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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji, Thank you for your comments - nice to share to
support of SSSSji with you though I'm bit a more relaxed about it. Proud
even to be able to access and interact with this level of panditry whether
we agree or not. A great student of SSSSji,Prof Keralapuraji, observed that
SSSSji was not able to break through despite 30 years of zeal. What hope
have we? Personally, I believe satya eva jayate - give it time. pranam.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 6:23 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> //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 😊//
>>
>
> But what stopped him to extend the same privilege to vyAkhyAnakArAs? The
> fact remains that ajnAna is stated as upAdAna kAraNa by both Sureshwara and
> VivaraNa. Why this biased treatment to others!!
>
>
>>  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.
>>
>
> How long does it take to read Bhaskar ji? You can read it now. Go ahead.
> NAsadIya Suktam is considered to be a fundamental study in advaita vedAnta.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Let us study NAsadIya Suktam and discuss.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Is the "self-sufficiency" of bhashya some kind of fanaticism? What is it?
> I want to know. What is the basis of asserting that bhAshya are
> self-sufficient and nothing else is required? Is it written in bhAshya or
> is it your irrational belief? From where have you got this idea.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> No such usage is there. There is a distinction made between nAma-rUpa and
> nAma-rUpa-bIja. Wherever it is nAma-rUpa-bIja, it is avidyA-Atmaka,
> avidyA-lakshaNA. Wherever it is nAma-rUpa, it is kalpita/pratyupasthApita.
> avidyA-samyukta is identical to avidyA-Atmaka.(अविद्यासंयुक्तमिति -
> अविद्यात्मकम् इत्यर्थः ।)
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Such understanding is wrong. ajnAna-nAsha comes within the domain of
> jnApakatva only and not kArakatva. Such avidyA being upAdAna-kAraNa, and
> upAdAna-nAsha being the cause for upAdeya-nAsha, entire nAma-rUpa cease
> with avidyA-nAsha and yet it is jnAnapakatva only and not kArakatva.
>
>
>> 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!!
>>
>
> Sir, that jaDAtmikA-shakti is bhAva-vilakshaNA also on account of
> bAdhaka-sattva therefor. Why do you forget that?
>
>
> 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.
>>
>
> BhAskar ji. Please tell me. What should have BhAshyakAra written to
> convince you that avidyA is identical to mAyA? In 1.4.3 BSB, he said --
> avidyA hi avyaktam. In MANDUKya, He said - Atmanah mAyA avidyA. How else
> can anyone state their identity. BhAskyakAra ko kya aur kaise bolna chahiye
> if He wanted to state their identity.
>
> Regards.
>
> --
> 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%2BBCRotj4VFSoLneBo2vi8C0DSS_%2BAO_77B6KG%3D9xh0i7tQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCRotj4VFSoLneBo2vi8C0DSS_%2BAO_77B6KG%3D9xh0i7tQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>