[Advaita-l] Nyaya Sudha Objections 1

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

But here the Mukhyartha of 'I' cannot be Brahman. If 'I' has
Mukhyartha as Brahman every man, woman and child already has knowledge
of Brahman. No need to study Sastra to know Brahman. Why study?

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Durga Prasad Janaswamy via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh