[Advaita-l] avidya is Agantuka
akhanda at vsnl.com
Tue Jan 12 06:03:01 CST 2016
Please do NOT take this offline! :-)
On 12-Jan-2016 4:12 PM, "advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org via
> Sri Chandramouli-ji,
> That was a very helpful summary, thank you.
> In your view, and correct me if I'm mistaken, the कारण शरीर's "experience"
> (of आनन्द?) during सुषुप्ति, is the "manifestation" referred to by Sri
> Anandagiri. Would you consider the कारण शरीर as unmanifest during the
> जाग्रत् and स्वप्न अवस्थाs?
> How would you treat the activation of संस्कार वासनाः by various stimuli
> during the dream/waking states - they are located in the कारण शरीर, but
> such a कारण शरीर would be unmanifest in the dream/waking states?
> Also, आत्म अज्ञानं exists in all three states, and in all three states it
> is अनर्थहेतु, is it not? I accept that विक्षेप exists only in the latter
> two states and आवरण exists in all three. I think you are saying that आवरण
> becomes apparent only in सुषुप्ति - however my contention is that one is
> intensely aware of "I" in the waking and dream states too - and unless one
> has शास्त्र जन्य आत्म ज्ञानं, that "I" is not understood to be आत्मा -
> isn't this आवरणं ?
> Thanks for a very enlightening discussion. I'm really enjoying this, but
> I'm afraid others may not share this view. Should we take it offline?
> Venkatraghavan S
> On 11 Jan 2016 08:16, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sri Venkatraghavan,
>> Reg << I suppose we are debating what
>> Anandagiri AchArya is referring to by the manifestation of avidya. >>,
>> Yes. I agree. It is best to limit the scope of the discussion to a
>> specific issue in order to be focussed.
>> Reg << Because अविद्या here is described as आगन्तुकं, I was arguing that
>> this अविद्या is not मूलाविद्या, but it's manifestation, as absence of
>> right knowledge, or alternatively as wrong knowledge, located in the mind,
>> which does have a beginning and an end and can be called अगन्तुकं.
>> Sri Anandagiri is saying that that अभिव्यक्त अविद्या is अनर्थहेतु and it
>> is the अभिव्यक्त अविद्या that is described as आगन्तुकी by BhagavatpAda.
>> If the specific context of this भाष्य वाक्य is purely सुषुप्ति, and if आगन्तुकत्वं
>> of कारण शरीरं refers only to the अभिव्यक्तं of कारण शरीरं during सुषुप्ति as
>> you argue, how can such an अभिव्यक्तं be described as अनर्थहेतु by Sri
>> Anandagiri AchArya? The अनर्थहेतुत्वं of अविद्या is a consequence of its
>> very nature, and doesn't require its अभिव्यक्तं described as something
>> occurring during सुषुप्ति. >>,
>> I am not sure how to understand this. Part of it appears to me to be
>> consistent with what I have said, but elsewhere it appears to be
>> questioning my stand but I am unable to segregate the two explicitly. Hence
>> I thought it best to restate my stand by a little elaboration. Parts of it
>> or the whole of it may appear to be like carrying coal to New Castle, but I
>> may be excused for the same as I could not think of any better way of
>> clarifying my stand unambiguously.
