[Advaita-l] An adhyAsa challenge

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> Mr. Kartik Jayanaryanan,
> 
> Namaste.
> 
> > 
> > I hereby challenge you to a debate, you simply
> have to
> > reply to this posting if you accept the following
> > terms of the debate:
> >
> 
> Why call it a challenge?   It is understanding of
> adhyAsa.
> You are welcome to show where my posting on adhyAsa
> is not according to vivaraNa-pramEya-samgraha of Sri
> VidyAraNya.

You said on 30 May 2003, in part II of your postings
on adhyAsa, "According to advaita vEdAnta, the thing
that is the substratum of knowing etc is also inert,
such a thing is called ahamkAra in advaita
vEdaanta..." Now, I would really like to know the
source of that statement, with the original Sanskrit.
If by "substratum of knowing" you mean "substratum of
knowledge", virtually every verse of the
upadeshasaahasrii contradicts you, by saying that the
Atman is the substratum of all knowledge. AFAIK, the
term "ahaMkAra" is only used with regards to action,
not knowledge. 

Also, on 2 June 2003, posting on the thread "adhyAsa
part V", you said : "So it is incorrect to say
*blueness* is superimposed on sky." And Vidyasankar
corrected you by pointing out your error. 

> > 
> > Premise: logic and experience only, no quotes from
> > shruti or smR^iti.
> > 
> 
> If you are not interested in vEdaanta,  I am not
> interested
> in any discussion with you.  But,  if you think
> adhyAsa is
> according to what is in shruti-smriti-sootras,  then
> only
> I am interested.   Therefore,  this premise is not
> acceptable.
> 

The preliminary exposition of adhyAsa requires NO
shAstra. If it did, Self-enquiry wouldn't be as
fundamental or universal an enquiry as advaita VedAnta
presents it to be. I quote from Subhanu Saxena's
excellent article on adhyAsa bhAshhyam at
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm
"His [Shankara's] astonishing introduction to his
Brahma Sutra Bhashyam (BSB), often called the adhyAsa
bhASyam, is, in my view, one of the greatest texts
written on vedanta ... For in it, we find no quotation
from other shastra in this introduction to support his
statements. They are simply outpourings from anubhava,
or experience, ... that belongs to each and every one
of us."

> > A co-existence of the Self that is of the nature
> of
> > consciousness with the body that is of the nature
> of
> > the unconscious ought to be impossible (indeed,
> one
> > might as well consider light to co-exist with
> > darkness), yet, it so happens that people perceive
> a
> > connection between the Self and the body - how do
> you
> > explain this?
> > 
> 
> A little bit of study of Geetha, 

The study of the GItA either with a book or under a
Guru pre-supposes the relationship between the Self
and the body. 

> tells us that body
> is like
> a shirt that we wear.  The jeeva wears it till it
> gets old, then
> throws it away and gets another shirt (body).
> So, when the jeeva gets a new body, we say a child
> is born.
> When a jeeva throws away his body, we say the person
> died.
> That is how we explain it.
> 
> Thus,  jeeva is the deha-abhimAniNI or the enabler
> of body by being in it.  Deha is jada, it can not
> act on its own.
> That is the connection between the two.
> 

Firstly, that does not answer my question.  

Secondly, for your "Self as the controller of the
body" theory, the conscious Self ought to have either
direct or indirect "contact" with the body that is
unconscious. This is impossible, since the Self is of
the nature of pure consciousness (pure = untouched or
unmixed with anything unconscious) and cannot ever
have any kind of contact with an unconscious entity.
One might as well conceive of light as controlling
darkness. 

> > 
> > Consequences: if the referees decide that your
> answer
> > to the above question is invalid, then you will
> > immediately quit your postings on adhyAsa, else
> I'll
> > quit mine. 
> > 
> If moderators ask me to quit,  I will respect their
> decision.
> Why don't you check with  Jaladhar vyAs first?
> 

Just for the record, I only wanted to see if you will
enter into an agreement to quit if the moderators feel
your explanations are not in line with logic and
experience. But you didn't agree with the terms of the
debate, and I'm not interested in discussing this
anymore. 

> I would like to hear from other moderators as well.
> 
> Thanks and regards,

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com