[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Anand Hudli]

>If I understand correctly, this is the gist of dvaitin's interpretation of
>sUtra "Om ikshayetE na aShabdam Om" -- meaning Brahman is not
>aShabda/avAchya because of hEtu "it is known". Given that Brahamn cannot be
>known by pratyaksha and anumAna, it leads to only option Aagama. Since
>aagma is shabda based, hence it is not correct to say Brahamn is avAchya by
>all pada-s in their mukhyArtha.

In simple terms, as already pointed out by others in this thread, Brahman
is never the Object, unlike in Dvaita. It is always the Subject, which
means there cannot be a word that can be pointed at Brahman. For instance,
a pot can be pointed at and a child can be told,  "this is a pot". Not so,
in the case of Brahman. All pramANas, including the Sruti itself, fall
short of objectively describing Brahman. Does this mean Brahman can never
be known objectively? Brahman is the Self of all beings, and as Shankara
says in the adhyAsa bhAShya, na tAvadayamekAntena aviShayaH
asmatpratyayaviShaytvAt. And as BhAmatIkAra clarifies, aviShayo .api
asmatpratyayaviShaya iva jIvabhAvamApannaH avabhAsate. Although,
Brahman/Self is not an object, still It appears to be an object of the
concept 'I'.

The dvaitin tries to set up a trap using the paradoxical situation.
advaitasiddhi: nanu evaM lakShyapadenApi lakShyatve tIrasya agangAtvavat
brahmaNaH alakShyatvApattiriti cet na iShTatvAt sarvathA nirdharmakatvAt
lakShyavyavahArasya ca vAcyatvAbhAvanibandhatvAt tathA pratipAditaM prAk|
Objection: Now, if Brahman is said to be "implied" then it becomes the
primary sense of the word "implied". Since the implied object, for example
the river bank, is not the same as the object which stands for the primary
sense, for example gangA, Brahman ceases to be something that is implied!
Reply: (What you say) is agreeable to us. For, Brahman has no property at
all and even the process of being implied by a secondary meaning restricts
its nature as not being expressed through words.

Anand