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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Subbuji,
Thank you for the kind words, but all credit goes to our pUrvAchAryas, who
have thought about and taught this. I am only parroting their words. इति
शुश्रुम पूर्वेषाम् ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे.

Regards,
Venkat

On 10 Jul 2017 5:48 p.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Sri Venkat ji,
>
> A brilliant post covering several nyāya concepts as well. With regard to
> akhaṇḍarthatā, there is an example given in the Vāsudeva-mananam, an
> Advaitic work:
>
> The flame of a lamp is red, hot and bright: raktam, uṣṇam and prakāśa. We
> cannot say that one part of the flame has some of these and the other parts
> have the rest. All these are there everywhere in the flame.  Without any of
> these there is no flame at all. Similarly satyam, jnanam and
> anantam/anandam are verily Brahman. That is why Shankara in the Taittiriya
> bhāṣyam says: satyam brahma, jnānam brahma and anantam brahma.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Namaste
>> >
>> > Vaadiraaja is now trying to show Advaiti's Akhandarthavada has faults.
>> >
>> > ज्योतिष्ट्वेन हि चन्द्रस्य स्वरूपज्ञानवान् पुनः ।
>> >
>> > चन्द्रत्वेनैव तं ज्ञातुं कश्चन्द्र इति पृच्छति ॥ १-९७२
>> >
>> > A person knowing Chandra's Svarupa as Brightness will again ask 'Who is
>> > Chandra?' to know his special qualities from other bright objects in the
>> > sky. He wants to know how Chandra is different from other shining
>> bodies in
>> > the sky. He knows Chandra's Svarupa as Brightness but he wants to know
>> how
>> > to differentiate him.
>> >
>>
>> What is the need to ask again "who is chandra?", if one has functioning
>> eyes and has been told the brightest object in the night sky is the moon?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > अतः कश्चन्द्र इत्येष प्रश्नः प्रश्नविदां मते ।
>> >
>> > किंलक्षणक इत्येव स्वार्थमर्थातुरो भजेत् ॥ १-९७३
>> >
>> > Therefore 'Who is Chandra?' question means in the opinion of Knowers of
>> > question analysis 'What are the qualities of Chandra?'. This is its
>> meaning
>> > because there is no other meaning. The question 'Who is Chandra?' is
>> asking
>> > to know the Sajaateeya and Vijaateeya Bhedas of Chandra from other
>> objects.
>> >
>>
>> The question "what are the qualities of the moon?" is different from the
>> question "what is the moon?". The former question presupposes that a
>> person
>> has already seen the moon and now wants to know about its qualities. The
>> latter question only assumes that the questioner has heard of the word
>> "moon" and does not know the object that the word corresponds to. The
>> akhaNDArtha vAkya "prakriShTa prakAsha: chandra:" is the answer to the
>> latter question.
>>
>>
>> > चन्द्रत्ववान् क इत्येव वाक्यस्यार्थो यतः स्फुटः ।
>> >
>> > स्वरूपमात्रप्रश्नत्वं स्वरूपासिद्धमेव ते ॥ १-९७४
>> >
>> > The clear meaning of the question is 'Who has Chandratva?'. Therefore
>> your
>> > Rule will have the defect of Svarupa Asiddhi. The Advaiti's Rule to show
>> > Brahman's Svarupa is Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam is using the Chandra
>> > example. But that example is not giving Svarupa of Chandra at all.
>> > Therefore the Rule has a defect.
>> >
>>
>> The point is not that the vAkya captures the entirety of the moon's
>> various
>> feature. The moon is a saguNa vastu, therefore to know the moon, one needs
>> knowledge of every guNa, even those which are pratyaksha atIta ones. Truly
>> speaking no one can everything about anything, because there are any many
>> aspects of any object that are beyond our pramANas. Only Ishvara, who is
>> sarvajna can know this. For the sake of vyavahAra however, we notionally
>> say we know X based on only those aspects of X that are accessed by our
>> senses and intellect. Thus svarUpa asiddhi is universal and not just for
>> akaNDArtha vAkya.
>>
>> Whereas, brahman is nirguNam, therefore one does not need to know any of
>> its guNas, just drop those that do not belong to its svarUpa. This is the
>> AdeSa of the upaniShads - neti, neti and this has to be reconciled with
>> nArAyaNam mahAjneyam. The latter does not mean that nArAyaNa is a known
>> object, a jneya vastu, for the upaniShad says nedam yadidam upAsate. On
>> the
>> contrary, what that sentence means is that nArAyaNa ought to be known.
>> How?
>> anyadeva viditAt atho aviditAtadhi.
>>
>> >
>> > एवं लक्षणवाक्यं च लक्षणं वक्ति नापरम् ।
>> >
>> > अपृष्टोत्तरमेव स्याद् रूपमात्रनिरूपणे ॥१-९७५
>> >
>> > The answer to the question has to give the qualities of Moon and not
>> some
>> > other thing. If the answer gives Svarupa only it is answering an unasked
>> > question and it will not be answering the actual question.
>> >
>>
>> Coming to the matter at hand, the role played by akhaNDArtha vAkya is to
>> reveal the basic nature of the visheshya, without resorting to attributes.
>> In the case of nirguNa Brahman, there are no attributes to be known, hence
>> the knowledge provided by akhaNDAkAra vritti is necessary and sufficient
>> for it.
>>
>>
>> > सत्यज्ञानादिवाक्यं तद् विशिष्टब्रह्मतत्परम् ।
>> >
>> > लक्षणप्रश्नवाक्यत्वाच्चन्द्रलक्षणवाक्यवत् ॥ १-९७७
>> >
>> > The Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma is describing Satyatva, Jnanatva and
>> > Anantatva qualities of Brahman because it is answer to question asking
>> for
>> > qualities. This is like the question for Chandra's qualities.
>> >
>> No, for reasons outlined below.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> No, because the nature of Brahman is the absence of asatyam,  the absence
>> of jaDatvam, the absence of paricChedatvam. Here the abhAva is not a guNa,
>> but adhikaraNAtmakam. When we look at a pot on the ground, and later the
>> pot is not there, the naiyyAyika says bhUtale ghaTAbhAva: asti, whereas we
>> say that there is no such thing as ghaTAbhAva: other than the ground. The
>> bare ground itself is the absence of the pot. Thus there is no need to
>> postulate the ground being endowed with ghatAbhAva attribute.
>>
>> Therefore, because there are several false notions about Brahman, the
>> upaniShad has to resort to the negation of these incorrect attributes in
>> order to reveal the true nature of Brahman. Another instance of neti neti
>> at work. Hence the use of multiple words to talk about the same object -
>> it
>> does not mean the endowment of different attributes such as satyatva,
>> jnAnatva, anantatva, it means the absence of their opposites, each of
>> which
>> serves a purpose of removing a false notion of Brahman.
>>
>> Further, this does not mean brahman is endowed with asatyatva abhAva,
>> jaDatva abhAva, paricChedatva abhAva either, because Brahman, the parama
>> adhikaraNa, is the abhAva of those things.
>>
>>
>> > यदि सत्यादिपदतो लक्ष्ये ब्रह्मणि केवलम् ।
>> >
>> > व्यावृत्तिः स्यादसत्यादेस्तेन सार्थक्यमिष्यते ॥ १-९७९
>> >
>> > If you say the use of Satya, Jnana and Ananta words is to show absence
>> of
>> > Asatya, Ajnana, and Paricchinna even though Satya, Jnana and Ananta
>> words
>> > also give Svarupa of Brahman - what happens?
>> >
>> > 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 a viShama drishTAnta - in sanskrit, some verbs have the
>> expectation
>> of an object, whereas others do not. Let us take two verbs gacChati and
>> tiShTati, which are opposites, such that na gacchati = tishThati.
>>
>> We can say devadatta: grAmam na gacchati. However, when we say devadatta:
>> tishThati, we do not say grAmam tishThati. Therefore because there is an
>> association of karma kArakam with gacchati, when we say "na gacchati" too,
>> we use a karma kArakam with it. However, when we talk of tishThati, which
>> is the same as na gacchati, we cannot use karma kArakam. Similarly, even
>> though we notionally say bhUtalam is AdhAra for ghaTAbhAvam, it is only
>> notionally, in reality bhUtalam is not an AdhAra for ghaThAbhAvam. It is
>> only a kalpanA. The ghaTAbhAvam is adhikaraNa svarUpam. This is the
>> difference between bhAvam and abhAvam.
>>
>> Similarly, I am not saying satyatva is not there in Brahman. Just like
>> ghaTAbhAva and bhUtalam are not two different things,  satyatva  and
>> Brahman are not two different things, satyatva IS Brahma svarUpam. That is
>> why Brahman is nirdharmakam.
>>
>> Coming to vAdirAja's example, there is a vidhi vAkya that one has to have
>> a
>> bath in the gangA - the tAtparya is to enjoin a bath in the ganga river.
>> Basic logic also means that a bath can only be hand in a river, unless
>> there is a specific vidhi to have a mud bath (which is accepted as one of
>> the different kinds of bath in shAstra). When there is neither anvaya
>> anupapatti or tAtparya anupapatti for taking the meaning of ganga as the
>> river ganga, why should one resort to lakshaNa of gangA tIra, and then
>> talk
>> of aganga abhAva in gangA tIra and then claim that it is ridiculous for
>> one
>> take the meaning of the sentence to be "take bath in the gangAtIra, which
>> is where there is aganga abhAva".
>>
>> It certainly is ridiculous, but only so because you took a ridiculous
>> interpretation of the sentence in the first place. When the direct meaning
>> conveys the tAtparya of a vAkya, just take the direct meaning. Why resort
>> to lakshaNa?
>>
>> However, there is tAtparyam in satyam jnAnam anantam brahma referring to a
>> nirguNa brahma vastu because there are many statements across shAstra
>> which
>> deny any attributes in brahman (asthUlam anaNu, sAkshi chetA kevalo
>> nirguNashca, etc).  As there is avagati sAmAnyam (unanimity of upaniShads)
>> in a nirugNa vastu, one has to take a meaning of these words that does not
>> contradict other shruti vAkya. Therefore, we cannot take this vAkya to
>> mean
>> that satyatva, jnAnatva and anantatva are attributes of Brahman.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>