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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

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


Ø     Yes, Sri SSS discusses this reference in nirAsaH and kleshApahAriNi and explains how this usage of upAdAna kAraNa should not be treated as source for later vyAkhyAnakAra-s mUlAvidyAvAda.  If possible I shall share his explanation and I know you are not ready / willing to listen to it 😊

//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.


Ø     First of all please note I have not studied sAyana bhashya on veda-s so my opinion / view is hardly a matter of contention.  OTOH, if it is really a valid observation that  sAyana’s observation is definitely going against mUla shankara bhAshya in this particular context or diluting it to some extent  ( sorry I don’t know what context it is said bhAvarUpAjnAnamAtra tama) then I would definitely don’t have any hesitation to say sAyana bhAshya is not representing shankara’s Advaita siddhAnta in this context.

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.


Ø     My humble prostrations to Sri sAyanaachArya as he might be the authoritative commentator on veda-s but at the same time I would like to understand Sri shankara siddhAnta through bhAshyakAra’s works only as it is self-sufficient for his followers.

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


Ø     Invariably giving the same meaning irrespective of contexts in which these terms used at different parts of PTB!!??

Question may arise -- why these two words.


Ø     Not only question about using two different words but also using avidyA and mAya in compound words !! like avidyA paryupasthApita mAya, avidyA Kalpita mAya, avidyA saMyukta mAya etc.

My understanding is -- that entity, which is indicated by the words avidyA or mAyA, is removable by vidyA. Hence, it is called avidyA.


  *   As per my understanding vidyA is not kAraka only jnApaka it can remove only avidyA not mAya as mAya is brahmAbhinna, vidyA can remove stree vyAmOha ( as vyAmOha is duHkha kAraka) not stree herself…and jnAna does not have that capacity to remove what is already existing.  It can only help us to realize what is there actually.  bhUta vastu Vishaya jnAna.  Stree is pratyaksha pramANita and vyAmOha rahita stree jnAna is avagati jnAna.  One pramANa janita jnAna should not supersede by other pramANa janita jnAna.  Vaividhyate in pratyaksha pramANita, ekatva behind it is shAstra pramANita Samyak jnAna.

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.


Ø     But don’t you prabhuji-s vehemently arguing jagat is tuccha absolutely non existing and with the same breath avidyA is an existing / bhAva rUpa / jadAtmaka shakti which is material cause for adhyAsa etc. ??  I am not able to understand what sort of logic it is!!

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.


Ø     If I remember right Sri Subbu prabhuji also had quoted this earlier (some 4-5 years ago) when the same topic was being discussed 😊 I think I have replied at that time that we have to read 3-10 and 3-11 together to understand about the body it becomes clear that avidyA and mAya are not synonymous. When the Atman is realized as one without second the socalled individual body discarlded as imagined due to ignorance but from the pAramArthika drushti the reality of the body is accepted and its creation is explained.

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


Ø     Fundamentally what is there is brahman and brahman alone so no question of talking all these as per the context etc. So the distinction has been made when we are talking about Ishwaraashrita mAya and jeeva’s disease called avidyA.  In this scenario the distinction is very much required and evident as well in bhAshya.

//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?


  *   Sorry the word ‘not’ missed here…I meant to say avidyA is NOT bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa whereas mAya is anirvachaneeya, as bhAshyakAra gives the example of water, foam, bubble etc. while explaining Ishwara tattva or anyatva nature of mAya.


Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar