While explaining the case of Mayavadins, it is seen in Nyayasudha as: which means, the contention of Mayavadins that ‘Bandha’ is mithya, is not proper. This is because such “Mithyatva of Bandha” is not found in the sutra.
When, what is not found in the sutra, if explained in the Bhashya, then it ceases to be Bhashya, a per the agreed definition of Bhashya. So it is contended that Adwaita Bhashya ceases to be so.
(2) For this Adwaita comes up with an answer that the meaning of sutra is two fold :
Though Mithyatva of Bandha is not found in the four sabdas. Still by artha — that is, by derivation or by implied sense, it can be inferred that bandha is mithya, is meant in the sutra.
3) Now the moot question would be, when Adwaita puts a question on us, that Are we to take the same defence, as If bandhasatyatwa is not heard in the sutra, then by derivation or in an implied way bandhasatyatwa can be achieved by the sabda Then Adwaita can also content
Then the discussion will proceed on the merits and demerits, resorted to, by the two schools, and finally, the derivation made by Dwaita as will succeed for many, many reasons.
4) Here the moot and subtle question would be that in case, both are resorting to only on derivative basis, then such a charge on Mayavadins as may not hold good effectively and properly.
(i) The sutra contains the sabda ‘Brahma’. This means by Nirukta accepted by Mayavadins also as : — that Brahman, the person who has unlimited auspicious qualities.
(ii) One such quality is that a ‘absence of bandha’. For Brahman, bandha is totally absent and such absence is the most auspicious quality in Him.
(iii) When is said as an auspicious attribute, then it follows automatically, that bandha as real. In case bandha is mithya, then it is not possible to say because that very bandha itself is not true. There is no need to say that Hare’s horn is absent. because hare’s horn – itself is absent. Only when an entity is present in truth, when it is not there, at a particular place, or time, then to call that entity as not present will hold. This is a fundamental jurisprudence of thought. Hence ‘Bandha’ is real, follows automatically by the sabda ‘Brahma’ in the sutra. There is absolutely no derivation or implication here, and only the meaning of the word, is explained.
(6) Now the final question would be as to whether Mayavadins can also plead that by the Brahma sabda, that bandha is mithya, is obtained. They cannot plead, is patent. Because in their system, Brahman is ‘Nirguna’ and has no attributes.
In the alternative, when the sabda ‘Brahma’ in the sutra, be attributed to Saguna or Sabala Brahman, in that case, all the qualities in that Sabala Brahma are false. So this will also be false, that means is Satya.
Sriman Nyaya Sudha is the nector here and in Moksha also.
Om Sri Krsnarpanamastu