[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-14 to 1-16
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 21 11:28:41 EDT 2017
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> If this is the level of criticism, I am quite disappointed.
> If he is criticising the advaitin for calling Atma as nirAkAra, Sri
> vAdiraja is better of directing that criticism to the shruti, which is the
> source of the advaitin's position. But he would not dare to do so.
> In several places, across different upaniShads, the asharIratvam of
> paramAtma is talked about.
> KaTha upaniShad 1.2.22
> अशरीरं शरीरेषु अनवस्थेष्ववस्थितम् ।
> महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ॥ २२ ॥
> Mundaka upaniShad 1.1.6
> यत्तदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमवर्णमचक्षुःश्रोत्रं तदपाणिपादम् ।
> नित्यं विभुं सर्वगतं सुसूक्ष्मं तदव्ययं यद्भूतयोनिं परिपश्यन्ति धीराः ॥ ६ ॥
> Kaivalya upaniShad 21
> अपाणिपादोहमचिन्त्यशक्तिः पश्याम्यचक्षुः स शृणोम्यकर्णः ।
> अहं विजानामि विविक्तरूपो न चास्ति वेत्ता मम चित्सदाहम् ॥
> In these and many more examples, there is shruti pramANa for the
> asharIratvam of Atma. If shruti itself, the only pramANa for Ishvara says
> Atma is nirAkAra, how can this be an insult to ISvara?
> Venkatesh ji, could you skip the part where vadirAja is coming up with
> silly faults like these and post sections where there are serious doctrinal
> issues being raised?
> Good suggestion Sri Venkatraghavan Mahodaya. I will post the serious
issues and leave out silly arguments. It is like Vadiraja has come to play
International match and he is playing cricket like Galli boys and giving us
only Gaalis. But Gaalis cannot win a match.
On 21 Jun 2017 7:26 a.m., "Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Namaste
> > Vadiraja now continues with objection against Niraakaara Brahman of the
> > Advaitis.
> > अन्धश्च बधिरो मूकः पङ्गुः षण्डो विनासिकः ।
> > इत्याद्या व्यङ्गताहेतोर्या निन्दा लोकसम्मताः ।
> > ताः सर्वाश्च निराकारवादे किं न स्युरीश्वरे ॥
> > १-१४
> > The blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, the impotent, having no nose and
> > so on - because of these deficiencies scolding with these scolding words
> > accepted in the world. If you accept Niraakaara Vaada saying Brahman has
> > Form why these scolding words will not apply for Ishwara?
> > Vaadiraaja's argument is like this. We scold people with these words. If
> > someone is not seeing a object lying in front of him we scold 'Are you
> > blind? It is in front of you only'. If someone is not hearing when we
> > we will scold 'Are you deaf? Did you not hear what I said'? If some one
> > not speaking at all even though we are asking questions we will scold
> > you dumb? Why you are not answering me?' If someone is lazy and wants to
> > avoid walking a small distance we will scold 'Are you lame? Have you no
> > legs? Why cannot you walk?' If a husband is not showing courage and
> > some harassing people like her inlaws the wife and her family will scold
> > her husband 'Are you impotent? Are you wearing bangles? Why you are not
> > facing those people and replying boldly to them?' And so on.
> > If Brahman is without Form it is like saying He has missing organs and
> > deficiencies like blind, deaf, dumb, impotent people and so on. Therefore
> > all the scolding words will apply for Him. Vadiraja is indirectly saying
> > have to worship God with Form having all organs.
> > Response - The Svestasvatara Upanisad is saying
> > अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्यचक्षुः स शृणोत्यकर्णः । He has no hands and
> > legs but He goes fast and grasps. He has no eyes and ears but he sees and
> > hears. The Geeta also is saying He has no organs - Sarvendriya Vivarjitam
> > *sarvendriya-guṇābhāsaṁsarvendriya-vivarjitamasaktaṁ sarva-bhṛc
> > caivanirguṇaṁ guṇa-bhoktṛ ca*
> > We can find many Sruti statements to show Brahman is Niraakaara.
> > Vadiraja's attack is not only on Advaita but also on Sruti itself.
> > He will now attack the Nirguna Brahman.
> > युक्तिमल्लिका -
> > विद्याविनयहीनस्त्वं निर्दयो निर्व्रतोऽशुचिः ।
> > औदार्यधैर्यशौर्याद्यैर्हीन इत्यादिकाश्च याः । १-१५
> > सद्गुणाभावतो निन्दास्तास्तु नैर्गुण्यवादिनाम् ।
> > मते स्युर्ब्रह्मणि परे सर्वाः सर्वस्य सम्मताः ॥ १-१६
> > If you accept Brahman is Nirguna - without qualities He will be OBJECT of
> > all abusive words people in the world accept to use for a person without
> > good qualities. People will say a person is Nirguna if he has no Vidya,
> > humility, no pity for suffering people, no rules and conduct, no
> > cleanliness, no generosity, no courage, no bravery and so on. If there is
> > no Sadguna - good qualities in Brahman all these abusive words will
> > apply for Para Brahman.
> > Response - All the good qualities in the world come with bad qualities.
> > a person has no Vidya no education he has Ignorance as a bad quality. If
> > person has no humility he has arrogance as a bad quality. If a person has
> > no pity he has Cruelty as a bad quality. If a person has no good conduct
> > has bad conduct as bad quality. If a person has no cleanliness his bad
> > quality is being dirty. If a person has no generosity he has stinginess
> > bad quality. If a person has no courage he has cowardice as bad quality.
> > a person has no bravery he has cowardice as bad quality and so on. Every
> > Sadguna will have opposite Durguna. Therefore if people call a person as
> > Nirguna in the world it means he has bad qualities. It does not mean he
> > NO qualities. Nirguna in the world means Sadguna-Heena and
> > Durguna-Sampanna.
> > BUT when Advaitis say Brahman is Nirguna they mean Brahman has no Sadguna
> > and no Durguna also. Therefore the abusive words of above list will not
> > apply for Brahman. Sruti and Geeta have also statements to show
> > of Brahman. In the above mentioned Geeta Sloka itself it has the word
> > Nirgunam. In Svetasvatara Upanisad also - sarvabhutesu gudhah sarvavyapi
> > sarvabhutantaratma | karmadhyaksah sarvabhutadhivasah saksi ceta *kevalo
> > nirgunasca* || *Svetasvatara* Upanisad (6.11). Now my dear Vadiraja don't
> > argue 'it is not Kevalo Nirgunasca but Kevalo Anirgunasca' because that
> > a silly argument. We have responded in Nyayaratnavali discussion itself
> > this.
> > Requesting scholars to kindly respond with details and finer points.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list