[Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 397-399 Jahadajahallaxanaa

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Subbuji - PraNAms

Some comments below. 

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/17/15, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 The abheda bodhaka shruti,if it is admitted that it teaches abheda, is
countered, contradicted, by the bheda bodhaka shruti.  Then, one might
question, why not the bheda bodhaka shruti be countered by the abheda
bodhaka shruti? To such a question the reply Sri Vadiraja gives is: the
shruti that you say is abheda bodhaka is not teaching abheda at all: on the
contrary it teaches bheda, (antaryāmi  -  niyamya - niyāmaka
relationship).  Hence the bheda bodhaka shruti, which has no contestant (in
the form of abheda bodhaka shruti) remains unchallenged:  भेदश्रुतिरबाधिता
। कथं न बाधते मन्द प्रतिद्वन्द्वविवर्जिता |

In the above position one can see a defect:  Bheda shruti can counter
abheda shruti ONLY if abheda shruti is admitted to teach abheda. But that
is not admitted by the bhedavādin.  He holds that shruti to be teaching
bheda alone. But he questions: How indeed can the bheda shruti, which
remains unchallenged by the abheda shruti, not be a counter to the aikyam
which is not taught by shruti at all? By saying so he admits that the
abheda shruti at least prima facie teaches abheda.

If the bheda shruti has to be challenge/counter-free, then there should be
no abheda shruti.  But if the bheda shruti, if it is a counter to the
abheda shruti, then abheda shruti is to be admitted.  Sri Vadirāja wants
the bheda shruti to be challenge-free and yet wants that shruti to
counter/challenge the abheda shruti (the aikyam it at least purports to
teach). This is the defect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The above counter comments to Shree Vadiraja appear to be just begging the issue. From Dvaitin's point there are no abheda shruti, period. Their criticism of advaita on the above issue, applies and valid by only taking into consideration of advaitin's argument of the two-types of statement, and therefore negation of that division. It is not acceptance of the division and  then negation as the above arguments seem to indicate.  

More pertinent criticism is Dvaitin's do not consider Brahman as material cause for the universe. That is a more serious point while the Mundaka 1-1-9 points out the naama-ruupatmakam jagat. Vishishtaadvaita overcomes this by considering the swagata bheda in Brahman - Hence they accept advaita from the Brahman point but has vishishta where jiivas and jagat form the visheshanas. Ramanuja invokes organic relationship (like organs of the body) Hence Ramanuja uses visheshana visheshyaabhyaam samanaadhikaraNa for explaining tat tvam asi statement, as well as some of the abheda vaakyas. 

Dvaitin's emphasize - the dvaasuparnaa sayujaa sakhaaya -the two birds on the tree -  to emphasize the dvaita aspect. 

By considering that the material cause is different Brahman, they limit Brahman (infinite-ness) and therefore Brahman ceases to be Brahman.  They use the antaryamin argument like space pervading the objects. Vishishta advaita also overcomes this by antaryamin statement but make jiivas visheshanas and establishing organic relationship between jiiva-jagat with Iswara. .The defective organs cannot affect the body of Iswara is invoked by axiomatic statement since he is asangaH. Advaitins overcome the problem using mithyaa aspect of the duality. Hence non-duality from absolute but duality from the relative. Dvaitins and vishishtaadvaitins have only two aspects - sat and asat and not mithyaa. Yet they differentiate, transcendental and ephemeral truths in some form. Hence there is a difference in realities even for them. 

They cannot see the logic that Brahman being infinite cannot 1. have gunas or attributes 2. cannot create since it involves modification or vikaaratvam. 
. 
Major problem I see is - moksha has to be desha-kaala-vastu aparichhinnatvam or free from space-wise, time-wise and object-wise limitations. If the parichchinnatvam is there, even in moksha, then moksha ceases to be moksha. Both dvaia and vishishtaadvaita overcome these by proclamation that they are free in spite of the limitations. 

According to Dvaita (not sure of vishishtaadvaita) the time and space are perceived - not by the mind but by sakshii. Their saakshii is different from the saakshii in advaita. When I perceive the object - I perceive HERE and NOW along with the object, which here and now are time and space concepts. Fact is NOW and HERE are beyond the time, is recognized by Advaita and moksha can only be NOW and HERE. 

Just my 2c.
Hari Om!
Sadananda