[Advaita-l] The body is the disease

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Suresh <mayavaadi at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Friends,
>
> Thanks for all the replies. It is very enlightening.
>
> Would it be more appropriate to say "there is ignorance in Brahman" rather
> than "Brahman is ignorant"? Pot exists in space, space is not pot - that
> sort of thing. That way, delusion may exist in Brahman without Brahman
> itself becoming delusional.....
>
>
"Ignorance *in* Brahman" cannot be said. Because, next question arises is
that -- is that avidya same as Brahman or different from Brahman. If you
say it is different, then it goes against shruti nEha nAnAsti kiMchanna,
where it denies difference in Brahman. If you say ignorance is same as
Brahman, then I would not be trying for mOksha for sure :)

There is one more option -- above mentioned problem exist if we assume
ignorance is as sattya as Brahman. But what if it is consider either mithya
or atyanta-asat? Well, we will analyze it.

It cannot be mithya vastu, for any object to be called mithya you need
adhistana and avidya about real svarUpa of adhistana. But, you see you need
avidya to consider avidya is mithyabhUta vastu. This is the
circularity/infinite regress here.

With that, the only option remains for us is to say avidya is
attyanta-asat. This position will eliminate the very question and we do not
have to struggle to answer whether it is bramAshrita or jIvAshrita, end of
story.

>From several posts here, it seems this is the position some takes when they
say "as-if" avidya exist.

/SV