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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Jaishankar Ji,

As pointed out by me in another post today, I am not a follower of Sri SSS.
But I am very familiar with his works which I refer to regularly since most
of them are in kannada with the Sanskrit mUlam also being in kannada
script. Wherever I am aware of relevant response from his texts to
questions being discussed here, I am just posting the same.

I have not come across any direct reference to the BUBV verse 1-4-386 cited
by you. However I believe the response offered in my other post today
referring to Venkat Ji’s observations answers your question also. This is
based on Sri Krishna Jois’s foot notes on this verse in his kannada
translation of BUBV 1-4.

Perhaps the following comment on NS 3-7,  in kleshApahAriNi of Sri SSS also
addresses your query.

//  तत्राह 'सन्नज्ञातो भवेत्ततः' इति । अज्ञातत्वं सत्सामानाधिकरण्यम्
अविमुञ्चत् सत एव धर्मो न तु घटादीनां मिथ्याज्ञातानामित्यवगम्यते इत्यर्थः ।
एवं च अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ? इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति ।
अज्ञातसत एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् । यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्या-
वस्तुस्वभावत्वम्, तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि
समानम् । न हि ज्ञानबाध्यस्य क्वचिदपि वस्तुत्वं संगच्छत इति प्रत्युक्तम् । //

This is purely my guess. May be satisfactory or not.

Regards

On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 9:25 AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> He seems to be agreeing that avidyA is vidyA-virodhi. Further what he has
> to say for this BUBhV 1.4.386
>
> यदेव नित्यमज्ञानं मिथ्याज्ञानं तदेव तु ।।
> कारणेतररूपेण तयोरव्यभिचारतः ।। ३८६ ।।
>
> Here ajnAna  has been said as nityam which anandagiri says points to its
> anAditvam. Further it is clearly said this nityam ajnAnam is the cause of
> mithyAjnAnam. So clearly Sureshvara accepts anAdi bhAvaruptvam of ajnAnam.
>
> with love and prayers,
> Jaishankar
>
>
>