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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

The portion // He insists that avidyA should be considered as **absence of
knowledge**. With such an understanding there is no distinction between
avidyA and ajnAna//

may be reworded as below to avoid confusion

// He insists that if avidyA is considered as **absence of knowledge** ,
there is no distinction between avidyA and ajnAna//.
Regards

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:16 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> Reg  // Don't tell me he differentiates avidyA and ajnAna! // //He does
> differentiate differentiate avidyA and ajnAna !!!//
>
> I don't think SSS ji or for that matter any student of advaita can do
> this. If a quote can be given from his books - it will help //,
>
> I am citing  below two qiotes from VPP which I believe address your
> question.
>
> VPP page 46 // यद्यपि ज्ञानाभावसंशयविपर्ययज्ञानानां त्रयाणामपि विद्यात
> भिन्नत्वात् वस्तुतत्त्वावर कत्वाविशेषत्वेन विद्योदयसमसमयमेव विनाशाच्च
> समानमविद्याशब्दार्हत्वम् व्यपदिश्यन्ते च तेऽपि क्वचिदज्ञानाविद्यादिशब्दैः,
> तथापीह वेदान्तदर्शने यथोक्तं मिथ्याज्ञानमेव विशिष्य परिभाष्यते अविद्येति ।
> //
>
> // yadyapi j~nAnAbhAvasaMshayaviparyayaj~nAnAnAM trayANAmapi vidyAta
> bhinnatvAt vastutattvAvara katvAvisheShatvena vidyodayasamasamayameva
> vinAshAchcha samAnamavidyAshabdArhatvam vyapadishyante cha te.api
> kvachidaj~nAnAvidyAdishabdaiH, tathApIha vedAntadarshane yathoktaM
> mithyAj~nAnameva vishiShya paribhAShyate avidyeti | //.
>
> Translation (Alston), page 67 // Absence of knowledge, doubt and wrong
> knowledge form a triad, all three of which are different from knowledge.
> They share the common character of obscuring the true nature of the real.
> They all disappear on the rise of knowledge. In this sense it is right that
> they should all be called ignorance (avidyā). And they are indeed,
> sometimes referred to collectively by such terms as 'ajñāna' and 'avidyā'.
> Nevertheless, here in the Vedanta system, it is 'wrong knowledge'
> (mithyā-jñāna) for which the technical term 'avidyā' is specially reserved
> //.
>
> VPP page 282 // अथवा भाष्यवार्तिकयोस्तु नैकेषां प्रस्थानान्तराणां
> परामृष्टानां मध्ये क्वचिदपि विद्योपादानप्रक्रिया कटा क्षितेत्यतो
> वार्तिकप्रणयनादवकाले कैश्चिदुप- स्थापिता प्रक्रियेयम् इति शक्योहनम् । //
>
> //  athavA bhAShyavArtikayostu naikeShAM prasthAnAntarANAM
> parAmRRiShTAnAM madhye kvachidapi vidyopAdAnaprakriyA kaTA kShitetyato
> vArtikapraNayanAdavakAle kaishchidupa- sthApitA prakriyeyam iti shakyohanam
> | //.
>
> Translation (Alston) , page 392 // The Brahma Sūtra Commentary of Sri
> Sankara and the Brhadaranyaka Vārtika of Sureśvara do not anywhere make the
> slightest mention of any doctrine treating Ignorance as a material cause,
> though they examine a considerable number of the earlier systems. So one
> might, as an alternative, surmise that this system was evolved by someone
> after the time of the composition of the Vārtika //.
>
> What Sri SSS distinguishes from ajnAna is this avidyA which is considered
> upAdAna kAraNa and a veiling. He insists that avidyA should be considered
> as **absence of knowledge**. With such an understanding there is no
> distinction between avidyA and ajnAna. I am not sure if you are referring
> to such a view of Sri SSS which finds expression at some places in the
> Bhashya.
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:26 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji, Venkat ji.
>>
>> I am just laughing out loud. What fun!!
>>
>> //Don't tell me he differentiates avidyA and ajnAna! // //He does
>> differentiate differentiate avidyA and ajnAna !!!//
>>
>> I don't think SSS ji or for that matter any student of advaita can do
>> this. If a quote can be given from his books - it will help.
>>
>> I was a member of their group for last two-three years. But none
>> mentioned it ever.
>>
>> As per my understanding, SSS ji does not distinguish ajnAna and avidyA.
>> He holds mithyA+jnAna and ajnAna (=avidyA) as identical by relying on
>> adhyAsa bhAshya. However, when confronted with situations such as MK 1.11
>> or NS 3.7, he changes his stand. He seeks to explain this kAraNa-ajnAna as
>> some sort of logical presupposition etc. A lame explanation.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/CAH9%3D%2BBDZm5CZNWXb4G5YhH63aKWa99DoyKJpX2b-2jdNSB4%2BYw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDZm5CZNWXb4G5YhH63aKWa99DoyKJpX2b-2jdNSB4%2BYw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>