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

[Sriram Sankaranarayanan]

Some of my answers below in blue. Other knowledgable members please correct
me if my understanding is wrong.

Hamsah Soham

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Kalyan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> //By the way, the same upanishat passage also says, in the same context,
> atra
> pitA apitA. Kindly exert the might of your logic to show why pitA is also a
> "verb."//
>
>
> Leaving aside the question of verbs, can't we interpret this passage in
> the following dvaita-friendly way -
>
> In the state of moksha -
>
> 1. Vedas do not give any new knowledge to the mukta because the mukta
> already got all the knowledge that he/she could absorb from the vedas. Thus
> vedas have no further utility *as vedas* to the mukta.
>
​
But then this clearly indicated that Gyana is indeed the means to Mukti.
Because it is at Mukti that you don't get any new gyana from veda. So till
you are at mukti, you get/need to get gyana from veda. So it is indeed the
complete achievement of Gyana that is mukti. This will then contradict the
dvaita/Visishtadvaita stand that one first gets gyana, and then from that
gyana they perform bhakti/karma etc and in turn only re-inforce Advaita.
​


>
> 2. A father is no longer a father, as the bonds with all his past children
> have been dissolved due to moksha and only his bond with the dvaitic
> brahman remains.
>

​What makes the "real" bonds with ​father suddenly dissolve? What, in
contrast, makes the bond with Brahman not dissolve? If there is a
difference that way, doesn't the more temporary bond with father have a
lesser reality compared to the bond with Brahman? Doesn't that give a very
natural rise to paramarthika dasa/vyavaharika dasa as explained by
Bhashyakara? Now this leads to the question, given that all the other bonds
(with father, mother, children, friends and the world in general) are gone,
but the bond with the Brahman remains, what is the nature of that bond?
When everything else has gone away, what is there between Jeeva and Brahma?
Will Jeeva worship Brahma? In what way? Jeeva will bow? "bowing" is not
defined since there is no bond with the body! Jeeva will do kainkarya? no,
all bonds with any instrument of kainkarya are already lost. So naturally
shruti vakyas including aham brahmasmi, tattvamasi remains. As Jagadguru
said, "Atha parabrahmaatmanaa stheeyataam" happens.

>
> Interpreted in this way, these statements do not imply a sublation of the
> world. However, what problems can come up with the above kind of
> interpretation of these statements?
>
> Regards
> Kalyan
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>