[Advaita-l] Nyaya Sudha Objections 1

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

2016-02-08 5:09 GMT-05:00 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> >  Namaste
> >
> > DR. B.N.K. Sharma has written a condensed translation of Nyaya Sudha
> > in English.
> >
> > We can discuss the objections of the Teeka Raayaru Jayatirtha and see
> > if his objections against Advaita are legitimate. Is he correctly
> > understanding Advaitis or simply finding faults?
> >
> > Dvaitis think if a person has studied Nyaya Sudha he is a Dvaita
> > Pandita. This is the best book from the Dvaitis side.
> >
> > First Adhyaya of Brahma Sutras is Samanvaya. Samanvaya is all
> > Upanishads are logically connected and describing Brahman only. Not
> > some other thing.
> >
> > Here there is one objection.
> >
> > Advaitis say Brahman cannot be expressed in words. If Brahman is
> > Avacya means cannot be expressed in words how can you talk about
> > Samanvaya of Srutis. You yourself said even Sruti cannot express
> > Brahman.
>
>
> Advaitins do not say that the Shrutis or words do not at all express
> Brahman.  They admit that Brahman is taught by the means of lakṣaṇā vṛtti
> by the Shruti/words. There is no rule that a word should convey an object
> only through vāchya; it can be lakṣaṇayā too. This is acceptable to all
> shāstras. If this is not admitted no vyvahara can take place.
>
>
To represent pUrvapaxa correctly -- dvaitins are not saying you cannot
use lakshyArtha at all. What they are saying is that unless a vasthu( or
viShaya of vAk) has known through its mukhyArtha, the same vastu cannot be
subject of lakshyArtha at all.

In the sentence ‘gangayAm gOShaH’ (village is in Ganga), the term ‘ganga’
must be understood as in secondary meaning (lakshyArtha) as the village is
on the “bank” of ganga. Here the term “ganaga” indirectly indicating the
bank of the river ganaga.

Whereas in the sentence ‘gangyAm mInaH’ (fish in ganga), the same term
‘ganga’ must be understood in primary meaning (mukhyArtha) of the “the
river Ganga”. Why? Because fishes are admitted to be in the river and not
on the bank.

Advaita says there is no words who’s primary meaning denotes Brahman. ALL
words only in their secondary meaning indicate Brahman (i.e.
indirectly/lakshANavritti denote Brahman).

Madhva reject that position and argues that unless at least a single word
denotes an object (of knowledge) in its primary meaning, that same object
cannot be target for secondary meaning of other words. In the above example
– unless the object “river bank” is denoted by word “bank” in its primary
meaning, it cannot be target of indirect/secondary meaning of the word
“ganga” in “gangayAm gOShaH”. Similarly, unless object of our knowledge
brahman, in Advaitic assertion “brahman is avAchya” etc, cannot be known at
all if all words denote in secondary meaning only.

/SV