[Advaita-l] Fwd: Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The above objection is already addressed in another post (that the
> sankhyas do claim that their pradhanam is vedic).  Here, it is pointed out
> that the hetu used by the Dvaitin 'Ikshateḥ' is not denied by the
> purvapakshin (advaitin).
>

That is also I am saying above. In any refutation hEtu must be acceptable
to both parties then only pUrvapaxin's sAdhya could be refuted.
IkShaNiattva is a hEtu which is acceptable for both dvaitins and advaitins,
but what is being refuted is advaitin's sAdhya of Brahman being
aShabdam/avAchyaM.



> He has not stated that Brahman is not realized.
>

Correct, this hEtu part.


> Also, he has not stated that Brahman is not knowable through the shabda
> pramana, veda.
>
>
Even though you are not saying it directly, but with the position of
avAchyattvam/aShabdattvaM, it is illogical to hold such knowing through the
shabda pramana is possible. This is the argument.


>
> 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.



>> 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.
>>
>
> Actually, the above claim stands nullified. The word 'ashabdam' occurs in
> the Kathopanishat to teach that Brahman is devoid of shabda, sparsha, etc.
> Advaitin accepts this. The meaning for the word 'ashabam' in the Dvaita
> interpretation is not this but something else.  Hence, while the Advaitin
> does not say 'Brahman is ashabdam' but says 'pradhanam is ashabdam', the
> Dvaitin contradicts the Vedic dictum that 'Brahman is ashabdam' and asserts
> 'Brahman is not ashabdam.  If he says that this word has a different
> meaning for the Dvaitin, that the Advaitin's stand that 'brahman is
> avāchyam' is what is meant by this word, then all those so many words are
> supplied (adhyāhāra) by him by way of doing the sutrānvaya thereby
> indulging in the same defect he points at the advaitin for the sutranvaya
> of this sutra. So, he stands losing the laghutva he claimed. The Advaitin
> has no such problem since he does not connect that word to Brahman; he
> retains that Brahman is ashabdam (as per the Kathopanishat).  To reiterate,
> while the Kathopanishat holds 'Brahman is ashabdam', the Dvaitin refutes
> this and asserts 'Brahman is not ashabdam.'
>
>
>
As explained in my other mail, doing samanvaya between these seemingly
contradictory shruti statements is not at all an issue.

/sv