Rebuttal to an Advaitin response to yuktimallika

By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

Rangoli by Smt.Padmini Rao, Coimbatore

V Subrahmanian sets out to assail the famous work YuktimallikA of the celebrated Sri Vadiraja tIrtha and in that process quotes the following passage from it -

=============== Quote begin ============

In the Yuktimallikā, the author Sri Vādirāja Tirtha says in the beginning of the work:

अन्ते सिद्धान्तस्तु सिद्धान्तो मध्वस्यागम एव हि ।

निर्णीतुं शक्यते युक्तायुक्तपक्षविमर्शिभिः ॥ १० ॥

अस्मादुत्तरपक्षोऽन्यो यस्मादद्यापि न दृश्यते ।

तस्मात् स एव सिद्धान्त इति निश्चित्य चेतसा ॥ ११ ॥

अवलम्ब्य मतं सर्वोन्नतं श्रुतिपुरस्कृतम् ।

मयेत्थं युक्तिरुचिना क्रियते युक्तिमल्लिका ॥ १२ ॥

Here Sri Vādirāja says: The Madhva siddhānta alone is the ultimate, anta, that is established. There is no school which has come up still today, after Madhva, to refute this school. Thus, considering that that alone is the siddhānta, I compose this ‘Yuktimallikā.’

=============== Quote end ===============

and then gives his Advaitin response:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p1 - begin: ======

The Shruti itself has already refuted dvaita darshana in innumerable passages and ways. It is needless to list them here since all those passages have been given a twisted interpretation by the Madhva school. Suffice it to say that Shankara in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka 5.1.1 bhāṣyam has said:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p1 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p1 - begin: ======

There is a small typo -

अन्ते सिद्धान्तस्तु सिद्धान्तो should be अन्ते सिद्धस्तु सिद्धान्तो

Where is common sense when one claims that shruti refutes any darshaNa by the name? Shruti will not refute any darshana by the name. It refutes only concepts. There can be any darshana with any name. No sensible person would even think that any shruti vAkya will condemn any darshana by its name. Hypothetically granting that shruti has condemned a particular darshana by name, no sensible founder of a Vedic school will use that name for his school of thought or darshana. Tomorrow some one may start a new darshana by name ABCD that is not used in shruti and claim "see shruti never refuted ABCD". That is childish and immature. One goes by the concept.

In one place one may here "Dvaita is bad", In another place "Dvaita is good" or In one place one may here "Advaita is bad", In another place "Advaita is good". One must see the context and note what is meant. One must understand in that context what is the definition of dvaita or advaita. In general Dvaita means "difference" or "twoness" and Advaita means "non-difference" or "oneness".

Ask first - "difference between what and what" or "non-difference between what and what?" and then proceed.

One cannot cause "vyabhichAra dosha", by giving two different meanings in the same context and then play the dirty trick that as one definition is universally acceptable, the other definition also must be universally acceptable.

When the word "dvaita" is used in shruti to connote "the difference between two or more forms of the Lord" or "the difference between the Lord and His attribute", then such dvitva bhAva or dvaita bhAva is condemned. "Advaita" is the opposite of that i.e. "seeing difference between two or more forms of the Lord". "Dvaita darshana" went with this Advaita bhAva by not bifurcating Brahman as "saguNa and NirguNa" and "Advaita darshana" went with the Dvaita bhAva by bifurcating Brahman as "saguNa and NirguNa". Since such terms had been used in shrutis, it would have been nice, if those terms were not used in the names of any darshana. But Advaita whether intentionally or unintentionally used the name "Advaita" for its darshana, and went gungho upholding dvitva bhAva, that was condemned in the shrutis. It did not stop with that either. They are resorting to the apaprachAra that Dvaita darshana is condemned in the shrutis, when in deed the Dvaita darshana upheld the accepted "Advaita concepts" (Not Advaita darshana concepts) of shrutis.

Unfortunately, many darshanas emerged by using those terms "dvaita/advaita" itself, with Advaita starting the trend.

Advaita of Sri SaMkaracharya

ViSiShTAdvaita of Sri Ramanujacharya

Dvaita of Sri Madhvacharya

DvaitAdvaita of Sri Nimbarkacharya

SuddhAdvaita of Sri Vallabhacharya

Since DvaitAdvaita is already used, the Krishna Chaitanya followers called their philosopy as "achintya bhedAbheda". Basically they meant "achintya Dvaitaadvaita". It is just common sense that if it were true that Shruti condemned the "dvaita darSaNa" by name, no one would name their darSaNa as "Dvaita", as the shruti is already available.

In fact, not Advaita darshana, but some principles, which were called "Advaita", were extolled and emphasized in shrutis and smRutis. The commentators while explaining Dvaita principles had no hesitation to uphold the following Advaita princilples.

Principle-1: Paramatma is Advaita - means He is second to none, no one is like him, etc. Here Advaita means AdvitIya. He alone is All-Independent and all else are dependent on Him. Thus there is no question of identity between Him and any one else. Advaita misinterpreted this as denoting "No one other than Him exists.", when it actually means "No one like Him exists - He is asadR^isha". It is "neti neti principle."

Principle-2: Advaita or Non-difference between any two forms of the Lord - Every form of the Lord is infinite and complete, whether it is MularUpa or avatAra. the proclamation of the scriptures alone is to be taken to know which is avatAra and which is not. For LokaviDambana (just as a cosmic play), the Lord may exhibit some deficiencies, which is just pretense. It is jarring that sometimes His pUrNatva is lost temporarily. There is no power that can do that and there is no reason that He Himself forsakes that. Advaita knocks this down by bringing "saguNa brahma, nirguNa brahma and jaganmithyAtva".

Principle-3: Advaita or Non-difference between the Lord and His attributes - He is dharmi and He is dharma. His attributes can not be external to Him. That will led to the flaw that He is dependent on those attributes. He has a need for them. Advaita knocks this down by bringing "saguaNa brahma, nirguNa brahma, vyAvahArika satya, pAramArthika satya and jaganmithyAtva".

It is the greatest irony that Advaita took upon the name "Advaita", and broke and destroyed all the above three root principles, while Dvaita upheld the above Advaita principles.

Jiva, Brahma aikya/abheda was introduced, there by breaking the Principle-1.

The common and ordinary jIvAtma, ever-dependent low-lying, ignorance-clad, birth-and-death cycle-torn, bound by this samsAra chains given by the Supreme Lord can never be the Infinite-powered, the All pervading, the All-Independent, performer of the Eight functions Creation, sustenance, annihilation, Control, bestowing-of-Knowledge, bestowing-of-ignorance, bestowing-of-bondage, bestowing-of-liberation, and All-Supreme, All-glorious ParamAtma. How can they be same? If a doctor says "I am a doctor", the parror near by repeats "I am a doctor". Like that parrot if some one keeps repeating "Aham brahmAsmi" or "Shivo.aham", will that soul really become Brahman? If one claims that thru "Advaita-shikShaNa", the advancement is made from the realization of the truth of "swamy-daasa" bhaava to the oblivion of this truth, is it not a complete deterioration? Just think.

Neither at the beginning nor at at the middle, nor at the end of sAdhane, any jIvAtma can really identify or equate oneself to the All-Supreme Parabrahma.

Two Brahmans - SaguNa Brahma and NirguNa Brahma were introduced, there by breaking the Principle-2.

This kind of bifurcation itself is ashAstric. To uphold their theory, two kinds of truth are introduced - vyAvahArika satya and pAramArthika satya. All the avatArAs are considered as saguNa and thus there is an acceptance of the termination of those forms.

By saying "only nirguNa Brahma is pAramArthika satya", the priciple-3 is broken.

The word guNa has multiple meanings - it can means the prAkruta guNas - sattva, rajas and tamas. guNa can also mean the auspicious qualities - j~n~na, Ananda, chaitanya, svAtantrya, swAmitva, sarva-vyApakatva, sarva-shaktitva, vIrya, shaurya, kAruNya, audArya, saundarya, nityatva, sarva doSha rAhitya, etc. He is dharmi and His own attributes will never leave Him, as they are non-different from Him.

When the scriptures say that He is nirguNa, it means that He does not have prAkruta guNas - sattva, rajas and tamas. When the scriptures say that He is sarva guNa sampUrNa or ananta kalyANa guNa paripUrNa, it means that He has all the above and infinite auspicious qualities. One must note the context and purpose.

Thus the Advaita darshaNa upheld the condemned principles "marked as dvaita" in shruti.

On the other hand the "Dvaita darshaNa" upheld the great principles "marked as Advaita" in shruti.

The commentators while explaining Dvaita principles had no hesitation to emphasize "advaita traya", that was referred in another angle. Dvaita darshaNa upholds those three kinds of Advaita -

"bhAvAdvaita", "dravyAdvaita", "kriyAdvaita".

bhAvAdvaita: bhAva can men all the tatvas like ahankAra tatva, avyakta tatva, mahat-tatva, etc. It can also mean thoughts. It can also have other meanings. The infinite number of the Lord's forms present in all these bhAvas are all identical.

dravyAdvaita: dravya means objects. It icludes the objects that we can see and also the ones we can not see. It includes all the bodies, all the relatives, etc. The infinite number of the Lord's forms present in all these dravyas are all identical.

kriyAdvaita: kriya means all kinds of actions or karmas that are performed. The infinite number of the Lord's forms present in all these kriyas are all identical.

The reference to these "Advaitas" can be seen in the seventh skandha of Bhagavata.

Thus one should not get mixed up with the naming convention and actually the true principles stated inside. It is a futile exercise to cause confusion that the shruti is supporting a particular drashana by name.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p1 - end: ======

V Subrahmanian continues:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p2 - begin: ======

न उपदेशार्हं द्वैतम्, जातमात्रप्राणिबुद्धिगम्यत्वात् । //Dvaita does not deserve to be taught (by the Scripture). Why? It is already known to even the just born living being.//

//यत्तूक्तं वेदैकदेशस्य अप्रामाण्यं कर्मविषये द्वैताभावात्, अद्वैते च प्रामाण्यमिति — तन्न, यथाप्राप्तोपदेशार्थत्वात् ; न हि द्वैतम् अद्वैतं वा वस्तु जातमात्रमेव पुरुषं ज्ञापयित्वा पश्चात्कर्म वा ब्रह्मविद्यां वा उपदिशति शास्त्रम् ; न च उपदेशार्हं द्वैतम्, जातमात्रप्राणिबुद्धिगम्यत्वात् ; न च द्वैतस्य अनृतत्वबुद्धिः प्रथममेव कस्यचित् स्यात्, येन द्वैतस्य सत्यत्वमुपदिश्य पश्चात् आत्मनः प्रामाण्यं प्रतिपादयेत् शास्त्रम् ।//

Translation (Swami Madhavananda):

//You said that one part of the Vedas would be ‘’invalid in the sphere of ceremonials because of the absence of the world of duality, while another part would be valid in the realm of unity.’’ This is wrong, for the scriptures seek to instruct merely according to existing circumstances. They do not teach a man, as soon as he is born, either the duality or the unity of existence, and then instruct him about rites or the knowledge of Brahman. Nor does duality require to be taught; it is grasped by everyone as soon as he is born ; and nobody thinks from the very outset that duality is false, in which case the scriptures would first have to teach the reality of the dual world and then establish their own validity. (The unreality of the universe is no bar to the validity of the scriptures, for) even the disciples of those who deny the Vedas (and do not believe in an objective universe) would not hesitate to accept the authority of their scriptures when they are directed (to do something helpful in accordance with them) by their teachers. Therefore the scriptures, taking the dualistic world as it is created by ignorance and natural to everybody - first advise the performance of rites calculated to achieve the desired ends to those ….//

So, what the dvaita philosophy has ‘established’ with great effort already stands refuted even prior to its inception as a ‘siddhānta’. Thus there is no need for any other school to come later than the Madhva school to refute it.

