[Advaita-l] [advaitin] SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

// He never ever accepted something like bhAvarUpa avidyA which is
categorically said as upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa by vyAkhyAnakAra-s.//

But even Sureshwara categorically said avidyA as upAdAna kAraNa. Why only
"vyAkyAnakArAs"?

//sAyaNa is after shankara right??  Whatever said in mUla not diluted in
later works definitely acceptable to us prabhuji.  So, if sAyanAchArya
explaining the mUla tattva without going against shankara tattva definitely
acceptable to us.//

But, as per you, SAyaNa violated Shankara Tattva. Right? He said in Mantra
3 in NAsadIya BhAshya - आत्मतत्वस्यावरकरवान्मायापरसंज्ञं भावरूपाज्ञानमत्र
तम इत्युच्यते । Certainly SAyaNa diluted the Shankara-tattva. Did he not?
Please share your view.

//mAyA is not avidyA there are ample evidences within bhAshya.  So, no need
to search for any further clarification anywhere else.//

No. I am not searching anywhere. I am just saying that the "manipulation of
siddhAnta" is not limited to only vyAkhyAnakArAs but also applied to
SAyANAchAryA, an unquestioned authority on Rigveda (except may be by Arya
samAjIs). Just wanted the view of SSS' followers on this.

//By the way you are the man of logic and Sanskrit scholar do you agree
both words giving the same meaning in all the contexts to declare that both
avidyA and mAya are synonyms??  just curious to know.//

These two words refer to same entity everywhere. Yeah. Both are synonyms.

Question may arise -- why these two words.

My understanding is -- that entity, which is indicated by the words avidyA
or mAyA, is removable by vidyA. Hence, it is called avidyA. Further, that
entity does not exist, hence it is called mAyA (yA mA, sA mAyA). So, two
indicate two aspects of same entity, these two words are used.

How do I say that? What is the basis?

BhAshyakAra says in MANDUkya - आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया
प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः ।

He equates MAyA with avidyA. Also, what exactly is the ramification -- न
परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः.

Having said that, some of the AchAryAs do distinguish them based on the
preponderance of sattva. But none distinguish them fundamentally.

//mAya is anirvachaneeya whereas avidyA is nirvachaneeya.  avidyA is
bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa whereas it is mAya tattvAnyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeya//

If avidyA is bhAvAbhAva-vilakshaNa, then how is it nirvachanIya?

Regards.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:42 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <
advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:

> praNAms
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Then, what would the non-vyakhyanakara's meaning be for the Upanishadic
> term?
>
>
>
> Ø     If at all some one wants to accommodate the term ‘mUlAvidyA’ it
> should be jnAnAbhAva only as per Sri SSS.  He never ever accepted something
> like bhAvarUpa avidyA which is categorically said as upAdAna kAraNa for the
> adhyAsa by vyAkhyAnakAra-s.  The fourth alien entity called mulAvidyA,
> which is the mother of all three definitions/types of avidyA and at the
> same time entirely different from jnAnAbhAva, vipareeta grahaNa, saMshaya
> has no place in Shuddha shankara Vedanta he reiterates this point
> everywhere.
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
> --
> 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/AM7PR06MB662567417B04BF9CC03BA9D5848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662567417B04BF9CC03BA9D5848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com