You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Jul 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00204 Jul 2006

 
Jul 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


6.Nivarthaka anupapatthi

Ramanuja says ' thathvamasyAdhi vAkyEshu sAmAnAdhi karaNyam na
nirvisesha vasthvaikyaparam.' The texts like 'that thou art' do not
denote attributeless  Brahman. As already pointed out by Ramanuja  in
explaining the principle of sAmAnAdhikaraNya referring to  the purport
of  the vedic text 'satyam jnAnam anantham brahma,' there is no need of
dismissing the attributes in explaining the identity. According to him
the words 'that' and ' thou' both denote Brahman only that too as
savisesha. The contention that the removal of avidhya is effected by the
knowledge of brahman as nirvisesha is not tenable.

Advaitin cites  the statement 'sOayam devadatthah,this is that
Devadattha,' to prove his point that the primary meaning of the terms 
cannot be taken as the person qualified by different time and place is
being spoken of as one. So the identity will be established only if the
reference to time and place are given up. So too as 'that' denotes
Brahman who is infinite and attributeless and 'thou' refers to jiva who
is finite with  limited knowledge and power the identity can be
established only by not considering the limitations of the jiva and the
infinite nature etc. of Brahman in which case both will be identical in
essence. This can be accomplished only by the removal of avidhya through
the real knowledge of the Brahman as attributeless which serves as the
nivarthaka of avidhya

Ramanuja refutes this saying 'thathpadham hi sarvajnam sathyasankalpam
jajagathkArNam brahma parAmrsathi; thdhaikshatha bahusyAm ithi
thasyaivaprakrthathvAth,' the word 'that' in 'that thou art' refers only
to Brahman omniscient and omnipotent, who is the cause of te world as
denoted by the sentence 'it willed to become many.' Even in the example
'sO ayam devadatthah' there is no necessity for adopting secondary
meaning, lakshaNA of the words because the person connected with the
past and the present times is one only. If the word 'that' is  taken to
mean pure attributeless Brahman then it will conflict with the sentence
'it willed to become many and the promissory statement EkavijnAnEna
sarvavijnAnam, by knowing the one everything becomes known. Hence the
word 'that' denotes Brahman who is savisesha and the word 'thou' refers
to the Brahman who is the real self of the jiva which alone is meant by
'that thou art.'

Ramanuja  further proceeds to show that there is no sublation here as in
the case of shell-silver. The word 'that' does not bring up any
attribute that sublates the first perception of 'thou' as in the case of
shell-silver as according to advaita Brahman is attributeless. What is
meant here is this.When the shell is seen as silver the attribute of
silver ,that is silverness, is seen in the shell which is sublated when
the shell becomes known as such due to the perception of the attribute
shellness. In the explanation of 'thatthvamasi' by the advaitin there
can be no attribute of Brahman which becomes known  to cause the
sublation of the perception of the jiva as such, because Brahman is said
to be attributeless.

Advaitin may contend that it is not necessary to perceive some attribute
in the substantive entity in order to remove the first erraneous
impression.It is enough to show that svarupa, the real nature of the 
substance is hidden from view by some defect, comes to view when the
defect is removed.

Ramanuja says that if svarupa of Brahman is concealed, there can be no
misapprehension and if not concealed there is no need for removal of
misconception. Unless an attribute which is real and hidden is admitted
there can be no sublation.Ramanuja explains this by the analogy of a
prince, getting lost while very young, did not know his identity on
account of being brought up by hunters.His misconception will not be
removed by merely stating that he is not a hunter but only buy the
knowledge that he is a prince.

Ramanuja interprets the text 'thatthvamasi,' in such a manner that both
the words 'thath' and 'thvam' retain their primary meaning and need no
recourse to lakshanA, secondary meaning, as the advatin claims.The
sAmAnAdhikaraNya, apposition, is achieved by the two words meaning the
same Brahman, qualified with two attributes, namely, possessing infinite
number of auspicious attributes and being the cause of the world on one
hand and being the indwelling Self of all on the other. This explanation
is consistent with the beginning of the passage 'it willed to become
many,' and also the promissory statement of 'EkavijnANena
sarvavijnAnAm,' as the  gross world consisting of sentient and
insentient beings, which form His body in their subtle state, is the
effect of Brahman, being ensouled by Him. This is brought up by the
previous sentence to 'thathvamasi' that all this is ensouled by
Brahman.'EthadhAthmyam idham sarvam.' The reason for this is stated in '
sanmoolAhsoumya imAh sarvAhprajAh sadhAyathnAh sathprathishTAh,all these
beings have their root in sath,rest in sath and dissolved in
Sath.'(chan.6-8-4)

Ramanuja quoting other texts also to show that Brahman is the Self of
all the sentient and the insentient and the identity of Brahman with
jiva is established through the sarirAthma bhAva, the body-soul
relationship.

1. 'anthafpravishtah sasthA janAnAm sarvAthmA,'( Taitt.AraNyaka.3-11-21)
The inner Self is the controller  of all.

