[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-605 to 1-627

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Srinathji,

On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So I think its fair to say that brahman will be
>> different from an apparent world as well, which AV presents the case to
>> be.
>>
>
> Brahman being different from world irrespective of world is real or
> mithya, is agreeable for both of us.
>
Incorrect. This is precisely why I say that mithyA is hugely misunderstood
by dvaitins.​ It the world is mithyA, how do you say that AV says brahman
is different from the world?


> There is no fight there.
>
We say that world is sadasadbhyAm anirvachanIyam, which is not to say that
we are agreeable​ to brahman being different from the world. It is not sat
is only 1/4th the agreement, what about the other 3/4th to complete the
understanding?


> The disagreement is about the very nature of this world itself, not its
> difference from Brahman.
>
​The nature of the world is what leads to a conclusion as whether it is
same, different or something other than same and/or different.​

​​

> So just because you know the difference, which you have asserted to be
>> known even when the world is absolutely unreal, it has no basis to land
>> that the world exists.
>>
>
> Dvaitins do not postulate world's existence based on the perceived
> difference. It its other way in fact.
> ​​
>
The difference is known/registered between this world and Brahman.
>
​
​The other way round would mean that Dvaitins postulate the difference
based on perceived world's existence​. Then you have erred into our pakSha
which says that Shruti is not a pramANa for establishing difference, which
is what you objected to!
​

> While former is known from pratyksha and the later by shruti.
>
​Precisely so, the world is pratyakSha, but its real existence is not​.
brahman is known through Shruti, but its difference with the jIva is not.


> For atheists, if you ask the same question -- they also agree difference
> between this world and brahman.
>
If you agree that an atheist will agree to difference between this world
(which includes himself)​ from brahman, congratulations, you have erred
into our pakSha again. An atheist has also landed into duality without
Shruti pramANa, which proves that Shruti is not a pramANa for dvaita, but
for advaita.


> The only difference is while world is real for them, Brahman is a
> fictitious concept as they do not accept vEda.
>
A fictitious concept is as good as not having such a concept. Even such a
person agrees with duality. So Shruti brings him nothing new and therefore,
it is not a pramANa for bheda. Again you are proving our pakSha alone.


> This is the bEdha between sat vastu and asat vatu type. For dvaitins, it
> is bEdha between two sat padArthas.
>
All types of bhedas are landed into by the atheist without Shruti, existent
or non-existent.



>
>> ​Very good. Then if you can have vyavahAra with asat and abhAvapadArtha,
>> its definitely possible to have such vyavahAra with apparent padArtha, in
>> which case you shouldn't have any issue with AV calling the world as
>> mithyA.
>>
>>
> The only difference we do not summon vandyAputra to be witness for a
> murder case in the court unlike AV summons mithyA vEda to be evidence for
> Brahma jnAna.
>
​Oh, for this viShama udhAraNa, I have to invoke Dvaitin's misunderstanding
of mithyA again! That we do not summon a vandhyAputra for murder case does
not prove that we cannot invite a dream murder-witness for a dream-murder
in dream where the accused wakes up as free from all false cases!

mithyA ajnAna can be removed only by mithyA jnAna. The dreamer chased by
the dream lion wakes up the scared sweating waker who was never in the
forest, but yet knows himself to be non-different from the dreamer who was
in the forest. The waker and dreamer are the same individual whose
knowledge includes the dreamer, dreaming, dream world including the dream
lion and forest. This is why the dream veda is evidence for brahmajnAna
since the Veda is nothing but knowledge of the same entity who is waking
into brahmajnAna by his own knowledge which is in the form of Veda. If your
knowledge is not pramANa for you, then you should be seeing, etc, through
someone else's sight, etc.
​


> When I said no vyavahAra if we fail to recognize bEdha between sat and
> asat vastus -- what I meant was that either sat vastus are tread same way
> as asat vastus, or asat vastus are treated same sat ones.
>
​I do not know how you treat asat vastus, since I have never treated any
atyanta asat vastu.​

An example might help -- say someone apply for PAN card for a vAndyaputra
> and also for a real person. As a issuing authority if you fail to recognize
> the difference between two applicant -- either you issue two PAN cards or
> do not issue anything at all :)
>
​No, sorry, it doesn't. Its a non-example example or at best, another
viShama udhAraNa.​

​The vandhyAputra cannot apply for a PAN card. One who applied with false
documents is an existent person and so are the documents existent. ​The
authority doesn't make a differentiation between the non-existent person
who didn't apply and another existent who applied, but on the merits of the
existent documents of both sorts of people. So either he issues one card
only if vandhAputra's documents are known to be falsified or two cards if
documents seem valid, not issue two or not at all.

I do not know which govt department have you dealt with, since I have come
across officers that say "your documents are insufficient", but not "you do
not exist". :)

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */