[Advaita-l] Question about Avaccheda vada

[Aditya Kumar]

Namaste,

Please find my response starting with A:
 

 In this
 context, BSB 2-3-46 states as follows.
 
 <<
 यथा
 जीवः
 संसारदुःखमनुभवति,
 नैवं
 पर ईश्वरोऽनुभवतीति प्रतिजानीमहे ;
 जीवो
 हि
 अविद्यावेशवशात्
 देहाद्यात्मभावमिव
 गत्वा,
 तत्कृतेन
 दुःखेन
 दुःखी
 अहम्
 इति
 अविद्यया
 कृतं
 दुःखोपभोगम्
 अभिमन्यते ;
 नैवं
 परमेश्वरस्य
 देहाद्यात्मभावो
 दुःखाभिमानो
 वा
 अस्ति >>  
 
 
  
 
 <<
 yathA jIvaH
 saMsAraduHkhamanubhavati, naivaM
 para Ishvaro.anubhavatIti pratijAnImahe ; jIvo hi
 avidyAveshavashAt
 dehAdyAtmabhAvamiva gatvA, tatkRRitena duHkhena duHkhI aham
 iti avidyayA
 kRRitaM duHkhopabhogam abhimanyate ; naivaM parameshvarasya
 dehAdyAtmabhAvo
 duHkhAbhimAno vA asti
 >>  
 
 
  
 
 Translation
  << We solemnly
 declare that Iswara does not suffer the woes of the world
 like a jIva, The
 jIva, under the influence of  avidya
  seems to become identified with the body
 etc.,
 and it suffers the sorrows occurring to the body, owing to
 its belief that the
 sufferings created by avidya are its own. But Iswara has no
 such identity with
 the body etc., nor any conception of suffering in
 Himself
 >>. 



A: What I understans from this passage is that dehadi bhava of jiva, which is a limiting adjunct is due to avidya. Ishwara is free from dehadi bhava and hence it follows that there is no limiting adjunct. So is it right to say Maya does not bind Ishwara and yet it is a limiting adjunct? 
 
  
 
  
 
 There is no need to break
 any upAdhi.
 Dissociating it cognitionally is sufficient.
  Iswara is not bound by mAyA and hence need
 not
 get released from mAyA..There are any number of Sruti and
 Bhashya references
 for understanding Iswara as mAyAvi and controller of mAyA. I
 am not presenting
 any here now. I am sure you will yourself be able to locate
 some. But if you
 are very particular, I will locate some in later posts. When
 a magician is
 displaying his prowess, it is the spectators who are deluded
 into thinking that
 it is all real. The magician himself is not bound by any
  such delusion. When he is not performing, the
 magician is just another human being, just like the
 spectators. It does not
 mean his magical powers are destroyed. Brahman as associated
 with mAyA is
 Iswara. When association with mAyA is not considered, the
 term used is Brahman.


A:  Agreed no need to break upadhi. I think I understand better now. The jiva is embodied, bound by dehadi bhava like a silk worm in a cacoon. Hence it is a delimiting factor. But magicians magic trick does not bind him similarly. Again his trick binds the unsuspecting audience. So the term upadhi, delimiting factor always applies to jiva. So how can we say that there is an upadhi, a delimitor which is not a limiting factor? Further, how do we accommodate Ishwaras upadhi in pot space analogy? 
 
  
 
 The Srutis present
  Brahman in two aspects. One unrelated to
 Creation and the other in relation to Creation. Brahman is
 the term used in the
 former aspect and Iswara in its latter aspect. Entity is the
 same.  However in the Shrutis/ Bhashya, the
 terms
 Brahman and Iswara are used interchangeably in many
 places..

A: This is more or less my understading as well. Specifically in avaccheda vada does it not make sense to say mahakasha itself is ishwara? Because the limiting power of maya is redundant for ishwara. Hence we can never equate ishwara with either pot space or any other. 
 
  
 
 Regards