[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

Srinath Vedagarbha svedagarbha at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 14:44:37 CDT 2016

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>

> 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.

God in other religion/culture is not same as God of Dvaitin's. Former is
based on pourusheya scriptures, while later one is aporushEya veda based.
Just because both gods are called "God" it does not mean they are the same.
Comparison based on this aspect and rejecting bhEda between God and jIva is
quite flawed.

> 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.

My argument using presence of atheism was directed towards your earlier
assertion that vEdas cannot teach difference between Brahman and Jiva as
such difference is already known by pratyaksha. If Brahman (and Jiva also)
know by pratyaksha, then there is no atheism exist, for the reason that
they accept only what is known from pratyaksha. Thus, there is no value in
denying bhEda based on pratyaksha argument.

> 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.

Such distinction again must be coming only from vEda itself. A position
which hold some part of veda is pramANa while other is not,  is again falls
under pramEya category. Such pramEya must be coming from pramANa texts and
not applicable on pramANa itself. You have it reversed.

> 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.

How does vEda recognizes people have delusion about Ishwara, for given that
fact that itself only introduce us to that concept? We could have been
better if so such attempt is made by veda. Why introduce something not know
from other sources and call it as a delusion?

I think you are confused between "Ishwara" as a general concept from other

> >>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.

In that case  your original argument (to deny bhEda) based on bhEda being
known earlier (via prayaksha) is flawed?

> >>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.

That's the reason one should not take only lakshyArtha unless there exist
vAchyartha for the pada.

> 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.
Thank you for your participation so far. One point though -- I am not
pursuing Dvaita per se, but a student of comparative study and wanted to
learn from the scholars here how these things are argued and defended.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list