gmane.culture.religion.advaita

vishwarupa and sureshwara are same

Venkata sriram P — 2013-06-19T21:04:32

Namaste,
In mAnasOllAsa-kArikA, rAma teertha says:
iha hi bhagavAn bhAsyakAraH srImad sankarAchAryanAmAmandamatIn tattvajignAsUnanugruhItuM dakSiNAmUrtistOtra vyAjEnasamastavEdAntarahasyAvishchakAra dashabhiH padya bandhaiH //
tat shiSaiH VISHWARUPACHARYAIH SURESHWARA-PARANAMABHIHtat padya bandhArthatattvaM tAtparyatO mAnasOllAsa nAmnA vArtikAtmanAgrandhasandarbhENAviSkrutaM //
regs,sriram

Mandana Mishra

subhanu saxena — 2013-06-19T19:22:27

Bhaskar wrote: BTW, I read somewhere that even mandana mishra too talks about the advaitins who propagate the theory of avidyOpadAnakAraNa !!  Do you have 
any reference from this brahmasiddhi prabhujiNamasteThere are two important references in Brahma Siddhi:brahmakāṇda Page 10 a reference to the tradition we find later in vivaraṇam of ignorance as upādāna kāraṇam : tathā choktam avidyopādānabhedavādibhih "anādiraprayojanā avidyā" itiSo it is said by those who speak of the difference from ignorance as upādāna kāraṇam "ignorance is beginningless and without purpose"
brahmakāṇda page 26 direct reference to a separate school that is Shankara's:tathāparaih "adhyāropāpavādābhyām niṣprapancham prapanchyate"And so say others "that which is beyond the manifested is made manifest by the method of false attribution and retraction"You can see here a very early direct separation of the school of Shankara and the school that later become known as vivaraṇam
Maṇdaṇa is worthy of study as a senior figure in the advaita tradition who forged his own path. Leaving aside the historical theories of who he was, the study of the similarity anddifferences between him and Suresvara and Shankara are highly instructive (eg tarka kāṇda page 42 on paurvāparyatā). Some of his views I notice have also been wrongly attributed by some to SSS (eg seed sprout causality)RegardsSubhanu       
_______________________________________________
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

The concept of 'bhAvarUpa' in shAnkara bhAShyam

V Subrahmanian — 2013-06-19T17:31:40

In the Chandogya upanishad bhashyam for the mantra 6.2.2 there is a brief
discussion on the refutation of the bauddha thought.  As a part of this
discussion Shankara says:

//atha samvRttyA abhyupagatam bIjasamsthAnarUpam upamRdyate iti chEt. kEyam
samvRtir-nAma? kim asau abhAvah uta bhAvaH? iti. yadi abhAvaH,
dRShTAntAbhAvaH. atha bhAvaH, tathApi na abhAvAt ankurotpattiH,
bIjAvayavebhyo hi ankurotpattiH.//

The translation as given by Swami Gambhirananda for the above is:

//Objection: Again, if it is said that the configuration in the form of the
seed accepted in popular usage (samvRttyA) gets destroyed?  Reply: What is
this thing that is called *popular usage*?  Is that existence or
non-existence? If it is non-existence, no illustration can be cited (in
support).  If, on the contrary, it is existence, even then the sprout does
not come out of non-existence (as held by the buddhist).  For the sprout is
born from the constituents of the seed.//

In the gloss, Anandagiri says for the word 'samvRti' of the bhashyam:
'tattvam yayA saMvRiyatE AcChAdyatE sA samvRtiH - laukikI buddhiH.  sA chEt
bhAvarUpA iShTA tayA bIjAvayavAnAm ankurAkArapariNAma-siddhEH dRShTAnta
asiddhiH ityarthaH.

