Vedartha Sangraha - The essence of Vedas

[gokulkr]

Introduction:

 

<dl>"The sacred thread "Upveetam" glitters in this chest. The twelve "Urdhva

pundrams" marks representing the divine foot of Lord Vishnu add more divinity

to his divine body. The "Tridandam" three sticks tied together as per the

scriptures is in his hand symbolizing the goodness for all worlds. With the

"Sikha" bunch of hair in head tied, "Kamandalam" a vessel for carrying holy

water, wearing the "Kashayam" saffron robes, Bhagavat Ramanuja shines as the

Yatiraja - king among "Sanyasis" with his unparalleled and unsurpassed

knowledge, wisdom and his renouncement from material desires. He advocated

Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy and practice, which is "Parama

Vaidika Matam".

<dl>A philosophy which when proved to be rational and in strict accordance to a

flawless domain gives answer to all questions which are not answered by

science. Amongst manifold philosophies, the philosophy of Veda prevailing in

India from very ancient time once lost its hold due to the advent of anti-veda

movements and misinterprets of Veda. It was then nearly 1000 years ago Adi

Sesha incarnated as Bhagavat Ramanuja and reestablished the parama vaidika

matham - Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy and practice, which is the

only purport of Veda. From that point onwards, the matham got the name

"Bhagavat Ramanuja Darsanam" only to signify the importance of this greatest

preceptor.This preceptor has produced nine works, which are like inestimable divine nine

gems. Shreeman Nigamanta Maha Desika in his work "Sankalpa Sooryodayam" says

"Trimsadvaaram Sraavita Saareeraka Saastraha" about himself meaning, "Swamy

Desika has taught the Shree Bhaashya of Bhagavat Ramanuja thirty times". Even

after this, Swamy Desika in this work "Yatiraja Saptathi" says "Parichita

Gahana Samyameendrasya Sooktaha:" meaning, the works like Shree Bhashya are

tough and are deep in knowledge-contents, even when they are learnt again and

again. A disciple of Bhagavat Ramanuja and an extraordinary scholar named

"Nadadur Ammal" who is Vatsa Varadaacharyar says "Ikva pathi vidushaam eshaa

prowdi sriya: prabhunaa sape" menaing, "who else other than the Vidhvaans

(scholars) of Ramanuja Sampradayam (philosophical system) can understand the

glory and depth of Shree Bhasya of Bhagavat Ramanuja? This I swear on Lord

Vishnu!" These statements of these great scholars clearly indicate the

greatness of Bhagavat Ramanuja's divine works. This article "Experiencing

Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works" is going to be presented in the

email networks as a series, in portions. The aim of the article is to make an

attempt to outline the greatness of Bhagavat Ramanuja's divine works.

Bhagavat Ramanuja was born at ShriiperumputhUr that is in South India before

1000 years (approx.) in an orthodox family. By the divine grace of Bhagavat

Yamunacharya (an eminent Shree Vaishnava preceptor of that time), Bhagavat

Ramanuja reached Shree Rangam to meet Bhagavat Yamunacharya but was

disappointed to see only the mortal remains of Bhagavat Yamunacharya. By God's

grace, Bhagavat Ramanuja came to know the final wishes of Bhagavat

Yamunacharya. He fullfilled the three wishes of Bhagavat Yamunacharya.

Bhagavat Ramanuja wrote commentary on Brahma Sutra, Gita and established the

Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy and practice. He made his disciple

Tiru Kurugai Piran Pillan to write a commentary "Tiru Aaraayira Padi"

(Bhagavat Vishayam) on Shree Satakopa Namalwar's Tiru Vaai Mozhi. He named the

sons of Shree Kooratalwar as "Parasara" and "Vyasa" and through them made the

names of Bhagavat Parasara and Bhagavat Vyasa to shine in the world with their

original glory. He lived a very long life and dedicated his entire life for

reestablishing and spreading the Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy and

practice. He is called "Udayavar", "Emberumaanaar", "Lakshmana Muni",

"Yatiraja" and "Shree Bhaashyakaara" each name denoting his excellence.

The divinity, sweetness, and the nature of imparting knowledge are

extraordinarily present in the works of Bhagavat Ramanuja. Swamy Desikan told

"Yati pravara bhaarathi rasabharena neetham vaya:" meaning "Swamy Desika spent

his entire life by learning and enjoying the divine sweetness and knowledge

enshrined in the works of Bhagavat Ramanuja. Through this article series, I (Ramanuja dasan Hari)

try to make the readers to enjoy them by presenting a drop from the works of

Bhagavat Ramanuja which are like a ocean.

Bhagavat Ramanuja is recognized as "Shree Vaishnava Siddhaanta Nirdhaarana

Saarvabhowman" meaning the monarch who established Visistadvaita Shree

Vaishnava philosophy and practice. The nine divine works of Bhagavat Ramanuja

are:

 

</dl><dl>1. Vedartha Sangraha - The essence of Veda

2. Shree Bhasyam - Elaborate commentary on Brahma Sutras

3. Vedanta Deepam - Commentary on Brahma Sutra in a condensed form

4. Vedanta Saara - Commentary on Brahma Sutra in a very condensed form

5. Shree Geetha Bhasyam- Commentary on Shree Bhagavat Geetha.

6. Shree Saranaagathi Gadya - Deals with surrendering to Lord Shreeman

Narayanan for moksha.

7. Shree Ranga Gadya - Deals with the divine mercy of Shree Ranganatha of

Shree Rangam

8. Shree Vaikunta Gadya - Deals with Shree Vaikunta Paramapada

9. Nitya Granta - Deals with daily/special practices prescribed for Shree

VaishnavaThe Visistadvaita Shree Vaishanava philosophy and practice are clearly

established in these nine extraordinary works. We take up portions from one by

one to enjoy them through this series.

</dl></dl>

[gokulkr]

Part 2- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

Vedartha sangraha:

The sermons given by Bhagavat Ramanuja on Veda before Shree Venkata

Shreenivasan are compiled as Vedartha Sangraha. This is the first work of

Bhagavat Ramanuja. Though this work mainly ascertains the purport of the

Vedanta (Upanishad), it is not to be understood that this grantha just

explains the upanishads but it is the purport of all Vedas as the Vedas

finally aim at conveying the meaning of upanishads. Therefore this work is

titled as Vedaartha Sangraham, meaning the summary of Veda. This is not only

complete in itself but also serves as a detailed introduction to Shree

Bhaashya as the content of Jignyaasaadhikaranam is elaborated in this work.

This grantha has such a value that without studying this, beginners find it

very difficult to study Shree Bhashya.

Vedartha Sangraha has two parts of which the first part is called "Mathaantara

Khandana" and the second part is "Swa Matha Vistaara". In the first part,

Bhagavat Ramanuja refutes and rejects the Advaita matha of Adi Sankara, the

Beda-Abheda matha of Bhaskara and that of Yadava Prakasa. In the second part,

the preceptor in detail explains and establishes Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava

philosophy and practice. It is established in this grantham beyond doubt that

the Veda's purport is only Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnavam and nothing other

than that.

 

Sruta Prakashikacharya (Shree Sudarsana Suri) has commented on this work of

Bhagavat Ramanuja and it is known as Tatparya Deepika - Sruta Pradeepika.

 

In the beginning of this grantham, Bhagavat Ramanuja has composed two Mangala

Slokams (Verses) of which the first one is not only in the form of worshiping

the Paramaatman Vishnu, but also is in the form of essence of the second part

of this grantha. Similarly, the second Mangala Sloka is not only in the form

of saluting his preceptor (Bhagavat Yamunacharya) but also is in the form of

essence of the first part of this grantha. Mangala Slokas are found in the

works of our Aacharyas for two reasons - first reason being, worshiping

Bhagavan makes the grantham to be successfully completed without obstacles and

the second reason being, worshiping Aacharyas (preceptors) makes us to get the

knowledge fully as imparted by the grantha. Let us first comprehend the

mangala slokas as follows:

==================================================

The First Mangala Sloka Of Vedaartha Sangraha:

==================================================

"Asesha Chitachit Vastu Seshine Sesha Saayine |

Nirmalaananta Kalyaana Nidhaye Vishnave Namaha ||"

==================================================

 

This is the essence of our Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy and

practice. The Tatva-Hita-Purusharthas are beautifully conveyed by this verse.

 

"Chit" denotes the sentient soul - jeevaatman. The Jeevaatman is identified as

finite (aNu), sentient (Jgnyaana), unchanging (Satya), blissful (Aananda)

nature-reality (Swaroopa). He is thus knowledge-self and also has a knowledge

(Dharma Bhootha Jgnyaana) as his inseparable attribute. He is Swayam-prakasa

meaning knows himself ie., his individuality as he is Jgnyaana swaroopa. He

knows other things using his Dharma Bhoota Jgnyaana. Baddha (bound by karma in

material world), Muktha (liberated from karma and hence from material world)

and Nitya (eternally and ever free from karma) are the three types of Chit.

The Chit is eternal and is imperishable.

 

"Achit" denotes the insentient matter. Its nature is to change from one form

to another. It neither knows itself nor anything. Trigunya (matter having

Satva, Rajas and Tamas), Satva Soonya (Time which is devoid of Satva) and

Sudha Satva (matter having pure Satva without rajas and tamas) are the three

types of Achit.

 

"Asesha" denotes that there are innumerable Jeevaatmans. It applies for both

Chit and Achit. Upto this, it is clear that chit and achit are different

entities. "Asesha Chitachit Vastu Seshine" means that the Brahman has all the

chit and achit entities as his property. The term "Vastu" brings out the truth

that these chit and achit entities are real and not falsehood/illusion. This

makes it clear that the Brahman is different from all chit and achit entities

and therefore the Brahman is "Purushotthaman" as "Seshe" denotes clearly that

Brahman is the lord/owner of all chit and achit entities.

 

"Sesha Saayine" denotes that the Brahman reclines on the divine bed, which is

the coil of Adi Sesha - divine serpent. This further implicitly denotes that

the Brahman has divine form, divine abode, divine consort Shree, Bho and Nila

and all the divine royal things signifying his unparalleled and unsurpassed

supremacy.

 

Therefore the part of the verse "Asesha Chitachit Vastu Seshine Sesha Saayine"

brings out the meaning that the Brahman has "Ubhaya Vibhuthi" as his property.

"Ubhaya" means "Twin" and Vibhuthi means property. They are the Leela Vibhuthi

(the material worlds (from Chaturmuka Brahmaa's Satya Loka to microorganisms)

which are created sustained and destroyed by Brahman as his sport (leela) and

exists for his Leela rasa) and the Nitya Vibhuthi which is the transcendental

divine world called Shree Vaikunta Paramapadam. This part of the verse

therefore implicitly brings out the Pradhaana Pratitantram (key point) of

Visistadvaita, which is the sareera-aatma bhaava relation between the all chit

- achit entities and Brahman. As the Brahman supports, controls and owns all

chitachit entities he is the soul of all chitachit entities. As all the

chitachit entities are supported, controlled and owned by Brahman and exist

for the purpose of Brahman as inseparable attribute of Brahman, all the

chitachit entities are Brahman's body.

 

Nirmalaananta Kalyaana Nidhaye brings out the Ubhyalingam - the two

identifications of Brahman. As follows: "Nirmala" brings out "Akila Heya

Pratyaneekatvam" meaning "the Brahman is pure untouched by all the impurities

of the universe though he is present inside and outside everything. He is

"Aatma" soul of the universe called "Antaryaami" - meaning "He who controls

everything by being present inside everything". "Ananta Kalyaana Nidhaye"

brings out "Ananta Kalyaana Gunaakaratvam" meaning "the Brahman is infinite

with infinite divine/auspicious attributes like power, strength, lordship,

firmness, knowledge, resplendence which are beyond the reach of our mind,

sense organs and words. These attributes bring out his "Paratvamultimate

supremacy". His attributes/qualities like divine mercy brings out his

"SowlabhyamEasily available" nature.

 

"Vishnave" clearly points out that the Brahman is Lakshmi Pathi (Lord of Shree

Lakshmi) who pervades everything everywhere. Vishnu (Shreeman Narayanan) is

the Brahman. His omnipresence is conveyed by this name.

 

To summarise the Iswara Tatva concept, please note the following points:

The Brahman (God - Iswara) is Shreeman Naaraayanan (Vishnu) who is

. Lord of Goddess Lakshmi (Shree)

. Unchanging, knowledge-self, infinite, blissful, and absolute pure nature

. The material cause and instrumental cause of the universe (all sentient

souls and insentient matter)

. Having the material worlds (universe) and transcendental world as his

body and He being the soul

. Having divine transcendental body (in five modes - Para, Vyuha, Vibhava,

Anaryaami Haarda Roopa and Archa)

. Untouched by all impurities of the universe

. Having infinite divine attributes

. Having as his sport, creation, sustenance, and destruction of all

material worlds.

 

Up to this Visistadvaita Tatvam (reality) was outlined.

 

"Namaha" is not in the meaning of just saluting Lord Vishnu. It conveys the

"Hitam and Purushaartham" implicitly. Hitam is means to attain liberation. The

term "namaha" conveys meaning up to Saranaagathi at the lotus feet of Shree

Vishnu, which is total surrender. Similarly Bhakthi is also to be understood

to have been conveyed here implicitly.

 

"Namaha" with the names of Vishnu used here also implicitly conveys the

"Purushaartham" (goal, result) which is eternal service at the lotus feet of

Lord Vishnu and eternally experiencing the Lord in Shree Vaikunta

Paramapadam.

 

Thus the first Mangala Slokam in Vedaartha Sangraha is not only in the form of

worshiping the Paramaatman Vishnu, but also is in the form of essence of the

second part of this grantha which is "Swa Matha Vistaara:".

[gokulkr]

Part 3- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

Vedartha sangraha:

 

The second verse of Vedartha Sangraham runs as follows: Param Brahmaivaagnyam Bhrama Parigatam Samsarti tat

Paropaadyaaleedam Vivasam Asubasyaaspadamiti

Sruthi Nyaayaapetam Jagati Vitatam Mohanamidam

Tamo Yenaapastam Sa Hi Vijayate Yaamuna Muni:

This verse in the form of saluting his preceptor (Yaamunacharya), also refutes

and rejects the Advaita of Adi Sankara, Bheda-bheda Vadas of

Bhaaskaraacharya and Yadavaprakasa.

"Param Brahmaivaagnyam Bhrama Parigatam Samsarti" is Sankara's Advaita. In

Advaita, the Brahman is conceived as only knowledge-self without any

attributes and only this Brahman is real and nothing other than this is real,

everything other than Brahman is just an illusion. The Brahman when

obstructed/covered by Avidya, creates an illusion of universe and itself

suffers in the material world as Jeevaatman.

"Paropaadyaaleedam Vivasam" is Bhaaskara's Bhedaabheda philosophy. Bhaaskara

does not say that Brahman is devoid of attributes like in Sankara's

philosphy-Advaita. But he says that the Brahman becomes Jeevaatman and suffers

in the material world because of real Upaadi Sambhandam (Upaadi is that which

changes the nature of an entity) like

sense organs, body etc.

"Asubasyaaspadam" is Yaadavaprakaasa's Bhedabheda philosophy. His school of

thought is same as that of Bhaskara except that here the Brahman itself is

Chit, Achit and Iswara by nature and suffers in the material world and

therefore is with impurities of the universe.

The "Eva" in the first line of this verse, denotes that these schools of

philosphy are refuted as they are not only contradicting/against the Veda but

also also illogical("Sruthi Nyaayaapetam"). These philosophies are deceiving

people by bewildering them and spreading in the world("Jagati Vitatam

Mohanamidam"). Only Bhagavat Yaamunaacharya who dispelled the ignorance

(personified darkness) of these philosophies always wins (thus I salute him)

("Tamo Yenaapastam Sa Hi Vijayate Yaamuna Muni:")

"Eva" brings out the illogical and anti-veda nature of these philsophies as

follows:

If the Brahman according to Advaita is knowledge-self only therefore always

knows itself, without any attributes and is without a second real entity, then

how come it becomes to know itself as Jeevaatman (without even knowing itself

as real-Brahman) and suffer in material world by the obstruction/cover of

Avidya which is of opposite nature to knowledge-self? Avidya cannot be

considered as another entity different from Brahman as Advaita says "Chin

Maatram". It cannot be an attribute of Brahman also as Advaita says

"Nirguna/Nirvisesha". It cannot be said by Advaita that the Avidya covers only

the "Swamprakaasatva" of Brahman because they do not consider

"Swamprakaasatva" as a quality of Brahman.

"Swamprakaasatva" is "knowing itself by its own knowledge". Therefore if

Avidya covers the "Swamprakaasa" which is Brahman itself then the entitiy

"Brahman" itself is not established by Advaita as it itself is destroyed when

it is covered by Avidya!

If the Brahman according to Bhaaskara's Bhedabheda by itself because of real

upaadi sambandam becomes to apprear as Jeevaatman and suffer in the material

world, then is not the liberation and adopting means to get liberated are

applicable to Brahman itself?

If the Brahman itself by nature becomes chit and achit, is not the Brahman

impure in Yadavaprakaasa's Bhedabheda?

These schools of thought contradict Veda and logic. There is no need to refute

these as these are without any substance and are ignorable. But as they spread

in the world bewildering people to decieve them, they are required to be

refuted and rejected and then the only purport of Veda with logic has to be

ascertained which is Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava Philosphy and Practice.

Only a person with rational mind can understand this. Visistadvaita Shree

Vaishnava Philosphy and Practice is the Parama Vaidika Matam (the only purport

of Veda) on the other hand, the other schools of philosphy that are mentioned

are personal prejudices.

The second verse is thus the essence of the first part "Mataantara Kandana" of

the granta "Vedaartha Sangraha" in the form of saluting Bhagavat

Yaamunaacharya, the preceptor of Bhagavat Ramanuja.

[gokulkr]

Part 4- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

Vedaartha Sangraha:

 

In Vedaartha Sangraha, Bhagavat Ramanuja first refutes Adi Sankara's Advaita

philosophy. Let us see first how Bhagavat Ramanuja explains that Advaita is

contradicting the Veda by understanding some passages from "Braham-Agnyaana

Pakshe Sruthi Virodha Darsanam" portion of Vedaartha Sangraha.

The Chandokya Upanishad's Sat-Vidhya is the subject of discussion now. It has

the famous verse "Tat Tvam Asi". Advaita has its own interpretation for this

on the other hand Visistadvaita ascertains its purport. First of all let us

get to know the Sat Vidhya which is elaborated as follows:

The Chandokya Upanishad says - Aruna's son is Uddalaka. Uddalaka's son is

Swethaketu. Uddalaka addressed his son "Swetaketo! Do the prescribed study of

Veda under the guidance of qualified preceptor!" Swetaketu obeyed his father's

order and completed the prescribed study of Veda and returned back to his

house after years. Swethaketu thought that he has mastered everything. On

seeing his son, Uddalaka understood that his son is yet to know the Brahman.

Uddalaka therefore wanted him to get knowledge about the Brahman. In order to

invoke his interest regarding the Brahman, Uddalaka questioned Swetaketu as

follows: "Utha tamaadesam apraakshya: yenaasrutam srutham bhavathi amatham

matham avignyaatham vignyaatham - O son! Do you know that "Adesa", by knowing

which all things which were not heard becomes heard (known), all that which

were not contemplated becomes contemplated and all unknown becomes known?"

Swethaketu should have got shocked on being questioned like this and doubted

the question's logic itself. He did not know the answer any way. He asked his

father "Katham Tu Bhagava: Sa: - How is that revered Sir?" His father first

made it clear to his son that the question is logical and then answered it in

detail. He quoted examples - "Yatha Somya ekena mruth pindena sarvam mrunmayam

vignyaatham isyaath" - By knowing the material cause "Clay", things (like pot

which are effects) made of clay becomes to be known". He actually pointed out

the oneness of cause (material cause - Upaadaana Kaaranam) and the effect

(Kaaryam). To make him understand that Pot and Clay are same (but only

different forms), he said "Vaacha-Arambhanam Vikaaro Namadheyam mruthikethyeva

satyam". Though we think the pot is different from clay, is in fact the clay

itself in a changed mode which has got a shape which is called as pot. His

father quoted few more examples in this regard. Swethakethu requested his

father to kindly teach him that "Adesa", knowing which everything becomes

known!

The upadesam (teaching) was started by his father - "Sat Eva Somya edmagre

aaseeth ekameya adveteeyam". "O Somya (who is fit to drink the Soma juice

(prepared in Soma yagnya)) the universe which you see now with manifold forms

and names was not like this before its creation but was present subtle

(difficult to distinguish) form of "Sat". Nothing is its support other than

Sat.

The "Sat" wished "Tat Ikshatha Bahusyaam Prayaayethi". That is, the "Sat"

wished that "I become the multitudinous (expanded-StUla) chit and achit

tatvas ie., the universe". The "Sat" became many, as it wished. This is

"Sat's" first Sankalpam (Wish).

The "Sat" wished again - "SOyam Devataykshatha Hanthaaham Imaa: Tisra:

Devataa: Anena JevEna Aatmanaa Anupravisya Nama Roope iVyaakaravaaNi" that is

the Sat wished "by having the representative divinities of Tejas (light), Ap

(Water) and Annam (Prutvi-matter) as Sareeram (body/mode), I enter into them

as soul and give manifold names and forms to them". It became as it wished.

The Brahman (Sat) is therefore declared as the "Cause" (Kaaranam) of the

universe. By the first sankalpam, the Brahman did the "Samashti Srushti" and

by the second sankalpam he did the "Vyashti Srushti". "Samashti Srushti" means

creating the universe in its amass form and "Vyashti Srushti" means creating

the universe in its clearly diversified form. Further the Sat Vidyaa continues

as follows "Sath Moolaa: Somya Imaa: Prajaa:" meaning the Brahman is the cause

for all these chit tatvas (not only achit tatvas) also.

All the chit and achit tatvaas where in the subtle form (sUkshma - without

form, name and identifications) as body/mode of Brahman before creation as

"Sat" in such a way that it was hard to differentiate them with individual

name, form and species identification. All these things (all the chit and

achit entities) have no independent nature, existence and its continuance and

actions without the support, control and lordship of Brahman. The Brahman

controls all these chit and achit entities and their creation is purely

dependent on Brahman. They all have the Brahman as "soul" and they all form

the body of Brahman. Their continuance and destruction are also dependent on

Brahman.

After these teachings, Uddaalaka concluded his sermon "Ithadaatmiyam Idam

Sarvam Tat Satyam Sa Aatmaa Tat Tvam Asi Swethaketho" meaning, "The universe

composed of innumerable chit and achit entities are pervaded by the "Sat"

(Brahman) and has the Brahman as its Aatmaa (soul). The Sat is the universe

therefore because of this inseparable body-soul relationship. (Similarly) You

(Swethaketu) are also the same Brahman (as you (a Jeevaatman) are also

pervaded by the same Brahman and you are having the Brahman as your Soul

(aatma) and you are the body/mode of the same Brahman). The verse "Tat Tvam

Asi" leads to a debate as the Advaitins tell their own personal idea as its

meaning, which is different from the "Sareera-Aatma" bhaavam as discussed

above.

Up to this, the Upanishad has stated the following:

1. Knowing one entity, everything becomes known (is the Prathignya (oath)),

which is the Brahman who is the material cause (Upaadaana Kaaranam)

2. The instrumental (efficient) cause of the universe is also the Brahman as

he "Wished" to create the universe

3. The body-soul relationship (Sareera-Aatma-Bhaavam) between the universe and

the Brahman

4. As the Brahman is the soul of the entire universe, the Brahman himself is

denoted as the universe and in the very same meaning, denotes a Jeevaatman

(here Swetaketu) (Tvam) as Brahman (Tat) - "Tat Tvam Asi"

The above paragraphs are written, as their contents are required to be

understood for understanding the following paragraphs.

Now the verse "Tat Tvam Asi" is taken up for a lengthy debate. I request the

reader to kindly read the arguments and counter-arguments very carefully and

fully to comprehend them as they are going to be bit technical.

The Advaita's point of view is now considered in the context of the verse "Tat

Tvam Asi". The Advaita argues that the Brahman is "Nirvishesam" - meaning the

Brahman is devoid of all attributes. When the Advaita's point of view is considered it contradicts many verses of

the Veda. The verse "Tat Tvam Asi" has three words in it and they are "Tat",

"Tvam" and "Asi". The word "Tat" denotes the Brahman, which is having

attributes like "having under its full control, the creation, sustenance and

destruction of the universe", "being the soul of the universe and giving names

and forms of all chit and achit entities" etc. The Veda has declared infinite

divine qualities of the Brahman like omniscience, omnipotence, unparalleled

and unsurpassed supreme lordship, owning the transcendental world Shree

Vaikuntam and the material worlds, unopposed commanding nature, nature of

illuminating everything, infinite excellence with infinite divine qualities

and being untouched by all impurities of the universe. If the Advaita's point

of view is accepted, then all the Veda verses declaring the above aspects

becomes useless without any meaning. Advaita therefore contradicts Veda. Let

us see in detail the arguments-counter arguments of Advaita and its analysis

so that we can clearly understand how they are refuted and proved to be

against the Veda and are illogical in detail. Bhagavat Ramanuja proceeds to

explain in detail as follows in Vedaartha Sangraha. It is to be noted here

that only when all the views of all types of opponent philosophies are

considered, we can determine and establish/prove the rationality, strict

adherence to Veda and "beyond-doubt" nature of our Visistadvaita Shree

Vaishnava philosophy and practice. Therefore this is the reason for refuting

other philosophies. This is also the reason why the Brahma Sutras have

Adhikaranams explaining concepts in five components namely "Vishayam"

(Subject), "Samsayam" (Doubt), "Poorva-Paksham" (Opponent philosophy's point

of view), "Siddhantam" (Established Philosophical conclusion with proof) and

"Prayojanam" (Benefit of Siddhantam).

[ranjeetmore]

The best thing about shree vaishnavism is that it makes a point to clearly show the faults in mayavada without once straying from the essence of sastras.

Kindly excuse my interruption.

[gokulkr]

Part 5 - Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

Vedartha sangraha:

 

In the context of the verse "Tat Tvam Asi" in the Sat Vidyaa of Chaandokya

Upanishad, the discussion continues in Vedaartha Sangraha. The Advaita calls the Brahman as "Nirvisesham" meaning devoid of all

characteristics/attributes. On the contrary, the Veda identifies the reality

of Brahman as "Satyam Jgnyaanam Anantam" meaning the Brahman is having its

identifying "Swaroopa Niroopaka Dharmas" characteristics, namely unchanging,

sentient and infinite natures. The Advaita in order to overcome this

contradiction argues that "Satyam Jgnyaanam Anantam" does not explain the

Brahman as told above as "Savisesham" (with characteristics/attributes) but

declares Brahman by negating that Brahman is changing, insentient and finite.

According to Advaita, "Satyam" says, "Brahman is not a changing entity",

"Jgnyaanam" says that "Brahman is not insentient entity", and "Anantam" says,

"Brahman is not finite entity". Therefore according to Advaita, even "Satyam

Jgnyaanam Anantam" declares the Brahman as "Nirvisesham". They quote the Veda

"Nishkalam Nishkriyam Nirgunam Niranjanam" and argue that it declares Brahman

as "devoid of body, actions, characteristics" and "aloof not impure". In the

same ground as "Satyam Jgnyaanam Anantam", they explain "Vignyaanam Anantam"

of the Veda.

At this level of debate, we need to understand that the Upanishad statements

are broadly classifiable into two types namely:

1. kAraNa Vaakya

2. Chodaka Vaakya

The kAraNa Vaakyas are those declarative statements of the Vedanta which state

that the Brahman is the cause of the universe

The Chodaka Vaakyas are those declarative statements of the Vedanta which

state the nature of Brahman who is characterised by qualities/attributes thus

identifying the Brahman as Purushotthaman.

"Sat Eva Somya Edamagre Aasit", "Eko ha vai NaaraayaNa Aasit" are examples for

kAraNa Vaakyaas.

"Satyam Jgnyaanam Anantam", "Aanandam Brahma" are examples for Chodaka

Vaakayaas.

If we accept the argument of Advaita that all the Chodaka Vaakyaas intends

only to negate the qualities/attributes, then a doubt arises which is as

follows. According to Advaita, all the Chodaka Vaakaas intends to tell

"Brahman is not so" - therefore all the Chodaka Vaakyaas simply mean "Brahman"

(as opposite to being possessing the qualities) then, only one such Vaakya is

sufficient and all other Chodaka Vaakyaas are meaningless. Why there are so

many Chodaka Vaakayaas? Why should the Veda repeat the same thing? The

Advaita, to overcome this argues that "Even though all Chodaka Vaakyaas convey

the same meaning, each one of them is meaningful as each one quotes different

characteristics and then negates that the Brahman is not of that nature".

Further according to Advaita, an entity cannot have different attributes.

Bhagavat Ramanuja in his Vedaartha Sangraha refutes the above manner in which

Advaita interprets the Chodaka Vaakyaas as follows in a detailed manner,

shaking the basic concepts postulated in Advaita itself.

"Naithadevam; Ekavignyaanena sarva vignyaana prathignyaanam, sarvasya

mithhyaatve sarvasya Jgnyaathavyasyaabhaavaath na sethsyati,

satya-mithyaathvayoho ekathaa prasakthirvaa, api tu, eka vignyaanena sarva

vignyaana pratignyaa sarvasya thadaathmakathvenaiva satyathve sidhyathi"

The Sat Vidhya of Chaandokya Upanishad has an avowal which is "by knowing the

reality of one entity (cause which is the upAdAna kAraNam), everything

(effects-kAryam) becomes to be known". This is what "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva

Vignyaanam" conveys. The Upanishad has declared that "Sat" is that cause and

the universe composed of manifold chit and achit entities are the effects. The

Upanishad intends to only convey that by knowing the Brahman (Sat) everything

is known.

"Utha tamaadesam apraakshya: yenaasrutam srutham bhavathi amatham matham

avignyaatham vignyaatham" - "Do you know that "Adesa", by knowing which all

things which were not heard becomes heard (known), all that which were not

contemplated becomes contemplated and all unknown becomes known?"

Bhagavat Ramanuja argues that "if Eka Vignyaanena Sarva Vignyaanam is taken to

mean that only Brahman is reality and nothing other than Brahman is reality,

then that meaning can only be prejudice of Advaita and cannot be the purport

of the Upanishad. The Advaita's own interpretation is possible if and only if

it was "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva-ABHAVAAVA Vignyaanam" - meaning, "knowing the

reality of one entity leads to the knowledge of unreality (falsehood) of

everything". But it is only "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva Vignyaanam"! The word

"Sarva" means "Everything". Is it possible in anyway to interpret this word

"Sarva" as "Sarva-abhaava" meaning "Everything is unreal"? If it is possible

for Advaita, then it is only illogical and against the Upanishad.

As the Advaita argues that "Only the Brahman is reality and all other things

other than that Brahman which appears to be "reality" are actually illusions;

all of them just appears to be the same Brahman which alone has existence" is

the meaning of "Eka Vignyaanena...", Bhagavat Ramanuja criticises that

argument and refutes it as follows: "If this counter-argument of Advaita is to

be admitted, then as per Advaita, both Brahman and Universe are of same

nature, the Advaita itself has to accept either "Brahman is reality and also

universe is reality" OR "universe is unreal and Brahman is also unreal".

Therefore, such a counter-argument of Advaita proves troublesome for Advaita

itself.

Advaita argues in another way now: Just in the case where a particular student

is pointed out as "the intelligent", all the other students in that class

automatically becomes to be known as "without intelligence". Similarly where

the Vedanta declares the Brahman as "the existent", all other entities becomes

to be known automatically as "non-existent". If this is another

counter-argument of Advaita in interpreting and establishing their own idea

regarding "Eka Vignyaanena...", then Bhagavat Ramanuja refutes and rejects

this argument again as illogical and against the Veda. This argument of

Advaita directly contradicts the "Sarva Vignyaanam" meaning "knowledge about

everything". To admit the argument of Advaita, we have to do an intrusion by

adding a word "Mithya" (meaning illusion/falsehood) which is not at all

present in the Veda. Only if such a "intrusion" is done, the Advaita's

viewpoint that "Everything else other than the Brahman is illusion" can be

admitted. This cannot be done at all and it is totally inadmissible to add the

word "Mithya" which is not in anyway related to the Upanishad Vaakyaas.

The Upanishad has stated two knowledge - one knowledge is about the reality of

Brahman and the other is about the reality of universe and also clearly stated

that both the knowledge are same in the aspect of Brahman being the upAdAna

kAraNam of the Universe (all chit and achit entities). That is the Brahman who

has the subtle (Sukshama) Chit and Achit entities as his Body (before

creation) has expanded (stUla) Chit and Achit entites as his Body (created

universe). But as per Advaita, if we admit their argument, then according to

them one of the knowledge is about "reality" and the other is about the

"unreality". The "Eka Vignyaanena..." therefore gets clearly contradicted as

"reality" and "unreality" cannot be equated.

The Upanishad on the other hand has proved Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy

by "Yatha Somya" and without leaving room to any doubt has established Visistasya

Advaitam and Visistayoho Advaitam. The explanation follows: The Upanishad has to

be very carefully studied. It says that before the creation of this universe, only

"Sat" was existing. It says that nothing else was there. The "Sat" wished to

become many that is "Sat" wished to create the universe (innumerable chit and

achit entities) from itself. Then it wished again to create "Tejas" etc., and

enter into them as "Antaryaami-Antaraatma" (soul) and give name, form etc., to

them. The "Sat" did as it wished. From this it is very clear that the Brahman

is the one entity and the universe has that Brahman as its "Aatma" (soul) -

because the Brahman is inside the universe, supporting, controlling and owning

the universe for its purpose.

The universe is the inseparable attribute (aprutak-sidha viseshanam), mode (prakAram),

body (sareeram/roopam) of Brahman. Therefore the knowledge of Brahman automatically

leads to the knowledge of the universe (all chit and achit entities) which has the same

Brahman as its "Aatma" (soul). The "Eka Vignyaanena Sarva Vignyaanam" thus

clearly establishes only the Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnava philosophy. The

Upanishad has shattered the concept of "Nirvisesham" to pieces.

Bhagavat Ramanuja extraordinarily presents the meaning of the "Aadesa" sabda

(word) used in the Sat Vidya of Chaandokya Upanishad. The purport of

Uddaalaka's question is thus explained after which follows the explanation of

the entire Sat Vidya verses which concludes with "Tat Tvam Asi" explanation.

The reader has to read the original words of Bhagavat Ramanuja in this portion

of Vedaartha Sangraha - only then, he/she can understand the unparalleled and

unsurpassed divinity and immeasurable wisdom of our Bhagavat Ramanuja who is

greater than my life to me. In fact, even this is just a sample for his

greatness, which is infinite. Every single letter in the works of our greatest

Aacharya stands as proof for this.

"Ayamarhta: Swethakethum Pratyaaha - "SthabdhOsi; utha tham AADESAM

apraakshya: ithi; - Paripoornam iva lakshyase | taanaachaaryaan prathi

tamapyaadesam prushtavaanasi ? ithi | Aadisyathe AnEna Ithi Aadesa: | Aadesa:

Prasaasanam; "Ethasya Vaa Aksharasya prasaasane Gaargi Sooryachandramasow

vidhrutow tishtatha: ithyaadibhiraykaarthyaath | thathaa cha Maanavam vacha:

"Prasaasitaaram sarveshaam" ithiyaadi | Athraapi ekameva ithi

jagathupaadaanataam prthipaadya Adviteeya padena

adhishtaatrantharanivaaranaath asyaiva adhishtatrutvamapi prathipaadyane |

Atha: "Tam prasaasitaaram jagadupaadaanabhUthamapi prushtavaanasi? Yena

sruthena mathena vignyaanena asrutam amatham avignyaatham srutham matham

vignyaatham bhavathi" ithyuktham isyaath | "nikila jagadudaya vibhava layaadi

kaaraNa BhUtham Sarvagnyatva - Satyakaamathva - Satyasankalpathvaadyaparimitha

udaara GuNa Saagaram kim Brahma tvayaa srutham?" ithi Haardo Bhaava: | "

The Upanishad verses get explained as follows: - Udaalaka addressed his son on

seeing him and questioned him - "O! Swethaketho! You look as if you have

learnt everything! Have you learnt that "Aadesa" from your preceptors?"

What is the meaning of the term "Aadesa"? Its meaning is given as per the

lexicons and linguistic/grammatical rules of Sanskrit as "Aadisyathe AnEna

Ithi Aadesa:". The Sanskrit term "Aadesa" originates from prefix "Aa" joining

with the root of verb "Disch". (Please note that the pronunciations and their

letter-representations in English are little varied; knowledge in Sanskrit

language easily helps in comprehending these concepts). This root of verb has

the meaning "to control" (Niyamanam). As the Brahman controls the entire

universe, the Brahman is denoted by the word "Aadesa:" - This is a very

important point to note here. Only if the meaning of "Aadesa" term is

ascertained here, the purport of the Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad's verses

"Ethasya Vaa Aksharasya prasaasane Gaargi Sooryachandramasow vidhrutow

tishtatha:" and the words of Manu (in Manu Smruthi) who explained the verses

as "Prasaasitaaram sarveshaam" can be comprehended accurately. "Ethasya Vaa

Aksharasya prasaasane Gaargi Sooryachandramasow vidhrutow tishtatha:" states

that "The heavenly bodies like sun, moon etc., are supported by the command of

Brahman" (Brahman is the controller of everything). The "Prasaasitaaram

sarveshaam" of Manu Smruthi explains the same purport of the Upanishad as

"Everything/Everyone is controlled by Brahman". The meaning of the term

"Prasaasane" (in Bruhadaaranyaka Upanishad verse) and that of the term

"Prasaasitha" (in Manu Smruthi verse) is the same for the term "Aadesa" in

Chaandokya Upanishad's Sat Vidya. In the terms "Prasaasane" and "Prasaasitha",

the prefix is "Pra" but the root with which it joins is the same as it is in

"Aadesa". The meaning here is therefore same. Therefore "Aadesa:" denotes

"Brahman" who controls the entire universe (all chit and achit entities).

Further to ascertain this meaning of the term "Aadesa:", the Upanishad is

carefully studied. The Upanishad has clearly stated that "Ekameva Adveeteeyam"

This "Eva" in the terms "Ekameva" stresses that the Brahman is the only

material cause of the universe. Further the term "Adveeteeyam" states clearly

that no one other than Purushotthama: (Brahman) controls the entire universe.

