sribhashya-mahasiddhantha-nivarthaka anuppatthi

[Guest guest]

6.Nivarthaka anupapatthi

 

Ramanuja says ' thathvamasyAdhi vAkyEshu sAmAnAdhi karaNyam na

nirvisesha vasthvaikyaparam.' The texts like 'that thou art' do not

denote attributeless Brahman. As already pointed out by Ramanuja in

explaining the principle of sAmAnAdhikaraNya referring to the purport

of the vedic text 'satyam jnAnam anantham brahma,' there is no need of

dismissing the attributes in explaining the identity. According to him

the words 'that' and ' thou' both denote Brahman only that too as

savisesha. The contention that the removal of avidhya is effected by the

knowledge of brahman as nirvisesha is not tenable.

 

Advaitin cites the statement 'sOayam devadatthah,this is that

Devadattha,' to prove his point that the primary meaning of the terms

cannot be taken as the person qualified by different time and place is

being spoken of as one. So the identity will be established only if the

reference to time and place are given up. So too as 'that' denotes

Brahman who is infinite and attributeless and 'thou' refers to jiva who

is finite with limited knowledge and power the identity can be

established only by not considering the limitations of the jiva and the

infinite nature etc. of Brahman in which case both will be identical in

essence. This can be accomplished only by the removal of avidhya through

the real knowledge of the Brahman as attributeless which serves as the

nivarthaka of avidhya

 

Ramanuja refutes this saying 'thathpadham hi sarvajnam sathyasankalpam

jajagathkArNam brahma parAmrsathi; thdhaikshatha bahusyAm ithi

thasyaivaprakrthathvAth,' the word 'that' in 'that thou art' refers only

to Brahman omniscient and omnipotent, who is the cause of te world as

denoted by the sentence 'it willed to become many.' Even in the example

'sO ayam devadatthah' there is no necessity for adopting secondary

meaning, lakshaNA of the words because the person connected with the

past and the present times is one only. If the word 'that' is taken to

mean pure attributeless Brahman then it will conflict with the sentence

'it willed to become many and the promissory statement EkavijnAnEna

sarvavijnAnam, by knowing the one everything becomes known. Hence the

word 'that' denotes Brahman who is savisesha and the word 'thou' refers

to the Brahman who is the real self of the jiva which alone is meant by

'that thou art.'

 

Ramanuja further proceeds to show that there is no sublation here as in

the case of shell-silver. The word 'that' does not bring up any

attribute that sublates the first perception of 'thou' as in the case of

shell-silver as according to advaita Brahman is attributeless. What is

meant here is this.When the shell is seen as silver the attribute of

silver ,that is silverness, is seen in the shell which is sublated when

the shell becomes known as such due to the perception of the attribute

shellness. In the explanation of 'thatthvamasi' by the advaitin there

can be no attribute of Brahman which becomes known to cause the

sublation of the perception of the jiva as such, because Brahman is said

to be attributeless.

 

Advaitin may contend that it is not necessary to perceive some attribute

in the substantive entity in order to remove the first erraneous

impression.It is enough to show that svarupa, the real nature of the

substance is hidden from view by some defect, comes to view when the

defect is removed.

 

Ramanuja says that if svarupa of Brahman is concealed, there can be no

misapprehension and if not concealed there is no need for removal of

misconception. Unless an attribute which is real and hidden is admitted

there can be no sublation.Ramanuja explains this by the analogy of a

prince, getting lost while very young, did not know his identity on

account of being brought up by hunters.His misconception will not be

removed by merely stating that he is not a hunter but only buy the

knowledge that he is a prince.

 

Ramanuja interprets the text 'thatthvamasi,' in such a manner that both

the words 'thath' and 'thvam' retain their primary meaning and need no

recourse to lakshanA, secondary meaning, as the advatin claims.The

sAmAnAdhikaraNya, apposition, is achieved by the two words meaning the

same Brahman, qualified with two attributes, namely, possessing infinite

number of auspicious attributes and being the cause of the world on one

hand and being the indwelling Self of all on the other. This explanation

is consistent with the beginning of the passage 'it willed to become

many,' and also the promissory statement of 'EkavijnANena

sarvavijnAnAm,' as the gross world consisting of sentient and

insentient beings, which form His body in their subtle state, is the

effect of Brahman, being ensouled by Him. This is brought up by the

previous sentence to 'thathvamasi' that all this is ensouled by

Brahman.'EthadhAthmyam idham sarvam.' The reason for this is stated in '

sanmoolAhsoumya imAh sarvAhprajAh sadhAyathnAh sathprathishTAh,all these

beings have their root in sath,rest in sath and dissolved in

Sath.'(chan.6-8-4)

 

Ramanuja quoting other texts also to show that Brahman is the Self of

all the sentient and the insentient and the identity of Brahman with

jiva is established through the sarirAthma bhAva, the body-soul

relationship.

 

1. 'anthafpravishtah sasthA janAnAm sarvAthmA,'( Taitt.AraNyaka.3-11-21)

The inner Self is the controller of all.

 

2. 'Yah Athmani thishTanAthmanah antharah yam AthmA na vedha yasya AthmA

sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha AthmA

anthryAmyamrthah,(Brhd.5-7-4) He,the immortal,inner ruler, is the inner

Self, situated inside the AthmA whom AthmA did not know and who controls

the Athma from within to whom the AthmA is the sarira.'

 

3.'anEna jeevena AthmnA anupravisya nAmarupe vyakaravANi,(CHAN.6-3-2) I

will enter into the jiva as its inner self and will make nama and

rupa.'

 

Therefore, says Ramanuja, the identity of all beings, sentient and

insentient with Brahman can be established only through the sarira

sariri bhAva. And as all that is other than Brahman is His sarira the

denotation of everything terminates only in Brahman.'athah

chidhachidhAthmakasya sarvasya vasthujathasya brahmathAdhAthmyam Athma

sarirabhAvAdhEva ithi avagamyathE ; thasmAth brahmavyathirikthasya

krtsnasya thaccharirathvEnaiva vasthuthvath thasya prathipAdhaKOpi

sabdah thathparyanthmEva svArTHam abhidhaDHAthi.'

 

Ramanuja refutes likewise the theory of bhEdhAbhEdha and kevalabhEdha

saying that the texts stating the doctrine of universal identity cannot

be explained by their theories.According to bhEdhAbhEdha either the

difference is due to limiting adjuncts (Bhaskaramatha) or belongs to

Brahman who himself assumes the state of jiva,(yadhavaprakAsamatha)

Brahman being the self of everything will be contaminated by the

imperfections of the world and jiva. The kevalabhedhavAdhins those who

claim absolute difference between the jiva and Brahman (could either

mean nyAyavaisEshikas or dvaitins ) the texts that proclaim identiy have

to be abandoned.

 

Ramanuja proclaims 'nikhilOpanishadhprasiddham krthsnasya brahma

sarirabhAvam AthishTamAnaih krthsnasya brahmAthmabhAvOpadhEsAh sarvE

samyak upapAdhithA bhavanthi.' That is, by those who accept the

sarira-sariri bhava between all beings and Brahman the texts that speak

of identity are well explainable because this concept is known through

all the upanishads.

 

To the objection that jathi and qualities can be the attributes of

substances but a substance cannot be the attribute of another substance

Ramanuja answers that it is quite proper as in the sentence 'gourasvo

manushyo devO jathah purushah karmabih, the purusha (athman) is born as

a cow,as a horse, as a man as a deva according to his karma.The words in

apposition (sAmAnAdhikaraNya) all qualify one entity, namely the

purusha.

 

It cannot be said that only the words denoting jati or guNa as in the

expressions 'khando gouh, shuklapatah, broken- horned cow, white cloth,

can be put in apposition and the words denoting substances should have

termination of possession (mathvarTHeeyaprathyayah) as in dhandee, one

with staff, kundali, one who is wearing eardrops etc. The words dhanda

and kundala are capable of existing independently and hence used in the

possessive sense. But this condition is not necessary when the

substances that qualify are unable to exist separately to be perceived

separately.

 

Advaitin objects to this saying that while the jati and guna are

perceived along with the substance which qualify the Athma is not so.

Ramanuja says 'NaithdhEvam; manushyAdhi sarirANAm api AthmaikAsraYthvam,

thdhEkaprayojanathvam,thathprakArathvam cha jAthyAdhi thulyam.' The

bodies of all beings have only Athma as their substratum , they exist

only for the use of the Athma, and exist as its aspects. This is proved

by the fact that they do not have a separate existence apart from the

Athma, they enable the Atma to have experience the karmaphala as karma

can be exhausted only through embodiment and they become qualifying

epithets of the Atma as in the expression man, cow etc.

 

The Atma is not perceived because it is atheendriya. Even in sense

perception what is perceived by the eye is not cognised by the other

indriyas. Since Athma is not cognied by the indriyas it is not perceived

along with the body. As the word cow not only shows the jati but also

the indidual entity with all its characterstics, the words like man

denote the Athma in their ultimate connotation which further extended

denotes Brahman who is the Self of the self.

 

Ramanuja has made this clear in VedhArTha sangraha thus: Brahman in the

causal state has the sentient and the insentient in their subtle state

as its body and the same Brahman having the beings sentient and

insentient as its body in their gross manifestation is the effect.

'thasmath isvaraprAkArabhoothasarvAvasTHaprakrthipurushavAcinah sabdhAh

thathprakAra visishtathaya avasthithe paramAthmani mukhyathayA

varthanthe, jivAthmavAchi devamanushyadhi sabdhavath.' That is, the

terms denoting prakrthi and purusha are the aspects of Brahman and

denote only Brahman in their primary sense as in the case of the words,

manushya deva etc. which have connotation in the Athma only. This is the

only sense of identity implied by the sarirathmabhAva.