vedartha sangraha of Ramanuja - 26. No verbal testimonyfor nirvisesha

[Guest guest]

26. No verbal testimony for an undifferentiated

entity

 

api cha arThabhedha thath samsarga viSesha boDhana krtha padha vaakya svaroopathaa

labDha pramaana abhaavasya sabdhasya nirviSeshavastu boDhana asaamarThyaaTh na

nirviSesha vasthuni SabdhaH pramaaNam.nirviSesha ithyaadhi sabdhaaH thu kenachith

viSeshenaviSishtathayaa avagathasya vasthunaH vasthvanthara avagatha visesha

niShedhakathayaa boDhakaaH, itharaThaa theshaam api anavaboDhakathvam eva; prakrthiprathyayaroopena

padhasya eva anekaviSeshagarbhithathvaath anekapadhaarTha samsarga boDhakathvaath

cha vaakyasya.

 

Ramanuja has been examining the view of advaita regarding

the identity implied in the mahavakya `thathvam asi,' and refuted the claim

that Brahman is undifferentiated pure knowledge, nirviSesha chinmathra. Now he

declares that the sruthi texts do not refer to nirviSesah chinmathra mainly because

of the incapability of words to do so.

 

He says,

 

api cha arThabhedha thath samsarga viSesha boDhana krtha padha vaakya svaroopathaa

labDha pramaanabhaavasya sabdhasya nirviSeshavastu boDhana asaamarThyaaTh na

nirviSesha vasthuni SabdhaH pramaaNam.

 

The verbal

testimony, that is means of valid knowledge through words and sentences,

consists of words and sentences which convey specific meanings with reference

to the relation with the indidual meanings. Thus they cannot denote anything

which is undifferentiated. Therefore the verbal testimony is not the valid

means of cognition of attributeless entity.

 

nirviSesha ithyaadhi sabdhaaH thu kenachith viSeshena viSishtathayaa avagathasya

vasthunaH vasthvanthara avagatha visesha niShedhakathayaa boDhakaaH ,

itharaThaa theshaam api anavaboDhakathvam eva;

 

The terms like

nirviSesha, qualifying Brahman only denote an entity which is qualified by some

attributes while being bereft of the

attributes of another and not being devoid of all attributes. Otherwise the

terms become devoid of sense.

 

This can be explained

as follows.

Brahman is

defined as sathyam jnaanam anantham. This differentiates Brahman from other

entities which are asathyam, false, ajnaanam, ignorance and anthavath, mortal.So

the epitheys sathyam etc are the countercorrelates of asthyam etc and both are

existent and not nonexistent like the horns of a hare.

 

 

prakrthiprathyayaroopena padhasya eva anekaviSesha garbhithathvaath

anekapadhaarTha samsarga boDhakathvaath cha vaakyasya.

Because a word consists of root and affixes and

several connotations, relative aspects and differences etc.

 

What Ramanuja

means is this. Let us take for instance a sentence "graamam gacChathi, goes to the village." The prakrthi is the word graamaH, village, and the prathyaya is the case ending denoting

the objective case as graamam. In gacChathi, the root is gam to go and the prathyaya is the termination denoting the present tense. Both

words together refers to a karthaa,

agent of action, the one who goes, the relative aspect is the denotation of the

place of going , the village etc. these are the viseshas.

 

 

aTha syaath na asmaabhiH nirvisesha brahmaNi svayamprakaase vasthuni SabdhaH

pramaaNamithi uchyathe, svathasssidDhasya pramaana anapekshathvaath. sarvaiH

sabdhaiH thadhuparaagaviSeshaaH jnaathrthvaadhayaH sarve nirasyanthe sarveshu

viSesheshu nivrttheshu vasthumaathram anavacChainnam svayamprakaasamsvathaH eva

avathishTatha ithi,

 

Ramanuja mentions

a possible argument from the advaitin and refutes it later.

 

aTha syaath na asmaabhiH nirvisesha brahmaNi svayamprakaase vasthuni SabdhaH

pramaaNam ithi uchyathe, svathasssidDhasya pramaana anapekshathvaath.

 

The advaitin says

that they do not hold verbal testimony as the valid means of cognition for

undifferentiated Brahman, because Brahman is self illuminated and does not need

any pramana, being self evident.

 

sarvaiH sabdhaiH thadhuparaagaviSeshaaH jnaathrthvaadhayaH sarve

nirasyanthe

 

all scriptural texts

serve only the purpose of negating the differentiation such as being the

knower, known and the knowledge etc. in Brahman.

 

 

sarveshu viSesheshu nivrttheshu vasthumaathram anavacChainnam

svayamprakaasam svathaH eva avathishTatha ithi,

 

When all differentiations

are negated the pure entity, Brahman, which is self illumined, alone shines, without

any conditioning.

 

The view

expressed is as follows.

 

The vedic texts

do not reveal Brahman which is self illumined and self evident. They only serve

to remove the ignorance by denoting all that is not Brahman,the reality, and

when the delusion of mistaking all else as the reality is gone, the reality

shines itself as the light shines as it always did, when the soot that covers

it, is gone. Hence the scriptural texts serve as the cloth that wipes the soot

on the chimney. The concept of knower, known and the knowledge is ignorance

which differentiates the one reality by giving rise to the ego, the notion of

" I" . When the differentiation

is shown as unreal by the vedantic texts, the undifferentiated reality shines

as it was always.

 

Ramanuja refutes

this in the next passage.