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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaskaram.

Reg // What is other than Brahman and mithyAjnana vastu that should not be
said to "not exist"? //,

AjnAna (Absence of knowledge).

Regards

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 8:08 AM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram,
>
> Translation // To claim that anything other than mithyAjnAna vastu, by
>> name ajnAna (absence of knowledge), which is removable through jnAna, does
>> not exist is indeed audacious //.
>>
>>
> What is other than Brahman and mithyAjnana vastu that should not be said
> to "not exist"? Some aspect of nama-rupa and maya? Is it correct that they
> don't accept mithya as an ontological category even though they accept maya
> as anirvachaniya (not equivalent to mithya) and avidya-kalpita? See this
> post of Bhaskar-ji from long back:
>
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-April/024391.html
>
> I also don't see how maya is avidya-kalpita, avidya is jnana-abhava that
> is eliminated in jnana, and still maya and effect nama-rupa are not
> mithyAjnana vastu and should not be said DNE.
>
> My conclusion on SSS-team view:
>
> nama-rupa jagat when seen in Ajnana is "illusory appearance" but the
> appearance (constituting nama-rupa denotations of Sat) otherwise is satya
> of Brahman that remains even after the illusion (the wrong perception due
> to avidya) is removed once Brahman is realised as the adhishtanam of All
> (duality that does not vanish in jnana). We know only Gold in perception of
> ring and bangle, but the pratyaksha duality of ring vs bangle denotations
> *of* non-dual Gold is satya.
>
> (But if I am right in this interpretation, how is nama-rupa both satya and
> anirvachaniya? Perhaps because for the jnani the question does not arise
> and he knows only Gold in All. There is simply no special diminishing done
> of nama-rupa as if it can be considered separately from Brahman.)
>
> However there is also a different standpoint of Turiya in which nama-rupa
> duality is entirely absent from consideration - but we cannot
> mix/compare/contradict that with the vyavaharika and call the latter
> mithya. They are both satya standpoints giving different satya knowledge of
> through different valid pramana.
>
>
> thollmelukaalkizhu
>
>
>>
>>