to the jnAni having any
>> avidyA remaining (in the form of avidyAlesha) post jnAna.
>>
>> Thanks for posting the quote of Sri SSS. The first sentence of the quote
>> says "avidyA is completely negated (bAdhita)  by jnAna" but later he says
>> "There is no defect in admitting the subsistence of mithyajnAna  etc for
>> some time".
>>
>> The only way I can reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two
>> is if the Swamiji differentiated avidyA from mithyAjnAna. So what according
>> to him is mithyAjnAna?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, 14:21 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>>
>>> Reg  //  It also means that there is an elegant answer to
>>> people objecting to the jnAni continuing to have "avidyA" //,
>>>
>>> I presume you mean *avidyAlesha* by this. Curiously the strongest
>>> opponent, Sri SSS, himself admits of *avidyAlesha* for the jnAni for some
>>> time after jnAna. Only he (Sri SSS) means  *mithyAjnAnalesha*,  mithyAjnAna
>>>  understood as  abhAvarUpa avidyA (absence of knowledge). The irony of the
>>> whole situation did not strike me till now though I came across this
>>> position of Sri SSS some time back . I am quoting below from his text, in
>>> kannada, ShAnkara  VedAnta  Sara,  section 212, pages 279/280 (Translaion
>>> from kannada to English mine)
>>>
>>> //  Here the correct Sidhanta is – *avidyA is completely negated
>>> (bAdhita)  by jnAna, meaning thereby it leads to the conviction that it
>>> really does not exist at all ; just this and not that jnAna destroys avidyA
>>> in the same way as an axe cutting a tree or fire burning wood*. Hence
>>> it is but natural that even after negation, avidyA/kAma/karma as also their
>>> Ashraya namely the sharIra, which is caused by prarabdhakarma,  continue to
>>> function as usual;  just like the spinning  wheel once set in motion  by
>>> the potter continues to rotate till it loses its momentum.  There is no
>>> defect in admitting the subsistence of mithyajnAna  etc for some time even
>>> after negation just as in the case of  the second moon/nachre-silver
>>> delusion/दिङ्ग्मोह(delusion concerning directions) etc. There is no
>>> harm caused to the कृतकृत्यता of a jnAni by the continuance of such
>>> negated entities (बाधितअनुवृत्ति) //.
>>>
>>> The text by Sri SSS has also been translated to English along with
>>> commentary by DB Gangoli,  The Essential Adi Shankara.  See Section 212,
>>> pages 209/210.
>>>
>>> Response of Sri SSS to some of your queries in your post are also
>>> covered in this section. They practically correspond, in my understanding,
>>> to the *traditional* views as well.
>>>
>>> I thought it might be of interest.
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 9:27 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Bhaskar ji,
>>>>
>>>> There are so many questions in your mail that it is quite cumbersome to
>>>> reply to each one individually. So, I will only respond in a general
>>>> manner. I would request that if you have questions after reading this
>>>> email, and you would like me to respond, please keep them to one or two
>>>> important ones. Please don't mistake me, but I'm responding in the
>>>> middle
>>>> of a lot of pressing tasks and I want to ensure that I am using my time
>>>> effectively.
>>>>
>>>> But before that, I will ask you three questions.
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree that the appearance of the world continues for the jnAni?
>>>> Do
>>>> you agree he has a body after jnAna? Do you agree that a jnAni is
>>>> completely free of any bandha after jnAna?
>>>>
>>>> To me, the answer is yes to all three questions. I don't know what
>>>> is/are
>>>> your answer(s) but would like to know - how you respond will inform me
>>>> what
>>>> you believe, because without understanding your position, I don't know
>>>> if
>>>> what I am stating is blindingly obvious or really necessary to make
>>>> myself
>>>> clear.
>>>>
>>>> If your answer is yes, to all three questions, what is the cause for the
>>>> continued appearance of the world? We have to say this is because he
>>>> has a
>>>> body mind complex until the end of his life. Despite this continued
>>>> world
>>>> appearance, because his avidyA is destroyed, the jnAni is a mukta.
>>>>
>>>> Many AchAryas, including Shankaracharya, attribute many reasons for the
>>>> presence of the body and continued world appearance post jnAna - some
>>>> say
>>>> prArabdha, some say avidyA samskAra, some say avidyAlesha, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Now, your question is - what is this avidyAlesha? This also has many
>>>> answers given by the AchArya-s. Some say the samskAra itself is
>>>> avidyAlesha, some say it is a shakti-visheSha.
>>>>
>>>> I think we can say that prArabdha itself is the avidyAlesha (this is my
>>>> view, I don't know if any AchArya holds this view or not) - ie if we
>>>> define
>>>> avidyAlesha as that which remains when avidyA is sublated by
>>>> samyakjnAna,
>>>> as prArabdha remains, it can be avidyAlesha.
>>>>
>>>> We have to admit that prArabdha karma still continues after jnAna,
>>>> because
>>>> the presence of the body even after avidyA's destruction means that the
>>>> appearance of the world continues for the jnAni. That being the case
>>>> what
>>>> is so wrong if we say prArabdha itself is the avidyAlesha?  As prArabdha
>>>> karma is a product of avidyA, to name it as avidyAlesha is not
>>>> problematic.
>>>> Calling an effect by a name indicative of its cause is not unheard of.
>>>>
>>>> I believe such a postulate has the benefit of lAghavatva,
>>>> parsimoniousness,
>>>> because we don't have to postulate the continuance of prArabdha karma
>>>> and a
>>>> separate avidyAlesha. It also means that there is an elegant answer to
>>>> people objecting to the jnAni continuing to have "avidyA". It would be
>>>> very
>>>> hard to dispute that the jnAni has a body or that it continues because
>>>> of
>>>> prArabdha which remains even when avidyA is destroyed.
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested in hearing the specific flaws with such a view.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>> Virus-free.www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>> <#m_-6611495724876522478_m_-1396459572777334919_m_-969472757914587743_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>