[Advaita-l] Fwd: Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:07 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Correct, that is the case only if there is no pada in the dictionary which
>> denotes vastu river in its primary meaning. But it was not the case here
>> as
>> we have pada "gangA". This is the issue in case of Brahman as we have no
>> single pada which is capable of denoting the artha in its primary meaning.
>>
>
> The Veda itself resorts to 'lakṣaṇam-s' (not lakṣaṇā) when it uses the
> term 'Brahma'. For example, in the Taittiriya Upanishad, it says:
>
>  यतो वाइमानि भूतानि जायन्ते । येन जातानि जीवन्ति ।
> यत्प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति । तद्विजिज्ञासस्व । तद्ब्रह्मेति ।
>
>
Well, one could argue the presence of 'iti' (in brahmEti) to introduce word
"brahma" is the direct evidence of shruti's intention of mukhyArtha. Have
anyone uses gangEti to introduce tIra?




> And  सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म . Thus, without such lakṣaṇam-s it is
> impossible to know what the word 'Brahma' means.
>

One question remains so --- are the terms "satyaM", "jnAnaM" and "anantaM"
vAchaka or lakShya? Since per advaitic view no pada can denote by
mukhyartha, it follows that they must necessarily be lakShya. If so, then
question would be what is it about it is drawing our lakShya? If you use
another pada to indicate that vastu in your answer, then the same question
applies to that second pada. Hence we have anvasthA.

Above problem is from the vastu perspective. Now, from the pada perspective
also we are not without problem. What is the mukhyArtha of those above
terms? Who is being referred in their mukhyArtha by shruti? They cannot be
simple attributes without having any paxa in which they have been
adjudicated.



>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Even here, Brahman is denoted *only* through the function of 'īkṣaṇa'
> (deliberation) even though the Veda teaches that It is niṣkriyam. In the
> first case, Brahman is denoted through the function of jagat srishti, etc.
> and by indicating that Brahman is not asatya, not jaḍa and not antavat.
> Hence, the Veda itself resorts to the method of superimposing on Brahman
>  some or the other function or attribute in order to enable us to
> comprehend the word 'Brahma.'.  Without those 'add on' s there is no way
> the Veda can use any word to indicate the vastu, whether it calls it by the
> name Brahma, Chaturtham, Param, etc.  That such is only the means to denote
> Brahman is also known to the Veda as it also teaches: na tatra vāk
> gacchati' (kenopanishat), yatoi vācho nivartante, (Taittiriya) etc.
>
>>
>>
>>
On this I have a side question. In siddhanta above sUtra is commented from
brahman perspective (iksana is attributed to brahmn). However in
pUrava-paxa it is attributed from jIva's perspective. Their argument is as
follow;

Anvaya of that sUtra per pUrvapaxa is "(tat) aSabdaM na IkShatE". Per
advaita anvaya would be "aShabdaM (pradAnaM) kAraNaM na | kAraNasya
IkShatEh".

Objection is too many padas needs to be get adhyAhAra-ed (do not know
English term for this!) in advaitic anvaya.

Also, in advaitic commentory sUtra pada "aShabdaM" is used as paxAvAchaka
pada as "aShabdaM hi tat" with imagining (unnecessarily so) a totally new
sAdyavAchaka pada "kAraNaM. Also in this anvaya one needs to imagine new
hEtuvachaka pada kAraNa, which is not in sUtra.

Please can anyone point me to any rejoinder to above objection from
classical works in advaita?.

/sv