[Advaita-l] Fwd: Nyayasudha Objections 1
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 12:36:42 CST 2016
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > universe.
> 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
The 4th pada is there, for Shankara, thus: Even though jagatkāraṇatvam for
Brahman is already established, along with the purvpaksha in the 5th sutra,
yet, since the Sankhyas hold that there are many vedic passages that
support them. Unless it is shown that such words/passages that he claims
are not in his support but they mean something else, the brahma
jagatkāraṇatvam will not be completely established. Hence the 4th pada. In
the Ikshati adhikarana only the claim that vedic passages support sankhya
has been refuted. Here, in the 4th pada, those passages mean something else
- is being shown.
Jagat kaaraNattvaM has already been dealt by sUtrakAra in 2nd
> sUtra janmAdhyssyathaH, then what is the necessity of repeating
> kaaraNatvaM for the same brahman?
See the above.
> 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.
Advaitins also see that sutra as teaching svarupa lakshanam of Brahman,
that is jijnāsya brahman. The 'yataḥ' indicates this. Without Brahman
being involved in creation, creation emerges 'from' brahman, owing to the
maya shakti. And that source from which such emergence of world is taught
by the veda, is Brahman that is jijnāsya. Thus, advaitins take that as
svarupa lakshana as well. Since it is difficult to know which brahman is to
be known, the lakshana is given, as adhyaropa. Like shākhā-chandra.
> 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
They do say. They claim many words in the veda are in their favour. For
example, the word avyakta in the Kathopanishat '....avyaktāt puruṣaḥ
paraḥ' is their pradhanam. In fact it is said charvakas too claim veda
pramanya: sa vā eṣa purusho annarasamayaḥ. Bauddhas claim: asad vā idam
agre āsīt...is in their favor.
> 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.
In the Dvaita interpretation too: tat ikṣateḥ is not enough. Brahman is not
seen/realized by all. So you will have to add: mumukṣubhiḥ.
Apart from that, in fact that hetu as given out by you is redundant. There
was no objection to the Brahman being ashabdam since in the shāstra
yonitvāt itself it was clearly established that Veda is the source to know
brahman and veda is itself brought out by brahman. So, the shabdatva of
Brahman has been established eminently by the third sutra itself. Where is
the need to question that now in the fifth sutra, even after the grand
samanvaya has been done? So, there is no worth in the dvaita
interpretation of the ikshati sutra. It ends up making the entire fifth
sutra redundant. You claim laghutva but did not realize the asādhutva,
aprayojakatva, vyarthatva dosha of the very sutra you have ended up
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list