[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Request For Comments: Dvaita vs. Advaita
Request For Comments: Dvaita vs Advaita - the real issue
Advaita: Experience (phenomenal) is neither 'sat' - existent, nor 'asat' -
non existent. It is not 'sat' in the sense that on liberation, it never
existed, nor the negation of such an experience exists. It is not 'asat'
because it is not like "a castle in the air" and "a hare's horn". The nature
of experience is anirvacaniiya.
Dvaita: If you do not take experience as 'sat', then how will you justify
"shaastra".
Advaita: I never said, anirvacaniiya means "shaastra" looses its validity
within anirvacaniiyatva.
It seems that Advaita has made the categorization of experience (or the
knowledge of its nature) as atiindriya. Now given that both sides accept the
validity of "shaastra", is there any shaastric reference to what is the
nature of experience. Is it 'sat', 'asat' (I cannot imagine anybody can make
this claim) or whatever?
Moreover if indeed jiiva is non other than brahman how does Advaita prevent
brahman from getting sullied by the limitations of the jiiva?
-Sourav
