Part 7-Experiencing Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

[Guest guest]

=====================================================================

Part 7 - Experiencing Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

=====================================================================

 

Shree BhAshyakAra who is Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja in his Vedaartha sangraha

ascertains the purport of the verse "Tat Tvam Asi". The greatest AchArya has

established the meaning of the same verse such that no other meaning can be

assigned to it other than what our AchArya has ascertained. A matham, which

classified it as a "Maha vAkyam" and built its own interpretation "nirvisesha

chin mAtram brahma" is proved to be not in accordance with the Veda. The

"Sruthi virOdha Darsanam" in "Brahma-AgnyAna Paksham - Advaita" continues in

vEdArtha Sangraha grantam where Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja proves that

Adviatam is not in accordance with the Veda.

 

Now a basic question arises! - Why should we refute other philosophical

schools of thoughts? The answer is simple. We do not have any intention to

hurt other people's feelings by refuting their philosophical school of

thought. Our intention is only to ascertain that the only purport of

apowrushEya Veda is Visistaadvaita Shree Vaishnavam and it is the only

logically correct philosophy that has got universal approach that is not at

all a sectarian philosophical school of thought. It is to be noted that in

debates, arguments and counter-arguments favoring something and refuting

another thing is very common and is the basis to ascertain theories based on a

premise. One should not get simply offended on hearing such refutations. When

there is an argument, the counter-argument should be appropriate and precise

otherwise the counter-argument never gets qualified to be a counter-argument.

Unless and until the arguments and counter-arguments are well substantiated

with PramaNams, they have no validity. The "Sapta-Vidhaanupapathi" which will

continue after this "Sruthi virOdha Darsanam" in "Brahma-AgnyAna Paksham" will

clearly establish that Advaita is not only contradicting the Veda but also

logic and rational thoughts. Bhagavath Ramanuja is explaining the "Sruthi

NyAyApEtam Jagati Vitatam Mohanam" (Please refer the second mangala slokam of

vEdArtha Sangaraha Grantham).

 

The Upanishad says 'san mOlA: sOyEmA: sarvA: prajA: sadAyathanA:

sathprathishtA:' All entities (san mOlA:) are having (Sat) Brahman as their

material cause (upAdAna kAraNam) and efficient cause (nimiththa kAraNam). All

entities (sathprathishtA:) are having their reality (substance) (swarUpam),

continuance of existence (sthithi) and end (layam) totally dependant on

Brahman. (Here the "end" does not mean the non-existence of all chit-achit

entities). Shree Bhashyakara explains the above using the terms "SadAdhAratA",

"SanniyAmyatA", "SatseshatA" meaning, "Purushothama: ShrIman NarayaNa: is the

Sat-Brahman who is the unparalleled and unsurpassed supporter, controller and

owner (Lord) of all chit and achit entities.

 

The Upanishad before telling the celebrated verse "Tat Tvam Asi" has something

to tell before it and it is "ithadAtmiyam idam sarvamtat satyamsa:

AtmA".

 

"ithadAtmiyam idam sarvam" the term "ithadAtmiyam" is derived as "Esha: AtmA

yasya tat EthatadAthmakam EthadAthmakamEva ithadAtmiyam". The universe (all

chit and achit entities) was created by the sankalpam (wish) of Brahman and

therefore the Brahman is the cause of the universe. As the Brahman is the only

supporter (AdhAra), controller (NiyAmaka) and lord (seshi) of all entities, he

is the "AtmA" of the universe. "tat satyam" means whatever told here is the

truth. "Sa: AtmA" means that the Brahman is the soul of everything and the

universe is the body of Brahman. The Sat (Brahman) who is the kAraNa is the

soul "AtmA" of the universe. This explicitly brings out the "SarIra-AtmA"

(body-soul) relationship between the universe and the Brahman. Thus the father

(UdAlaka) cleared the doubt of his son (Swetaketu) and concluded with

confirming the "SarIra-AtmA-Sambandam" between the universe and the Brahman by

stating "Tat Tvam Asi SwethaketO". The term "Tvam" (you) first denotes the

jIvAtman through the form of Swethaketu and then finally denotes ParamAtman

(Brahman-Sat) - the Upanishad has told first that the entire universe is

having the Brahman ("Tat" which is the only cause of the universe) as its soul

and then finished its sermon in this regard through denoting the same Brahman

by his mode of having a jIvAtman (here Swethaketu) as his body. This is the

meaning of the verse "Tat Tvam Asi".

 

Now a debate starts. A question in the form of objecting this meaning of the

verse as told above is considered. "Why not the ithadAtmiyam idam sarvam be

taken to mean the SwarUpa-iykyam (identity/oneness of reality-substance) of

Achit and Brahman? Why not the tat tvam asi be taken to mean again the

SwarUpa-iykyam (identity/oneness of reality-substance) of Chit (jIvAtAtman)

and Brahman?"

