[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Dr. Hegde: Key differences: SSS & PSA -- a fresh voice

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

I am copying below from another recent post addressed to you

//  You wrote

//  For SSS avidyā is adhyāsa — a false cognition, the taking of one thing
for another — neither a positive cosmic entity nor a mere absence of
knowledge //.

I am responding since you are repeatedly mentioning about mananam. Not for
raising any controversy.

In my understanding of Sri SSS, an important point has been missed out when
he states ** avidyā is adhyāsa — a false cognition, the taking of one thing
for another **. And that is ** the relationship of tAdAtmya between the two
- * one thing for another **. This requirement has been completely ignored.
In my understanding of Sri SSS, that is the consequence of dropping the
definition by Sri Bhagavatpada of adhyAsa as ** स्मृतिरूपः परत्र
पूर्वदृष्टावभासः । (smRRitirUpaH paratra pUrvadRRiShTAvabhAsaH | ) ** and
preferring to use the other definition mentioned by Sri Bhagavatpada **
अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धि (adhyAso nAma atasmiMstadbuddhi ) ** which
retains only the ** परत्र (paratra) ** part from the first definition. Sri
SSS himself has  explained why he has dropped the other three terms from
the first definition. In my understanding, this is the most fundamental
 deviation from the Bhashya leading to consequential differences. //.

I think this is THE core issue.  Once this is resolved, namely which is the
definition for adhyasa which Sri Bhagavatpada intended in the context of
the preamble stated in the adhyasa bhashya just prior to ** कोऽयमध्यासो
नामेति । (ko.ayamadhyAso nAmeti |) **. Is it ** स्मृतिरूपः परत्र
पूर्वदृष्टावभासः । (smRRitirUpaH paratra pUrvadRRiShTAvabhAsaH | ) ** or **
अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धि (adhyAso nAma atasmiMstadbuddhi ) **. All
other issues being addressed so often are consequential to this and can be
deferred.

Regards

On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> Reg // I was to say, suddha brahman is the only ontic and any
> relationship is epistemological only, and end it there //,
>
> If the intention is to maintain no ontic other than Brahman, that would be
> incorrect even as per above statement. Remember epistemological is mental,
> and that needs mind/vrittis etc. All these are ontic only. True they do not
> need  ontic objects external to mind. But that does not mean no ontic
> entities at all other than Brahman. Mind/vrittis etc demand ontic status.
>
> Reg  //  To ask "what is the ontological status of the relation between
> Self and non-Self?" is therefore to take the explanandum (the false
> coupling) and demand for it the dignity of a real connection — which is
> precisely the demand SSS spends his corpus refusing //,
>
> I had mentioned about this in another post addressed to you recently which
> I am copying below for ready reference. You have again mentioned here about
>  ** dignity of a real connection ** . You did not respond to my earlier
> post copied below
>
> //  Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> *You*
>
> //  *SSS drops smṛtirūpaḥ and pūrvadṛṣṭāvabhāsaḥ from the essential
> definition only for the beginningless ātma–anātma adhyāsa, because those
> terms fit laukika/sādya adhyāsa such as rope-snake, shell-silver //*
>
> *And*
>
> *//  As per Sugama,  “The two adjectives, such
> as smṛtirūpaḥ and pūrvadṛṣṭāvabhāsaḥ are used here… to include the
> superimposition of the worldly instances, such as silver upon the
> sea-shell…” //,*
>
> *//  As per Sugama,  “‘smṛtirūpaḥ pūrvadṛṣṭāvabhāsaḥ’ is only for
> clarifying the definition of adhyāsa having a beginning; it should not be
> forgotten that it does not enter into the body of the definition of the
> present adhyāsa.” //,*
>
> *Me*
>
> I entirely agree. That is how Sri SSS characterizes  in Sugama. But it is
> *his* *declaration*. Where does such a declaration leave Sri Bhagavatpada
> who does not make such a distinction *while defining adhyAsa in the
> context of his opening statement* . The definition is preceded by ** आह —
> कोऽयमध्यासो नामेति । (Aha — ko.ayamadhyAso nAmeti | ) **. What is *this* adhyAsa?.
> Sri SSS shifts the emphasis in this to read as ** What is this *adhyAsa*?
> ** and considers this as the general definition adhyAsa , and not as
> specifically addressing *this* adhyAsa. Sri SSS himself violates what he
> himself states above, namely  ** *definition of the present adhyāsa **. * That
> not only defeats the intent of the definition, but also leaves Sri
> Bhagavatpada open to be shown up as being casual and irresponsible while
> defining such important terms. This is quite unacceptable. This is just my
> point. Every term used for the definition must be given full weightage
> considering the context in which it is defined. Curtailment as done in
> sugama is unacceptable.
>
> *You*
>
> //  So there are two different senses of tādātmya:
>
>    1. *Real tādātmya-sambandha* between ātman and anātman — SSS rejects
>    this entirely.
>    2. *Falsely cognized tādātmya*, as in “I am this body/mind” — SSS
>    makes this central
>
> *Me*
>
> Why restrict it to only two. Why not three. Third one being
>
> 3.       False (mithyA or AdhyAsika) tAdAtmya sambanda between Atman and
> anAtman.
>
> This is exactly my point. I am not suggesting ** real tAdAtmya sambanda
> **. AdhyAsika only. The definition of adhyAsa given by Sri Bhagavatpada
> admits of such an interpretation. Just to pointout one reference from the
> bhAshya for such understanding, BSB 2-2-38 ** ब्रह्मवादिनः कथमिति चेत् , न
> ; तस्य तादात्म्यलक्षणसम्बन्धोपपत्तेः । ** (brahmavAdinaH kathamiti chet ,
> na; tasya tAdAtmyalakShaNasambandhopapatteH |).
>
> *You*
>
> //  *satyānṛte mithunīkṛtya*, *anyonyātmatā*, and *anyonya-dharma-adhyāsa*—with
> the important proviso that this tādātmya is *false appearance*, not real
> relation //.
>
> *Me*
>
> Agreed. That holds good with three alternatives as well. //.
>
> Reg        // There's a sharper point hiding in the word "mutual." At its
> root the superimposition is *tādātmya* — false identity ("*aham idam*," I
> am this body) — not *saṃsarga*, relation. "Relation" is already the wrong
> category for an identity-error: there is no relation between A and A, only
> a collapse mistaken for unity.//,
>
> Excuse me for asking. Is this from Claude or your statement? I will
> respond subsequently if needed.
> Regards
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>