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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Srinath ji,

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> 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!
>
> Actually the attribute of difference between a fictitious object and a
real one, if at all is said to be, belongs to the fictitious object, not
the real one. The rule that the difference as an attribute belongs to both
anuyogi and pratiyogi is only true if both the anuyogi and pratiyogi are
samAnasattA - the bheda between khapuShpa and kham can only be said to
belong to khapuShpa, because it is accepted that kham only has one guNa -
shabda.


> 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.
>
> What vyavahAra can exist with a vandhyAputra? He is sarvavyavahAra ayogya.
One can have bhAva abhAva vyavahAra with only bhAva padArthas, not with
those that never exist anywhere.


>
>
>>
>> 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?
>

The sentence ekamevAdvitIyam can have only four possibilities:

1) guNas are the only thing, Brahman is not in existence. Then by that
definition Brahman is asat, because you are saying guNas are the only
things that exist (ekamevAdvitIyam). So Brahman cannot exist, which is
aniShTam for you. Further, how can guNas exist without guNi? So even guNas
cannot exist, leading to shUnyavAda.

2) Brahman is the only thing, guNa is not in existence. This is the same as
advaita, as it says Brahman is the only thing in existence and its guNas
are not in existence (if Brahman and its guNas both existed then
ekamevAdvitIyam would be wrong), leading to nirguNa Brahman.

3) guNas and Brahman both exist. Then either

a) they are two different things and shruti is wrong, which is impossible.

b) or they are the same thing, which again, leads to options 1 and 2.

4) Nothing is ekamevAdvitIyam. This leads to shUnyavAda and shruta hAni.


>
> 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!
>
>
> Sure, let's discuss then:).

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

> /sv
>
>