Ishavasya QA

Ishavasya QA- Questions are in Red, Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

I was reading the commentary of Isavasya on dvaita.org and did not understand the interpretation of "so aham asmi". Literally, it just means "I am He".

Not really. Vedic grammar is quite different from the traditional grammar. The above, even by traditional grammar will not yiled that meaning. Even in traditional grammar, one would just say "so ahaM". Then what is this extraneous "asmi" doing there? In English we may use "am", but in Indian language, we don't say like that.

So how does this not support advaita?

How does this support Adviata? Is it from the context? Or from the syntax? or from the semantics? I see none of these.

Interpreting "aham" as "aheya" and "asmi" as something other than I and He seems more like an escapist approach to avoid the straightforward interpretation, because it would support advaita.

Is it? Let us see the whole context. All the rior verses glorified the Lord and suddenly, when it comes to this verse, is it OK to make a big jump and claim an identity with "Him" (Whom we can't even comprehend)? Then again in the very next verse "by kaimutya nyAya" speak of the deathlessness of "Anila" and so the One Who supports Anila has to be deathless too. Is shruti an erratic switching of back and forth between dualistic and non-dualistic thoughts?

In vedic sounds, every syllable has a deep meaning. It is not an escapist approach but is supported by all three pramANas. By Pratyaxa, we know how helpless we are and how can we even imagine any identity with Him? By anumAna (or inference/logic), we see that we don't have independence and the Lord is all-independent; we can't even prevent simple things like biting our own tongue or simple sneezing, etc.

Thus, there has to be difference between the Lord and the dependent jIva. Even shruti vAkyas like "antarbahishcha tatsarvaM vyApya nArAyaNaH sthitaH". If He is the only One, what else exists (inside of which and outside of which He pervades). Even the great j~nAnis like Dhruva and PrahlAda did not speak of any (even superficially) identity statements!

Now let us see the context:

yo.asAvasau purushhaH so.ahamasmi |

"asau" = the well known entity (Who is inside Anila and Aditya); that same Great entity is also inside me [and controlling me].

Also, asau is used twice "vIpsAyAM dviruktiH". To indicate pervasiveness it is repeated. One Who pervades everything (present in every being) is also present in me as antaryAmi.

It is not any twisting of the words or meaning. "asmi" has two sounds in it "as" and "mi" They indicate

"sadA.astitvena meyatvahetunA"

"as" indicates that He is always prsenet in all things as controlling force. "mi" indicates that He is the subject for all knowledge.

Also note the context. In every way this speaks of jIva Isha bheda only and no way identity.

Even in traditional grammar, one would just say "so ahaM". Then what is this extraneous "asmi" doing there? In English we may use "am", but in Indian language, we don't say like that. But sir, is that a valid reason to reject the direct interpretation? The usage of

'ahaM' (when the verb is uttamapuruSha in singular) is optional but not extraneous or superfluous. For an analogy, do we hold that 'tvaM' in 'tat tvaM asi' is superfluous? except the first part where you said that according to Vedic Sanskrit grammar, "so aham" is sufficient and "so aham asmi" is redundant. But then, what about "tat tvam asi" and

"aham brahma asmi"? These are interpreted in the usual way but there is redundancy here also then.

The explanation I gave is more to understand the case. Also I am not talking about "aham" or "tvam", which are optional. I am talking about the verbs "asmi" and "asi", which are applicable to only present tense.

For ex, let us consider the following 3 possibilities of relating 2 entities (say A and B).

1. A says "I am B" as an introduction or parichaya. 2. A says "I am B" as a vibhUti (this is applicable to the Lord only as mentioned in Geeta, 10th AdhyAya). 3. A says "I am B" as astatement of abheda or tAdAtmya

In case of 1 and 2 "asmi" can be used. Why ? It is applicable for a specific time frame in lokavyavahAra and need not be affected by the "present tense" used.

In case of 3, "asmi" should not be used. Why ? It should be independent of tense. A cannot say "I was not B before. Now I am B" or "I was B before but not now" or "I was not B before, not now, but will be B in future".

This can happen in parichaya like "I am not a lawyer now, but will be one after 4 years" or something like that.

If A and B are two specific entities and if they are different at any point of time, then they have to be different always. Take example of a cup of water mixing with another cup of water. Even if we can't differentiate, the increae in volume tells by "anupramANa" that they are different.

