Class 1, 24 Jan 2009
The nine works of Swami Raamaanujar are listed below in the order published:
- Sharanaagathi Gadhyam
- Shreeranga Gadhyam
- Shreevaikunta Gadhyam
- Nithya Grantham
Raamaanujar's first published work, Vaedhaarthasangraham (or Vaedhaarthasangrahaha in Sanskrit), is said to be a compilation of Swami's extemporaneous lecture delivered in front of Shreenivaasa Perumaal at Thiruppathi. The name, Vaedha-artha-sangrahaha, means a summary (sangrahaha) of the meaning (artha) of Vedas (vaedha). The work is a collection and explanation of the key principles of Vedic philosophy (vaidika matham), forming the core of our Raamaanuja Dharshanam, which later acquired the name Vishishhtaadhvaitham.
As is conventional for proponents of Vedic philosophy, Raamaanujar established vishishhtaadhvaitham by writing commentaries (bhaashhyam) to the three fundamental authorititative texts, namely:
- Bhagavadh Geethai
These three texts are together called prasthaanathrayam (prasthaana means path or maargam, and thraya means triad). Raamaanujar's commentary on Bramhasoothram is called Shreebhaashhyam. While he did not write a direct commentary on the upanishhaths, he addressed their key messages in Vaedhaanthasaaram, Vaedhaanthadheepam, Vaedhaarthasangraham and Shreebhaashhyam. Geethaabhaashhyam is his commentary on bhagavadh geethai.
Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryar, a later aachaaryan of our sampradhaayam, wrote vyaakhyaanams (treatises or works of detailed analysis) to Shreebhaashhyam and Vaedhaarthasangraham. These works are called Shruthaprakaashikai and Thaathparyadheepikai, respectively. In this course, we will learn Vaedhaarthasangraham through Thaathparyadheepikai and other, later works on the topic.
Some Definitions and Concepts
Any philosophy is generally characterized by how it answers the following three questions:
1. What are thaththvams (the basic truths or ultimate principles)?
2. What are purushaarthams (the goals of thaththvams)?
3. What are hithams (the ways for thaththvams to attain purushaarthams)?
In Vishishhtaadhvaitham, the respective answers are:
1. Thaththvams are of three types - (a) chith, (b) achith, and (c) eeshwara. Everything that ever exists has to fall into one of these three thaththvam types.
(a) Chith is defined as that which has gnyaanam (knowledge). Jeevaathmaas are chith thaththvams.
(b) Achith is defined as that which does not have gnyaanam. Everything we see, hear, taste, smell and touch are achith thaththvams. In the case of a man, for example, his body is achith but he himself is a jeevaathmaa, which is chith.
(c) Eeshwara is defined as paramaathma or a super-chith, which has super-gnyaanam. This paramaathmaa is perumaal or bramham. Note that paramaathmaa is one, whereas chith and achith are many (infinite).
2. Purushaartham is perumaal (or kainkaryam to him). Chith thaththvams can know it and strive for it, while achith thaththvams cannot. As for eeshwara thaththvam, the purushaartham is to get all the jeevaathmaas to moaksham and receive kainkaryam from them.
3. Hitham too is ultimately perumaal. He is the ultimate upaayam (way) for all thaththvams to attain their purushaarthams.
Some qualities of aathmaa/chith:
- gnyaana aashrayaha/gnyaana gunakaha --- entity where gnyaanam resides/entity that has gnyaanam
- nithyaha --- ever-existing, no beginning or end
- avyayaha --- has no parts
- kshhaethragnyaha --- knower of his body (kshhaethram)
- avikriyaha --- never undergoes change (vikaaram)
- prathyak --- shows his presence to himself. The opposite is paraak, which shows its presence to other entities
- svayamprakaashaha --- shows his presence by himself without requiring an external entity (eg. flame, which shows itself through its own light as opposed to a rock which needs light, an external entity, for it to be seen. Note that even though flame and aathma are similar in svayamprakaashathvam (svayamprakaasham-ness), they are dissimilar in that flame is paraak and aathmaa is prathyak
- karthaa --- doer, responsible for action
The existence of aathmaa is knowable by inference (anumaanam).
Some qualities of achith:
- aadhaeyaha --- held in place by an aadhaaram (in the case of shareeram, an achith, the aadhaaram is aathmaa)
- vidhaeyaha --- controlled/employed/instructed (by aathmaa)
- shaeshhaha --- servant (of aathmaa)
Some qualities of bramham/eeshwaran:
- nirvikaaraha --- never undergoes change
- jagathkaaranaha --- cause for the existence of jagath (say, universe)
More on bramham's jagathkaaranathvam (jagathkaaranam-ness):
Since bramham creates jagath, jagath is bramham's kaaryam (product of action). Let us analyze what it takes to make a kaaryam, through the lowkika (worldly) example of pot-making. To make the kaaryam (pot) three kaaranams (causes) are necessary:
(a) Nimiththa kaaranam --- the agent that makes a sankalpam to make the kaaryam (ie. the potter that decides to make a pot)
(b) Upaadhaana kaaranam --- the material which changes its state to become the kaaryam (ie. the raw material, clay, the state of which changes to that of a pot)
(c) Sahakaari kaaranam --- the equipment used to make the kaaryam (ie. the potter's wheel, stick, etc)
A main point of vishishhtaadhvaitham is that in the case of creating jagath (ie. jagathsrushhti), all three kaaranams are bramham. This means that like the potter, bramham makes a sankalpam to create jagath. Yet, unlike the potter, bramham changes its own state to become jagath, using itself as the equipment.
Now, if the quality of jagathkaaranthvam requires bramham to change its state, then it comes into apparent conflict with the quality of nirvikaarathvam (changelessness) listed above. Here enters the very central concept of vishishhitaadhvaitham, called shareera-aathma-bhaavam, which resolves the apparent conflict as described in the following paragraphs.
According to this idea, there exists a relationship between bramham and the other two thathvams (chith and achith). This relationship is the same as that between a jeevaathmaa and his shareeram. In other words, bramham is the aathmaa and antharyaami (indweller and controller) of its shareeram, which is made of all the chith and achith thathvams. This relationship is permanent, which means that chith and achith do not have existence independent of bramham.
Jagathsrushti in light of shareeraathma bhaavam:
Before srushti, chith and achith exist in a sookshhma (small, subtle, potential) state as a part of bramham's shareeram. During srushhti, this sookshhma form expands into jagath in its sthoola (big, gross, manifest) state. Thus, srushti is not really creation out of nothing but just a change of state from sookshhma to sthoola.
Note that during srushti, what changes is only bramham's shareeram, while bramham itself remains changeless. Therefore, bramham's shareeram is the upaadhaana kaaranam for jagath while bramham itself remains nirvikaaram, resolving the conflict mentioned above. Thus, when we say bramham is upaadhaana kaaranam, we mean bramham together with its shareeram. This shareeram-overlaid bramham is termed shareera-vishishhta bramham. Considering that the shareeram in question is made of chaethanam and achaethanam (ie. chith and achith), shareera vishishhta bramham is called chaethana-achaethana vishishhta bramham.
With this, jagathsrushhti is defined as the trasformation of sookshhma-chaethana-achaethana-vishishhta-bramham to sthoola-chaethana-achaethana-vishishhta-bramham.
In vishishhtaadhvaitham, this chaethana-achaethana-vishishhta-bramham is the only entity that exists. In other words, the chaethana-achaethana-vishishhta-bramham is adhvaitham, meaning, it is without a second (entity).
In contrast, in Shankarar's adhvaitha matham, bramham itself (not the chaethana-achaethana-vishishhta-bramham but just bramham or paramaathmaa) is adhvaitham, and everything else mere appearances. In other words, what is considered in vishishhtaadhvaitham as bramham's shareeram (ie. all the chaethana-achaethanams) are considered ultimately non-existent in adhvaitha matham.
On the other hand, in Madhvar's dhvaitha matham, both bramham and chaethana-achaethams are considered real but they are not considered to have the shareeraathma relationship.
All three mathams cite support from shruthi or upanishhaths. How is this possible? It is because parts of upanishhaths can be classified into abhaedha shruthi, bhaedha shruthi and ghataka shruthi, based on what each part primarily teaches:
(a) abhaedha shruthi teaches chith, achith and eeshwara are not different from each other;
(b) bhaedha shruthi teaches that they are different from each other; and
(c) ghataka shruthi, also called antaryaami braamhanam, reconciles the two shruthis using shareeraathma bhaavam.
Shankarar lays relative emphasis on abhaedha shruthi, Madhvar on bhaedha shruthi, and Raamaanujar on ghataka shruthi.
Class 2, 25 Jan 2009
ashaesha chidhachidh vasthu shaeshinae --- to the owner of all chith and achith vasthus without exception
shaeshashaayinae --- to the one who reclines on aadhishaeshan
nirmalaanantha kalyaananidhayae --- to the one who is the treasure of blemishless and infinite auspicious qualities
vishnavae --- to vishnu
namaha --- namaskaaram
ashaeasha chidhachith vasthu = thathvam
shaeshinAE, shaeshashaayinAE, ..nidhayAE, vishhnavAE = purushaartham
namaha = hitham, upaayam
The three adhvaitha mathams and their defects.
parabhramhaivaagnyam bhramaparigatham samsarathi --- parabramham itself is caught up in agnyaanam and bhramam, and hangs around
(This is Shankara matham)
paroapaadhyaaleedam vivasham --- prabramham itself is helpless and under the influence of something else
(This is Bhaaskara matham)
ashubhasyaaspadham --- parabramham itself is the house of ashubhams of chith and achith
(This is Yaadhavaprakaasha matham)
shruthi nyaaya apaetham jagathi vithatham mohanamidham --- the above mathams are neither supported by shruthi nor by logic and delude the world
thamoa yaenaapaastham sa hi vijayathae yaamuna munihi --- aalavandhaar, who removes these darknesses, wins greatly
Purpose of vaedhaanthavaakyams.
Here the purpose of upanishadhs and the nature of jeevaathmaa are summarized. The entire vaedham, including upanishadhs, is called shruthi. It is called vaedham because it informs or gives knowledge (vaedhayathi ithi vaedhaha). It is called shruthi because it is only heard (shrooyathae ithi shruthihi). It is beginningless (anaadhi), not authored by anyone (apaurushaeya), and remains the same even in the sentences and order of communication (nithyam). At the end of a kalpam perumaal keeps shruthi in the same form for use by jeevaathmaas in the next kalpam. Shruthi is infinite (ananthaavai vaedhaahaa) and exist in infinite groups (nikarams). Shruthis teach what is good (hitham) to the entire jagath without exception (ashaehsha jagath hithaanushasanam). Shruthi or shaasthram teaches with more love than a thousand parents would (maathaapithaa sahasraebhyoa vathsalatharam shaasthram).
Shruthi can be classified into poorvabhaagam and uththarabhaagam. Poorvabhaagam, in turn, has two parts: (a) karmakaandam, which describes upaasanam or thiruvaaraadhanam to bramham and (b) dhaevathaa bhaagam, which describes dhaevathaas whose antharyaami is bramham. Shruthi's uththarabhaagam is called bramhakaandam since it tells us directly about bramham. Thus, this is the part closest to bramham and is therefore called the upanishadhs - the word 'upanishadh' means 'that which is close' (upa nisheedhathi ithi) or 'that which takes one close' to bramham (upa nishathi ithi). The most important portion of shruthi, called shruthi-head (shruthi-shiras or shruthi-nikara-shiras), are the upanishadhs.
Dharmashaasthrams are upabramhanams or vivaranams for poorvabhaagam and ithihaasapuraanams are upabramhanams for upanishadhs. Since shruthi is infinite, dharmashaasthrams and ithihaasapuraanams are very important, as they teach us the meanings of the entire infinite set.
The upanishadhs, which are of such greatness, tell us well to understand jeevaathma svaroopam and paramaathma swaroopam and perform varnaashrama dharmam. With that they tell us to do the highly pleasurable activities of dhyaanam, archanam, pranaamam on bramham and attain the fruit of moaksham.
The jeetvaathmaa is subject to anaadhi avidhyaa (beginningless ignorance? or wrong knowledge?) which leads to performance of karma and accumulaiton of paapam/punyam.
Punyam's definition is lowkika alowkika ishhta saadhanam (ie. means to a desirable end in this and other loakams).
Paapam's definition is lowkika alowkika anishhta saadhanam (ie. means to an undesirable end in this and other loakams).
Because of paapam/punyam the jeevaathmaa takes a dhaeham (body) and is born as a person. The body/person can be of four types: sura (dhaevas), nara (humans), thiryak (animals) and sthaavara (plants). Further, the jeevaathmaa identifies himself with his body, thinking he is the body he took. This is called dhaeha-athma-abhimaanam. This leads the jeevaathmaa to consider dangers to dhaeham as dangers to himself, resulting in experience of bhayam towards samsaaram. This chain is shown below:
(expecting danger to dhaeham)
AVIDHYAI --> KARMAM --> CHATHURVIDHA DHAEHA PRAVAESHAM --> DHAEHAATHMAABHIMAANAM --> SAMSAARA BHAYAM
To get rid of this bhayam we learn:
- dhaeha-athiriktha aathma svaroopam (ie. jeevaathmaa's essential nature that it is beyond dhaeham),
- thadh svabhaavam (jeevaathmaa's qualities),
- thadh antharyaami paramaathma svaroopam (ie. paramaathmaa's svaroopam that it is jeevaathmaa's antharyaami),
- thadh svabhaavam (paramaathmaa's qualities),
- thadh upaasanam (his upaasanam),
- thadh phalabhootha aathma svaroopa aavirbhaava poorvaka, anavadhika athishaya aanandha bramha anubhavam (the fruit of the upaasanam and the resulting knowledge of aathmaa svaroopam, and the limitless and extraordinarily delightful experience of bramham)
We learn these through shruthi vaakyams like:
- thath thvam asi --- you are that or nee adhuvaaga irukkiraai. Since the context here is jagathkaaranabhoothamaana paramaathmaa/bramham (ie. the paramaathmaa as the cause of the universe), the word 'thath' (ie. 'that') refers to bramham. The word 'thvam' (ie. 'you') refers to the antharyaami of Shvaethakaethu's aathmaa. This is similar to when we first refer to a goat's body through the word 'goat' and then take it to refer to goat's aathmaa. Here it is taken another step further to refer to goat's aathmaa's aathmaa. This is done since goat cannot exist or is not complete without its aathmaa, which in turn, cannot exist without its aathmaa. This is called aparyavasaana vruththi (mudivillaadha bhoadhakathvam or endless implication?). Thus, 'thath thvam asi' means Shvaethakaethu's antharyaami (or the antharyaami of the jeevaathmaa whose body is standing in front of me) is the same entitiy as jagadhkaaranabhoothanaana parabramham.
- ayam aathmaa bramha --- the antharyaami of this aathmaa is bramham
- yam aathmani thishhtan... --- he who resides in the aathmaa and controls the aathmaa, the aathmaa does not know...he whose shareeram is aathmaa, he who controls the aathmaa from inside, is your aathmaa, is your antharyaami and is deathless or dhoashamless (meaning he is untouched by jeevaathmaa's dhoashams)
- ....apahathapaapmaa dhivyaha dhaeva aekaha naaraayanaha --- 'apahathapaapma' means jeevaathmaa's paapam does not get to perumaal even though he is his antharyaami. the one who shines like this is the base for all that exists
- thamaena... --- bramhanas want to know him through yagnyam, thapas, upavaasam (anaashakam), etc.
- bramhavith aapnothi param --- the knower of bramham attains the supreme
- thamaevam vidhwaan amrutha iha bhavathi naanyafpanthaa ayanaaya vidhyathae --- he who knows bramham in this way becomes deathless (meaning, equivalent to the free mukthaathmaa) and there is no other way to reach bramham.
The main message (thaathparyam) of vaedhaantha vaakyams is in paramaathma svaroopam, svabhaavam, upaasanam, anubhavam or purushaartham. As a step to convey this message, they teach jeevaathma svaroopam.
Jeevaathmaswaroopam and paramaathmaswaroopam.
More on jeevaathma svaroopam:
Jeevaathmaas, as mentioned before, take bodies of four forms, namely, dhaeva, manushya, thiryak and sthaavara. The svaroopam of the jeevaathmaas in those bodies, however, are identical. That svaroopam is gnyaanaanandham (ie. of pure knowledge and bliss). In addition, the jeevaathmaas are gnyaanaanandha gunakams (ie. they have gnyaanam and aanandham as their qualities). The difference (bhaedham) between jeevaathmaas is only in sankhyaa (in number), each aathmaa appearing to himself and himself alone as 'I'.
An interesting feature of Vaedhaarthasangraham is that the whole grantham is simply the first two shloakams explained focusing on their various aspects and to varying levels of detail.
Before continuing with VB 2, let us discuss what is called bheejaankura nyaayam:
Bheejam = seed
Ankuram = sprout
Nyaayam = reethi, rule, logic, arthasaadhaka gnyaayam (knowledge that establishes meaning), neeyathae arthoa anaena ithi nyaaayaha.
By this nyaayam, we say that while both are anaadhi, bheejam is poorvam (before) and ankuram is param (after). Or, bheejam is kaaranam, ankuram is kaaryam.
In Class 2, we saw the chain: AVIDHYAI --> KARMAM --> CHATHURVIDHA DHAEHA PRAVAESHAM --> DHAEHAATHMAABHIMAANAM --> SAMSAARA BHAYAM. Here both avidhyai and karmam are anaadhi (beginningless). However, by the above nyaayam, avidhyai is poorvam and karmam is param. Avidhyai is kaaranam and karmam is kaaryam.
VB 2 continued
Paramaathma svaroopam and saamaanaadhikaranyam are explained here. In doing so, paramaathmaa, bramham, sath are identified to be bhagavan-naaraayanan (perumaal) and his qualities are described.
The prapancham (say, universe), which is filled with chith and achith vasthus as described so far, has bhagavan-naaraayanan as its cause (kaaranaha), keeper/protector (rakshakaha), as well as liberator (nivarthaka haethu or moksha upaayam). Note the difference in the meanings of kaaranaha, rakshakaha, upaayaha and upaeyaha.
- 'Kaaranaha' means cause as discussed previously
- 'Rakshakaha' means phala pradhaha (the entity that grants the phalam).
- 'Upaayaha' means that which takes near phalam (phala sameepa naethaa, ayatha ithi upaayaha). It is not what grants the phalam. A synonym of 'upaayam' would be 'praapakam'.
- 'Upaeyaha' means the phalam, or that which is sought, or that which is gotten close to (upa ayatha ithi). Synonyms would be praapyam, saadhyam, purushaartham.
In the case of a jeevaathmaa, for instance, perumaal is kaaranam, perumaal is rakshakan, perumaal with krpuai is upaayam, and perumal with piraatti is upaeyam.
This bhagavan-naaraayanan has twin identifications (ubhaya lingams):
- akhila haeya prathyaneekathvam --- the opposite of everything that is inauspicious
- kalyaanaika thaanahathvam --- the house of everything that is auspicious
Because of these two, he is svaethara samasthavasthu vilakshana swaropaha (ie. his swaroopam is different from everything other than himself).
Further, he is:
- anavadhika athishaya asankhyaeya kalyaana gunaganaha --- the place of limitless, extraordinary, countless groups of auspicious qualities
- sarvaathmaa, antharyaami --- the indweller and controller of everything
- parambramha, paranjyothi, parathathva, paramaathmaa --- the supreme bramham, the supreme light, the supreme principle, the supreme aathmaa
We said above that Naaraayanan is jagathkaaranam. This is deduced as below, using some shruthi vaakyams and nyaayams:
In shruthi if an artham is talked about in one place, vaakyams on that artham from all places of the shruthis should be considered before concluding on the artham. This is called sarvashaakhaa prathyaya nyaayam.
In place 1 (chaandhoagyam) shruthi says that sath (an existing entity) existed before everything else (sadhaeva sowmya agra aaseeth). In place 2 (vaajasanaeyakam) it says that bramham existed before everything else. We consider the shruthis from both places together by the above nyaayam, to determine which is jagathkaaranam. We first consider whether sath and bramham are both jagathkaaranams.
This requires that each of the two existed before the other and everything else, since jagathkaaranam has to be what existed first. So, if we say that sath is jagathkaaranam, then it has to be the kaaranam of bramham too, which means that bramham could not have existed before sath. Thus, both bramham and sath cannot be jagathkaaranams.
This leaves us to say that the combined meaning of shruthis from places 1 and 2 must be one of these two possibilities: A) only one of the statements is true and B) bramham and sath are the same entity.
To determine which one, we go to place 3 of shruthi, where it says 'sath is big' in a context where the subject is bramham ('bramham' means 'big'). Here, we apply saamaanya vishaesha nyaayam, which says that a general word refers to a specific subject based on context. The general word here is 'sath' and the specific subject of context is 'bramham'. Therefore, by this nyaayam, 'sath' refers to 'bramham' in place 3.
Applying sarvashaakhaa prathyaya nyaayam again, we combine the artham of place 3 with the combined artham of places 1 & 2 (ie. the possiblilites A & B), and determine that B is the correct one. In other words, we determine that bramham is jagathkaaranam. This is the combined result of places 1, 2 & 3.
Now we inquire if bramham is chaethanam or achaethanam. We go to place 4 (aitharaeyam) which says 'what is pervading is what existed before (aathmaavaa idham aekamaeva agra aaseeth)'. The immediate meaning of the word 'aathmaa' is 'that which pervades'. Considering that it is chaethanam that pervades, we determine that what existed before is chaethanam. Now, combining the arthams of places 1-4, we get bramham is jagathkaaranam and is chaethanam.
Now we look to determine which chaethanam is bramham? Which aathmaa? We go to place 5 in the shruthi, which says 'only Naaraayanan existed, not Bramhaa, not Shivan (aekohavai naaraayana aaseeth, na bramhaa, na eeshaanaha)'. Therefore, we determine that bramham is the specific chaethanam called Naaraayanan.
Thus, using sarvashaakhaa prathyaya nyaayam, we have combined the arthams from five different places in the shruthi to deduce that Naaraayanan is jagathkaaranam.
This artham is shown by Kooraththaazhwaan in his 'thadhbramha...' shloakam of Sundharabaahusthavam. The deduction process was shown above for the quality of jagathkaaranathvam. The same process is applied for other qualities like being paramaathmaa, paranjyoathi and so on to show that they all mean Naaraayanan.
Shruthis speak of Naaraayanan's quality of controlling everything except him by being their indweller (svaethara samastha chidhachith vasthujaatha antharaathmathayaa nikhilaniyama) through the following words:
- shakthi --- the inseparable attribute required to do a kaaryam (kaarya-upayoagi apruthaksidhdhi vishaeshanam)
- amsham --- collection of all vishishta vasthus in one place (vishishtavasthu aeka dhaesho amshaha)
- vibhoothi --- that which is controlled
- roopam --- aspect perceivable by senses (prakaashakam, like shareeram is for jeevaathma)
- shareeram, thanuhu, vapuhu --- body
Now we breifly explain the principle of saamaanaadhikaranyam:
Shruthi uses the above words (shakthi, amsham, etc) to describe Naaraayanan. In other words, through these qualities shruthi refers to the owner of these qualities (Naaraayanan). This grammatical principle by which words of different meanings stand as adjectives to one common subject (adhikaranam) is called saamaanaadhikaranyam. (Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryar's definition: samaanam adhikaranam aeshaam shabdhaanam thae shabhdhaahaa samaanaadhikaranaahaa. thaeshaam bhaavaha saamaanaadhikaranyam.)
For example, let us take the sentence: Dhaevadhaththaha shyaamaha, yuvaa, loahithaakshaha, samaparimaanaha, dhandee, kundalee thishtathi. All the words from shyaamaha to kundalee point to Dhaevadhaththan (the subject or adhikaranam). Therefore, these words have the same adhikaranam (samaanam adhikaranam). When words with samaanam adhikaranam are used to describe a subject, then we say that the subject is understood through saamaanaadhikaranyam.
Thus, shruthi describes the qualities of Naaraayanan using the words shakthi, amsham, etc, through saamaanaadhikaranyam. The meaning, thus conveyed, is that jagath is bramhaathmakam (ie. bramham alone is jagath). This arises because of bramham's antharyaamithvam and kaaranathvam. Therefore, jagath cannot exist separated from bramham and jagath is included in bramham. Therefore, jagath is bramham's prakaaram (inseparable quality or apruthakshidhdha vishaeshanam).
What is said so far forms an explanation of shloakam 1. Now we move to shlokam 2.
Here Shankara matham is explained.
While shruthi's objective is to present Perumaal's vaibhavam through saamaanaadhikaranyam, there are some that explain otherwise.
Sense perception (prathyaksham) of the world around us tells us that many things exist (naanaathvam) and there is difference between them (bhaedham). But shaasthram tells us that this apperance is false (mithyaa) and that everything is one (aikyam). In this conflict, shaasthram beats prathyaksham. Once bramham gets this aikya gnyaanam, all apperarances disappear, leaving just bramham which is pure gnyaanam. All bhaedhams/vishaenams are non-existent. They appeared because bramham acquired an agnyaanam, which caused it to experience an illusion of samsaaram. That there appears to be controller and controlled is mithyaa. Nothing other than nirvishaesha chinmaathra bramham (qualityless, pure-consciousness bramham) is true.
We hear of people having gone to moaksham and yet jagath appears. Why? Because, there does not exist a state when one aathmaa is muktha and another badhdha. People who are said to have gone to moaksham have only attained saguna bramham (also an appreance). When they attain nirguna bramham, jagath will stop appearing.
Further, of all the shareerams alive, only one shareeram is jeevavath (has a jeevaathmaa). That jeevaathmaa is paramaathmaa. All other shareerams do not have jeevaathmaa. The apperance of aathmaa in other bodies is mithyaa. We dont know which shareeram has paramaathmaa.
When an aachaaryan teaches shaasthram to a shishyan, the aachaaryan, the artham he teaches are mithyaa (unreal). Pramaanam (authorities of knowledge), shaasthram, shroathaa (the listener), gnyaathaa (the knower), the gnyaanam resulting from shaasthram are all mithyaa. A mithyaa shaasthram is informed by a mithyaa aachaaryan to a mithyaa shishyan.
Here Bhaaskara matham is explained by pointing out where it is different from Shankara matham.
Shaasthrams declare qualities (gunams) such as apahathapaapmathvam, vibhoothis and so on for bramham. Therefore, those cannot be mithyaa. Instead, these gunams are svaabhaavikam (naturally-existing qualities). At the same time the shruthis teaching aikyam are also true. Therefore, the state of having qualities must have happened to bramham because of being tied down by an upaadhi (kaaranam). The upaadhi is that there is a shareeram in which bramham resides and experiences badhdhathvam (bondedness) and moakshathvam (liberatedness).
From Thaathparyadheepikai vyaakhyaanam for parambrmahivaagnyam shloakam:
achith bramhanoar bhaedhaabhaedhow svaabhaavikow --- Between achith and bramham both bhaedham and abhaedham are svaabhaavikam (natural) and, therefore, permanent.
chith bramhanoasthu bhaedham owpaadhikam, abhaedham svaabhaavikam --- Between chith and bramham bhaedham comes due to upaadhi (owpaadhikam), while abhaedham is natural (svaabhaavikam). Therefore, chith-bramha bhaedham is temporary and valid as long as the upaadhi exists (ie. when bramham is in the badhdha state in a shareeram). On the other hand, chith-bramha abhaedham is svaabhaavikam, occurring in the muktha state.
Here Yaadhavaprakaasha matham is explained by pointing out where it is different from Bhaaskara matham.
We explain aikyam correctly. Abhaedha shruthi teaches both achith-bramha abhaedham and chith-bramha abhaedham. Similarly, bhaedha shruthi teaches both achith-bramha bhaedham and chith-bramha bhaedham. Therefore, both bhaedham and abhaedham are natural for each pair.
For jeevaathmaa, in both badhdha and muktha states, bhaedham exists since he is different in svaroopam from bramham. Abhaedham exists between them in the muktha state, since jeevaathmaa acquires some of the qualities of bramham.
Bramham has countless kalyaana gunams even in the badhdha state but resides in one of chathurvidha dhaehams in this world or others. Thus bramham is above jeevaathmaas through its svabhaavam (kalyaana gunams) and yet it is like jeevaathmaas because it takes bodies etc.
Bramham undergoes changes in form, dimension (parinaama-aaspadhathvam), showing abhaedham with achith. Bramha swaroopam, however, shows bhaedham from achith.
From Thaathparyadheepikai vyaakhyaanam for parambrmahivaagnyam shloakam:
chithbramhanoarapi bhaedhaabhaedhow svaabhaavikow, mukthow bhaedhasyaapi nirdhaeshaath --- For achith-bramham pair, both bhaedham and abhaedham are svaabhaavikam (same as Bhaaskara matham). For chith-bramham pair also, both bhaedham and abhaedham are svaabhaavikam (ie., both bhaedham and abhaedham exist in muktha state also). This is different than in Bhaaskara matham, where there is only chith-bramha abhaedham in the muktha state. Yaadhavaprakaasha matham cites shruthi vaakyams saying bhaedham is svaabhaavikam in the muktha state too. Bhaedham because of difference in swaroopam and abhaedham because of common qualities.
Table summarizing the difference between Bhaaskara and Yaadhavaprakaasha mathams.
BETWEEN BRAMHAM AND ACHITH
BETWEEN BRAMHAM AND BADHDHA CHITH
BETWEEN BRAMHAM AND MUKTHA CHITH
BHAEDHAM & ABHAEDHAM
BHAEDHAM & ABHAEDHAM
BHAEDHAM & ABHAEDHAM
BHAEDHAM & ABHAEDHAM
BHAEDHAM & ABHAEDHAM
Class 4, 1 Feb 2009
Negation of several shruthivaakyams in shankara-adhvaitham.
Here some shruthi vaakyams are pointed out and explained to show that they go against shankara paksham. We ascertain the combined meaning of these vaakyams using sarvashaakhaa prathyaya nyaayam, explained in Class 3.
In 'thath thvam asi', we see based on context that 'thath' stands for bramham, whose sankalpam caused jagadhuthpaththi, vibhavam, layam.
