[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 11:45:50 CST 2016

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>

> Well, there are several objection from dvaitins on this --
> 1. Such refutation of sAnkhya does not fit well within the samanvaya
> adhikaraNa. Even per Shankara himself, 4th pAda is there for such
> refutation. Jagat kaaraNattvaM has already been dealt by sUtrakAra in 2nd
> sUtra janmAdhyssyathaH, then what is the necessity of repeating kaaraNatvaM
> for the same brahman?
> The advaita position is that the entire chapter 1 is the establishment of
Brahman as the true import of vedAs (hence samanvaya adhyAya). Starting
from 1.1.5 until the end of the chapter, it is the advaita position that
vyAsAchArya himself provides a sUtra commentary on tattu samanvayAt (1.1.4)
and his main pUrvapakshi here is the sAnkhyA philospher. In establishing
Brahman as jagat kAraNam, advaita's position is of Brahman as a chetana
kAraNam, whereas the sAnkhyA's position is that it is pradhAna as the
achetana kAraNam that is the jagat kAraNam. So in doing a samanvaya of
shruti vAkya to show Brahman as the kAraNam, it is natural that there will
be a refutation of sAnkhyA.

 2. This Brhamn in advaita bhAShya is the creator Brahman and hence sagUNa
> brahman, which is not the same jignyAsa Brahman talked about in the first
> sUtra. This is the viShyAntara.

This is just standard practice in adhyAropa apavAda prakriyA. We start off
saying that the world is a kAryam and BhagavAn is kAraNam in adhyAropa,
then in apavAda, go on to say that there is no kAryam jagat independent of
kAraNam bhagavAn, and finally we negate even that kAraNatva status of
bhagavAn. It is not vishayAntara, it is just a teaching methodology.

> 3. In any refutation there is a rule -- the hEtu used must be acceptable
> for pUrvapaxin who is being refuted. The hEtu used "pradhAna is not
> ShabdaM" is not at all accepted by sAnkhya-s as they do not even say it is
> ShabdaM.
> Indeed. Here the hEtu is Ikshate:. Shankara says that whenever we use a
visarga next to a verb, meaning of the word is to refer to its dhAtu. So by
the usage of the words paThati:, gaCchati: etc, the roots "paTh" and "gam"
are referred to. Here the verb is Ikshati (sees),so Ikshati: (refers to
Iksh dhAtu). Ikshate: is the hEtu panchami form of Ikshati:. Therefore the
hEtu is Ikshate:.

The meaning of Ikshate: is therefore "because of the seeing function".

This sUtra is referring to 6.3.2 Chandogya as the vishaya vAkya. The
sAnkhyA argues that the "sat" referred to in the mantrA is in fact the
pradhAna. To refute this, we say no. Why? Because the seeing function is
referred to in the same mantrA (tadaikshata bahusyAm prajayeyeti), it
cannot be the sAnkhya pradhAna which is incapable of seeing. This hEtu
(IkshaNa kriyA), the pUrvapakshi has to accept, IkshaNa kriyA is referred
to in the same veda mantra that he uses as his basis to argue that veda has
references to the pradhAna.

The sutra's meaning in the advaita interpretation is "Because of the seeing
function, no, (pradhAna) is not referred to in the shruti"

4. As said before many terms has to be adhyahar-ed to yield the meaning.
> Per advaita, anvaya would be "aShabdaM (pradAnaM) (kAraNaM) na |
> (kAraNasya) IkShatEh". Words in parenthesis are imported ones. Where as anvaya
> of that sUtra per dvaitin is "(tat) aSabdaM na IkShatE". Only tat-pada is
> imported, that too from previous sUtra context of "tat tu samanvayAt".
> Hence there is no laghuttvaM in adviata bAShya.

Secondly, as you point out, this sutrA from a grammatical perspective,
>> talks about Brahman "seeing", and not Brahman's "seeability".
> As I explained in another mail, even dvaitin treat it as "seeing"
> "paShyati"
If the dvaitin takes the active form of the word, then his interpretation
is that Brahman sees, not that Brahman is seen. If that is the case, then
what is the relevance of Brahman seeing? The import the dvaitin is trying
to establish "that Brahman is not beyond the reach of words (ie is
knowable)" is simply achieved by saying: "(tat) na ashabdam". Why did the
sUtrakAra use the word Ikshate:? Alternatively, if the dvaitin says that
"because Brahman sees, it is not beyond the reach of words", then there is
no logical link between the hEtu and the sAdhya - just because Brahman
sees, why is it not beyond the reach of words (and knowable)?

To summarise the problem with dvaita interpreation of this sutra is one of
the following:

1) It changes Ikshate from active usage to make it a passive usage. The
passive voice will explain that Brahman is knowable (as the meaning of
ikshate becomes "Brahman is seen", not "Brahman sees"), but this change of
voice is unnecessary and has to resort to Arsha prayOga for justification,
which the advaita interpretation does not.

2) If he doesn't use passive usage, but uses active voice for Ikshate, he
ignores the visarga in the sUtra (the anvaya your provided says Ikshate,
not Ikshate:), which is a problem. Even if that problem is forgiven, what
is the hEtu here? There is no panchami vibhakti in this sUtra in the
absence of the visarga.

3) If it is not 1 or 2, then the usage of Ikshate: is redundant. The
meaning that brahman is knowable can be simply achieved by saying "na
ashabdam". What purpose does the hEtu Ikshate: serve?

4) If it is not 1,2 or 3, then usage of Ikshate: as the hEtu  (because of
seeing function) has no logical link to Brahman's knowability - just
because Brahman sees, why should its accessibility by words (na ashabdam)
be achieved?


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list