Kalale's request

[Guest guest]

Honorable Keshava Rao & Jayakrishna:

 

Here is something for you gentlemen to answer. My friend KP

Kalale has requested the following. If you can kindly answer

him I will be much obliged.

 

with kindest regards,

Balaji Hebbar

 

[Krishna Kalale] Dear Sri Balaji,

 

thanks for your note on this subject.

 

 

 

On an other issue, I have a question. Can someone in the list

paraphrase the Madhva bhasya on certain abheda srutis such as :

 

sadeva somya idam agra asit ekameva advitiyam

 

tadaikshata bahusyam iti - both chandogya and taittiriya

 

ayam atma brahma

 

prajnanam brahma

 

yatra tu dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaram pasyati.... ..

brihadaranyaka

 

 

(I am aware of tat tvam asi , since it is taken as atat tvamasi and is a

famous view of Sri Madhva.)

 

thanks

 

Krishna Kalale

[Guest guest]

Sri Krishna Kalale wrote :

 

> yatra tu dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaram pasyati.... ..

> brihadaranyaka

 

> (I am aware of tat tvam asi , since it is taken as atat

> tvamasi and is a famous view of Sri Madhva.)

 

> thanks

 

> Krishna Kalale

 

The following passage is one extract from

" maitreyIbrAhmaNam.h " of bR^ihadAranyakopanishhad. For a

proper understanding of this (like in all the cases), the

proper meaning has to be arrived at, keeping in view the

context and the intended purpose behind this whole

discussion. As the name suggests, it is a philosophical

discourse given by yAj~navalkya to his wife, maitreyi.

Shankara and many philosophers of same or similar lineage

were led to believe that yAj~navalkya is the founder-father

of upanishadic monism and absolutism in terms which come

dangerously close to Buddhistic Nihilism and vij~nAnavAda.

 

yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraM pashyati

taditara itaraM jighrati taditara itara.N rasayate

taditara itaramabhivadati taditara itara.N shR^iNoti

taditara itaraM manute taditara itaraM spR^ishati

taditara itaraM vijAnAti yatra tvasya sarvamAtmaivAbhUt.h

tatkena kaM pashyettatkena kaM jigrettatkena kaM rasayet.h

tatkena kamabhivadettatkena kaM shR^iNuyAttatkena kaM

manvIta tatkena kam spR^ishettatkena kam vijAnIyAdyenedaM

sarvaM vijAnAti tam kena vijAnAyAtsa eshha neti

netyAtmA.agR^ihyo na hi gR^ihyate.ashIryo na hi

shIyete.asaN^go na hi sajyate.asito na vyathate na

rishhyati vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAdityuktAnushAsanA.asi

maitreyyetAvadare khalvamR^itatmiti hoktvA yAj~navalkyo

vijahAra ||14||

.....iti maitreyIbrAhmaNam.h

 

When there is a different thing [a different one], then

that one smells the other, then that one sees the other,

then that one hears the other, then that one speaks the

other, then that one thinks the other, then that one tastes

the other, then that one touches the other, then that one

perceives the other. But when (as some say) it is the case

in the Mukti which is cessation of avidya only, then by

which organ can the sentient jIva smell and what would he

smell ? Then by which organ can the jIva see and what would

he see ? Then by which organ can the jIva hear and what

would he hear ? Then by which organ can the jIva speak and

what would he speak ? Then by which organ can the jIva

think and what would he think ? Then by which organ can the

jIva touch and what would he touch ? Then by which organ

can the jIva taste and what would he taste ? Then by which

organ can the jIva perceive and what would he perceive?

