[Advaita-l] Dvaita Accepts Body Adhyāsa

Ravi Kiran ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 13 22:02:43 CDT 2016

So long as Atma svarUpa ajnAna (avidya or tattva agrahanam) is present,
bhrama is accepted since anAdi.
Once avidya is destroyed through maha vAkya (sruti) janya Atma svarUpa
jnAna, bhrama is seen as non-existing in all 3 periods of time.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः
> सीतारामार्यपुत्रः) <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Take a red flower and place it next to a clear crystal. You will see
> > the crystal is also appearing red. Here the Redness of Crystal is
> > Kalpita but the red flower and crystal are not Kalpita. But the
> > Redness of Crystal is Bhrama only. It cannot be real.
> >
> > Like this even though the Non-difference of body and Self is Kalpita
> > and Bhrama we can ask when this Bhrama started? For this the only
> > correct answer is it is Anaadi. Without a beginning.
> >
> Even if you say that bhrama is anAdi it only means it co-exist with jIva
> from anAdi and jIva never acquired it afresh. This only means such bhrama
> must be self-same nature (svabhAva) of jIva, for the reason one will not
> call something which acquired later as svbhAva. This logically leads to the
> conclusion that you cannot get rid of self-same nature bhrama without
> destroying the the very dharmi chaitanya itself. This means that chaitanya
> never can realize it is indeed Brahman.
> Some how if you argue you can get rid of such bhrama without destroying
> chid dharmi, then you have to reject the idea that bhrama was anAdi and
> accept it was acquired/superficially imposed on it and it was never
> integral part of that chaitanya vastu. Then the same question author (of
> the article) is asking his opponent applies to himself with equal force.
> Btw, one wonders why does advaitins interested in anAdi argument when time
> itself is mithya according to them? In other words, notion of "time" is not
> possible unless you have adhyAsa. You cannot have adhyAsa from anAdi times
> argument unless you have notion of "time".
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list