[Advaita-l] Dvaita Accepts Body Adhyāsa

[Ramachandra Achar]

Srinath sir,

      One thing you said,when time itself is mithya for advaithins,then how
ajgnana is anadi?

For that what my guru said is,one can never remember the movement he gets
sleep right?

Similarly Brahma jgnana happens in no time.....or time sizes to exit

So if you go in reverse order.....we came from no time to time...during
starting of creation....Which can never happen in time.....

So ajnana is considered as anadi....or it never start with time.....

Even goudapada argues in his karika that,the one which happens with time
has an end......
As moksha is without end,it won't happen with time
On 15 Jul 2016 21:26, "Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha
> > <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः
> > > सीतारामार्यपुत्रः) <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > You are saying as if the Bhrama is really there in the Self. If it is
> > really there in Self it will be Svabhava.
> >
> > But if Bhrama is not really there it cannot be Svabhava.
>
>
> Essentially what you are saying is that one having bhramA (of self as same
> body) itself is a bhramA. Now same question -- where is this second bhramA
> coming from? You are on your way of nice anavasthA.
>
>
>
> >
> > > 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".
> >
> > Time is existing only for Vyavaharika purposes. The instruction of
> > Guru is happening in Vyavhara only. Therefore we accept time. But in
> > Brahman stage there is no time.
> >
>
> When nature of adhyAsa is being debated, bringing in vyavahAra (which is
> the result of adhyAsa) to justify argument for adhyAsa/bhramA -- is an case
> of aatmAShrya flaw.
>
> /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
>