Layam = going back to kaaranam state, not sadhbhaava vinaasham. Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryaar defines layam as visadhrusha avasthaa prahaanaena kaaranathvadharminaa dhravyaena vibhaagasya apaadhaana (that which doesnt move during an apaayam or vishlaesham) bhoothaena samshlaeshaha
Such bramham forms the subject of the set of vaakyams beginning with 'thadh aikshatha bahusyaam prajaayaeya' and ending with 'sanmoolaahaa ...' also. What is said in these vaakyams is that that bramham is all knowing, omni-potent, all-controlling, all- inseprable and all-dependent, unequalled and unsurpassed, attained all desires, finished all intentions, all-radiant, and possessing limitless, extraordinary and countless groups of such auspicious qualities. All of these, and his dhoshamlessness as known by the 'apahathapaapmaa...' vaakyam, are denied and considered false in shankara paksham.
In the vaakyam 'thadh aikshatha bahusyaam prajaayaeya',
thadh aikshatha --- bramham decided
bahusyaam --- to become/make many vyashti (indirectly made?) thathvams
prajaayaeya --- by becoming/making samashti (directly made?) thathvams
Here, the phalam (ie. bahusyaam) is said before the upaayam (ie. prajaayaeya).
Adhvaithi's claim that Udhdhaalakar's intention is to say that kaaranam alone is sathyam and that kaaranam is without vishaeshanams. Adhvaithi's interpretation of 'sadhaeva somya...', 'sathyam gnyaanam...'.
An adhvaithi of shankara paksham may say this in defense:
At the beginning of the set of vaakyams considered above, shruthi makes 'aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana' (knowledge of all things through the knowledge of one thing) prathignyaa. This means that the 'one thing' is the only thing that exists and the rest do not exist. The 'one thing' is the kaaranam, which is sathyam. The others are vikaarams (changes), which are asathyam. Vikaaram and naamadhaeyam (objects given names) are mere vaachaarambanams (ie., touched/addressed by words only, true only in words).
Taking the example of pot-making, shruthi says 'vaachaarambanam vikaaroa naamadhaeyam mrththikaethyaeva sathyam' (Changes and objects with names are addressed by words but only clay is true'). By analogy, bramham only is sathyam, jagath is mithyaa. Or, 'kaaranasyaiva sathyathaam' (only kaaranam is true).
Other shruthi vaakyams elaborate on this sole-truth of bramham as below:
- agrae aaseeth --- existed before
- sadhaeva aaseeth --- existed as only one type 'sath'. Nothing vijaatheeya (of another type) existed.
- aekamaeva aaseeth --- only that sath existed. Nothing else sajaatheeya (of same type) existed.
- adhvitheeyam aaseeth --- that sath did not have any avayavams (parts) or gunams. No svagatha bhaedham (differences within itself) existed.
Further, shruthi says bramham is purely nirvishaesham (attributeless):
- nishkalam = kalaa rahitham or avayava rahitham (part-less)
- nishkriyam = does not do any kaaryam
- nirgunam = no gunam
- niranjanam = karma sambhandha rahitham and thath phala rahitham (untouched by karma or its phalam)
- vignyaanam = pure gnyaana swaroopam
- aanandham = pure aanandha swaroopam
- sarva vishaesha prathyaneeka aakaarathaam = opposite-ness of all attributes
Shruthi also says 'sathyam gnyaanam anantham bramha'. Each of these words express that bramham is the vyaavruththam (opposite-ness) of a quality:
- sathyam = vikaaraath vyaavruththam (opposite-ness of change)
- gnyaanam = jadaath vyaavruththam (opposite-ness of insentinence)
- anantham = parichchinnaath vyaavruththam (opposite-ness of boundedness)
Saying that bramham has sathyam, gnyaanam and anantham is wrong because then three bramhams result. Similarly, we cannot say bramham has nirvikaaram-ness, because then bramham and its quality of nirvikaaram-ness become two true things, contradicting adhvaitham. Therefore, we say that bramham is the opposite-ness of vikaaram. Similarly it is for other nir-xxx gunams, where the meaning is that bramham is the vyaavruththam of xxx gunam. Note that the vyaavruththi itself is bramha swaroopam. This is why one bramham can be the vyaavruththi of several different gunams.
So far shankara paksham is defended.
Udhdhaalakar's real intention is to teach oneness of jagath's upaadhaana kaaranam and nimiththa kaaranam. Meaning of 'aadhaeshaha', 'sadhaeva somya...'.
In response Raamaanujar says:
When shruthi makes aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa, it means that through bramhagnyaanam all other padhaarthams (things) are known. This can be true only if all padhaarthams as well as bramham are true. It is not consistent if other padhaarthams are nonexistent and only bramham is existent. How can one know things that do not exist? If shruthi says we can know a padhaartham then that padhaartham must exist. Secondly, when shruthi says aikyam (ie., bramham and jagath are one), it would mean according to shankara paksham that shruthi is saying truth and falsehood are one.
'Aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa' can come true only if we say that jagath is bramhaathmakam (completely pervaded by bramham) and bramhakaaryam (created by bramham). Only in this case, understanding bramham amounts to understanding everything.
Udhdhaalakar asks Shvaethakaethu, "Did you ask about the aadhaesham?" The word 'aadhaesham' means prashaasanam (order/rule/command). Therefore, here 'aadhaesham' means bramham, since he is the prashaasithaa (commander). By sarvashaakhaa prathyaya nyaayam, we can confirm this by citing two places where bramham is referred to in this way:
From the brhadhaaranyaka upanishadh vaakyam 'aethasyavaa aksharasya prashaasanae....', we know that bramham (aksharaha or the destructionless) commands
We see this in the 'prashaasithaaram sarvaeshaam' vaakyam of manu smruthi.
In 'sadhaeva sowmya idhamagrae aaseeth aekamaeva adhvitheeyam':
- By 'aaseeth', shruthi says something existed before, meaning that that thing is the jagathkaaranam
- By 'sadhaeva aaseeth', shruthi makes sathkaarya vaadham (ie. srushti was out of something, sath, not out of nothing)
- By 'aekavamaeva aaseeth' it says that that sath is also the upaadhaana karanam. Only sath existed and, therefore, it alone is the material for creation
- By 'adhvitheeyam aaseeth' shruthi rules out a second entity, meaning that the same sath is also the nimiththa kaaranam.
This quality of bramham is called abhinna nimiththa-upaadhaanakathvam. In 'thaanoar uruvae thaniviththaai thannil moovar ...' (Thiruvaaimozhi 1.5.4), Nammaazhwaar makes the same point:
thaan uruvae viththu - azhagiya upaadhaana kaaranam
oar viththu - sahakaari kaaranam
thani viththu - nimiththa kaaranam
Since no one else is nimiththa, bramham itself is adhishtaathaa or prashaasithaaa or aadhaesham. This is why Uddhaalakar addresses bramham as aadhaesham wheh he asks Shvaethakaethu, "Did you ask about the aadhaesham?"
The aim here is to say that shruthi doesnt support shankara paksham, to do which Raamaanujar first explains what shruthi vaakyams mean.
Class 5, 7 Feb 2009
Udhdhaalakar's intention is that as in the case of mrunmaya vasthus, knowing the upaadhaana kaaranam makes the kaaryam known - aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa.
More shaankara adhvaitha khandanam and more on sadhaeva vaakyam and its prakaranam (context). Raamaanujar anlayzes the conversation between Udhdhaalakar and Shvaethakaethu to point out how the meaning of the conversation is what is said in VB 8 (ie. ‘naithadhaevam…ithyuktham syaath’).
When Udhdhaalar asks Shvaethakaethu, “You seem proud...did you ask about that aadhaesham which if known makes known everything?” he has the following in his mind:
- bramham’s nikhilakaaranathaa (ie. bramham’s being the cause of everything)
- because of which every thing in jagath is but a samsthaana-vishaesham (a specific/unique state or form) of bramham, or that effects are nothing but the cause in different forms
- for jagath, which is bramham with sthoola chaethana-achaethana shareeram, the cause is bramham with sookshma chaethana-achaethana shareeram.
Shvaethakaethu, not knowing this inner meaning, examines whether such an aadhaesham could exist in the first place, thinking it is unfitting (aghatamaanathaam) to say that two different things can be known by knowing one thing. He, therefore asks, “kathannu bhaghavasya aadhaesha? (How is bhagavaan aadhaesaha?)”
Udhdhaalakar answers this in two parts.
- Through the analogy of clay and objects made of clay, he first explains that it is possible to know many things by knowing one thing if it is the single upaadhaana kaaranam for all those things. This is the vaakyam: yathaa sowmya aekaena mruthpindaena sarvam mrunmayam vigyaatham syaath vaachaarambhanam vikaaroa naamadhaeyam mruththikaethyaeva sathyam.
- Next he says that as clay is the single upaadhaana kaaranam for all objects made of clay, bramham is the single upaadhaana kaaranam for jagath. This is the vaaykam: sadhaeva sowmya idham agra aaseeth aekamaeva adhvitheeyam. In addition, here he says that bramham is nimiththa kaaranam too, which makes it the aadhaesham.
1. Udhdhaakar had the following in mind in making the first statement, ‘yatha..sathyam’:
- bramham is gnyaana aanandha swaroopam
- bramham is amalam (blemishless). While jeevaathmaas have the malams (blemishes) of karmam and gnyaana-sankoacham (shrinking of knowledge) due to the particular shareeram taken, their antharaathmaa remains amalam.
- aparichchaedhya maahaathmyam (greatness of being boundless), sathyasankalpa mishraihi jushtan (santhushtan with desires realized with no hurdles)
- avikaara bramham changes the state of a part of its body from one of sookshma, naama roopa vibhaaga anarha (indistinguishable in name and form) chaethana-achaethanams to one of sthoola, naama roopa vibhaaga arha (distinguishable in name and form) chaethana-achaethanams.
- the latter state is the jagath we see, which is made of anantha vichithra (endless varieties of) sthirathrasa (unmoving and moving) samsthaanams
- this change happens for his own leelai (swaleelaayai), using an amsham of his qualities (eg. a part of his shakthi)
and is aiming to say that through this gnyaanam of bramham (kaaranam) everything else (kaaryam) is known. To this end, he uses the mruth-ghata-sharaava analogy to show that knowing the kaaranam (mruth) amounts to knowing the various objects made of mruth (ghatam and sharaavam). He says ghatam and sharaavam are merely two different samsthaana-vishaeshams of mruth and are, therefore, known through mruth. That is, one can know all kaaryams that are samsthaanams of a single kaaranam, by knowing that kaaranam. He says:
- yathaa sowmya aekaena mruthpindaena sarvam mrunmayam vignyaatham syaath --- like how knowing a lump of clay makes known everything that is of clay
- vaachaa-aarambhanam vikaaroa naamadhaeyam mruththikaethyaeva sathyam --- changes and names are in words, clay being the truth. Vaachaa-aarambhanam is defined as vaak poorvaka dhaana-upaadhaanaadhi vyavahaaraartham (ie. to talk about and work with) vikaaraha naamaadhaeyancha srushyaethae (ie. roopam-change and naming happen to the kaaranam).
Udhdhaalakar's message here is that ghatam and sharaavam are mruth only. That is, kaaryam is kaaranam only and, so, jagath is bramham only. Even though ghatam, sharaavam and so on are various names and various unique states attained so as to be the place of various applications, they are only specific states of mruth-material only, not any other thing (ie. naanaa vyavahaara aaspadhathvaaya ghata sharavaadhi naanaa samsthaana avasthaaroopa vikaaraapanna naanaa naamadhaeyam api, mruthtika samsthaana vishaeshathvaath mrugdhravyamaeva ithi avasthitham, na vasthvantharam).
Thus, Udhdhaalakar establishes that knowledge of the single upaadhaanakaaranam, mruth, gives knowledge of all its samsthaana vishaeshams (ghatam, sharaavam, etc).
Taking the prakaranam (context) we see that: (A) Udhdhaalakar's intention is that bramham is the single upaadhaana kaaranam of jagath; (B) 'sadhaeva somya...' means that bramham is the nimiththa kaaranam too; (C) '...bahusyaam prajaayaeya', '...anaena jeevaena...', means that any vasthu is thathvathrayaathmakam only.
2. Now, Udhdhaalakar moves on to the second part of his answer, where he points out that there exists a single upaadhaanakaaranam for jagath too, which is bramham. He says:
- sadhaevaa aaseeth --- means something pramaana sambhandha yoagyam (knowable by a pramaanam) existed. It existed as sath only.
- idham --- means 'this' and refers to something that is currently known by prathyaksham, right in front of our eyes. In this case 'idham' represents the jagath we see ('athra idham jagannirdhishtam').
- agrae --- refers to the time before jagath became the way you see it
- aekamaeva aaseeth --- means that it was the only thing existing to get changed to jagath (ie. it is the upaadhaanam)
- adhvitheeyam aaseeth --- means that it was the only thing existing to make a sankalpam to change (ie. it is the nimiththa kaaranam). The existence of another entity to make a sankalpam is ruled out by 'adhvitheeya' padham ('adhvitheeya padhaena prathishidhdham’).
(In Thiruvaaimozhi paasuram 2.8.10, Nammaazhwaar makes the same point with 'vaer mudhalaai viththaai ...', where 'vaer' means sahakaari kaaranam, 'mudhal' means nimiththa kaaranam, and 'viththu' means upaadhaana kaaranam.)
By this way, Udhdhaalakar shows clearly what he had in mind: (a) that bramham is jagath-upaadhaanam and, therefore, knowing it makes everything else known (aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa); and (b) that bramham is also the nimiththa karanam and, therefore, the aadhaesham. Thus, he answers Shveathakethu’s question of ‘how is bramham aadhaesham?'
More shruthi vaakyams of the same idea:
- thadh aikshatha bahusyaam prajaayaeya --- meaning, since bramham is both kaaranams it decided to become the vichithra-chidh-achidh-roopa jagath by using a part of its amsham to make viyadhaadhi elements (space and so on)
- hanthaaham imaasthisroa dhaevathaahaa anaena jeevaena aathmanaa anupravishya naamaroopae vyaakaravaani --- meaning, i enter into the aathmaas of earth, water and fire dhevathais, and all the jeevaas, and separate them into various naamaroopams. This shows that jeevaathmaa has bramham as aathmaa and vyaapakan and that bramham with a jeevaathmaa as shareeram enters into achith. This means that for achith to exist, a jeevaathmaa must exist inside with bramham inside the jeevaathmaa.
Class 6, 8 Feb 2009
Everything is bramham's shareeram. Everything has bramham as its aathmaa and, in this way, everything is bramham's prakaaram. Any term denoting anything has full meaning only when the term denotes the thing's antharyaami paramaathmaa inside.
More on anaena jeevaena aathmanaa shruthi (ie. hanthaaham imaasthisroa dhaevathaahaa anaena jeevaena aathmanaa anupravishya naamaroopae vyaakaravaani). 'anaena jeevaena…naamaropae vayakaravvani' means 'i enter the various jeevas and distinguish them with various naamaroopams'.
What is said here is that before srushti, everything existed as one unidentifiable entity on bramham's shareeram, and in srushti bramham enters sookshma jeevas, to create manifest jeevas. Then through the entered jeevas, he enters into sookshma achiths to give them manifest existence. Therefore, everything that has a unique name and form has to be thathvathrayaathmakam (ie. of all three thathvams).
Since nothing living or non-living can have existence without a jeevaathmaa inside and a paramaathmaa within the jeevaathmaa, any word denoting a thing should mean all the way in to the paramaathmaa, in aparyavasaana vruththi. If we stop with meaning just the thing or stop at meaning the thing with its jeevaathmaa, then it is paryavasaana vruththi. Since the thing does not have existence without the innermost paramaathmaa, the word denoting the thing gets poorthi only if it refers to everything strating from the achith thing all the way in to paramaathmaa.
Let us consider the shruthi vaakyam 'yasya aathmaa shareeram ...'. The word aathmaa means vyaapkan (one who pervades). Therefore, jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa are both vyaapakans. However, there is a difference between their vyaapakathvams (ie., in how they pervade). To understand, let us compare
(a) the vyaapakam of the mukhya jeevaathmaa inside a living body, and
(b) the vyaapakam of paramaathmaa/bramham inside its body, made of jeevaathmaas.
In case (a), since the jeevaathmaa is anu (finite and very small) he sits in one part of the body. His vyaapakam comes through his dharmabhootha gnyaanam, which is spread through out the body, making him aware of and controlling every part of it.
In case (b), paramaathmaa's vyaapakam inside his body of jeevas is by in-dwelling each of them directly. Or every single jeevaathmaa has bramham inside it as aathmaa and, therefore, can be called bramhaathmakam.
Thus jeevaathmaas are apruthaksidhdha viashaeshanams (never-separating and ever-dependent) of bramham. This quality makes a jeevaathmaa a prakaaram (mode) of bramham. Similarly, vasthus in different aakaarams or samsthaanams such as dhaeva, asura, yaksha, raakshasa, manushya, thiryak, sthaavaram are apruthaksidhdha vishaeshanams of a group of jeevas (jeevasamudhaayam). Consequently, these samsthaanams are apruthaksiddhha vishaenams of bramham. Since achith, jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa are all nithyam the apruthaksidhdha relationships just explained are also nithyam.
Therefore, words denoting objects like dhaeva, asura (bad sura), manushya, raakshasa (bad manushya), kaashtaha, ghataha, pataha, in fact mean a samudhaayam (set) of all of the following:
- those unique states (ie. dhaeva, asura, etc.),
- their unique abhimaana jeevaathmaas, and
- their antharyaami paramaathma.
Thus, again, since everything is thathvathryaathmakam, word denoting the thing gets poorthi only if it means the whole thathvathrayam and goes until the antharaathmaa, baramham.
If jeeva is gnyaana swaroopan and gunakan, then how can inanimate objects like kaashtaha have a jeevaathmaa inside. This is because the jeevaathmaas in these objects have very little guna gnyaanam, and are just for the existence and dhaaranam of the objects. The guna gnyaanam of mukhya jeevaathmaas decrease from very high in dhaevas to nearly zero in kaashtaha.
When wood is broken, the mukhya jeevaathmaa in it leaves and other jeevaathmaas take over the dhaaranam of the parts. Conversely, before a chair is made the parts have individual jeevaathmaas. After the chair is made, one jeevaathmaa takes over as the mukhya jeevaathmaa with the others just existing. When a leg is broken, a jeevaathma immediately takes over for the dhaaranam of the separate independent leg. As countless jeevaathmaas float around all over, the moment an independent achith comes into existence, one of these jeevaas or one of those in the chair or the leg takes over dhaaranam.
When a living being dies the mukhya jeevaathamaa, responsible for its functioning, leaves. Then another jeevaathmaa enters the body and takes over for its existence as a dead body.
There is a jeevaathmaa in a tree too, as can be known from the fact that it grows towards sunlight, for example, showing sign of its gnyaanam howsoever small it is. When a fruit falls off, the tree aathmaa cannot be the dhaarakam of the fruit anymore, at which time a jeevaathmaa in the fruit takes over. The latter aathmaa was not required for dhaaranam when the fruit was with the tree.
Being bramhaathmakam is the only way things exist. This is the meaning of 'aithadhaathmyam'. This is true of jagath in general as well as in the specific case of 'thvam'.
Raamaanujar continues to analyze the conversation between Udhdhaalakar and Shvaethakaethu.
So far, with the vaakyam 'sadhaeva sowmya idham agra aaseeth', Udhdhaalakar said that sath is uthpaththi kaaranam for jagath. Now he adds, "sanmoolaahaa soamya imaahaa sarvaahaa prajaahaa sadhaayathanaahaa sathprathishtaahaa", by which he is conveying that sath is not just uthpaththi but also sthithi and laya kaaranams for jagath. He says that all these things/living beings ('imaahaa sarvaahaa prajaahaa'):
- sanmoolaahaa --- have sath as their origin. That is, jagath is sadhupaadhaana and sannimiththa. Or, sath is the uthpaththi kaaranam.
- sadhaayathanaahaa --- have sath as their place or support. That is, jath is sadhdhaarana, sanniyaamya and sachchaeshi. Or, sath is the sthithi kaaranam.
- sathprathishtaahaa --- have sath as their laya kaaranam, the only kaaranam left.
After this, Udhdhaalarkar says "aithadhaathmyam idham sarvam thath sathyam thath thvam asi shvaethakaethoa". He means that:
- aithadhaathmyam idham sarvam --- the sath as explained above is the aathmaa for everything here. Or, that bramham is the aathmaa for jagath
- thath sathyam --- that is the truth, meaning that jagath exists only as bramhaathmakam (having bramham as aathmaa)
- thath thvam asi shvaethakaethoa --- you are that Shvaethakaethu, meaning that you too exist like jagath with bramham as aathmaa.
In other words, he states first in the general that jagath has bramham as aathmaa. Then, through 'thath thvam asi', he points out in the specific that Shvaethakaethu also has bramham as aathmaa. What is true for the general case of jagath (thath) is also true for you (thvam). What is the antharyaami (thath) of all jeevaathmaas is the antharyaami (thvam) of the specific jeevaathmaa too.
Note that 'thath' addresses jagath and all the way in to the one antharaathmaa of everything in jagath. Similarly 'thvam' addresses the jeevaathmaa, Shvaethakaethu, all the way in to his antharaathmaa. Therefore, we define 'thvam' as purovarthi shvaethakaethu vaachya jeevaantharyaami paramaathman (ie. the anthayaami paramaathman of the Shvaethakaethu jeevaathmaa standing in front). We say this because, as explained before, the jeevaathma is an apruthaksidhdha vishaeshanam and prakaaram of paramaathmaa. Adhvaithis, however, stop with 'thvam' meaning only upto Shvaethakaethu jeevaathmaa (paryavasaana vruththi).
VB 13 & 14
Bramhaathmakathvam only means shareera-aathma-bhaavam, not aikyam.
In 'thath thvam asi', 'thath' means jagathkaarana bramham and 'thvam' means jeeva-antharyaami bramham. Both terms mean all the way in to the antharyaami paramaathmaa.
So far what is said is that prapancham is bramhaathmakam. Now, Raamaanujar explains why bramhaathmakathvam has to be through shareraathmabhaavam and why not through swaroopa-aikyam.
First, let us see what happens if it is swaroopaikyam. This means that bramham and jagath (achith or jeevaathmaa) are the same. If bramham is achith, then bramham's sathya-sanklpathvam that 'thadh aikshatha bahusyaam prajaayaeya' gets affected. That is, being achith denies bramham the ability to make a sankalpam. If bramham is jeevaathmaa, then bramham should get jeevaathmaa's dhoshams like karmavashyathvam, dhukhkham, again conflicting with shruthi. Further, dhuhkham and karmavashyathvam makes bramham unworthy of upaasanam, disagreeing with shruthi yet again. Therefore, swaroopa aikyam is wrong.
Next, let us see what pramaanams exist for shareeraathma bhaavam. Here the following shruthi vaakyams are cited, for instance, through which shareeraathma bhaavam is specifically known:
anthafpravishtash shaasthaa janaanaam sarvaathmaa --- enters into and commands all aathmaas
ya aathmani thishtan aathmaanam antharo yamayathi sa thae aathmaa antharyaami amruthaha --- he who is in the aathmaa as the aadhaaram and commander, is your aathmaa, antharyaami, owner and is deathless
... anaena jeevaena aathmanaa anupravishya naamaroopae vyaakaravaani --- i enter into the various jeevaathmaas, and separate them into various naamaroopams.
Through these shruthi vaakyam clearly show aathma lakshanam for bramham and shareera lakshanam for jeevaathmaa. Similarly, we know of that all vasthus are apruthaksidhdha vishaeshanams of bramham. Thus, we have pramaanams saying all vasthus are shareeram and prakaaram of bramham. Therefore, all shabhams point to bramham.
Again, this is how 'thath' and 'thvam' both point to bramham. Since bramham is the common adhikaranam to both, 'thath thvam' means bramham thro saamaanaadhikaranyam. A definition of saamaanaadhikaranyam is prakaara bhaedha vishishta prakaari aekathvam (ie. one prakaari having different prakaarams). With this we say that:
- 'thath' points to jagath and goes all the way to its kaaranam/antharyaami/prakaari, say entity A.
- 'thvam' points to shvaethakaethu jeevaathmaa and means all the way to his kaaranam/antharyaami/prakaari, say entity B.
- 'thath thvam asi' means the two kaaranams/antharyaamis/prakaaris, A and B, are the same.
Since A and B are adhikaranams for 'thath' and 'thvam', that A and B are the same (ie. the samaanam-ness of the two adhikaranams) is established through saamaanaadhikaranyam.
Since words are used to their fullest meanings here (as opposed to adhvaithis) they are words of vishaesha boadhanam. For such words, the ultimate vishaeshyam or ultimate subject is their pravruththi nimiththam. Both 'thath' and 'thvam' have bramaham as their pravruththi nimiththam (bramhanayaeva vruththihi).
Finally, though shareeraathma bhaavam shruthi vaakyams showing the qualities of bramham such as niravadhyathvam, nirvikaarathvam, sarvakalyaanagunaakarathvam are not denied.
People that have not listened to vaedhaantham do not see that everything is bramhaathmakam. They do not take the full meaning of the word to be the antharyaami.
People who have not listened to Vaedhaantham do not see this.
Class 7, 14 Feb 2009
Shankaramatha khandanam continues. As mentioned before, this part of the grantham is an explanation of 'shruthi nyaaya apaetham' of shloakam 2. Raamaanujar is currently showing how shankaramatham is shruthi apaetham, taking vaakyams from Chaandhoagya Upanishath.
So far, Swami said that 'thath thvam asi' means, not aikyam, but shareeraathma bhaavam, apruthaksidhdha vishaeshanam, prakaara-prakaari bhaavam etc., with the words 'thath' and 'thvam' having boadhakam until the antharaathmaa. He also said that all words have boadhakam until antharyaami paramaathmaa.
We now cite pramaanam for using shareeraathmabhaavam in interpreting shruthis where jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa are apparently said to be the same or are addressed by the same words. Raamaanujar bases this on several instances, where aachaaryans before him have given this interpretation. Here are two of them:
- We refer to vaakyaanvaya adhikaranam (Shreebhaashyam 1.4.6.) which deals with four soothrams from Bramhasoothram. There the shruthivaakyam 'aathmaavaa arae dhrashtavyaha shroathavyoa manthavyoa nidhidhyaasithavyaha' is discussed with Saankhyan as the poorvapakshi (opponent). The vaakyam means 'to see aathmaa listen to it, think about it, and do dhyaanam on it'. Saankhyan says 'aathmaa' in the vaakyam stands for jeevaathmaa, which is rejected by Vaedhavyaasar, who says it means paramaathmaa or bramham. He says that since the vaakyam calls for dhyaanam on the aathmaa, it does not fit well with the vaakyam (ie. it lacks vaakya-anvayam) to say that 'aathmaa' means the dhoasham-ful jeevaathmaa. It fits well with the vaakyam only if 'aathmaa' means paramaathmaa, who is worthy of dhyaanam. Here, Vyaasar cites the interpretations of three rishis - Aashmarathyar, Audaloami, and Kaashakruthsnar - in this order:
- Aashmarathyar says 'Ghatam is nothing but mruth and, therefore, it can be called mruth. Similarly, jeevaathmaa can be called bramham.' Vaedhaanthaachaaryar explains that Aashmarathyar's opinion is vyakthi-aikyam (ie. that bramham and jeevaathmaa are the same).
- Audalomi says 'uthkramishyatha aevam bhaavaath'. Jeevaathmaa is going to become bramham and is, therefore, called bramham.' He means that in moaksham or uthkramishya dhashai (elevated state) jeevaathmaa becomes bramham.
- Kaashakruthsnar says 'avasthithaehae'. The same word is used for jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa because of their never-separate state.' Since this is the last matham pointed out by Vyaasar, we know that it is his matham too.
- Nammaazhwaar shows this in 'yaanum thaanaai ozhindhaanae' paasuram (Thiruvaaimozhi 8.8.3). The Eedu vyaakhyaanam for this says 'When aazhwaar is called, perumaal turns (responds)', meaning such is the level of apruthaksidhdham or the extent to which perumaal has aazhwaar as his prakaaram.
This shows precedence for the apruthaksidhdha/shareeraathmabhaava interpretation applied by Raamaanujar.
Again, 'thath thvam asi' means 'purovarthi shvaethakaethu-vaachya jeeva-antharyaami paramaathman thvam, thath jagathkaaranabhootha paramaathmaa asi (ie. you, the paramaathmaa inside the jeevaathmaa called Shvaethakaethu standing in front, are the paramaathmaa that is jagathkaaranam)'. 'Thath', 'thvam', and in fact all words have boadhakam until the antharyaami paramaathmaa. Now Raamaanujar defends this by taking up possible objections (aakshaepams).
Achith-jeeva-vishishta-antharyaami-paramaathmaa is the full meaning of any shabdham. People do not understand this as the antharyaami is beyond prathyaksham. They understand only after vaedhaantha-shravanam.
Nanu (however), people never use words in practice to mean all the way to antharaathmaa. By 'gowhu' people only mean cow-pindam. Is this not contradictory to loka gnyaanam (vyuthpaththihi)?
Raamaanujar says that it is not so. He says that all words definitely point to antharaathmaa as known by '...naama roopae vyaakaravaani' shruthi. People stop with pindam in practice because even though the pradhaana amsham of gowhu is its antharyaami paramaathmaa, it is unknowable by prathyaksham or anumaanam (prathyakshaadhi-aparichchaedhyathvaath). If they ponder over it a little, they can at best infer (know by anumaanam) that a jeevaathmaa exists inside but not paramaathmaa. They get to know this only through vaedhaanthashravanam. This is key since no knowledge is complete without samskrutha dhraavida vaedhaanthashravanam. Knowing anything about anything is useless unless we know its sthithi pravruththi laya kaaranams, which people get only through vaedhaanthashravanam.
This artham is conveyed by Vishnupuraana shloakam 6.5.87:
samgnyaayathae yaena thadhartha dhoasham shudhdham param nirmalam aeka roopam sandhrusyathaevaapi adhigamyathaevaa thajgnyaanam agnyaanam athonyadhuktham
It says that achith has a lot of dhoashams, the sambandham of which makes badhdha jeevaathmaas acquire dhoashams of karmavashyathai. The mukthaathmaas are better since they do not have these dhoashams anymore. The nithyaathmaas are always dhoasham-free since they never had karmavashyathai. Bramham is also ever dhoasham-less and, moreover, it is aekaroopam (not many, unlike nithyaathmaas). The upaasanaroopa-gnyaanam that enables knowing, seeing and attaining such bramham is gnyaanam. All other gnyaanams are the opposite (agnyaanam), which are different from gnyaanam, the viroadhi of gnyaanam, and the absence of true gnyaanam.
