[Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Apr 19 05:00:34 CDT 2010

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Venkata Subramanian
<venkat_advaita at yahoo.com> wrote:

As I understand from even your own quotation of the Bhashya in the PDF file,
> the Jiva is NEVER ever i bondage; the very understanding that I am bound is
> a misapprehension.  That is why the Holenarsipur Swamigal, following the
> footsteps of the Revered Commentator, holds that this mis-apprehension is a
> facility assumed for explanation purpose, by Tradition and is what called
> "Adhyasa" or "Avidya" or "Ajnana" or "Jnana Abhava" all these terms used by
> the Revered Commentator himself as synonyms.

No one asserts that the jiva is really in bondage.  As Sri Krishna Jois
pointed out and quoted by Sri Anand  Hudli, the vyAvahArika acceptance of
ajnAna is inevitable and this cannot be denied.  No traditional Acharya has
adamently attached ajnAna/avidya to Conscisousness in the absolute terms.
So your accusation is ill-founded.  All harm comes only when SSS does not
give it even a vyAvahArika status that it is due.  That is why there is so
much confusion in his followers about jivanmukti and related issues.  The
absurdity of such confused views is apparent in every discussion that ensues
on this issue. It expressed in Bhaskar arguing for the past several years,
in the other discussion forum too, that once enlightenment takes place,
there will be no such entity called a Jnani.  It is only the imagination of
ajnAni-s that there is a Jnani, etc.  The followers of Shankara's teachings
will not hold such grossly erroneous views.  Nor will they subscribe to an
abhAvarUpa kAraNa for samsara which Bhagavatpada has repeatedly, in
countless places, as we have been seeing now, attacked and denounced.

> When Avidya itself is thus a facility for explantion and understanding,
> there cannot be another "Avidya Lesha"; the term never occuring in the
> Bhashya genuinely attributed to the Revered Commentator so far.   What is a
> harmless "Samskara" for the Revered Commentator, cannot solidify into
> something so much is our point of view.

Here again, you are mistaken.  The Acharya-s who talked about 'avidya lesha'
have never given an impression that it is any remnant of the binding
avidya.  In my latest post addressed to you I clarified this in most simple
and accurate terms.  If you are still confused about this, as all other SSS
followers are, I am not to be blamed.

You say: //What is a harmless "Samskara" for the Revered Commentator, cannot
solidify into something so much is our point of view.//

The 'avidyaa lesha' vaadin-s also say exactly this.  They never have said or
given an impression that this samskara is harmful or binding on the Jnani.
Nor have they said that 'avidya lesha' is any solid entity.  Your
fundamental misunderstanding of this concept has given rise to all the
confusion.  No one is less intelligent than SSS to have admitted a solid
avidya lesha as to bring any harm to the Jnani.  Time and again it becomes
confirmed to me that it is the word 'avidya lesha' that SSS is allergic
about; the concept behind it, namely , the samskaara that drives the
post-enlightenment period of a Jnani, is admitted and cannot be denied by

Where is the condition that terms used by the BhAshyakAra alone have to be
used by others?  Tell me where 'adhyAsa', 'avidyA pratyupasthaapita', etc.
are in the prasthAnatraya?  Would you fault the BhashykAra for using these

> Your example is not appropriate as we contend there has been no marriage at
> all, so the question of asking whether he is son in law or daughter's
> husband does not arise.

Why not?  The marriage is already there in the form of 'Shuddha ShAnkara
sampradaya' etc.  Your connection with Advaita is what the marriage is.  The
analogy is the most apt to be cited in this case.

> Subrahmanian - why dont you patiently shut the doors for a while and read
> the Swamiji's original work - Mulavidya Nirasa for a while yourself.  You
> seem to be comfortable in Sanskrit language and the book is itself now
> available after re-print.    In fact his chapter 2 is the analysis of all
> Vivarana, chitsuki, Samkshepa shariraka, sidhanta lesha sangraha etc. and
> then in Chapter 3 he gives his views.  The book is clear and holds in its
> own merit.  I am afraid I dont have the required traditional learning on
> this subject to answer you effectively, but I can understand within myself
> whenever I read your articles that you are not telling something new which
> that Swamigal has not analysed.

Why is everyone shying away from my specific question:  What does SSS mean
by the word 'samskAra vashaat' of the 4.1.15 bhAshyam?  It is here he makes
the contentious remark.  And it is for this word, in this bhashya, that the
Ratnaprabha has given the clear cut, unambiguous meaning.  Any explanation
short of this is not going to solve this problem.  My interest is only in
this.  My hunch is that the key to this problem lies here.  If this one word
is clearly explained all the confusion will end.  To know this, should I
sift through whole books?  How clearly did the Ratnaprabha state the meaning
in just three words ?  Why can't you give a specific reply to this?  Has it
never occured to you that this word is what is contentious in this whole
issue?  The 'Avidya lesha' people have stated in clear terms that this is
something related to jivanmukti alone.  The Bhashya says in undisputable
terms that the body persists and the 'sublated mithyAjnAna does indeed
continue for some time OWING to samskAra'.  Avidya lesha is what this
samskaara is.  It is nothing other than that.  If you do not give the SSS
understanding of this word, it is not going to satisfy anyone who
participates in this discussion.

Any talk other than this specific word is only a diversionary tactic.

Thanks & Regards,

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list