[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Mar 13 00:29:44 CST 2016

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >Then other set of vAkyas has to forego and thereby step into shrutahAna
> > >territory!
> > >That's fine, buy again, what happens to other set of vAkya-s?
> >
> > The topic of Bheda-shrutis vis a vis the abheda-shrutis is discussed in
> > detail in the advaitasiddhi. Suffice it to say that, one solution is to
> > accept Bheda-shrutis, those vAkyas of the shruti that seem to deal with
> > duality, as describing vyAvahArika bheda, since there cannot be be any
> > bheda at the pAramArthika level.
> This exactly is what dvaitins do not agree. Bheda or no bhEda at the
> ultimate level has to come only after doing samanvya of both type of
> vAkya-s as these vAkyas are our starting point. Instead what's been done
> is we decide the hEtu first that "since there cannot be be any bheda at the
> pAramArthika level" type and then using this kind of hEtu one is explaining
> away bhEda vAkyas as arthavAda.

The above is neither true nor logical.  No one can start the discourse
without having considered the status of all types of vākyas beforehand. One
can see the detailed analysis of both bheda and abheda vākyas in the
bhashya for the fourth sutra.  In fact the Sutrakāra himself commences his
text with the declaration of the need to know Brahman, which is by no means
something that is dualistic.  He does not choose to specify the need to
know the dualistic world for liberation. That shows that the sutrakāra too
believes that the non-dual Brahman is what is to be taught as the jneya

> arthavAda is one of tAtparya linga-s, and can be applied only when
> vAchyatva of pada-s in vAkhya is accepted. It cannot be done so in the
> paxa where all pada-s are considered as lakShya only.

There is no strength in the above argument.  No one has denied the
vāchyatva of a pada.  If a pada did not have vāchyatva, it ceases to be a
pada. There is no pada that has no vāchyārtha.  Even in Advaita, the tat
and tvam pada-s do have vāchyārtha.  It is only after the vāchyārtha is
considered for their applicability to the Mahavakya, the lakshyārtha is
resorted to.

 It would be interesting to note a verse from the mahopanishat 4.54 / Laghu
Yoga vAsiShTha utpatti prakaraNam 1.12:

ऋतमात्मा परं ब्रह्म सत्यमित्यादिका बुधैः ।
कल्पिता व्यवहारार्थं यस्य संज्ञा महात्मनः ॥4.54॥

[In order to facilitate parlance, the wise employ words such as Rtam, AtmA,
Param, Brahma, Satyam, etc., to designate that Supreme Self.]

No one denies that each one of the words listed above has a vāchyārtha.

In he bhashya for the very first sutra, Shankara has said:

उच्यते — अस्ति तावद्ब्रह्म नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावं सर्वज्ञं
सर्वशक्तिसमन्वितम् ।* ब्रह्मशब्दस्य* हि व्युत्पाद्यमानस्य
नित्यशुद्धत्वादयोऽर्थाः प्रतीयन्ते,* बृंहतेर्धातोरर्थानुगमात् *।


> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list