Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 9

We will take up more objections

Q: How can Brahman, which is indivisible, pure consciousness, have portions that fall under the rule of Maya and think themselves jivas?

Ans: Advaita has never stated that due to Brahman coming under Maya Jiva is created or that Brahman becomes Jiva. This is a wrong understanding of Advaita Vedanta to begin with.

Q:Knowledge and delusion cannot share the same location, just as light and darkness cannot both be present in exactly the same place.

Ans: Advaita Vedanta does not state that there is one portion of Brahman that gets covered by Maya, and that portion experiences Avidya and the rest of the portion becomes free of Avidya and so on, this has never been stated to begin with.

Q:Being indivisible, Brahman cannot become fragmented to manifest the jivas

Ans: Advaita has never stated that Brahman became fragmented into Jivas, do not know why Iskconites imagine their own Purvapaksha of Advaita.

Q:Moreover, the absolute existence cannot include Maya (avidya), but only Brahman alone.

Ans: Advaita has never stated that absolute or Non dual reality includes Maya or Avidya.

Q:For Maya to be involved with Brahman, either Brahman would have to degrade itself to Maya’s empirical level so it could be adulterated by upadhis, or else Maya would have to elevate herself to the absolute plane of Brahman so that she could influence it.

Ans: Advaitins have never stated that Maya got involved into Brahman , not does it state that the Non dual reality got adulterated by Upadhis.

Q:The first of these alternatives is impossible because Brahman is without attributes and cannot change.

Ans: We agree that Maya never got involved into Brahman, so where is the objection here ?

Q: The second alternative amounts to dualism, because then Maya and Brahman would have equal status on the plane of absolute reality. This, of course, contradicts the first principles of Advaita monism.

Ans: This also has not been stated by Advaitins or Advaita so what is this blogger even blabbering about ?

He again blabbers the following

“Under the pressure of these arguments, the impersonalists may try to placate us with the claim that the vital issue at hand is not precisely how the jiva came under the influence of Maya but simply that he is now suffering in illusion. “

Not quite, this guy does not understand the fundamentals of Advaita, if we ask him what is exactly meant by Avidya in Advaita Vedanta he will stumble and fumble.

Advaita says that the fundamental problem is mutual imposition of subject and object. Then question may be asked how did this mutual imposition happen ? , Advaitins who are soft on people may say the why or how cannot be questioned. But the actual answer is that, the question is itself stupid, reason being that without Avidya there can be no causation, causation comes with Avidya. This is not to propose that, there was a particular time when Avidya was not there, then it came suddenly. This is not at all the case. So to ask how Avidya came about is like asking how causation came about which is quite silly. Since we are proposing causation before causation which makes no sense.

“Even if we grant this point, the Mayavadis still must convince us that the end they want us to seek, impersonal liberation, is in our best interest. “

Very simple as per Iskconites all were in Goloka, then we were not satisfied in the presence of Shri Krishna so we decided to go into Bhooloka.

Now let me reverse the question to Iskconites

When Shri Krishna is all joy then how did we get dissatisfaction in the presence of Shri Krishna, in bright light darkness cannot enter, so why were we unhappy ?

If Iskconites were to answer that it was due to Maya, the Maya is outside the realm of Goloka, even if Iskconites were to argue that still with the permission of Shri Krishna Maya roams Goloka then we ask the following if we had caught Krishna with Bhakti in Goloka how did we get affected by Maya ? Since this would contradict the very Bhagavat Gita

मूल श्लोकः

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया।

मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते।।7.14।।

English Translation By Swami Sivananda

7.14 Verily, this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the (three) alities (of Nature) is difficult to cross over; those who take refuge in Me alone, cross over this illusion.

So people have already taken refuge in Shri Krishna when they are in Goloka, but inspite of taking refuge in Shri Krishna they are dissatisfied and affected by Maya. This is quite strange. Now when we ask these questions Iskconites come under pressure and start abusing, they will then divert the topic, copy paste, start saying you Mayavadi rascal and so on. If they say it is Krishna’s will then in that case they must agree that Shri Krishna is not kind. Not only that such Moksha would be of no use, since even post going to Goloka there is no guarantee that you will not come down back into Samsara. But when we keep objecting Iskconites have no answer to give. They can maximum abuse.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 8

I have decided to take some better objections of Jiva Goswami than some ridiculous and pathetic objections. Let us look at one such objection.

In the Anuchcheda 38.2 Jiva Goswami says the following.

anyatra siddhasya vastuna evānyatrāropo yathā śuktau rajatasya, etad eva mithyā-khapuṣpāder āropāsambhavāt pūrva-pūrva-vivarta-mātra-siddhānādi-paramparātve dṛṣṭāntābhāvāc ca |

“Only an object that exists elsewhere can be superimposed onto something else, for example, silver on an oyster shell. This is because it is impossible to superimpose a non-existent object, such as a sky-flower, onto something else, and because no example can be given of a beginningless chain of vivarta superimpositions following one another.”

Now let us understand the objection a little bit more clearly, as per Advaita just as due to ignorance of the rope one sees a snake, similarly due to ignorance of the Non dual reality we see the world in place of it. Now Jiva Goswami says that just as only once we have had a previous experience of some object only that object would be superimposed, and not of a non existent object like a hare’s horn. He also says that if you argue that the previous experience is a false experience, which in turn is derived from another false experience and ad infinitum, then he answers that for this there is no example through which you can demonstrate it.  We will need to backtrack on this a bit, Jiva Goswami unfortunately does not understand the fundamental Adhyasa which Advaita talks about. Advaita talks about the imposition of subject over object and object over subject. Known over knower and knower over known. This is the fundamental Adhyasa, which gives the idea of this body and mind complex is me and any thing that belongs to this body-mind complex is mine. Now let us take Jiva Goswami’s objection, if he were to argue that without the previous experience of an object, the subject cannot superimpose the object on the subject, then such an assumption is flawed. Why one may ask ? Following is the reason,

1. Jiva Goswami is assuming the subject to be something which experiences something and then get a memory of it and then superimposes it.

This is a fundamentally flawed assumption, reason being that the subject talked about in Advaita Vedanta is mere witness or knower which is never the known and cannot be known as an object. So for experience to happen, the subject must have an object in front of it. But this subject is a mere subject how can it experience something and then remember, since that is the function of the mind, mind itself cannot come about without the combination of knower and known. So since there is no possibility for the pure subject or witness to experience and then make it a memory the objection of Jiva Goswami is flawed. Further in Advaita the Pramatru ( one who uses the means of knowledge) cannot come about without the fundamental Adhyasa of I am this and this is mine. Without this Pramatru coming about, there can be no experience, remembrance of that experience and then the memory of it. Hence Jiva Goswami not even knowing the fundamentals of Advaita gets the whole objection itself wrong.

