[Advaita-l] Imagined Nature of Root Ignorance in Vivaranam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> From the above it is clear that Sri SSS admits of an ignorance
>    presupposing *adhyAsa*.
>
> > I dont know how this can be charged against Sri SSS, as he clearly says
> adhyAsa is what termed as avidyA and which is anAdi & naisargika as
> cleared by shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya.


The same adhyAsa bhashya is pramana for the other group too.


> Moreover, Sri SSS is not saying jnAnAbhAva is the upAdAna kAraNa for the
> adhyAsa to equate him with mUlAvidyAvAdins.  He is saying cause and effect
> relationship itself takes
> place in adhyAsa which is naisargika & anAdi.
>

The same is the case with the mU. people too.  Even they hold this
kArya-kAraNa bhAva to be adhyasta which is naisargika and anAdi.

>
> It is also clear, from the concluding remarks
>    above, that he has, erroneously, equated the *bhAvarUpa* status of *
>    mUlAvidyA* with the Reality of *brahman*.
>
> >  panchapAdika vivaraNa says that this mUlAvidyA exists with brahman in
> the beginning before creation.  If reference needed from the panchapAdika
> work, I shall provide on Monday.
>

Shankara is saying this Himself: see mAnDUkya kArikA bhAShya for the very
second kArikA in the first chapter.  Shankara cites the Chandogya mantra:
prANabandhanam hi somya manaH and raises a question:  Is it not the Brahman
that is spoken of in the mantra 'sadeva somya idam agre AsIt' the one
indicated by the word 'prANa' here?  And answers 'Yes. there is no problem.
bIjAtmakatva-abhyupagamAt sataH - the Sat Brahman before creation is
admitted  by the shruti as *endowed with the jIvaprasavabIja*.  So, the
Brahman before creation is 'tainted' with this shakti, whatever name one
likes to call it by.  If PanchapAdika vivaraNa has said this it is on the
authority of Shankara.

>
> He says that accepting a
>    condition of ignorance prior to superimposition is *a logical
>    presupposition, a necessary implication of thought. *What prevents him
>    from extending this privilege of logical necessity to the Acharyas who
> have
>    found it necessary to posit a condition preceding *adhyAsa* and naming
>    it '*mUlAvidyA*'? It would be pertinent to examine how and in what ways
>    is the *'want of knowledge' or 'j~nAna abhAva'* as his followers term
>    it, is different in kind from the *mUlAvidyA* that SSS opposes
>    vehemently
>
> >  it is because mUlAvidyAvAins say this mUlAvidyA is neither jnAnAbhAva,
> nor vipareeta grahaNa nor saMshaya, it is neither abhAva it is jnAna
> virOdhi bhAvarUpa which has the existence in Atma chaitanya and in
> sushupti it will be there with Atman with the vikshepa saMskAra etc. and
> it is sAkshi vedya.   It is this  mUlAvidyA, Sri SSS refuting vehemently.
> If any paNchapAdika vivaraNa scholar has any clarification with regard to
> this, I would be eager to know.
>

All this will get answered if one understands the above quoted bhashya
correctly.

subrahmanian.v

>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _
>