How can the jIva know Paramatma through whose grace he

perceives all this ? The Paramatma is neither like Brahma

touched with misery nor is like mukta Laxmi untouched by

misery. This Paramatma is incapable of being grasped as a

whole, for no one has ever been able to grasp Him. This

Paramatma is incapable of wearing out, for He has never

worn out. This Paramatma is incapable of coming in contact

(with any thing foul), for He has never come in contact

(with any thing foul). It is the nature of this Paramatma

that He is ever free from bondage, that He never feels

miserable and that He is never destroyed. Oh my dear wife

(Yajnavalkya says to Maitreyi), how should the jIva

perceive his own self, the real knower ? Thus, you are

instructed. Here, hear Dear Maitreyi, this is what

immortality of mukta jIva consists of. Having said this,

Yajnavalkya went away.

 

What others interpreted : " Thus has been taught the means of

obtaining mukti " . This is wrong.

 

Madhvacharya's commentary:

 

priyAm vAchamavardhayadbhavati | bAhAbhyantaravisheshhAbhAvena

sarvatra lavaNarasaghana eva| na vA ahamimam vijAnAtIti |

aheyamimaM paramAtmAnaM jivo na vijAnAtItyatraiva bhagavAnmohAntaM

mohAkhyaM nAshamApIpipat.h prApayAmAsa | ato.ahaM brahmAsmI

tyAdishhvayahaMshabdo.aheyatvavAchIti siddham.h | anyathA

kathamahaM vijAnAtIti yujyate ? | etAvadvij~nAtuH paramAtmano

vij~nAnAdikameva hyamR^itatvaM moxaH |

 

' vishhNorj~nAnAdikam moxastadabhAve kutaH sukham.h

j~neyAbhAvAnna hi j~nanaM j~nanAbhAve hi shUnyatA |

tasmAjj~neyayuto moxaH sukharUpatvataH sadA '

....iti brahmatarke ||

 

Verily, the immortality of ever-conscious jIva consists in this

that he should know, in Mukti, the wisdom and activities of

Paramatma and never be unconscious of Him. There can be no

consciousness without an object of consciousness.

 

To prove this he quoted an authority from Brahmatarka

" Moxa consists in knowing Vishnu and in knowing all objects

and enjoying bliss by the mukta jIva. If there were absence of

such knowledge, where would there be any happiness in Mukti ?

There can be no knowledge in the absence of an object of

knowledge. In the absence of knowledge there results shunyatva

or annihilation. Therefore moxa is always accompanied by

objects of knowledge (in the shape of various forms of the

Lord), and its nature is eternal joy and happiness " .

 

(Even for those who have objections to Sri Madhvacharya's

quotes from Brahmatarka [presently non-available work], the

simply beautiful thought that fits perfectly with the spirit

and context of these passages must be very convincing).

 

The interpretation from advaita for " dvaitam iva " (meaning

" as if two different things " ) is that " It is not really two,

because it says as if " ). But the meaning of the word here

" iva " (as if) is to indicate that jIva is dependent on

Paramatma. In other words it is not " two equal or two

independent things " .

 

" vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAt.h " is translated by advaitins

as " Atman as a subject of all conscious state can not itself

be the subject of its own consciousness " .

 

This is rejected by Vedantins like Ramanuja and Madhva to

whom the self is essentially a knower through self-knowledge.

For them, the jIva should know Paramatma and return to Him

in moxa and enjoy togetherness with Him.

 

" na pretya saMj~nA asti " - We, the unliberated, cannot know

the precise nature of jIvAs who once for all left this world

and attained moxa(madhva's interpretation).

 

" na pretya saMj~nA asti " - When one has departed there is no

more knowledge or consciousness(Shankara's interpretation).

 

However, if yAj~navalkya's words " na pretya saMj~nA asti " and

its supporting argument " yatra tvasya sarvaM AtmaivAbhUt.h "

are to be taken as pure statements (vastusthitikathanam.h), it

would lead to obvious self-contradiction with his own

categorical statements " avinAshi vA are ayamAtmA

anuchchhittidharmA " - indestructible is this jIva and so are

his attributes. There come the three posers - " yatra tvasya

sarvaM AtmAvaibhUt.h ... yenedam sarvaM vijAnAti taM kena

vijAnIyAt.h vijn~AtAraM are kena vijAnIyAt.h " .