In other words, to speak of abheda, the expressions should have had "eva" and should not have tense dependent verb, meaning it would have been "so.ahameva (saH ahaM eva)" and "tattvameva" instead of so.ahamasmi" and "tattvamasi".

In all these shruti vAkyAs, shastra samanvaya, sandarbha sambhAvana, pratyaxa paribhAvana ityAdi are needed. In Advaitic interpretation, the flaws are shastra samanvaya nirasana, sandarbhollanghana, pratyaxa nirAkaraNa ityAdi (they are rejecting scriptural consistency, violating contextual integrity and refusing direct perception) in statements like "sarvaM khalvidaM brahma", "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana", etc.

However, in statements like "ahaM brahmAsmi" and "tattvamasi", etc, in addition to the above flaws, an additional flaw of bhAshhAmaryAdollanghana (violating the rules of language)" can be seen. Why? Even with absence of "eva" and presence of verbs like "asmi" and "asi" (which natuarlly govern tense), an abheda is posited. I am not even talking of the redundancy of these verbs, if abhedapara meaning is given, but they will actually kill the opportunity to give abheda meaning. Still, they do it! Well, what can be said!

For the question, how can we reject the direct interpretation for "so.ahamasmi" and "tattvamasi", the answer is - even that so called "direct interpretation" is not direct at all, but a thoroughly flawed usage.

Sri VadirAja says:

idAnIM vyAvahArikabhedo.asti mukti aikaprApteH ubhayopapattiriti tu "asmi" iti laTA virudhyate, tasya vartamAnaikyapratipAdakatvAt.h, "vartamAne laT.h" (ashhTA) etena "ahaM brahmAsmi",

"tattvamasi" (chhA-upa) ityAdAvapi anupapattirdarshitA |

"[Say they claim that] now in this vyAvahArika world, there is difference, in moxa there is abheda, thus yuktigata bheda now and abheda later on - both are suppported. Then with this "laT" usage such a claim is contradicted because identity is spoken of as a "present tense". "LaT signifies present tense" - from this, the expressions "ahaM brahmAsmi" and "tattvamasi" are also devoid of support from abheda sense.

Yes, this is what Sri Vadiraja points out. The context is that of Svayambhu Manu praying to the Lord to save him from the raakShasas.

Imagine a beggar going to a king to seek his help and then tells the king "Oh king, I am you". Should the king be very pleased saying "You are extremely wise person, who realized the truth" ?

In verse 18 of Isavasya Upanishad, can Sri Kesava or other experienced Madhvas explain the grammatical correctness of Acharya Madhva's interpretation of "juhuraaNam enaH" as "remove the effects of past sinful acts that are causing bondage"? JuhuraaNam is in the accusative case, but enaH is in nominative case, it seems as if it should also have been in accusative case?

I guess the confusion may be from "dakArAnta puMlinga etad shabda", which has "enaM" as accusative case. That has "eshhaH" as nominative case (meaning this one).

This word is totally different. This is "sakArAnta enas shabda" (meaning sin or sinful act) and the accusative case is "enaH". This is not akArAnta.

"enaH pApaM anishhTaM karma" iti yAvat.h (from Rayaru's khaNDArtha)

While doing so, there were two questions that arose in the Tattvada Bhashyas on Isavasya Upanishad. 1. In verse 11 : "andhaM tamaH pravizanti....."

Just a minor correction. That is verse 12.

Why is understanding Lord Vishnu as the creator alone worse than understanding Lord Vishnu as the destoyer alone?

That is not what the verse says. The verse says this.

If one, who understands that Lord Vishnu is not the creator, goes to andhamtamas, likewise, one who understands that Lord Vishnu is the creator alone (but not the sustainer or destroyer), goes to even worse andhamtamas.

Note that anyathAj~nAnaM (wrong knowledge) alone is anarthasAdhanaM (a means for disaster) and yathArthaj~nAnaM (right knowledge) alone is moxasAdhanaM (a means for liberation).

The really desirable thing is to avoid the disaster and to acquire the liberation. For that, one must condemn the wrong knowledge and acquire the right knowledge.

Sri Madhvacharya's quotes from Kurma Purana only seem to indicate that one is as bad as the other and not why knowledge of creatorship alone is actually worse.

