Advaita says that the "Satya" padam just
denotes the
"abhAva of asatyam". "abhAva" means "non
existence".
That is Advaita says that Brahman is not
asatyam.
"asatyam" negates "satyam". Advaita interprets
"satyam"
to negate "asatyam". According to Advaita,
if it is told
like this, then Brahman is not told as
having "satyatvam".
Therefore Advaita claims that Brahman
is "nirvisesham".
In the same manner, Advaita says that
"jgnAna" padam just
negates "Brahman is ajgnAnam" and "ananta"
padam just
negates "Brahman is finite". That is Advaita
says that the
words like "satyam" first denotes an opposite
nature and then
negates it as "not possessing that opposite
nature". Thus
according to Advaita, Brahman is devoid
of all the three
differences (trividha bheda rahitam) which
are sajAtIya,
vijAtIya and swagatha bhedams.
Such is the opinion of Advaita regarding the sOdaka vAkyAs.
Analysis: Advaita's interpretation and
purport ascertained by
=============================================================
Visishtadvaita:
=============================================================
Now it is to be noted that what Advaita
says regarding
"satyam jgnyAnam anantam" is only differing
from Visishtadvaita's
views in terms of the manner in which
it is interpreted.
In fact the Advaita also has to accept
that the Brahman is
Savisesham because of its own manner of
interpretation as
told above though that manner of interpretation
differs from
that of us! This is what Bhagavath Ramanuja
Yatiraja tells
as follows:
"Sarva prathyanIkAkArathA bOdhnEapi tath-tath
prathyanIkA
kArathAyAm bhEdasya avarjanIyathvAnna
nirviseshathva siddhi:"
Even if it is admitted (as per Advaita's
manner of interpretation)
that the words like "satyam" does not
denote directly their own
meaning but first denote opposite nature
and then negate it
as "not possessing that opposite nature",
then also, concept of "nirvisesham"
is not possible! Even in such a winding
interpretation,
it establishes only Brahman as savisesham.
First of all such a
winding interpretation given by Advaita
is against the manner
in which the words are to impart meaning
in the world. Even
if the Advaita's winding interpretation
is admitted, then it is
clear from the very own words of Advaita
itself that Advaita has explicitly
admitted the difference between asatyam
from Brahman
but still Advaita argues "nirvisesham"!
Advaita's own words
contradict Advaita's key point. This sort
of interpretation
given by Advaita is therefore not fit
to be told before scholars.
When such is the case, why did the Advaita
try to interpret it
such a way and that too contradicting
even simple logic? Advaita
argues that when the nature of attribute
(which is to differentiate
the entity, which is attributed from other
entities) is admitted,
then different attributes establish the
entity, which is attributed
to be not "one entity" but "many entities".
Advaita quotes a famous
example - "kanda: munda: pUrNa srunga:
Gow:" - meaning "broken horn,
horn-less, full horn cow". Here, the three
different attributes like broken
horn etc., denotes that the animal is
not one but three in
number. This is because, different attributes
cannot be applicable
to a single entity itself. An animal cannot
be with broken horns
and with full horns" In the similar manner,
if the three words
"satyam, jgnyAnam, anantam" are admitted
as per Visishtadvaita,
then the Brahman too has to be three in
number and not a single
Brahman. That is, there is a need to accept
a satya-brahman, a jgnyAna-brahman
and an ananta-brahman! This is against
Veda.
Therefore, in order to avoid viseshya-bhedam
(differences in entity,
which is attributed) because of admitting
viseshaNa-bhedam
(differences in attributes), Advaita argues
that only if we
accept Brahman as nirvisesham by their
interpretation of satyam
jgnyAnam anantam, the appropriate meaning
is ascertained. After
arguing like this, Advaita comes back
to their interpretation
of "tat tvam asi". Advaita says "tat"
denotes nirvisehsa
Brahman. "Tvam" also denotes the nirvisehsa
Brahman. Therefore
according to Advaita, both the terms ("tat"
and "tvam") have
the same meaning.
Now a basic question arises. sAmAnAdhikaranyam
is not this way.
Then how come Advaita can argue like this
as far as tat tvam asi
is concerned? For this argument in the
form of question, Advaita
argues and answers that sAmAnAdhikaranyam
is just "many words"
denoting one entity and not "many words
each with its own ground
of meaning (based on each of the attribute
of entity) denoting one
entity. Therefore Advaita attempts to
have its own idea for
sAmAnAdhikaranyam also. Further, Advaita
says that (their own)
sAmAnAdhikaranyam is getting applicable
only in their own interpretation
of "tat tvam asi" and to avoid viseshya-bhedam
because of admitting
viseshaNa-bhedam, argues again that "nirvishesha
chin mAtram Brahma"
is the meaning.
The counter-arguments of Advaita are now
considered. The essence
of the counter-arguments of Advaita can
be summarized in two
points, which are given below:
1. viseshaNa bhedam leads to viseshya
bhedam
2. sAmAnAdhikaranyam definition and its
application
The first point is considered now as follows:
The Advaita's
argument regarding viseshaNa bhedam leads
to viseshya bhedam,
is totally illogical. All viseshaNa bhedams
do not lead to
viseshya bhedam. The example told by Advaita
"kanda: munda:
pUrNa srunga: Gow:" has the viseshaNams
which are contradicting
mutually. Only in such cases of viseshaNams,
the viseshya bhedam
is possible. Let us consider another example
"BhAskara: yuvA
kOmalAnga: nIla: visAlaksha:" - here in
this example, a person
BhAskara is attributed by youthfulness,
soft (tender) body, dark
complexion, large eyes. Though these attributes
are different,
all the attributes are simultaneously
applicable to a single
entity (here a person (say) BhAskara:).