When asked what he learnt on Shukraachaaryar's Neethishaasthram, Prahlaadhan says (Vishnupuraana shloakam 1.19.39 and 41):
thadhaebhiralam athyartham dhrushtaarambhoakthi vistharaihi avidhyaanthargathairyathnaha karthavyasthaatha shoabhanae
thath karma yanna bandhaaya saavidhyaa yaa vimukthayae aayaasaayaaparankarma vidhyaanyaa shilpanaipunam
meaning 'All it gives is knowledge of mere temporary, perceptible things (dhrushtam). Enough with them as these amount to avidhyai. Efforts should go towards mangalam, which is learning true vidhyai, that which does not tie one in karmam, that which gives moaksham. All others only give shramam to dhaeham and are vyartha gnyaanams (vidhyaanyaa shilpanaipunam).'
Thirumazhisaiaazhwaar says (Nanmugan Thiruvandhaadhi, 54)
thaevaraai nirkum aththaaevum aththaevaril moovaraai nirkum mudhupurarppum yaavaraai nirkindradhellaam nedumaalendroaraadhaar karkindradhellaam kadai
meaning 'If one does not know that perumaal is Vishnu and Aadhithyan among dhaevars, that his oldest avathaaram is Vishnu among Bramhaa-Vishnu-Shivan, and that he is all the jeevaathmaas everywhere, then everyting else one knows is vyartham'. Note that aazhwaar says perumaal is all the jeevaathmaas (yaavar), but does not mention achiths. It is implicit here that achiths have jeevaathmaas inside them first.
Nanjeeyar notes how Bhattar and Thiruvarangapperumaal Arayar do pradhakshanam around Shreerangam koavil slowly, taking it all in, and doing mangalaashaasanam to every goapuram, madhil and praakaaram, and contrasts it with how fast general people do pradhakshanam just to get it over with. In Thiruvaaimozhi 9.1, Nammaazhwaar addresses such people with '...siththavaendaa sindhippae amayum...' paasuram, meaning 'one need not exert oneself too much - just thinking for a moment about perumaal would do'.
Thus, Raamaanujar says 'vaedhaanthashravaenana hi vuthpaththihi pooryathae (ie. only through vaedhaanthashravanam we know words compeletely)'. He also says that all vaidhika shabdhams have paramaathmaa as their end meaning (svaartham).
Achith-jeeva-vishishta-antharyaami-paramaathmaa is the full meaning of vaedha shabdhams too.
Now, Raamaanujar demonstrates that paramaathmaa is the svaartham of all shabdhams, not just vaidhika shabdhams, simply because all shabdhams originate from vaedham.
At the beginning of a kalpam, perumaal creates things and assigns vaidhika shabdhams to them. He recreates objects of unique forms (samsthaahaa) similar to previous kalpam and gives them the same names as before. This is the artham of the following shloakams by Manu and Paraasharar.
sarvaeshaam thu sa naamaani karmaani cha pruthak pruthak vaedhashabdhaebhya aevaadhow pruthak samsthaashcha nirmamae
naamaroopam cha bhoothaanaam kruthyaanaam cha prapanchanam vaedhashabdhaebhya aevaadhow dhaevaadheenaam chakaara saha
Note: Bhootham means dhaeham with aathmaa inside.
Also, Shruthi says:
sooryaa chandhramasow dhaathaa yathaa poorvam akalpayath
meaning that perumaal creates and bears sooryan and chandhran as in the previous kalpam. Therefore, we can see that sooryan and chandhran mean the same things in previous and present kalpams.
The nyaayam 'ya aeva lowkikaahaa tha aeva vaidhikaahaa (how worldly things are is how Vedic things are)' means that loaka gnyaanam is poorvam and vaedha gnyaanam param. This is true in gnyapthi (ie. when knowing things). However, in uthpaththi, the opposite is true - vaedha shabhdham poorvam loaka shabdham param.
Shareera-aathma bhaavam or prakaara-prakaari bhaavam is how jagath and bramham are one. This is the only WAY jagath exists. 'aithadhaathmyam idham sarvam thath sathyam' means this is the only TRUE WAY.
In VBs 16 and 17, Raamaanujar addressed the objection of contradiction (see beginning of VB 16) and showed how all words point to paramaathmaa. He also explained how kaarya-kaarana or prakaara-prakaari bhaavams are why the same words are often used by shruthi to denote jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa. Therefore, he says here that it is only consistent to say that 'through knowing one thing (bramham) we know everything (ie. jagath, which is bramhaathmakam).'
This means that jagath can exist only in this way. In other words, jagath has reality or existence only in this way, that is, as a shareeram and prakaaram of bramham. This is the only way that is true. Raamaanujar points out that this is what is meant by 'thath sathyam' in the vaakyam 'aithadhaathmyam idham sarvam thath sathyam...':
- idham sarvam --- jagath
- aithadhaathmyam --- jagath's bramhaathmakathvam
- thath --- jagath's bramhaathmakathvam
- sathyam --- jagath's bramhaathmakathvam is sathyam
Again, 'thath' refers to the 'way' of jagath's existence (ie. its bramhaathmakathvam). Therefore, 'aithadhaathmyam idham sarvam thath sathyam' means that jagath's bramhaathmakathvam is true.
The intent behind saying 'thath sathyam' is to say that any other way of existence is not real, menaing 'that something can exist independently of bramham' is asathyam.
Shodhaka-vaakyams like 'sathyam gnyaanam...' do not teach nirvishaesha bramham.
Next, adhvaithi raises aakshaepams taking shodhaka vaakyams (ie. vaakyams which say bramham is doshamless inspite of becoming and being the aathmaa of doshamful jagath). One such vaakyam is 'sathyam gnyaanam anantham bramhaa', which the adhvaithi interprets as saying that bramham's swaroopam is the vyaavruththi of asathyam, agnyaanam, etc, and that bramham as such is nirvishaesham.
We disagree saying that the vaakyam means that sathyam, gnyaanam, etc are vishaehsams of bramham. Before getting into how Raamaanujar establishes this, let us see how aazhwaars show the same artham:
- In Thirumangaiaazhwaar's 'nandhaa vilakkae alaththarkkariyaai' paasuram (Periya Thirumozhi 3.8.1)
- nandhaa --- sathyam, azhivatradhu (never ceases to exist), orupadippattadhu (ever the same)
- vilakkae --- gnyaanam, as it is swayamprakaasham (self-shining or shows itself without requiring an external entity)
- alaththarkkariyaai --- anantham (boundless)
- Nammaazhwaar talks about vilakku in 'nandhaa vilakkamae' paasuram (Thiruvaaimozhi 2.1.9.)
- 'nandhaa vilakkamae' means 'permanent vilakkae' or 'ever-the-same vilakkae'. In this paasuram, aazhwaar addresses vilakku in this way and wonders if it is hot because of separation from perumaal.
- The Eedu vyaakhyaanam for this paasuram is interesting and teaches us what is called the jwaalaabhaedha anumaanam.
Manavaalamaamunigal says in Pramaanaththirattu, 'madhyamakshana paramparaavarthinee jwaalaa prathikshanam uthpaththi vinaashavathi ...', meaning that from the time a lamp is lit to the time it is put out 'the sequence of flames at intermediate times is created and destroyed at every instant.'
When we light a lamp we see uthpaththi of prathamajwaalai in the first kshanam, and when the lamp is put out we see the vinaasham of anthimajwaalai. As the wick (bharthi) burns through, we see a sequence of different flames burning at different points on the wick. Therefore, even though the flames look identical, they are different from each other. At every kshanam a new jwaalai is created and the old destroyed but we do not perceive this.
Agni has the 'aashraya aashee' svabhaavam, which means it destroys its aashrayam (substrate). Since nothing can exist without its aashrayam, it amounts to agni destroying itself. So, the only way the wick continues to burn is if a jwaalai, before destroying its part of the wick, creates another jwaalai in the next part of the wick. (If we say it is the same jwaalai with all parts of the wick as kaaranam, it means that many kaaranams are required for one kaaryam, which has no pramaanam.) Thus, fire is 'bharthi-avayava samyoagam', as it is made of a sequence of jwaalais continuously taking a sequence of wick-parts (bharthi-avayavam) as aashrayam. This is jwaalaabhaedha anumaanam.
Now, if jwaalais are different, how can aazhwaar say 'nandhaa vilakkae (ever-the-same vilakkae)'? This is because in his current state of mind aazhwaar is not able to see the non-obvious jwaalaabhaedha anumaanam. In fact, he is not even able to see that the vilakku is hot because of its nature. Instead he thinks it is hot because it is separated from perumaal.
Class 8, 15 Feb 2009
VB 19 continued
Shankaramatha khandanam continues, taking shoadhaka vaakyams, which say that bramham is dhoasham-less even though it is the kaaranam and aathmaa of dhoasham-ful jagath.
We first take the shoadhaka vaakyam, 'sathyam gnyaanam anantham bramha yovaedha nihitham guhaayaam paramaevyoman' and see how it is interpeted in adhvaitam. Before doing that, though, let us see how Raamaanjuar interprets it through two nyaayams - saamaanya vishaesha nyaayam and uthsarga apavaadha nyaayam.
- saamaanya vishaesha nyaayaha --- upaaththa vishaeshae saamaanya shabdhasya sankoachaha (ie. the meaning of a generic term gets reduced to mean something specific). For example, shaasthram says in one place, '...pashum aalabhaetha...', meaning 'use an animal (pashu)' for yaagam. 'Pashu' is a generic term for any animal. In another place, it says '...chaagasya...', meaning 'use vellaadu (sheep)' specifically. From this we know that the generic term 'pashu' actually means 'vellaadu'. This is saamaanya vishaesha nyaayam. Similarly, in one place shaasthram says that bramham is nirgunam (gunam-less), generically ruling out all gunams. However, in another place, it says bramham is apahathapaapmaa (dhoasham-less), ruling out dhoashams in specific. Therefore, using saamaanya vishaesha nyaayam, we say that by 'nirgunam (gunam-less)' shaasthram only means 'nirdhoasham (dhoasham-less).'
- uthsarga apavaadha nyaayaha --- upaaththa vishaesha vyathiriktha vishayae saamaanya shabdhasya viroadhaparihaaraaya sankoacha (ie. the general rule or uthsargam applies except when a specific contradictory rule or apavaadham applies). In other words, in places of apavaadham, uthsargam gets sankoacham (gets reduced or overridden). For example, shaashthram says in one place '..na himsyaath sarvaabhoothaani...', meaning 'do not do himsai to any bhoothams'. This is a general statement prohibiting himsai to anything, as 'bhootham' means anything that exists or any achith with an aathmaa inside. But shaashtram also says, '...pashum aalabhaetha..', calling for pashu himsai in yaagam. Therefore, we take it that shaasthram means 'do not do himsai except when doing yaagam'. That is, the uthsargam 'na himsyaath sarvaabhoothaani' applies except when the apavaadham 'pashumaalabhaetha' applies. This is uthsarga apavaadha nyaayam. (As for pashu himsai during yaagam, it is only temporary with the more lasting result of the pashu attaining svargam and being born back with a better shareeram. Therefore, this is hitham, not himsai.) Similarly, when shaasthram says 'nirgunam' in general, it is uthsargam. This gets overridden when shaasthrams says 'sathyakaamaha', 'sathyasankalpaha', etc., which are apavaadhams. Therefore, using this nyaayam, we say that bramham is nirgunam except for the gunams of sathyakaamathvam, sathyasankalpathvam, etc.
Thus, by the two nyaayams, we say that bramham has kalyaana gunams and does not have non-kalyaana gunams. Now, as bramham can have gunams, Raamaanujar says that sathyam, gnyaanam, anantham are gunams of bramham.
Now, adhvaithi raises aakshaepam to this meaning of the shoadhaka vaakyam 'sathyan gnyaanam anantham bramha'. He says that it would amount to three bramhams if we say sathyam, gnyaanam and anatham are qualities bramham has. We ask why, since in lowkikam we see all the time one thing having several qualities (as long as they are not paraspara virudhdham/mutually contradictory). The adhvaithi says that this is possible only in lowkikam as we can determine through prathyaksham that it is indeed one thing that has those qualities. He says that shaasthram, in contrast, is teaching about something beyond prathyaksham and, therefore, there is no way to know for sure that the entity with these qualities is only one bramham. Since prathyaksham does not show oneness, three bramhams will result if we say sathyam, gnyaanam and anatham are qualities.
Further, he asks that if the three are qualities, then are they on bramham sequentially or simultaneously. If sequentially, say, with sathyam followed by gnyaanam, then gnyaanam becomes a quality of both bramham and sathyam together, which is not what shruthi says. If simultaneously, then all three dhamrams should be one unless we know by pathyaksham that they are different.
But, at the same time, sathyam, gnyaanam and anantham are shruthi words having different meanings, which cannot be denied. Therefore, the only solution is to say that sathyam, gnyaanam, anantham mean only vyaavruththams from their opposites (namely, vikaaraath, jadaath, parichchinnadh vyaavruththams, respectively) as explained in VB 7.
Therefore, the adhvaitha matham is that bramham is the opposite of all qualities (ie. sarvaprathyaneeka aakaarathaa).
If shruthis teach sarvaprathyaneeka aakaarathaa, then are the three vyaavruththams the same? Or are they different? If same, then shaasthram has no need to describe each separately. In place of 'sathyam, gnyanam...' it should have just said 'bramham, bramham...'. Because it says 'sathyam gnyaanam...', each vyaavruththi should be different. This means that there is more than one vyaavruththi and, therefore, adhvaitham fails.
Secondly, how did you know it is vyaavruththam, in the first place? Prathyaksham does not show that.
Finally, if bramham is indeed vyaavruththam then it makes bramham a dharmam (a quality), not a vasthu. In that case, what is the vasthu, whose dharmam bramham is? It is meaningless to say that a dharmam exists without a dharmi vasthu.
All this means that sathyam, gnyaanam and anantham are qualities of bramham. The shodhaka vaakyam 'sathyam gnyaanam anantham bramha' says that bramham has the vishaeshanams sathyam, gnyaanam and anantham.
Bramham cannot be gnyaanamaathram. It has to be gnyaathaa.
If bramham has gnyaanam then why does shruthi not say gnyaanavath? It merely says 'gnyaanam...bramha'. Therefore, bramham should be gnyaanamaathram (ie. just gnyaanam, not a thathvam that has gnyaanam).
It says so because gnyaanam is bramham's swaroopa niroopaka dharmam. Like saasnaa to the cow, it is a unique quality defining bramham's identity. In the cow's case, the cow is addressed with the word 'gowhu', meaning 'that which has goathvam'. 'Goathvam', for example, is the quality of having saasnaa, through which we know cows as different from other animals. This is the swaroopa niroopaka dharmam defining the identity of the cow. Other qualities, such as having horns and tail, are niroopitha swaroopa vishaeshanams (ie. qualities known after knowing the identity).
Soothrakaarar (Vyaasar) too says this in the following two soothrams:
- thathgunasaarathvaath thu thadhvyapadhaeshaha praagnyavath --- meaning 'by virtue of a gunam being the essence of something, that thing can be addressed as the gunam itself, like in the case of bramham'. He is explaining here shruthis like 'vignyaanam yagnyam thanuthae (vignyaanam does yagnyam)' and 'yo vignyaanae thishtan (he who stands in vignyaanam)'. In these shruthis, 'vignyaanam' refers to jeevaathmaa. Jeevaathmaa has gnyaanam as his swaroopa niroopaka dharmam or as his essential quality and, therefore, he is addressed as gnyaanam or vignyaanam. Vyaasar says that this is similar to how bramham is addressed as aanandham in the vaakyam 'aanandho bramhaethivyajaanaath'. Since aanandham is just anukoola gnyaanam (favorable knowledge), it cannot be bramham. Yet, shruthi addresses bramham as aanandham because bramham is aanandha-prachuram (full of aanandham). Thus, bramham can be called gnyaanam because it is gnyaanaprachuram.
- Madhurakaviaazhwaar says in his 4th paasuram that 'nanmaiyaal mikka naanmaraiyaalargal' consider him as 'pumai' itself, rather than 'punmaiyaalan'. Aazhwaar says so since, according to him, 'punmai' is his swaroopa niroopaka dharmam.
- Kannan says in geethai 'yagnyashishtaashinassanthaha muchyanthae sarvakilbishaihi, bhunjathae thae thvagham paapaahaa yae pachanthyaathmakaaranaath', meaning 'those who eat prasaadham from yagnyam (dhaevapoojai) are released from all paapams, those who cook/eat for themselves eat paapams'. Here Kannan addresses the latter people as paapaahaa (paapams) rather than paapinaha (paapis). Kannan treats them as paapams because they are paapaprachuram. (When we eat, the jeevaathmaa in the food feels pain and leaves his food-shareeram, causing us paapam. This is why kandarulappannudhal is important, as by doing it we do not get this paapam.)
- yaavadhaathmabhaavithvaachcha na dhoashaha thath dharshanaath --- menaing 'as we see in practice, it is not wrong to call something by its dharmam if it is permanent'. Therefore, since gnyaanam is permanent to bramham, it is not wrong to call bramham as gnyaanam.
By these two soothrams, we say 'gnyaanaena dharmaena swaroopamapi niroopitham' (ie. through the dharmam of gnyaanam, bramham's swaroopam gets defined). Therefore, to say that bramham is gnyaanamaathram is wrong.
How do we know 'gnyaanamaathram' is wrong? How do we know bramham has gnyaathruthvam?
Raamaanujar responds by citing gnyaathruthva shruthi vaakyams (vaakyams which say bramham has gnyaathruthvam):
yassarvagnyaha sarvavith --- 'sarvgnyaha' means 'sarvam jaanaathi (all-knower)' and 'sarvavith' means 'sarvam vaeththi (all-knower). Note that they do not mean the same things - 'sarvagnyaha' means the swaroopam-knower of everything, and 'sarvavith' means the swabhaavam-knower of everything. This shruthi shows gnyaathruthvam (the quality of having knowledge) for bramham. Or bramham is gnyaathaa (knower).
paraa asya shakthihi vividhaiva shrooyathae swaabhaavikee gnyaana bala kriyaa cha --- meaning 'bramham's shakthi is heard of in several ways - it has gnyaanam, balam and kriyaa as swabhaavam'. From this shruthi too, we see that bramham has gnyaanam, along with balam, kriyaa.
vignyaathaaramarae kaena vijaaneeyaath --- meaning 'how will you know the knower (bramham)?' Again, we see that bramham is the knower, or that it has gnyaanam.
These and hunderds of other shruthi vaakyams say that bramham has gnyaanam. Therefore, it is wrong to say 'gnyaanamaathram bramha'.
Further, if bramham is gnyaanamaathram, it means that bramham is a dharmam (quality), which cannot exist by itself. It needs an entity to sit on, a gnyaathaa.
Therefore, the words 'sathyam', 'gnyaanam' and so on teach only that bramham has the vishaeshanams sathyam, gnyaanam and so on.
VB 21 & 22
To say 'thath' and 'thvam' mean nirvishaesha bramham amounts to mukhyaartha parithyaagam (lakshanai).
What is wrong with mukhyaartha parithyaagam? Are we not doing it all the time in using vaakyams like 'saha ayam dhaevadhaththaha'?
So far shoadhaka vaakyams were analyzed. Now Raamaanujar moves on to 'thath thvam asi', raising an aakshaepam to the adhvaithic interpretation
When adhvaithi says that 'thath thvam asi' means bramham (thath) and jeevaathmaa (thvam) are the same, he is equating bramham (having all great qualities and dhoashamlessness) with jeevaathmaa (having all small qualities and dhoashams). In doing this, he is dropping the vishaeshanams for both entities and equating them. This mukhyaartha parithyaagam (dropping of main vishaeshanams/arthams) is unnecessary.
Adhvathi responds by saying that there is a reason:
Because I know for sure that shruthi says that bramham and jeevaathmaa are the same, there is no other way to equate them without dropping their vishaeshanams. Therefore, mukhyaartha parithyaagam is necessary.
Here, let us learn what is called lakshanaa (defined as shakya/vaachya sambandhi padhaartha boadhana saamarthyam). Any shabdham has two abilities - shakthi and lakshanaa. Ghatam is the shakthi/vaachyam of the word ghataha. This is the shakthi of the word 'ghataha' (ie. its ability to show the pot). Lakshanaa is the ability of the word to show something other than its shakthi but has a connection with the shakthi. For example, consider 'manchaahaa kroshanthi (cradles are shouting)'. Here, the shakthi/vaachyam of 'manchaahaa' is the cradle but its lakshanaa is the baby in the cradle, which shouts. This ability of the word 'cradle' to point to the baby is called lakshanaa.
Class 9, 21 Feb 2009
VB 21&22 continued
We saw the 'manchaahaa kroshanthi' example to understand the grammatical principle called lakshanai. There, the word 'manchaahaa (cradle)' stood for the baby in the cradle. Other examples for lakshanai would be 'kaakaebhyo dhadhi rakshyatham (curd is protected from crows)' and 'gangaayaam ghoshaha prathivasathi (village exists in gangai)'. In the first case, 'crow' stands for crow as well as other animals that may come to eat the curd. In the second, the word 'gangaayaam (in gangai)' stands for gangaatheeram (gangai's bank).
By the end of last class, the adhvaithi said that mukyaartha parithyaagam (giving up the main meaning) of 'thath' and 'thvam' is necessary because otherwise bramham with all its greatness cannot be equated with jeevaathmaa with all its smallness. Now, he further defends the argument by invoking the princinple of lakshanai, which allows for mukhyaartha parithyaagam.
Adhvaithi's response continues:
When we say 'saha ayam dhaevadhaththaha', meaning 'that (person) is this Dhaevadhaththan', we mean that Dhaevadhaththan is both 'that person' and 'this person'. But 'that person' stands for someone far away in time and place, whereas 'this person' stands for someone near. Since the two qualities - 'that-ness' and 'this-ness' - cannot be true of the same person, we drop both the qualities and equate the person. Similarly, when shruthi says bramham and jeevaathmaa are one, one must drop bramham's sarvagnyathvam and jeevaathmaa's agnyathvam, leaving behind a nirvishaesha bramham.
Then why does shruthi say that bramham has vishaeshanams such as sarvagnyathvam and jeevaathmaa has vishaeshams such as agnyathvam? Is it not lakshana-dhosham to drop these qualities? No, it is not because shruthi gives all the vishaeshanams only as upalakshanams to bramham.
Upalakshanam is defined as gnyaapya bahirbhoothathvaedhathi gnyaapya pratheethi upaayaha (ie. an outlying or temporary quality, used as a means to identify something or as a pointer to remember something). In saying 'that is this Dhaevadhaththan', we are implicitly taking the qualities, that-ness and this-ness, as mere upalakshanams (pointers for identifying or remembering him). Similarly, when one says that 'the land with the bird is Dhaevadhaththan's land', the bird's presence is used merely to know which land we are talking about. Thus, while the bird's presence is needed to identify the land, it is merely an outlying, non-essential or temporary quality of the land and is, therefore, an upalakshanam of the land.
When shruthi lists all the great vishaeshanams for bramham, they are merely used as upalakshanams for us to identify it. The bramham thus identified is addessed as 'thath'. Similarly, the jeevaathmaa is identified through all the small qualities as upalakshanams, and is addressed as 'thvam'. Therefore, these qualities are outlying, non-essential or temporary, and can be dropped if need be. The need to drop the qualities arises when shruthi says 'thath' and 'thvam' are the same entity, since the great and small qualities cannot exist together. Therefore, we drop the qualities for both. In other words, since bramham and jeevaathmaa are the same, all their vishaeshanams have to be unreal.
Thus, 'thath thvam asi' teaches aikyam through saamaanaadhikaranyam, with the vishaeshanams of 'thath' and 'thvam' being upalakshanams. Therefore, nothing wrong in dropping them.
VB 23 & 24
No. There is not even a trace of lakshanai/mukhyaartha-parithyaagam in 'soyam'. There is no virodham between 'saha' and 'ayam' applying to Dhaevadhaththan.
Similarly, there is no virodham between 'thath' and 'thvam' applying to one bramham. Mukhyaartham of 'thath' is jagathkaarana bramham. Mukhyaartham of 'thvam' is jeeva-antharyaami bramham. They can very well apply to one bramham. This application of the mukhyaarthams of multiple shabdhams to one entity is called saamaanaadhikaranyam.
There is not even a trace of lakshanai here. Mukhyaartha parithyaagam or lakshanai is invoked only if there is a virodham, as in 'gangaayaam goshaha prathivasathi'. We say 'gangaayaam' stands for gangaatheeram because it is prathyaksha virudhdham to say that the village is in gangai.
In 'soyam dhaevadhaththaha', however, there is no such virodham. There is no need to drop the mukhyaartham since the vaakyam refers to two different times. 'That-ness' and 'this-ness' are not conflicting qualities on Dhaevadhaththan, as he can be 'that person' at one time and 'this person' at another time. The same is true of 'thath thvam asi'. Therefore, there is no need to invoke lakshanai.
Even if there is a virodham between two qualities, it is enough to invoke lakshanai to drop or modify one of the qualities to get rid of the virodham. Using lakshanai to drop qualities of both 'thath' and 'thvam' is unnecessary.
No, lakshanai can be used on all words. This is called sarvapadha lakshanaa. For example, when we want to tell someone not to eat in his shathru's place, we might (sarcastically?) say 'visham bhunkshva (eat visham)'. Here 'visham' stands for shathru annam and 'bhunkshva' stands for its opposite 'do not eat'. Why cannot the same be done for 'thath' and 'thvam'?
No, even in 'visham bhunkshva', it is aekapadha lakshanaa. Lakshanaa applies to 'visham' since it stands for something different, namely, shathru annam. But when 'bhunkshva (do eat)' stands for 'maa bhunkshvaa (do not eat)', it is not lakshanaa as we are not changing the root or the fact that it is a command.
Regardless, there is no virodham in 'thath thvam asi', as said above. Therefore, to drop the qualities mentioned by shaasthram is neither in agreement with shaasthram nor is it necessary. Lakshanai should not be applied to explain the vaakyam.
Instead, we keep the qualities of thath and thvam, and use saamaanaadhikaranyam to explain how they can be the same entity. The definition is 'bhinnapravruththi-nimiththaanaam shabdhaanaam aekasmin arthae vruththihi saamaanaadhikaranyam', meaning 'when words of different meanings come together to mean one thing, it is saamaanaadhikaranyam'. Your way of dropping the meanings of the different words and saying swaroopa aikyam, is not saamaanaadhikaranyam. The various vishaeshanams cannot be dropped if aikyam is to be established through saamaanaadhikaranyam.
Let us understand this really well. The point Raamaanujar is making is that the method by which the Adhvaithi explains 'thath thvam asi' is not saamaanaadhikaranyam. This is because if several vishaeshams are to be samaanaadhikaranams, three conditions are necessary:
- each vishaeshanam/prakaaram should be different (ie. bhinna pravruththi nimiththam)
- each vishaeshanam should be an aadhaeyam having an aadhaaram or adhikaranam
- all the adhikaranams should be one entity (ie. samaana adhikaranam)
Only then, that one entity is said to be known by saamaanaadhikaranyam. In other words, the condition for saamaanaadhikaranyam is 'anaeka prakaara vasthuna aikyam', meaning 'the oneness of a vasthu existing in several different ways'.
This is rule is obeyed by the vaakyam 'dhaevadhaththaha shyaamaha, yuvaa, loahithaakshaha, samaparimaanaha, dhandee, kundalee thishtathi'. The vishaeshanam 'shyaamaha' has the aadhaeyam 'shyaamathvam' and the person having shyaamathvam as the aadhaaram. This is true for all vishaeshanams 'yuvaa', 'lohithaakshaha', ... up to 'kundalee'. The word 'thishtathi' shows that the persons who are the aadhaarams for these vishaeshanams is one person.
Thus, if the artham of 'thath thvam asi' is to be known by saamaanaadhikaranyam, then
- 'thath' should have an aadhaeyam and an aadhaaram
- 'thvam' should have a different aadhaeyam and an aadhaaram
- the two aadhaarams should be one entity
In Vishishtaadhvaitham, we say that 'thath' is jagathkaaranabhootha bramham and 'thvam' is purovarthi jeevaantharyaami paramaathmaa. Therefore:
- 'thath' has the aadhaeyam of jagathkaaranathvam and the aadhaaram of bramham
- 'thvam' has a different aadhaeyam of jeevaantharyaamithvam and the aadhaaram of paramaathmaa
- the word 'asi' establishes that the two aadhaarams - bramham and antharyaami-paramaathmaa - are the same entity
thereby fulfilling the conditions of saamaanaadhikaranyam.
In the adhvaithic interpretation, all vishaeshanams/aadhaeyams are dropped for both 'thath' and 'thvam', and 'asi' says that they are the same. This fullfils the condition of 'vasthuna aikyam, or aekasmin arthae vruththihi' but does not fulfill the condition of 'anaeka prakaarams, or bhinna pravruththi nimiththam' required by saamaanaadhikaranyam. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that the vaakyam means aikyam through saamaanaadhikaranyam.
Further, dropping all qualities immediately means that 'thath' = 'thvam' = bramham. Therefore, by his interpretation, 'thath thvam asi' does not provide any new information but is only saying 'bramham is bramham'. This is a dhosham, called paryaayathvam.
Dropping the vishaeshanams of jagathkaaranathvam and jeevaantharyaamithvam contradicts the context of 'thath thvam asi'.
Another problem with dropping qualities is that it contradicts what shruthi started out saying in the prakaranam. The prakaranam in which 'thath thvam asi' is spoken, begins with 'thadhaikshatha bahusyaam prajaayaeya', speaking of bramham's sathyasankalpathvam, sathyakaamathvam and sarvagnyathvam. It is contradictory to say that 'thath thvam asi' means 'bramham is nirvishaesham' and, especially so, to say that 'bramham has avidhyai/agnyaanam like jeevaathmaa'.
Further, an entity without vishaeshanam is unknowable through shabdham.
So far Raamaanujar analyzed the interpretation of 'thath thvam asi' and the mechanics of their interpretation, and showed them wrong. Now he aims to show in general that shaasthram, or any shabdha pramaanam, cannot teach us an entity without vishaeshams.
Moreover, a word does not have the ability to inform something without a vishaesham. Every word has two parts - prakruthi and prathyayam. Right there, by the very existence of prathyayam, prakruthi is given vishaseshams such as male/female, singular/plural, past/present/future, etc.
what about the word 'nirvishaeshaha'?
