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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:22 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> 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.
>

That's why I call it superficial analogy.



>
>
>>
>> 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.
>

It could have accepted if Advaitic notion of Brahman has such achintyAbhUta
shakti so that He can show up simultaneously as mukta jIva-s along with
samsAri jIvas. This way you can have the acceptable condition that when one
instance of jIva-hood achieve mOksha, other instances of jIva-hood continue
to exist as samsAri jIvas. But you know, Advaita ill offered to have such
saviShEsha Brahman with such unthinkable  achintyAbhUta nature. Do not
forget brhamn is utter nirviShEsha in your view.

Where as various bhagavat rUpas are possible to coexist because such Brhamn
has shakti. There is no contradiction in seeing various rUpas. The vary
nature of Brhamn is as defined by shruti as bhrihantO asmin guNaH. From His
infinite guNa-s He takes various forms (rUpam rUpam pratirUpaM babuvaH
asserts shruti). What is so contradiction in this?



>
>> 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.
>

So what?

Sattyattva of bhEdas (in any dharmI for that matter) is admitted in an
dharmI via agency of viShEsha.  Your above argument is based on ignorance
of how dvaitins admits bhEda (of rUpa/guNa etc) in an dharmI.



> 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.
>
>>
>>
Do not confuse. dhuka of sIta part is only the appearance Madhva was
talking, not the rUpa of sIta itself.

/sv