[Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.


>
>
>    - For us and as per bhAshyakAra the avidyA is nothing apart from
>    agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  We don’t say there is a mother for
>    all these types of avidyA and that is anirvachaneeya.
>
>
You say that, true. But bhAshya says that!! False. See what BhAshya says
- तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः.
When there is AvaraNa (tAmas/timira-dOsha etc), there is perception of
avidyA-traya. If you don't have this AvaraNa, there is no perception of
avidyA-traya.

Sir, you cannot negate this bhAshya-vAkya. And if you do, then you cannot
claim allegiance to bhAshya. What is said is very clear -- there is an
AvaraNa different from avidyA-traya. Only when this AvaraNa is present,
there is avidyA-traya.

This AvaraNa is what is mUlAvidyA. Those who hold that avidyA is nothing
other than avidyA-traya, need to explain what is this AvaraNa, the presence
whereof is stated by bhAshya to be the cause of avidyA-traya.



>
>    - So there is no problem or headache for us to come out with the
>    concocted theory like sadasadvilakshaNa, bhAvaabhAva vilakshaNa
>    anirvachaneeya avidyA.  For us it is nirvachaneeya.
>
>
Sir, sat-asat-vilakshaNa is not concocted. It is the very mantra of
NAsadIya SUkta, which says -- na sat aaseet, na asat aaseet.. tama aaseet.



>    - And also for us avidyA is NOT mAya
>
>
And then SSSS ji would equate Maya and avidyA without any issues in
MANDUkya Rahasya Vivriti 3.10 -- आत्मन: माया अविद्या.

[
https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=sanskrit&book_id=006&pagenum=1b0266#page/419/mode/1up
]


>
>    - and mAya has been explained as tatva – anyatvAbhyAM anirvachaneeya (
>    sutra bhashya).  This expression anirvachaneeya has been explained by
>    bhAshyakAra by giving the example of foan, waves, bubbles which are not
>    quite the same as water but yet not different from water.  (you can refer
>    US & bruhad bhAshya for this).
>
>
True. The question was however regarding LEM.


>    - And in the divine alignment of Ishwara and his shakti/mAya (which is
>    ofcourse not palatable Vedanta siddhAnta to dry logicians) mAyA is
>    A-vyakta, that is defying any unambiguous description whether it belongs to
>    Brahman (tatva) or is different from It (anyatva).  It is the nAma-rUpa
>    which cannot be described unambiguously whether they are brahman/Ishwara or
>    different from It, the unmanifest but to be manifested later.  I am not
>    saying this bhAshyakAra himself saying this in IkshatyadhikaraNa in sUtra.
>
>
>
> Isn't LEM violated by them the way they seek to explain.
>

I was interested in response to LEM violation by SSSS ji. I am aware of
what BhAshya is saying.

 SSSS ji brings in concepts of Dvaita VedAnta into his version of Advaita.
> Concepts such as the following are from Dvaita:
>
>
>
> Ø     You can enjoy your own hallucinations (ofcourse with the clapping
> crowd around you) about Sri SSS’s interpretation on each and everything.
>

It is an open knowledge Bhaskar ji. NyAyAmrita holds ajnAna as
jnAna-abhAva. That is rejected in Advaita Siddhi with lots of arguments.


> Frankly I don’t have time to ‘educate’ you, I know how you miserably
> failed to understand the context of NS3.1 and Sri SSS’s clarification in
> mUlAvidyA nirAsa about Ashraya and Vishaya of avidya😊 If time permits I
> will handle it in a separate post.
>

I read what is written in black and white. In NS, SSSS ji nowhere mentions
chidAbhAsa as the Ashraya and vishaya of avidyA. Of course, NS does not say
that either. In MUlAvidyA-nirAsah, SSSS ji writes chidAbhasa as the Ashraya
and vishaya of ajnAna. What am I to understand?

Actually, it is hilarious BhAskar ji. Mirror is the Ashraya of AbhAsa.
AbhAsa cannot be the Ashraya of mirror. Of course, SureshwarachArya clearly
says in VArtika that ajnAna is the Ashraya of chidAbhAsa. So, SSSS ji
saying the opposite that chidAbhAsa is Ashraya/vishaya of ajnAna is
actually diametrically opposite to Sureshwaracharya. But how does it
matter!! Or does it?

For reference: VArtika 4.3.416 - चिदाभासाश्रयाज्ञानात्कार्यसंगतिहेतुतः |
स्वाभासान्तः परोऽप्यात्मा ध्यायतीवेति वीक्ष्यते || ४१६ ||

And if you hold that ajnAna cannot be the mirror because it is abhAva (as
per you), then you need to check VArtika 4.3.355 which says :

आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा | आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः
प्रयोदजकमिहेष्यते || ३५५ ||

ajnAna of AtmA is always coupled with the AbhAsa of inner-consciousness.
And this ignorance alone is accepted as the reason of kAraNa-tva of Atman.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.