Guest guest Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 >"V. Krishnamurthy" > I think I have located it. But I do not fully understand it. >It is actually two slokas, namely, Ch.1 – 49, 50: > >Savikalpasya lakShyatve lakShyasya syAd-avastutA / >nirvikalpasya lakshyatvaM na dR^iShtaM na ca sanbhavi // > >Vikalpo nirvikalpasya savikalpasya vA bhavet / >Adya vyAhatir-anyatra-anavasthA-tmAshrayAdayaH // > >The discussion here is about the mahA-vAkya ‘That Thou Art’. If >the vastu (thing) referred to here is with attributes >(sa-vikalpa) then it loses its status to Absolute Reality. If it >is without attributes, such a thing is neither seen nor >possible. This seems to be the meaning of the first sloka. >This is actually a question raised by the opponent. The >counter-question from the teacher is coming in the next sloka. >This latter means: >Let the change happen to either the changeless or the one with >attributes. If it is the former, then it is self-contradictory, >because for the changeless there cannot be any change. If it is >the latter, then what changes? Does ‘the one’ change? Do the >‘attributes’ change? Or Does ‘the one with attributes’ change? >The first case is not possible because, ‘The One’ which is ‘The >One with attributes’ minus its attributes, cannot change, since >it has no attributes. This is the case of nirvikalpasya >vikalpaH. >The second case where the vikalpa is on attributes, the change >has to be relative to a standard state of attributes, and so >each change will require a third attribute which is not >changing. But because it is an attribute it has to have a locus. >So there should be a fourth attribute on which the third one is >relative. Thus an infinite regress happens. And so this case >also cannot happen. > >The third case which is ‘the one with attributes’ should also >not be possible. But here I need the help of experts like >Sadanandaji. > >Is this the reference in PancadaSi you had in mind, >Sadanandaji.? > >praNAms to all advaitins >profvk > Discussion on Panchadasi I-49-50 At the request of Prof. V.K. I am providing my understanding of the two sloka-s of Panchadasi to the best as I can, which discuss savikalpa and vikalpa aspects. I am providing the whole of Prof. VK post since he has provided the slokas and also some explanation. When I mentioned about the sloka-s, I did not realize that I am going get into this deep trouble. Since now I am in, I might as well get out of it before anybody notices it. In a way I am thankful to Prof. V K for his request, since I have to be soon discussing these sloka-s in my Panchadasi class and now I am forced to put my understanding of the sloka- s in writing. Before I start the discussion of sloka 49 – since it is related to puurvapaksha or objection to the previous discussion in the earlier sloka-s (up to 48), pertaining to the lakshaNa mahaavaakya – tat tvam asi - I need to provide some background for the discussion of sloka 49. The topic of discussion before the objection was raised is related to Brahma lakshaNa – using ‘tat tvam asi’ statement that involves bhaaga-tyaaga lakshaNa. The meaning of bhaaga tyaaga is discarding part of the implied meaning of the statement, while retaining the rest to make a complete meaning of the sentence. The classical example that Pancadasi also mentions is – soyam devadaataH – he (this) is that devadatta. This statement involves three segments – ‘He’ ‘that’ and ‘is devadatta’. This instruction will make sense only to that person who is familiar with ‘this devadatta’ and ‘that devadatta’. – There are two independent statements which are combined here- ‘This is devadatta’ and ‘that is devadatta’ – each of the two if they are used independently gives only an introduction to some Devadatta that the listener is meeting for the first time. But the combined unitary statement – this is that devadatta – involves a deeper meaning involving lakshaNa vaakya of devadatta, which involves a bhaaga tyaaga. That devadatta – refers to, say, that cute little devadatta who was so handsome that we all met long time ago, say in India many years ago. Hence that refers to – desha, kaala, guNa and kriya bedha-s – space wise, time-wise, quality-wise and action wise – a completely different Devadatta with completely different upaadhi-s – body, mind and intellect. Similarly, ‘this devadatta’ refers to the one who is right in front of us – a completely different time and space and also differs in terms upaadhi-s along with guNa and Kriya as well – say this fat, bald, ugly looking person right in front of us – Hence when the teacher say ‘this is that devadatta’ – the knowledge involves – two aspects – rejection of all the upaadhi-s of this devadatta that include guNa, jati and kriya etc but retaining the essence of that devadatta – substantive of devadatta – that is bhaaga tyaaga – discarding part of ‘this’ and also rejecting all the upaadhi-s of that devadatta – along with guNa, jaati and kriya etc. (bhaaga tyaaga) but retaining again the essence of that devadatta, and then equating only the substantives – the devadatta devoid of all the upaadhi-s in both cases. There are contradictions in the upaadhi- s of this devadatta and that devadatta – but contradictions are negated or discarded and still a total meaning is gained using the equation provided. But here even though the statement is a lakshaNa vaakya (more about lakshaNa follows), the understanding is instantaneous for the one who is familiar with that devadatta, and this devadatta that I am looking at right now. This is called aparoksha j~naana, a direct knowledge in contrast some indirect knowledge of devadatta (paroksha j~nana). The immediate response from the attentive listener (attentive is underlined) is –Oh! What a wonder – this is THAT devadatta! – Here the teacher has provided a proper set up, with the student’s mind well prepared, for the immediate understanding of the implied meaning of the statement. This is the essence of bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa. Now applying this to ‘tat tvam asi’ statement – tat refers to the Iswara whose upaadhi-s are total maaya – with total body, total mind and total knowledge etc – sarvaj~na, sarva shaktimaan etc- and tvam meaning you, whose upaadhi is avidya – with notions of limited body, mind and intellect – asi - is equation of the two – where one cannot literally equate the two, tat and tvam – the equation is the equation of the substantives – using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa – discarding all the upaadhi-s of the Iswara – and Iswara without upaadhi-s is only sat chit ananda Brahman, and discarding the upaadhi-s of jiiva and jiiva without his upaadhi-s is also only sat chit and ananda – thus equating only the substantives since upaadhi-s are only superimpositions on the substantives and do not belong to them. Since sat, chit and ananda is akhanDa – indivisible – there cannot be two sat chit and ananda-s and hence equation is equation of the absolute. Hence tat tvam asi involves recognition of identity of oneness of Brahman with oneself – provided the student is cable of discarding or doing bhaaga tyaaga. Here bhaaga tyaaga is discarding the notional understanding of oneself with his upaadhi-s, which is different from Iswara’s Upaadhi-s. This discarding is not done at physical level but at mental level since it is the mind that has the notions and it is deeply engraved in the understanding as ‘I am this’ reinforced repeatedly through experiences of many lives. All this discussion is what was presented by Bhagavaan Vidyaranya in the preceding sloka-s starting from sloka 43. In sloka 49, as Prof. VK pointed out, Vidyaranya presents a puurvapaksha or an objection by an objector, puurvapakshi. Puurvapakshi catches hold of the word lakshaNa and uses that as the basis for his objection – to understand the objector’s objection – one has to have some understanding of the Indian tarka shaastra, where the objects and qualities are analyzed exhaustively, each aachaarya taking a stance that sometime agrees with logicians, taarkika-s (which include nayyaayika-s and vaiseshika-s) and sometime disagreeing with these logicians. Here the objector is most likely from post Shankara period probably from VishishhTaadvaita or Dvaita schools. This becomes clear as we take up the objection. This objection and the following discussion contain hair splitting Vedantic dialectic arguments that most of the vedantins were all familiar at that time. This is just a worning to the readers since a clear understanding is not guaranteed, if one is not familiar with these logical excursions. Discussion of Sloka 49. Objection: Since ‘tat tvam asi’ is claimed by advaitin as a statement of Brahma lakshaNa and since advaitin also claims that Brahman is without qualifications (nirguNa Brahman), claims by advaitin that Vedic statement ‘tat tvam asi’ as maahaavaakya as Brahma lakshaNa vaakhyam (sentence) is contradiction in terms. (perhaps atat tvam asi has a better chance than tat tvam asi!). This is because, any lakshaNa by definition has a quality, lakshyatvam, that is a quality of being able to be defined by lakshaNa. Now the objector asks – does this lakshaNa involves savikalpa or nirvikalpa. It has been accepted in tarka shaastra (Indian Logic) that, that which has a quality is only savikalpa and not nirvikalpa. Objector askes: If according to you, Brahman itself is an object (lakshya) to be revealed by an lakshaNa vaakya (by statements like tat tvam asi) it means that Brahman is itself has an attribute of ‘lakshyatvam’, a quality of being revealed by an lakshaNa vaakya, that is lakshaNa Brahman enjoying lakshyatvam. Once Brahman becomes lakshya, with its quality of lakshyatvam, it becomes a savikalpa Brahman only. If he is savikalpa, then as per you, advaitin, it must be a avastu (belonging to the category of objects- since according to advaita that which has qualities is only an object – and Brahman is not an object and has no qualities) But by your statement of Brahma lakshaNa, Brahman now has quality, and hence it is no more the vastu (unless advaitin ceases to become an advaitin and changes his theory that Brahman has qualities). By knowing one object, avastu, one is not going to know every other avastu – whereas knowing Brahman involves knowing the substantive of every object (yat j~naatvaa naaparam j`neyam- knowing which nothing else is there to be known). If you know a ring you cannot know bangle. By knowing vastu (substantive – like gold in the ornaments) everything is as well known, and in that case liberation is possible since essential knowledge is known. Brahman as per your lakshaNa statement, has a quality, lakshyatvam, that is, a quality of becoming a lakshaNa, and hence it becomes a avastu and not vastu. If you accept it is savikalpa then it is avastu then as per your theory there is no liberation by the lakshaNa vaakya. Whole your theory is wrong. On the other hand, if you say it is nirvikalpam laksyatvam then there is no chance of knowing it through the words nor it can be experienced. Since whatever is revealed by words is only savikalpa. A nirvikalpa vastu cannot be seen, na dRishTam, or can ever be possible to exist, na sambhavi. Hence nirvikalpa vastu cannot become a lakshya for a sentence. All means of knowledge can only for savikaplam. Hence the ultimate conclusion that the objector wants us to reach is that there is no such thing as nirvikalpa Brahman, that is, nirguNa Brahman. Since Veda-s are using words to teach us about Brahman, Brahman can only be saguNa Brahman. Brahman can not be devoid of qualities. Hence he can only be IswaraH who is sarvasankalpa – with auspicious qualities – kalyaaNa guNa aashraya. This is the puurvapaksha or objector’s objection. Siddhanta or Response: sloka-s 50+ The Shree Vidyaranya chose to answer the objector in a way, what is known as vRishhTira lakuTika nyaaya (not sure if I have it right!)– nyaaya of a camel with a load of firewood. Once a camel carrying firewood was misbehaving or became wild. It was a desert with nothing but just sand everywhere. Nothing else is there to control that camel. The camel driver was not carrying any whip or ankusha (used for elephant) to control the animal. Hence he takes the same stick on the back of the animal that it is carrying, to beat the camel and to bring it under control. Similarly here the objector’s logical statement itself is used to shut him off. The arguments are somewhat subtle and rests on some of the epistemological issues discussed in the tarka shaastra. Shree Vidyaranya shows that objection is absurd from several points – or there are several logical errors involved in the very objection itself – these errors that are pointed out are 1. vyaahati – or self-contradiction 2. aatmaasraya dosha – error of self-dependency, 3. anyonya aasraya dosha, error of mutual dependency 4. chakra dosha, error of circular argument and 5. anavastu dosha - error of infinite regress - Five logical absurdities. Hence objector’s objection is invalid. Error of vyaahati – self-contradiction: Vidyaranya say: Because I used the word lakshya you raised an objection that if what is revealed by the lakshaNa vaakya, statement of definition, is it sa-vikalpa or nir-vikalpa – and that was your (objector’s) the central question. Before we take up the answer related to Brahman whether Brahman has a quality of lakshyatvam, I can turn the table against you by posing your own question to your statement – to show the invalidity of your question itself. (the arguments come close to