Re: mutual exclusion - 1
From the Bhakti List Archives
• July 16, 1999
SrI: SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN- SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear devotees, namO nArAyaNA. Thanks to Sri Ravi dESIkan for his posting, comparing the three system of philosophies viz. advaita, visishtAdvaita and Dwaita. adiyEn would like to add more on this issue. Sorry for a lengthy one. > secondly,emperumaanar and swami Desikan strongly refute the doctrine of > Maaya and we srivaishnavaas > say "Jagat sathyam",this world is real ,they are all appendages og the > saguna brahmam-sriman-naraayana, > whereas to the adwaitha school the world is Mayaa,the brahmam is devoid of > Gunaas,Nirgunam,and all > the mummuurthis,siva ,vishnu and brahma are all one and the same parabrahmam. In some places, vEdAs also say that Brahman is nirguNa. But the meaning conveyed there is not the way advaitins are thinking. Bhagavad rAmAnuja and SwAmi dESikan have dealt with this extensively and have clearly refuted the untenable theory of the advaitins. For advaitins/sankara, Brahman is devoid of all attributes, whatsoever. Thus, their concept of Brahman, the only reality for them, is pure jn~Anam, without any attributes. Thus, it is better termed as "nirviSEsha Brahman" (attributeless Brahman). While "nirguNa Brahman", according to advaitins, denote the same thing, it poses some terminology problem also, since we also accept Brahman to be nirguNa. nirguNa implies devoid of guNAs ; but devoid of which guNAs is the question mark. Brahman is devoid of the guNAs of prakruti, characterized by rajas, tamas and sattva. Thus techically, Brahman is nirguNa only, but it has to be properly understood that, nirguNa here denies the existence of the guNAs associated with that of prakruti. Thus, advaitins are also referred to as "nirviSesha Brahma vAdins" , "mAyAvAdins" etc. ------------------------------------------------- Arguments in brief : niguNa srutis are those few texts that declare Brahman to be nirguNa. SaguNa srutis are those texts (many) which declare Brahman to have many numerous attributes. For advaitins, both these two type of texts can't be taken as equally valid and thus negates the SaguNa srutis and upholds nirguNa srutis with their interpretation that Brahman is devoid of all attributes/guNAs. Thus, for them Brahman is nirguNa ie. nirviSEsha and the Brahman of saguNa Srutis is called as "SaguNa Brahman", who is ultimately unreal ie. non-existent. advaitins use the "apacchEda nyAya" of mImAmsa to formulate their thoery. apacchEda nyAya : ******************** Jaimini's pUrvamImAmsa sUtra (6.5.54) "paurvAparyE pUrvadaurbalyam prakrutivat" discusses the passage (vEdAs) "yadyudgAtA pacchidyEta adakshiNaha sa yaj~naha - samsthApya tEna punar yajEta ; atha pratihartA sarvavEdasam dadyAt ". This is regarding the jyOtishtOma yaj~na, wherein the priests should go around the sacrificial fire, with each holding the tucked up waist-cloth of the priest in front. The expiatory rites to be performed when a priest lets go the waist-cloth, depends upon the priest himself : If the udgAtA, the priest chanting sAma vEda, lets go the waist-cloth of the priest in front of him, then as an expiatory rite, the whole yaj~na (sacrifice) has to be restrated from the beginning and the priests shouldn't be given any fee (dakshiNa) for performing the yaj~na. If the pratihartA, the priest chanting the R*g vEda, lets go the waist-cloth of the priest in front of him, then the expiatory rite consists of completing the yaj~na with the performer of yaj~na giving away all of his material wealth as the dakshiNa (fee) !! If the two priests let go the waist-cloth successively, then the expiatory rite to be performed is that corresponding to the latter priest's let go of the waist cloth. For instance, if the udgAtA lets go the waist-cloth atfirst, followed by the pratihartA, then the yaj~na is completed and the performer of the yaj~na has to give away all of his material wealth ( in accordance with the expiatory rite for pratihartA's let go of the waist-cloth and not that of udgAtA's). Thus, the "former" expiatory rite is over-ruled by the "latter". Thus, Jamini says in his maxim that, whenever such conflicts arise, the latter prevails over the former. This is the apacchEda nyAya. "apacchEda" means, "to let go the hold". Important Note: Here, the "former" and "latter" are not known "apriori" (ie. we don't know as to which priest will let go the waist-cloth apriori). Thus, apacchEda nyAya is only applicable in cases wherein the conflict is of this type. advaitin's argument : *********************** 1. karma kAnda portion deals with the rituals ; jn~na kAnda portion deals with Brahman. Thus a direct conflict arises. By applying apacchEda nyAya, the jn~Ana kAnda being the latter, overrules the karma kAnda (former). 