[Advaita-l] The current advaita-dvaita debate
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 17 13:35:37 CDT 2003
Early last week, I had explicitly mentioned that I will not be able to
respond through the week. I had also requested, in the context of the
discussion on adhyAsa between Nomadeva Sharma and S. Jayanarayanan, that it
would be better to restrict one's posts to two or three per day. In the
meantime, I see that there have been some rumblings about the conduct of
these debates. This is a formal request, to Jay Nelamangala and company
(yes, _and company_, by virtue of being enthusiastic dvaitin-s who want to
engage us advaitin-s on this list), not to send more than two postings to
the list per day. We do not want to convert the advaita list to a
I am catching up on responses to old postings, and in the interests of
sticking to two posts per day, I'll try to consolidate responses to
different people. If I've missed some point in the process, either it is
because it is not important enough in my opinion, or because I've overlooked
it in catching up with the hundred odd posts that have accumulated in a
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, re: [Advaita-l] Causal Body, "Jay Nelamangala"
<jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
>"abhEdE bhEdakAree vishEshaha" - vishEsha is that which shows difference
>where there is none. The attributes are identical with the substance. It
>that causes the idea of difference in an identical thing. So, vishEsha is
>of reality. Everything is what it is by means of vishEsha. Owing to its
>in the thing, the thing is said to have many aspects, properties, and so
I find your language usage remarkably obfuscating and simultaneously
remarkably revealing. Ultimately, it is all remarkably self-contradictory.
Funny that you should find internal inconsistency in advaita.
Firstly, whose definition is "abhede bhedakArI viSesha:"? Is it your own or
one used by an AcArya of your tradition?
Secondly, what do you mean by the term abheda here? Is it that the substance
is really, essentially non-different?
Thirdly, what do you mean by bhedakArI? Is it that the bheda is a result of
some action? If so, does it come into being and does it go out of existence?
If not, then how do you countenance the usage of the word abheda in your
Fourthly, what do you mean by viSesha? "That which shows difference where
there is none," are your own words. So, is there intrinsic difference or is
there no difference? Particularly, are the viSesha-s different from one
Finally, what on earth (or heaven or hell, as the case may be - I do not
know what kind of jIva you are) do you mean by "attributes are identical
with the substance"? Are there different viSesha-s, which are all different
from one another, but which are individually or severally identical with the
substance? Or are all viSesha-s identical with one another, and also
identical with the substance? None of this is consistent with what you say
later about attributes - "owing to its presence in the thing." According to
your own logic, this latter sentence says that the substance is one thing
and the attributes are some other things different from the first thing but
present "in" it.
Moreover, you just said that the substance is abheda, and you explicitly
denied differences - "where there is none" are your own words. Then you said
that the attributes, i.e. viSesha-s, cause the difference (bhedakArI).
Either the attributes are different from the substance or they are identical
with the substance. In the former case, which you apparently do not accept,
there is no abheda, because you have substance on one hand and attributes on
the other. In the latter case, which you do seem to accept, if the substance
is abheda, then the attribute(s) is/are also abheda, so that there is only
abheda. Obviously, you cannot agree with this, so you are left with
substance, which is one and abheda, being identical with attributes, which
are many. Whether the many attributes are bheda, different from one another,
or abheda, identical with one another, being identical with substance, which
is abheda, I will leave you to think about. All in all, do make up your mind
about what you really want to say about viSesha and viSeshya.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, re: Response to Vidyasankar's responses, Nomadeva
Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hello! don't you have the term 'dUShaNAnumAna' in
>advaita-parlance? It appears so.
Yes we do, but my point is that you offered an analogy (upamAna) and called
it an inference (anumAna). If you do not know the difference between upamAna
and anumAna, all I can say is that you need to either learn some Sanskrit or
take nyAya/tarka 101 course or both.
As for your habit of "chomp"ing and "boink"ing and "dude"ing, I will not
dignify these with an answer. I may or may not have understood properly what
SrI madhusUdana sarasvatI says about the sAkshI. It may well be the latter,
for I do not claim to have read all there is to read in the advaita
literature, let alone understand. However, I am hardly going to take your
quotation of BNK Sharma's quotation as a guide, especially after seeing how
you couldn't even offer a proper translation of "nAsyAbrahmavit kule
bhavati". Why don't we both of us learn some more, before engaging in
Finally, on a general note to all the posters here, dvaitins and advaitins
and everyone else, in my capacity as a moderator of this list, and not as
one of the participants in this thread, I note that this whole series
started as an attempt by Jay Nelamangala to discuss adhyAsa/adhyAropa. It
has snowballed into a multi-participant debate with multiple topics being
discussed in a piecemeal fashion. If there is no conscious effort to use
decorous language and/or if there is no conscious effort to use
self-restraint in the number of postings per day (a maximum of two as
requested by Ravi), the moderators of this list will have to be heavy-handed
in cutting people off. I hope that you do not push us to the wall on this
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list