It is only Advaita that is not known that requires to be taught by the Scripture. If you say Sri Madhva has established that Dvaita is the final, Advaitins also can say that Sri Shankara has established that dvaita is only avichāritasiddha but upon enquiry it is only Advaita that is final.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p2 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p2 - begin: ======

itthamapi vAdam kartum shakyate.

इत्थमपि वादम् कर्तुम् शक्यते।

तथा हि "न उपदेशार्हमद्वैतम्, जातमात्रप्राणिबुद्धिगम्यत्वात् ।"

One can present an argument like this also. As such "Advaita does not deserve to be taught (by the Scripture). Why? It is already known to even the just born living being."

advaitameva ArambhaNIyam. sarvottamavastuj~nAnaabhAvAt, pratyakShadarshaNAvakAshavidhuratvAt, anyavidhaparAmarshaasambhavAt, "ahameva sarvottamaH, sarvavyApI" iti bhAvayati shishuvat. bahvadhyayanAnAntaraM, shrutismR^itishodhanAnaMtaraM sarvasvataMtra, sarvottamapuruShaH anyadasti iti jAnAti. "uttamaH puruShastvanyaH paramAtmetyudAhR^itaH" iti niravakAshabhagavadvAkyabalAt buddhiparipAkena muktimArge gantum shakyate. tadarthaM pUrvAgrahatyAgaH kAryaH.

अद्वैतमेव आरम्भणीयम्। सर्वोत्तमवस्तुज्ञानाभावात् , प्रत्यक्षदर्शणावकाशविधुरत्वात् , अन्यविधपरामर्शासम्भवात् "अहमेव सर्वोत्तमः सर्वव्यापी " इति भावयति शिशुवत्। बह्वध्ययनानान्तरं , श्रुतिस्मृतिशोधनानंतरं सर्वस्वतंत्र सर्वोत्तमपुरुषः अन्यदस्ति इति जानाति। " उत्तमः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः" इति निरवकाशभगवद्वाक्यबलात् बुद्धिपरिपाकेन मुक्तिमार्गे गन्तुम् शक्यते। तदर्थं पूर्वाग्रहत्यागः कार्यः।

"Advaita is for the beginner stage. (Why?) Initially due to lack of the knowledge of All-Supreme being, absence of scope for the direct perception, impossibility to grab something else, one thinks "I am all Supreme and all-pervading" like an immature baby. After lot of study and search and research of shrutis and smrutis, one realizes that All independent and All-Supreme some other Being exists. As Lord Krishna says in Gita "All Supreme Being known as ParamAtmA is some one else", with the strength and support of such uncompromising statement of the Lord, by the maturing of the intellect, it is possible to tread the path to liberation. For that one must be willing to give up the preconceived notions.

Once Sri Kanchi KAmakOti swamiji was holding the discussion of the same topic and by the Divine hand, it so happened that Sri VidymAnya tIrtha swamiji of Udupi landed up there exactly during tht discussion and effectively refuted the above argument. It is childish to say that duality is grasped as soon as one is born. To understand the duality of two things one must first understand what the two things are. It is utter foolishness to say that as soon as one is born he understands Paramatma and Jivatma and the duality between them. Duality requires to be taught not just to the new born, but even to Arjuna. Look at Gita "dvAvimau puruShau loke...". They criticize the Dvaitins that we twist the scriptures. The amount of twisting gymnastics they have resorted to is quite evident in the above self-evident explanation given by Sri Krishna. The shruti statement "dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA.." has been grossly misinterpreted. "IshvarassarvabhUtAnAM hR^iddeshe.arjuna tiShThati" has been completely ignored. By attributing illusory nature to the universe, the very creator-ship of the Supreme Lord has been challenged. Where is the question of sustenance and annihilation of such an illusion? The complexity is not a test for truth. The idea of "more complex, more true" is a wrong approach. For something that is true, it need not be taught. "If you put your hand in fire, it burns" - This has "jAtamAtrabuddhigamyatva". So should Vedas set out to teach the contrary? Vedas neither teach that fire burns, nor that fire does not burn. The purpose in Vedas teaching the difference between Jiva and ParamAtma, is not just to make one understand the finitude of Jivas, but the infinitude of ParamAtma.

The obvious need not be taught. But the obvious things are used to understand the non-obvious and in the process, the obvious is denied without a reason, that is a regress and not progress. Denying one's own anubhava is itself a wrong start.

Further on one side, their passage says "न च उपदेशार्हं द्वैतम्, जातमात्रप्राणिबुद्धिगम्यत्वात्"

and then contradicts itself by saying "येन द्वैतस्य सत्यत्वमुपदिश्य पश्चात् ".

So, what the Advaita philosophy has ‘established’ with great effort already stands refuted even prior to its inception as a ‘siddhānta’. Thus there is no need for any other school to come later than the Shankara school to refute it.

It is only Dvaita that is not known that requires to be taught by the Scripture. If one says that Sri Shankara has established that dvaita is only avichāritasiddha but upon enquiry advaita is the final, Dvaitins also say that Sri Madhva has established that advaita is only avichāritasiddha but upon enquiry it is only Dvaita that is final.

Further Advaita is a self-destructive theory. It crumbles down by its own methods. Is Advaita siddhAnta pAramArthika satya or not? If it is not, it is out. If it is, then "parabrahmaNah anyasya pAramArthikasatyatvAt apasiddhAntaH", thus it is out again. Thus any way it is out.

The realization of illusion is based on the past knowledge. It is never based on the future. After realizing that the rope is not really snake, then one sees that it was an illusion. No one would say "I am going to realize that the rope is not snake.". I am going to realize that the world is an illusion is meaningless.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p2 - end: ======

V Subrahmanian continues with next quote from Yuktimallika -

=============== Quote begin ============

The Yuktimallikā now ventures to show how disastrous will it be if Advaita is admitted:

त्वं चंडालः पशुर्म्लेच्छश्चोरो जारः खरः कपिः ।

कुण्डो गोळक इत्याद्या या निन्दा लोकसम्मताः ।

ताः सर्वास्सर्वजीवैक्यवादे स्युर्परमात्मनि ॥ १३ ॥

All censures with name-calling words like ‘you are a chandāla, an animal, mleccha, thief, womanizer, ass, monkey, a woman’s illegitimate son, …etc. that are admitted in the world (as words of censure) will apply to the Paramātman in the doctrine that holds unity (aikya) of all jīvas.

=============== Quote end ===============

and then gives his Advaitin response:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p3 - begin: ======

The scriptures instruct us not to use bad words against anyone. Why? It is because such words will be extremely demeaning to the Dweller inside. It also teaches us to always pay our respect to everyone, every creature in creation since it is the Lord that is appearing in the form of the creature:

unquote.

ईश्वरो जीवकलया प्रविष्टो भगवानिति ।

प्रणमेद्दण्डवद्भूमावाश्वचण्डालगोखरम् ॥ ४॥ (Yājñavalkyopaniṣat 4)

[One should make salutation, even to the dog, the chanḍāla, the cow and the ass, by prostrating oneself on the ground like a stick, in the belief that God Almighty inheres in all things as the jīva’.]

The above idea, with a variation, is found in the Srīmadbhāgavatam too:

मनसैतानि भूतानि प्रणमेद्बहुमानयन्।

ईश्वरो जीवकलया प्रविष्टो भगवानिति॥3.29.34॥

[Let one mentally prostrate to every creature with the firm conviction that it is the Lord who has entered in these beings as the jīva.]

The Vishnupurana too says that everything in creation is Vishnu:

ज्योतींषि विष्णुर्भुवनानि विष्णु: [विष्णु: पु. २.१२.३८] इत्युपक्रम्य यदस्ति यन्नास्ति च विप्रवर्य [?] इत्यस्ति ।

In another text/purana too we have the same message:

भूतानि विष्णुर्भुवनानि विष्णुः....

================== V Subrahmanian response-p3 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p3 - begin: ======

Oh, I see. When a king finds a thief guilty of a theft, he should not tell him "You are a thief", because the words will be extremely demeaning to the Dweller inside. Further the king should never try to punish the thief, as he will be trying to punish the dweller inside!! The king in fact should pay respects to the thief and seeing the Dweller inside the king should prostrate in front of the thief. It is the Lord who is appearing in the form of the thief!! What a disaster!!

Note You hear the statements that speak of difference as well as identity -

"Brahman is the fishermen, Brahman the servants/slaves, Brahman the gamblers"

This speaks of identity.

"Brahman works thru or is in the fishermen, Brahman works thru or is in the servants/slaves, Brahman works thru or is in the gamblers".

The reason for saying both kinds is to signify that all these are "bhinnAmsha" of Vishnu. He is never a niyamya, but always a niyAmaka. The above type sentences indicate the niyamya, niyAmaka bhAva.

In all these, it is pretty obvious that Lord Vishnu entered all the prANis. No one is denying that. Another shruti quote - "tatSR^iShTvA tadevAnuprAvishat.". All these are saying how the Lord is inside everything. One must bow to the Lord inside and not to the object outside. Certainly not just to all those prANis outside. One must be aware of various kinds of AdhiShThAna their own gradation and the Supreme Lord, who is functioning in all of them.

It is not at all surprising and it is not at all unexpected that abheda or identity statements are given when a powerful niyamya-niyAmaka bhAva is to be expressed. When Vishnu is sarva niyAmaka, the most powerful way of expressing it is to say "Vishnu is everything.".

Even in day-to-day life, where there is much less less scope for such niyamya-niyAmaka bhAva, one can hear such statements. For ex if one says (This is not in present time, but in the past) "Bill Gates is Microsoft or Microsoft is Bill Gates." It does not mean Bill Gates is physical Microsoft building or office staff or walls or the administration activities. It simply means Bill Gates is completely in control of Microsoft." If one does not understand this basic principle and runs away with the superficial meaning, such a person has lost sight of the simple dvaita concept of "jAtamAtrabuddhigamyatva" and deserves to be taught what even the new born knows.

