[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

[V Subrahmanian]

Even in the Br.Up.Bh. 1.4.10 Aham Brahmasmi, Shankara discusses at length
and concludes: We have to attribute avidya to Brahman alone because: Avidya
can be for a sentient entity alone, and there is no other sentient entity
than Brahman.
Nevertheless, such avidya is mithyA and the attribution is also an as if.
Only then the pAramArthika Adviteeya status of Brahman stands unchallenged.
So, the system of Advaita is very strongly built by Shankara himself, on
the basis of the shruti.

regards
subbu

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 8:28 AM 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin <
advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
> Thank you for sharing these two verses.
> Did SSSS ji reconcile these two vArtika verses anywhere? Because as I
> understand, they accept Sri Sureshvaracharaya to a great extent.
>
>  I meant the verses that assert clearly that
>
> "asya brahmaNah avidyA" is a statement whose acceptance within the realm
> of avidyA *does not* shatter Advaita to pieces (as colorfully expressed by
> SSSS).
> ब्रह्माविद्यावदिष्टं चेन्ननु  दोषो महानयम् ।।
> निरविद्ये च, विद्याया आनर्थक्यं प्रसज्यते ।। १७५ ।।
> If you hold that Brahman is avidyA-vAn, then is it not a great defect? And
> if you say that Brahman is without avidyA, then there will arise the
> contingency of uselessness of vidyA.
> नाविद्याऽस्येत्यविद्यायामेवाऽऽसित्वा प्रकल्प्यते ।।
> ब्रह्मटृष्ट्या त्वविद्येयं न कथंचन युज्यते ।। १७६ ।।
> No. Because, "avidyA is of Brahman" is stated while sitting in avidyA.
> From the point of view of Brahman, the avidyA itself is not possible to be
> postulated."
>
> Nothing could be clearer than this. And sva-para-nirvAhikA nature of
> avidyA ensures that there is no AtmAshraya doSha (the logical fallacy of
> self-dependence) either.
>
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
> Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=NativePlacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_EmailSignatureGrowth_YahooMail:Search,Organize,Conquer&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000945&af_sub5=OrganizeConquer__Static_>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 5:21 pm, Sudhanshu Shekhar
> <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.
>
> You did not answer my question as to why BhAshyakAra is using the words
> MAyA and avidyA interchangeably here.
>
> Anyway, let me answer your questions:
>
> So as per your understanding, since brahman in itself having the avidyA so
> bhAshyakAra used the mAyA and avidyA interchangeably…
>
>
> Yes prabhu ji. anAtmA cannot have avidyA, right! Because anAtmA is
> ajnAna-kArya. So, only AtmA i.e. Brahman can have avidyA. "can have" means
> locus. Naishkarmya Siddhi says -  *एवं तावत् नाऽनात्मनोऽज्ञानित्वम्, नापि
> तद्विषयमज्ञानम्।  पारिशेष्यादात्मन एवास्त्वज्ञानम्.*
>
> So, Brahman is locus of avidyA i.e. Brahman "has" avidyA is undisputed
> siddhAnta of advaita vedAnta.
>
> However, the point is - "Brahman has avidyA" is stated while sitting in
> avidyA. Please see BrihadAraNyak Sambandha bhAshya VArtika:
>
> *PUrvapaksha*
>
> ब्रह्माविद्यावदिष्टं चेन्ननु दोषो महानयम् ।।
> निरविद्ये च, विद्याया आनर्थक्यं प्रसज्यते ।। १७५ ।।
>
> If you hold that Brahman is avidyA-vAn, then is it not a great defect? And
> if you say that Brahman is without avidyA, then there will arise the
> contingency of uselessness of vidyA.
>
> *SiddhAntI*
>
> नाविद्याऽस्येत्यविद्यायामेवाऽऽसित्वा प्रकल्प्यते ।।
> ब्रह्मटृष्ट्या त्वविद्येयं न कथंचन युज्यते ।। १७६ ।।
>
> No. Because, "avidyA is of Brahman" is stated while sitting in avidyA.
> From the point of view of Brahman, the avidyA itself is not possible to be
> postulated.
>
>
> Do you think / argue that this is an unambiguous statement by bhAshyakAra
> and he is emphasizing here that brahman is having the avidyA ??
>
>
> These statements clearly describe that BhAshyakAra is using MAyA and
> avidyA interchangeably.
>
>  BTW, what do you going to achieve by realizing this avidyAvanta brahman
> who is at the same time nishkriya, nirvayava, nirguNa (but avidyAvanta) and
> cannot do anything on its own!!?? 😊
>
>
> So, Brahman is nishkriya, niravayava, nirguNa is a statement of apavAda,
> whereas Brahman has avidyA is a statement of adhyArOpa. The apavAda
> statement will lead to rejection of avidyA and ensure situating as
> nishkriya Brahman. This is the obvious meaning coming out of it.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>
> --
> 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 visit
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBC%2BEArFpUfakpOw_rNMo18cf9arCuD134rJOfZSBK5pQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBC%2BEArFpUfakpOw_rNMo18cf9arCuD134rJOfZSBK5pQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> 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 visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1887621836.9075582.1735873080891%40mail.yahoo.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1887621836.9075582.1735873080891%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>