Therefore the Upanishad declares that "controlling the entire universe" is the

unique characteristic of Brahman by using the term "Aadesa:" to denote Brahman

- Shreeman NarayaNa: who is Pundareekaaksha:. I used the term Pundareekaaksha:

(Brahman has divine lotus-like beautiful eyes which are celebrated not only by

this Upanishad but also by all smurthis, itihaasaas, puranas and aagamaas)

specifically just to make it very clear that the Vedanta's philosophy is

Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnavam and only Visistadvaita Shree Vaishnavam. (Refer

"Antas TathDharmOpadesath" Brahma Sutra here for an interesting and

establishing aspect).

The verses of the Upanishad "Yenaasrutam Srutam Bhavathi..." etc., and the

example of clay quoted by the Upanishad beyond doubt establishes that the

Brahman is the material cause (upAdAna kAraNam) of the universe. Here an

important aspect has to be noted. Just the mere existence of clay (cause) is

not enough for imparting the knowledge of things made of clay like pot

(effect). Therefore the term "Yena" here has to be understood as "By knowing

which". This enlightens us by imparting knowledge about the fact that Brahman

is absolutely with infinite auspicious/divine characteristics/attributes that

are peerless. "Uthatam Aadesam Apraakshaya:" is summarised as follows:

Udaalaka asked his son Swethakethu "Have you known the Brahman who is having

absolutely infinite auspicious/divine attributes like omniscience

(sarvagnyatvam), omnipotence (sarvasakthitvam) and omnipresence

(sarvavyaapakatvam) and is the only material cause of the universe?"

[gokulkr]

Part 7- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

Vedartha sangraha:

 

Shree BhAshyakAra who is Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja in his Vedaartha sangraha

ascertains the purport of the verse "Tat Tvam Asi". The greatest AchArya has

established the meaning of the same verse such that no other meaning can be

assigned to it other than what our AchArya has ascertained. A matham, which

classified it as a "Maha vAkyam" and built its own interpretation "nirvisesha

chin mAtram brahma" is proved to be not in accordance with the Veda. The

"Sruthi virOdha Darsanam" in "Brahma-AgnyAna Paksham - Advaita" continues in

vEdArtha Sangraha grantam where Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja proves that

Adviatam is not in accordance with the Veda. Now a basic question arises! - Why should we refute other philosophical

schools of thoughts? The answer is simple. We do not have any intention to

hurt other people's feelings by refuting their philosophical school of

thought. Our intention is only to ascertain that the only purport of

apowrushEya Veda is Visistaadvaita Shree Vaishnavam and it is the only

logically correct philosophy that has got universal approach that is not at

all a sectarian philosophical school of thought. It is to be noted that in

debates, arguments and counter-arguments favoring something and refuting

another thing is very common and is the basis to ascertain theories based on a

premise. One should not get simply offended on hearing such refutations. When

there is an argument, the counter-argument should be appropriate and precise

otherwise the counter-argument never gets qualified to be a counter-argument.

Unless and until the arguments and counter-arguments are well substantiated

with PramaNams, they have no validity. The "Sapta-Vidhaanupapathi" which will

continue after this "Sruthi virOdha Darsanam" in "Brahma-AgnyAna Paksham" will

clearly establish that Advaita is not only contradicting the Veda but also

logic and rational thoughts. Bhagavath Ramanuja is explaining the "Sruthi

NyAyApEtam Jagati Vitatam Mohanam" (Please refer the second mangala slokam of

vEdArtha Sangaraha Grantham).

The Upanishad says 'san mOlA: sOmyEmA: sarvA: prajA: sadAyathanA:

sathprathishtA:' All entities (san mOlA:) are having (Sat) Brahman as their

material cause (upAdAna kAraNam) and efficient cause (nimiththa kAraNam). All

entities (sathprathishtA:) are having their reality (substance) (swarUpam),

continuance of existence (sthithi) and end (layam) totally dependant on

Brahman. (Here the "end" does not mean the non-existence of all chit-achit

entities). Shree Bhashyakara explains the above using the terms "SadAdhAratA",

"SanniyAmyatA", "SatseshatA" meaning, "Purushothama: ShrIman NarayaNa: is the

Sat-Brahman who is the unparalleled and unsurpassed supporter, controller and

owner (Lord) of all chit and achit entities.

The Upanishad before telling the celebrated verse "Tat Tvam Asi" has something

to tell before it and it is "ithadAtmiyam idam sarvamtat satyamsa:

AtmA".

"ithadAtmiyam idam sarvam" the term "ithadAtmiyam" is derived as "Esha: AtmA

yasya tat EthatadAthmakam EthadAthmakamEva ithadAtmiyam". The universe (all

chit and achit entities) was created by the sankalpam (wish) of Brahman and

therefore the Brahman is the cause of the universe. As the Brahman is the only

supporter (AdhAra), controller (NiyAmaka) and lord (seshi) of all entities, he

is the "AtmA" of the universe. "tat satyam" means whatever told here is the

truth. "Sa: AtmA" means that the Brahman is the soul of everything and the

universe is the body of Brahman. The Sat (Brahman) who is the kAraNa is the

soul "AtmA" of the universe. This explicitly brings out the "SarIra-AtmA"

(body-soul) relationship between the universe and the Brahman. Thus the father

(UdAlaka) cleared the doubt of his son (Swetaketu) and concluded with

confirming the "SarIra-AtmA-Sambandam" between the universe and the Brahman by

stating "Tat Tvam Asi SwethaketO". The term "Tvam" (you) first denotes the

jIvAtman through the form of Swethaketu and then finally denotes ParamAtman

(Brahman-Sat) - the Upanishad has told first that the entire universe is

having the Brahman ("Tat" which is the only cause of the universe) as its soul

and then finished its sermon in this regard through denoting the same Brahman

by his mode of having a jIvAtman (here Swethaketu) as his body. This is the

meaning of the verse "Tat Tvam Asi".

Now a debate starts. A question in the form of objecting this meaning of the

verse as told above is considered. "Why not the ithadAtmiyam idam sarvam be

taken to mean the SwarUpa-iykyam (identity/oneness of reality-substance) of

Achit and Brahman? Why not the tat tvam asi be taken to mean again the

SwarUpa-iykyam (identity/oneness of reality-substance) of Chit (jIvAtAtman)

and Brahman?"

The question is answered and the objection is overruled as follows: First of

all, idam sarvam cannot be taken to denote only achit because sarvam means all

the chit and achit entities that are existing. Therefore restricting the

meaning of sarvam only to achit is baseless. Idam sarvam asrujata, sachcha

tyachcha abhavath in Veda does not allow us to restrict the meaning of the

term sarvam. Let us now clearly do an analysis to answer this question and

dismiss the objection as follows:

When the Veda tells "ithadAtmiyam", is it because of swarUpa-iykyam or because

of the "SarIra-Atma" relationship? The question is answered as follows:

If suppose, someone advocates the swarUpa-iykyam of Achit and Brahman, then it

can be established that it is not the purport of the Veda verse. This is

because, if swarUpa-iykyam is to be admitted, then the "achEtanatvam" (devoid

of being knowledge-self-reality, thus devoid of swayamprakAsatvam and devoid

of attribute-knowledge) will have to be applicable for Brahman! On the other

hand, the Upanishad has stated that the Brahman has divine characteristics

like "Satya Sankalpatvam" (tat ikshata bhahusyAm prajAyEya). It has denoted

the Brahman (Sat) by using the term "AtmA". Therefore if swarUpa-iykyam is

admitted in Achit and Brahman, then the Veda verses stating divine

characteristics like "Satya Sankalpatvam" of Brahman gets contradicted.

Further the Achit is having vikAratvam (changing nature). On the other hand

Brahman is NirvikAra tatva (unchanging nature).

In the same manner if the swarUpa-iykyam in Chit and Brahman is admitted, then

again the same contradiction with the Veda verses results because, the

jIvAtman (Chit) is subject to evils in samsara like being bound by his own

karma, vidhi etc. On the other hand, the Veda has stated that the Brahman is

without any evil attributes and is with infinite divine attributes. Therefore

the swarUpa-iykyam in chit, achit and Brahman is not at all possible.

Even if someone still stresses on swarUpa-iykyam, then it can be clearly

proved that swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport of the Veda here because the

Veda verses like "antha: pravishta: sAstA janAnAm sarvAthmA" and "ya: Atmani

tishtan AthmanOnthara:" gets contradicted if such swarUpa-iykyam is considered

as the purport. "antha: pravishta: sAstA janAnAm sarvAthmA" means that Vishnu

is the supreme controller (antaryami-antarAtma) entered inside all and present

inside all entities. "ya: Atmani tishtan AthmanOnthara:" also conveys the same

meaning. The antar-bhahir vyApthis (the pervading nature of Vishnu outside and

inside everything) has to be clearly understood here through the

sarIra-Atma-bhAva.

Another objection arises in this context. It is as follows: "The

swarUpa-iykyam was dismissed by quoting verses from some other portion of the

Veda. Why not the swarUpa-iykyam be admitted here in Sat-Vidya?" The objection

is overruled very easily because the swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport as the

same Sat-Vidya has clearly told the sarIra-Atma-bhava by "anena jIvEna

AtmanAnupravisya". Therefore the swarUpa-iykyam is totally ruled out.

A Concept called "sAmAnAdhikaraNyam" which is a technical grammatical concept,

is used to explain the verse "Tat Tvam Asi" clearly.

"sAmAnAdhikaranayam" means "co-ordinate predication". It means that

co-ordinate predicate terms are used to identify the substantive.

The great grammarian of Sanskrit has defined this concept "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam"

as follows:

"Bhinna Pravruththi NimiththAnAm sAbdAnAm Ekasmin Arthe Vruththi: -

SAmAnAdhikaraNyam".

The meaning of this is as follows: An entity is signified/denoted by several

terms, each term denoting that entity based on each of its various inseparable

attributes. That is different words possessing different grounds of meanings

denoting a single entity is what is called "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam" The reader may

find this bit confusing. Let me explain it using an example. Please consider

in Sanskrit the terms "nIla: ghata:" meaning "Dark Pot". Here the term "nIla:"

is denoting the entity by that entity's inseparable attribute

"Darkness/Blackness". The Term "ghata:" again denotes the same entity by its

nature of having narrow neck and broad spherical body. Therefore the "nIla:"

term denotes the entity on the ground of meaning "DarknessnIla Roopam"

which is an attribute/mode of the entity. Similarly the "ghata:" term denotes

the same entity (Pot) on the ground of the entity's mode of being

narrow-necked with broad spherical body.

The verse of the Veda "Tat Tvam Asi" is understood clearly using the concept

of "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam" as follows: The term "Tat" (that) denotes the Brahman

on the grounds of "being the only cause of the universe", who is having

infinite divine characteristics and untouched by all impurities. The term

"Tvam" (you) denotes the same Brahman on the grounds of having the jIvAtman

(Chit) as his attribute/mode/body. Therefore the Sareera-Aatma Bhaavam

(Body-Soul relationship) between the Universe and the Brahman is clearly told

by the Upanishad.

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja says :-

atha: sarvasya chidachidvastunO brahmasarIratvAth, sarvasarIram sarvaprakAram

sarvairsabdai: brahmaivAbhidhIyatha ithi, "tattvam" ithi sAmAnAdhikaraNyEna

jIvasarIrathayA jIvaprakAram brahmaivAbhihitam | Evamabhihite sathi ayamarthO

jgnyAyate "tvam" ithi ya: pOrvam dehasyAdhishtAtrutayA pratIth: sa:

paramAthmasarIrathayA paramAthmaprakArabhUtha: paramAthmaparyantha: pruthak

stithi pravruthi anarha: atha: "tvam" ithi sabda: tathprakAravisishtam

thdantaryAmiNamEvAchashtE - ithi | anEna jIvEnAthmanAnupravisya nAmarUpe

vyAkaravANi" ithi brahmAthmakathayaiva jIvasya sarIriNa: swanAmaBhakthvAth |

Following the definition of sAmAnAdikaraNya, please follow the divine words of

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja as follows which were outlined so far.

"tat tvam" ithi samAnAdhikaraNa pravrththayO: dvyayOrapi padayO: brahmaiva

vAchyam |

tatra "tat" padam

. jagat kAraNa bhUtham

. sarva kalyANa guNakaram

. niravadyam

. nirvikAramAchashtE

"tvam" ithi cha - tadEva brahma jIvAntaryAmi rUpENa swasarIra jIva prakAra

visishtamAchashtE

tadEvam pravruthi nimiththa bhEdena Ekasmin brahmaNyEva "tat tvam" ithi dyayO:

padayO: vruthiruktthA | brahmaNO niravadyatvam nirvikAratvam

sarvakalyaNaguNAkaratvam jagat kAraNatvam cha abhAdhitam

As told clearly above, the Brahman has all the chit and achit entities as his

body & as inseparable attribute and the Brahman being the AtmA of all, all

words (sabdams) denote the Brahman. The sarIra-AtmA relationship establishes

the sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. The term "Tvam" which denotes the jIvAtman through his

body, finally denotes the ParamAtman (Brahman) because the jIvAtman is the

body and inseparable attribute (apruthak siddha viseshaNam) of ParamAtman. The

jIvAtman being the body and inseparable attribute of Brahman, has no

independent swarUpam, stithi and pravruthis. The jIvAtman is totally dependant

on Brahman. The "anena jIvEna" verse makes it clear that the jIvAtman gets his

name etc., only because of having the Brahman as his AtmA. Therefore to stress

again that swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport here, the sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is

explained.

