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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

That is true. But even so avidyAlesha is the manifest part of avidyA and
hence considered separate from the destroyed avidyA. Sri SSS also makes a
similar  claim. This is evident from the second sentence onwards in the
translation by Gangoli.

Regards

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:52 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> But avidyAlesha is not avidyA in the traditional view, hence it can
> subsist even when avidyA is sublated.
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:48 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> <#m_3419859106800396076_m_1570539728625929708_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_3419859106800396076_m_1570539728625929708_m_-6611495724876522478_m_-1396459572777334919_m_-969472757914587743_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>
>>>>