[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:29 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Even Dvaitins are not saying in a sense Brahman is object. All they are
>> saying Brahman is jnEya and has IkShaNeattvaM and hence sUtrakAra's used it
>> as a hEtu in that sUtra Om IkShattEH  na aShabdaM Om. Other member was
>> denying that hEtu does not fit in Brahman.
>>
>
> From the beginning of this discussion when the word 'IkShattEH' was used,
> I have been unable to understand exactly what that word means according to
> the Dvaita interpretation of that sutra. From what you have said so far:
> 'that Brahman is known, or knowable, seen, etc.'  it is not clear how that
> word in that sutra fits this meaning.  For, in my understanding, if the
> sutra should mean: 'because Brahman is seen/known', then the word should be
> 'īkṣyate' 'ईक्ष्यते’ , in the karmaṇi prayoga, (indirect speech), which
> will mean: (Brahman) is seen, or known. But the word in the sutra is
> 'ईक्षतेः’ The meaning the Advaita bhashya gives to that word is:
> ईक्षतिकर्तृत्वं ब्रह्मणः एव श्रवणात् (’तदैक्षत, बहु स्याम्, प्रजायेय इति’
> (तैत्तिरीय), वेदबाह्यस्य जडस्य प्रधानस्य तदसम्भवात्, न प्रधानं जगत्कारणम्,
> अपि तु चेतनं ब्रह्म वैदिकम्.  [कथमशब्दत्वम् ? ईक्षतेः =
> ईक्षितृत्वश्रवणात्कारणस्य । bhashyam for 1.1.5]
>
> How will that word ''ईक्षतेः’ of the sutra give the meaning: 'because
> Brahman is seen/known' in the passive voice?
>
>
Well, IkShattEH shabda is not ktin ptarEya, but rather Shiccp pratEya. The
usage "IkShattEH" is because IkShattE dAtu is in upanishad such as 'sa
EtAsmajjIvaghnAt parAtparaM purIShayaM puruShamIkShatE' , 'AtmanaEvAtmAnaM
paShEt" etc.

'IkShattE' shabda is also interpreted as "paShyati" (shruti such
as  'AtmanaEvAtmAnaM paShEt' ) based on "IkSha darShanAMkanayOH", dhruS
dhAtu as 'darShana' and this 'paShyati' is treated as kEvala-jnAna.

'IkShattEH' is the hEtu used in terms of 'IkShaNiyatvAt'.

In Shankara bashya too, this same hEtu is used in Brhamn while refuting
jagat kAraNattvaM to pradhAna (prakrti). Isn't it used the hEtu since
"Brahman creates with knowledge"....jagat kaaraNatvaM for pradhAna is
rejected?


Their bAShya on this sUtra is smooth and natural transition from previous
sUtra-s. From shAstra yOni concept to samanvayAt concept to avAchya-vAda
nirakaraNa. If Brahman is said to be shAstra yOni only, and to the question
on how that Brahman is shAstra gamya as so many virOdha exist in shAstras,
sUtrakAra introduce samanvaya aspect. For this, if one were to raise the
objection as how can Brahman is known from shAstra as Brahman is avAchya as
shruti itself has statements such yatO vAchO nivatraMtE etc, to refute this
pUrvapaxa,  Madhva argues sUtrakAra has explicitly used double negation as
na aShabdaM. You see how sangati has been smoothly tied between these
sUtra-s.



>> What you are saying now is you are accepting jnEyatvam in Brahman, and
>> that is enough for the case.
>>
>
> The jneyatvam is not the way that Brahman is an object but as that which
> has to be known.  It is in the sense of ज्ञातव्यम्.
>
> Well, shruti's usage of jneyatvam (such as in nArayaNaM mahajnEyaM etc)
does not have any such adjunct/restriction as it is only in the sense of
ज्ञातव्यम्. One has to super impose that idea from outside.

ज्ञातव्यम् is not possible unless one already knows what is being
reminded/referenced. Since Brahman is known only from shAstra (even per
advaitic sUtra bhAshya on shAtra yOni sUtra) such referent in ज्ञातव्यम्
cannot be known unless such shAstra shabda-s have been understood in their
mukhyArtha only.

/sv





> vs
>
>>
>> /sv
>>
>>
>>
>>
>