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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

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


You are unaware that Advaita accepts Shakti for Brahman for otherwise
Brahman is incapable of doing anything. BSB 1.4.3:

 परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । सा
चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या ; अर्थवती हि सा ; न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य
स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति, शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः ।

Brahman has to depend on prakriti for doing anything.  Madhva has called it
Bhaaryaa in the BGB.

>
> 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?
>

All this is possible only because of the shakti.

>
>
>
> 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.
>

Satya bheda is denied by Madhva across bhagavadrupas. He has said:
accepting abheda and bheda will lead to andha tamas.

>
>
>
>> 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.
>



> Then, what is Maya Sita?
>
> /sv
>
>