.

The advaitins support their nirguNa concept of

brahman on the ground that He is avAchya i.e.
not conveyed by any word. The words convey
an entity on the basis of its attributes. The
attributes are technically known as
pravR^ittinimitta i.e. shabdapravR^ittinimitta.
Since brahman has no attributes, no word can
convey Him. Therefore, He is
sarvashabdAvAchya. Consequently, He cannot
be stated to be anantaguNa and
anantashabdavAchya. This contention of the
advaitin is refuted by the
nyAyAmR^itakaNtakoddhAra:

(
)
The concept of avAchyatva cannot be
maintained for the following reasons:
(1) If the very expression sarvashabdAvAchya
denotes brahman primarily, then the
sarvashabdAvAchyatva concept has no legs to
stand upon. The view that it conveys brahman
secondarily is not tenable, as there is not other
mukhyArtha of it:

(2) If th expressions nirvisheshha, svaprakAsha,
etc., convey their import as vAchyArtha, then
the concept of avAchyatva is given up. These
cannot convey mukhyArtha i.e. vAchyArtha for

these expressions. Therefore, vAchyatva of

brahman cannot be avoided:

(3) If the very expression laxya conveys its

import as vAchyArtha, then the concept of
avAchyatva is given up. If it is conveyed as
laxyArtha, then its very laxyatva is given up. A
word that conveys a laxyArtha cannot be by
itself a laxya. Ity is only a vAchaka word:

The advaitin tries to argue that the words
avAchya and laxya can have laxyArtha without

vAchyArtha, since these are samasta and

yaugika words respectively and have the status
of sentence. The advaitin claims the sentence
has no vAchyArtha of its own, but still conveys
its import. Therefore, these words can convey
brahman without being the vAchyArtha of these
words. This contention is not tenable, because
according to anvitAbhidhAnavAda, the sentence
meaning also is vAchyArtha:

(
)
After refuting the avAchyatva of brahman, the
nyAyAmR^ita gives the grounds to establish
vAchyatva as under:
(1)

(2)

(3) (a)

(b)

(c)

These passages that are frequently quoted by the
advaitins in support of avAchyatva viz. yato
vAcho nivartante ashabdasparsham, etc., do not
support avAchyatva. These only indicate that
brahman being Infinite cannot be pinpointed as
limited as ' this ' either in thought or words or in
reason. He is beyond such limited expressions.
The meru mountain though seen is dscribed as
beyond sight because of its vastness:

Therefore, brahman is
yaugikAnantavaidikashabdavAchyam.