gmane.culture.religion.advaita

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

2013-05-22T06:44:28

Agreed. Brahman is the locus and object of avidya in eka jiva vada. 

What about Maya? In mayinam tu mahevaram, mama maya duratyaya, vaishnavim maya, davim maya, atma maya etc., maya is considered to be a shakti of Ishwara. On the other hand, avidya is described as kuta, crooked etc. Does it give room for the theory that maya is different from avidya and has locus in Ishwara? Who first uses moolAvidya term and includes vidya and avidya under the ambit of moolAvidya?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian< at >gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:49:38 
To: <rajaramvenk< at >gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l< at >lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:54 PM, <rajaramvenk< at >gmail.com> wrote:

Even when it is said that 'Ishwara and everything else is a creation of the
jIva', it is not in the manner of Brahman creating the world which is
sankalpapUrvaka sRShTi where the shAstra admits that Ishwara is in
possession of the knowledge of the karma of all jIvas and creates a world
in accordance with the karma of jivas.  In that construct Ishwara knows
that there are jivas and that they need the shruti for their upliftment,
etc.  In the case of the eka-jiva construct, the creation is akin to a
dream with no sankalpa.  The entities like Ishwara, shruti are all present
in that dream but their use has to be made with effort by this jIva.  Only
then can there be release.  It is in this sense alone that it is admitted
that Ishwara, shruti, etc. are the jIva-s' creation/imagination.

Shankara never says that shaastra prAmANyam is avidyA kalpita.  Even this
one jIva comes to know of the jagatkAraNatvam of Ishwara from the shruti
pramANa alone.  To think that Ishwara, jagat, shruti, etc. are due to the
jiva's avidyA is what the mistake the other party was making during the
recent meet and citing the adhyAsa bhAShya as the basis for their view.
MDS pointed out that such is not the case and what the adhyAsa bhAShya was
saying was that due to avidyA one thinks that he is the kartA-bhoktA
samsArin and thereby he becomes the candidate for either the
vidhi-pratiShedha shAstra or the mokSha shAstra.  In all the sutras
refuting the sAnkhya view, the sUtra/bhAShyakAra invoke the shruti prAmANya
for the IshwarakAraNatva and it is in this context does that sentence
contested comes.

Just for the sake of those who might require this information...

In all these discussions  we have to keep in mind the rule enshrined in the
following very important verse of the samkShepashArIraka:

आश्रयत्वविषयत्वभागिनी  निर्विभागचितिरेव केवला ।
पूर्वसिद्धतमसो हि पश्चिमो नाश्रयो भवति नापि गोचरः ॥ (संक्षेपशारीरकम्)

[The locus and object of ignorance is indeed the impartite
Brahman-Consciousness.  The entities that appear later, as products of the
fundamental ignorance, cannot be the locus and object of ignorance.
samkShepashArIraka']

As per the above, the jIvabhAva, whether in the nAnA-jIva construct or the
eka-jIva construct,  is only AFTER the avidyA makes its appearance in Pure
Consciousness, Brahman, the ONLY ONE entity.  The 'second' entity the jIva,
being a product of avidyA, cannot be the Ashraya, locus, of avidyA.  For,
even this one jIva has to get rid of avidyA to realize its Brahman nature.

regards
subrahmanian.v

_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster< at >advaita-vedanta.org

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

V Subrahmanian — 2013-05-22T06:35:13



It is exactly this 'knowability' 'dRshyatvam' that makes avidyA a viShaya,
object, and therefore not Atma dharma but only anAtmadharma.



This is not denied at all.  Vidyaranya as said that hunger, thirst, joy,
sorrow, knowledge, ignorance etc. are known to oneself pratyakSheNa and to
others only by inference.


You have come to the point.  We are therefore not disagreeing : ) ..avidyA
is 'in' the mind and therefore not in the Atman. That is what Shankara says
in that diaglogue.


I have already shown that in the Br.up. 1.4.10 bhashyam Shankara Himself
has said that avidyA is to be admitted in/for Brahman.  [this is not to be
confused with what I said above: avidyA is an attribute of the anAtmA and
not of the Atman.)




This is exactly the teaching of the 13th chapter of the Gita.  The entire
avidyA/mAyAkAryam is the kShetra which is the known, as 'idam', and the
kShetrajna is the knower, vEttA.  Only that which is a viShaya, known,
dRshya can be an object.  And that is why it can be annihilated by vidyA.




Maybe you wanted to say here 'It is avidyAkalpita'.