 

The question is answered and the objection is overruled as follows: First of

all, idam sarvam cannot be taken to denote only achit because sarvam means all

the chit and achit entities that are existing. Therefore restricting the

meaning of sarvam only to achit is baseless. Idam sarvam asrujata, sachcha

tyachcha abhavath in Veda does not allow us to restrict the meaning of the

term sarvam. Let us now clearly do an analysis to answer this question and

dismiss the objection as follows:

 

When the Veda tells "ithadAtmiyam", is it because of swarUpa-iykyam or because

of the "SarIra-Atma" relationship? The question is answered as follows:

 

If suppose, someone advocates the swarUpa-iykyam of Achit and Brahman, then it

can be established that it is not the purport of the Veda verse. This is

because, if swarUpa-iykyam is to be admitted, then the "achEtanatvam" (devoid

of being knowledge-self-reality, thus devoid of swayamprakAsatvam and devoid

of attribute-knowledge) will have to be applicable for Brahman! On the other

hand, the Upanishad has stated that the Brahman has divine characteristics

like "Satya Sankalpatvam" (tat ikshata bhahusyAm prajAyEya). It has denoted

the Brahman (Sat) by using the term "AtmA". Therefore if swarUpa-iykyam is

admitted in Achit and Brahman, then the Veda verses stating divine

characteristics like "Satya Sankalpatvam" of Brahman gets contradicted.

Further the Achit is having vikAratvam (changing nature). On the other hand

Brahman is NirvikAra tatva (unchanging nature).

 

In the same manner if the swarUpa-iykyam in Chit and Brahman is admitted, then

again the same contradiction with the Veda verses results because, the

jIvAtman (Chit) is subject to evils in samsara like being bound by his own

karma, vidhi etc. On the other hand, the Veda has stated that the Brahman is

without any evil attributes and is with infinite divine attributes. Therefore

the swarUpa-iykyam in chit, achit and Brahman is not at all possible.

 

Even if someone still stresses on swarUpa-iykyam, then it can be clearly

proved that swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport of the Veda here because the

Veda verses like "antha: pravishta: sAstA janAnAm sarvAthmA" and "ya: Atmani

tishtan AthmanOnthara:" gets contradicted if such swarUpa-iykyam is considered

as the purport. "antha: pravishta: sAstA janAnAm sarvAthmA" means that Vishnu

is the supreme controller (antaryami-antarAtma) entered inside all and present

inside all entities. "ya: Atmani tishtan AthmanOnthara:" also conveys the same

meaning. The antar-bhahir vyApthis (the pervading nature of Vishnu outside and

inside everything) has to be clearly understood here through the

sarIra-Atma-bhAva.

 

Another objection arises in this context. It is as follows: "The

swarUpa-iykyam was dismissed by quoting verses from some other portion of the

Veda. Why not the swarUpa-iykyam be admitted here in Sat-Vidya?" The objection

is overruled very easily because the swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport as the

same Sat-Vidya has clearly told the sarIra-Atma-bhava by "anena jIvEna

AtmanAnupravisya". Therefore the swarUpa-iykyam is totally ruled out.

 

A Concept called "sAmAnAdhikaraNyam" which is a technical grammatical concept,

is used to explain the verse "Tat Tvam Asi" clearly.

 

"sAmAnAdhikaranayam" means "co-ordinate predication". It means that

co-ordinate predicate terms are used to identify the substantive.

 

The great grammarian of Sanskrit has defined this concept "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam"

as follows:

"Bhinna Pravruththi NimiththAnAm sAbdAnAm Ekasmin Arthe Vruththi: -

SAmAnAdhikaraNyam".

 

The meaning of this is as follows: An entity is signified/denoted by several

terms, each term denoting that entity based on each of its various inseparable

attributes. That is different words possessing different grounds of meanings

denoting a single entity is what is called "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam" The reader may

find this bit confusing. Let me explain it using an example. Please consider

in Sanskrit the terms "nIla: ghata:" meaning "Dark Pot". Here the term "nIla:"

is denoting the entity by that entity's inseparable attribute

"Darkness/Blackness". The Term "ghata:" again denotes the same entity by its

nature of having narrow neck and broad spherical body. Therefore the "nIla:"

term denotes the entity on the ground of meaning "DarknessnIla Roopam"

which is an attribute/mode of the entity. Similarly the "ghata:" term denotes

the same entity (Pot) on the ground of the entity's mode of being

narrow-necked with broad spherical body.

 

The verse of the Veda "Tat Tvam Asi" is understood clearly using the concept

of "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam" as follows: The term "Tat" (that) denotes the Brahman

on the grounds of "being the only cause of the universe", who is having

infinite divine characteristics and untouched by all impurities. The term

"Tvam" (you) denotes the same Brahman on the grounds of having the jIvAtman

(Chit) as his attribute/mode/body. Therefore the Sareera-Aatma Bhaavam

(Body-Soul relationship) between the Universe and the Brahman is clearly told

by the Upanishad.

