[Advaita-l] Nyaya Sudha Objections 1

[Durga Prasad Janaswamy]

Hari Om,
Namaste.

Sorry, my earlier email has typos.  I am correcting it now.

आत्मा is अकाट्य प्रमाण for ब्रह्म

aatmaa is akATya pramANa for Brahma.

Regards


On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Durga Prasad Janaswamy <janaswami at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hari Om
> Namaste.
>
> aatmaa is akaTya pramaNa for Brahma.
>
> Everyone knows that  I exist.  No one experiences the absence of self.
>
> regards
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Aurobind Padiyath via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste
>> " 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." That may be valid
>> only in the case of an object other than the subject. For indicating the
>> subject which is subject of all things that is not valid.
>>
>>
>> Aurobind Padiyath
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:22 Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >
>> --
>>
>> Aurobind Padiyath
>> +91-9689755499
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>