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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I don’t think Sri SSS takes any different position in KleshpahAriNi. His
objection is for considering avidyA as kAraNa for adhyAsa. His position is
that any bhAvarUpa avidyA, any such **positive** entity, as kAraNa for
adhyAsa takes it outside the purview of adhyAsa. And this is advaitahAni.
This is what is stated in the quote cited by Sudhanshu Ji

// *Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to
pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be
for a moment conceded to exist //.*

This is his consistent refrain in VPP. He brings out that this objection is
valid in respect of practically all the commentaries like PanchapAdika,
VivaraNa, Ishta Siddhi, Bhamati etc. In an earlier private discussion with
an acknowledged authority on SSS works, who was very closely associated
with the KAryAlaya as well, I had pointed out that this is practically his
only objection highlighted in VPP against all the commentaries, and that we
could concentrate on resolving this issue. He had discussed this with
others as well and agreed with me that we could just pursue this one issue
further. Unfortunately the discussions could not be taken beyond a certain
point to a logical conclusion as it was felt that face to face discussions
were needed.

I have tried several times to locate this in VPP, because the original
Sanskrit version needs to be cited for any meaningful debate. But somehow
it has been eluding me.

I feel any headway is possible only if this one issue is resolved. Other
issues are really secondary to this.
Regards

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:36 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouliji,
> Yes you are right. I had misunderstood Sri SSS' position.
>
> Sri Sudhanshu pointed me to the line in the kleshApahAriNi where Sri SSS
> says - न च अज्ञानं विना मिथ्याज्ञानं संशयज्ञानं वा समुपजायते, येन तदतिरेकेण
> मिथ्याज्ञानम् एव अज्ञानम् इति आग्रहः स्यात्।
>
> So he seems to agree that there is a mithyAjnAna different to ajnAna and
> without ajnAna, mithyAjnAna cannot rise - but, presumably, he does not wish
> to go on to say ajnAna is the material cause of such a mithyAjnAna.
>
> However, this position that there is an avidyA different to mithyA jnAna
> does appear to contradict his position from the mUlAvidyA nirAsah quoted by
> Hacker: -
>
> mitho viruddha svyabhavayor Atma anatmanor yadanyonyatopAdAnam
> anyonyadharmavattvena Akalanam ca tad etad Atmavido vyavaharanti avidyeti.
> amum eva adhyAsam avidyeti manyante tattvacintakAh.
>
> Hacker says "Just as S, Subramanya identifies avidyA and adhyAsa".
>
> In the kleshApahAriNi, he takes the opposite position.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
>