[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> What madhusUdana is showing here does not require *exclusive*
> dependence.


If so then why quote such non-exclusive dristAnta for alleged exclusive
sAdhya? Per strict nyAya, this will attract ativyApti flaw in the cited
dristAnta, for the sAdhya was about exclusivity.



>
> >In another way, speaking from kAraNa-kArya perspective,  ghaTAkAsha  is
> >caused by upAdhAna mud enclosing and limiting AkAsha. In this sense,
> >upAdAna should be really consider as parallel to avidya, which by limiting
> >Brahman causes jIva bhAva (ghaTAkAsha). So, from kAraNa-kArya perspective,
> >ghaTAkAsha cannot said to be exist unless upAdAna causing it. Where as
> >upAdAna can exist without ghaTAkAsha. So, the relationship between them is
> >not  anyonyAdhInatA as Madhusudhana contends, but it is dependence in one
> >direction.
>
> This is not a correct example. We have to remember that vAcaspati also
> says avidyA and jIva are anAdi, without a beginning. You cannot point
> to a certain point in time in the past when the avidyA clay got
> transformed into a pot. The avidyA pot is anAdi.
>

That anAditva argument is only from vyavahAra perspective, for per
siddhAnta time itself is mithya. Your argument, supporting vAcaspati's
stand, is sva-vachana virOdha if not apasiddhanta,  per your position here
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2014-January/036275.html



> >But such anyonyAdhInatA is already siddha in pratyaksha. The same fallacy
> I
> >was mentioning earlier applies if one invokes such anyonyAdhInatA in a
> >vAda, for entities involved in such relationship is not yet siddha and to
> >be established. Proponent has to establish their existence first
> >independent of relationship between them and then later show relationship
> >between them. The case here is different, for jIva cannot said to be
> >existed without avidya operating on Brahman, and in turn, avidya cannot be
> >traced without jIva exist for its locus.
>
> Again, the anAditva of both avidyA and jIva is sufficient here. I
> repeat there is no time when jIva was not there and only avidyA
> existed. Nor was there any time when avidyA was not there and only
> jIva existed. The two have always co-existed in a mutually dependent
> way. If you ask how avidyA and jIva are established in advaita, it is
> a different question. The answer is found in standard advaita texts
> and there is no need for madhusUdana to establish avidyA and jIva in
> this specific context.
>


anAditva is in siddhAnta, no doubt, but at the same time it is also in the
siddhAnta that notion of anditva is valid only from  vyavahAra perspective.

Thus, any argument invoking such elements (anaditva in this case) which are
valid only vyavahara; is invalid argument at best, for vyavahAra is avidya
drusti and not tatava drusti (again is per siddhAnta only). Therefore, the
flaw still exist in Madhusudhan's justification.

I am bit skeptical on Madhusudhan's disposition of certain siddhAnta
aspects, for he is not fully complaint with the main stream. After all the
lengthy arguments in advaitasiddhi, at the end he concludes that he does
not know anybody/anything more higher than Sri.Krishna thereby placing
Ishwara over and above nirguNa-brahaman.



/SV