[Advaita-l] Abedha

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Srinathji,

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:37 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Alright, let's talk about logic.
>
Its already done. Dvaitins use only 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.
>
Not mine, everyone's! It is a plain and straightforward derivation based on
Dvaita philosophy! As per Dvaitins' analysis, only Vishnubhaktas should
have been born. And maybe then they become other bhaktas or non-bhaktas or
whatever?!


> 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).
>
Again, not mine, it is your philosophy where logic is also failing. Good,
shift the blame to Krishna! So as per Dvaitins, Krishna was a liar when he
said kShetrajnaM cApi mAM viddh, jnAnI tu Atmaiva me matam.

Also, talking about Krishna as a liar is not following "lets talk about
logic". Your pratijnA in this email itself fails.


> 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?
>
The antaHkaraNa is of various types, yes, based on saMskAras gained across
janmas and that keeps changing as per additional karma, upAsana, etc.


> or are you questioning why they are put into the cycle?
>
I'm questioning how non-Vishnu bhaktas miss the eternal hell in the earlier
janma whichever be the type of jIvas you consider them to be.


>
> Answer to both the questions is BG 101.
>
Since we have diff interpretations of Gita, Gita 101 doesn't work.


> 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.
>
Oh, so you're saying Vishnubhaktas wanting liberation is like free lunch?!
I agree. BG101, also agreed.

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.
>
Well, then it is not that those with mithyA jnAna get eternal hell? What
exactly is Dvaitins' stance? Eternal hell and born again are contradictory,
logically, aren't they? Or being born again itself is eternal hell?! Again,
lets talk about logic pratijnA has been thrown out of the window.


> All systems that take no effort to avoid contradiction with other shrutis
>> have this flaw.
>
>
> What are other shrutis which are in contradiction?
>
If you didn't know that you wouldn't be on this arguing against Advaita.


> 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.
>
Okay, your misunderstanding of mImAMsA has been noted.


> 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.
>
Only as uneducated as all the Dvaitins are about Advaita Vedanta. That was
paying back in your own coin. As for the statement itself, it is from your
own famous Dvaitin Acharya in a vidvatsabhA. avakAsha is irrelevant in the
context as per your own, else he should have explained it when visheShaNas
and lakShaNas were being discussed.

>