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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji

> When it is said Atma is having the avidyA, we have to understand that
> jeevaatma is being talked here and jeeva as Chaitanya / knower/kshetrajna
> cannot have this avidyA in himself as he is seeing it as Vishaya through
> his antaHkaraNa hence avidyA is the dOsha of karaNa and not pertains to
> jnAtru.
>

Ok. So, when it is said that AtmA is the Ashraya of avidyA, then AtmA here
means jIva. Right?

And when in the same breath, it is said that AtmA is vishaya of avidyA
alao, then again AtmA means jIva? That is, jIva is the vishaya of avidyA??

Naishkarmya Siddhi says- in cahpter 3 - एतेभ्य एव हेतुभ्यो
नानात्मविषयमज्ञानं संभवतीति ग्राह्यम्। ।* एवं तावन्नानात्मनोऽज्ञानित्वं
नापि तद्विषयमज्ञानम्* । *पारिशेष्यादात्मन एवास्त्वज्ञानं*
तस्याज्ञोऽस्मीत्यनुभवदर्शनात् । "सोऽहं भगवो
मन्त्रविदेवास्मि नात्मवित् "इति श्रुतेः । न चात्मनोऽज्ञानस्वरूपता तस्य
चैतन्यमात्रस्वाभाव्यादतिशयश्च संभवति ज्ञानविपरिलोपो ज्ञानप्राप्तेश्च
संभवस्तस्य ज्ञानकारित्वात् । न च अज्ञानकार्यत्वं
कूटस्थात्मस्वाभाव्यादज्ञानानपेक्षस्य चात्मनः स्वत एव
स्वरूपसिद्धेर्युक्तमात्मन एवाज्ञत्वम् । *किंविषयं पुनस्तदात्मनोऽज्ञानम् ।
आत्मविषयमिति ब्रूमः* ।

Basically, NS says that there are two entities, AtmA and anAtmA. He gives
logic that anAtmA is ajnAna-prasUta and hence anAtmA cannot be
ajnAna-Ashraya. And then he says - for this (and some more) reason, anAtmA
cannot be vishaya of ajnAna either. So, he says that AtmA is both Ashraya
and vishaya of ajnAna.

You postulate that AtmA here means jIva. So, you would hold that jIva,
being AtmA, is the vishaya of ajnAna as well??

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.