sribhashya-mahapurvapaksha -continued

[Guest guest]

Granted that the injunctive texts are sublated by the vedanta texts

but how can the texts like "parAsya shakthir viviDhaiva srooyathE

svAbhAvikee jnAnbalakriyAcha,'(svet.6-8) His supreme power is heard

of as being diverse and His knowledge, power and action are

svAbhAvikee, His nature, He is 'sathyakAmah, sathya

sankalpah,'(Chan.8-1-5) He is of true wish and true will, which means

that whatever is His wish or will, it comes to be true, be sublated ?

 

Advaitin replies 'nirguNavAkya sAmarthyAth,' on the strength of the

nirguNa texts like 'asthoolam anaNu,ahrasvam adheerGHam,' (Brhd.5-8-

8) Brahman is described as neither gross nor atomic, neither short

nor long etc. by which the Brahman is denied having any qualities,

which are affirmed by the epithets 'nirguNam, niranjanam,'

attributeless and colourless(formless). By the rule of sublation the

stronger texts sublate the weaker ones. In order to deny the

existence first, that which is denied is postulated as the

prathiyogi,countercorrelate to its abhAva,nonexistence. That is, only

something shown as existent can be denied and not something never

been existent like the horn of the hare.

 

But the text, 'Sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma,' quoted by the advatin

to substantiate his view that Brahman is nirvisesha chinmAthra do

attribute the qualities of truth, existence and infinity to Brahman

and how can these be explained to mean nirgunathva of Brahman?

 

Advaitin explains this by means of the precept of sAmAnADHikaraNya.

sathyam, jnAnam, and anantham are not attributes of brahman because

these terms stand in co- ordination and have oneness of meaning.that

is, they all mean the same thing and not used as adjectives.The

principle of sAmAnADHIkaraNya is defined as

as 'BHinnapravrtthinimitthAnAm sabdhAnAm Ekasmin arTHe vrtthih,'

when words of different meaning when put in apposition, denote the

same object, so that there is EkArTHathvam, oneness of meaning.

 

To say that attributes having different meaning can still denote

EkArTHathva is , says advaitin, an ignorant statement of one who does

not understand what is meant by denotation, 'anaBhiDHAnajnO

devANAmpriyah.' Oneness of meaning is identity of meaning of

different words. Here the different words satyam etc. mean Brahman

only and not the qualities as in the case of 'neelothpalam,'blue

lotus 'syAmo yuvA lohithAkshah dEvadatthah,' the darkyoung red-eyed

Devadattha etc., where the different epithets mean the same thing,

namely, lotus and Devadattha. For this, they would not be symonyms

because they refer to one thing.

 

Advaitin explains this as follows.The sruti says 'brahmavidhApnothi

param', the one who knows Brahman attains the supreme reality. This

gives rise to the enquiry 'which is Brahman'? Brahman is defined,

distinguishing it from what is not Brahman and for this purpose only

the texts like 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma are given. The terms

are not taken in their denotative meaning,mukhyArTha but in their

connotative meaning, lakshyArtha. Thus the term sathyam is not the

quality of Brahman but its svarupa, as being the opposite of all that

is not real, asathyam. Similarly jnAnam is to differentiate Brahman

from ajnAna and anantham is used to distinguish Brahman from what is

finite.Thus truth,knowledge and infinity are its nature and not

attributes even as whiteness as distinguished from blackness.

Therefore the texts like 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma' describe

brahman only as a self-illumined attributeless consciousness.This

interpretation only justifies the purport of the declaration 'sadhEva

soumya idham agra Aseeth EkamEva adhvitheeyam.'

 

Abandoning the direct meaning and resorting to the implied meaning

is no defect because the purport of the sentence is to be given

preference to the direct meaning of the words. For instance to

prevent one from eating food in the house of an enemy another

says.'visham bhunkshva, eat poison.' Here the muKHYarTha is not what

is meant but the lakshanArTHa, that to eat in enemy's house is like

eating poison. In the present context the purport of the

sAmAnaDHikaranya of the words sathyam etc.is oneness and hence direct

meanings of the terms cannot be taken.

 

Advaitin claims that the implied meaning can be seen in both

injunctive and imperative sentences. In the

injunction 'jyothishtomEna svargakAmO yajEtha', one who aspires for

heaven should perform jyothishtoma sacrifice, the sacrifice does not

give the result of svarga but the apoorva, unseen power created by

the sacrifice. So here the lakshyArTha is adopted. Similarly in the

imperative sentence 'gAm Anaya, bring the cow,' the words have

meaning only connected with the action. So in order to arrive at the

import of the sentence all the words can be taken in the implied

sense.