[Advaita-l] Spiritual Clarifications

[araryes1 at gmail.com]

Our scriptures are replete with examples around Clay vs Pot, ornaments vs. Gold, waves vs. sea etc. i have following questions:
(i)	yes, we definitely understand that pot is clay as well as perhaps a ladle is clay as well and also a spoon is clay as well. But how can we just ignore the Name-Form-Function practical reality. In a situation where we need to use a pot, we can only use that and not a spoon or ladle. So, in all practical interactions, Name-Form-Function is so important, so what true benefit we get by simply just recognizing that at a pAramArthika level it is clay but vyAvahArika level it is pot etc.? So what? How does such a superficial knowledge benefit?
(ii)	Extending this same example, yes pot is not different from clay, similarly ear ring is not different from gold, etc. Agreed, but still, ear ring is not pot, neither clay is gold.. so ultimately, at that level, they are then different, right.. so on and so forth.. So, am back to same dilemma that posed in my earlier point.
(iii)	What about cases where a pot is not purely made of clay alone. It has some engravings and some embellishments.. so how does point (i) above hold good. 
(iv)	Finally, in Jada Bharathar – Ragooganan interaction, Ragooganan retorts to Jada Bharathar asking how does he say that body does not affect atman and quotes that fire heats the pot which heats the water which heats the rice.. but then Jada Bharathar scorns at him and says he is trying to compare the great brahma tattvam with such simplistic examples. But does not our own Vedantic scriptures use similar such simplistic examples time and again – like snake and rope, clay and pot etc.. So what was his fault in above question.  

-----Original Message-----
From: araryes1 at gmail.com <araryes1 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 7:49 AM
To: 'A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta' <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; advaitin at googlegroups.com
Cc: 'V Subrahmanian' <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Subject: Spiritual Clarifications

namaH sarvebhyaH
I am humbly posing some questions below in front of the esteemed members of this forum, purely to get genuine clarifications, and definitely not to stir any controversy. I would be greatly benefited by your insights.
(1) Do Vaishnavities accept the content of Tatva Bodha? I feel that 90% contents are generic and hence applicable universally, except perhaps Vaishnavites interpretation of Moksham. What is the opinion here?
(2) Some Vaishnavities that i know have problem with Advaita/Sankara mainly on two grounds (a) Adi Sankarar's reference to God's face as being like back of a monkey? This really beats me.. Where as Ramanujar interpreets that as Sun's rays on blooming lotus (b) They claim that in Advaita, there is no moksha for animals, birds, women or non-brahmins and that Advaita has Moksha only for male, brahmis and sanyasis, where as in their sampradaya any living thing can get moksha.. is this true?