[Advaita-l] Question about Sri Vidyaranya's JMV & jnani matra

[Anand Hudli]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:53 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
Thanks for this citation from the Advaitasiddhi. Just for obtaining a
clarification:

The similarity between 'dhvamsa' and 'samskara' is brought out here? Is
dhvamsa a kaarya? If yes, of what? Also, how is it without an upadana?
Since dhvamsa is admitted to be without an end, as opposed to prAgabhava,
will not samskara too be without end? Or is the analogy to be limited to
being a karya, without upadana, and nothing more?
>>

The dhvaMsa being talked about here is destruction of some object, say pot.
When a pot is destroyed, it is not possible to state a material cause for
the destruction itself, although one could state that the material cause
for the pot is clay. The (instrumental or nimitta) cause for this
destruction could be a blow from a hammer, etc., which breaks the pot. So
it is in this sense that one can say the dhvaMsa is an effect, albeit
without a material cause. You are right in saying the analogy is restricted
to the nirupAdAnakatva of dhvaMsa and cannot be extended further. The
context in which this is being discussed in the advaitasiddhi is this.
Madhusudana points out that in the destruction of threads that make a
cloth, the cloth persists for a moment before being destroyed. In this
case, the destruction of threads that make the cloth is the cause of the
destruction of the cloth. However, a logical principle is involved that
says a cause and effect cannot be simultaneous, i.e. both existing in the
same moment. So we have to say that the cloth gets destroyed a moment later
after the threads get destroyed. In objection to this, it is stated (by the
dvaitin) that the cloth gets destroyed just a moment later, but the body of
a jIvanmukta  can persist for years before falling off. How is this
possible? It is in reply to this objection that Madhusudana brings out the
role of prArabdha, which acts as an obstruction (pratibandha). It is only
when there is no pratibandha that the destruction of the an effect (body)
immediately follows the destruction of the cause (avidyA).

Finally, Madhusudana justifies avidyAlesha as the sUkShma-avasthA of
avidyA. He cites a vArtika, "tasmAt phalapravRttasya yAgAdeH
shaktimAtrakam| utpattAvapi pashvAderapUrvaM na tataH pRthak||", where even
after the destruction (end) of a yAga, it persists in its
sUkShma-avasthArUpa as apUrvawhich is accepted as carrying out the
accomplishment of the results of the yAga. In a similar fashion, the
avidyAlesha as the sUkShma-avasthArUpa of avidyA, like Apurva, is
responsible for maintaining the body even after avidyA is destroyed.

Anand

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:32 AM Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

> We have, in the past on this list, discussed the eka-jIva-vAda as being
> the siddhanta prescribed for advanced seekers. It may be useful to see
> that, in the context of EJV/DSV, the question relating to a jnAni and his
> activities, sense of having a body, etc. gets transformed with an entirely
> different meaning! When the seeker is the only jIva there is and even
> entities such as Guru, other jIvas, jnAni's etc are admitted to be
> imaginations of the sole seeker, serving the purpose of guiding him or
> inspiring him, it is the so-called onlooker's (seeker's) viewpoint that
> becomes important. For, the jnAni's viewpoint is not so much relevant, as
> long as such a jnAni is *not* the seeker, but someone else. The jnAni's
> viewpoint may still be relevant as a guide of what to expect after the rise
> of jnana, but not so much as the experience of a jnAni other than the
> seeker.
>
> Anand
>