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

[Vinodh]

Namaskaram Sri Chandramouli ji,

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:35 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Vinodh Ji,
>
> Reg  <<  If I understood correctly, the essence of your explanation is
> that a superposition of the mind-body on the self is necessary for any
> vyavahara including perception of the world >>,
>
> No. Not so. It is not a necessity. Not in my understanding. It is just a
> statement of fact as per Advaita Sidhanta.
>
That it is a necessity seems to conclusion of the Adhyaasa Bhashya. Please
refer to the following quote which I had posted earlier in this thread from
a lecture by Sri. Mani Dravid Shastri:

Quote: "It has been established that there is mutual superimposition
between the self which is pure consciousness, and the not-self consisting
of the body, mind and senses. ***Such a superimposition is essential for a
jiva to become a knower (pramaataa).*** Only if the jiva becomes a
pramaataa he can experience objects through the sense-organs. Only then he
becomes a seer, hearer, thinker, etc. Even for the Saastra to be applicable
there has to be superimposition. For performing the rituals laid down in
the Vedas for attaining heaven the person should know that there is a
self which is different from the gross body and which will continue after
death. But he need not know the real nature of the self as described in
Vedanta. If he knows the real nature of the self it will be an obstacle to
his performing the rituals laid down in the Vedas because there is nothing
to be attained by such a person. Rituals are laid down based on caste such
as Brahmana, etc., ashrama, age, etc. So a person has to identify himself
as a Brahmana or a grihasta, etc., to perform rituals. All these relate to
the body. Such identification is possible only if there is adhyaasa of the
body on the self."


> Reg  << The question that remains from a dvaita point of view is why the
> self is considered real whereas the body-mind is not. In my understanding,
> both your answers, just like the adhyasa bhashya assert the unreal-ness of
> the body-mind without any further analysis of this assertion; and without
> an analysis of this assertion, accepting adhyasa alone does not lead dvaita
> to the same conclusion as advaita. Please do correct me if I have
> misunderstood anything >>,
>
> It is not that you have misunderstood anything. Please don’t mind my
> saying that the problem is you have not understood anything properly and
> just jumped to conclusions without any study. For an answer you need to
> study the pramANa section of the AdhyAsa Bhashya. It is naturally covered
> briefly therein. For a detailed exposition of the Sidhanta with pramANa,
> you need to study the Upanishads and the Sutra Bhashya. I can only confirm
> to you here that it is more than adequately addressed there.
>
Any feedback is always welcome especially when substantiated with proper
supporting arguments. Unfortunately, however, a pointer to a large body of
work does not help me much because it is equivalent to saying that the
needle one is looking for is in a big haystack (in this case, the needle
being an analogy to an answer to the question at hand, and the haystack
being the prastana trayi and its bhashyas).

I am, of course, putting in the effort that my limited mind and intellect
can afford to go through the haystack and find the needle. However, when I
say that I have not found the needle yet (i.e., I have not found an answer
to my question yet), it neither implies that I have not been digging the
haystack nor that I have reached the conclusion that the needle does not
exist in the haystack. It just means that I am having trouble finding it
yet and am therefore asking the help of people who may be able to find and
show me the needle (beyond just pointing to the haystack).

Having said this, I believe I may have possibly found the needle (i.e., the
answer to the question on the assertion of falsehood of the body-mind in
the waking state) in Gaudapada's kaarikas. I have started another thread on
this. I would greatly appreciate additional comments on that, for example,
examples of other places where similar conclusions have been arrived at in
the prasthana trayi bhashyas, or of possible counterarguments by other
schools of thought. 🙏


> Regards
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 3:52 PM Vinodh <vinodh.iitm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sri Subbuji and Sri Chandramouli, thank you for your explanations. If I
>> understood correctly, the essence of your explanation is that a
>> superposition of the mind-body on the self is necessary for any vyavahara
>> including perception of the world. As already mentioned, this much is clear
>> from the adhyaasa bhashya.
>>
>> The question that remains from a dvaita point of view is why the self is
>> considered real whereas the body-mind is not. In my understanding, both
>> your answers, just like the adhyasa bhashya assert the unreal-ness of the
>> body-mind without any further analysis of this assertion; and without an
>> analysis of this assertion, accepting adhyasa alone does not lead dvaita to
>> the same conclusion as advaita. Please do correct me if I have
>> misunderstood anything.
>>
>> Sri Prasadji, your explanation seems to be the most convincing I have
>> been able to find so far and it is not very different from how Sri
>> Chandrashekara Saraswathi puts it in one of his discourses. It is because
>> of the dvaitis strong desire to hold on to dvaita to be able to separate
>> themselves as Jivas from Paramatma in order to worship Him with bhakti,
>> that their intellect has construed the philosophy of dvaita. And because of
>> their bhakti and their desire to serve the Lord, the Lord has given them
>> the ability to so through their intellect. Due to their strong bhakti,
>> their mind is unable to qualitatively equate the atma of the Jiva with the
>> atma of the Paramatma (even as the Vishtadvaitins do), much less claim
>> their identity. I also agree with your second point about the useless of
>> the elaborations of the technical points regarding the differences between
>> these philosophies. Eventually, when one accepts Advaita, there is nothing
>> to be really said or done and the only practical aspect that matters is
>> karma and bhakti, which is anyway common between Advaita and Dvaita.
>> Despite this, I guess there is a lingering desire within oneself, due to
>> one's own ajnana, for an "intellectual" resolution to the differences in
>> philosophy, which is what I suppose has provoked me into this discussion.
>> 🙏
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 2:28 PM H S Chandramouli <
>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>