Therefore even though the natural/literal meaning is as seen above, considering the impossibility, we recognize the meaning of the same verse as "the colony is on the banks of river Ganga". The bank is related to the river and the meaning as told is the truth. Here one has to clearly understand that the meaning "bank (shore)" of the term "Ganga" is not the "SakyArtham" but it is only "LakshaNa". Therefore "LakshaNa" is inferior but is needed only in the case where the "SakyArtham" is not suitable. Also, it has to be related suitably to "SakyArhtam". "SakyArtham" is the"mukyArtham" meaning the important (and original/natural) meaning.
The "JgnyAna" being swarUpa nirUpka dharmam, not only denotes the swarUpa nirUpka dharmam of Brahman but also denotes the Brahma-swarUpam, which has the swarUpa nirUpka dharmam. This is therefore "SakyArtham" and not "LakshaNa". This is confirmed by countless sruthi verses like "Ya: sarvagnya:…", "parAsya sakthi: vividaiva sruyatE", "swabhAvikI jgnyAna bala kriyA", "vignyAthAramarE kena vijAnIyAth" etc. All these verses clearly point out that the Brahman is having guNas.
"tat, tvam" ithi dvayOrapi padayO: swArtha-prahANEna
nirviSesha-vastu swarUpOpasthApanaparathvE mukhyArtha
parithyAgascha | nanu ikya-tAthparyanischayAth
na lakshaNA dosha: | "sO(a)yam devadaththa: ithivath"
Coming back to "tat tvam asi", the term
"tat" denotes the"Jagath-kAraNa-Brahman". This is its important and natural
meaning. The term "tvam" denotes the same
Brahman who is the antaryAmi of the jIvAthman. That is, the term "tvam"
means the jIvAntaryAmi-Brahman. This is
its important and natural meaning.
After hearing this, Advaita again starts
its arguments as follows: Advaita says that "tat" and "tvam" do not denote
the Brahman with qualities of "being the
jagath-kAraNa" and "jIvAntaryAmi" respectively but both the terms means
the
same nirvisesha-Brahman. Therefore they
stress on "lakshaNa" leaving the natural meaning of the terms as we told.
Advaita states that the swarUpa-iykyam is what is conveyed by the term
"tat tvam asi".
Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja says that if
this illogical and irrelevant interpretation of Advaita is admitted, then
it leads to two errors namely violation
of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam and lakshaNa-dosham. It is explained as follows:
When "tat" means "jagath-kAraNa-Brahman" and "tvam" means "jIvAntaryAmi-Brahman", there exists not even a single reason why lakshaNa needs to be told as told by Advaita. The meaning told by Visishtadvaita is not in any way unsuitable to the context. Therefore only the natural meaning of the terms has to be accepted and lakshaNa never arises in this context as it was in the example "GangAyAm Gosha:"
But the Advaita argues that there is a
need to tell lakshaNa because the natural meaning of "tat" and "tvam" as
told by
Visishtadvaita is not suitable in "tat
tvam asi". Advaita gives a reason as follows. The attribute "jagath-kAraNa"
and "jIvAntaryAmi" are two different attributes. Advaita argues that the
Brahman qualified by the first attribute cannot be the same Brahman qualified
by the second attribute. But "tat tvam asi" declares both are one.
Therefore, both the viseshaNams needs to
be rejected and therefore "tat" and "tvam" both convey the meaning "nirvisesha
Brahman". "sO(a)yam devadaththa: ithivath". Assume that I saw a person
Devadaththa in the morning at Singapore. In the evening, assume that I
saw the same Devadaththa at Kulalumpore. A thought comes to my mind "He
is this Devadaththa" meaning who I saw at Singapore today morning, I see
him now in evening at Kulalumpore". This verse tells the identity of Devadaththa
who was in Singapore this morning and Devadaththa who is now in the evening
at Kulalumpore. Advaita considers this example and gives a reason regarding
how these two Devadaththas can only be one. According to Advaita, to accept
the identity (oneness) of the person Devadaththa, I have to negate the
attributes of the term Sa: (He) (namely
with respect to time (morning) and place (Singapore)) and the attributes
of term "ayam" (this Devadaththa) (namely with respect to time (evening)
and place (Kulalumpore)). Therefore only when the mukyArtha is sacrificed
and the LakshaNArtha is admitted after negating the attributes, one can
accept the identity (oneness) of the person denoted by "Sa:" and "ayam".
