[Advaita-l] Fwd: Nyayasudha Objections 1

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 3. In any refutation there is a rule -- the hEtu used must be acceptable
> for pUrvapaxin who is being refuted. The hEtu used "pradhAna is not
> ShabdaM" is not at all accepted by sAnkhya-s as they do not even say it is
> ShabdaM.
>

The above objection is already addressed in another post (that the sankhyas
do claim that their pradhanam is vedic).  Here, it is pointed out that the
hetu used by the Dvaitin 'Ikshateḥ' is not denied by the purvapakshin
(advaitin).  He has not stated that Brahman is not realized.  Also, he has
not stated that Brahman is not knowable through the shabda pramana, veda.


So, the hetu 'Ikshateḥ' used by the dvaitin is not at all inadmissible to
the advaitin for he too accepts Brahman is realized/realizable. What is the
point in giving that hetu?

All said and done, as pointed out earlier, the shabda pravrtti nimitta is
governed by the vyakarana shāstra.

>
> 4. As said before many terms has to be adhyahar-ed to yield the meaning.
> Per advaita, anvaya would be "aShabdaM (pradAnaM) (kAraNaM) na |
> (kAraNasya) IkShatEh". Words in parenthesis are imported ones. Where as
> anvaya of that sUtra per dvaitin is "(tat) aSabdaM na IkShatE". Only
> tat-pada is imported, that too from previous sUtra context of "tat tu
> samanvayAt". Hence there is no laghuttvaM in adviata bAShya.
>

Actually, the above claim stands nullified. The word 'ashabdam' occurs in
the Kathopanishat to teach that Brahman is devoid of shabda, sparsha, etc.
Advaitin accepts this. The meaning for the word 'ashabam' in the Dvaita
interpretation is not this but something else.  Hence, while the Advaitin
does not say 'Brahman is ashabdam' but says 'pradhanam is ashabdam', the
Dvaitin contradicts the Vedic dictum that 'Brahman is ashabdam' and asserts
'Brahman is not ashabdam.  If he says that this word has a different
meaning for the Dvaitin, that the Advaitin's stand that 'brahman is
avāchyam' is what is meant by this word, then all those so many words are
supplied (adhyāhāra) by him by way of doing the sutrānvaya thereby
indulging in the same defect he points at the advaitin for the sutranvaya
of this sutra. So, he stands losing the laghutva he claimed. The Advaitin
has no such problem since he does not connect that word to Brahman; he
retains that Brahman is ashabdam (as per the Kathopanishat).  To reiterate,
while the Kathopanishat holds 'Brahman is ashabdam', the Dvaitin refutes
this and asserts 'Brahman is not ashabdam.'




>
>