[Advaita-l] Advaita-1)Body is the disease

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:57 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Here are some considerations.
>
> 1. There is nothing other than Brahman, by definition.
>
> 2. Hence if some thing apparently exists the locus for it cannot but be
> Brahman.
>
> 3. If ignorance is root cause for karma which forms the basis for
> creation, then the locus for ignorance cannot but be Brahman since there is
> nothing else other than Brahman.
>
> 4. At the same time Brahman cannot be locus for anything, since Brahmna is
> infinite homogenous pure existence-consciousness.
>
> 5. Hence Brahman cannot be locus either for ignorance or for opposite of
> it - Jnaanam.
>
> 6. Hence Brahman is neither sarvajna or ajnaani.
>
> 7. Statements 2 and 3 and 5 and 6 are not really contradictory, even if
> they appear to be so.
>
> 8. The apparent contradiction is resolved if we recognize that
> ontologically Brahman and avidya/jnaanan are not of the same order of
> reality.
>
>
Here is the problem -- two order of reality cannot come into picture unless
avidya and its locus is established first. This is because, two orders of
reality (viz paaramarthika and vyavaharika) is due to avidya only. So,
unless locus for avidya is explained at the level of Brahmn, there is no
question of two realities, period.



> 9. Brahmna with maaya is Iswara who can be sarvajna and being Iswara he is
> maayaavi or wielder of maayaa. Hence it is under his control. At this stage
> it is better to call maayaa only than avidya (out of respect for Iswara).
>
> 10. In the creation process, there is anupravesha statement, after
> creating the various lokas and various bodies depending on the karma,
> Brahman AS THOUGH enters as jiiva. In essence the Brahman (all pervading
> pure consciousness) get reflected by the subtle body as chidaabhaasa.
> Subtle bodies are many and therefore reflections are many.
>
>
Here too, creation cannot said to happen unless avidya/maaya start its
effect and Iswara is said to exist. So, unless locus of avidya is answered,
 creation and anupravesha cannot be forwarded and say chidaabhaasa is locus
of avidya as you seems to say in #11 below



> 10. After entering Brahman - AS THOUGH - forgets his real nature due to
> anaadi avidya and identifies with the upaadhis that are refection the
> consciousness as the original consciousness. It is like moon considering
> himself to be self-luminous body in the sky not knowing the luminosity is
> due to reflection of the original sunlight.
> 11. The wrong notions are with the chidaabhaasa - not with Brahman nor
> with Iswara.
>
> Now who is ignorant? - very simple without going out all this rigmarole.
> The one who does not understand that  I am Brahman is the one who is
> ignorant of the fact that I am Brahman. Brahman means one without a second.
>
>
I guess that cannot be the answer. Because, the moment one say "The one who
does not understand..." makes that person himself ignorant, for he already
sees difference between himself (who thinks he knows the answer) and other
person who is asking that question. Since difference is due to avidya, the
person answering comes automatically under the spell of avidya. So, this is
really not an answer.


/SV