[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Dear Vindoh-ji,



On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 11:16 PM Vinodh via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Having summarized my understanding of the discussion thus far and having
> reflected on it, it appears to me that assertion b. of Advaita (that all
> pramana are unreal) can be established in two possible ways:
> (1) using shabda pramana, e.g., sruti vaakya like 'ekam eva advitiyam' (one
> without a second), which implies that there is nothing other than A and
> therefore that B is unreal, or
> (2) without using shabda pramana , e.g., by using pure reasoning as
> Gaudapadacharya does in the Vaitathya Prakarana of his Mandukyopanishad
> Karika.
> The first requires a person to accept scriptural authority, whereas the
> second does not.
>
> In contrast, I doubt if there exists anything that is in support of
> assertion b. of Dvaita (that all pramana are real).
>
>
What exactly do you mean by the term "support" in your above question?

Are you looking for how Dvaitins provide any evidence(pramANa) in support
of their position (of pramANas are real)?

Whatever pramaNas Dvaitins may give you, they must necessarily be valid and
existing. Otherwise how can you possibly accept them, right? If so,
providing such real and valid pramANas itself proves their pramEya that
"pramANas are real" irrespective of the details of such provided pramANas :)

Anyways, Dvaitin's support is also from shruti  -- Satya Aatmaa, satyo
jiivaha, satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa," among many others
regarding satyatva of jagat.

Please note, since Dvaitin's position is that of 'pramANa-s are real',
their quoting of Shruti, which itself a pramANa, and its reality status
does not run counter to each other. In other words, pramEya and pramANa are
of the same reality status. This is not the case with  Advaita. Their
pramEya (that pramNa-pramEya-pramAtR^itva are avidya kruta and hence
unreal) is counter to the reality status of the very evidence being used in
the process.

Regards,
/sv