Neither at the beginning nor at at the middle, nor at the end of sAdhane, any jIvAtma can really identify or equate oneself to the All-Supreme Parabrahma.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p3 - end: ======

V Subrahmanian continues with next quote from Yuktimallika -

=============== Quote begin ============

Continues the Yuktimallikā:

ब्रह्मैव हीनयोनीस्ताः प्राप्य स्वेनैव पाप्मना ।

सम्सरेच्चेदियं सर्वा गालीकस्य गले वद ॥ १४ ॥

[‘Brahman alone is the lowly wombs and having reached them by Its own demerits Brahman is in samsāra’ – if such is the case….]

=============== Quote end ===============

and then gives his Advaitin response:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p4 - begin: ======

Response:

’ब्रह्म दाशा ब्रह्म दासा ब्रह्मैवेमे कितवा:’ इति पिप्पलादसंहिताश्रुतिवाक्यम् ’अंशाधिकरणे’ स्वीकृतं वर्तते । (ब्र.सू.२.३.४३)

In the ‘amśādhikaraṇa’ of the Brahmasūtra 2.3.43 we have a Pippalāda śruti passage: ‘Brahman is the fishermen, Brahman the servants/slaves, Brahman the gamblers..…

’विषमेष्वपि जीवेषु समो विष्णुः सदैव तु । यत्तृणादिगतस्यापि गुणाः पूर्णा हरेः सदा ॥ (इति श्रीराघवेन्द्रतीर्थकृततात्पर्यनिर्णये) । for BG 5.18.

Also Sri Raghavendra Tirtha in his explanation of the Gitā bhāṣya 5.18 cites a verse that means: //In the different jīvas the Lord Viṣṇu is ever the same. Even if He is in the blade of grass, etc. still His attributes are ever full.//

श्रीपुरन्दरदासार्यैः ’अल्लि नोडलु राम....’ इत्यादिपद्ये इदमुपलक्षितं भवति ಅಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಲು ರಾಮ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಲು ರಾಮ ಎಲ್ಲೆಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಿದರೂ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀರಾಮ||ಪಲ್ಲವಿ|| ರಾವಣನ ಮೂಲಬಲ ಕಂಡು ಕಪಿಸೇನೆ ಆವಾಗಲೇ ಬೆದರಿ ಓಡಿದವು ಈವೇಳೆ ನರನಾಗಿ ಇರಬಾರದೆಂದೆಣಿಸಿ ದೇವ ರಾಮಚಂದ್ರ ಜಗವೆಲ್ಲ ತಾನಾದ||೧|| ಅವನಿಗೆ ಇವ ರಾಮ ಇವನಿಗೆ ಅವ ರಾಮ न केवलं वानरादयस्तत्र रामरूपमाप्ताः, परन्तु रावणपक्षस्थराक्षसा अपि ।

Sri Purandaradasa, composer-saint, in his famous song: ‘alli noḍalu rāma….’ Says ‘ ….’Śrīrāma became the entire world’. Not just the vānara-s, etc. appeared as Rāma but even the rākṣasas on the side of Rāvaṇa appeared as Rāma to each other.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p4 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p4 - begin: ======

AmsAdhikaraNa of Brahmasutras is clearly saying that Jivas are amshas of Vishnu.

‘Brahman is the fishermen, servants/slaves, the gamblers, etc.'.

They are bhinnAmsha of the Lord Vishnu. Why bhinnAMsha? Why not svAmSha? Some shruti vAkyAs say that Jivas are amshas of the Lord. Some shruti vAkyAs say that Jivas are reflections of the Lord. Amsha has multiple meanings - like Gadhi and Arjuna are amshas of Indra means that Indra took those other forms, but they are same as Indra. When the thread is amsha of the cloth, it is "ekAmsha" (meaning that it is a smll part of it, but not entire thing. When eye is amsha of sun, it means that eye is under the control of sun. But when one says that A is a reflection of B, it just means that A is under control of B and is similar to B. Thus every reflection is amsha of its original, but every kind of amsha is not reflection. A reflection is only bhinnAmsha. Thus all the Jivas are just bhinnAmshas of the Lord.

’विषमेष्वपि जीवेषु समो विष्णुः सदैव तु । यत्तृणादिगतस्यापि गुणाः पूर्णा हरेः सदा ॥ (इति श्रीराघवेन्द्रतीर्थकृततात्पर्यनिर्णये)'

Tatparya nirNaya is not by Sri Raghavendra tIrtha. It is from Acharya Madhva. Further it is not from Gitabhashya and Sri Raghavendra tIrtha did not write Gita bhAshya. BhavadIpa of Sri Raghavendratirtha, which is commentary on Prameya dIpika of Sri JayatIrtha, which is commentary on Gita Bhashya of Sri Madhvacharya does not contain the above.

Of course Sri Madhvacharya in his Gitā tAtparya for 5.18 quotes the above passage, which is from Paingi shruti.

For "विषमेष्वपि जीवेषु " the translation "In the different jīvas" does not convey full sense. Perhaps "vividheShu jIveShu" can be translated to "In the different jīvas". Here "विषमेष्वपि जीवेषु " means that "Even when there is variation or gradation in those jIvas, the indwelling Lord Viṣṇu is ever the same.". This is exactly as explained above. Note if J1, J2, J3, etc are all Jivas and P is inside every one of them, J1, J2, J3 etc are not only existentially different, but potentially different from one another, where as Vishnu is same in all of them. This also drives the point that they are different from Vishnu. Further His form in the blade of grass is also infinite and His Gunas are pUrNa always. The guNas of others are always apUrNa.

shrI purandaradAsArya vachanaM sAvadhAnachittena avalokayantu. "rAvaNana mUlabala kaMDu kapisEne AvAgalE bedari ODidavu." mUlabalAt kapisenAyAH pR^ithaktvaM avagamyatAm. tadanu "I vELe naranAgi irabAradeMdeNisi dEva rAmachandra jagavella tAnAda". tadeva svArasyam. antaryAmitvena sadaiva sa rAmaH sarveShAM antarhR^idaye astyeva. tathApi bAhyarUpeNApi svAm prakaTitavAn. kimartham? nayananimIlanena kim lAbhaH? "na kevalam vAnarAdayastatra rAmarUpamAptAH, parantu rAvaNapakShastharAkShasA api" iti vadanti. niyamya-niyAmakaparij~nAnavidhuratvena tadvadvadanti. atra kiMchidviShayaM grAhyam. ittham kathayantu - "rAmaH na kevalam vAnarAdiShu svasya rUpaM prakaTitavAn, parantu rAvaNapakShastharAkShaseShvapi svasya rUpaM prakaTitavAn".

atra tannirNayaH rAmeNAbhavat, na tu vAnarairvA, rAkShasairvA.

श्री पुरन्दरदासार्य वचनं सावधानचित्तेन अवलोकयन्तु। "ರಾವಣನ ಮೂಲಬಲ ಕಂಡು ಕಪಿಸೇನೆ ಆವಾಗಲೇ ಬೆದರಿ ಓಡಿದವು." मूलबलात् कपिसेनायाः पृथक्त्वं अवगम्यताम्। तदनु "ಈ ವೇಳೆ ನರನಾಗಿ ಇರಬಾರದೆಂದೆನಿಸಿ ದೇವ ರಾಮಚಂದ್ರ ಜಗವೆಲ್ಲ ತಾನಾದ". तदेव स्वारस्यम्। अन्तर्यामित्वेन सदैव स रामः सर्वेषां अन्तर्हृदये अस्त्येव। तथापि बाह्यरूपेणापि स्वाम् प्रकटितवान्। किमर्थम् ? नयननिमीलनेन किम् लाभः ? " न केवलम् वानरादयस्तत्र रामरूपमाप्ताः परन्तु रावणपक्षस्थराक्षसा अपि " इति वदन्ति। नियम्य-नियामकपरिज्ञानविधुरत्वेन तद्वद्वदन्ति। अत्र किंचिद्विषयं ग्राह्यम्। इत्थम् कथयन्तु - " रामः न केवलम् वानरादिषु स्वस्य रूपं प्रकटितवान् परन्तु रावणपक्षस्थराक्षसेष्वपि स्वस्य रूपं प्रकटितवान्। "

अत्र तन्निर्णयः रामेणाभवत् , न तु वानरैर्वा , राक्षसैर्वा।

kimartham rAmaH itthaM kR^itavAn iti prashnaH bhavati. tadartham sheSha vachanAni pashyantu.

किमर्थम् रामः इत्थं कृतवान् इति प्रश्नः भवति। तदर्थम् शेष वचनानि पश्यन्तु।

(One must carefully observe the words of Shri PurandaradAsa. Seeing the Ravana's mUlabala, the army of the monkeys got scared and fled that very instant. Shri Rama thought that at this time I should not conduct myself like a man; I should show my potency and showed Himslf everywhere. This is the beauty of it all. As antaryAmi Shri Rama is present in the heart of all anyway. Still He showed up in bAhyarUpa also. Why? What is the use if one turns a blind eye? They are saying "Not only Vanra-s, etc obtained Rama's form, but the demons on the side of RavaNa also obtained.". Only those who areunaware of niyamya-niyAmakatva bhAva only will say so. Here something must be noted. They have to say thus - "

"lavamaatradi asura janarella ,

avaravaru hoDedaaDi hataraagi podaru"

illi "advaita vAdavu hatavAgi hoyitu".

"hanumadAdi saadhu janaru appi koNDu,

kuNi kuNidaaDidaru haruShadiMda"

illi "dvaita vAdavu kuNi kuNidaaDitu haruShadiMda".

"ಲವಮಾತ್ರಾದಿ ಅಸುರ ಜನರೆಲ್ಲ ,

ಅವರವರು ಹೊಡೆದಾಡಿ ಹತರಾಗಿ ಪೊದರು"

"In an instance all the demons fought mutually and killed each other."

ಇಲ್ಲಿ "ಅದ್ವೈತ ವಾದವು ಹತವಾಗಿ ಹೋಯಿತು".

"the rākṣasas on the side of Rāvaṇa appeared as Rāma to each other".

Here the rākShasas saw each other as Rāma, but they were not Rāma. They wanted to kill Rāma and so they killed each other.

This by itself is a big blow for advaita vāda. No wonder. Those who claim "dUShaNam" as "bhUShaNaM, can also claim the blows as glows.

"ಹನುಮದಾದಿ ಸಾಧು ಜನರು ಅಪ್ಪಿ ಕೊಂಡು,

ಕುಣಿ ಕುಣಿದಾಡಿದರು ಹರುಷದಿಂದ"

"The good ones like Hanumanta, et al, hugged each other and danced happily."