['samvRti' is that concealment of the truth which is otherwise known as
vyAvahAra buddhi (translated by Sw.G as 'popular usage.' ) If this
concealment is admitted to be bhAvarUpa, of an existent type, then there
will be no analogy to offer (by the bauddha) since it is well known that it
is the constituent parts of the seed that get transformed into the sprout
(and not some existent (or non-existent) samvRtiH, concealment/AvaraNa.]

This word 'samvRtiH' is used in the GaudapAda kArikA 4.57 too:

samvRtyA jAyatE sarvam  shAshvatam nAsti tena vai....

[57 The entire universe is created by false knowledge; therefore nothing in
it is eternal. Everything, again, as one with Ultimate Reality, is unborn;
therefore there is no such thing as destruction.]

Shankara says for that word 'samvRtyA' - samvRtyA = saMvaraNam saMvRtiH
avidyAviShayaH laukiko vyavahAraH tayA samvRttyA jAyate sarvam....

[everything is produced by concealment (note: Anandagiri's above-stated
word 'AvaraNam') consisting in the empirical outlook within the domain of
ignorance....  Sw.G]  For this bhashya too Anandagiri says: avidyayA
sarvasya jAyamAnatvE sati avidyAviShayE nityam nAma nAstyEva...[since
everything is born of ignorance, there is nothing that can be called
eternal...]

In the bhashyam to the G.kArikA 4.92 Shankara uses this word again: jnEyatA
api dharmANAm samvRtyA eva, na paramArthataH... [As for the souls being
objects of cognition, that, too, is merely from empirical experience but
not in Reality. Sw.G.]

In the adhyAsabhAShya, at the beginning, we encounter these words:

...mithyAjnAnanimittaH ...naisargiko'yam lokavyavahAraH.

In the Taittiriya bhAShyam for the mantra 'satyam cha anRtam cha satyam
abhavat' where the Upanishad teaches the three types of sattA, Shankara
comments for the first word 'satyam' = vyavahAra-viShayam and for the
second satyam word: paramArtha satyam.

From the above we conclude:


   - The word 'samvRtiH' is used by GaudapAda and Shankara in the context
   of Vedanta and not necessarily in the bauddha-context.
   - It means: avidyA/AvaraNam as per Shankara
   - It also means, by extension, the vyavahArika dRShTi based on ignorance
   of the pAramArthika
   - For Shankara this samvRtiH/avidyA/AvaraNam/vyAvahArika is 'satyam' (as
   per Tai.bhashya) and 'bhAva' (rUpa) as per chAndogya bhashyam.
   - And the usage in all places, in the chandogya as well as in the
   G.K.bhashya is unmistakably as the upAdAna kAraNam for the world. This is
   known from the seed-sprout example Shankara takes for the refutation of the
   bauddha view.  The seed constituents are the ones that transform into the
   sprout.  Hence it is the upAdAna kAraNam.  Shankara is considering the
   possibility of the samvRti (ignorance/AvaraNam/avidyA) being a bhAva or
   abhAva vastu (for the emergence of the sprout as per the bauddha, and by
   final implication the entire world - for he holds abhAva (non-existence) is
   the source of the world).  In the vedanta siddhAnta, however, the sat,
   which is bhAva, is the upAdAna kAraNam for the jagat. Thus, the discussion
   here is the bhAvarUpa kAraNam (samvRti, avidyA) as the upAdAna kAraNam for
   the jagat.
   - In Advaita, Sat/brahman is the vivartopAdAna kAraNam for the jagat and
   avidyA/ajnAnam/mAyA/prakRti is the pariNAmyupAdAnam.  Brahman is
   niShkriya/nirvikArI being ekam and cannot be held to 'transfrom' into the
   jagat; It can only appear as the jagat.  prakRti, however, being made of
   sattva, rajas and tamas, is the one which transforms into the jagat.
   - The vyAvahArika is a certain 'satyam' for Shankara, as distinguished
   from the paramArthika satyam.
   - Since samvRti is called laukika vyAvahAra by shankara, and also
   bhAvarUpa, it is also 'satyam', though of the vyavaharika type.
   - Hence, the avidyA/samvRti/vyavahAra is said to be bhAvarUpa, not on
   par with pAramArthika.
   - This is the meaning of bhAvarUpa upAdAna kAraNam that is
   avidyA/samvRti.

