[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> praNAms Sri Ananda prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> If the absolute brahman (nirvishesha / nirguNa / nirupAdhika brahman) is
> not graspable / reachable  by any upAdhi-s (karaNa-s) and even shAstra
> (shabda pramANa) then what is the proof that it exists??


The first pramana for the existence of Brahman comes from the Veda itself:
'asti ityeva upalabdhavyah....tasya bhvaḥ prasīdati' says Kathopanishat.
One should start by first taking Brahman to be, 'It exists' (on the shāstra
pramāṇam) and only to such a person  Brahman will reveal itself.

Also, the Taittiriya says: asanneva sa bhavati asat brahmeti veda chet.
asti brahmeti ched veda, santam enam tato viduriti..He who says 'Brahman is
non-existent', himself becomes non-existent (that is, he becomes unfit to
aspire for any purushartha, says Shankara). He who knows, ultimately by
aparoksha jnanam, 'Brahman exists', he is seen as a satpurusha by other
jnanis.

'Shraddhatsva somya' says Chandogya. Shraddhāvān labhate jnānam says the
BG.  So, it is by shraddhā in the shāstra/guru vākya that 'brahman exists'
one starts and his spiritual journey ends by his realizing himself to be
That.

regards
vs


> Is it not something similar to shUnya?? Were the questions usually raised
> by dvaitins when it has been said that parabrahman is agrAhya and
> aprameya.  Anyway, it has been clarified by shankara that jneya brahman is
> paraM whereas upAsya brahman is aparaM (sOpAdhika) paraM chet jnAtavyaM
> aparaM chet prAptavyaM.  How can this brahman (jneya brahman) be known,
> when it is categorically said by shruti that IT is  beyond the reach of
> mind and speech?? Shankara clarifies adhyArOpita nAmarUpakarma dvAreNa
> brahma nirdhishyate, vijnAnamAnandaM brahma, vijnAnaghana eva,  brahma,
> Atma ityevamAdhi shabdaiH.  And this brahma to be realized in mana only
> since there is no other instrument to realize this truth.  But this
> mana/buddhi should be ati sUkshma, svaccha and atyanta nirmala and this
> nirmala buddhi would take the shape (!!) of Atma Chaitanya clarifies
> shankara in geeta bhAshya.  Atyanta nimalatva, atisvacchatva, ati
> sUkshmatva upapaatterAtmanaH, buddhescha AtmasamanaiH nirmalAt upapatteH,
> AtmachaitanyAkAra abhAsatvOpapattiH.  It is this Nirmala mana that can
> 'see' the Atman and it is this mana that has been insisted by shruti when
> it is said : manasaivAnudrashtavyaM nehanAnAsti kiMchana. If we deny the
> role of upAdhi (manObudyahankAra) in brahma jignAsa / realization we cannot
> establish the upanishat pratipAdita para brahman through adhyArOpa apavAda
> prakriya.
>
> Just my few thoughts on this thread.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>