[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-511 to 1-524

[V Subrahmanian]

What Anand ji so nicely summed up is a reflection of the Bhashya:

Hence Shankara cites both the mantras in conjunction to conclude that the
abhāva of all these in the state of moksha, in the BSB 4.1.3:
 यदप्युक्तम् — अधिकार्यभावः प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधश्चेति, तदप्यसत् ,
प्राक्प्रबोधात् संसारित्वाभ्युपगमात् , तद्विषयत्वाच्च
प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहारस्य ; ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’
(बृ. उ. २ । ४ । १४)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=2&id=BR_C02_S04_V14&hl=%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%88%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D>
इत्यादिना
हि प्रबोधे प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावं दर्शयति । प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावे
श्रुतेरप्यभावप्रसङ्ग इति चेत् , न, इष्टत्वात् ; ‘अत्र पिताऽपिता भवति’ (बृ.
उ. ४ । ३ । २२)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=4&id=BR_C04_S03_V22&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF>
 इत्युपक्रम्य, ‘वेदा अवेदाः’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । २२)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=4&id=BR_C04_S03_V22&hl=%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%83>
इति
वचनात् इष्यत एव अस्माभिः श्रुतेरप्यभावः प्रबोधे ।

Before dawn of right knowledge samsāritva is admitted and the perception
etc. pramanas operate there. Post-dawn of right knowledge, the shruti
teaches the abhāva of pratyaksha, etc. Then, in the absence of
pratyaksha,etc. pramanas, will not the contingency of the absence of shruti
arise? No, that is a desirable effect for the Vedantin for the shruti
itself has taught: then the father is no father, .....the vedas are no
vedas.

The 'yatra tvasya...' mantra negates the entire concept of 'pramana
(pramatr, prameya)' and hence even the shruti as pramana, pramā-karaṇam'
(not kāranam) ceases to be at that juncture. So,the question of applying
the lakshana for pramana does not arise at all owing to the lakshya vastu
itself not being there.

regards
vs

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Sri Anand ji,
>
> Completely agree - that is pretty much what I had written yesterday.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2017 9:37 a.m., "Anand Hudli via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Shri Venkatraghavanji,
>
> >Re the above, Sri vAdirAja's question is if the pramANa viShaya is
> >vyAvahArikam, it is by definition bAdhyam upon brahma jnAna. pramANa
> >according to advaitins is abAdhitArtha viShayatvam, so by definition, all
> >the shruti vAkya that have vyAvahArika vastu as their viShaya are not
> >pramANas. This point by vAdirAja is valid in my opinion, but is not a
>  > problem for advaita.
>
> One of the necessary conditions for a source of knowledge to be called a
> pramANa is that it should make things known that are not already known
> (anadhigata). What happens in this case can be examined in two phases. In
> the phase before the dawn of Brahman knowledge, both abheda and bheda
> shrutis are pramANas, since we are still in the vyAvahArika phase and there
> is no sublation of vyAvahArika objects. After the dawn of Brahman
> knowledge, *both* abheda and bheda shrutis, ie. the whole shruti itself,
> becomes atattvAvedaka and ceases to be a pramANa, since it cannot make any
> thing known that is not already known. So what I am saying is that we have
> either a situation where 1) both bheda and abheda shrutis are tattvAvedaka
> or where 2) both abheda and bheda shrutis are atattvAvedaka. The charge by
> VAdirAja is that one type of shruti is tattvAvedaka and another is
> atattvAvedaka, as per the advaitin. But as we have have seen, we will never
> be in that situation.
>
> Anand
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As explained in the vedAnta-paribhAShA, the validity (prAmANya) of
> > pramANas is of two kinds. vyAvahArika-tattva-Avedakatva is the capability
> > to make known vyAvahArika reality. pAramArthika-tattva-Avedakatva is the
> > capability to make known the Absolute reality, Brahman. The first kind
> > belongs to pramANas other than the one which yields BrahmajnAna, whereas
> > the second kind belongs only to statements (shruti texts) that teach the
> > unity of jIva and Brahman, for example, sadeva somyedamagra AsIt,
> > tattvamasi, etc. This implies that Bheda shrutis belong to the category
> of
> > vyAvahArika-tattva-Avedaka pramANas, while the abheda-shrutis belong to
> the
> > category of pAramArthika-tattva-Avedaka pramANas. However, it is also
> clear
> > that advaitins do not state there is an atattvAvedaka pramANa in the
> Veda,
> > as alleged by VAdirAja. If they had indeed stated that a part of the Veda
> > is atattvAvedaka while another part is tattvAvedaka there would have been
> > shrutahAni surely, but they did not. advaitins do agree that every shruti
> > is tattvAvedaka, although the tattva that it conveys could be vyAvahArika
> > or pAramArthika. The topic of Bheda-shrutis vis a vis the abheda-shrutis
> is
> > discussed in detail in the advaitasiddhi. Suffice it to say that one
> > solution is to accept Bheda-shrutis, those vAkyas of the shruti that seem
> > to deal with duality, as describing vyAvahArika bheda, since there cannot
> > be be any bheda at the pAramArthika level. Bheda shrutis play a role
> > similar to the role played by arthavAdas in the context of a vidhi, vide
> > the mImAMsA sUtra - vidhinA tu ekavAkyatvAt stutyarthatvena vidhInAM
> syuH,
> > 1.2.7. Just as arthavAda vAkyas are not independent pramANas but do help
> > by supporting and commending the enjoined act (vidhi), bheda-shrutis too
> > serve the purpose of supporting the abheda-shrutis. Taken independently,
> > they are not pramANas for revealing Brahman. Hence, there is no
> shrutahani.
> >
> > Anand
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>