sribhashya-mahasiddhantha-No pramAna for nirvisesha object

[Guest guest]

Sabda,verbal testimony likewise cannot be the pramANa for nirvisesha

brahman.Verbal testimony here means sruthi texts quoted by the

advaitin to prove his point. Verbal testimony consists of words and

sentences. Words have two parts, prakrthi, root and prathyaya,

termination which, having different meanings join to denote only a

savisesha object.n\ (All named things,abhidheya, are savisesha only

as a nirvisesha vasthu cannot be denoted by words or sentences

without giving it a definition in which case it becomes savisesha.)

Therefore nirvisesha brahman cannot be proved by sabda.

 

Ramanuja dismisses prathyaksham also as a means of knowledge of

nirvisesha vasthu. All perception reveals only an object which is

savisesha.Advaitin may say that this is so only in

savikalpakaprathyaksham, determinate perception, but in

nirvikalpaprakathyaksham, indeterminate perception show only the

object as nirvisesha. Ramanuja disagrees and says that even that can

show only object with visesha. The opposite has never been

experienced. Any perception is only of the nature 'idham ittham, this

is such and such.' When a cow is perceived it is perceived with its

form, dewlap etc. to differntiate it from othe objects like horse.No

perception is experienced otherwise.

 

Then, advaitin may question, what is the meaning of the term

nirvikalpaka prathyaksham? Ramnuja answers thus:

Nirvikalpakaprathyaksham occurs when there is the first perception of

the object ,say, cow. When another cow is seen the knowledge of jati,

class is known with a knowledge that any object belonging to the 'Go'

jati will look like this and then the form of a cow ,having

triangular face, dewlap etc. are known to belong to the class of

cows. Even though the form is perceived at first it is not known to

be common to all objects of that class and hence it is called

nirvikalpaka, indeterminate perception. With the perception of the

jati and viseshas like triangular face, dewlap etc it becomes

savisesha. Hence only the subsequent perceptions are savisesha and

the first one is nirvisesha.Therefore attributelessness can never be

the object of perception.

 

Ramnuja here proceeds to show that even the bhedhAbhedhavAdha of

Bhaskara is untenable.The latter professes that the jati and other

attributes are both separate and not separate. When the cow is seen

as belonging to the class of cows, the jati is not viewed as separate

from the vyakthi,cow, but is different when the cow is seen as an

object by itself. Ramanuja refutes this saying 'sarvathra

viseshaNviseshyabhAva prathipatthou thayoh athyanthabhEhdhah

prtheethyaiva suvyakthah.' The viseshaNaviseshyabhAva, the relation

of attribute and substance makes it clear that there is absolute

difference between the two, which is explicit from their perception

itself. When an object is perceived as ' idham ittham,' this is such

and such, the idham aspect denotes the object and the ittham aspect

exhibits its attributes. So the two are undoubtedly different and

cannot BE claimed to be identical..

 

the followers of BhAskara may argue that in which case there will not

be any difference between the attributes denoting possession like

dhandee, one with a staff, kundalee, one wearing kundala and those

denoting jati etc. Ramanuja replies that the attributes adhering

through possession have a separate existence whereas the dewlap etc.

do not exist separately from the entity, cow.

 

Hence nirvisesha cannot be proved by perception, inference or verbal

testimony. Trying to prove nirvisesha through proving that all

viseshas are not perceived, is like the statement that one's mother

is a barren woman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

..