[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1
svedagarbha at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 14:35:28 CST 2016
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> The advaita siddhi deals with the topic of "brahmaNaH
> shabda-avAcyatvopapattiH", wherein MadhusUdana sarasvatI makes the point
> that "evaM nirvisheShapadamapi akhaNDapada-lakShakatAyAmeva
> Next consider the example, "agangAyAM ghoShaH", where the word "agangA"
> means "not gangA". Now, this word involves an absence of being gangA as the
> concept that is generated by the word. Due to the relational aspect of the
> concept, the word is not "akhaNDa" anymore but "sakhaNDa". In this case,
> the above rule will not apply. The implied meaning of "agangA" could be
> anything which is related to something not gangA. This could mean virtually
any place, not a particular place. It is not possible to asssign a primary
> meaning of such a place in general.
I am not sure "agangA" used as lakShyArtha here. lakShyartha are used in
those cases when the vatu has some way related to the pada being used.
Unless the vastu tIra is related to vastu river who's mukhyArtha of pada
"gangA", the same tIra cannot be target for the lakShyartha of the same
pada "gangA". Unless the bank we are talking is not the bank of ganga, bank
of any other rivers such as kAvEri or amazon or Mississippi etc; the pada
"gangA" cannot be used in the form of lakShyArtha to denote bank of those
Word "agangA" is more of niShEda rUpa and it is indeed mukhyArtha of that
negation. It is not a lakShyartha per se.
> In the case of the word "nirvisheSha", the implied meaning (lakShyArtha) is
> Brahman. However, by the argument above, Brahman is not required to have a
> primary meaning (mukhyArtha).
pada "nirviShESha" conveying negation of pratiyOgi viShESha-s here in its
mukhyartha form. How's that its lakShyArtha being Brahman? Unless you know
Brahman apriori and its attributelessness apriori from a different source
other than that pada itself, by hearing "nirviShESha" will not imply such
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list