Vedarthasangraha of Ramanuja - 29- Import of the srutitexts2.yena aSritham Sruth

[Guest guest]

29. Import of sruti texts contd.2. yena asrutham Srutham etc.

..

 

api cha "yena aSrtham Srutham" ithyaadhinaa brahmavyathirikthasya sarvasya miThyaathvam

prthijaantham cheth, "yaThaa soumya ekena mrthpindena," ithyaadhi dhrshtaanthaHsaaDhyavikalapaH

syaath. rajjusarpaadhivath mrtthikaavikaarasya ghatasaraavaadheH asathyathvam SvethakethoH

SuSrooshoh pramaaNaanthareNa yukthyaa cha asidDham ithi; ethathdhapi

sishaadhayisham ithi cheth, yaThaa ithi dhrshtaanthathayaa upaadhaanam na

ghatathe.

 

Ramanuja now

takes up the other texts of the sadhvidhya and proves that there is no validity

for interpretation of Brahman as undifferentiated.

 

api cha "yena aSrtham Srutham" ithyaadhinaa brahmavyathirikthasya sarvasya miThyaathvam

prthijaantham cheth, "yaThaa soumya ekena mrthpindena," ithyaadhi dhrshtaanthaHsaaDhyavikalapaH

syaath

 

If the text "yena aSrutham Srutham

bhavathi" establishes that everything other

than Brahman is unreal, then the purpose of illustrating through the example of

mud and its effects, "yaThaa soumya ekena mrthpindena," etc. becomes futile.

 

The text quoted

is from Chandhogya,

 

yena aSrutham Srutham bhavathi amatham mathamavijnaatham

vijnaatham ithi.

 

By

which what is unheard becomes heard,

what is unthought of becomes thought of what is unknown becomes known." (Ch.6.1.3)

 

This

means the knowledge of Brahman by knowing which everything becomes known,

ekavijaanena sarva vijnaanam. This is illustrated by the example of mud by

knowing which all its effects like pot , pan etc. becomes known.

 

yaTHaa soumya ekena mrthpindena

sarvam mrnmayam vijnaatham syaath (Ch.6.1.4)

 

The interpretation of the text, "yena aSrutham

Srutham bhavathi," as per advaita is that knowing Brahman the only reality everything

unheard of etc., meaning the unreality of everything except Brhman becomes known.

But Romania

says that if this were true then there

is no point in citing the example of the mud and its effects, both of which are

real being the cause and effect.

 

rajjusarpaadhivath mrtthikaavikaarasya ghatasaraavaadheH

asathyathvam SvethakethoH SuSrooshoh pramaaNaanthareNa yukthyaa cha asidDham

ithi;

 

The unreality of

the modifications of the mud into pot

and pans like that of the snake in the rope, cannot be the object of cognition to

Svethakethu who is listening, by any valid means of cognition or through

reasoning.

 

 

That is, to Svethakethu

who wished to have knowledge of that by knowing which everything becomes known,

the unreality of the effectsof the mud cannot be proved by any valid means of cognition

like perception or inference not by any reasoning because their reality is evident being that of cause

and effect. If the cause is real , the effect is also real.

 

ethathdhapi sishaadhayisham ithi cheth, yaThaa ithi dhrshtaanthathayaa

upaadhaanam na ghatathe

 

If even that is

claimed to be established then the similarity of the example shown by the word yaThaa is not tenable.

 

The opponent may

say that it is the intention to show that even the pots and pans are unreal then the example

illustrated by the word `just as' would be meaningless because the reality of

the clay as well as its effects are there for all to see unlike the examole of

the rope and the snake.