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

V Subrahmanian — 2013-05-22T06:19:38

Even when it is said that 'Ishwara and everything else is a creation of the
jIva', it is not in the manner of Brahman creating the world which is
sankalpapUrvaka sRShTi where the shAstra admits that Ishwara is in
possession of the knowledge of the karma of all jIvas and creates a world
in accordance with the karma of jivas. In that construct Ishwara knows
that there are jivas and that they need the shruti for their upliftment,
etc. In the case of the eka-jiva construct, the creation is akin to a
dream with no sankalpa. The entities like Ishwara, shruti are all present
in that dream but their use has to be made with effort by this jIva. Only
then can there be release. It is in this sense alone that it is admitted
that Ishwara, shruti, etc. are the jIva-s' creation/imagination.

Shankara never says that shaastra prAmANyam is avidyA kalpita. Even this
one jIva comes to know of the jagatkAraNatvam of Ishwara from the shruti
pramANa alone. To think that Ishwara, jagat, shruti, etc. are due to the
jiva's avidyA is what the mistake the other party was making during the
recent meet and citing the adhyAsa bhAShya as the basis for their view.
MDS pointed out that such is not the case and what the adhyAsa bhAShya was
saying was that due to avidyA one thinks that he is the kartA-bhoktA
samsArin and thereby he becomes the candidate for either the
vidhi-pratiShedha shAstra or the mokSha shAstra. In all the sutras
refuting the sAnkhya view, the sUtra/bhAShyakAra invoke the shruti prAmANya
for the IshwarakAraNatva and it is in this context does that sentence
contested comes.

Just for the sake of those who might require this information...

In all these discussions we have to keep in mind the rule enshrined in the
following very important verse of the samkShepashArIraka:

आश्रयत्वविषयत्वभागिनी निर्विभागचितिरेव केवला ।
पूर्वसिद्धतमसो हि पश्चिमो नाश्रयो भवति नापि गोचरः ॥ (संक्षेपशारीरकम्)

[The locus and object of ignorance is indeed the impartite
Brahman-Consciousness. The entities that appear later, as products of the
fundamental ignorance, cannot be the locus and object of ignorance.
samkShepashArIraka']

As per the above, the jIvabhAva, whether in the nAnA-jIva construct or the
eka-jIva construct, is only AFTER the avidyA makes its appearance in Pure
Consciousness, Brahman, the ONLY ONE entity. The 'second' entity the jIva,
being a product of avidyA, cannot be the Ashraya, locus, of avidyA. For,
even this one jIva has to get rid of avidyA to realize its Brahman nature.

regards
subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster< at >advaita-vedanta.org

Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

Venkata sriram P — 2013-05-22T06:11:27

Namaste,
 
//////////
 
Whose commentary it was, which you could read ? 
Have you also read the Shringerashataka and compared that 
with the AmarushatakaIt and found any difference in the treatment 
of the subject ? It appears to me
 
///////////
 
I have read telugu commentary on amarukashataka by a famous vedic scholar
Br.Sri. D.Vishwanatha Sarma.  This commentary is the publication by
Sadhana Grantha Mandali of Tenali.  They have published a series of
books written by Sankara under the title "sankara granthAvaLi" and this 
Amaruka Shataka happens to be the 16th volume.  
 
Also, if we compare the subject in Sringara Shataka and Amaruka Shataka,
the way poet deals with the subtle aspects of rasa siddhi are quite different. 
 
Bhartruhari's 3 shatakas ie., neeti, sringara & vairagya symbolically represent
brahmacharya, grihastha and sanyAsa ashrama dharma respectively.  In his
sringara shataka, it is said that whoever studies this work, is bound to get
sringAra bhAvAs.  And this sringAra bhAva is verily required between 
pati and his dharma patni for conjugal bliss.  
 
Whereas, the subject matter in Amaruka Shataka has been dealt in a different
way and the moods of the reader varies from sringara rasa to karuna rasa etc. 
But, at last, the culimination of this conjugal bliss results in advaita-bhAva for 
the nAyaka towards his nAyika. 
 
This forum is not the correct platform to discuss the subtle aspects of
sringAra bhAva and hence i stop here.  There are certain tAntric bhAvAs
hidden in this sringAra rasa which encodes the "rati-kreeDa" between 
Siva and His consort Sakti.  These bhAvAs are the underlying principle
for "bhAva-siddhi" and "Ananda-siddhi" in kauLAchAra.
 
regs,
sriram

Re: Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

Sunil Bhattacharjya — 2013-05-22T05:03:36

Namaste,

Thanks for the interesting  input and appropriate too. Whose commentary it was, which you could read ? Have you also read the Shringerashataka and compared that with the AmarushatakaIt and found any difference in the treatment of the subject ? It appears to me that the Commentator Ravichandra could be the lone commenataor who could see  spiritual message in the Amarushataka. 

Regards,
Sunil KB






________________________________
 From: Venkata sriram P <venkatasriramp-jtpRmYsQNJU< at >public.gmane.org>
To: advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:53 PM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Adi Shankara's Amarushataka
 

Namaste,
 
////
 
<<An enterprising interpreter can find all kinds of meanings in things but I 
am rather dubious about any "Advaitic message" in the Amarushataka.  Have 
you read it?>>

//
 
The last stanza of this shataka describes the viraha-bAdha of the nAyaka towards his
prEyasi.  Owing to the pangs of separation (viraha-bAdha), the nAyaka (hero) literally sees
his nAyika / prEyasi (heroine) as sarvavyApaka.  He sees his lover in all the 8 directions,
on his celestial bed; beside him sleeping alongwith him; within his antahkarana; and 
"within himself".  
 
This seeing his lover "within himself" owing to the viraha-bAdha has been compared with the advaitic realization where the devotee sees his beloved lord in himself.  
 
This is the culmination of the love between the two lovers where the sthAyee bhAva of sringAra rasa in the form of rati is achieved.
 
BTW, i have studied the commentary of this amaruka-shataka which is mainly stressed
on sringara rasa and certain concepts of vAtsyAya kAmasUtra.  
 
A good book for the students of alamkara shastra.
 
regs,
sriram
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+6BGkLq7r< at >public.gmane.org

Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

Venkata sriram P — 2013-05-22T04:53:15

Namaste,
 
////
 
<<An enterprising interpreter can find all kinds of meanings in things but I 
am rather dubious about any "Advaitic message" in the Amarushataka.  Have 
you read it?>>

//
 
The last stanza of this shataka describes the viraha-bAdha of the nAyaka towards his
prEyasi.  Owing to the pangs of separation (viraha-bAdha), the nAyaka (hero) literally sees
his nAyika / prEyasi (heroine) as sarvavyApaka.  He sees his lover in all the 8 directions,
on his celestial bed; beside him sleeping alongwith him; within his antahkarana; and 
"within himself".  
 
This seeing his lover "within himself" owing to the viraha-bAdha has been compared with the advaitic realization where the devotee sees his beloved lord in himself.  
 
This is the culmination of the love between the two lovers where the sthAyee bhAva of sringAra rasa in the form of rati is achieved.
 
BTW, i have studied the commentary of this amaruka-shataka which is mainly stressed
on sringara rasa and certain concepts of vAtsyAya kAmasUtra.  
 
A good book for the students of alamkara shastra.
 
regs,
sriram

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-22T04:41:48

Namaste
2013/5/21 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>

Avidyaa . Another person cannot say I have Avidyaa. I have to know and say
I have Avidyaa. I cannot say another person has Avidyaa looking at his
sayings and behavior. Every person has to look at himself and say he has
Avidyaa or not.

This is showing Avidyaa is a Misconception in the mind. It is Subjective.

But Teekaakaras are telling us there is a Moola Avidya attached to Brahman.
This Moola Avidyaa is Maayaa Shakti. It has created the world and we are
all seeing that Objective Avidyaa. But Adi Sankara said that Maayaa Shakti
is imagined by Avidyaa in the mind. It is Maayaa Kalpitaa.


natural Misconception in the mind.It is superimposition of Self and not
Self. He did not say Moola Avidyaa is cause for Adhyaasa. Post Sankara
Vyaakhyaanakaaras are saying that.

Re: Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

Sunil Bhattacharjya — 2013-05-22T04:33:33

<<An enterprising interpreter can find all kinds of meanings in things but I 
am rather dubious about any "Advaitic message" in the Amarushataka.  Have 
you read it?>>

I have read only a few verses here and there. I would like to read all the verses and more importantly the commentaries on it but I am not sure how to get hold of at least one of the commentaries.  It could be that intially the Shataka highlights the romantic dreamy aspects and then gradually leads the reader to the sorrowful aspects when the romance ends and it dawns on the romantic pair that all these carnal pleasures are temporary and thus prepares them for the spiritual journey. May be we have among us scholars, who have looked for the spiritual message in that. 


Sunil KB  



________________________________
 From: Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar< at >braincells.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l< at >lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Adi Shankara's Amarushataka
 

On Tue, 21 May 2013, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:


It is a collection of verses in shrngara rasa.


An enterprising interpreter can find all kinds of meanings in things but I 
am rather dubious about any "Advaitic message" in the Amarushataka.  Have 
you read it?

  One poem of Adi Shankara's “Amarushataka” is inscribed on 

Note the story of Shankaracharya being temporarily confounded by Mandan 
Mishra's wife Bharati asking questions on kamashastra during their debate 
and requesting an adjounment during which he inhabited the body of the 
recently deceased King Amaru (or Amaruka) is first found in the 
14th century Madhaviya Shankara digvijaya.  Earlier mentions of the 
Amarushataka (several kavyashastras use verses from it as examples) are 
silent on this topic.  So I think you are getting way ahead of yourself in 
your analysis of the Nagarjunakonda inscription.  More context is needed.

Re: Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

Karthik Subramanian — 2013-05-22T04:21:20

I have heard many more speak about the Sarasabharathi - Shankara debate episode. Although the episode is not questioned, per se, several doubts abide about the questioning on the Kamashastra subject to the young sanyasin Shankaracharya. Also, can somebody confirm thoughts that the Madhaviyam has been revised in later times and ideas of scholars from different times have been introduced as interpolations. 

Regards,
Karthik

________________________________
 From: Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar< at >braincells.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l< at >lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

On Tue, 21 May 2013, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

It is a collection of verses in shrngara rasa.

An enterprising interpreter can find all kinds of meanings in things but I am rather dubious about any "Advaitic message" in the Amarushataka.  Have you read it?

One poem of Adi Shankara's “Amarushataka” is inscribed on 

Note the story of Shankaracharya being temporarily confounded by Mandan Mishra's wife Bharati asking questions on kamashastra during their debate and requesting an adjounment during which he inhabited the body of the recently deceased King Amaru (or Amaruka) is first found in the 14th century Madhaviya Shankara digvijaya.  Earlier mentions of the Amarushataka (several kavyashastras use verses from it as examples) are silent on this topic.  So I think you are getting way ahead of yourself in your analysis of the Nagarjunakonda inscription.  More context is needed.

Re: Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

Jaldhar H. Vyas — 2013-05-21T21:29:52


It is a collection of verses in shrngara rasa.


An enterprising interpreter can find all kinds of meanings in things but I 
am rather dubious about any "Advaitic message" in the Amarushataka.  Have 
you read it?

  One poem of Adi Shankara's “Amarushataka” is inscribed on 

Note the story of Shankaracharya being temporarily confounded by Mandan 
Mishra's wife Bharati asking questions on kamashastra during their debate 
and requesting an adjounment during which he inhabited the body of the 
recently deceased King Amaru (or Amaruka) is first found in the 
14th century Madhaviya Shankara digvijaya.  Earlier mentions of the 
Amarushataka (several kavyashastras use verses from it as examples) are 
silent on this topic.  So I think you are getting way ahead of yourself in 
your analysis of the Nagarjunakonda inscription.  More context is needed.

Re: Appearance and Disappearance dates of Stalwarts pre and post Adi shaMkara

Jaldhar H. Vyas — 2013-05-21T20:34:46


No.  As far as I know the only other jayanti of an old Advaitin observed
to any great degree is that of Swami Vidyaranya.  Even the practice of 
Shankara Jayanti was only started in relatively recent times.

New member introduction

Jaldhar H. Vyas — 2013-05-21T20:29:47

Gopal K A 
---------

Iam having faith in advaita philosophy.

Fwd: Report on Sankara Jayanthi Celebrations at Madras Sanskrit College, Chennai

Ravisankar Mayavaram — 2013-05-22T02:13:28

Here is the report on Sankara Jayanti Celebrations at Madras Sanskrit
College.  Sent again  by Sri Sri Sundararaman Mahodaya.

*Sankara Jayanthi Lectures at Madras Sanskrit College 2013*

Lectures in Tamil were delivered as part of Sankara Jayanthi celebration at
Madras Sanskrit College starting from 10th May 2013.

The function was inaugurated by Nochur Sri Venkataraman with his lecture on
Atma Vidya appreciating the efforts of Madras Sanskrit College established
by Sri Krishnaswami Iyer whose 150 Birth Centenary was celebrated combining
with Sankara Jayanthi celebration.

Dr R Krishnamurthi Sastri,(RK) former Principal of Madras Sanskrit College
briefly mentioned the efforts taken by Sri Iyer in establishing Madras
Sanskrit College, Sri Venkataramana Dispensary, as well as the Indian Bank.

Under the supervision of RK daily Chathurveda Parayanam was conducted on
all days with mahanyasa purasra abhishekam to Adisankara vighraham followed
by archana, deeparadhana in the morning followed by lecture programme in
the evening.Lunch was provided at RK’s residence for pandits doing Veda
parayanam,bhashya parayanam etc. Sambhavana expenses were met by RK from
collections from Vedanta students.

On the first day Dr N Veezhinathan, retired Head of Dept., Philosophy
Dept.,  Gave a lecture on Acharya Mahima elucidating the significance of
Adisankara  Bhashya in establishing Advaita Vedanta.

On the second day Dr K Ramasubramanian (son of RK) gave a lecture on
Mundaka Upanishad linking modern views to Advaita Vedanta.

On the third day RK delivered a lecture on Hasthamalakeeyam, based on
commentary
of Adisankara.The significance of writing a commentary on the work of his
disciple  by Adisankara was effectively brought out by RK.

On the fourth day Dr Goda Venkateswara Sastri gave a lecture on Chapter 5
of Bhagavad Gita; he effectively brought out the thoughts of modern people
and how these are answered by Sankara Bhashyam of this chapter.