subrahmanian.v

Paroksha to Aparoksha

Venkata sriram P — 2013-06-18T06:13:27

Namaste,
 
//
I wonder if at all there is absolute silence from the sages like ramaNa
//
 
1) mounaM charati iti muniH 
2) mananAt muniH uchyatE
3) mounaM mantrArtha chintanaM
 
So, mouna is muni-lakSaNa; then what is mouna? The answer is obvious that
it is nirantara-manana lakSaNa of muni.  So, mouna is not put blank faces and staring at guru.  This is not the method of learning.
 
It is "taila-dhArAvat upaniSad mantrArtha chintanaM" which results in nidhidhyAsana. This teaching was imparted through chinmudra of dakshinamurty.  The crux is to understand
this mudra and hence Sankara says "bhadrayA mudrayA".
 
regs,
sriram

Paroksha to Aparoksha

Venkata sriram P — 2013-06-18T04:58:17

mahAkavi kALidAsa in raghuvaMsha writes a beautiful sloka while describes the 
traits of raghu dynasty.
 
jnAnE maunaM kSamA shaktau tyAgE shlAghAviparyayaH /
guNA guNAnubandhitvAttasya saprasavA iva //
 
So, mauna lakSaNa is the guNa of true jnAni. 
 
regs,
sriram

Paroksha to Aparoksha

2013-06-17T20:46:23

In performance of action, there is definite result that one can know such as attainment of wealth, heaven etc. In performance of bhakti, there is clear result in terms of seeing and serving bhagavan. Even in paroksha jnana, there is clear knowledge of conclusion of advaita vedanta that  can be verified by others. How can one know that one is an aparoksha jnani? After repeated manana and nidhidhyasana, one may delude oneself in to thinking I am a jnani and it is only my mind and body acting out its nature though he may have kama and krodha. Is it not?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Can Jivan Mukta become bound again a if he offendsIshwara?

Venkata sriram P — 2013-06-17T14:16:36

satva guNAs and amAnitvAdi lakSaNAs are achieved through "Ishwara praNIdhAna".  How can a jeevanmukta do apachAra to such an Ishwara?
 
sri sureshwara in naishkarmya siddhi says that even the mumukSu cannot think of 
svEcchAchAra then what to speak of a jnAni.  
 
Humility becomes the alamkAra to a jnAni therefore one can't think of such an act by him.
 
regs,
sriram

Can Jivan Mukta become bound again a if he offendsIshwara?

2013-06-17T06:55:08

Hare Krishna. What is the sastra (shruti) pramana that a jIvan muktA will not become bound again whatever he does after self-realisation due to prarabda and purva karma vasana? I found the following smrti verse, which says that a jivan mukta will become bound by karma if he offends the lord! 

jévanmuktä api punar bandhanaù yänti karmabhiùyady acintya-mahä-çaktau bhagavatyiaparädhinaù

The jévanmuktas again become bound by karma if they commit offense to theLord, possessor of inconceivably great energies
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Mandana Misra's Advaita

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-06-17T04:38:25

Namaste

In Vedanta Prakriya Pratyabhijna or Method of Vedanta Sri SSS has said this
-

Avidyaa Lakshanam Vispashtatayaa Na Achaarya Mandanena Kutraapi Nishkrushya
Uktam Drushyate.

Mandana Acharya has not given a clear definition of Ignorance anywhere.

Atra Avidyaa Bhagavatpaadaihi Atmaanatmanoho Satyaanrutayoho Itaretara
Adhyaasa Roopatvena Sootrabhaashyasya Upodghaate Eva Sootritaa Geetaa
Bruhadaaranyakayor Api Paraamrushtaa Kimiti Na Kataakshenaapi Veekshitaa
Brahma Siddhi Kaarena Iti Tu Na Viijnaayate.

