[Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 310 - 314 Pativrataa Stree

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sat May 9 03:00:44 CDT 2015

Dear Sri Anandji,


Reg your observation

<< However, Shankara's adhyAsa bhAShya's point about the Self being the
"asmatpratyayaviShaya", as was pointed out, must be remembered in
interpreting vAkyas such as "AtmA vA are draShTavyaH", etc. In fact,
Sureshvara, in his Br. Up. vArtika, says that the AtmA vA are draShTavyaH
vAkya cannot be an injunction,>>

 the use of the term " etc " leads to a confusion as to which are all the
portions of the vakya are being referred to. Specifically is the
immediately following portion << shrotavyaH, manthavyah,
nidhidhyaasitavya,>> included in " etc " which would lead to the conclusion
that it is also not considered to be a vidhi ( injunction in your post )
vakya. In this regard kindly also refer to my reply to the post by Sri
Sadanandaji. Perhaps you could also clarify your post.

With Warm Regards


On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Perhaps, VAdirAja's contention that the advaitin admits the subject and
> object of a cognition must necessarily be different is not without a basis
> in an advaitic text, albeit this principle is taken out of context and
> applied cleverly in the nyAyaratnAvali in an attempt to discredit the
> abheda shruti. The influential work, nyAyamakaranda of Anandabodha, for
> example, is concerned with, among other things, arguments with naiyAyikas,
> PrAbhAkaras, Buddhists, and others on the Self-luminosity or
> Self-manifestedness (svyaMprakAshatva) of Atman and JnAna as well. To
> understand what Anandabodha is saying when he rules out the identity of the
> subject and object in a cognition, we need to be aware of the nature of his
> arguments in the nyAyamakaranda. First, according to naiyAyikas, knowledge
> of jnAna is one of the attributes of the soul Atman, in which it inheres,
> jnAnAdhikaramAtmA, as the tarkasaMgraha says. Atman is the substratum or
> adhikaraNa in which jnAna inheres by means of the samavAya (inherence)
> relation. Further, many naiyAyikas maintain that the Atman is revealed in
> an inner perception of the mind, which they call "mAnasapratyakSha". This
> mental perception, mAnasapratyakSha takes place independently of external
> senses and is of the form "I know", "I will", "I feel", "I wish", etc.
> However, even in such "inner perceptions", the Atman is not presented as
> itself, but only as the substratum of jnAna, sukha, duHkha, icchA, and
> yatna. To give a rough analogy, when we see a pot placed on the ground, the
> substratum of the pot is the ground, and the perception of the pot is the
> "foreground" perception, while that of the ground is the "background"
> perception. The ground is undoubtedly perceived, but only as the substratum
> of the pot, not in isolation. Even so in the case of the inner perception,
> "I know", knowledge is perceived as inhering in its substratum, the Atman.
> For this reason, a naiyAyika would describe the adhikaraNatA
> (substratum-ness) of Atman (in a somewhat complicated way) as,
> "jnAnatva-avacchinna-samavAya-saMbandha-avacchinna-jnAna-niShTha-AdheyatA-nirUpita-adhikaraNatA."
> Thus, in short, the Atman is an object of inner perception,
> mAnasapratyakSha.
> In total contrast with the above, the advaitins hold that jnAna is not an
> attribute of Atman, but jnAna *is* Atman/Brahman, vide satyaM jnAnam
> anantaM brahma, prajnAnaM brahma, etc. And Atman is a self-luminous entity,
> which does not require another entity to reveal it. Rather, the
> self-luminous Atman reveals/manifests other objects in the empirical
> (vyavahArika)  world, which themselves are not self-luminous. Cognition or
> jnAna, is also self-luminous and manifests itself. This being the case,
> Anandabodha argues that the Atman cannot be an object of cognition, in the
> sense objects of the empirical world are. He neatly sums up his argument:
> saMveditA na saMvidadhInaprakAshaH
> saMvitkarmatAmantareNAparokShatvAtsaMvedanavaditi | The Cognizer cannot
> depend on Cognition for His manifestation, because He is not an object of
> Cognition, (but) directly reveals Himself, just as Cognition.
> In other words, the Atman is the subject or witness of all empirical
> cognitions, and it is self-luminous. Being the subject, it cannot be an
> object of cognition. Anandabodha refutes the theory of mAnasa-pratyakSha of
> the naiyAyikas thus: kartRkarmaNoraikAtmyAnupalambhAd, no
> khlavangulyaivAngulI spRshyate chidyate vA dharayaivAsidhArA|  The Atman
> cannot be the object of a vRtti (modification of the mind) because the
> subject and object of a cognition cannot be the same, just as a finger
> cannot touch itself, nor can a sword cut itself. It is also natural to
> expect that Anandabodha was well aware of Shankara's bhAShya dealing with
> the topic of adhyAsa and upanishad statements such as "na dRShTerdraShTAraM
> pashyeH" (you cannot see the witness of vision), taM pratyagAtmAnaM
> dRShTerdraShTAram na pashyeH, ataH naiva darshayituM shakyate gavAdivat
> (hence It cannot be pointed out objectively like a cow), etc. To sum up,
> the Atman cannot be an object of a cognition in the sense an empirical
> object can be. It cannot be known in the sense an empirical object can be.
> However, Shankara's adhyAsa bhAShya's point about the Self being the
> "asmatpratyayaviShaya", as was pointed out, must be remembered in
> interpreting vAkyas such as "AtmA vA are draShTavyaH", etc. In fact,
> Sureshvara, in his Br. Up. vArtika, says that the AtmA vA are draShTavyaH
> vAkya cannot be an injunction, in the sense of an injunction to perform an
> act, precisely because the realizer (draShTR) and the realized (draShTavya)
> have to be different in order for such an injunction to exist. When there
> is no difference between one who is enjoined to perform an act and the
> object of the act, no such injunction is possible.
> द्रष्टृद्रष्टव्ययोर्भेदे सत्येवं धीर्विधीयते।
> नियोज्यविषयाभेदे घटते न विधिर्यतः॥९७॥ (vArtika on Br. Up. 4.5.6)
> Anand
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list