Vedarthasangraha of Ramanuja 24-No need of lakshana

[Guest guest]

24. No need of resorting to indirect

meaning

 

thath thavam ithi dhvayorapi padhayoH

svaarThaprahaaNena nirviSeshavasthusvaroopasThapanaparathve mukhyaarTha

parithyaagaScha

 

Ramanuja refutes the advaitic contention

that the identity between individual self and Brahman is by rejecting their

individual connotations.

 

thath thavam ithi dhvayorapi padhayoH

svaarThaprahaaNena

 

By discarding the individual implication of

the terms thath and thvam

 

nirviSeshavasthusvaroopasThapanaparathve

 

and establishing identity of the two as the

attributeless Brahman,

 

mukhyaarTha parithyaagaScha

 

results in rejecting their principal

meaning.

 

A word has a mukhyaarTha and lakshaNaarTha,

that is, direct and indirect meaning. According to advaita the individual self

denoted by the term thvam is identical with the Brahman denoted by thath.

This can be accomplished only by not considering the attributes of thvam,

such as being finite, ignorant and identification with thebody etc., and also

the attributes of thath such as omniscience, omnipotence, infinite bliss

etc. In other words, Brahamn without

attributes would be identical wo ith the individual self without its

individuality.

 

Ramanuja says that to do so would amount to

rejecting the main implication of the term thavam which has direct

meaning only as the individual self and also of the term thath or

Brahman who has truth, knowledge and infinity as the characteristics.

 

He explains this further by the principle

of saamanaadhikaraNya later.

 

nanu aikye thaathparyaniSchayaath na

lakshaNaadhoshaH, soayam dhevadhattha

ithivath, yaThaa soayam ithyathra

sa ithi sambdhenadhesaanthara kaalaanthara sambanDhithayaa pratheeyathe, ayam

ithi cha sannihithadheSavarthamaanakaalasambanDhee, thayoH

saamaanaaDhikaraNyena aikyam pratheeyathe.

Thathra ekasya

yugapadhvirudDhadhesakaalasambanDhithayaa pratheethiH na ghatathe, ithi

dhvayorapi padhayoH svaroopamaathra upasThaapanaparathvam. svaroopasya cha

aikyam prathipaadhyatha ithi cheth,

naithath evam,

 

Ramanuja answers the argument of the

opponent presented as follows.

 

nanu aikye thaathparyaniSchayaath na

lakshaNaadhoshaH soayam dhevadhattha

ithivath,

 

It is no error in resorting to indirect

meaning when the identity between two entities is only the main import, as in

the statement `This is that Dhevadhattha.'

 

The meaning of the sentence is that when

two entities which are identical and appear to be different due to adventitious

conditions as in the case of `this is that Devadatta,' one has to take the

indirect meaning that the person devested of the difference due to time, place,

attire etc. is only meant. This is explained further.

soayam dhevadhattha ithivath, yaThaa soayam ithyathra sa ithi sambdhenadhesaanthara

kaalaanthara sambanDhithayaa pratheeyathe,ayam ithi cha sannihitha dheSavarthamaanakaala

sambanDhee

 

In the sentence `this is that Devadatta,'

in the words so ayam, the word sa (so ) `that ` denotes an

entity(Devadatta) in another place and time. ayam, `this' denotes the

man Devadatta in front

 

thayoH saamaanaaDhikaraNyena aikyam

pratheeyathe.

 

Between them the identity is claimed on the

principle of saamaaanaaDhikaraNya.

 

thathra ekasya yugapadh virudDhadhesakaala sambanDhithayaa

pratheethiH na ghatathe, ithi,

There,

because one person cannot be in both places and time,

 

ithi dhvayorapi padhayoH svaroopamaathra

upasThaapanaparathvam. svaroopasya cha aikyam prathipaadhyatha

 

Thus between the two the reference must be made only to the person

alone and the identity is established of the person concerned without considering

the place and time.

 

To this Ramanuja replies

 

na ethath evam it is not so.

 

soayam dhevadhattha ithi athra api lakshaNa

ganDho na vidhyathe,viroDha abhaavaath.ekasya

bhootha varthmaana kriyaadhvayasambanDhaH na virudDhaH.dheSaanthara

sThithiH bhoothaa sannihitha dheSasThithih varthathe, athaH bhoothavarthamaanakriyaadhvayasambanDhithayaa

aikyaprathipaadhanam avirudDham dhesadhvayaviroDhaScha kaalabhdhena parihrthaH.

 

Ramanuja refutes the view that the indirect

meaning has to be adopted.

 

Soayam dhevadhattha ithi athra api

lakshaNaganDho na vidhyathe, viroDha abhaavaath.

 

There is not even a slightest need for adopting

indirect meaning in the sentence `this is that Devadatta' because there is no contradiction

whatsoever.

 

ekasya

bhootha varthmaana kriyaadhvayasambanDhaH na virudDhaH

 

For the same person activity in the past

and the present are not contradictory.

 

dheSaanthara sThithiH bhoothaa sannihitha

dheSasThithih varthathe

 

The presence in other place was the thing

of the past while the presence of the same individual in the place now is the

thing of the present.

 

athaH bhoothavarthamaanakriyaadhvayasambanDhithayaa

aikyaprathipaadhanam avirudDham.

 

Therefore establishing identity of the

person having activity in the past and the present in different places are not

selfcontradictory.

 

dhesadhvayaviroDhaScha kaalabhdhena

parihrthaH.

 

The contradiction of the presence in two

places is eliminated by the differences in time.