[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Akhandarthavaada Criticism - Slokas 1-972 to 1-980

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> You said in February 2016 -
> “ganga” in “gangayAm gOShaH”. Similarly, unless object of our knowledge
> brahman, in Advaitic assertion “brahman is avAchya” etc, cannot be known at
> all if all words denote in secondary meaning only.
>
> Yes you are correct. Brahman cannot be known at all like some object like
> Ganga Tira.


Shruti would not have said nArAyaNaM maha jnEyaM if it supports your
position. You can reconcile this if you think Narayana is other than
Brahman, but that would make you go against Shanakara!



> Why? Because Brahman is always Subject and Never Object. That
> is why all words cannot reach it. They can only indirectly describe it but
> not directly like a pot in front of me is described by word 'Pot'. Nobody
> can point at Brahman and say 'This is Brahman' like they can point at a pot
> and say 'This is a pot'.
>

Your understanding goes against shruti again;

'tad Eva brahma paramaM kavInAm' says maha-narayana upanishad. The shruti
would not have used 'tat' pada to denote Brahman if what you are saying is
correct.


/sv