vitanda vaada). You are asking whether it is sah- or nir- vikalpa but the very use of the word vikalpa itself involves a choice – since vikalpa means any thing that is subject to a choice or division (In your question itself you have provided an implied choice – sa vikalpa vaa or nirvikalpa vaa?) Now posing back the same question to yourself related to your question– does that vikalpa –which has intrinsic duality due to the choices you have provided –that vikalpa you used that itself is it a nirvikalpa or savikalpa? If you say it is nirvikalpa – then that nirvikalpa by your own statement can neither be seen (na dRishhTam) nor ever be possible (na sambhavam)– that is you will be contradicting your own statement and that leads to vyaahati dosha or self-contradition ( what amounts to is, you are accusing me about an error that you yourself is making in the very accusation). (My comments: The very questioning of nirvikalpa involves a vikalpa and that is fundamentally invalid –the questioning of nirvikalpa – makes it as savikalpa because there is questioner and question to start with and within the question there is a choice or division which is vikalpa – all this means is the Brahman which is akhanda sat chit ananda Brahman (see sloka 48) is indivisible and no vikalpa or division can exist- hence very question related to Brahman as savikalpaa vaa or nirvikalpaa vaa –is dividing that which is indivisible) – Hence error of self-contradition arises. It amounts to saying I am a vandyaa putraH (son of a barren woman) or I have no tongue to speak. What it amounts to is- nothing can be said about Brahman, period. Here Shree Vidyaranya is twisting the arm of the puurvapakshi who is trying to be smart by catching the use of the word lakshaNa – and Shree Vidyaranya giving the same medicine for objector’s use of the word vikalpa). If, on the other hand, the objector says the vikalpa that he used is not nirvikalpa but savikalpa (to avoid the error of self-contradiction), then he is in a deeper trouble since he is now committing four logical errors. (This is what is called killing a dead snake). The other four errors: If the objector say it is savikalpa – that means the objector will be answering as vikalpa is not nirvikalpa but is savikalpa. But what is savikalpa – the definition of savikalpa is vikalpena saha vartate iti savikalpa - by the statement vikalpa is savikalpa – it amounts to saying vikalpa is savikalpam which itself is vikalpena saH vartate – There are two things – a nominative case or first case – savikalpam and vikalpena saH – is instrumental or third case. Thus now we have two choices in the very definition – one is vikalpa is savikalpam which has again a vikalpa with a choice – now a question arises whether the second vikalpa is the same as the first vikalpa or different from the first vikalpam – if it is the same, we have double error one is anyonya aasraya and the other is chakram or circular logic. (My comments – here is the hair-splitting arguments that is normally carried in the tarka – to give a simple example to unravel the puzzle – let us take an example – a stick-man is waking – in this statement – A man is the one who has a stick to walk– man is first case and stick is the third case (with a stick – dandi is dandena saH ) qualifying the man since it differentiates him from all other men who do not have sticks. But if we go deeper, as the objector seems to do, and ask the question – what is qualifying what- is it a stick or a man? – stick-man is waking and therefore stick is also walking by implication. What is a stick – stick is that which a man is carrying – that is stick is nominative being qualified by the man who is carrying it. man – attached to a stick! since this particular stick is differentiated from all other sticks, where men are not attached at one end. (reminds me B. Shah-‘s definition of cigarette– cigarette is that with fire at one end and fool at the other end). On the other hand, man is nominative and he is qualified by the stick he is using for walking. This leads to two errors – one is anyonya aasraya and another one is chakra – circular definition – since man is qualified by a stick and stick is qualified by a man – this is like a priest answering what is God – god is truth and what is truth – truth is God – all we have ended up is instead of one unknown two unknowns. Epistemological issue: What is being pointed indirectly is the fundamental problem of defining what is a quality and what is a substratum – in fact this is true for all objects in the universe if one goes into detail – let us take a classical example in tarka – what is a cow? What is that essential quality that differentiates the cow from, say horse? It has been answered that cow is that which has cow-ness which obviously different from horse-ness. That –ness which in Sanskrit is –tvam as in lakshyatvam in the objector’s statement. Otherwise how do we define a cow- other than that which has cow-ness, since any other qualification is not specific enough that can differentiate it from the rest of the four-legged animals. But what is cow-ness and where is that cow-ness in the cow? Since substantive which is the first case is different from the instrumental case or third case – since definition is cow is that which has cowness. Cowness can only be defined has that which cow has? We have not really become any wiser. It becomes a circular definition as well as anyonya aasraya or interdependent definition. These two errors are inherent in any object, which has qualification since without qualification it is not an object. Back to the main discussion: With this example if we examine the Vidyaranya-s counter question the error of the objector becomes obvious. If he says vikalpa is not nirvikalpa but savikalpa then he runs into a statement – viakalpa has savikalpa and savikalpa has by definition has vikalpa – if this vikalpa that the savikalpa has is the same as the first vikalpa then he has both circular definition, chakram dosha as well as anyonya aasraya, mutual dependence like our stickyman! If, on the other hand, the objector say the vikalpa in the savikalpa is different from the first vikalpa then Vidyaranya will pose next question that second vikalpa is it nirvikapa or savikalpa? - if objector says it is nirvikalpa – back to self-contradiction. If he says no it is savikalpa – with its own vikalpa – we run into infinite regress or anavastu dosha. Essentailly objector is cought in his own words - In fact Vidyaranya gives us a glimpse of the problem in the logic that always leads ultimately to an infinite regress. Having put the objector in his place, Vidyaranya explains further the fundamental problem in asking these questions related to Brahman. Vidyaranya says the question is absurd. If