Vedarthasangraha of Ramanuja - 29- Import of the srutitexts.1. vaachaarambhaNam-

[Guest guest]

29.Import of sruthi texts – 1. vaachaarambhanaam vikaaraH naamaDheyam

 

api cha nirviSeshavasthu vaadhinaa svayamprakaaSe vasthuni thadhuparaagaviseshaaH

sarvaiH SabdhaiH nishiDhyanthe ithi vadhathaa, ke the sabdhaaH nisheDhakaaH

ithi vakthvyam.'

 

Ramanuja explains

the import of the sruti texts quoted by the advaitin to prove that Brahman is

undifferentiated. He asks what are the sruti texts that deny all

differentiations in Brahman, who is self illuminated.

According to

advaita, Brahman is not only undifferentiated but the

differentiations that conceal the real nature of Brahman are not real. That is,

the attributes like sathyam jnanam anantham do not qualify Brahman as the

attributes or modes in which case the real nature of Brahman as pure knowledge

will be eclipsed. Hence these differentiations are negated by sruti texts. Ramanuja examines

the texts quoted by the advaitin and refutes the import as explained by

advaita.

 

`vaachaarambhaNam vikaaraH naamaDheyam mritthikethyeva sathyam' ithi

vikaara naamaDheyyayoH vaachaarmbhaNa maathrathvaath yath thathra kaaranathayaa

upalakshyathe vasthumaathram thadheva sathyam anyath asathyam ithi iyam SruthiH

vadhathi.

 

The first text

cited is `vaacharambhaNam ---mrtthikethyeva sathyam,' meaning that the name and

differences like form etc. of all things made of clay are only verbal and the

clay alone is real.

 

The argument

given is that all modifications and names

are by word only and the only entity which is shown as the cause alone

is real and all else are unreal.

 

 

Ithi cheth naithath upapadhyathe. Ekasmin vijnaathe sarvam idham vijnaatham

bhavathi ithi prathijnaathe anyajnaanena anyajnaanasambhavam manvaanasya ekam

eva vasthu vikaaraadhyavasThaavisesheNa paaramaarThikenaiva nanaaroppam

avasThitham cheth, thathra ekasmin vijnaathe thasmaath vilakshana

samsThaanaantharam api thadheva vasthu ithi thathra dhrshtaantho ayam

nidharsithah.naathra kasyachith viSeshasya nisheDhaakaH kopi sabdho dhrSyathe.

 

Ramanuja refutes

this. He says,

 

Ithi cheth naithath upapadhyathe

 

If it is said so

it is untenable.

 

Ekasmin vijnaathe sarvam idham vijnaatham bhavathi ithi prathijnaathe

anyajnaanena anyajnaanasambhavam manvaanasya,

 

On hearing the

declaration that if one is knows all else becomes known, there arises a doubt

that how could there be the knowledge of a different entity by the knowledge of

another,

 

ekam eva vasthu vikaaraadhyavasThaavisesheNa paaramaarThikenaiva

nanaaroppam avasThitham cheth,

 

It is explained

that if one entity which remains real but takes many forms through different

modifications,

 

thathra ekasmin vijnaathe thasmaath vilakshana samsThaanaantharam api

thadheva vasthu ithi thathra dhrshtaantho ayam nidharsithah

 

Then the example

of mud and its modifications show that if the one causal entity is known , from

this, the knowledge arises that all

modifications are also the same entity.

 

naathra kasyachith viSeshasya nisheDhaakaH kopi sabdho dhrSyathe

 

There is no term here that implies negation of

any differentiation.

 

 

vaachaarambhaNam ithi-vaachaa vyavahaareNa , aarabhyathe ithi aarambhaNam, pindaroopeNa

avasThithaayaaH mrtthikaayaaH naama cha anyath vyavahaarasScha

anyaH.ghataSaraavaadhiroopeNa avasThithaayaah eva mrtthikaayaaH anyaani

naamaDheyaani vyavahaaraScha anyaadhrSaaH. thaThaahi sarvathra mrtthikaadhravyam

ekam eva naanaasamsThaana naanaanaamaDheyaabhyaam naanaavyavahaareNa aarabhyatha

ithi ethadheva sathyam ithi anena anyajnaane na anyajnaanasambhavaH

nidharSithaH na athra kimchith vasthu nishiDhyatah ithi poorvameva ayamarThaH

prapanchithaH.

 

 

 

Next Ramanuja

explains what is meant by the term vaachaaramBhaNam. He says,

 

vaachaa vyavahaareNa , aarabhyathe ithi aarambhaNam,

 

That which

commences is aarambhaNam. vaachaarambhaNma means that which is started with

verbal association.

 

pindaroopeNa avasThithaayaaH mrtthikaayaaH naama cha anyath vyavahaarasScha

anyaH

 

The name and the

use of the lump of clay are different.

ghataSaraavaadhiroopeNa avasThithaayaah eva mrtthikaayaaH anyaani

naamaDheyaani vyavahaaraScha anyaadhrSaaH.

 

The same clay in

the form of a pot or pan has different names and uses.

 

thaThaahi sarvathra mrtthikaadhravyam ekam eva

naanaasamsThaana naanaanaamaDheyaabhyaam naanaavyavahaareNa aarabhyatha ithi

ethadheva sathyam ithi anena anyajnaanena anyajnaanasambhavaH nidharSithaH

 

Thus the one entity clay alone, which is

real, becomes differentiated into different names, forms and uses. Therefore by

this the knowledge of one is shown to lead to the knowledge of another.

 

 

na athra kimchith vasthu nishiDhyatah

ithi poorvameva ayamarThaH prapanchithaH.

 

There is no

negation of anything by this passage. This has already been explained.(Section

13)