Further he says the following

“kiṁ ca, pūrvaṁ vāri-darśanād vāry-ākārā mano-vṛttir jātāpi tad-aprasaṅga-samaye suptā tiṣṭhati tat-tulya-vastu-darśanena tu jāgarti tad-viśeṣānusandhānaṁ vinā tad-abhedena svatantratām āropayati”-

“Moreover, though a mental impression in the shape of water is created after seeing water, it remains inactive in the absence of an appropriate context and becomes activated [only] on seeing an object that resembles water. Without closely examining the specific characteristics of the resembling object, one then superimposes upon it the independent sense of its non-difference from water [i.e., one mistakes it for water]. “”

Notice here Jiva Goswami talks about mental impression, “mano-vṛttir” , he thinks that the subject here is something which experiences something and gets mental impression, this is how poor Jiva Goswami’s understanding of Advaita is to begin with.

Now Jiva Goswami then sums up as follows

“tasmān na vāri mithyā, na vā smaraṇa-mayī tad-ākārā vṛttir, na vā tat-tulyaṁ marīcikādi vastu, kintu tad-abhedenāropa evāyathārthatvān mithyā

“Therefore, it is not the water that is illusory, nor is the mental modification (vṛtti) having the form of water and composed of memory illusory, nor is the mirage that resembles water illusory.””

He is critiquing the Advaitic position of Mithya, he states that the Mirage is not illusory, does this mean I can go to the Mirage water and wash my hands with soap and get them clean ? Since Mirage water is not illusory as per him. This is how ridiculous the logic of these people becomes. The illusory snake seen on the rope cannot put poison into me, it is experienced but still is not reality. Besides Mithya is that which has no independent existence, just as a wave has no actual existence apart from water, just as a pot has not separate existence apart from clay and merely a mould of clay, similarly this world has no independent existence apart from the Non dual reality. These objections were better so I thought I will take them up.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 7

We will look at how the blogger refutes his own statements

He says the following

“A good analogy must be as similar as possible to what it illustrates. The greater the similarity, the stronger the analogy. But the analogy of the sky and the pot is not similar enough to the situation the Mayavadis try to apply it to: while the sky and Brahman are similar, the sky’s upadhi, the pot, is empirical, while Brahman’s upadhis must be merely apparent”

Now the same blogger says the following

“. In the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna addresses Arjuna as purusha-vyaghra, “tiger among men.” In its primary sense the word “tiger” refers to a ferocious animal with claws and fangs. Arjuna was certainly not such an animal, but since Lord Krishna’s words cannot be meaningless, the need arises for a figurative interpretation of purusha-vyaghra. Here the phrase is a metaphor, in which the Lord is calling Arjuna a tiger only to indicate his courage and prowess as a warrior. The word “tiger” in this phrase applies to these two characteristics that the tiger and Arjuna have in common, not to the primary sense of a tiger’s shape, habits, and so forth.”

It is quite amazing how this blogger is readily refuting what he himself proposes.

May be we need not actually refute anything, the blogger is so kind that he readily refuting himself.

Let us see how he refutes his own points again, following is what he states

“The impersonalists compare this world to a dream to show its illusory nature—to show that it does not really exist. But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion. If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, but in the phenomenal world he risks punishment for such an act. So it is improper to say that the world is just a dream. Sin and piety, which pollute or purify the heart of an actor, are not applicable to acts done in dreams; they give their bitter and sweet fruits only in the phenomenal world. The analogy of a dream, therefore, is not adequate for explaining the appearance of the material world from Brahman. The Vedic scriptures present the dream analogy only to illustrate the temporary nature of this world, with a view toward inspiring a sense of detachment from materialism in those desiring to walk the path of transcendence”

Now let us take his own points, see how he refutes himself in another article

Objection:The impersonalists compare this world to a dream to show its illusory nature—to show that it does not really exist. But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion.

Refutation: Have you ever experienced a Déjà vu? A feeling of having already experienced the present situation? If yes, perhaps that’s a symptom of you living in a dream world. In dreams, incidents often repeat in themselves.

In reality, both — The day time when we feel we are awaken, and the night time, are dream like in nature. None of them is actually the awakened state. Just like in our night dreams, sometimes even an age old dream and it’s storyline gets continued, so do our day time’s dream continue, and we feel we are awakened.

Please note that these are the blogger’s own words we are just using another article of his to refute his own point.

Objection:If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, but in the phenomenal world he risks punishment for such an act. So it is improper to say that the world is just a dream. Sin and piety, which pollute or purify the heart of an actor, are not applicable to acts done in dreams; they give their bitter and sweet fruits only in the phenomenal world.

Refutation: Have you ever experienced multiple layered dreams? As shown in the famous movie of Nolan, the Inception? Well, atleast I did. I remember, I now slept in my bedroom (In a dream, already), and then I’m seeing a dream within a dream. As I wake up from the 2nd layered dream, I get up from my bed, move about here and there, and then I actually wake up. And I’m shocked now, thinking, “Hey, I thought I was awaken, did I just saw dream within a dream? at this point, what’s the guarantee that I’m still not in a dream?

Objection: The analogy of a dream, therefore, is not adequate for explaining the appearance of the material world from Brahman. The Vedic scriptures present the dream analogy only to illustrate the temporary nature of this world, with a view toward inspiring a sense of detachment from materialism in those desiring to walk the path of transcendence”

Refutation: In dreams, we feel a huge time has been gone, but when we wake up, we see it’s been only a moment. Similarly, scriptures describe relativity of time of the material world in relation to the spiritual world quite often. Relativity of time is a famous and now a renowned field in the physics world, which was proven by Sir Albert Einstein.

The guy just refutes himself so well, why do we need to go ahead and write a separate refutation for this ?

Let us see his objections further.

Objection: A daydream may be a pleasant reverie, but no one gains any real benefit by imagining he has been crowned emperor of the world. Instead, as he whiles away the time the daydreamer may lose an opportunity for gaining some practical benefit in the real world. However much he dreams, his apparent reality will never become empirically real.

Refutation: In a dream, we never recognize the starting point. We are thrown in the middle of a random storyline, and we blindly follow the storyline, without reasoning it. Similarly, we do not remember the starting point of our life, do we? Just null. And, we are also blindly following the rat race. Striving for the best in the academics, getting a job, getting married, getting children, undergoing oldage & diseases, and at the end we die.That’s what materialism says.

