[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Kilogram concluded

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Bhaskar ji.

// is this mUlAvidyA is something like one of the three aspects of avidyA
??//

No. The three are effects of avidyA. The three are incapable of veiling
Chaitanya. Only avidyA is capable of veiling Atman.

//or something different to all these three types of avidyA??//

Yes.

/Is this mUlAvidyA -agrahaNa??  Is this MV – vipareeta grahaNa??  Or is
this MV is saMshaya, if this strange MV neither of these three and
something different and sitting aloof from all these three and acting as
upAdAna kAraNa to one of the aspects of avidyA i.e. adhyAsa, then what
exactly is this MV??/

It is defined as an entity which is anAdi, bhAvarUpa
(bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa) and removable-by-jnAna. It is different from
these three. It is upAdAna kAraNa of these three. [अनादिभावरूपं
यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते । तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते ॥]

For example, suppose someone blindfolds me. Then, I cannot perceive things
kept before me. (agrahNa). This does not mean that the blindfold, the veil,
is the same as me not perceiving the objects before me. Isn't it?

So, mUlAvidyA is like that blindfold, which is capable of veiling Brahman.
The three agrahNa, mithyA-jnAna, viparIta-grahaNa and samshaya, arise on
account of it.

If you see the bhAshya, it says -  *तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति
अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः *॥ It makes a distinction between
avidyA-traya and the AvaraNAtmaka-dosha, in whose presence, these
avidyA-traya manifest. It shows the distinction of the veil with respect to
avidyA-traya.

BhAshyakAra further says - तथा सर्वत्रैव अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्यया
*स्तन्निमित्ताः* करणस्यैव कस्यचित् भवितुमर्हन्ति, न ज्ञातुः
क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ।  Here
also, I would draw your attention to the word *त**न्निमित्ताः *in addition
to अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्यया. It clearly shows that BhAshyakAra has in His
mind not only the avidyA-traya, but also their-nimitta, which is
AvaraNAtmaka.

Thus, as per AchArya, avidyA (which is also stated as mUlAvidyA) is
different from these avidyA-traya.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.





On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 12:36 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om Bhaskar prabhuji.
>
> //So, if you prabhuji-s agreeing that mulAvidyA is kevala
> adhyasta/superimposed/imagined, I think the Sri SSS’s camp does not have
> any problem in accepting this type of mUlAvidyA 😊 But I don’t think
> matter is as simple as this in vyAkhyAnakAra-s camp.//
>
> But whence is this doubt that mUlAvidyA is not adhyasta? This is a
> well-accepted principle.
>
> SSSS ji says //But if anyone comes up with the theories like : it is not
> adhyasta (superimposed) or not avidyAkalpita (kalpita-imagined,
> misconception due to ignorance etc. then I would never accept such stand as
> that stand is shruti, yukti and bhAshya viruddha//
>
> But who has come up with this theory!! Can even a single statement to that
> effect be provided which says that mUlAvidyA is not adhyasta?
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com