[Advaita-l] Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sun May 19 00:25:15 CDT 2013



'Maya is Subjective Avidya's Projection'
Sutra Bhashya 2 -1 - 14 Avidyaakalpite Naama Roope Tattvaanyatvaabhyaam
Anirvacaneeye Samsaaraprapanceebhoote Sarvajnasya Ishwarasya Maayaa Saktihi
Prakrutiriti Sruti Smrutyorabhilapyete
'Fictitiously imagined through Avidya as though they were identical with
the Omniscient Lord, Name and Form indefinable either as Ishwara Himself or
distinct from Him, the cause of this manifold world of mundane life are
called in the Shruti and the Smriti 'Maya', causal potentiality and
Prakriti. - Sutra Bhashya 2 - 1 - 14

'Here we find Maya described as the figment of Avidya and identified with
Prakriti, the original state of the world before creation. It is called
'Maya' (illusory appearance) because it cannot be defined either as
identical with Ishwara or Brahman or quite distinct from Brahman, the
Ultimate Reality'.

'Maya therefore according to Sri Sankara is the illusory causal seed of the
world due to Avidya (Adhyasa or mutual superimposition of Atman and
un-Atman or the Self and the not-Self, occasioned by the want of

Suddha Sankara Vedanta is saying Maayaa is imagined because of Adhyaasa.
Maayaa is the cause of the world. Adhyaasa is Avidyaa.

Sankarites coming after Adi Sankara are saying Maayaa and Avidyaa are same.
There is Moola Avidyaa with Brahman. It projects the world. It is Upaadaana
-  Material Cause of Adhyaasa. Panchapadika has said 'Tannimittaha -
Tadupadanaha Ityarthaha.It is Bhaava Roopa Ajnaana. It is a Positive