The terms "tat" and "tvam" though are two different words, denote/mean the

same entity that is Brahman as follows. The terms "tat" and "tvam" denote only

the Brahman but the way in which each term denotes the Brahman is different.

The term "tat" denotes the Brahman who is the only cause of the universe,

untouched by impurities and having infinite divine attributes and is always

unchanging in nature. The term "tvam" also denotes the same Brahman who has

the jIvAtman as his body/attribute - the Brahman is the antaryAmi-antarAtma of

the jIvAtman. Thus the two terms denote the Brahman by different attributes

which the Brahman has as told above. The sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is thus clearly

explained. When the purport of the verse is ascertained like this, there is no

contradiction with all the sruthi verses. The attributes of Brahman like being

the only cause of the universe, untouched by impurities, having infinite

divine attributes, unchanging nature are unaffected.

There seems to be few questions in the form of objecting the above

ascertaining of the purport even after these explanations. The objection is

"Though the explanation is appreciable, a person can understand only the words

denoting the respective entities. For example, the word "ghata:" (pot) denotes

only a vessel having narrow neck with large almost spherical body. These terms

just stop with denoting the respective entities. When such is the case how is

it possible to say that all terms finally end up in denoting Brahman? Also the

"vyutpathti" (a means to derive the word in Sanskrit) does not exist in all

terms to denote Brahman. When such is the case how is it possible to say that

all terms finally denote Brahman?"

The question (objection) is having validity. But it is not negating the

purport or proving something against the purport. He who has not studied and

comprehended the VedAnta properly just sees all the words to denote only the

respective entities, which he has conceived so. But he who has studied and

comprehended the VedAnta properly gets the correct knowledge that the Brahman

is the soul of everything and all the entities are the body of Brahman.

Therefore only this person who has studied and comprehended the VeDAnta

properly sees that all words do not just stop with denoting the respective

entities but actually end up in denoting the Brahman who is the soul of all

entities. A person just "sees" the Sandal wood by his eyes from a distance. He

cannot sense its good fragrance because he has not used his nose, but he says

that Sandal wood has no fragrance. Is it acceptable? The Sandal wood surely

has fragrance. It just indicates that the appropriate sense organ was not

employed to sense it. If he uses his nose, he can surely sense the fragrance.

That is all. Similarly those who have knowledge imparted by the VedAnta

comprehends that all words denote Brahman because Brahman has all entities as

its attributes/body/mode. Without the vedAnta, it is not possible to know the

Brahman. The Brahman is not possible to be known and established by any other

pramAna other than the sruthi. Only the apowrusheya sruthi establishes and

imparts knowledge regarding the Brahman who is Purushoththama: SrIman

NarayaNa: VishNu: vAsudeva:

Regarding "vyutpathti", our AchArya says that the above explanation does not

negate the power of word and meaning of words by "vyutpathti". By the verse

"anEna jIvEna", it was already told that all the words denotes first the

respective entity by its visible form, then the jIvAtman and then the

ParamAtman who is the soul of everything. The meaning of telling that "all

words denote the Brahman" has to be clearly understood as follows: All words

denote the Brahman who is having all the chit and achit entities as his

attributes. The Brahman is different from all chit and achit entities as the

Brahman is the soul and all chit and achit entities are his body. The

"vyutpathti" gives only the partial meaning. The Vedanta knowledge along with

this knowledge of "vyutpathti" ascertains that the "vyutpathti" gets completed

and all words finally denote Brahman as told above.

Another argument is considered. "Why not the words be classified into two - 1.

Lowkika and 2. Vaidika. Lowkika being common words and vaidika being words of

Veda. Why not the Vaidika words alone be taken as per the above view to denote

Brahman and why not the lowkika be taken to denote the respective entities?"

Bhagavath Ramanuja says that "VaidikA Eva sarvE sabdA:" meaning all the words

are based on Veda only. The Veda is anAdi (having no beginning) and the words

of it are also anAdi. In each cycle of creation, the Brahman creates various

entities as they were in previous cycle and gives the names to the various

created entities from the Veda as it was in the previous cycle. This cycle is

also anAdi. The Veda has confirmed that all words (as told above) denote the

Brahman. Manu and ParAsara have also explained the same in their smruthies.

Further Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja makes it clear that the created universe

is a reality. Nothing is unreal. All the three entities namely chit, achit and

Brahman are eternal and real entities. Up to this, using the kAraNa vAkyAs, it

was established that the Brahman is only "Savisesham". The chOdaka vAkyAs are

now considered and it is proved that they also established the Brahman as

"Savisesham" meaning "having attributes/characteristics".

"Satyam jgnyAnam anantam", "nirguNam nishkriyam sAntham niravadyam",

"satyakAma: satya sankalpa:", "apahata pApmA vijara:" are such chOdaka vAkyAs.

When "Satyam jgnyAnam anantam", "satyakAma: satya sankalpa:" etc., explicitly

state that the Brahman is having infinite divine attributes, the verses

"nirguNam nishkriyam" etc., say that the Brahman has no attributes. Actually

when the ghataka sruti "apahata pApmA vijara:" etc are understood, then it

gets ascertained very clearly that all the chOdaka vAkyAs explain that Brahman

is only "Savisesham". When the verses like "satyakAma:" talk about the

infinite divine qualities of Brahman which are unique to Brahman, the verses

like "nirguNam" tell that the Brahman is devoid of evil attributes. "Satyam

jgnyAnam anantam" clearly and explicitly declares that Brahman is

"Savisesham". "Satyam" means that the Brahman has quality of being unchanging

in nature, natural independent existence. "JgnyAnam" means that the Brahman

has infinite unchanging JgnyAna (knowledge) as his nature and knows

everything. The SwayamprakAsatvam is also told here. "Anantam" states that the

Brahman is immesurable, infinite and is beyond the limits of length, time and

mass. Therefore the verse "Satyam jgnyAnam anantam" explains the Brahman as

Purushothtama: SrIman nArAyaNa: who is different from all the three types of

chit and achit entities.

Then Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja proceeds to explain in detail the Advaita's

interpretation of "tat tvam asi". Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja establishes that

the interpretation of Advaita has four important errors and Advaita's

interpretation of "tat tvam asi" is therefore invalid. The four important

errors in Advaita's philosophy as far as this verse is concerned are 1. The

Sruthi telling infinite divine qualities of Brahman (tat) gets contradicted.

2. There is a need to tell "lakshaNa" (a technical concept) unnecessarily for

"tat" and "tvam". 3. SAmAnAdhikaraNyam gets violated 4. Upakrama VirOdham

arises. These aspects will be explained in detail in future postings.

[gokulkr]

Part8- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

In Vedartha Sangraha, it was established that the Brahman is Akila Heya

PratyanIka: ananta KalyaNa GuNa visishta: Purushoththama: After ascertaining the meaning of the verse "Tat Tvam Asi", Shree Bhagavath

Ramanuja Yatiraja proceeds to explain that the concept of "Nirvisesha Vastu"

is totally against the PramANam.

The sruthi verse "Satyam JgnyAnam anantam" is considered now. Let us now

examine how Advaita and Visishtadvaita have told the meaning of the verse. If

one examines both the philosophies in this context, it will be easier to

comprehend and ascertain the meaning of this verse.

To understand the unparalleled and unsurpassed greatness of the words of our

Shree VaishNava AchAryas, their own words stands as proof in this regard. The

experience that a student gets on reading the divine works of Bhagavath

Ramanuja cannot be got from some other person's BhAshya on the PrastAna

Trayam. That is why, after experiencing the srI-sOktIs (divine words) of our

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja, Swamy Shreeman NigamAntha Maha Desika said "yathi

pravara bhArathI rasabharENa nItham vaya:". Swamy Desika says that he spent

his lifetime by enjoying the divine words of Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja.

We continue with the subject of discussion "Satyam JgnyAnam anantam" sruthi

verse. The interpretation given by Advaita and the purport ascertained by

Visishtadvaita are considered now.

"Sarva prathyanIkAkArathA bOdhnEapi tath-tath prathyanIkA kArathAyAm bhEdasya

avarjanIyathvAnna nirviseshathva siddhi:"

Let us first see what Visishtadvaita has to say regarding this as follows:

The verses of Veda like "yathO vA ImAni bhUtAni jAyantE…" are kAraNa vAkyas

stating Brahman as the only cause of the universe. The verses of Veda like

"satyam jgnyAnam anantam" are sodaka vAkyAs explaining the infinite

divine/auspicious qualities of Brahman - the nature of Brahman is well

explained by these verses. That is, "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" states that the

Brahman is having satyatva-jgnyAnatva-& anantatvams - meaning the

Brahma-swarOpam is having qualities namely eternal-unchanging-existence,

sentient & being infinite. The nature of quality (attribute) is that it

differentiates the entity (substance) which is attributed/qualified by them

from other entities. For example, when we say "red flower", the "red

(redness)" is the quality/attribute and "flower" is that which is

qualified/attributed. This "red" differentiates that flower possessing red

colour from other flowers like "blue flower", "yellow flower" etc.,. In the

same manner, the verse "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" explains the Brahman as

having certain qualities and thus differentiates Brahman from all chit and

achit entities. Let us examine this in detail as follows.

"Satyam" - states that the Brahman is characterised by "eternal unchanging

real existence". The Brahman is declared as the only cause of the universe by

the kAraNa vAkyAs. But we find the "cause" like raw gold, wood etc., to

undergo changes to become "effect" like ornaments, furniture etc in the hands

of the instrumental cause. Now a doubt may arise here - "If the Brahman is

called as the cause of the universe, then is it a changing entity? Also is

there anyone who has Brahman's nature under his control?" To clarify this

doubt and answer the questions, the Satya padam (padam-word) states that the

Brahman's nature of existence is eternal, real and not under the control of

anything (nirupAdikam) natural to itself and is unchanging. This Satya padam

differentiates the Brahman from the achit and Karma-badhda-chit entities. All

the achit entities are having their swarOpa-sthithi-pravruti under the full

control of Brahman. All the achit entities undergo changes. The

karma-baddha-chit (badhda jIvAtmans) entities are having their

swarOpa-sthithi-pravruti under the full control of Brahman. The status of

karma-baddha-chit (badhda jIvAtmans) entities, the changes in their bodies are

under the control (sankalpam) of Brahman. Therefore the Satya padam clearly

establishes that the Brahman is different from achit (all its three types

namely triguNya(misra-satva), satva-sUnya(kAlam), sudhda-satva(aprAkrutam))

and baddha-jIvAtman entities.

Next we consider the jgnyAna padam. This states that the Brahma swarOpam is

sentient swarOpam and the Brahman has jgnyAna (knowledge-to know) as its

essential attribute. All the AatmAs (jIvAtmans and the ParamAtman-Brahman)

have jgnyAna swarOpam. Also all the AatmAs have knowledge (dharma-bhUtha

jgnyAna) to know other things. To differentiate the Brahman (ParamAtman) from

all muktha-jIvAtmans (liberated jIvAtmans) the Veda uses the jgnyAna padam.

That is, it states that the Brahman has nitya-asankuchita jgnyAna - meaning

the Brahman has (infinite) jgnyAna eternally without any contractions to it.

On the other hand, let us consider the muktha-jIvAtman. He was previously

(before attaining mukthi) in the samsAra bound by his own karma (which has no

beginning - anAdi karma) and therefore had prAkruta-triguNya-sarIram. When he

was in samsAra, his jgnyAna has contracted as per his own karma. Therefore the

muktha-jIvAtman had contracted jgnyAna when they were as badhdha-jIvAtman with

prakruti-sambandam. They got their jgnyAna expanded fully only on attaining

mukthi after getting their prakruti-sambandam fully removed. This is not the

case with Brahman. Therefore the jgnyAna padam clearly states that the Brahman

is different from the muktha-jIvAtmans.

Let us now consider the "ananta" padam. anantam means infinite - beyond all

parameters (measures) like dEsa (length, place), kAla (time) and vasthu

(physical mass). These three measures (limits) are called "parichchedam". The

Brahman is present everywhere. Therefore dEsa parichchedam is not applicable

for Brahman. That is limiting the Brahman to a "lengthplace" is not

possible. The Brahman is present eternally - always. Therefore kAla

parichchedam is not applicable for Brahman. That is limiting the Brahman to a

"time" is not possible. Also the Brahman has ubhaya-vibhUthi (all chit and

achit entities) as its body. Therefore vasthu parichchedam is not applicable

for Brahman. That is limiting the Brahman to a "vasthu" is not possible. On

the other hand, let us consider the nitya-jIvAtmans (nitya-sUris). Though the

nitya sUris (like Garuda, Adi-sesha, vishvaksena etc.,) are eternally without

karma (hence eternally without prakruti-sambandam), eternally are with full

knowledge, they are having these parichchedams. But the Brahman is not having

the parichchedams. Therefore the "ananta" padam states that the Brahman is

different from Nitya sUris (nitya-jIvAtmans) also.

