'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is an updated article on the above topic.  New evidences are added including a short video clip of the late Pejawar Swamiji on taking the body as the self is bhrama, mithyaajnana:

https://adbhutam.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/dvaita-accepts-body-adhyasa-1.pdf

regards

subbu

[Vinodh]

Namaskaram,

Kindly pardon any ignorance on my part, but I thought that body-adhyasa was always accepted by Dvaita? In other words, I assumed that Dvaitins hold that the Jivaatma which is chaitanya-svaroopa (nature of consciousness or sentient) is falsely imagining itself to be the body which is jada (insentient). This is, in my limited understanding, similar to the view of the Samkhya philosophy where the (multiple) Purushas which are sentient experience the Prakriti which is insentient (and makes up 24 tattvas including the five panchabhootas of which the body is made) while not realizing the difference between Purusha and Prakriti. 

It is my understanding that the main difference of Advaita to these philosophies is not the body-adhyasa but rather the Jiva-Brahma-aikyam (one-ness of the Jiva and Brahman). 

So this post makes me wonder if there anything new (or surprising) about Dvaitins accepting body-adhyasa. 

Please do correct me if any of my above understanding is incorrect. 🙏

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2BLbyMz5d_9wgPbBO_nZoH4ur7_O__yEE98jzvuNPm4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:11 PM Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram,

Kindly pardon any ignorance on my part, but I thought that body-adhyasa was always accepted by Dvaita? In other words, I assumed that Dvaitins hold that the Jivaatma which is chaitanya-svaroopa (nature of consciousness or sentient) is falsely imagining itself to be the body which is jada (insentient). This is, in my limited understanding, similar to the view of the Samkhya philosophy where the (multiple) Purushas which are sentient experience the Prakriti which is insentient (and makes up 24 tattvas including the five panchabhootas of which the body is made) while not realizing the difference between Purusha and Prakriti. 

It is my understanding that the main difference of Advaita to these philosophies is not the body-adhyasa but rather the Jiva-Brahma-aikyam (one-ness of the Jiva and Brahman). 

So this post makes me wonder if there anything new (or surprising) about Dvaitins accepting body-adhyasa. 

That all aastika schools hold the Atma to be distinct from the body-mind complex is well known. The purpose of mentioning this with reference to Dvaita is that the consequence of the error (of taking the body to be the self) is, as explained by the Adhyasa Bhashya, all pramana-prameya vyavahara, both laukika and shaastriya, up to moksha, will have to be bracketed as happening in the realm of avidya.   This default, bold observation by Shankaracharya is unacceptable to all the others.  The status of the body-mind that is wrongly seen as the self, is also in danger:  avidya kalpita.  It falls in the category of anirvachaniya since it can't be satyam as it is sublated upon right knowledge and it can't be asat like the gagana kusuma since it is experienced.  Such a category is anathema to all others.  So, merely holding the idea that the body-identification is an error is not enough and one will have to go further to accept the consequences too.  

regards

subbu

Please do correct me if any of my above understanding is incorrect. 🙏

On Thu 14. Oct 2021 at 21:36, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is an updated article on the above topic.  New evidences are added including a short video clip of the late Pejawar Swamiji on taking the body as the self is bhrama, mithyaajnana:

https://adbhutam.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/dvaita-accepts-body-adhyasa-1.pdf

regards

subbu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2BLbyMz5d_9wgPbBO_nZoH4ur7_O__yEE98jzvuNPm4A%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJ4Bwo%3DeCd7U_qENgYhqk7s4i_bLera3%3DVAKaCtHNa7fw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Thank you for the clarification, Sri Subbuji. 

Could you please elaborate on (or point to the place in the Adhyasa Bhashya where it is shown) how the body-adhyasa (alone) leads to the conclusion that all pramana-prameya vyavahara is happening in avidya? 

The reason for asking this is that I thought that the Samkhya school (and other Dvaitic shools) claims that the body-mind is sat (existent) and part of Prakriti (insentient) and it is only an error on part of the sentient Purusha to not see the difference between itself and the insentient? In this case, it seems to me that they argue that while the body-adhyasa on the Purusha is an error, this does not necessarily mean that body-mind is avidya kalpita. 

So I am curious to know how the admission of body-adhyasa (alone) necessarily leads to the consequence of all vyavahara being in the realm of avidya according to the Adhyaasa Bhashya. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te12g5WTce-wBBwQM-_nL0AeSBnH-8jyGOfeW_9G%3DpFoGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Subbuji

The wrong identification (sthUla deha adhyAsa) with the physical body is accepted by the dvaitins. Yet, as you indicated, Shankara goes a step further to boldly assert that even the mind (and sUxma sharIra)  with its pramANa prameya vyavahAra is also an adhyAsa. That is bold and mind boggling. And only Advaita Vedanta asserts that. The dvaitins as I understand, assert the permanence of the subtle body and by implication the mind in some firm or the other to enable enjoyment of viShNu sAyujya etc in Vaikuntha. 

Negating the mind itself as mithyA, in Advaita, leaves Pure Consciousness which is outside the stream of time and space, as the only Reality.

The earlier experienced objects become relegated to a lower order of Reality.

Om

Raghav

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te12g5WTce-wBBwQM-_nL0AeSBnH-8jyGOfeW_9G%3DpFoGA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Vinodh]

This translation of the lectures of Sri Mani Dravid Shastri seems relevant to the question: https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/snsastri/adhyasabhashya.pdf

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."

In the above, it is stated that the adhyaasa of the body, mind, and senses on the self is essential for any vyavahara. So far, I assume the argument is understandable.

The question that remains from the Dvaita perspective is: why can it not be that the self as well as the body-mind-senses are both real? And that there is a self for a Jiva and a different self for a Paramatma, for example? It could still be that, in this case, the superimposition of the body-mind-senses is a cause of suffering for the Jiva. But this superimposition does not necessarily imply that the body-mind-senses themselves are unreal. 

There seems to be a somewhat similar question raised in the above text (quoted below), but it seems to be answered by an assertion that the body-mind-senses are not just made of panchabhootas as material cause, but are also made of avidya as a material cause. And therefore, it is not a matter of thinking one thing for another (misapprehension). 

I suppose this assertion that body-mind-senses have avidya as material cause is not accepted by the other schools? Because without this additional assertion that avidya is a material cause for body-mind, it is not entirely clear if it follows just from the body-mind adhyaasa on the self that all vyavahara is in avidya. Any thoughts on this would be highly appreciated. 🙏

Quote: "Can the attribution of the qualities of the body, mind and senses to the self be said to be anyathakhyati? Here also the answer is, no. The material cause of the body is not only the five elements but also the nescience relating to the particular jiva. Since nescience is anirvachaniyam, its effect, the body, is also the same. In this view maya is the totality and individual nescience is a part of it. The body is not something already existing elsewhere but it has come into existence from the individual nescience. So anyathakhyati is not applicable."

[Prasad]

Sri Gurubhyo Namaha

I am not a scholar. But I could confess to have listened to a fair bit from various teachers in the Arsha Vidya Parampara and read and tried to understand a few more things based on whatever understanding I gained from them. 

Vinodh ji says/asks - 

"Because without this additional assertion that avidya is a material cause for body-mind, it is not entirely clear if it follows just from the body-mind adhyaasa on the self that all vyavahara is in avidya. Any thoughts on this would be highly appreciated. 🙏"

I have a feeling that this assertion should be first refined - as in the statement does not make it clear what the status of the body-mind is.  Avidya is a material cause for the body-mind when they are assumed to be different from oneself. That is - "I am the knower, and this is my body-mind which is different from me, and exists independently of my existence" - such a statement suggests that the person has only gone half-the-distance. The person has found this, say via the Shruti or equivalently by drg-drushya prakriya. However, the Shruti goes a step further and says that this distinction is not real, in the sense that the body-mind does not exist independently of the Self. 

This assumption of "independent existence of the body-mind" is based on a lack of knowledge of the Self. This independent-existence assumption does not have any pramaana proving it. Hence this is an adhyaasa cause by avidya (advaita Atma avidya), which disappears upon the enquiry into the Self via the Shruti (that results in the knowledge of the Advaita Atma by resolving the existence of the body-mind into its true cause which is the Atman). 

As long as the true cause is not known, but the body-mind are seen to exist "independently" of oneself, their cause is Self-ignorance. When the body-mind's true cause (the Atman) is known and they are resolved via understanding into this cause, the body-mind cease to have any independent existence apart from oneself, hence the words "body-mind" do not point to any second object apart from oneself. This is knowledge because of which the body-mind ceases to exist. Thus Advaita Atma vidya destroys the independent existence of a body-mind and therefore samsara which follows from it. 

My two paise, 

- Prasad

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJ%2BOuviDvuzym%2B43Wt4ZV3LBHLwax%3DrWee_oN2z52%3D6geQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

My Journal ::
http://www.dropofeternity.blogspot.com

[Vinodh]

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. 🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CADWxSDg6Eopx9fn_5S%3DgqpbnYArKPU4%2B%3DwUToFkBPE%2BFP%2Bkt3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad]

Dear Vinodhji

I see. Thank you for the elaboration. Scholars could help you with the point. 

