[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Akhandarthavaada Criticism - Slokas 1-972 to 1-980

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Sun Jul 9 13:50:59 EDT 2017


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
> Even in prayOga  'so'yam devadattaŠł•' , the pada "dEvadattha" should refer
> to the anuyOgi by its mukhyArtha if the intension for the identity has to
> make sense.
>
> Btw, jahadajahallakshana (which is quite unique to AV only and none others
> accepts it) is used for aikya in identity statement. It is not used as
> mukhyArtha vs.lakshyArtha point of view of a pada used.


Even if jadajahallakshaNA is used, it does not mean that the shruti vAkya
has amukhyArtham. What is amukhyArtham? Is it giving up the meaning that is
apparent when one encounters the word / sentence, and taking something
else? Alternatively, is it giving up the direct meaning, shakyArtham of the
word/sentence?

It is not the first, because the sAmAnAdhikaraNyam that is apparent in the
sentence tat tvam asi is not given up in the advaita interpretation of the
sentence. It is not the second either, because in jahadajahallakshaNa, even
though one portion of the meaning is given up for tat and tvam (the
visheshaNas), another portion of the meaning, the chaitanyam (visheshya) is
retained. Thus one cannot say that the shakyArtha is given up.

A sentence can take mukhyArtha as long as it does not rely on any other
sentence to convey the direct meaning of the sentence - even if the words
used in the sentence take a lakshaNa meaning. For example, in the sentence
"saindhavam Anaya" - the sentence's meaning is one only - bring the
saindhava, that which is born in the sindhu. However, saindhava can be
taken to mean the salt, where sindhu takes the meaning ocean. Alternatively
saindhava can mean a horse born in sindhu desha. Therefore, even if the
vAkya tAtparya is the same, the pada tAtparya is different.

The alternative is also true - the sentence can mean different things, but
the words take only one meaning. In the viSham bhunkshva sentence - the
word viSham and bhunkshva means poison and eat respectively. However, the
meaning of the sentence could be different based on the context - it could
be a warning not to eat in the enemy's house, or it could simply be an
instruction to consume poison.

Thus the mukhyArtha or amukhyArtha of a sentence does not depend on whether
the words in the sentence take mukhyArtha or otherwise.

The determining factor whether the meaning of a vAkya in shruti is
mukhyArtham or otherwise, is not restricted to whether it takes the
shakyArtham only, but whether it independently reveals the tAtparya of
shruti as determined by the six tAtparya lingas. If a sentence is
anyasheSham, i.e. it is subsidiary to a vidhi, then the meaning is
amukhyArtham. If it is ananyasheSham, it independently reveals the
tAtparya, then it is mukhyArtham.

Thus advaita shruti, in independently revealing the akhaNDa vastu
determined by the six tAtparya lingas as the tAtparya of all the
upaniShads, is mukhyArtham only.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list