AchArya's quote from Kurma Purana emphasizes the importance of the knowledge of tAratamya. If one thinks that Lord Vishnu has no control over the "destroyership", that person is completely awry as he is thinking that someone else, who is in control of "destroyership", is independent of the control of Vishnu and is a certain path for wrong knowledge.

There may be an analogy with the previous set of verses with vidyA and avidyA, but this discrimination of two types of understanding of Vishnu is not very easy to understand. The only easy way to perceive this is to just state that one is farther than other in terms of truth. But again the question pops up ,why?

Let us look at the previous set of verses (starting from verse 9 and ending with 11).

Without applying any bhAshya:

The verse 9 says:

"Those who practice avidya enter andhaMtama. Those who are steadfast in vidya alone are worse off and enter andhamtama."

Verse 10 says:

"They say that a different kind of return comes from vidya and a different kind of return comes from avidya. We hear this from the wise, who commented on that for our sake."

Verse 11 says:

"One who knows both these vidya and avidya, will cross over the death with avidya and obtains amR^ita from vidya".

Now the key is defining vidya and avidya.

Also, note that in verse 9, the term "avidya" is shown as bad, where as in verse 11, "avidya" is shown as good. This offers a big challenge and both Shankaracharya and Vedantadesika got into lot of dificulties even presenting their own school. It is quite heartening to see the ease and comfort with which, Madhvacharya handles this and also gives supporting quote from kUrmapurANa.

Shankaracharya says: vidya = devatAj~nAna ; avidya = karma (agnihotradi kAryas)

Then he says:

"vidyayA devaloka" and "karmaNA pitR^iloka".

In the following verses, the explanation gets hairy and sticky. Why is pitR^iloka obtained from avidya (karma) is like crossing over death and also entering "andhamtama"? Why is devaloka obtained from vidya (devatAj~nAna) is like obtaining amR^ita and yet is worse off and also entering "andhamtama"?

MadhvAchArya says (for verse 9):

avidya = anyathAj~nAna = wrong knowledge. "steadfast in vidya alone" = "not condemning wrong knowledge"

So, verse 9 implies "Those who practice wrong knowledge enter andhaMtama. Those who do not condemn wrong knowledge are worse off and enter andhaMtama."

This thought flows smoothly into the following verses. As vedic language is very concise, the act of condemning wrong knowledge itself is indicated by the term "avidyA" in verse 10 and 11. The reason for this is that the following verses deal in detail the benefits of both the "right knowledge" and "condemning the wrong knowledge".

Thus verse 10 means"

"They say that a different kind of return comes from right knowledge and a different kind of return comes from condemning the wrong knowledge. We hear this from the wise, who commented on that for our sake."

Verse 11 means:

"One who knows both these right knowledge and condemning the wrong knowledge, will cross over the death from condemning the wrong knowledge and obtains amR^ita from the right knowledge."

This is quite logical too. To cross over a bad thing, one must avoid and be free from the cause of that bad thing.

2. In verse 14 : "sambhUtim ca vinAzam ca .. "

Sri Jayatirtha, in his TIkA, seems to take jnAna-karma-samuccaya as the first pUrva-pakSa. Also, the Tika implicitly seems to refer to Sri Vedanta Desika of the Ramanuja school as this pUrva-pakShin.

Yes it does.

As far as I know, the tattva-vAda view on the position of karma is similar to the Ramanuja view ie. they reject jnAna-karma-samuccaya.

In Ramanuja school, there is self-contradiction. The term "avidya" is denoted as karma and trying to reject jnAna-karma-samuccaya in verse 9. The term avidya is condemned in verse 9, but then it is upheld in verse 10 and 11. How is that handled?

Karma is needed first, and the "nanyah panthA vidyate'yanAya" principle forces only one direct path. This path is jnAna-pUrita-bhakti. So, I don't understand the attack on the pUrva-pakSa. Who is the pUrva-pakShin? This is unclear.

Before that it says "anye tu vidyApadaM devatAj~nAnasya.." The second pUrvapaxa is ShankarabhAshya and in that context "nAnyaH panthA" is indicated, as Shankara says "jnAna-karma- samuccaya" is needed.

The interesting aspect is that both Shankara and Ramanuja schools gave the same kind of meanings for vidya and avidya and yet, they interpreted differently as far as jnAna-karma-samuccaya is concerned. Madhva school rejects the very footing itself that such meanings for vidya and avidya will land one into difficulties.