My two cents on this topic (of why other 'Vedantas' are incorrect) always seems to be that they seem quite convinced of bheda (due to lack of viveka-vairaagya or equivalently a desire to hold on to jivatva/individuality at some level) at the outset and therefore twist certain passages in the Shruti to suit their conviction. I am normally accused of arrogance for saying so but that's my honest opinion. 

Since there is no solution to lack of viveka-vairaagya except for continued performance of karma yoga I find elaborations on the technical points mostly not useful (for the opponent or for oneself) regarding this. 

- Prasad

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJguHNhPAmDVsZu-9s5t79zXHxyNxT44WBUdzdsjdCoog%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is the Vedantic position:

The Atma is not body and has no body.  The world can be perceived and validated by default only through the body. If there is no body there is no way anyone, however intelligent, can validate the body.  In other words, the world derives existence, astitiva, only through the body.  But the Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita 13th chapter teaches that the body is also a part of the world: kshetram: Read verses 5 and 6 of this chapter.

The Gita separates the Consciousness principle, called kshetrajna, from the kshetram with the sole intention of liberating the jiva by enabling him to discriminate the an-atma in him from the Atma that he really is and thereby get freed from samsara.

Shankara establishes in the Adhyasa bhashya that in the absence of the body-identification, atma-sharira adhyasa, there can be no perceiver, perception, etc. Perception, pratyaksha, as a pramana is dependent by default on the body being there. All the other pramanas, anumana, upamana, even shabda, operate only on the condition that the atma-body adhyasa is present as the basis.   If Atma is not the body, there is no world for the Atma/jiva.  This is as simple as this.  So, a world/body which is not there cannot be held, by any stretch of imagination or intelligence/yukti, to be real. 

It is on this line of thinking that 'atma-sharira adhyasa results in the unreality of the world'.  This position of the Vedanta is impossible to be refuted by any school, however intelligent its proponent would be.  Hence alone, the only moksha shaastra, the Veda, which is shabda, operates in the field/domain of avidya, presupposing the body-atma identification.  So, in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.1.14, Shankara establishes that even the Veda which is the only pramana to teach us liberating knowledge, is unreal.  This unreal pramana can and does liberate a person.  While the pramana remains in the domain of unreality, the result of liberation stands unsublatable.  This is the statement Shankara makes there.  The Veda itself declares in the Brihadaranyaka that the Veda is not there in the state of deep sleep and by extension, mukti.    

regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

A correction in my sentence:  //  If there is no body there is no way anyone, however intelligent, can validate the body.//   The last word is to be read as 'world'.

regards

subbu

[Vinodh]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'
To: H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>

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 <hschand...@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

_______________________________________________
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:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 9:26 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Vinodhji
Thank you for your question. I understand Subbuji was highlighting how even
dvaitin expositions don't deny adhyAsa of the body-mind and yet, (as
Advaita points out), they don't see the consequences of
I noticed that Subbuji indicated a brief answer along the idea of pramANas.

In other words, if pramAtRtvaM is accepted as adhyasta and hence not
absolutely real, then all objects (prameyas) including body and mind are
unreal. Samkhyas don't see the implication of adhyAsa for the means of
knowledge by which alone anything can be said to exist. If puruSha is
discriminated from its false identification with prakRti, then subsequently
there is no way ( by pramANas like pratyaxa and anumAna) to assert prakRti
exists. 

Yes, Raghav ji, that is the point. There are these two statements that all accept: मानाधीना मेयसिद्धिः   लक्षणप्रमाणाभ्यां वस्तुसिद्धिः  -  The validation of a knowable object, prameya, vastu, is dependent upon 1. the means to know it, pramana and 2.the nature of the object, the information of which, together with the operation of the pramana.

The Vedanta keeps before the aspirant the scenario where there is no body-identification. That is, the Atma is taught as that which has had no body identification; the virgin Atman, so to say.  From this Atman's standpoint, there are no pramanas, means to know anything, since all pramanas are, by default, situated in the body alone and nowhere else. So, from the Vedantic Atman's point of view, there is no world that can be validated since there are no pramanas at all.  

Also, a pramaa, a valid knowledge, arises out of a pramana. A bhrama, error, arises when the pramana, the right means of knowledge, is not used to know the object.  Hence alone a snake seen in the locus of a rope, is not a pramaa but a bhrama. From this it follows that the world is a bhrama since no pramana has had a place.  It is interesting the BG 13th ch. 6th verse says: the ten plus one organs, pramanas, the five sense and five motor organs plus the manas, antahkaranam, and the entire knowable world of sound, smell, tough, form and taste, all belong to kshetram, the world.  So, the knowable world and the means to know it are all constituents of the world, kshetram.  The kshetrajna, the Consciousness principle, is outside this means and end duality.   Thus by the logic provided by the Vedanta, the world, including the body-mind-organs complex, is unreal since these are not established by any pramana.  

Hence alone the Advaitins invoked the apaccheda nyaya of the purva mimamsa in Vedanta: a person from birth believes in duality, the world, etc. When he is exposed to the Vedanta he comes to know that the world is not and he is actually the Atman.  The maxim here is: pUrvam pareNa baadhyate - the latter knowledge annuls the earlier knowledge.  The earlier knowledge is ignorance really, like the rope-snake, and the latter knowledge is the yathArtha jnanam. 

regards

subbu    

 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vinodhji,

It is not your ignorance. The book mentioned by the Dvaita Swamiji is "Bhagavatam", which is basically an advaita-text. In the Chapter on Jnana, the Bhagavatam says that what was not there in the beginning and will not be there at the end, is as good as not there in the middle. This quintessential verse is very much there in the Original Bhagavad Gita as well as in  the Vashishtha Maharamayana.

What I understand is that Shri Gaudapadacharya discouraged  Adi Shankara  from writing the bhashya on the  Bhagavad Gita, as he (Gaudapadacharya) himself had already quoted that quintessential verse from the Original Bhagavad Gita in his (Gaudapadacharya's) Mandukya-Karika. Adi Shankarachya had to oblige his param-guru and write the Lalita-Trishati-bhashya, instead of the bhashya on the Originl Bhagavad Gita. Somehow or other the Laita-Trishati bhashya is not generally discussed in advaita forums.

It is another matter that thirteen centuries later Abhinava Shankaracharya wrote the Bhagavad Gita bhashya,  to refute some of the interpretations of Nimba-Bhaskara (Bhaskaracharya changing his name of Nimbarkacharya).

Best.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te12g5WTce-wBBwQM-_nL0AeSBnH-8jyGOfeW_9G%3DpFoGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

<

The Vedanta keeps before the aspirant the scenario where there is no body-identification. That is, the Atma is taught as that which has had no body identification; the virgin Atman, so to say.  From this Atman's standpoint, there are no pramanas, means to know anything, since all pramanas are, by default, situated in the body alone and nowhere else. So, from the Vedantic Atman's point of view, there is no world that can be validated since there are no pramanas at all.  

>

It is true that the Atman does not need any pramAna for itself. But it is also true that the Atman is the pramAna of all pramANas as the body derives existence/validity from the Atman/Brahman only.  Are we not using our senses/mind/intellect in teaching and understanding the above? So, the "dependence" of the atman/truth on the body/world/dharma cannot be denied by any school. 

Identification of atman with the name/form/body is ajyAna. But identification of Brahman through every name/form/body is jnyAna and that alone helps to realize the sarva vyApakatva of Brahman.

Namaste,

Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 6:09 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99n8imwPeM9pa7o1EjOJNqeqcqneYzgP0PNbRPt-ihwag%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Suresh ji,

What you say is not denied. It is a different topic. 

Warm regards

Subbu

[Vinodh]

Thank you, Sri Raghav ji and Sri Subbu ji for your kind explanations. 

Please allow me to summarize my understanding of the discussion so far and kindly let me know if you have further thoughts. 

Consider two entities, A (Atma) and B (body-mind-senses + jagat). The question at hand is "what is real?"

The two main positions that are being discussed are:

- (Advaita) A alone is real and B is due to avidya / maya / illusion. Due to adhyaasa of A-B, it appears as though B is real and A is the knower, actor, experiencer, etc.

- (Dvaita) Both A and B are real. Due to adhyaasa of A-B, it appears as though the actions and consequences of B are having an effect on A, when truly A is never touched by what happens in B.

Note that both the positions have the following common aspects:

1. Adhyaasa of A-B: the qualities of B (like the knower, means of knowledge, and the known) are erroneously superimposed on A

2. All pramana (means of knowledge) are in B only. A does not have any means for knowledge in B and necessarily requires the A-B adhyaasa to become a knower and know things in B. 

Both the above common aspects have been stated in several ways in this thread. The natural question is, of course, where do the positions differ. 

My understanding of the explanations given in support for the Advaita position is

a. the two aspects 1. and 2. (which are common for both Advaita and Dvaita)

b. *asserting* that all pramana (i.e., all means of knowledge and the instruments needed for it such as mind, senses, body, etc.) are **unreal**

The reason why Dvaita, even while accepting the common aspects 1. and 2., does not concur with the Advaita position is because they apparently assert the opposite of b., that is, all pramana are real. 

