Locus of ignorance

[Guest guest]

it is my

humble opinion that in the event of any mutual contradictions between two

different vyAkhyAnakAra-s, we should necessarily follow or adopt an opinion

which has full support of the original assertions of Sri shankara

bhagavadpAda in his prasthAna traya bhAshya. It is in that spirit, I have

tried to express my opinion with the support of shankara's quotes from

gIta, taitirIya, bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya. If my attempt gives you an

impression that I am propagating my own views, I offer my apologies

prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

As I have said in my previous post, there are different views among

advaitic masters on any number of topics and not only on the locus of

ignorance. With regard to many of those points the number of different views

is not just two or three, but many more, and all the proponents are

recognized masters. Even the great appayya dIkshita about whose learning you

must have heard, merely catalogued all the different views on each topic and

did not make any attempt to sit in judgment to decide which of them is in

accordance with Sankara's view. Do you think you and I will be able to do

what even he has not attempted. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the

great sureSvara has blessed all the different views as different means of

enabling the aspirant to reach the ultimate goal. He says that each aspirant

may accept what appeals to him as correct. We cannot claim to understand

Sankara better than intellectual giants like vAchaspati, padmapAda,

pralASAtman, and others. Even an attempt to do so would be ridiculous.

These different views are all accepted by the scholarly world. The fact

that there are such divergent views on many topics is not generally known

except to those who have made a deep study of all the commentaries of

post-Sankarite advaitins.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Thank you for your reply. I agree with your goodself and Sri Shyamji

that in non-dual Brahman, there is no question of ignorance, let alone

a question of an ashraya for anything.

 

I think it is accepted that the question is asked at the vyavaharic

level alone, and at this level you seem to have given an answer:

avidya is antahkarana vritti alone. My question regards this and I

believe it is a practical question. If avidya is antahkarana vritti,

then what does it mean to destroy avidya? Surely, it means something

more than just dissolving the vritti (as in samadhi or perhaps deep

sleep)?

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Shastriji writes :

 

( Even the great appayya dIkshita about whose learning you

must have heard, merely catalogued all the different views on each

topic and did not make any attempt to sit in judgment to decide which

of them is in accordance with Sankara's view. Do you think you and I

will be able to do what even he has not attempted. )

 

Well said ! Shastriji ! the moment anyone says this is what Adi

Shankara said , i think , it becomes that person's viewpoint or

perspective .( maybe these are the views of ithe Guru they follow as

is obvious from some of the posts ) Better to say , it is my

understanding of what Shankara says! and believe me Understanding can

always be flawed. ( because most of the works are in Samskritam and

only translations are available and the translations may not be always

accurate )

 

Yes !shastriji - deep study or better still deep contemplation is what

is needed and one liftime is not enough ! .

 

in any case , i love what Sunderji has posted on the group page ( it

is a quote and a lovable one at that ! - reminds me of a Zen quote !

 

kuto avidyeti chodyaM syAnnyaiva praagghetvasaMbhavAt.h .

kAlatrayAparichchhitterna chordhvaM chodyasaMbhavaH .. 3:116

 

" Before the rise of knowledge, 'How can nescience arise ?' cannot be

asked, for the nature of the Self supposed to be incompatible with

nescience is not yet known then. After the rise of knowledge, the

question cannot be asked, for knowledge has made it clear that there

was, is and will be no nescience whatever. "

 

Sureshvaracharya - Naishkarmyasiddhi,

(transl. S.S.Raghavachar, 1965)

 

This sums up better in one quote the crux of the whole problem .

 

now , my question to you Shastriji - what is the place of Ishwara in

Advaita ? please explain in layman's language

 

 

thanx

 

with warm regards

[Guest guest]

We cannot claim to understand Sankara better than intellectual giants like

vAchaspati, padmapAda,

pralASAtman, and others. Even an attempt to do so would be ridiculous.

 

praNAms Respected Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

prabhuji, you are jnAna vruddha, vayO vruddha...I donot want to drag you

into the endless debate here & waste your precious time. In my humble

opinion, the other way of looking at the same scenario is that since the

vyAkhyAnakAra-s have conceived of various methodologies or theories and

declaring that " his methodology alone is exclusively the real meaning or

import of the original bhAshya of shankara " , it will be a logical necessity

of a rational mind to determine that which one of these divergent views is

exactly the true teaching of shankara!! Unfortunately today we dont have a

stream lined, well organised system to realize/understand what exactly

shankara siddhAnta is..so, the possibility of the correct understanding of

siddhAnta (both philosophical & spiritual teachings) of shankara is quite

remote here. Therefore, it becomes quite indispensable to formulate

certain methodologies to carry out the deliberation with regard to shankara

siddhAnta. One of those methodology is *stick to shankara's original

bhAshya-s* which are fortunately available on hand for us. As your

goodself pointed out there is no cause for us to doubt that all the post

shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s are scholars, venerable and knowers of tradtions

(saMpradAyavits) & traditional methodology of teachings. But if they

themselves donot accept one another's interpretations or opinions, what

best choice is left for us?? It is quite logical & reasonable to seek the

consent and confirmation of our mUla AchArya Sri shankara bhagavadpAda. is

it not?? Do you think this is a revolutionery method of understanding

shankara saMpradAya?? I dont think so, as you know, if there is a

contradiction in the opinion of shruti & smruti, as a rule of law, we have

to accept the shruti as the valid pramANa...likewise, we have perforce to

give the statement of shri shankara the place it deserved in advaita

saMpradAya. I humbly think this fact cannot be ignored or sidelined or

refuted by any genuine seeker of truth under the tradition of shankara

bhagavadpAda.

 

Prabhuji, I donot want to say anything more on this...If I stretched this

discussion beyond limits kindly pardon me. This is my last post on the

subject *vyAkhyAnakAra Vs Shankara bhagavadpAd*.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Respected readers,

 

I request all the participants to study Sri Shankara's

commentary to mantra 4-4-6 of BruhadAranyaka Upanishad . please

study the portion starting with the sentence " mOkShasya idAnImEva

nirviSEShatvE tadarthADhikayatnAnupapattiH, SAstravaiyarthaM ca

prApnOti iti cEt " and upto the end of the commentary. There Sri

Shankara has clearly shown that one was not, is not and will not be

touched either by vidya or avidya . The ghost of avidya will vanish

once and for all.

 

The one thing the seeker or mumukshu has to do is to relate the

teaching of The Jagadguru Sri Shankara to himself and see the fact

within himself by himself.

 

My Guru used to tell me again and again that It will not be of any

benefit to a mumukshu if he wants to gather information only.I am

sure that the Gurus of the learned members were/are also stressing

this point.

 

As one who has been vastly benefitted vastly by that guidance, I love

to share these points with fellow-travellers on the path.

 

With humble pranams,

Sreenivasa murthy.