[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-10 to 1-13

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkateshji,

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Vaadiraaja has written Yuktimallika very proudly and this work is
> considered by Madhva scholars as his very best. It is superior in all
> respects than other books like Nyayaratnavali. In this book he has put up
> his best effort in his life.
>

​I'm surprised that he is proud of using such junk words as you quote ahead
and that it is his best effort in life! :)


>
> In the last Sloka 1-9 he is boasting Madhva Siddhanta came at the end of
> all Brahma Sutra Bhashyas. The Bauddha and Jaina Matas were Poorva Paksha
> for Advaita, Visistadvaita and so on. Madhva's BSB is the last written
> Sutra Bhashya. No other Bhashya is there after it. Therefore Madhva's BSB
> is the final Siddhanta of all philosophies.
>
> अन्ते सिद्धस्तु सिद्धान्तो मध्वस्यागम एव हि ।
>
> निर्णेतुं शक्यते युक्तायुक्तपक्षविमर्शिभिः ॥ १-९ गुणसौरभ
> The finally proved Philosophy is the Siddhanta. This is Madhva Mata only.
> This can be decided by scholars knowing the Yukta and Ayukta of philosophy.
>
​


> अस्मादुत्तरपक्षोऽन्यो यस्मान्नद्यापि दृश्यते ।
>
> तस्मात् स एव सिद्धान्त इति निश्चित्य चेतसा ॥ १-१०
>
> अवलम्ब्य मतं सर्वोन्नतं श्रुतिपुरस्कृतम् ।
> मयेत्थं युक्तिरुचिना क्रियते युक्तिमल्लिका ॥ १-११
>
> There is no other Brahma Sutra Bhashya coming after Madhva's Bhashya seen
> even today. Therefore Madhva Mata is the final Siddhanta and I have decided
> this in my mind.


​उत्तरोत्तरमुनीनां प्रमाणम् holds good only if it is a siddhAnta that
counters all other existent viewpoints after understanding them. Dvaitins
do not have a clue of what mithyAtva means as we have seen many times.
Their ridiculous arguments against AV based on the misunderstanding mithyA
has been refuted using their own choice of Nyaya tools by Siddhikara.
Therefore, we do not agree that Madhva, Ramanuja or any other mata is the
siddhAnta since it came later. AV alone is the siddhAnta. However, within
AV sampradAya itself, it could be said that uttarottaramunInAM pramANam
since one takes ones own guru's explanation of the various AV explanations
as the best interpretation, as long as it doesn't contradict the aikya.

Now then, the question would be: how is it that AV is the siddhAnta? Its
because its the only system that passes the test of six li~Ngas for
tAtparyanirNaya. Every other system fails it. In Chandogya, for example,
just taking the first लिङ्ग where उपक्रम shows the प्रतिज्ञा done was एकेन
ज्ञानेन सर्वं विज्ञातं भवति and ended with तत् त्वम् असि in उपसंहार, one
can see that aikya is the tAtparya of the Shruti. This first लिङ्ग itself
fails miserably in other philosophies.​


> I am depending on this excellent and superior Mata
> agreeing with the Vedas

​As shown, it fails the basic test of finding the tAtparya of the Shruti,
so it is completely disagreeing with Vedas.


> and I am writing this YUKTIMALLIKA having interest
> in Logic and Reasoning in the said manner as before.
>

I love the example given by Swami Dayanandaji in this regard, wherein he
narrates a story of a Dvaitin who studied for 12 years and countered an
Advaitin. However, the conclusion is that Dvaitins study for several years
only to conclude what even an illiterate knows "I am different from
Ishvara".

What is the point of such study to learn what you know from birth that you
are limited entity different from an limitless Ishvara. There is no logic
necessary to establish dvaita, it is anubhava-siddha for all and therefore,
even Shruti is not a pramANa. Advaita has to be logically established and
Shruti becomes a pramANa for such aikya-jnAna.


> Then Vaadiraaja is immediately coming to attack Advaita.
>
> त्वं चण्डालः पशुर्म्लेच्छः चोरो जारः खरः कपिः ।
>
> कुण्डो गोलक इत्याद्या या निन्दा लोकसम्मताः ।
>
> ताः सर्वाः सर्वजीवैक्यवादे स्युर्हि परात्मनि ॥ १-१२
> You are Candala,beast, Mleccha - flesh eating foreigner, thief,
> debaucherous person - having illegitamate sex, donkey, monkey, son of
> a prostitute, son of a widow and so on - all these abusive words used by
> people. All these abusive words are aimed at Paramatma Himself because you
> Advaiti is saying all Jeevas are not different from and same as Paramatma -
> God.
>
​What a start! It shows a complete misunderstanding of the terminology
mithyA​ used by AV. These kind of examples can be used only by Dvaitins
where the assumption is that the proof will be established by shocking the
reader. Some might think, "Oh, look Advaitins use abusive words for
Paramatma"! The fact is that by misunderstanding AV, the dvaitins call the
Bhagavan such names since they have no other sattA. We have different
sattAs and bhedA in vyavahArika sattA.

On a related note, if Dvatin's Ishvara is different from all types of
people and animals, then he is a limited Ishvara, which is itself against
the Vedas!


> ब्रह्मैव हीनयोनीस्ताः प्राप्य स्वेनैव कर्मणा ।
>
> संसरेच्चेदियं सर्वा गाली कस्य गले वद ॥ १-१३
>
> Because of His own sinful actions Brahman is born in sinful births and He
> is caught in Samsaara cycle of birth and death. If you accept this tell me
> who is the OBJECT of all Gaalis - abusive words? In whose neck will all the
> abusive words fall?
>
​For us, from the pAramarthika sattA, where such expression is used, the
abusive words is also brahman/ Ishvara, the abuser is Ishvara, the abused
is Ishvara, abusing is Ishvara, all is Ishvara, where is the abuse then? I
can understand the Dvaitin's misery though: bhUmA vai sukhaM, na alpe
sukham asti​.

​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
-praveen​