Note all these are refutations I have used from the Iskcon blogger himself. None of the refutations are mine he refutes himself so well.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 6

More and more Rubbish objections, the Iskcon blogger objects as follows

“The objects one sees in dreams, misperceptions, or hallucinations are intangible. In a dream one may eat a big feast, for example, but upon waking up one will still feel hungry; the feast appears real only while dreaming. Similarly intangible are misperceived or imagined objects, such as a “snake” that is in fact a rope; fear of the snake will persist only as long as the misperception or hallucination continues. This kind of illusory reality (pratibhasika-satta) is inferior to the empirical world and to absolute reality. Nonetheless, the Mayavadis posit that such apparent upadhis can cause Brahman to take on the characteristics of jivas and the ishvara”

If people do not understand what is being told in this let me back track a little on this,
Now Advaita proposes 3 realities
Absolute reality or Paramartha Satta
Transactional reality or Vyavaharika Satta
Pratibhasika Satta or apparent reality.

When one realises the absolute reality, the relationship or knower, known and process of knowing disappears, what we see is one Nondual reality.

The Vyavaharika Satta is where we have all the interactions in the waking world.

The Pratibhasika Satta is where we see dreams, delusions, illusions and so on.

The Advaitins propose that just as Pot space and space outside are one, similarly Jiva and Brahman are one. Unfortunately the objection is taking an analogy literally, which makes the objection ridiculous. This is called objecting or refutation. Which is complete nonsense in fact. Now there is one objection which states that the pot and space example does not fit since pot and space are at the Vyavaharika level, but Brahman here is at Paramarthika level and mind and body which are in the place of pots at Vyavaharika level, so how can there be contact between them ? Real or apparent, for which we have already answered that the relationship is that of the knower and known, through this relationship we have the notion of I am this and this is mine. So there is no question of how Vyavahara and Paramartha came in contact. Since we already have the notion of subject and object. Now here the objection taken is that, since the Upadhis being Vyavaharika does not work, let us take the Pratibhasika, if we can take all of this as mere illusion. I will take Jiva Goswami’s verse directly,

upadher avidyakatve tu tatra tat-paricchinnatvader apy aghaöamanatvad avidyakatvam eveti ghaöakashadishu vastavopadhi-maya-tad-darshanaya na tesham avastava-svapna-drishöantopajivinam siddhantah sidhyati ghaöamanaghaöamanayoh sangateh kartum ashakyatvat. tatash ca tesham tat tat sarvam avidya-vilasitam eveti svarupam apraptena tena tena tad tad vyavasthapayitum ashakyam

Translation: If the Upadhis are not existent and merely apparent, then the theory of pots delimiting space and so on does not stand since the pot is itself not existent and merely apparent. In that Siddhanta the Upadhis cannot be actual, they are Maya or illusory. Hence the Siddhanta has to live on the example of the non actual dream example, based on which they have to establish their Siddhanta. Since it cannot be established on the basis of pot and space example, it has to be said that all of it is non existent, so if all is non existent it would infer that by and by nothing can be established.

I have taken the pain to go ahead and look at Jiva Goswami’s verse itself, the refutation is actually stupid, reason being what is being refuted is an example, if I say some one is a lion among men, I do not literally mean that, that person has a tail, teeth, claws etc like a lion. It refers to the courage, charisma and presentation of the person. Similarly the pot or mirror example is only to tell a certain point, here Jiva Goswami goes to pathetic extents and simply extends the examples then refutes examples. Suppose a poet describes that someone’s voice is like a cuckoo, it does not literally mean that, that person is saying koo koo all the time. This is how ridiculous and pathetic Jiva Goswami’s refutation is to begin with. The same thing has passed down to Iskconites, they do the same thing, they do not know what reason or logic is.

Now the dream example of Vedantins is taken as follows

“The impersonalists compare this world to a dream to show its illusory nature—to show that it does not really exist. “

But these people forget that their Prabhupada says the same

“Srila Prabhupada – “This material creation is the spirit soul’s dream”

He says “But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion”

Therefore Prabhupada is wrong good.

He continues as follows

“If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, “

He will be punished in the dream world not in the waking world, similarly if he commits a crime in the waking world he will be punished in the waking world not the dream world. We will take up more objections in the next part by now people must have understood how pathetic the objections are to begin with.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 5

Now we will take up some more pathetic objections , I will put it in the form of points

.1. But a formless, indivisible object cannot have a relation with any upadhi, real or imaginary, and thus it cannot reflect in any medium.

2.In response to this contention, the Advaita monists cite the analogy of a clear crystal that appears red when placed in front of a red flower.

3.Just as the red color, which is formless and partless, casts its reflection on the crystal, so it is possible for Brahman to be reflected in its upadhis.

4.But this is a faulty argument. The red color in this analogy belongs to the flower, which projects its image through the crystal,

5.although in the crystal we perceive only the flower’s color. The color exists simply as the flower’s attribute and cannot sustain itself independently.

6.A flower, moreover, has shape, parts, and attributes. In sum, neither the color nor the flower compares adequately to Brahman. Therefore, like the analogy of the reflected sky, this analogy has also been applied incongruously by the Mayavadis.

Now unfortunately I have never seen such a pathetic argument to begin with. We have explained in the last part how the relationship between the Paramartha Brahman and Vyavaharika body and mind are established.

So the 1st point is already answered. Now the second point is flawed, Advaitins or even Yogis the follower of the Patanjali school use the crystal and Rose example, but here he makes an error stating that the redness of the rose is formless and this formless redness is represented by Brahman, this is how ridiculous and pathetic the argument of this blogger is to begin with. Here the crystal represents the witness awareness or consciousness, just as the crystal is never touched by the colours of various flowers similarly the witness consciousness or Atman is never touched by the various changes of the mind. The Samkhyas and the Yogis go ahead and accepts multiple Purushas who are also merely witness consciousness, but they are multiple in nature. Advaita does not accept multiple witness consciousnesses. Unfortunately we will check more nonsensical objections in the next part. In short he takes an example which is not used by Advaitins to even begin with and then goes ahead and refutes it, this is called straw man argument.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 4

We are continuing with the response to the Bimba Pratibimba Vada objection, here our blogger states the following

“But Shrila Jiva Gosvami is willing to grant the opposition a respite and hypothetically accept their premise that Brahman can reflect in upadhis; in this case all-pervading Brahman must also exist in the upadhis, in which it supposedly reflects. But if the reflected object, Brahman, is already present in the reflecting medium, the upadhis, how will it reflect there?”

Now to back track on this Bimba Pratibimba Vada is stating that just as the Sun reflected in various mirrors appears as many individual suns with respect to the mirror, similarly the all pervading consciousness which is the Brahman of Advaita is reflected in various minds and this consciousness reflected in the mind is called Jiva. The objection is not valid, since it is merely extending the example. As explained previously it is useless to extend examples and argue. However, I will grant this objection and answer it in 2 ways , one is by actually answering with a counter example, second by backtracking on the explanation a bit.

