[Advaita-l] Fwd: Nyayasudha Objections 1
svedagarbha at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 11:08:30 CST 2016
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> Namaste Subbuji,
> >>How will that word ''ईक्षतेः’ of the sutra give the meaning: 'because
> Brahman is seen/known' in the passive voice?
> That is a very good point. I haven't followed the details of this
> discussion, but using this sutrA as a justification of Brahman's
> prameyatvam is a stretch.
> Firstly this sutrA has a very different interpretation in advaita - it is
> not talking about Brahman at all. It is refuting the sAnkhya PradhAna as
> being the cause of this universe because of two reasons: 1) it is ashabdam,
> no reference to pradhana is made in shruti
> 2) unlike Brahman, which on account of seeing (Ikshate) is chetanam,
> pradhAna is jadam. No jada vastu can do anything, let alone create the
Well, there are several objection from dvaitins on this --
1. Such refutation of sAnkhya does not fit well within the samanvaya
adhikaraNa. Even per Shankara himself, 4th pAda is there for such
refutation. Jagat kaaraNattvaM has already been dealt by sUtrakAra in 2nd
sUtra janmAdhyssyathaH, then what is the necessity of repeating kaaraNatvaM
for the same brahman?
2. This Brhamn in advaita bhAShya is the creator Brahman and hence sagUNa
brahman, which is not the same jignyAsa Brahman talked about in the first
sUtra. This is the viShyAntara.
3. In any refutation there is a rule -- the hEtu used must be acceptable
for pUrvapaxin who is being refuted. The hEtu used "pradhAna is not
ShabdaM" is not at all accepted by sAnkhya-s as they do not even say it is
4. As said before many terms has to be adhyahar-ed to yield the meaning.
Per advaita, anvaya would be "aShabdaM (pradAnaM) (kAraNaM) na |
(kAraNasya) IkShatEh". Words in parenthesis are imported ones. Where as anvaya
of that sUtra per dvaitin is "(tat) aSabdaM na IkShatE". Only tat-pada is
imported, that too from previous sUtra context of "tat tu samanvayAt".
Hence there is no laghuttvaM in adviata bAShya.
> Secondly, as you point out, this sutrA from a grammatical perspective,
> talks about Brahman "seeing", and not Brahman's "seeability".
As I explained in another mail, even dvaitin treat it as "seeing" "paShyati"
> Thirdly, in all the arguments thus far (and I may have missed this as I
> haven't kept track), if Brahman is indeed knowable in sense alleged by the
> dvaitin, how can shrutis such as "yato vAcho nivartante, aprApya manasA
> saha" etc. which talk about the apremyatvam of Brahman, and smritis such as
> Vishnu SahsranAma, which have "aprameya" as one of His names, be explained?
Must be explained by samannvaya, otherwise no meaning for shAstra yOni
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list