[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[Anand Hudli]

Shri H S Chandramouli wrote:

>I seek a clarification in this regard. I am told that Sri Vachaspati
>Mishra's interpretation in Bhamati is more in favour of the advaita
>advocated by Sri Mandana Mishra in his work < Brahmasidhi > which favours
>the Bhedabheda concept than Sri Bhagavatpada's interpretation which holds
>only Abheda as acceptable. Sri Vachaspati Mishra accepts an infinite number
>of jivas and avidyas.Could this be the reason for the above interpretation
>of jiva as the locus of avidya.

MaNDana mishra has stated in his Brahmasiddhi that the locus of avidya
is indeed the jIva, yattu kasyAvidyeti, jIvAnAmiti brUmaH. vAcaspati
is believed to have been influenced by the Brahmasiddhi and he is also
said to have composed a commentary on the same called
BrahmatattvasamiikShA. For that matter, even PrakAshAtmayati, the
proponent of the VivaraNa school also holds maNDana in high enough
esteem to seek his support in matters where maNDana does not differ
from Shankara. But it does not seem to be the case that vAcaspati has
blindly followed maNDana mishra on all points, as is alleged by some.
For example, maNDana adopts the viparItakhyAti doctrine of the bhATTas
whereas vAcaspati has endorsed the anirvacanIyakhyAti of the advaitins
in his bhAmatI. Also, vAcaspati has rejected the sphoTa-vAda of
maNDana. Finally, vAcaspati in his bhAmatI has treated maNDana's views
on karma and jnAna as the purvapakSha. So we find that a few
advaitins, not just vAcaspati, have accepted maNDana as an authority
so long as he does not contradict Shankara.

The system of maNDana is referred to as bhAvAdvaita or simply maNDanamata.

Anand