[Advaita-l] A replica of Adhyasa Bhashya in the Gita Bhashya13.26 (V Subrahmanian)

[mc1 at aol.com]

aum, thank you for your thoughtful replies however my doubt remains. If ignorance with a capital "I" stands as a positive entity comparable with another positive entity, chaitanya, that perverts all advaita - two entities. If ignorance covers/veils Chaitanya then we are faced with the paradox of knowledge compromised and powerless to overcome that which veils it - I believe Ramanuja might have called that Tirodhananupapatti. And if mithya gives ajnana an ontological status then Jnana will not be able to eliminate an actually existing thing. 
No, I think your explanation is a stretch and ignores Bhagavatpada's statement that aviveka/indiscrimination is the cause of mixing up the notions/pratyaya of I and you/subject and object. Indiscrimination certainly is not a positive ontological entity no less than any other notion can be said to really exist - we have then have to say that even dream tiger really exists. 



-----Original Message-----
From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: mc1 at aol.com; Ryan Armstrong <ryanarm at gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, May 2, 2020 2:47 am
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A replica of Adhyasa Bhashya in the Gita Bhashya13.26 (V Subrahmanian)

Reg  << On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 18:27, michael via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Isn't the parsing of mithyAjnana into mithya ajnana a tautology ="false
> ignorance"? Which makes no sense >>,In this system, ajnana (Ignorance) (Capital “I”) isconsidered an entity,a veil/cover,which partially veils/covers another “entity”namely Chaitanya(Consciouness). Thereby leading to its (Chaitanya) partialignorance (small “I”) or partial knowledge. The word “mithya” refers to its(ajnana) ontological status vis-à-vis Chaitanya(Consciousness). So what is thetautology about?Reg  << On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:26 AM Ryan Armstrong via Advaita-l<
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ignorance is false, is it not? >>,Well not exactly. In general parlance when it is said to be “false”,‘ignorance” is understood with “i” in the small letter significance,vyAvahArika sense. In other words,falseness is known through empiricalknowledge. In the case of ajnana or Ignorance, “I” has the significance of Capitalletter. It is an entity.That it is false is known (aparoksha) only with Realization.Tillthen,any knowledge gained about it or its effects as being false is onlyparoksha jnAna.Regards    







|  | Virus-free. www.avast.com  |