[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Dear Sri.Bhaskara-ji,
Namaste.


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> I failed to see where exactly Sri Ananda Hudli prabhuji said that nAnA
> jeeva and their respective avidyA-s are pAramArthically anAdi??  Ofcourse
> sarva loukika, vaidika vyavahAra, shAstra & even bandha-mOksha everything
> within the realm of vyavahAra only.  The explanation that has been given
> with regard to jeeva-avidyA and anAditva too falls under vyavahAra only.
> What exactly is the problem here??  could you please elaborate.



In a vAda, when one provides a tarka/anumAna to substantiate his/her stand,
it is expected in vidvad circles that hEtu used  in such argument is indeed
accepted as "true" (tAtvIka), at least in such person's own siddhAnta if
not in opponent's siddhAnta.

So in this line, when anAditva was used, I was just pointing to the fact
that it is not tAtvIka as it implies on the face of it, for such notion of
anAditva comes with a baggage, for it is conceived when one in vyavahAra,
which by definition avidyA drusTi. So, basically it boils down to the fact
that one cannot argue based on elements which are not "true" in reality.



>  I think
> problem starts only when one say even before the jeeva bhAva/srushti or
> even before the srushti, paramAtma who is ekamevAdviteeya had avidyA !!
> Because this attribution of avidyA to brahman even before anything would
> imply that pAramArthically brahman would have the avidyA.  No need to
> mention mUlAvidyA of panchapAdika vivaraNa entertains this type of
> thought.
>
>
Some posts in this list are indeed explicit in saying Brahman is ashraya
for avidya.

Leaving them aside, in the current context of jIvAshraya (of avidya) vAda
of Sri.vAchaspati, no doubt this argument is anchored and forwarded in the
context of vyavahAra only.  But the contention from the opponent is that
such notion of "vyavahAra" and "jIva" is impossible unless alleged avidya
is in action. So, the question of locus for such avidya is the topic of
discussion. Madhusudhana was arguing in support for jIvAshrita vAda, and
upon showing the in-applicability of his argument, anAditva was forwared,
which I was contesting on the grounds that it is not tAtvIka, for it comes
into equation only when vyavahAra is admitted, but possibility of vyavahAra
is the very first question we are debating.

I hope I am clear on this issue.

/SV