Now let me answer this by extending this example, hypothetically let us imagine that there is light spread throughout space but there is nothing to reflect that light, now as per physics only when light is reflected it is visible otherwise it is not visible. Now let us say we put a few mirrors in space, those mirrors reflect that light and light is visible to us. Now those mirrors are within light and light is pervading those mirrors, still there is no problem in light being reflected in these mirrors. Also since light is pervading all the space in which the mirrors are, it is obviously within the mirrors also, but still reflected by the mirrors. So even though the light which is the reflected object is present in the reflected medium the mirror, there is no problem in the light being reflected in the medium. Similarly here we can take Brahman as light, the mirrors as the minds and the light reflected in the mind as Jivas, so Brahman pervading the minds need not make it impossible for it to be reflected in the minds. Please note that this answer is merely given by extension of the example is still not an apt answer. There can be a further objection but everything is Brahman, the answer is yes, but we do not take Brahman as literally a light and the mind literally to be a mirror, analogy is merely to explain a point. The second way I answer is that, mind simply is the instrument through which the subject is expressed, in Advaita the same subject is present in all the minds, even if we take the subjects to be different, it cannot be denied that the minds act as medium for the subject for experiencing , misery, joy, excitement and so on, hence this objection does not stand.

Now the objections become even more ridiculous as follows

I will put it into points

1.As a mirror cannot reflect in itself, so Brahman cannot reflect in itself.

Ans: The Bimba Pratibimba Vada as proposed here does not even propose that Brahman over here is reflecting something.

2. Even if somehow it manages to reflect in itself, how will it be possible to distinguish the reflected Brahman from the original Brahman already present in the upadhis?

Ans: We have already stated that the example taken here is wrong, we never stated Brahman reflected anything hence objection is a flawed objection. The objecter might say, mind, Brahman everything is Brahman, so where is the question of Brahman being reflected in Upadhis or minds ? We are also stating it is not the case and none of this duality is the absolute truth, the absolute truth is the Non dual awareness. But this explanation is merely at the Vyavaharika level hence the objection has no weight.

3.The two will be coincident, allowing no basis for distinguishing one from the other.

Ans: They will not be, since this objection is based on mixing Paramartha and Vyavahara.

4.How can the reflected Brahman be singled out to be termed jiva and made to suffer? What was His offense?

Ans: This is a better objection, now the singled out reflected Jiva or Brahman is suffering. The answer given by Shankara or anyone is that there is no suffering even for the awareness in contact with body and mind, reason is that Brahman is witness awareness or consciousness. The witness does not get affected by the states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Then question can be asked who is suffering here, the answer given by Shankara here is that it is to the one who questions. To explain further the apparent conjunction between the witness and the mind and body is asking this question. This conjunction is what is giving this idea of I am this and this is mine. The experiencership and doership, this experiencership and doership is what suffers. This is something very deep and needs to be contemplated upon.

We will take up one more objection

“But a formless, indivisible object cannot have a relation with any upadhi, real or imaginary, and thus it cannot reflect in any medium.”

This is again confusing Parmartha and Vyavahara, in Vyavahara there is possibility for relationship between Brahman ,body and mind. How? since Brahman is the knower, the subject, the body, mind and the world are known or object. So the apparent conjunction between subject and object gives this idea I am this and this is mine. It may be asked how can this be possible, the answer if we are already experiencing I am this and this is mine which is everyone’s experience. Hence when it is everyone’s experience there is no point in objecting how this is possible. We will take up other objections in the next part.

Advaita Vedanta vs Jiva Goswami Part3

Now we will take up the objection of Jiva Goswami on Bimba Pratibimba Vada as quoted by the Iskcon blogger

He states as follows

“, Shrila Jiva states, can cast no reflection in its upadhis, or subtle bodies of material existence, because Brahman is devoid of all attributes. Only an object possessing attributes like form and color can cast a reflection. If an object is invisible, how can it be reflected in anything?

If it is countered that the sky, although invisible, casts a reflection in water, Jiva Gosvami replies that it is in fact the stars and planets in the sky that cast reflections in water, not the sky itself. If the sky could cast a reflection, then the wind would also be able to cast one, because air is a grosser material element than sky. According to modern science, the bluish background seen behind the visible bodies in the firmament is an optical illusion created by the refracted sunlight passing through the atmosphere. No concrete, underlying object is there to cast a reflection, only the invisible firmament. Hence the analogy comparing Brahman to the sky being reflected in water is inappropriate here.”

From this quote he makes the following points,

1. Only an object possessing form and attribute can cast a reflection in the mirror, since Brahman is without attributes it cannot be reflected in the mirror.
2. In a mirror the sky is not reflected the bluish background which we see is an optical illusion.
3. Advaitins state Brahman who is like the sky is reflected in a mirror.

Now let us relook at this objection, you will notice a certain amount of ridiculousness in this objection.

1st of all the assumption that Advaitins state that Brahman who is skylike is reflected in a mirror is false. No Advaitin says this. Now all of these objections are on this false assumption. So in short these objections are ridiculous. The analogy taken here is different which this blogger himself says as follows

“it appears to be many, just as the one sun reflected in various receptacles of water appears to be many. In this analogy, the sun remains uninfluenced by the agitation of the water in which it is reflected, even while the reflection is influenced. Similarly, Brahman is never influenced by the changes that its reflections, the jivas, undergo.”

So the analogy is actually sun reflected in droplets of water, here he has shifted the analogy to sky or space reflected in the mirror. So he is refuting the wrong analogy to begin with and he plans to call this a refutation ? Further to explain this blunder committed by him we must understand clearly that an analogy is only given to tell a certain point. Suppose I say to someone your face is moon like I do not mean that I that person’s face white and round like the moon with craters. An analogy is only to tell a certain point, it is not meant to be extended. This is very much against reasonable thinking. I thought that I will explain the relationship between subject and object in this part, but these objections are so pathetic that we do not need to even go there.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part-2

We are taking up the remaining objections raised by the Iskcon blogger on the Pariccheda Vada of Advaita, however I would like to point out that I am unsure of where in the Advaitic texts it is called Pariccheda Vada, but we will take up the same name that this opponent of Advaita decides to take.

Now he misrepresents the position of Advaita as seen below

“Brahman being neither pierceable nor divisible, it cannot be broken or delimited into jivas the way one might break a large stone into pebbles.”

Advaitins never claimed that Brahman was divided into Jivas this is a clear misrepresentation of the Advaita doctrine. So there is no refutation, the refutation is itself invalid.

He further objects as follows

“If we hypothetically grant that the upadhis can divide Brahman into jivas, then in that case neither the jivas nor Brahman itself should be called eternal. But the Bhagavad-gita, which the Mayavadis accept as authoritative, describes both the jiva and Brahman as eternal. In Chapter Thirteen, text 20, Lord Krishna says that the jiva is anadi, beginningless. The same is stated in texts 20–24 of the Second Chapter.”