Equivalently, the arguments in support of the Dvaita position are:

a. the two aspects 1. and 2. (which are common for both Advaita and Dvaita)

b. *asserting* that all pramana (i.e., all means of knowledge and the instruments needed for it such as mind, senses, body, etc.) are **real**

In a way, when one thinks about it, these assertions are just restatements of the Advaita and Dvaita positions themselves (because B is a set containing the pramana and their instruments such as mind-body-senses etc.). 

My question thus far has been about an explanation for assertion b in support of Advaita. Below are my observations of the discussions in this thread regarding this question:

- Sri Subbu ji has emphasized the necessity of using pramana (including the mind-body-senses etc.) to know any knowable object. This is of course true and is also discussed in the Adhyasa Bhashya. It also concurs with the common aspect 2. 

- He has also referred to the Vedanta, e.g., by references to Kshetra and Kshetrajna in the Gita, for establishing the separation between A and B, where A is the Atma and B is the set of everything else including pramana. This is also a meaningful separation to keep in mind. However, the separation alone does not necessarily say anything about the reality of A and B. 

- He has also referred to the Adhyasa Bhashya, in which Shankara makes the assertion that body-mind has avidya for its material cause, which is essentially the same as assertion b.. He do not discuss this assertion further within the Adhyasa Bhashya with additional supporting arguments because it appears that Adhyasa is the main focus of the discussion there. My apologies if I have missed this an explanation of this assertion. I would sincerely appreciate if someone would be kind enough to point this out in the Adhyasa Bhashya.  

- Sri Subbu ji has also made a similar assertion that all instruments required for pramana (mind-senses etc.) are unreal without discussing this assertion further with supporting arguments, at least as far as I can see from what is written in this thread. My sincere apologies once again if I have indeed missed anything. 🙏

Having summarized my understanding of the discussion thus far and having reflected on it, it appears to me that assertion b. of Advaita (that all pramana are unreal) can be established in two possible ways: 

(1) using shabda pramana, e.g., sruti vaakya like 'ekam eva advitiyam' (one without a second), which implies that there is nothing other than A and therefore that B is unreal, or 

(2) without using shabda pramana , e.g., by using pure reasoning as Gaudapadacharya does in the Vaitathya Prakarana of his Mandukyopanishad Karika. 

The first requires a person to accept scriptural authority, whereas the second does not. 

In contrast, I doubt if there exists anything that is in support of assertion b. of Dvaita (that all pramana are real).

Om tat sat 🙏

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:51 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 9:26 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Vinodhji
> Thank you for your question. I understand Subbuji was highlighting how even
> dvaitin expositions don't deny adhyAsa of the body-mind and yet, (as
> Advaita points out), they don't see the consequences of
> I noticed that Subbuji indicated a brief answer along the idea of pramANas.
>
> In other words, if pramAtRtvaM is accepted as adhyasta and hence not
> absolutely real, then all objects (prameyas) including body and mind are
> unreal. Samkhyas don't see the implication of adhyAsa for the means of
> knowledge by which alone anything can be said to exist. If puruSha is
> discriminated from its false identification with prakRti, then subsequently
> there is no way ( by pramANas like pratyaxa and anumAna) to assert prakRti
> exists.


Yes, Raghav ji, that is the point. There are these two statements that all
accept: मानाधीना मेयसिद्धिः   लक्षणप्रमाणाभ्यां वस्तुसिद्धिः  -  The
validation of a knowable object, prameya, vastu, is dependent upon 1. the
means to know it, pramana and 2.the nature of the object, the information
of which, together with the operation of the pramana.

The Vedanta keeps before the aspirant the scenario where there is no
body-identification. That is, the Atma is taught as that which has had no
body identification; the virgin Atman, so to say.  From this Atman's
standpoint, there are no pramanas, means to know anything, since all
pramanas are, by default, situated in the body alone and nowhere else. So,
from the Vedantic Atman's point of view, there is no world that can be
validated since there are no pramanas at all.

Also, a pramaa, a valid knowledge, arises out of a pramana. A bhrama,
error, arises when the pramana, the right means of knowledge, is not used
to know the object.  Hence alone a snake seen in the locus of a rope, is
not a pramaa but a bhrama. From this it follows that the world is a
bhrama since no pramana has had a place.  It is interesting the BG 13th ch.
6th verse says: the ten plus one organs, pramanas, the five sense and five
motor organs plus the manas, antahkaranam, and the entire knowable world of
sound, smell, tough, form and taste, all belong to kshetram, the world.
So, the knowable world and the means to know it are all constituents of the
world, kshetram.  The kshetrajna, the Consciousness principle, is outside
this means and end duality.   Thus by the logic provided by the Vedanta,
the world, including the body-mind-organs complex, is unreal since these
are not established by any pramana.

Hence alone the Advaitins invoked the apaccheda nyaya of the purva mimamsa
in Vedanta: a person from birth believes in duality, the world, etc. When
he is exposed to the Vedanta he comes to know that the world is not and he
is actually the Atman.  The maxim here is: pUrvam pareNa baadhyate - the
latter knowledge annuls the earlier knowledge.  The earlier knowledge is
ignorance really, like the rope-snake, and the latter knowledge is the
yathArtha jnanam.

regards
subbu






>
>

[Vinodh]

Namaskaram Sri Sunil ji, 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 

I did not know that the Bhagavatham and other texts say "what was not there in the beginning and will not be there at the end is as good as not there in the middle". 

Would you be able to provide a reference to the places of occurrence of this statement in the texts you mention?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99n8imwPeM9pa7o1EjOJNqeqcqneYzgP0PNbRPt-ihwag%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:56 PM Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Sri Sunil ji, 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 

I did not know that the Bhagavatham and other texts say "what was not there in the beginning and will not be there at the end is as good as not there in the middle". 

Would you be able to provide a reference to the places of occurrence of this statement in the texts you mention?

The Bhagavatam verse can be seen here, along with the Gaudapada Karika, etc, discussed:  

https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2013-April/034478.html     In the Bhagavatam, the numbering is  11.28.9.  

regards

subbu

[Vinodh]

Thank you very much, Sri Subbi ji! 🙏

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1%3DA4LvpUbvA%3D4x9M%2BwvgfCya43RHGtWwKmPoAXStWsQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 8:27 PM Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you very much, Sri Subbi ji! 🙏

Here is one more verse from the same chapter of the Bhagavatam:

न यत्पुरस्तादुत यन्न पश्चा-
     न्मध्ये च तन्न व्यपदेशमात्रम् ।
भूतं प्रसिद्धं च परेण यद् यत्
     तदेव तत् स्यादिति मे मनीषा ॥ २१ ॥

That which is neither before nor after is also non-existent in 
the interim. It is a mere name. I am of the opinion that whatever
is caused or brought to light by some other thing must be that
 and nothing else. (srImadbhAgavatam UddhavagItA 13.21)

अविद्यमानोऽप्यवभासते यो

     वैकारिको राजससर्ग एषः । 

Translation

Although thus not existing in reality, this manifestation of transformations created from the mode of passion appears real because the self-manifested, self-luminous Absolute Truth exhibits Himself in the form of the material variety of the senses, the sense objects, the mind and the elements of physical nature.

regards

subbu

.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste

There are a few things that are going on here that must be separated here for clearer understanding.

1) Firstly, all pramANa prameya vyavahAra has been spoken of as presupposing adhyAsa between the body mind complex and the self in the adhyAsa bhAShya. 

2) Shankaracharya holds that for the self to be a knower (pramAtA), there has to be a body and mind superimposed on the self. Thus pramAtRtvam (knowerhood) presupposes adhyAsa (superimposition). 

3) However, mistaking the body to be the self and vice versa is in itself insufficient to prove the mithyAtva of all pramANa prameya vyavahAra. A mixup between two objects can happen even where both objects are real. This is what the naiyyAyikas say - a real silver present elsewhere is seen here in the shell.

4) Similarly, while dvaita (specifically tattvavAda of AnandatIrtha muni) accepts that taking the body to be the Atma is erroneous, it does not accept that all of the pramANa prameya vyavahAra is consequently within the sphere of ignorance. This is because in their view, while taking the body to be the self is erroneous, the existence of the body-mind-complex is not on account of ignorance. The body and mind are very much real, in their view.

5) Therefore, in order to establish the mithyAtva of the body-mind-complex and pramANa-s when faced with a dvaitin, we have to resort to other means of knowledge such as shruti (neha nAnAsti kinchana), anumAna (vimatam mithyA dRshyatvAt) etc. When the world is proven to be mithyA, the pramANa-s and the body mind complex, which are included within the world, are also proven to be mithyA.

6) Does this mean that pramANa-s have no validity in advaita? No. This in itself does not invalidate vyavahAra - or the transactional validity of pramANa-s. In fact, Shankaracharya quotes a verse by a pre-Shankara advaitin at the end of the samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAShya, linking the notion of taking the body to be the self with pramANatva - which I think is a good way to conclude this post, referring as it does both to the subject matter of this thread (dehAtma adhyAsa) and the incidental question (pramANatva) -

देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत्प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः । 

लौकिकं तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणं त्वाऽऽत्मनिश्चयात् ॥

Just like notion of the body as the self is considered valid, so are worldly means of knowledge - albeit only until the rise of certain knowledge of the self.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJRe0pukULQpQACtps83cNx9d%2BsYr_vZYEa3ks92OUnkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Thank you for the additional reference, Sri Subbu ji.

