[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The advaita position is that bheda vAkyas in the shruti are not to be
> taken as pramANa for bhedatvam.
>
> 1) For any means of knowledge to be a pramANa, it has to reveal things
> that are not previously known. That there is bhedA is well known through
> everyday experience. One does not need the vedA to tell us that fire is
> hot, it is knowable via pratyaksha. Similarly we experience bhedA everyday,
> and therefore we don't need the vedA to tell us that bhedA is satyam.
>

Well, they are not talking about bhEda between vastu-s known from
pratyaksha neither. They are talking about atIndriya padArtha/tatvas and
difference between them. For example, when difference between Brahman and
Jiva is said to exist, neither Brahman nor jIva is known from pratyaksha.
Otherwise we would not any atheism at all!

In another reply, a member quoted Shankara' saying Brahman is already known
in terms of "I" pratyAya. If we were to take your argument and apply on
Shankar's quote, then vEda should not talk about Brahman at all?


> 2) Further, if vedA was a pramANa to reveal bhedatvam, then those cultures
> that did not have vedA, would all be advaitins, as they would have no means
> of knowing that bhedA is there. That is clearly not the case, every culture
> around the world only talks about bhedA.
>

This argument is based on wrong understanding about bhEda-vAdins. Veda is
not just pramANa to reveal bhEdatvam as "category" as you think, but should
be consider as pramANa to reveal bhEdatvam between entities which are not
known other than vEda itself.



> Therefore vedA's tAtparyam cannot be bhedA.
>
Why not? If vEda is teaching about tatva A and tatava B, which themselves
are not known from any other pramANa-s, why you deny tAtparya being bhEda?


> However, there is no other means to know about abhedatvam other than
> shruti. Hence vedA's pramANatvam is only possible when abhedA vAkyAs are
> taken as pramANam.
>
So, are you saying pramANatvam of any pramANa should be based on whether or
not it reveals your IshTa? In other words, prAmaNya is tightly coupled with
your Ishta-siddhi?

It should be otherwise -- pramANya is independent of your wishlist and
should be identified apriory. In case of vEda it is due to them being
apouruShya, which is not based on anybody's IshTa. Once this pramANya is
fixed, your iShTa/aniShTa should follow from that pramANa jannita jnyAna.


Your second point about vAchyatva of padas needed for a vAkya to be
> arthavAda is irrelevant. We are not saying abheda vAkyas  are arthavAda. It
> is abheda vAkya that have padAs referring to an avAchya brahman. Bheda
> vAkyas have padAs that have vAchyatva, so by your own rule, they can be
> arthavAda.
>
You missed the point -- arthavAda or otherwise on any type of vAkya-s
(abhEda or bhEda type) can be considered only if pada-s in them have
vAchyatva on the terms being referenced. When your paxa is about all pada-s
denote Brahman by their lakShyartha only, then artha vAda concept is not
applicable for any type of vAkyas which talk about such Brahman.

/sv



>>