ಇಲ್ಲಿ "ದ್ವೈತ ವಾದವು ಕುಣಿ ಕುಣಿದಾಡಿತು ಹರುಷದಿಂದ".

"the vānara-s, etc. appeared as Rāma".

Here the vānara-s, etc. saw each other as Rāma, but they were not Rāma. Here they wanted to hug Rāma and so they hugged each other.

This upholds Dvaita vāda gloriously.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p4 - end: ======

V Subrahmanian continues with next quote from Yuktimallika -

=============== Quote begin ============

The Yuktimallikā says further:

अन्धश्च बधिरो मूकः पङ्गुः षण्डो विनासिकः ।

इत्याद्या व्यङ्गताहेतोर्या निन्दा लोकसम्मताः ।

ताः सर्वाश्च निराकारवादे किं न स्युरीशवरे ॥ १५ ॥

[Those devoid of sight, hearing, speech, walking ability, eunuch, devoid of nose, etc. disabilities are invoked while censuring those persons in the world. All these censures will apply to the Supreme Lord as per the doctrine of formless Brahman. Is it not?]

=============== Quote end ===============

and then gives his Advaitin response:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p5 - begin: ======

Response:

श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषदि ’त्वं स्त्री त्वं पुमानसि त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी । त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि त्वं जातो भवसि विश्वतोमुखः ॥ ४-३...’ इत्यत्र न स्त्र्यादयो ब्रह्मणः स्वरूपतां भजन्ते ।

In the shvetashvataropanishat 4.3 is the teaching: //You are the woman, the man, the youth and the maiden too. You are the old man who totters along, leaning on the staff. You are born with faces turned in all directions. // Here the woman, etc. do not constitute the svarūpa of brahman.

Many of the passages cited above and more are available in the following article which was written in response to similar objections made by a renowned dvaita scholar Sri Bannanje Govindāchārya:

http://tinyurl.com/m7bj7ln

================== V Subrahmanian response-p5 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p5 - begin: ======

The shvetAshvataropanishadvAkya is similar to the other shruti statement -

"sarvaM khalvidaM brahma |"

The vyAkhyAna-rUpa for the "sarva" shabda in there is indicated by

"sarvaM samApnoShi tato.asi |"

Because Brahman pervades everything, controls everything, He is sarva-shabda-vAchya. This does not mean that He is actually and physically everything.

Here the woman, etc. do not constitute the svarūpa of brahman. This also means

"the old man who totters along, leaning on the staff" does not constitute the svarūpa of brahman.

All these expressions mean only one thing. As Lord Krishna says "IshvaraH sarva bhUtAnAM hR^iddeshe.arjuna tiShTati | bhrAmayansarvabhUtAni yantrArUDhAni mAyayA |". The puppet is different from puppet master. It is a powerful way of saying "The puppet master is all the puppets".

As Sri ShaMkarAcharya says "IshvaraH IshanashIlaH nArAyaNaH sarvabhUtAnAM sarvaprANiNAM hR^iddeshe hR^idayadeshe arjuna shuklAntarAtmasvabhAva tiShTati sthiti labhate | teShu saH kathaM tiShThatIti? Aha - bhrAmayan bhramaNaM kArayan sarvabhUtAni , yantrArUDhAni yantrAni ArUDhAni adhiShThitAni iva - iti iva shabdaH atra draShTavyaH - yathA dArukR^itapuruShAdIni yantrArUDhAni..."

As mentioned earlier, in case of niyamya, niyAmaka it is customary to identify them. It is more powerful way of differentiating them.

The tinyurl is not working.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p5 - end: ======

and V Subrahmanian continues his Advaitin response to KK Chakravarthy, who confronted V Subrahmanyan:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p6 - begin: ======

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:29 PM, KK Chakravarthy <chakrava...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is said in the below post that dvaita does not need to be taught by scripture since everyone who is born, comprehends it. This is incorrect reasoning. The main purpose of scripture is to teach brahman. Duality is comprehended by perception, but brahman is beyond both perception and inference. So also, jIva is beyond both perception and inference, and can be known by scripture only. Nor do people comprehend that jIva and prakrti are different, for the materialists often argue that jIva is nothing but a product of prakrti. When dvaitins say that scripture teaches dvaita, they mean that scripture teaches the difference between jIva and brahman, which are both beyond perception and inference, and hence cannot be comprehended by anyone in day to day life. Hence it is wrong to claim that dvaita is comprehended by everyone.

Despite teaching Brahman, and the distinction between prakṛti and purusha, the situation of the jiva is one of finitude, dependecy, which is only upheld by these non-advaitic systems. Such idea of finitude and dependency is comprehended by everyone naturally. No one needs to teach one finititude and dependency. This cannot be set aside by any amount of scriptural teaching and logic in those systems.

On the other hand, advaita is contradicted by everyday experience and also by logic and so, no amount of scriptural teachings can establish it.

That advaita is contradicted by everyday experience is not a 'dūṣaṇam' but only a 'bhūṣaṇam'. That is the reason why Advaita is taught only as something that transcends everyday experience, on the basis of scripture, while everyday experience is only available for pratyakṣa and anumāna. In fact, Advaita is not meant for everyday experience also known as vyvahāra. The Mandukya seventh mantra itself says about the Turiya, 'avyavahāryam, shātnam, shivam, advaitam..sa ātmā....

================== V Subrahmanian response-p6 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p6 - begin: ======

Despite teaching Brahman, the distinction between prakṛti and Brahman, Brahman and jIva, jIva and prakṛti, the situation of the jIva as one of finitude, dependecy, the situation of Brahman as one of infinitude, independecy, thus the uncompromising distinction between the two, the Advaita system alone on Earth tried to uphold the impossible and unacceptable non-difference between Brahman and jIva. It is way wrong to claim that such idea of finitude and dependency is comprehended by everyone naturally. What is naturally comprehended by everyone is the finititude and dependency of the body. What are not naturally comprehended by everyone are the very existence of jIva, the very existence of Brahman, the finitude and dependency of jIva, the infinitude and independency of Brahman, the undeniable distinction of the two, all of which are available only thru sadAgamas. This cannot be set aside by any amount of scriptural teaching and logic in Advaita system.

Claiming that a 'dūṣaṇam', acquired by denying theheart of vedas as 'bhUShaNam' is an indication of defiant attitude, rooted in pUrvAgraha. A rash thinking that "if something is obvious, it must be false" is a blind opposition, which is another form of blind belief. Inability to differentiate between something that transcends everyday experience and something that contradicts everyday experience is another root cause for the wrong approach. No vedic or scriptural text sets out that the goal is to contradict the daily experience.

ManDukya mantra is not referring to Advaita system. The Advaita system as named by Sri Shankaracharya came a few hundred years ago (even though all samayas are eternal) and Vedas have been around eternally. To claim that the word Advaita refers to the school is very immature.

Vishva, Taijasa, prAjna and turIya refer to the forms of the Lord. Viashvanara is prathama pAda jAgrat-sthAna and is 19 faced form of the Lord, which acts during wakeful state. Taijasa is dvitIya pAda svapna sthAna and is also 19 faced form of the Lord, which acts during dream state. prAjna is tR^itIya pAda suShuptasthana and is chetomukha form of the Lord, which acts during deep sleep state. TurIya is the chaturtha pAda and it does not act in any of these 3 states and so it is avyavaharyam (meaning does not act during 3 states), achintyam (incomprehensible), shivam (blissful without a trace of sorrow), advaitam (removes anyathApratyaya, known as dvaita, which has nothing to do with the dvaita school). sa AtmA. This four pAda Lord is Sri Hari or NarayaNa.

Claiming that the word Advaita that comes any where in Vedas refers to Advaita school is akin to claiming that any lady that wears red saree is one's wife.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p6 - end: ======

and V Subrahmanian continues his Advaitin response to KK Chakravarthy, who confronted V Subrahmanyan:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p7 - begin: ======

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:52 PM, KK Chakravarthy <chakrava...@gmail.com> wrote:

Scripture teaches more than finitude and dependency. Only dependency on prakrti is perceived. Not the dependency on Brahman.

All that dependence on Brahman is not any different from dependence on prakṛti. This is because what the jiva depends on are one or the several guṇas of Brahman. No guṇa is outside the purview of prkṛti's sattva, rajas and tamas. It is precisely for this reason that Advaita holds that saguṇa brahman is not the ultimate. So dependence on Brahman even in moksa is not any real transcendence of samsara.

Therefore, the charge that scripture does not need to teach dependency and finitude is misguided. Dvaita Vedanta is supported by perception but is not entirely derivable from perception. It needs scripture for deriving it.

Even that derivation has not transcended prakṛti is what is said above.

Whereas on the other hand, advaita is supported neither by perception nor by inference. Advaita contradicts experience.

Precisely because of this the shruti says 'atarkyam', 'adṛśyam' (not available for perception), 'alakṣaṇam' (not available for inference): (māndūkya 7th mantra) with bhāṣyam:

अत एव अदृश्यम् । यस्माददृश्यम्, तस्मादव्यवहार्यम् । अग्राह्यं कर्मेन्द्रियैः । अलक्षणम् अलिङ्गमित्येतत्, अननुमेयमित्यर्थः ।

atarkyam: Kaṭhopaniṣat: 1.2.8

अतर्क्यम् अतर्क्यः, अणुप्रमाणो न तर्क्यः स्वबुद्ध्यभ्यूहेन केवलेन तर्केण । तर्क्यमाणेऽणुपरिमाणे केनचित्स्थापिते आत्मनि ततोऽणुतरमन्योऽभ्यूहति ततोऽप्यन्योऽणुतरमिति । न हि तर्कस्य निष्ठा क्वचिद्विद्यते ॥

These are the lakṣaṇams of Brahman which is taught as 'advaitam' by the Mandukya upanishat.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p7 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p7 - begin: ======

The dependence on Brahman is way different from dependence on prakṛti. prakṛti is jaDa and asvatantra, where as Brahman chetana and svatantra and controls prakṛti also. Not knowing that big difference is an issue.

There is no difference between Brahman and His guṇas - dharmi and dharma abheda. One must be careful in using the word guNa. It can refer to prkṛti's sattva, rajas and tamas, which are only 3 guNas. Or it can refer to ananta guNas of the Lord. Every guṇa of the Lord is outside the purview of prkṛti's sattva, rajas and tamas. That is why He is called nirguNa. It is precisely for this reason that the same Brahman is referred as both nirguNa and saguNa. There are no two Brahmans. It is ridiculous on the part of Advaita to hold that there are two Brahmans and then deduce that saguṇa Brahman is not the ultimate. This bifurcation of Brahman itself is avaidika and a big disaster. If there were two Brahmans, every reference in shruti must qualify which Brahman it is referring to. The biggest striking blow is that there is not a single occasion that such qualification is done. Surely there are shruti statements like "eko devaḥ sarva-bhuteṣu gūḍhaḥ sarva vyāpi sarva bhutāntarātmā; Karmādhyakshah sarvabhutādhivāsaḥ sākshī chetā kevalo nirgunashcha", which is describing Him as nirguNa, not actually meant to bifurcate and then specify one by qualifying. When one hears "satyam, j~nAnam, anantam brahmA", which brahmAn is that? - SaguNa or nirguNa?

