vedartha sangraha of Ramanuja 25. saamaanaadhikaranya explained

[Guest guest]

25. saamanaadhikarnaya explained

 

lakshaNaayaam api na dhavyoH padhayoH

lakshaNaasamaaSrayaNam , ekena eva lakshithena viroDha parihaaraath. lakshaNaa

abhaava eva ukthaH dheSaantharasambanDhithayaa bhoothasya eva

anyadhesasambanDhithayaa varthamaanthva aviroDhaath.

Evam athra api jagathkaaraNa bhoothasaya

eva brahmaNaH jeevaantharyaamithayaa jeevaathmathvam avirudDham ithi

prathipaadhitham, yaThaabhoothayoH eva hi

dhvayoH aikyam saamaanaaDhikaraNyena pratheeyathe.thath parithyaagena

svaroopamaathraaikyam na saamaanaaDhikaraNyasya arThaH.

"binnapravrtthinimitthaanaam sabdhaanaam ekasmin arThe vrtthiH saamaanaaDhikaraNyam,"ithi

hi thadhvidhaH.thaThaabhoothayoH eva aikyam upapaadhitham asmaabhiH.

upakramaviroDHi upasamhaara

thaathparyanischayaScha na ghatathe. Upakrame hi "thadhaikshatha bahu syaam

prajaayeya"ithyaadhinaasathysankalpathvamjagathejkakaaraNathvamapi

uktham.thadhviroDHi cha avidhyaaSrayathvaadhi brahmaNaH.

 

Ramanuja has shown that there is no

contradiction in the statement `this is that Devadatta' denoting the same

person in two places

in the past and the present because of the

difference in timings.The contradiction comes only when the same entity is said

to be present at different places and not with reference to different times.

 

lakshaNaayaam api na dhavyoH padhayoH

lakshaNaasamaaSrayaNam , ekena eva lakshithena viroDha parihaaraath.

 

Even if secondary meaning is applied (in soayam

devadatta) there is no need to do so with respect to both the terms because

the contradiction can be resolved by adopting lakshaNaa with reference to one

of the two. That is, devestating either present time and place or the past. That is, Devadatta seen to day in

front without the reference to the place and time at present will be identical

with Devadatta seen in the past in different place and time and vice versa.

 

lakshaNaa abhaava eva ukthaH

dheSaantharasambanDhithayaa bhoothasya eva anyadhesasambanDhithayaa

varthamaanthva aviroDhaath.

 

But there is no indirect meaning at all

since the past is associated with different place and the present with another

and hence there is no contradiction.

 

But the opponent may say that, this may be

true in the case of the example `this is that Devadatta but regarding the text thath

thvam asi the lakshana or secondary

meaning has to be adopted to establish unity .

 

Ramanuja anticipating this objection,says ,

 

evam

athra aapi jagathkaaraNa bhoothasaya eva brahmaNaH jeevaantharyaamithayaa

jeevaathmathvam avirudDham ithi prathipaadhitham.

 

Here also ( in thath thvama asi) there

is no contradiction between Brahman, the cause of the world and Brahman, the

inner self of all.

 

yaThaabhoothayoH eva hi dhvayoH aikyam saamaanaaDhikaraNyena

pratheeyathe.

 

The identity according to the principle of

saamaanaDhikaraNya applies only to entities in their natural meanings.

 

thath parithyaagena svaroopamaathraaikyam

na saamaanaaDhikaraNyasya arThaH.

 

saamaanaaDhikaraNya does not consist in

giving up the natural implication and establishing identity of the pure

substantive.

 

Ramanuja then explains the principle of

SaamaanaaDhikaraNya as per which the unity between Brahman and jeeva is

established in visishtadvaita.

 

He says,

 

"binnapravrtthinimitthaanaam sabdhaanaam

ekasmin arThe vrtthiH saamaanaaDhikaraNyam,"ithi hi

thadhvidhaH.thaThaabhoothayoH eva aikyam upapaadhitham asmaabhiH.

 

The meaning of saamaanaDhikaraNyam is

defined by the experts as being the identity of an entity which is governed by

several terms that describe it. It is such kind of identity that has been

established by visishtadvaitins.

 

upakramaviroDHi upasamhaara

thaathparyanischayaScha na ghatathe.

 

Ramanuja further says that there should be

unity of implication between the opening and the concluding declarations.

 

 

Upakrame hi "thadhaikshatha bahu syaam

prajaayeya" ithyaadhinaa sathysankalpathvam jagathekakaaraNathvam api uktham.

In the beginning the declaration of the

text is that "It willed to become many"( chan.6.2.3) etc. This denotes the infallible

will and the causality of Brahman.

The texts Ramanuja refers are,

 

thath aikshatha bahu syaam prajaayeya , That Being, Brahman willed. ."I may become many : I may grow forth."

 

thath thejo asrjatha-" It created fire" (which

includes akaas and wind and from fire the other two. Water and earth came out.)

 

 

The sentences sadhevasoumya idham agra aaseeth, ekam eva adhvitheeyam ;

thadhaikshatha bahusyaam prajaayeya, taken together shows Brahman to be the material as well as the

instrumental cause. Thus the identity between the Brahman and the world of

sentient and insentient beings is

established as the cause and the effect. The cause being real the effect also

has to be real.

 

thadhviroDHi cha avidhyaaSrayathvaadhi

brahmaNaH.

 

The opposite view that the world is

unreal will make Brahman an abode of nescience as it goes against the

initial declaration. That is, to assert the casuality of Brahman and later

profess that Brahman without attributes and the jeeva without ignorance are

identical on the basis that Brahman is nirviSesha chinmathra, attributeless

sentience and the jeeva is identical with Brahman when devested of its identity

as the individual self, goes against the declaration of causality and

infallible will of Brahman expressed by the statement `thath aikshatha bahu

syaam prajaayeya.'

 

..