'Bhagavatpada Sankara declared in the introduction to his Brahma Sutra
Commentary that Metaphysical Ignorance was of the nature of a
superimposition of Self on not Self, the real on unreal and vice versa. And
he explained the matter further in his Gita and Brhadaranyaka commentaries.
Why Mandana the author of Brahma Siddhi did not even bestow a glance on
these passages is not clear.'

Why he is saying Mandana is not noticing Adi Sankara's Adhyasa Bhashya?
Mandana Misra wrote his work before Adi Sankara Or afterwards?

Upanayanam question

Abhinand Abhinand — 2013-06-16T10:16:11

Pranams,
I have heard this:
For any ritual 3 or more than 3 Jyeshtas are not permitted. The shloka goes like jyesthatraya varjayeth... (unable to recollect
the whole).

In this case, there is a jyestha putra & jyeshta masa in case the karta or karta's patni is jyestha nakshatra or jyeshta putra/putri or if the day of upanayana is jyeshta nakshatra, then this is ruled out.

In another special case, jyestha putra & jyesta putri should not be married in jyesta masa or jyesta nakshatra.

Forgive me for any unknown errors.

Thanks
Abhinand

Satsang with Brahmasri Nochur Venkataraman at Bangalore

V Subrahmanian — 2013-06-15T11:49:51

Announcing a satsang with Brahmasri Nochur Venkataraman at Bangalore on
Saturday the* 22nd June, 2013* at *Sri Ramashankara Prasada*, No.537, 22nd
Cross, BSK 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560070 from *5.00 to 6.30 PM*.  *The talk
by the revered speaker will be in English*.  Contact organizers at:  Phone
080-26714992 and Sri Gopalakrishna at 9845121153.

Here is a brief profile of Br.Sri Nochur Venkataraman:

http://legendsinmusic.ucoz.com/index/sri_nochur_venkataraman/0-20

Sri Nochur Venkatraman belongs to the parampara of sages like Adi Sankara
and Ramana Maharishi. He is not a ‘swami’ in the usual sense and yet
devotees call him so considering his realization.Upanishadic wisdom flows
through him with unsurpassed clarity. His discourses on bhakthi and jnana
reflect the genuine source of wisdom in him. A brilliant speaker with
greatknowledge of Sanskrit, Sri Nochur Venkataraman hails from Nochur
village
near Palakad in Kerala. Proficient in Malayalam and Tamil, Nochur’s
upanayasam of Srimad Baghavatham is a treat to listen.

He is one YouTube too.

Regards
subrahmanian.v

Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance,Deep Sleep

Anand Hudli — 2013-06-12T03:11:45

It is clear that any state that is itself a superimposition (adhyAsa,
avidyA or avidyA-kalpita) is necessarily associated with duality, else
there would result a contradiction - something that is a superimposition is
identical with Brahman, the sole reality. Applying this reasoning to the
deep sleep state (suShupti) (and the other two states as well), it follows
that this sleep state falls within the realm of dvaita after all, since it
is after all a superimposition (on the Self).  And what could be the
duality here? It is Brahman and AvidyA in a seed form. Although, this state
has been said to lead to "ekatva", this "ekatva" has to be taken only
figuratively or relative to the two other states, waking and dream, and not
in an absolute sense. The sleep state has ekatva in the sense there are no
perceived objects. Nevertheless, it does have avidyA, otherwise it would
not be a superimposition!

The upAdhis in the waking state are latent in the sleep state. Shankara
says as much in his bhAShya on 2.3.31, "evamayamapi buddhisaMbandhaH
shaktyAtmanA vidyamAna eva suShuptapralayayoH punaH
prabodhaprasavayorAvirbhavati" Thus, this association with the intellect is
latent in sleep and dissolution and is manifested again in waking and
creation. The analogy cited here is that manhood that is latent in a boy,
but manifests itself fully when the boy comes of age. He also cites the
Chandogya upanishad 6.9.3 to assert that waking from sleep is because of
the existence of avidyA in seed form, "suShuptAd
utthAnamavidyAtmakabIjasadbhAvakAritam".