It is true of the word 'nirvishaeshaha' also. If we say something is nirvishaesham, it only means that it does not have the vishaeshams one has in mind. Nothing can exist without vishaesham, and even if it does, it is impossible to understand it. Therefore, no words can inform us of a nirvishaesha bramham. This means shaasthram cannot teach us nirvishaesha bramham.
What if we do not rely on shabdham/shaasthram to teach us nirvishaesha-bramham directly? What if nirvishaesha-bramham just exists and shaasthram only serves to clear it of the aaropitha vishaeshams?
Yes and that is why I am not saying that shaasthram directly teaches nirvishaesha bramham. Bramham is svayamprakaasham (it shows itself) and svathassidhdham (stands on its own). Therefore, it does not need shaasthram or any other words for it to be known. All shaasthram does is to clear it of all the imagined vishaeshams that we load it up with (ie. aaropitha vishaeshanams). Once the vishaeshanams are removed, what remains is anavachchinna (free, unbounded) bramham.
No, shabdham cannot remove all vishaeshams of an entity.
That is not true. Which is the word in shaasthram that removes vishaesham? If it is 'gnyapthimaathram bramha', then a subject and an object of gnyapthi should exist. That is, if bramham is pure knowledge, then there must exist something that has that knowledge (gnyaathaa) and something that is known by the knowledge. Without gnyaathaa, gnyapthi has no saththai (reality/existence).
Further, as said above, the shabham 'gnyaanam' has prakruthi and prathyayam like any other word. In the case of 'gnyaanam', one of things the prathyayam shows is that it is singular, which is already a vishaeshanam.
Further, there can be no proof for an entity without vishaeshams. There is no way to know it.
If jagath exists because of bramham acquiring an agnyaanam, then what is the vishayam of that agnyaanam? If agnyaanam exists, it means that there is an asaadhaarana amsham or aakaaram that is not known. When we mistake a rajju (rope) for a sarpam (snake), what we do not know is the asadhaarana amsham of rajju. This aakaaram is the vishayam of our agnyaanam. Likewise, if bramham acquires agnyaanam, what is the vishayam of that agnyaanam?
Further, unless someone or something informs us of the rajjuthva-aakaaram, our agnyaanam does not get removed. Likewise, unless shaasthram informs the asaadhaarana aakaaram that is the vishayam of bramham's agnyaanam, the agnyaanam does not get removed. But you are arguing that there is no such asaadhaarana aakaaram.
Or, if you say that bramham is always prakaasham, bramham will never get any angnyaanam in the first place.
I admit one asaadhaarana vishaesham: gnyaanam.
If you accept one asaadhaarana vishaesham, you might as well accept all the other vishaeshams said by shaasthram. Therefore, if one goes by shaasthra pramaanam, no shabdham can inform that bramham is nirvishaesham.
Next, Raamaanujar analyzes if prathyaksha pramaanam can.
Class 10, 22 Feb 2009
Adhvaitha khandanam continues as expalnation of shloakam 2, which says that their arthams do not stand when tested with shruthi (ie. shruthyapaethathvam) and their yukthis do not stand when tested by tharkkam (ie. nyaayaapaethathvam). These are discussed in detail in Jignyaasaadhikaranam of Shreebhaashyam, which forms the majority of the contents of Vaedhaarthasangaraham.
What we are currently seeing is that the adhvaitha matham is shruthyathapetham. This is in the Shruthi Ghatam of Jignyaasaadhikaranam. In a few classes, we will see that their matham is nyaayaapaetham. This is in the Sapthavidha Anupapaththi part of of Jignyaasaadhikaranam, under Mahaasidhdhaantham.
So far, from VB 26-29, Raamaanujar explained that shabdham cannot show a nirvishaesha vasthu. Now, he shows that the same is true with prathyaksham too.
Prathyaksham is sense percetion (ie. through indhriyams), and is of two types:
- nirvikalpaka --- nishprakaaraka gnyaanam
- savikalpaka --- saprakaaraka gnyaanam
'Vikalpam' means bhaedham or prakaaram. In nirvikalpaka prathyaksham, the grahanam (mental grasp or perception) of an object happens without the grahanam of its prakaaram. In other words, we apprehend that there is something but do not apprehend anything about how it is. In savikalpaka prathyaksham, the grahanam of an object happens with its prakaarams.
At the first sight of an object, we only do nirvikalpaka grahanam (ie. we apprehend the object without its qualities). Vishaeshana grahanam happens only from the second sight on. Therefore, it is possible to know a nirvishaesha vasthu through nirvikalpaka prathyaksham.
Even in nirvikalpaka prathyaksham, we apprehend vasthus with vishaeshams.
Raamaanujar disagrees, saying:
Even in nirvikalpaka prathyaksham we apprehend the object with vishaeshanam. At a minimum, we perceive that it is there or that it has a specific roopam. If not, then when we look at it again and perceive vishaeshanams, how do we know that those vishaeshanams belong to that particular object? The fact that we are able to know this means that at first sight, we perceive the object with some minimal vishaeshanams. From the second time on, we perceive it with those minimal vishaenams, plus some other extra vishaeshanams. Since we remember the minimal vishaeshanams from the first sight, we are able to say at second sight that it is the same object. Over this object, we add the extra vishaeshanams.
Therefore, even in nirvikalpaka prathyaksham, vishaeshana grahanam happens.
Then, what is the difference between nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka prathyakshams?
Nirvikalpaka prathyaksham happens at the first sight of an object, at which time, we apprehend it with just its unique/specific form. This is grahanam of the asaadhaarana aakaaram of the samsthaanam that the object is.
Savikalpaka prathyaksham happens from the second sight on, at which times, we get anuvruththi (recollection) of the asaadhaarana aakaaram or samsthaanam, and that that samsthaanam is common to anaeka vasthus.
Here, Raamaanujar briefly turns to Bhaaskara matham.
Bhaedhaabhaedham exists in all vasthus:
- vyakthi (gowhu) has bhaedham since there are many cows
- jaathi (gothvam) has abhaedham since it is common to all cows
- but since vyakthi and jaathi are inseparable, each gets the others quality
- thereofre vyakthi itself has bhaedhaabhaedham and jaathi itself has bhaedhaabhaedham
- because of this commonality, there is abhaedham between vyakthi and jaathi. In other words, jaathi and vyakthi are the same.
This is because of the following four reasons:
- sahopalambha niyamaha --- the niyamam that gowhu and gothvam are apprehended together
- samaanaadhikaranya prathyayaha --- the gnyaanam that this is that cow
- aekashabdhaanuvidhdha prathyayaha --- gnyaanam from one shabdham that it is cow and that it has gothvam
- prathamapinda grahanae bhaedhaka aakaara agrahanaath abhaedha prathipaththihi --- at first sight we apprehend only that it is a vyakthi, not vishaeshams
In 'sahopalambha niyamaha', we are talking about apprehending together, then right there we admit more than one thing. Therefore jaathi and vyakthi are different, and only bhaedham exists between them.
In 'samaanaadhikaranya prathyayaha', we are talking about two things - the thing in front of us and the thing with gothvam. This necessarily means they are different.
In 'aekashabdhaanuvidhdha prathyayaha', 'one word points to both jaathi and vyakthi together' because they never exist separately, not because they are the same.
In 'prathamapinda grahanae bhaedhaka aakaara agrahanaath abhaedha prathipaththihi' it is only said that bhaedhaka aakaaram is not apprehended the first time. It does not say that bhaedhaka aakaaram does not exist.
Thus all the four mean only jaathi-vyakthi bhaedham. Because they cannot be separated you are confusing it for abhaedham. One is samshthaanam (gothvam) and the other is samsthaani (gowhu) but they have pruthaksidhdha anarhathvam (inability to be separated).
But what about 'vaachaarambhanam...' vaakyam, which SEEMS to say that jagath is mere appearance and that the kaaranam alone is sathyam?
Going back to what the Shankara-Adhvaithi said in VB 27:
- what exists is only a nirvishaesha bramham, with vishaeshams being mere aaropitham (ie. imagined to be loaded with vishaeshanams)
- there are vaakyams in shaasthrams that clear bramham of all the vishaeshanams
In his response so far, Raamaanujar addressed the first point and showed that a nirvishaesha bramham cannot be known through shaasthram or prathyaksham. Now he addresses the second point and shows that (even if one is willing to simply assume a nirvishaesha-bramham-with-aaropitha-vishaeshanams) none of the shaasthra vaakyams remove the vishaeshanams.
Which are the vaakyams that remove the aaropitha vishaeshanams?
The vaakyam 'vaachaarambhanam....'. It says that everyting in jagath exists for just vaachaarambhanam (ie. just for words). It means that only kaaranam (mruth) is sathyam, and all kaaryams (ghatam, sharaavam) are unreal.
No, it does not say that kaaranam alone is sathyam. It only says that kaaryam is nothing but a specific name and form taken by the kaaryam (so that knowing the kaaranam makes the kaarynam known). It does not say that kaaryam is asathyam.
No. The context is aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa by Udhdhaalakar. Shvaethakaethu's question was 'how can we know everything through knowing one thing?' To answer that Udhdhaalakar says 'vaachaarambhanam vikaaronaamadhaeyam mruththikaethyaeva sathyam' (VB 9). It means:
- vaachaarambhanam --- for all vyavahaarams of the world, the first of them being addressing things with words (vaakpoorvaka dhaanopaadhaanaadhi vyavahaaraartham vaachaarambhanam or vaachaa vikaaro naamaadhaeyam aarambhanam)
- vikaaronaamaadhaeyam --- changes and names are acquired by mruth
- mruththikaethyaeva sathyam --- that 'it is only mruth that acquires changes and names for vyavahaaram, and becomes ghatam and sharaavam' is alone true
Nowhere does it mean that there is no ghatam or sharaavam. That is, this vaakyam does not remove vishaeshanams.
Neither does 'yaena ashrutham...' say that things other than bramham are unreal.
What about the 'yaena ashrutham shrutham...' vaakyam, which means that there is one thing that if known, amounts to knowing everything? It supports my paksham well. If bramham alone is real and all its vishaeshanams like jagath are unreal, then knowing bramham does amount to knowing everthing.
No. In that context the analogy of mruth and mrunmaya vasthus is illustrated through the vaakyam 'yathaa aekaena mruth pindaena sarvam mrunmayam vignyaatham syaath'. Here a mrunmaya vasthu, say, ghatam is shown as dhrushtaantham for jagath. Therefore, if shruthi means to say that jagath is unreal, then ghatam should be unreal. But there is no reason say ghatam is unreal.
I first use the shruthi to establish that ghatam is unreal, and then take it to mean that jagath is similarly unreal.
No, you cannot do that. By the word 'yathaa', Udhdhaalakar means 'like in the case of mrunmaya vasthus...so in the case of jagath'. Here, he presupposes that the nature of mrunmaya vasthus or ghatam is known. This is why he takes this as an analogy to explain the unknown, the nature of jagath. And, the known nature of mrunmaya vasthus is that it is sathyam, unless there is another vaakyam that says it is not so. Therefore, by the analogy, jagath is sathyam, unless there is another vaakyam that says it is not so.
VB 34 & 35
Nor does 'sadhaeva somya...' say that things other than bramham are unreal.
'sadhaeva somya...' vaakyam says that bramham is all the three kaaranams of jagath.
Yes, there is the vaakyam: 'sadhaeva sowmya idham agarae aaseeth aekamaeva adhvitheeyam', which means (see VB 7):
- sadhaeva aaseeth --- existed as only one type 'sath'. Nothing vijaatheeya (of another type) existed.
- aekamaeva aaseeth --- only that sath existed. Nothing else sajaatheeya (of same type) existed.
- adhvitheeyam aaseeth --- that sath did not have any avayavams (parts) or gunams. No svagatha bhaedham (differences within itself) existed.
No, that is not what it means. This is the meaning of 'sadhaeva sowmya idham agarae aaseeth aekamaeva adhvitheeyam' (see VB 8 & 10):
- sadhaevaa aaseeth --- means something pramaana sambhandha yoagyam (knowable by a pramaanam) existed. It existed as sath only.
- idham --- means 'this' and refers to something that is currently known by prathyaksham, right in front of our eyes. In this case 'idham' represents the jagath we see.
- agrae --- refers to the time before jagath became the way you see it
- aekamaeva aaseeth --- means that it was the only thing existing to get changed to jagath (ie. it is the upaadhaanam)
- adhvitheeyam aaseeth --- means that it was the only thing existing to make a sankalpam to change (ie. it is the nimiththa kaaranam). The existence of another entity to make a sankalpam is ruled out by 'adhvitheeya' padham ('adhishtaathrantharam nivaarayathi’).
Therefore, this shruthi does not mean that jagath is asathyam. It only talks about sath as the kaarana avasthai of jagath, when its various names and forms did not exist.
Further, this shruthi first says that bramham is upaadhaana kaaranam and follows it up with that it is the nimiththa kaaranam too. There are several shruthi vaakyams that do this.
The same meaning, that bramham is all the three kaaranams of jagath, is conveyed by the 'kimsvidh vanam...' prakaranam.
There are also vaakyams that take the reverse order, saying first that bramham is nimiththam and then that it is also upaadhaana and sahakaari kaaranams. One such vaakyam is 'kimsvidh vanam ....'. Here the following questions are asked after saying that bramham is nimiththa kaaraanam:
What is the vanam and what is the wood (the upaadhaana kaaranam) used to create svargam and bhoomi? What is the dhaaranam for the creator?
and it is answered that
Bramham is the vanam, bramham is the wood and bramham sculpted itself into svargam and bhoomi with bramham as the dhaaranam.
The question arose because in lowkikam nimiththam and upaadhaanam are different. This shruthi and 'sadhaeva...' shruthi show bramham's vilakshana shakthi of being all kaaranams.
Class 11, 28 Feb 2009
Raamaanujar continues showing adhvaitham's shruthyapaethathvam, a vivaranam of shlokam 2.
In fact, 'sadhaeva somya...' vaakyam establishes several vishaeshanams for bramham.
In VB 34 &35, we saw that niether shabdham nor prathyaksham can from the pramaanam for a nirvishaesha vasthu. Following this, specific shruthi vaakyams that seem to remove vishaeshanams are taken up to show that they do not do so. The first vaakyam raised was 'sadhaeva sowmya...', which Raamaanujar demonstrated as teaching abhinna-nimiththopaadhaanathvam for bramham. The 'kimsvidh...' shruthi was also shown to teach the same artham.
Here, he shows that, contrary to removing bramham's vishaeshanams, the 'sadhaeva...' shruthi is in fact speaking of them in all glory.
The 'sadhaeva....' shruthi teaches us the following vishaeshams for bramham:
- agrae --- before, a kaala vishaesham
- aaseeth --- kriyaa vishaesham aekamaeva - upaadhaanathva vishaesham or upaadhaanathaa
- adhvitheeyam --- nimiththathva vishaesham
In addition to affirming the existence of these vishaeshams, this ability of bramham to be all kaaranams speaks of its sarvashakthiyoga vishaesham. Like this, there are thousands of shruthi vaakyams speaking of thousands of vishaeshams of bramham.
'sadhaeva somya...' vaakyam establishes a real kaaranam (bramham) for a real kaaryam (jagath). It negates asathkaaryavaadham.
The purpose of 'sadhaeva somya idham agra aaseeth' is to deny Naiyaayikan's/Vaishaeshikan's asathkaarya vaadham. By this vaadham, kaaryam and kaaranam are completely different - so different that kaaryam had no existence at all before it was made. Asathkaarya vaadham says that kaaryam was asath (non-existent) before it was made.
This is why the prakaranam starts by stating 'asadhaeva idham agra aaseeth', meaning 'nothing/non-existence (asath) was before'. Then it is immediately denied through the vaakyam 'kuthasthu khalu somya aevam syaath?', meaning 'how can anything be so?' What is asked is that if only asath was before, then the creation of the sath we see around us has no basis or aashrayam ('praag asathaha uthpaththihi ahaethukaa'). In other words, how can sath come out of asath? Asath can only be asath, and create only asath, with the products being asadhaathmakam.
For satha uthpaththi (uththpaththi of the sath we see), what existed before must be sath. Note that satha uthpaththi is defined as 'vyavahaara vishaesha haethubhoothaha avasthaa vishaeshayogaha', meaning 'the attainment of specific states to enable specific purposes'.
Thus, the purpose of saying 'sadhaeva aaseeth' is to say that what existed was 'sath only' or 'sath indeed', not asath. Here, what is denied is Naiyaayikan's asathkaarya vaadham.
'sadhaeva somya...' vaakyam refutes asathkaaryavaadham to show that kaaranam changes its state and becomes kaaryam.
No, it comes to deny boudhdhan's asathKAARANA vaadham. Boudhdhan/maadhyamikan says that everything (kaaryam and kaaranam) is unreal. But kaaranam has to be real for kaaryam's appearance to happen. Therefore, bramham has to be real, whose agnyaanam is jagath's appearance. 'Sadhaeva...' vaakyam shows this and does asathkaarana vaadha khandanam.
No, 'sadhaeva...' vaakyam comes to deny Naiyaayikan's/Vaishaeshikan's paksham only. The prakaranam here is Udhdhaalakar's aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa (ie. the prathignyaa that knowing one amounts to knowing everything). To achieve this, he says jagath did not appear anew, rather it is bramham that changed into jagath, similar to how mruthpindam became ghatam. Establishing this kaarya-kaarana linkage enables Udhdhaalakar to fulfil his prathignyaa, as now he can say that since only bramham became jagath, knowing bramham amounts to knowing jagath.
The prathignyaa fails only if the kaarya-kaarana linkage is broken. Naiyaayikan's asathkaarya vaadham does just this, when it says that kaaryam and kaaranam are very different and that kaaryam was non-existent before. Therefore, only this paksham is refuted by 'sadhaeva...' vaakyam.
To see how asathkaarya vaadham breaks the link, let us understand Naiyaayika paksham.
In Naiyaayika matham the three kaaranams for a kaaryam are samavaayi, asamavaayi and nimiththa. In the case of ghata uthpaththi:
- the samavaayi kaaranam are the avayavams of ghatam (samavaayam means an inseparable part)
- the asamavaayi kaaranam is the combination of the avayavams in a specific way
- the nimiththa kaaranam is the purushan that effects the combination in that way
Because kaaryam and kaaranam have enitrely different naama-roopa-vyavahaarams (names, forms and purposes), they are entirely different. Mruth and ghatam are as different as ghatam and patam (cloth). Therefore, kaaryam did not exist at all in any way before it is made (asath kaaryavaadham).
This is why we say that if kaaryam and kaarnam are this different, knowing mruth or bramham would not amount to knowing ghatam or jagath and, therefore, aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa does not work. Since 'asathkaarya vaadham' is the direct opposite of aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa, 'sadhaeva...' vaakyam is asathkaaryavaadha khandanam only.
Now, let us see what is worng with the Naiyaayika/Vaishaeshika matham, which says that ghatam is a wholly new dhravyam.
Where did the mruth go after ghatam is made? It is in the ghatam. Therefore, one cannot deny getting the gnyaanam that ghatam is the avasthaabhaedham of mruth. Otherwise, why do we not get the gnyaanam that ghatam is made of patam or any other material? That naamaroopavyavahaarams are different does not mean that the vasthus themselves are different. The same person gets different names depending on how he is or what he does (eg. short person, big person, standing person, sleeping person), but it is the same person. Vyavahaaram is the reason for various names but vyakthi is the same.
'sadhaeva somya...' vaakyam does not show the adhvaitha matham that kaaryam is an imagination with kaaranam as a real adhishtaanam of the imagination.
Even if the vaakyam comes to remove naiyaayika paksham, there is yet another way to interpret it. Why can't it be that the 'sadhaeva....' vaakyam comes to remove the boudhdha paksham that everything is illusion and that illusion is without adhishtaanam or aadhaaram. Interpreted this way, 'sadhaeva...' shruthi says that one thing is sathyam, as one real thing is necessary for bhramam (illusion, avidhyai) to sit on. It says that niradhishtaana avidhyai is impossible or that avidhyai has to be on a moola kaaranam which, therefore, has to be sathyam. That sathyam is the bramham 'sath'. Everything else is illusion arising because of bramham's avidhyai, and this is why the shruthi says 'sadhaeva aaseeth', 'aekamaeva aaseeth', 'adhvitheeyam aaseeth'.
No, because through aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa, not only is asathkaarya vaadham refuted but also sathkaarya vaadham is established! This means that kaaryam is sath, as explained in VB 10 and VB 33.
Moreover, you, of all people, cannot say that niradhishtaana bhramam is not possible. If bramham were to get the dhosham of bhramam/avidhyai, then dhosham and dhosha aashrayam should both be real. But you are saying that dhosham is unreal, and the existense of dhosham is also unreal. In that case why not just go one step further and say that dhosha-aashrayam (bramham) is unreal too? How can you prove that the aashrayam alone has to be real?
VB 41 & 42
It is impossible to prove that bramham HAS TO BE real, if it is the only real entity.
Vaakyams like 'sathyam gnyaanam...', 'aanandho bramha...', '...naethi naethi' do not clear bramham of vishaeshams.
Raamaanujar goes back to what was said in VB 37 - that besides 'sadhaeva ...', there are are thousands of shruthi vaakyams teaching us of thousands of vishaeshanams of bramaham. Now he takes up more vaakyams.
Even in shodhaka vaakyams like 'sathyam gnyaanam anantham bramha' and 'aanandho bramhaethi ...', several great vishaeshanams are spoken of.
The meaning of 'sathyam gnyaanam anantham bramha' is explained in VB 19.
Specifically, the shabdham 'anantham' speaks of the glorious vishaeshanam of bramham's thrividha parichchaedha raahithyam (ie. the absensce of the three-fold boundedness). They are dhaesha, kaala and vasthu parichchaedhams, the absence (raahithyam) of which gives bramham the following vishaeshanams:
- dhaesha parichchaedha raahithyam --- vibhuthvam
- kaala parichchaedha raahithyam --- nithyathvam
- vasthu parichchaedha raahithyam --- antharyaamithvam
Bramham exists in the form of everything and that is why all words point to bramham. What gives existence to ghatam, for example, is bramham's existence in the prakaaram (mode) of the ghatam. Note that vibhuthvam is bahirvyaapthi (presence outside) and antharyaamithvam is antharvyaapthi (presence inside).
The meaning of 'aanandho bramhae...' is explained through 'thathgunasaarathvaath...' soothram in VB 20. We showed that bramham is addressed as aanandham because of its aanandhaprachurathvam (ie. its being full of aanaandham). Again, aanandham is spoken of as a vishaeshanam.
What about 'athaatha aadhaesho naethi naethi' shruthi? What does it deny over and over? In the context, the vaakyam 'dhvaevaava bramhanoroopae moorthancha amoorthamaevacha' tells us what is denied. Bramham appears to be with two roopams - moortham and amoortham (ie. with katina shareeram and mrudhu shareeram). These roopams are mistaken by us to be bramhaathmaka praakaashakam (ie. as showing that there is bramham inside them as their aathmaa). To correct our mistaken notion, 'naethi naethi' says that it is not so, meaning that the two roopams do not exist.
If in truth bramham does not have a shareeram, why would shaasthram introduce to us that there is shareeram and deny it too? We would not have known that jagath is bramhaathmakam or that bramham has shareeram, if shaasthram had not told us so. This being the case, why would shaasthram teach the otherwise unknown bramhaathmakathvam first and then say 'naethi naethi (not so, not so)'? Prakshaalanaadhi nyaayam says that it is better to stay away from dirt, rather than to get dirty first and then get cleaned ('prakshaalanaadhdhi pankasya dhooraath asparshanam varam').
'...naethi naethi' means that bramham is not limited JUST to the vishaeshams said in the prakaranam. Bramham has many more vishaeshams than that.
How do you interpret it?
Soothrakaarar does the interpretation himself that 'prakrutha aethaavathvam' is what is denied. After telling us some of the vishaeshanams of bramham ('dhvaevaava....' vaakyam), shruthi is telling us not to think that these are the ONLY vishaeshanams. In other words, 'naethi naethi' means 'do not think that bramham exists in this way ONLY'. It is the ONLY-part (aethaavathvam or aethaavanmaathram) that is prathishidhdham (denied here). It means that in addition to the vishaeshanam that we are talking about currently (prakrutham), there are many others. Therefore, 'naethi naethi' means 'not just so, not just so'.
How do we know this is what is meant? Because, if not, why would the prakaranam say more of the same gunams in subsequent vaakyams? For example, soon after 'naethi naethi', shruthi says that bramham is 'sathyasya sathyam'. The word 'sathyam' means nirvikaaram. The first 'sathyam' stands for jeevaathmaa, which has nirvikaara swaroopam. However, jeevaathmaa has swabhaava vikaaram (eg. changes in its guna gnyaanam depending on karma). Bramham, on the other hand, has neither swaroopa vikaaram nor swabhaava vikaaram. It is thus even more nirvikaaram than jeevaathmas (thaeshaamaesha sathyam) and is, therefore, 'sathyasya sathyam'.
Such kalyaana gunams, and groups and groups of them, are said in subsequent vaakyams of the same prakaranam. Therefore, 'naethi naethi' does not deny gunams or vishaeshams.
Further, the reason to use 'naethi' twice is that:
- the first 'naethi' means 'it is not just like this'. The way we are describing bramham currently is not all about it.
- the second 'naethi' means 'there is not anything like this'. There is not another entity like the bramham we are currently talking about.
Thus, 'naethi naethi' only denies prakrutha aethaavanmaathrathaa, not gunams. The artham communicated is bramham's vilakshanathvam. This is the artham of the soothram 'prakrutha aethaavathvam hi prathishaedhathi, thatho braveethi cha bhooyaha'.
'naehanaanaasthi kinchana' too denies only abramhaathmaka naanaathvam. No shabdham clears bramham of vishaeshams.
What about 'naehanaanaasthi kinchana', which denies naanaathvam (multiplicity)?
Even here, soon after 'naehanaanaasthi kinchana', there is the vaakyam 'sarvasya eeshaanaha, sarvasya vashee', which says that bramham has sathyasankalpathvam, sarvaeshvarathvam. These vaakyams say that the WAY all the chaethana-acheathana vasthus exist is as bramham's shareeram and prakaaram, with bramham as their aathmaa.
Now, one might ask if vasthus can exist in WAYS OTHER THAN being bramhathmakam? This question is answered by 'naehanaanaasthi kinchana', which means 'No, multiple WAYS do not exist ever'. Therefore, what is denied here is the naanaathvam (multiplicity) in WAYS of existence, not naanaathvam in existence itself. In other words, abramhaathmaka naanaathvam or svathanthra naanaathvam (independent multiplicity) is denied for chaethana-achaethanams, not the naanaathvam within chaethana-achaethanams. In fact, vaakyams like 'sarvasya eeshaanaha, sarvasya vashee' affirm the existence of multiple chaethana-achaethanams, since otherwise there would be nothing for bramham to be eeshwaran of and vashee of.
Further, as before, we would not have known of the existence of bramham, or of its gunams, or of jagath's bramhaathmakathvam if shruthi had not told us. Then why would shruthi introduce to us first that all this exists, and then teach all this except bramham is unreal. Again, prakshaalanaadhdhi nyaayam says that it is better to stay away from dirt, rather than to get dirty first and then get cleaned. Plus, if what you say is right, shaasthram gets vipralambhaka dhosham (the dhosham of misleading, sandhaeham).
This argument applies for all shruthis that deny naanaathvam. Thus, there is not a single shabdham that denies bramham's vishaeshams.
So far Adhvaitham's shruthyapaethathvam is demonstrated. Next nyaayaapaethathvam will be shown through sapthavidha anupapaththi (seven inconsistencies).
Class 12, 1 March 2009
So far shruthyapaethathvam of Shankara-adhvaitham was brought out. Now on, Raammaanujar shows its nyaayaapaethathvam.
Before that, though, let us see how aazhwaar brings out the entire message of the 'thath thvam asi' chaandhoagya prakaranam in one paasuram. In 'kangal sivandhu' padhigam (Thiruvaaimozhi 8.8) the fourth paasuram is:
yaanum thaanaai ozhindhaanai yaadhum yavarkkum munnoanai
thaanum shivanum piramanumaagip panaiththa thanimudhalai
thaenum paalum kannalum amudhumaagith thiththiththu
en oonil uyiril unarvinil nindra ondrai unarndhaenae
- yaanum thaanaai ozhindhaanai --- he who became addressable as 'yaan' ('I'). By virtue of being so inseparable, he became so that the word 'yaan' or 'aazhwaar-jeevaathma' points to him
- yaadhum yavarkkum munnoanai --- he who is the munnoan of all achiths and of all chiths (in the sookshma/samashti state)
- munnoanai --- he who existed before (just before), or he who is the upaadhaana kaaranam
- kaaranam is defined as kaarya niyatha poorvavarthi (that which exists immediately before kaaryam)
- 12000 padi, 24000 padi, and Eedu define kaaranam as avyavahitha poorvabhaavi (that which exists before, without a gap)
- thaanum shivanum piramanumaagip panaiththa --- he who changed or expanded himself into the sthoola state (ie. he who changed into the state of being sthoola or vyashti thathvams from the state of being sookshma or samashti thathvams)
- thanimudhalai --- he who is the adhvitheeya (thani) nimiththa kaaranam (mudhal)
- thaenum paalum kannalum amudhumaagith thiththiththu en oonil uyiril unarvil nindra ondrai unarndhaenae --- I realized him as that which is sweet as all bhogya padhaarthams, and which stood in my body, praanan and jgnaanam
- strictly speaking, 'nindra ondru' is aazhwaar-jeevaathma since it is the dhaaranam of body, praanan and gnyaanam
- but aazhwaar does not say so. Instead, he says it is the paramaathmaa or munnoan, in keeping with 'yaanum thaanaai ozhindhaanai'. (See first bullet).
Thus, aazhwaar shows both jagathkaaranathvam and antharyaamithvam and equates the subject of the two (ie. Perumaal). This is 'thath thvam asi' vaakyaartham.
Thirodhaana anupapaththi. It is impossible for agnyaanam to exist on gnyaanaswaroopa bramham.
Again, shruthyapaethathvam has been shown and now nyaayaapaethathvam. Nyaayam is yukthi, reethi, tharkkam, or arthasaadhaka gnyaanam, using which seven inconsistencies (sapthavidha anupapaththi) in adhvaitham are pointed out.
