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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sorry typo in the last sentence, should be - because it is of the nature of
absence there is *no* entity there to be sublated.

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 06:09 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
>
> Thanks for the clarification - I took the first iti in
> तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति
> ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः to mean "because there is no
> object called avidyA other than mithyA jnAna" and the second "iti" to mean
> "the words (it possesses the attribute of) sublatability by knowledge are
> empty".
>
> ie because it is of the nature of absence there is nothing entity there to
> be sublated.
>
> Kind regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024, 23:22 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji.
>>
>> I had read it in some book by SSS ji. However, I don't remember as to
>> which book it was. Subbu ji has mentioned this quote in
>> https://wp.me/pzMuO-35. If he recollects, he can help locate the source.
>>
>> Namaste Venkat ji.
>>
>> Re "Further, he accepts that there is some ajnAna different from
>>> mithyA+jnAna
>>> [something not accepted by him when he says
>>> avidyA=mithyA-jnAna=jnAna-abhAva] and hence jnAna (avabodha) can remove
>>> Atma-anavabodha. [तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति
>>> ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः]"
>>>
>>> Can you explain how you read तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम
>>> वस्त्वस्ति to mean that there is some ajnAna different from mithyA+jnAna?
>>> Doesn't it say the opposite - that apart from mithyA jnAna there is no such
>>> thing called ajnAna?
>>>
>>
>> तस्मात् मिथ्या+ज्ञान व्यतिरेकेण न अज्ञानं नाम वस्तु अस्ति -- therefore,
>> there is no other vastu by the name ajnAna other than mithyA+jnAna.
>>
>> SSS ji qualifies the above by the following - इति वचनं साहसमात्रम्. Thus,
>> it follows that he does not subscribe to the idea of pUrvapakshI that
>> "there is no other vastu by the name ajnAna other than mithyA+jnAna".
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>>>