"So dependence on Brahman even in moksa is not any real transcendence of samsara."

What a disaster!! Transcending samsAra does not mean transcending the dependence on Brahman. That is sarvapramANA viruddha and amounts to craving to drink water from mirage. If there are two Brahmans, are they both sarvavyApi, or only one of them? Oh my goodness, the amount of disasters in that approach are ineffable. In order to transcend the samsara, the Advaitin bifurcates the Brahman into saguNa and nirguNa, and then transcends the saguNa Brahman so as to claim identity with nirguNa Brahman? Is saguNa Brahman a jIva or not? If it is not what is it? If it is, then as per Advaita it must be same as nirguNa Brahman. Has saguNa Brahman reached that realization or not? If it has not, where is even any scope for any ordinary jIva to reach such a realization? If it has reached such a realization, there must not be two Brahmans any more. As the Advaitins still claim that both exist, they must also subscribe for the sarvavyAptitva of both. As only one Brahman must be prevalent at any time and place (even if it can take infinite forms), and as the scriptures make us aware of SaguNa Brahman, there is no scope for NirguNa Brahman to mark its presence. Seeing this very sorrowful state of affairs, Sri Vadirajaru puts out this in the most powerful way. By virtue of this SaguNa Brahman's sarvavyAptitva, nirguNa Brahman has to find His place in between the two horns of a hare.

Further, Advaitins treat Sri Krishna as SaguNa brahman. In that case according to them NirguNa brahman is paratara to Sri Krishna. However, Sri Krishna says "mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiMchidasti dhanaMjaya". One can not contract the meaning that this is only in vyAvahArika, as nothing of that sort is mentioned there. Thus, this eradicates any such bogus concept of a separate NirguNa Brahman.

What is meant by "Even that derivation has not transcended prakṛti"?

Jiva has to transcend the prakṛti, not a derivation. All derivations are done here, which is part of prakṛti.

"Precisely because of this the shruti says" - What? Because of what? - Advaita contradicts experience and because of that shruti says? What is guiding what? Advaita is guiding shruti?

'atarkyam', 'adṛśyam' (not available for perception), 'alakṣaṇam' (not available for inference): (māndūkya 7th mantra) with bhāṣyam:

Surely these are terms describing Brahman and not describing any school.

'atarkyam' - not available for inference

'adṛśyam' (not available for perception)

'alakṣaṇam' (not available for inference) - why? The same definition has been given in atarkyam. lakShaNa is jAgradAdi pravR^itti. alakShaNa is not having that lakShaNa., meaning it is not characterized by that.

Surely, He is beyond all that. It does not mean that He is opposed to that.

"These are the lakṣaṇams of Brahman which is taught as 'advaitam' by the Mandukya upanishat."

On one side, they are saying "Brahman is alakShaNa" and then right away make a claim "These are the lakṣaṇams of Brahman"?

Surely MANDukopaniShat is teaching about Brahman, but certainly not as per Advaita school. Grabbing the word Advaita from shruti vAkyas and claiming that it refers to Advaita school is too immature to accept in any way. One must differentiate between labelling and concepts and one must be aware that Vedas are eternal and the naming of the school happened recently.

There are abundant statements like - naiShA tarkena matirApaneyA. Those mean that Brahman is beyond tarka. It does not mean that the schools are beyond tarka. If Sri Shankaracharya had to debate with Sri Mandana Mishra, tarka had to be used. What is happening here is also use of tarka. Tarka is not used to understand Brahman, but it can be used to remove the wrong understanding of any one about Brahman or about jIva or about prakrti.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p7 - end: ======

and V Subrahmanian continues his Advaitin response to KK Chakravarthy, who confronted V Subrahmanyan:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p8 - begin: ======

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:11 PM, KK Chakravarthy <chakrava...@gmail.com> wrote:

If it is argued that dependence on prakrti is same as dependence on Brahman the former being a guna of the latter, then the question arises - is prakriti an inherent guna or a non-inherent guna of Brahman. If the former, then Brahman can never be nirguna. If the latter, then dependence on prakrti has to be different from dependence on Brahman.

The argument that dependence on B is same as dependence on P contradicts even advaita, for the former is in the sense of B being substratum while the latter is not in this sense.

All these questions/doubts are outside the purview of Advaita since according to advaita there is no dependence on either Brahman or prakṛti in mokṣa.

And as far as advaita is concerned it is contradicted by both experience and logic.

Have you attained or tried attaining the advaitc experience to be able to say the above?

================== V Subrahmanian response-p8 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p8 - begin: ======

All those questions are not outside the purview of Advaita, as the objections are brought by Advaita and when it is answered and a counter question is asked, claiming that it is outside is only an escape. Non-dependence on prakrti in mokSha alone is mentioned in scriptures and non-dependence on Brahman in mokSha is not mentioned anywhere and it is meaningless. Thus such a claim for Advaita stands null and void. I give an open challenge - can any Advaitin show me one such statement?

And as far as advaita is concerned it is contradicted by both experience and logic.

"Have you attained or tried attaining the advaitc experience to be able to say the above?"

Answering an objection is second step. Understanding the objection is the first step. Eeven the objection is not understood properly. First of all can Advaita be contradicted by Advaitic experience? Advaita is contradicted by non-Advaitic experience. Advaita cannot even be sure whether to support Advaitic experience or not. It has to resort to a mishmash like "Advaita can only be known thru experience", "Advaita is beyond experience and so it cannot be experienced", "Advaitic experience does exist", "it does not exist".

If a question is asked "Did any one attain Advaitic revelation since beginning-less time?", what will be the answer? If the answer is "No", then what is the fate of all the Jivas? If Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshvara, themselves never attained it from beginning-less time, who else can? Also, this Advaitic experience or revelation is worse than mirage in the water. It gets stuck in catch-22 situation by their own methods. Who can give proper and perfect Advaitic instruction? Only one who has Advaitic experience or revelation. If any one acquired such experience or revelation, He ceases to be in vAyAvahArika jagat and so incapable of imparting that to any one else. If He has not acquired one, then how can he impart something that he himself never had in the first place. Thus, it can only remain an ever-evasive event which even an everlasting evolved soul is deprived of. The above logical approach can be applied to Lord Krishna also. Did Lord Krishna have this Advaitic experience? If He never had, He can not impart to any one else. If He had He must cease to exist in this vyAvahArika prapaMcha. But He still is there.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p8 - end: ======

and V Subrahmanian continues his Advaitin response to Srinivas Kotekal, who confronted V Subrahmanyan:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p9 - begin: ======

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Srinivas Kotekal <skot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:20:29 PM UTC-4, V Subrahmanian wrote:

No guṇa is outside the purview of prkṛti's sattva, rajas and tamas.

That is your misunderstanding of guNa-s in general. There is no rule that all guNa-s has to have to be under the purview of prakriti. I challenge to show us a single pramANa for all guNa-s are prakrta only.

मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यात् मायिनं तु महेश्वरम् । - श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् ४-१०

'Know māyā to be prakṛti and Mahesvara to be the māyin, the one who is endowed with prakṛti. '

There is no (mahā)Iśwara without māyā/prakṛti. There can thus be no guṇa of Iswara which is not that born of prakṛti.

Also you have either misunderstood or misrepresenting (purposely?) Dvaitin's position -- who says Brahman's ananta guNa-s are all aprakrta. Veda itself ask the question -- atha kasmAt ucchatE brahmEti? -- and answers in the same breath "brihantO hi asmin guNaaha" which automatically puts an end to the way Brahman is considered as nirguNa by advaitin.

Here is an open challenge to anyone: Show just one guṇa, of the ananta guṇas, of Brahman that is not related/connected with either the jagat or jiva or both. Right from jagatkartṛtva, pālana, laya, sarva niyāmakatva, sarva karma phala dātṛtva, bandha/mokṣa vyavasthāpakatva, etc. etc. each and every 'guṇa' of Brahman is undeniably related/pinned to either the jagat or the jiva or both. Even 'svatantratva' of Brahman is invariably connected to the jagat and jiva alone, for Brahman can never manifest anything of this svatantrava without touching either the jagat or the jiva. In effect, Brahman's ananta gunas are dependent on the jiva-jagat for its very presence in Brahman. And it is very well known that jiva-jagat are within the realm of prakṛti. Hence each and every guṇa of Brahman is only a product of the sattva, rajas and tamas of prakṛti. Puraṇas including the MB contain evidence for the three fundamental functions: creation, sustenance and dissolution, as those of sattva, etc. respectively. When the fundamental creation itself is prakṛti guna born, where is the question of the rest of the guṇas of Brahman which are invariably, essentially, undeniably, related only with jagat-jiva and nothing else, to be outside the purview of prakṛti?

Whereas the Brahman of the Vedanta is ultimately not dependent on the jiva-jagat for its sustenance. Vedanta does not put Brahman in such a situation.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p9 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p9 - begin: ======

The shvetashvataropanishadvAkya means this -

Know LakShmi devi as Chetana prakRti (who controls the jaDa prakRti). I am the mahAshakti sampanna, Vishnu, who also controls the mAyA or LakShmi. mAyin does not mean one who is endowed with prakRti. This thought is elaborated in Gita (itihAsapurANAbhyAM vedaM samupabRmhayet).

daivI hyeShA guNamayI mama mAyA duratyayA |

mAmeva ye prapadyante mAyAmetAM taranti te || 7-14||

This tells it all. With Vishnu's blessings, by surrendering to Him, the devotees can cross that hold also.

Lord Krishna also says -

avajAnanti mAM mUDhA mAnuShIM tanumAshritam.h |

paraM bhAvamajAnanto mama bhUtamaheshvaram.h || 9-11||

Others have prAkRta deha, but not Lord Krishna. Without proper understanding of "Bhutamaheshvara(Sri Shankaracharya comments sarvabhUtAnAM mahAntaM iShvaraM)" Lord Krishna, people think that He is like others.

"There is no (mahā)Iśwara without māyā/prakṛti."

That is reverse gear. "There is no māyā/prakṛti without (mahā)Iśwara." He is in control and independent and even graces His devotees to overcome it.