On the last day Dr R Mani Dravid gave a lecture on Prajapathi Vidya of
Chandokya Upanishad.His erudite scholarship effectively bringing out the
significance of Sankara Bhashyam was appreciated by one and all

Sambhavana to lecturers was given by Sanskrit College authorities from
endowments created for the purpose. The Sankara's vighraham was brought out
for  Rajaveedhi pradhakshinam with Veda Ghosham, Nadaswaram besides Nama
sankeerthanam in the evening of Sankara Jayanthi

The audio tamil lectures are available in
www.mediafire.com/sankaragurukulamunder a separate folder titled
Sankara jayanthi 2013/Sanskrit College for
free download.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster< at >advaita-vedanta.org

Adi Shankara's Amarushataka

Sunil Bhattacharjya — 2013-05-21T19:23:27

Dear friends,

I understand that Adi Shankara's Amarushataka is essentially a deep Advaitic text and Appaya dikshita
had commented on a verse of this. The
commentator Ravichandra is said to have written in his commentary that
that the verses of Amarushataka have double meanings but their
real import is philosophical. It will be nice to hear from the
learnedmembers if any study had been
carried out on the Advaitc message in the Amarushataka. One
poem of Adi Shankara's “Amarushataka”  is inscribed on a ‘Stupa’
(Pillar) at Nagarjunakonda in AndhraPradesh. This stupa  can be said
to be athree  
dimensional
representation of the Amarushataka. This show that even the Buddhists
of his timewere
influenced by his Advaita philosophy. This inscription probably also
throws some light on the times  of Adi Shankara, albeit indirectly.
 
Regards,
Sunil
KB
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster< at >advaita-vedanta.org

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

V Subrahmanian — 2013-05-21T16:32:02

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36< at >gmail.com>wrote:


I understand and appreciate that the above sutra bhAShya is extremely
important for it covers in a nutshell the entire Vedanta prakriyA.
However, it is to be noted that in the above dialogue what is implied is
that when an aspirant attains to true knowledge of the self, there comes
about the realization that 'there are no others' in the pAramArthika.  In
that respect alone the avidyA of that aspirant is admitted to be
'subjective'.  But consider this other dialogue from Shankara in the Bh.G.B
13.2:

//।अत्र आह -- सा अविद्या कस्य इति। यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव। कस्य दृश्यते इति।
अत्र उच्यते -- 'अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते? इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः। कथम्? दृश्यते
चेत् अविद्या' तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि। न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने 'सा कस्य?' इति
प्रश्नो युक्तः। न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने 'गावः कस्य?' इति प्रश्नः अर्थवान्
भवति। ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः। गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात् तत्संबन्धोऽपि
प्रत्यक्ष प्रश्नो निरर्थकः। न तथा अविद्या तद्वांश्च प्रत्यक्षौ, यतः प्रश्नः
निरर्थकः स्यात्। अप्रत्यक्षेण अविद्यावता अविद्यासंबन्धे ज्ञाते, किं तव
स्यात्? अविद्यायाः अनर्थहेतुत्वात् परिहर्तव्या स्यात्। यस्य अविद्या, सः तां
परिहरिष्यति। ननु ममैव अविद्या। जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च
आत्मानम्। जानामि,
न तु प्रत्यक्षेण। अनुमानेन चेत् जानासि, कथं संबन्धग्रहणम्? न हि तव ज्ञातुः
ज्ञेयभूतया अविद्यया तत्काले संबन्धः ग्रहीतुं शक्यते, अविद्याया विषयत्वेनैव
ज्ञातुः उपयुक्तत्वात्। न च ज्ञातुः अविद्यायाश्च संबन्धस्य यः ग्रहीता,
ज्ञानं च अन्यत् तद्विषयं संभवति; अनवस्थाप्राप्तेः। यदि ज्ञात्रापि
ज्ञेयसंबन्धो ज्ञायते, अन्यः ज्ञाता कल्प्यः स्यात्, तस्यापि अन्यः, तस्यापि
अन्यः इति अनवस्था अपरिहार्या। *यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं
ज्ञेयमेव। तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति।* यदा च एवम्,
अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति।।

One can read the entire dialogue in the Alladi Mahadeva Sastry's
translation with great clarity on pages 332 onwards.  In the bhashyam we
see, in the highlighted portion, that Shankara is establishing that avidyA
is a viShaya, object, to the viShayI, the sAkShin, the knower.  It is in
this sense that I had said that avidyA is an object, a dharma of the
kShetra, the mind, and not an attribute of the subject, the viShayI, the
knower.





Then pl. change the header of the thread since it misleads the readers.


