[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1
agnimile at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 04:11:33 CST 2016
Namaste Sri Subbuji,
Regarding Sri PurandaradAsa's explanation for the limitation of words to
describe the infinite guNAs of Brahman, the context of where this vAkya
occurs in Taittiriya doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. Here the
context of shruti is when talking about Brahman as pancha kosha vilakshaNa,
and not occurring where the vibhUtis of the Lord are being described.
Going back to other arguments made in this context. Just because shruti
cannot refer to Brahman, it does not mean that it ceases to be a pramANa
for Brahman, and one cannot use shruti vAkya in support of advaita.
For shruti to be a pramANa, it is sufficient if it generates brahma pramA,
which it does, through mahAvAkya. This link between the need to referr to
mukhyArtha and pramaNatva does not hold.
The attempt made by the other member to paint advaita as unvedic, is
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> Thirdly, in all the arguments thus far (and I may have missed this as I
> haven't kept track), if Brahman is indeed knowable in sense alleged by the
> dvaitin, how can shrutis such as "yato vAcho nivartante, aprApya manasA
> saha" etc. which talk about the apremyatvam of Brahman, and smritis such as
> Vishnu SahsranAma, which have "aprameya" as one of His names, be explained?
Words along with the mind will fail to 'reach' Brahman because of Its
attributes, guṇas, are infinite. They cannot be spoken of by words, fully.
Sri Purandaradasa, in the famous song 'jagadoddhāraṇa...' said:
.ನಿಗಮಕೆ ನಿಲುಕದ ಅಗಣಿತ ಮಹಿಮನ ಸುಗುಣಾಂತರಂಗನ ಆಡಿಸಿದಳೆಶೋದ. [Yashodha cuddled
that Krishna whose greatness cannot be fully captured even by the Veda...]
And for the word 'aprameya', one can easily say: it is aprameya for the
worldly pramanas and not for the Veda. Of course, Shankara too, in that
commentary said this alone but went further to also clarify how the Veda
teaches Brahman, by the mode of negating what is superimposed.
> On 25 Feb 2016 5:30 a.m., "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha <
>> svedagarbha at gmail.com>
>> > 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.
>> From the beginning of this discussion when the word 'IkShattEH' was used,
>> have been unable to understand exactly what that word means according to
>> the Dvaita interpretation of that sutra. From what you have said so far:
>> 'that Brahman is known, or knowable, seen, etc.' it is not clear how that
>> word in that sutra fits this meaning. For, in my understanding, if the
>> sutra should mean: 'because Brahman is seen/known', then the word should
>> 'īkṣyate' 'ईक्ष्यते’ , in the karmaṇi prayoga, (indirect speech), which
>> will mean: (Brahman) is seen, or known. But the word in the sutra is
>> 'ईक्षतेः’ The meaning the Advaita bhashya gives to that word is:
>> ईक्षतिकर्तृत्वं ब्रह्मणः एव श्रवणात् (’तदैक्षत, बहु स्याम्, प्रजायेय इति’
>> (तैत्तिरीय), वेदबाह्यस्य जडस्य प्रधानस्य तदसम्भवात्, न प्रधानं जगत्कारणम्,
>> अपि तु चेतनं ब्रह्म वैदिकम्. [कथमशब्दत्वम् ? ईक्षतेः =
>> ईक्षितृत्वश्रवणात्कारणस्य । bhashyam for 1.1.5]
>> How will that word ''ईक्षतेः’ of the sutra give the meaning: 'because
>> Brahman is seen/known' in the passive voice?
>> > What you are saying now is you are accepting jnEyatvam in Brahman, and
>> > that is enough for the case.
>> The jneyatvam is not the way that Brahman is an object but as that which
>> has to be known. It is in the sense of ज्ञातव्यम्.
>> > /sv
>> 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