Thus there is no guṇa of Iswara which is born of prakṛti. For every prAkRta guna, there is corresponding aprAkRta guNa, which we cannot comprehend. For example, we can only conceive prAkRta nIla varNa. There is also aprAkRta nIla varNa, which we cannot comprehend, and Lord has that. Even in case of Ananda, Lord's Ananda is aprAkRta. prAkRta guNas are doSha bharita. aprAkRta guNas are doSha rahita. Every prAkRta guNa has tendency for destruction. aprAkRta guNas are not subject to destruction as prakRti has no kArya on them.

Though the Lord is aprAkRta, He will function in both prAkRta and aprAkRta realms due to His achintyAdbhuta shakti as "tena vinA tRNamapi na chalati".

The common blunders that the Advaitins do are -

1. One word can give multiple meanings and they mix up the meanings and confuse themselves and confuse others. For ex. guNa can mean prAkRtika guNas namely Satva, Rajas and Tamas. guNa can also mean behavioral qualities like irritability, softness, kindness, etc. It can also mean Lord's auspicious qualities like j~nAna, Ananda, svAtantrya, kAruNya, etc. So, when guNa is used, one must be clear of what is meant in that context. Brahman is nirguNa means He does not have prAkRuta satva, rajas and Tamas guNas. For having them a prAkRta sharIra is needed and He does not have one. He is also sarva guNa sampUrNa, ananta kalyANa guNa paripuRNa. Here guNa refers to His auspicious qualities. The various satva, rajas and tamas lead to pravRtti guNas or behavioral qualities. prAkRta guNas are not eternal, aprAkRta guNas are eternal.

2. Multiple words can have same meaning, but they fail to connect them. For ex. LakShmi, mAyA, chetana prakRti, kuTastha, akShara, avyaktA mean the same and point to same LakShmi tatva.

3. Different words have different meanings, but they mix them all up and confuse themselves and confuse others. For ex. ashAsvata, pariNAma and asatya.

ashAsvata means not permanent. This non-permanence can be caused in two ways. It can by by destruction or by change. We may be able to see the roles of both destruction and change as well. Mud is there. A pot is made from the mud After some time, the pot is destroyed and is seen as mud again. The pot is there for some time, this does not make pot as asatya or false. This can also be seen as mud having pariNAma or chage as pot and the pot is changing to mud again. Here the changes are in the shape and utility aspect, etc. One can not use a lump of mud to hold water. It is obvious that when pot is there, it is used to hold water, etc. So It is definitely satya, but ashAsvata. Mixing them up is not good.

4. Then they introduce their own definition for some words while they already have established meaning. Mithya means illusion.

, mithya and anirvachanIya

.. They create a slogan and try to drive and force their concepts thru the slogan. The typical way they start the slogan with and irrefutable fact and the rest are invalid and incorrect and just join the bandwagon. "brahma satyam, jaganmithyA, jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH".

brahma satyam is a universal statement and no religion on the face of the Earth would even attempt to touch it as it is the base for every theistic belief. The next two principles are not acceptable for any religion, except "Advaita". So Advaita tries to make a point that every other religion is wrong and they alone are right, as what is obvious for all the rest is really an illusion. They claim that Jiva is non-different from Brahman. But it is common experience that every jIva experiences finitude and every religion including Advaita have to accept the infinitude of Brahman. So, how to retrofit this? Only way out is to deny all this experience and in a sneaky way label the world as an illusion. That is not easy. So, what do Advaitins do?

Advaitins give their own definition to mithyA or illusion. Create complexity and ambiguity to such an extent that no one knows what hit what. But the great thinkers are not dumb and they come, analyze and point out several breaks. But the pUrvAgraha is so strong and some base had already been laid with complexity. But it still had several ordeals and difficulties to face. he so called "One Advaita" actually had to compromise on basic principles itself and several forms of Advaita had emerged.

1. EkajIva vAda became difficult to handle for some. So, they went with "bahujIva vAda".

2. While the classical Advaita does not accept Jiva as part of Brahman, but Brahman itself, this became difficult to handle for some. So, they went with Jiva being part of Brahman like spark and fire.This became more acceptable and conceivable for them. This was called ShuddhAdvaita. This is whole and part principle. For them Maya is not unreal, but power of the Lord. This was propagated by Vallabhacharya.

3. Ramanuja went with viShiShtAdvaita - where the relation between Jiva and Brahman

sharIra / sharIri (body/indweller);

prakAra / prakAri (attribute or mode/substance);

‌shesha / sheshi (Owned/owner);

amsha / amshi (part/whole);

AdhAra / Adheya sambandha (supporter/supported);

niyamya / niyAmaka (controlled/controller);

rakShya / rakShaka bhAva (redeemed/redeemer);

4. Dvaitadvaita of Nimbarkacharya tried to mingle between the two and created a confusing in between principle.

5. Achintya bhedAbheda of Krishna Chaitanya also followed the same path and created a confusing set of principles.

Oh, now a days the enormous neo-vedantic Advaitins have created so many flavors of Advaita, that one is flabbergasted by them. I am not talking about some unknown ones. Do Shankaracharya followers accept the teachings of Vivekananda, though he claims to be the follower of Advaita?

This will be tha fate of a darshana, when it claims to be following the vedas as the ultimate authority and goes against Vedic principles itself. As there are no proper binding forces, it ends up in many flavors, with confusion as the driving force. There are some escape gates for them -

1. Who ever criticizes Advaita never understood Advaita.

2. What ever you are criticizing is not the real Advaita.

3. All non-Advaita concepts are for the beginning stage and Advaita is meant only for the advanced souls. When you reach there, then only will you understand. (When poor Nimbarkacharyas, and Vallabhacharyas had their own share, where does a common man stand?)

4. What all goes against Advaita are in VyAvahArika satya. What all goes for Advaita are in pAramArthika satya.

There can be more such.

"Here is an open challenge to anyone: Show just one guṇa, of the ananta guṇas, of Brahman that is not related/connected with either the jagat or jiva or both..."

The challenge itself is a meaningless challenge and is rooted in the lack of ability to differentiate between "Being under the purview or outside the purview of prAkRta guNas" and "being related/connected to jagat or others that are associated with prAkRta guNas".

Let us look at some of the possible statements and then go from there.

1. The Lord's guNas are all prAkRta only.

2. The Lord's guNas are all aprAkRta only.

3. The Lord has both the prAkRta and aprAkRta guNas.

4a. The Lord is under the purview of the prAkRta guNas.

4b. The prAkRta guNas are under the purview of the Lord.

5a. The Lord is outside the purview of prAkRta guNas.

5b. The prAkRta guNas are outside the purview of the Lord.

6a. The Lord is under the purview of aprAkRta guNas.

6b. The aprAkRta guNas are under the purview of the Lord.

7a. The Lord is outside the purview of aprAkRta guNas.

7b. The aprAkRta guNas are outside the purview of the Lord.

8. The Lord's functioning is related/connected to all entities associated with only prAkRta guNas.

9. The Lord's functioning is related/connected to all entities associated with only aprAkRta guNas.

10. The Lord's functioning is related/connected to all entities associated with both prAkRta and aprAkRta guNas.

Let us analyze which ones are true and which ones are false and why?

1. is false. Why? prAkRta guNas are pariNAma purvaka and vikArayuta. The Lord is vikArarahita.

2. is true. why? aprAkRta means avikArya. and Lord'sananta guNas must all be aprAkRta only.

3. is false. Why? Because 1. is false.

4a. is false. In fact the statement itself is built ambiguously and incorrectly. "under the purview" means "within the limit, purpose or scope", or "within the range or limit of authority, competence, responsibility, concern, or intention"

or "within range of vision, understanding". How can the Lord be within the authority of an inert thing? More meaningful statement would have been 4b.

4b. is true. He controls satva, rajas and tamas. See Bhagavata 3rd skandha as to how Lord plays with satva, rajas and Tamas piles to start sR^iShTi.

5a is true and 5b is false by virtue of 4a and 4b.

6a, 6b, 7a and 7b are inapplicable as per Advaita of shruti. There is no difference between the Lord and His aprAkRta guNas. dharmi and dharma are same. This is also refereed as svagatabhedavivarjitatva - the true Advaita. Here the aprAkRta guNas refer to Lord's AprAkRta guNas only.

Here we have to notice that Jivas also have aprAkRta guNas, which are non-different from Jivas and Jivas dont have prAKRta guNas as Jivas are also nitya. Jivas are also avikArya.

8. and 9. are false as 10. is true. The clinching proof for that is -

"dravyaM, karma cha kAlashcha svabhAvo jIva eva cha

yadanugrahataH santi na santi yadupekShayA " from Bhagavata.

There is only one Brahman. There is no separate "Brahman of the Vedanta".

That is true Advaita.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p9 - end: ======

================== V Subrahmanian response-p10 - begin: ======

You can see for yourself, by your use of 'nirguṇa' that your observation was advaita-specific. Hence my reply. For your other, present observation, the reply is already given earlier.

Again, your reply is not specific to my response. I had worded my response without bringing the 'logic' element and centered it only on 'experience' element. Hence, my question still remains and what you reply above is again insufficient to answer my question. As for logic, any number of objections have been raised by Advaitins themselves and answered and only such old questions are being raised against advaitins by others. You can read advaitic works to get answers to such questions. Unless you experience advaita you can never say by any means that advaita contradicts experience. As for parlance experience of interactions of sense organs with objects, advaitins never claim that advaita is in that realm. They accept such interactions as 'guṇā guṇeṣu vartanta iti dhārayan' of the BG.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p10 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p10 - begin: ======

The word "guNa" can mean different things in different contexts. There had been elaborate reply from me earlier. Just the use of the word "nirguNa" itself will not establish anything in an argument. What exactly is meant by it and how it is used are important.

Yes I have read the commentaries of Sri Shankaracharya for Gita, Upanishds and Brahmasutras (Thus prasthAnatraya) along with "adhyAsa bhAshya", which precedes Brahmasutra bhAshya. There are many issues. That is besides a point and an ocean by itself.

Parking logic aside and talking about only experience, the simple question for both sides still remains. We are talking about only two kinds of experience. Advaitins themselves accepted that Dvaitic experience is "jAtamAtrabuddhigamya". So every one had it. Did any Advaitin ever since the beginning of creation ever had Advaitic experience? If yes, who had it? If not asking A Dvaitin whether he had is not even meaningful. Advaita is holding all these discussions using the sense organs only and so it is in that realm. If the assertion is that Advaita does not concern with the "experience of interactions of sense organs with objects", then when it labelled Dvaitic experience as "jAtamAtrabuddhigamya", is it referring to "experience of interactions of sense organs with objects" or something else? If it is former, it should not have concerned with to start with. If it is latter, then it is accepting that Dvaitic experience is the only option out.

