[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbhuji, Here is a response to your recent comment on
individuality of the jnani
Avinasi, etc. are applicable to Atman, not jiva (which is Atman
superimposed by body, anatman, which is perishable). Purushah must be Atman
identical with Brahman, not jiva. Even if Gita says otherwise, the rule is
that Sruti prevails over Smrti in the event of a conflict. BS and Gita are
derivative, not Rishi vakyas. Gita tries to encompass all views current at
the time of its compilation

And then to both Subbhuji and Sudhanshuji,

Smt Manjusree Hegdeji recently published in Philosophy EAST WEST on the
primary role of adhyaropa apavada in Sankara’s Advaita. In one section of
the paper she discusses the intention behind BSB 4.1.15 as to remaining
prarabdha karma as continuation of karma in jivanmukta. This is a
consistent but diversely interpreted theme in the corpus of post Sankara
Advaita from Vimuktatman, Sarvajnatman, Citasukha, Prakasatman and finally
to the thinking of “Madhusūdana Sarasvatī—and his commentator Brahmānanda
Sarasvatī—(who) declare videhamukti as ‘paramamukti,’ hierarchically
superior to jīvanmukti (AS, p. 892ff).”

Hegde argues videhamukti is not primary bhasya teaching and the BSB 4.1.15
should be understood an adhyaropa to negate atman’s transmigration. She
writes, “Here, it must be remembered that apavādas are themselves
adhyāropas—as false and deliberated as the statements they contradict. To
take them at face value and conclude that the world literally “fades away
akin to a dream” post-gnosis would be incorrect—it would imply that (a)
gnosis is a real occurrence that results from/in the elimination of
ignorance, (b) that ignorance is a genuine entity to be obliterated, etc.;
this would contravene the basic tenet of Advaita Vedānta that the “goal” is
eternally attained. Thus, the discourse on jīvanmukti ought not to be
construed as an affirmation or negation of jīvanmukti; rather, it is a
mechanism to dissipate delusions surrounding the concept of mokṣa.”

She ends the section with a quote from SSSSji, ““Failing to see that the
convention of the eschatological mukti is only a concession to the
Vyāvahāric view that man has a body, the Vyākhyāna schools have succumbed
to 18 the belief that release is really an event in time to be attained
after exhausting all karmas,” (Saraswati 1998, p. 43).”


On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 3:26 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Respected Michael ji.
> PranAms.
>
> //You have indicated elsewhere that it is bhavarupa avidya that accounts
> for DSV, that is, avidya precedes DSV.//
>
> Both DSV and SDV accept srishTi. This srishTi is impossible without
> avidyA. So, both DSV and SDV have to admit avidyA. This avidyA is bhAvarUpa
> i.e. bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA for both DSV and SDV. It is not a question of
> avidyA "preceding" DSV. SrishTi is contingent on avidyA, be it SDV or DSV.
> So, DSV requires avidyA, that much is the claim. There is no "preceding" or
> "succeeding" here.
>
> //I don't see how knowledge that is contingent on a drastr's buddhi can
> dispel its own causal ignorance.//
>
> In DSV, buddhi, mind, body, world etc are not distinct stuff. The
> knowledge which removes avidyA, is Chaitanya, which is reflected in
> akhanDAkArA-vritti i.e. AtmAkArA-vritti, i.e. a vritti which does not have
> non-Chaitanya as its object. For e.g. sun is an illuminator of grass. But
> when it is refracted through a lens, it burns the same grass. Similarly,
> Chaitanya is illuminator of avidyA. But when it reflects in
> AtmAkArA-vritti, it burns avidyA. There is nothing incongruent in this.
>
> //Effect can't eliminate cause - pot's demise is irrelevant to clay - clay
> is unchanged.//
>
> It is not the effect that is eliminating the cause. It is the Chaitanya
> reflected in effect which is eliminating the cause. So, the remover is not
> the effect but Chaitanya. So, there is no incongruence.
>
> //First, there is scant evidence from either the Upanisads or Bhasya
> outlying DS as a vada or prakriya.//
>
> Wherever bhAshya or Upanishad equate waking and dream, it is the DSV which
> is being talked about. It is this simple. Waking different from dream, it
> is SDV. Waking identical to dream, it is DSV. I am sure you can find
> hundreds of places where dream and waking are equated in bhAshya. They are
> all DSV. The simplest is AItareya -- trayah swapnAh.
>
> //Then in the second selection, Madhusudana defines drsti as
> 'consciousness conditioned by ignorance'. Can you provide Bhasya with this
> kind of interpretation?//
>
> Conditioning here means reflection. That there is reflection of Chaitanya
> is admitted in bhAshya. चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बरूपेण जीवेन (ChhAndogya BhAshya).
>
> Please note that avidyA is accepted from the frame of reference of avidyA.
> From the frame of reference of Brahman, there is no avidyA. VArtikakAra
> says - अविद्यास्तीत्यविद्यायामेवासित्वा प्रकल्प्यते । ब्रह्मदृष्ट्या
> त्वविद्येयं न कथञ्चन युज्यते इति ॥
>
> So, reflection is admitted from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the
> frame of reference of Chaitanya, there is no avidyA and hence, no
> reflection.
>
> This avidyA is never without the reflection of avidyA. It is always
> illuminated by the reflection of Chaitanya. VArtikakAra says -
> आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा। आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः
> प्रयोजकमिहेष्यते।। (BBV 4.3.355 )
>
> //How to explain asparsa, asanga Atma conditioned by anything? Adhyasa is
> simply a mixing up.//
>
> Now, this reflection/conditioning is only from the frame of reference of
> avidyA whence Chaitanya appears as though conditioned. From the frame of
> reference of Chaitanya, there is no avidyA. Hence, asparsha, asanga AtmA is
> valid.
>
> Further, even from the frame of reference of avidyA, avidyA is mithyA.That
> also implies asparsha, asanga AtmA. Mirage-water does not wet the desert.
> Does it?
>
> adhyAsa is mixing up. Certainly. So?
>
> Regards.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCHi%2B5nSgUZ2UzgHZE2p_331brot5cdbdkMOcjezw8kyQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCHi%2B5nSgUZ2UzgHZE2p_331brot5cdbdkMOcjezw8kyQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>