[Advaita-l] Fwd: On avidyA being anirvachanIya etc

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

Namaste Subhanu-ji,

Regarding your point (3) in the earlier post:

I am not sure what you mean by the term "mental imagination". If the idea
is that avidyA is conjured up by the mind, that is not a reasonable
statement because the mind itself is a product of avidyA. avidyA is the
very nature of the mind. Our list member Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian had
extensively written about this in a formal paper that was a major topic of
discussion on the list, and which I am sure you would have read. He clearly
explained that the mutual superimposition of self and not-self cannot be
something conjured up "by the mind".

At least I found his arguments very reasonable. For whatever reason, he is
no longer a regular participant on the list and I think many on the list
would agree if I say that the list misses his insightful posts.

So the mind itself is conjured up by avidyA, and the mahAvAkya is needed to
destroy avidyA. Of course it is all figurative, in the sense that the Atman
is always non-dual and avidyA is found to be non-existent upon
investigation. No traditionalist denies this.

I hope you notice that it is the SSS school that is actually making a
"claim" about avidyA, namely, that it is abhAvarUpa, a mental construct,
etc. The classical tradition merely uses it as a factor or device to
explain vyavahAra, noting that it can neither be classified as an "entity"
(bhAvarUpa) nor as a "non-entity" (abhAvarUpa). The tradition also clearly
says that while avidyA is experienced, it disappears on investigation. It
is avichAritasiddha and j~nAna-virodhi.


Anyway, if your idea is that the SSS school has some important insights
that are worth appreciating, I am only too happy to go along. But we are
yet to see a post from you that clearly explains what these insights are
and how they differ from more commonly held traditional positions. All you
have done so far is to tell everyone that they ought to study
sureshvarAchArya's works, and even here, none of your quotes so far clearly
illustrates anything different from commonly held traditional positions.


I would request you, if possible, to put up an article that clearly brings
out the specific points (at least with respect to avidyA) being made by the
SSS school and how they differ from commonly held traditional positions.
You need not quote from the NS, TUBV, etc. Just let us have a complete
picture of your thinking on avidyA. This discussion is pointless unless we
have that picture. My sense, thus far, is that you misunderstand
traditional positions on avidyA.





On 8 November 2011 05:32, subhanu saxena <subhanu at hotmail.com> wrote:

> As such, Ramesh, I await your response to point 3 in my previous post to
> see if there is a real difference at all.
>
>