Now nothing can divide Brahman this has already been made clear in the previous post, now let us treat this objection in a different way, we look at empty pots in space, let us take the pot spaces as Jivas and the space outside as Brahman. Now if the pot is broken, there is no Jiva, hence Jiva is not eternal since Jivahood only comes in association with body, mind and vital energies. Now the space outside the pots does not become non-eternal once the pots are broken. Similarly with destruction of the subtle body Brahman is unaffected and it does not make Brahman non-eternal. So the objection by this blogger that Brahman will not be eternal does not stand. Now his other claim that Jiva is not eternal is against Bhagavat Gita does not stand, reason is that the same Bhagavat Gita states that Jiva is Brahman, following is the verse

मूल श्लोकः

उपद्रष्टाऽनुमन्ता च भर्ता भोक्ता महेश्वरः।

परमात्मेति चाप्युक्तो देहेऽस्मिन्पुरुषः परः।।13.23।।

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

13.23 He who is the Witness, the Permitter, the Sustainer, the Experiencer, the great Lord, and who is also spoken of as the transcendental Self is the supreme Person in this body.

Hence the one within the body who experiences is the Supreme Lord or Brahman.

We see the same in Bhagavat Gita as follows

मूल श्लोकः

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च।

नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः।।2.24।।

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

2.24 It cannot be cut, It cannot be burnt, cannot be moistened, and surely cannot be dried up. It is eternal, omnipresent, stationary, unmoving and changeless.

Here one talks about Atman which is omnipresent. Hence even if the Jiva is taken as incidental, it does not really go against Bhagavat Gita. Lastly I would like to quote from the Shruti as well

नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा, नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोता, नान्योऽतोऽस्ति मन्ता, नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञात, एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः,

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.23

Translation:There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Hence Jiva being merely incidental is neither against Shruti nor against Bhagavat Gita.

Now we will take up one more objection related to this. The blogger quotes the commentary of Shankara on Bhagavat Gita 13.13 as follows

अतीन्द्रियत्वेन उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययाविषयत्वात्। यद्धि इन्द्रियगम्यं वस्तु घटादिकम्? तत् अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्? नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्। इदं तु ज्ञेयम् अतीन्द्रियत्वेन शब्दैकप्रमाणगम्यत्वात् न घटादिवत् उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयम् इत्यतः न सत्तन्नासत् इति उच्यते।।

यत्तु उक्तम् — विरुद्धमुच्यते? ज्ञेयं तत् न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति — न विरुद्धम्? अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि (के0 उ0 1।3) इति श्रुतेः

Translation:

Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being super-sensuous, It is not an object of cognition involving either, of the two ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as pot etc., can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of existence, or it can be an object of cognition involving the idea of non-existence. But this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from the scriptures, which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not, like pot etc., an object of cognition involving either of the two ideas. Therefore It is called neither being nor non-being. As for your objection that it is contradictory to say, ‘It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor non-being,’-it is not contradictory; for the Upanisad says, ‘That (Brahman) is surely different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown’ (Ke. 1.4).

Now based on this he says

“So according to the Mayavadis’ own version, Brahman is beyond sense perception, beyond empirical existence and nonexistence. Such being the case, if the upadhis of Brahman are empirically real they can never limit the undivided and indivisible Brahman and produce the jivas”

So his whole idea is that if Brahman is beyond sense perception it cannot have any relationship with bodies or minds in the Vyavaharika level. Although we do not say that the bodies and minds limit Brahman he still misrepresents it. So I have changed his objection to contact of Brahman with the body and mind, as body and mind are Vyavaharika. This objection does not hold water, since Brahman is the knower hence subject, the mind, body and world are known hence object. So there is a relationship between the subject and object, due to which we say I am this and this is mine. One cannot object and ask how this is possible, since this is common experience which cannot be denied by anyone.  We will look further into this relationship between subject and object in the next post.

Advaita Vedanta vs Jiva Goswami-Part1

In this article I will take up the objection on Pariccheda Vada of Advaita by an Iskcon blogger who shows the objection by Jiva Goswami, the objections are quite underwhelming but we will still look at them. If time permits I will look at his other derisory objections on Advaita and answer them.

We will take up the objections by Iskcon

They describe in their blog on Paramarthika, Vyavaharika and Pratibhasika as follows

“In Advaita monism, existence (satta) is understood on three different levels—pratibhasika (merely apparent reality), vyavaharika (ordinary, empirical reality), and paramarthika (absolute reality). Pratibhasika existence is perceived in such states as dreams and illusions but ceases when normal consciousness returns”

Then Vyavaharika as follows

“According to the Mayavadis, empirical reality, vyavaharika-satta, refers to our perception of the material world in ordinary waking consciousness”

Paramarthika as follows

“The Mayavadis claim that the paramathika-satta, or absolute reality, is impersonal Brahman, which, unlike the other two realities, cannot be negated by experience and scriptural authority. Just as dreams cease when one wakes, the material world will cease to exist when one becomes Brahman realized. “

Small correction, one does not become one with Brahman one realises that one is already Brahman.

Now they object as follows

“If the upadhis are empirically real, Brahman still cannot be limited by them because pure Brahman is unconditioned by anything else, empirical or otherwise”

Here he means if Upadhis are real from the Vyavaharika view point, then also they cannot limit Brahman.

Now he previously stated the Advaitic position as follows on this.

“According to the pariccheda-vada, the one indivisible Brahman appears divided into many embodied jivas because of various upadhis, just as the one great sky (mahakasha) appears divided by being contained in various pots (ghatakasha).

This theory proposes that no real difference exists between the sky inside a pot and the sky outside. The distinction is assumed only for practical purposes. Once the pot is broken and the apparent distinction removed, the sky inside the pot and the great sky are understood to be one.”

Now he words it as according to Pariccheda Vada the indivisible Brahman appears divided into various Jivas.

Now when he clearly states that Jivas appear divided, so when the Advaitic position is that they only appear divided but are not really dividing anything then why does this blogger state that they cannot divide Brahman. When did Advaitins state that Brahman is divided by Upadhis ? So he takes the position correctly but while refuting the Advaitic position he misrepresents it why ? If he is going through so much pain to refute the Advaitic position he ought to take the correct position and do so right ? So the refutation is invalid, as it fails to take up the Advaitic position as it is.

He further misrepresents the Advaitic position as follows

“Thus when Brahman is limited by subtle bodies it becomes the jivas. But when it is limited by vidya it is called the ishvara. “

We never stated that Brahman is limited by subtle bodies, nor did we state that Brahman becomes Jivas, what these people fail to understand is that Brahman is the unchanging reality, if Brahman is unchanging reality then where is the question of it becoming something ? So this seems to be a misrepresentation of Advaita Vedanta. Now the example taken by him is accurate that just as there is pot space and space outside the pot, and the pot space and space outside are always one but appear divided due to the pot, same case with the subtle bodies.
Now this person is claiming that the pot actually limits space. This is his level of understanding, people with this level of understanding will challenge Advaita Vedanta ?
So his 1st objection is a dud, now let us take another objection of this brainless fellow

Now his second objection is as follows

“On the other hand, if Brahman does not move with the jivas, we must assume that when a jiva is moving from place to place his upadhi constantly delimits new portions of Brahman, simultaneously releasing the previously delimited portions. This reduces Brahman, the absolute reality, to a toy in the hands of its upadhis, a proposal that is also absurd.”

Now this is the most underwhelming objection, I will show my readers how much more underwhelming the other objections are.

Now let me show with an example, suppose we are moving an empty pot in space, does the pot limit new portions of space and delimit it other parts ? If this person answers as yes then his ability to understand things is very much impoverished. This is as childish as saying I have grabbed the space in my hand and pounded it into pieces. So just as pot moving in space does not delimit or limit space, similarly the subtle bodies will not limit or delimit Brahman, and there is no question of Brahman becoming a toy in the hands of Upadhis or subtle bodies by that logic the space around us is our toy, this is how unsubstantial this objection is to begin with.

Now let us take one more deplorable objection

“If it is instead proposed that all of Brahman is grasped by its upadhis, the problem of movement can be solved, but then there remains no Brahman free from upadhis”

Let me answer this with the same space and pot example, can the empty pots ever grasp all of space ? No, do the pots actually go ahead a limit space so there is a bound space and liberated space ? Here also the answer is no. So when this cannot happen on space ? Then where is the question of this happening to Brahman ? Another injudicious objection.

Let us look at one more fatuos objection

“If it is countered that Brahman is not the basis for its upadhis and thus they can move independently of Brahman, this means that even at the liberated level these independent upadhis will continue to exist”

Now let us take the example of space and pot, let us take for granted that space is not the basis of pot for argument sake, even if the pot spaces exist does it bind space ? Now can the pots move independently of space ? Finally can the pots exist without space ? If they cannot exist without space then obviously space is their basis. Hence just as the presence and absence of pots does not affect space how will these subtle bodies affect Brahman ? Iskconites have decided not to apply their intelligence, they just write something without thinking like how a Xerox machine merely copies something and prints it on paper,similar case over here.

There is one more objection on Pariccheda Vada which he has objected based on the Bhagavad Gita, I will answer this based on Bhagavad Gita alone. As it needs to be answered separately.

Untenability of sex slavery in Hinduism

I have decided to answer some fake claims agains Hinduism hence I have taken this objections and answered them.

Claim1: In Ramayana 6.125.43-44 Bharata donated 16 virgin girls gift as wives to Hanuman after he returrned from Lanka

Response: This an absolutely nonsensical claim for sex slavery, reason being that Bharata is promising Hanuman Virgins from high families for marriage. Let us look at the verses once.

देवो वा मानुषो वा त्वमनुक्रोशादिहागतः || ६-१२५-४३

प्रियाख्यानस्य ते सौम्य ददामि ब्रुवतः प्रियम् |

गवां शतसहस्रं च ग्रामाणां च शतं परम् || ६-१२५-४४

सकुण्डलाः शुभाचारा भार्याः कन्याश्च षोडश |

हेमवर्णाः सुनासोरूः शशिसौम्याननाः स्त्रियः || ६-१२५-४५

सर्वाभरणसम्पन्ना सम्पन्नाः कुलजातिभिः |

43-45. saumya = O the gentle one!; tvam = are you; devovaa = a divine being maanuShovaa = or a human being; aagataH = who have come; iha = here; anukroshaat = out of compassion?; te priyaakhyaanasya = to you; who have given this agreeable news to me; dadaami = I shall give (in return); priyam bruvataH = for the pleasant tidings; shatasahasram cha = a hundred thousand; gavaam = cows; shatam = a hundred; param graamaaNaam = best villages; bhaaryaaH = and for wives; shooDasha = sixteen; hemavarNaaH = golden complexioned; kanyaaH = virgin girls; shubhaachaaraaH = of a good conduct; sakuN^DalaaH = decked with ear-rings; sunaa soruuH = having beautiful noses and thighs; sarvaabharaNa sampannaaH = adorned with all kinds of jewels; shashi saumyaananaaH = with charming countenances as delightful as the moon; kulajaatibhiH = and born in a noble family.

“O the gentle one! Are you a divine being or a human being, who have come here out of compassion? To you, who have given this agreeable news to me, I shall give in return, for the pleasant tidings, a hundred thousand cows, a hundred best villages, and for wives, sixteen golden complexioned virgin girls of a good conduct, decked with ear-rings, having beautiful noses and thighs, adorned with all kinds of jewels, with charming countenances as delightful as the moon and born in a noble family.”

If the Virgin girls are of good family then how can these be slaves ?

Claim 2:Manusmriti 7.96 ” Women and other goods belongs to him who wins them in war” hence women are taken as sex slaves.

Response: The Manusmriti verse 7.96 is as follows

रथाश्वं हस्तिनं छत्रं धनं धान्यं पशून् स्त्रियः ।

सर्वद्रव्याणि कुप्यं च यो यज् जयति तस्य तत् ॥ ९६ ॥

rathāśvaṃ hastinaṃ chatraṃ dhanaṃ dhānyaṃ paśūn striyaḥ |

sarvadravyāṇi kupyaṃ ca yo yaj jayati tasya tat || 96 ||

Chariots and horses, elephants, umbrellas, wealth, grains, animals, women, all goods and baser metals belong to him who wins them.—(96)

 Actually this section is dealing with how the King should be in battle how the soldiers should be and also what are ethics that should be adopted by the King while fighting. Now why are women taken along with the goods. Since it ia the duty of the King to take care of these women, obviously it is not married women who are being talked about, it is about young virgin women who are being talked about here in this battle. Now why is the King taking them. We get the answer in Narada Smriti

Narada Smriti 12:22

यदा तू नैव कश्चित् स्यात् कन्या राजनमाश्रयेत् ।

अनुज्ञया तस्य वरं प्रतीत्य वरयेत् स्वयम् ।।

Translation: If a virgin woman is without any kith or kin, she ought to be in the care of the King with the permission of the King she may go ahead and search for a suitable bridegroom.

This clearly indicates that the King is the protector of such women and he must have them in his care. This is how the versw from Manusmruti ought to be understood.

Also forcible marriage is prohibited by the Dharma Shastra itself. We will look at this later.

Claim 3: Rigveda 6/27/8 mentions Abhyavarti, son of Chayaman, presenting a gift of slave girls stuffed in two big wagons to Rishi Bhardavaj. This shows sex slavery in Hinduism.

