[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1
agnimile at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 11:59:57 CST 2016
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> Namaste Sri Subbuji,
>> Regarding Sri PurandaradAsa's explanation for the limitation of words to
>> describe the infinite guNAs of Brahman, the context of where this vAkya
>> occurs in Taittiriya doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. Here the
>> context of shruti is when talking about Brahman as pancha kosha
>> and not occurring where the vibhUtis of the Lord are being described.
> Isn't it His vilakShaNattvaM itself His vibhUti?
Yes, but it is a stretch for the shruti to say " He has vilakshaNa vibhUti,
I cannot even describe his other vibhUtis with words"
>> Going back to other arguments made in this context. Just because shruti
>> cannot refer to Brahman, it does not mean that it ceases to be a pramANa
>> for Brahman, and one cannot use shruti vAkya in support of advaita.
> This is the bigger epistemological question -- can we treat a source as
> pramANa if it generates knowledge only by lakShya which is not known so
> apriori by any other pramANa(s)?
Brahman is prati bodha viditam matam - it is the subject and the subject is
ever known, though not known correctly. Veda merely removes the wrong
superimpositions on that subject, allowing the subject to reveal itself.
Shruti's pramANatvam is in removing the obstacles/wrong notions that
>> For shruti to be a pramANa, it is sufficient if it generates brahma pramA,
>> which it does, through mahAvAkya. This link between the need to referr to
>> mukhyArtha and pramaNatva does not hold.
> How can even it generates brahma pramA by lakShyartha, unless Brahman is
> known apriori from other sources other than shruti? Can 'ganga' pada
> generates the concept of bank in one's head if one were never ever seen a
> bank by pratyaksha?
>> The attempt made by the other member to paint advaita as unvedic, is
>> totally preposterous.
> I am sorry, it was not meant in a negative connotation when "unvedic"
> word was used. What really meant was that it is an "what-if" analysis
> where if the pramANa used is other than shruti, then such position would be
> non-vedic. "Non-vedic" is better choice of word than "unvedic".
It would, if we were saying that shruti was not a pramANa, but we are not
saying it. In fact, our very system of philosophy stems from the shruti
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list