[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

Srirudra srirudra at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 05:07:45 CST 2014

If it is said Jiva is Brahman affected with Avidhya then where was Avidhya subsisting?Was it separate from Brahman?How can it be independent.?As per Advaita Brahman is without a second.If Avidhya  is within Brahman or part of Brahman what was the necessity for Brahman to imbibe Avidhya to take the position of Jiva?May be my thinking is wrong or needs correction.
Sent from my iPad

> On 14-Jan-2014, at 4:18 am, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>wrote:
>> Therefore, there is a circular dependency between
>> the two. We cannot understand the concept of jIva without avidyA and we
>> cannot understand the concept of avidyA without jIva. It is  therefore not
>> possible to establish either concept. As stated by vAcaspati, this
>> objection is, avidyopAdhibhedAdhIno jIvabhedo, jIvabhedAdhinashca
>> avidyopAdhibheda iti parasparAshrayAdubhayAsiddhiriti. And he answers the
>> objection by citing the example of the seed and sprout (bIjAnkura nyAya).
>> The seed is the cause of the sprout and the sprout is the cause of the
>> seed. But we accept this in everyday life, because it is impossible to say
>> which came first - the seed or the sprout. Both are without a beginning,
>> anAdi.
> I heard from Dvaita friend that in their system above argument of Sri.
> vAcaspati has been refuted on following grounds;
> beejAnkura anavasta is not a dOSha at all. Anavasta is said to be a flaw
> only in if a proposition is extended to support a human proposed
> pramEya/siddhAnta. This is because the flaw arising from anavasta is
> precisely defined as 'mUlAxaya pareem prAvuHu anavastam Hi dUShaNam '.
> Meaning, given anavasta is said to be dOsha only if the final result in
> such anavasta is an impossibility (one has to be waiting perpetually for
> the determination).
> beejAnkura-anavasta is not such anavasta, for this series is given fact (a
> pratyksha) and the effect (of series) has already taken place. That means,
> in these kind ofanavasta cases where the effect is already established
> (siddha), such cases can not be called dOsha.
> If one calls such series as dOSha, itself would lead to drisTa hAna dOsha.
> Moreover, beejAnkura sequence is not an hypothesis proposed by an human at
> all, but found in pratyaksha and is pramANa siddha.
>> So vAcaspati says that because of the anAditva of jIva and avidyA,
>> both have to be accepted as established. anditvAdbIjAMkuravadubhayasiddheH.
> Even if we accept anAditva for of both jIva and avidya, it does not
> translate proposed avidya vAda is correct. In beejAnkura series, ankura
> creates the seed, but that seed is the cause for totally different ankura
> but not its cause ankura. The same cannot be said in case of jIva-avidya
> anavasta vAda. If I have a avidya, does my avidya causes another jIva? per
> this vAda, I am the cause/ashraya of my avidya, but that avidya is cause of
> me as well. This is the issue.
> /SV
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list