Sri SSS has not understood what is meant by those who talk about 'bhAvarupa
avidyA'.

regards
subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster< at >advaita-vedanta.org

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-21T05:05:33

Namaste
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:

Sankara Bhashya 4 -1 - 3 is saying Kasya Punarayam Aprabodhaha ? Iti Cet
Yastvam Prucchasi Tasya Te Iti Vadaamaha. Nanu Aham Ishwara Evoktaha
Shrutyaa. Yadyevam prati Buddho'si Naasti Kasyacid Aprabodhaha.
'Objection - To Whom does this non-waking belong?
Answer - We reply 'To You who ask this question!'
Objection -  But Sruti teaches that I am Ishwara Himself.
Answer - If you are thus awakened Then non-waking belongs to none!' SSS
Swamijis book Sankara Vedanta Meemamsa Bhashya Page 73.

This is proving Adi Sankara is thinking Avidyaa is Subjective. There is no
Avidyaa outside mind of person having Adhyaasa. The Avidyaa means
Miconception or Wrong Knowledge.Theory of Avidyaa by Post Sankara authors
is not necessary.

Page 46 Essays on Vedanta -

'That Sankara has not formulated any 'Doctrine of Avidya' to explain
something but has merely drawn our attention to the natural tendency of the
human mind has been made abundantly clear by citing his express statements.
That Gaudapada is equally innocent of any such doctrine and that he is
merely concerned with inviting the attention of the enquirers to the
undeniable Non dual Being and Consciousness or Atman of the Upanishads will
be clear from the following -

Anyathaa Grunhataha Svapno Nidraa Tattwamajaanataha |
Viparyase Tayoho Ksheene Tureeyam Padam Ashnute || GK 1 - 15

'Dream appertains to him who takes Reality to be otherwise and sleep to him
who knows not Reality; when the Misconception of both these is removed one
attains the fourth abode'.



For understanding the above statement we have to know what is Jeeva? This
Jeeva is also Avidyaa Kalpita. The person with natural Adhyaasa has
Misconception like this. I am having a body. I think I am this body. He has
imagined some other persons or some Sastra books. They will tell him No you
are not body but you are transmigrating Soul called as Jeeva. Then he will
start thinking I am Jeeva. His Jeeva-tva is also imagined by him.


Good definition. But why this Theory? The Snake in Rope is a Misconception
of a person A. The Snake is Subjective. It is only for that person A.
Another person B can see the Rope. If person A with Misconception will
explain  Theory of Illusion to B and say the Snake is made of Avidyaa
material and the material is Not Sat Not Asat the second person B will
laugh.


Adi Sankara and Gaudapada will say the dependent reality is a Misconception
in the mind of the Person with that Avidyaa.


Regards

-Venkatesh

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-20T15:50:52

Namaste
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:


Is Avidyaa SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE? Is Avidyaa Outside or Inside me?

In the Bhashya Adi Sankara 4- 1- 3 below is making clear statement Avidyaa
is SUBJECTIVE only. It belongs to person having Adhyaasa. If Avidyaa is
ONLY in person having Adhyaasa that person's Avidyaa Kalpita Ishwara and
Avidyaa Kalpitaa Maayaa Shakti are also there. If Avidyaa is SUBJECTIVE
Ishwara and His Maayaa are ALSO Subjective only. You can say Ishwara and
Maaya Shakti are known because of Sastra. But Sastra also is Avidyaa
Kalpita of person having Adhyaasa. Sastra is also imagined by that person.
In that Avidyaa Kalpita Sastra it is written there is a Ishwara and His
Maayaa. Ishwara becomes Avidyaa Kalpita of person with Adhyaasa only. His
Maayaa becomes Avidyaa Kalpitaa of person with Adhyaasa only.

Very Important Sankara Bhashya 4 -1 - 3 is saying Kasya Punarayam
Aprabodhaha ? Iti Cet Yastvam Prucchasi Tasya Te Iti Vadaamaha. Nanu Aham
Ishwara Evoktaha Shrutyaa. Yadyevam prati Buddho'si Naasti Kasyacid
Aprabodhaha.
'Objection - To Whom does this non-waking belong?
Answer - We reply 'To You who ask this question!'
Objection -  But Sruti teaches that I am Ishwara Himself.
Answer - If you are thus awakened Then non-waking belongs to none!' SSS
Swamijis book Sankara Vedanta Meemamsa Bhashya Page 73.

This above Bhashya is showing Adi Sankara thinks the Avidyaa that is
Adhyaasa is SUBJECTIVE. The Teekaakaaras have not understood his teaching
and they are teaching some OBJECTIVE Avidyaa attached to Brahma. That is
wrong.

If Sri SSS had studied the vivarana positions and understood them correctly
Sankhyan line but I am saying that. I did not find his statement like this.
But he is saying Adi Sankara never teaches Objective Avidyaa and He never
teaches the Avidyaa is same as Ishwara's Maayaa also. He is against Bhaava
Roopa Avidyaa.

