[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Don't forget such all bhEda-s are only for upAsana purpose and not really
> > tAtvIka in nature. Under Shankara's reading, shAstra's such assertions
> are
> > aimed at performing anthakaraNa shuddhi of a sadahaka.
> >
>
> Please consider why upAsana is needed in the first place, how the citta
> Suddhi
> takes place, and why it can lead the sAdhaka to moksha in a graded manner.
>
>
Upsana is need for mOksha, agreed, but such vAkya-s of shruti, which are
meant only for upAsana, cannot be used to prove a tattva. That is the point
I was making.



> > Opponents are arguing -- if pramANa-s are provisionally valid, so also
> > pramA jnAna (such as jIva is ashraya of avidya, or Brahman is ashraya for
> > avidya etc) which are generated by such pramANa-s are also
> "provisionally"
> > true and not necessarily "idamittam" type of truth. When pUrvapaxi-s are
> > arguing on the basis of (alleged) reality of their pramANa-s, siddhAntin
> > cannot argue on the basis of tatkAlika-pramANa-s.
> >
> > In my opinion this is the crux of the issue.
> >
>
> I'm not saying that you are right about the non-allowability of tAtkAlika
> pramANa
> for the siddhAntin in the face of a certain contention of the
> pUrvapakshi-s. Yet,
> assuming so, it follows that the siddhAntin can walk away without making
> any
> statement.


Do you mean to say it was unnecessary that Shankara argued with bhOudha-s
and bhatta-s? Do you mean to say it is unnecessary for Madhusudhana to
argue against his opponent?



> And it also follows that this doesn't necessarily make the pUrvapakshin
> right!


I am not saying if siddhAntin withdraws from a vAda it automatically makes
pUrvapakshin right. Correctness has to stand on its own. Do not forget
vedAntins accepts pramANya-svathatsvaM. Invalidly if at all any, has to
come from outside.



> False conclusions of the idam-ittham type can be arrived at from allegedly
> real pramANa-s.
>

In such cases they are not called pramANa-s. That fact does not
automatically make all real pramANa-s are not pramA jannya sAdhanm-s. Some
bad apples does not automatically make whole basket bad.


>
> All pramANa-prameya vyavahAra in a discussion between a pUrvapakshin and
> the
> siddhAntin presumes the usage of words. For vAg-gocara subjects, no
> problem. Yet,
> when the subject of discussion has already been declared to be agocara
> (yato vAco
> nivartante, aprApya manasA saha), walking away with silence is not a sign
> of defeat
> of the siddhAntin by the pUrvapakshin.


Existence of agOcara Brahman is known only from Agama pramANa, and given
that Agama is shabda based, you cannot conclude such brahman is shabda
avAchya citing yatO vAcho shruti out of context. If brahman is shabda
avAchya as you hold, then there is no question of the equating self with
such Brahman or denying brahmEtara tattvas etc.


> So, the crux of the issue really is that an
> advaitin can finally remain silent, impervious to anything that the
> pUrvapkshin throws
> at him and that very silence, that non-action is a sign of victory in the
> discussion. For
> advaitins, all this usage of words in the dicussion is only a means to
> reach that which
> is silence. For true silence, the words have to come to a stop.
> Eventually...
>
>
I am afraid such position makes it indistinguishable from an invalid
position, for both have no answer at the end.

/SV