No subject

etc...brahman & brahman alone is yEkamEva advitIya satya..so there is no
vidyA & avidyA vyavahAra in brahman& in vyavahAra kindly clarify what is
jIva apart from BMI to attribute avidyA to him??

bhaskar :

(b) Shankara does not agree that avidyA pertains to *Self* since it is
always nirguNa & nirvishEsha.

SSN prabhuji:

* We need to be careful about the point of reference; let us see how:
avidyA does not pertain to self, except from a vyAvahArika point of view.
If not, then who is obtaining moksha? whose avidyA is being removed?

bhaskar :

when the process of removal of *avidyA* is over, one would realize that
there was/is/will be  NO avidyA at all at any point of time !!  when one is
in avidyA questions like above will come..how do these questions arise &
where do they arise?? without identification with upAdhi-s  ??

bhaskar :

(c) Since vidyA & avidyA is *upAdhi* vyavahAra and there is NO vidyAvidya
vyavahAra in brahman

SSN prabhuji:

* the lack of vidyAvidyavyvavahAra in Brahman does not lead to the
conclusion that avidyA is natural to the mind; it only means that there is
no avidyA from the absolute point of view.

bhaskar :

you have ignored by first sentence i.e. vidyA & avidyA is *upAdhi*
vyavahAra...if not I request you to come out with a better logical
explanation which is in line with anubhava. We shall take from there
on...Until then it is better to accept what is offered by shankara with
regard to avidyA without inventing new thories.

bhaskar :

(d)since shankara while explaining adhyAsa gives the examples of *wrong
cognition* (seeing two moons due to eye defect) *wrong perception* (seeing
silver in place of nacre)& explains adhyAsa as *smruti rUpa* (like memory)
etc.

SSN prabhuji:

* Examples are only that: they illustrate a point, but do not form the core
thesis.

bhaskar :

The core thesis what you are (or somebody who are trying to find a material
cause for this adhyAsa) assuming here did not get an entry into the
shankara's definition of adhyAsa. does it?? . The examples given to drive
home a point should have some relevance otherwise it will be completely
meaningless & irrelevant...do you mean to say shankara giving here totally
irrelevant examples to define adhyAsa theory??  What is that core thesis
you are referring here??  where shankara did exactly discuss this *core
thesis* of adhyAsa?? where he has given analogies to explain this *core
thesis* of adhyAsa?? kindly point out with appropriate reference.

SSN prabhuji:

Let me elaborate. If you are saying that since the Acharya illustrated
adhyAsa by wrong cognition and perception, and by memory, such an
illustration presupposes an antahkaraNa to do the cognizing, perceiving and
memorizing, then that conclusion is incorrect.

bhaskar :

So you are telling shankara without bothering about all these
inconsistencies has given the wrong examples with respect to adhyAsa!!!
please note, whatever examples I have given is shankara's own examples when
specifically asked *what is adhyAsa*??  in adhyAsabhAshya.  It is but clear
that according to shankara one thing which appears as if it is another is
itself adhyAsa. Kindly note, in this context & in series of examples, the
*vastu tattva* or the essential nature of being of the entity is not
relevant at all..adhyAsa itarEtarAvivEkEna mithAjnAnanimittA
lOkavyavahAraH..having misconceived and as result of that unable to
distinguish one from the other, the general tendency of people are carrying
their trasactions like 'I am this' and 'this is mine' etc. in this manner
the subject matter jnAna alone is mentioned here & NOT second chandra
(moon) or silver literally!! If you need further clarification with regard
to this jnAnAdhyAsa,  kindly refer Shankara's gIta bhAshya on
kshEtra-kshEtrajna yOga...

