[Advaita-l] Tattvamasi - Advaita and Dvaita approach

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:07 PM Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.


How is that "already" established?

That exactly is the argument of Madhusudhana, and for that Sri.Raamacharya
argues in his tarangiNi that -- chinmAtratva of Brahman is not established
unless you have that Mahavakya. In turn you argue for the applicability of
lakshyartha of two padas based on assiddha concept. It is a anyOnAShrya
dOSha.





> 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.
>

So, Ishwara is single Jeeva's Maaya?

Ishwara is said to be "anaamayam" (flawless) by shAstras (for example
-- Sarvagnyam sarva-kartaaram Naaraayanam anaamayam etc.)

Now, if you claim Ishwara is jIva's maaya -- does it make sense -- maaya
tatvaM is called anaamayam?

Standard position of Advaita is that it is nirguna Brahman, with the
limiting adjunct, that becomes the Paramaatman.

Here too, you are not without contradictions. if such Paramaatman has no
flaw as a consequence, then there are two problems:

1> Something, namely the nirguna Brahman, picks up a flaw, namely the
limiting adjunct, and becomes something flawless, namely the Paramaatman.
Does it make sense for something to pick up a flaw and thus become
flawless? It is preposterous indeed!

2> There are two entities, namely, the limiting adjunct or the flaw, and
Brahman, or the entity that acquires the flaw. The flaw cannot be the
same as Brahman -- then the flaw would be Brahman's self-same nature. It
would mean Ishvara becomes the Paaramaarthika
satya as Brahman is sat. Also, the nirguna Brahman, being characterized by
this characteristic, would no longer remain nirguna. However, on accepting
these two entities, abheda is lost.

/sv