[Advaita-l] Dvaita Accepts Body Adhyāsa

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha
<svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>


There are three Avasthas  Waking, Dream and Sleep. All the discussion
is happening
in Waking but can happen in Dream also. There is one more Fourth or
Turiya. That is the
Brahman. In Turiya and Sleep there can be no discussion. From logic
and Sruti we can see
the Waking, Dream and Sleep are MithyA only. Mandukya Upanishad is
telling all this.

Now we can answer your question. Where is the Anadi Bhrama happening?
Is it in Waking
and Dream and Sleep? Yes. Therefore it is not real.

You cannot accuse us with Atmashraya and Anavastha rubbish when
Mandukya Sruti is
telling us. You cannot say Mandukya Sruti telling you is also Bhrama
and so on. It is a
nonsense argument.


>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 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?
>

Dvaita is taking approach of arguing everything with Tarka or Kutarka.
But we take help from
Sruti and Sruti Anugruhita Tarka. Therefore we say Adhyasa is
established in Sruti itself. No need
for proving it separately.

>
>
>>
>> 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.
>

Here also Sruti is telling is there is Avastha Turiya and in this
Avastha Jagat is MithyA.
No need for argument and proving it separately.


The big difference is we take help of Sruti and Logic but not Logic
and Puranas like Dvaitis.
Entire Dvaita is based on Kutarka and Purana stories.


> /sv
>
>
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh