Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Wed Aug 16 05:01:12 EDT 2017

```Namaste Venkatraghavanji,

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> If that jIva was one, the argument goes, the liberation of that one would
> lead to the destruction the world.
>
I know that there are pros and cons can be pointed out for both Vivarana
and Bhamati, but now that I made this analysis from DSV angle, I like
Vivarana's EJV. This argument of the world being destroyed can be handled
in the way it is answered as in adhyAsabhAShya. The question raised is that
if the vyApti is that yatra yatra lokavyavahAra, tatra tatra adhyAsa, then
the jnAni also has vyavahAra, meaning he also has adhyAsa and therefore
get destroyed. Else prArabdha also should go and jnAni's body should fall
off.
​

> We don't encounter that, so the jIvAs must be many. If jIvAs are many, is
> avidyA one or many?
>

> If avidyA is one, under the jIvAshrita avidyA view, all the jIvas would
> share the one avidyA. You will have the same problem, the liberation of any
> one jIva would either destroy everyone's common avidyA, or failing which,
> if that avidyA is not destroyed, could lead to a relapse from moksha for
> the liberated jIva.
>
> Thus there are infinite avidyAs and infinite jIvas in this view.
>
As I said earlier EJV has lAghavam, ergo, NJV is unnecessary. All of the
above can be explained by DSV's brahmAstra svapnavat. If a dreamer knows
that he is only dreaming, he knows he is really the waker with his
bAdhita-svapna, but the dream continues and so do others who think they are
waking. The ashraya of this svapna is the waker who is non-different from
the waker.

On the other hand, with the Bhamati's explanation, there are other
questions that can be asked. This jIva who is the avidyAshraya, is it Atman
or anAtman? If it is Atman, that is only one, so it would be same as
Vivarana. If it is anAtman, it cannot be the locus of avidyA, since avidyA
and vidyA can occur only in a sentient entity. Moreover, jIvatva itself
being a product of avidyA, such an Ashraya cannot precede its creation!

If it still be insisted that the sentient individualised self, which are
infinite in numbers and argued that it is the Ashraya/ locus of avidyA but
the viShaya/ subject is brahman, it cannot be said so because the knowledge
of one entity cannot take away the avidyA in another. If it be said that
both are the same, you are back to Vivarana and therefore EJV is more
acceptable. This refutation is dealt by Bhagavan Sureshvaracharya in
Naishkarmyasiddhi sambandhokti to chapter 3 and others on elaboration of
verse 3.1.

​