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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

Looking at the below message from Bhaskar ji now, I want to know how he or
SSS interprets the following TUBV verses from Brahmavalli

परात्मनोऽप्यनन्तस्य क्षेत्रज्ञत्वमविद्यया ।
क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धीत्येवं सत्युपपद्यते ॥ १७५ ॥

न जानामीत्यविद्यैकाऽनित्या तत्कारणं मता ।
स्वप्रसिद्ध्यैव सा सिध्येन्निशौलूकीव वासरे ॥ १७६ ॥

प्रमाणोत्पन्नया दृष्ट्या योऽविद्यां द्रष्टुमिच्चति ।
दीपेनासौ ध्रुवं पश्येद् गुहाकुक्षिगतं तमः ॥ १७७ ॥

अनात्मेतीह यद्भाति तदविद्याविजृम्भितम् ।
तस्मादविद्या साऽप्युक्ता विद्या त्वात्मैकरूपिणी ॥ १७८ ॥

आत्माग्रहातिरेकेण तस्या रूपं न विद्यते ।
अमित्रवदविद्येति सत्येवं घटते सदा ॥ १७९ ॥

Paramatma becomes kshetrajna due to avidya. Avidya is sakshi bhaAsya in the
form of 'I do not know' like even the Owl sees the darkness of night as
daytime. Avidya cannot be known through pramana as it is like trying to see
darkness with the help of a lamp. All anAtma is a projection of avidyA, so
it is called avidyA  and vidyA is only in the form of self conscious Atma.
It does not exist in any other form other than non apprehension of Atma -
it is only tenable if it is said that avidyA is like the term amitra (not
friend - which cannot be an abhAva)

There cannot be a clearer evidence than the above to prove that Sureshvara
and all other Sampradaya Acharyas were talking about avidyA in the same
way. SSS followers should not ostracize Sureshvara too :-)

Namaste,
Jaishankar

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 12:02 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <
advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:

> praNAms
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Sri SSS’s take on vArtikakAra is very simple and straightforward.  He
> observes in one of his works : the vArtikakAra has NOT accepted mUlAvidyA
> as advocated by the vivaraNakAra.  As per vArtika prakriya barring the
> three aspects of ajnAna for jnAna there is no other obstacle whatsoever.
> AjnAna or jnAnAbhAva itself is the essence of the other two variants i.e.
> misconception and doubt.  So any number of vArtika quotes would simply
> cannot go against this final stand on avidyA by vArtikakAra.  Sri Vittala
> shastri talks about these vArtika references and clarifies that these
> quotes would not help us to prove ‘fourth’ type of avidyA which is
> conspicuous by its absence in Tai. & bru vArtika and NS.  He further
> clarified that there is no profound and pronounced differences in vArtika-s
> when compared to mUla bhAshya. vArtikakAra not only followed mUla bhAshya
> religiously but also added some yukti-s (logical devices) of bhAshyakAra to
> further strengthening them.  There are some place there is a talk about
> upAdAnatva of avidyA etc. but it is not the subject matter of proving
> avidyA upAdAna kAranatva in that particular context, and here too avidyA is
> jnAnAbhAva only that leads to adhyAsa.  So, Sri SSS’s followers may please
> be assured that unlike vyAkhyAna, vArtika followed mUla and elaborated
> whatever in mUla without introducing some extra alien concepts like
> bhAvarUpa, jadAtmaka, anirvachaneeya brahmAshrita, sadasatvilakshaNa
> mUlAvidyA.
>
>
>
> 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/AM7PR06MB662555348FFE42CEDBDFE545848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662555348FFE42CEDBDFE545848E2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>