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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,
Doesn't Sri SSS admit that there is an avidyA that is the cause of adhyAsa
in the kleshApahAriNi whereas he holds that avidyA and adhyAsa are
identical in the mUlAvidyA nirAsah quote provided by Hacker? Is Hacker's
understanding of Sri SSS' position wrong ?

See below - in what sense did Sri SSS mean this:
mitho viruddha svabhAvayor 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".

With respect to this:
// 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 //.

Sri SSS is willing to admit that adhyAsa originates from avidyA in the
kleshApahAriNi.

If Sri SSS is willing to accept that there is no harm to advaita due to
adhyAsa, why is there harm to advaita if there is an adhyasta avidyA -
because that is what we are talking about.

The avidyA we are talking of is adhyasta, so it is subject to adhyAsa. He
himself concedes that adhyAsa originates from avidyA, which in our
conception is adhyasta - so adhyAsa (of mind ego etc) does originate from
adhyAsa of ignorance only. What is the problem?

There is no second anadhyasta entity for him to worry about. Whether avidyA
is abhAvarUpa or adhyasta, there is no harm to advaita.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan



On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 16:15 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOPRX7LU098Dq0OE0v_Oz_3vZGLhAUcsmK0MM-hhNN%3D8g%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOPRX7LU098Dq0OE0v_Oz_3vZGLhAUcsmK0MM-hhNN%3D8g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>