[Advaita-l] manyu-sUktaM - as per dvaita siddhAnta

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:13 AM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Sri Srinath Vedagarbha observed
>
>
>  when we have niravakASha
> vAkyas (such as 'vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH' etc.), which cannot be
> interpreted in any other way, why did "tradition" treat mantra/brAhmaNa
> parts differently?
>
>
>  Then he also observed
>
>
>  Why dilute force of
> Krishna's qualifier "sarvE"?
>
>
>  He went on to question
>
>
>  But what is the excuse for
> vEdAntins?
>
>
>  Why should the vedantin have any excuse. He has interpreted this vAkya
> correctly only. He has interpreted the word *aham* as
> *Chaitanyam/BrahmanAtman. *Actually the dvaita position as explained by
> Sri Vedagarbha would correspond to the statement
>
 'vEdEschha sarvEbhedEva vEdyaH' .
>
>
>  But Krishna did not make such a statement.
>
>
>
 You're right, aham means Brahman only, but you see by including jIva also
into the scope of "aham"  (by virtue of identity), then sarva vEda should
have been jIva para also, but Krishna did not mean that either, or did He?

Also, another difficulty, by saying "aham is vEdya from vEda", it
automatically makes that aham as jnEya-brahman, which is not nirguNa
brahman but upAsya brahman and hence lower.


So, it seems by saying 'vEdEschha ahmEva vEdyaH' Krishna also implying
'vEdEschha
sarvEbhedEva vEdyaH', but you know I may be wrong :)

/SV