'guṇā guṇeṣu vartanta iti dhārayan' of the BG

Actually this is mixing up two different verses -

tattvavittu mahābāho guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ |

guṇā guṇeṣu vartanta iti matvā na sajjate || 3-28||

pralapanvisṛjangṛhṇannunmiṣannimiṣannapi |

indriyāṇīndriyārtheṣu vartanta iti dhārayan || 5-9||

By using guNa guNeShu vartanta, it is pretty obvious that the same word guNa can be and will be used to convey different meanings.

The first one is to rule out any "svAtantrya of the jIva". The jIva who realizes the absence of svatantra kartRutva will not be submerged in samsAra. This is in karmayoga.

The second verse is saying that "because the Jiva does not have svAtantrya, he has to do sankalpa tyAga that he is not the independent doer. That is true sanyAsa". This is in SanyAsa yoga.

In case of satyAnveShaNa, giving up pUrvAgraha is the best way.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p10 - end: ======

================== V Subrahmanian response-p11 - begin: ======

All these are the very svarupa, very nature, of Brahman and not an attribute, guna. Advaita sees these as the very nature, just as heat of fire.

All these are only with prakrti as the partner and never without it. In the BG Krishna says, with Me as the adhyaklsa, seer, observer, prakrti creates the world of moving and unmoving. Even for brahman taking an avatāra, the prakṛti is mandatory: prakṛtim svām adhiṣṭhāya sambhavāmi ātma māyayā. Nowhere the scripture admits of Brahman creating without the aid of prakrti. Madhva calls prakrti the bhaaryaa, wife, of Brahman. The notions of bondage and liberation are only products of maya - its āvaraṇa and vikṣepa shaktis.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p11 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p11 - begin: ======

Saying that "very svarupa, very nature, of Brahman and not an attribute, guna" is invalid and incorrect because he himself is saying "Advaita sees these as the very nature, just as heat of fire.". heat is nature of fire and heat is also guNa of fire. svarUpa, nature, attribute and guNa are all synonymous in this case. Note that the true Advaita is non-difference of all these from Brahman Himself. Dharma-dharmi, guNa-guNi abheda.

Yes Dvaita school not only accepts the eternality of mUlaprakRti, but emphasizes too. Shri VishnupurANa says "parakṛtiḥ puruṣaścaiva nityau kālaśca sattama"

That is why Dvaita school says that the Lord is only nimitta kAraNa (efficient cause). He is not upAdAna kAraNa (material cause), mUlaprakRuti is. prakRuti does not create. PrakRuti is of two kinds - chetana prakRuti and jaDa prakRuti. chetana prakRuti is LakshMi and jaDa prakRuti is mUla prakRuti. One has to draw the distinction based on the context. Both are completely under His control. He creates using mUla jaDa prakRuti, which is completely under His control. Note the word - "svAM'. The prakRuti is under His control and not the other way around. It is not just mAya, but AtmamAyayA - tRutIyA vibhAkti - karaNe.

AtmamAyayA means Atmaj~nAnena.

The kosha says "ketuH ketashchitishchittaM matiH kraturmanIShA mAyA". All these mean j~nAna. He does by His own j~nAna, His own ichCha.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p11 - end: ======

================== V Subrahmanian response-p12 - begin: ======

The analogy is not suitable here. Take the word 'Ishwara' which means 'Lord'. He has to have something apart from him to 'lord' over. And that something has to come into existence only through prakṛti partnership and never ever possible without that. Hence the very status of Ishwara is dependent on something else being there.

Such Brahman is none other than the Nirguna Brahman of Vedanta. Ekam eva adviteeyam.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p12 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p12 - begin: ======

Ishvara Lords over both chetana prakRuti, and jaDa prakRuti and also all the Jivas even when they are not brought into prakRuti like during MahapraLaya. He does not need prakRuti or Jivas, but they need Him. It is not for His svaprayojanana, but for paraprayojana, that He uses MulaprakRuti and creates BrahmANDa and creates bodies for all the Jivas so that Jivas can do their sAdhana. 'sharIramAdyaH khalu dharma sAdhanam". Thus it is not prakRuti partnership, but His own will to use it. PrakRuti is dependent on Him and not the other way around. Again "dravyaM , karma cha kAlashcha, svabhAvo, jIva eva cha| yadanugrahataH santi na santi yadupekShayA|"

The senetence "ekamevAdvitIyaM" does not mean there is nothing else. It means that there is nothing else like Him. There are no multiple Brahmans. There is only one Brahman. He is nirguNa (not having prAkRuta guNas) and sarva guNa sampUrNa (having all the auspicious qualities), that way saguNa.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p12 - end: ======

================== V Subrahmanian response-p13 - begin: ======

So, thereby you are only admitting or rather accusing the shruti as rendering itself invalid:

Br.up: 2.4.14

14. "For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear, should one know the Knower?"

One can easily see the 'contradiction' between two states: the state of duality and the state of non-dual experience. Thus, your objection is not against Advaita but against the very Veda. Thus, for you, the Veda is a bundle of contradictions.

================== V Subrahmanian response-p13 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p13 - begin: ======

No, shruti does not render itself invalid. Shruti is rendering Advaita school invalid, as Advaita school is going against the true Advaita of shrutis.

Br. up - 2.4.14 is completely wrong. The correct translation is this. -

"There is atiprasaMga to claim that in mukti Atma alone is there and nothing else and so there is no j~nANa for mukta. When the paratantra another object is there, then the jIva smells another, sees another, hears another, speaks to another, knows another in normal sense and special sense. But when in mukti, everything meaning indriyas and Vishayas are all AtmasvarUpa, then what should one smell and through what indriya, what should one see and through what indriya, what should one hear and through what indriya, what should one speak and through what indriya, what should one know in normal sense and through what indriya, what should one know in special sense and through what indriya? Through what indriya should jIva know that ParamAtma, by whose grace jIva knows all this? Through what indriya should jIva know itself, who knows all this? Through what indriya should jIva know another mukta jIva?"

In the Advaita school, which claims that Atma alone remains in mokSha, Jiva will not have any enjoyment of any kind, it will not have any awareness or knowledge, it will not have the darshaNa of Paramatma Himself. Thus, mokSha cannot even be called PuruShArtha, if there is no j~nAna itself. Also, Advaita school is contradicting the shruti vAkya just precedes. "alaM vA ara idam vij~nAnAya". (These muktas are capable of knowing well.). If in mokSha such ajnAna is prescribed, then the statement of mokShadharma - "magnasya hi pare.aj~nAne kiM na duHkhataraM bhavet" hits hard Advaita school of thought. Thus, for Advaita school Veda is a bundle of contradictions, not for Dvaita school, which has consistent and logical explanation.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p13 - end: ======

Sureshmr gives his Advaitin response

================== Sureshmr response-p14 - begin: ======

Actually proper analysis based on pratyaksham does not contradict advaitam and it can stand as an independent philosophical system without needing for any scripture. That is how Swami Krishnananda writes and Sri Shankara also has established the same based on pure logic and reasoning in his Adhyasa bhashya right? If Absolute Truth is defined as that which never changes then the atman as the unchanging seer/witness of change is that absolute and every other entity is subjected to change and therefore false.

Whether absolute atman/Brahman is nirguna/nishkriya is debatable because prakrithi/body/jagath/vyavahara is absolutely dependent on that.

================== Sureshmr response-p14 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p14 - begin: ======

Gross misunderstanding. Advaita school itself does not claim that way. If any philosophical system claims that it can stand as an independent philosophical system without needing for any scripture, what is its basis? If any Vedic philosophical schhol claims that it is based on pure logic and reasoning, it must remember "naiSha tarkena matirApaneyA" - so goes the shruti. Pure tarka can be moulded any which way. Swami Krishnananda writes that? Can any one please quote that? I am pretty sure Sri Shankara never claimed that. The purpose of AdhyAsa bhAshya is not to establish that Advaita stands as an independent philosophical system without needing for any scripture. It is a prelude for Brahmasutra bhAshya, which means that it needs scriptures.

One cannot give one's own definition and go every which way and any which way one wants. Suppose someone defines "A body is said to be at rest, if it occupies an amount of space equal to its volume", (because the person notes that every object that is at rest is doing that). Then as per that definition even a space craft that is moving at tremendous speed is also at rest, because it also always occupies an amount of space equal to its volume. A truth is that which is true. The change is a different phenomenon and has no connection with the truth. Even the tenporariness has nothing to do with turht. There is another word for that which is permanent, which is 'shAshvata'. There is no need to mixup all these. Some satyas are shAshvata and some are not. Temporary ones are ashAshvata. Some satyas are changing and some are not. That is all. kAla (the time) keeps changing. Yet it is both satya and shAshvata. But any segment of time is satya and ashAshvata. shAshvata can also be called nitya. A satya can be nitya or anitya. There is no need to mix up satyatva and nityatva. A pot that exists for a short time is satya, but anitya.

Both an individual Atman (jIvtma) and ParamAtman (Brahman), are nirvikAra and without change, the former is ever dependent on tha latter and the latter ever independent, thus they are different, but never separate. The JivAtma is "limited seer", (sAkShi), where as Brahman is "Infinite seer" and so sarva sAkShi or main sAkshi. That is why Lord Krishna says in Gita "tAnyahaM veda sarvAni, na tvam vettha parantapa". Any amount of prayAsa will not wipe away that truth. One has to understand and appreciate "ahaM tvA sarva pApebhyo mokShayiShyami mA shucha".

Atman is nirguNa means "devoid of prAkRuta guNas". Atman is niShkriya means "devoid of effects of karmas or beyond the effect of karmas as He is the controller.".

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p14 - end: ======

and V Subrahmanian continues his Advaitin response to KK Chakravarthy, who confronted V Subrahmanyan:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p15 - begin: ======

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, KK Chakravarthy <chakrava...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jiva never comes into existence due to prakriti partnership. So the above contention that Jiva must come into existence only through prakriti partnership is not valid.

The very concept of a jiva is from the dhātu 'prāṇa dhāraṇe'. There can be no 'jiva' without a sūkhsma and sthula sharīras, both of which are essentially prakṛti-products. Without these two shariras there is no jiva at all. Dvaitins admit of a svarupa sharira to every jiva which they hold is not prākṛta. That is a different topic. So, the Lord can never lord over a jiva who does not exist without some or the other kind of body.

Even if it is true that Ishwara's lordship depends on jIva, the jIva's source of energy is Ishwara.

The Kenopanishad says that the source of energy for all organs of a jiva comes from Brahman, which for Advaitins is Pure Consciousness.

If ishwara wills, the jIva ceases to exist. So Ishwara depends on Himself for his Ishwaratva because by his mere will he causes them to exist or not-exist.

All this is just arthavāda, not backed by any pramāṇa. Has there been any instance where Ishwara has willed a jiva to cease to exist? Do not make preposterous claims. Even the co-called 'will' of Ishwara comes from the 'icchā shakti' of prakṛti. The upanishad teaches that Brahman has no mind. Only a mind can have the faculty of willing.