1. Thirodhaana anupapaththi
Raamaannujar addresses the basic claim of the Adhvaithi that bramham is covered or blocked by aachchaadhikaa avidhyaa. 'Aachchaadhikaa' or 'thirodhaanaka' means 'that which blocks'.
To say 'avidhyaa covers bramham with the result of the appearance of naanaathvam' does not fit (na ghatathae).
This is because, according to you, bramham does not HAVE gnyaanam. It is just gnyaanasvaroopam that cannot be divided into parts, since that would amount to bhaedham. Now, if avidhyaa or agnyaanam should come to bramham, then it has to cause svaroopanaasham to bramham. Thirodhaanam is prakaasha nivaaranam (that which removes prakaasham). Since there is no prakaasham other than bramham, avidhyaa thirodhaanam has to be bramha svaroopanaasham.
It is self-contradictory to say that both gnyaanam and agnyaanam (lack of gnyaanam) coexist. They are mutually exclusive (anavasthaana virodhaha). Therefore, gnyaanam has to exist at a stage when agnyaanam does not. If this is the case, you need to say whether (a) gnyaanam is generated anew at a particular stage and exists afterwards, or (b) if it existed before and ceases to exist at a particular stage. The first case is praagabhaavam, when gnyaanam did not exist before a particular stage. The second case is pradhvamsaabhaavam, when gnyaanam is destroyed after a particular stage. Which is it?
Note again that it is swaroopanaasham for bramham if it is the second option.
No. Gnyaanam is prakaasham that exists always, and is nirvikaaram.
Then, how can avidhyaa do thirodhaanam? If gnyaanam exists identically always, how can agnyaanam come?
VB 46But jeevaathmaas are gnyaanaswaroopam too. How can they have agnyaanam?
But you have the same problem too!
You say that there are several jeevaathmaas, who are all gnyaanaswaroopams, which means that they are svayamprakaasham. When they get dhaehaathmaabhimaanam, they get agnyaanam. How is that alone possible? Shouldn't the gnyaanasvaroopa-jeevaathmaas undergo svaroopanaasham when they get agnyaanam?
I face this conflict for only one aathmaa (bramham), but you face it for the infinitely many jeevaathmaas you propose. And, whichever way you take to reconcile, applies to me too.
Coming in the beginningless, endless, and unbroken vaidhika sampradhaayam of rishis like Vyaasar, Paraasharar, and Vaalmeeki, we can easily explain this.
Bramham is akhilahaeyaprathyaneeka (the opposite of all negative qualities) and kalyaanaikathaana (the house of immeasurable groups of limitless auspicious qualities). In bramham's place, paramapadham, time does not cause changes in any way.
Classifications of time are given by the two shlokams (Bhaagavatham, skandham 3 adhyaayam 11 shlokams 7 & 8):
nimaeshaasthrilavo gnyaeya aamnaathasthae thrayaha kshanaha
kshanaan pancha vidhuhu kaashtaam laghu saa dhasha pancha cha
laghunivai samaamnaathaa dhasha pancha cha naadikaa
thae dhvae muhoorthaha praharaha shadyaamas sapthavaanrunaam
The various time units are:
- nimaesham = 42% of one second = time of one blink of the eye.
- 3 nimaesham = lavam
- 3 lavam = kshanam
- 5 kshanam = kaashtaa (6.4 seconds)
- 15 kaashta = laghu
- 15 laghu = naazhigai (24 min, 225 kaashtais)
- 2 naazhigais = muhoortham (48 min)
- 6 or 7 muhoortham = praharaham
- kalaa = 192 seconds
- ardha maasaa = 15 days, half a month
- maasaa = 30 days, one month
- ruthu = 2 maasams
- paraardham = 1000 koti varshams
Again, such endless, measureless kaalam does not cause (ie. form the nimiththam) for any change in paramapadham. Bramham has vast vibhoothis (niyaamya vasthus or controlled objects) as svaleelaaparikara (its equipment of play). Bramham has as its amsham (vishishtavasthu aekadhaesho amshaha, or one feature of its qualities) all the groups of chaethanams (nithya, muktha and badhdha) and all the groups of achiths as objects of experience for the chaethams. These chaethanaachaethanams are its shareeram, which have it as their antharyaami, making it sarvaeshvaran. All that exists is its prakaaram. Such bramham is something to be known.
It is known by Rig, Yajus, Saama, Atharva vaedhams, which are made of vidhi, arthavaadham and manthram:
- vidhihi --- apravruththa pravarthako vidhihi (ie. command to a person to do something, who otherwise would not do it), or agnyaathaartha gnyaapako vidhihi (that which informs the unknown)
- arthavaadhaha --- arthaaya vaadhaha or prayojanaaya vaadhaha (that which is said to achieve a prayojanam, which is performance of the vidhi). For example, consider 'vaayavyam bhoothikaamo yajaetha, vaayurvai kshaepishtaa dhaevathaa (vaayavya yaagam is performed by one who desires wealth, vaayu is a fast-moving dhaevathaa)'. In this vaakyam 'vaayurvai kshaepishtaa dhaevathaa' is the arthavaadham, which points out the fast-ness of vaayu. This is said as prarochakathvam (encourgament) to the doer since the fast-ness of vaayu means he will get wealth quickly.
- manthram --- anushtaeyaartha prakaashako manthraha (that which shows the doer, what is done). Manthram should be said when doing the act. For example, 'barhir dhaevasadhanam dhaami (I am cutting dharbhai for dhaevas)' is to be said when cutting dharbhai.
Based on such vaedhams, upabramhanams were authored by maharishis capable of bramha-saakshaathkaaram such as Vyaasar, Paraasharar, Vaalmeeki, Manu, Yaagnyavalkyar, Gauthamar and Aapasthambar. The upabramhanams of poorvabhaagam of vaedham are the dharmashaasthrams. The upabramhanams of uththarabhaagam of vaedham are ithihaasams and puraanams.
We come in the anaadhi anidhana avichchinna sampradhaayam (beginningless, endless, unchanging, upadhaesha paramparai) of taking as pramaanam all the dharmashaasthrams, ithihaasapuraanams, and the four vaedhams with its endless shaakhais. Therefore, we understand arthams as they are and there is nothing we cannot explain.
Pramaanam from Mahaabhaaratham.
Bhagavadh-dhvaipaayanar (Vyaasar) says:
- yo maamajamanaadhincha vaeththi lokamaheshwaram... --- he who knows me as never-born and as lokamahaeshwaran...
- dhvaavimow purushow lokae ksharaschaakshara aeva cha, ksharassarvaani bhoothaani kootasthokshara uchyathae --- there are two types of purhushan - ksharan and aksharan. 'Ksharaha' means that which gets changed, diminished or destroyed. Since badhdhaathmaa's gnyaanam can undergo vikaaram, it is called 'ksharan'. Mukthan's gnyaanam is never diminished and, therefore, he is 'aksharan'. All bhoothams are ksharas and their 'kootashthan' is mukthan.
- uththamaf purushasthvanyaha paramaathmaethyudhaahruthaha, yo lokathrayamaavishya bibharthavyaya eeshvaraha --- the purushan above both kshara and akshara purushans is the uththamapurushan, paramaathmaa. Without any kashtam, he exists as the dhaaranam and niyaamakan of the three lokams
- kaalam sa pachathae thathra na kaalasthathra vai prabhuhu, aethae vai nirayaasthaatha sthaanasya paramaathmanaha --- he makes time change things here but there time is not the ruler. All the lokams are narakam compared to paramapadham.
- Bramhalokam and narakam are the same, as one is imprisoned in both places - by a golden chain in the former and iron chain in the latter.
- Vaedhaanthaachaaryar says this in the Varadharaaja Panchaasath shlokam 'sadhyaha syajanthi varadha thvayi badhdha bhaavaahaa, paithaamahaadhishu padhaeshvapi bhaavabandham, kasmaissvadhaetha sukhasancharothsukhaaya, kaaraagruhae kanaka shrunkalayaapi bandhaha', meaning bandham is bandham even if it is by a gold chain and who will it be nice to? Varadha, people who like you will immediately drop attachment even to bramhalokam. Bramhalokavaasis are in kashtams themselves (kashtams bigger than ours and matching up to their levels) and so all they can give is dhukhkham in the name of sukham. Therefore, all this is narakam.
- avyakthaadhi vishaeshaantham parinaamardhdhisamyutham, kreedaa haraeridham sarvam ksharamithyavadhaaryathaam ---
- avyaktham means prakruthi, mahath, and ahankaaram (prakruthi's kaarya dhravyam), vishaesham means pancha bhoothams, parinaamaha means change, and rudhdhi means growth
- 'kreedaa haraeridham sarvam ksharamithyavadhaaryathaam' means 'be certain that all this is Hari's kreedaa (play) and destructible'.
- krushna aeva hi lokaanaam uthpaththirapi chaapyayaha, krushnasya hi kruthae bhoothamidham vishvam charaacharam --- Krushnan is the only uthpaththi kaaranam for all lokams and the laya kaaranam too (apyayaha). All the mobile and immobile things in the universe are his shaesham.
Pramaanam from Vishnupuraanam.
Bhagavaan Paraasharar says:
- shudhdhae mahaavibhoothyaakhyae parae bramhani shabdhyathae, maithraeya bhagavachchabdhaha sarva kaarana kaaranae --- The word 'bhagavaan' refers to the parabramham, who is the kaaranam of all kaaranams, who is shudhdhan and owner of mahaavibhoothis
- gnyaana shakthi balaishvarya veerya thaejaamsyashaeshathaha, bhagavachchabdha vaachyaani vinaa haeyairgunaadhibhihi --- Bhagavaan has poorna gnyaanam, shakthi, balam, aishvaryam, veeryam and thaejas gunams, and other upayuktha gunams, and without any haeya gunams.
- aevamaesha mahaashabdho maithraeya bhagavaanithi, parabramhabhoothasya vaasudhaevasya naanyagaha --- Therefore, Maithraeya, this special word (bhagavaan) refers only to Vaasudhaevan, not others.
- thathra poojyapadhaarthokthi paribhaashaa samanvithaha, shabdhoyam nopachaaraena thvanyathra hyupachaarathaha --- This word, used to denote only great people, is not used as upachaaram when referring to Vaasudhaevan, while it is used as upachaaram when referring to all others.
- aevam prakaaram amalam nithyam vyaapakam akshayam, samastha haeya rahitham vishnvaakyam paramam padham --- The entity of such prakaaram is amalam, nithyam, vyaapakam (aathmaa), indestructible (aksharam), and has no haeyam. That entity is the supreme Vishnu.
- kalaa muhoorthaadhimayascha kaalo na yadh vibhoothaehae parinaama haethuhu, kreedatho baalakasyaeva chaeshtaam thasya nishaamaya --- Listen to the chaeshtais of the baalakan, in whose vibhoothi kaalam with kalaa-muhoortha bhaedhams does not create any change.
Pramaanam from Smruthi.
Manu says 'prashaasithaaram sarvaeshaam aneeyaamsamaneeyasaam', meaning 'that which commands and is anu of anus'. It is smaller than jeevaathma (anu) and is inside it.
Yaagnyavalkyar says 'kshaethragnyasya eeshvara gnyaadhvishudhdhihi paramaa mathaa', meaning 'by the knowledge that paramaathmaa is eeshvaran, jeevan gets supreme shudhdhi.
Aapasthambar says 'poohu praaninas sarvaguhaashayasya', meaning 'all praanis are paramaathmaa's (guhaashayasya) shareeram'. Here 'poohu' means puram (ie. shareeram), and 'praani' means 'jeevaathmaka bhootha sanghaathaahaa (group of bhoothams with jeevaathmaa as aathmaa).
Jeevaathmaas have two kinds of gnyaanams - swaroopa gnyaanam and svabhaava/dharma gnyaanam. The latter contracts and expands, while the former (jeevaathma swaroopam) remains unaffected.
But you are not answering my question. What is the point of all this pramaanams? My question was, "How do you explain agnyaanam to jeevaathmaas, who are gnyaanaswaroopams?"
Unlike you, I admit gnyaanam as a dharmam, different from the gnyaanam that forms jeevaathma svaroopam. This means that changes in jeevaathmaa's gnyaanam due to avidhyai do not create problems, as swaroopa gnyaanam remains unaffected. But this cannot solve your predicament because you do not accept a dharma gnyaanam.
More on this in the next class
Class 13, 7 March 2009
Cancelled due to technical problems
Thirodhaana anupapaththi continues
In response to the adhvaithi's question of how gnyaanaswaroopa jeevaathmaa can have agnyaanam, Raamaanujar listed various pramaanams showing haeyaprathyaneekathvam (the oppositeness of inauspicious qualities) of bramham. The intention was to show that it would go against these pramaanams to say that bramham has the haeya gunam of agnyaanam. On the other hand, no such pramaanams exist probihiting agnyaanam to jeevaathmaa and, therefore, it is possible for jeevaathmaa to have agnyaanam.
VB 51 continued
Not getting this inner meaning, the Adhvaithi asks:
Why the aadambaram, flaunting all this pramaanam? You have not answered my question.
Since we go by pramaanam, we do not face any conflict.
In addition to the gnyaanam that is jeevaathma swaroopam, we accept the existense of a gnyaanam as jeevaathmaa's dharmam/gunam. If the jeevaathmaa is likened to a lamp, the swaroopa gnyaanam would be the light in the flame and the dharmagnyaanam would be the light rays shining out from it. The jeevaathma swaroopa gnyaanam is prakaasham, while the dharma gnyaanam is prakaasha prasaranam (out-flow).
When jeevaathmaa acquires agnyaanam or gnyaanam, it only means sankocham and vikaasam of the dharma gnyaanam, the swaroopa gnyaanam remaining unchanged. In other words, karmam/avidhyai alters only the prakaasha prasaranam, without affecting the prakaasham. This is how there is no conflict in saying that gnyaana swaroopa jeevaathmaa gets avidhyai or agnyaanam.
You, however, cannot accept a swaroopagnyaanam and a dharmagnyaanam, since that would mean two realities, and Adhvaitham would fail. Thus, if all that exists is swaroopa gnyaanam, then any agnyaanam or avidhyai means swaroopa naasham or vikaaram.
Karmam, in the roopam of avidhyai, restricts the dharmagnyaanam of jeevaathmaa such that it does not see its own swaroopam. This is why the jeevaathma mistakes the body he takes to be he himself. This is dhaehaathmaabhimaanam, the reason why a dhaevan thinks 'aham dhaevaha', a manushyan thinks 'aham manushyaha', and so on. The bhramam of dhaehaathmaabhimaanam disappears when he is able to see his aathmaa's asaadhaarana aakaaram and vilakshana swaroopam (ie. swaroopam as distinct from his body) such as anuthvam and prathyakthvam.
Vishnupuraana shlokams showing sankocha-vikaasam for dharma gnyaanam.
The sankocham and vikaasam of jeevaathmaa's dharmagnyaanam is talked about in the following Vishnupurana shlokams:
- avidhyaa karma sangnyaanyaa thrutheeyaa shakthirishyathae --- avidhyaa, called karma, is the third shakthi. Avidhyai gets the name of karmam because of kaaryakaarana bhaavam. The three shakthis referred to are vishnu shakthi (prakruthi), kshaethryagnya shakthi (jeevaathmaa) and avidhyaa (karmam).
- yayaa kshaethragnya shakthissaa vaeshtighaa nrupa sarvagaa, samsaara thaapaan akhilaan avaapnothi athisanthathaan --- that avidhyai, which covers the kshaethragnyashakthi (jeevaathmaa) from all sides (sarvagaa), is why the jeevaathmaa experiences all the incessant (athisanthathaan) thaapams of samsaaram.
- thayaa thirohithathvachcha shakthihi kshaethragnya sangnyithaa, sarvabhoothaeshu bhoopaala thaarathamyaena varthathae --- because of being blocked by such avidhyaa, the kshaethragnyashakthis (jeevaathmaas) in all bhoothams have thaarathamyam (disparities) in their gnyaanams.
This is thirodhaana anupapaththi.
Before proceeding to the next anupapaththi, let us understand the thaarathamyam in the gnyaanam of all bhoothams. For example, dhaevas can know how many grains of sand are in a room full of sand. Such gnyaanam cannot be attained by any jeevaathmaa in a manushya shareeram or a lower shareeram. Plants, on the other hand, know just enough to grow towards the sun, sense very less pain, and take very long to sense it. Thus, in terms of gnyaanam the decreasing order is: dhaevas > manushyas > animals > birds > reptiles > insects > plants > inanimate objects.
We tend to think that a person is smart because of his punyakarmam and another person is dull becaue of his paapakarmam. This is seemingly supported by the pramaanams above showing karmam-induced gnyaana-sankocha-vikaasam. But it is not so. What is said in the pramaanam is that karmam-induced gnyaana-sankocha-vikaasam decides whether a jeevaathmaa is born with a dhaeva shareeram, or a manushya shareeram, etc. But for jeevaathmaas within a given type of shareeram (say, manushya shareeram) there is no bhaedham in gnyaanam, intelligence, etc. Gnyaana sankocham is identical among all manushyars and the appraent difference in their gnyaanams is because of the individual's yathnam (effort). This is why a physicist, for example, may not possess much history knowledge. If karmam-induced gnyaanavikaasam is the only cause, then his history gnyaanam could be high too. Why only physics? And why did he not win the Nobel prize right after he was born? The reason is not karmam, but his yathnam towards acquiring physics gnyaanam.
Thus, karmam only decides which type of shareeram a jeevaathmaa gets - dhaevan or manushyan or some other. Among jeevaathmaas in one type of shareerams, gnyaanam is aekareethi (identical). Differences in acquired gnyaanams during a man's life is purely a result of his yathnam.
When pramaanams say karmam is kaaranam, what is meant is that it is paramparayaa kaaranam (ie. kaaranam through succession), an indirect kaaranam. The definition of kaaranam is 'kriyathae kaaryam anaena ithi idham kaaranam', meaning 'that which is being used to make kaaryam'. Therefore, kaaranam has to be kaaryam's 'avyavahitha poorvakshana varthi', meaning 'that which exists unseparated from the kaaryam, at the instant immediately before the kaaryam is made'.
The word 'avyavahitha' is key here, since it identifies the direct kaaranam and rules out the indirect or paramparayaa kaaranams. For example, if a potter makes a pot when he is 30 years old, then the 30-year old potter is the kaaranam, not his father or the same potter 20 years old. Similarly, the clay he used at the instant he made the pot is the kaaranam, not the donkey that brought the clay. The father and the donkey are paramparayaa kaaranams or indirect kaaranams, that did not exist at the instant immediately before the kaaryam was made. Again, this is why kaaranam is defined to be avayavahitha poorvakshana varthi, that which exists unseparated from the kaaryam, at the instant immediately before the kaaryam is made.
Similarly, for the sukhadhuhkhams experienced by a jeevaathmaa in this janmam, its karmam is only paramparayaa kaaranam, existing from several janmams before. During pralayam, sookshma jeevaathmaa has karmam and indhriyam attached to it, and yet does not experience the fruits of karmam. Neither does he experience it in the time between leaving a shareeram and taking up another.
According to shaasthram, no gnyaanam or agnyaanam will block a jeevaathmaa from getting paramaathma gnyaanam. It is enough to get a manushya shareeram. This is why shaasthram lays down commands to all manushyars to perform certain deeds to acquire bramhagnyaanam.
Avidhyaaswaroopa anupapaththi. The cause of avidhyaa has to be bramham and, therefore, avidhyaa never goes.
2. Avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi
So far, Raamaanujar showed thirodhaana anupapaththi in adhvaitham - how it is inconsistent to say that avidhyai blocks bramham's gnyaanam. This anupapaththi was argued assuming that avidhyai exists. Now, he shows how it is inconsistent to say that such an avidhyai exists. This is avidhyaa swaroopa anupapaththi.
Your paksham is that bramham sees naanaathvam (mulitplicity), which is mithyaa (illusion, unreal) since shaasthram teaches aikyam. Since mithyaadharshanam (ie. bramham's dharshanam of unrealitites) has to have a cause, you invoke an aachchaadhikaa avaidhyaa (blocking avidhyai) that blocks bramham.
Now, is this avidhyai real or unreal? You cannot say it is real, since that would mean bramham and avidhyai are two realities, and Adhvaitham would fail. Therefore, avidhyai has to be unreal.
If avidhyai is unreal, then it has to have a cause too. What is it? Let us say it is another avidhyai, Avidhyai-2. Then, is Avidhyai-2 real or unreal? It has to be unreal or, again, Adhvaitham would fail. If unreal, what is the cause for Avidhyai-2? It has to be another avidhyai, Avidhyai-3....The argument goes on necessitating kalpanam of infinite avidhyais, none of which stands independently. Kalpanais may be made beyond pramaanam but they should stand independently. The inability to stand independently is the dhosham called anavasthaa (lack of avasthaa or standing).
Because of anavasthaa, avidhyai cannot exist for bramham. Therefore, avidhyai cannot be the cause for bramham's mithyaadharshanam.
Further, for the same reason of anavasthaa dhosham, nothing other than bramham can be cited as the moolam (source) of avidhyai. Therefore, bramham has to be mithyaadharshana moolam. Then, considering that bramham is nithyam, mithyaadharshanam is also nithyam. This means that samsaaram is nithyam and that moksham never happens (anirmoksham).
Therefore, avidhyai cannot exist.
No, Avidhyai does not need a cause. It is anaadhikaala avidhyai that just exists. When aikya gnyaanam comes, avidhyai goes.
If avidhyai has no cause, then it means avidhyai is natural to bramham and, therefore, it should never disappear.
Further, for bramham to imagine jagath, it is not enough for anaadhi avidhyaa to just exist. It has to be seen by bramham (ie. avidhyaa has to be bramhadharshyam). If so, what is the cause for the bramhadharshyathvam? Is that cause A) bramham or B) something other than bramham?
A) If it is bramham, then bramhadharshyathvam is nithyam. We just showed above that causeless avidhyai has to be nithyam. This, again, means that samsaaram is nithyam (anirmoksham).
B) If the cause is something other than bramham, then we get anavasthaa dhosham as shown above.
Therefore, you have to accept a paaramaarthika (ultimately real) dhosham as a reality other than bramham. But you say that only bramham is paaramaarthikam. Therefore, avidhyai cannot exist. In other words, if anything other than bramham is unreal, then avidhyaa svaroopam is asambhavam (impossible).
This is avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi.
VB 54 & 55
Aeka-jeeva-shareera-vaadham nirastham. It is wrong to say that only one shareeram has jeevan/bramham in it.
If all shareerams are unreal, then so is the shareeram that is said to have bramham in it.
Prasangaath aekajeevashareera nirasanam
Raamaanujar shows that the arguments made above in avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi also negate the aekajeevashareera vaadham. If anything other than bramham is unreal, then aekajeevashareera vaadham stands disproved or is negated (nirastham). 'Nirasanam' means 'negation'.
The adhvaitha paksham is that if there are several jeevaathmaas, then when they get aikyagnyaanam, they should all combine to become bramham. This means that bramham is made of these many parts (avayavams) and that it has vikaaram. Since this runs against shuruthi, the Adhvaithi says that only one shareeram has aathmaa, while all other shareerams do not have aathmaa. The Adhvaithi likens it to swapnadhrushta naanaavidha shareerams (various kinds of bodies seen in dreams), which are nirdhrushtams (unseen) after the dreamer wakes up. The only exception to this is the dreamer's own aathmaa, which is dhrushtam (seen) even after waking up.
In swapnam all shareerams are kalpanams. This includes the shareeram in which the dreamer's jeevaathmaa resides and, therefore, this shareeram is kalpanam too. Consequently, that 'the jeevaathmaa resides in this body' is also a kalpanam. The aathmaa does not reside there really; it only imagines so in its dream. This means that just like all the other mithyaa shareerams, the aekajeevashareeram is also mithyaa, arising out of agnyaanam. Since the aekajeevashareeram is mithyaa, the jeevaathmaa said to be in it is also mithyaa. In other words, jeevasadhbhaavam (the real existence of the jeevaathmaa) is mithyaa.
Therefore, if you say that things other than bramham are all unreal as in swapnam, then it results in the asambhavam of jeevasadhbhaavam.
Thus, if anything other than bramham is unreal, it follows that aekajeevashareeram is nirastham (negated).
How, then, do you explain what happens in swapnam?
We say that the dhrashtaa (ie. dreamer) exists before swapnam and after he wakes up, and he can see it. Thus, he knows he exists, through prathyaksham. The various people and things he saw did not appear before before swapnam or after he wakes up. Thus, again, by prathyaksham he knows that they must be mithyaa. Thus, only his shareeram and his jeevaathmaa are real and distinguished from other shareerams and jeevaathmaas.
Next, Raamaanujar takes up nivarthaka anupapathti and nivruththi anupapaththi
Class 15, 14 March 2009
Nyaayaapaethathvam of Shaankara Adhvaitham continues with sapthavidha anupapaththi.
The adhvaitha paksham:
Nirvishaesha chinmaathra bramham is the only sathyam and everything else is mithyaa. Jagath and bhaedham appear because of bramham's agnyaanam due to avidhyaa thirodhaanam (covering). This causes bramham to see naanaathvam (multiplicity) even though it is the only one sathyam existing. This agnyaanam is removed when bramham gets aikyagnyaanam (knowledge that it is the only sathyam) from shruthi vaakyams such as 'thath thavam asi'. This vaakyaartha aikyagnyaanam has to be poornam to the extent of being prathyaksha samaanaakaaram (ie. this gnyaanam should be complete to the extent of being equivalent to direct perception). Only such aikyagnyaanam is avidhyaa-nivarthakam (avidhyaa-removing. The result of avidhyaa nivruththi (avidhyaa removal) is that bramham realizes that prapancham is mithyaa.
So far, Raamaanujar countered this argument by pointing out two anupapaththis - thirodhaana anupapaththi and avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi. In thirodhaana anupapaththi, he showed that avidhyai cannot do thirodhaanam (ie. cannot cover bramham). In avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi, he showed that such an avidhyaa cannot exist in the first place. In the process, he also showed that aekajeevashareera vaadham is nirastham. Now, he continues to point out more anupapaththis in the adhvaitha paksham.
Nivarthaka anupapaththi. It is impossible for avidhyaa nivarthakam to happen.
3. Nivarthaka Anupapaththihi
Here, Raamaanujar addresses the Adhvaithic claim that aikyagnyaanam is avidhyaa-nivarthakam, and shows that it is inconsistent to say that such a nivarthakam can happen.
Explain the nature of nivarthakam. How does avidhyaa nivruththi (ie. removal of avidhyaa) happen?
Aikyagnyaanam is avidhyaa nivarthakam. When aikya gnyaanam comes, avidhyaa nivruththi happens.
Avidhyai is anirvachaneeyam (indescribable). Avidhyaa nivruthhi is the opposite of avidhyaa. Therefore, avidhyaa nivruththi is anirvachaneeya prathyaneeka aakaaram (ie. of a form that is opposite to 'indescribable'). Here is how:
Avidhyai is neither sath nor asath. Aikyagnyaanam shows nirvishaesha gnyaanamaathram bramham alone is sathyam. This means that it destroys avidhyai. This, in turn, means avidhyai cannot be sath. (A thing that is sath can change into something else but cannot cease to exist.) It is not asath either since it exists and thats why jagath appears. Therefore, avidhyai is not sath becasue it ceases to exist at some point (ie. sachchaenna baadhyaetha) and it is not asath because it exists at some point (ie. asachchaenna pratheeyaetha). Therefore, avidhyai is is sadhasadh anirvachaneeyam (indescribable as sath or asath).
Now, since avidhyai's opposite is its nivruththi, this nivruththi is anirvachaneeya prathyaneekam.
The nature of nivarthaka gnyaanam means that either jagath should never disappear or that jagath should have never appeared.
Accepting what you say about avidhyai, let us discuss the nature of nivruththi.
Anything should belong to one of these four groups:
- both sath and asath (ie. dhviroopam)
- neither sath nor asath
The fourth in this list is the group of anirvachaneeyams (indescribables). According to your explanation, avidhyai belongs to this group. You also said that nivruththi is avidhyai's opposite. Therefore, nivruththi cannot belong to this group. In other words, if nivruththi is anirvachaneeya prathyaneekam, then it has to be nirvachaneeyam and, therefore, should belong to one of the first three groups (sath, asath or dhviroopam). Here is what happens in each case:
- If nivruththi is sath it could either be kaalpanika sath (imagined sath) or akaalpanika sath (unimagined or natural sath). Thus:
- If nivruththi is akaalpanikam, then it would be a sath other than bramham, and adhvaitham would fail.
- If nivruththi is kaalpanikam, then it could either be a kaalpanika sath other than bramham or a kaalpanika sath that is same as bramham
- If nivruththi is a kaalpanika sath other than bramham, then it has to be unreal (as otherwise adhvaitham fails). In that case, what is the cause of it? What is the cause of this cause? What is the cause of this cause #2? This ends up in anavasthaa (lack of standing) dhosham as in avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi (VB 53). This means that nivruththi lacks standing and, therefore, avidhyaa nivarthakam never happens. This ends up in the situation of anirmoksham (ie. moksham never happens).
- If nivruththi is a kaalpanika sath that is same as bramham, then since bramham exists from before, nivruththi also exists from before. This means that vaedhaanthagyaanam or aikyagnyaanam exists from before, and prapancham should not have appeared.
- If nivruththi is asath, then it means that avidhyaa nivarthakam is mithyaa. In other words, avidhya never really gets removed. Again, anirmoksham.
- If it is dhviroopam (both sath and asath) both the above sets of dhoshams apply.
Thus, by your paksham, nivruththi is necessarily nirvachaneeyam (describable), and yet it cannot belong to any of the three nirvachaneeya categories (sath, asath or dhviroopam). This is an impossibility.
This is nivarthaka anupapaththi, which says that it is impossible for avidhyaa nivruththi to happen.
Nivruththi anupapaththi. Avidhyaa nivruththi can never happen completely. There will necessarily be avidhyai remaining.
4. Nivruththi Anupapaththi
Here, Raamaanujar shows that even if avidhyaa nivruththi happens, there has to remain something that does not get removed. This means that nivruththi is never complete or perfect.
According to you, nivarthakagnyaanam came from shaasthram which is mithyaa. This nivarthakagnyaanam is not bramham and, therefore, it has to be mithyaa too. This means that nivarthaka gnyaanam is avidhyaa.
Now, this nivarthaka gnyaanam kills all other avidhyais of bramham. However, the nivarthaka gnyaanam itself is an avidhyaa, which keeps existing after it removed all other things. What removes this avidhyaa (ie. the nivarthaka gnyaanam)?
Nivarthaka gnyaanam is like dhaavaanalam (forest fire) or like visham used against visham (vishanaashana vishaantham), which destroys everything and, eventually, itself.
Even so, let us see what happens.
Nivarthaka gnyaanam or aikya gnyaanam is bramhabhinnam and is, therefore, mithyaa. This means that the uthpaththi, svaroopam/sthithi and vinaasham of aikya gnyaanam are all mithyaa. When aikya gnyaanam removes all mithyaas and then itself, its vinaasham remains. Again, this vinaasham is also bramhabhinnam and, therefore, mithyaa. Thus, aikyagnyaanam is avidhyai and mithyaa, and aikyagnyaana vinaasham is also mithyaa.
For bramham to get poorna aikyagnyaanam, all its avidhyai should be removed and, finally, the avidhyai called 'aikyagnyaanam' should also be removed. Further, bramham should know that aikyagnyaanam is removed. In other words, bramham should have the gnyaanam of aikyagnyaana vinaasham. But since this vinaasham itself is mithyaa, vinaasha gnyaanam is an avidhyai that bramham would still be left with. How does this avidhyai get removed? No way.
You cannot say it is like dhaavaagni in destroying everything and itself. The reason is that dhaavaagni does not eliminate things; it only sequentially changes the state of things (ie. poorvaavasthaa virodhi parampara). Therefore, with dhaavaagni, there is always a state in which things exist (eg. ash). Therefore, if you liken it to dhaavaagni, it would only mean that aikyagyaana naasham exists in some form (the equivalent of ash). It does not mean complete nivruththi.
This is nivruththi anupapaththi, which says that it is impossible for nivruththi to happen completely.
So far Raamaanujar showed that because of four anupapaththis, it is impossible for:
- avidhyai to cover gnyaanasvaroopa bramham and create illusion (thirodhaana anupapaththi)
- avidhyai to exist (avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi)
- nivarthaka gnyaanam to exist (nivarthaka anupapaththi)
- nivarthaka gnyaanam to remove all avidhyais (nivruththi anupapaththi)
Gnyaathru anupapaththi. Nivarthaka gnyaanam cannot exist without a gnyaathaa. And, that gnyaathaa cannot be anything other than bramham.
5. Gnyaathru Anupapaththi
Here, he shows that it is impossible for an entity to have nivarthaka gnyaanam. In other words, aikyagnyaanam cannot have a gnyaathru (a gnyaathaa).
Aikyagnyaanam is the gnyaanam that everything other than bramham is mithyaa. This gnyaanam is a dharmam and, therefore, has to have a chaethana dharmi, a gnyaathaa. But again, this gnyaathaa has to be unreal if he is bramhabhinnam. Further, this means that he knows that he is unreal, since he has aikyagnyaanam. This means he does not exist (ie. he is nishaedhyan). Then who is the gnyaathaa of aikyagnyaanam? That is, who is gnyaana aashrayam? No one. The gnyaanam cannot itself be the gnyaathaa, as it would amount to saying that karthaa and karmam are the same. This means that aikya gnyaanam does not have an aashrayam. This means that aikyagnyaanam does not exist. This, in turn, means that everything is real.
Now, the only alternative is to say that that gnyaathaa is bramham itself. Then, one must accept that bramham has gnyaathruthvam. Then, two possibilites arise:
- the gnyaathruthvam is bramha svaroopam, which means it is sathyam; or
- the gnyaathruthvam is adhyastham (ie. a quality artificially loaded up on bramham)
If option 2:
Then, gnyaathruthvam is adhyastham on bramham (ie. bramham is imagined to have the quality of gnyaathruthvam). This means that bramham, which is covered by avidhyai, is imagined to be the gnyaathaa of aikyagnyaanam/nivarthakagnyaanam. Further, this adhyastham, being an imagination, has to have another avidhyai as its cause. Thus, now bramham has:
- the original avidhyai (Avidhyai-1)
- the imagined gnyaathruthvam of aikyagnyaanam or aikyagnyaana gnyaathruthva adhyaasaha
- the adhyaasam's cause-avidhyai or thanmoolam avidhyaantharam (Avidhyai-2)
We know that the vishayam (subject) of nivarthakagnyaanam is Avidhyai-1 (ie. nivarthakagnyaanam removes Avidhyai-1). However, the nivarthakagnyaanam cannot remove the other two, namely, the imagined gnyaathruthvam and Avidhyai-2. These two are nivarthakagnyaana avishayams. Becasue, otherwise, aikyagnyaanam would not have an aashrayam and, therefore, not exist, resulting in the situation of anirmoksham. Thus, when bramham gets aikyagnyaanam, bramham's gnyaathruthva adhyaasam and Avidyai-2 should not get removed. This means that, for nivruththi of Avidhyai-1 to happen, bramham should not know that the other two unreals exist.
What removes these? Let us say that it is some other nivarthakagnyaanam. This gnyaanam could either be A) thriroopam, meaning that there is gnyaanam, gnyaeyam, and gnyaathaa, or B) gnyaanamaathram.
A) If it is thriroopam, then as before, the same problem arises as to what is the cause of this gnyaanam and what removes that cause. This leads us to propose another set of avidhyai and gnyaanam, yet another set, and so on. This is anavasthaa dhosham.
B) If it is gnyaanamaathram, then there is no bhaedham between it and gnyaanamaathra-bramham. We know gnyaanamaathra-bramham has avidhyai that it cannot get rid of by itself. Therefore, gnyaanamaathra-nivarthakagnyaanam cannot destroy avidhyai. If it can, then so can bramham.
Therefore, you have to yield to option 1:
Then bramham truly has gnyaathruthvam, which means bramham and its gnyaanam are different. This is our matham. Further, if you are accepting gnyaanam as a vishaeshanam, then you might as well admit all the vishaeshanams said by shaasthram.
Even if a gnyaathaa other than bramham is possible, nivarthaka gnyaanam cannot eliminate the gnyaathaa or his gnyaathruthvam.
If you say that the nivarthaka gnyaanam destroys everything as well as its gnyaathaa and his gnyaathruthvam, it is as laughable as saying 'If dhaevadhathtan destroyed everything other than bhoothalam, then he destroyed everything including the chaedhana kriyai (the act of destruction) and his karthruthvam (ie. the presence of that kriyai on himself).' It is the same when you say that 'aikya gnyaana gnyaathaa shows that everything else is mithyaa, then that he himself (the gnyaathaa) is mithyaa, and then that his gnyaathruthvam is also mithyaa.'
Further, the kriyai is not dhravyam and, therefore, it cannot be destroyed. Similarly, the karthaa's karthruthvam cannot be destroyed. Analogously, nivarthaka gnyaanam cannot remove its gnyaathaa or his gnyaathruthvam. Therefore, by your paksham, a gnyaathaa of nivarthakagnyaanam cannot exist.
This is gnyaathru anupapaththi, which says that a gnyaathaa of aikyagnyaanam cannot exist.
Saamagri anupapaththi. There cannot be a saamagri (tool) that can give bramham nivarthaka gnyaanam.
6. Saamagri Anupapaththi
Here, Raamaanujar shows that it is inconsistent to say that there exists a tool, a saamagri, that gives aikyagnyaanam. According to adhvaitham, shaasthram is the saamagri that gives aikyagnyaanam.
What creates aikya gnyaanam that negates all bhaedhams? If it is shaashthram, then it is bramhabhinnam and, therefore, mithyaa. How can a mithyaa shaasthram give prapanchabaadhaka (prapancham-negating) gnyaanam?
In the example of rajju-sarpam, one mistakes rajju to be a sarpam. This bhraantha gnyaanam is dhushtakaarana-janyam (ie. born out of defects like imperfect vision and the apparent similarity between rajju and sarpam). As a result of this bhraanthi gnyaanam, one gets bhayam too. (Periyavaachchaan Pillai defines bhayam in Thanishlokee as 'aagaamini bhaayam', meaning the shokham about what could come). If his bhraanthignyaanam has to go, then he should get a gnyaanam that is adhushtakaaranajanyam (sathkaaranajanyam). The gnyaanam would not go if at that time a person known to be a bhraanthan (lunatic) tells him that 'it is rajju, not sarpam.' Therefore, even if it is sathyam, dhushtakaaranajanyam cannot give gnyaanam. Similarly, if bramham knows that shaasthram is mithyaa, bramham cannot get aikya gnyaanam from shaasthram. And, when bramham listens to shaasthram, right then it will know that shaasthram is mithyaa.
What is true for shaasthram is true for any other saamagri. Therefore, there does not exist a saamagri that gives bramham aikyagnyaanam.
If shaasthram is the saamagri, then it and the aikyagnyaanam it teaches have to be unreal. This, therefore, means jagath is sathyam.
Further, aikyagnyaanam, gnyaathaa, and shaasthram are all bramhabhinnam and, therefore, baadhyam (negated as unreal). If aikyagnyaanam is asathyam, then prapanchanivruththi is asathyam and, therefore, prapancham is sathyam.
If aikyagnyaanam is a swapnam, then avidhyaanivruththi happens in the swapnam. Since swapnam is asathyam, the avidhyaanivruththi is asathyam too. Therefore, avidhyaa stays. Thus, since shaasthram is bhraanthimoolam, vaakyams such as 'thath thvam asi' are like aikyagnyaanams in swapnam, and do not remove avidhyaa.
The moment shaasthram gives aikyagnyaanam, bramham will know that aikyagnyaanam is mithyaa and will continue to see jagath.
No. It is like when one has bhayam in swapnam, shaasthram tells him in swapnam that it is swapnam. Thus, his bhayam disappears. Thus, mithyaa shaasthram removes mithyaa gnyaanam.
No, that bhayam stays removed only as long as he believes in his swapnam that shaasthram is sathyam. When he knows that shaasthram is swapnam, then bhayam comes right back in swapnam.
How does he know that shaasthram is mithyaa?
Because shaasthram, being shabdham, is clearly different from bramham. Therefore, the moment shaasthram gives aikyagnyaanam, one knows that shaasthram is mithyaa.
More on saamagri anupapaththi in the next class.
Class 16, 15 March 2009
Nyaayaapaethathvam of shaankara adhvaitham continues with sapthavidha anupapaththi. Currently, we are in the sixth anupapaththi, called saamagri anupapaththi.
Before proceeding with this, let us look at Bhattar's shlokam regarding nivarthaka anupapaththi and nivruththi anupapaththi (see VB 56-58). He says (Srirangaraajasthavam, Uththara Shathakam, Shlokam 11):
aethadhraamaasthram dhalayathu kalibramhameemaamsakaamscha
gnyapthirbramha aethadh jwaladhapi nijaavidhyayaa bhambhrameethi
thasya bhraanthim thaam shlathayathi jithaadhvaitha vidhyasthu jeevaha
yadhyadh dhrushyam thadh vithathamithi yae gnyaapayaam chakruragnyaahaa
- gnyapthirbramha --- gnyaanamaathram bramham
- aethadh jwaladhapi --- which is also svayamprakaasham
- nija avidhyayaa bhambhrameethi --- is deluded because of its own avidhyaa
- thasya bhraanthim shlathayathi --- its delusion is removed by
- jithaadhvaitha vidhyasthu jeevaha --- the jeevan that knows the triumphant adhvaitham,
- yae gnyaapayaam chakruhu agnyaahaa --- the ignorant people that say
- yadhyadh dhrushyam that vithatham ithi --- that whatever is seen is unreal
- kali bramha-meemaamsakaamscha --- are the kali purushars of bramha-meemaamsaa (uththarabhaagam)
- aethadh raamaasthram dhalayathu --- let this raaamaasthram destroy them
The raamaasthram (that from which there is no escape) is in the previous shlokam:
pramithirapi mrushaasyaath maeya mithyaathva vaadhae yadhi thadhapi sahaeran dheergham asman mathaayuhu
- maeya mithyaathva vaadhae --- in the vaadham that all maeyams (known things) are mithyaa
- pramithirapi mrushaasyaath --- if even this pramithi is unreal (pramithi means gnyaanam; here, aikyagnyaanam which shows that everything is mithyaa)
- yadhi thadhapi sahaeran --- if you accept that
- dheergham asman mathaayuhu --- then our matham's aayus is dheergham
This is why in the adhvaithi said 'Aikya gnyaanam removes everything and itself like dhaavaagni and vishanaashana vishaantham'. And, Raamaanujar refuted this saying 'No, things only change form with dhaavaagni or vishanaashana vishaantham. They never become non-existent.' (See VB 58).
Saying shaasthram is mithyaa amounts to saying shaasthram has no praamaanyam.
Saamaagri Anupapaththi continues:
If shaasthram is mithyaa, then it cannot give sathya gnyaanam.
Yes, shaasthram is bhraanthi parikalpitham (fictitiously made up).
Yet, some shaasthra vaakyams like 'sadhaeva ....' say that bramham exists and that it exists without vijaatheeya sajaatheeya svagatha bhaaedhams. Even if shaasthram is bhraanthi-parikalpitham, there is no other pramaanam that shows bramham does not exist. Therefore, bramham exists.
No, the naasthika vaadham that 'shoonyamaeva thathvam' says that bramham does not exist. Why is this not pramaanam against the shaasthra vaakyam that says 'bramham exists'?
No, it is not a pramaanam because the sayer is a purushan. He has dhosha budhdhi and, therefore, his vaakyam is bhraanthimoolam (rooted in delusion). Therefore, it is not pramaanam.
Then, by the same argument, sadhaeva vaakyam is not pramaanam either, since shaasthram is bhraanthimoolam too.
Right, but as I said, sadhaeva vaakyam gets praamaanyam because no other pramaanam refutes it.
Then, the same is true for the naasthika vaakyam too. The vaakyam 'shoonyamaeva thathvam' cannot have baadham since one can say that 'shoonyam' is going to happen, whenever you ask him. Being a prediction, the naasthikavaakyam has no baadham. By your argument, the naasthika vaadham is pramaanam.
Now, note that the naasthika vaakyam (that nothing is real) becomes baadham to sadhaeva vaakyam (that bramham is real). Thus, all you have done is create baadham for shaasthram.
Kumaarila Bhattar of poorvameemaamsaa says in shloka vaarthikam that 'adhikaaro anupaayathvaath na vaadhae shoonyavaadhinaha', meaning that the sarvashoonyavaadhi boudhdhan has no right for vaadham. Since he says that all pramaanams are mithyaa, there is no way he can claim that his vaadham is right. He claims that the upaayams (pramaanams and yukthis) are mithyaa and, therefore, his saadhyam (conclusion) cannot be established. The same applies with you too.
The second half of Kumaarila Bhattar's shlokam is quoted by Raamaanujar. The full shlokam is:
sarvadhaa sadhupaayaanaam vaadhamaargaha pravarthathae, adhikaaro anupaayathvaath na vaadhae shoonyavaadhinaha
- sarvadhaa --- always
- sadhupaayaanaam --- for those accepting sath upaayam (an existing upaayam or the existence of upaayam)
- vaadhamaargaha pravarthathae --- the path of argument exists
- shoonyavaadhinaha --- for the shoonyavaadhis
- vaadhae --- in vaadham
- na adhikaaraha --- there is no ahdikaaram
- anupaayathvaath --- because of lack of upaayam
What is said of boudhdhan is true of adhvaithi too, since they both say pramaanam is mithyaa. Note that with the adhvaithi even abhaedha shruthi is mithyaa.
This is saamagri anupapaththi, which says that if saamagri (shaasthram) has all bhraanthimoola dhoshams and is, therefore, mithyaa, then its arthams (mainly, aikyagnyaanam) is also mithyaa. This means, bramham's avidhyaa never goes, which is again the situation of anirmoksham.
Shaasthra praabalya anupapaththi. It is impossible to prove that shaasthram is the prabala pramaanam over prathyaksham.
7. Shaasthra-praabalya Anupapaththi
Here, Raamaanujar shows how it is incosistent to claim that shaasthram is the praabalya pramaanam (stronger pramaanam) over prathyaksham.
How do you say that what is known by prathyaksham is mithyaa?
Prathyaksham has bhaedham as its vishayam, as we only apprehend things with their vishaeshanams. On the other hand, shaasthram shows aikyam or abhaedham. Between these, shaasthram is prabalam (stronger).
Prathyaksham shows bhaedham because we have been seeing bhaedham for a long time and over several janmams. Thus, prathyaksham has bhaedha vaasanai and is, therefore, dhoshamoolam. It shows bhaedham even though there is no truth to the arthams it is showing. But shaasthram does not have this problem and, therefore, has praabalyam. Shaasthram exists even without showing the artham it shows.
But shaasthram shows bhaedham too. And, it too has the dhosham of being mithyaa. Thus, both prathyaksham and shaasthram are dhoshamoolam. Therefore, both have only dhourbalyam (weakness). You cannot say one is prabalam.
There is no virodham between shaasthram and prathyaksham. They show different things.
Further, there is no question of conflict between prathyaksham and shaasthram. They show entirely different things. Prathyaksham shows shabdhaadhi vishayams (ie. shabdham, sparsham, roopam, rasam and gandham) based on panchabhootham, and manushyathvaadhi samsthaanam (ie. things with forms like man, animals, plants and inanimate objects).
Shaasthram, on the other hand, shows things that are beyond prathyaksham such as bramham's existence, its gunams, its sarvaantharathmaadhi vishaeshams, its upaasanam, its aaraadhana prakaaram, thath praapthi poorvaka thath prasaadhalabhya phala vishaesham (the qualities of the fruit obtained through bramham's prasaadham, beginning with attaining it), and thadh anishta karana moola nigraham (approximately, the consequences of acting against its will).
Thus, the subjects of prathyaksham and shaasthram are entirely different and, therefore, there is no question of virodham between them.
To say that shaasthram is pramaanam, one has to first accept prathyaksham as pramaanam.
We have received the arthams of anaadhi (beginningless) anidhana (endless) vaedham and its adhyayanam through avichchinna paata sampradhaayam (unbroken teaching lineage).
'Dhaayaha' (dheeyathaa ithi) means 'what is given'. 'Pradhaayaha' means 'what is given first'. 'Sampradhaayaha (sameecheena pradhaayaha ithi) means 'what is given well', meaning, the upadhaesham passed on through shishyaachaarya kramam .
Therefore, to say that shaasthram is prabalam you have to first accept that prathyaksham is real or, otherwise, one would not have learnt shaasthram. At the very least, one needs shravanaendhriyam for learing shaasthram. And, the gnyaanam one gets through shravanaendhriyam is prathyakshagnyaanam. Therefore, to talk about shaasthra artham one has to rely on prathyaksham's real ability to convey shaasthraartham.
This is shaasthra praabalya anupapaththi, which says that it is inconsistent to say that shaasthram is prabalam.
Thus, shruthi shatha vithathi vaatham (the wind of hundreds of vast shruthi) blows away like thoolam (cotton) all the dhushtayukthi jaalam (numerous wrong arguments) of kudhrushtis (people of crooked viewpoints). Therefore, we rest from further nirasanam.
This concludes nyaayaapaethathvam of shaankaramatham. This also concludes shankaramatha niraakaranam.
Summary of what we have seen so far
Shaankara-adhvaithi is our pradhaana poorvapakshi, who has much greater worthiness over other poorvapakshams as he is a paramavaidhikan. When we understand that even he is shown as so dhoshayuktham, then it gives us nishchaya budhdhi on our aachaaryans that they would have shown other mathams to be wrong too. Therefore, we may confidently follow our matham without any bhramam from other mathams.
In and after shlokam 2, Raamaanujar addressed three adhvaitha mathams and summarized them, the first of them being shankara matham.
Shankaramatham was summarized as: nirvishaesha chinmaathra gnaanamaathra bramham alone is sathyam, everything else is mithyaa, mithyaa appears because bramham's avidhyai, bramham's avidhyai is removed by aikyagnyaanam coming from shruthi vaakyams like 'thath thvam asi', 'sadhaeva somya...', 'sathyam gnyaanam...', and 'nishkalam nishkriyam...'.
Then, Raamaanujar showed how shankara matham is wrong by pointing out its shruthyapaethathvam and nyaayaapaethathvam.
In shruthyapaethathva niroopanam:
Raamaanujar first took up the prakaranam of chaandhogya vaakyams like 'thath thvam asi' and 'sadaeva somya...', and showed that aikyam-through-kaaryakaaranabhaavam is what is meant. (Prakaranam is 'paraspara aakaankshaa yuktha vaakya samudhaayaha', meaning, 'a set of vaakyams that rely on each other to convey something'.)
He then took up 'anaena jeevaena...' and showed bramham's anupravaesham and that thathvathrayam is sathyam. This was then taken to show that the complete meaning of any shabdham goes all the way in to the antharyaami paramaathmaa. Therefore, going back to 'thath thvam asi', he showed 'thath' and 'thvam' mean the antharyaamis of jagath and shvaethakaethu. Thus showing the adhvaithic interpretation as wrong.
Next he took up shodhaka vaakyams like 'sathyam gnyaanam..', 'nishkalam nishkriyam shaantham niranjanam...' and showed that they do not mean 'gnyapthimaathram bramha', as the Adhvaithi claims.
Finally, he took up other abhaedha shruthi vaakyams like 'naethi naethi...' and showed that they speak gloriously of bramham's vishaeshanams.
In nyaayaapaethathva niroopanam:
Raamaanujar pointed out seven inconsistencies (sapthavidha anupapaththi) in shankaramatham as below:
- Thirodhaana anupapaththi --- showed that avidhyai cannot do thirodhaanam to bramham.
- Avidhyaasvaroopa anupapaththi and aekajeevashareeram nirastham --- showed that avidhyai cannot even exist. In the process, showed as wrong the idea that only a single shareeram has a jeevaathmaa in it.
- Nivarthaka anupapaththi --- showed that aikyagnyaanam cannot accomplish avidhyaa nivarthakam
- Nivruththi anupapaththi --- showed that avidhyaanivruththi cannot happen completely; avidhyai always remains in some form
- Gnyaathru anupapaththi --- showed that a gnyaathaa cannot exist for aikyagnyaanam
- Saamagri anupapaththi --- showed that a saamagri cannot exist to give aikyagnyaanam
- Shaasthra praabalya anupapaththi --- showed as wrong the adhvaithi's argument for shaasthra praabalyam
Nadaadhoor Ammaal authored Thathvasaaram, in which 22 shlokams were dedicated to shaankaramatha niraakaranam. The first of this 22-shloka prakaranam is shlokam 49, which is a summary of the dhoshams in shankara matham. The shlokam is in sragdharaa vruththam (ie. having 4 lines, 84 aksharams, 21 per paadham). It is:
aadhow bhaedhash shrutheenaam anrutha vishayathaa lakshanaachaikya vaachaam
dhooraenaiva prahaanam thadhubhaya ghatanaa thathparaanaancha vaachaam
prathyakshaadhi pramaana svarasa gathi hathis tharka baadhascha bhooyaath
maayaavaadhae thadhaethath sakalamitharathaa lakshmanaachaarya pakshae
- aadhow bhaedhash shrutheenaam anrutha vishayathaa --- first of all, considering bhaedhashruthis (bhaedha prathipaathaka shruthis) as asathyam. The entire poorvabhaagam (yaagam, angam, etc) are all bhaedhashruthi and, therefore, considered asathyam in adhvaitham. In uththarabhaagam, bhaedhavaakyams are all considered asathyam.
- lakshanaachaikya vaachaam --- taking asvarasa lakshanaarthams for abhaedhashruthis. Even in adhvaitha abhimatha abhaedha shruthis, the natural (svarasa) meanings are dropped and unnatural (asvarasa) aikya meanings are attributed, with the dhosham of lakshanai. For example, the svarasa artham of 'thath thvam asi' is 'jagathkaaranabhootha bramham is antharyaami bramham'. But the adhvaithi uses lakshanai to drop the vishaeshanams and interprets it as 'bramham is bramham'.
- dhooraenaiva prahaanam thadhubhaya ghatanaa thathparaanaancha vaachaam --- throwing far away the ghataka shruthis, which resolve the conflict between bhaedha shruthis and abhaedha shruthis by teaching shareeraaathmabhaavam
- haanam --- thrown. Thrown because ghataka shruthi shows bhaedham as shareeram and aathmaa, when the adhvaithi considers that abhaedham alone is sathyam.
- prahaanam --- thrown away. Thrown away because shareeraathmabhaava vaakyams are considered to not have even vyaavahaarika sathyam. Vaakyams teaching that jagathkaaranam is bramham have at least vyaavahaarika sathyam, since jagath has vyaavahaarika sathyam. But ghataka shruthis do not have even vyaavahaarika sathyathvam. (Vyaavahaarikam is 'aapaathapratheethi sidhdho yukthibhir niroopitho na thathaavasthithaha', meaning 'what is real on the face of it, but is proved through yukthi as unreal').
- dhooraenaiva prahaanam --- thrown far away. Thrown far away because ghataka shruthis are considered useless as they resolve a conflict that does not exist. Since the adhvaithi considers that bhaedham is mithyaa and only abhaedham is sathyam, there is no conflict. Therefore, there is no reason for ghataka shruthi to exist. Therefore, they are vyartham and have no praamaanyam absolutely. Therefore, they are thrown far away.
- prathyakshaadhi pramaana svarasa gathi hathihi --- denying the svarasam of prathyaksham and anumaanam, which is bhaedham
- tharka baadhasya bhooyaath --- denying tharka knowledge (eg. arguing in spite of anavasthaa dhosham)
- maayaavaadhae thadhaethath --- these are in maayaavaadham
- sakalamitharathaa lakshmanaachaarya pakshae --- all these things are in the opposite way in Raamaanujar's paksham. ('Lakshmana' means 'having chinham'. The chinham here is shaeshathva chinham, like the original Lakshmanar)
Since, things are in the opposite way, the vyaakhyaathaa (Veeraraaghavaachaariar) makes the opposite shlokam as:
aadhow bhaedhasshrutheenam amruthavishayathaa mukhyathaa chaikyavaachaam
aaraadhaeva anurodhaha thadhubhaya ghatanaa thathparaanaancha vaachaam
prathyakshaadhi pramaana svarasa gathi mithis tharka bodhascha bhooyaath
- aadhow bhaedhasshrutheenam amruthavishayathaa --- taking amrutha, anaayaasa arthams for bhaedhashruthis, as bhaedham truly exists
- mukhyarthaa chaikyavaachaam --- taking aikyavaakyams for thier mukyaarthams, rather than asvarasa lakshanaarthams
- aaraadhaeva anurodhaha thadhubhaya ghatanaa thathparaanaancha vaachaam - staying very close to ghataka shruthis, considering them all important
- prathyakshaadhi pramaana svarasa gathi mithis --- accepting the mithi (gnyaanam) shown by prathyaksham and anumaanam
- tharka bodhascha bhooyaath --- accepting tharka knowledge also
Going back to Nadaadhoor Ammaal's shlokam, note that 'maayaavadhae' is used to refer to adhvaitham and 'lakshmanaachaarya pakshae' to refer to vishishtaadhvaitham. This is meghanaadha lakshmana nyaayam. Meghanaadhan (Indhrajith) did maayaayudhdham but was beaten by Lakshamanan. Similarly, here, the adhvaithi does maayaavadham and is beaten by Lakshmanaachaaryar (ie. Raamaanujar, whose original name is Ilayaazhwaar).
Thus, Shankara Adhvaithi, the strongest poorvapakshi, is defeated.
So far, we saw shaankaramatha niraakaranam.
Next, Raamaanujar takes up bhaaskaramatha niraakaranam. In bhaaskara-adhvaitham, the upaadhi is dhaehaendhriyam and is sathyam. Because of this upaadhi, samsaaram appears. When upaadhi disappears, samsaara nivarthakam happens.
Class 17, 21 March 2009
Explanation of shlokam 2 continues, with paramatha nirasanam. After shankara-adhvaitha niraakaranam, Raamaanujar moves on to bhaaskara-adhvaitha niraakaranam.
Bhaaskara-Adhvaitham is described in essence in Thaathparyadheepikai as:
achith-bramhanoho bhaedhaabhaedhow swaabhaavikow
chith-bramhanosthu abhaedhaha swaabhaavikaha bhaedhasthu owpaadhikaha
Beteween achith and bramham, both bhaedham and abhaedham are swaabhaavikam. Between chith and bramham, only abhaedham is swaabhaavikam, whereas bhaedham is owpaadhikam. This means that chith and bramham are one in nature, but by virtue of an upaadhi (a kaaranam) they appear as different. Once the upaadhi goes away, swaabhaavika abhaedham comes into existence.
Yaadhavaprakaasha-Adhvaitham, in contrast, holds that bhaedham and abhaedham are both swaabhaavikam between chith and bramham. Between achith and bramham, it is the same as in Bhaaskara matham (ie. both bhaedham and abhaedham are swaabhaavikam).
This was discussed in VB 5.
Shankarar, Bhaaskarar and Yaadhavaprakaashar are all called adhvaithis since they all hold jeeva-bramha abhaedham in some form eventually. Further, all the three explain the abhaedham or aikyam as jeevaathmaa's and paramaathmaa's being of the same dhravyam.
In Vishishtaadhvaitham, we hold that bhaedham is swaabhaavikam and explain aikyam through shareeraathmabhaavam. Thus, words denoting achith, chith and bramham can be used interchangeably because of apruthaksidhdhi (inseparability). We are also adhvaithis accepting aikyam but not of the Shankara/Bhaaskara/Yaadhava kind.
Bhaaskara and Yaadhvaprakaasha mathams were addressed in shlokam 2 after Shankara matham. Only these three poorvapakshams are considered in Vedhaarthasangraham, as only these claim support from Vaedham. However, during adhvaitha khandanam, the various aspects of khandanam of other poorvapakshams are encountered. Shankara-adhvaitham, for example, includes aspects of Saankhyam, Boudhdham and Chaarvaakam as per the shlokam:
saankhya saugatha chaarvaaka sankaraath shankarodhayaha
dhooshanaanyapi thaan yathra bhooyas thadh adhikaanicha
Shankara matham is a sankaram (mixture) of Saankhyam, Boudhdham and Chaarvaakam and, therefore, shankaramatha dhooshanam amounts to the dhooshanam of the other three. (Saankhya matham does not accept eeshwaran. It accepts 25 thathvams and is based on Saankhya Aagamam of Kapilar. Saugatha matham is Boudhdham, and Chaarvakam is Naasthikam.)
In Bhaaskara-adhvaitham, bramham gets all of jeevaathmaa's dhoshams. This contradicts shruthi.
After shankaramatha niraakaranam, Raamaanujar begins bhaaskaramatha niraakaranam with the words 'dhvitheeyaethu pakshae...'. Bhaaskara paksham is dhvitheeyam in the order taken up in shlokam 2. The 'thu' shabdham shows vyaavruththi from first paksham, which is shankaramatham. The vyaavruththi is that only bramham is real in shankarapaksham, whereas bramham and upaadhi are both real in bhaaskarapaksham. The upaadhi (kaaranam) is dhaehaendhriyam. Even though, the upaadhi is real, it is not permanent. It disappears at some point and, when it does, only bramham remains. This is moksham or nirmoksham. In other words, dhaehams keep getting destroyed and, when all dhaehams get destroyed, moksham occurs.
Again, dhaehams or upaadhis are things other than bramham and are real. However, there exists nothing other than upaadhi and bramham. Jeevan is nothing but bramham combined with the upaadhi of dhaehaendhriyam. There is one big bramham, which also exists in combination with several dhaehaendhriyams as several jeevans. When all those dhaehams fall, the jeevan becomes one with the big bramham. This is moksham or nirmoksham.
Because nothing other than bramham and upaadhi are real (upaadhibramha vyathiriktha vasthvanthara anabhyupagamaath), upaadhi should be with bramham only (bramhanyaeva upaadhi samsargaha). Therefore, all owpaadhika kashtams and dhoshams happen only to bramham (bramhanyaeva bhavaeyuhu). Thus if bramham in a dhaeham is jeevan, then bramham's apahathapaapmathvam is denied. Thus, all the nirdhosha shruthis are contradicted (nirdhosha shruthayaha sarvam vihanyanthae). Since you accept that shruthi cannot be wrong, what you say must be wrong.
'Apahathapaapmaa' is defined as apahathaha paapmaa yasmaath saha (the one from whom all paapams are gone). This does not mean that bramaham had paapam once. Rather, it means the athyanthaabhaavam of paapam (ie. that paapam never existed).
Can it be said that only the part of bramham associated with upaadhi gets dhosham? No, because bramham has no parts.
No, upaadhi's dhosham does not get to bramham. Let me explain how with an analogy.
The aakaasham in a ghatam is ghataakaasham, whereas what is outside it is maahaakaasham. Ghataakaasham is just as big as the ghatam, meaning, it is parichchinnam. On the other hand, mahaakaasham is infinite or aparichchinnam. Thus, there is vailakshanyam between the aakaashams.
Now, ghataakaasham can contain only as much water as the ghatam can, a dhosham. On the other hand, maahaakaasham has no such dhosham as it can give infinitely, a gunam. However, maahaakaasham cannot hold the water (a dhosham) but ghataakaasham can (a gunam).
Thus, ghataakaasham has some gunams and dhoshams that mahaakaasham does not. Even if mahaakaasham is joined to ghataakaasham, the gunams and dhoshams of the latter are only for the latter. Mahaakaasham is free of these and remains in its natural state.
Paramaathmaa is vibhu (infinite) and is like mahaakaasham, whereas jeevaathmaa is like ghataakaasham. The ghatam is like the dhaehaendhriya shareeram or upaadhi. Jeevan is shaesham, parathanthran, agnyan with gnyaanasankocham, whose agnyaanam has to be lost through bramhopaasanam, has mishragunathvam, has kaamaakrodhaadhi vashyathvam, and has upaadhi sambandham. Bramham has none of these. Bramham is anupahithae (ie. upaadhi samsarga rahithae or upaadhi anavachchinnam. 'Upahithae' means upaadhi avachchinnam).
Aakaasham is not nothing, but a dhravyam that can be known only through shaasthram.
You accept the naiyaayikapaksham that aakaasham has no bhaagams and is niravachchaedham (a part of it cannot be spoken of or measured separately). Therefore, to call something ghataakaasham, the ghatam should contain all the aakaasham (mahaakaasham). But the ghatam does not contain mahaakaasham. Therefore, what is true is that ghatam is joined in mahaakaasham and, thus, there is no separate aakaasham in the ghatam.
Similarly, bramham has no parts and the dhaehams are joined with it. Since there are no parts to bramham, there cannot be separate jeevans.
Further, when the upaadhi moves, bramham gets kshanaekshanae bandham and moksham.
It may be the same aakaasham but it is both joint and disjoint with ghatam. Therefore, the joined part (ghata sanyuktha aakaashaha) is diferent from the rest of the aakaasham.
Similarly, bramham is both joint and disjoint with dhaehaendhriyams, and the joined part is different from the rest of bramham. The joined parts can, therefore, be jeevans.
The joining of bramham with upaadhi is aniyamam (ie. happens freely, without constraints). This being the case, when a dhaeham moves from place A to place B, the bramham at place A gets moksham and the bramham at place B gets bandham. That is, bandham and moksham keep coming alternately and instantaneoulsy (kshanaekshanae). The learned laugh at this (santhaha parihasanthi).
Can the part of bramham associated with the upaadhi be unique and distinct from the rest of bramham? No. Therefore, kshanika bandha moksham necessarily happens.
No, kshanaekshanae bandhamoksham does not happen, as it is the same part of bramham that is in the dhaeham that moves. That part of bramham is distinct (ie. has vyavasthai) from the rest of bramham.
Take shrothraendhriyam, for example. Even if aakaasham does not have parts, shrothraendhriyam is only the aakaasham inside the ear, not the aakaasham outside. Thus, a part of aakaasham can be identfied distinctly. When a person moves, his shrothraendhriyam moves with him, which means that this distinct aakaasham-part moves with him.
Similarly, a distinct part of bramham moves around with the dhaeham and, therefore, kshanika bandhamoksham does not happen.
Shrothraendhriyam is not just the aakaasham inside the ear. It is the aakaasham combined with the word. The word, in turn, is nothing but wind. Therefore, shrothraendhriyam is the aakaasham inside the ear combined with the word-wind.
When the person moves, his shrothraendhriyam becomes the combination of a different aakasham-part and the word-wind. This is why he can hear the same thing even if he moves. Since shrothraendhriyam is not connected to any specific aakaasham-part, any aakaasham can become indhriyam (ie. no vyavasthai).
Aakaasham can join with dhaeham freely (aniyamaena). Similarly, bramham joins and disjoins with a moving dhaenam freely. Therefore, kshanaekshanae bandha-moksham will happen.
Further, when the ghatam moves, ghataakaasham comes out and becomes mahaakaasham. By analogy, this means that the jeevan gets naasham. This contradicts your own view that jeevan is nithyam. This also means that after the move it is a new jeevaathmaa. This requires that one should not know what happened before moving (ie. prathyabhignyai, prathisandhaanam should not happen). This contradicts experience (anubhava virudhdham).
It is not vaidhika matham to say that aakaasham forms indhriyam. Some Vishnupuraana shlokams.
All this I said assuming aakaasham forms shrothraendhriyam. But in truth aakaasham does not form shrothraendhriyam. The vaidhika matham is that all the 11 indhriyams are vaikaarikam (ie. born out of saathvika ahankaaram, called vikaaram). Paraasharar says that thaamasa ahankaaram gives birth to aakaasham and other bhoothams. Then, he goes on to say:
thaijasaani indhriyaani aahuhu, dhaevaa vaikaarikaa dhasha, aekaadhasham manaschaathra, dhaevaa vaikaarikaassmruthaahaa
By 'thaijasaani indhriyaani aahuhu', he explains paramatham as 'some people think that thaijasam (raajasa ahankaaram) gives birth to indhriyams'. This is not Paraasharar's matham since 'aahuhu' means 'they said'. After this, he explains svamatham as 'vaikaarikam gives birth to all indhriyams'. 'Dhaevaa' has 'dhivu' as the dhaathu, meaning 'prakaashakam' or the means of obtaining gnyaanam. Therefore, 'dhaevaahaa' means indhriyams, through which we obtain gnyaanam.
Ahankaarams are thrividham - vaikaarikam (saathvikam), thaijasam (raajasam), bhoothaadhi (thaamasam). Saathvikam is vaikaarikam because it gives gnyaanam, which is a good vikaaram. It gives birth to indhriyams. Bhoothaadhi gives birth to bhoothams. Thaijasam means fire or light, which instigates (like raajasa gunams of kaamam, kopam) getting gnyaanam. It helps indhriyam-generation from vaikaarikam. It also helps bhootham-formation from bhoothaadhi. That is, it only does sahakaaram to the other two ahankaarams in generating idhriyams and bhoothams.
Thus, shrothraendhriyam is vaikaarikam, and different from the bhootham aakaasham. The same is said in Mahaabhaaratham too.
In Bhaaskaramatham, bramham gets the combined dhoshams of all the jeevaathmaas.
It might seem like indhriyams are born out of bhoothams. Even if we accept this idea, indhriyams are different from bhoothams, as they are bhoothavikaarams (bhoothaparinaama vishaeshams).
Further, when the shrothraendhriyam is in place A, it is a vikaaram of the aakaasham in place A. When it moves to place B, the indhriyam frees up the aakaasham of place A and becomes a vikaaram of the aaakaasham of place B. This is just like the case of a shareeram moving from one place to another. In place A, the shareeram is made of the aakaasham and other bhoothams of place A. When it moves to place B, the aakaasham of place A is released and the shareeram is now made of the aakaasham of place B. Thus, motion involves release of aakaasham in one place and recapture in the other.
Therefore, by analogy, this means that kshanaekshanae bandha-moksham happens to bramham as the upaadhi moves.
There is also another problem with your matham.
Bramham has no parts (achchaedhyam, nirvikaaram, niravayavam, anavachchinnam). Therefore, it should have all the dhoshams of all the jeevaathmaas combined. Since jeevathmaas are infinite, moksham can never happen.
Your matham would appear good only to shradhdhadhaanaam (nyaaya niroopana akshamaanaam upadhaesha maathra thrupthaanaam, meaning, those who do not analyze and are satisfied with whatever the aachaaryan says). Any analysis will prove it wrong. All the more so, to people who know shaasthram.
Upaadhi causes swaroopa parinaamam to bramham. This contradicts nirvikaara shruthi.
Further, by your matham, bramham's svaroopam itself gets vikaaram when it becomes jeevan due to an upaadhi. This is nirvikaara shruthi baadhitham.
No, it is just bramham's shakthi that undergoes parinaamam. Bramham's svaroopam remains nirvikaaram.
Then, is that shakthi bramham's parinaamam? Or is it bramham itself?
If shakthi is bramham's parinaamam, then it means bramham has parinaamam. Again, this contradicts shruthi.
If shakthi is bramham itself, then it means bramham is itself the parinaamam. This, in turn, requires an entity that has this parinaamam or has bramham as its swabhaavam. What is it?
Thus, you contradict shruthi either way.
So far Raamaanujar conducted bhaaskaramatha khandanam.
Shruthaprakaashikai says in adhvaitha khandanam that vaedhaanthis cannot accept that aakaasham is niravayavam. It is apasidhdhaantham because shaasthram clearly says uthpaththi and vinaasham for the five bhoothams, including aakaasham. This means that aakaasham has parts since uthpaththi is just coming together of parts and vinaasham is the falling apart of parts. Note that Bhaaskaramatham is wrong even if we assume that aakaasham has no parts.
Next, Yaadhavaprakaasha matha niraakaranam. As mentioned before, this matham holds that bhaedhaabhaedham is swaabhaavikam for both pairs (chith-bramham and achith-bramham). Why? Becasue they claim that vaedhaantham says so:
sarvam khalvidham bramha --- implies abhaedham between achith and bramham.
bhokthaa bhogyam praerithaaram cha mathvaa --- implies there is bhaedham between achith (bhogyam) and paramaathmaa (bhokthaa).
Theefore, both bhaedham and abhaedham exist between achith and bramham
nithyo nithyaanaam chaethanas chaethanaanaam aeko bahoonaam yo vidhadhaathi kaamaan --- implies bhaedham between chith and bramham, as it says that jeevaathmaa and bramham are both nithyam, and that the latter grants what the former wants.
thaththvam asi means --- implies abhaedham between chith and bramham.
Therefore, again, bhaedham and abhaedham exist between chith and bramham.
Further, what is svaabhaavikam is what is true in mukthi. In mukthi, shaasthram says 'bramha vaedha bramhaiva bhavathi', which implies abaehdam. But shaasthram also says 'bramhavith aapnothi param', which implies bhaedham. Therefore, bhaedhaabhaedham is svaabhaavikam.
More on this in the next class.
Class 18, 22 March 2009
Niraakaranam happening in the order taken in shlokam 2. Shankaramatha niraakaranam and bhaaskaramatha niraakaranam over. Now yaadhavaprakaashamatha niraakaranam. Before that, here are a few more dhoshams in bhaaskaramatham:
To get moksham, it is enough to just move from one place to another. This is not a moksha-upaayam prescribed by shaasthram, a dhosham right there. Secondly, this means that the moksha-upaayams like bhakthi and prapaththi, laid down by shaasthram, are vyartham. The dhosham here is that this gives shaasthram apraamaanyam.
Raamaanuajr calls this matham thrutheeya paksham as it is the third matham in the order of shlokam 2. Note that this Yaadhavaprakaashar is not Raamaanujar's aachaaryan. The latter is a shaankara-adhvaithi, who later became shreevaishnavan.
Yaadhava-adhvaitham says that bramham, by its swaroopam, exists as all the jeevaathmaas. This means that the dhoshams of all the jeevaathmaas go to bramham.
This matham was summarized at the end of last class. In short, the shruthi vaakyam 'nithyo nithyaanaam chaethanas chaethanaanaam aeko bahoonaam yo vidhadhaathi kaamaan' means 'to chaethanams who are nithyams and many, a chaethanan who is nithyan and one, gives what they desire'. Yaadhava-adhvaithi says that this shows bhaedham between the one chaethanan (bramaham) and the many chaethanams (jeevaathmaas). At the same time, other shruthi vaakyams like 'thath thvam asi' show abhaedham. The abhaedham means svaroopa aikyam of jeevaathmaa and bramham.
All the jeevathamaas in bodies are paramaathmaa's amshams. Saubhari took fifty bodies and controlled them with one aathmaa through his gnyaanam, which is an amsham. Similarly there is one bramham and it controls all the shareerams through its amshams. Jeevaathmaas are like anantha vibhavaavathaarams, which are all merely bhaedhams of paramaathmaa. Similarly each jeevan is a bhaedham of paramaathmaa. Further, jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa have the same qulaities as they are parts of the same bramham.
Raamaanujar's khandanam is only to the abhaedham part, as the bhaedham part is right.
Because of bramahm's existence as jeevan (thasyacha thadhbhaavaath, meaning bramhano jeevabhaavaath), the dhoshams of all jeevaathmaas go to bramham.
Yes, but I am not making this up. Shruthi says aikyam and one has to explain it. You explain abhaedha shruthis too. What is your interpretation?
We explain aikyam through shareeraathmabhaavam and apruthaksidhdham, whereas you interpret it as svaroopa aikyam.
There are vaakyams that teach thadhaathmakathvam (ie. that things have the quality of having bramham as aathmaa). We explain it as shareeraathmabhaavam, by which the jeevaathmaas in things are not bramham but only bramham's shareeram. This means the dhoshams of the jeevaathmaas do not get to bramham, as the dhoshams of a shareeram do not get to the athmaa inside it.
In contrast, you take thadhaathmakathvam to mean that the jeevan, which is the aathmaa of sura/nara/thiryak/sthaavara shareeram, is itself bramham. In your paksham, all the dhuhkhams and dhoshams of all the jeevaathmaas do become brammham's dhuhkhams and dhoshams. This is similar to how we say that clay itself does the various kaaryams (eg. carrying water) done by things made of clay.
Can we say that one part of bramham is eeshwaran and the other part is jeevaathmaa? No, because both parts are bramham, and the whole bramham necessarily gets the dhoshams of the jeevaathmaa-part.
No. If clay remained as clay, no such kaaryam could have happened. Only the part of clay that became ghatam conducted the kaaryam of carrying water. The unused clay, which did not become ghatam, remains as such and has nothing to do with the kaaryam (ie. it is kaaryaanthara ananvitham). This unused part of clay cannot be said to have done the kaaryam. Similarly, only the amsham of bramham that constitutes the jeevaathmaa gets dhosham. The larger bramham remains free of dhoshams and is sarvagnyathva, sathyasankalpathvaadhi gunaakaraha (aakaram = ocean).
Sathyam (ardhaangeekaarae sathyam, meaning, partly true) - the 'sarvagnyathva, sathyasankalpathvaadhi gunaakaraha' part is true.
However, you are saying that one amsham is dhoshamful and another dhosham-free, even though they are amshams of one bramham. In other words, you are saying that the same bramham has a bhaagam called eeshvaran and another bhaagam called jeevaathmaa. This automatically means that jeevan's dhosham are bramham's dhoshams. Saying that there is dhosham in one part of an entity is the same as saying that the entity has dhosham.
But aren't the two parts distinct? Yes, but so what? When one part has dhoshams, the other part's kalyaanagunams cannot make it eeshwaran.
No, the two amshams are entirely separate and, therefore, the dhoshams do not transfer.
Even so, the moment you say that one bhaagam of bramham is jeevan, then that bhagam is definitely dhukhee. This means bramham cannot be eeshvaran. To be eeshvaran, bramham has to be sukhee completely. The moment it has dhuhkham even in one part, it loses eeshvarathvam. It is like dhaevadhaththan having one hand well decorated with kaeyooram and chandhanam, and the other hand beaten with an iron club and kept in kaalaagni. He cannot be a santhushtan in this situation.
Your paksham is worse and more paapi than bramhaagnyaana paksham (shankara paksham). Shankara-adhvaithi at least says that bramham's dhosham of agnyaanam is mithyaa, whereas you say that bramham really gets dhosham. Shaasthram says bramham is paramapurushaartham. (Puri = shareeram, purushaha = one who resides in puri = jeevaathmaa, purshaartham = what the jeevaathma desires, paramapurushaartham = jeevaathmaa's ulitamate desire.) And you are saying that such a paramapurushaartha bramham is experiences paaramaarthika dhuhkham and dhosham. Why would any jeevan desire it? And, considering that there are infinite jeevaathmaas, when will bramham ever get out of this state?
Can the jeevaathmaa-part be completely different from the eeshwaran-part? Yes, and this is Vishishtaadhvaitha matham. In this way, jeevaathma-swaroopam and eeshwara-swaroopam are completely different and, thus, eeshwaran does not get jeevaathmaa's dhoshams.
No, jeevaathmaa is an amsham that is entirely different from bramham.
Then, you accept my paksham of complete bhaedham between jeevaathmaa and bramham (aagathosi madheeyam panthaanam, meaning, you have come my way).
In my paksham, eeshvaran is not svaroopaena aathmaa (ie. eeshvaran is not jeevaathmaa through his svaroopam). Therefore, all this dhosham does not get to him. Thadhaathmakathvam means aathma shareera bhaavam, where bramham is the aathmaa of jeevaathmaa and, therefore, does not get any of jeevaathmaa's dhosham. In addition, he gets the gunam of being nikhila bhuvana niyamanathvam becaue of his aathmathvam.
In my paksham, the mukhyavruththam (mukhyaartham) of shabdhams are retained when explaining vaakyams like 'thath thvam asi' through saamaanaadhikaranyam.
It is self-contradictory to say that two vyakthis (things) can have both bhaedham and abhaedham between them.
Further, it is contradictory to say that two things have both bhaedham and abhaedham between them. If ghatam and patam have bhaedham then it means they are not the same. In other words, bhaedham means that there is no ghatam in patam and vice versa. Then, how can they have abhaedham too? Abhaedham means that ghatam should have patam in it and vice versa at the same time and place (aekasmin dhaesheacha aekasmin kaalaecha). By saying that there is both bhaedham and abhaedham, you are in essence saying that patam has ghatam's sadhbhaavam as well as abhaavam, simultaneously.
No, I am saying that patam has ghatam's jaathi in it and does not have ghatam's vyakthi in it (jaathyaathmanaa cha bhaavaha, vyakthyaathmanaa cha abhaavaha). Abhaedham comes because the things have identical jaathi and bhaedham comes because they are different vyakthis.
Let me explain. A ghatam has ghatathva jaathi, as do all ghatams. But each ghatam is different from other ghatams (vyakthi). Thus, there is jaathi abhaedham and vyakthi bhaedham. If you take ghatam and patam, they both have the commonality of being made of the earth (paarthivathvam or pruthiveethvam). This is jaathyaathmanaa abhaedham. The vyakthis of ghatam and patam are, of course, different. This is vyakthyaathmanaa bhaedham.
Take two things. Becasue they are two things, there is vyakthyaathmanaa bhaedham between them. Now, saying that 'there is jaathyaathmanaa abhaedham between the two things' is the same as saying that 'by jaathi the two things are identical'. This means that there is a jaathi that each thing is identical to. In other words, there is abhaedham between jaathi and each vyakthi.
Now, take two cows - one with broken horns (khandam) and the other with no horns (mundam). According to you, they have jaathyaathmanaa abhaedham and vyakthyaathmanaa bhaedham. The jaathi is gothvam and the vyakthis are khandam cow and mundam cow.
As just explained, jaathyaathmanaa abhaedham requires that gothvam and khandam cow be the same, and also that gothvam and mundam cow be the same. This means that khandam cow and mundam cow are the same. That is, one cow should be with both broken horns and with no horns, simultaneously.
Further, we know that there is vyakhthyaathmanaa bhaedham between the cows. This means that if we take the khandam cow, it should not have mundam cow in it. But we just established that mundam cow is the same as gothvam. This means that there is no gothvam in khandam cow. That is, the khandam cow is not a cow but, say, a horse. By similar argument, we can say that the mundam cow is also not a cow but, say, a buffalo.
Thus, jaathyaathmanaa bhaedham and vyakthyaathmanaa abhaedham means that gothvam should simultaneously exist and not exist in the cows. Because of abhinnathvam (abhaedham) there is sadhbhaavam (existence) of jaathi in vyakthi, and because of bhinnathvam (bhaedham) there is asadhbhaavam (non-existence) jaathi in vyakthi. Thus, bhinna-abhinna vaadham (bhaedhaabhaedham) lands us in these contradictions.
It is wrong to say that there is abhaedham between jaathi and vyakthi. Yaadhava matham requires swaroopa parinaamam for bramham, thereby contradicting nirvikaara shruthis.
No, there are four haethus (reasons) that show that jaathi-vyakthi aikyam is correct and, therefore, bhaedhaabhaedham is correct:
- sahopalambha niyamaha --- the niyamam that gowhu and gothvam are apprehended together. When we see a cow, we see two things simultaneously - 1) that it is there and 2) that it has gothvam. The thing and gothvam cannot be seen separately. Jaathi and vyakthi are always apprehended together, as a rule.
- samaanaadhikaranya prathyayaha (aekaarthathva prathyayaha) --- the words 'gowhu' and 'gothvam' point to one entity
- aekashabdhaanuvidhdha prathyayaha --- from one shabdham, we get two gnyaanams that the entity is cow and that it has gothvam (aekashabdha-anusaari gnyaanam)
- prathamapinda grahanae bhaedhaka aakaara agrahanaath abhaedha prathipaththihi --- at first sight we apprehend only that it is a vyakthi, not its vishaeshams or bhaedhaka aakaarams, which distinguish the vyakthi from others
No. As explained in VB 30, all the four haethus mean only jaathi-vyakthi bhaedham. Because they cannot be separated, you are confusing it for abhaedham. One is samshthaanam (gothvam) and the other is samsthaani (gowhu) but they have pruthaksidhdha anarhathvam (inability to be separated).
In 'sahopalambha niyamaha', you are talking about apprehending together. Then, right there you have admitted more than one thing. Why would you say 'together' if there is only one thing? Therefore, jaathi and vyakthi are different, and only bhaedham exists between them. Jaathi is nothing but an asaadhaarana aakaram of the vasthu. It is its prakaaram and, thus, an apruthaksidhdha vishaeshanam (since prakaaram cannot exist without prakaari). This is why they are never apprehended separately (pruthak anupalambascha).
In 'samaanaadhikaranya prathyayaha', we are talking about two things - the thing in front of us and the thing with gothvam. This necessarily means they are different.
In 'aekashabdhaanuvidhdha prathyayaha', 'one word points to both jaathi and vyakthi together' because they never exist separately, not because they are the same.
In 'prathamapinda grahanae bhaedhaka aakaara agrahanaath abhaedha prathipaththihi' it is only said that bhaedhaka aakaaram is not apprehended the first time. It does not say that bhaedhaka aakaaram does not exist. Regardless, the 'prathamapinda...' statement has be shown to be false in VB 30. It was shown that even in prathamapinda grahanam or nirvikalpaka prathyaksham, we apprehend the object with some vishaeshanam or bhaedhaka aakaarams. At a minimum, we perceive that it is there or that it has a specific roopam. If not, then when we look at it again and perceive vishaeshanams, how do we know that those vishaeshanams belong to that particular object? The fact that we are able to know this means that at first sight, we perceive the object with some minimal vishaeshanams. From the second time on, we perceive it with those minimal vishaenams, plus some other extra vishaeshanams. Since we remember the minimal vishaeshanams from the first sight, we are able to say at second sight that it is the same object. Over this object, we add the extra vishaeshanams. Therefore, even in prathamapinda grahanam or nirvikalpaka prathyaksham, vishaeshana grahanam happens.
When one sees someone a second time, he gets the budhdhi 'soyam (this is that person)', as a result of prakaara aikyam between the person seen at some time in the past and the person seen now. This is like when two people have dhandam, we look at one and say 'ayamapi dhandee (he is also dhandee)', again because of prakaara aikyam. This prakaaram is the roopam and jaathi of the vyakthi. In vayavahaaram, the bhaedham in prakaaram is the reason for the difference between, say, a cow and a horse.
Prakaaram/jaathi shows that a vasthu is different from others that do not have that prakaaram. The prakaaram also shows itself as different from other things including the vasthu. It is like samvaedhanam (gnyaanam), which is sva-para nirvaahakam (ie. shows itself and others). That is if I have the samvaedhanam of something, then I do not need another samvaedhanam to tell me that I have the first samvaedhanam. The first samvaedhanam itself shows that I have it. Similarly, jaathi shows that the vyakthi is different from others and also shows that it is different from other things including the vyakthi.
Therefore, when we apprehend a vasthu, we apprehend it with its jaathi, which immediately shows two things:
- that the vasthu is different from other vasthus
- that the jaathi is not the vasthu, or other vasthus or jaathis
Further, it shows the abhaavam of its prathiyogee, which is either the absence of a vasthu or another vasthu.
Thus, there is only bhaedham between jaathi and vykathi and, therefore, bhaedhaabhaedam is wrong.
Finally, the dhoshams pointed out against Bhaaskaramatham applies to you too, since you too say that bramham undergoes svaroopa parinaamam.
This concludes Yaadhavaprakaasha matha niraakaranam.
This also concludes parapaksha nirasanam. Next, Raamaanujar begins svapaksha sthaapanam.
What we have seen so far is vyaakhyaanam of shlokam 2 upto '...thamo' in the fourth line. Next, it is going to be vyaakhyaanam of the first shlokam.
Class 19, 28 March 2009
So far Raamaanujar conducted parapaksha prathikshaepam. Now he begins svapaksha sthaapanam.
Vaedhaarthasangraham began with two shlokams, followed by a brief vyaakhyaanam of shlokam 1 and a detailed vyaakhyaanam of shlokam 2. In shlokam 2, three adhvaitha mathams - Shankara, Bhaaskara and Yaadhavaprakaasha - were taken up, their faults were mentioned in short, and it was claimed that they are shruthi and nyaaya apaetham. After that the grantham has been a vyaakhyaanam of shlokam2, showing the faults of the mathams in detail. Now begins the sidhdhaantham part, the real vaedhaarthasangraham.
This is not a matham invented by Raamaanujar. Instead, it is the puraadhana vaidhika matham of Vyaasar, Bhodhaayanar, Tankar, Dhramidar, Guhadhaevar etc. Vaedhaanthaachaaryar makes this point in 'yathikshmaabhruth' shlokam of Yathiraaja Sapthathi.
Abhaedha shruthis (eg. thath thvam asi) were discussed in detail when dealing with the adhvaitha pakshams, as interpretation of these shruthis form the basis of these pakshams. Raamaanujar showed the pakshams wrong by showing that one cannot take just one shruthi vaakyam but rather one should consider all shruthi vaakyams. In VB 6, he said in regards to shankara paksham that 'thathra prathamapakshae shruthyartha paryaalochanaparaahaa dhushpariharaan dhoshaan udhaaharanthi', meaning, 'people analyzing all the shruthis find unacceptable dhoshams in the first paksham (shankara paksham)'. 'Paryaalochanam' means parithaha aalochanam or allround analysis.
Bhaedha shruthis were taken up on occasion but not considered in detail so far, since these were considered by adhvaithis to be talking about mere appearances. Ghataka shruthis too were not discussed in detail, since these were considered by adhvaithis to have no praamaanyam. As Raamaanujar has established the meaning of abhaedhashruthis, he now takes up bhaedhashruthis and ghatakashruthis for analysis.
It is clear from the vaakyams of vaedhams and rishis that chith-achith vasthus are bramham's shareeram and prakaaram. Bramham is their aathmaa and prakaari. They never get mixed up.
- yafpruthivyaam thishtan pruthivyaa antharo yam pruthevee na vaedha yasya pruthivee shareeram yafpruthiveem antharo yamayathi aesha tha aathmaa antharyaami amruthaha
- This is a Bruhadhaaranyaka Upanishadh vaakyam, whose artham is given by Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryar. In Eedu vyaakhyaanam of 'mananaga malamara' paasuram (the second paasuram of Thiruvaaimozhi) Nampillai cites this shruthi as aazhwaar says that he is shareeram of perumaal. In Eedu Pramaanathirattu of this paasuram, Manavaala Maamunigal, who never changes poorvaachaarya vyaakhyaanam even by a little bit, cites and rewrites Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryar's vyaakhyaanam for the 'yafpruthivyaam...' vaakyam.
- yafpruthivyaam thishtan - he who is in pruthivee
- pruthivyaa antharo - he who is INSIDE pruthivee. Shruthi says this separately so as to emphasize paramaathmaa's existence inside pruthivee. ('Vaedhyaam agnis thishtathi' means agni is ON vaedhi, while 'thilae thailam thishtathi' means thailam is IN thilam)
- yam pruthevee na vaedha - he whom pruthivee does not know. Being achith, how can pruthivee know? Or does pruthivee refer to its athidhaevathai? No, because several achaethanams and a chaetham are mixed up in the list of things that do not know the antharyaami-paramaathmaa. The point is to say that the chaethanam does not know it as much as the achiths do not.
