[Advaita-l] Dvaita Accepts Body Adhyāsa

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I am not saying having the Bhrama itself is a Bhrama. You are saying
> that. You think you lost a necklace and search for it everywhere and
> find it on your neck. Will you not say the necklace being lost itself
> is a wrong idea? It was never lost. Now you cannot say thinking the
> necklace as lost is wrong itself is wrong. Where is Anavastha here?
>

Anadi bhramA argument was given to explain adhyAsa/vyavahAra. Upon showing
such anAditvaM of bhramA will render bhramA as the self-same nature of chid
Atma, you did reply saying that issue is only when one accepts such bhramA
and said such bhramA itself is not there in reality. I was asking you
whether invoking anAdi bhramA argument itself is another bhramA?. If it
were, then how do you explain having this bhramA? To account for this
second bhramA you need to another bhramA parampara from anAdi. This is the
anvasthA I was talking.

Ignoring all these, let us ask again -- what is the actual position? Is
proposed anAdi bhramA as really real? or itself is a case of another of
bhramA?





>
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
>
> Without Adhyasa we cannot even have a discussion of Adhyasa because
> words and thoughts are result of Adhyasa. Will this mean there is
> Atmashraya flaw? No.
>

When very concept of adhyAsa is in discussion and it's siddhattva is yet to
be established by the proponent, supporting the argument by calling the
very discussion under such assiddhA adhyAsa/vyavahAra -- is what else other
than AtmaShrya?




> In a dream someone may say to you 'This is a dream'. There is no
> Atmashraya.
>
>
The assertion "This is a dream" is valid ONLY when the avastha in which it
was uttered is found to be really a dream. Now in this jAgrta avastha we
know that it was uttered in a dream avastha, hence found to be valid. You
can not assert the same validity while in dreaming itself.

In the same logic, a pUrvapaxin argues -- the assertion 'jagat is
adhyAsa/mithya' is may be valid when we realize the avastha in which that
sentence is uttered is found to be adhyAsa, definitely not while we are
still in this jagat avastha.

/sv