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

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Not if the person asking the question is the same as the person providing
> > the answer.
> >
> >
> That could avoid duality of people, but not duality of thoughts (in that
> single person), and that makes that person under the spell of avidya and
> his answer is already colored by it. Therefore it is not an valid answer.

The two opposing thoughts are not entertained by the same person at the same
time.

>From the point of view of the sAdhaka, is there a time instant when the question
is asked and another time instant when the answer is reached? Yes, clearly so.

Does the self of that person therefore change? No.
 
> To avoid this difficulty Shankara denies pramAtRitva in the self (in
> adhyAsabhAShya and BU bhashya 2.4.14)

No, the reason to put all pramANa-prameya vyavahAra under the realm of avidyA
goes much deeper in advaita vedAnta. I'll leave it at that for now.

> Alternatively, the person asking (Sishya) sees the difference and is
> > therefore under avidyA,
> > agreed. But the person answering (guru/Sruti) knows that the difference is
> > not real, thus
> > avidyA is not real, and teaches the Sishya accordingly.
> 
> 
> Your usage of hEtu is reversed. avidya is unreal because difference is
> unreal? It should have been other way -- difference is unreal because it's
> cause avidya is unreal.

You are mistaking my usage of the word thus, because I was not talking of causality
in talking of avidyA and bheda. I was merely referring to the temporal process of a
Sishya learning from a guru and the process by which the Sishya can grasp what
the guru has taught. There is a time honored teaching method that starts from the
many and then shows that bheda is not real, without saying much about avidyA,
mUlA or tulA.

See for example, upadeSasAhasrI, 1st prose chapter, where salila-phena is given as
an example right at the beginning, the situation of "bheda, but nAtyanta bheda" is
then described, but avidyA is mentioned only at the end of the instruction, with
statements such as,

"bheda-darSana-nindopapatter avidyAkRtaM dvaitam" and
"tad-bheda-dRShTim eva avidyAM saMsAram unmUlayati."

Seeing difference IS avidyA - that is what I meant in my usage of the word "thus."
You are welcome to replace "thus" with "as," or with "that," if you so please. 
 
> > The choice of the Sishya is the difference between saMsAra and moksha. As
> > long as you
> > accord reality to avidyA, so long does avidyA continue to keep you in its
> > spell. The guru who
> > is brahmanishTha only accords so much value (not reality) to difference as
> > required for the
> > momentum of prArabdha karma to dissipate.
> >
> 
> This is another topic I wanted to touch -- how can any prArabhha remains
> even after brahmanishTa realize avidya is unreal?  When it was said this
> jagat is avidya kalpita and mOksha is due to knowledge only (jnAnAdEva
> mOkshaH), how can prArabhha (isn't it part of this jagat?) remains even
> after avidya is known to be unreal? If it is argued it remains somehow, it
> only means that cause for prArabhha is not avidya but something else.

We have touched upon this issue multiple times in multiple threads in the past
on this list, haven't we? We don't have our own search engine for the archives,
so this link may help - https://www.google.com/#q=prarabdha+%22advaita-l%22. 
 
Best regards,
Vidyasankar