2. 'Yah Athmani thishTanAthmanah antharah yam AthmA na vedha yasya AthmA
sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha AthmA
anthryAmyamrthah,(Brhd.5-7-4) He,the immortal,inner ruler, is the inner
Self, situated inside the AthmA whom AthmA did not know and who controls
the Athma from within to whom the AthmA is the sarira.'

3.'anEna jeevena AthmnA anupravisya nAmarupe vyakaravANi,(CHAN.6-3-2) I
will enter  into the jiva as its inner self  and will make nama and
rupa.'

Therefore, says Ramanuja, the identity of all beings, sentient and
insentient with Brahman can be established only through the  sarira
sariri bhAva. And as all that is other than Brahman is His sarira the
denotation of everything terminates only in Brahman.'athah
chidhachidhAthmakasya sarvasya vasthujathasya brahmathAdhAthmyam  Athma
sarirabhAvAdhEva ithi avagamyathE ; thasmAth brahmavyathirikthasya
krtsnasya thaccharirathvEnaiva vasthuthvath thasya prathipAdhaKOpi
sabdah thathparyanthmEva svArTHam  abhidhaDHAthi.'

Ramanuja refutes likewise the theory of bhEdhAbhEdha and kevalabhEdha
saying that the texts stating  the doctrine of universal identity cannot
be explained by their theories.According to bhEdhAbhEdha either the
difference is due to limiting adjuncts (Bhaskaramatha) or belongs to
Brahman who himself assumes the state of jiva,(yadhavaprakAsamatha)
Brahman being the self of everything will be contaminated by the
imperfections of the world and jiva. The kevalabhedhavAdhins those who
claim absolute difference between the jiva and Brahman (could either
mean nyAyavaisEshikas or dvaitins ) the texts that proclaim identiy have
to be abandoned.

Ramanuja proclaims 'nikhilOpanishadhprasiddham krthsnasya brahma
sarirabhAvam AthishTamAnaih krthsnasya brahmAthmabhAvOpadhEsAh sarvE
samyak upapAdhithA bhavanthi.' That is,  by those who accept the
sarira-sariri bhava between all beings and Brahman the texts that speak
of identity are well explainable because this concept is known through
all the upanishads.

To the objection that jathi and qualities can be the attributes of
substances but a substance cannot be the attribute of another substance
Ramanuja answers that it is quite proper as in the sentence 'gourasvo
manushyo devO jathah purushah karmabih, the purusha (athman) is born as
a cow,as a horse, as a man as a deva according to his karma.The words in
apposition (sAmAnAdhikaraNya) all qualify one entity, namely the
purusha.

It cannot be said that only the words denoting jati or guNa as in the
expressions 'khando gouh, shuklapatah, broken- horned cow, white cloth,
can be put in apposition and the words denoting substances should  have
termination of possession (mathvarTHeeyaprathyayah) as in dhandee, one
with staff, kundali, one who is wearing eardrops etc. The words dhanda
and kundala are capable of existing independently and hence used in the
possessive sense. But this condition is not necessary when the
substances that qualify are unable to exist separately  to be perceived
separately.

Advaitin objects to this saying that while the jati and guna are
perceived along with the substance which qualify the Athma is not so.
Ramanuja says 'NaithdhEvam; manushyAdhi sarirANAm api AthmaikAsraYthvam,
thdhEkaprayojanathvam,thathprakArathvam cha jAthyAdhi thulyam.' The
bodies of all beings have only Athma as their substratum , they exist
only for the use of the Athma, and exist as its aspects. This is proved
by the fact that they do not have a separate existence apart from the
Athma, they enable the Atma to have experience the karmaphala as karma
can be exhausted only through embodiment and they become qualifying
epithets of the Atma as in the expression man, cow etc.

  The Atma is not perceived because it is atheendriya. Even in sense
perception  what is perceived by the eye is not cognised by the other
indriyas. Since Athma is not cognied by the indriyas it is not perceived
along with the body. As the word cow not only shows the jati   but also
the indidual entity with all its characterstics, the words like man
denote the Athma in  their ultimate connotation which further extended
denotes Brahman who is the Self of the self.

Ramanuja has made this clear in VedhArTha sangraha thus: Brahman in the
causal state has the  sentient and the insentient in their subtle state
as its body and the same Brahman having the beings sentient and
insentient as its body in their gross manifestation is the effect.
'thasmath isvaraprAkArabhoothasarvAvasTHaprakrthipurushavAcinah sabdhAh
thathprakAra visishtathaya avasthithe paramAthmani mukhyathayA
varthanthe, jivAthmavAchi devamanushyadhi sabdhavath.' That is, the
terms denoting prakrthi and purusha are the aspects of Brahman and
denote only Brahman in their primary sense as in the case of the words,
manushya deva etc. which have connotation in the Athma only. This is the
only sense of identity implied by the sarirathmabhAva.

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list