[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'BhAva' cannot be a product of 'abhAva' - Shankara

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji,

I remember Pujya Swami ji mentioning this in our classes.

Further Sureshvaracharya is very clear in the Introduction to the third
chapter first verse where he  establishes that ajnAna  / mulAvidyA has AtmA
as vishaya and AshrayA.

अनात्मनश्च  अज्ञानप्रसूतत्वात् । न हि पूर्वसिद्दं सत् तत: लब्ध आत्मलाभस्य
 सेत्स्यत  आश्रयस्य आश्रयी संभवति ।
Further the non-Self is itself a product of ignorance / mulAvidyA. What
exists already cannot be dependent on what is brought into being by itself
(by mulAvidyA) .

Also they talk about epistemology but without the mind there is no
epistemology and mind itself is a product of mulAvidyA

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar


On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:24 PM Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati] <
bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024, 12:11 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *In all these places, BhAshyakAra has made the usage of term
>> "avidyA-adhyAsa". Had avidyA and adhyAsa been identical, this usage of
>> avidyA-adhyAsa would not only have been superfluous but also having the
>> defect of punarukti. It would mean avidyA-avidyA or adhyAsa-adhyAsa, which
>> is meaningless.*
>>
>
> There is another issue here. If avidyA is abhAvarUpa, then adhyAsa being
> avidyA, it is also abhAvarUpa. Then what seems to be the issue with non
> existing adhyasta saMsAra?! Oh, wait, but it appears, it binds, etc. Is
> that called abhAvarUpa? Its really laughable as to they can't see the
> meaning of anirvachanIya mithyA. And they have the audacity to point
> fingers at the vyAkhyAnakAras.
>
> It reminds me of Pujya Swamiji (PS) Dayananda Sarasvatiji's joke that some
> Western professor of "Vedanta" in an university abroad told him that he had
> been teaching for multiple decades and understands everything, except for
> "2 small things": mithyA and sat!! PS was speechless. 😀
>
>>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --Ananta Chaitanya
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
>