Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 2(Reality and Unreality)

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

> > A comprehensive philosophy must answer all possible questions.
>
>Which is why no one ever says "why should I answer" when faced with one.

Which is why that was eliminated in the beginning itself.

>You clearly have failed to grasp the import of my point, which was that
>without citing me exactly, you are merely setting up a strawman.  How this
>"exposes my sophistry" is unfathomable.

Have you read the postings on dvaita and sophistry?

>The `Dwaita' (sic) forum on www.hindunet.com.  As if you didn't know.

Is this the only tactic that you have been left with?  There was only one
post on dvaita and brahmasutras that I presented in that forum. Why dont you
check it out here?

http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=dwaita&Number=25926&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

The other posts on the paradox of differences were presented by my cousin
Akshara who shares his ideas with me. If you had found a similarity in
arguments, you should have brought it to my notice and allowed me to explain
it. Coming to hasty conclusions about me reflect your level of maturity.


>That's a different question.  The fact is that given that there is no such
>acceptance on my part, your criticism which assumed such acceptance is
>invalid on its face.
>
>You cannot foist an opinion on me that I have rejected and then criticise
>it; indeed, your question even shows that in spite of your own criticism,
>you yourself value such a position, which makes your situation rather
>absurd.
>
>(Indeed, the fact that such acceptance would be subject to said criticism
>is good reason to avoid it, as may be realized on a moment of reflection.)

The opinion was never foisted by me. It is your own dvaita which talks of
differences as being part of entities. That the dvaitic argument cannot
differentiate the real and the unreal is a good enough reason to reject it.

>Try the dictionary, which defines difference as "the quality of being
>unlike or dissimilar," etc.  If you are using `difference' to mean
>something else than the standard meaning, (i) you first would have to
>supply and justify an alternative meaning for it, and (ii) justify your
>criticisms as carrying over in spite of the non-standard usage.

The dictionary meaning is useless for evaluation of a concept from the
philosophical point of view. It just mentions difference as a quality
without telling where that quality is held. Qualities cannot be ascribed to
non-entities. That is one more reason why it is impossible to capture
difference between the real and the unreal using the dvaitic mode of
reasoning. If you consider it as a being held individually by the objects
which hold the difference, then there must again be a difference between its
individual appearances and the reasoning goes on. In this case there is a
danger of the difference being the difference as well as a similarity. The
infinite regress occurs again if you try to capture it outside the two
entities.


Best Regards
Kalyan

>From: Shrisha Rao <shrao at NYX.NET>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Re: Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 2(Reality and Unreality)
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:21:40 -0700
>
>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
>
> > Namaskaaram,
> >
> > >Before we get ahead of ourselves, do you have any rational or valid
> > >basis
> > >for these questions and answers?  How many classical scholars or texts
> > >can you suggest which respond with a "why should I answer" to anything?
> >
> > Is it not a matter of commonsense that the reason why a question must be
> > answered be examined?
>
>Non sequitur.  It may be *your* benighted notion of common sense, but it
>is not to the point.  The questions and answers themselves have no valid
>basis in traditional discourse, and further, the "why should I answer" is
>without precedent in Vedantic scholastic debate as well.
>
> > Does it require years of study of books to get common
> > sense?
>
>Also a non sequitur.
>
>Vedanta is not a matter of common sense, and yes, it does take years (or
>even lifetimes if the traditional understanding is correct) to achieve
>understanding of it.
>
> > A comprehensive philosophy must answer all possible questions.
>
>Which is why no one ever says "why should I answer" when faced with one.
>
> > >You are merely setting up a strawman, and have not cited anything from
> > >the website correctly.  Your arguments merely expose your own lack of
> > >understanding (or even lack of reading comprehension!).
> >
> > If the website is really yours, then it exposes your own sophistry.
>
>Hmm... the reading comprehension needs more work.
>
>You clearly have failed to grasp the import of my point, which was that
>without citing me exactly, you are merely setting up a strawman.  How this
>"exposes my sophistry" is unfathomable.
>
> > >As was stated in the other forum, there is no single property called
> > >"the
> > >difference between the real and the unreal" that is inherent to both.
> >
> > Excuse me. What is this other forum?
>
>The `Dwaita' (sic) forum on www.hindunet.com.  As if you didn't know.
>
> > How can you justify your statement that there is no single property
> > called difference between the real and the unreal?
>
>That's a different question.  The fact is that given that there is no such
>acceptance on my part, your criticism which assumed such acceptance is
>invalid on its face.
>
>You cannot foist an opinion on me that I have rejected and then criticise
>it; indeed, your question even shows that in spite of your own criticism,
>you yourself value such a position, which makes your situation rather
>absurd.
>
>(Indeed, the fact that such acceptance would be subject to said criticism
>is good reason to avoid it, as may be realized on a moment of reflection.)
>
> > What makes you say that difference is a property in the first place?
>
>Try the dictionary, which defines difference as "the quality of being
>unlike or dissimilar," etc.  If you are using `difference' to mean
>something else than the standard meaning, (i) you first would have to
>supply and justify an alternative meaning for it, and (ii) justify your
>criticisms as carrying over in spite of the non-standard usage.
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao


_________________________________________________________________
Chat now. Chat this instant. http://messenger.msn.co.in/  Get MSN Messenger