[Advaita-l] Body is the disease
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Jan 21 12:04:32 CST 2014
I did not mention Sri LalitAlAlitaH ji's name in the address field, by
mistake. I request him to kindly see this mail as addressed to him in
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> Pl. read what Srinath Vedagarbha writes in this post. I spoke to Sri Mani
> Dravida SastriNaH on this and he immediately said: the very opening topic
> in the khandanakhandakhAdyam is this and he has concluded that 'there is no
> need for such a condition' (that srinath is talking about).
> I saw your write up:
> If possible, could you kindly elucidate that topic for the benefit of all
> of us?
> BTW, did you get the copy of dvA suparNa from bangalore? Pl. let me know.
> With pranams
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> Dear Sri.Bhaskara-ji,
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
>> > anAditva is in siddhAnta, no doubt, but at the same time it is also in
>> > siddhAnta that notion of anditva is valid only from vyavahAra
>> > perspective.
>> > praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji
>> > Hare Krishna
>> > I failed to see where exactly Sri Ananda Hudli prabhuji said that nAnA
>> > jeeva and their respective avidyA-s are pAramArthically anAdi??
>> > sarva loukika, vaidika vyavahAra, shAstra & even bandha-mOksha
>> > within the realm of vyavahAra only. The explanation that has been given
>> > with regard to jeeva-avidyA and anAditva too falls under vyavahAra only.
>> > What exactly is the problem here?? could you please elaborate.
>> In a vAda, when one provides a tarka/anumAna to substantiate his/her
>> it is expected in vidvad circles that hEtu used in such argument is
>> accepted as "true" (tAtvIka), at least in such person's own siddhAnta if
>> not in opponent's siddhAnta.
>> So in this line, when anAditva was used, I was just pointing to the fact
>> that it is not tAtvIka as it implies on the face of it, for such notion of
>> anAditva comes with a baggage, for it is conceived when one in vyavahAra,
>> which by definition avidyA drusTi. So, basically it boils down to the fact
>> that one cannot argue based on elements which are not "true" in reality.
>> > I think
>> > problem starts only when one say even before the jeeva bhAva/srushti or
>> > even before the srushti, paramAtma who is ekamevAdviteeya had avidyA !!
>> > Because this attribution of avidyA to brahman even before anything would
>> > imply that pAramArthically brahman would have the avidyA. No need to
>> > mention mUlAvidyA of panchapAdika vivaraNa entertains this type of
>> > thought.
>> Some posts in this list are indeed explicit in saying Brahman is ashraya
>> for avidya.
>> Leaving them aside, in the current context of jIvAshraya (of avidya) vAda
>> of Sri.vAchaspati, no doubt this argument is anchored and forwarded in the
>> context of vyavahAra only. But the contention from the opponent is that
>> such notion of "vyavahAra" and "jIva" is impossible unless alleged avidya
>> is in action. So, the question of locus for such avidya is the topic of
>> discussion. Madhusudhana was arguing in support for jIvAshrita vAda, and
>> upon showing the in-applicability of his argument, anAditva was forwared,
>> which I was contesting on the grounds that it is not tAtvIka, for it comes
>> into equation only when vyavahAra is admitted, but possibility of
>> is the very first question we are debating.
>> I hope I am clear on this issue.
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list