Thus the Veda concludes that the Brahman is different from all the achit and

chit entities by stating the unique characteristics/attributes the Brahman has

by stating "satyam jgnyAnam anantam brahma". Veda tells the unparalleled and

unsurpassed greatness of Brahman here. Brahman is Purushoththama:. If someone

still advocates "nirvisEsha chin mAtram brahma", then "nirvisEsha chin mAtram

brahma" is not appropriate to be told before scholars who have studied

properly in detail the Veda-Vedanta, Gita and Brahma Sutras. Even a layman

will not consider "nirvisesha chin mAtram brahma" as it is contradicting even

simple logic.

In this context the verse of Bhagavath Gita (which will be explained after few

postings when we take up SrI Gita bhAshya of Bhagavath Ramananuja) are given

below with an outline of meaning to substantiate the above words.

Before giving the slokas of Bhagavath Gita, Bhagavath Ramanuja in his

commentary (SrI Gita BhAshya) says "atha: maththa Eva sarva vEdAnAm

sArabhUtham artham sruNu" meaning -

BhagavAn Shree Krishna ParamAtman addressed Arjuna and said, "Therefore,

listen from Me alone the meaning which is the essence of all the Vedas"

In the Purushoththama Yogam (15th chapter of Bhagavath Gita), BhagavAn Shree

Krishna ParamAtman (SrIman nArAyaNa:) said -

dvAvimow purushow lOkE ksharaschAkshara Eva cha |

kshara: sarvANi bhUthAni kUtasthOakshara uchyathE ||

The types of jIvAtmans is told here

Uththama: purushasthvanya: paramAthmEthudAhrutha: |

yO lokatrayamAvishya bibharthyavyaya Iswara: ||

The ParamAtma is told here who is different from all chit and achit entities.

yasmAthksharamatIthOhamaksharAdapi chOththama: |

athOasmi lokE vEdE cha prathitha: PURUSHOTHTHAMA: ||

Veda and Smruthies confirm that the God (ParamAtma) is Purushoththama: SrIman

nArAyaNa: VishNu: vAsudeva: (satyam jgnyAnam anantam brahma)

yO mAmEvamasammUDO jAnAthi purushOththamam |

sa sarvavidbhajathi mAm sarvabhAvEna bhAratha ||

He who understands clearly that the one and only God is Purushoththama: SrIman

nArAyaNa:, knows everything.

ithi guhyatamam sAstramidamuktham mayAnagha |

EthadbudhvA buddhimAnsyAthkruthakruthyascha BhAratha ||

He who knows this secret of Purushoththama: which is the essence of vEda,

becomes truly wise.

The Brahma sUtras confirm the same purport.

The four important errors in Advaita's philosophy as far as Advaita

interpreting "tat tvam asi" verse is concerned are:

1. The Sruthi telling infinite divine qualities of Brahman (tat) gets contradicted.

2. There is a need to tell "lakshaNa" (a technical concept) unnecessarily for "tat" and

"tvam".

3. SAmAnAdhikaraNyam gets violated

4. Upakrama VirOdham arises. This was mentioned in the previous posting itself.

The first point (out of the given four points above) is considered and that is why the

explanation for "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" was written. Let us now see the meaning

of "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" as told by Advaita and then understand that "The Sruthi

telling infinite divine qualities of Brahman (tat) gets contradicted" and

Advaita's interpretation is against Veda and is erroneous.

[gokulkr]

Part 9- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

Advaita's interpretation of "satyam jgnyAnam anantam":

Advaita stresses that Brahman is "nirvisesham" meaning

"devoid of attributes/characteristics". According to this

philosophy, to differentiate Brahman from "other" entities

(namely chit and achit entities), the "other" entities must

exist. According to Advaita, nothing other than this nirvisesha

Brahman exists! Therefore, Advaita first of all, questions the

nature of attribute, which differentiates the entity, which

is attributed by that attribute, from other entities. Let us

therefore see the interpretation of Advaita regarding "satyam

jgnyAnam anantam" verse as follows:

 

Advaita says that the "Satya" padam just denotes the

"abhAva of asatyam". "abhAva" means "non existence".

That is Advaita says that Brahman is not asatyam.

"asatyam" negates "satyam". Advaita interprets "satyam"

to negate "asatyam". According to Advaita, if it is told

like this, then Brahman is not told as having "satyatvam".

Therefore Advaita claims that Brahman is "nirvisesham".

In the same manner, Advaita says that "jgnAna" padam just

negates "Brahman is ajgnAnam" and "ananta" padam just

negates "Brahman is finite". That is Advaita says that the

words like "satyam" first denotes an opposite nature and then

negates it as "not possessing that opposite nature". Thus

according to Advaita, Brahman is devoid of all the three

differences (trividha bheda rahitam) which are sajAtIya,

vijAtIya and swagatha bhedams.

 

Such is the opinion of Advaita regarding the sOdaka vAkyAs.

 

Analysis: Advaita's interpretation and purport ascertained by

=============================================================

Visishtadvaita:

=============================================================

Now it is to be noted that what Advaita says regarding

"satyam jgnyAnam anantam" is only differing from Visishtadvaita's

views in terms of the manner in which it is interpreted.

In fact the Advaita also has to accept that the Brahman is

Savisesham because of its own manner of interpretation as

told above though that manner of interpretation differs from

that of us! This is what Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja tells

as follows:

 

"Sarva prathyanIkAkArathA bOdhnEapi tath-tath prathyanIkA

kArathAyAm bhEdasya avarjanIyathvAnna nirviseshathva siddhi:"

 

Even if it is admitted (as per Advaita's manner of interpretation)

that the words like "satyam" does not denote directly their own

meaning but first denote opposite nature and then negate it

as "not possessing that opposite nature", then also, concept of "nirvisesham"

is not possible! Even in such a winding interpretation,

it establishes only Brahman as savisesham. First of all such a

winding interpretation given by Advaita is against the manner

in which the words are to impart meaning in the world. Even

if the Advaita's winding interpretation is admitted, then it is

clear from the very own words of Advaita itself that Advaita has explicitly

admitted the difference between asatyam from Brahman

but still Advaita argues "nirvisesham"! Advaita's own words

contradict Advaita's key point. This sort of interpretation

given by Advaita is therefore not fit to be told before scholars.

 

When such is the case, why did the Advaita try to interpret it

such a way and that too contradicting even simple logic? Advaita

argues that when the nature of attribute (which is to differentiate

the entity, which is attributed from other entities) is admitted,

then different attributes establish the entity, which is attributed

to be not "one entity" but "many entities". Advaita quotes a famous

example - "kanda: munda: pUrNa srunga: Gow:" - meaning "broken horn,

horn-less, full horn cow". Here, the three different attributes like broken

horn etc., denotes that the animal is not one but three in

number. This is because, different attributes cannot be applicable

to a single entity itself. An animal cannot be with broken horns

and with full horns" In the similar manner, if the three words

"satyam, jgnyAnam, anantam" are admitted as per Visishtadvaita,

then the Brahman too has to be three in number and not a single

Brahman. That is, there is a need to accept a satya-brahman, a jgnyAna-brahman

and an ananta-brahman! This is against Veda.

Therefore, in order to avoid viseshya-bhedam (differences in entity,

which is attributed) because of admitting viseshaNa-bhedam

(differences in attributes), Advaita argues that only if we

accept Brahman as nirvisesham by their interpretation of satyam

jgnyAnam anantam, the appropriate meaning is ascertained. After

arguing like this, Advaita comes back to their interpretation

of "tat tvam asi". Advaita says "tat" denotes nirvisehsa

Brahman. "Tvam" also denotes the nirvisehsa Brahman. Therefore

according to Advaita, both the terms ("tat" and "tvam") have

the same meaning.

 

Now a basic question arises. sAmAnAdhikaranyam is not this way.

Then how come Advaita can argue like this as far as tat tvam asi

is concerned? For this argument in the form of question, Advaita

argues and answers that sAmAnAdhikaranyam is just "many words"

denoting one entity and not "many words each with its own ground

of meaning (based on each of the attribute of entity) denoting one

entity. Therefore Advaita attempts to have its own idea for

sAmAnAdhikaranyam also. Further, Advaita says that (their own)

sAmAnAdhikaranyam is getting applicable only in their own interpretation

of "tat tvam asi" and to avoid viseshya-bhedam because of admitting

viseshaNa-bhedam, argues again that "nirvishesha chin mAtram Brahma"

is the meaning.

 

The counter-arguments of Advaita are now considered. The essence

of the counter-arguments of Advaita can be summarized in two

points, which are given below:

1. viseshaNa bhedam leads to viseshya bhedam

2. sAmAnAdhikaranyam definition and its application

 

The first point is considered now as follows: The Advaita's

argument regarding viseshaNa bhedam leads to viseshya bhedam,

is totally illogical. All viseshaNa bhedams do not lead to

viseshya bhedam. The example told by Advaita "kanda: munda:

pUrNa srunga: Gow:" has the viseshaNams which are contradicting

mutually. Only in such cases of viseshaNams, the viseshya bhedam

is possible. Let us consider another example "BhAskara: yuvA

kOmalAnga: nIla: visAlaksha:" - here in this example, a person

BhAskara is attributed by youthfulness, soft (tender) body, dark

complexion, large eyes. Though these attributes are different,

all the attributes are simultaneously applicable to a single

entity (here a person (say) BhAskara:). Therefore here in this

example, the viseshaNa bhedam has not led to viseshya bhedam.

Therefore if the attributes are not mutually contradictory in

nature, then viseshaNa bhedam does not lead to viseshya bhedam.

Let us now consider "satyam jgnyAnam anantam" verse. Here these

different viseshaNams are not mutually contradicting. Therefore

there is no possibility of viseshya bhedam. The Brahman is

therefore a single entity with infinite divine attributes.

Therefore telling the direct meaning of the word "satyam" etc.,

is the purport as ascertained by Visishtadvaita.

 

The next argument of Advaita regarding sAmAnAdhikaraNyam will be considered

now. But before that another argument of Advaita is

considered as follows.

 

On knowing that their argument is simply refuted, Advaita starts

its argument in another manner again stressing that the Brahman

is nirvisesham. Advaita says that there are two ways in which

the Veda has declared that the Brahman is nirvisesham. One way

is by "Srowta guNa nishedam" and the other way is by "Aartha guNa

nishedam". According to Advaita, the verses of Veda like "nishkalam

nishkriyam sAntam niravadyam niranjanam" explicitly do the guNa

nishedam and this is what is called as "Srowta guNa nishedam"

- meaning - the Sruthi (Veda) has explicitly negated the qualities/attributes

of Brahman. The Advaita explains the

other way - the Veda has clearly stated that the Brahman is

jgnyAna swarUpam. JgnyAnam cannot be attributed by another

jgnyAnam - meaning if two entities are of same type, then there

cannot be attribute-attributed relation between them! Therefore the

"artha" (meaning) from such statements of Veda (where it is stated

that the Brahman is jgnyAna swarUpam) establishes implicitly that the Brahman

is nirvisesham - this is what is called as "Aartha guNa

nishedam". Thus Advaita again stresses its concept of nirvisesha

Brahman.

 

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja considers this counter-argument

and refutes it as follows.

 

"swarUpa nirUpaNa dharma sabdA hi dharma mukEna swarUpamapi

prathipAdayanti gAvAdisabdavath | thadAaha sUtrakAra: 'thad-guNa

sArathvAth thathvyapadEsa: prAgjnyavath'"

 

"JgnyAnEna dharmEna swarUpamapi nirUpitham | na thu jgnyAna mAthram

brhamEthi | katham idamavagamyatha ithi cheth 'yas sarvagnyas sarvavith'

ithi jgnyAtrutva sruthE: 'parasya sakthir-vividhaiva srUyatE, swabhAvikI

jgnyAna-bala-kriyA cha', 'vignyAthAmarE kEna vijAnIyAth'

ithyAdi-sruthi-satha-samadhigathamidam |"

 

"atha: satya jgnyAnAdi padAni swArtha bhUtha jgnyAnAdi visishtamEva

brahma prathipAdayanthi"

 

How can it be said that one jgnyAna cannot be attributed by another

jgnyAna? The Veda is not at all telling what the Advaita is telling.

JgnyAna can be attributed by another jgnyAna. This is also not

against logic. The sruthi has stated that the Brahman is not only

jgnyAna swarUpa but also it has stated that the Brahman is having

jgnyAna as its attribute. If an entity is to be explained, it has

to be told by its essential attribute which differentiates it from

all other entities and such an attribute is called as the "swarUpa

nirUpaka dharmam". For example, if we take the word "Gow:" (cow),

the "Gothvam" (the nature of being cow) is the swarUpa nirUpaka

dharmam which identifies the "Gow:" - Similarly jgnyAna is the

swarUpa nirUpaka dharmam of Brahman. Just like "Go" (cow) is

attributed by "Gothvam", Brahman is attributed by jgnyAna. At this

point Shree BhAshyakara Swamy explains that the swarUpa nirUpa

dharmam does not just stop with denoting the dharmam alone, but

it finally ends up in denoting the swarUpam also. Therefore

Brahman is jgnyAna swarUpa and has jgnyAna as its dharmam and

therefore knows everything "jgnyAtha".