you talk of savikalpa then you will never make sense. If you talk of nirvikalpa, it will at least may make some sense since it is the ultimate substative. You may say nirvikalpa cannot be talked -na dRisyate na sambavam – but actually it is the other way around - savikalpa cannot be talked. Any talk on savikalpa will never make any sense if one examines properly. One ends up with all those errors that have been pointed with reference to any object. Since object has only qualities and cannot be independently defined other than with adjectives. There is no substantive independent for each object out there. The substantive of every object is only nirvikalpa Brahman. Like what is a cow or what is pot – pot is that which has potness and what is potness is that which pot has- interdependent qualifications with fundamentally no substantive (dravya) that can be identified. The problem arises because there is no substantive for any object in the world other than Brahman. But Brahman cannot be differentiated. And without substantive the objects with quality has no basis. Since Brahman is akhandam and advayam and therefore by definition no independent dravyam apart from Brahman. Hence fundamentally nirvikalpa alone makes sense and not savikalpa – it is alright to use for day to day transactional purposes – vyaavahaarika level. For nirvikalpa there is no coming or going. From nirvikalpa, in principle savikalpa cannot come- But it appears to comes – as the whole world comes from Brahman (uppadaana kaaraNa- in principle snake does not come from inert rope but it comes. It is only as a thought it comes (bahu syaam – let me become many). Thus if the analysis is hooked to nirvikalpa then everything becomes possible – otherwise, one gets caught up in logical absurdities as noted above. Savikalpa has an apparent beginning – which means there is no real beginning. If you try to arrive at the beginning one will end up the doshas – including anavastu desho – anaadi pravaaH. It is nitya. Creation has to be anaadi – beginning less. For the apparent creation, there is in between the savikalpa and nirvikalpa a connection factor, and the connecting factor is as good as creation – the creation factor maaya is as good as creation. If the creation is apparent then maya is apparent. Apparent creation is accounted by apparent power called maya. Where does that maya exist – it cannot exist in creation – it is Brahma aasrayaa maaya - with the maaya as upaadi Brahman becomes Iswara – someway jiiva is also Brahman – but upaadi is avidya. Lakshyate – I am not accepting that Brahman has got property of lakshyatvam – but it is used as upaaya – for convenience for teaching– for one who is ignorant it forms a revealing sentence – to establish you are Brahman – in Brahman there is nothing other then Brahman to point out – hence to point out you are Brahman, I have to establish, I, separate from you. But in understanding or realization – I and You – the duality gets dissolved into one akhadam advitiiyam. Even though it is one, you do not know it – for the fact to be known not as this is Braham but as I am Brahman – it is sentence is used to remove the ignorance of separateness but not as lakskyatvam with savikalpam. It is something to be known. He is that devadatta – there is no duality. Whatever duality is only apparent and apparent is rejected to arrive at the substantive, which is one devadatta. This makes sense only to the one who is familiar with this devadatta and that devadatta and the equation unifies the two as one removing any vikalpa or duality. This can only be done by a teacher who is familiar with the oneness of the Devadatta in this devadatta and that devadatta. Finally it is aparoksha j~naanam a direct knowledge of the one who has required qualifications. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 Namaste Sadanandaji, Thanks a million, for your complete explanation of the post on slokas 49 and 50 of Pancadashi first chapter. I have read it once now but I have to study it again in order to to assimilate the logic of it all. What a pleasure, to read your post! Thanks for taking so much effort to put all that dialectics into lucid English writing. And I appreciate your many examples strewn all over. Incidentally, I want to point out a parallel lucid explanation of a difficult topic which I am currently reading. It is a book: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (Vintage Books, 1999). The subject is 'String Theory'. The whole book of 440 pages is about how String Theory bridges the unbridged contradictions between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. The author deals with the whole subject so nicely and lucidly that I am thoroughly enjoying it and getting enlightened. He has also strewn the whole book with beautiful examples (like yours) to help the comprehension. One day I will come back with a summary of the whole book for the benefit of those on this list who want to know the most updated scientific view of this universe. When I read your post this morning I felt an equal and parallel elation. That is why I mentioned it now. Thanks again. praNAms to all advaitins profvk ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 --- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote: > Incidentally, I want to point out a parallel lucid explanation > of a difficult topic which I am currently reading. It is a book: > The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (Vintage Books, 1999). The > subject is 'String Theory'. The whole book of 440 pages is about > how String Theory bridges the unbridged contradictions between > Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. The author deals with > the whole subject so nicely and lucidly that I am thoroughly > enjoying it and getting enlightened. He has also strewn the > whole book with beautiful examples (like yours) to help the > comprehension. One day I will come back with a summary of the > whole book for the benefit of those on this list who want to > know the most updated scientific view of this universe. When > I read your post this morning I felt an equal and parallel > elation. That is why I mentioned it now. Thanks again. > > praNAms to all advaitins > profvk Prof VK thanks for your kind comments - if the book is non-mathematical and written in a popular manner, I would like to get hold of the book. Is it available in normal book stores? thanks for sharing about the book and we look forward to your lucid explanation of its contents. