[Advaita-l] Body is the disease
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 02:06:31 CST 2014
H S Chandramouli
Sri Vedagarbhaji wrote
<< I can very well understand the pun one of my friend was making -- even
though Dvaita siddhAnta is about duality, but there is non-duality in terms
of mata aikya (indicating there is no sub-school or abhiprAya-bhEda in the
mata). He continues -- on the other hand, in advaita mata even though it is
all about non-duality, but there is duality within their mata (meaning
various mata bhEdA about their siddhAnta). Isn't it interesting? - he asked
It is rather amusing, coming from a dvaitin and the advaitin is apolegetic
on this score of matabheda. Practically all nonadvaitic matas are dvaita
matas ( not just the one advanced by Sri Madhwacharya ) and there are
literally deozens of them around. Each one is claiming supremacy for its
own version and disproving the claims of all others. Where is this mata
aikya the dvaitin is talking about. Being personal god oriented, it is only
reasonable to expect that within their own individual mata there may not be
any serious differences ( though this itself is not always true, but no
need to discuss them here ) . In fact Sri Gaudapadacharya highlights such
mata bheda among dvaitins in his Karika itself. So there is absolutely no
need for the advaitin to be apolegetic on this count.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha
<svedagarbha at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com
> > I will respond to your other e-mail later, but a quick response to the
> > above is necessary, especially if you claim to be an advaitin, playing
> > the "devil's advocate" on behalf of the dvaitin. Please remember that
> > one of the concepts that other schools find hard to grasp is the
> > three-valued truth-system of the advaitin. There is not just True and
> > False, but something called anirvacanIya or sadasad-vilaxaNa, which is
> > not classified either under True or False.
> I think you are confusing between satta-trividya and true-false.
> satts-trividya is about existence of a given vastu. Either it is sat, or it
> is asat or it is mithya. This "mithyA" is also known as sad-asad-vilaxaNaM.
> Where as "True" "False" are about tAtvIka predicates. There is no third
> value in this category.
> Snake in snake-over-rope adhyAsa is mithya, no doubt, but the logical
> predicate of the assertion "sanke is mithyA" has to be "True" in order to
> make sense of what one is talking about. So also, the logical predicate of
> the assertion "horns-of-hare is asat" must be "True" (tAtvIka) in order to
> convey the idea that horns-of-hare is indeed asat.
> It is easy to blame other schools for not understanding concepts of
> advaita, but before one do, one must understand concepts well themselves
> first. This is the issue I see with Madhusudhana, K.Narain and others.
> I heard charges from Dvaitins that the whole concept of avidya is loosely
> defined in advaita siddhAnta so that it can be stretched anyway one wants
> and defy the enemies. Whatever the truth in that allegation, but one thing
> is sure, instead of defying enemies it created internal cracks and all
> these sub-schools/sub-thoughts have emerged. That's the sorry state of
> I can very well understand the pun one of my friend was making -- even
> though Dvaita siddhAnta is about duality, but there is non-duality in terms
> of mata aikya (indicating there is no sub-school or abhiprAya-bhEda in the
> mata). He continues -- on the other hand, in advaita mata even though it is
> all about non-duality, but there is duality within their mata (meaning
> various mata bhEdA about their siddhAnta). Isn't it interesting? - he asked
> > When anAditva is used as a
> > hetu, it is not True, not False, but anirvacanIya in the advaitin's
> > system. Remember also that MadhusUdana is using this anirvacanIya hetu
> > to prove an anirvacanIya result, the lack of anyonyAshraya between
> > avidyA and jIva. So he is justified in doing so. Nowhere has
> > MadhusUdana or any other advaitin claimed that the anyonyAdhInatA
> > between avidyA and jIva is tAttvika. Also, avidyA itself is not False,
> > but anirvacanIya.
> anyonyAdhInatA between avidyA and jIva may not have been called "tAttvika"
> explicitly, but arguing for such relationship indicates that Madusudhana is
> on that paxa (meaning he do consider such relationship is the case), is the
> indication that Madusudhana do consider it as tAtvIka. Otherwise, why
> justify vAcaspati on this topic?
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list