 

A Brahma sUtra is taken in this context.

'thad-guNa sArathvAth thathvyapadEsa: prAgjnyavath' - the

jIvAtman has vignyAnam as its essential guNa and therefore,

the jIvAtman himself is called as vignyAnam. This is similar

to Brahman who is "prAgnyA" being called as "Anandam" because

"Anandam" is an essential guNa of Brahman. Therefore Veda and

logic clearly explains the Brahman's swarUpa as jgnyAna and

also being attributed by jgnyAna.

 

Further the Veda verses like "PrAgnyEnAthmanA", "BrahmaNA

vipaschithA", "Ya: sarvagnya: sarvavid" explicitly declares that

the Brahman has jgnyAna as guNam.

 

The verses where the Brahman is declared as "NirguNa" means that

the Brahman is devoid of evil attributes and is untouched by

impurities. The entire Veda therefore declares the Brahman as

Akila-Heya-PrathyanIka, Ananta-KalyANa-GuNa-Visishta: Purushoththama:

SrIman nArAyaNa: When the Shree BhAshya is considered after VedArtha

Sangraha postings, I will explain the ubhaya-lingaadhikaraNam in

detail regarding the same.

 

Therefore the argument of Advaita regarding Aartha-GuNa-Nishedam and

Srowtha-GuNa-Nishedam loses validity. The Brahman is only SavisEsham.

 

Next, the errors in the interpretation of "tat tvam asi" by Advaita

regarding sAmAnAdhikaraNyam, LakshaNa and upakrama-virodham are

taken up. The next posting will covers these aspects.

[jatinder walia]

dear sir

 

will u please tell me wat d meaning of dis " rated with Shreerodaya Mantra. " looking forwrad for ur kind assistance.

 

regards

jatinder

[jatinder walia]

jai shri ram

 

 

 

wat d meaming of "rated with Shreerodaya Mantra. " any body tell .. thanks

[gokulkr]

Part 10- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

Vedartha Sangraha:

 

In Vedartha Sangraha, Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja continues to explain that only the Visishtadvaita is the purport of

Veda with specific reference to the verse "tat tvam asi".

The Concept of LakshaNa:

 

Each word has its own natural meaning. But in those context where this meaning is not suitable, another suitable and

related meaning is considered to be its meaning. But the real (own natural) meaning is called "SakyArtham". Only

when the natural meaning is not suitable to be told in a context, then a very related and suitable meaning is told

and this is meaning is what is called as "LakshaNa". Therefore "SakyArtham" and "LakshaNa" are two concepts. These concepts are easy to be explained in Tamil or in Sanskrit languages but I feel it is little puzzling in writing them in English. Let me explain this with an example. When I say "GangAyAm Gosha:", its literal (word for word) meaning is "Colony of people who live with Cows is on the river Ganga". Ganga is a river and it is impossible for the colony to be right on the river.

Therefore even though the natural/literal meaning is as seen above, considering the impossibility, we recognize the meaning of the same verse as "the colony is on the banks of river Ganga". The bank is related to the river and the meaning as told is the truth. Here one has to clearly understand that the meaning "bank (shore)" of the term "Ganga" is not the "SakyArtham" but it is only "LakshaNa". Therefore "LakshaNa" is inferior but is needed only in the case where the "SakyArtham" is not suitable. Also, it has to be related suitably to "SakyArhtam". "SakyArtham" is the"mukyArtham" meaning the important (and original/natural) meaning.

The "JgnyAna" being swarUpa nirUpka dharmam, not only denotes the swarUpa nirUpka dharmam of Brahman but also denotes the Brahma-swarUpam, which has the swarUpa nirUpka dharmam. This is therefore "SakyArtham" and not "LakshaNa". This is confirmed by countless sruthi verses like "Ya: sarvagnya:…", "parAsya sakthi: vividaiva sruyatE", "swabhAvikI jgnyAna bala kriyA", "vignyAthAramarE kena vijAnIyAth" etc. All these verses clearly point out that the Brahman is having guNas.

"tat, tvam" ithi dvayOrapi padayO: swArtha-prahANEna nirviSesha-vastu swarUpOpasthApanaparathvE mukhyArtha

parithyAgascha | nanu ikya-tAthparyanischayAth na lakshaNA dosha: | "sO(a)yam devadaththa: ithivath"

Coming back to "tat tvam asi", the term "tat" denotes the"Jagath-kAraNa-Brahman". This is its important and natural

meaning. The term "tvam" denotes the same Brahman who is the antaryAmi of the jIvAthman. That is, the term "tvam"

means the jIvAntaryAmi-Brahman. This is its important and natural meaning.

After hearing this, Advaita again starts its arguments as follows: Advaita says that "tat" and "tvam" do not denote

the Brahman with qualities of "being the jagath-kAraNa" and "jIvAntaryAmi" respectively but both the terms means the

same nirvisesha-Brahman. Therefore they stress on "lakshaNa" leaving the natural meaning of the terms as we told. Advaita states that the swarUpa-iykyam is what is conveyed by the term "tat tvam asi".

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja says that if this illogical and irrelevant interpretation of Advaita is admitted, then

it leads to two errors namely violation of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam and lakshaNa-dosham. It is explained as follows:

When "tat" means "jagath-kAraNa-Brahman" and "tvam" means "jIvAntaryAmi-Brahman", there exists not even a single reason why lakshaNa needs to be told as told by Advaita. The meaning told by Visishtadvaita is not in any way unsuitable to the context. Therefore only the natural meaning of the terms has to be accepted and lakshaNa never arises in this context as it was in the example "GangAyAm Gosha:"

But the Advaita argues that there is a need to tell lakshaNa because the natural meaning of "tat" and "tvam" as told by

Visishtadvaita is not suitable in "tat tvam asi". Advaita gives a reason as follows. The attribute "jagath-kAraNa" and "jIvAntaryAmi" are two different attributes. Advaita argues that the Brahman qualified by the first attribute cannot be the same Brahman qualified by the second attribute. But "tat tvam asi" declares both are one.

Therefore, both the viseshaNams needs to be rejected and therefore "tat" and "tvam" both convey the meaning "nirvisesha Brahman". "sO(a)yam devadaththa: ithivath". Assume that I saw a person Devadaththa in the morning at Singapore. In the evening, assume that I saw the same Devadaththa at Kulalumpore. A thought comes to my mind "He is this Devadaththa" meaning who I saw at Singapore today morning, I see him now in evening at Kulalumpore". This verse tells the identity of Devadaththa who was in Singapore this morning and Devadaththa who is now in the evening at Kulalumpore. Advaita considers this example and gives a reason regarding how these two Devadaththas can only be one. According to Advaita, to accept the identity (oneness) of the person Devadaththa, I have to negate the

attributes of the term Sa: (He) (namely with respect to time (morning) and place (Singapore)) and the attributes of term "ayam" (this Devadaththa) (namely with respect to time (evening) and place (Kulalumpore)). Therefore only when the mukyArtha is sacrificed and the LakshaNArtha is admitted after negating the attributes, one can accept the identity (oneness) of the person denoted by "Sa:" and "ayam". In the similar manner, Advaita says that in the case of "tat tvam asi", we need to sacrifice the mukyArtha and negate the attributes to understand identity of Brahman and

jIvAtman.

"naithadevam, 'sO(a)yam devadaththa:' ithyatrApi lakshaNAgandhO na vidyatE, virOdhAbhAvAth"

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja argues that the argument and example quoted by Advaita is without any logic and is baseless. There is no contradiction in considering a single person (say Devadaththa) to be linked with two instances of time say past (morning) and present (evening). The Veda has declared that all the entities namely chit, achit and Iswara: are eternally existing real entities. Devadaththa was in a place in the morning and he is now in another

place in the evening. There is absolutely no place for lakshaNa here. The differences in places (Singapore and Kulalumpore) do not differentiate the person Devadaththa because the time (morning and evening) linked with his presence in each place are also different. The contradiction will arise only if it was told "I saw Devadaththa in a given single instance of time simultaneously at two different places". The verse "sO(a)yam devadaththa:" therefore has no room for lakshaNa. Therefore the argument of Advaita is proved to be null and void. Further the Advaita telling this lakshaNa to both the terms (tat and tvam) is totally unfit to be told before scholars.

The Concept of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam:

 

"Bhinna Pravruththi NimiththAnAm sAbdAnAm Ekasmin Arthe Vruththi: sAmAnAdhikaraNyam"

The sAmAnAdhikaraNyam as defined in vyAkaraNa is not followed by Advaita. Therefore violation of sAmAnAdhikaranyam is there in Advaita's interpretation of the verse "tat tvam asi". Further,no where sAmAnAdhikaraNyam talks about "negating attributes" as the concept itself is based on attributes. The application of

sAmAnAdhikaraNyam in Advaita is totally against the sAstra.SAmAnAdhikaraNyam is suitable only in Visishtadvaita Shree VaishNavam.

The Concept of Upakrama-Virodham:

 

Now the interpretation of "tat tvam asi" by Advaita has "Upakrama-Virodham" error also. In the pUrva-mImAmsa, a nyAya is ascertained. In the given set of sAstra-verses in a particular context ascertaining a particular concept, the

meaning told by those verses in the end has to be in agreement with the meaning told by the verses in the beginning. If we consider the verses in Sat-Vidya of Chandokya Upanishad, the verses in the beginning tell that the Brahman is having infinite divine attributes like "Satya Sankalpatvam", "Jagath-kAraNathvam" (tathikshatha bhahusyAm prajAyEthi).

The verse with which this Sat-Vidya ends is "tat tvam asi".

Advaita without the knowledge of the "Upakrama-NyAyam" argues that "tat tvam asi" conveys jIva-Brahma-ikyam (oneness/identity of jIvAtman and Brahman). Now readers, please follow the words given as follows. The Brahman is told in the beginning as the "cause of the universe", "having infinite power, knowledge". On the other hand the jIvAtman is not the cause. The jIvAthman is the sarIram of Brahman. The Brahman creates the jIvAthman by giving the jIvAthman sUtla avasta from sUkshma avasta. The jIvAthman is ignorant because of his anAdi karma and he suffers

in the samsAra. If the interpretation of "tat tvam asi" given by Advaita is admitted that "the jIvAthman and Brahman are one and the same" then, the Brahman will turn up to be ignorant and suffering in the samsAra! This interpretation of Advaita is contradicting the meaning of the verses in the beginning. The Advaita's interpretaion of "tat tvam asi" is therefore irrelevant. Thus Advaita's interpretation has "Upakrama-Virodham". On the other hand, only Visishtadvaita ascertained the purport of "tat tvam asi" clearly as per the sAstra and logic.

Thus the four important errors in Advaita's philosophy as far as Advaita interpreting "tat tvam asi" verse is concerned are:

1. The Sruthi telling infinite divine qualities of Brahman (tat) gets contradicted.

2. There is a need to tell "lakshaNa" (a technical concept) unnecessarily for "tat" and "tvam".

3. SAmAnAdhikaraNyam gets violated 4. Upakrama VirOdham arises.

These were outlined. Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja then proceeds further with "Sruthi Virodha Darsanam in BrahmAgnyAna Paksham", proving that Advaita is totally against the Veda. We will continue with this in the next posting. "Param BrahmaivAgnyAm Bhrama-parigatham samsarathi" in second mangala sloka of this grantham is taken and elaborated and proved as "Sruthi-nyayApEtham jagathi-vithatam Mohanam idam tama:".

[gokulkr]

Part 11- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

The "Sruti VirOdha Darsanam" in "Brahma AgjyAna Paksham - Advaita" ends with this posting. That is, refuting "nirviSesha chin mAtram Brahma" from the angle of "Advaita is against the Veda" ends.

In Vedartha Sangraha, Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja establishes that the "nirviSesham" concept is not supported by any pramANam. These aspects will be dealt with in detail when the ubhaya-lingAdhikaraNam of Brahma-sUtra is taken up for discussion. Before we conclude this discussion, let me just make a mention about two Veda-vAkyAs, which are misinterpreted by Advaita. Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja discusses these sruthis and ascertains the purport of the same.

"nEthi nEthi" & "nEha nAnAsthi"

 

The mAyA-vAda Advaita is classified under implicit atheism. Their views do not find any support from the Sruthi. Misinterpreting these two verses, Advaita argues that the Veda has negated the attributes of Brahman and tries to substantiate its concept of "nirviSesha Brahaman". Also, the Advaita irrelevantly and illogically uses a nyAya called "apachcheda nyAya" of pUrva-mImAmsa, in this context. Visishtadvaita dismisses the views of Advaita.

