[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Anand Hudli]

>Bit clarification needed here -- the context of this topic is not about
>dispute about whether or not object of knowledge gained from experience
>(anthakarNa/sAkshi) is object or subject. Instead the question is about
>artha of a shabda/pada. We all have experience of type "I know myself" type
>and the question is not about whether or not "I" as subject or object, but
>the question is about atha of a shabda when someone says "You are a good
>man".  What is that the pada "you" is referring to here is the question.
>Obviously the artha of this pada-prayOga has to be object of knowledge so
>gained from that shabda prayOga.

I had to bring in the Subject/Object discussion because you quoted the
dvaitins' stand - *sUtra "Om ikshayetE na aShabdam Om" -- meaning Brahman
is not aShabda/avAchya because of hEtu "it is known". *Here it becomes
necessary to clarify that Brahman is not known as the dvaitins are saying.
The hetu "it is known" is not present in Brahman. One cannot point out an
object and say "this is Brahman". So Brahman is known as the secondary or
implied meaning of words but never in the primary sense. In the sentence
"you are a good man", the tvaMpada "you" has Brahman Itself as the
substratum. So "you" can have a meaning denoting an object that is a
collection of upadhis, such as "son of Mr and Mrs X, brother of Y, husband
of Z, etc", but we can never "know", in the ordinary sense of the word,
what this "you" is.

>That is (another) objection of pUrvapaxin -- even in order to say "it
>appears to be.." one needs some help from shabda pramANa, because our
>immediate experience is that I am both subject and object in
>self-referential knowledge of type "I know myself" .  But as soon as one
>plead help from shada pramANa in order to do nirNaya "it appears to be...",
>one will run into this issue of mukhyArtha vs. amukhyArtha.

>From what I said above it follows that when one says "I know myself" such
knowledge is only limited to the upadhis, such as "I know myself as the son
of Mr. and Mrs. X, etc". So the limitation of words is exhibited here too.

>This can be valid argument only if underlying hEtu  "Brahman has no
>property" is true. But how do we say so definitively without engaging
>shabda pramANa-s, such as shruti? Once we engage shabda to support that
>hEtu, we run into the same issue. Since one cannot say one way or the other
>about Brahman using non-shabda based pramANa-s, the very underlying hEtu
>used in the above advaitasiddhi has no basis ---  so argues a pUrvapaxin.

Then that Purvapakshin is ignorant of the arguments in advaitasiddhi under
brahamaNaH nirguNatva upapattiH. Please read it.

Anand