[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-605 to 1-627

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thanks for the clarification, Subbuji. Then why does shruti use three words
that mean one - ekam, eva, advitIyam? Is this just simply a case of
superfluous adjectives, or does shruti have a particular tAtparya in mind?
And where is the ekavAkyatA between vijAtIya bhedavatvam with sentences
like yadeveha tadamutra yadamutra tadanviha?

If the meaning of neha nAnAsti kinchana is that there is non-difference
between Brahman and its guNas, then svagata bheda is ruled out as well. If
you are saying potness is the same as blueness, then there is no pot which
is blue (ie a guNa / guNi sambandha), there is blue which is the same as
pot (akhaNDArtham).

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On 30 Jun 2017 2:27 p.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

Venkat ji,

For dvaitins 'ekam Eva advitiyam' only means Brahman is sajatiya bheda
rahitam. Vijatiya world and jivas can coexist with Brahman.

regards
subbu

On 30 Jun 2017 18:03, "Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Good catch Praveen ji.
>
> To be fair, Srinath ji will argue that earlier he was postulating the
> *necessity of the knowledge* of pratiyogi for *knowing the difference* from
> that object, whereas now he is *ruling out the necessity of the existence*
> of the pratiyogi for the *existence* of bhedA with  it.
>
> You can still have knowledge of asat vastu through vikalpa vritti, and that
> is sufficient to know the difference from it.
>
> However the argument is moot because, arguing for the difference with a
> non-existent thing is as good as difference being non existent. What
> purpose does it serve?
>
> Further, if according to the dvaitin, neha nAnAsti kinchana rules out the
> difference between Brahman and its guNas, then as Brahman is
> ekamevAdvitIyam, that is as good as saying guNas are non existent.
>
> It is like saying:
> 1) There is only A
> 2) A=B
>
> 1 and 2 imply that there is no object corresponding to B, it is only a name
> for A.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 30 Jun 2017 1:16 p.m., "Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> Namaste Srinathji,
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you agree there a bEdha between you and vandyAputra?
> >
> > Obviously yes. Even though pratiyOgi is non-existing, the bEdha is still
> > exist.
> > ​
> >
>
> ​
> ​
> ​That seems to be a logic of convenience! Could you please explain then why
> did you say
> ​the following
> in your post on June 21st
> ​ ...
>
>
> > //Quoted "​Unless you know pratiyOgi,you cannot know the difference
> > between anuyOgi and pratiyOgi."
>
> ​
> ...
> which is
> ​the exact opposite
> ​
> ?​
> ​
>
>
> > ​
> > Why? This bEdha is self same nature of anuyOgi 'you'. By yourself
>
> being sat vastu yourself on your own, you stand 'differentiated' from all
> > other non existing entities.
> >
> ​
> Among the two what is your real pakSha please?
>
> Kind rgds,
> --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] */
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>