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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:45 PM Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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).
>

Thanks for the clarification. We have in the Panchadashi Chapter 6, the
above analogy, in the same context:

तादात्म्याध्यास एवात्र पूर्वोक्ताविद्यया कृतः ।
अविद्यायां निवृत्तायां तत्कार्यं विनिवर्तते ॥ ५२॥

अविद्यावृतितादात्म्ये विद्ययैव विनश्यतः ।
विक्षेपस्य स्वरूपं तु प्रारब्धक्षयमीक्ष्यते ॥ ५३॥

उपादाने विनष्टेऽपि क्षणं कार्यं प्रतीक्ष्यते ।
इत्याहुस्तार्किकास्तद्वदस्माकं किं न सम्भवेत् ॥ ५४॥

तन्तूनां दिनसंख्यानां तैस्तादृक्क्षण ईरितः ।

भ्रमस्यासंख्यकल्पस्य योग्यः क्षण इहेष्यताम् ॥ ५५॥


I think the Ratnaprabha gloss on the Brahma sutra bhashya has said that
samskara is also referred as avidyalesha.

regards
subrahmanian.v


> 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
>
>
>