[Advaita-l] Fwd: [advaitin] Request for Review: 21 Foundational Axioms of Advaita Siddhānta

[H S Chandramouli]

Resent as original was rejected due to size constraints

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Request for Review: 21 Foundational Axioms of
Advaita Siddhānta
To: <advaitin at googlegroups.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>


Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Thanks for the translation.

As also for summarizing my understanding of the issues. By and large it is
a fair presentation of my understanding. A few corrections would be in
order.

Reg  // aham-adhyAsa is spoken by VivaraNa as "first" in terms of
understanding, and not in terms of time //,

I have not studied vivaraNa per se as a text. But I have come across such
statements as above in different texts in bits and parts during my study of
the Bhashya. And I have understood them as stated above. I just looked
through some just now for a recap and came across the following in
PanchapAdika, VarNaka 1. I believe this represents my understanding. (
Emphasis mine ).

//   कस्य धर्मिणः कथं कुत्र च अध्यासः ? धर्ममात्रस्य वा क्व अध्यासः ? इति
भाष्यकारः स्वयमेव वक्ष्यति ।

‘अहमिदं ममेदम् इति’  अध्यासस्य स्वरूपं दर्शयति । *अहमिति* *तावत् *
*प्रथमोऽध्यासः **।* ननु अहमिति निरंशं चैतन्यमात्रं प्रतिभासते, न अंशान्तरम्
अध्यस्तं वा । यथा अध्यस्तांशान्तर्भावः, तथा दर्शयिष्यामः । ननु इदमिति
अहङ्कर्तुः भोगसाधनं कार्यकरणसङ्घातः अवभासते, ममेदमिति च अहङ्कर्त्रा स्वत्वेन
तस्य सम्बन्धः । तत्र न किञ्चित् अध्यस्तमिव दृश्यते । उच्यते ; यदैव अहङ्कर्ता
अध्यासात्मकः, तदैव तदुपकरणस्यापि तदात्मकत्वसिद्धिः । न हि
स्वप्नावाप्तराज्याभिषेकस्य माहेन्द्रजालनिर्मितस्य वा राज्ञः राज्योपकरणं
परमार्थसत् भवति, एवम् अहङ्कर्तृत्वप्रमुखः क्रियाकारकफलात्मको लोकव्यवहारः
अध्यस्तः नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावे आत्मनि । //

//  kasya dharmiNaH kathaM kutra cha adhyAsaH ? dharmamAtrasya vA kva
adhyAsaH ? iti bhAShyakAraH svayameva vakShyati | ‘ahamidaM mamedam iti’
adhyAsasya svarUpaM darshayati | ahamiti tAvat prathamo.adhyAsaH | nanu
ahamiti niraMshaM chaitanyamAtraM pratibhAsate, na aMshAntaram adhyastaM vA
| yathA adhyastAMshAntarbhAvaH, tathA darshayiShyAmaH | nanu idamiti
aha~NkartuH bhogasAdhanaM kAryakaraNasa~NghAtaH avabhAsate, mamedamiti cha
aha~NkartrA svatvena tasya sambandhaH | tatra na ki~nchit adhyastamiva
dRRishyate | uchyate ; yadaiva aha~NkartA adhyAsAtmakaH, tadaiva
tadupakaraNasyApi tadAtmakatvasiddhiH | na hi svapnAvAptarAjyAbhiShekasya
mAhendrajAlanirmitasya vA rAj~naH rAjyopakaraNaM paramArthasat bhavati,
evam aha~NkartRRitvapramukhaH kriyAkArakaphalAtmako lokavyavahAraH
adhyastaH nityashuddhabuddhamuktasvabhAve Atmani | //

Translation ( D. Venkataramiah )  //  Of which dharmin, how and where is
the adhyasa? Again, where is the superimposition of attributes perceived?
These (questions) the Bhāṣyakāra himself answers. He points to the form
that superimposition takes in "This am I" and "This is mine". *The ego
notion so far is the first adhyasa. * ( Note 1 ).

 Is it not that the integral (partless) cit alone manifests itself in the
aham-ego' and that there is no additional part (seen in the ego-notion)
either superimposed or not superimposed ? ( Note 2 ).

We will show; (when explicating the ego") how the superimposed part (viz.,
the insentient) is involved therein.

Well, in the notion- this' (referring to one's body), the body--the
aggregate of cause and effect which is the means of the enjoyment (of the
agent denoted by the ego-aham kartā ') is manifest to view (ie., is seen as
the object of perception); and in this is mine', (the body) is related to
the agent as his property (ie., as a thing distinct from him). There (in
consequence) nothing appears to be superimposed.

Here is the answer: When the notion of ego as agent is (admitted to be) a
case of superimposition, then alone is it evident that its auxiliary also
is an erroneous notion; (when the notion of self-jiva as manifested in the
'I' is error-ridden, the body which is intended for its service is likewise
an erroneous notion, i.e., of like nature, when spoken of as this is
mine'). Of one who has been crowned king in a dream, or of a king who is a
creation of mighty magic,33 the paraphernalia of royalty cannot have any
real existence. It is thus that all worldly activities beginning with the
ego-agency (I am doer, etc.), and embracing action, means and results
(phala) are superimposed on atman which is by nature eternal, pure,
enlightened and free.

Note 1 ;; The aham-ego is a complex of cit and acit-sentience and
insentience. Why the author regards the ego-superimposition अहङ्काराध्यास
(aha~NkArAdhyAsa ) as the initiative adhyāsa, is because it is the starting
point of all the käryädhyāsas, the effect-series. Though the
superimposition of nescience on consciousness which is pure, integral,
bliss entire, and witness of ajñāna (i.c., it reveals ignorance) is
beginningless, the aha~NkArAdhyAsa is spoken of as the beginning in the
effect-series---kAryA dhyAsa.

Note 2 ;; In all cases of superimposition, two apprehensions are involved;
but in the ego-concept, the opponent says, there is only one and hence
superimposition is absent. The answer is that even in this con cept two
notions are present, the one real, the other transferred, similar to 'this'
and the 'silver' in 'This is silver' //.

Reg  //  There is "an" anAdi-adhyAsa, which is not effect //,

Could be reworded as  // There are adhyAsAs  which are not effects //. May
even be deleted as really not germane to the issue at hand.

Reg  //  The nimitta-kAraNa of ahamkAra is the locus-hood of avidyA in
Parameshwara //.

Could be rephrased as follows  ( Prof SuryanarayaNa Shastry ) // The
control of avidyA by Parameswara is the nimitta kAraNa //. Not very
particular about  the change though.

SiddhAnta Bindu translation

Reg  //  And only avidyA-adhyAsa alone is beginningless //

Could be reworded as under

//  And the adhyAsa of avidyA alone is beginningless by itself //.

The adhyAsa of ahamkAra  etc are beginningless like the seed and sprout
each of which is the cause of the other, but that of avidyA on the Self
alone is beginningless in the sense that it is without cause.
Regards


>
>