So we have: avidyA bIja causes adhyAsa in the waking and dream states, and
according to followers of SSS, suShupti itself is fashioned by avidyA,
where avidyA is adhyAsa (tametamevaMlakShaNam adhyAsaM paNDitA avidyeti
manyante). It follows that the avidyA bIja is also fashioned by adhyAsa .
This starts to look like the classical case of seed and sprout (bIjAnkura)
where the seed gives rise to the sprout and the sprout gives rise to the
seed. Which is the basic cause - the seed or the sprout? One reason why
Shankara did not emphasize too much either the seed or sprout as the basic
cause is perhaps because such theories of causation (kArya-kAraNa-bhAva)
have been refuted in the Alatashanti PrakaraNa of the mANDUkya kArikas
(example, 4.20). Shankara clearly agrees (4.19) that any theory of
causation cannot be substantiated (hetuphalayoH kAryakAraNabhAva
anupapatteH) and that the absence of birth (ajAti) of everything is
highlighted by the learned. What exists cannot be born, because it always
is. There is no time when it was not existing and then came into existence.
What does not exist cannot be born too because it never is.

Anand

New member

Jaldhar H. Vyas — 2013-06-11T23:11:25

C.R. Bala
---------

I would like to join this advaita group to learn and also to share my
readings and the advaita books that I have read through. here is my brief
introduction.

I am learing krishna yajur veda taitriya samhita from my gurunatha in
chennai. Meanwhile I have also completed a course in manuscriptology
(reading grantha script) from rashtriya sanskrit vidyapeeth, tirupati.

Upanayanam question

Bhaskar YR — 2013-06-11T12:11:43

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Is there any rule that one should not perform upanayanaM to jyeshTa putra 
(elder son) in jyeshTa mAsa ??  If yes, kindly let me know whether there 
is  any shanti / prayaschitta karma to be observed to get rid of the 
dOsha.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

New members

Jaldhar H. Vyas — 2013-06-11T04:14:33

Rohini
------

I am interested in knowing more about advaita as originally postulated by
Shankara.


Santosh Rao
-----------

Kindly subscribe me to this list. I am interested in following the
discussions. Am a regular Veda chanter at multiple temples here in this area
chanting all Suktams as well as Rudram, Taitriya Upanishad and continuing to
learn and expand my chanting.

Thanks and Rgds,
S Rao

Kathopanishat Article series - Part 28

V Subrahmanian — 2013-06-07T17:32:04

The Part 28 of the article series on the Kathopanishat is available here
for reading:


http://www.advaita-academy.org/Articles/kaThopaniShad-Series-Part---28.ashx

regards
subrahmanian.v

good tidings from Roshan Mandal

Roshan Mandal — 2013-06-07T14:50:03

    

http://chtarchive.com/rbarh/dasyyumtwpktjhp.rqlwq

Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance,Deep Sleep

subhanu saxena — 2013-06-06T20:06:26

Karthik wrote:
 
The upadeshasaahasrii 1.14.19:

AtmA hyAtmiiya ityeSha bhAvo.avidyAprakalpitaH .
Atmaikatve hyasau nAsti bIjAbhAve kutaH phalam

 "HOW CAN THERE BE A FRUIT WITH AN UNREAL (abhAva) SEED (bIja)?"

Hi Kartik 20 push ups for your translation:  it simply translates as "in the absence of a seed from where is the fruit? " In other words without the cause (avidya, our wrong notion) where is the effect (me and mine) when the unity of atman is established? See BUBV 2.3.456 avidyAyAH svabhAvo'yam yadasat karaNam mriSA. The nature of ignorance is that it falsely creates that which does not exist.

