[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> On 21 January 2014 17:36, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In a vAda, when one provides a tarka/anumAna to substantiate his/her
> stand,
> > it is expected in vidvad circles that hEtu used  in such argument is
> indeed
> > accepted as "true" (tAtvIka), at least in such person's own siddhAnta if
> > not in opponent's siddhAnta.
> >
>
> ​There are two ways to see your stand:
> 1. vAda is not possible if something is not accepted true by both opponents
>

That's not I am saying. Please see my original posting.



> 2. Even if vAda starts, the person who doesn't accept anything true can't
> prove anything
>
>
This exactly is my contention.


>
> 2.
> Now, you have started a vAda with me, who doesn't accept anything as real.
> I utter a sentence to prove that everything is mithyA.
>

If you utter vAkya "Everything is mithyA", this sentence (a pratIgnyA) is
also rendered mithya, for your pratIgnyA is also included in "everything".
This is what is called "svakriya virOdha" in nyAya, which is a type of
pratIgnyA virOdha dOSha. On the other hand, if you were to exclude your
pratIgnyA from "everything" shabdA (shabdArtha sunkuchita), then it would
lead to ayApti dOSha in the paxa you are sought to establish the sAdya.


> Now, if you think that my words don't prove anything and they have no
> meaning(because words and meanings are not accepted real by me), better
> don't reply me.


You have lost even before you have entered into this vAda, because you
perceived another member inviting you to reply to this thread (tad
pratEyA), and you perceived me (yuShmad pratEya) to enter into this vAda;
and according to Shankara, yuShmad-asmad pratEya is indeed avidya and that
makes any pratIgnyA uttered with avidya is not yathArtha, and hence you
have already lost.



> In this case, I will be announced winner by those who are
> neutral and are testing our skills. So, you loose.
>

Again, yuShmad-asmad once more!


> And, if you reply, you are opposing your own rule and hence accepting that
> my 'hetu' is able. And, hence you loose.
>
>
I am not opposing my rule. What is my rule?

I have said "*it is expected in vidvad circles that hEtu used in such
argument is indeed **accepted as "true" (tAtvIka), at least in such
person's own siddhAnta if **not in opponent's siddhAnta"*

You have missed the emphasis "....at least in such person's own
siddhAnta..."

Remember, I am a realist in this vAda setup and per my siddhAnta, I see you
and your vAda are as real as me and my vAda, and perception of such "real"
is NOT considered as avidya in my siddhAnta . There is no svakriya-virOdha
in my case.


>
> This is the style of refutation which I learnt from shrI-harSha, etc.
>

Btw, you must read a work called bhedOjjivanaM, where all the arguments of
Shri-Harsha have been thoroughly refuted. You must read both sides in order
to better acquainted with the situation.

/SV