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote: > Incidentally, I want to point out a parallel lucid explanation > of a difficult topic which I am currently reading. It is a book: > The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (Vintage Books, 1999). The > subject is 'String Theory'. The whole book of 440 pages is about > how String Theory bridges the unbridged contradictions between > Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Namaste, Greene's theories are already being overtaken by M-Theory and D-Branes!! [called the 2nd Superstring Revolution!] http://theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/ Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 --- sunderh <sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > Greene's theories are already being overtaken by M-Theory > and > D-Branes!! [called the 2nd Superstring Revolution!] > > http://theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/ > > Regards, > > Sunder But I thought the super string theory was originally proposed by Lord KrishNa -And there is nothing beyond that super-string! mattaH parataram naanyat kinchidasti dhananjaya| mayi sarvam idam proktam suutre maNigaNaa iva|| There is nothing beyond me Oh Arjuana. I support everthing like a string suporting all the pearls. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > But I thought the super string theory was originally proposed by Lord > KrishNa -And there is nothing beyond that super-string! > > mattaH parataram naanyat > kinchidasti dhananjaya| > mayi sarvam idam proktam > suutre maNigaNaa iva|| > > There is nothing beyond me Oh Arjuana. I support everthing like a > string suporting all the pearls. Namaste, touché !! "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9 ). Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2006 Report Share Posted September 1, 2006 My pranams to Krishnamurthy-ji for giving us this wondrous link and my sashtang pranams to Sadananda-ji for his patient, masterful and detailed exposition - what a remarkable ability to convey such highly complex ideas in such understandable terms! Once again my pranams May Ishwara ever bless us with your continued associations and may your scholarly words ever bless us with bliss. Hari OM Shyam advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > >"V. Krishnamurthy" > > > I think I have located it. But I do not fully understand it. > >It is actually two slokas, namely, Ch.1 – 49, 50: > > > >Savikalpasya lakShyatve lakShyasya syAd-avastutA / > >nirvikalpasya lakshyatvaM na dR^iShtaM na ca sanbhavi // > > > >Vikalpo nirvikalpasya savikalpasya vA bhavet / > >Adya vyAhatir-anyatra-anavasthA-tmAshrayAdayaH // > > > >The discussion here is about the mahA-vAkya `That Thou Art'. If > >the vastu (thing) referred to here is with attributes > >(sa-vikalpa) then it loses its status to Absolute Reality. If it > >is without attributes, such a thing is neither seen nor > >possible. This seems to be the meaning of the first sloka. > >This is actually a question raised by the opponent. The > >counter-question from the teacher is coming in the next sloka. > >This latter means: > >Let the change happen to either the changeless or the one with > >attributes. If it is the former, then it is self-contradictory, > >because for the changeless there cannot be any change. If it is > >the latter, then what changes? Does `the one' change? Do the > >`attributes' change? Or Does `the one with attributes' change? > >The first case is not possible because, `The One' which is `The > >One with attributes' minus its attributes, cannot change, since > >it has no attributes. This is the case of nirvikalpasya > >vikalpaH. > >The second case where the vikalpa is on attributes, the change > >has to be relative to a standard state of attributes, and so > >each change will require a third attribute which is not > >changing. But because it is an attribute it has to have a locus. > >So there should be a fourth attribute on which the third one is > >relative. Thus an infinite regress happens. And so this case > >also cannot happen. > > > >The third case which is `the one with attributes' should also > >not be possible. But here I need the help of experts like > >Sadanandaji. > > > >Is this the reference in PancadaSi you had in mind, > >Sadanandaji.? > > > >praNAms to all advaitins > >profvk > > > > Discussion on Panchadasi I-49-50 > > At the request of Prof. V.K. I am providing my understanding of the > two sloka-s of Panchadasi to the best as I can, which discuss > savikalpa and vikalpa aspects. I am providing the whole of Prof. VK > post since he has provided the slokas and also some explanation. > When I mentioned about the sloka-s, I did not realize that I am going > get into this deep trouble. Since now I am in, I might as well get > out of it before anybody notices it. In a way I am thankful to Prof. > V K for his request, since I have to be soon discussing these sloka-s > in my Panchadasi class and now I am forced to put my understanding of > the sloka- s in writing. > > Before I start the discussion of sloka 49 – since it is related to > puurvapaksha or objection to the previous discussion in the earlier > sloka-s (up to 48), pertaining to the lakshaNa mahaavaakya – tat tvam > asi - I need to provide some background for the discussion of sloka > 49. > > The topic of discussion before the objection was raised is related to > Brahma lakshaNa – using `tat tvam asi' statement that involves > bhaaga-tyaaga lakshaNa. The meaning of bhaaga tyaaga is discarding > part of the implied meaning of the statement, while retaining the > rest to make a complete meaning of the sentence. The classical > example that Pancadasi also mentions is – soyam devadaataH – he > (this) is that devadatta. This statement involves three segments – > `He' `that' and `is devadatta'. This instruction will make sense > only to that person who is familiar with `this devadatta' and `that > devadatta'. – There are two independent statements which are > combined here- `This is devadatta' and `that is devadatta' – each of > the two if they are used independently gives only an introduction to > some Devadatta that the listener is meeting for the first time. But > the combined unitary statement – this is that devadatta – involves a > deeper meaning involving lakshaNa vaakya of devadatta, which > involves a bhaaga tyaaga. That devadatta – refers to, say, that cute > little devadatta who was so handsome that we all met long time ago, > say in India many years ago. Hence that refers to – desha, kaala, > guNa and kriya bedha-s – space wise, time-wise, quality-wise and > action wise – a completely different Devadatta with completely > different upaadhi-s – body, mind and intellect. Similarly, `this > devadatta' refers to the one who is right in front of us – a > completely different time and space and also differs in terms > upaadhi-s along with guNa and Kriya as well – say this fat, bald, > ugly looking person right in front of us – Hence when the teacher say > `this is that devadatta' – the