2. Within the jn~Ana kAnda, saguNa and nirguNa srutis occur, with the former upholding that Brahman has guNAs and the latter that Brahman does not have guNAs. SaguNa srutis are "former" because, if the nirguNa srutis has to _negate_ the guNAs, then texts with Brahman as possesor of guNAs has to precede it ( Brahman is understood only from vEdAs and thus, Brahman having guNAs also should be explicitly present in the vEdAs themselves, for a possible negation of it ; this is what precisely provided by the saguNa srutis, so says the advaitin). To resolve this direct conflict, apply apacchEda nyAya, and thus nirguNa srutis (latter) overrules the saguNa srutis (former). Thus, only nirvisEsha brahman exists and all the three viz. SaguNa Brahman, jIvAtma and prakriti are all illusory only (ie. not a reality). ------------------ Criticism of advaitin's interpretation : ****************************************** The absurdity of applying apacchEda nyAya for karma kAnda and jn~Ana kAnda is very evident from the very first brahma sUtra "athAtO brahma jij~nyAsA", wherein bAshyakArar (bhagavad rAmAnuja) clearly establishes the import of that sUtra as the connection link between pUrva mImAmsa (karma khAnda) and uttara mImAmsa (jn~Ana khAnda). The following criticism taken appropriately also holds good for this case. Lets come to our discussion point : The absurdity of applying apacchEda nyAya in this context has been discussed well by bhagavad rAmAnuja and swAmi dESikan. SaguNa srutis _always_ have the relationship with the nirguNa srutis as its antecedence (ie. nirguNa srutis are always in subsequent to the SaguNa srutis, since for negation, the positive statement has to be present before it, as explained earlier ). Thus, with the view point of advaitins, when these two type of srutis are _always_ in opposition (in conflict), the "former" and the "latter" are known apriori and thus apacchEda nyAya can never be used in this case. It is not something accidental that nirguNa srutis become subsequent to the saguNa srutis. It is very evident that applying apacchEda-nyAya in this context is untenable. SwAmi dESikan in His "tattva muktA kalApa", points out that, when there is a _fixed order_ ( known apriori) between the conflicting texts - one as the "former" and the other as "latter", then "upakramAdhikaraNa nyAya" has to be applied, which precisely addresses this issue in hand. According to this nyAya (rule), the "former" rules over the "latter". Thus, even if we accept the view of the advaitin that saguNa srutis and nirguNa srutis are in direct conflict with each other, then one has to apply "upakramAdhikaraNa nyAya", and thus, SaguNa Srutis rules over the nirguNa Srutis !!! Thus, the advaitin's interpretation of the texts are untenable and are absurd. Even after such an interpretation, advaitins land up into many more problems : How to account for the world of sentients and insentients ?? etc. They wash away their hands by introducing the concept of "mAyA" nowhere found/supported in the vEdAs - the criticisms on which to expose its utter absurdity is another ocean. The apriori dogmas of advaitins are well known anyway. Actual import of SaguNa and nirguNa Srutis : ********************************************** Bhagavad RAmAnuja, clearly establishes the correct import of these srutis. Actually, there is _no conflict_ between SaguNa and nirguNa Srutis. The conflict was seen only apparently. Bhagavad rAmAnuja correctly uses the "utasarga-apavAda nyAya", according to which, the text which speaks in the "negative sense" (ie. performing negation) has to be interpreted in accordance with the texts which perform the affirmation. Explanation of utsarga-apavAda nyAya : ---------------------------------------- The Sruti text "nahimsyAt sarvA bhUtAni", prohibits the act of causing injury to any living being. But, the sruti text "vAyavyAm SvEtam AlabhEta bhUtikAmaha" prescribes the offering of the sacrificial animal (goat ?) for a yaj~na. The general rule (no injury to any living being) has to be understood in the light of the text in affirmation (prescribing the animal sacrifice). Thus, the general rule is only applicable to those cases which are not covered by the affirmative texts. note : The jIvAtma which has taken the body of this animal involved in the yaj~na, attains svarga (or similar higher lOkAs as the case may be). Application of utsarga-apavAda nyAya : ---------------------------------------- Thus, nirguNa srutis are to be understood in accordance with the saguNa srutis which speak of the affirmation. According to this nyAya (rule), the negation of guNAs by nirguNa srutis are only to those guNAs that are not spoken off in the affirmative texts viz. SaguNa Srutis. Thus, while the saguNa srutis glorify the presence of all auspicious qualities with Brahman, the nirguNa srutis negate all the inauspicious(bad ??) qualities in Brahman. This is a very simple straightforward and correct understanding of the texts, without any apriori dogma. This is the very import of the Upanishads, as very much evident from various supporting texts cited by bhagavad rAmAnuja. SUtrakArar(Sage BAdarAyana alias vyAsa) in the "Ubhayalin~ga-adhikaraNa" of the vEdAnta sUtrAs, very clearly establishes this point. The first sUtra (3.2.11) of this adhikaraNa : "na sthAnatOpi parasyObhayalin~gam sarvatra hi" " Even on account of residing in every place (as antaryAmi), there is no imperfection in the Highest Self (ParamAtma) ; for everywhere (ie.in all the texts) He is described as having two-fold characteristics" Bhagavad rAmAnuja explains in detail citing various Upanishad texts. The two-fold characteristics of Brahman spoken here, refers to : a. Total absence of all the imperfections. b. Possession of all auspicious qualities (kalyANa guNAs). For instance, "apahatapApmA satyasankalpaha" (chAndOgya Up 8.1.5) says " free from evil and possesses sathyasankalpa (ie. true will) ", explaining clearly the two-fold characteristics of Brahman. This very important conclusion from Upanishads is very dear to bhagavad rAmAnuja and invariably uses it while glorifying the Parabrahman SrIman nArAyaNA. a. For instance, in the very first mangaLa slOkam for vEdArtha Sangraha, bhagavad rAmAnuja says : " aSEsha cit-acit vastu SEshinE SEshaSAyinE | _nirmala ananta kalyANa nidhayE_ vishNavE namaha || " nirmalan (One free of all defects) and kalyANa nidhi (treasurehouse of all auspicious qualities) are explicitly referred here. b. In the very first line of the "Introduction" to bhagavad gItA bAshya, bhagavad rAmAnuja says : " Sriyaph patihi nikhilahEyapratyaneeka-kalyANaikatAna: ..." " He(nArAyaNa) is the Sriyaph-pathi (consort of "Sri"- Goddess Lakshmi); He is wholly auspicious and is antagonistic to all that is evil (no hEya guNAs)....." c. In the very beginning of SaraNAgati Gadyam : " bhagavan nArAyaNA.........anavadhikAtiSaya-asankhEya kalyANa guNagaNAm........" ( possesing all auspicious qualities and free of all imperfections/defects ). After pirAtti's words of affirmation and blessings to bhagavad rAmAnuja for the prapatti , the very first line is : " akhilahEyapratyaneeka-kalyANaikatAna ......" ( Free of all hEya guNAs ie. antagonistic to all that is evil/bad, possesor of all auspicious qualities .....). Ofcourse, our AzhwArs in their Divya prabandham clearly sing about this two-fold characteristics of SrIman nArAyaNA. For instance, our thiruppAnAzhwAr, in amalanAdipirAn , starts with "amalan" ie. one free of all defects (and one who grants moksham to mumukshus by removing their sins) and says that PerumAL is "vimalan" ie. always free of all sorts of defects, and adds on many kalyANa guNAs of PerumAL like AtipirAn, viN~N~avar kOn, nimalan, neetivAnavan etc. SwAmi dESikan in His commentry "munivAhana bhOgam" enlists fifteen guNAs of PerumAL housed in this first pAsuram of thiruppAnAzhwAr. ----------------------------------- BAshyakArar (esp. in jijn~AsAdhikaraNa of Sri Bashya) and swAmi dESikan (esp. in SatadUshani) advances many perfect arguments to reject the theory of advaitins on "nirviSesha Brahman" as untenable on logical and metaphysical grounds and establishes that such a theory is not supported by the pramAnAs including Brahma sUtras etc. The book titled "Tat tvam asi and nEti nEti" of Sri U.Ve. K.S. NArAyaNAchArya of Karnataka is an excellent treatise on these most mishandled texts (tat tvam asi,nEti nEti) of Upanishads by the advaitins. He clearly exposes all the absurdities of the interpretations offered by Sankara and its consequences thereof. Any unbiassed vEdAntin will clearly understand the untenability of the interpretations offered by advaitins on this issue and also the philosophical consequences they arrive at. AzhwAr,yemperumAnAr,dESikan,Azhagiyasingar thiruvadigaLE SaraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam
- Next message: Venkatesh K. Elayavalli: "Info: Serangoolam Utsava Celebrations"
- Previous message: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: mutual exclusion - 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]