[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Vinodh Ji,

Reg  <<  In essence, I am trying to understand where and why the Dvaitic
schools
differ in their conclusion from Advaita even though they accept the same
Sruti and accept several things that are common with Advaita like body-mind
adhyaasa. Why do they stop short of the final conclusion of Advaita even
while there are many similarities? What is it they are unable to agree with
on Advaita and why? >>,

I have selected arbitrarily one part from your posts to explain my
understanding of the position. Several other parts could also have been
selected for the same purpose.

The adhyAsa advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada involves a combination of the Real
and the Unreal. AdhyAsa Bhashya in the second line declares ** सत्यानृते
मिथुनीकृत्य ** (**satyAnRRite mithunIkRRitya** ). All vyavahAra is founded
on such an adhyAsa only. In other words all vyavahAra involves a
combination of the Real and the Unreal. None of the other schools of
thought accept such a position even if they were to accept some type of
adhyAsa. In their Systems, all entities involved in vyavahAra are Real.

AdhyAsa Bhashya has five sections  namely प्रतिज्ञा (pratij~nA), लक्षण
(lakShaNa), उपपत्ति (upapatti), प्रमाण (pramANa), and उपसंहार (upasaMhAra).
What I have cited above is from the  प्रतिज्ञा (pratij~nA) section. The
Shruti pramANa for the same is covered in the appropriate section.

Hope this answers the fundamental issue raised by you. Once this position
of Sidhanta is understood, I believe many of the other doubts raised stand
automatically cleared.

Regards
Chandramouli

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 8:31 AM Vinodh via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaskaram Sri Prasadji,
>
> Thank you for your kind explanation. If I understood it correctly, you are
> presenting the Advaitic viewpoint based on Sruthi, which I am able to
> follow.
>
> At the same time, other Astika schools which also accept the authority of
> the Sruti seem to claim something different from Advaita while still
> accepting the superposition of the body-mind on the Self. In this context,
> my question is whether the superposition alone is enough (read as
> 'sufficient condition' in terms of mathematical language) to establish that
> the body-mind is also avidya. This does not seem to be the case because, at
> least in my limited understanding, schools like Sankhya posit a Pradhana
> that is inert and independent of the Purusha and the Purusha experiences
> the Pradhana without clearly seeing the difference between itself and
> Pradhana. The Dvaita school also posits that a Paramatma has created this
> world (including individual body-mind) as well as all the Jivas which
> reside in them, but the Jivas suffer because of the superposition of the
> body-mind on themselves thinking "I am this body" or "This is mine" etc.
>
> This question arises because of the thread's subject being "Dvaita accepts
> body-adhyaasa" and the subsequent claim by Sri Subbuji that this
> superposition alone implies that all vyavahara is in avidya and
> consequently the Dvaitic schools must also accept the Advaitic view only.
> The Adhyasa Bhashya was referenced for supporting this claim. In it, an
> additional assertion (by which I mean a statement without a substantiating
> evidence or argument) appears to be made that the body-mind has avidya for
> a material cause. When this  assertion is taken together with the adhyaasa
> of the body-mind on the self (adhyaasa being an effect of avidya) and the
> fact that such an adhyaasa is necessary for any vyavahara implies that all
> vyavahara happens in avidya. However, it seems that without this assertion
> the same conclusion cannot be made.
>
> Therefore, my question is whether dvaitic schools do not accept the
> assertion that the body-mind has avidya for a material cause and therefore
> whether this is the reason why although they accept the body-mind adhyaasa
> they do not necessarily reach the same conclusion as Advaita. If this is
> the case, then why is it that they are unable to accept that body-mind as
> springing out of avidya? Is it because they posit that a Paramatma is the
> cause for the jagat and that He is not touched by avidya?
>
> In essence, I am trying to understand where and why the Dvaitic schools
> differ in their conclusion from Advaita even though they accept the same
> Sruti and accept several things that are common with Advaita like body-mind
> adhyaasa. Why do they stop short of the final conclusion of Advaita even
> while there are many similarities? What is it they are unable to agree with
> on Advaita and why?
>
> I hope I have been able to explain my question a bit more clearly now. I
> would appreciate any thoughts on the above. 🙏
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>