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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

In fact there is a more fundamental and different objection in this regard
against  practically all Commentators by Sri SSS. But I leave it to any of
his followers to bring it up if they so desire.

Regards

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 3:26 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> Reg  // Because adhyasta entity by definition have a cause //,
>
> This rule is applicable only for a sAdi entity. Not for an anAdi entity.
> That is the definition of anAdi. Insisting on a cause for anAdi is invalid
> by definition.
>
> Regards
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>