Let us see in brief, the purport of these two verses as follows:

"nEthi nEthi" has not at all negated the attributes of Brahman.It has only negated the "parichchedam" (limit) of Brahman. If a rational soul studies the Sruthi verses in this context fully, then he can clearly understand this. The sUtrakAra (Veda VyAsa) has clearly ascertained the meaning of the verse, which is Visishtadvaita. The Veda has proved that the Brahman is "akila hEya pratyanIka:" and "ananta kalyANa guNa visishta:" - meaning, the Brahman is untouched by all the impurities and he is having infinite divine/auspicious qualities/attributes. This is ubhaya-lingam (two identifications, which identify Purushothama:SrIman NArAyaNa:)

"nEha nAnAsthi" states that "there is no entity which is not having Brahman as its soul (antaryAmi)". Therefore, this verse also has not negated the attributes of Brahman. The Veda verse confirms and proves the sarIra-Atma relationship between the universe and the Brahman.

I request the readers to refer SrI Anand's article regarding this. AdiyEn is also writing about ubhaya-lingAdhikaranam, following the SrI BhAshya in saraNagathi e-journal. To get to know more about this in detail, one has to study the SrI BhAshya under the guidance of scholars.

Thus ends the "Sruti VirOdha Darsanam" in "Brahma AgjyAna Paksham - Advaita" in VedArtha Sangraha grantam. Thus, it was proved in the grantha, that Advaita philosophy is against the Veda. In the second mangala-sloka of this granta VedArtha Sangraha, Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatirja mentions that the mathams like Advaita,bhedAbheda are against the Veda and nyAya. Swami has first refuted Advaita and proved that it is against the Veda. Now, Swami rejects the Advaita and proves that Advaita is against "nyAya" also. Let us see these aspects starting with "tirOdhAnAnupapaththi" from next posting onwards.

[gokulkr]

Part 12- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

In VedArtha Sangraha granta, it was explained that the Advaita of SrI Adi Sankara is against the Veda. Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja proceeds to explain that the Advaita is against nyAya also. ThirOdhAnAnupapaththi:

"api cha 'nirviSesha-jgnyAna-mAthram brahma, thancha AachchAdikA-avidyA-thirohitha swaswarUpam swagathanAnAthvam

pasyathi" ithiyayamarthO na ghatathe | thirOdhAnam nAma prakASanivAraNam |

swaswarUpAthirEkiprakASa-dharmAnabhyupagamyEna,prakASasyaiva swarUpathvAth swarUpanASa Eva syAth |

'prakASaparyAyam jgnyAna nithyam | sa cha prakASa:avidyA-tirOhitha:' ithi baliSabhAshitham"

The argument of Advaita regarding the Brahman getting covered by avidyA is not fit to be told before scholars. Even layman will not accept that because SrI Adi Sankara's Advaita is against logic and rational thoughts. This is not in any way exaggeration. The illogical and irrational nature of Advaita can be easily understood from the following discussion.

Advaita says that the Brahman is only jgnyAna-swarUpam (knowledge-self-reality) and that jgnyAna-swarUpam is

itself swayam-prakAsam (illumines to itself without any aid and itself becomes object of its own illumination) and

nityam (eternal). Advaita also states that the Brahman, which itself is swayam-prkAsam, gets covered/obstructed by

the avidyA and hence gets bewildered and knows itself as"jIvAtman" and falls into the illusion of jagath (world).

They say that "Brahma Satyam Jagath mithyA", which means that the "Brahman is the truth and the universe is falsehood". They have imagined the concept of avidyA only to "explain" the "jagath".

Now, the following illogical nature in SrI Adi Sankara's Advaita is outlined as follows:

If Adviata's above-mentioned points regarding "avidyA covering/obstructing the Brahman" were admitted,

then it would mean that the "swayam-prakAsam" is destroyed when Brahman gets covered/obstructed by the avidyA. Advaita has admitted that "swayam-prakAsam" is Brahma-swarUpam. Advaita advocates "nirviSesha Chin-mAthram Brahma". They do not admit any attributes (dharmam). Therefore, Advaita cannot argue that "swayam-prakAsam" is different from Brahman because,it is not a dharmam according to them. The cover/obstruction of avidyA on Brahman is "ThirOdhAnam". That is, the "prakAsam" is destroyed when avidyA covers the Brahman. This directly means that the Brahman-swarUpam is destroyed.

Therefore the Advaita cannot establish that the Brahman is "nityam" eternal. This simply means that the own words of Advaita refute Advaita. The philosophy of Advaita is not fit to be told before scholars and rationalists.

Advaita may argue the same way telling that the similar case arises with jIvAtman in Visishtadvaita. It may argue that "In your matham, jIvAthman is jgnyAna swarUpa. But he is lost when he is bound by karma in samsAra. How come you call him as "nitya:"?

Is not the same logical mistake that you pointed out in our philosophy present in your philosophy too? If you refute this,

then the same refutation can be used by us to refute your point!" Thus is the presumable argument of Advaita.

To refute this argument, Bhagavath Ramanuja says:

"EvamabhyupagachchathAmasmAkam Aathma-dharma-bhUthasaya chaithanyasya swAbhAvikasyApi

karmaNa pAramArthikam sankOcham,vikAsam cha brubathAm sarvamidam parihrutham; bhavathasthy

prakASa Eva swarUpamithi prakASO na dharmaBhUtha: thasya sankOchO vikAsOvA nAbhyupagamyathE | prakASaprasarAnuthpaththimEvathirOdhAnabhUthA: karmAdaya: kurvanthi |

avidyA chEth,thrirOdhAnabhUthayA thayA swarUpabhUthaprakASanASa: pUrvamEvOktha:asmAkam thu

avidyArUpEN karmaNA swarUpanithydharmabhUthajgnyAnaprakASa: sankuchitha: |

tEna devAdiswarUpAthmAbhimANO bhathIthiviSesha: yathOktham "avidhyA karma-sangnyA-anyA trutIyA

SakthirishyathE |

yayA kshEthra SakthisA vEshtitA nrupa sarvagA |

samsArathApanakhilAn avApnOthyathisanthathAn |

thayA thirOhithathvAncha Sakthi: kshEthragnya samgnythA |

sarvabhUthEshu bhUpAla thArathamyEna varthathE || ithi |

kshEthragnyAnAm swadharmabhUtha jgnyAnasya karma samgnyayA

avidyayA sankOcham vikAsam cha darSayathi ||

In Visishtadvaita, all entities are "saviSesham" as told by the SAstra. The jIvAthman has dharma-bhUtha-jgnyAna as

his attribute. The karma called avidyA makes only this attribute jgnyAna of the jIvAthman to undergo contractions

and expansions. The jIva-swarUpa is not affected at all.

Therefore, the jIvAthman is "nithya:" in Visishtadvaita.Therefore, there is no scope of such error in Visishtadvaita.

Advaita cannot use this refutation to counter-argue because Advaita's key point is "nirviSesham". The error, therefore,

very much exists in Advaita.

[gokulkr]

Part 13- Bhagavat Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

 

After ThirOdhAnAnupapaththi, Bhagavath Ramanuja continues in VEdArtha Sangraha with avidyA-swarUpa-anupapaththi,nivruthyanupapaththi, nivarthaka-anupapaththi, jgnyAtranupapaththi, sAmagrIanupapaththi and proves that Advaita of SrI Adi Sankara is untenable. Of these, the ThirOdhAnAnupapaththiwas outlined in the previous posting.

The other anupapaththis will be taken up at a later stage. With this posting, we will conclude refuting Advaita in VEdArtha Sangraha.

The Advaita's Eka-jIva-vAdam is also untenable. Advaita holds that only one body (sarIram) is having the Brahman who has got bewildered by avidyA and has wrongly identified himself as jIva. The Brahman is dreaming and that dream (illusion) is jagath. In that dream, the Brahman sees various animated bodies, which are without jIva. The body in which the Brahman is present and dreaming is the only body with jIva (which is the avidyA-covered-brahman). This is the Eka-jIva-vAdam of Advaita.

Further to "explain" this, the Advaita gives an example -

"A person dreams. He sees various persons and things in the dream. Those characters in the dream are only illusion and the bodies of them who he sees in dreams are without soul. Only he who dreams is the reality. When he wakes up, he realizes this".By telling this, Advaita stresses that "Brahma Satyam Jagath mithyABrahman is the truth and the universe is falsehood-illusion".

Someone questions Advaita "Which is that body having soul?" Advaita escapes by telling "That body cannot be pointed out".

"Ekasmin SarIrasya thathra jIvasathbhAvasya cha na kaschidviSEsha: |

asmAkam thu swapnE drushtuSSarIrasya

thasminnAthma-sadbhAvasya cha prabOdha-vElAyAmabAdhithathvAth,

anyEshAm SarIrANAm thathgatha-jIvAnAm cha bAdhithathvAth thE

sarvE mithyAbhUthA: swaSarIramEkam thasmin jIvabhAvaScha paramArtha:

ithi viSEsha:"

Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja criticizes the above dogma of Advaita as follows:

Advaita has argued that only the Brahman is truth (reality) and the universe (all chit and achit entities) is mere illusion.

In other words, Advaita has said that the universe is only because of avidyA-sambandam with Brahman. Just like a person who wakes up, realizes that all he saw in his dream are mere illusion, the abhEda-tatva-jgnyAna leads to the realization that everything except the Brahman is unreal. Only he who woke up is real. Similarly, the Brahman who wakes up because of abhEda-tatva-jgnyAna alone is real. The universe is thus unreal. This dogma and explanation of advaita is not only untenable but also the dogma itself is not suitable for advaita. The explanation follows:

Just like the animated bodies that appear in the dream of Brahman vanishes on its waking up, the body in which the

Brahman got bewildered, as jIva has to vanish and also the jIva. This is because, in advaita, the body of dreaming Brahman and the jIva-bewilderment of Brahman is also unreal. Otherwise, their Eka-jIva-vAdam loses validity and becomes futile. Therefore, advaita's imagination of "only one body with soul and all other bodies without soul" is not fit to be told before scholars.

In the case of Visishtadvaita, the universe is real. Therefore, the dreaming jIvAthman's body and the jIvAthman (soul) are real even after the waking up of the jIvAthman. Therefore, the Eka-jIva-vAdam of advaita is contradictory to its own key points.

"SonyamEva thathvam" ithi vAkyEna thasyApi bAdhithatvAth idam bhrAnthimUlam

vAkyam ithi chEth, "sath advithIyam brahma" ithi

vAkyamapi bhrAnthimUlamithi thvayaivOktham |

The advaita has attempted to establish "nirviSEsha chin mAthram Brahma" from the SAstra - VEda which is also an illusion for them.According to advaita, the SAstra imparts the knowledge that the only reality is Brahman and makes the entire universe as illusion-unreal. Also, Advaita says that the nirviSEsha chin mAthram Brahma is not rejected by another vAdam. Very unfortunately for Advaita, the madyamika-bowdhda has propounded "SonyamEva thathvam". The madyamika-bowdhda has not accepted even this nirviSEsha chin mAthram Brahma and he tells that nothing is reality.

To refute this madyamika-bowdhda-vAdam, advaita says that the mAdyamika-bowdhda's words are only because of "bhranthi" - utter confusion and bewilderment and they do not have a basis.

Advaita too has to be now grouped in bowdhda because are they not telling the SAstra also to be unreal? According to them, the SAstra is also because of bhranthi. Then, how is it possible for advaita to establish nirviSEsha Chin mAthram Brahma through SAstra? If they accept the bhrAnti-mUla-SAstra to establish nirviSEsha Chin mAthram Brahma, then the mAdyamika-bowdhda's words, which are also bhrAnti-mUlam reject Advaita and establishes "SonyamEva thathvam". The "SonyamEva thathvam" cannot be rejected by advaita because mAdyamika-bowdhda has rejected everything. Therefore advaita-vAda totally loses validity.

Bhagavath Ramanuja concluded this discussion by stating Vada-anAdhikAra-varNana for Advaitins.

'sarva-SUnyavAdina: brahama-vyathiriktha-vasthu-mithyAthva-vAdinascha,

swapaksha sAdhana-pramANa-pAramArthyAnabhyupagamEna abhiyuktai: vAdAnadhikAra

Eva prathipAditha:

"SarvadA sadupAyAnAm vAdamArga: pravarthathE |

adhikArOanupAyathvAth na vAdE SUnyavAdina: ||"

ithi'

The mAdyamika-bowdhda and the advaitins have no right in doing SAstra-vichAram and vAdam. The mAdyamika-bowdhda has told that everything is unreal. The advaitins told that everything is unreal except the nirviSEsha chin mAthram brahma. Both have not accepted the SAstra-VEda as real. Therefore, the bowdhda and advaitins have no right to participate in debates. Both are not vaidikas.

Bhagavath Ramanuja finishes this debate and conclusively establishes that the universe is real. The Advaita of SrI

Adi Sankara is thus clearly proved to be against the VEda and is untenable. Thus the SAnkara-pUrva-pAksham is totally refuted and rejected.

 

[gokulkr]

 

 

 

Sri Srinivasa Perumal - Thiruvenkatam

 

 

[gokulkr]

 

 

 

Alarmelu mangai thaayar - Thiruvenkatam

 

[gokulkr]

 

 

 

Sri Sri Ramanujacharya - Thiruvenkatam