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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, Thank you for you reply. I went to SS 2.82-94 and did
not find adhyaropa apavada but a mukhya/gauna discussion - close but not
the same. Consider:
"By the knowledge of the senses of the words you do not attain the ultimate
purpose, as the knowledge of the meanings of the words is only mediate.
Hence the knowledge that would annihilate avidya will arise only from the
major texts.SS2.94"
'tthis knowledge that would annihilating avidya arising' is itself as an
adhyaopita - Karika 2.32 is the apavada.

Further, I went back to 2.279, " Understand that the limited thing along
with its limiting condition is completely false. In the reflected image of
the self also, a part is false1. But the original self, in its entirety, is
real."

what is this 'a part is false'? He probably means, the snake is false, the
rope is real - but there is no part! There is only rope. That notion of 'a
part' is bhavarupa avidya. It raises its head in often subtle phraseology
but always undermines avidya as adhyasa only - because we don't know what's
real, we imagine what's not real - that's abhavarupa avidya.

//There is nothing spurious about what I said. I said what I feel from SSS
ji's writings. His arguments are liable to be rejected by even a primary
student of NyAya and VedAnta//
Please sir, do your best. I am no logician but very much value arguments
that challenge my own understanding. . SSSS withstood formal challenges
from many venerable vedavit-s. I gave examples in my previous message.
That, I believe is the tip of the iceberg. SSSS has a long history of
confront traditional pandits. Please don't think you alone are the defender
of tradition. Please see the text, Vedantins Meet - perhaps some sagacious
names you will recognize. If you find nyaya lacking, I suggest you look
deeper or converse with a better informed interlocutor than myself.

// he did not even acknowledge that avidyA is stated in siddhAnta as
bhAva-vilakshaNA and went on to write 1000s of pages to do
mUlAvidyA-nirAsa. One should first understand the concept and then go on to
do "nirAsa".... why did he not mention that avidyA is presented in
siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNA? Did he hide it? Or he did not know it? If he
has mentioned it - then how can he argue that avidyA, being bhAvarUpa,
cannot be removed by ajnAna?//

Sorry, I don't follow. Would you mind spelling out what the issue is

regards, mcc



lone

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 9:01 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> //can you provide examples where post-Sankara acharyas accept AA as 'the
> base of all their prakriyAs' or are you just claiming that ajati vada as
> apavada implies all these acharyas embraced understanding sastrika
> adhyaropa fundamentally?//
>
> Please check Samkshepa ShArIraka 2.82 to 2.94. The shlokAs are crystal
> clear and give the overview of all prakriyAs. They explain as to how
> adhyAropa-apavAda is in-built in all the prakriyAs and how
> paramArtha-drishTi (ajAtivAda) is apavAda-drishTi.
>
> If interested, please check MadhusUdan SaraswatI jI's sAra-sangraha-TIkA
> thereupon.
>
> I don't give credence to my imaginations and refer only to what AchAryAs
> in sampradAya have said.
>
> //As to your spurious remark about SSSS's lack of nyaya and Vedanta,//
>
> There is nothing spurious about what I said. I said what I feel from SSS
> ji's writings. His arguments are liable to be rejected by even a primary
> student of NyAya and VedAnta. Look at our present discussions itself -- he
> did not even acknowledge that avidyA is stated in siddhAnta as
> bhAva-vilakshaNA and went on to write 1000s of pages to do
> mUlAvidyA-nirAsa. One should first understand the concept and then go on to
> do "nirAsa". So, I stand by my comments.
>
> Let me ask you -- why did he not mention that avidyA is presented in
> siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNA? Did he hide it? Or he did not know it?
>
> If he has mentioned it - then how can he argue that avidyA, being
> bhAvarUpa, cannot be removed by ajnAna?
>
> //I offer these selections from SSSS's biography attesting to his
> intellectual and exegetical credibility ://
>
> Despite the evidence you cite about Jagadguru of Sringeri and that of
> Panditapravara, I stand by my views as they are my own and reflective of my
> understanding of SSS ji's work. His works have fundamental infirmities
> which make them unacceptable, as demonstrated by several members of this
> forum from time to time.
>
> 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%2BBCXZ9U%3D_Q%2B_g_ezDMs5%3DA7RwZx3630ybFHA%3D923SPWMgg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCXZ9U%3D_Q%2B_g_ezDMs5%3DA7RwZx3630ybFHA%3D923SPWMgg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>