The gist of Sri Bhashyam on ChatussUtrI--by Dr.NSA

[Guest guest]

PART = 10.

 

6. THE SAGUNA AND NIRGUNA TEXTS :

 

The Nirguna texts have greater force and they are

cancelling the Saguna texts according to the mimansa

principle, i.e., Appacchadanyaya.

 

7. The text of Taithiriya describing Brahman as

Satyam, Jananam, Anantham does not define qualities of

Brahman.

 

All the terms namely, Satya, Jnana and Anantha have

the same meaning.

Here there is no non distinction. They are not

synonyms. The unity of purport is the same but yet

these words are expressing what is opposite

in nature. The word 'Satya' distinguishes Brahma from

whatever is Asatya. The word 'Jnanam' or knowledge

distinguishes that from whatever is

non-sentient. The word 'Anantha' distinguishes it from

whatever is limited in time or space or space or

nature. This distinction is not

either a positive attribute or a negative attribute of

Braman and all terms are just Brahman itself. So the

one Brahman which is self luminous and free from all

differences is declared by this text. Other

Upanishadic

texts also declare the oneness of Brahman. So we

understand from the principle that all branches of the

Veda which teach the same doctrine that all these

speak of the one non - second Brahman itself.

 

An objection may be raised like this -

 

If we accept your interpretation than the words

Satya, Jnana and Anantha will be losing their primary

sense and will have to be taken in a secondary sense.

Is this not a fault ?

 

To this, we answer that the general purport of a

sentence is more powerful than the direct meanings of

the simple terms. According to the principle of

coordination oneness is the purport and so there is no

fault.

 

If, on this, another objection is raised that all the

words of a sentence are not to be understood in a

secondary sense, we say that there is not fault in it.

If the purport of the sentence is ascertained why

should we not take one word or all words in the

secondary sense to make it fit with the general

purport. So, the Upanishadic statements are

expounding Brahman that is not qualified by any

attribute.

 

8. SASTRA IS NOT ALL CONTRADICTING PRATYAKSHA :

 

We pointed out that in the case of a conflict or

contradiction between Sastra and Pratyaksha, the

Sastra is of greater force. But, there is not such

conflict because even in perception the non -

differnciated Brahman alone is apprehended.

 

OBJECTION :

 

Are we not preceiving different things of different

kinds as in the form of 'Here is a jar', 'Here is a

piece of cloth' etc. ? When it is

so, how could it be said that perception causes the

apprehension of ''Tan Matra'.

 

ANSWER :

 

Let us examine the judgement. "Here is a jar", There

are two things (1) the nature of the jar and (2) its

difference from other things.

These two cannot be the object of perception because

perceptual cognition takes place in one moment and

these two are related to different moments

of time. So, it has to be admitted that the object of

perception is the essential nature of the thing. For

the apprehension of difference from other things

remembrance of other things different from it is

necessary.

So difference is not apprehended by perception.

 

 

9. BHEDA CANNOT BE DESCRIBED (ADMITTED) LOGICALLY :

 

Logicians cannot give a definition of such a thing as

difference. Difference cannot be the essential nature

because it would result in the apprehension

of the essential nature of a thing and at the same

time judgements as to its difference from everything.

 

It may be said that the judgement "This is different

from other things" depends upon the remembrance of its

counter entities and as long as there is no such

remembrance there is not the judgement of difference

formed so long.

 

We say this reasoning is not admissible because you

maintain that difference is nothing but essential

nature. So you have no right to assume a dependence

on remembrance of counter entities etc.

 

As you do not depend upon the remembrance of counter

entities for the apprehension of essential nature, in

the same way you should not depend on counter entities

for apprehension of difference also. Therefore

difference is not the nature of the entity.

 

Nor, can you argue that difference is an attribute or

Dharma of an entity.

 

 

In that case you have to admit that is different from

essential nature. Difference is incapable of a logical

definition and we conclude that perception reveals

only "Being - Tanmatra".

 

 

10. PURE BEING ALONE IS THE ULTIMATE REALITY :

 

We observe that the pure being alone persists in all

cognitions - like "Here is a jar", "Here is a piece of

cloth", The jar is perceived", etc. The differences

which do not persist are on the other hand not real.

This is also like the rope - snake analogy. The rope

which persists as the substrate is real while such

things that are wrongly superimposed on it

as a snake, a cleft in the ground or a water course

are unreal.

 

 

OBJECTION :

 

This is not a proper example because the non-reality

of the snake is the result of the cognition of the

true nature of the rope. It is not due to the non

persisting nature of the snake. In the same way the

reality of the rope does not follow from its

persistence but from the fact that it is not sublated

by another cognition.

 

THE ANSWER for this is the varying of jars and pieces

of cloth is established like this. The judgement "This

is a jar" implies the negation of the cloth

and others. Other things are sublated by the jar and

that proves the non - reality of whatever has non -

continuous existence. Just like the rope

pure being persists not sublated therefore it is real.

 

Syllogism :

 

To continue........

 

Pranamams

dAsI

Padmini

 

 

 

Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.

Shopping: