[Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyaratnavali Slokas 25 - 26
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 12:45:52 CDT 2015
Here is another product, from Sri Madhva, of not understanding Advaita's
stand, just as the one stated from Sri Vādirāja:
//That is why Acharya Madhwa asked, OK, the fact that there are three
grades of truth is also a form of truth, is it not? And, what kind of
truth is that? Which ever answer you choose, you will end up in an absurd
It is evident that the one raising the objection has not studied properly
and understood what Advaita says on the topic. This question is amply
answered by Shankara in the BSB 2.1.14. Here is a post based on this topic:
In the BSB 2.1.14 Shankara has said:
The Veda (which teaches the three sattā-s and that Brahman alone is real,
jīva is non-different from Brahman, etc.) belongs to the vyāvahārika
sattā. Yet the truth it teaches is never negated subsequently. For
example the kathopanishad teaches that Nachiketas listened to the teaching
of Yama and realized the truth. Now, even if the 'fact' of one teaching
another is annulled, that there is the annulment of avidya to the person
who knew the truth is not set aside by any subsequent fact. We have not
heard anywhere that Nachiketas returned to samsara.
So, the question raised by Madhva is replied thus: The 'fact' that there
are three levels of reality is definitely vyavaharika satyam, that is,
mithyā. Yet the fact of Brahman alone being the Pāramārthika satyam can
never be annulled by anyone. At all times the prātibhāsika satyam (taking
the snake as real in a rope-snake illusion) is annulled in the vyavahara
itself by rope knowledge and the vyavaharika satyam itself getting annulled
by the knowledge of Brahman - can never be annulled by anyone.
Not realizing this simple fact Madhva has thought he is raising an
objection that will corner the advaitin.
The Shānkara bhashyam itself has replies for their questions. It is
evident that they have neither studied nor understood the advaita darshana
correctly. That is the reason they raise such silly objections.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Here I am showing how Advaita is always misunderstood by people not
> learning it through a Guru. The true meaning of Upanishad Sastra
> Advaita is not possible without a Guru's grace but only
> misunderstanding and confusion will be a result.
> Vaadiraaja has written Nyayaratnavali with lot of objections against
> In Sloka 24 he is taking example from Chandogya 'Sadeva Somya Idam
> Agra Asit Ekam Eva Advitiyam'.
> The Advaiti will say In the beginning this Universe was only Existence
> and One without a Second Reality.
> In Sloka 25 he is saying -
> अतस्तवाद्वैतमेव द्वितयमभवद्बलात् ।
> उपस्थितिपरित्यागे काराणाभावतः श्रुतिः ॥
> Your Advaita Tattva itself will be a Second. Because you are saying
> Only Brahman is real and there is no Second real thing. Your Advaita
> Tattva statement is a Second thing. You cannot say other things are
> Second but Advaita Tattva is not a Second. There is no reason to say
> In Sloka 26 and next line he is trying to deliver the wicket taking
> Googly ball to the Advaiti -
> द्वितीयमिदमेवादौ निषेधेदिति मे मतिः ।
> निषिध्यमानद्वैतस्य बोधिका वागियं तव ॥
> अतत्ववेदिकैवासीच्छब्दशक्ति विचारणे ।
> I think you are saying there was no second thing in the beginning.Your
> saying is denying Dvaita. But your saying itself is a Second thing. It
> is meaningless and not giving the true meaning of the Upanisad Vakya.
> Knock out Googly ball imagined by Dvaiti - You said there is no Second
> thing after Brahman. But your sentence 'There is no Second thing after
> Brahman' is itself a Second thing. You have to agree your sentence is
> also unreal like other things in the Universe. Because it is part of
> Universe only. Your sentence is meaningless and contradictory. It is
> not the correct meaning of the Chandogya Vaakya.
> Successful sixer hit by Advaiti - Kindly read Sankara Bhashya for this
> Vaakya. Acharya has beautifully explained everything nicely. Taking
> example of deep sleep. In deep sleep there is no Dvaita. The entire
> Universe has become One Existence. There is no second thing. After
> waking up you will say 'There was no Second thing but only One
> Existence'. This sentence is said in Waking. It has a meaning and
> existence in Waking. In deep sleep there is no Sentence no Words.
> Where is the contradiction here? It is a everyday experience of every
> man woman and child. Six runs.
> 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