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-20T11:47:43

Namaste Sri Rajaram

I strongly disagree with your statement because you have not gone through
all my earlier e-mails and you will find evidence given by the respected
Swamiji.
Kindly don't make irresponsible statements.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:54 PM, <rajaramvenk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

2013-05-20T10:24:28

I disagree with Sri Venkatesh because he does not substantiate his charge against post sankara advaitins with proper evidence. 

However, is it valid assertion that in advaita Ishwara is never a creation of jIvA? In Eka jIva vAdA, the jIvA ascribes jagat kAranatvam to an anAdi Ishwara using an anAdi shruti as pramana but they exist due avidya, which has jIvA as the locus and its drshti (sankalpa) as the basis.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:56:31 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/wxK< at >public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:

In the Br.Up. 1.4.10 bhashya Shankara establishes avidyA for Brahman (not
jIva).

That one is kartA/bhoktA, sukhI, duHkhI, is what is imagined due to
avidyA.  That there is Ishwara as the jagatkAraNam and it is His shakti
that creates the world, that Ishwara is the karmaphaladAtA, etc. are never
the imagination of the jIva.  It is shruti that gives / informs one on
these concepts.

That the entire samsaAra, bandha-mokSha vyavasthA, etc, is within mAyA is
not disputed.  But to say that Ishwara, shruti, etc. are all jIvakalpanA
has no basis in Advaita shAstra.  Shankara has, in more than one place,
demonstrated that avidya is a viShaya for the jiva/aspirant, through
dialogues, in the B G B and vehemently denies that avidyA is  subjective.
It is on the reasoning that it is objective, vishaya, for the sAkshI that
Shankara establishes that it (avidyA) is dRshya, mithya.   If it is
subjective, it would never go.

In the sUtasamhitA chapter 2 TIkA, Swami Vidyaranya says:

//sA (Ishwarasya shaktiH) cha sattvarajastamoguNAtmikA api na
sAnkhyAbhimata pradhAnavat  svatantrA, kintu Ishvarasya paratantrA
ityaashayena shaktirityuktam. 'shaktiriti paratantratAmAha' iti
vivaraNAchAryAH'.  //

[She (Ishvara's shakti) is of the nature of sattva rajas and tamo guNa-s
and NOT an independent entity as admitted by the sAnkhya shAstra but is a
dependent entity under Ishwara.  With this in mind Veda Vyasa says in the
sUtasamhitA...shakti.. The vivaraNAchAryAs have said 'shakti is said to be
dependent entity'.]

Further says Vidyaranya here:

//ittham bhogya bhoktR bhoga vibhAga kalpikAyAH mAyAyaaH kalpitatvAt
mAyAtItaparashivavyatirekeNa paramArthato na bhaava iti//

[Thus, the projectrix, mAyA,  of the divisions of enjoyment, enjoyer and
enjoyed is Herself an unreal entity, and she has no existence apart from
that of Supreme Shiva who is beyond mAyA.]

In the recent meet at Bangalore it was clarified that the above is the
shAstrakRta kalpanA for adhyAropa-apavAda purpose and not jIvakRta
kalpanaa.

Thus, Vidyaranya is making clear that the VivaraNAchAryas hold:

1. the VedAntic mAyA  to be different from the sAnkhya-s' and as a
dependent entity functioning under Shiva   (....kinkarI yasya sA mAyA
shankaraachAryam Ashraye..)

2.  mAyA, being herself unreal, has no reality/existence  apart from
Ishawra.

By saying this Vidyaranya is clarifying the obvious Vivarana and ShAnkaran
position that mAyA in vedanta is not like the sAnkhyan prakRti/pradhAna and
that mAyA has no reality.

If Sri SSS had studied the vivarana positions and understood them correctly
(as shown above) he would not have mistaken it to be taking a sAnkhyan line
and the 'bhAvarUpa' adjective really means: it does not have an independent
reality/existence.

What is paratantra satya is no different from the rope-snake.  The
superimposed snake is said to 'exist' only on the basis of the
existence/reality of the rope.  No one can give a non rope-snake example
for the concept of  paratantra satya.  For, just like the rope is the
sattAprada for the superimposed snake, Brahman is the sattAprada for the
mAyA (and through it, to the entire world/jivas) which is a dependent
tattva.  Any paratantrasatya entity is devoid of its own
reality/existence:  'sva sattA shUnyatve sati anyasattA-adhInasattAkatvam
paratantra satyatvam' is the comprehensive, crisp definition for the
paratantra satyatvam.

All systems admit only a dependent reality for the world/jivas.  It is only
advaita that explicitly says they are mithyA.  The others do not say this
for fear of becoming non-different from Advaita.

regards
subrahmanian.v

_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+6BGkLq7r< at >public.gmane.org

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

V Subrahmanian — 2013-05-20T06:26:31



In the Br.Up. 1.4.10 bhashya Shankara establishes avidyA for Brahman (not
jIva).