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
> The Teekaakaaras have taken us to a ANALYSIS PARALYSIS of Avidyaa. The
> Bhagavaan Bhashyakaara has said the Avidyaa - ADHYAASA is natural.
> Naisargikam Mithyaa Jnanam. The Teekaakaaras are saying Avidyaa is a OBJECT
> outside the mind and the Moola Avidyaa is attached to Brahma. It will bring
> about the Creation of the world. But this is wrong. Avidyaa is not outside.
> Avidyaa is Misconception or Wrong Understanding.
> Bhagavaan Bhaashyakaara has not said Avidyaa is Objective. He has said it
> is SUBJECTIVE. Avidyaa is natural instinct of all men. We cannot say it is
> outside the Mind. The Avidyaa in the mind will make us to Imagine the
> World, Ishwara, Maaya Shakti and other things.
> The Mistake of Teekaakaaras is they are saying Moola Avidyaa is causing
> Adhyaasa. They are saying the Moola Avidyaa is Maayaa. It is Material Cause
> for Adhyaasa. It is a very Confusing Theory.
> But Bhagavan Bhaashyakaara is saying Adhyaasa is bringing about the Maayaa
> Shakti by Imagination. Avidyaa Kalpitaa Eva Maayaa Shaktihi. Avidyaa
> Kalpitaha Ishwaraha.
> Why we should Analyse Adhyaasa? It is natural. Swamiji is saying in Page
> 12 -
> 'Na hi Drushte Anupapannam Naama' Iti Nyaayena Katham Adhyaasaha Iti
> Shankaayaam Drushtatvaat Iti Parihaaraha'
> If someone asks 'How is Adhyaasa possible?' we have to answer because it
> is experienced fact. There is no inconsistency in experienced fact.
> Naisargiko Ayam Loka Vyavahaaraha. It is a natural human procedure.
> Lokavyavahaaraha Ityasya Ittham Loke Drushyate Iti. Naisargikaha Ityasya
> Ca Svabhaavo Ayam Lokasya Yad Yukti Viruddhamapi Vyavaharati Avichaara
> Dashaayaam.
> 'It is a natural human procedure' is that the nature of the human mind is
> such that in the un reflecting condition men instinctively behave in a
> manner quite opposed to reason.
> It is Svabhaava - the nature of human mind.
> The Mithyaa Jnanam is natural. Naisargikam Mithyaa Jnanam. Mithyaa Jnanam
> Hi Svaabhaavikam Janasya. Misconception is natural for Mankind. It is a
> Basic Instinct.
> Mithyaa Jnanam Jaata Maatrasya Praanino Mano Dharmaha. Mithyaa Jnana  is
> Intrinsic Property of Mind of any born Animal including Man.
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Namaste
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:37 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>> Let us note that even the Veda,   Veda Vyasa and Adi Shankara cannot
>>> explain Advaita without 'two' factors.  We say 'two' in quotes because
>>> the
>>> 'other', prakRti, is mithyA, being paratantra, that is something having
>>> only a dependent existence/reality, like a rope-snake,  and therefore not
>>> countable as the second to the advitIya PuruSha.
>> Holenarsipur Swamiji is saying there is no where in Sankara Bhashya any
>> scope for a OBJECTIVE Avidya like the Teekaakaaras are saying. The Avidyaa
>> is only Adhyaasa that is Misconception in the mind of human beings. This
>> Misconception Avidyaa is natural and a basic instinct for human beings.
>> Every man has the basic instinct 'Adhyaasa'. He thinks I am body and this
>> thing is mine. Ahamidam and Mamedam. A man with Misconception will imagine
>> so many things. He will imagine Ishwara and his Maya Sakti also. He can
>> imagine the  Avyakta Beeja Sakti also because Sastra is saying that. The
>> Sastra is also because of Adhyaasa only.The Beeja Sakti Avastha is also
>> there because it is imagined by Misconception. It is Avidyaa Kalpitaa only.
>> If someone says the Beeja Sakti Avastha is Moola Avidyaa it is not correct
>> because that is imagined by Adhyaasa that is Avidyaa. How can it be Moola
>> Avidyaa?
>> 'It is a natural human procedure' Naisargiko Ayam Loka Vyavahaaraha means
>> that the nature of the human mind is such that in their unreflecting
>> condition men instinctively behave in a manner quite opposed to reason'.
>> Very important words in Adhyaasa Bhaashya are 'Mithyaa Jnaana Nimittaha
>> Satyaanrute Mithuneekrutya Ahamidam Mamedamiti Naisargiko Ayam Loka
>> Vyavahaaraha'
>> In page 14 Sankara Vedanta Meemamsa Bhashya Swamiji has said -
>> 'Owing to a Misconception' Mithya Jnana Nimitta is for explaining why the
>> procedure is 'natural' or Naisargika. Misconceptions unlike right knowledge
>> are quite natural to mankind. Right knowledge, on the other hand, is
>> adventitious for it flashes only to only those whose mind is saturated with
>> Sastric knowledge. Human mind by virtue of its natural inclination is
>> liable to mix up both the real Self and the unreal not Self and
>> instinctively thinks in the form 'I am this' 'This is mine'. Here the word
>> 'I' refers to the real Self whereas 'this' corresponds to the not Self such
>> as the body. Man rarely suspects that this 'me' includes the real as well
>> as the not self, body etc. And this is mine refers to everything that is
>> other than the Self including the mind, senses and the body etc'.
>> The gist of the above quote is: But this primordial state is held by us to
>>> be subject to the supreme Lord, but not as an independent thing. [This is
>>> the crucial difference between sAnkhya and Vedanta where in the former
>>> this
>>> Shakti is independent in its activity while in vedanta it is only
>>> dependent
>>> on the Purusha/Brahman/Atman.] Continues Shankara: That state (the
>>> bIjashakti avasthA) has to be admitted because it serves a purpose.
>>> Without that latent state, the creatorship of Ishwara cannot have any
>>> meaning, inasmuch as Ishwara cannot act without His power of Maya, and
>>> without that latent state the absence of birth for the freed sould cannot
>>> be explained.  Why? Because liberation comes when the potential power of
>>> Maya is burnt away by knowledge.  That potential power, constituted by
>>> avidyA is mentioned by the word 'avyaktam'.  ...
>> Liberation comes when the Misconception Adhyaasa is removed. The
>> potential power is also imagined only because of Adhyaasa.
>>> Shankara goes on to give a number of shruti passages for the 'existence'
>>> of
>>> the power.  One can see several verses in the Bh.Gita too to this effect,
>>> one sample being:
>>> Here Veda Vyasa, the Lord, says that 'two' - prakRti and puruSha are
>>> anAdi
>>> and all the transformations have come up due to prakRti.
>>> True. But even the Anaadi Prakruti is Avidyaa Kalpitaa imagined.
>>> Thus the vedanta shAstra happily accepts 'two' for the
>>> prapancha/samsAra/bandha-mokSha vyavasthA.  Without the 'two' it is
>>> impossible for anyone, even for Sri SSS, to explain this.  His blaming
>>> the
>>> commentators is only because he has himself not understood the Vedanta
>>> method of explaining samsara, etc.  One can clearly see from the above
>>> presentation that Sri SSS's pointing to 'virodha' to the Bhashya from the
>>> commentators is ill-founded and from even the bhashya vAkyams one can
>>> prove
>>> his theories wrong.  I recently pointed out to the case of a scholar
>>> viewing Sri SSS's book saying this very thing that I have said above.
>> How it is wrong I would like to know.
>>> This vAkyam from the bhashyam cited above calls the lie of Sri SSS's
>>> statement above:  //Why? Because liberation comes when the potential
>>> power
>>> of Maya is burnt away by knowledge.  That potential power, constituted by
>>> avidyA is mentioned by the word 'avyaktam'.  ...//
>>> Here Shankara is admitting a bAdha for the avidyA by vidyA.  It is
>>> vidyAvirodhi that is avidyA.  Anything that is set right by knowledge has
>>> to be mithyA.  Here the power of Maya is burnt by knowledge.  Therefore
>>> that power and its kAryam has to be mithyA.  Thus there is nothing wrong
>>> in
>>> parsing the compound word 'mithyAjnAnam' as 'mithyA cha tadajnAnam cha'
>>> as
>>> Shankara is very clearly saying in the above cited passage.  In fact the
>>> very first sutra, brahma jijnAsA, was founded on this principle: since
>>> Atma-vit, the knower of Atman, goes beyond shoka, it is concluded that
>>> shoka is mithyAjnAnakAryam (because it needs 'knowledge of Atman' for its
>>> removal).
>> Liberation is from burning Adhyaasa. Because when Adhyaasa that is
>> Avidyaa is burned the Avidyaa Kalpita Maayaa Sakti is also burned. Maaya
>> Sakti is imagined because of Adhyaasa.If Adhyaasa is not there what can he
>> imagine? All the imaginations are burned.
>>> regards
>>> subrahmanian.v
>>> >
>>> > 'Moreover that the Avidya Shakti which is taken here to be what is
>>> meant by
>>> > the Mithyajnana - be it an invention of the author of the Tika himself
>>> or
>>> > borrowed from some foreign tradition and adapted here to propound his
>>> > theory is altogether opposed to the spirit of the Bhashya, is also seen
>>> > from the circumstance that this sub commentator attempts to prove the
>>> > feasibility of its acceptance on the authority of the Pramana
>>> Arthapatti
>>> > (presumption)'.
>>> >
>>> > 'For Sankara here expressly declares that all Pramanas or means to
>>> valid
>>> > knowledge in empirical life are based on Adhyasa itself. This is also
>>> > obvious from the fact that this writer identifies his 'Avidya Sakti'
>>> with
>>> > 'Maya' in direct opposition to the teaching of the Bhashya'.
>>> >
>>> > [[ All Pramanas like Pratyaksha are based on Adhyasa. If you are seeing
>>> > something you are seeing because there is Adhyasa of Body Mind and
>>> Sense
>>> > Organs on Atma. Same for other Pramanas. ]]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> --
>> Regards
>> -Venkatesh
> --
> Regards
> -Venkatesh



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list