[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-511 to 1-524
agnimile at gmail.com
Thu Jun 22 08:22:59 EDT 2017
> 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
>> you accept abheda shruti then bheda shruti will be rendered niravakAsha,
>> and therefore to make it sAvakAsha, you have to interpret abheda in abheda
> You meant, bheda in abheda, above ?
I meant the dvaitin is saying that "you have to interpret the abheda in
abheda shruti in such a way that bheda is not rendered niravakAsha"
>> 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
>> in parmArtha, but in that instance the entire veda is left behind,
>> including advaita shruti. The sAvakAsha - niravakAsha principle can only
>> 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.
> Nice explanation Venkatraghavan Ji
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list