Thank you for concisely summarizing your thoughts on the discussion, Sri Venkatraghavan ji. It matches with my understanding.

Namaskaram 🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3D16h9AFcZ15GaEkq3cLVjkpDnqjRduT5PaiU4S-DFQqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Sri Venkatraghavan ji,

I do not seem familiar with the two examples you cite for establishing mithyatva of the world in 5). Could you kindly elaborate on them?

Thank you and Namaskaram 🙏

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Vinodh ji

They are not examples, rather they are pramANa-s. 

The former is from bRhadAraNyaka shruti (4.4.19) 

मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं  नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । 

मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥

It is revealing that there is no multiplicity here whatsoever. There are many such statements throughout the shruti.

The latter is anumAna pramANa - vimatam, the object about which there is difference of opinion, is mithyA, because it is dRshya, cognisable / knowable. The drShTAnta or example for the anumAna is the shell silver.

Through the use of such pramANa-s, the mithyAtva of the world is proven. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJKV%2BbHGoCmt%3Dg-YZkc9%3DR0yOOYkNbL89kpqfEy6uusgLg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Thank you for the additional clarification, Venkatraghavan ji. 

I had of course meant examples of pramanas for establishing jagat-mithyatva. The reason for using the word “examples” was to indicate that there are several equivalent sruti pramanas (as you also mention) and anumana pramanas for establishing mithyatva. Therefore, in this sense, I meant to say that you have specified one example of a sruti pramana and one example of an anumana pramana. 

I was trying to understand if there was any fundamental difference between the sruti and anumana pramanas for jagat-mithyatva that I had mentioned earlier in this thread and that ones you mention. It appears that they are essentially equivalent. Both sruti pramanas establish jagat-mithyatva by explicitly rejecting multiplicity. Both anumana pramanas establish jagat-mithyatva by observing that what appears to change (or equivalently what is non-existent in the beginning and the end but seems to exist in the middle) is mithya. 

Namaskaram 🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnJpAuof1%2BvMtZnwRowYt0j%2BV-OfphcSCcgLNkiZnuNGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:25 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Vinodh ji

They are not examples, rather they are pramANa-s. 

The former is from bRhadAraNyaka shruti (4.4.19) 

मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं  नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । 

मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥

It is revealing that there is no multiplicity here whatsoever. There are many such statements throughout the shruti.

In Madhvacharya's view, this shruti means: He who perceives the difference between Vishnu and his avatara forms, Vishnu and his various body parts, Vishnu and his guna-s, will forever remain in samsara.  By extension, whoever equates other gods with Vishnu or holds other gods to be higher than Vishnu also meet the same fate.  

regards

subbu

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

<

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:25 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Vinodh ji

They are not examples, rather they are pramANa-s. 

The former is from bRhadAraNyaka shruti (4.4.19) 

मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं  नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । 

मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥

It is revealing that there is no multiplicity here whatsoever. There are many such statements throughout the shruti.

In Madhvacharya's view, this shruti means: He who perceives the difference between Vishnu and his avatara forms, Vishnu and his various body parts, Vishnu and his guna-s, will forever remain in samsara.  By extension, whoever equates other gods with Vishnu or holds other gods to be higher than Vishnu also meet the same fate.  

>

If Vishnu is realized as the sarvAntaryAmi parmAtma (Supreme Self) indwelling in all, then not seeing any difference i that antaryAmi form leads to oneness of all which is essentially Advaita 🙂

IMHO, the spirit of Advaita is not to accept the world as real or to reject it outrightly. It is to identify oneself with the entire world so that the Atma-anAtma (body-world) divide is transcended to attain the all-pervading Brahman.

Namaste

Suresh

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 7:34 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>

Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0NwCU4GL%3D9R-VMg5jxx7VpXfJrvEMRjiWKWmRkcfn50g%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, 10:26 pm suresh srinivasamurthy, <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

<

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:25 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Vinodh ji

They are not examples, rather they are pramANa-s. 

The former is from bRhadAraNyaka shruti (4.4.19) 

मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं  नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । 

मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥

It is revealing that there is no multiplicity here whatsoever. There are many such statements throughout the shruti.

In Madhvacharya's view, this shruti means: He who perceives the difference between Vishnu and his avatara forms, Vishnu and his various body parts, Vishnu and his guna-s, will forever remain in samsara.  By extension, whoever equates other gods with Vishnu or holds other gods to be higher than Vishnu also meet the same fate.  

>

If Vishnu is realized as the sarvAntaryAmi parmAtma (Supreme Self) indwelling in all, then not seeing any difference i that antaryAmi form leads to oneness of all which is essentially Advaita 🙂

IMHO, the spirit of Advaita is not to accept the world as real or to reject it outrightly. It is to identify oneself with the entire world so that the Atma-anAtma (body-world) divide is transcended to attain the all-pervading Brahman.

Nicely said.

regards

subbu

Namaste

Suresh

[Vinodh]

Namskaram Sri Subbu ji and Sri Suresh ji, it interesting to know how Dvaitavaadins differently interpret the same statements from the sruti. It is even more fascinating to know how even such a different interpretation can still be subsumed under Advaita. Thanks for sharing. 🙏

This makes me very curious to know more such examples of how similar sruti vaakyas have been differently interpreted and how a reconciliation can still be made under the Advaitic view. If there was already such a compilation made in another discussion earlier, I would greatly appreciate if someone could point me to it. 

Sri Kanchi Paramacharya has likened in one of his discourses the various other philosophies being the equivalent to the ground floor and other lower floors of a building and Advaita being the very top floor. Those in the lower floors may not recognize the higher floors, but those in the higher floors will necessarily recognize the lower ones because they have to go through them to the top. In the same way, while other philosophies may not recognize the Advaitic Truth, Advaita recognizes the Truth inherent in all other philosophies. It also implies that one does not get to the top, the Advaitic truth, by simply skipping the lower floors, the dvaitic vyavahara of karma and bhakti. It is for this reason that, in the very beginning of what happens to be his very last upadesha, the Sopana or Sadhana Panchakam, Shankara Bhagavadpada instructs one to indulge himself in dvaita vyavahara such as karmanushtana and bhakti without any desire for their fruits but rather with the only goal of getting to the top, which is the Atma. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1Uj0zP%2BHu33v_1u_mUL6J5GNKmJ9N8v4W19TwVdQrpHw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

If Vishnu is realized as the sarvAntaryAmi parmAtma (Supreme Self) indwelling in all, then not seeing any difference i that antaryAmi form leads to oneness of all which is essentially Advaita 🙂

 

Ø     Not so, when you strictly speaking within the very rigid frame of Advaita 😊 Above statement holds good only for realizing upAsya brahma (kArya or apara brahma) not jneya brahma (i.e. parabrahma)😊

 

IMHO, the spirit of Advaita is not to accept the world as real or to reject it outrightly. It is to identify oneself with the entire world so that the Atma-anAtma (body-world) divide is transcended to attain the all-pervading Brahman.

 

• Again, according to some advaitins, sarvAntaryAmitvaM (all pervasiveness/omni presence) sarvajnatvaM (omniscient) etc. are mere qualities (guNa-s) hence not attributable to nirvishesha and nirupAdhika parabrahman and can be applicable to upAsya sOpAdhika brahman.   

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

 

 

From: Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:08 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

If Vishnu is realized as the sarvAntaryAmi parmAtma (Supreme Self) indwelling in all, then not seeing any difference i that antaryAmi form leads to oneness of all which is essentially Advaita 🙂

 

Ø     Not so, when you strictly speaking within the very rigid frame of Advaita 😊 Above statement holds good only for realizing upAsya brahma (kArya or apara brahma) not jneya brahma (i.e. parabrahma)😊

 

IMHO, the spirit of Advaita is not to accept the world as real or to reject it outrightly. It is to identify oneself with the entire world so that the Atma-anAtma (body-world) divide is transcended to attain the all-pervading Brahman.

 

• Again, according to some advaitins, sarvAntaryAmitvaM and sarvavyApakatvaM (all pervasiveness/omni presence) sarvajnatvaM (omniscient) etc. are mere qualities (guNa-s) hence not attributable to nirvishesha and nirupAdhika parabrahman and can be applicable to upAsya sOpAdhika brahman.   

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:07 AM Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namskaram Sri Subbu ji and Sri Suresh ji, it interesting to know how Dvaitavaadins differently interpret the same statements from the sruti. It is even more fascinating to know how even such a different interpretation can still be subsumed under Advaita. Thanks for sharing. 🙏

This makes me very curious to know more such examples of how similar sruti vaakyas have been differently interpreted and how a reconciliation can still be made under the Advaitic view. If there was already such a compilation made in another discussion earlier, I would greatly appreciate if someone could point me to it. 

