Now a basic question arises! - Why should we refute other philosophical
schools of thoughts? The answer is simple. We do not have any intention
to
hurt other people's feelings by refuting their philosophical school
of
thought. Our intention is only to ascertain that the only purport of
apowrushEya Veda is Visistaadvaita Shree Vaishnavam and it is the only
logically correct philosophy that has got universal approach that is
not at
all a sectarian philosophical school of thought. It is to be noted
that in
debates, arguments and counter-arguments favoring something and refuting
another thing is very common and is the basis to ascertain theories
based on a
premise. One should not get simply offended on hearing such refutations.
When
there is an argument, the counter-argument should be appropriate and
precise
otherwise the counter-argument never gets qualified to be a counter-argument.
Unless and until the arguments and counter-arguments are well substantiated
with PramaNams, they have no validity. The "Sapta-Vidhaanupapathi"
which will
continue after this "Sruthi virOdha Darsanam" in "Brahma-AgnyAna Paksham"
will
clearly establish that Advaita is not only contradicting the Veda but
also
logic and rational thoughts. Bhagavath Ramanuja is explaining the "Sruthi
NyAyApEtam Jagati Vitatam Mohanam" (Please refer the second mangala
slokam of
vEdArtha Sangaraha Grantham).
The Upanishad says 'san mOlA: sOmyEmA: sarvA: prajA: sadAyathanA:
sathprathishtA:' All entities (san mOlA:) are having (Sat) Brahman
as their
material cause (upAdAna kAraNam) and efficient cause (nimiththa kAraNam).
All
entities (sathprathishtA:) are having their reality (substance) (swarUpam),
continuance of existence (sthithi) and end (layam) totally dependant
on
Brahman. (Here the "end" does not mean the non-existence of all chit-achit
entities). Shree Bhashyakara explains the above using the terms "SadAdhAratA",
"SanniyAmyatA", "SatseshatA" meaning, "Purushothama: ShrIman NarayaNa:
is the
Sat-Brahman who is the unparalleled and unsurpassed supporter, controller
and
owner (Lord) of all chit and achit entities.
The Upanishad before telling the celebrated verse "Tat Tvam Asi" has
something
to tell before it and it is "ithadAtmiyam idam sarvam" "tat satyam"
"sa:
AtmA".
"ithadAtmiyam idam sarvam" the term "ithadAtmiyam" is derived as "Esha:
AtmA
yasya tat EthatadAthmakam EthadAthmakamEva ithadAtmiyam". The universe
(all
chit and achit entities) was created by the sankalpam (wish) of Brahman
and
therefore the Brahman is the cause of the universe. As the Brahman
is the only
supporter (AdhAra), controller (NiyAmaka) and lord (seshi) of all entities,
he
is the "AtmA" of the universe. "tat satyam" means whatever told here
is the
truth. "Sa: AtmA" means that the Brahman is the soul of everything
and the
universe is the body of Brahman. The Sat (Brahman) who is the kAraNa
is the
soul "AtmA" of the universe. This explicitly brings out the "SarIra-AtmA"
(body-soul) relationship between the universe and the Brahman. Thus
the father
(UdAlaka) cleared the doubt of his son (Swetaketu) and concluded with
confirming the "SarIra-AtmA-Sambandam" between the universe and the
Brahman by
stating "Tat Tvam Asi SwethaketO". The term "Tvam" (you) first denotes
the
jIvAtman through the form of Swethaketu and then finally denotes ParamAtman
(Brahman-Sat) - the Upanishad has told first that the entire universe
is
having the Brahman ("Tat" which is the only cause of the universe)
as its soul
and then finished its sermon in this regard through denoting the same
Brahman
by his mode of having a jIvAtman (here Swethaketu) as his body. This
is the
meaning of the verse "Tat Tvam Asi".
Now a debate starts. A question in the form of objecting this meaning
of the
verse as told above is considered. "Why not the ithadAtmiyam
idam sarvam be
taken to mean the SwarUpa-iykyam (identity/oneness of reality-substance)
of
Achit and Brahman? Why not the tat tvam asi be taken to mean again
the
SwarUpa-iykyam (identity/oneness of reality-substance) of Chit (jIvAtAtman)
and Brahman?"
