[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Adhyaropa apavada' found in Vivarana and other texts

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, Thank you for the list of PSA/post-Sankara Advaitins
who acknowledged Adhhyaropa Apavada. I don't think there's any doubt the
prakriya wsa employed variously in PSA. I think the issue recognizing it as
fundamental.  One of SSSS's direct disciples, the anchorite and teacher of
my teacher. declared that SSSS's great finding wasn't about mulavidya but
rather in the recognition of the status of adhyaropa apavada.
regards, mcc

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 12:56 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>> //I ask you counter question. What is shakti? Define. Otherwise SSS’
>> statement is meaningless that acceptance of avidyA as shakti is violative
>> of adhyAropa-apavAda. Essentially, SSS did not understand what is meant by
>> shakti.//
>>
>> Your denial of a positive bhavarupa avidya as opposed to Sankara's
>> intended teaching of adhyasa avidya flies in the face of emic free
>> panditry confirming SSSS's understanding by Hacker, Mayeda, Alson and
>> Andrianic, in their exhaustive philological surveys of all the instances of
>> avdya - alone or in compound - and of its presuppositions, implications and
>> ramifications in the Brahma Sutras, Upadesa Sahasri, Naiskarmya Siddhi and
>> Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, respectively. The unanimous consensus is that
>> Sankara's use of avidya in all these texts was distorted by post Sankara
>> Advaita in various ways!!  -- references available on demand
>>
>> Ignoring or side stepping these studies is disingenuous, imho. SSSS's
>> corrective discoveries cannot be dismissed off handedly as some here have
>> done. The serious investigation of his conclusions, if nothing else, is
>> rich manana and because of their apta claim undermining the fundamental
>> teaching of Adi Shanakara teaching, no student of Vedanta can stand firm in
>> their conviction, it seems to me.
>>
>
> Very well Michael ji.
>
> Now please define what is Shakti, which you proceeded to answer but went
> to Hacker, Mayeda, Alston etc and God-knows-where who are liable to come
> within the ambit of this statement of BhAshyakAra - तस्मात् असम्प्रदायवित्
> सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः ॥
>
> //References available on demand//
>
> Sorry. No demand from my side.
>
> //If nothing else, is rich manana//
>
> No. It is not rich manana. The indulgence in replying to what is said in
> their non-sAmpradAyik swa-kalpanA-prasUta-theories is only for the sake of
> some sincere sAdhakAs like your goodself and some other aspirants.
> Otherwise, personally, it is useless.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
> --
> 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%2BBBKGBjLaGn5UcwNYULXOkVUPZ_7Zj9HStnK5NF7%2Boq-UA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBKGBjLaGn5UcwNYULXOkVUPZ_7Zj9HStnK5NF7%2Boq-UA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>