 

The only way to extricate him from such a predicament is to

construe the posers " yatra hi dvaitaM dvaitamiva bhavati...

vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAt.h " as a reductio ad absurdum

(Mathematics students will be well aware of this approach

where to disprove something, an assumption is made and then

it is shown how such an assumption leads to an absurdity),

intended to bring out the necessity to accept the survival

of self-consciousness and other-consciousness in moxa a

worthwhile " Purushartha " .

 

If we accept self-consciousness of jIva in moxa, then we

have to accept his being conscious of the Paramatma whom

in all sincerity he was advised to see, hear and meditate

upon. Atleast that part of jIva's sAdhana has to be

satisfied in moxa. The state of moxa being alaukika, the

enjoyment of mukta jIvas has to be alaukika as well.

 

A few words about " tat.h tvamasi " and " atat.h tvamasi " .

" tat.h tvamasi " does not lead to advaita when we are told

about a jIva return to his original abode of God after

his vicissitudes and hardships on earth. In this he

resembles a bird tethered to a post by means of a string,

wandering here and there, returning finally to its roost.

The finite jIvAs, after their long career of earthly

existence return to their original home in the form of

Infinite Being (yadgatvA na nivartante taddhAma paramaM

mama). There they rest like the rivers in the ocean.

This case of transmigration is exclusively for jIvAs.

The Infinite Being remains unperturbed by coming and

going of finite beings. " samudra eva bhavati " .

 

God is indeed verily all that is or matters, as

everything else depends on Him for its very existence,

activity.

" purushha evedaM sarva tadvishvamupajIvati " .

 

The word " advaita " as applied to God can only mean the

all independence of God.

 

" advaita nAma yaduchyate tat.h svatatntra bhagavadapexayA " .

 

From this point of view, " tat.h tvamasi " would be no more

than an epitomization of " atat.h tvamasi " . But Sri

Madhvacharya chose to put it as " atat.h tvamasi " to clear

possible misapprehension about the ultimate point at issue,

which other readings may produce in the unwary. He looked

at the spirit of the passage and explained with both the

padachchhedas.

 

" tat.h tvamasi " - idaM hi vishvaM bhagavAnivetaro yato

jagat.hsthAnanirodha saMbhavaH.

 

OM srI hari vAyu gurubhyo namaH

 

Keshava Rao

[Guest guest]

>Sri Krishna Kalale wrote :

>

> > yatra tu dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaram pasyati.... ..

> > brihadaranyaka

>

> > (I am aware of tat tvam asi , since it is taken as atat

> > tvamasi and is a famous view of Sri Madhva.)

>

> > thanks

>

> > Krishna Kalale

>

 

 

>What others interpreted : " Thus has been taught the means of

>obtaining mukti " . This is wrong.

 

>Madhvacharya's commentary:

 

>priyAm vAchamavardhayadbhavati | bAhAbhyantaravisheshhAbhAvena

>sarvatra lavaNarasaghana eva| na vA ahamimam vijAnAtIti |

>aheyamimaM paramAtmAnaM jivo na vijAnAtItyatraiva bhagavAnmohAntaM

>mohAkhyaM nAshamApIpipat.h prApayAmAsa | ato.ahaM brahmAsmI

>tyAdishhvayahaMshabdo.aheyatvavAchIti siddham.h | anyathA

>kathamahaM vijAnAtIti yujyate ? | etAvadvij~nAtuH paramAtmano

>vij~nAnAdikameva hyamR^itatvaM moxaH |

 

>' vishhNorj~nAnAdikam moxastadabhAve kutaH sukham.h

>j~neyAbhAvAnna hi j~nanaM j~nanAbhAve hi shUnyatA |

>tasmAjj~neyayuto moxaH sukharUpatvataH sadA '

>...iti brahmatarke ||

 

>Verily, the immortality of ever-conscious jIva consists in this

>that he should know, in Mukti, the wisdom and activities of

>Paramatma and never be unconscious of Him. There can be no

>consciousness without an object of consciousness.