knowledge involves – two aspects – > rejection of all the upaadhi-s of this devadatta that include guNa, > jati and kriya etc but retaining the essence of that devadatta – > substantive of devadatta – that is bhaaga tyaaga – discarding part of > `this' and also rejecting all the upaadhi-s of that devadatta – along > with guNa, jaati and kriya etc. (bhaaga tyaaga) but retaining again > the essence of that devadatta, and then equating only the > substantives – the devadatta devoid of all the upaadhi-s in both > cases. There are contradictions in the upaadhi- s of this devadatta > and that devadatta – but contradictions are negated or discarded and > still a total meaning is gained using the equation provided. But > here even though the statement is a lakshaNa vaakya (more about > lakshaNa follows), the understanding is instantaneous for the one who > is familiar with that devadatta, and this devadatta that I am looking > at right now. This is called aparoksha j~naana, a direct knowledge > in contrast some indirect knowledge of devadatta (paroksha j~nana). > The immediate response from the attentive listener (attentive is > underlined) is –Oh! What a wonder – this is THAT devadatta! – Here > the teacher has provided a proper set up, with the student's mind > well prepared, for the immediate understanding of the implied meaning > of the statement. This is the essence of bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa. > > Now applying this to `tat tvam asi' statement – tat refers to the > Iswara whose upaadhi-s are total maaya – with total body, total mind > and total knowledge etc – sarvaj~na, sarva shaktimaan etc- and tvam > meaning you, whose upaadhi is avidya – with notions of limited body, > mind and intellect – asi - is equation of the two – where one cannot > literally equate the two, tat and tvam – the equation is the equation > of the substantives – using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa – discarding all > the upaadhi-s of the Iswara – and Iswara without upaadhi-s is only > sat chit ananda Brahman, and discarding the upaadhi-s of jiiva and > jiiva without his upaadhi-s is also only sat chit and ananda – thus > equating only the substantives since upaadhi-s are only > superimpositions on the substantives and do not belong to them. > Since sat, chit and ananda is akhanDa – indivisible – there cannot be > two sat chit and ananda-s and hence equation is equation of the > absolute. Hence tat tvam asi involves recognition of identity of > oneness of Brahman with oneself – provided the student is cable of > discarding or doing bhaaga tyaaga. Here bhaaga tyaaga is discarding > the notional understanding of oneself with his upaadhi-s, which is > different from Iswara's Upaadhi-s. This discarding is not done at > physical level but at mental level since it is the mind that has the > notions and it is deeply engraved in the understanding as `I am this' > reinforced repeatedly through experiences of many lives. All this > discussion is what was presented by Bhagavaan Vidyaranya in the > preceding sloka-s starting from sloka 43. > > In sloka 49, as Prof. VK pointed out, Vidyaranya presents a > puurvapaksha or an objection by an objector, puurvapakshi. > Puurvapakshi catches hold of the word lakshaNa and uses that as the > basis for his objection – to understand the objector's objection – > one has to have some understanding of the Indian tarka shaastra, > where the objects and qualities are analyzed exhaustively, each > aachaarya taking a stance that sometime agrees with logicians, > taarkika-s (which include nayyaayika-s and vaiseshika-s) and sometime > disagreeing with these logicians. Here the objector is most likely > from post Shankara period probably from VishishhTaadvaita or Dvaita > schools. This becomes clear as we take up the objection. This > objection and the following discussion contain hair splitting > Vedantic dialectic arguments that most of the vedantins were all > familiar at that time. This is just a worning to the readers since a > clear understanding is not guaranteed, if one is not familiar with > these logical excursions. > > Discussion of Sloka 49. > > Objection: Since `tat tvam asi' is claimed by advaitin as a statement > of Brahma lakshaNa and since advaitin also claims that Brahman is > without qualifications (nirguNa Brahman), claims by advaitin that > Vedic statement `tat tvam asi' as maahaavaakya as Brahma lakshaNa > vaakhyam (sentence) is contradiction in terms. (perhaps atat tvam asi > has a better chance than tat tvam asi!). This is because, any > lakshaNa by definition has a quality, lakshyatvam, that is a quality > of being able to be defined by lakshaNa. Now the objector asks – > does this lakshaNa involves savikalpa or nirvikalpa. It has been > accepted in tarka shaastra (Indian Logic) that, that which has a > quality is only savikalpa and not nirvikalpa. Objector askes: If > according to you, Brahman itself is an object (lakshya) to be > revealed by an lakshaNa vaakya (by statements like tat tvam asi) it > means that Brahman is itself has an attribute of `lakshyatvam', a > quality of being revealed by an lakshaNa vaakya, that is lakshaNa > Brahman enjoying lakshyatvam. Once Brahman becomes lakshya, with its > quality of lakshyatvam, it becomes a savikalpa Brahman only. > > If he is savikalpa, then as per you, advaitin, it must be a avastu > (belonging to the category of objects- since according to advaita > that which has qualities is only an object – and Brahman is not an > object and has no qualities) But by your statement of Brahma > lakshaNa, Brahman now has quality, and hence it is no more the vastu > (unless advaitin ceases to become an advaitin and changes his theory > that Brahman has qualities). By knowing one object, avastu, one is > not going to know every other avastu – whereas knowing Brahman > involves knowing the substantive of every object (yat j~naatvaa > naaparam j`neyam- knowing which nothing else is there to be known). > If you know a ring you cannot know bangle. By knowing vastu > (substantive – like gold in the ornaments) everything is as well > known, and in that case liberation is possible since essential > knowledge is known. Brahman as per your lakshaNa statement, has a > quality, lakshyatvam, that is, a quality of becoming a lakshaNa, and > hence it becomes a avastu and not vastu. If you accept it is > savikalpa then it is avastu then as per your theory there is no > liberation by the lakshaNa vaakya. Whole your theory is wrong. > > On the other hand, if you say it is nirvikalpam laksyatvam then there > is no chance of knowing it through the words nor it can be > experienced. Since whatever is revealed by words is only savikalpa. > A nirvikalpa vastu cannot be seen, na dRishTam, or can ever be > possible to exist, na sambhavi. Hence nirvikalpa vastu cannot become > a lakshya for a sentence. All means of knowledge can only for > savikaplam. Hence the ultimate conclusion that the objector wants us > to reach is that there is no such thing as nirvikalpa Brahman, that > is, nirguNa Brahman. Since Veda-s are using words to teach us about > Brahman, Brahman can only be saguNa Brahman. Brahman can not be > devoid of qualities. Hence he can only be IswaraH who is > sarvasankalpa – with auspicious qualities – kalyaaNa guNa aashraya. > This is the puurvapaksha or objector's objection. > > Siddhanta or Response: sloka-s 50+ > > The Shree Vidyaranya chose to answer the objector in a way, what is > known as vRishhTira lakuTika nyaaya (not sure if I have it right!)– > nyaaya of a camel with a load of firewood. Once a camel carrying > firewood was misbehaving or became wild. It was a desert with > nothing but just sand everywhere. Nothing else is there to control > that camel. The camel driver was not carrying any whip or ankusha > (used for elephant) to control the animal. Hence he takes the same > stick on the back of the animal that it is carrying, to beat the > camel and to bring it under control. Similarly here the objector's > logical statement itself is used to shut him off. The arguments are > somewhat subtle and rests on some of the epistemological issues > discussed in the tarka shaastra. > > Shree Vidyaranya shows that objection is absurd from several points – > or there are several logical errors involved in the very objection > itself – these errors that are pointed out are 1. vyaahati – or > self-contradiction 2. aatmaasraya dosha – error of self-dependency, > 3. anyonya aasraya dosha, error of mutual dependency 4. chakra > dosha, error of circular argument and 5. anavastu dosha - error of > infinite regress - Five logical absurdities. Hence objector's > objection is invalid. > > Error of vyaahati – self-contradiction: > Vidyaranya say: Because I used the word lakshya you raised an > objection that if what is revealed by the lakshaNa vaakya, statement > of definition, is it sa-vikalpa or nir-vikalpa – and that was your > (objector's) the central question. Before we take up the answer > related to Brahman whether Brahman has a quality of lakshyatvam, I > can turn the table against you by posing your own question to your > statement – to show the invalidity of your question itself. (the > arguments come close to vitanda vaada). You are asking whether it is > sah- or nir- vikalpa but the very use of the word vikalpa itself > involves a choice – since vikalpa means any thing that is subject to > a choice or division (In your question itself you have provided an > implied choice – sa vikalpa vaa or nirvikalpa vaa?) Now posing back > the same question to yourself related to your question– does that > vikalpa –which has intrinsic duality due to the choices you have > provided –that vikalpa you used that itself is it a nirvikalpa or > savikalpa? If you say it is nirvikalpa – then that nirvikalpa by > your own statement can neither be seen (na dRishhTam) nor ever be > possible (na sambhavam)– that is you will be contradicting your own > statement and that leads to vyaahati dosha or self-contradition ( > what amounts to is, you are accusing me about an error that you > yourself is making in the very accusation). (My comments: The very > questioning of nirvikalpa involves a vikalpa and that is > fundamentally invalid –the questioning of nirvikalpa – makes it as > savikalpa because there is questioner and question to start with and > within the question there is a choice or division which is vikalpa – > all this means is the Brahman which is akhanda sat chit ananda > Brahman (see sloka 48) is indivisible and no vikalpa or division can > exist- hence very question related to Brahman as savikalpaa vaa or > nirvikalpaa vaa –is dividing that which is indivisible) – Hence error > of self-contradition arises. It amounts to saying I am a vandyaa > putraH (son of a barren woman) or I have no tongue to speak. What it > amounts to is- nothing can be said about Brahman, period. Here Shree > Vidyaranya is twisting the arm of the puurvapakshi who is trying to > be smart by catching the use of the word lakshaNa – and Shree > Vidyaranya giving the same medicine for objector's use of the word > vikalpa). > > If, on the other hand, the objector says the vikalpa that he used is > not nirvikalpa but savikalpa (to avoid the error of > self-contradiction), then he is in a deeper trouble since he is now > committing four logical errors. (This is what is called killing a > dead snake). > > The other four errors: > > If the objector say it is savikalpa – that means the objector will be > answering as vikalpa is not nirvikalpa but is savikalpa. But what is > savikalpa – the definition of savikalpa is vikalpena saha vartate iti > savikalpa - by the statement vikalpa is savikalpa – it amounts to > saying vikalpa is savikalpam which itself is vikalpena saH vartate – > There are two things – a nominative case or first case – savikalpam > and vikalpena saH – is instrumental or third case. Thus now we have > two choices in the very definition – one is vikalpa is savikalpam > which has again a vikalpa with a choice – now a question arises > whether the second vikalpa is the same as the first vikalpa or > different from the first vikalpam – if it is the same, we have double > error one is anyonya aasraya and the other is chakram or circular > logic. (My comments – here is the hair-splitting arguments that is > normally carried in the tarka – to give a simple example to unravel > the puzzle – let us take an example – a stick-man is waking – in this > statement – A man is the one who has a stick to walk– man is first > case and stick is the third case (with a stick – dandi is dandena saH > ) qualifying the man since it differentiates him from all other men > who do not have sticks. But if we go deeper, as the objector seems > to do, and ask the question – what is qualifying what- is it a stick > or a man? – stick-man is waking and therefore stick is also walking > by implication. What is a stick – stick is that which a man is > carrying – that is stick is nominative being qualified by the man who > is carrying it. man – attached to a stick! since this particular > stick is differentiated from all other sticks, where men are not > attached at one end. (reminds me B. Shah-`s definition of cigarette– > cigarette is that with fire at one end and fool at the other end). > On the other hand, man is nominative and he is qualified by the stick > he is using for walking. This leads to two errors – one is anyonya > aasraya and another one is chakra – circular definition – since man > is qualified by a stick and stick