Just following this chain it struck me it would be great to have a mini advaita-l goshthi as live discourse is a much more conducive way of atma vichara, plus more fun to meet and network with fellow sadhakas. I am now settled into my new home in Mumbai and would be happy to host a meet of folks in case people have plans to come through any time. Do let me know

Subhanu

Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance,Deep Sleep

subhanu saxena — 2013-06-06T16:48:17

Vidyasankar wrote: The only way to say, within our vyavahAra, that ekatva in mukti will not be an

ajnAna hetu unlike in the sushupti
state, is to acknowledge that in sushupti,there is a seed form of avidyA, a
bIja, that persists, but not so in mukti.

Thank you for making this very pertinent observation. The
difference we are told is that it is because our false notions have not been
removed that we falsely imagine this seed form in deep sleep. So to Karthik’s
comment that there is SOMETHING (I am
sticking to his capitalisation) that remains in deep sleep, there is no quarrel
if we say we falsely imagine this SOMETHING because we have not known atman,
since this SOME THING is NO THING other than THAT THING which is Atman when our
false notions are removed.

With regards Karthik’s requirement that this therefore must
be a non-unreal entity, I have shown in my original post that in Suresvara’s
delineation of Shankara’s sampradāya this is refuted . I have provided this a
long time ago that BUBV 1.4.425 refutes
that ignorance can be both existent and non existent. The name and form fashioned
by ignorance can be confused as tattvānyatvābhyām anirvachanῑya because of this
ignorance of atman, which is the anirvachanῑyakhyāti approved by Suresvara.

This has raised in my mind a key question. I have shown over
various posts that there are a number of key points where Suresvara diverges
from the vivaraṇa tradition:

-mithyājñānam is a
false notion and not an indescribable ignorance outside of superimposition.
Suresvara always uses mithyā as false not anirvachanῑya

- Refuting that bhāvarūpatva of avidyā as necessary to
distinguish it as a not unreal entity instead of a completely unreal entity
like a hare’s horn (jñānābhāvo’thavā sarvam avidyaiveti nischitah BUBV
1.4.1439, Suresvara’s usage of the hare’s horn analogy in the opposite sense)

-The only cause admitted is the unknown atman established by
our experience due to lack of critical reflection
As I have reflected on this the question that comes to mind is that, given the clear cut
differences, why has this not been more widely understood? I can think of 3
possible reasons:

1)
It has been acknowledged but ignored /superceded
by later vivaraṇa school writers because they remained unsatisfied with
Suresvara refusing to acknowledge the question “why is the Atman unknown?” as a
legitimate question. This could be why Suresvara’s works are not prescribed by
current orthodox teachers who direct students to Panchadasi and other works
over Suresvara. I have certainly seen this happen. An additional reason I have
also been given by teachers as well as seekers is that Suresvara’s works are
too vast and inaccessible. This to my mind is a pity

2)
There is a view within the vivaraṇa tradition
that Suresvara does not represent the true tradition of Shankara. Interestingly
I have met some scholars of the orthodox tradition who have expressed this view
to me

3)
Suresvara has not been deeply studied by many,
so these differences are not well understood. I would also proffer that the original
works of the vivaraṇa tradition have also not been studied by many to understand that the differences
are there. The example I have given is that of Iṣṭa-siddhi so overtly and directly
refuting Suresvara’s conception of ignorance as “I do not know”. Why should
this be the case is worth studying by getting to know both works well. This is one
of the reasons, to answer Bhaskar’s question, I am championing the propagation of the study
of Suresvara as a treasure trove that can unlock much wisdom for the seeker by
helping to deeply test one’s understanding.

I also think it has all been said a number of times now, and
those that have not taken a view can assess for themselves their approach. If you take the view that the orthodox
tradition is right then I wish you all the best for your sādhanā. If you take
the view that Holenarsipur Swami’s prakriyā is more in line with Shankara’s
teaching then I also wish you all the best for your sādhanā. Intellectual
debate to deepen understanding should always result in the right sādhanā to
allow knowledge to accrue and render the discourse irrelevant.

