[Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

[Venkata Subramanian]

As I understand from even your own quotation of the Bhashya in the PDF file, the Jiva is NEVER ever i bondage; the very understanding that I am bound is a misapprehension.  That is why the Holenarsipur Swamigal, following the footsteps of the Revered Commentator, holds that this mis-apprehension is a facility assumed for explanation purpose, by Tradition and is what called "Adhyasa" or "Avidya" or "Ajnana" or "Jnana Abhava" all these terms used by the Revered Commentator himself as synonyms.
 
When Avidya itself is thus a facility for explantion and understanding, there cannot be another "Avidya Lesha"; the term never occuring in the Bhashya genuinely attributed to the Revered Commentator so far.   What is a harmless "Samskara" for the Revered Commentator, cannot solidify into something so much is our point of view.
 
Your example is not appropriate as we contend there has been no marriage at all, so the question of asking whether he is son in law or daughter's husband does not arise.
 
Subrahmanian - why dont you patiently shut the doors for a while and read the Swamiji's original work - Mulavidya Nirasa for a while yourself.  You seem to be comfortable in Sanskrit language and the book is itself now available after re-print.    In fact his chapter 2 is the analysis of all Vivarana, chitsuki, Samkshepa shariraka, sidhanta lesha sangraha etc. and then in Chapter 3 he gives his views.  The book is clear and holds in its own merit.  I am afraid I dont have the required traditional learning on this subject to answer you effectively, but I can understand within myself whenever I read your articles that you are not telling something new which that Swamigal has not analysed.
 
 
 


Thanks & Regards,
Venkat.

Sadgurubhyo Namah.

--- On Sat, 17/4/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:


From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Saturday, 17 April, 2010, 3:39 AM


In Kannada there is a saying:

A person was not in good terms with his son-in-law.  So he hated the idea of
referring to him as his son-in-law.  He always said 'he is my daughter's
husband'.

I find the case of mUlAvidya rejection and accepting the very same
inevitable concept in another form under another name such as jnAnAbhaava or
abhAvarUpa kAraNa is no different from the above analogy.

The case with avidya lesha is also the same.  The samskara that operates
cannot be  wished away.  One may not like the term 'avidya lesha', but the
fact of it is there.  No other meaning for the term 'samskara' of the
Bhashya in this context is possible to be adduced.  The Ratnaprabha has said
it accurately to ward off any apprehension about the mUlAvidyA being
present: vikShepaka-avidyAlesha eva tat-samskAraH.  The 'AvaraNa' aspect of
avidya has been dispelled by the samyagjnAna.  So there is no possibility of
that to linger.  But the samskAra of having had the
dvaita/nAnAtva/projecting power darshana will be there till the fall of the
body.  This samskara sustains jivanmukti.

Om Tat Sat

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Venkata Subramanian <
venkat_advaita at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Without going into any merit, if one were to dismiss a lofty thinking of
> this calibre as Mulavida nirasa so easily by the quible of a few
> words...this is a classic example.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Venkat.
>
> Sadgurubhyo Namah.
>
> --- On Fri, 16/4/10, Anand Hudli <ahudli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Anand Hudli <ahudli at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book
> `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.
> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Date: Friday, 16 April, 2010, 9:12 PM
>
>
> >This book of krishna Jois has in turn been effectively answered by Sri
> Vittala Shastri in his - Mulavidya Bhashya Vartika Virudha.  >By the way,
> Krishna Jois Sharma himself was a disciple of Sri Holenarsipuram Swamigal.
>
> Pt. Krishna Jois himself says very clearly that if the effort of the
> mulAvidyAnirAsa work is to disprove mUlAvidyA that is
> vAstavika (real), there is nothing that contradicts schools such as the
> vivaraNa and bhAmatI schools. In fact, such an
> effort helps the vivaraNa and bhAmatI schools. However, if the effort is to
> disprove mUlAvidyA as a vyAvahArika satya or
> mithyA entity then the effort is wasted! "viphalashcha prayAsaH" as Krishna
> Jois says.
> The same comment applies to all other books in the same line as the first
> one.
>
> Anand
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org