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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

> What is anubhava siddha is you as a physical body (upaadi) is limited.
>>>
>> ​Physical body is seen, but wrongly taking oneself to be the physical
>> body is naisargika. The physical body not being conscious is also known.
>> One's being conscious is also known by anubhava.
>>
>
>
> One being conscious of himself does not establishes existence of a tatva
> which perists after death. You need gIta/shruti for that.
>
True, but I did not talk of anything after death. ​I just said that the
uttamapuruSha, who is later revealed by Shruti to be Purushottama, is known
to all. Just as a prince lost in a tribe thinks himself to be a tribal and
revealed later to be the prince, is known to him. Whether he knew himself
as the prince or a tribal is irrelevant. He knew himself is what is
anubhavasiddha, though wrongly, but knew. Similarly, the uttamapuruSha who
has wrong locus in any of the koShas cannot be revealed by any other
pramANa. Its wrong to think that anyone else but I can know I. That is why
advaitins say that Shruti reveals the oneness by removing ajnana of having
the wrong locus.

 All your anubhava of being self-conscious could be very well function of
> your physical body/brain. All we have in anubhava is self-conscious and
> existence of this body/brain. Assuming this self-conscious anubhava is same
> as jIva tatva is not anubhava-siddha. Hence jIvEsha bEdha is not anubhava
> siddha.
>
As I said do not get into science. One's brain is not anubhavasiddha. :)
​


> Without shruti you are not even aware there is such thing as atma/jiva
>>> which is persist after death of your physical body.
>>>
>> ​No, Atma is anubhavasiddha, but the wrong understanding is corrected by
>> Shruti. A meditator or a vivekin anywhere around the world can get this
>> experience of being totally separate from the body, etc, without being told
>> by Shruti so.
>>
>
> As explained above, 'Atman' is not anubhava siddha. You have wrongly
> labeling self-awareness as you are expedience is same as 'Atman' as
> explained in shruti.
>
If ​self-awareness known as self-awareness is ​not Atma, then Shruti can
give nothing other than some parokShajnAna like your brain being talked
about by science.

You think Atma is this self-awareness as we experince. That is not correct.
> Acharya Madhva refutes such position as "jIva pakshE prasiddhAtvat katama
> aatmEti prashnE na yukta " ( If one thinks `aatma' is this jIva, then
> Upanishadic question `katama aatmEti' is meaningless, because jIva in the
> form of `I' is already in awareness and known to everyone.
>
Disagree. When one knows of the possibility of error by saying that Atma is
sukhasvarUpa, ananta, etc, one can logically question that what is this
Atma since I know not of myself to be sukhasvarUpa, etc. In fact, we say
that had Atma not been known, there would be no problem and if Atma would
be fully known, there would be no problem. Only if Atma is known partially,
meaning incorrectly, is a problem. So we disagree with this interpretation
given by Madhvacharya and instead say that Atma is known ​but not fully, it
is known wrongly.

More over, this jIva does undergo change (vIkara) in waking, dream and
> suShupti states by virtue of experiencing sukha and dukkaha. This vIkArtva
> is in opposition of Upanishad's assertion of avikari nature of aatma. Thus
> `aatma' means Brahman only.
>
​Such thinking that Atma undergoes change itself goes against all Shrutis,
eg, nAntaHprajnaH na bahiShprajnaH.

​gurupAdukAbhyAm
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
​