[Advaita-l] Nyaya Sudha Objections 2

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Hari Om! Venkateshji,


1. The question "if there is no Bondage and no Moksha
what is there to do Inquiry into Brahman?" is absolutely correct. But it
depends what the Jeeva is feeling himself to be. Nitya Sudhah Mukthah or
does he identify himself as the embodied individual. If he is "knowing"
that he is the first one then the question you asked is well founded. Even
the Srushti admits that Veda becomes Avedah, in that"knowing".
In Mandukya there is a term called अभूत अभिनिवेशम् . The Jeeva when he
thinks he is the embodied self he is in that. An illusion of bondage. That
which he himself has entangled but forgot about it. Like a person leaning
on to a vibrating pillar asking why am I shaking? Is he really shaking
himself? No. Was he in permanent state of that? No. The moment he
disassociate himself from that pillar he will know the truth. Another
example is of getting scared of a ghost. Which can even result in a death
for the faint hearted. But never was the ghost real in all the three times.
Up on enlightening the object the ghost which was not there ever, did it
get really destroyed? No. In all the three times the truth of the
non-existance of the ghost alone is true.
So the effort for removing the अभिनिवेशम् is called Brahmajignasa.

2. Your question "
if there is no Bondage and no Moksha
what is there to do Inquiry into Brahman?" is again depends on what is the
experience of the Jeeva now. Like the tenth man of the story the illusory
loss of one of his team mates plunged him into sorrow? He could cross over
his sorrow only on knowing the truth. To cross over illusion the dawn of
the right knowledge is a must and hence an inquiry into the truth.


Hari Om!
Aurobind Padiyath





On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:38 Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>  Namaste
>
> Thanks to all responding to the first objection.
>
> I am giving one objection in Nyaya Sudha commentary on Sutra 1-1-1
> Athaato Brahma Jijnaasaa.
>
> Here Teeka Raayaru is attacking Advaiti doctrine of बन्धमिथ्यात्व.
> Advaitis say the Bondage itself is false. Therefore Moksha is also
> false. Then why is the Sutrakaara saying Brahman Inquiry has to be
> done. What is the purpose? Why should we aim for false Moksha using
> false scriptures to destroy false Bondage?
>
> न्याय सुधा - बन्धबाध एव मुक्तिरिति चेत् । नैवं श्रुतिसूत्रे वदतः ।
> तरति शोकमित्यादौ विपरीताभिधानात्।
>
> विमुक्तश्च विमुच्यत इति श्रुतार्थपत्तिस्तु भाष्यकृता एवान्यथोपपादिता।
>
> The Sruti and Sutras are not saying negation of Bondage is Moksha.
> Because the Sruti Vakya 'Tarati Shokam Atmavit' and 'Athato Brahma
> Jijnaasaa' are saying something totally different. If you argue Sruti
> Vakya 'Vimuktasca Vimucyate' is supporting you the Bhashyakaara
> Madhvacharya has given a different explantion in Anandamaya
> Adhikarana.
>
> In the Sruti 'Tarati Shokam Atmavit' the Knower of Self will cross the
> river of Sorrow. If there is no river at all what will he cross? In
> Sutra 'Athaato Brahma Jijnaasaa' if there is no Bondage and no Moksha
> what is there to do Inquiry into Brahman?
>
> न्याय सुधा -
>
> अपिचैवमुक्तिः - ’ब्रह्मज्ञानं जीवगतं बन्धं निवर्तयति’ इति सौत्री
> प्रयोजनोक्तिर्बन्धमिथ्यात्वं नापेक्षते । यदि जीवज्ञानं जीवगतस्य
> बन्धस्य निवर्तकमिति प्रयोजनोक्तिः सूत्रे स्यात् तदा कथंचिदपेक्षेतापि
> बन्धमिथ्यात्वम् । नचैवं सूत्रकृदाह । नहि शुक्तिकायामारोपितं रजतं
> घटज्ञानान्निवर्तते । ब्रह्मज्ञानं नाम त्वंपदार्थस्य जीवस्य
> त्वत्पदार्थेन ब्रह्मणैक्यानुभव इति तु स्वगोष्ठीनिष्ठं प्रलापमात्रम् ।
> निराकरिष्यमाणत्वात् ।
>
>  Here Teekaachaarya is saying there is a difference between Nivrutti
> of Bondage and Baadha of Bondage. If a person has a mental sickness
> and we cure him. That is Nivrutti. If a person is seeing a Silver
> instead of Shell the false Silver will disappear when he sees Shell
> correctly. This is Baadha.
>
> For Bondage there is Nivrutti but not Baadha like it is for a false
> object. Because Bondage is not false.
>
> Brahma Jnana removes Bondage present in Jeeva. Here it is Nivrutti
> only but not Baadha. If Advaitis said Jeeva Jnana will remove Bondage
> in Jeeva there Bandha Mithyaatva could be necessary. But Sutra Kaara
> Veda Vyaasa did not say that.
>
> If you say Brahma Jnaana will remove Bondage present in Jeeva and that
> Bondage is false it is not correct because  -
> A false thing like Silver in Shell cannot be removed by knowledge of
> Pot but by knowledge of Shell only.
>
> He is arguing a false thing is removed by knowledge of the base
> Adhishthana only but not knowledge of some other thing.
>
> Your saying Brahma Jnaana is experience of Oneness of Jeeva and
> Brahman is only good for chit chatting in your own group of Advaitis.
> It will be rejected in this text later.
>
>  How to answer this objection? Kindly think about it and reply.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
-- 

Aurobind Padiyath
+91-9689755499