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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

Let us bring this discussion to a logical and useful conclusion.

You had asked

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

Are you now satisfied that there is pramANa in PTB for concluding that
AvidyA is existent. Please confirm
Regards

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:11 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Reg  << In this way of understanding the effect of avidyA is mAyA >>,
>
> I had pointed out the mistake in this understanding earlier also. Sri SSS
> himself does not admit this. According to him, mAyA is AvidyAkalpita, not
> effect of AvidyA. If you concede any **effect** for AvidyA, mAyA or
> anything else, it becomes a kAraNa and hence bhAvarUpa.
>
> point noted, thanks though in certain context, there is a 'logical
> sequence', "with this, is that" (is it pratisopana? ) and I vaguely
> remember SSSS making this point somewhere.
>
> Reg  << I don't see  what the problem is with avidya having effects >>,
>
> If AvidyA  is admitted to **have** effects, it becomes a kAraNa (cause)
> which is exactly what Sri SSS does not admit. According to him, AvidyA is
> AdhyAsa  itself, and AdhyAsa  is an effect. According to Sri SSS, being
> anAdi, there is no need to posit a kAraNa (cause) for this AdhyAsa .  Hence
> Sri SSS does not admit  the reading  **saha kAryeNa** (**along with its
> effects** ) and  prefers to delete **saha** in the Bhashya and just retain
> ** kAryeNa** in the Bhashya BUB 4-3-20  I had mentioned in my post.
>
> Yes, I see your point and it is well taken - bhasya should not dismiss key
> terms in the original.  My point suggested avidya having effects was its
> svabhava thus saha while the svarupa of avidya could not be described with
> the term saha. I noticed the svabhava/svarupa distinction was made by
> SSSS. 🙏
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 7:25 AM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Michael Ji,
>>
>> Reg  <<  Does that make sense within this context?  >>,
>>
>> No. It doesn’t.
>>
>> Reg  << In this way of understanding the effect of avidyA is mAyA >>,
>>
>> I had pointed out the mistake in this understanding earlier also. Sri SSS
>> himself does not admit this. According to him, mAyA is AvidyAkalpita, not
>> effect of AvidyA. If you concede any **effect** for AvidyA, mAyA or
>> anything else, it becomes a kAraNa and hence bhAvarUpa.
>>
>> Reg  << I don't see  what the problem is with avidya having effects >>,
>>
>> If AvidyA  is admitted to **have** effects, it becomes a kAraNa (cause)
>> which is exactly what Sri SSS does not admit. According to him, AvidyA is
>> AdhyAsa  itself, and AdhyAsa  is an effect. According to Sri SSS, being
>> anAdi, there is no need to posit a kAraNa (cause) for this AdhyAsa .  Hence
>> Sri SSS does not admit  the reading  **saha kAryeNa** (**along with its
>> effects** ) and  prefers to delete **saha** in the Bhashya and just retain
>> ** kAryeNa** in the Bhashya BUB 4-3-20  I had mentioned in my post.
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>