SSN prabhuji:

If you impose a pAramArthika point of view on every statement, language is
meaningless. The basic blocks of the grammar of a language, or the
assumptions underlying language, are that there is an agent of action,
action, and object of action; now if you deny differences of karta, karma,
and kriyA language does not operate.

bhaskar :

Since we are in vyavahAra we have to keep this distinctions intact for our
regular transactions...but it does not mean that we should forget the
pAramArthik satya as embedded in shruti-s & AchArya vAkya (i.e. pramAtru,
prmANa & pramEya vyavahAra is avidyAtmaka ) especially when we are
discussing pramANa-pramEya vyavahAra.

bhaskar :

(e) And in gIta bhAshya shankara clearly says igorance pertains to
*instruments* and NOT to the *user* of instruments & in taitirIya bhAshya
shankara clearly says both vidya & avidyA can be cognized as vishya-s like
colour etc..

SSN prabhuji:

* Who is the instrument? The antahkaraNa? But going by your previous logic,
there is no dvitIya to Brahman to act as an instrument, right? (Note: this
is denial by sarcasm, not my view. I do not intend to use the same
technique of imposing an irrelevant frame of reference.) Let us discuss
both the gitA and taittirIyA quotes properly in their context to see how
those quotes do not lead to the conclusion that avidyA is natural to the
mind.

bhaskar :

please do that first prabhuji, instead of wasting time on sarcasm :-))  You
know after all we are here to learn & not to find fault with others &
making fun out of it!!!  Anyway, I shall try to share by understanding with
regard to role of antaHkaraNa in brahma jignAsa in a separate post.

bhaskar :

(f) Since shankara used synonyms like viparyaya, viparyAsa, adhyArOpa,
bhrAnti, mOha etc.etc. in place of adhyAsa we have to reckon that this
adhyAsa pertains to mind only.

SSN prabhuji:

* You are saying something has to be agent of the action called adhyAsa,
whatever the synonym, and that agent is the antahkaraNa. As I pointed out
in d) above, such reasoning is incorrect.

bhaskar :

instead of passing judgement on my observation...would it not be fair on
your part to share what is your understanding on it??

bhaskar :

(g) Since the question *to whom is avidyA*?? has to rise its hood ONLY in
dvaita & dvaita is in vyavahAra & vyavahAra we do through upAdhi-s, the
avidyA which we are talking here in dvaita too pertains to upAdhi-s i.e.
antaHkaraNa.

SSN prabhuji:

* You are simply presupposing the existence of the antahkaraNa and
therefore end up with a view that avidyA is epistemic; somebody else
presupposes the existence of the jagat and they end up with an ontic
avidyA.

bhaskar :

I shall try to address this problem in a separate mail on antaHkaraNa.

bhaskar :

(h) To a question *to whom this ajnAna*?? In sUtra bhAshya shankara answers
"to you who is asking the question" (see sUtra bhAshya 4-1-3) who is this
*you* shankara referring here??  the person who is wrongly identifying
himself with BMI is it not?? & *asking* the question implies that there is
antaHkaraNa saMbaNdha in the enquirer...Shankara does not cross question
him here like asking "dear one, which avidyA you are asking?? whether it is
epistemic avidyA or ontic avidyA, if it is epistemic then it pertains to
antaHkaraNa & note antaHkaraNa, in turn is the product of mUlAvidyA which
has the ashraya of brahman itself  etc. etc. His answer is simple &
straight forward, if you are realized that you are Ishwara, then there is
no avidyA to anybody..(note here shankara says *no avidyA to anybody* in
the normal case the answer should have been "if you are realized that you
are Ishwara, then there is no avidyA to "YOU" )

SSN prabhuji:

* The Acharya's answer is consistent with his system, but does not imply
the conclusion drawn by you, as noted in b) above.

bhaskar :

In (b) I had said : "Shankara does not agree that avidyA pertains to *Self*
since it is
always nirguNa & nirvishEsha"...Now, you are telling it is the conclusion
drawn by me & not shankara...could you please clarify then what is the
conclusion drawn by shankara by answering :"to you who is asking the
question"...who is "you" here shankara referring??
bhaskar :