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

[Vinodh]

Unfortunately, my response to the email below could not be posted to the
Advaita-I group due to size limitations. You can find it here;
https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/eZ9fnFjw5a8/m/-cGRaZL8AAAJ

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:51 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Vinodh-ji
>
> Thanks for responding.
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 8:14 AM Vinodh via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Sri Srinath ji,
>>
>> Thank you for your excellent points on body-self adhyasa and on pramana
>> from the Dvaita perspective! I really enjoyed reading them :)
>>
>> I will summarize my understanding of your main points and attempt to
>> address each of them from an Advaita perspective. I also look forward to
>> reading the responses to these points from other scholars.
>>
>>
>> Below is my understanding of your main points against the standpoint of
>> Advaita from the Dvaita perspective:
>>
>> 1. pramatrtva (knowership) is denied to the Self by Shankara but this
>> cannot be so because adhyasa implies that there is a pramatr (knower) on
>> whom the body-mind are being superimposed? Therefore, prmatrtva to the
>> Self
>> must be accepted.
>>
>
> Yes, correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
>
>
>>
>> 2. pramanatvam of sruti must also be acknolwedged becaused it only through
>> sruti that the existence of the Self is known
>>
>
> Yes, here too the correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
>
>
>>
>> 3. any pramana provided in support of the Dvaita position which can be
>> accepted by an Advaitin must naturally be accepted as valid and existing,
>> regardless of the details of the pramana.
>>
>
>  Yes, here too the correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
>
>
>> 4. on the other hand, by claiming that the pramana-prameya-pramatrtva are
>> avidya kruta and hence unreal, the Advaitin's position does not stand on
>> firm ground (having negated the very prameya using which any claims can be
>> made).
>>
>
> Summerily correct, but need more clarity here.  The very claim that the
> pramana-prameya-pramatrtva are
> avidya kruta and hence unreal, is itself a pramEya (nirNaya)  derived
> after the analysis of adhyAsa. This final pramEya is antithesis. That makes
> the dheAtma adhyAsa still remain unexplained.
>
>>
>>
>> 5. Sruti vaakyas in support of Dvaita position "Satya aatma, satyo jivaha,
>> satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa" etc.
>>
>>
> Yes, correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Below is my attempt at addressing the above points from an Advaita
>> perspective based on my limited understanding of this philosophy:
>>
>> 1. In Advaita, the pramatr (knower) is typically understood to be the
>> individual Jiva. This Jiva, whose true form is the Atma (Self), is unaware
>> of its true form and considers itself to be an individual self (Jivaatma)
>> separate from other similar individuals.
>
>
> When pure Atman is claimed to be having no pramAtR^itva, how could you
> claim Atman "unaware" of its true form? Aware/unaware can only be talked
> about entity where pramAtR^itva is admitted.
>
> Hence your starting position of Jivatman distinct from shuddhAtman stands
> on loose grounds.
>
>
>> It is just like a rope when not
>> seen to be.a rope is seen to be something else like a snake or a stream of
>> water etc. The adhyaasa of the prana, mind, senses on the Atma is what
>> results in a Jivaatma (individual self).
>
>
> Are you admitting this fundamental adhyaasa (of prana, mind, senses) on
> shuddhAtman? If yes, then my earlier objection remains. When pramAtR^itva
> is denied in (shuddha)Atman, how could you claim this first adhyAsa? Also
> this leads to a position that shuddhAtman has avidya even before you talk
> about Jivatman.
>
>
>
>> The pramatrtvam
>> of a Jiva is because of its true form being the Atma. One of Atma's
>> defining characteristics is Jnanam (Satyma-Jnanam-Anantam Brahma,
>> Taittiriya Upanishad), which is understood to be the ability to cognize
>> (consciousness).
>
>
> In Advaita, jnAnam has not been used in sadrUpa, but in a negative form as
> "not having ajnAna" etc. Reasoning you provide for your conclusion is not
