Part-10 Experiencing Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

[Guest guest]

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

Part - 10 Experiencing Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja's Divine Works

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

 

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: " .

 

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

To be continued.. .

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

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan.

 

__________________

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