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

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

True Narayanam Maha Jneyam is there in Sruti but Sruti also has Na Drushter
Drashtaram Pashyeh and Na Vijnater Vijnataram Vijaniyah and so on. You
cannot see the witness of Vision. You cannot know the Knower of Knowledge.
What should we do? One is Saguna Brahma and another Nirguna Brahma.

God is Yogibhir Dhyana Gamyam. The Yogis see Him in meditation. But He is
the Saguna form with Sankha Cakra Gada Padma. Anything with Gunas can be
seen. How can we see Brahman with no Gunas? That is the True Narayana. We
cannot see Him.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh