[Advaita-l] Meet on Advaita Vedanta in Bangalore - May 7 to 8. 2013

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sun May 12 00:46:48 CDT 2013


Continued on Page 22

True the illustrations expressed by the propositions 'The nacre looks like
silver' and 'A single moon seems to be two' do impress one at first sight
to refer to something appearing as though it were another but these
propositions mean nothing more than what we understand by statements like
'people mistake nacre for silver' and 'some mistake the single moon to be
two' Nobody would think that the two propositions 'It appears to be such'
and 'I take it to be such' mean two different things merely because the
grammatical forms are different. 'Nacre looks like silver' means as we all
know nor more and no less than what is implied in the statement 'I think it
to be such'.

[[ Holenarsipur Swamiji is saying Nacre does not generate Unreal Silver
during Bhranti Kala. The seeing person is making the mistake. Nacre has not
changed really to Silver. Na Tu Bahyah Padartho 'pi Kashcana Bhranti Kaale
Samutpadyate Iti Kashcana Manyate Iti Sarvesham Nah Prasiddhametat. ]]

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
> Continued on Page 22
> 'Besides all the different views cited by the Bhashya evidently refer to
> Adhyasa as superimposition of some property on something else to which it
> does not really pertain.They only differ about the specific nature of the
> superimposition. The sub-commentator overlooks this fact and insists on his
> own theory about the nature and causes of the unreal things.
> And what is more serious is the fact that he takes no notice of Sankara's
> introduction to the illustrations of superimposition which says 'Tatha Hi
> Loke Anubhavaha'. 'Accordingly it is a matter of experience' and twists the
> original text to refer to the thing which appears as something else.'
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Namaste
>> Sankara Vedanta Mimansa Bhashyam by Holenarsipur Swamiji SSS Page 20 and
>> 21 has analysed the Panchapadika Teeka of  the Mithyajnana Nimitta in
>> Sankara Adhyasa Bhashya -
>> Atra Shruta Hanih Ashruta Kalpana Ca Kriyate Teekakarena Iti Sphutam -
>> The Teekakara Padmapada is doing Shruta Hani because he is disregarding
>> the Bhashya and he is also doing Ashruta Kalpana. He is imagining different
>> things not present in the Bhashya.
>> Panchapadika -
>> 'The compound word 'Mithyajnana' has to be resolved into Mithya Ca
>> Tadajnanam Ca' False Ignorance. Here Mithya means Undefinable. and Ajnana
>> means the inert potency of Avidya, in contrast to  consciousness. And the
>> word Nimittaha means having that potency as its material cause.
>> Now this interpretation is vitiated by the following defects -
>> In the first place it ignores what is expressly stated in the Bhashya and
>> inserts something never referred to in the Bhashya. For the Bhashya says
>> that all human procedure is due to misconception, but the author of the
>> Tika disregards this express statement and makes the original mean that the
>> unreal appearance of egoity etc in the Atman is the effect of the material
>> cause - a hypothetical potency of Avidya- which inheres in the essential
>> nature of Atman and that this cause has to be assumed to be attached to
>> Atman for the simple reason that otherwise we cannot account for the
>> appearance of false phenomena. In the second place while the objection is
>> that the mutual superimposition of the Self and the not Self is against all
>> reason, the reply brings in something irrelevant to the context, for it
>> says that we have all to assume that there is a hypothetical Avidya potency
>> clinging to internal and external things.'
> --
> Regards
> -Venkatesh



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list