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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
>  However, in the example, "yaShTIH
> praveshaya" (bring the sticks), there is no inconsistency in the literal
> meaning, since it *is* possible to fetch the sticks. The intention of the
> speaker (tAtparya) here is, however, not to bring the sticks but the stick
> bearing persons for the purpose of feeding. There is an inconsistency of
> tAtparya, although there is no anvaya inconsistency.


And



>
> A similar situation occurs in the sentence "kAkebhyo dadhi rakShyatAm",
> protect the curds from the crows. Although the literal meaning is not
> inconsistent at all, the intention of the speaker is to protect the curds
> not only from crows, but also from all creatures that could possibly spoil
> it! kAkapadasya dadhyupaghAtuke lakShaNA sarvataH
> dadhirakShAyAstAtparyaviShayatvAt, says VishwanAtha. This principle of
> tAtparya-anupapatti as the ground for lakShaNA is accepted by advaitins and
> Madhusudana makes use of it in his response to the above objection by the
> dvaitin.
>
>
In both the example, the tAtparya of the speaker could be clarified/know
from speaker himself. There is no need to choose between lakShaNa and
mukhya. When we are dealing with shruti, wich is apouruSheya, who decides
the tAtparya? Isn't it that tAtparya itself is the central dispute between
two schools? Given this, assuming the tatparya in one way and interpreting
the vAkya is akin to flaw of theory laden observation.

More over, the existence of other animals (that could consume curds) are
known through shabda-s using their mukhyArtha, such as "marjAla", "shunka"
etc. In the system when you argue not a single word denote these creatures
in their mukhyArtha, how can you apply the tatparya of inclusion of those
animals in the vAkhya "kAkebhyo dadhi rakShyatAm"? Similarly, unless
brahman is denoted and known by any single shabda by its mukhyartha, such
brhman cannot be tAtparya of any vAkhya-s in shruti. Two arguments  --
 bhahman is avAchaya, and tAtparya-anupapatti; does not go with each
other.

/sv