# Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 1(The nature of difference)

kalyan chakravarthy kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Mar 12 10:49:45 CST 2003

```Namaskaaram,

It is my pleasure to introduce you to the world of sophistry and flawed
logic of Dvaita. As fellow Advaitins(I hope all people here are Advaitins),

A critical evaluation of Dvaita begins with the third prameya which is very
fundamental to the basic structure of Dvaita. The third prameya says that
the differences between objects are real. Let us see it in more detail.

The "difference of an entity from something else" in Dvaita is intrinsic to
the entity. The following sophistry is presented to prove their case ----

************************************************************************
1.If this difference is something apart from the entity, then there must be
a difference between the entity and the differnce itself, and this reasoning
if applied again and again will lead to an infinite number of differnces.

2.To avoid this Ananda Tirtha(the pseudo-logician/sophist) says that the
property of being different from every other entity, is part of the entity
itself.
************************************************************************

The above sophistry can be seen in www.dvaita.org

Now my dear fellow Advaitic friends, let me take the pleasure to massacre
this argument.:-) In doing so, all objections and replies have been treated.

OBJECTION 1.
In the point 1. what is described is the difference itself. While in the
point 2., what is being described is the property of being different. Thus
there is a sophistry here. So what exactly is the locus of the actual
difference? Answer this, otherwise one will say that the locus of the
difference(and not just the property of being differnt) in dvaita is
unaddressed and Dvaita can be thrown away as garbage.

Let the same thing also apply to the difference itself. I mean let the
difference itself be a part of the entity.

OBJECTION 2.
Then, the difference between the entity and everything else is a part of the
"everything else" also which in theory can be considered as the other
entity.

No. For difference is ultimately a *difference of properties* of one entity
and other.

OBJECTION 3.
If what you said is true, then two objects with all similar properties are
not different. This is contrary to the fact that you can still percieve(and
note that there is something called *valid perception* which Dvaita boasts
of)difference between two jars which are exactly identical. Now if *this
difference* is not addressed, then once again Dvaita will have the dustbin
as its destination.

How does this justify saying that difference is part of both entities?

OBJECTION 3.
Is it not simple to understand? The differnce between entity 1 and entity 2
is the same as the difference between entity 2 and entity 1.

No but we are talking about the difference of entity 1 from entity 2, or I
mean the *property of being different*.

OBJECTION 4.
*property of being different* be a part of the entity. But unless and until
you are going to address the issue of the *difference* itself, I can safely
throw Dvaita into the trash can.

You need not do that. I accept once again that the *difference* itself is a
part of the entity.

OBJECTION 5.

I dont accept it. I would say, entity 1 by being itself is inherently
different from entity 2.

OBJECTION 6.
That gives me another reason for throwing Dvaita into the dustbin. You are
once again talking about only the *property of being different* and not the
*difference* itself.

OK. OK. I accept that differnce between entity 1 and entity 2 is the same as
the difference between entity 2 and entity 1.

OBJECTION 7.
Then what is the locus of this difference?

Entity 1.

OBJECTION 8.
Why not entity 2?

Why should it be?

OBJECTION 9.
Because of your reply 6. And moreover is the difference in Dvaita  not a
part of an entity itself? So, what do you say when you want to look at the
difference between entity 2 and entity 1? It should be inherent to entity 2,

Yes. I agree that difference between entity 1 and entity 2 is inherent to
entity 1 and also to entity 2.

10. In that case, you are saying that the same difference appears twice. How
can the same *thing* appear twice? That means there must be a difference
between each of its appearances (in each of the objects)and just like your
peudo-logician Ananda Tirtha has said, applying the reason over and over
again, you get an infinite number of differences, thus leading to an
infinite regress.

11. And since the difference is part of both the entities, the difference
also becomes a similarity. Thus you end up with a "difference" which is "THE
difference" as well as "A similarity", which of course is a contradiction.

Any sensible person would find that the above two OBJECTIONS lead to a
complete collapse of Dvaita. Notice that the incinsistencies arise in the
premeya #3 of Dvaita. This prameya being very fundamental to Dvaita,
indicates the collapse of Dvaita as the prameya itself (which is the basic
foundation of Dvaita) collapses.

THUS DVAITA IS WORTHY OF BEING THROWN INTO THE DUSTBIN.

Best Regards
Kalyan

_________________________________________________________________
Fun on the mobile with http://www.msn.co.in/mobile/ ringtones, graphics,
logos etc.

```