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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Thanks for the citation.

Indeed his expertise of Sanskrit is quite at a display here. He can
disregard the clear explicit usage of upAdAna-kAraNatva to avidyA even when
the shloka is saying and can say  मैवम्, द्वैतस्य इन्द्रजालसदृशत्वोक्त्या
मिथ्याध्यासत्वमेवोक्तमिति । अध्यासस्यावस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा
नैवास्ति ।

Means VArtikakAra is saying - Bhai, ajnAna is upAdAna-kAraNat and SSS ji is
saying - no! VArtikakAra does not mean upAdAna-kAraNa because (as per SSS)
there is no requirement of upAdAna for adhyAsa.

What else is called jabardasti!!

If he can do this, then even if VArtikakAra would have said -- avidyA is
bhAvarUpa -- he would have said that VArtikakAra did not mean bhAvarUpa.

I mean what is this. Then that way what harm other AchAryAs did. They can
also be explained like this. Why this privileged treatment to VArtikakAra?


//न च ग्रन्थकृता क्वचिदप्यध्यासोपादानत्वेन अज्ञानं समुपन्यस्तम्//

Gazab!!

//प्रत्युताधस्तादस्माभिरुपपादितनीत्या मिथ्याज्ञानसंशयौ
प्रत्यभावरूपाज्ञानस्यैव कारणत्वमत्राप्युक्तमिति गम्यते ।//

He needs to look at bhAshya to understand that abhAva cannot be kAraNa of
anything. नाप्यभावः कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव,
शशविषाणादिवत् । Despite such bhAshya vAkya, he can claim that his
abhAva-rUpa-ajnAna has kAraNatvam!!

I would leave it at that.. no point in even entertaining this view which is
against direct explicit words of bhAshya and vArtika.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.