The question is answered and the objection is overruled as follows:
First of
all, idam sarvam cannot be taken to denote only achit because sarvam
means all
the chit and achit entities that are existing. Therefore restricting
the
meaning of sarvam only to achit is baseless. Idam sarvam asrujata,
sachcha
tyachcha abhavath in Veda does not allow us to restrict the meaning
of the
term sarvam. Let us now clearly do an analysis to answer this question
and
dismiss the objection as follows:
When the Veda tells "ithadAtmiyam", is it because of swarUpa-iykyam
or because
of the "SarIra-Atma" relationship? The question is answered as follows:
If suppose, someone advocates the swarUpa-iykyam of Achit and Brahman,
then it
can be established that it is not the purport of the Veda verse. This
is
because, if swarUpa-iykyam is to be admitted, then the "achEtanatvam"
(devoid
of being knowledge-self-reality, thus devoid of swayamprakAsatvam and
devoid
of attribute-knowledge) will have to be applicable for Brahman! On
the other
hand, the Upanishad has stated that the Brahman has divine characteristics
like "Satya Sankalpatvam" (tat ikshata bhahusyAm prajAyEya). It has
denoted
the Brahman (Sat) by using the term "AtmA". Therefore if swarUpa-iykyam
is
admitted in Achit and Brahman, then the Veda verses stating divine
characteristics like "Satya Sankalpatvam" of Brahman gets contradicted.
Further the Achit is having vikAratvam (changing nature). On the other
hand
Brahman is NirvikAra tatva (unchanging nature).
In the same manner if the swarUpa-iykyam in Chit and Brahman is admitted,
then
again the same contradiction with the Veda verses results because,
the
jIvAtman (Chit) is subject to evils in samsara like being bound by
his own
karma, vidhi etc. On the other hand, the Veda has stated that the Brahman
is
without any evil attributes and is with infinite divine attributes.
Therefore
the swarUpa-iykyam in chit, achit and Brahman is not at all possible.
Even if someone still stresses on swarUpa-iykyam, then it can be clearly
proved that swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport of the Veda here because
the
Veda verses like "antha: pravishta: sAstA janAnAm sarvAthmA" and "ya:
Atmani
tishtan AthmanOnthara:" gets contradicted if such swarUpa-iykyam is
considered
as the purport. "antha: pravishta: sAstA janAnAm sarvAthmA" means that
Vishnu
is the supreme controller (antaryami-antarAtma) entered inside all
and present
inside all entities. "ya: Atmani tishtan AthmanOnthara:" also conveys
the same
meaning. The antar-bhahir vyApthis (the pervading nature of Vishnu
outside and
inside everything) has to be clearly understood here through the
sarIra-Atma-bhAva.
Another objection arises in this context. It is as follows: "The
swarUpa-iykyam was dismissed by quoting verses from some other portion
of the
Veda. Why not the swarUpa-iykyam be admitted here in Sat-Vidya?" The
objection
is overruled very easily because the swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport
as the
same Sat-Vidya has clearly told the sarIra-Atma-bhava by "anena jIvEna
AtmanAnupravisya". Therefore the swarUpa-iykyam is totally ruled out.
A Concept called "sAmAnAdhikaraNyam" which is a technical grammatical
concept,
is used to explain the verse "Tat Tvam Asi" clearly.
"sAmAnAdhikaranayam" means "co-ordinate predication". It means that
co-ordinate predicate terms are used to identify the substantive.
The great grammarian of Sanskrit has defined this concept "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam"
as follows:
"Bhinna Pravruththi NimiththAnAm sAbdAnAm Ekasmin Arthe Vruththi: -
SAmAnAdhikaraNyam".
The meaning of this is as follows: An entity is signified/denoted by
several
terms, each term denoting that entity based on each of its various
inseparable
attributes. That is different words possessing different grounds of
meanings
denoting a single entity is what is called "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam" The
reader may
find this bit confusing. Let me explain it using an example. Please
consider
in Sanskrit the terms "nIla: ghata:" meaning "Dark Pot". Here the term
"nIla:"
is denoting the entity by that entity's inseparable attribute
"Darkness/Blackness". The Term "ghata:" again denotes the same entity
by its
nature of having narrow neck and broad spherical body. Therefore the
"nIla:"
term denotes the entity on the ground of meaning "Darkness" "nIla Roopam"
which is an attribute/mode of the entity. Similarly the "ghata:" term
denotes
the same entity (Pot) on the ground of the entity's mode of being
narrow-necked with broad spherical body.
The verse of the Veda "Tat Tvam Asi" is understood clearly using the
concept
of "SAmAnAdhikaraNyam" as follows: The term "Tat" (that) denotes the
Brahman
on the grounds of "being the only cause of the universe", who is having
infinite divine characteristics and untouched by all impurities. The
term
"Tvam" (you) denotes the same Brahman on the grounds of having the
jIvAtman
(Chit) as his attribute/mode/body. Therefore the Sareera-Aatma Bhaavam
(Body-Soul relationship) between the Universe and the Brahman is clearly
told
by the Upanishad.
Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja says :-
atha: sarvasya chidachidvastunO brahmasarIratvAth, sarvasarIram sarvaprakAram
sarvairsabdai: brahmaivAbhidhIyatha ithi, "tat" "tvam" ithi sAmAnAdhikaraNyEna
jIvasarIrathayA jIvaprakAram brahmaivAbhihitam | Evamabhihite sathi
ayamarthO
jgnyAyate "tvam" ithi ya: pOrvam dehasyAdhishtAtrutayA pratIth: sa:
paramAthmasarIrathayA paramAthmaprakArabhUtha: paramAthmaparyantha:
pruthak
stithi pravruthi anarha: atha: "tvam" ithi sabda: tathprakAravisishtam
thdantaryAmiNamEvAchashtE - ithi | anEna jIvEnAthmanAnupravisya nAmarUpe
vyAkaravANi" ithi brahmAthmakathayaiva jIvasya sarIriNa: swanAmaBhakthvAth
|
Following the definition of sAmAnAdikaraNya, please follow the divine
words of
Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja as follows which were outlined so far.
"tat tvam" ithi samAnAdhikaraNa pravrththayO: dvyayOrapi padayO: brahmaiva
vAchyam |
tatra "tat" padam
. jagat kAraNa bhUtham
. sarva kalyANa guNakaram
. niravadyam
. nirvikAramAchashtE
"tvam" ithi cha - tadEva brahma jIvAntaryAmi rUpENa swasarIra jIva prakAra
visishtamAchashtE
tadEvam pravruthi nimiththa bhEdena Ekasmin brahmaNyEva "tat tvam" ithi
dyayO:
padayO: vruthiruktthA | brahmaNO niravadyatvam nirvikAratvam
sarvakalyaNaguNAkaratvam jagat kAraNatvam cha abhAdhitam
As told clearly above, the Brahman has all the chit and achit entities
as his
body & as inseparable attribute and the Brahman being the AtmA
of all, all
words (sabdams) denote the Brahman. The sarIra-AtmA relationship establishes
the sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. The term "Tvam" which denotes the jIvAtman through
his
body, finally denotes the ParamAtman (Brahman) because the jIvAtman
is the
body and inseparable attribute (apruthak siddha viseshaNam) of ParamAtman.
The
jIvAtman being the body and inseparable attribute of Brahman, has no
independent swarUpam, stithi and pravruthis. The jIvAtman is totally
dependant
on Brahman. The "anena jIvEna" verse makes it clear that the jIvAtman
gets his
name etc., only because of having the Brahman as his AtmA. Therefore
to stress
again that swarUpa-iykyam is not the purport here, the sAmAnAdhikaraNyam
is
explained.
The terms "tat" and "tvam" though are two different words, denote/mean
the
same entity that is Brahman as follows. The terms "tat" and "tvam"
denote only
the Brahman but the way in which each term denotes the Brahman is different.
The term "tat" denotes the Brahman who is the only cause of the universe,
untouched by impurities and having infinite divine attributes and is
always
unchanging in nature. The term "tvam" also denotes the same Brahman
who has
the jIvAtman as his body/attribute - the Brahman is the antaryAmi-antarAtma
of
the jIvAtman. Thus the two terms denote the Brahman by different attributes
which the Brahman has as told above. The sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is thus
clearly
explained. When the purport of the verse is ascertained like this,
there is no
contradiction with all the sruthi verses. The attributes of Brahman
like being
the only cause of the universe, untouched by impurities, having infinite
divine attributes, unchanging nature are unaffected.
There seems to be few questions in the form of objecting the above
ascertaining of the purport even after these explanations. The objection
is
"Though the explanation is appreciable, a person can understand only
the words
denoting the respective entities. For example, the word "ghata:" (pot)
denotes
only a vessel having narrow neck with large almost spherical body.
These terms
just stop with denoting the respective entities. When such is the case
how is
it possible to say that all terms finally end up in denoting Brahman?
Also the
"vyutpathti" (a means to derive the word in Sanskrit) does not exist
in all
terms to denote Brahman. When such is the case how is it possible to
say that
all terms finally denote Brahman?"
The question (objection) is having validity. But it is not negating
the
purport or proving something against the purport. He who has not studied
and
comprehended the VedAnta properly just sees all the words to denote
only the
respective entities, which he has conceived so. But he who has studied
and
comprehended the VedAnta properly gets the correct knowledge that the
Brahman
is the soul of everything and all the entities are the body of Brahman.
Therefore only this person who has studied and comprehended the VeDAnta
properly sees that all words do not just stop with denoting the respective
entities but actually end up in denoting the Brahman who is the soul
of all
entities. A person just "sees" the Sandal wood by his eyes from a distance.
