[Advaita-l] A note on ‘Avidya lesha’ 'अविद्यालेशः’ (Part 2)

[annasmurthy .]

From: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy
Pranams to all.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:15 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

Respected Sir,

       Won't you feel it is more beneficial to draw the attention of the
mumukshu to vidya instead of dealing with avidya? Too much of information on
all these  matters which have to be finally discarded, of what use it?
       I would request you, a reputed scholar on advaita who studied Vedanta
at the feet of a great teacher, help us to cognize the following statements
of
 Sri Shanakara within oneself by oneself :
     (1) AtmA hi nAma svarUpam ||
          [Brahmasutra : 1-1-4]
     (2) paramAtmA hi sarvEShAm AtmA ||
           [ bRuhAdAraNyaka; 2-4-6]
    (3)  aSarIratA hi AtmanaH svarUpam ||
             [Chandogya : 8-3-4]
    (4) nAsya AtmanO antarbahirvA caitanyAdanyadrUpamasti , caitanyamEva tu
nirantaramasya svarUpaM ||
             [brahmasUtra : 3-2-16]

       This will be the greatest help you will be rendering to mumukshus. I
thank you in anticipation.

With respectful regards,
  Sreenivasa Murthy








































































































































































Continued from Part 1
>
> 1.      In the commentary to the Bhagavadgita 2.16, towards the end, says
> Bhagavat-pada :  // Therefore, you too, Arjuna, by adopting the vision of
> the men of realization and giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the
> dualities, heat, cold, etc.- some of which are definite in their nature,
> and
> others inconstant-, mentally being convinced that this (phenomenal world)
> is
> changeful, verily unreal and appears falsely like water in a mirage. This
> is
> the idea. //
>
> It is to be noted that the Lord and Bhagavatpada know full well that Arjuna
> is not an aparoksha Jnani and is only being taught to be a karma yogi.
>  Yet,
> the above advice to him is given to him.  This shows that even on the basis
> of hearing the Tattva from the Acharya and the ShAstram it is quite
> reasonable to come to the conviction that the world is not ultimately real;
> it is mithyA.  This is the point ChitsukhAcharya is making.  Two more
> instances are shown below:
>
> 2.         In the bhashya for verse 6.26 we find:  // In the beginning, the
> yogi who is thus engaged in making the mind established in the Self, etat
> vasam nayet, should bring this (mind) under the subjugation; atmani eva, of
> the Self Itself; niyamya, by restraining; etat. it; tatah tatah, from all
> those causes whatever, viz sound etc.; yatah yatah, due to which, doe to
> whatever objects like sound etc.; the cancalam, restless, very restless;
> and
> therefore asthiram, unsteady; manah, mind; niscarati, wanders away, goes
> out
> due to its inherent defects. (It should be restrained) by ascertaining
> through discrimination those causes *to be mere appearances,* and with an
> attitude of detachment. Thus, through the power of practice of Yoga, the
> mind of the yogi merges in the Self Itself.  //
>
> Here again we can see that for a practicing yogi, the means for vairagyam
> includes considering the objects as ‘mere appearances’.  Even parokSha
> jnAnam can result in getting a conviction as to the mithyaa nature of the
> world.
>
> 3.      In the commentary to the Mandukya kArikA 3.42 we see the Acharya
> advising:  // remembering the fact that everything, all duality that is
> created by ignorance, is full of sorrow, one should withdraw the mind from
> enjoyment…// Here again, this practice of mithyAtva darshanam is for the
> paroksha jnAni.
>
>   - Now, the second ‘aakAra’ of avidyaa mentioned by Chitsukhaacharya is:
>
>           ‘The second gives rise to purposeful activity in the world.  This
> is removed by direct realization of Brahman. ‘In support of this a couple
> of
> Scriptural and Bhashyam passages are worth noting:
>
> 1.      The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad teaches: आत्मानं चेद्विजानीयात्
> अयमस्मीति पूरुषः । किमिच्छन् कस्य कामाय शरीरमनुसञ्ज्वरेत् ॥ (IV.iv.13) [‘If
> a man knows the Self as ‘I am this’, then desiring what and for whose sake
> will he suffer in the wake of the body?’]
>
> 2.      In the Bhagavadgita 3.17 and 18 the Lord says: //. 3.17 But that
> man
> who rejoices only in the Self and is satisfied with the Self, and is
> contented only in the Self-for him there is no duty to perform. 3.18 For
> him
> there is no concern here at all with performing action; nor any (concern)
> with nonperformance. Moreover, for him there is no dependence on any object
> to serve any purpose.
>
> 3.      In the Brahmasutra bhashya ( 4.1.9.13  ) the Acharya says:
> पूर्वसिद्धकर्तृत्व-भोक्तृत्व-विपरीतं
> हि त्रिष्वपि कालेषु अकर्तृत्व-अभोक्तृत्व-स्वरूपं ब्रह्म अहमस्मि ।  न इतः
> पूर्वं कर्ता भोक्ता वा अहमासम्, न इदानीं, नापि भविष्यत्काल इति
> ब्रह्मविदवगच्छति ।  //Quite contrary to what had been previously regarded
> as
> agent and experiencer, I am verily that Brahman, which, by nature, is
> neither agent nor experiencer at all in all the three periods of time.
>  Even
> earlier I was never an agent or experiencer, nor am I so at present; nor
> shall I be so in future – such is the realization of the knower of
> Brahman.//
>
>   - The third ‘AkAra’ of avidyaa is what is actually related to ‘avidyA
>   lesha’ (the earlier two are NOT to be confused with ‘avidyA lesha’) -
>  the
>   third ‘aakAra’ that projects a semblance of objects capable of appearing
> as
>   directly perceivable is ‘avidyA-lesha’ or ‘mAyA-lesha.’  This is not
>   eradicated in the case of a jivanmukta.
>
> The supporting BhAshya passages, apart from the one that was already quoted
> from the Chandogya Upanishad 6.14.2 are:   From the Acharya’s own
> experience, in the Brahmasutra bhashya 4.1.15 :
>
> *‘’The knowledge of the Self being essentially non-active destroys all
> works
> by sublating wrong knowledge; but wrong knowledge – comparable to the
> appearance of a double moon – lasts for some time even after it has been
> sublated, owing to the impression it has made.  Moreover, it is not a
> matter
> for dispute at all whether the body of the Knower of Brahman continues to
> exist for sometime or not.* कथं ह्येकस्य  स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं
> देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत ?* **For how can one contest the
> fact
> of another possessing the knowledge of Brahman – vouched for by his heart’s
> conviction – and at the same time continuing with the body?’’*
>
> In the Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashyam (II.8), the Acharya says, referring to
> Himself:
>
> //Objection: Because there are many opponents.  You are a monist, since you
> follow the Vedic ideas, while the dualists are many who are outside the
> Vedic pale and who are opposed to you.  Therefore I apprehend that you will
> not be able to determine.
>
> Reply: This itself is a blessing for Me that you brand Me as sworn to
> monism
> and faced by many who are wedded to plurality.  Therefore I shall conquer
> all! And so I begin the discussion.// His original words are even more
> striking: *एतदेव मे स्वस्त्ययनम् । अतो जेष्यामि सर्वान्, आरभे च चिन्ताम्
>  //
> *
>
> To be Continued and concluded in Part 3
> **
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>