I feel that pUrva-pakSin might be a bhedAbheda-vAdin like Bhaskara instead of Sri Desika. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The rejection is for both Ramanuja school and Shankara school.

The statement from Sri Jayatirtha's Tika I am referring to is: 'kecid avidyA-padam karma-vAcakam mattvA " ekaika-nindayA moksha jnAna-karmaNoH samuccayasya pratipAdakam Adya-mantra-trayam iti manyante " [..]

This part is about Ramanuja school. Then it goes on "anye tu vidyApadaM devatAj~nAnasya..." This is for Shankara school and the following is also for Shankara school.

"nAnyah panthA vidyate[..] ityAdi zruti viruddhazca samuccaya pakSaH.' If one, who understands that Lord Vishnu is not the creator, goes to andhamtamas, likewise, one who understands that Lord Vishnu is the creator alone (but not the sustainer or destroyer), goes to even worse andhamtamas.

My question is regarding this "even worse" phrase. Granted that both of the following are heading for andham-tamas: A: who thinks the Lord is not even the creator. B: who thinks the Lord is the creator alone, but not the destroyer. What makes B "even worse" than A? Both are bad for sure, but B is condemned even more than A. Why so?

That is to emphasize that, both are real bad. What can be worse than andhamtamas - it is andhamtamas only. Even laukik things, for ex, people may say that if X does not have any food and if Y has food, but cannot eat then Y is even worse off than X (even Though Y has food).

Note that in case of the above statements, it is talking About the haters of the Supreme Lord who deny those functions for the Supreme Lord. This stems from hatred towards the Supreme Being and hence lead one to andhamtamas. One may mistakenly think that if B thinks that God is creator alone, he is slightly better than A. To completely drive away such notion, it is emphasized that B is worse off than A.

So, verse 9 implies "Those who practice wrong knowledge enter andhaMtama. Those who do not condemn wrong knowledge are worse off and enter andhaMtama." Is there any reasoning behind this?

Yes, there is. I will come to that after following example. I will give another crude and trivial example. If A thinks that 2 + 2 = 7 and if B thinks that 2 + 2 = 4 and also 2 + 2 = 7, then the wise ones will think like this. A does not have the right answer at all. B has right answer with him and still supports the wrong answer, something is really wrong with B.

Now, let us put all the 4 cases:

A: who thinks the Lord is not even the creator.

B: who thinks the Lord is the creator alone, but not the destroyer.

C: One who practices wrong knowledge

D: One who accepts both right knowledge and wrong knowledge (by not condemning wrong knowledge)

Let us take X1, X2, etc. are others who are kind of blank sheets and looking for some guides.

There is a greater likelihood that these X1, X2, etc. will go after B and D than they go after A and C. Thus B and D pose a greater threat to the society than A and C. The shruti is putting a big warning sign in front of us.

This may be satisfactory when you take avidyA specifically as materialism, but how do you justify this for any generic avidyA?

As explained above.

Also, in the RAmAnuja school, vidyA = j~nAna, and avidyA = karma. They say that both j~nAna and karma are necessary on the right path, and not just one (vidyAm cha avidyAm chayaH veda ubhayam..). Could you please elaborate on what exactly is illogical in this?

The 1st line says "those who practice avidya enter andhamtamas." It does not even have the term "only". So, those who practice karma enter andhamtamas? Why?

Then the second line says "Those who practice vidya only are even worse off and enter andhamtamas". This means those who practice j~nAna only enter andhamtamas? Why?

That is even worse. If they claim that both are needed, they are facing two problems.

1. The context is about what are not needed and not what are needed. Note that it is not talking about moxa, but is talking about andhamtamas.

2. Even temporarily granting their side-tracking, they claim "nAnyaH panthA ayanAya vidyate" (There is no other way, but j~nAna to go to moxa).

(The key point is that no one can be without karma. The true j~nAni knows and does karma accordingly and thus it is j~nAna that leads to moxa).

In the subsequent mantras, it is said "avidyayA mR^ityuM tIrtvA" (by crossing over the death with avidyA). How can this karma (avidya) be good in one mantra and bad in another?

Both the Shankara school and Ramanuja school hit hard rock in these cases.