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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji, Sudhanshu ji,

In the mANDUkya bhAShya 1.11, Shankaracharya says -
तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणाभ्यां बीजफलभावाभ्यां तौ यथोक्तौ विश्वतैजसौ बद्धौ
सङ्गृहीतौ इष्येते । प्राज्ञस्तु बीजभावेनैव बद्धः ।

Here he is describing tattvAgrahaNa as a bIja, and that while the vishva
and taijasa are bound by this and anyathAgrahaNa, the prAjna is bound only
by the bIja, tattvAgrahaNa.

Further, he describes the relationship between tattvAgrahaNa and
anyathAgrahaNa as the relationship between a bIja (seed) and a phala
(fruit).

It is difficult to imagine how an abhAva-rUpa tattva-agrahaNa can be said
to be the basis for the prAjna to be bound, especially so because Shankara
explicitly raises the possibility of tattva-agrahaNa to be abhAva-rUpa in
mANDukya kAruka bhAShya 1.2 and dismisses it. If you will recall, the
discussion is whether the Atma in deep sleep is endowed with such a bIja or
not -

pUrvapakshI - निर्बीजतयैव चेत् ,
siddhAntin - सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः
पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः,
बीजाभावाविशेषात् , ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ;
तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च
कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।

If this bIja itself were abhAva rUpa, both the question of the pUrvapkashi
(nirbIjatayaiva astu) the hetu given by the bhAShyakAra, बीजाभावाविशेषात्,
ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे would be strange.

What would nirbIja and bIjAbhAva mean if the bIja was
abhAva-rUpa-tattva-agrahaNa? The presence of tattvajnAna?  So the
pUrvapakshI is asking why is tattvajnAna not present in deep sleep? That
would make no sense.

What would the bhAShyakAra's statement muktAnAm punarutpatti-prasangah mean
in that case? If in pralaya there was bIjAbhAva, that is, if tattva-jnAna
was present in pralaya, mukta-s would end being born again? That is a
clearly incorrect statement. Why would the liberated ones possessing
tattva-jnAna be born again?

Similarly what would the statement jnAna-dAhya-bIjAbhAve ca
jnAna-Anarthakya-prasangah of the bhAshyakAra mean? So the bhAShyakAra is
saying if  there was bIjAbhAva, i.e. if tattvajnAna was present,
tattvajnAna would be of no use? Again, a strange idea.

Regards,
Venkatarghavan

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 8:55 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji.
>
> SSS ji says in the explanation to verse 179 -  आत्माग्रहणमेव तस्या
> अनात्मरूपाया रूपम्। अत एव विद्याविरुद्धत्वात् अविद्येति तस्या अपि व्यपदेश
> इत्यर्थः।
>
> Anandagiri Swami - नञस्तर्हि कोऽर्थः स्यात् इति आशङ्क्य - यथा
> अमित्र-अधर्म-आदौ तदन्यत्वं तद्विरुद्धत्वं वा नञोऽर्थो न तदभावत्वमित्याह -
> अमित्रवदिति।
>
> SSS ji accepts that avidyA is vidyA-viruddhA and yet holds - avidyA is
> abhAva! This is something hilarious.
>
> VArtikakAra is explaining that agrahaNa is like amitra, which is not some
> abhAva - and yet SSS ji can cite this for abhAvatva of avidyA is
> unfortunate. The very insertion of amitra is to explain the artha of नञ्
> samas.
>
> This is called jabardasti.
>
> Also, can you locate where has SSS ji "explained" BBV 1.4.371 - अस्य
> द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य......
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> --
> 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%2BBCfhsGW8n%2Bq9J%2Bpm%2BKS%2BroMDJR9imbbmZptOs13khJSHQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCfhsGW8n%2Bq9J%2Bpm%2BKS%2BroMDJR9imbbmZptOs13khJSHQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>