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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Jaishankar Ji,

Interestigly, Sri SSS cites, in his text, वेदान्तप्रक्रियाप्रत्यभिज्ञा
pages 217-218,  the same TBV shlokas 176 to 179 quoted by you in support of
his contention that Swami Sureswaracharya also has supported his view that
avidyA means absence of knowledge.
Regards

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 6:55 AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>