[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Real import of creation-sentences

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

*Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji, Subbu ji.*

Very apt reference from MANDUkya. Thanks.

Can you apply mind on the following from MANDUkya 1.9 -  न हि
रज्ज्वादीनामविद्यास्वभावव्यतिरेकेण सर्पाद्याभासत्वे कारणं शक्यं वक्तुम् ॥

It says - in the perception of illusory snake, no other cause is possible
to be stated other than the avidyA-swabhAva *of *rope. I was pondering over
the significance of the word "of".

AnandagirI SwAmI explains - अधिष्ठानभूतरज्ज्वादीनां
स्वभावशब्दितस्वाज्ञानादेव सर्पाद्याभासत्वं तथा परस्य
स्वमायाशक्तिवशादाकाशाद्याभासत्वम्। ‘आत्मन आकाशः संभूत’(तै. उ. २ । १। १)
इत्यादिश्रुतेः ।

He explains - swabhAva = swa+ajnAna.

So, the rope-avidyA is a feature stated by BhAshyakAra to belong to rope.
The usage of "of" appears significant. It implies the locus of avidyA is
rope (rope-avachchhinna-chaitanya).

Please share your views.

*Namaste Michael ji.*

//Ajnana to mulavidya is some kind of positive identity.//

ajnAna is both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa. That is how it is
described in siddhAnta. If despite this, you continue to conjure imaginary
objections by referring to ajnAna as "positive", it shows that you have not
really understood the siddhAnta. You should categorically answer as to why
you refer to ajnAna as positive entity even when it is described in
siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNa. If you think it is not possible for ajnAna
to be both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa, then that is a different
matter. We can discuss that. But desist from calling ajnAna a positive
entity when it has been held to be bhAva-vilakshaNa or else justify where
in siddhAnta, it is described as bhAva. You cannot put your words in the
mouth of siddhAnta. How are you saying ajnAna as positive when it is stated
to be bhAva-vilakshaNa?

//If you deny it is positive you need to explain what is meant by
something that is indeterminable or that covers and projects or that is a
shakti or continues in all three sattas.//

SiddhAnta denies both bhAva-tva and abhAva-tva of ajnAna. That precisely is
the anirvachanIyatva of ajnAna. I need not explain anything else. If you
say ajnAna is bhAva, I will contradict. If you say ajnAna is abhAva, I will
contradict it. And my job is over. Because I have proved the
anirvachanIyatA thereby.

The abhAva-vilakshaNatA is proved by Shruti (covering/material cause) and
anumAna as described below. If you cannot disprove the anumAna, you must
accept abhAva-vilakshaNatA.

1. विवादगोचरापन्नं प्रमाणज्ञानं,
स्वप्रागभावव्यतिरिक्त-स्वविषयावरण-स्वनिवर्त्य-स्वदेशगत-वस्त्वन्तरपूर्वकम्,
अप्रकाशितार्थप्रकाशकत्वात्, अन्धकारे प्रथमोत्पन्नप्रदीपप्रभावत्।
2. चैत्रप्रमा, चैत्रगतप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्तानादिनिवर्तिका,
प्रमात्वान्मैत्रप्रमावत् ;

The bhAva-vilakshaNatA is proved by anumAna. If you cannot disprove the
anumAna, you must accept bhAva-vilakshaNatA.

1.विनाशिभावः सादि:, घटवत्

And then and there, the anirvachanIyatA of ajnAna stands proved by being
both bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa. Nothing more needs to be proved. This
precisely is the anirvachanIyatA of ajnAna.

//How might you interpret  this as other than something positive? From
Siddhanta Bindu, "Isvara is threefold, as Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra in
accordance with the three gunas of avidya which is the limiting adjunct of
Brahman." Avidya is material guna with the ability to limit Unalloyed Self//

See, avidyA is stated as the triguNAtmikA and as material cause. That
proves that it is abhAva-vilakshaNa. Do not proceed further to declare it
as bhAva. Stop with abhAva-vilakshaNa. Please remember, bhAva is not
abhAva-vilakshaNa AND abhAva is not bhAva-vilakshaNa. They are not
paraspara-viraha-rUpa.

//However, again from Siddhanta Bindu, "The five elements before the
process of quintuplication which are called subtle are constituted of the
three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas, since they are identical with their
cause (maya or avidya)"
and again, "In deep sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the
mind is dormant. So it is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which
is the causal state of the mind, through which the ignorance was known
during deep sleep" //

PanchIkaraNa etc are valid in SDV. No problem with avidyA-vritti in deep
sleep.

//It is you who give jagat importance in violation of Bhashyakara by
distinguishing rope/snake and hare's horn. Thus, mulavidya vada invents a
distinction between vyavahara and pratibhasika that cannot be found in
bhasya. By doing so, you inject into vyavahara a status more real than
dream,. calling it relative reality or borrowed reality or temporary
reality - again never in bhasya. This comes from drawing distinction in
non-existence, the seen snake and the never seen hare's horn. Neither
exists ... not that one is more real or less non-existent. //

Are you saying that "relative reality" is absent in bhAshya? Search again.
You will find.

For other comments, it is too general. Whatever I say is supported by
Shruti, bhAshya and logic. You do not have fundamental understanding of
bhAva, abhAva, sat, asat, anirvachanIya etc. That is why you see
contradictions. Once you have clear understanding of basics, you will not
see any contradiction.

//These discussions are too free wheeling with cherry picked citations and
brash generalizations. We should choose a text, go through it carefully and
pick out objections to discuss. I think that's more worthy manana.//

That would certainly be better. However, I deny that my statements are
general. They are specific and to-the-point.

Regards.