[Advaita-l] Nyaya Sudha Objections 1

[Venkatraghavan S]

First sentence should read: "unless mukhyArtha is known, *lakshyArtha*
cannot be known". Sorry for typo.
On 9 Feb 2016 6:05 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here the objection is that unless mukhyArtha is known, vAcyartha cannot be
> known.
>
> That is why we have jahat-ajahat lakshaNa. MukhyArtha of nirguNa brahman
> is not possible (there being no guNa, jAti, sambandhA, kriyA mediums in
> nirguNa Brahman for the mukhya vritti to connote the brahma pada with the
> brahma padArtha). Therefore let us take brahma pada to connote saguNa
> Brahman instead. Ishvara mukhyArtha can be known - even the dvaitin will
> accept that.
>
> Then by jahat ajahat lakshaNa, the guNas of saguNa Brahman can be dropped
> to arrive at the lakshyArtha, nirguNa Brahman. So it is possible to have
> lakshyArtha of nirguNa Brahman as long as the vAcyArtha of saguNa Brahman
> is known.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 9 Feb 2016 2:42 a.m., "Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>