[Advaita-l] Meet on Advaita Vedanta in Bangalore - May 7 to 8. 2013

[vinayaka ns]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:25 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM, vinayaka ns <brahmavadin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When this highlighted sentence of the bhAShyam which explicitly says
> that
> > > there is avidyA that is the differentiating factor for the jIva, the
> > party
> > > that does not accept this made a protest saying that:
> > >
> > > 1. Sri SSS had given a footnote to that bhashya (as usual) to give it a
> > > different interpretation.
> > >
> > > 2. The above bhAShya has to be seen as gauNa, the mukhya being the ones
> > in
> > > the Br.up. Bhashya which forms the basis for them to conclude that
> there
> > is
> > > no avidyA for the jiva in suShupti.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Are there any other instances where BSB is treated as gauNa and is made
> > subservient to the Upanishad bhAshyas? Especially w.r.t. key issues like
> > avidyA in sushupti/samAdhi abhyAsa etc?
> >
>



>
> //Shri Bhaskar ji has earlier stated that those BS bhAShya sentences like
> 'avidyA hi avyaktam,  mAyaa hi avyaktam' are gauNa and the mukhya avidyA is
> the one in the adhyAsa bhAShya which says avidya is adhyAsa.//
>

Perhaps this definition is an important one on which the prakriyA of SSS
stands.

>
>
> //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*.
> ...nirbIjatve chEt sati lInAnAm sampannAnAm suShuptapralayayoH punarutthAna
> anupapattiH syAt. [If the Sat into which the jivas merge during deep sleep
> and pralaya is not the one with the bIja, seed, for their re-emergence,
> there will be no way they can re-emerge.]  And further in this very
> BhAShyam Shankara gives a ruling:
>
> tasmAt sabIjatva abhyupagamenaiva sataH prANatva vyapadeshaH
> *sarvashrutiShu* cha kAraNatvavyapadeshaH'  [ Therefore, it is only by
> admitting that the Sat is sopAdhika that It is called prANa, and in ALL
> shruti passages It is spoken of as the kAraNa.]
>
> In this bhAShya Shankara implies that '*wherever* there is talk of jiva
> merging in Sat/Brahman/Atman during sleep/praLaya, that Sat is NOT the
> nirupAdhika/shuddha/nirbIja one; it is the sopadhika/sabIja
> Sat/Atman/brahman.  Therefore the Br.Up.mantra/bhashya that is held as
> pramANa (and the various sutra bhashya vakyas shown above) are all subject
> to this Rule shown in the Mandukya bhashya by Shankara.  *This prevails
> upon
> all else, for there is a bAdhaka here and all the other vAkyams from the
> other bhashyams are to be correctly understood keeping this in mind.
> Certainly there is no confusion/ambiguity with reference to this mandukya
> sentence.  Shankara gives the reasons too: if it is the nirbIja, shuddha,
> sat/brahman/ATman where jIvas merge in sleep/pralaya, there is no way they
> can come back.  This is prabala yukti that subdues all other yuktis/vAkyam
> pramANas.    This is stressed because those who hold that there is no
> avidya in sushupti base their conclusion on the reasoning: the jiva merges
> in Brahman/atman (which is generally thought to be shuddha) and therefore
> one with It and how can there be any avidyA taint in the jiva then?  This
> reasoning is uprooted by the above Shankara vakya in the mAnDUkya*.//


This bhAshya is the crucial one to understand the position of
bhAshyakArapAda on the topic of avidyA in sushupti which you
have summarized nicely. This tallies perfectly with the position of
post-shankara preceptors too.

Best Wishes,

Vinayaka