Response: This verse does not even have anything to do with slave girls being gifted. Following is the verse

द्व॒याँ अ॑ग्ने र॒थिनो॑ विंश॒तिं गा व॒धूम॑न्तो म॒घवा॒ मह्यं॑ स॒म्राट्। अ॒भ्या॒व॒र्ती चा॑यमा॒नो द॑दाति दू॒णाशे॒यं दक्षि॑णा पार्थ॒वाना॑म् ॥८॥

Translation by Dr Tulsi Ram

Agni, refulgent ruler, commanding wealth, power, honour and excellence, dynamic leader ever on the move for progress and victory, revered and celebrated all round, gives me both chariot warriors for defence of the nation and happy families and a team of twenty creative ministers to bear the burdens of the nation, which gift from any of global rulers is invulnerable indeed.

Besides what we have here is वधूमन्तः and रथिनः , here रथिनः indicates charioteers, and वधूमन्तः indicates the quality of the charioteers. Even if वधू be taken as brides, they will be the brides of the charioteers. Hence obviously this Mantra has nothing that our opponent wants to prove.

Claim 4:In Ramayana 2.32.15 Ram donated many slave girls to Brahmins. Hence proving sex slavery

Response: This is one more nonsense, following is that we see in the Ramayana,

कौसल्याम् च याअशीर्भिर् भक्तः पर्युपतिष्ठति |

आचार्यः तैत्तिरीयाणाम् अभिरूपः च वेदवित् || २-३२-१५

तस्य यानम् च दासीः च सौमित्रे सम्प्रदापय |

कौशेयानि च वस्त्राणि यावत् तुष्यति स द्विजः || २-३२-१६

15;16. saumitre = Oh; lakshmana! yaH = which brahmana; taithiriiyaNaam = studying Taittiriya ( a schoolf yajurveda); aachaaryaH = a preceptor; abhiruupashcha = a man of conformity; vedavit = a knower of Vedas; paryupatishhTati = seving; kausalyaam = Kausalya; bhaktaH = with his blessing; tasya = to him; sampradaapaya = in duly gifted; yaanamcha = conveyance; daasiishcha = servant-maids; kaushayaani vastraaNicha = silken clothes; yaavat = till; saH dvijaH = that brahmana; tushhyati = gets satisfied.

“Oh, Lakshmana! Which brahman is studying Taittiriya(a school of yajurveda), a preceptor, a man of conformity; a knower of Vedas, serving Kausalya with his devotion and blessing, to him see that he is duly gifted conveyance, servant maids and silken clothing till he gets satisfied.”

Here Dasi stands for servant maids and not slave girls hence another misinterpretation of our opponent has been proven.

Claim 5: Narada Smriti 12.78 Intercourse is permitted with a wanton woman, who belongs to another than the Brahman caste, or a prostitute, or a female slave, or a female not restrained by her master (nishakasini), if these women belong to a lower caste than oneself; but with a woman of superior caste, intercourse is prohibited”

Response: Now 1st of all this shows the height of misinterpretation by our opponent,if one looks at the Narada Smriti from the verses 12:62 to 12:78 we get the context in which this is being told. It talks about unmarried couples being physically intimate with each other, it seema there is an instruction to the jury as to who is guilty and who is not. Now the Narada Smriti 12:73 to 12:75. Warns about not trying to be physically intimate with one’s father’s wife or keep, or mother’s sister, mother-in-law, maternal uncle’s wife, father’s sister, one’s daughter, daughter-in-law and so on. About 20 prohibitions are provided here, if a person is found to be doing this, it is recommended to dissect that person’s phallus.  Now with respect to this context is what is being told here

Narada Smriti 12:78

स्वैरिण्यब्राह्मणी वेश्या दासी निष्कासिनी च या ।

गम्याः स्युरानुलोम्येन स्त्रियों न प्रतिलोमतः ।।

Translation: One may be intimate with a स्वैरिणी who is not from the Brahmin fold, a prostitute, a servant maid, a woman abandoned due to bad character. One must go as per Anuloma or as per the Jati Varna system same Varna to lower Varna but never to higher Varna.

स्वैरिणी is basically a woman of bad character, what women fall under this category is already discussed earlier in this chapter of Narada Smriti.

This is basically a loop hole in the law, if person is found being intimate with a women to whom he is not married, these loop holes he can use to escape the punishment by the state. Not that he maintains them as sex slaves. In fact this verse mentions prostitutes, if this verse is about sex slavery why will prostitutes be mentioned ? Our opponent uses this type of objection.

Claim 6: Agni Purana 211.37-43 ”…By making the gift of a female slave to one of the foremost of the Brahmanas, a man becomes an inmate of the region of the Apasaras (nymphs)…” Tr. Manmath Nath Dutt

Response: Now our opponent thought we will not recheck his reference. Here also we do not find what he wants to prove.

Following is what we find

39-40. One who gives a maid servant to an excellent brah min would reach the world of nymphs. Having given a copper plate weighing five hundred palas (a measure of weight) or half the weight or a quarter of that weight or one-eighth of the weight would get enjoyment and emancipation. By giving a cart together with a bull one would go to heaven by means of a cart.

The original verse is as follows here

दासीं दत्त्वा द्विजेन्द्राय अप्सरोलोकमाप्नुयात् ।२११.०३९

दत्त्वा ताम्रमयीं स्थालीं पलानां पञ्चभिः शतैः ॥२११.०३९

अर्धैस्तदर्धैरर्धैर्वा भुक्तिमुक्तिमवाप्नुयात्(१) ।२११.०४०

शकटं वृषसंयुक्तं दत्त्वा यानेन नाकभाक् ॥२११.०४०

I fail to see how Dasi is slave girl, even if we take for granted that it is, it still does not prove sex slavery in anyway.

Claim 7:Hinduism also levies custom duties on importing female slaves,

Following is the proof

Agni Purana 223.23-29 ”…Duties payable on importing female slaves into the country should be determined with a due regard to the country imported from and the time of the import. The duties payable on animals and gold shall be a fifth and sixth part of the original value, while a sixth part of their value should be paid as the kings dues on importing articles of perfumery, cereals, flowers, roots…”

Response:This is simply unbelievable, now our opponent is creating his own verses following is what we actually find here

23-29. The property that has been stolen by the inmates of the house need not be restored by the king. O Brahmin ! the king should take one twentieth of the value from the mer chandise belonging to his country. The fees to be levied on goods from foreign countries should be determined after knowing the cost, the wear and tear and the profit got by the trader. (In this case) one twentieth of the profit should be taken. If not (paid) (the importer) should be punished. Freight should not be collected from women and mendicants. The ferryman should be made to repay by the king that which has been lost in transit on account of the fault of the ferryman. The king should take one sixth in the case of the grain fuka (barley) and one eighth in the case of the grain fimbi (a kind of kidney bean) as toll befitting the region and season. The king should take four and five parts respectively in the case of animals and gold. Only a sixth part should be collected in the case of perfumes, herbs,

No female slaves here sorry I think it is unnecessary to put any verses in Sanskrit over here.

