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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

So when SSS says avidyA is completely negated in the first sentence of the
quote
("avidyA is completely negated (bAdhita)  by jnAna, meaning thereby it
leads to the conviction that it really does not exist at all"), do you
think that is adhyAsa or jnAna abhAva?

And in the next sentence ("There is no defect in admitting the subsistence
of mithyajnAna  etc for some time") when he talked of mithyAjnAna, is that
jnAna abhAva or adhyAsa?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, 17:40 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>
> I am just giving one reference which I could immediately  lay my hands on.
>
> AdhyAsa Bhashya
>
> //……तमेतमविद्याख्यमात्मानात्मनोरितरेतराध्यासं पुरस्कृत्य…..//
>
> In a Foot Note in his (Sri SSS) translation, he mentions as follows on
> this
>
> // Literal translation for अविद्याख्यम्  would be  **by the name of
> avidyA**.  This leads to an alternate meaning for
> आत्मानात्मनोरितरेतराध्यास  to be अविद्या //.
>
> Thus अविद्या  is accepted to mean adhyAsa here.  Thus no doubt avidyA is
> jnAna abhAvah, but it is also understood  as adhyAsa. There are many such
> references.  I have cited only one which I could readily recollect.
> Regards
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 5:21 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouliji
>> However, avidyA is jnAna abhAvah according to SSS. If mithyAjnAna is the
>> same as avidyA, then mithyAjnana is also jnAna abhAva. When jnAna
>> originates, the abhAva of jnAna ceases to be. So mithyAjnAna should also
>> cease to be.
>>
>> How can there be "a part" of jnAna abhAvah which remains when jnAna
>> arrives?
>>
>> This must mean that mithyAjnAna is not jnAna abhAva or a part of it (for
>> absence cannot have parts), but something else.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, 17:16 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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_-8099851311496453762_m_497647070307289308_m_-1536512947135242835_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_-8099851311496453762_m_497647070307289308_m_-1536512947135242835_m_3419859106800396076_m_1570539728625929708_m_-6611495724876522478_m_-1396459572777334919_m_-969472757914587743_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>