That one is kartA/bhoktA, sukhI, duHkhI, is what is imagined due to
avidyA.  That there is Ishwara as the jagatkAraNam and it is His shakti
that creates the world, that Ishwara is the karmaphaladAtA, etc. are never
the imagination of the jIva.  It is shruti that gives / informs one on
these concepts.

That the entire samsaAra, bandha-mokSha vyavasthA, etc, is within mAyA is
not disputed.  But to say that Ishwara, shruti, etc. are all jIvakalpanA
has no basis in Advaita shAstra.  Shankara has, in more than one place,
demonstrated that avidya is a viShaya for the jiva/aspirant, through
dialogues, in the B G B and vehemently denies that avidyA is  subjective.
It is on the reasoning that it is objective, vishaya, for the sAkshI that
Shankara establishes that it (avidyA) is dRshya, mithya.   If it is
subjective, it would never go.

In the sUtasamhitA chapter 2 TIkA, Swami Vidyaranya says:

//sA (Ishwarasya shaktiH) cha sattvarajastamoguNAtmikA api na
sAnkhyAbhimata pradhAnavat  svatantrA, kintu Ishvarasya paratantrA
ityaashayena shaktirityuktam. 'shaktiriti paratantratAmAha' iti
vivaraNAchAryAH'.  //

[She (Ishvara's shakti) is of the nature of sattva rajas and tamo guNa-s
and NOT an independent entity as admitted by the sAnkhya shAstra but is a
dependent entity under Ishwara.  With this in mind Veda Vyasa says in the
sUtasamhitA...shakti.. The vivaraNAchAryAs have said 'shakti is said to be
dependent entity'.]

Further says Vidyaranya here:

//ittham bhogya bhoktR bhoga vibhAga kalpikAyAH mAyAyaaH kalpitatvAt
mAyAtItaparashivavyatirekeNa paramArthato na bhaava iti//

[Thus, the projectrix, mAyA,  of the divisions of enjoyment, enjoyer and
enjoyed is Herself an unreal entity, and she has no existence apart from
that of Supreme Shiva who is beyond mAyA.]

In the recent meet at Bangalore it was clarified that the above is the
shAstrakRta kalpanA for adhyAropa-apavAda purpose and not jIvakRta
kalpanaa.

Thus, Vidyaranya is making clear that the VivaraNAchAryas hold:

1. the VedAntic mAyA  to be different from the sAnkhya-s' and as a
dependent entity functioning under Shiva   (....kinkarI yasya sA mAyA
shankaraachAryam Ashraye..)

2.  mAyA, being herself unreal, has no reality/existence  apart from
Ishawra.

By saying this Vidyaranya is clarifying the obvious Vivarana and ShAnkaran
position that mAyA in vedanta is not like the sAnkhyan prakRti/pradhAna and
that mAyA has no reality.

If Sri SSS had studied the vivarana positions and understood them correctly
(as shown above) he would not have mistaken it to be taking a sAnkhyan line
and the 'bhAvarUpa' adjective really means: it does not have an independent
reality/existence.

What is paratantra satya is no different from the rope-snake.  The
superimposed snake is said to 'exist' only on the basis of the
existence/reality of the rope.  No one can give a non rope-snake example
for the concept of  paratantra satya.  For, just like the rope is the
sattAprada for the superimposed snake, Brahman is the sattAprada for the
mAyA (and through it, to the entire world/jivas) which is a dependent
tattva.  Any paratantrasatya entity is devoid of its own
reality/existence:  'sva sattA shUnyatve sati anyasattA-adhInasattAkatvam
paratantra satyatvam' is the comprehensive, crisp definition for the
paratantra satyatvam.

All systems admit only a dependent reality for the world/jivas.  It is only
advaita that explicitly says they are mithyA.  The others do not say this
for fear of becoming non-different from Advaita.

regards
subrahmanian.v

Re: Do not bring Sankhya into Suddha Sankara Advaita

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-20T05:11:59

Namaste

Sankara Vedanta is saying Avidya is natural for men. Naisargika. The Avidya
is nothing but Adhyaasa. This is Superimposition of Self and not Self. The
Avidyaa is making us to imagine a Ishwara and His Maayaa Shakti. The Maayaa
Shakti is the cause of the World. This means the whole World is imagined
through Adhyaasa.

Summary - Adi Sankara is saying Adhyaasa is responsible for Maayaa. Maaya
is Avidyaa Kalpitaa. Imagined through Ignorance. But Post Sankara
sub-commentators are saying Avidyaa and Maayaa are both same.

Good and Bad parts of Maayaa are both imagined only. They are False.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM, <rajaramvenk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote: