Vedarthasangraha of Ramanuja - 27. No proof for an undifferentiated entity

[Guest guest]

27. No proof for an undifferentiated entity

 

Naithadhevam. Kena Sabdhena thadhvasthunirdhiSya thadhgathaaviSeshaa

nirasyanthe, jnapthimaathra sabdhena ithi cheth na, so api saviSesham eva

vasthu avalambathe, prakrthiprathyayaroopeNa viSeshagarbhithathvaath thasya. `jnaa

avaboDhane' ithi sakarmakaH sakarthrkaH, kriyaaviSeshaH.kriyaanthara

vyaavarthaka svabhaava viSeshaH cha prakrthyaa avagamyathe, prathyayena cha linga

sankhyaadhayaH. svathaH sidDhaou api ethath svabhaavaviSesha virahe sidDhireva

na syaath. anya saaDhana svabhaavathayaa hi jnaptheH svathaH sidDhiH uchyathe.

 

Ramanuja

challanges the contention of advaitin that the scriptural texts only serve the

purpose of negating all differentiations in an undifferentiating entity.

 

Naithadhevam. This is not as

contended.

 

Ramanuja asks,

 

Kena Sabdhena thadhvasthunirdhiSya thadhgathaaviSeshaa nirasyanthe?

 

By which term the

undifferentiated entity, Brahman, is denoted after negating all

differentiations in it?

 

When Brahman is

described as being devoid of all differentiations, there must be a term which

describes Brahman in that state. If it is the term `pure knowledge,' is

denotative of Brahman after all differentiations are negated in it, Ramanuja

shows that even the term `pure knowledge' is not undifferentiated .

 

jnapthimaathra sabdhena ithi cheth na, so api saviSesham eva vasthu

avalambathe, prakrthiprathyayaroopeNa viSeshagarbhithathvaath thasya.

 

If it is said

that Brahman is denoted by the term `pure knowledge,' jnapthimaathrasabdha, it is not right because, as explained earlier,

all terms consist of prakrthi and prathyaya, that is, root and affix which

denote only something definitive in nature.

 

 

`jnaa avaboDhane' ithi sakarmakaH sakarthrkaH,

kriyaaviSeshaH.

 

Jnaa-to know is a verb denoting a

specific action having a subject and object. Sakarmaka means having an object, the known, because any knowledge is about something and sakarthrka means something that has a subject, the knower

as in "I know this."

 

kriyaanthara vyaavarthaka svabhaava viSeshaH cha prakrthyaa avagamyathe,

prathyayena cha linga sankhyaadhayaH

 

By the verb or

the root like gam to go, differentiates the

action of going from other kinds of actions and the prathyaya or the

terminations of present , past etc. as in jaanaathi, he/she knows, determine the number and the gender of the knower, kartha, like saH jaanaathi , is determined by the subject, saH, he, and the verb has an expectation

of an object as well. that answers the

question `knows what?'

 

svathaH sidDhaou api ethath svabhaava viSesha virahe sidDhireva na syaath

 

Even a self

evident knowledge must be so only with these definitive elements as otherwise

it ceases to be evident.

 

The term svathaH

siddha means that an entity is known by itself without any need for another to

illuminate it. That is why it is termed as svayamprakasa. A light illuminates everything

while it does not need another to illuminate it. This is the meaning of svayamprkasa.

The knower, the self, knows everything because of the Self, but he knows his

self by the self itself. This is is svathassidDhi. Knowledge of the self is

jnaana and the Self is the knower. These form the definitive elements whch are

denoted above.

 

 

Brahmasvaroopam krthsnam sarvadhaa svayam eva prakaasathe cheth na thasmin

anyaDharma aDhyaasaH sambhavathi.nahi rajjusvaroope avabhaasamaane sarpathvaadhiH aDhyasyathe. atha eva hi

bhavadhbhiH"aacChaadhikaa avidhyaa" abhyupagamyathe. thathaH cha Saasthreeya

nivarthakajnaanasya brahmaNi thirohitaamSo vishayaH. anyaThaa thasya

nivarthakathvam na syaath.aDhishTaana athireki rajjuthva prakaasanena hi sarpathvam

baaDhyathe.ekaScheth viSeshaH jnaanamaathre vasthuni Sabdhena abhiDheeyathe, sa

cha brahmaviSeshaNam bhavathi, ithi sarvaSruthi prathipaadhitha sarvaviSeshaNa

viSishtam brahma bhavathi.athaH praamaaNikaanaam na kenaapi pramaaNena nirviSesha

vasthusidDhiH

 

Ramanuja says

that there can be no valid means of cognition

for an undifferentiated reality.

 

Brahmasvaroopam krthsnam sarvadhaa svayam eva prakaasathe cheth na thasmin

anyaDharma aDhyaasaH sambhavathi.nahi rajjusvaroope avabhaasamaane sarpathvaadhiH aDhyasyathe

 

If the Brahman as

a whole is self illumined always, there can be no superimposition of any other

characteristic on it. When the rope is cognized there can be no illusion of a

snake.

 

Ramanuja here

critcises the claim that Brahman is selfillumined and self evident always but due to avidhya the nature of reality is

obscured and projects the illusion of the world. The example in advaita for

such a superimposition of the world on Brahman is that of a rope and a snake. A

rope seen in dimlight presents an illusion of a snake which is real as long as

it lasts. But the moment the rope is seen the snake disappears. Ramanuja says

that if the rope is self illumined and shines always as the Brahman as claimed

in advaita so that it needs no pramana

for its validity then, the superimposition of the world on it is impossible. He

cites the example of the rope and the snake and says that if the rope is always

shining being self illumined and self evident so that it is cognised as it is ,

then there can never be a superimposion of a snake on it at all.

 

atha eva hi bhavadhbhiH "aacChaadhikaa avidhyaa" abhyupagamyathe. thathaH

cha Saasthreeya nivarthakajnaanasya brahmaNi thirohithaamSo vishayaH.

 

It is for this

reason, says Ramanuja, the concept of nescience which conceals the reality is

being advocated by the advaitins. Therefore the scriptural knowledge serves to

remove this veil of avidhya and reveals the Brahman who is concealed.

 

That is, there is

some aspect of Brahman which is not known through avidhya and which is removed

by the scriptural knowledge. So the object of the scirptural knowledge is the

concealed aspect of Brahman.

 

anyaThaa thasya nivarthakathvam na syaath.aDhishTaana athireki rajjuthva

prakaasanena hi sarpathvam baaDhyathe.

 

Otherwise there

could be no removal of ignorance at all. The snakeness can be eliminated only

by the cognition of the ropeness. The former does not happen without the latter. The removal of

ignorance is not only the part which is presented in front through ignorance,

namely the ropeness, but also the revelation of the real identity of the substratum,

the ropeness.

 

When the snake is

perceived what gives the illusion of it is the ropeness and not snakeness ,

which is an illusion. The ropeness is the substratum that gives the illusion of

the snake and this is the differentiating attribute that characterizes the

rope. Similarly in Brahman, the nature of reality that is Brahman is concealed

by avidhya and is revealed by the

removal of it through the scriptural texts.

 

ekaScheth viSeshaH jnaanamaathre vasthuni Sabdhena abhiDheeyathe, sa cha

brahmaviSeshaNam bhavathi, ithi sarvaSruthi prathipaadhitha sarvaviSeshaNa

viSishtam brahma bhavathi.

 

When the characteristic

which is the object of cognition, namely the real aspect of Brahman which was

concealed by avidhya, through the knowledge of sastras is accepted, then

Brahman becomes qualified by all the characterisitics described by the vedic

texts such as omniscience etc.

 

athaH praamaaNikaanaam na kenaapi pramaaNena

nirviSesha vasthusidDhiH

 

Therefore for

those who hold up valid means of cognition, there can be no proof for an

undifferentiated reality.