Dear Vinodh,

 

While I am not aware of any scholarly compilation of such instances, here are some well known ones:  Madhva takes Tattvamasi as atattvamasi = you are not that.  His interpretation of aham brahma asmi is very complicated.  Yet later Dvaiitins have laboured to compose some twenty different interpretations of tattvamasi (not atattvamasi), everyone of these steering clear of the advaitic interpretation. 😊  These are just two well known examples of many others not so very well known. 

regards

subbu 

 

[Vinodh]

Sri Subbu ji,

I have briefly read about the interpretation of 'tattvamasi' as 'atatvamasi' by Madhvacharya, although I wonder how he ties it up together with the beginning of Svetaketu-Uddalaka discussion on knowing that by which everything is known. An answer that "that is not you" seems very anticlimactic to such a discussion after describing the creation of everything from Sat. It is interesting to know that later Dvaitins have also tried other interpretations of tattvamasi. Thank you for sharing. 😊🙏

Namaskaram 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3xQgo%3DUDm5Q6xDG6P_cZqZfcJ1zXmzz05LXLsJdAL_mg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Thank you for the explanation, Sri Kaushik. It certainly seems to be a valuable teaching in dvaita vyavahara, where the 'tvam' is taken to be the individual Jiva that identifies as Svetaketu and as different from other individuals. This Jiva-Paramatma bheda is required for surrendering to the Paramatma and letting go of one's ego which is a source of desires. 

However, I still wonder how such a teaching of "That is the Atma, That you are not." ties up with the initial part of the discussion. The discussion starts with Svetaketu coming back from Gurukulam with a pride of knowing everything, to which his father asks if he has ever heard the teaching by which one hears what cannot be heard, by which one perceives what cannot be perceived, by which one knows what cannot be known. His father later expands on it by saying that this teaching is similar to how by knowing a clod of clay all things made of clay are known, or how by knowing a gold nugget all things made of gold are known, etc. I wonder how the dvaitins could possibly justify that "That is Atma, That you are not" is such a type of teaching. 

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 7:32 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste. 

The madhwas propose "atat tvam asi" because shvetaku was initially full of pride. To remove this pride his father tells him his not the supreme entity rather he is always under the control and mercy of it.

This is the response given by them.

Namo narayanaya

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3xQgo%3DUDm5Q6xDG6P_cZqZfcJ1zXmzz05LXLsJdAL_mg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:17 PM Kaushik Chevendra <chevendr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste. 

I dont exactly know in depth regarding the tat tvam asi and madhwas,but I remember on the adbuthams blog ,subu sir had a long discussion with a madhwa in this topic. Hope he can shed some light on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei1ha9nZ9P8      This video has a discussion in Kannada on the Tat tvam asi.  The first comment on that page gives one the Advaitic view of the opinions stated in the video.

regards

subbu  

Thank you

Namo narayanaya

[Vinodh]

Excellent reference! Thank you so much for translating and summarizing the viewpoints in your comment on the video, Sri Subbu ji. Much appreciated🙏

[Vinodh]

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. 

2. pramanatvam of sruti must also be acknolwedged becaused it only through sruti that the existence of the Self is known 

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

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). 

5. Sruti vaakyas in support of Dvaita position "Satya aatma, satyo jivaha, satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa" etc. 

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. 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). On top of it, several other adhyaasas are made, like a body is superimposed as "This is mine" and so are one's relatives, properties, successes, failures, etc. 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). However, from a fundamental paramarthika perspective, there is nothing to be cognized outside the Atma. The Atma out of its maya (which results in avidya) appears as a Jiva and also as several other objects, just like the rope appears as a snake, a stream of water, a crack in the ground, etc.. This makes the pramana-prameya-pramtr-triad (as the object-senses/mind-jivaatma) appear and cognize itself as various things. All this happens within the maya, whereas the Atma is truly unaffected by any of it. It does not know anything else other than itself (e.g., shruti says "where one see nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is bhooma (biggest, referring to Brahman); where one sees something else, hears something else, knows something else, that is alpam (small, referring to the limiting adjuncts like mind, body, etc. that make up jivaatma, jagat etc.)). 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). But the Jivaatma does have pramatrtva due to its upaadhi (limiting adjunct / conditioning) as a separate entity out of its avidya. 

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. 

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. 

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). This is nicely captured by the last (twelfth) verse of the Mandukya Upanishad thus:

अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽव्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत एवमोङ्कार आत्मैव संविशत्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानं य एवं वेद ॥ १२ ॥

amātraścaturtho'vyavahāryaḥ prapañcopaśamaḥ śivo'dvaita evamoṅkāra ātmaiva saṃviśatyātmanā''tmānaṃ ya evaṃ veda || 12 ||

12. That which has no parts (soundless) (amātrah), incomprehensible (with the aid of the senses) (avyavahāryaḥ), the cessation of all phenomena (prapañcopaśamaḥ), all bliss (siva) and non-dual (advaita) Aum, is the fourth and verily the same as the Ātman. He who knows this merges his self in the Self.

Om tat sat 🙏

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:01 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <sveda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Vindoh-ji,

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 11:16 PM Vinodh via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Having summarized my understanding of the discussion thus far and having
reflected on it, it appears to me that assertion b. of Advaita (that all
pramana are unreal) can be established in two possible ways:
(1) using shabda pramana, e.g., sruti vaakya like 'ekam eva advitiyam' (one
without a second), which implies that there is nothing other than A and
therefore that B is unreal, or
(2) without using shabda pramana , e.g., by using pure reasoning as
Gaudapadacharya does in the Vaitathya Prakarana of his Mandukyopanishad
Karika.
The first requires a person to accept scriptural authority, whereas the
second does not.

In contrast, I doubt if there exists anything that is in support of
assertion b. of Dvaita (that all pramana are real).

What exactly do you mean by the term "support" in your above question? 

Are you looking for how Dvaitins provide any evidence(pramANa) in support of their position (of pramANas are real)?

Whatever pramaNas Dvaitins may give you, they must necessarily be valid and existing. Otherwise how can you possibly accept them, right? If so, providing such real and valid pramANas itself proves their pramEya that "pramANas are real" irrespective of the details of such provided pramANas :)

Anyways, Dvaitin's support is also from shruti  -- Satya Aatmaa, satyo jiivaha, satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa," among many others regarding satyatva of jagat.

Please note, since Dvaitin's position is that of 'pramANa-s are real', their quoting of Shruti, which itself a pramANa, and its reality status does not run counter to each other. In other words, pramEya and pramANa are of the same reality status. This is not the case with  Advaita. Their pramEya (that pramNa-pramEya-pramAtR^itva are avidya kruta and hence unreal) is counter to the reality status of the very evidence being used in the process. 

Regards,

/sv

 

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

The BG 13th ch. verse 'purushah prakriti- stho hi bhunkte prajritijaan gunaan. Kaaranam gunasangosya sadasad yonijanmasu' teaches that Atma, identified with the prakriti (as body mind senses prana complex - dharmi adhyasa) considers the prakriti dharmas as its own (dharma adhyasa). This results in samsara, birth repeatedly. 

It also teaches prakriti and purusha are anadi. Thus, this adhyasa and samsara are also anaadi. So there is no anyonyashraya defect in all schools which accept adhyasa and samsara as anadi. 

As to when  and how the adhyasa took place is not the responsibility of the shaastra to explain. It is committed to only show  the remedy. And that is the viveka between atma and anatma and claiming oneself to be the Atma. 

The 13th chapter is a mirror of the adhyasa bhashya.

Regards

subbu

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, 8:40 pm Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Dear Vinodh-ji


>

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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:44 PM Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> 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. 

It is to be noted that in Dvaita the Atma is a body mind complex.  They have accepted a 'svarupa deha' for the Atma which is inalienable from the Atma.  This jiva (for them the Atma is forever a jiva, both in samsara and in moksha as they admit Vishnu to be the Controller and the jiva to be ever the controlled.) with its default body mind complex (which is distinct from the various bodies a jiva would take during its bound state) is the one which will enjoy bhoga (of women, drinking, merrymaking etc) in mukti. (For this they cite the authority of the Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3 passage 'sa paryeti jakshan ramamaanaH kreedan streebhirva yaanairvaa..' स तत्र पर्येति जक्षत्क्रीडन् रममाणः स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैर्वा ज्ञातिभिर्वा...)  And this body is not necessarily a human-like body but could be of any species.  This body will have a mind, sense organs and a gender and caste too.  And it is also not free of sattva, etc. gunas.  So, for such an Atman it is no problem to have pramatrutva, knowership, since it already has what all is required to be a knower, the body, etc.  It is this Atman that has a-prakrita body mind complex  that has the adhyasa of a prakrita body mind complex resulting in samsara. 

Also, they have assigned a 'dependent reality' (paratantra) to everything other than Brahman (Vishnu) who alone has 'Independent, Svatantra, Reality', just like Advaitins hold Brahman to be Paramarthika satya and everything else only vyavaharika satya. 

regards

subbu

[Vinodh]

Sri Srinath ji,

Thank you for your feedback on my understanding of the purvapaksha and for the follow-up points to the discussion. Your feedback helps in making sure that I have understood the main objections correctly, and more importantly, your follow-up question raise important questions that point in the right direction, at least from the perspective of Advaita. Please find my responses below. 

Sri Subbu ji, thank you for your explanation of the concept of Atma under Dvaita, which is quite new to me. This helps quite a lot in conveying my thoughts when comparing these two philosophies without mixing up terms that could mean very different things in each of them. 

