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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

I was thinking if sushupti is devoid of any bIja and it is parabrahman
alone, then why is Brahman called turIya? It should be tritIya in that
case. And there should be only 2 avasthAs talked about. If they say it is
from the waking standpoint then all teaching is from the waking standpoint
only as the waker is the jijnAsu and not the dreamer or sleeper. The bIja
has to be accepted for the waker as the waker's anubhava is, I slept and I
woke up. Anyway this prakriya does not make any sense when looked at from
one's own anubhava and common sense logic.

Regards,
Jaishankar

On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 8:46 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbu ji
> Thanks for sharing that.
>
> The "counter-argument" that suShupti understood from "it's own standpoint"
> is nirbIja-sat is strange and illogical. Because the very word suShupti
> (dreamless sleep) carries the sense of being an avasthA visheSha (a
> particular state) implying it's anityatvaM.
>
> Sure, by apavAda, when the upAdhi of kAraNatvaM is negated, then sat-brahma
> alone remains.
>
> But that's true of any avasthA - negation of upAdhis by apavAda, of any
> state of experience, not just suShupti, lands us on nirguNa nirbIja
> brahmAtmA alone.
>
> Even jAgradavasthA can be analysed as a series of tripuTis. And the
> present-moment tripuTi is in turn mithyA with adhiShThAna caitanyaM as
> satyaM.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug, 2024, 10:58 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear Venkat ji,
> >
> > Thanks for this Mandukya Bhashya quote.  The other significant statement
> > there is:
> >
> >  तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः,* सर्वश्रुतिषु च
> > कारणत्वव्यपदेशः* ।
> >
> > Bhashyakara is making a rule here:  In all shrutis, wherever pralaya and
> > sushupti are dealt with, it has to be understood that the laya happens in
> > the saguna Brahman, which is the KaaraNa Brahman, alone and not in the
> > Nirguna Brahman. Hence there is no scope at all to deny the beejAvasthA
> in
> > sushupti and pralaya.
> >
> > warm regards
> > subbu
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 6:59 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >> .
> > >>
> > > --
> > > 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/CAL34aEkfBahkdcxg1kYj%2BSPnbEDK4mnXJ1M1TA%2BxZH_PCS2sQQ%40mail.gmail.com
> > > <
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkfBahkdcxg1kYj%2BSPnbEDK4mnXJ1M1TA%2BxZH_PCS2sQQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>