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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​Namaste Venkateshji,​

In this set of verses, Vadiraja has neither shown the interpretation of ​AV
fully, and as usual, nor has he used tarka justly.

​
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
​​


> सत्यज्ञानादिवाक्यं सत्यत्वादिगुणविशिष्टब्रह्मपरं
> लक्षणप्रश्नोत्तरवाक्यत्वात् चन्द्रलक्षणवाक्यवत् In this Anumaana
> the Satyatvaadi Guna Visishtabrahmaparam is Saadhya and Hetu is Lakshana
> Prashnottara Vaakyatvaat and the example is Candralakshana Vaakya.
>
AV refutes the presentation of brightness as a quality of the moon, by
asking where does the quality rest?​ Does it rest in the bright moon or in
an non-bright moon? If the former, then where does the earlier quality of
brightness rest? This leads to anavasthA doSha. If the latter, then how can
brightness rest in an non-bright moon, both are opposite to each other.
Therefore, we establish that the moon is itself bright by svarUpa. Ditto
with सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तम्।


> Then he is showing one more defect in the Advaiti's logic.
>
> स्वरूपमात्रज्ञानस्य पदेनैकेन संभवात् ।
>
> व्यर्थं पदान्तरं च स्याज्ज्ञातस्य ज्ञापनेन किम् ॥ १-९७८
>
> If Svarupa Jnana is required it can be done with one word only. If there
> are other words they become useless. They are giving knowledge of a Known
> object. Why do you say Satyam Jnanam Anantam gives Svarupa of Brahma. First
> word Satya itself is sufficient to give Svarupa of Brahman. Then the next
> two words Jnanam and Anantam become useless because they are giving Svarupa
> again of Brahman we already know from Satyam.
>
​I don't think Vadiraja has studied the Bhashyakara's Taittiriya Bhashya at
all, especially the लक्षणवाक्य, not understood it or is purposefully
leaving out the details. Bhashyakara says there that यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं
तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति तत् सत्यम्। That nature which is ascertained for
anything and doesn't change from it is called सत्यम्। सदेव सत्यम् says
Chandogya. This सत्यम् is finally shown to mean not truth as we understand,
but existence, and not only to negate कार्यत्वम् as explained below.

Now, why is ज्ञान used to define ब्रह्म further? He says that the
definition of असत्/ अनृतम् is यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति
तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्, 'वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं
मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्', एवं सदेव सत्यम् इत्यवधारणात् । That which changes
from whatever it was ascertained as is अनृतम्/ असत्/ मिथ्या। Therefore, all
products/ effects [of clay] are अनृतम्, mere name started by mere speech,
clay alone is the existent-truth, due to the assertion "only सत्यम् (cause)
is existent". This may lead to misunderstanding that ब्रह्म is जड
insentient like clay and कारणत्वम् status of being a cause, so ज्ञान is
introduced in the definition that refutes जडत्वम् insentience. This ज्ञान
(knowledge indicating sentience) will finally be shown to be चित्
consciousness, not just a word used for negation.

Then why is अनन्तम् used to define ब्रह्म? Bhashyakara clarifies that ज्ञान
can be misunderstood as a कारक be it due to being seen as कारण above or any
other [since the प्रत्यय ल्युट् used can be to derive a word in any of the
कारक meanings]. All कारकs are limited by each other and more, therefore,
अन्तवत्वम् which stands refuted by using अनन्तम् ब्रह्म। This is the only
word that has a use to negate without any particular positive meaning, but
the लक्षार्थ would be आनन्दं ब्रह्म which is dealt later in आनन्दमीमांसा।



>
> तर्हि गङ्गापदाल्लक्ष्ये तीरेऽपि न्यायसाम्यतः ।
>
> व्यावृत्तिः स्यादगङ्गायास्तीरे स्यान्मज्जनं सदा ॥१-९८०
>
> Then using same logic there will be absence of Aganga on the shore of Ganga
> because the bank of Ganga is the Lakshyartha of Ganga. This will
> mean immersion of a pilgrim has to be done not in Ganga river but on the
> Ganga banks. Vaadiraaja is saying nonsense will come out as a result of
> using Advaiti's logic. There is a rule to immerse yourself  in Ganga river.
> But if we use Advaiti logic for Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma here we get
> nonsense result. If you say immerse in Ganga it means where there is
> absence of Aganga. But Lakshyartha of Ganga like in the example Gangaayaam
> Ghoshah is the bank of Ganga but not Ganga river itself because village
> cannot be in the river. It must be on the bank. Now also if you say immerse
> in Ganga we can use Lakshyartha and say immerse on the bank because there
> is also absence of Aganga. This is the nonsense result. Nobody can immerse
> himself on the bank because it is land.
>
> ​This is incorrect. Before one can even proceed in this line of thinking,
the following question has to be answered:

   - घटाभावस्य अभावः किम्? What would be the प्रतियोगि of the absence of
   the absence-of-pot?


​That will show the flaw in the above line of argument using Aganga and
what not! If such out-of-context meanings are allowed to be used, one can
prove anything to be anything. :)

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen