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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

My position is this: Shuddha kUTastha Chaitanya AtmA, which is Brahman, is
the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna.

Bhaskar ji disputes this as evident from the following:

*//**Brahman having avidyA is the fanciful theory of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s
completely ignoring the jeeva’s antaHkaraNa dOsha in day to day life.
adhyAsa bhAshya is there to explain jeeva’s misconception not to prove
brahmAshrita avidyA.  Those who study this without any later
vyAkhyAnakAra-s fabricated views would obviously come to understand that
the question about a locus for avidyA can arise ONLY at the level of
vyAvahAric life, where there is already accepted duality where pramAtru,
pramANa and prameya bedha holds sway.  In this transaction the one who
raises the question would definitely influenced by this duality so the
question is superfluous at that stage.  But when one realizes that his
svarUpa is brahman or Ishwara and it is the ONLY reality, there can be
neither any question nor reply concerning that socalled avidyA whatsoever.
//*

I quoted the NS portion where SSSS ji says that "nitya Chaitanya AtmA is
the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna." which contradicts Bhaskar ji's views.

SSSS ji has a different idea of ajnAna from my understanding. I hold ajnAna
as abhAva-vilakshaNa whereas SSSS ji holds ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva.

However, SSSS ji is in harmony with my understanding that shuddha chaitanya
is the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna, at least from his writing in
klesha-apahAriNI. If Bhaskar ji demonstrates that SSSS ji does not accept
Brahma-Ashrita-avidyA, then SSSS ji would be doing vyAghAta.

You have cited the portions appearing on page 266 onwards from the text
> KleshApahAriNi by Sri SSS. The answers to both your questions have indeed
> been raised and answered by Sri SSS on page 268 onwards. This response
> includes his (Sri SSS) interpretation of the same verses (175-177) from
> Sambandha vArtika of Swami Sureswaracharya cited by you. It is interesting
> to note that these verses cited by you in support of your contention has
> been cited by Sri SSS in support of his (Sri SSS) contention as well !!!.
> But the interpretation is different. As I had pointed out earlier also,
> there are several instances in which same verses from BU Bhashya vArtika as
> well as Tai Up Bhashya vArtika are interpreted in opposite manner by the
> two sides.
>
> I am not debating the issue. I am only presenting the factual position
>  that the issue has been addressed by Sri SSS in this text. In fact this
> entire introduction to chapter 3 principally concentrates on refuting what
> you have attributed to Sri SSS. Debating on the same is left to the other
> participants.
>

Nothing concrete is transpiring from your comment.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.