[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

Did SSSS ji reconcile these two vArtika verses anywhere? Because as I
> understand, they accept Sri Sureshvaracharaya to a great extent.
>

SSSS ji accepts these two verses of vArtika and quotes them in his
Naishkarmya Siddhi commentary in chapter 3. SSSS ji accepts that Brahman is
the locus and vishaya of ajnAna. I have shared the excerpt in previous mail.

Curiously, his followers, such as Bhaskar ji, seem to reject this view of
SSSS ji and instead pose jIva as Ashraya of avidyA. I don't know whom they
consider as vishaya of avidyA. Their teacher SSSS ji clearly says आत्मनः एव
अज्ञानित्वम्, अज्ञानविषयत्वं च। And explains AtmA to mean nitya shuddha
kUTastha chaitanya AtmA. That is Brahman as he explains quoting VArtika
verse.

I don't know whether they would answer this question of mine as many
questions of mine are plainly ignored by them as "verbal diarrhea". I don't
mind such adjectives because I understand that sometimes people may get
frustrated and angry with me. That is understandable.

But at least, the questions raised should be answered. More so, if their
teacher has held the same view.

I meant the verses that assert clearly that "asya brahmaNah avidyA" is a
> statement whose acceptance within the realm of avidyA *does not* shatter
> Advaita to pieces (as colorfully expressed by SSSS).
>

He would answer that ajnAna is jnAna-abhAva. And this jnAna-abhAva has
nitya shuddha chaitanya AtmA as the Ashraya as well as vishaya.

Nothing could be clearer than this. And sva-para-nirvAhikA nature of avidyA
> ensures that there is no AtmAshraya doSha (the logical fallacy of
> self-dependence) either.
>

That is true. This is the advaita siddhAnta.

People who hold ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva have no understanding as to what
abhAva is. If asked to define and analyse abhAva, they cannot do that.
Their discussions are casual and loose. They use words casually with
vagueness. So, their theory is not taken seriously because they don't
understand what they are talking about.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>