Similarly brahman exists even if there is no prakriti. Existence of brahman is independent of the existence of prakriti.

Such Brahman is none other than the Nirguna Brahman of Vedanta. Ekam eva adviteeyam.

Such brahman is none other than Saguna Brahman of Vedanta. Ekam eva adviteeyam. Adviteeyam does not mean that there is no second entity. It means that there is no match.

It is good to note that you admit of the possibility of Brahman existing without the need for prakṛti. Adviteeyam means: no second of any kind. By accepting anything other than Brahman the anantatva, infinite nature, of Brahman is given up. I have discussed this in 'vastu pariccheda' blog:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/on-vastu-pariccheda-and-other-topics/

================== V Subrahmanian response-p15 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p15 - begin: ======

"Without these two shariras there is no jiva at all. " - Certainly there is Jiva without these two sharIras, when it goes to mokSha. Dvaita has enormous amount of explanation about liberation from sUkshma sharIra (liMga bhaMga). So, Jiva can exist without those two sharIras.

"So, the Lord can never lord over a jiva who does not exist without some or the other kind of body." - The Lord lords over the Jiva even in mokSha, where jIva does exist without those two sharIras.

"The Kenopanishad says that the source of energy for all organs of a jiva comes from Brahman, which for Advaitins is Pure Consciousness." - So be it. Such pure Consciousness (chetanashchetanAnAM) is a pure Dvaita concept, which perpetuates even in mokSha.

"All this is just arthavāda, not backed by any pramāṇa. Has there been any instance where Ishwara has willed a jiva to cease to exist? Do not make preposterous claims." - It is not arthavAda and it is backed by pramANa. See the following from Bhagavata.

dravyaM karma cha kAlashcha svabhAvo jIva eva cha |

yadanugrahataH santi na santi yadupexayA || 2-10-12||

First of all, such discussions like "Has Ishvara willed Jiva to cease to exist?" are meaningless and are in the same line of arguments like - "God is sarva-samartha and is capable of doing any thing. So can God commit suicide? Can God create a stone that He cannot lift?"

God is known as "ahaM - aheyatvAt ahaM nAma". He has taken upon Himself to eternally protect and control jIva. So the question of His willing otherwise does not arise. That is similar to asking "can He make the possible thing as impossible and impossible as possible?". He is the self-appointed guardian of all dharmas and all Jivas. He will preserve and protect on His own.

"Even the co-called 'will' of Ishwara comes from the 'icchā shakti' of prakṛti." - Then we might as well ignore "svatantro bhagavAn viShNuH" and falsify or dump the statements of Gita like "mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiMchidasti dhanaMjaya" and correct Gita "mattaH parataraM asti prakR^iterichChAshaktiH". Why bother with shruti vAkyAs like "iChChA mAtram prabhO sRuShTiH"

"The upanishad teaches that Brahman has no mind. Only a mind can have the faculty of willing." - "nArAyaNo.akAmayata prajA sR^ijIyeti" - so goes nArAyaNopanishat. Brahman does not have jaDa mind. svarUpabhUta manas is there for every chaitanya. That is aprAkR^ita. But certainly He will interact with prakṛti due to His AchintyAdbhuta shakti and also "tena vinA tR^iNamapi na chalati".

"It is good to note that you admit of the possibility of Brahman existing without the need for prakṛti." - It is not the question of possibility, and it is not the question of Brahman needing prakṛti, it is the question of prakṛti needing Brahman. Also Brahman is the protector of eternality of mUla prakṛti.

"Adviteeyam means: no second of any kind. By accepting anything other than Brahman the anantatva, infinite nature, of Brahman is given up." - No, Adviteeyam means: no second of His kind. kAla is there at all times. It is wrong to think that by accepting anything other than Brahman the anantatva, infinite nature, of Brahman is given up. If kAla (time), which has anantatva or infinite nature is accepted and does not affect the anantatva, infinite nature of Brahman, how would the finite nature of many jIvas affect the anantatva, infinite nature of Brahman? In fact by not accepting jIvas other than Brahman, there is no question of His sarvottamatva (superior to whom, if there is no second of any kind?) It also conflicts "sarvasya tadadhInata" - Note the shruti vakyas that refute the concept of such wrong definition and gives the correct definition for advaita or advitIya. -

"advaitaM paramArtho.asau bhagavAn viShNuravyayaH |

paramatvaM svatantratvaM sarvashaktitvameva cha ||"

"sarvaj~natvaM parAnandaH sarvasya tadadhInatA |

ityAdyAH guNAH viShNOH naivAnyasya kataMchana ||"

So not only the existence of other things does not affect the anantatva, infinite nature of Brahman, it makes His sarvottamatva meaningful.

Also we agree that jIva nitya, mUlaprakRuti, nitya, chetana prakRuti nitya, kAla nitya, varNas are nitya, avyAkRuta AkAsha is nitya. So one can not say "no second of any kind".

I have discussed this in 'vastu pariccheda' blog: - There are several issues with that. That is separate discussion.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p15 - end: ======

and V Subrahmanian continues his Advaitin response to KK Chakravarthy, who confronted V Subrahmanyan:

================== V Subrahmanian response-p16 - begin: ======

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:19 AM, KK Chakravarthy <chakrava...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why should the svarupa of anything exclude attributes? These are not mutually exclusive concepts. It is the nature of fire to emit light and heat. It is the same as saying that emitting light and heat are the attributes of fire.

If heat is not there in fire, it ceases to be fire. That is what is svarupa lakshana. Brahman ceases to exist when sat, chit and ananta are not there. However, without prakṛti-born attributes such as creatorship, lordship, etc. Brahman can exist. That is the difference.

All these are only with prakrti as the partner and never without it.

Being sarva shaktimaan (all powerful) is an attribute of brahman.

That sarva shankti comes from Shakti, prakṛti.

So brahman does not need anything to create. It only HAPPENS that brahman takes the aid of prakrti to create the world that WE live in. But brahman can create anything if he wants to, without the aid of anything. He can destroy this prakriti completely if He wishes to and create a new world.

All this is mere eulogy, not supported by any core shruti. To destroy prakrti, Brahman will need some power which has to come from a different prakriti. And to create a new world he will need prakṛti. Pl. go through a good course in vedanta before making such fanciful claims.

That is included in the DEFINITION of Sarvashaktimaan. Even advaitins accept that Ishwara is sarva shakrimaan.

Shankaracharya teaches in the BSB 1.4.3 while refuting the sānkhya's swatantra pradhāna as the cause of the creation:

//...But this primordial state is held by us to be subject to the Supreme Lord, but not as an independent thing. That state (of pradhAna/avyakta) has to be admitted, because it serves a purpose. Without that latent state, the creatorship of God cannot have any meaning, inasmuch as God cannot act without His power (of MAyA), and without that latent state, the absence of birth for the freed souls cannot be explained. [The power of mAyA has to be admitted whose presence makes birth, death, etc. possible, and whose cessation brings about liberation.]//

================== V Subrahmanian response-p16 - end: ======

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p16 - begin: ======

Lordship, creatorship, etc. are not prakṛti-born attributes. If any one claims that way, there are three issues - it attributes vikAra to Him, it affects the true Advaita viz. non-difference between Him (as dharmi) and His attributes (dharmas), his svatantratva has to be sacrificed.

Lord Krishna differentiates between ParamAtma and Jiva in several ways.

"amtavaMta ime dehA nityasyoktA sharIriNah", the bodies of eternal body-bearing jIvatma-s have destruction. If a doubt is raised that 'may be Lord also bears that kind of bodies, as we note that His avatAras are ended', such doubt is wiped off by

"avajAnanti mAM mUDhA mAnuShIM tanumAshritam.h |

paraM bhAvamajAnanto mama bhUtamaheshvaram "

and shruti statements like "pUrNamadaH, pUrNamidaM..." confirm that.

Even when He is not engaged in Creatorship activity, (as we conceiveve), His creation of enjoyment activities for MuktajIvas is there. His potential ability to create will never leave Him. Lordship has nothing to do with praKruti and continues through mokSha.

While commenting "ishvarassarvabhUtAnAM, Sri Shankaracharya says "ishvaraH IshaNashIlaH nArAyaNaH". Thus even Advaitins accept that Lordship is svarupa lakshana. As pure sachchidAnandAtmaka, His acquiring any prAkRuta lakShANAs, attribute vikAra to Him, which is never true.

Partnership implies equality and thus it is never considered as Partnership. One must note the subtle difference between "Lord needs praKruti" and "Lord uses prakRuti". The former indicates "asvAtantrya" and the latter does not conflict "svAtantrya", as "will to do so" is implied there.

"That sarva shankti comes from Shakti, prakṛti." - Completely wrong. This is sarva-pramANa viruddha. In fact, it is the other way around. The chetana praKRuti, Lakshmi devi says in AmbhraNIsUkta - "mamayonirapsvantassamudre" (The source for me is reposing there in the ocean.)

We should not use statements like "If Ishvara wants He can destroy jIva; if Ishvara wants He can destroy prakṛti." The question does not arise at all. He willed to protect and preserve them eternally. This kind of approach can lead to kuhaka statements like "If God can do any thing, can He commit suicide?". So, let us not take that route at all.

Lord needs prakRuti is a wrong statement and to understand this, no amount of courses will suffice. Vedanta is not a course and going through such courses will not guarantee a correct understanding as no one knows what is learnt in that again. If it leads to either reconfirmation of wrong knowledge as part of pUrvagraha or acquisition of a new wrong concepts, it will be worse off only. An open-minded Atmashodhane with the help of available information is the key.

BSB 1.4.3 -"OM tadadhInatvAdarthavat OM ||

This sUtra has nothing to do with MAya or illusion. This sUtra reinforces that everything is under His control and as niyAmaka for them, all the words can be meaningful when applied to Him as their niyAmaka.

The word "mAya" has several meanings and one must use them based on the context. One cannot cause "vyabhichAra dosha", by giving two different meanings in the same context and then play the dirty trick of transitioning from one to the other in a slippery way. Argument like "praKRuti is also known as pradhAna or mAya and so any thing that is built from prakRuti must be 'mAya or illusion', is not tenable at all. mAyA can mean many things like "ichChA, jnAna, mahimA of the Lord, chetana prakRuti, jaDa prakruti, illusion, etc".

The translation given for Sri Shankaracharya's bhAshya for 1.4.3 is not accurate. However, Sri Shankara does mix up between mAya as pradhAna/prakRuti and mAya as illusion.

Further in the translation - "God cannot act without His power (of MAyA)". What does this mean? There is non-difference between Him and His power. He does not get His power from mAya.

================== Kesava Tadipatri rebuttal-p16 - end: ======

Madhwa Prameya Mahodadhi

Search This Blog

Rebuttal to an Advaitin response to yuktimallika

Comments

Post a Comment