[Advaita-l] Fwd: Nyayasudha Objections 1
svedagarbha at gmail.com
Thu Mar 3 06:14:03 CST 2016
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:13 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
>>>> So, the hetu 'Ikshateḥ' used by the dvaitin is not at all inadmissible
>>> to the advaitin for he too accepts Brahman is realized/realizable. What is
>>> the point in giving that hetu?
>> As explained above, hEtu is not the dispute between two parties (and that
>> is the very prerequisite in any argument), but the issue is only with
>> advaitin's sAdhya of Brahman's avAchyattvam. That exactly is the sAdhya
>> sUtrakAra denying when He say na aShbdhaM. otherwise He would have directly
>> stated correct sAdhya as "ShabdaM", but instead He uses na-kAra exclusively
>> to drive home His point.
> That is not the issue here. For the sutrakāra, it is the insentient
> ashabda-pradhānam's inadmissibility in the Vedanta system as the
> jagatkāraṇam. That is why he is denying that on the basis on the hetu:
> Ikṣateḥ, that is possible only by the sentient vedic brahman.
Context of jagat kAraNa nirAkaraNa (for pradAna) does not go well with
samanvaya context. The very demand/akAnkSha of sutrakAra's for doing
samanvaya in previous sUtra by saying 'tattu samanvyat' , it means tat
(Brahman who was introduced in previous ones) has to have derive from doing
sam-anvaya of shAstra (which is again from yet previous sUtra) by clearing
all contradiction. So, at the time of tattu samanvaya sUtra, we are still
talking about shabda shAstra level, which is epistemological level only.
Where is the question of jagat kaaraNa here? for it is the ontological
detail comes only after textual analysis and resolving all epistemological
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list