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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

On what basis are you claiming that what the vyAkhyAnakAras have written is mere dry logic and not anubhava sammata shrutyukta tarka? Are you personally aware of their lack of anubhava?


Ø     Dear prabhuji what Sri SSS talking about is our tarka should be based on shruti and anubhava (not individual anubhava anyway).  When shankara talked adhyAsa he has not given any pramANa vAkya nor based his observation on mere tarka but he talked about adhyAsa purely on the basis of svAbhAvika /naisargika anubhava.  The subsequent theories developed on avidyA / adhyAsa just to counter the dualists objection on avidyA is mainly based on mere tarka not on anubhava.  His (Sri SSS) emphasis is always on anubhava sammata vedAnta siddhAnta not mere tarka pratipAdita theory.  As there is always a limitation to human intellect generated tarka and there is every chance of breaking this tarka at a later stage by more smart logicians.  The place of logic in vedAnta should not override the anubhava and yukti that is embedded in shruti.

Just calling something 'mere logic' does not make it so. Do you know this position is not backed by the shruti? In fact several shruti statements refer to a bhAvarUpA avidyA.


Ø     This socalled bhAvarUpa avidyA is not something holding the motherly position apart from what bhAshyakAra categorically cleared, i.e. jnAnAbhAva, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  So fouth type of ‘leader’ avidyA is alien theory in shankara’s Shuddha Vedanta prakriya declares Sri SSS.

Similarly calling something anubhava sammata does not make it so - unless it is your own anubhava,


  *   By the way own or individual (vaiyuktika) anubhava is not the pramANa as you know bhAshyakAra himself clears this doubt by quoting kapila kANAda.  So, please don’t think Sri SSS advocating individual anubhava and asking us to stick to ‘anubhava sammata tarka’.

what statement can you make regarding anyone else's?


  *   As cleared above he is NOT talking about anyone else’s individual anubhava (the samAdhi is one of those individual anubhava).

Just having anubhava does not make it valid - one has anubhava of a snake where there is rope. Does that make such an anubhava, prAmANika?


Ø     Please see above.  One may see snake, one may see garland one may see mUtra dhAre as per their respective saMskAra bala, the sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava is not something of this order.

Same goes for the term shuddha shAnkara prakriyA. Sri SSS calls it shuddha shAnkara prakriyA while contradicting all the vyAkhyAnakAras.


  *   He is not contradicting all the vyAkhyAnakAra in all the aspects of Advaita vedAnta this is what most of you prabhuji-s erroneously thinking about him.  He himself reverentially acknowledges the contribution of post shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s wherever it is deserved.

We are debating whether that name is valid for what he has proposed. Until that is determined for a fact, that is also not prAmANika.


Ø     I am sorry, it is prAmANika for us who follow him.  Like you prabhuji-s passionately embrace whatever vyAkhyAnakAra-s say, we the followers of Sri SSS too would definitely take his opinion as prAmANika and authentic to determine Shuddha shankara prakriya.  After all he is asking us to go back to mUla not insisting whatever he says is right and final that approach is enough for us to take his words as prAmANika.  bhAshyamekam sharaNam vraja.  If this stand too not palatable to some and calling it as fanaticism we cannot help it but to smile at them.

These are all names and we cannot debate something on the basis of what one calls it, because another person can call it something else.


Ø     Yes, that is the reason why there is a call to go back to mUla and someone asking us to stick to what bhAshyakAra names it and elaborates it.  Do you think this is an unpardonable sin and fanatic approach to understand shankara vedAnta??

If you are not willing to or able to argue your position, that does not make the other person who is willing to argue a "mere logician" or their argument lacking anubhava. That is an unfair characterisation.


Ø     Dear prabhuji whether I am willing to debate or otherwise that is secondary.  Whenever time permits definitely I will show a bit.  What I am trying to say here is what Sri SSS emphasized.  If some one says someone who is standing in front of him :  See, I am going to prove logically you are not in front of me, what sort of debate that would be when it is plainly going against your anubhava!!??  It is upto the individual’s discretion whether to indulge in mere logic based debates like this or sticking to anubhava sammata shruti anugraheeta tarka as mananaM part.


  *   Kindly pardon me if I said anything harsh.


Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
bhaskar