vedarthasangrah aof ramanujam13. criticism of advaita continued

[Guest guest]

13.

aTha syaath upakrame api ekavijnaanena sarvavijnaanamukhena kaaraNasyaiva

sathyathaam prathijnaaya thasya kaaraNa bhoothasyaiva

sathyathaam,vikaarabhoothasya cha asthyathaam mrdh dhrshtaanthena

dharSayithvaa,

 

 

Ramanuja

gives the possible explanation by advaitins to support their view, aTha

syaath, meaning, maybe, etc.

 

upakrame

api ekavijnaanena sarvavijnaanamukhena kaaraNasyaiva sathyathaam prathijnaaya

 

In the beginning of the passage cited to

affirm unity, the statement that by knowing one everything becomes known,

denotes that the cause alone is real,

 

thasya

kaaraNa bhoothasyaiva sathyathaam,vikaarabhoothasya cha asthyathaam mrdh

dhrshtaanthena dharSayithvaa

 

by

the analogy of clay etc. to explain the reality of the cause and the unreality

of the effect.

 

This

refers to the passage in Chandhogya,( 6.1) where the mahavakya thath thvam

asi occurs.

 

The

son Svethakethu returns from his gurukula vasa and the father asks him whether

he has learnt about that , knowing which everything else becomes known, ekavijnaanena

sarva vijnaanam meaning the Brahman. Thus is because Brahman is the caseu of the universe knowing

which the effect, the world becomes known. Hen the example of mrdh . clay is given to prove that the effects

such as pot jar etc. are only modifications of the cause , that is clay. And

the father goes on to say that clay alone is real, mrtthikethyeva sathyam

and the various forms and names given to the effects of clay are only

modifications.

 

 

sathyabhoothasyaiva brahmaNaH `sadheva soumya

idham agra

aaseeth ekameva adhvitheeyam,'

nirviSeshathaa eva prathipaadhithaa,

 

Given

that Brahman alone is real, by the text, `sadheva soumya idham agra aaseeth ekameva adhvitheeyam,' (Chan. 6.2.1) sath alone

existed in the beginning , one only, without a second,

 

ithi

sajaatheeya vijaatheeya nikhila bhedha nirasanena

 

thus negating any other

entity similar or different,

 

nirviSeshathaa eva

prathipaadhithaa,

 

only undifferentiated

Brahman is shown to be real.

 

The bhedha which are

negated are classified as sajaatheeya, vijaatheeya and svagatha.

 

By

saying Brahman is, `one only' ekameva ,the existence of another similar,

sajaatheeya, entity is negated . This is sajaatheeya bhedha niarasana.

sajaatheeya bhedha is the difference between one thing and another which belong

to the same class, like one pot and another pot, or one tree from another tree.

 

 

The

word `without a second, adhvitheeyam negates the existence of another entity

different from itself suchas saying that

the pot is different from cloth or the tree is different from the mountain etc.

An entity may be only one of its class but there could be something different

from it belonging to other class. Even that is negated because Brahman is

without a second , the existence of another different from it is also negated

which is termed as vijaatheeya bhedha.

 

The

whole text negates any differentiation within in Brahman, like the limbs of a

man which are within him but different. Thus Brahman is shown as nirvisesha

chinmathra. Attributeless consciousness.

 

 

Ethath

SoDhakaani prakaraNaantharavaakyaani api. `Sathyam jnaanam anantham brahma

(THaith.2.1) nishkalam nishkriyam nirguNam vijnaanam aanandham,'ithyaadheeni

sarva viSesha prathyaneekaika kaaraNathaam boDhayanthi,

 

Even

the texts found elsewhere such as `Brahman is existence, knowledge and

infinity,' and `Brahman is without parts, actionless, attributeless

consciousness and bliss,' etc. show that Brahman is undifferentiated.

 

Anticipating the objection

based on the texts like `sathyam jnaanam anantham Brahma', Brahman is existence

knowledge and infinity, which may be claimed as the attributes of Brahman, the

advaitin answers that these words also denote only the attributeless based on

the texts, nishkalam nishkriyam nirguNam, which define Brahman,

Thus

all the terms used with reference to

Brahman are only definition and not description.

 

 

Na cha ekaakaarathaaboDhane api padhaanaam

paryaayathaa,

 

These terms not being

attributes but signify the essence of Brahman are not tautologous.

 

Why

so many words are used if they all mean only one undifferentiated entity, may

be the objection, because in that case

the different terms will become a tautology.

 

ekathve api vasthunaH sarvaviSesha

prathyaneekaakaarathva upasThaapanena

 

It

is not so, says the advaitin, because they establish the non-existence of

differentiation in Brahman. The terms sathyam jnanam anantham are used to

negates the opposites, namely, asathyam , ajnaanam and anthavathvam in Brah

man. That is, Therae is nothing unreal, no ignorance and finite in Brahman.

 

 

Sarvapadhaanaam

arThathvaath ithi.

 

Hence all words are

meaningful.

 

Ramanuja refutes this in

the next passage.