 

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja says :-

atha: sarvasya chidachidvastunO brahmasarIratvAth, sarvasarIram sarvaprakAram

sarvairsabdai: brahmaivAbhidhIyatha ithi, "tattvam" ithi sAmAnAdhikaraNyEna

jIvasarIrathayA jIvaprakAram brahmaivAbhihitam | Evamabhihite sathi ayamarthO

jgnyAyate "tvam" ithi ya: pOrvam dehasyAdhishtAtrutayA pratIth: sa:

paramAthmasarIrathayA paramAthmaprakArabhUtha: paramAthmaparyantha: pruthak

stithi pravruthi anarha: atha: "tvam" ithi sabda: tathprakAravisishtam

thdantaryAmiNamEvAchashtE - ithi | anEna jIvEnAthmanAnupravisya nAmarUpe

vyAkaravANi" ithi brahmAthmakathayaiva jIvasya sarIriNa: swanAmaBhakthvAth |

 

Following the definition of sAmAnAdikaraNya, please follow the divine words of

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja as follows which were outlined so far.

 

"tat tvam" ithi samAnAdhikaraNa pravrththayO: dvyayOrapi padayO: brahmaiva

vAchyam |

 

tatra "tat" padam

.. jagat kAraNa bhUtham

.. sarva kalyANa guNakaram

.. niravadyam

.. nirvikAramAchashtE

 

"tvam" ithi cha - tadEva brahma jIvAntaryAmi rUpENa swasarIra jIva prakAra

visishtamAchashtE

 

tadEvam pravruthi nimiththa bhEdena Ekasmin brahmaNyEva "tat tvam" ithi dyayO:

padayO: vruthiruktthA | brahmaNO niravadyatvam nirvikAratvam

sarvakalyaNaguNAkaratvam jagat kAraNatvam cha abhAdhitam

 

As told clearly above, the Brahman has all the chit and achit entities as his

body & as inseparable attribute and the Brahman being the AtmA of all, all

words (sabdams) denote the Brahman. The sarIra-AtmA relationship establishes

the sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. The term "Tvam" which denotes the jIvAtman through his

body, finally denotes the ParamAtman (Brahman) because the jIvAtman is the

body and inseparable attribute (apruthak siddha viseshaNam) of ParamAtman. The

jIvAtman being the body and inseparable attribute of Brahman, has no

independent swarUpam, stithi and pravruthis. The jIvAtman is totally dependant

on Brahman. The "anena jIvEna" verse makes it clear that the jIvAtman gets his

name etc., only because of having the Brahman as his AtmA. Therefore to stress

again that swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport here, the sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is

explained.

 

The terms "tat" and "tvam" though are two different words, denote/mean the

same entity that is Brahman as follows. The terms "tat" and "tvam" denote only

the Brahman but the way in which each term denotes the Brahman is different.

The term "tat" denotes the Brahman who is the only cause of the universe,

untouched by impurities and having infinite divine attributes and is always

unchanging in nature. The term "tvam" also denotes the same Brahman who has

the jIvAtman as his body/attribute - the Brahman is the antaryAmi-antarAtma of

the jIvAtman. Thus the two terms denote the Brahman by different attributes

which the Brahman has as told above. The sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is thus clearly

explained. When the purport of the verse is ascertained like this, there is no

contradiction with all the sruthi verses. The attributes of Brahman like being

the only cause of the universe, untouched by impurities, having infinite

divine attributes, unchanging nature are unaffected.

 

There seems to be few questions in the form of objecting the above

ascertaining of the purport even after these explanations. The objection is

"Though the explanation is appreciable, a person can understand only the words

denoting the respective entities. For example, the word "ghata:" (pot) denotes

only a vessel having narrow neck with large almost spherical body. These terms

just stop with denoting the respective entities. When such is the case how is

it possible to say that all terms finally end up in denoting Brahman? Also the

"vyutpathti" (a means to derive the word in Sanskrit) does not exist in all

terms to denote Brahman. When such is the case how is it possible to say that

all terms finally denote Brahman?"

 

The question (objection) is having validity. But it is not negating the

purport or proving something against the purport. He who has not studied and

comprehended the VedAnta properly just sees all the words to denote only the

respective entities, which he has conceived so. But he who has studied and

comprehended the VedAnta properly gets the correct knowledge that the Brahman

is the soul of everything and all the entities are the body of Brahman.

