[Advaita-l] FW: ​Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Mon Dec 12 04:33:28 EST 2022

Namaste Michael Ji,

You made the following statements in your response to JN Ji

<<   thus avidya is an existent!   That is a perversion of PTB - please
find supportive citations  >>

<<  Unless you take avidya to be an existent bhavarupa, there is no vikAra
necessary for avidyA to manifest >>

Following  forms part of BUB 4-3-20

<<  इदम् अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वं सह कार्येण प्रदर्शितम्  >>

<<  idam avidyAyAH satattvaM saha kAryeNa pradarshitam  >>

Translation by Swami Madhavananda  <<  Thus the nature of ignorance with
its effects has been set forth  >>

Unless AvidyA is BhAvarUpa, can we talk of **its effects**? . Would you
 consider this  adequate  BhAshya pramANa  for AvidyA  as BhAvarUpa or
existent as you term it.

It is very interesting to see how Sri SSS covers this  portion in his
 kannada translationIn/commentary  of the Bhashya. Sri SSS covers this
under the heading  **AvidyA is not the nature of Atman** (Not the
स्वाभाविकधर्म  svAbhAvikadharma).  He puts the word  **सह** (saha)  in the
Bhashya within brackets and in a Footnote mentions that this word **appears
to be unnecessary**.

He translates the whole sentence as follows

(Translation mine)  << That this is the tatva of AvidyA has been shown
through the effects (kArya)  >>

Sri SSS makes the following observation in a Footnote

<<  Since the Nature of AvidyA (अविद्यास्वरूप avidyAsvarUpa)  has not been
dealt with here, it will be inappropriate to translate the Bhashya as
**along with its effects**. Therefore we  are of the opinion that it is
unnecessary to include the word  **सह** (saha) >>.

I have come across several instances wherein alternate  versions of the
Bhashya are presented  under Footnotes. Sri SSS has in fact regularly
listed them throughout his texts on PTB. But this is a rare case wherein
the Bhashya itself is sought to be amended by a Commentator observing that
some parts are considered  (by the commentator) **unnecessary** and hence
deleted !!!  This is considered as  **ONLY commentary strictly adhereing to
the Bhashya** ??

The link ID  to the translation/commentary


BUB 4-3-20, Book page 433/434.

>> Regards

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list