[Advaita-l] A matter for Adjudication

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

>
>
> The vidya,  no matter whether it is first one or last one or continuous
> one which removes avidyA without any trace is called jnAna says shankara
> in bruhad bhAshya....after samyak jnAna there is no question of avidyA
> lesha.....if there is any lesha of that avidyA then there is no samyak
> jnAna...
>
>
Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On *Thu Mar 18 07:04:43 CDT 2010 you wrote:
*

// Before asking the  understanding of Sri SSS,
please let this forum know what do you mean by avidyA lesha..for that
first you have to explain what is avidyA according to you & how this
avidyA can find place in the form of lesha even in samyak jnAni...For
further clarity, you can also explain me what is avidyAlesha according to
panchapAdika vivaraNakAra ??  since you are a voracious reader of various
commentaries of vyAkhyAnakAra-s,  I am asking this question to you...Let
me first get the clarification from you what is avidya lesha as per your
school of thought.  then I shall try to write what type of avidyA lesha
refuted by Sri SSS in his works. //

In response to your above question, I posted the series on 'Avidya
lesha' as taught by the PUrvAcharyas.
Several other members offered their valuable inputs to make the
presentation a reasonably
comprehensive one.  A reasonably intelligent and interested member
would, I am sure, have grasped
the topic without confusion.

Now, the onus rests on you to present to this forum the understanding
of SSS of 'avidya lesha'
and why he is opposed to it.  Especially in the light of his admitting
Bhagavatpada's 'mithyaa-jnana
anuvRtti (which is none other than avidya lesha') without questioning.
 His logic against avidya-lesha
is equally applicable to the Bhashya vakya on mithyAjnAna anuvRtti.

If you differ from the above understanding, you may please tell us
what are the various differences
between the two: avidya lesha and bAdhita mithyA jnAna anuvRtti.  If
the former leaves the Jnani
an a-pUrNa jNani (ajnAni), how does the latter free him from this
defect?  If the former is a suffering
for a Jnani, how is the latter not a suffering?  These questions need
to be clarified by you.

With warm regards,
subrahmanian.v