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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste ji

I did not say anything not mentioned in the quoted vArtikas.

On Tue, 7 Jan, 2025, 4:58 pm Bhaskar YR, <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> If Brahman is mAyAvat, you seem to have no problem with that.
>
> >  Yes, because shruti itself calls him maayin, unfortunately for you
> shruti never ever calls him avidyAvAn to declare avidyAvAn-iva brahman😊
>
> But Sureshvara did not say mAyAvat Brahma. He endorsed avidyAvat Brahma
> and avidyA asya brahmaNah.
>

I did not say that, rather Sri Sureshvara himself has defended the position
ब्रह्माविद्यावदिष्टं
So you need to elaborate how you would understand Sureshvara's assertion
न ,  अविद्याऽस्येत्यविद्यायामेवाऽऽसित्वा प्रकल्प्यते ।


> >  ayoo raama, Advaita is in big ditch if we hold these erroneous
> conclusions.  There is no vidyAvidya vyavahAra in brahman, it is a
> kindergarten stuff in Advaita...and in vyavahAra kshetra avidyA / adhyAsa
> is antaHkaraNa dharma / dOsha...ahamidaM mamedaM eti naisarkikOyaM
> lOkavyavahAraH, you prabhuji-s assuming somany things on this simple
> explanation and dared to construct the questions like how and when was this
> avidyA originated, who is having locus, what is its subject matter etc.
> despite bhAshyakAra explained this is anAdi Ananta naisargika adhyAsa...
>
> So all your questions are to be directed to vArtika.
>
> >  brahmAshrita avidyA even before the talks of jeeva & jagat is a big
> joke floated by post shankarAdvaitins.  Which has been holding as authentic
> by dry logicians.


According to Sureshvara's assertion, "asya avidyA" holds good even if we
rewind the clock back to before the mind was manifested. You are missing
the point that mind too is a dRShya. The word Brahman is what for he
asserts asya avidyA.  The avidyAyAm asitvA does not necessarily mandate
that it holds good only after antaHkaraNam has arisen, so that avidyA can
then be called just a mental defect.

Its interesting how you dismiss all the later Acharyas of the vedAnta
tradition including PadmapAda, VidyAraNya, Sri MadhusUdana as a big joke,
dry logicians etc (whenever you are not able to point out any logical flaw
in their clear explanations) etc.

Whenever logical flaws are pointed out, then logic itself is dissed as dry,
boring etc. please note that any anumAna stands until some defect is shown
in the hetu or dRShTAnta. The complexity of its construction (for those who
have not studied logic) in no way negates the logical validity of a given
anumAna.

I will stop with this.

Thank you

Om
Raghav


>
>
>
>