>> कारण शरीरं of a Jiva constitutes part of मूलाविद्या and comprises the
>> seventeen parts ( five ज्ञानेन्द्रिय five कर्मेन्द्रियfive प्रणा and मनस्
>> बुध्धि ) in unmanifest form, carries with it all the karma ( संचित कर्म )
>> accumulated by the Jiva over countless janmas, beginningless ( अनादि ),subject
>> to transmigration, survives at all times including pralaya,, has an end
>> only on Realization. It is not adventitous ( आगन्तुकं ). It has no
>> experience of any kind whatsoever in this form and has to be associated
>> with a body to expiate the accumulated कर्म through experience of
>> sukha,dukha ,pain,pleasure etc. When it does get so associated, the Jiva
>> identifies itself with that body and has experience in all three states
>> waking,dream and sleep (जाग्रत् स्वप्न सुषुप्ति). This experience is
>> gained through the three bodies gross,subtle and causal ( स्थूल सूक्ष्म
>> कारण शरीरं ) respectively in the three states. Notice the use of the term कारण
>> शरीरं here. It is said to have experience ( in the state of sleep सुषुप्ति
>> ) while in the earlier use of the term it was stated as not having any
>> form of experience. Hence in this context it is to be considered as a
>> manifest ( अभिव्यक्त ) form of that unmanifest कारण शरीरं . Also it is
>> not अनादि as associated with the specific body. It is in this state of सुषुप्ति
>> that the Jiva is directly in association solely with the Atman, without
>> any distraction in the form of diversity of Creation ( विक्षेप ) , but is
>> still unable to realize its identity with the Atman, the cause being आवरण (
>> ignorance of one's own true nature ) caused by अविद्या. This is the अभिव्यक्त
>> अविद्या which is अनर्थहेतु because this ignorance of one's own true
>> nature is the fundamental cause of all samsara. This is predominantly
>> noticeable only during सुषुप्ति. In the other two states it is
>> camouflaged by the distraction caused by the diversity of Creation ( विक्षेप
>> caused by the same अविद्या ). This I believe is how the statement of Sri
>> Anandagiri Acharya has to be understood.
>> I hope this clarifies all the issues raised.
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>> Namaste Sri ChandramouliJi,
>>> "Reg << So अविद्या here is not used to represent मूलाविद्या, but simply
>>> the manifestation of आत्म अज्ञानं, which can be आगन्तुकं. >>,
>>> I do not think so. मूलाविद्या and आत्म अज्ञानं are synonymous and both
>>> are not आगन्तुकं."
>>> Thanks for the clarification. I agree - In fact I was just saying that it
>>> is the "manifestation" of आत्म अज्ञानं which is आगन्तुकं.
>>> I suppose we are debating what
>>> Anandagiri AchArya is referring to by the manifestation of avidya.
>>> Pasting this section of AchArya's Tika from the mail that Subrahmanian ji
>>> had kindly posted in the forum earlier:
>>> "यद्यपि न आगन्तुकत्वमविद्यायाः न युक्तम्, तथापि अभिव्यक्ता सा अनर्थहेतुः
>>> आगन्तुकी इति द्रष्टव्यम् ।
>>> // Even though the adventitiousness of avidyā is not reasonable, yet, the
>>> manifestation of avidyā, that is the cause of all trouble, is definitely
>>> adventitious. Thus is to be understood.//"
>>> Because अविद्या here is described as आगन्तुकं, I was arguing that this
>>> अविद्या is not मूलाविद्या, but it's manifestation, as absence of right
>>> knowledge, or alternatively as wrong knowledge, located in the mind, which
>>> does have a beginning and an end and can be called अगन्तुकं.
>>> Sri Anandagiri is saying that that अभिव्यक्त अविद्या is अनर्थहेतु and it
>>> is the अभिव्यक्त अविद्या that is described as आगन्तुकी by BhagavatpAda.
>>> If the specific context of this भाष्य वाक्य is purely सुषुप्ति, and if
>>> आगन्तुकत्वं of कारण शरीरं refers only to the अभिव्यक्तं of कारण शरीरं
>>> during सुषुप्ति as you argue, how can such an अभिव्यक्तं be described as
>>> अनर्थहेतु by Sri Anandagiri AchArya? The अनर्थहेतुत्वं of अविद्या is a
>>> consequence of its very nature, and doesn't require its अभिव्यक्तं
>>> described as something occurring during सुषुप्ति.
>>> As an aside, Re: "कारण शरीर of a Jiva is no doubt अनादि but is
>>> considered so in its unmanifest form. ",
>>> In my view, अनादित्वं of कारण शरीरं is not limited to its unmanifest form
>>> (I'm assuming you are using the same definition of manifestation here too)
>>> In all three avasthAs the कारण शरीर is present, and as the Jiva is अनादि
>>> (in all three अवस्थाs), the कारण शरीर is also अनादि, manifest or otherwise.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list