[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> >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.


Why not?

Shruti is very explicit on this point when it said nArayaNaM mahAjnEyam.

In case if you were to object that jnEya brahman is amukhya brhahman, the
same shruti has emphasized it is talking about parama brahman only when it
says 'tad Eva brahma paramaM kavInaam'.




> 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.


Shruti is contradicting such position.



> 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.
>

This is valid argument only when underlying hEtu that Brahman being
substratum is true. But how do you know that fact? Obviously you are saying
so based on shruti as a pramANa. Otherwise brahman as substratum is not at
all given in pratykahAdi non-agamic pramAnas. Invoking shruti as a pramANa
is premature at this time as we are still not settled on vAchyatva of
Brahman from vedic texts. So, my argument about "you" pada in the sentence
"you are a good man" in its mukhyartha refers to you as a subject of that
knowledge.




>
> >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.
>

As explained above this is not valid argument.


>
> >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.
>
> Without getting into details, point remains the same, he must have used
some pramANa(s) in his argument. If it is shabda pramANa (shruti/smirti
etc), pUrvapaxin's objection still stands and Madhusudhana has not
addressed it. If it is based on non-aagama pramaNa, pUrvapaxin has no
issues at all as such nirguNa brahman is unvedic after all for him. The
issue comes only when one says brahman's nirgunattvaM is vEdic.

/sv.