In the similar manner, Advaita says that in the case of "tat tvam asi",
we need to sacrifice the mukyArtha and negate the attributes to understand
identity of Brahman and
jIvAtman.
"naithadevam, 'sO(a)yam devadaththa:' ithyatrApi lakshaNAgandhO na vidyatE, virOdhAbhAvAth"
Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja argues that
the argument and example quoted by Advaita is without any logic and is
baseless. There is no contradiction in considering a single person (say
Devadaththa) to be linked with two instances of time say past (morning)
and present (evening). The Veda has declared that all the entities namely
chit, achit and Iswara: are eternally existing real entities. Devadaththa
was in a place in the morning and he is now in another
place in the evening. There is absolutely
no place for lakshaNa here. The differences in places (Singapore and Kulalumpore)
do not differentiate the person Devadaththa because the time (morning and
evening) linked with his presence in each place are also different. The
contradiction will arise only if it was told "I saw Devadaththa in a given
single instance of time simultaneously at two different places". The verse
"sO(a)yam devadaththa:" therefore has no room for lakshaNa. Therefore the
argument of Advaita is proved to be null and void. Further the Advaita
telling this lakshaNa to both the terms (tat and tvam) is totally unfit
to be told before scholars.
The sAmAnAdhikaraNyam as defined in vyAkaraNa
is not followed by Advaita. Therefore violation of sAmAnAdhikaranyam is
there in Advaita's interpretation of the verse "tat tvam asi". Further,no
where sAmAnAdhikaraNyam talks about "negating attributes" as the concept
itself is based on attributes. The application of
sAmAnAdhikaraNyam in Advaita is totally
against the sAstra.SAmAnAdhikaraNyam is suitable only in Visishtadvaita
Shree VaishNavam.
Advaita without the knowledge of the "Upakrama-NyAyam"
argues that "tat tvam asi" conveys jIva-Brahma-ikyam (oneness/identity
of jIvAtman and Brahman). Now readers, please follow the words given as
follows. The Brahman is told in the beginning as the "cause of the universe",
"having infinite power, knowledge". On the other hand the jIvAtman is not
the cause. The jIvAthman is the sarIram of Brahman. The Brahman creates
the jIvAthman by giving the jIvAthman sUtla avasta from sUkshma avasta.
The jIvAthman is ignorant because of his anAdi karma and he suffers
in the samsAra. If the interpretation
of "tat tvam asi" given by Advaita is admitted that "the jIvAthman and
Brahman are one and the same" then, the Brahman will turn up to be ignorant
and suffering in the samsAra! This interpretation of Advaita is contradicting
the meaning of the verses in the beginning. The Advaita's interpretaion
of "tat tvam asi" is therefore irrelevant. Thus Advaita's interpretation
has "Upakrama-Virodham". On the other hand, only Visishtadvaita ascertained
the purport of "tat tvam asi" clearly as per the sAstra and logic.
Thus the four important errors in Advaita's philosophy as far as Advaita interpreting "tat tvam asi" verse is concerned are:
1. The Sruthi telling infinite divine qualities of Brahman (tat) gets contradicted.
2. There is a need to tell "lakshaNa" (a technical concept) unnecessarily for "tat" and "tvam".
3. SAmAnAdhikaraNyam gets violated 4. Upakrama VirOdham arises.
These were outlined.
Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja then proceeds
further with "Sruthi Virodha Darsanam in BrahmAgnyAna Paksham", proving
that Advaita is totally against the Veda. We will continue with this in
the next posting. "Param BrahmaivAgnyAm Bhrama-parigatham samsarathi" in
second mangala sloka of this grantham is taken and elaborated and proved
as "Sruthi-nyayApEtham jagathi-vithatam Mohanam idam tama:".
| Previous | Next | Preface | TOP |