- yasya pruthivee shareeram - he to whom pruthivee is shareeram (A shareeram has aadhaeyathvam, vidhaeyathvam and shaeshathvam. A shaeshan is one who produces a greatness to his shaeshi.)
- yafpruthiveem antharo yamayathi - he who is inside pruthivee and controls it
- aesha tha aathmaa antharyaami amruthaha - he is your aathmaa, he is inside you and controls you, and he is dhoshamless. 'Amruthaha' means vyaapyagatha dhosha rahihthan, meaning that in spite of being inside the aathmaa, he does not get the aathmaa's dhoshams. (As a jeeyar was explaining this artham, a listener-swami wondered how this is possible. During prasaadha viniyogam after thiruvaaraadhanam, the jeeyar pointed to the fact that the nei in chakkarapongal sticks to one's hand but not to one's tongue. His intention was to show that when a part of a praakrutha shareeram can remain clear of something that sticks to another part, there is nothing to wonder about how the antharyaami stays clear of jeevaathmaa's dhoshams.)
- ya aathmani thishtannaathmano antharo yam aathmaa na vaedha yasyaathmaa shareeram ya aathmaanam antharo yamayathi sa tha aathmaa antharyaami amruthaha
- same artham as 'yafpruthivyaam thistan...' but with aathmaa in place of pruthivee
- yafpruthiveem antharae sancharan yasya pruthivee shareeram, yam pruthivee na vaedha
- again, the same artham as 'yafpruthivyaam thistan...'. 'Sancharan' generally means 'moves' but here it means thishtan (stands) because he is everywhere and so has no place to move to.
- yo aksharam antharae sancharan yasya aksharam shareeram yam aksharam na vaedha yo mruthyum antharae sancharan yasya mruthyushshareeram yam mruthyurna vaedha aesha sarvabhootha antharaathmaa apahathapaapmaa dhivyo dhaeva aeko naaraayanaha
- aksharam - that which does not get destroyed. Here it stands for jeeva samashti (a group of chiths) that is together with achith samashti. This artham is given by Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryar in antharadhikaranam.
- yo aksharam antharae sancharan - he who is inside aksharam
- yasya aksharam shareeram - he who has aksharam as shareeram
- yam aksharam na vaedha - he whom aksharam does not know
- mruthyu - achithsamashti which is together with chithsamashti. 'Samashti' means the one prakruthi, which is a group of all achiths, which cannot be known separately at this stage
- yo mruthyum antharae sancharan - he who is inside mruthyu
- yasya mruthyushshareeram - he who has mruthyu as his shareeram
- yam mruthyurna vaedha - he whom mruthyu does not know
- aesha sarvabhootha antharaathmaa - he is the antharaathmaa of all bhoothams. 'Bhootham' means that which exists, which means a vasthu with a jeevaathmaa. This, in turn, means the vasthu is a shareeram.
- apahathapaapmaa - dhoshamless, in general
- dhivyaha - dhoshamless. Means, specifically, the dhoshamlessness in spite of being inside jeevaathmaa, due to being dhivyaha (again, vyaapyagatha dhosharahithan)
- dhaevaha - shiner because of dhoshamlessness
- aekaha - unequaled
- naaraayanaha - the aadhaaram of nithyavasthus and the one with gunams
- dhvaa suparnaa sayujaa sakhaayaa samaanam vruksham parishasvajaathae thayoranyaf pippalam svaadhvaththi anashnannanyo abhichaakasheethi
- It should be 'dhvow suparnow...'. Instead it is 'dhvaa suparnaa...'. This usage is allowed for shruthi and the arthams are the same.
- The superficial artham is
- dhvow suparnow - two beautiful wings
- sayujow - that are together
- sakhaayow - that are friends
- samaanam vruksham parishasvajaathae - living in the same tree
- thayoranyaha - one of them
- pippalam svaadhu aththi - eats well fig or peepal fruit
- anashnannanyaha - the other that does not eat
- ahichaakasheethi - shines well
- In the Eedu vyaakhyaanam of Thiruvaaimozhi 3rd paasuram, 'pulanodu pulanalan...', Nampillai refers to 'dhvaa suparnaa...' shruthi. By 'pulanodu pulanalan' aazhwaar means that perumaal is in perceivable vasthus and yet he is imperceptible. Nampillai asks how this is possible and refers to this shruthi vaakyam. Manavaala Maamunigal shows the artham for this vaakyam citing Venkataachaaryar'ss vaedhaarthasangraha vyaakhyaanam:
- dhvow - two people (jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa)
- suparnow - having beautiful shareerams (jeevaathmaa's shareeram is beautiful in paramapadham)
- sayujow - having matching gunams (samaanaha yuk yayoho sow sayujow). How can jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa have mathcing gunams? They can in moksham, where there is saamyam in gunaashtakam (eight gunams). Shruthi says in regards to paramaathmaa 'aeka aathmaa apahathapaapmaa vijaro vimruthyuhu vishokaha vijigathsaha apipaasaha sathyakaamaha sathyasankalpaha', and in regards to jeevaathmaa 'ya aathmaa apahathapaapmaa vijaro vimruthyuhu vishokaha vijigathsaha apipaasaha sathyakaamaha sathyasankalpaha'. The gunams are
sakhaayow - having shaesha shaeshi bhaavam between them
vruksham - stands for shareeram (similar to how 'suparnow' stood for shareeram). 'Vruksham' means destructible (chaedhyam), and as shareeram is destructible too, it is called so.
parishasvajaathae - living together
thayoranyaha - one of them
pippalam svaadhu aththi - eating karma phalam well
anashnan anyaha - the other that does not eat
abhichaakasheethi - shines well
A second artham is shown also by Venkataachaaryar
- aphathapaapmaa - dhoshamless
- vijaraha - non-ageing
- vimruthyuhu - deathless
- vishokaha - shokamless
- vijigathsaha - hungerless
- apipaasaha - thirstless
- sathyakaamaha - having all desires fulfilled, the ability to get desired things
- sathyasankalpaha = having no hurdles against realizing desires. Sathyakaamaha and sathyasankalpaha do not mean the same thing. 'Kaamaha' means not desire but desired thing. Therefore, 'sathyakaamaha' means the ability to get any desired thing. Note that jeevaathmaa gets only these eight gunams, not other gunams (jagath vyaapaara varjam). Becasue of these matching eight gunams, jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa are sayujow.
anthafpravishtash shaasthaa janaanaam sarvaathmaa
- suparnow - stands for jeevaathmaa's gathisaadhanam of gyaanam (as parnow or wings are the gathisaadhanam of pakshis)
- sayujow - having togetherness (through sharereaathma bhaavam and shaeshashaeshi bhaavam)
- saakhaayow - yet, living like equals
- rest is the same
thath srushtvaa thadhaevaanupraavishath thadhanupravishya sachcha thyachchaabhavath
- Means that 'he enters into, controls, and is aathmaa of all people'
- It seems to mean that just as a shareeram is completely governed by aathmaa in every little thing the shareeram does, the aathmaa is completely governed by bramham in every little thing the jeevaathmaa does. Saying so would mean that paramaathmaa is responsible for jeevaathmaa's actions. However, it is not quite so, as Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryar shows in paraayaththaadhikaranam. If the word 'shaasthaa' takes the ususal meaning of niyanthaa here, then it means that jeevaathmaa has no swaathanthryam. If it is so, then how can shruthi lay down vidhis to jeevan, a niyaamya vasthu (that which is being governed)? Should shruthi not direct its vidhis to the niyanthaa (paramaathmaa) asking him, in turn, to make the jeevan do the vidhi? Therefore, here 'shaashthaa' should mean only anumanthaa (one who permits), with the niyanthruthva artham shrunk or de-emphasized. Shruthaprakaashikaachaaryar does not show this artham by himself. Rather, he bases it on other shruthi vaakyams such as 'adhyakshasya anumanthaa cha' and 'upadhrashtaa anumanthaa cha.' Therefore, only the jeevaathmaa is responsible for his actions. Paramaathmaa does not induce; he just allows.
sathyanchaanruthancha sathyam abhavath
- thath srushtvaa - after the shrushti of jagath
- thadhaevaanupraavishath - entering into it itself. Does this mean that he was not in it before entering? No, the entrant here is a jeevaathmaa having a paramaathmaa inside for his existence. This paramaathmaa is the subject here.
- thadhanupravishya - having entered it
- sachchathyachchaabhavath - he became sath and thyath. Sath is that which is indestructible and has no swaroopa vikaaram, meaning, chith. Thyath is that which is destructible and has swaroopa vikaaram, meaning, achith.
anaena jeevaena aathmanaa anupravishya naamaroopae vyaakaravaani
- in becoming so, he remained sathyam (ie. he did not undergo any vikaaram)
- Let us first consider, for example, 'thaaraena anupravishya parabalam sankalayaami'. This means 'through a spy, I entered into the enemy's army and caused confusion'. Here, 'aham (I)' is not said but it is understood as 'aham parabalam sankalayaami'. Similarly, in this shruthi 'aham naamaaroopae vyaakaravaani' is understood.
- anaena jeevaena - through jeevan. Meaning, through me, who has jeevan as shareeram, or, through me, who is the antharyaami of jeevaathmaa
- aathmanaa - by me. Meaning, mayaa (by me). Shows that the karthaa is 'I' with prathyakthvam (ie. with the ability of showing oneself).
- anupravishya naamaroopae vyaakaravaani - I entered into and separated naamaroopams (names and forms)
- pruthagaathmaanam praerithaaram cha mathvaa jushtas-thathas-thaena-amruthathvamaethi
- pruthak aathmaanam praerithaaram cha mathvaa - having known that the aathmaa and the praerithaa (inducer) are different or separate
- jushtaha - one is gratified and happy through bramham's anugraham
- thathaha - after that
- thaena - through bramham
- amruthathvamaethi - he attains moksham (amruthathvam)
- Means that 'he who knows jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa are different gets bramham's anugraham and thus attains moksham'
- This means that the different-ness between jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa is real, as this knowledge gives moksham.
- Even though it only says 'mathvaa (having known)', it is not enough to just know that they are different. Because of what shruthi says in other places, 'mathvaa' stands for knowing plus mananam, niranthara chinthanam, upaasanam etc. That is, here, 'mathvaa' means upaasanam kruthvaa.
- bhokthaa bhogyam praerithaaram cha mathvaa sarvam proktham thrividham bramha aethath
- 'Bhokthaa' means jeevaathmaa, the enjoyer (bhokthaaram) and 'bhogyam' means achith, the enjoyed.
- The vaakyam means that 'it was known and told by me that bramham exists in all three forms of bhokthaa, bhogyam and praerithaa'. Means to say that 'I told so after knowing clearly that these three are different and separate'.
- nithyo nithyaanaam chaethanas chaethanaanaam aeko bahoonaam yo vidhadhaathi kaamaan
- The anvayam of this vaakyam is 'nithyaanaam chaethanaanaam bahoonaam yaha nithyaha chaethanaha aekaha kaamaan vidhadhaathi'
- Means that 'to chaethanams who are nithyams and many, a chaethanan who is nithyan and one, gives what they desire'
- This vaakyam clearly says jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa are different.
- This vaakyam also says that jeevaathmaa are many, making aekajeevavaadham invalid
- pradhaana kshaethragnya pathihi gunaeshaha
- Pathi of achith (pradhaanam) and jeevan (kshaethragnyan), and eeshan of gunams
- gnyaagnyow thae dhvaavajaavaneeshaneeshow
- This vaakyam splits into gnya-agnyow thae dhvow ajow eesha-aneeshow. Note that 'eeshAneeshow' is actually 'eeshAAneeshow'.
- The vaakyam means that 'the two, paramaathmaa (who has gnyaanam) and jeevaathmaa (who has agnyaanam), are nithyam, and eeshan and aneeshan, respectively'.
These are a few among hundreds of shruthis showing bhaedham. Likewise, there are several shlokams from upabramhanams (smruthi-ithihaasa-puraanams) that give the same arthams.
- jagathsarvam shareeram thae sthairyam thae vasudhaathalam -
- 'Sthairyam' means sathyaa uthpannam, sathyaa dhrutham, sathyaa pravruththinivruththi shakthiyuktham. That is, if something is one's sthairyam, then its uthpaththi, dhaaranam and pravruththi-nivruththi (functioning) happen through his shakthi.
- The vaakyam means 'jagath is your shareeram and bhoomi (vasudhaathalam) is your sthairyam (having its uthpaththi, dhaaranam and pravruththi-nivruththi in your shakthi)
- yathkinchath srujyathae yaena saththva jaathaena vai dhvija, thasya srujyasya sambhoothow thath sarvam vai haraesthanuhu
- dhvija - braamhananae
- yathkinchath srujyathae - that which are created
- yaena saththva jaathaena vai - by all jeevasamooham
- thasya srujyasya sambhoothow - the uthpaththi kaaranam of the jeevasamooham and the created vasthus is Hari
- thath sarvam vai haraesthanuhu - as all that (jeevasamooham and created vasthus) is Hari's thanu (shareeram)
- ahamaathmaa gudaakaesha sarvabhoothaashaya sthithaha
- ahamaathmaa - I am aathmaa
- gudaakaesha - gudaakaeshanae. 'Gudaaka-eesha' means the ruler of sleep or laziness.
- sarvabhoothaashaya sthithaha - I am in all bhoothams
- sarvasyachaaham hrudhisannivishto maththas smruthir gnyaanam apohanam cha
- sarvasyachaaham hrudhisannivishto - I am in the hrudhayam of everything
- maththas smruthir gnyaanam apohanam cha - it is by me that smruthi (remembrance), gnyaanam (prathyaksham, anumaanam, shaasthram, yogam), and apohanam (forgetting and ooham/intuituion) happen
- He is just a general kaaranam for gnyaanam and maradhi, not that he specifically gives maradhi. Without him maradhi would not have happened because there would not be a jeevaathmaa in the first place. Thus, he is an indierect kaaranam.
- It is clear from here that hrudhayam is sarva-pravruththi-nivruththi gnyaanodhaya pradhaesham. This point is made in Geethai shlokam 18.61 too, 'eeshvarassarvabhoothaanam hrudhdhaeshae arjuna thishtathi'. Aachaaryans show clearly that jeevaathmaa is in hrudhayam and that is where gnyaanam originates. It is wrong to say that gnyaanam originates in the brain. The same is true with arulichcheyal too, where upadhaesham is to the nenju, never to the brain. Arjunan too says 'bhramatheevacha mae manaha (not shiraha)'.
Thus, hundreds of shruthis as well as vaedhavidh-agraesarars (forerunners and leaders of vaedhaviths) such as Vaalmeeki, Paraasharar and Dhvaipaayanar (Vyaasar) say that:
- parabramham is the aathmaa of everything,
- everything is chidhachidhaathmakam and his shareeram,
- and, being shareeram, everthing is his prakaaram (ie. apruthaksidhdha vishaeshanam),
- and, yet, he does not mix with his shareeram and, therefore, he remains dhoshamless,
- and such a bramham's vaibhavam is shown by saamaanaadhikaranyam while keeping mukhyavruththam (ie. without altering the main and natural meanings of words).
Class 20, 29 March 2009
Raamaanujar is now conducting svapaksha sthaapanam, explaining siddhdhaantha artham. He showed that these are the arthams meant by all the Upanishadhs. In the last class he listed ghatakashruthis teaching shareeraathma bhaavam and that any vasthu has paramaathmaa as antharyaami, bhaedhashruthis teaching that jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa are different entities, and smruthis conveying these arthams.
Now, Raamaanujar continues by explaining saamaanaadhikaranyam and how the mukhyavruthtams of shabdhams are retained through shareeraathmabhaavam.
In our paksham, vaedhaanthavaakyams like 'thath thvam asi' are explained through saamaanaadhikaranyam, keeping the mukhyaarthams of shabdhams like 'thath' and 'thvam'.
At a minimum, saamaanaadhikaranyam requires two words showing two different qualities/prakaarams and one entity having those qualities/prakaarams. For example, if we look at a fruit and say 'neelam uthpalam', then the two qualities (neelamness and uthpalamness) have one adhikaranam (the fruit). Similarly, in 'thath thvam asi', the two qualities (thath-ness and thvam-ness) have one common adhikaranam, as known by 'asi'. Since thath-ness is jagathkaaranathvam and thvam-ness is antharyaamithvam, the meaning of the vaakyam is 'the entity that has jagathkaanathvam is the entity that has antharyaamithvam'. Note that in this interpretation, there is one entity with two prakaarams, and the words denoting the two prakaarams have aekaarthanishtathvam (one-ness in subject). In this interpretation of vishishtaadhvaitham, the mukhyaarthams of the two prakaarams are retained. In other words, the entity exists with both prakaarams. This fits the requirements of saamaanaadhikaranyam perfectly.
Contrast this with the interpretations of other pakshams, where the one entity does not have either prakaaram. The adhvaithi drops the two qualities and accepts just the 'one-entity' part. This does not meet saamaanaadhikaranyam requirements. If prakaarams are dropped for the entity, it is saamaanaadhikaranya haani (loss).
Worse yet, in adhvaitha paksham aikyam between jeevaathmaa and paramaathmaa puts all the dhoshams of the former on the latter.
Contrast this to our paksham, where 'thath' means jagathkaarana sarvakalyaana gunaakaram ('sarvakalyaana gunaakaraM' is that which has all the OCEANS of kalyaana gunams, whereas sarvakalyaana gunaakaraHA = that which has all the kalyaanagunams), and niravadhya bramham. And 'thvam' (which has samaana-adhikaranam or aekaartham with 'thath') means the bramham which is jeevaantharyaamiroopi, which has jeevaathmaa as shareeram, which is its aathmaa, and which has the jeevaathmaa as his prakaaram.
When we say that bramham exists in 'this WAY', the 'WAY' refers to the chidhachidhaathmaka prapancham. Prapancham is bramham's prakaaram.
Now, Raamaanujar says that shareeraathmabhaavam is true always, even before shrushti.
We said above that bramham exists in this way, in this prakaaram. What is 'this way' or 'prakaaram'?
Before shrushti (in pralaya dhashai) jagath or leelaa vibhoothi existed as just one entity, prakruthi, in the sookshma avasthaa. Sookshmam does not mean prakruthi was small becasue if it was small and it expanded during shrushti, then it means prakruthi swaroopa naasham. Sookshmam, therefore, only means naamaaroopa vibhaaga anarhathvam (ie. the inability to be distinguished into various names and forms). Sthoolam means the opposite, the state of prakruthi after shrushti.
In both states prakruthi is bramham's shareeram. Only then 'bahusyaam prajaayaeya (I shall become many)' vaakyam can be true. In becoming many during shrushti, bramham first becomes separate in samashtis (groups) and then becomes separate in individuals. The former is samashti shrushti (group shrushti, eg. bhoothams) and the latter is vyashti (individuals) shrushti. Again, the artham of 'bahusyaam prajaayaeya' is applicable only if prakruthi is bramham's shareeram before and after, as only then it can make a sankalpam to change itself.
Eeshvaran, himself being kaaryam and kaaranam of naanaa samsthaanams of chidhachidhvasthu jaathams (groups), has them as his prakaaram.
How can dhravyams like chith and achith be prakaarams? They can, as in the case of a dhandham being a prakaaram of a dhandEE.
Prakaaram refers to something that is always together with and never separate from prakaari. It should be an apruthaksidhdha vishaeshanam or an apruthaksidhdha dharmam. In lokam, this quality of being a prakaaram happens only to jaathis or qualities (eg. color). It does not happen for dhravyams (material things). Then, how can chith and achith, which are dhravyams, be prakaaram of bramham?
No, we see dhravyams as prakaarams in lokam. Take a man who is a dhande and kundalee. Here, dhandam and kundalam are dhravyams as well as his prakaarams.
But when we mean a vasthu as a prakaaram, do we not use a prathyayam like the 'EE' in 'dhandEE'? Not necessarily. We address aathmaas all the time with words denoting shareerams, which are aathmaa's prakaarams. We do not use prathyayams there.
No, these dhravyams are not apruthaksidhda vishaeshanams. They can exist without him. These are not prakaarams like smell, taste and color, which are always jaathis that cannot exist without the prakaari. We do not see any dhravyam in lokam that is a prakaaram or apruthaksidhdham.
Consider statements like the following occurring both in lokam and vaedham: 'dhaevadhaththan is manushyan because of punyam'; 'yagndhaththan is gowhu because of paapam'; 'another chaethanan is dhaevan because of punya ahtiraekam (extra punyam)'.
In these statements manushyaha, gowhu and dhaevaha all mean the unique outer forms and shareerams of those specific bhoothasanghaathams (bhootham-collections). Therefore, these shareerams are dhravyams.
Now, even though punyam and paapam are only for the jeevaathmaa, these statements attribute them to manushya and cow shareerams. How? Because we understand that attributing paapapunyams to shareeram actually goes to the jeevaathmaa. Why? Becasue shareeram is aathmaa's prakaaram. Thus, shareerams, which are dhravyams, are also prakaarams. Thus, in both lokam and vaedham we see dhravyams being prakaarams. (Lokam means world, but can mean smruthi too. Lokam is that which is seen, and smruthi is where vaedhaartham is seen. Thus, smruthi can be called lokaha.)
VB 86 & 87
Therefore, it does not matter if the prakaaram is vasthu or gunam or jaathi. If the prakaaram and prakaari are never-separated (apruthaksidhdham), then the shabdham for prakaaram itself denotes the prakaari. No prathyayam is required.
The point here is that for something to be a prakaaram it is enough to be never-separating (apruthaksidhdham) from the prakaari. It does not matter if the prakaaram is jaathi or dhravyam or gunam. In other words, anything can be a prakaaram as long it depends on the prakaari for its saththai (existence). Shareeram depends on the aathmaa inside for its existence as shareeram (since without aathmaa, shareeram would be shavam). This makes shareeram a prakaaram of aathmaa. Similarly, chith and achith depend on paramaathmaa for their saththai. This makes them a prakaaram. Again, it does not matter if it is a thing or a quality. To be a prakaaram it is enough if it loses its sadhbhaavam when separated from the prakaari. In other words, its inseparability gives it prakaarathvam. This aprthuraksidhdhathvam gives a prakaaram saamaanadhikaranyathvam with the prakaari. That is, the word denoting the apruthaksiddha prakaaram (vasthu or jaathi), has the same adhikaranam as the word denoting the prakaari. In otherwords, the word denoting the apruthaksidhdh prakaaram actually denotes the prakaari.
If pruthaksidhdham is possible at some time and at some place, then the prakaari should be addressed through prathyayams such as dhandEE, kundalEE. But if pruthaksidhdham is never possible, then the word for prakaaram itself denotes the prakaari. If the jeevaathma denoted by 'thvam' has pruthaksidhdha yogyathaa, then thvam would not mean paramaathmaa. Only 'thvadhvath (that which has you)', which has the '-vath' prathyayam, would mean paramaathmaa. But, in reality, thvam-jeevaathmaa does not have pruthaksidhdham ever. Therefore, saying 'thvadhvath' is not necessary, as thvam itself denotes paramathmaa. Further, 'thvam' cannot stop with denoting the jeevaathmaa but has to go to paramaathmaa, since jeevaathmaa is never separate from paramaathmaa or has no sadhbhaavam without paramaathmaa.
Raamaanujar says this in response to adhvaithi's aakshaepam elsewhere that if vishishtaadhvaitaha artham is Udhdhaalakar's intention, the he should have said 'thath thvadhvath asthi' rather than 'thath thvam asi'.
Thus, sthaavara jangama vasthus are all eeshvara shareeram, and his prakaaram. Thus, through saamaanaadhikaranyam, its prakaari eeshwaran is who is denoted by the words used for them. This has been said before in 'anaena jeevaena...' shruthi explanation and in VB 14.
Therefore, prakruthi, purshan, mahath, ahankaaram, bhoothams, thanmaathrams, indhriyams, thadhaarabdha chathurdhasha bhuvanaathmaka bramhaandam, thadhantharvarthi dhaeva-thiryang-manushya-sthaavaraadhi sarvaprakaara naanaavidha samsthaana kaaryams, and their kaaranam are all bramham only. Only then, can kaaryam be known only through knowing kaaranam. And only then, will aekavignyaanaena sarvavignyaana prathignyaa apply.
These vasthus have bramham as aathmaa with kaarana bhaavam in sookshma dhashai, with kaarya bhaavam in sthoola dhashai, and as dhaaranam and antharyaami in all dhashais. This is why chidhachith vasthus are said to have thadhaathmakathvam.
VB 88 & 89
If kaaranabhootha bramham is jagadhupaadhaanam then it means that bramham changes itself into jeevaathmaas and achiths. Does this not contradict nirvikaara shruthi?
No. Bramham does not change itself into jeevaathmaa. Shruthi says that jeevaathmaa is beginningless.
Saying that kaarya-kaarana bhaavam exists contradicts the artham you say elsewhere. Here is your conversation with saeshvara-saankhyan.
Eeshvaran exists but is not jagath's upaadhaanakaaranam. He is only the nimiththakaaranam, while prakruthi is the upaadhaanakaaranam.
No. See the soothram 'prakruthischa prathignyaa dhrushtaantha anuparodhaath'. The soothram says that if prakruthi is upaadhaanakaaranam, then Udhdhaalakar's prathignyaa and dhrushtaantham get baadham.
Udhdhaalakar makes the prathignyaa that there is one thing which when known makes everything else known. After this, he teaches that bramham is that thing. This means bramham has to be the upaadhaana kaaranam, as only knowing the upaadhaana kaaranam makes the kaaryams known. Knowing the nimiththa kaaranam does not make the kaaryams known.
Further, Udhdhaalakar cites the dhrushtaantham of mruth as the kaaranam for mrunmaya vasthus, and mruth is an upaadhaanakaaranam.
Thus, for the prathignyaa and dhrushtaantham to be meaningful, bramham has to be jagath's upaadhaanakaaranam.
Thus, against the saankhyan, you established that bramham is upaadhaanakaaranam. If so, then it means that bramham has parinaamam or that it is parinaama aaspadham. Does this not go against the nirvikaara niravadhya shruthis, which you also accept? How do you reconcile this?
I maintain that for everything including qualities and chidhachidh vasthus bramham alone is the upaadhaanakaaranam.
But if we say that bramham became a chith or a jeevaathmaa, then it means that the jeevaathmaa came into existence at some point or that the jeevaathmaa's uthapaththi happened at some point. Then, the soothram 'naathmaa shruthaer nithyathvaachcha thaabhyaha' becomes vyartham. The soothram means that 'aathmaa has no uthpaththi becasue of shruthis showing aathmaa's anuthpaththi'. Examples of such shruthis would be 'gnyaagnyow dhvaavajow eeshaneeshow' and 'na jaayathae mriyathae vaa vipaschith'. Therefore, we cannot say that jeevaathmaa came into existence at any point. Therefore, we cannot say that bramham became jeevaathmaa. Furhter, there are shruthis that show nithyathvam for jeevaathmaa (eg. 'nithyo nithyaanaam...'). Once again, this means that jeevaathmaa did not come into existence at some point, since it exists ever. Again, this means that bramham could not have become jeevaathmaa.
The soothram 'vaishamya nairghrunyae na saapaekshathvaath' clears bramham of the dhoshams of vaishamyam and nairghrunyam. The question arises because we see jeevaathmas with superior, mediocre and inferior shareerams. The soothram says that this does not give bramham the dhosham of vaishamyam (discrimination) or nairghrunyam (mercilessness) because he expects (bases it on) the jeevaathmaa's karmam in giving him a shareeram. This is what shruthi and smruthis say.
The soothram 'na karmaa vibhaagaath ithi chaeth na, anaadhithvaath upapadhyathae cha api upalabhyathae' rebuts the aakshaepam that 'shrushtaepraak na karma bhavathi (no karmam before shrushti)'. The soothram says that shurshtis are anantham, and that jeevaathmaas had karmam from previous shrushtis. Karmam and shrushti are anaadhi and, therefore, upapadhyathae (it fits well) and upalabhyathae (obtained form shruthi smruthis). It says so because otherwise (ie. if jeevaathmaa is anithyam), then it means that jeevaathmaa would take a shareeram and experience things without any cause, and that he would not experience the fruits of his actions in that shareeram.
Likewise, shruthi says that achith (prakruthi) is also beginningless.
The same is true with prakruthi. Shruthi says 'ajaam aekaam lohitha shukla krushnaam bahveem prajaam janayantheem saroopam, ajohyaeko jushamaanonushaethae jaahaathyaenaam bhukthabhogaam ajonyaha'. This means prakruthi is anaadhi too.
- ajaam aekaam lohitha shukla krushnaam - prakruthi exists as lohitham (red) shuklam (white) and krushnaam (black), meaning it exists as pruthivee, ap and thejas
- bahveem prajaam janayantheem saroopaam - generates several vasthus like itself
- ajaha hi aekaha - in that an ajaha (a birthless jeevaathmaa)
- jushamaanaha anushaethae - does anuvarthanam of prakruthi with preethi
- ajaha anyaha - another ajaha
- jahaathi aenaam bhuktha bhogaam - leaves all these pleasures (bhogam) that were experienced before (bhuktha bhogam)
Why does shruthi say that prakruthi exists as only pruthivee, ap, and thejas? Because these are the only bhoothams that are visible to the eye. Vaayu has to be inferred from sparsham and aakaasham can the known only through shaasthram. In saying so, it gives colurs to the three bhoothams - red to agni, white to jalam, black to pruthivee. Here, the whiteness is said of jalam and this is confrmed by shruthis in other places such as in chaandhogyam: 'yadhagnae rohitham roopam thejasaha thadhroopam, yachchuklam thadhapaam, yadhkrushnam thadhannasya'. These shruthis clearly say that 'agni's red part is thejas amsham, agni's white part is jala amsham, agni's black part is anna amsham.' This means water is not colorless, as is confirmed by the fact that while a truly colorless thing is non-grahichchifiable by the eye, we are able to see water. Similarly, water is not tasteless, again as confirmed by experience. Water is truly odorless in the pure form but all the water we see is mixed with pruthivee and, therefore, has odor.
Also, note that paramaathmaa does thrivithkaranam - mixing of elements.
This will be continued in the next class.
vedhaarthasangraha sudhaam vedhaanthaabdhaerya aaharath, raamaanujaaya munayae thasmai bhagavathae namah