[Advaita-l] Sringeri AchAryas on the VivaraNa - the cause of adhyAsa
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Mar 13 03:24:22 CDT 2007
praNAms Sri Ramakrishna Balasubramanian prabhuji
You give very inventive explanations for everything.
I dont think I have invented anything new in my observation...I've quoted
part of shankara bhAshya from bruhadAraNyaka & asked to check saMbandha
vArtika with regard to this..Anyway, I respect your comment :-))
But note that even SSS himself finds this verse problematic, and
ascribes it a "scribal error" in one of his books. I have no desire to
dig up the page numbers at this point of time. Nothing I say will
change anything will it? You'll just deluge us with quotations from
various other places, which have no connection with the verse under
discussion. Talk about extreme data-mining.
Oh prabhuji, dont be under the impression like that...what I thought is
when it comes to siddhAnta nirNaya we have to take whole scenario into
consideration...that intention may appears you excessive irrelevant
quotes...I request you to point out to me which are the quotes are
irrelevant in my mails...
By the way, you may please note that my parama guruji Sri SSS. in one of
his Kannada books, titled *vEdAnta vichArada itihAsa* Under the chapter
Sureshwara (vArtika) exactly discusses this vArtika in detail & I didnot
find any remarks such as *scribal error* in his 3 pages commentary on
it...Moreover, please note Sri SSS has not written any commentary on
sureshwara's bruhad vArtika, he touched only taitirIya bhAshya vArtika &
saMbandhA vArtika & quotes bruhad vArtika abundantly in naishkarmya siddhi
& sanskrit commentary on it *klEshApahAriNi*. And in none of these works
Sri SSS opted to take excuse by citing *scribal error* to some verses to
accommodate his own doctrine (he often shows pATAntara at the footnote if
at all anything there).. So, until you come up with exact reference to your
above allegation, I should say this is baseless allegation.
First read a verse as it is, and the adjacent verses in *that work*.
It is clear Sureshvara does not do any such thing as you say below,
which is precisely the case SSS himself finds it problematic.
Kindly tell me which work of Swamiji you are referring here...we'll have a
look at it together. With a copy of this mail to Sri Subhanu Saxena
prabhuji I request him to guide me if there is such a remark in swamiji's
Rama prabhuji :
BTW, do you know that SSS himself reluctantly admits that Gaudapada
uses maayaa in the sense of avidyaa (exactly equivalent)?
This is not at all a *surprise gift* to SSS's followers prabhuji :-)).
Ofcourse yes, we do say there is a difference between avidyA & mAya and
there is no doubt that avidyA is subjective and the same has been explained
by shankara as the natural tendency of the mind to superimpose the Atman
and anAtman on each other...and mAya is the name given to prakruti (mayAntu
prakrutim vidyAM asserts shruti) or name and form in seed form (avyAkruta
rUpa)...Hence shankara uses the words like : avidyA kalpita, avidyAkruta,
avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyA kArya etc. etc. while explaining the concept
*mAya*... All in these contexts avidyA is the subjective defect and mAya is
the objective appearance due to this defect...Hence cannot be treated as
synonyms. These distinctions between avidyA & mAya help us immensely in
understanding shankara prakriya..
However, as we know, there are dealings of vidyA and avidyA about the true
nature of self from the vyAvahArik standpoint. This business of vidyA &
avidyA is called as mAya, that which means that which is not there really
but appears as if it is there really. In this sense if we uses mAyA in the
sense of avidyA there is nothing wrong in it. Since avidyA & vidyA
regarded as a function of the antaHkaraNa and are included in the broader
umbrella i.e. world of name and forms it may also be called mAya. Kindly
refer Sri SSS's works such as mAndukya rahasya vivrutti & gaudapAda hrudaya
..while explaining *mAya satkAryavAda* swamiji deals with all these
Hope atleast now it is clear for you that Swamiji did not *reluctantly*
accept mAya & avidyA in the same sence but *contextually* admits it for the
sake of better understanding of shuddha shankara prakriya.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
PS : Sri Subhanu prabhuji, Kindly pardon me for dragging you into the
discussion..Since you are well read in swamiji's works I am requesting for
your help...Hope you wont mind.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list