[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Hacker on bija and creation

[Venkatraghavan S]

Resending the below as advaita-l  blocked the message due to size
restrictions. My original response to Hacker has been erased to try getting
the email through.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024, 06:20 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Michael,
>
> Thanks for sharing, but I am not interested in having a debate by proxy
> with a third person I have not engaged with in a forum that I am not
> involved in.
>
> More importantly however, it is clear the gentleman has not understood the
> arguments made - either by Hacker or me - or in fact who is arguing for
> what, so a debate would be futile.
>
> For example, he seems to think I am arguing that the repetition of nimitta
> proves my point, when I am arguing the very opposite - that Hacker should
> not be using word frequency, because it can cut both ways.
>
> Then he is quoting BSB
> 2.1.14 तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं
> सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो, thinking it proves his point, when it is the
> exact opposite - pray tell, what is this avidyAtmaka upAdhi on whose basis
> Brahman's omniscience and omnipotence rests, other than mAyA, which is
> avidyAtmaka, in Shankara 's own words?
>
> The nature of mAyA is being discussed here and in BSB 1.4.3. The question
> is, are you willing to agree that mAyA is the pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa, the
> changing material cause, or not?
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024, 23:09 Michael Chandra Cohen, <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan,
>>
>> A response to your comments on Hacker.  Another respondent argued from
>> parsimony, avidya as adhyasa and adhyaropa/apavada as fundamental are
>> simple and clear
>>
>> regards, Michael
>>
>> Shriram Bhandari
>> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/100009827087239/?__cft__[0]=AZUmKwpdTPRXBx9rmQe4aqazD6spmCCx1MUSCwe2cRXDzTwHcgEtMJK0xxCnDhZUPS62abG00dXoKaIwG4MH57VBJkK298ISUsS0H8J9HD7WF7snMOBKMtvfoVQ7YkIk9SdwZ8SdKspCAQrHXMUG8YpGZvnBnTnbI3T4xhXS_fnLsY-hX-znfwnjSzMlAeHm9cav-sguxAir0uGTk6Cub5Ei&__tn__=R]-R>
>> Moderator
>> Top contributor
>> See the 1st quotation
>> प्रतिनियतदेशकालनिमित्तक्रियाफलाश्रयस्य ,
>> B.S.B 1.1.5 , it merely describes Brahman as the cause with respect to
>> the Adhyaropa and Apavada framework. If the person arguing is so focussed
>> on the word निमित्त which means cause, then he forgets that this compound
>> contains the word प्रतिनियत, which means pre determined. Now if repetition
>> of Nimitta in the Bhashya proves his own point on Avidya he must answer as
>> to how Maya or Avidya are pre determined. If the arguer insists that I
>> don't know Samkrutam then he may himself break up the compound and tell me
>> it's meaning. This is obviously a baseless argument by the opponent.
>> Now one more good quotation given by the person arguing for this is the
>> following quote
>> "अविद्यात्मिका हि सा बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी
>> महासुषुप्तिः "
>> B.S.B 1.4.3
>> Rough translation: That Avidya being seed like potential is being called
>> Unmanifest or Avyakta. It is being based on Parameshwara or the highest
>> Lord, it is full of Maya also known as Mahasushupti or great deep sleep.
>> This is being told by the arguer, however he forgets that in the same
>> section Adi Shankara says the following
>> 1.4.14 B.S.B
>> "उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां तत्र तत्र ब्रह्मविषयैर्वाक्यैः साकमेकवाक्यताया
>> गम्यमानत्वात्"
>> Rough translation: In the beginning and the end it is only told that
>> Brahman will itself into the world.
>> Then quotes Gaudapada as follows
>> "तथा च संप्रदायविदो वदन्ति मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या
>> चोदितान्यथा। उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः"
>> In the sense these whole examples of just as from one fire come various
>> sparks or descriptions of Brahman being the cause are merely methods there
>> is no duality as such is being told.
>> If this is merely a method to show Nondual reality, then Adi Shankara
>> stating that Avidya is Maya is only from this particular stand point, but
>> not really a material cause as such.
>> Also in Brahma Sutra 2.1.15 Adi Shankara hammers the point that Ishwara
>> having power is within Avidya, therefore equating Avidya with material
>> cause has no meaning
>> तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं
>> सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो
>>
>>