[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Akhandarthavaada Criticism - Slokas 1-972 to 1-980

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

2017-07-07 13:04 GMT-04:00 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >  The Lakshyartha is not like in the Ganga example because there
> > > is no bank or part of Brahman. Brahman is Whole and without parts. The
> > > Lakshyartha of Brahman cannot mean a part of Brahman like in Ganga's
> > > Lakshyartha. Therefore the example is wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > Bank (tIra) is not part of Ganga, but "associated" to Ganga by virtue of
> it
> > being near to it.
> >
> > Similarly, since Brahman is Eka Eva in AV, such Brahman cannot have any
> > relationship/association with non-Brhamn entities and hence usage of
> >  lakShyartha is meaning less in AV.
> >
>
> The lakshana that the Advaitin resorts to is not the ajahallakshana
> exemplified by the above example of Ganga. On the other hand it is the
> jahadajahallakshana of the type 'so'yam devadattaḥ' where there is no
> signifying any 'related' object like the gangātīra.. It is akhandarthata
> where the very same 'vyaktimātra' Devadatta is involved, only with the
> incidentals like the place, time, apparel etc.


Even in prayOga  'so'yam devadattaḥ' , the pada "dEvadattha" should refer
to the anuyOgi by its mukhyArtha if the intension for the identity has to
make sense.

Btw, jahadajahallakshana (which is quite unique to AV only and none others
accepts it) is used for aikya in identity statement. It is not used as
mukhyArtha vs.lakshyArtha point of view of a pada used.

/sv