Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 1(The nature of difference)
Kiran B R
kiranbr at ROCKETMAIL.COM
Thu Mar 13 11:34:02 CST 2003
tvayi mayi chaanyatraiko vishhNuH
vyarthaM kupyasi mayyasahishhNuH .
bhava samachittaH sarvatra tvaM
vaaJNchhasyachiraadyadi vishhNutvam.h ..
In me, in you and in everything, none but the same Vishnu dwells. Your
anger and impatience are meaningless. If you wish to attain the status of
Vishnu soon, have samabhava always.
govindaM bhajamuuDhamate .
saMpraapte sannihite kaale
nahi nahi rakshati DukRiJNkaraNe
Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool ! Rules of
Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:49:45 +0000, kalyan chakravarthy
<kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>TO MY FELLOW ADVAITINS
>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
>I request you to provide me some feedback about this post.
>A critical evaluation of Dvaita begins with the third prameya which is
>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
>the entity. The following sophistry is presented to prove their case ----
>1.If this difference is something apart from the entity, then there must
>a difference between the entity and the differnce itself, and this
>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
>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
>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.
>TENTATIVE REPLY 1.
>Let the same thing also apply to the difference itself. I mean let the
>difference itself be a part of the entity.
>Then, the difference between the entity and everything else is a part of
>"everything else" also which in theory can be considered as the other
>TENTATIVE REPLY 2.
>No. For difference is ultimately a *difference of properties* of one
>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
>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?
>Is it not simple to understand? The differnce between entity 1 and entity
>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*.
>The point was already addressed in OBJECTION 1 AND REPLY 1. Let the
>*property of being different* be a part of the entity. But unless and
>you are going to address the issue of the *difference* itself, I can
>throw Dvaita into the trash can.
>You need not do that. I accept once again that the *difference* itself is
>part of the entity.
>What about my OBJECTION 3?
>I dont accept it. I would say, entity 1 by being itself is inherently
>different from entity 2.
>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
>OK. OK. I accept that differnce between entity 1 and entity 2 is the same
>the difference between entity 2 and entity 1.
>Then what is the locus of this difference?
>Why not entity 2?
>Why should it be?
>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
>by your own logic(sophistry).
>Yes. I agree that difference between entity 1 and entity 2 is inherent to
>entity 1 and also to entity 2.
>OBJECTIONS 10. & 11. (Please read them carefully)
>10. In that case, you are saying that the same difference appears twice.
>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
>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
>difference" as well as "A similarity", which of course is a contradiction.
>NOW TO MY FELLOW ADVAITINS
>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.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list