[Advaita-l] [advaitin] bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa avidyA is an alien theory to Shankara's PTB

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Kr̥ṣṇa Bhaskar prabhuji.

Overall as per Sri SSS, indescribable avidyA, it’s capability to cover
> brahman itself and projecting something else, it’s upAdAnatvat (material
> cause) it’s bhAva rUpatva etc. are later inventions by vyAkhyAnakAra-s and
> these theories never found a place either in PTB nor in vArtika.
>

Yes, SSSS ji does hold so. But he chose to ignore the direct words of
Bhāṣya at such occasions. For example, when creation of snake in rope is
stated in Māṇḍūkya 1.6, he did not controvert it. Rather, he accepted it.
You can check page 85 of Vivr̥ti which is as under - सृष्टेः
प्राक्सर्वस्यापि बीजात्मनैव सत्त्वमित्यत्र श्रुतयः तत्रैवं यथा *रज्ज्वां
प्राक् सर्पोत्पत्ते *रज्ज्वात्मनैव सर्पस्य सत्त्वम्, एवं
सर्वभावानामुत्पत्तेः प्राक् प्राणबीजात्मनैव सत्त्वम् इत्यतः श्रुतिरपि वक्त
ब्रह्मैवेदम् (मुं. २ २ ११) इति । यदिदं सर्वतो दृश्यमानं व्याकृतनामरूपं
विश्वम्, तद् ब्रह्मैव । ब्रह्मरूपेणैव सदित्यर्थः | एवम् आत्मा वा इदमेक
एवाग्र आसीत् (ऐ. १ - १ ) इत्यादिश्रुतिरपि व्याख्यातव्या | अत्र भाष्ये
आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत् (बृ. १-४ -१ ) इति

So, on the one hand he held that there is no anirvarvacanīya-sarpa and on
the other hand, he accepted creation of snake. There are several such
instances. I don't want to go into those.

The idea is this. There is no contradiction between post-Śankara ācāryās
and bhāṣya.



> At some place Sri SSS explains in vArtika though there is mention about
> upAdAnatva it is used in the sense jnAna agrahaNa and it is definitely not
> implied to propagate notorious theory of mUlAvidyA.  Sri Chandramouli
> prabhuji must be aware of it as he is familiar with Sri SSS’s works.
>

These are all useless stuff. If something is not fitting to an asapradāyika
theory, you cannot change the meaning of the word upādāna-kāraṇa. BUBV
1.4.अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् ।।अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म
कारणमुत्यते ।। ३७१ ।।

There is no instance anywhere that upādāna-kāraṇa has been explained in any
other manner than material cause. So, SSSS ji's views are plain wrong.


> First of all, I am really surprised, how a logically inclined mind/s in
> this group, blindly accepting some vyAkhyA just it is saying avidyA is
> bhAvAbhAva vilakshana and at the same time it is a solid thing like chair
> and table and to prove this they have gone to the extent that even darkness
> (prakAsha abhAva) is also a solid thing like table and chair in a room!!??
>

There is no blind acceptance sir. There is threadbare analysis. The reasons
have already been discussed in other posts.

Don’t they want to use their logical brain to find out any logical
> fallacies in these theories!!??
>

People who are after truth don't waste their time in finding faults. They
want to learn.

Moreover,  there is another theory we heard that this avidyA is
> sAkshisiddhA to establish that it is an existing ‘thing’ (vastu).  If these
> theories are questioned then they resort to this theory of
> anirvachaneeyatva 😊  They justify their stand by saying : No, no, this
> avidyA which is the material cause for nAma, rUpa, adhyAsa etc. is neither
> sat nor asat nor sadasat, nor it is bhinna nor abhinna, nor bhinnaabhinna,
> nor sAvayava (having parts/components) nor niravayava (not having parts)
> nor ubhayAtmaka etc. etc. Over all to KISS :  they assert it is simply an
> anirvachaneeya and there is no ‘edamittham’ explanation for it.  Even
> though there is neither any support for this in PTB nor any support of any
> yukti (logical explanation) or anubhava.  There is absolutely no
> illustration to assert that there is some bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa avidyA has
> transformed itself in the form of world.  The snake in the rope is mere
> bhrAnti jnAna and it is anubhavAtmaka/loka prasiddha (so says bhAshyakAra),
> nowhere it can be established that in the rope, a mysterious ‘snake’ which
> is bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa (or anirvachaneeya) has been produced 😊 Hence
> this anirvachaneeya avidya or bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa avidyA is shruti /
> yukti / bhAshya / anubhava viruddha to be discarded without any hesitation.
>

You are free to discard it Bhaskar ji. However, what is your methodology to
reject? Do you intend replying to the arguments adduced by post-Śankara
ācāryās? If not, then it is mere pratijñā at your end. The sākṣi-pratykṣa
of bhavarūpa avidyā has been explained in great details.

Even SSSS ji also accepts it. There is actually no other way because you
cannot know ajñāna by a pramāṇa. It has to be by sākṣī.


>  Moreover there is an extensive discussion in this group about The Law of
> Excluded Middle by MCC prabhuji,  that a thing must either exist or not
> exist; there is no third, mysterious ontological category. But as per
> mulAvidyAvAdins this anirvachaneeya avidyA is an ontological one.  Defining
> this avidyA an ontological one and at the same time neither existing nor
> non-existing makes it logically impossible to comprehend.
>

These are all germinating due to not understanding what the other party is
saying. Nobody is proclaiming existence to ajñāna. It is non-existent. It
has to be due to some serious lack of cognitive capacity that despite such
clear statements, one keeps on repeating law of excluded middle.

 Moreover, one important thing that we have to contemplate is if avidya is
> argued in such a way that it has the power of covering the brahman itself
> (a positive veil (*avarana*)) and also has the potency to produce nAma
> rUpa jagat (avidyA shakti which is the material cause of the jagat and
> adhyAsa) then it must be an actual, objective entity (like clouds blocking
> the sun or chair in the room).
>

Nahi bhaiya. It only proves that it is abhāva-vilakṣaṇa. It is your
incorrect inference that abhāva-vilakṣaṇa must be bhāva.


> If it is a real entity, it cannot be defined merely as something
> "inexplicable” or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa.
>

Again, useless stuff born out of not listening to other party. Who is
saying that ajñāna is real!!


 From all these it is once again quite evident that this theory of
> bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa, anirvachaneeya avidyA is just an alien theory which
> hardly finds a place in shankara’s PTB.
>

Gazab analysis hai aapkee.. 😀😀

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.