[Advaita-l] Abedha

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:42 AM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Raghavji,
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 8:02 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > So eternal hell is an illogical
> > idea - or one might put it this way ; *eternal* hell is not a damned good
> > idea!!
> >
>
> Further, here is another reason why eternal hell interpretation to those
> non-Vishnu bhaktas by Dvaitins is a logical failure:


Alright, let's talk about logic.



> Imagine that a jIva
> was indeed thrown into eternal hell. What is the reason he wasn't in hell
> before? Because he was definitely not a non-Vishnu bhakta; meaning he was a
> Vishnu-bhakta.


This is wrong logic.  Per your logic only vishnu-bhaktas should have been
born.

If we were to apply your logic, Lord Krishana should be considered as
either ignorant or a liar when He says  "AsurIM yonimApannA mUDhA
janmani-janmani" (about tamasik jIvas).

Let's take a step back and question -- why would any jIva take birth after
birth even after they are intersencially said to be one of the three types?
In this question, are you denying the existence of three types of jIvas as
such? or are you questioning why they are put into the cycle?

Answer to both the questions is BG 101.



> Why was he born at all in that case? Shouldn't he have been
> liberated already then?!


  There is no such thing as "free lunch". Everyone has to tread their
journey. Again, BG 101.


> At the very least it should be agreed that
> Vishnu-bhaktas will be born again.
>

Correct, they will be born till they work towards and reach their
completeness. So also people with mithyA  jnyAna. There is nothing special
about vishnu-bhaktas in this context.



>
> All systems that take no effort to avoid contradiction with other shrutis
> have this flaw.


What are other shrutis which are in contradiction?


> Advaita Vedanta seems to be the only one that has ShaDliMga
> analysis for tAtparyanishchaya and therefore, everything fits in line
> without any contradiction.


Correction -- it needs extra adhyArOpa-apavAda to explain away any
contradiction. Mere tAtparya lingas and samanvayA (as mandated by
sUtrakAra) are impotent in explaining seemingly contradicting shruti
assertions. Please note this.


> Dvaitins consider interpreting individual
> statements on overall tAtparya and arriving at the overall tAtparya by
> interpreting individual statements as having anyonyAshrayadoSha!
>
>
It seems you are not educated about savakASha and niravakAsha statements.

/sv