[Advaita-l] Tattvamasi - Advaita and Dvaita approach

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Plus there is one more objection from Dvaitis in the video. When you
Advaitis do Jahadajahallaxana you are doing it on Both Tat and Tvam Padas.
But  the Dvaitis can take Lakshyartha of Tvam Pada only and show Tat Tvam
Asi like Tasya Adhinatvat and so on. Therefore they say Advaitis do
Laksyartha for two Padas instead of one and this is Gaurava Dosha.

Answer - Advaitis are not bound to do Jahadajahallaxana for two Padas. They
can do it for Tvam Pada only and say Tat is Chinmatra Svarupa already. Tat
is not having Sarvajnatva and Ishwaratva. It is Chinmatra only. Then Who is
playing Ishwara's role? It is the single Jeeva's Maayaa only. This is
explained in detail in DSV EJV. The Dvaitis don't know DSV. Or  in a way it
is like Bhaamatikaara's position also. He also says Ishwara is Nirguna
Brahma only and not the Saguna Ishwara.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:02 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:52 AM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Here is an vyakyArtha debate held recently on this famous subject;
> >
> > https://youtu.be/ei1ha9nZ9P8
>
>
> Thanks for the link. In the last 15 minutes of the video, the pontiff of
> the Vyasaraja mutt has summed up the discussion for the laypersons. He
> mentions a point made by the Sheshachandrika author's observation:
>
> We have to take into consideration the context/the situation when the Tat
> tvam asi teaching is given: Shvetaketu has returned from Gurukula
> completely puffed with arrogance. It would be totally improper to give him
> the teaching 'You are That' which will only increase the pride. Uddalaka is
> giving the teaching in order to put the boy on the right track. So, the
> advaitic meaning of Tat tvam asi is not that would fit the situation.
> Instead only if he is told that 'You are not that' or 'You are only a
> reflection of or dependent on That' the purpose of the teaching would be
> fulfilled.
>
> To this objection/observation, we point out that:
>
> Actually, even though Shvetaketu did return from Gurukula with an air of
> arrogance, when questioned by his father about his knowledge  of the tattva
> 'What is that knowing which everything is known', the boy is floored. The
> inner transition takes place and he submits himself to his father and seeks
> that Tattva Jnana:
>
> श्वेतकेतो यन्नु सोम्येदं महामना अनूचानमानी स्तब्धोऽस्युत तमादेशमप्राक्ष्यः
> येनाश्रुतं श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातमिति *कथं नु भगवः स आदेशो
> भवतीति*
> ॥ ३ ॥  It is this portion of the above sentence that gives us the
> unmistakable impression that Shvetaketu has undergone a drastic change of
> mind:  कथं नु भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति.  Shankara's bhashya for that portion is:
> सर्वानपि वेदानधीत्य सर्वं च अन्यद्वेद्यमधिगम्यापि अकृतार्थ एव भवति
> यावदात्मतत्त्वं न जानातीत्याख्यायिकातोऽवगम्यते । तदेतदद्भुतं श्रुत्वा आह,
> कथं नु एतदप्रसिद्धम् अन्यविज्ञानेनान्यद्विज्ञातं भवतीति ; एवं मन्वानः
> पृच्छति — कथं नु केन प्रकारेण हे भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति ॥
>
> Also, there is the rule that Atma Vidya should not be given unsought and
> that too only to the duly qualified. Both these requirements are met here:
> 1. Shvetaketu asks for it and 2. His way of addressing 'BhagavaH' shows he
> is qualified to receive it, especially that he is devoid of pride, etc.
> that was in him when he returned from the Gurukula.
>
> Thus, the objection of the Dvaita Acharya that the prakaraNa,
> context/situation does not warrant the teaching of the advaitic meaning of
> Tat tvam asi is not sound. Moreover, the Advaitic meaning will in no way
> increase his pride (even if it is granted that he continued to be
> proud/arrogant) because the teaching is not 'You are the Sarvajna
> Sarvashakta Ishwara'.  If that were the intended meaning of Tat tvam asi,
> the objection could have sustained. But the Advaitic meaning is: You, the
> chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa.
>
> In fact the Dvaitic meaning 'You are not That' or 'You are only dependent
> on That' is out of context because Shvetaketu never thought that he is
> Ishwara. His admission of his alpajnatva is patent from his submitting to
> his father to learn this vidya. Nor did he think, at the time of getting
> this teaching 'Tat tvam asi' that he is independent. So, in no way the
> Dvaitic meaning of Tat tvam asi suits the situation.
>
> While Sri Nagasampige Acharya made a splendid summary of the Advaitic side,
> there is only one mix up in the detail.  The 'Acharyavaan purusho veda' is
> in the context of the man from Gandhara wanting to get back to his native
> town, having lost his way.  The Acharya here mixed it up with another
> instance of a Rajaputra (of Brihadaranyaka bhashyam) being reminded of his
> true nature by an Apta.
>
> The others who spoke in the goshThi were also very well learned and had
> come adequately prepared for the occasion. It is very nice to see so many
> scholars who have shaastra jnana, having devoted time and effort to study
> the shaastra.
>
> Om Tat Sat
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > /sv
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh