sribhashya-2-1-6-arambhanadhikaranam-continued-siddhantha

[Guest guest]

The suthra refers to the passages beginning with the word 'ArambhaNa,'

namely 'vAchArambhaNam vikArah nAmadhEyam mrthikWEthyEva sathyam,'

followed by 'sadhEva soumya idhamagra Aseeth,EkamEva adhvitheeyam, the

Being only was at the beginning ,one only without a second' and

'thadhaikshatha bahusyAm parajAyEya thatthEjo asrjatha, it willed to

become many and created fire,' and 'anEna rupEna AthmanA anupravisya

nAmarupE vyAkaravANi, I will enter along with this individual self and

make names and forms,' and the passage ends with 'EthadhAthmyam idham

sarvam thath sathyam thathvamasi svEtha kethO, all this is ensouled by

Brahman that is the truth that thou art svEtha kethu.' These texts

confirm the non-difference of Brahman from the world which exists in the

relation of body and soul with Brahman.

 

 

 

This is the purport of the whole passage beginning with the question

whether Svethakethu has learnt all that is to be learnt and when he

answered in the negative, the father instructs him, saying that by

knowing that everything is known as by knowing the clay all its effects

like pots are known etc., thus showing that Brahman is the cause of the

world and also non-different from the world, its effect.

 

 

 

For the sake of activities such as fetching water etc the clay attains a

new name and form but the substance persists as clay only. Therfore it

is said that the clay alone is true as it persists even when the name

and form is lost. Ramanuja says that the statement 'mrtthikEthyEva

sathyam' means 'pramANEna upalabhyatha ithyarTHah, na thu

dravyAntharathvEna;athah thasyaiva mrdhiraNyAdhEh dhravyasya

samsTHAnAntharabhAvathvamAthrENa buddhisabdhAnthrAdhayah upapadhyanthE,

yaTHaikasyEva dhevadhatthasya avasTHA bhedhaih bAlah,yuvA,sTHavirah ithi

buddhisabdhAntharAdhayah kAryAvisEshAscha dhrsyanthE.

 

 

 

This means as follows:

 

The clay or gold alone is known to be true through valid means of

cognition because the pots, ornaments etc are not different entities

altogether but only another state of existence of the causal substance

just as the same individual Devadattha is seen to change into different

forms such as a boy,youth, old man etc acoording to different stages in

life.

 

 

 

When the pot is destroyed only the particular form is destroyed and not

the substance, as it exists as potsherds and other forms but the clay

persists in all stages and hence the argument that origination and

destruction makes the effect a new substance is not correct. To say that

if the effect preexisted in the cause then its origination is

meaningless, says Ramanuja, is the argument of the one who has no

knowledge of origination and destruction . What originates is only a

different form of the cause and that alone is destroyed. Hence the

sathkAryavAdha, that is the effect is real and non-different from the

cause , is not affected. It is not also correct to say that if a

nonexisting form of the cause is originated it is asathkAryavAdha

because the same sustance is cognised as existing through out as when

the clay becomes pot it gives up its previous form only and again when

broken assumes the form of potsherds.

 

 

 

Then Ramanuja proceedsto explain the passage beginning with 'sadhEva

soumya idham agra Aseeth,EkamEva adhvitheeyam, sath alone was in the

beginning one only without a second.' This means that the world of

sentient and nonsentient beings was in the beginning one only without

names and forms. one only without a second shows that Brahman which is

denoted as 'sath' is the material as well as the efficient cause. This

and the next statement' it willed to become many ,' proves that theworld

is non-different from Brahman. then 'anEna jivEna AthmanA anupravisya

nAmarupE yvAkaravANi, denotes that Brahman is the self of all. This is

also stated in the text 'thath srshtvA thadhEva anuprAvisath

thadhanupravisya saccha thyaccha abhavath,'(Tait.3-2)

 

 

 

Brahman being the self of all the whole world of sentient and insentient

beings constitutes the body of Brahman and hence the imperfections of

the body cannot adhere to the soul, that is Brahman who is free form

evil and the abode of all divine attributes. Ramanuja quotes from other

scriptural texts also to prove the non-difference between Brahman and

the world, that is, between the cause and the effect- 'sarvam khalu

idham brahma,'(Chan.3-14-1) all this is brahman 'nEha nAnasthi kimchana'

(Brhd.4-4-19) there is no plurality here, 'yathra hi dvaitham iha

bhavathi thadfhithara itharam pasyathi,yathra thvasya sarvam Athmaiva

abhooth thath kEna kam pasyEth,' (Brhd.2-4-13) where there is plurality

one sees another but when all has become his self what he will see, by

whom? That is , non-difference is only real.

 

 

 

Thus all words denote Brahman only as the sentient and insentient beings

are His modes being His sarira, says Ramanuja, 'chidhachitvasthu

sarirathayA thatprakAram brahmaivasarvadhA sarvasabdhAbhiDHEyam.' When

the sentient and the insentient are in subtle state nondistinguishable

by name and form it is the causal state ,kAraNAvasTHA and when they are

in gross state cognisable by name and form it is the state of

effect,kAryAvasThA. Hence the world is not different from Brahman.

 

 

 

Ramanuja dismisses the theory of unreality of the world saying that in

that case the non- difference between the cause and effect cannot be

established. Like wise he sets aside the views of bhEdhAbhEdhavAdhin

also as being in conflit with the declaratios of sruthi smrithi and

purANas.

 

 

 

All sruthi along with smrthi and puraNa proclaim in one voice that the

Lord of Lords, all-knowing all -powerful,of infallible will, free of

blemish, not conditioned by place, time or entity, of unlimited

transcendental bliss, as the one supreme cause.

 

 

 

Ramanuja quotes from several texts to prove the above declaration

especially from Mahanarayana upanishad ' EkO ha vai nArAyaNa Aseeth na

brahmA nesAnO nEmE dhyAvaprthivee na nakshatrANi nApOnAgnirna sOmO na

sooryah,' there were no other deity than Narayana in the beginning, as

B5rahman and narayana are synonymous in visishtadvaita. Ithhasa and

purana also confirm this, says Ramanuja, quoting from Manu the text

beginning with 'thathah svayambhoorbhagavAn, the self manifested Lord ,'

and continuing to say,'apa EVa sasarjAdhou thEshu veeryam apAsrjath, He

created waters and planted His seed into it.'

 

 

 

To the possible objection that the effects are known to be different on

account of the different terms and ideas and as such they cannot be

merely dfferent states of the same entity. This is answered by the next

suthra.