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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri Anand ji,

Completely agree - that is pretty much what I had written yesterday.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On 23 Jun 2017 9:37 a.m., "Anand Hudli via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Dear Shri Venkatraghavanji,

>Re the above, Sri vAdirAja's question is if the pramANa viShaya is
>vyAvahArikam, it is by definition bAdhyam upon brahma jnAna. pramANa
>according to advaitins is abAdhitArtha viShayatvam, so by definition, all
>the shruti vAkya that have vyAvahArika vastu as their viShaya are not
>pramANas. This point by vAdirAja is valid in my opinion, but is not a
 > problem for advaita.

One of the necessary conditions for a source of knowledge to be called a
pramANa is that it should make things known that are not already known
(anadhigata). What happens in this case can be examined in two phases. In
the phase before the dawn of Brahman knowledge, both abheda and bheda
shrutis are pramANas, since we are still in the vyAvahArika phase and there
is no sublation of vyAvahArika objects. After the dawn of Brahman
knowledge, *both* abheda and bheda shrutis, ie. the whole shruti itself,
becomes atattvAvedaka and ceases to be a pramANa, since it cannot make any
thing known that is not already known. So what I am saying is that we have
either a situation where 1) both bheda and abheda shrutis are tattvAvedaka
or where 2) both abheda and bheda shrutis are atattvAvedaka. The charge by
VAdirAja is that one type of shruti is tattvAvedaka and another is
atattvAvedaka, as per the advaitin. But as we have have seen, we will never
be in that situation.

Anand


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

> As explained in the vedAnta-paribhAShA, the validity (prAmANya) of
> pramANas is of two kinds. vyAvahArika-tattva-Avedakatva is the capability
> to make known vyAvahArika reality. pAramArthika-tattva-Avedakatva is the
> capability to make known the Absolute reality, Brahman. The first kind
> belongs to pramANas other than the one which yields BrahmajnAna, whereas
> the second kind belongs only to statements (shruti texts) that teach the
> unity of jIva and Brahman, for example, sadeva somyedamagra AsIt,
> tattvamasi, etc. This implies that Bheda shrutis belong to the category of
> vyAvahArika-tattva-Avedaka pramANas, while the abheda-shrutis belong to
the
> category of pAramArthika-tattva-Avedaka pramANas. However, it is also
clear
> that advaitins do not state there is an atattvAvedaka pramANa in the Veda,
> as alleged by VAdirAja. If they had indeed stated that a part of the Veda
> is atattvAvedaka while another part is tattvAvedaka there would have been
> shrutahAni surely, but they did not. advaitins do agree that every shruti
> is tattvAvedaka, although the tattva that it conveys could be vyAvahArika
> or pAramArthika. The topic of Bheda-shrutis vis a vis the abheda-shrutis
is
> discussed in detail in the advaitasiddhi. Suffice it to say that one
> solution is to accept Bheda-shrutis, those vAkyas of the shruti that seem
> to deal with duality, as describing vyAvahArika bheda, since there cannot
> be be any bheda at the pAramArthika level. Bheda shrutis play a role
> similar to the role played by arthavAdas in the context of a vidhi, vide
> the mImAMsA sUtra - vidhinA tu ekavAkyatvAt stutyarthatvena vidhInAM syuH,
> 1.2.7. Just as arthavAda vAkyas are not independent pramANas but do help
> by supporting and commending the enjoined act (vidhi), bheda-shrutis too
> serve the purpose of supporting the abheda-shrutis. Taken independently,
> they are not pramANas for revealing Brahman. Hence, there is no
shrutahani.
>
> Anand
>
>
_______________________________________________
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