[Advaita-l] Nyaya Sudha Objections 2

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 00:08:44 CST 2016


Thanks to all responding to the first objection.

I am giving one objection in Nyaya Sudha commentary on Sutra 1-1-1
Athaato Brahma Jijnaasaa.

Here Teeka Raayaru is attacking Advaiti doctrine of बन्धमिथ्यात्व.
Advaitis say the Bondage itself is false. Therefore Moksha is also
false. Then why is the Sutrakaara saying Brahman Inquiry has to be
done. What is the purpose? Why should we aim for false Moksha using
false scriptures to destroy false Bondage?

न्याय सुधा - बन्धबाध एव मुक्तिरिति चेत् । नैवं श्रुतिसूत्रे वदतः ।
तरति शोकमित्यादौ विपरीताभिधानात्।

विमुक्तश्च विमुच्यत इति श्रुतार्थपत्तिस्तु भाष्यकृता एवान्यथोपपादिता।

The Sruti and Sutras are not saying negation of Bondage is Moksha.
Because the Sruti Vakya 'Tarati Shokam Atmavit' and 'Athato Brahma
Jijnaasaa' are saying something totally different. If you argue Sruti
Vakya 'Vimuktasca Vimucyate' is supporting you the Bhashyakaara
Madhvacharya has given a different explantion in Anandamaya

In the Sruti 'Tarati Shokam Atmavit' the Knower of Self will cross the
river of Sorrow. If there is no river at all what will he cross? In
Sutra 'Athaato Brahma Jijnaasaa' if there is no Bondage and no Moksha
what is there to do Inquiry into Brahman?

न्याय सुधा -

अपिचैवमुक्तिः - ’ब्रह्मज्ञानं जीवगतं बन्धं निवर्तयति’ इति सौत्री
प्रयोजनोक्तिर्बन्धमिथ्यात्वं नापेक्षते । यदि जीवज्ञानं जीवगतस्य
बन्धस्य निवर्तकमिति प्रयोजनोक्तिः सूत्रे स्यात् तदा कथंचिदपेक्षेतापि
बन्धमिथ्यात्वम् । नचैवं सूत्रकृदाह । नहि शुक्तिकायामारोपितं रजतं
घटज्ञानान्निवर्तते । ब्रह्मज्ञानं नाम त्वंपदार्थस्य जीवस्य
त्वत्पदार्थेन ब्रह्मणैक्यानुभव इति तु स्वगोष्ठीनिष्ठं प्रलापमात्रम् ।
निराकरिष्यमाणत्वात् ।

 Here Teekaachaarya is saying there is a difference between Nivrutti
of Bondage and Baadha of Bondage. If a person has a mental sickness
and we cure him. That is Nivrutti. If a person is seeing a Silver
instead of Shell the false Silver will disappear when he sees Shell
correctly. This is Baadha.

For Bondage there is Nivrutti but not Baadha like it is for a false
object. Because Bondage is not false.

Brahma Jnana removes Bondage present in Jeeva. Here it is Nivrutti
only but not Baadha. If Advaitis said Jeeva Jnana will remove Bondage
in Jeeva there Bandha Mithyaatva could be necessary. But Sutra Kaara
Veda Vyaasa did not say that.

If you say Brahma Jnaana will remove Bondage present in Jeeva and that
Bondage is false it is not correct because  -
A false thing like Silver in Shell cannot be removed by knowledge of
Pot but by knowledge of Shell only.

He is arguing a false thing is removed by knowledge of the base
Adhishthana only but not knowledge of some other thing.

Your saying Brahma Jnaana is experience of Oneness of Jeeva and
Brahman is only good for chit chatting in your own group of Advaitis.
It will be rejected in this text later.

 How to answer this objection? Kindly think about it and reply.



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list