sribhashya-MahAsiddhAntha-the great final decision

[Guest guest]

MahAsiddhAntha- The Great Final decision.

 

1. The argument that Brahman is nirvisesha is criticised.

 

Ramanuja dismisses the whole puirvapaksha argument

as 'anAdharaneeyam, unsupported by any pramaANa. Brahman, NarAyaNA,

is the oupanishadhaparamapurusha, the Supreme being, described by the

upanishads, which say 'yamaivEsha vrNuthE thEna labhyathE, the Self

is attained only by those who are chosen by Him. The arguments of

those who are devoid of the guNavisesha, that is, bhakthi, by which

they become qualified to be chosen, who lack the knowledge of the

purport of the sruthivaAkyas and the implication of the means of

knowledge, pramANas, is kutharka, illogical and hence to be dismissed.

 

All pramAnas have saviseshavasthu, something with attributes only as

their object. So there can be no valid means of cognition for

perception without attributes, nirviseshaprathyaksham. Visesha is

what separates a thing from other things. In the example of blue

lotus, blueness is what separates the lotus from red lotus for

instance. Similarly the lotus separates its blueness from others like

that of the sea or sky. So when a thing is perceived, it is the

attribute which causes its perception as distinct from other things

and which is exclusive to that object. Actually attributelessness

itself becomes an attribute because there can be no valid knowledge

otherwise. All perceptions ae in the form 'I saw this ' which

necessitates a perceiver and an object perceived. Both being viseshas

the perception is savisesha only.

 

If the perception which is savisesha is to be proved to be nirvisesha

by any syllogism, the hetu must be something which is found only in

brahman. As in the syllogism 'the mountain is fiery because it has

smoke,' the smoke is the hethu which is associated with fire only and

always. In Brahman therefore there must be some hetu which is present

in Brahman only and always. If the advaitin can supply such a hethu

it becomes an attribute and not identical with Brahman.

 

It cannot be said that when the Brahman is proved with this attribute

to be nirvisesha, this visesha ceases to exist along with the other

viseshas as it is not tenable. If this attribute disappears Brahman

cannot be proved to be nirvisesha. Hence the existence of a

attributeless entiity cannot be proved.

 

Perception cannot be separated from the perceiver and the

perceived.It shines only by making the thing perceived by the

perceiver.Anubhuthi as maintained by the advaitin to be self

illumined not dependent on anyhting else, is thus disproved.

Ramanuja says that he will prove that even in sleep and swoon there

is only savisesha anubhuthi. When it is said that the anubhuthi is

eterna, it becomes savisesha having eternity as its attribute. Thus

it is proved that anumana or inference through arguments, cannot be

the pranANa to prove nirviseshathva of Brahman.It remains however to

examine the other pramANas , namely sabda and prathyaksha to prove

that all perception is only savisesha..