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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Namaste.

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:32 AM, 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.
>


Good discussion!

Yes, as Sri.Venkat-ji said above, I was refuting the charge against dvaitin
that shruti is not needed to ***know*** jIvESha bEdha as pratyaksha already
revealed it. bEdha may or may not exist irrespective of one's knowledge.
In order to **know** a bEdha you got to have knowledge of both anuyOgi and
pratiyOgi. One cannot deny nor attest difference between, say a mango and
"xyz", unless you know what exactly is xyz as a pratiyOgi.

In case of vandyAputra, one definitely knows it is a asat vastu. And hence,
you definitely knows the difference between you and  vandyAputra.




>
> You can still have knowledge of asat vastu through vikalpa vritti, and that
> is sufficient to know the difference from it.
>

That's quite correct.


>
> 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?
>

If difference (between vandyAputra and you) is said to be non-existence,
then I am afraid either you should be considered as atyanta asta or vandya
putra should be considered as exactly the self same as you as a real
person!

Regarding the purpose, there are many.... the very lOka vyavahAra with
sat/asat or bhAvAbhava padArtha-s will cease to exist if one does not
recognizes the difference.




>
> 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.
>

Why only this way?

Why can't you also say those guNa-s are also equally ekamevAdvitIyam  as
they are not different from Brahman?

You see this as a problem because in your idea Brahman is utterly
nirviShEsha and guNa-s are exterior decorations on Brahman.

guNa-s are saviShEsha abEdha with Brahman, or for that matter with any
dharmI in general.


> 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.
>
>
B is not a separate object other than A. Instead B is self same nature of A
expressed in a vivid way. The nature of relationship between guNa-guNi is a
big philosophical topic and definitely is for another day!


/sv