 

>To prove this he quoted an authority from Brahmatarka

> " Moxa consists in knowing Vishnu and in knowing all objects

>and enjoying bliss by the mukta jIva. If there were absence of

>such knowledge, where would there be any happiness in Mukti ?

>There can be no knowledge in the absence of an object of

>knowledge. In the absence of knowledge there results shunyatva

>or annihilation. Therefore moxa is always accompanied by

>objects of knowledge (in the shape of various forms of the

>Lord), and its nature is eternal joy and happiness " .

 

>(Even for those who have objections to Sri Madhvacharya's

>quotes from Brahmatarka [presently non-available work], the

>simply beautiful thought that fits perfectly with the spirit

>and context of these passages must be very convincing).

 

Fortunately, there is no need for those of us supporting Madhva's quotations

of non-extant works to be as afraid of the Brahmatarka's unavailability on

the Vedantic front as we were years back when, first Appaya had brought it

up (according to Dr. BNK Sharma, he being the cause of most of the

philosophical discussions on Vedantic issues digressing back in to

'aparavidyA') due to the acceptance of a key quote in the Brahmatarka re

'upajiivapramAnaprAbalya' of Madhva by later Advaitin scholars that came

after Madhva.

 

> " vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAt.h " is translated by advaitins

>as " Atman as a subject of all conscious state can not itself

>be the subject of its own consciousness " .

 

>This is rejected by Vedantins like Ramanuja and Madhva to

>whom the self is essentially a knower through self-knowledge.

>For them, the jIva should know Paramatma and return to Him

>in moxa and enjoy togetherness with Him.

 

> " na pretya saMj~nA asti " - We, the unliberated, cannot know

>the precise nature of jIvAs who once for all left this world

>and attained moxa(madhva's interpretation).

 

> " na pretya saMj~nA asti " - When one has departed there is no

>more knowledge or consciousness(Shankara's interpretation).

 

>However, if yAj~navalkya's words " na pretya saMj~nA asti " and

>its supporting argument " yatra tvasya sarvaM AtmaivAbhUt.h "

>are to be taken as pure statements (vastusthitikathanam.h), it

>would lead to obvious self-contradiction with his own

>categorical statements " avinAshi vA are ayamAtmA

>anuchchhittidharmA " - indestructible is this jIva and so are

>his attributes. There come the three posers - " yatra tvasya

>sarvaM AtmAvaibhUt.h ... yenedam sarvaM vijAnAti taM kena

>vijAnIyAt.h vijn~AtAraM are kena vijAnIyAt.h " .

 

>The only way to extricate him from such a predicament is to

>construe the posers " yatra hi dvaitaM dvaitamiva bhavati...

>vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAt.h " as a reductio ad absurdum

>(Mathematics students will be well aware of this approach

>where to disprove something, an assumption is made and then

>it is shown how such an assumption leads to an absurdity),

>intended to bring out the necessity to accept the survival

>of self-consciousness and other-consciousness in moxa a

>worthwhile " Purushartha " .

 

The probable cause for Madhva taking the statements to a reductio ad

absurdum was due to the lack of Maitreyi ever mentioning the former

statement of her husband, which she would have mentioned along with the

latter if her intent was to point out the self-contradiction between the

two. Since, she did not pin-point the self-contradiction, her difficulty was

undoubtedly, as stated before, because of the lack of 'purushArtatva' in

such a moksha.

 

>If we accept self-consciousness of jIva in moxa, then we

>have to accept his being conscious of the Paramatma whom

>in all sincerity he was advised to see, hear and meditate

>upon. Atleast that part of jIva's sAdhana has to be

>satisfied in moxa. The state of moxa being alaukika, the

>enjoyment of mukta jIvas has to be alaukika as well.