Therefore only this person who has studied and comprehended the VeDAnta

properly sees that all words do not just stop with denoting the respective

entities but actually end up in denoting the Brahman who is the soul of all

entities. A person just "sees" the Sandal wood by his eyes from a distance. He

cannot sense its good fragrance because he has not used his nose, but he says

that Sandal wood has no fragrance. Is it acceptable? The Sandal wood surely

has fragrance. It just indicates that the appropriate sense organ was not

employed to sense it. If he uses his nose, he can surely sense the fragrance.

That is all. Similarly those who have knowledge imparted by the VedAnta

comprehends that all words denote Brahman because Brahman has all entities as

its attributes/body/mode. Without the vedAnta, it is not possible to know the

Brahman. The Brahman is not possible to be known and established by any other

pramAna other than the sruthi. Only the apowrusheya sruthi establishes and

imparts knowledge regarding the Brahman who is Purushoththama: SrIman

NarayaNa: VishNu: vAsudeva:

 

Regarding "vyutpathti", our AchArya says that the above explanation does not

negate the power of word and meaning of words by "vyutpathti". By the verse

"anEna jIvEna", it was already told that all the words denotes first the

respective entity by its visible form, then the jIvAtman and then the

ParamAtman who is the soul of everything. The meaning of telling that "all

words denote the Brahman" has to be clearly understood as follows: All words

denote the Brahman who is having all the chit and achit entities as his

attributes. The Brahman is different from all chit and achit entities as the

Brahman is the soul and all chit and achit entities are his body. The

"vyutpathti" gives only the partial meaning. The Vedanta knowledge along with

this knowledge of "vyutpathti" ascertains that the "vyutpathti" gets completed

and all words finally denote Brahman as told above.

 

Another argument is considered. "Why not the words be classified into two - 1.

Lowkika and 2. Vaidika. Lowkika being common words and vaidika being words of

Veda. Why not the Vaidika words alone be taken as per the above view to denote

Brahman and why not the lowkika be taken to denote the respective entities?"

Bhagavath Ramanuja says that "VaidikA Eva sarvE sabdA:" meaning all the words

are based on Veda only. The Veda is anAdi (having no beginning) and the words

of it are also anAdi. In each cycle of creation, the Brahman creates various

entities as they were in previous cycle and gives the names to the various

created entities from the Veda as it was in the previous cycle. This cycle is

also anAdi. The Veda has confirmed that all words (as told above) denote the

Brahman. Manu and ParAsara have also explained the same in their smruthies.

 

Further Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja makes it clear that the created universe

is a reality. Nothing is unreal. All the three entities namely chit, achit and

Brahman are eternal and real entities. Up to this, using the kAraNa vAkyAs, it

was established that the Brahman is only "Savisesham". The chOdaka vAkyAs are

now considered and it is proved that they also established the Brahman as

"Savisesham" meaning "having attributes/characteristics".

 

"Satyam jgnyAnam anantam", "nirguNam nishkriyam sAntham niravadyam",

"satyakAma: satya sankalpa:", "apahata pApmA vijara:" are such chOdaka vAkyAs.

When "Satyam jgnyAnam anantam", "satyakAma: satya sankalpa:" etc., explicitly

state that the Brahman is having infinite divine attributes, the verses

"nirguNam nishkriyam" etc., say that the Brahman has no attributes. Actually

when the ghataka sruti "apahata pApmA vijara:" etc are understood, then it

gets ascertained very clearly that all the chOdaka vAkyAs explain that Brahman

is only "Savisesham". When the verses like "satyakAma:" talk about the

infinite divine qualities of Brahman which are unique to Brahman, the verses

like "nirguNam" tell that the Brahman is devoid of evil attributes. "Satyam

jgnyAnam anantam" clearly and explicitly declares that Brahman is

"Savisesham". "Satyam" means that the Brahman has quality of being unchanging

in nature, natural independent existence. "JgnyAnam" means that the Brahman

has infinite unchanging JgnyAna (knowledge) as his nature and knows

everything. The SwayamprakAsatvam is also told here. "Anantam" states that the

Brahman is immesurable, infinite and is beyond the limits of length, time and

mass. Therefore the verse "Satyam jgnyAnam anantam" explains the Brahman as

Purushothtama: SrIman nArAyaNa: who is different from all the three types of

chit and achit entities.

 

Then Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja proceeds to explain in detail the Advaita's

interpretation of "tat tvam asi". Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja establishes that

the interpretation of Advaita has four important errors and Advaita's

interpretation of "tat tvam asi" is therefore invalid. The four important

errors in Advaita's philosophy as far as this verse is concerned are 1. The

Sruthi telling infinite divine qualities of Brahman (tat) gets contradicted.

2. There is a need to tell "lakshaNa" (a technical concept) unnecessarily for

"tat" and "tvam". 3. SAmAnAdhikaraNyam gets violated 4. Upakrama VirOdham

arises. These aspects will be explained in detail in future postings.

 

=====================================================================

To be continued.. .

=====================================================================

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan.

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1