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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Raghav ji,

I think what you say is absolutely right.

The motives of a few scholars (both Indian and western) may be
questionable, and one should certainly be watchful and tailor our responses
to the type of challenge presented. I hope all the traditional scholars
(and I am including Sri SSS' followers too) take note and not allow their
arguments to be used against sanAtana dharma.

Having said that, I have taken the arguments presented at their face value
and have tried to examine their merit. I find there is great strength in
being able to debate just the issues, because of the backing and strength
in the tradition. In fact, any ad hominem attacks may be a sign of
desperation / or an attempt to provoke anger, in order to blind the
intellect and prevent one from being able to perceive the truth and respond
accordingly. We mustn't let frustration and fatigue distract us from the
truth.

Ultimately the issues and the truth will win - we, after all, have a 1,000+
year tradition here, and there are really no new questions that are being
raised now that have not been raised and addressed at some point in the
tradition.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan



On Mon, 26 Aug 2024, 10:21 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>