[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Srinathji,

>>Well, they are not talking about bhEda between vastu-s known from
pratyaksha neither. They are talking about atIndriya padArtha/tatvas and
difference between them. For example, when difference between Brahman and
Jiva is said to exist, neither Brahman nor jIva is known from pratyaksha.
Otherwise we would not any atheism at all!

Every major religion in the world - Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
aboriginal religions in Australia, North America - talks about a God and
the individual, and the difference between the two. The belief in such an
Iswara and a jIva, which are distinct, does not presuppose the teaching
imparted by the Veda. If Veda was the only possible source of such
information, then cultures which have no access to such a Veda will have no
basis for a belief in God. However, we manifestly see this to be not true.
The mere presence of atheism does not preclude the presence of theism in
several non-Vedic societies. The conclusion from this is that Veda is not a
pramANa for Iswara - jIva jnAna.

However, what the vedA does teach is the specific means of propitiating
Iswara through various karmAs and upAsanAs - to that extent, shruti is a
pramANA to reveal the nature and performance of such actions. However it is
*not* a pramANa for revealing an Iswara or a jIVa, for reasons articulated
above.

Veda starts from this point - it recognizes that most people are under the
grips of delusion, and therefore will be bewildered if it starts off from
the get go saying that there is no Iswara-jIva bheda, no samsAra, that the
entire jagat is mithyA, etc. So being compassionate, the shruti in the
karma kANDa teaches the means by which they can purify themselves to be
worthy of the knowledge which it will later impart in the jnAna kANDa.

However, it should not be understood that just because it teaches the
performance of actions, that it is advocating the difference between the
performer of the actions (jIva) and the Lord, who is the entity being
propitiated (Iswara). If it was doing so, shruti would not repeatedly say
there is no difference between the two in vedAnta.

>>So, are you saying pramANatvam of any pramANa should be based on whether
or not it reveals your IshTa? In other words, prAmaNya is tightly coupled
with your Ishta-siddhi? It should be otherwise -- pramANya is independent
of your wishlist and should be identified apriory. In case of vEda it is
due to them being apouruShya, which is not based on anybody's IshTa.

I am not saying this at all. Advaita does not selectively choose abheda
shrutis and ignore bheda shrutis for that allegation to be made. It says
that bheda shruti vAkya - that is shrutis that teach bhedA are not
pramANAs, because they do not *teach* bhedA between jIva and Iswara. They
merely use the delusion that the jIva has about the existence of bhedA to
divert him towards actions that will bring benefits to him in this world
and the next, and once he has had enough of such pleasures, prepare him by
purifying him to create a mindset that will make him understand abheda
shrutis.

>>You missed the point -- arthavAda or otherwise on any type of vAkya-s
(abhEda or bhEda type) can be considered only if pada-s in them have
vAchyatva on the terms being referenced. When your paxa is about all pada-s
denote Brahman by their lakShyartha only, then artha vAda concept is not
applicable for any type of vAkyas which talk about such Brahman.

This is not the right representation of what advaita is saying. Any pada
must have vAchyatva, the question is whether it has vAchyArtha or not,
which is different. All sentences in the veda must have padAs that have
vAchyatva, but not all sentences in the vedA can be true if only the
vAchyartha is taken everywhere. None of the abheda vAkyas will be true if
only vAchyartha is taken.

I know we have debated the same issue several times, I don't think you are
going to accept advaita position - none of the arguments you have made thus
far are going to change our views. That being the case, I don't see any
point in continuing this discussion further, so I will not participate in
this going forward. I wish you the best in your dvaita pursuits.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The advaita position is that bheda vAkyas in the shruti are not to be
>> taken as pramANa for bhedatvam.
>>
>> 1) For any means of knowledge to be a pramANa, it has to reveal things
>> that are not previously known. That there is bhedA is well known through
>> everyday experience. One does not need the vedA to tell us that fire is
>> hot, it is knowable via pratyaksha. Similarly we experience bhedA everyday,
>> and therefore we don't need the vedA to tell us that bhedA is satyam.
>>
>
> Well, they are not talking about bhEda between vastu-s known from
> pratyaksha neither. They are talking about atIndriya padArtha/tatvas and
> difference between them. For example, when difference between Brahman and
> Jiva is said to exist, neither Brahman nor jIva is known from pratyaksha.
> Otherwise we would not any atheism at all!
>
> In another reply, a member quoted Shankara' saying Brahman is already
> known in terms of "I" pratyAya. If we were to take your argument and apply
> on Shankar's quote, then vEda should not talk about Brahman at all?
>
>
>> 2) Further, if vedA was a pramANa to reveal bhedatvam, then those
>> cultures that did not have vedA, would all be advaitins, as they would have
>> no means of knowing that bhedA is there. That is clearly not the case,
>> every culture around the world only talks about bhedA.
>>
>
> This argument is based on wrong understanding about bhEda-vAdins. Veda is
> not just pramANa to reveal bhEdatvam as "category" as you think, but should
> be consider as pramANa to reveal bhEdatvam between entities which are not
> known other than vEda itself.
>
>
>
>> Therefore vedA's tAtparyam cannot be bhedA.
>>
> Why not? If vEda is teaching about tatva A and tatava B, which themselves
> are not known from any other pramANa-s, why you deny tAtparya being bhEda?
>
>
>> However, there is no other means to know about abhedatvam other than
>> shruti. Hence vedA's pramANatvam is only possible when abhedA vAkyAs are
>> taken as pramANam.
>>
> So, are you saying pramANatvam of any pramANa should be based on whether
> or not it reveals your IshTa? In other words, prAmaNya is tightly coupled
> with your Ishta-siddhi?
>
> It should be otherwise -- pramANya is independent of your wishlist and
> should be identified apriory. In case of vEda it is due to them being
> apouruShya, which is not based on anybody's IshTa. Once this pramANya is
> fixed, your iShTa/aniShTa should follow from that pramANa jannita jnyAna.
>
>
> Your second point about vAchyatva of padas needed for a vAkya to be
>> arthavAda is irrelevant. We are not saying abheda vAkyas  are arthavAda. It
>> is abheda vAkya that have padAs referring to an avAchya brahman. Bheda
>> vAkyas have padAs that have vAchyatva, so by your own rule, they can be
>> arthavAda.
>>
> You missed the point -- arthavAda or otherwise on any type of vAkya-s
> (abhEda or bhEda type) can be considered only if pada-s in them have
> vAchyatva on the terms being referenced. When your paxa is about all pada-s
> denote Brahman by their lakShyartha only, then artha vAda concept is not
> applicable for any type of vAkyas which talk about such Brahman.
>
> /sv
>
>
>
>>>
>