Therefore here in this
example, the viseshaNa bhedam has not
led to viseshya bhedam.
Therefore if the attributes are not mutually
contradictory in
nature, then viseshaNa bhedam does not
lead to viseshya bhedam.
Let us now consider "satyam jgnyAnam anantam"
verse. Here these
different viseshaNams are not mutually
contradicting. Therefore
there is no possibility of viseshya bhedam.
The Brahman is
therefore a single entity with infinite
divine attributes.
Therefore telling the direct meaning of
the word "satyam" etc.,
is the purport as ascertained by Visishtadvaita.
The next argument of Advaita regarding
sAmAnAdhikaraNyam will be considered
now. But before that another argument
of Advaita is
considered as follows.
On knowing that their argument is simply
refuted, Advaita starts
its argument in another manner again stressing
that the Brahman
is nirvisesham. Advaita says that there
are two ways in which
the Veda has declared that the Brahman
is nirvisesham. One way
is by "Srowta guNa nishedam" and the other
way is by "Aartha guNa
nishedam". According to Advaita, the verses
of Veda like "nishkalam
nishkriyam sAntam niravadyam niranjanam"
explicitly do the guNa
nishedam and this is what is called as
"Srowta guNa nishedam"
- meaning - the Sruthi (Veda) has explicitly
negated the qualities/attributes
of Brahman. The Advaita explains the
other way - the Veda has clearly stated
that the Brahman is
jgnyAna swarUpam. JgnyAnam cannot be attributed
by another
jgnyAnam - meaning if two entities are
of same type, then there
cannot be attribute-attributed relation
between them! Therefore the
"artha" (meaning) from such statements
of Veda (where it is stated
that the Brahman is jgnyAna swarUpam)
establishes implicitly that the Brahman
is nirvisesham - this is what is called
as "Aartha guNa
nishedam". Thus Advaita again stresses
its concept of nirvisesha
Brahman.
Bhagavath Ramanuja Yatiraja considers this
counter-argument
and refutes it as follows.
"swarUpa nirUpaNa dharma sabdA hi dharma
mukEna swarUpamapi
prathipAdayanti gAvAdisabdavath | thadAaha
sUtrakAra: 'thad-guNa
sArathvAth thathvyapadEsa: prAgjnyavath'"
"JgnyAnEna dharmEna swarUpamapi nirUpitham
| na thu jgnyAna mAthram
brhamEthi | katham idamavagamyatha ithi
cheth 'yas sarvagnyas sarvavith'
ithi jgnyAtrutva sruthE: 'parasya sakthir-vividhaiva
srUyatE, swabhAvikI
jgnyAna-bala-kriyA cha', 'vignyAthAmarE
kEna vijAnIyAth'
ithyAdi-sruthi-satha-samadhigathamidam
|"
"atha: satya jgnyAnAdi padAni swArtha bhUtha
jgnyAnAdi visishtamEva
brahma prathipAdayanthi"
How can it be said that one jgnyAna cannot
be attributed by another
jgnyAna? The Veda is not at all telling
what the Advaita is telling.
JgnyAna can be attributed by another jgnyAna.
This is also not
against logic. The sruthi has stated that
the Brahman is not only
jgnyAna swarUpa but also it has stated
that the Brahman is having
jgnyAna as its attribute. If an entity
is to be explained, it has
to be told by its essential attribute
which differentiates it from
all other entities and such an attribute
is called as the "swarUpa
nirUpaka dharmam". For example, if we
take the word "Gow:" (cow),
the "Gothvam" (the nature of being cow)
is the swarUpa nirUpaka
dharmam which identifies the "Gow:" -
Similarly jgnyAna is the
swarUpa nirUpaka dharmam of Brahman. Just
like "Go" (cow) is
attributed by "Gothvam", Brahman is attributed
by jgnyAna. At this
point Shree BhAshyakara Swamy explains
that the swarUpa nirUpa
dharmam does not just stop with denoting
the dharmam alone, but
it finally ends up in denoting the swarUpam
also. Therefore
Brahman is jgnyAna swarUpa and has jgnyAna
as its dharmam and
therefore knows everything "jgnyAtha".
A Brahma sUtra is taken in this context.
'thad-guNa sArathvAth thathvyapadEsa:
prAgjnyavath' - the
jIvAtman has vignyAnam as its essential
guNa and therefore,
the jIvAtman himself is called as vignyAnam.
This is similar
to Brahman who is "prAgnyA" being called
as "Anandam" because
"Anandam" is an essential guNa of Brahman.
Therefore Veda and
logic clearly explains the Brahman's swarUpa
as jgnyAna and
also being attributed by jgnyAna.
Further the Veda verses like "PrAgnyEnAthmanA",
"BrahmaNA
vipaschithA", "Ya: sarvagnya: sarvavid"
explicitly declares that
the Brahman has jgnyAna as guNam.
The verses where the Brahman is declared
as "NirguNa" means that
the Brahman is devoid of evil attributes
and is untouched by
impurities. The entire Veda therefore
declares the Brahman as
Akila-Heya-PrathyanIka, Ananta-KalyANa-GuNa-Visishta:
Purushoththama:
SrIman nArAyaNa: When the Shree BhAshya
is considered after VedArtha
Sangraha postings, I will explain the
ubhaya-lingaadhikaraNam in
detail regarding the same.
Therefore the argument of Advaita regarding
Aartha-GuNa-Nishedam and
Srowtha-GuNa-Nishedam loses validity.
The Brahman is only SavisEsham.
Next, the errors in the interpretation
of "tat tvam asi" by Advaita
regarding sAmAnAdhikaraNyam, LakshaNa
and upakrama-virodham are
taken up. The next posting will covers
these aspects.
| Previous | Next | Preface | TOP |