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

[V Subrahmanian]

The effect referred to by the cause has this example:

  In the brahmasutra bhaShya (see below), Shankaracharya gives an example
from the Veda Samhita for the case of 'the effect being referred to by the
cause:

//सूक्ष्मं तु तदर्हत्वात् । ब्रह्मसूत्र १,४.२  ।



*प्रकृतिशब्दश्च विकारे दृष्टः* ।

यथा 'गोभिः श्रीणीत मत्सरम्' (ऋ.स. ९.४६.४) इति | श्रुतिश्च 'तद्भेदं
तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत्' (बृ. १.४.७) इतीदमेव व्याकृतनामरूपविभिन्नं
जगत्प्रागवस्थायां परित्यक्तव्याकृतनामरूपं बीजशक्त्यवस्थमव्यक्तशब्दयोग्यं
दर्शयति । । २  । ।

[ पादटिप्पणीः  प्रकृतेर्विकाराणामनन्यत्वात्प्रकृतेरव्यक्तत्वं विकारे
उपचर्यते    ।

 गोभिर्गोविकारैः पयोभिः मत्सरं सोमं श्रीणीत मिश्रितं कुर्यात् ।]


It means:  The soma juice has to be mixed with cow (= cow's milk).  Here
the Veda uses the word 'cow' (in the instrumental case plural)  (which is
actually the cause of milk) to indicate the object 'milk' (which is the
effect of the cause cow).


The context in the above Sutra Bhashya is: The word 'avyakta' of the
Kathopanishad mantra, is indiciative of the gross body, for which the
Avyakta is the cause (through the pancha bhutas).


In the same way, in the Adhyasa Bhashya Shankara uses the word avidya, the
cause, to refer to adhyAsa, the effect.


regards

subbu




On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 6:46 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji.
>
> Thanks for sharing the video.
>
> Basically:
>
> 1. Since adhyAsa is avidyA-kArya, there is no incongruity in calling
> adhyAsa also as avidyA. Just as there is no incongruity in pot being called
> as clay or ornament being called as gold, there is no incongruity in
> adhyAsa being called as avidyA.
>
> The jeweller in his stock book indeed refers all ornaments as gold and
> values them at cost.
>
> 2. अविद्या-अध्यस्त: indeed clinches the issue as Swamiji clarifies in BSB
> 3.2.21.
>
> 3. As this thread discusses, AchArya just leaves no possibility of
> misinterpretation by saying the following in KaThOpanishad 2.2.11 - लोको
> ह्यविद्यया स्वात्मन्यध्यस्तया कामकर्मोद्भवं दुःखमनुभवति ।
>
> The usage of tritIyA vibhakti with avidyA implies that avidyA is cause and
> adhyAsa is effect.
>
> Also, if avidyA is identical with adhyAsa, the sentence will be rendered
> meaningless.
>
> Therefore, it is clear that to equate adhyAsa with avidyA is not a correct
> proposition being against the bhAshya.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCj0SO1XFHbWFA6GR7Hbk1-mrob3Kk2Frs6bvj%2BtehNrA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCj0SO1XFHbWFA6GR7Hbk1-mrob3Kk2Frs6bvj%2BtehNrA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>