[Advaita-l] Tattvamasi - Advaita and Dvaita approach

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Sadananda-ji -- Pranam

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:42 AM kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
> Yes, the context of the teaching is very important. Uddalaka starts
> questioning his son, ‘Have you learned knowing which you will know
> everything’ – eka vijnaanena sarva vijnanaam bhavati.


But in Advaitic doctrine point of view that context is not met. When
Brahman is known "everything"  is not known per se, because jnAni realizes
there is no "other thing".



> . and there is nothing other than sat. ekam – eva -adviteeyam – has been
> explained by Shankara as sajaati vijaati Swagata bheda rahitam –


The notion of "vijAti-bhEda rahitam" is a oxymoron. The vi-kaara is already
establishes the difference (of that of inter-jaati) and then to negate
difference is illogical.



> while Ramanuja accepts the first two but not the third – claims that there
> are internal differences with jeeva-jagat as part of the sat. He forces the
> issue because of the Gita statement – natvevvaaham jaatu naasam na tvam
> neme janaadhipaaH,.. endorsing existence of multiple jeevas as ever present
> and accounts for tat tvam asi using visheshana visheshaabhaam
> samanaadhikaraNam as in ‘blue lotus’.


In Ramanuja's school, Vishnu alone is not Brahman, but the triad of
Vishnu-jiva-jagat collectively is Brahman of veda. That goes against many
shrutis, for example -- Maha Narayana Upanishad "..tad Eva paramaM brahma
kaveenAM " etc.

In Nyayamirta, there is a section where Sri.Vyasa Tirtha criticizes VA and
says their final doctrine logically reduces to Dvaita's in the final
analysis. You may read Valerie Stoker's excellent book on this section here
https://wright.academia.edu/ValerieStoker . The book is free to download.
Read chapter 5 (page 106) for this specific context.

In the nutshell, the argument goes like this -- since VA do maintain
hierarchy in mOksha without explicitly admitting so by accepting SrI tatva
and other niyamaka tatvas such as Visvaksena are indeed superior than the
mukta jIvas, the hierarchy is so implied so that its logical conclusion
leads to Dvaita's taratamya.


>
> That ‘I am not that’ is my daily experience and I do not need scripture to
> confirm that statement which I already know. Here ‘anadigatvam’ as pramaana
> requirement is violated.


Sir, how is that "you are not Brahman" is already in your experience? Even
though you have general idea about you as not this not that, but special
knowledge of you are not Brahman is not there. Since pratiyogi Brahman is
not given in pratyaksha, you cannot negate identity between you (the
anuyOgi) with such assidha pratiyogi.  Since the 'tat' pada iin that shruti
is understood to be as indicating Brahman, the bhEda between jIva and
Brahman is not at all given in daily experience.

So, the anadigatatvam is not violated.

/sv