[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-511 to 1-524

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Venkatesh,
Thank you for posting this.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:28 AM, 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
> वाख्यप्रकारत्वं
> कथं?
>
> 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.
>

We can answer this taking two pakshas
1) One is to say that there is no division between tattvAvedaka and
atattvAvedaka shruti. What is tattvAvedakam? - teaching about a thing which
is tAttvika. Teaching about a thing which is atAttvika is atattvAvedakam.

To an unrealised person, both the bheda shruti and abheda shruti are
tAttvika only. To a realised person there is no veda or the world, so where
is the teaching? veda has no vedakatva for such a person. So there is
neither tattvAvedakatvam or attattvAvedakatvam for such a person. Here too
there is no division between the two.

2) Second paksha is to agree that there is a tattvAvedaka portion and
atattvAvedaka portion. In this paksha, the advaitin would say that all veda
sentences that teach about Brahman are the only portions that are tAttvika,
everything else is atAttvika. Here, the question becomes who makes this
distinction? Is it the advaitin or shruti?
The point to be noted here is - that there is an attattvAvedaka portion of
the veda is known only from the veda itself, it is not something that the
advaitin dreamt up - because after having elaborately prescribed karma in
karmakANDA, it is the veda that denies that karma is means to paramArtha
through portions like "na karmaNA, na prajayA", "nAsti akrita: kritena"
etc. Further, it is the veda itself that denies the satyatva of the world
through sentences like "neha nAnAsti kinchana".

Can the advaitin be held to account for upholding what the shruti says?

However, even if there is an atattvAvedaka portion, so what? Our contention
is that shruti does not teach dvaitam, nor does it have to. That is
pratyaksha and anubhava grAhyam. On the other hand, shruti is only
prescribing rituals, having presupposed a pratyaksha grAhya dvaita
satyatvam. That is, shruti does not teach dvaitam, it teaches *about*
karma, which presupposes dvaitam.  There is a difference between the two -
so long as the presupposition, ie pratyaksha grAhya satyatva, is taken as
true, those rituals have meaning. When shruti bodhita pAramArthika satyatva
is realised, there is no kartA, karmA or jagat.

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.
>
> 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.
>

This line of argument is rich coming from a dvaitin.

By taking into account the two orders of reality for the two sections of
the veda, it is us, the advaitins, that protect the prAmANya of veda. It is
only when you fail to take these as two different orders of reality, ie
only if you hold that there is only one sattA, will jnAna kANDA and karma
kANDA be in contradiction and such an objection would be valid. However,
this would rebound on the dvaitin itself because either he holds on to
jagat satyatvam, making jnAna kANDa aprAmANyam, or he protects jnAna kANDA
prAmANyam, but in doing so, he gives up jagat satyatvam, leading to dvaita
hAni.

Teekaakaara is saying here this is accepted by Advaitis also. त्वयापि
> अङ्गीकारात्
>
> 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.
>

If we say the veda teaches an atAttvika thing as tAttvika, or a tAttvika
thing as atAttvika, only then you can say we are causing shruti to have
aprAmANyam. However, we say that shruti says a tAttvika thing (Brahman) is
satyam, and atAttvika thing is mithyA. So where is the aprAmANyam here?


>
> 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.
>

This is a viShama drishTAnta, because here bheda shruti and abheda shruti
are not in contradiction - one is speaking of vyAvahArika satya and the
other is talking of pAramArthika satya.


> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Again, the shruti does not teach bheda, because there is no reason to
teach it. Whereas shruti teaches abheda, because that is not knowable
otherwise. So the term bheda shruti does not mean bheda bodhaka shruti, but
bheda anuvAdaka karma bodhaka shruti


> सादृश्यैक्ये स्थानमत्योरैक्ये व्याप्त्यैक्यपूर्वके ।
>
> सावकाशैक्यवाग् भेदवाक् तु स्वार्थपरायणा ।१-५२४
>
> It is a bit difficult to translate but I will try - For Aikya Sruti we have
> to give meaning of Sadrushya Aikya - two similar things treated like One,
> Sthana and Mati Aikya - two things in similar place or two persons having
> similar opinion treated like One, Vyapti Aikya - two things being together
> like if one is there another is also there and if one is not there another
> is not there and these two things treated as One. This Aikya Sruti is
> Saavakaasha. But the Bheda Sruti is revealing its meaning directly. It is
> Niravakaasha.
>
Actually, vAdirAja is talking about a mImAmsa principle - when there are
two rules (rule 1 and rule 2) that can be applied, and we are wondering
which rule to apply in two places (place A and place B). If Rule 1 can be
applied in both A and B, and Rule 2 can only be applied in A, then the
mImAmsa maxim is apply Rule 2 in A, and Rule 1 in B.

If you had applied Rule 1 in A, then Rule 2 would be rendered useless.
Therefore to save Rule 2 from being rendered useless (nirvakAsha), apply
the maxim so that both rules are applied (sAvakAsha). vAdirAja is saying if
you accept abheda shruti then bheda shruti will be rendered niravakAsha,
and therefore to make it sAvakAsha, you have to interpret abheda in abheda
shruti so that bheda is not rendered niravakAsha.

To this we say, not so, because bheda shruti is not rendered niravakAsha -
it is very much accepted so long as one is in vyavahAra - it is only denied
in parmArtha, but in that instance the entire veda is left behind,
including advaita shruti. The sAvakAsha - niravakAsha principle can only be
applied if the veda has any relevance to the issue in question. So long as
vyavahAra exists, both bheda and abheda shruti are sAvakAsha, when in
paramArtha, the very necessity of a pramANa is removed, so the question of
the application of sAvakAsha-niravakAsha principle is rendered moot.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

>
>