[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

​Actually, your mere reply has refuted you already, but let me show that
you can be refuted again.​


*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः *www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On 24 January 2014 07:24, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >
> > 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.


How ?
I say 'everything is mithyA' and everything means my sentence too. Now, you
see here svakriyAvirodha. How? What is svakriyAvirodha here?
My kriyA is uttering a sentence. I didn't oppose this kriyA by saying 'all
things mithyA'.
virodha is of two types: tena tadabhAvasya and tena tadabhAvavyApyasya.
mithyAtva is not abhAva of kriyA, so there is not first virodha.
mithyAtva is not kriyAbhAvavyApya, so there is not second virodha too.
The second virodha is only possible if utterance is accepted as vyApya of
mithyAtvAbhAva = satyatvam. I don't accept such vyApti, because utterance
is seen in svapnam also.
So, there is no virodha of mithyAtvam with my kriyA.
​According to vedAntin-s, the unreal-ness is not opposed to kriyA - is to
be noted.

> 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.
>

​You are bringing words of advaitAchArya without understanding it.
When we say that 'everything is mithyA' then we mean that 'everything is
anirvachanIya'. We don't mean that 'everything is like horn of hair'.
So, my pratiGYA is also mithyA, i.e. anirvachanIya, but not non-existent.
If it were, you wouldn't have replied me.

​


>  > 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!
>

​Yes, because words are not going to prove themselves real and you are
anyhow going to loose.
​


> > 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?
>

​How poor !!??
You don't know that you have made a rule while talking with others!!??
​


> 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..."
>

​I've noted every word.
You are making rule for me to accept things real in order to prove me
anything.
This rule is not accepted by us.
Why ?
The previous post is answer. The whole post applies here.
​


> 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 'svakriyAvirodhAbhAva' is useful only when the above rule is
accepted. So, it's useless to show that you have no virodha.
Moreover, I've already said that mithyA things are not opposed with
unreal-ness and hence I also don't have svakriyAvirodha.
​


> >
> > 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.
>

​Thanks, for letting me know about the name of work.
But, let me assure that I'm not just putting words from any book here. If
you or any dvaitI-mAdhva could assure me that he understands advaita-mataM
and it's technical words and use tenable logic, I'll accept his view after
testing. Till now I've not seen such a person.​