Regards

Subhanu

-
_______________________________________________
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

New member introduction

Jaldhar H. Vyas — 2013-06-06T03:48:42

Sadish
------

I am beginner in learning yajur vedha. Intersted in learning the inner 
meaning and wisdom from vedha.

Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance,Deep Sleep

subhanu saxena — 2013-06-05T20:27:52

Namaste to all, combining a few comments received:

VS: The thinking that there is no avidyA in deep sleep has arisen because of

the mistaken
idea that the jIva has satsampatti with the shuddha svarUpam.

Karthik: If Deep Sleep were really the paramArtha state, would Sankara askus to reject it or remain in it?
I am mystified why people are somehow still attributing the above views to SSS or any school. I obviously did a poor job explaining it last time, so here goes one final attempt. If I am still not clear then apologies: 1) The imaginary notion that the self is asleep, awake or dreaming is itself one of ignorance as all these states are superimposed. Please see BUBV 2.1.265 suptah prabuddha ityevam svapnam pashyati cheti nah. Vikalpa eṣa bhūtānām avidyā-rātri-shāyinām2) As such, other than as a provisional notion, nobody can claim that deep sleep is an actual paramārtha state, and that jῑva has satsampatti in with the shuddha svarūpam3) Now to state that an ignorance outside of superimposition is somehow is present when the ingredients for empirical transaction are not available is where the dfference of views lie: I have given the N.S 3.57 reference on this where Suresvara tells us ignorance is present in deep sleep but that there is nothing to reveal it. Suresvara also explicitly tells us in BUBV 4.3.157 that when there is distinction there is appearance of ignorance, in deep sleep there are no distinctions, as ignorance belongs to the mind, as this is where it is consistently found, not in deep sleep: vibhaktam yat tamo’stῑva nāvibhaktam manāgapi. tamo’nvitattvād buddhyante na prājñe’nanvyayāt tamah4) Now in what sense is the usage “seed” meant? Well, this is simply stating that, because our false notions that we actually pass through states have not been removed (BSB says this explicitly), even though there is no mind to reveal ignorance in deep sleep it can be said to be there in seed form because we still falsely imagine passing from one state to another upon waking. This is why it is perfectly fine to state as Suresvara does that the state of deep sleep is the seed of waking and dream and must be destroyed: asmad yadaparam rūpam nāstῑtyeva nirupyate . anyathāgrhaṇābhāvād bῑjam tat svapnabodhayoh [NS 4.40]. Note he would never say that deep sleep must be destroyed if it actually were the paramārtha state.5) The above is all from the standpoint of adhyāropa. The apavāda tells us that, in all dealings, the cause, if we choose to speak of such, is the inner self, and to speak of the absence of ignorance and its effects is to affirm the sole existence of the Self ever present. So we have the vārtikā : avidyāder abhāvoktya kūṭasthātmaiva bhaṇyate. kāraṇātmā yato’bhāvah kāryākhyasyeha vastunah [BUBV 4.3.1520]. Please also see BUBV 4.3.1528-1529 that state that in all dealings through ignorance the real cause to the extent we speak of causality is just the innermost self. 6) Therefore the teaching is that the provisional dissolution and emerging being postulated is from the Self and not ignorance in fact. This is explicitly stated in Kausitaki Upanishad IV. 19-20. Also, one must never forget that for Suresvara the feeling “I did not know” is not a memory from deep sleep but is simply a false notion.

I hope the above clarifies. I chose not to respond to the
pill and mukti point as I didn’t quite know how to take it and because it is
based on a misapprehension of the position being taken. If the position of the
vivaraṇa tradition is that it does not really postulate an ignorance in deep
sleep that is outside the scope of superimposition then indeed there is no
quarrel.

Regards

Subhanu
_______________________________________________
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