[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-605 to 1-627

[Anand Hudli]

The advaitasiddhi has a section on nirguNatvopapattiH (second pariccheda) ,
wherein the opponent puts forth the notion of svasamAnasattAkadharmavad
brahma, i.e. Brahman has qualities that belong to the same order of reality
as Itself, as opposed to nirguNatva established by certain shruti texts. In
dealing with this objection, Madhusudana makes a reference to a mImAMsA
principle embedded in the Jaimini sUtra 10.8.7. There are vAkyas,
"jartilayavAgvA vA juhuyAd gavIdhukayavAgvA vA juhuyat", "anAhutirvai
jartilAshca gavIdhukAshca", and "payasA agnihotraM juhuyAt" or "ajakShIreNa
juhoti". The first prescribes the gruel of jartila (wild sesame) or the
gruel of gavIdhuka (wild wheat) for homa. However, the second vAkya
prohibits them and says jartila and gavIdhuka are not fit for use in homa,
and the third vAkya prescribes milk or goat milk. This being the case, we
have to look for maintaining the ekavAkyatA of the various vAkyas. The
result is that the first two vAkyas become arthavAda (for describing the
excellence of milk) and it is the third vAkya that stands as an injunction,
i.e. milk is the prescribed material for the homa. The shabara bhAShya
gives a good example of ekavAkyatA. In the sentence "viShaM bhakShayitavyaM
na kadAcit", poison should never be consumed, if we just consider the first
two words, "viShaM bhakShayitavyam", it will mean poison is to be consumed.
Considering the next two words, we understand that the meaning with
ekavAkyatA is that poison is never to be consumed. Similar is the case with
sections of the shruti that talk about the guNas of Brahman and sections
that talk about nirguNatva. Maintaining ekavAkyatA calls for interpreting
both sections so that guNas which are earlier spoken of are to be denied
and nirguNatva is to be upheld.

Anand