[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Venkatesh Murthy]

 Namaste

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> God in other religion/culture is not same as God of Dvaitin's. Former is
> based on pourusheya scriptures, while later one is aporushEya veda based.
> Just because both gods are called "God" it does not mean they are the same.
> Comparison based on this aspect and rejecting bhEda between God and jIva is
> quite flawed.
>

If you say Dvaiti God is not same as Islamic God or Christian God or
some tribal God and the contribution of Veda is to show this
difference between different Gods it is an insult to Veda. All these
Gods may be different but there is also some common base between all
Gods. The common base is all people believe God is higher Power than
Man. Because if God is not higher Power why should Man worship Him? In
this belief Dvaiti's God and Islamic God and Christian God and tribal
God are all the same. If Veda is telling this to us it is wasting our
time.

Agreed Pratyaksha is not showing difference between God and Jeeva. But
Pratyaksha with Logic can give two alternatives. One is this world has
no higher Power controlling us. It is all materialist actions and
reactions. This is atheist path. Another one is there is a Higher
Power controlling the World and us. This is the theist path. For both
Veda is not necessary. So what is the contribution of Veda? Simply to
give some details of this God like having four hands and shanka chakra
and so on?
This is a childish theory.

>
>
>> The mere presence of atheism does not preclude the presence of theism in
>> several non-Vedic societies. The conclusion from this is that Veda is not a
>> pramANa for Iswara - jIva jnAna.
>>
>
> My argument using presence of atheism was directed towards your earlier
> assertion that vEdas cannot teach difference between Brahman and Jiva as
> such difference is already known by pratyaksha. If Brahman (and Jiva also)
> know by pratyaksha, then there is no atheism exist, for the reason that
> they accept only what is known from pratyaksha. Thus, there is no value in
> denying bhEda based on pratyaksha argument.
>
>
>
>>
>> However, what the vedA does teach is the specific means of propitiating
>> Iswara through various karmAs and upAsanAs - to that extent, shruti is a
>> pramANA to reveal the nature and performance of such actions. However it is
>> *not* a pramANa for revealing an Iswara or a jIVa, for reasons articulated
>> above.
>>
>
> Such distinction again must be coming only from vEda itself. A position
> which hold some part of veda is pramANa while other is not,  is again falls
> under pramEya category. Such pramEya must be coming from pramANa texts and
> not applicable on pramANa itself. You have it reversed.
>
>
>>
>> Veda starts from this point - it recognizes that most people are under the
>> grips of delusion, and therefore will be bewildered if it starts off from
>> the get go saying that there is no Iswara-jIva bheda, no samsAra, that the
>> entire jagat is mithyA, etc. So being compassionate, the shruti in the
>> karma kANDa teaches the means by which they can purify themselves to be
>> worthy of the knowledge which it will later impart in the jnAna kANDa.
>>
>
> How does vEda recognizes people have delusion about Ishwara, for given that
> fact that itself only introduce us to that concept? We could have been
> better if so such attempt is made by veda. Why introduce something not know
> from other sources and call it as a delusion?
>
> I think you are confused between "Ishwara" as a general concept from other
> religion.
>
>
>> >>So, are you saying pramANatvam of any pramANa should be based on whether
>> or not it reveals your IshTa? In other words, prAmaNya is tightly coupled
>> with your Ishta-siddhi? It should be otherwise -- pramANya is independent
>> of your wishlist and should be identified apriory. In case of vEda it is
>> due to them being apouruShya, which is not based on anybody's IshTa.
>>
>> I am not saying this at all. Advaita does not selectively choose abheda
>> shrutis and ignore bheda shrutis for that allegation to be made. It says
>> that bheda shruti vAkya - that is shrutis that teach bhedA are not
>> pramANAs, because they do not *teach* bhedA between jIva and Iswara. They
>> merely use the delusion that the jIva has about the existence of bhedA to
>> divert him towards actions that will bring benefits to him in this world
>> and the next, and once he has had enough of such pleasures, prepare him by
>> purifying him to create a mindset that will make him understand abheda
>> shrutis.
>>
>
> In that case  your original argument (to deny bhEda) based on bhEda being
> known earlier (via prayaksha) is flawed?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >>You missed the point -- arthavAda or otherwise on any type of vAkya-s
>> (abhEda or bhEda type) can be considered only if pada-s in them have
>> vAchyatva on the terms being referenced. When your paxa is about all pada-s
>> denote Brahman by their lakShyartha only, then artha vAda concept is not
>> applicable for any type of vAkyas which talk about such Brahman.
>>
>> This is not the right representation of what advaita is saying. Any pada
>> must have vAchyatva, the question is whether it has vAchyArtha or not,
>> which is different. All sentences in the veda must have padAs that have
>> vAchyatva, but not all sentences in the vedA can be true if only the
>> vAchyartha is taken everywhere. None of the abheda vAkyas will be true if
>> only vAchyartha is taken.
>>
>
> That's the reason one should not take only lakshyArtha unless there exist
> vAchyartha for the pada.
>
>
>
>>
>> I know we have debated the same issue several times, I don't think you are
>> going to accept advaita position - none of the arguments you have made thus
>> far are going to change our views. That being the case, I don't see any
>> point in continuing this discussion further, so I will not participate in
>> this going forward. I wish you the best in your dvaita pursuits.
>>
>>>
>>>
> Thank you for your participation so far. One point though -- I am not
> pursuing Dvaita per se, but a student of comparative study and wanted to
> learn from the scholars here how these things are argued and defended.
>
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh