[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 have not read Hacker. Hence I did not comment directly on his statement.

Reg // Sri SSS is willing to admit that adhyAsa originates from avidyA in
the kleshApahAriNi //,

Where exactly has he said this. Probably he has said adhyAsa originates
from ajnAna ?

Regards

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:11 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAL34aEm92RYfcWCL3sQaRQNnk6k4QjiZwyOcXPz4_VrPnLEBGQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm92RYfcWCL3sQaRQNnk6k4QjiZwyOcXPz4_VrPnLEBGQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>