 

 

 

>OM srI hari vAyu gurubhyo namaH

 

>Keshava Rao

 

Regards,

 

Kaushik Gururajan

[Guest guest]

>Sri Krishna Kalale wrote :

>

> > yatra tu dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaram pasyati.... ..

> > brihadaranyaka

 

> > (I am aware of tat tvam asi , since it is taken as atat

> > tvamasi and is a famous view of Sri Madhva.)

 

> > thanks

 

> > Krishna Kalale

 

>(Even for those who have objections to Sri Madhvacharya's

>quotes from Brahmatarka [presently non-available work], the

>simply beautiful thought that fits perfectly with the spirit

>and context of these passages must be very convincing).

 

Fortunately, for those us who support Madhva even considering the number of

non-extant works he quotes, we should not be as scared as we were a few

years ago, if the stalwarts of our tradition ever were, at the time of

Appaya, when this question was first raised, (who according to BNK Sharma is

the the reason for many philosophical discussions on the Vedantic front

falling into subject areas primarily concerned with the 'aparavidyA') due to

the acceptance of a key quote's validity in this source by an Advaitin after

Madhva

 

>The interpretation from advaita for " dvaitam iva " (meaning

> " as if two different things " ) is that " It is not really two,

>because it says as if " ). But the meaning of the word here

> " iva " (as if) is to indicate that jIva is dependent on

>Paramatma. In other words it is not " two equal or two

>independent things " .

 

> " vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAt.h " is translated by advaitins

>as " Atman as a subject of all conscious state can not itself

>be the subject of its own consciousness " .

 

>This is rejected by Vedantins like Ramanuja and Madhva to

>whom the self is essentially a knower through self-knowledge.

>For them, the jIva should know Paramatma and return to Him

>in moxa and enjoy togetherness with Him.

 

> " na pretya saMj~nA asti " - We, the unliberated, cannot know

>the precise nature of jIvAs who once for all left this world

>and attained moxa(madhva's interpretation).

 

> " na pretya saMj~nA asti " - When one has departed there is no

>more knowledge or consciousness(Shankara's interpretation).

 

>However, if yAj~navalkya's words " na pretya saMj~nA asti " and

>its supporting argument " yatra tvasya sarvaM AtmaivAbhUt.h "

>are to be taken as pure statements (vastusthitikathanam.h), it

>would lead to obvious self-contradiction with his own

>categorical statements " avinAshi vA are ayamAtmA

>anuchchhittidharmA " - indestructible is this jIva and so are

>his attributes. There come the three posers - " yatra tvasya

>sarvaM AtmAvaibhUt.h ... yenedam sarvaM vijAnAti taM kena

>vijAnIyAt.h vijn~AtAraM are kena vijAnIyAt.h " .

 

>The only way to extricate him from such a predicament is to

>construe the posers " yatra hi dvaitaM dvaitamiva bhavati...

>vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAt.h " as a reductio ad absurdum

>(Mathematics students will be well aware of this approach

>where to disprove something, an assumption is made and then

>it is shown how such an assumption leads to an absurdity),

>intended to bring out the necessity to accept the survival

>of self-consciousness and other-consciousness in moxa a

>worthwhile " Purushartha " .

 

The probable cause for Madhva taking the statements to a reductio ad

absurdum was due to the lack of Maitreyi mentioning the former statement of

her husband, which she obviously would have done had she noticed the

self-contradiction in his two statements...but since she only mentioned the

latter, she obviously, as pointed out, only had a problem with

Yaj~nyavalkya's cessation of any personal experience of moxa.

 

>If we accept self-consciousness of jIva in moxa, then we

>have to accept his being conscious of the Paramatma whom

>in all sincerity he was advised to see, hear and meditate

>upon. Atleast that part of jIva's sAdhana has to be

>satisfied in moxa. The state of moxa being alaukika, the

>enjoyment of mukta jIvas has to be alaukika as well.

 

>OM srI hari vAyu gurubhyo namaH

 

>Keshava Rao

 

Regards,

 

Kaushik Gururajan