[Advaita-l] [advaitin] SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

>
> //Yes, Sri SSS discusses this reference in nirAsaH and kleshApahAriNi and
> explains how this usage of upAdAna kAraNa should not be treated as source
> for later vyAkhyAnakAra-s mUlAvidyAvAda.  If possible I shall share his
> explanation and I know you are not ready / willing to listen to it 😊//
>

But what stopped him to extend the same privilege to vyAkhyAnakArAs? The
fact remains that ajnAna is stated as upAdAna kAraNa by both Sureshwara and
VivaraNa. Why this biased treatment to others!!


>  Ø     First of all please note I have not studied sAyana bhashya on
> veda-s so my opinion / view is hardly a matter of contention.
>

How long does it take to read Bhaskar ji? You can read it now. Go ahead.
NAsadIya Suktam is considered to be a fundamental study in advaita vedAnta.


> OTOH, if it is really a valid observation that  sAyana’s observation is
> definitely going against mUla shankara bhAshya in this particular context
> or diluting it to some extent  ( sorry I don’t know what context it is said
> bhAvarUpAjnAnamAtra tama) then I would definitely don’t have any hesitation
> to say sAyana bhAshya is not representing shankara’s Advaita siddhAnta in
> this context.
>

Let us study NAsadIya Suktam and discuss.


> Ø     My humble prostrations to Sri sAyanaachArya as he might be the
> authoritative commentator on veda-s but at the same time I would like to
> understand Sri shankara siddhAnta through bhAshyakAra’s works only as it is
> self-sufficient for his followers.
>

Is the "self-sufficiency" of bhashya some kind of fanaticism? What is it? I
want to know. What is the basis of asserting that bhAshya are
self-sufficient and nothing else is required? Is it written in bhAshya or
is it your irrational belief? From where have you got this idea.



> Ø     Not only question about using two different words but also using
> avidyA and mAya in compound words !! like avidyA paryupasthApita mAya,
> avidyA Kalpita mAya, avidyA saMyukta mAya etc.
>

No such usage is there. There is a distinction made between nAma-rUpa and
nAma-rUpa-bIja. Wherever it is nAma-rUpa-bIja, it is avidyA-Atmaka,
avidyA-lakshaNA. Wherever it is nAma-rUpa, it is kalpita/pratyupasthApita.
avidyA-samyukta is identical to avidyA-Atmaka.(अविद्यासंयुक्तमिति -
अविद्यात्मकम् इत्यर्थः ।)



> As per my understanding vidyA is not kAraka only jnApaka it can remove
> only avidyA not mAya as mAya is brahmAbhinna, vidyA can remove stree
> vyAmOha ( as vyAmOha is duHkha kAraka) not stree herself…and jnAna does not
> have that capacity to remove what is already existing.  It can only help us
> to realize what is there actually.  bhUta vastu Vishaya jnAna.  Stree is
> pratyaksha pramANita and vyAmOha rahita stree jnAna is avagati jnAna.  One
> pramANa janita jnAna should not supersede by other pramANa janita jnAna.
> Vaividhyate in pratyaksha pramANita, ekatva behind it is shAstra pramANita
> Samyak jnAna.
>

Such understanding is wrong. ajnAna-nAsha comes within the domain of
jnApakatva only and not kArakatva. Such avidyA being upAdAna-kAraNa, and
upAdAna-nAsha being the cause for upAdeya-nAsha, entire nAma-rUpa cease
with avidyA-nAsha and yet it is jnAnapakatva only and not kArakatva.


> Ø     But don’t you prabhuji-s vehemently arguing jagat is tuccha
> absolutely non existing and with the same breath avidyA is an existing /
> bhAva rUpa / jadAtmaka shakti which is material cause for adhyAsa etc. ??
> I am not able to understand what sort of logic it is!!
>

Sir, that jaDAtmikA-shakti is bhAva-vilakshaNA also on account of
bAdhaka-sattva therefor. Why do you forget that?


Ø     If I remember right Sri Subbu prabhuji also had quoted this earlier
> (some 4-5 years ago) when the same topic was being discussed 😊 I think I
> have replied at that time that we have to read 3-10 and 3-11 together to
> understand about the body it becomes clear that avidyA and mAya are not
> synonymous. When the Atman is realized as one without second the socalled
> individual body discarlded as imagined due to ignorance but from the
> pAramArthika drushti the reality of the body is accepted and its creation
> is explained.
>

BhAskar ji. Please tell me. What should have BhAshyakAra written to
convince you that avidyA is identical to mAyA? In 1.4.3 BSB, he said --
avidyA hi avyaktam. In MANDUKya, He said - Atmanah mAyA avidyA. How else
can anyone state their identity. BhAskyakAra ko kya aur kaise bolna chahiye
if He wanted to state their identity.

Regards.