Part-9 Experiencing Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

[Guest guest]

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

Part - 9 Experiencing Bhagavath 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.

 

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

To be continued…

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

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1