> valid.
>
>  It is in this sense that Shankaracharya has said
>> that the Atma does not have pramatrtva even though its very essence is
>> cognizing / consciousness (satyam-jnanam-anantham).
>>
>
> In my limited understanding pramAtR^itva in Atman is denied to avoid
> kartu-karma virOdha (to avoid duality) in Atman. I am arguing that the very
> jIvabhAva in Atman is impossible unless a fundamental adhyAsa is admitted
> in (shuddh)Atman.
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. Sruti is also accepted to be part of this maya which is perceived only
>> under avidya. Therefore, it does have pramanatvam under avidya from a
>> vyavaharika perspective, but it has no independent existence from a
>> paramarthika perspective, just like the illusory snake does not have an
>> independent existence without the underlying rope. If one asks 'how can
>> one
>> say that sruti is a pramana (valid means of knowledge) if it is part of
>> avidya', it is similar to how one may be woken up from a dream by
>> something
>> happening in a dream. Of course, what happens in the dream is unreal, but
>> it could still lead to the person waking up from the dream and realizing
>> that what happened was a dream. In the same way, Advaita considers sruti
>> to
>> be a pramana which is part of this dream of Jagat which leads to one's
>> awakening to one's true form which is the Atma.
>>
>
> Are we saying just as scary dream scene wakes the dreamer up, so also
> Shruti **could** wake Jivatman from his avidya? Are we speculating or do we
> know for sure? If the former, then it is a speculative philosophy. If
> later, why are still debating in this vyavahAra as knowing it wakes for
> sure puts us in paaramArthika reality already!
>
> Whatever the case may be, the knowledge about waking up due to a scary
> dream tiger is after the fact and realized in a waking state only. After
> waking up can you deny the reality of the very dream state itself? In the
> same way, can you offer to admit duality of state when in pAramArtha?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 3. Any pramana offered by a Dvaitin or otherwise is naturally accepted by
>> an Advaitin as valid and existing as vyavaharika satyam within this maya.
>> Just like in one's dream, one assumes that all of one's pramanas are real
>> and existing and uses it to observe, infer, and interact with dream
>> objects, in this Jagat also (which Advaita considers to be just a dream),
>> one uses such pramanas for all vyavahara within this Jagat-dream. However,
>> these are only given the status of vyavaharika satyam. Just like once a
>> person wakes up, it is clear that everything seen earlier in the dream,
>> including all the dream-pramanas, were false, when one wakes up from the
>> dream of Jagat, one sees that the paaramarthika satyam (fundamental truth)
>> is advitiyam (without a second) and that all the pramanas and the dvaita
>> prapancha (like individual jivaatmas, panchabhootas, etc.) were equally
>> false from a paaramarthika perspective.
>>
>
> So also, the idea of paaramarthika-vyavaharika states is equally false
> from this very state in which we are debating!
>
>
>
>>
>> 4. The above two points explain why Advaitins are able to still use the
>> pramana-prameya-pramatrtva to deduce their conclusions from a vyavaharika
>> perspective even though from a paramarthika perspective they are illusory.
>> Just like inferences drawn using dream pramanas can lead to one waking up,
>> the jagat-pramana can lead to one waking up from this Jagat-dream.
>>
>> 5. I am not familiar with the sruti passage. Perhaps some other scholars
>> here can shed light on the context of this passage and discuss how such
>> vakyas can be interpretted given the broader context.
>>
>> In summary, Advaita accepts pretty much all of the Dvaitins positions as
>> vyavaharika satyam, however, from a fundamental (paramarthika)
>> perspective,
>> the Truth is said to be without a second (advitiyam).
>>
>
>  Well, the so called non-dual paramarthika state is still not established.
>
> You cannot establish vyavahara unless you admit fundamental adhyAsa in
> shuddha Atma. You cannot posit adhyAsa unless Jiva bhAva and vyavahara is
> admitted on Atman. This is exactly called anyOnashrya.
>
> Regards,
> /sv
>
>
>