Claim 8:Krishna also gave many females slaves,

Following is the proof

Mahabharata 4.72 ”…And Krishna gave unto each of the illustrious sons of Pandu numerous female slaves, and gems and robes…”

Response: The actual verse is as follows

Mahabharata 4.72.26 (4.78.27 in other version)

पारिबर्हं ददौ कृष्णः पण्डवानां महात्मनाम्।

स्त्रियों वासांसि रत्नानि पृथक्पृथगनेकशः।।

Literal translation is as follows : Krishna gave the illustrious Pandavas various gifts such as women, robes, gems and many many more gifts.

Even if we take स्त्रियः to mean women it proves nothing. It is open to interpretation, or let us take the opponents words as female slaves also, this still does not prove sex slavery.

Claim 9:Krishna’s father Vasudeva also a over a thousand concubines,

Following is the proof

Mahabharata 14.7 ”The Brahmanas and Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and wealthy Sudras, set out, keeping before them the 16,000 women that had formed Vasudeva’s harem, and Vajra, the grandson of the intelligent Krishna.”

Response: Unfortunately I cannot wonder at the appalling ignorance of our opponent, 1st of all the reference he gave is wrong, it is not in 14.7 but Mahabharata 16.7 . This is the Mausala Parva, this is post the death of Krishna, here Arjuna is escorting Krishna’s 16,000 wives out of Dwaraka. We know Krishna freed the 16,000 princesses from Narakasura and they decided to marry him. So even over here there is no proof of sex slavery.

Claim 10: Hindu god Rama’s father named Dasharath also had many conubines. According to Ramayana 2.34.23 he had 350 concubines.

Response: Let us look at the Ramayana directly

लक्ष्मणम् च अनुजानीहि सीता च अन्वेति माम् वनम् |

कारणैः बहुभिस् तथ्यैः वार्यमाणौ न च इच्चतः || २-३४-२३

23. anujaaniihi = permit; lakshhmaNamcha = Lakshmana also; siitaacha = Seetha too; anveti = is accompanying; maam = me; vanam = to the forest; vaaryamaaNau = even if prevented; bahubhiH = by many; tathyaiH = true; kaaranaiH = reasons; nachaichchhataH = these two are not agreeing.

“Permit Lakshmana also and Seetha too who is accompanying me to the forest. Even if prevented(by me0 on many true reasons, these two are not agreeing to stay behind”

It seems like our opponent has run out of references. Dasharartha had wives not concubines.

Claim 11: Following verse from Matsya Purana proves sex slavery in Hinduism

Matsya Purana 70.44-45 ”That Brahmana should be well fed and be devoutly looked upon as cupid, for the sake of sexual enjoyment. Each and every desire of that Brahmana should be satisfied by the woman devote. She should, with all heart and soul and with a smile on her face, yield herself up to him.”

Response: The context needs to be looked at as follows

एवं सम्पूज्य देवेशमनङ्गात्मकमीश्वरम्। गन्धैर्माल्यैस्तथा धूपैर्नैवेद्येन च कामिनी ॥ ४१ ॥

तण्डुलप्रस्थदानं च यावन्मासास्त्रयोद‍ ततस्त्रयोदशे मासि सम्प्राप्ते तस्य भा विप्रस्योपस्करैर्युक्तां शय्यां दद्याद्विलक्ष सोपधानक विश्रामां सास्तरावरणां शुभ प्रदीपोपानहच्छत्रपादुकासनसंयुताम्।।

This rite should be obse Sunday; and the devotee shoul above mentioned quantity of u a period of thirteen months; which, the same Brāhmaṇa sh full bedding, with all its requisi good sheets, dipa ( lamp ), a umbrella, sandals, a small piec sit upon.

The women folk should then worship the Lord, whose body is Cupid himself, by offering Him incense, flowers, sandal and eatables.

तत आहूय धर्मज्ञं ब्राह्मणं वेदपारगम्। अव्यङ्गावयवं पूज्यं गन्धपुष्पार्चनादिभिः ॥ ४२ ॥

सपत्नीकमलंकृत्य हेमसूत्राड्गुलीयकै सूक्ष्मवस्त्रैः सकटकैर्धूपमाल्यानुलेपनैः

Afterwards, the Brahmana, well versed in the Vedanta, who must be virtuous and free from bodily deformity, should be honoured with the offerings of incense, flowers, sandal.

शालेयतण्डुलप्रस्थं घृतपात्रेण संयुतम् । तस्मै विप्राय सा दद्यान्माधवः प्रीयतामिति ॥ ४३ ॥

Next, that Brāhmana, with be honoured with gold threads, cloth, bangles and with incer flowers and sandal paste.

कामदेवं सपत्नीकं गुडकुम्भोपरि स्थि ताम्रपात्रासनगतं हैमनेत्रपटावृतम् ॥ ५० सकांस्यभाजनोपेतमिक्षुदण्डसमन्वितम् दद्यादेतेन मन्त्रेण तथैकां गां पयस्विनी

And a quantity (of the measure Prastha) of uncooked rice, along with a pot, full of clarified butter, should be given away to the same Brāhmana, after saying, Lord Madhava, be pleased.”

यथेष्टाहारयुक्तं वै तमेव द्विजसत्तमम् ।

रत्यर्थं कामदेवोऽयमिति चित्तेऽवधार्य तम् ॥ ४४ ॥

That Brāhmaṇa should be well fed and be devoutly looked upon as Cupid, for the sake of sexual enjoyment.

यद्यदिच्छति विप्रेन्द्रस्तत्तत्कुर्याद्विलासिनी ।

सर्वभावेन चात्मानमर्पयेत्स्मितभाषिणी ॥ ४५ ॥

The images of Cupid and F plate of copper, placed on a molasses, their eyes being of being well dressed, should be g with a fine milch cow, a vessel a piece of sugarcane, by reciti the following signification.

So this is merely a sort of Vrat where one is giving a meal to the Brahmana for successful intercourse with the partner of their choice.

Claim 12: The following quote from Matsya Purana proves sexual slavery in Hinduism

Matsya Purana 70.56-59 ”Henceforth, any Brahmana coming to them for the sake of sexual enjoyment on a Sunday, should be respected and honoured. If with the consent of that Brahmana, another handsome person come to them, these women should, with love and affection and to the best of their ability, perform all the fiftyeight kinds of observances of Love, favourite of man and gods, which would lead to pregnancy and which is not harmful to their soul’s welfare. ”

Response: The Purana concludes in this chapter that this is for women who are in Prostitution, following is the verse

एतद्धि कथितं सम्यग् भवतीनां विशेषतः । अधर्मोऽयं ततो न स्याद्वेश्यानामिह सर्वदा ॥ ६० ॥

I have described to you this vrata in detail, which, when always performed, never leads the prostitutes to sin.