[Advaita-l] Taattvika Abheda and vyavaharika bheda in Dvaita and Advaita

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:54 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Taattvika Abheda and vyavaharika bheda in Dvaita and Advaita
>>
>>
>> There is nothing wrong in this and is quite the way it aught to be. But it
>> has to be realized by non-advaitins that this is the same situation in
>> Advaita where they hold a taattvika abheda  between jiva-brahma and
>> jiva-jiva and Brahma-jagat, and maintain a bheda in  vyavahara (just like
>> Madhvas hold a taattvika abheda across all forms of Vishnu and maintain a
>> working difference too).
>>
>
> Two are not same. Dvaitins even though transact (for bhakti purpose) in
> bhEdha between various avatAra rUpa-s of the Lord, nevertheless DO NOT say
> such rUpas are in samsAra and needing mOksha like what Advaitins are saying
> about jIva-s.
>

The analogy is not about jivas being samsaris.  The analogy is about
accepting taattvika abheda and also accepting bheda.

>
> What this means is that Dvaitins will not run into logical contradiction
> of what Advaitins run into of one jIva gets mOksha why other jIva-s are
> continue to exist.
>

No. The 'contradiction' is not there when the tattvika abheda and
vyavaharika bheda across jivas is understood, just as the situation in
bhagavadrupas.  That is why the exploits of Rama are not conflated with
those of Krishna.  Both are seen in their rightful view.

>
> Your argument is superficially based on perceived similarity (sAmya) of
> bhEda-abhEda between two school -- is quite invalid. I call it superficial
> because you failed to notice the key difference -- in Dvaita such various
> forms of the Lord are sattya (even though the svarUpa of such forms is One
> and only); where as in Advaita various forms of jIva-s are arOpita and not
> sattya.
>

Even though you might try assert 'satyatva' of rupas, the issue of satyatva
of 'bheda' despite accepting abheda cannot be denied. That is what I
pointed out. Madhva has criticized the bheda-abheda idea too there:
भेदाभेदविदश्चात्र तमो यान्ति न संशयः | [those who hold both bheda and
abheda as real also go to tamas, undoubtedly. ]

Also, in the Gitabhashya, in the context of Prakrti, Madhva has said, 'the
woes undergone by Sita is only an appearance'. He has accepted the concept
of 'Maayaa Sita'. So much for the 'satyatva' of the rupas.

> /sv
>
>