He
cannot sense its good fragrance because he has not used his nose, but
he says
that Sandal wood has no fragrance. Is it acceptable? The Sandal wood
surely
has fragrance. It just indicates that the appropriate sense organ was
not
employed to sense it. If he uses his nose, he can surely sense the
fragrance.
That is all. Similarly those who have knowledge imparted by the VedAnta
comprehends that all words denote Brahman because Brahman has all entities
as
its attributes/body/mode. Without the vedAnta, it is not possible to
know the
Brahman. The Brahman is not possible to be known and established by
any other
pramAna other than the sruthi. Only the apowrusheya sruthi establishes
and
imparts knowledge regarding the Brahman who is Purushoththama: SrIman
NarayaNa: VishNu: vAsudeva:
Regarding "vyutpathti", our AchArya says that the above explanation
does not
negate the power of word and meaning of words by "vyutpathti". By the
verse
"anEna jIvEna", it was already told that all the words denotes first
the
respective entity by its visible form, then the jIvAtman and then the
ParamAtman who is the soul of everything. The meaning of telling that
"all
words denote the Brahman" has to be clearly understood as follows:
All words
denote the Brahman who is having all the chit and achit entities as
his
attributes. The Brahman is different from all chit and achit entities
as the
Brahman is the soul and all chit and achit entities are his body. The
"vyutpathti" gives only the partial meaning. The Vedanta knowledge
along with
this knowledge of "vyutpathti" ascertains that the "vyutpathti" gets
completed
and all words finally denote Brahman as told above.
Another argument is considered. "Why not the words be classified into
two - 1.
Lowkika and 2. Vaidika. Lowkika being common words and vaidika being
words of
Veda. Why not the Vaidika words alone be taken as per the above view
to denote
Brahman and why not the lowkika be taken to denote the respective entities?"
Bhagavath Ramanuja says that "VaidikA Eva sarvE sabdA:" meaning all
the words
are based on Veda only. The Veda is anAdi (having no beginning) and
the words
of it are also anAdi. In each cycle of creation, the Brahman creates
various
entities as they were in previous cycle and gives the names to the
various
created entities from the Veda as it was in the previous cycle. This
cycle is
also anAdi. The Veda has confirmed that all words (as told above) denote
the
Brahman. Manu and ParAsara have also explained the same in their smruthies.
Further Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja makes it clear that the created
universe
is a reality. Nothing is unreal. All the three entities namely chit,
achit and
Brahman are eternal and real entities. Up to this, using the kAraNa
vAkyAs, it
was established that the Brahman is only "Savisesham". The chOdaka
vAkyAs are
now considered and it is proved that they also established the Brahman
as
"Savisesham" meaning "having attributes/characteristics".
"Satyam jgnyAnam anantam", "nirguNam nishkriyam sAntham niravadyam",
"satyakAma: satya sankalpa:", "apahata pApmA vijara:" are such chOdaka
vAkyAs.
When "Satyam jgnyAnam anantam", "satyakAma: satya sankalpa:" etc.,
explicitly
state that the Brahman is having infinite divine attributes, the verses
"nirguNam nishkriyam" etc., say that the Brahman has no attributes.
Actually
when the ghataka sruti "apahata pApmA vijara:" etc are understood,
then it
gets ascertained very clearly that all the chOdaka vAkyAs explain that
Brahman
is only "Savisesham". When the verses like "satyakAma:" talk about
the
infinite divine qualities of Brahman which are unique to Brahman, the
verses
like "nirguNam" tell that the Brahman is devoid of evil attributes.
"Satyam
jgnyAnam anantam" clearly and explicitly declares that Brahman is
"Savisesham". "Satyam" means that the Brahman has quality of being
unchanging
in nature, natural independent existence. "JgnyAnam" means that the
Brahman
has infinite unchanging JgnyAna (knowledge) as his nature and knows
everything. The SwayamprakAsatvam is also told here. "Anantam" states
that the
Brahman is immesurable, infinite and is beyond the limits of length,
time and
mass. Therefore the verse "Satyam jgnyAnam anantam" explains the Brahman
as
Purushothtama: SrIman nArAyaNa: who is different from all the three
types of
chit and achit entities.
Then Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja proceeds to explain in detail the Advaita's
interpretation of "tat tvam asi". Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja establishes
that
the interpretation of Advaita has four important errors and Advaita's
interpretation of "tat tvam asi" is therefore invalid. The four important
errors in Advaita's philosophy as far as this 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 aspects will be explained in detail in future postings.
| Previous | Next | Preface | TOP |