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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

> Ø      The subsequent theories developed on avidyA / adhyAsa just to
> counter the dualists objection on avidyA is mainly based on mere tarka not
> on anubhava.
>
This is merely an unsupported assertion ji, not an argument. You have to
provide some reason as to why their theory is kevala tarka, because the
vyAkhyAnakAras give the counter argument of shruti pramANa "tama AsIt",
"anRtena hi pratyUDhAh", smRti pramANa "ajnAnena AvRtam jnAnam", anubhava
of suShupti "na kincid avediSham" in addition to the anumAna pramANa for
the existence of bhAva rUpA (ie abhAva vilakshaNa) avidyA.

> His (Sri SSS) emphasis is always on anubhava sammata vedAnta siddhAnta not
> mere tarka pratipAdita theory.
>
That may be true, but what is being discussed is not kevala tarka
pratipAdita, without pramANa support, as you allege.

> 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.
>
Indeed - however, again, the vyAkhyAnakAras do not merely state tarka,
without also providing shruti and other pramANas.

>
>
> Ø     This socalled bhAvarUpa avidyA is not something holding the
> motherly position apart from what bhAshyakAra categorically cleared, i.e.
> jnAnAbhAva, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.
>
Shankaracharya hasn't done this - in fact he has done the opposite.
Elsewhere he equates avidyA with mAyA, avyaktam etc, which you agree is not
jnAna abhAva.

> So fouth type of ‘leader’ avidyA is alien theory in shankara’s Shuddha
> Vedanta prakriya declares Sri SSS.
>
Not sure what you mean fourth type, but if you mean it is
sadasatvilakshaNa, then that is indeed the case. The world is
sadasatvilakshaNa, like its upAdAnakAraNa, avidyA.

>
>
>    - 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’.
>
> I agree, one's own anubhava cannot be a pramANa.

>
> 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.
>
> By contradiction what I meant to say was that he claimed that mUlAvidyA
was an invention of the vyAkhyAnakAras, and has no place in Vedanta.

> 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.
>
Correct, I am not doubting your shraddhA in Sri SSS. Of course for you he
will be prAmANika. However, when debating with someone who does not agree
with Sri SSS' views in this regard, to quote his position here as pramANa
is not acceptable. Reasoning has to be provided in support, not merely
statements or assertions.

> 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.
>
Of course, the bhAShya is prAmANika for me also, but there has to be a
recognition that ultimately the basis of the bhAShya is shruti - so your
comment about bhAShyekam sharaNam vraja, is more appropriately directed to
shruti. Ultimately, we all have to take refuge in the shruti. The
bhAshyakAra Himself would agree with this.

Coming to our situation - where the bhAShya's meaning is being debated, the
interpretation of that debated portion has to be in lines of other
pramANa-s such as shruti, anumAna etc. One cannot dismiss the use of
anumANa here as kevala tarka - it is a necessary means to understand the
bhAShya. Otherwise, the two sides will be simply shouting slogans at each
other - this is a forum for discussion, not sloganeering or heckling. This
necessitates the use of pramANas.

Also, we are not randomly using reasoning to prove some
sva-kapola-kalpita-viShaya, that the sky is red, for example ; we are using
it in the context of understanding shruti and shAstra (bhAShya). Thus the
use of tarka and anumAna is very much justified.

If there is a flaw in the anumAna here, by all means point it out - like
Sudhanshu Ji did in the case of Sri SSS' statements where the latter sought
to prove that abhAva jnAna does not require pratiyogi jnAna. When that is
being done, as a Sri SSS sampradAya follower, you should address the
specific charge he has raised, you cannot simply dismiss that reasoning as
shuShka tarka.

Also please note that no one is questioning the validity of the bhAShya -
we all have the highest reverence for it. But so did the vyAkhyAnakAras
also.

So, let us by all means go back to the bhAShya to understand what
Shankaracharya had in mind - but it is not always clear, and it is our duty
as shiShyas in shAnkara sampradAya to *use all means* - ie all pramANa-s
available to understand the bhAShya.

>
> 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!!??
>
That is true in the example of someone standing in front of you. But here,
this is not a case of someone standing in front of you - whether avidyA is
jnAna abhAva or abhAva vilakshaNa is not a matter of anyone's experience.

>   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.
>
Of course, one is free to do as one pleases - but if one is making an
assertion, that has to be backed by pramANa. One cannot keep repeating the
assertion as an argument, especially when flaws are being pointed against
such an assertion.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

>
>
>    - Kindly pardon me if I said anything harsh.
>
>
>
> 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/AM7PR06MB6625B89B05731128F8A69753848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625B89B05731128F8A69753848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>