[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[Anand Hudli]

Srinath Vedagarbha wrote:

>>* 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.

MadhusUdana sarasvatI has addressed this objection to vAcaspati's
theory of jIvAshrita ajnAna by the dvaitins in the advaita siddhi.
MadhusUdana makes a distinction between anyonyAshrayatA and
anyonyAdhInatA. The first is a defect (doSha) but not the second.
anyonyAdhInatA prevails when two things A and B are mutually
dependent. Such examples occur in everyday experience. The best
example provided, is that of AkAsha and ghaTAkAsha. AkAsha or space is
compared to Brahman, while the small space inside a pot, ghaTAkAsha is
compared to the jIva. What has happened here is that AkAsha (Brahman)
has been delimited by a pot (avidyA) or in other words, the pot
encloses the small space (jIva) inside itself. Now, it is not possible
to conceive a pot without the small space (ghaTAkAsha) inside it, nor
is it possible to conceive just the small space (ghaTAkAsha) without
the pot. This is what madhusUdana calls anyonyAdhInatA. Although, the
pot and pot-space are mutually dependent, they exist
contemporaneously. Another example is that of a pramANa and prameya.
PramANa is a means to knowledge (examples: perception, inference,
scripture, etc.), while a prameya is a knowable object. Without a
pramANa a knowable object cannot be known and does not mean anything,
and without a knowable object a pramANa does not mean anything. Again,
we have anyonyAdhInatA. As madhuSudana says, samakAliinayorapi
avacchedya-avacchedaka-bhAvamAtreNa tadupapatteH,
ghaTa-tadavacchinna-AkAshayoriva pramANa-prameyayoriva ca.

A further clarification is that there would be anyonyAshraya if the
locus of avidyA is held to be jIva *and* the locus of jIva is avidyA.
But vAcaspati does not say that the locus of jIva is avidyA.

Anand