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

Dear Vinodh-ji

Thanks for responding.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 8:14 AM Vinodh via Advaita-l <adva...@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.

If Atma is taken to me the nirguna Brahman, that is, the Atma without any qualities, as understood in Advaita, the adhyaasa is indeed unexplained. As Sri Subbu ji also points out in one of his emails, adhyaasa, and the maya which causes it is considered anaadi. And there is no explanation for maya beyond the kind of analogies provided of a tree stump seen to be a man, a rope to be a snake, silver in a shell, etc. Moreover, as far as I understand, the analysis is only used to establish the mithyatva of dvaita prapancha which uses pramana-prameya-pramatrtva. 

This is very similar to how, in Mathematics / Logic, the Incompleteness Theorems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems) show that in any consistent logical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved, and more over, that a logical system cannot prove its own consistency. In the history of Mathematics and Logic, this was a severe blow to the Mathematicians and Logicians who spent their entire careers working on some of the hardest problems of Mathematics which were unsolved for 100s of years or on establishing a fully consistent system of logic with which all of Mathematics could be understood. 

In contrast to the analysis required to establish the mithyatva of the dvaita prapancha, no analysis is used to establish the advaitic truth, which is simply conveyed by statements that equate the atma (the self of the individual) to the all this (i.e., brahma) that are referred to as mahavakyas (like 'tat tvam asi', 'ayam atma brahma', etc.).

If one presses further and says, how come a statement like this, which also a pramana and therefore unreal cause any effect (like jnana or moksha), then this is also not an issue. In the fundamental paramarthika sense, as Gaudapadacharya says, there is really noone who is in bondage and who becomes liberated after doing a sadhana. The entire thing is an illusion. The question raised is: was there ever a snake that truly existed for it to disappear? No. It was always an illusion. The rope was hidden and some thing else seemed to be in its place because of avidya, and now that the avidya is removed and the truth is seen, the rope is seen as it is. Therefore, even the pramana of a mahavakya seemingly causing moksha is an illusion. This is the view of Advaita. 

 

  

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.

 

This is a very good question. Pramatrvtva by definition implies a pramana and a prameya. For something to be a a knower, there is something that is known and something through which it is known. Atma (that is, the nirguna Brahman of Advaita) has no pramatrtva because there is nothing else other than it for it to know. However, at the same time, the very nature of Atma is that of consciousness (chaityanyam), which is required for a Jiva  to become a pramatr. A rope has the nature of being long and winding etc. A snake or stream of water etc. assumes this nature of the rope to appear as the illusion. Any illusion is like this. The illusion takes on a property of the underlying substratum in order to manifest itself. In this very way, the Jiva becomes a pramatr by taking on the property of the chaitanyam of Atma. In the same way, all other parts (like all Jivas, jada, etc.) of the illusion of Jagat have this chaitanyam of Atma present in them, and Jiva perceives the Jagat through this. It is just like in one's dream, where all the things that one sees including the world, the objects, other peoples, one's own body senses mind within the dream, are made out of oneself. However, within the dream, one is not aware of this fact. 

 

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.

This adhyaasa is also part of the illusion (maya). It is not that there are other real entities like prana, mind, senses, which are superimposed on the real entity Atman (nirguna Brahman in the Advaitic sense). In the case of the rope and snake, it is not that a real existing snake is superimposed on the rope. The snake does not exist, it is only imagined. It is only the rope that exists. In the same way, the prana, mind, senses and their adyaasa on the Atman imagined. Fundamentally, the prana, mind and senses do not exist, and only the Atman exists. 

 

 

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. 

In his bhashya for the above statement in Taittirya Upanisahd (satyam-jnanam-anantam brahma), Shankara says that Jnanam is to be understand in the abstract sense of the ability to cognize ("jnapti eva"). In other words, Jnanam here is to be understood as a definition characteristic of Atma which is consciousness, the other two defining characteristics being satyam (what is always the same, i.e., unchanging), and anantam (infinite in time, space, and vasthutva). This consciousness of the Atma is what is responsible for giving the Jiva its pramatrtvam, just like the long windy shape of the rope is responsible for given the long windy shape of the snake or the stream of water in the illusion. 

 

 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.

Indeed it is true that the Atman is not a pramatr is equivalent to saying that there is nothing else for it to perceive, i.e., it is non-dual. This is equivalent to saying that it has vasthu-aananthyam (infiniteness in objectness; there is no object outside it). However, its very essence is consciouness and the ability to cognize ('jnapti'). 

It is indeed true that a Jivabhava is impossible without an adhyaasa. However, the question is what is "fundamental" about such an adhyaasa? Is it that there is a superposition of real mind, body, senses on a the real Atman (nirguna / shuddha Atman)? Or is it that a mind, body, senses is imagined to be superimposed on the real Atman? Advaita says it is the latter. A real snake is not superimposed on the real rope to give it its scary appearance. The snake is imaginary, only the rope is real. In the same way, the mind, body, senses are imagined to be superimposed on the 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? 

That the sruti wakes up the Jiva from his adviya is not speculative, for it is known for sure through those who have woken up. Therefore, you are of course right that it is known only by those who have woken up. And those who have woken up have indeed, as you point out, denied the (fundamental) reality of this very jagat-dream itself. This can be seen in the works of many acharyas of the Advaita parampara. At the same time, the same acharyas also admit the vyavaharika reality of duality within this jagat-dream. This could be for example compared to the situation when one has realised that it is a rope and not a snake, and therefore the snake is not really there. However, one can still understand why the rope could be seen as a snake or a stream of water, etc. 

As to why we are still debating about this and we are not yet in the paramaarthika reality is because of the strength of our vasanas (latent desires) and our strong identification with our mind-body-senses etc (i.e., the strength of the thoughts "I am this" and "This is mine"). This is why just shravanam (hearing the truth) alone does not lead one to jnana. All the vasanas and identification with our individual self which stands in the way also needs to go, and this is the primary reason for subsequently reflecting on and realising within oneself (mananam and nididhyasanam) the truth that one has heard. It is in this context that the vyavahiraka reality of duality is really important. It is not that Advaitins claim everything is unreal and therefore one can do anything one wants. This will lead one to only get deeper into the illusion. It is for this reason that Advaita acharyas (like Shankara in his Sopana or Sadhaka Panchakam) emphasize the importance of karma (without desire for the fruits) and bhakti to the Lord. By performing karma without desire for the fruit one slowly detaches oneself from the fruits of one's actions (so the "that is mine" thought is slowly pruned away) and by surrendering oneself to the Lord one slowly dissolves even one's identification with one's own body and mind (so the "I am this" thought is also dissolved away). After performing karma without desires for resutls and surrendering oneself to the Lord through bhakti, one's mind becomes pure, i.e., the vasanas and body-mind-identification etc. slowly wanes away, and one becomes ready to receive the mahavakya shravanam, leave behind dvaita vyavahara, and attain jnana. Until the mind is purified, the discussion of advaita mahavakyas will have no effect whatsoever, and worse still, it may lead to one in the wrong direction by assuming no consequences for one's actions by concluding in an immature state (while still very much assuming agency of actions and enjoyership of results) that all dvaita vyavahara is "unreal". Therefore, it important to admit the vyavaharika satyam of dvaita prapancha even for an Advaita and do perform one's karma with bhakti until one's mind becomes pure enough for jnana. This is why Shankara points to the four-fold-qualifications (sadhana-chatushtaya) for a person to successfully embark on the jnana marga - 1. nitya-anitya viveka (discrimination between permanent and ephemeral; i.e., knowing the Atman to permanent and everything else to temporary), 2. vairagyam (dispassion for the ephemeral arising out of the viveka; i.e., dispassion towards anatma), 3. shamaadi qualities (shama-dama-titiksha-uparatti-shraddha-samadhana, qualities likes control of mind, control of senses, forbearance of dvandvas or pairs of opposites like heat/cold, withdrawal from external inputs, faith in guru and apta-vakya, and concentration of mind) and 4. mumukshutvam (yearning for liberation). 

 

 

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!

Indeed. This is why Gaudapadacharya observes in his Mandukyopanishad Karika that there is noone who is (really) in bondage, and no one who is really getting liberated. The snake on the rope is always false. It is not that it became real at some point and then stopped existing. In the same way, fundamentally, the Jagat is an illusion. It never really existed for it to disappear. It just seems to exist (this is called maya). Therefore, the idea of paaramarthika-vyavahakarika states is also false (fundamentally speaking). There is only one truth, which is advaitam (non-dual), which cannot be explained through words or reached by the mind ("yato vacho nivartante, apraapya manasa saha" says the Taittiriya Upanishad when referring to It). As soon as we attach a word or an idea to It, it becomes conditioned or limited to that word or idea. In reality, it is not bound by anything such words or thoughts. 

 

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. 

