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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Thank you for sharing that meticulous and lucid analysis of relevant BUBV
verses, Venkat ji and excellent takedown of the errors in the SSS idea that
Sureshvara denies avidyA as the cause of adhyAsa.

Amongst the numerous notable points you made, I particularly noted the BUBV
1.4.438 मूलध्वस्तौ हतं तच्चेन्मिथ्याधीः किं करोति नः |

There is mention of मूलध्वस्तिः (destruction of the root cause) occurring
*upon which*  मिथ्याधीः (false knowledge i.e., adhyAsa) cannot persist
anymore. Clearly, a mention of a cause for मिथ्याधीः is there.

And the earlier upAdAna kAraNa reference mentioned by Sri Sureshvara's are
amongst the most compelling reasons to reject abhAvavAda.


On another note - (kindly excuse the detour) -
It's noteworthy that such a false doctrine can be the near unanimous
conclusion of a large number of western scholars (the etic a.k.a
asAmpradAyika scholars, with some significant honorable exceptions) as
mentioned by Michael ji.

Etic scholarship, amongst other things, rests on publication of papers and
books. So if dozens of papers get published in English twisting the bhAShya
and vArtika meaning to assert abhAva of ajnAna, then that becomes the
"truth" based on *number of papers* published. That is why it's usually
mentioned that "so many University scholars and 1000's of pages by SSS etc
have "shown" that ajnAna is abhAva", so no matter what any other emic
scholars and achAryas (sampradAyavits) argue with all logic and mImAmsA,
nothing can change the bland assertion that ajnAna is abhAva.

It is a test case of how the Dharma traditions are distorted and
reinterpreted by asAmpradAyika (etic indology) scholars and it's then
*foisted back* upon the main emic tradition itself as gospel truth. In
other words, the living Advaita tradition is supposed to defer to etic
"scholarship" in defining itself about jnAna being abhAva etc.

While Sri SSS ji and his followers are no doubt within the sAmpradAyika
(emic) fold, it's sad to see that SSS tradition is unwittingly allowing
itself to be used by those etics western scholars of the likes of the great
Christian apologist Paul Hacker to attack mainstream Vedanta and isolate
all the other later Acharyas from Sri Shankara bhagavatpada. This is a
matter of concern.

I would love to see a take down of the likes of western etic scholars like
Hacker by Sri SSS followers. At least SrI SSS followers should open their
eyes and realize that there is ulterior agenda in many western scholars
like Hacker et al who are misusing the fact that SSS claims that all later
Acharyas after Shankara, got it wrong .

So while the scholarly arguments of Hacker should be carefully and
respectfully rebutted,  the prevalence of ulterior motives amongst many
western scholars ( like Christian theology propagation) should also an
important matter within sAmpradAyika (emic) circles particularly the SSS
circles. Otherwise they (SSS followers) unawarefully are becoming sepoys in
the western project of Indology, to dismantle the Dharma tradition by
exploiting it's inner fault lines.

 I do of course understand that while rebutting the illogical arguments of
western scholarship on Advaita, their Christian missionary motives need not
be mentioned because it amounts to ad hominem argument which is out of
place.

But this is an important issue to observe how it's playing out even in the
SSS case where much of western scholarship in alliance with Sri SSS
followers is brazening it out that the entire Advaita tradition got it
wrong after Sureshvara - in spite of copious references and logical
counter-arguments being presented to show there is continuity and cogency
within the Advaita tradition even post-Shankara.

The mention of western asAmpradAyika ("etic") scholarship supporting and
endorsing SSS reminded me of the underlying dynamics of such tendentious
argumentation by etics/indologists.

Om
Raghav


>
>
>