[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Avidya' is not 'only' Adhyasa; it's more than that

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Apologies for typographical error.

//ajnAna, in siddhAnta, is accepted to be having vichitra shakti.//

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 3:16 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji. Raghav ji. Venkatraghavan ji.
>
> We do hold that avidyA is adhyasta on Brahman and that avidyA is anAdi.
>
> But that does not prohibit the opponent from charging us with
> AtmAshraya-dosha.
>
> There has to be a valid logical answer. We cannot say that we believe thus
> and hence there is no AtmAshraya-dosha.
>
> In fact, the dualist can respond to SS 1.55 by saying that -- the example
> of bheda only shows that anavasthA-dosha is inapplicable. The
> AtmAshraya-dosha is intact.
>
> The response is given thus --
>
> 1. when the AtmAshraya-dosha of bheda does not cause any harm to
> prapancha-paramArtha-vAdI, how can it cause any harm to
> prapancha-mrishAtva-vAdI (advaitI).
> [
> https://archive.org/details/sankshepasharirakamnrisimhashrampart1a1b234/Sankshepa-Nrisimha%201A/page/n77/mode/2up
> ]
>
> 2. Just as AtmA is swa-para-nirvAhaka on account of having jnAna-shakti,
> ajnAna is also accepted as swa-para-nirvAhaka on account of its own shakti.
> ajnAna, in siddhAnta, is accepted to be having cichitra shakti.
>
> Overall, the issue is not very simple. The AtmAshraya-dosha is very much
> chargeable against avaita.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com