[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Anand Hudli]

The advaita siddhi deals with the topic of "brahmaNaH
shabda-avAcyatvopapattiH", wherein MadhusUdana sarasvatI makes the point
that "evaM nirvisheShapadamapi akhaNDapada-lakShakatAyAmeva
mukhyArtha-avashyaMbhAvaniyamAt".

It is only when akhaNDa words, such as ganga for example, imply something
else, the river bank for example, that we have the necessity of a primary
sense for the implied word. To see what is an "akhaNDa" word, we can use
CitsukhAcArya's definition: saMsargAsa~ngisamyagdhIhetutA yA girAmiyam
uktAkhaNDArthatA, the capacity  of the words to produce a valid cognition
not involving a relation is said to be the property of impartite sense (of
the words). Take the stock example, "gangAyAM ghoShaH", where "gangA" is an
akhaNDa word, since there is no relation involved in the concept of
"ganga". The implied meaning (lakShyArtha) of "gangA" is "tIra", the river
bank. And this word "tIra" must have a primary meaning which is the bank of
the river gangA. The meaning of  "gangAyAM ghoShaH" is the village on the
banks of the river gangA.

Next consider the example, "agangAyAM ghoShaH", where the word "agangA"
means "not gangA". Now, this word involves an absence of being gangA as the
concept that is generated by the word. Due to the relational aspect of the
concept, the word is not "akhaNDa" anymore but "sakhaNDa". In this case,
the above rule will not apply. The implied meaning of "agangA" could be
anything which is related to something not gangA. This could mean virtually
any place, not a particular place. It is not possible to asssign a primary
meaning of such a place in general. It should also be clarified that
MadhusUdana does not say that the rule will always be broken when
"sakhaNDa" words are involved. All he says is the rule is not necessary in
such cases.

In the case of the word "nirvisheSha", the implied meaning (lakShyArtha) is
Brahman. However, by the argument above, Brahman is not required to have a
primary meaning (mukhyArtha).

Anand