[Advaita-l] Re: Locus of avidyA

[Antharyami]

Hari Om,
Balasubramaniam ji,
& members
PraNams,

My intension was not to have any sarcastic sense. I was indeed very true as
always while defending advaita Vedanta whenever possible, wherever possible
with the best of my little ability. Anyways, with the disclaimer, I wanted
to share one other text, the AdvaitAmoda, by VasudEva Sastri who gives lucid
enumeration of both Advaita and visistAdvaita exegesis, later he establishes
the tenability of Advaita vedAnta taking over the visistAdvaitins. I
suppose, members who find Naishkarmya siddhi too hard must go through the
AdvaitAmoda, which treats the problems on the locus and focus of Maya-Avidya
with reference to BhAmati n vivarana traditions. Dealing with the prime
concepts of avaccedavAda, abhAsavAda, and the pratibimb vAda, vAchaspathi
and prakAsAtman, formulates the validity of their own standpoints to explain
the locus in regard with Acharyas Sureswara and PadmapAda respectively.
Further more, Vidyaranya swAmin nonetheless gives dimensional understanding
of the same, which spreads all over anubUtiprakAsa. Henceforth Advaita
vEdanta apart from not in dearth of exhaustive arguments, actually overflows
with validations and revalidations about the arguments and counter arguments
refuting charges of other systems. VisistAdvaitins, especially now, claim to
have mastered vEdAnta, but we find (atleast I find them) deeply shaded or
doped with ideological bottlenecks which makes entirely misapprehension of
advaita vEdanta. Postings on web by visistAdvaitins, not only show their
poor understanding of Advaita but are deliberate enough to show they are
vague about Ramanuja also (on many other aspects). I would be in a way happy
if any one visistAdvaitin would dare to come up with correct apprehension of
Mithyatva as it is in Advaita; why then have we to bother about answering
them on Avidya ! It would no way be wrong to call them 'Panditha Manyas' as
Sankara and Sureswara regarded Bartrprapanca. One thing that we must keep in
mind is that, unlike visistAdvaitins, our scholars had the thithiksA to
listen to grand objections and answer them precisely.

Balasubramanian ji, as far as anvaya vyAtireka's logical methodology you
stated was, A => B and not(A) => not(B), is incompatible to both anvaya
vyatireka and the syllogistic syntax. it is valid only on the tollemic term
which is A-> B and (not) B giving (not) A. Please correct me if I am wrong.

-- 
Antharyami

[J.Devanathan]