[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:45 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Shruti is very explicit on this point when it said nArayaNaM mahAjnEyam.
>>
>
> Even the BG 13.12` says: jneyam yat tat pravakṣyāmi... and says it is
> stated as neither sat nor asat. na sat tat na asat uchyate.  Only that
> which is an object will come either under asat or sat. Brahman, though
> jneyam, is explicitly stated as 'neither sat nor asat.'  That definition
> removes its objectifiability.  What it implies is: this jneya Brahman is
> aprameyam.
>
> The kind of jneyatvam of Narayana or in the BG 13th ch. is not of the
> 'knowable' type.  On the contrary it is that which is to be known in the
> sense, not knowing Brahman is the cause of samsara and knowing it is
> release from bondage. That is why brahma jijnāsā itself is prescribed:
> jnātum icchā.  This jnātum is not as an object because the shruti itself is
> teaching: 'you are that', denying its objectifiablity.
>
> Sayana explains the narayana suktam word as: among many things that are to
> be known, this tattvam is the Supreme: mahā jneyam.  In fact, the
> Taittiriya itself says: tat vijijnāsasva, tat brahma: seek to know
> Brahman.  That does not mean that Brahman is an object for pramanas.
>
>
>

Even Dvaitins are not saying in a sense Brahman is object. All they are
saying Brahman is jnEya and has IkShaNeattvaM and hence sUtrakAra's used it
as a hEtu in that sUtra Om IkShattEH  na aShabdaM Om. Other member was
denying that hEtu does not fit in Brahman.

What you are saying now is you are accepting jnEyatvam in Brahman, and that
is enough for the case.

/sv