[Advaita-l] Nyaya Sudha Objections 2
agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 05:11:48 CST 2016
Namaste Sri Venkatesh,
1) Sri Jayatirtha says "बन्धबाध एव मुक्तिरिति चेत् । नैवं श्रुतिसूत्रे वदतः
तरति शोकमित्यादौ विपरीताभिधानात्।"
The full quote is tarati shokam Atmavit, from Chandogya Upanishad. The
second part of this quote, "Atmavit", one who knows the self, is very
important. That is "he who knows the self crosses shoka(the ocean of
If bondage were real, then *mere knowledge* of Atma will not liberate one
from bondage. It would *have* to involve some action to remove that real
bondage. That is some karma - either yajna, dAna, tapas, upAsana, bhakti
However, the upanishad repeatedly says only knowledge can relieve bondage,
attain the highest (brahmavid Apnoti param, T. Up.), etc. Here too,
Chandogya says that only a knower of Atma is relieved of bondage. If by
mere knowledge samsAra is ended, then the nature of samsAra must be
opposite to the nature of knowledge. Therefore, samsAra has to be the
nature of ignorance, which is the opposite of knowledge.
Ignorance of what? Of the self. How to gain such an ignorance-ending
knowledge? By knowing the truth of the underlying object, Atma. How to get
Atma jnAnam? By commencing its study - therefore, athAto brahma jignAsa is
2) Secondly, Sri Jayatitha says, "ब्रह्मज्ञानं जीवगतं बन्धं निवर्तयति’ इति
प्रयोजनोक्तिर्बन्धमिथ्यात्वं नापेक्षते" and "नहि शुक्तिकायामारोपितं रजतं
Here he says that bandha mithyAtvam is not required for the advaitin's
statement that brahma jnAnam will release the jiva's bandhA. The reason he
quotes is that just like the knowledge of a pot will not remove the
illusion of silver seen in a shell. So he says that only jiva knowledge can
remove jiva bandha and brahman knowledge cannot remove jiva bandha.
This argument presupposes a real difference between a jIva and brahman. We
do not accept that such a difference is real. It is only because a shell is
different from pot, that the knowledge of the pot does not remove the
illusion of silver in shell. However, if there is no bhedA in the vastu
that is the adhishthAnam of the illusion, and the object of knowledge, then
by merely knowing the object of knowledge, the adhishthAnam of the illusion
is known and hence the illusion can be removed. Similarly, by knowing that
the jiva-hood of the jIva is unreal and that jiva is in reality brahman,
then brahma jnAna is sufficient to remove a mithyA bandha of a jiva.
2016-02-16 6:08 GMT+00:00 Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
> Thanks to all responding to the first objection.
> I am giving one objection in Nyaya Sudha commentary on Sutra 1-1-1
> Athaato Brahma Jijnaasaa.
> Here Teeka Raayaru is attacking Advaiti doctrine of बन्धमिथ्यात्व.
> Advaitis say the Bondage itself is false. Therefore Moksha is also
> false. Then why is the Sutrakaara saying Brahman Inquiry has to be
> done. What is the purpose? Why should we aim for false Moksha using
> false scriptures to destroy false Bondage?
> न्याय सुधा - बन्धबाध एव मुक्तिरिति चेत् । नैवं श्रुतिसूत्रे वदतः ।
> तरति शोकमित्यादौ विपरीताभिधानात्।
> विमुक्तश्च विमुच्यत इति श्रुतार्थपत्तिस्तु भाष्यकृता एवान्यथोपपादिता।
> The Sruti and Sutras are not saying negation of Bondage is Moksha.
> Because the Sruti Vakya 'Tarati Shokam Atmavit' and 'Athato Brahma
> Jijnaasaa' are saying something totally different. If you argue Sruti
> Vakya 'Vimuktasca Vimucyate' is supporting you the Bhashyakaara
> Madhvacharya has given a different explantion in Anandamaya
> In the Sruti 'Tarati Shokam Atmavit' the Knower of Self will cross the
> river of Sorrow. If there is no river at all what will he cross? In
> Sutra 'Athaato Brahma Jijnaasaa' if there is no Bondage and no Moksha
> what is there to do Inquiry into Brahman?
> न्याय सुधा -
> अपिचैवमुक्तिः - ’ब्रह्मज्ञानं जीवगतं बन्धं निवर्तयति’ इति सौत्री
> प्रयोजनोक्तिर्बन्धमिथ्यात्वं नापेक्षते । यदि जीवज्ञानं जीवगतस्य
> बन्धस्य निवर्तकमिति प्रयोजनोक्तिः सूत्रे स्यात् तदा कथंचिदपेक्षेतापि
> बन्धमिथ्यात्वम् । नचैवं सूत्रकृदाह । नहि शुक्तिकायामारोपितं रजतं
> घटज्ञानान्निवर्तते । ब्रह्मज्ञानं नाम त्वंपदार्थस्य जीवस्य
> त्वत्पदार्थेन ब्रह्मणैक्यानुभव इति तु स्वगोष्ठीनिष्ठं प्रलापमात्रम् ।
> निराकरिष्यमाणत्वात् ।
> Here Teekaachaarya is saying there is a difference between Nivrutti
> of Bondage and Baadha of Bondage. If a person has a mental sickness
> and we cure him. That is Nivrutti. If a person is seeing a Silver
> instead of Shell the false Silver will disappear when he sees Shell
> correctly. This is Baadha.
> For Bondage there is Nivrutti but not Baadha like it is for a false
> object. Because Bondage is not false.
> Brahma Jnana removes Bondage present in Jeeva. Here it is Nivrutti
> only but not Baadha. If Advaitis said Jeeva Jnana will remove Bondage
> in Jeeva there Bandha Mithyaatva could be necessary. But Sutra Kaara
> Veda Vyaasa did not say that.
> If you say Brahma Jnaana will remove Bondage present in Jeeva and that
> Bondage is false it is not correct because -
> A false thing like Silver in Shell cannot be removed by knowledge of
> Pot but by knowledge of Shell only.
> He is arguing a false thing is removed by knowledge of the base
> Adhishthana only but not knowledge of some other thing.
> Your saying Brahma Jnaana is experience of Oneness of Jeeva and
> Brahman is only good for chit chatting in your own group of Advaitis.
> It will be rejected in this text later.
> How to answer this objection? Kindly think about it and reply.
> 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