[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-511 to 1-524
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Thu Jun 22 05:28:28 EDT 2017
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> तस्मान्नित्यैव वेदाख्यविद्या विद्यावतां मते ।
> नित्यायां च कथं द्वैतमद्वैतं किल ते प्रियम् ॥ १-५११
> Teekaakaara is asking -
> नित्यायां वेदविद्यायां द्वैतं तत्त्वावेदकत्वातत्त्वावेदकत्त्
> You Advaiti like to see Abheda everywhere but why you are seeing Duality in
> the Eternal Veda? You are dividing the Eternal Veda Vidyaa into
> Tattvaavedaka and Attatvaavedaka portions.
> It is a funny situation here. Advaitis want to embrace Dvaita and Dvaitis
> want to embrace Advaita. Advaitis are seeing Bheda in Veda Vidya and
> Dvaitis want to see Abheda.
That is not true. We say that the Shruti has एकवाक्यता in that all the
sentences of the Shruti have commitment in revealing oneness. Some
directly, being महावाक्यs and some indirectly, क्रमेण, being अवान्तरवाक्यs.
So this understanding/ argument of Vadiraja is also incorrect.
He is also using the logic of convenience by selectively taking to
Advaita between both kANDas, while being a dvaitin. Why do they not use
the same logic and fix the fault of making only one deity as the greatest
and all other inferior then?
> तत्स्वतस्त्वेन सर्वत्र प्रामाण्यं गृह्यते श्रुतौ ।
> पुंदोषमूलदोषस्याभावात्तच्च न चाल्यते ॥ १-५१२
> There is Saarvatrika Praamaanya meaning Validity Everywhere in Veda because
> it has Svatah Praamaanya meaning Self Validity and it has no defects of
> Purusha Dosha because it is Apaurusheya and not a work of Man. Veda is
> solidly Unshakable.
And we do not disagree, but just as you can't teach your own son e=mc^2
when he is a child, so too the Shruti doesn't teach a child equation of
oneness till one grows using the karmakANDa.
> अतत्त्वावेदकत्त्वोक्तिरतो वेदे न शोभते ।
> अतत्त्वावेदकस्तस्य गुरुरेवेति मे मतिः ॥ १-५१३
> Saying Veda is Atattvaavedaka will not look good. If someone is saying that
> his Guru himself is Attattvaavedaka. He did not teach any Tattva.
> He is cracking a joke at the Advaiti.
> गृष्ट्योर्मिथो विरोधे हि हत्वैकामपराङ्मुखीम् ।
> विरोधशान्तिं कः कुर्याद्विना म्लेच्छकुमारकान् ॥१-५२०
> If two cows are fighting who will end that fighting by killing one cow?
> Only Mleccha boys will end the fighting like this.
> How to correctly end fighting of cows without killing one cow?
> तृणपिण्याकदानेन कृत्वाऽर्थान्तरलालसाम् ।
> ततः प्रच्यावदेकां क्रुद्धाऽप्यन्याध्वना व्रजेत् ॥ १-५२१
> We have to give grass and eatables to one cow and make it desire something
> and withdraw from fighting. The other cow even though angry will go away to
> another place.
एवं श्रुत्योर्विरोधेऽपि या वागन्यार्थवर्तिनी ।
> तां तदर्थपरां कृत्वा मोचयेत् कलहं तयोः ॥ १-५२२
> Similarly when two Srutis are against each other also we have to give the
> Sruti having contradictory meaning another meaning and make the quarrel of
> the two Srutis go away.
Its poetic alright, but that itself shows that to make dvaita appear as
the commitment of Shruti everywhere, Dvaitins are willing to interpret it
any which way by adding words, removing something, etc... and so the
following flaw applies to them and not us.
> अतत्त्वावेदिका त्वेका तत्त्वस्यावेदिकाऽपरा ।
> इत्याद्युक्तिस्त्वमानत्त्वप्राप्त्याऽसुत्याजनं श्रुतेः ॥१-५२३
> But if you say one Sruti is Atattvavedika and another Sruti Tattvaavedika
> meaning it reveals Yathartha Tattva one Sruti will lose Praamaanya. It is
> like killing Sruti.
Here's the contradiction. If its yatArtha tattva, then it should not be
interpreted differently in order to make all statements mean the same as
suggested by the same author couple of verses back! The contradiction is
resolved by Advatins by showing that there is no contradiction at all since
the commitments are different and so are the goals. So who is killing the
Shruti really? Us who keep the Shruti as is or them who are suggesting
change and still calling it yathArtha?
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list