The paramarthika state is established in many ways by the sruthi. Just as an example, I will consider the statement "Satyam" from "Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam". "Sat" is what exists. Satyam also means that which is the same always or what does not change. Every object has two properties to it, one referring to its objectness (e.g., potness of a pot or clothness of a cloth), and the other referring to its existence (e.g., a pot is (ghatam 'san' (asti)) or a cloth is, etc.). Objectness can change with time. Potness can exist now in a pot and when the pot is destroyed it can be destroyed. Objectness can change with place. Potness exists in a particular place where the pot is present but it does not exist in a place where the pot is not present. Objectness can change with vasthu. Potness exists in a pot but it does not exist in a cloth. In contrast to the objectness of an object, its "is-ness", i.e., its existence is not restricted to time, space or vasthu. The "isness" is in a pot when it is there, but even after it destroyed it is seen to be present in some other object or some other place. The "isness" is the only thing that is always the same and never changes. The "isness" is present in always objects, and it is because of which the objects become "existent". It is even present when there is no other object to be perceived, for example, in sushupti (deep sleep). It is because the "isness" is present even in sushupti that one wakes up and says "I slept well. I did not feel anything" because one is aware that one was (i.e., his "isness" was there) there within that state also. This ever-present, subtlest, unchanging "isness" or Sat is nothing but the Atman or the Paramarthika state. All other things like the objectness or one's own mind, body, senses etc. appear and disappear, that is, there are not present before their manifestation / birth / appearance, appear to be present during their period of manifestation, and disappear after their dissolution / death. It is observed through logic (and also observed in many places including Srimad Bhagavatham) that what is not existing in the beginning and in the end is as good as not existing in the middle as well. In physics, for example, virtual particles in quantum field theory are exactly defined in this manner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle). Therefore, since these objects seem to appear and disappear at various points in time and of ephemeral nature, they are said to be non-existent at all time. In contrast, the "isness" or Sat is always present and since there is nothing else outside it, it is non-dual. This is just one of the ways in which the sruthi and advaita acharyas have established the non-dual paramarthika state. 

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.

anyonyashraya or mutual dependence (if I understood this term correctly) only arises when two things are both dependent on each other. However, in the case of an illusion like the snake-rope or silver in a conch shell or water mirage in desert etc., only the illusion (snake / silver / water) etc. depends on the underlying real substratum. The underlying substratum does not depend on the illusion. In the same way, the vyahavara does depend on the Atma through the adhyasa, but the Atma does not depend on the vyavahara. However, as already described earlier, this adhyasa is not one of superimposing one real thing, like a snake, onto another real thing, like a rope. The snake, which is mere imagination and therefore fundamentally unreal, is superimposed on the rope, and the rope is seen as a snake instead of as a rope. In the same way, the Jiva bhava (mind, body senses) and the Jagat is imaginary and is superimposed on the Atma and the Atma is seen as jivas and jagat etc. instead of as the Atma. It is no different from how, even though everything in one's dream, including the dream world, dream body-mind-sense, etc., are all within oneself, one appears to think (within the dream) that they are all different and does not recognize them all as arising from oneself. In this case too, the dream world, dream body-mind etc. depend on oneself for their vyahavara and have no independent existence of their own; however, they are superimposed on oneself and one wrong thinks that one is the dream body and there are other things in the dream jagat that are separate from oneself. 

Om tat sat 🙏

Regards,

/sv

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 8:13 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <sveda...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:12 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 

They
have accepted a 'svarupa deha' for the Atma which is inalienable from the
Atma.  This jiva (for them the Atma is forever a jiva, both in samsara and
in moksha as they admit Vishnu to be the Controller and the jiva to be ever
the controlled.) with its default body mind complex (which is distinct from
the various bodies a jiva would take during its bound state) is the one
which will enjoy bhoga (of women, drinking, merrymaking etc) in mukti. (For
this they cite the authority of the Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3 passage 'sa
paryeti jakshan ramamaanaH kreedan streebhirva yaanairvaa..' स तत्र
पर्येति जक्षत्क्रीडन्
रममाणः स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैर्वा ज्ञातिभिर्वा...)  And this body is not
necessarily a human-like body but could be of any species.  This body will
have a mind, sense organs and a gender and caste too.  And it is also not
free of sattva, etc. gunas.  So, for such an Atman it is no problem to have
pramatrutva, knowership, since it already has what all is required to be a
knower, the body, etc.  It is this Atman that has a-prakrita body mind
complex  that has the adhyasa of a prakrita body mind complex resulting in
samsara.

Dvita does not say Atma has 'svarupa deha'. The idea of Svarupa-deha is a contradiction in terms. "dEha" generally means which has origin, destruction etc., whereas "svarUpa" means self same nature. Therefore, Dvaita holds jIva has self-same nature (svarUpa) of unique aprkrita guNa-s.

Here is what well known Madhva scholar Sri Vishnudasa Nagendracharya says:

Vishnudasa Nagendracharya   http://vishwanandini.com/fullprashnottara.php?serialnumber=VNP078

The gist of the following is: The last body in the bhuloka is of the same form of that jiva's svarupadeha. If one is a bird in his swarupa, the last body will also be of the form of a bird. If one is a shudra in his svarupa, the last body will be a shudra body for him. The svarupa has varna, aashrama, form..all will be so in the last body too. 

ಇಲ್ಲ. ಯಾತನಾಶರೀರವಾಗಲೀ, ಭೋಗಶರೀರವಾಗಲೀ ಎರಡೂ ಸಹ ಕರ್ಮದಿಂದ ಬರುವಂತಹದ್ದು. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಕರ್ಮ ಯಾವ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿದೆಯೋ ಆ ರೀತಿಯ ಯಾತನಾ/ಭೋಗ ಶರೀರವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತೇವೆ. 

ಸ್ವರೂಪದೇಹದಂತೆ ಇರುವ ದೇಹ ಎರಡು. ಒಂದು ಲಿಂಗದೇಹ. 

ಎರಡನೆಯದು ಚರಮದೇಹ. 

ಚರಮದೇಹದ ವಿವರಣೆಯನ್ನು ಇದರ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಕಾಮೆಂಟಿಗೆ ಉತ್ತರವಾಗಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. 

ಯಾವ ದೇಹ ಭೂಲೋಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಡೆಯ ದೇಹವೋ ಅದು ಚರಮದೇಹ. ಆ ಚರಮದೇಹ ನಮ್ಮ ಸ್ವರೂಪದೇಹದ ಆಕಾರದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅಂದರೆ ನಾವು ಸ್ವರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಕ್ಕಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಚರಮದೇಹವೂ ಹಕ್ಕಿಯ ಜನ್ಮವೇ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಾವು ಸ್ವರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಶೂದ್ರರಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಚರಮದೇಹದಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಶೂದ್ರರಾಗಿಯೇ ಇರುತ್ತೇವೆ. 

ಸ್ವರೂಪದ ವರ್ಣ, ಆಶ್ರಮ, ಆಕಾರಗಳು ಚರಮಸ್ಥೂಲದೇಹದಲ್ಲಿರುತ್ತವೆ. 

ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ವಿಷಯ, ಯಾತನಾ/ಭೋಗಶರೀರಗಳೂ ಸಹ ಸ್ಥೂಲ ಶರೀರಗಳೇ. ಸ್ಥೂಲ ಶರೀರದ ಪ್ರಭೇದವಷ್ಟೇ ಅದು. 

He further says there itself:  ಸ್ವರೂಪದೇಹ ಅಪ್ರಾಕೃತವಾದದ್ದು, ಲಿಂಗದೇಹ ಶುದ್ಧ ಪ್ರಕೃತ್ಯಾತ್ಮಕವಾದದ್ದು,ಸ್ಥೂಲದೇಹ ಪಂಚಭೂತಾತ್ಮಕವಾದದ್ದು. The swvarupa deha is aprakruta while the ling deha (what advaitins call sukshma sharira) is of prakriti material and sthula deha is of panchabuta.

ಸ್ವರೂಪದೇಹ ಅಪ್ರಾಕೃತವಾದದ್ದು, ಸ್ವಾಭಾವಿಕವಾದ ಶರೀರ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಉತ್ಪತ್ತಿಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲ, ವಿನಾಶವೂ ಇಲ್ಲ.  He says: the svarupa deha is      native,natural, default, for the jiva. There is no origination or destruction for the svarupa deha.  

  

Vishnudasa Nagendracharya

ಸ್ವರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ  ಪ್ರಾಣಿ ಪಕ್ಷಿಗಳಾಗಿರುವವರೂ ಮನುಷ್ಯಜನ್ಮವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು ಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಉಪಾಸನೆಯನ್ನು ಮನುಷ್ಯಜನ್ಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಪ್ರಾಣಿ ಪಕ್ಷಿ ಜನ್ಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ (ಗರುಡ, ನಂದಿ, ಐರಾವತ, ಮೂಷಿಕ ಮುಂತಾದವಂತೆ. ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಭಗವಂತನ ಸಾಕ್ಷಾತ್ಕಾರ ಪಡೆದವರು. ಪಡೆಯಲಿಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಮುಂಚೆಯೂ ಪ್ರಾಣಿ ಪಕ್ಷಿ ಜನ್ಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಧನೆಯುಂಟು. ಖಾಂಡವವನದಾಹದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಪಕ್ಷಿಗಳಂತೆ) ಚರಮದೇಹದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಯಮಿತವಾಗಿ ಸ್ವರೂಪ ಹೇಗಿದೆಯೋ ಆ ರೀತಿಯ ದೇಹ. 

He says: A jiva could be an animal or bird, etc. in his svarupa.  That will be his charama deha too in the world.  

Here is what Sri Keshava Rao Tadipatri says in his blog:  https://sites.google.com/site/madhwaprameyaqa/home/kesavarao

The other synonyms for Jeeva or Jeevatma or Atman are "svarUpa, svabhAva, svarUpendriya, svarUpa deha". (So, jivatma is also called Atma and svarupa deha is a synonym for the jiva Atma)

The Jeeva or svarUpa deha are aprAkritika or non-materialistic. 

regards

subbu 

 

I can understand for Advains it is difficult to understand how could a chaitanya tatva can have pramatrutva. iccha, jnAna, kriya etc etc guNa-s  without having some sort of dEha. This difficulty is due to the fact that in their siddhAnta they have not accepted any guNa-s to chaitanya tatva. But in Dvaita it is not that way. Both Paramatma and Jivatma are accepted as having svarUpa guNa-s, albeit in various qualitative and quantitative scales. 

 

Also, they have assigned a 'dependent reality' (paratantra) to everything
other than Brahman (Vishnu) who alone has 'Independent, Svatantra,
Reality', just like Advaitins hold Brahman to be Paramarthika satya and
everything else only vyavaharika satya.

Not quite correct.

Independent and dependent realities are absolutely real in Dvaita.

Duality of pAramArthika and vyavahArika itself is mithya and vyavahArika. Speaking from reality perspective there is not even such biforgation. Some advaitins think in temporal sense that one was in vyavahArika earlier and after reaching pAramArthika the vyavahArika gets sublated. That is not correct. vyavahArika avastha is subject of trikAlika niSheda 

/sv

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 7:35 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <sveda...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:18 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

The BG 13th ch. verse 'purushah prakriti- stho hi bhunkte prajritijaan gunaan. Kaaranam gunasangosya sadasad yonijanmasu' teaches that Atma, identified with the prakriti (as body mind senses prana complex - dharmi adhyasa) considers the prakriti dharmas as its own (dharma adhyasa). This results in samsara, birth repeatedly. 

 

It also teaches prakriti and purusha are anadi. Thus, this adhyasa and samsara are also anaadi. So there is no anyonyashraya defect in all schools which accept adhyasa and samsara as anadi.

Gita of course teaches purusha is anadi, but it does not mean adhyAsa is anadi. 

The idea of 'anAdi' is valid if kAla is accepted as real. But in Advaita kAla (along with all others) are avidya kalpita by jIva. Thus unless you have dehAtma adhyasa you cannot have a notion of time. Hence, the anAdi vaad is not applicable in defending charge of anyonyashraya defect.

Advaita accepts Time also to be anAdi. DehAtma adhyasa is anadi and hence the basis for repeated creation by Brahman. 

In each creation all aspects are manifested, space, time, Veda, etc.  

The sUta samhita makes a reference to kAla as the sambandha (relation)
between mAya and Atma (2-2-10) : कालो मायात्मसम्बन्धात् सर्वसाधारणात्मक:

There is also a sloka that is quoted often, but I am not able to find the source (Sri Appayya DIkshitar says this occurs in the ChitradIpa of
Panchadashi, but I cannot seem to find it there):
जीव ईशो विशुद्धा चित् तथा जीवेशयोर्भिदा ।
अविद्या तच्चितोर्योगः षडस्माकमनादयः ॥
In this sloka, the term अविद्या तच्चितोर्योगः is said to refer to kAla by Sri VAsudeva Brahmendra Sarasvati svAminah in his Sanskrit translation of vichAra sAgara. 

(An old post by Sri S.Venkataraghavan  https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2016-December/043739.html) 

Btw, Dvaita does not accept samsAra is anAdi (even though the existence of jIva is anAdi). You must have confused with Vististadvita, who accepts anadi samsara.

Srimad Bhagavatam 5.14.1 (prose)  https://sa.wikisource.org/s/pdz

स होवाच

स एष देहात्ममानिनां सत्त्वादिगुणविशेषविकल्पित-कुशलाकुशल-समवहारविनिर्मित-विविधदेहावलिभिर्वियोगसंयोगाद्यनादिसंसारानुभवस्य  

The Bhagavatam says the samsara is anadi.  For this Vijayadhwaja Tirtha's commentary is there, accepting the anadi samsara.  

Madhva says in mandukya: 

anAdimAyayA viShNorichchayA svApito yadA

tayA prabodhamAyAti tadA viShNum prapashyati.

[Due to anAdimAyA which means ViShNu's Will, the jIva has been made to/put
into the slumber of samsara. When the jIva, owing to  ViShNu's Will wakes
up, then he gets the vision/realization of ViShNu.]

 This also accepts samsara is anadi. All schools  accept samsara as anadi but sa-anta, that is, there is an end to it though. 

Vishnudasa Nagendracharya says:

ಎಲ್ಲ ಚೇತನರು, ಎಲ್ಲ ಅಚೇತನಕ್ಕೆ ಮೂಲಭೂತವಾದ ಪ್ರಕೃತಿ, ಕಾಲ, (ಅವ್ಯಾಕೃತಾಕಾಶ ಮತ್ತು ವೇದಗಳು) ಈ ಎಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ನಿಯಮಿಸುವ ಚೇತನೋತ್ತಮನಾದ ಶ್ರೀಹರಿ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರನ್ನೂ ಅನಾದಿ ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಲೇಬೇಕು. ಒಪ್ಪುವ ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯತೆಯಿದೆ.  

 

All these are accepted only because the samsara is anadi. Without samsara/prapancha the above have no relevance at all.  

 

As to when  and how the adhyasa took place is not the responsibility of the shaastra to explain. It is committed to only show  the remedy. And that is the viveka between atma and anatma and claiming oneself to be the Atma. 

The 13th chapter is a mirror of the adhyasa bhashya.

No it is not.  

The same Geetha also says in  II.12 :

na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme janAdhipAH |
na chaiva na bhavishhyAmaH sarve vayamataH param.h || 12 ||

(But certainly (it is) not (a fact) that I did not exist at any time; nor you, nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we all shall cease to exist after this.) (Swami Gambhirananda's translation).

What is that Sri Krishna is talking about the existence of many beings here as implied in the form of 'I('SriKrishna)', 'you (Arjuna)' and 'rulers of men'?

As we can see, only two options exist; 

1. Either He meant many "instances" of dhEhAtma bhAva (of Him,Arjuna & others) due to adhyAsa.

or

2. Pure chaitanya tattvas in them.

First option is unacceptable, for how can anyone say physical BMIs are eternal? Then that leads to accepting the second option, i.e.  chaitanya 
or consciousness beings in those plural subjects are eternal. 

That there is no bheda, nAnAtva, in chaitanya is stated by the Gita itself: 

सर्वभूतेषु येनैकं
भावमव्ययमीक्षते ।
अविभक्तं विभक्तेषु

तज्ज्ञानं विद्धि सात्त्विकम् ॥ २० ॥ 18.20

That is Sattvic Jnanam which perceives that in all distinct bodies the inhering Chaitanya is One only, undivided. 

And bheda drishTi is censured in the next verse:

पृथक्त्वेन तु यज्ज्ञानं
नानाभावान्पृथग्विधान् ।
वेत्ति सर्वेषु भूतेषु
तज्ज्ञानं विद्धि राजसम् ॥ २१ ॥

To hold that the Chaitanyam is different in different bodies is raajasa jnanam.

Tamasic jnanam is to hold that there is no higher principle than the body:

यत्तु कृत्स्नवदेकस्मिन्कार्ये सक्तमहैतुकम् ।
अतत्त्वार्थवदल्पं च तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥ २२ ॥

Therefore, the BG 2.11 statement by Bhagavan is from the laukika drishti where the bodies are seen as different. It is an anuvada of this laukika drishti by Bhagavan, just as the Dvaa suparnaa mantra specifies a jivatma as bhokta distinct from the abhokta paramatma in the body, as an anuvada of the adhyasta chaitanya jiva. 

    

 

Therefore, the idea of anAdi adhyAsa stands refuted by Gita.

The very statement of the Gita 13th ch.  'purushah prakriti- stho hi bhunkte prajritijaan gunaan. Kaaranam gunasangosya sadasad yonijanmasu'  is an endorsement of adhyasa, accepted by Madhva too in Bhagavata Tatparya nirnaya:  'आत्मभावः शरीरे तु द्रव्यभ्रम उदाहृतः - 4.31.16

regards

subbu 

/sv

[V Subrahmanian]

This verse of the Bhagavatam  https://sa.wikisource.org/s/qno  8.24.46

श्रीराजोवाच -
अनाद्यविद्योपहतात्मसंविदः
तन्मूलसंसारपरिश्रमातुराः ।
यदृच्छयेहोपसृता यमाप्नुयुः
विमुक्तिदो नः परमो गुरुर्भवान् ॥

informs us that the jiva is in anadi samsara due to anadi avidya enveloping his true svaprakasha chaitnaya svabhava. 

regards

subbu