is qualified by a man – this is > like a priest answering what is God – god is truth and what is truth > – truth is God – all we have ended up is instead of one unknown two > unknowns. > > Epistemological issue: What is being pointed indirectly is the > fundamental problem of defining what is a quality and what is a > substratum – in fact this is true for all objects in the universe if > one goes into detail – let us take a classical example in tarka – > what is a cow? What is that essential quality that differentiates the > cow from, say horse? It has been answered that cow is that which has > cow-ness which obviously different from horse-ness. That –ness which > in Sanskrit is –tvam as in lakshyatvam in the objector's statement. > Otherwise how do we define a cow- other than that which has cow- ness, > since any other qualification is not specific enough that can > differentiate it from the rest of the four-legged animals. But what > is cow-ness and where is that cow-ness in the cow? Since substantive > which is the first case is different from the instrumental case or > third case – since definition is cow is that which has cowness. > Cowness can only be defined has that which cow has? We have not > really become any wiser. It becomes a circular definition as well as > anyonya aasraya or interdependent definition. These two errors are > inherent in any object, which has qualification since without > qualification it is not an object. > > Back to the main discussion: > > With this example if we examine the Vidyaranya-s counter question the > error of the objector becomes obvious. If he says vikalpa is not > nirvikalpa but savikalpa then he runs into a statement – viakalpa has > savikalpa and savikalpa has by definition has vikalpa – if this > vikalpa that the savikalpa has is the same as the first vikalpa then > he has both circular definition, chakram dosha as well as anyonya > aasraya, mutual dependence like our stickyman! > > If, on the other hand, the objector say the vikalpa in the savikalpa > is different from the first vikalpa then Vidyaranya will pose next > question that second vikalpa is it nirvikapa or savikalpa? - if > objector says it is nirvikalpa – back to self-contradiction. If he > says no it is savikalpa – with its own vikalpa – we run into infinite > regress or anavastu dosha. Essentailly objector is cought in his own > words - > > In fact Vidyaranya gives us a glimpse of the problem in the logic > that always leads ultimately to an infinite regress. > > Having put the objector in his place, Vidyaranya explains further the > fundamental problem in asking these questions related to Brahman. > > Vidyaranya says the question is absurd. If you talk of savikalpa > then you will never make sense. If you talk of nirvikalpa, it will > at least may make some sense since it is the ultimate substative. You > may say nirvikalpa cannot be talked -na dRisyate na sambavam – but > actually it is the other way around - savikalpa cannot be talked. > Any talk on savikalpa will never make any sense if one examines > properly. One ends up with all those errors that have been pointed > with reference to any object. Since object has only qualities and > cannot be independently defined other than with adjectives. There is > no substantive independent for each object out there. The > substantive of every object is only nirvikalpa Brahman. Like what is > a cow or what is pot – pot is that which has potness and what is > potness is that which pot has- interdependent qualifications with > fundamentally no substantive (dravya) that can be identified. The > problem arises because there is no substantive for any object in the > world other than Brahman. But Brahman cannot be differentiated. And > without substantive the objects with quality has no basis. Since > Brahman is akhandam and advayam and therefore by definition no > independent dravyam apart from Brahman. Hence fundamentally > nirvikalpa alone makes sense and not savikalpa – it is alright to use > for day to day transactional purposes – vyaavahaarika level. For > nirvikalpa there is no coming or going. From nirvikalpa, in principle > savikalpa cannot come- But it appears to comes – as the whole world > comes from Brahman (uppadaana kaaraNa- in principle snake does not > come from inert rope but it comes. It is only as a thought it comes > (bahu syaam – let me become many). Thus if the analysis is hooked > to nirvikalpa then everything becomes possible – otherwise, one gets > caught up in logical absurdities as noted above. Savikalpa has an > apparent beginning – which means there is no real beginning. If you > try to arrive at the beginning one will end up the doshas – including > anavastu desho – anaadi pravaaH. It is nitya. Creation has to be > anaadi – beginning less. For the apparent creation, there is in > between the savikalpa and nirvikalpa a connection factor, and the > connecting factor is as good as creation – the creation factor maaya > is as good as creation. If the creation is apparent then maya is > apparent. Apparent creation is accounted by apparent power called > maya. Where does that maya exist – it cannot exist in creation – it > is Brahma aasrayaa maaya - with the maaya as upaadi Brahman becomes > Iswara – someway jiiva is also Brahman – but upaadi is avidya. > > Lakshyate – I am not accepting that Brahman has got property of > lakshyatvam – but it is used as upaaya – for convenience for > teaching– for one who is ignorant it forms a revealing sentence – to > establish you are Brahman – in Brahman there is nothing other then > Brahman to point out – hence to point out you are Brahman, I have to > establish, I, separate from you. But in understanding or realization > – I and You – the duality gets dissolved into one akhadam advitiiyam. > Even though it is one, you do not know it – for the fact to be known > not as this is Braham but as I am Brahman – it is sentence is used to > remove the ignorance of separateness but not as lakskyatvam with > savikalpam. It is something to be known. He is that devadatta – > there is no duality. Whatever duality is only apparent and apparent > is rejected to arrive at the substantive, which is one devadatta. > This makes sense only to the one who is familiar with this devadatta > and that devadatta and the equation unifies the two as one removing > any vikalpa or duality. This can only be done by a teacher who is > familiar with the oneness of the Devadatta in this devadatta and that > devadatta. Finally it is aparoksha j~naanam a direct knowledge of > the one who has required qualifications. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > > > > > ===== > What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. > > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.