[Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 310 - 314 Pativrataa Stree

Anand Hudli anandhudli at hotmail.com
Thu May 14 05:14:18 CDT 2015


Dear Shri Sadanandaji,

In the gold chain example, the bhAmatI view, can be explained as applying a general rule "if you have lost something of value then search for it" instead of the rule "if you have lost a gold chain then search for it." So the person is expected to search for it, perhaps by walking, questioning his friend, etc. In fact, the bhAmatI school holds that shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana are all necessary for Self-realization in general, while the vivaraNa school says shravaNa is the primary means. 

Anand



Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:31:20 +0530
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 310 - 314 Pativrataa Stree
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com
To: anandhudli at hotmail.com; advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org

Dear Sri Anandji,  




Please bear with me for continuing the
discussion. You have observed 




<< In
short, the followers of the bhAmatI school hold that well known
and
accepted
vidhis such as the adhyayana vidhi, gurUpagamana vidhi, etc.
are
sufficient
to ensure the student of vedAnta will realize the Self
through
shravaNa,
manana, and nididhyAsana, without the need for further vidhis.
>> . 




Yes. No doubt it has been well argued
out so. There could however be counter arguments also as is no doubt
the case as brought out clearly in your response itself. But there is
an additional issue in my question. It is 




<< what is Sri Bahagavatpada's
view on the issue ? >> . 


	
	Since Bhamati is a commentary on the
	Bhashyam , is it clearly mentioned therein whether the above view is
	an independent view of Sri Vacahaspati Mishra or Sri Appayya
	Dikshita , or is it  their interpretation of the view held by Sri
	Bhagavatpada ? Have Sri Vachaspati Mishra or Sri Appayya Dikshita
	made any mention of what Sri Bhagavatpada himself might have meant
	in this regard. In respect of the first three views where Sri
	Dikshita has mentioned the supporting references relied on by them
	for their views, it is clear that those respective commentators
	themselves felt that the views represented the views of Sri
	Bhagavatpada himself . That is why I sought in my earlier mail for
	any such supporting references relied on by the Bhamati School from
	the Bhashyam for their conclusions. From your response I gather that
	it is their own independent conclusion not necessarily based on the
	Bhashyam. I am not by any means suggesting that the arguments lose
	their validity on that score. But I just want to know the factual
	position. Please confirm.  
	




Regards
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Dear Shri Chandramouliji,



You wrote:

However for the fourth alternative namely << vidhi abhava ( no vidhi ) >>

held by

the Bhamati school , you have not mentioned if they rely on any supporting

Bhashya references. Are there any such supporting references or is it to be

concluded that its view is contrary to the Bhashyam.



shrImad appayya dIkShita, himself the renowned author of the

kalpataru-parimala text of the bhAmatI school, has perhaps proposed the

bhAmatI view as the "final view" on the subject of vidhi for shravaNa,

manana, and nididhyAsana. He has presented the bhAmatI view at the end,

after explaining all others. Broadly, there are two reasons for rejecting

any view that says there must be a vidhi. First, as VAcaspati says, no

person can be enjoined to have Brahma sAkShAtkAra, direct realization of

Brahman (na tAvad brahmasAkShAtkAre puruSho niyoktavyaH), because it is of

the very nature of Brahman, eternal, and cannot be produced (tasya

brahmasvAbhAvyena nityatvAdakAryatvAt). Further, if upanishad vAkyas become

injunctions they cannot retain their status as revealing the true nature of

the Self. Rather, their significance would become limited to conveying

injunctions. Thus, it is established that the upanishads are not about

injunctions regarding knowledge (tasmAnna bodhavidhiparA vedAntA iti

siddham).



Second, there are other vidhis already in place that make further vidhis

for shravaNa and the rest redundant. For example, there is the general

vidhi "svAdhyAyo adhyetavyaH" which enjoins one to learn the Veda

(including VedAnta). There is also a vidhi that enjoins one to approach a

Guru, "tadvijnAnArthaM sa gurumevAbhigacchet", which says one should

approach only the Guru to know That. Those who believe in a parisaMkhyA

vidhi because it enjoins one to give up other activities and focus on

vedAnta vichAra are not right. For, it is not possible for those who are

not sannyAsins to give up other (vaidika and/or laukika) activities. And

regarding sannyAsins, there is a vidhi "brahmasaMstho amRtatvameti",

meaning one who is a brahmaniShTha will attain mokSha, which prescribes

sannyAsa and rules out any other pursuit besides contemplation on Brahman.

When sannyAsa is prescribed it implies one has to give up all other

pursuits. Another vidhi based on "shrotavyaH etc." would be redundant and

without a purpose. If the argument is about accepting a vidhi to focus only

on advaita vedAnta and not be distracted by other philosophies, for example

dvaita, even this is not right, because even a hundred vidhis cannot save

one who is so deluded to accept other philosophies. Such a person without

shraddhA in advaita surely does not have the grace of Ishvara, for there is

a saying "IshvarAnugrahAdeva puMsAmadvaitavAsanA."



Regarding Shankara bhagavatpAda's acceptance of vidhi in sUtrabhAShya

3.4.47 (as explained in my previous message), there is not really a vidhi

here. For, shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana clearly make known what is to

be known and that they do this is evident in the world, without any need

for a vidhi (vastvavagamavaishadyahetutvasya ca lokasiddhatvena teShu

vidhyanapekShaNAt). So Shankara's seeming acceptance of a vidhi in 3.4.47

is not acceptance of a vidhi, but rather a vidhi-ChAyA, a semblance of a

vidhi, which is what he refers to in sUtra bhAShya 1.1.4. This vidhi-ChAya

is like an arthavAda and serves the purpose of  praising shravaNa, manana,

and nididhyAsana so that one may practice them excellently.



In short, the followers of the bhAmatI school hold that well known and

accepted vidhis such as the adhyayana vidhi, gurUpagamana vidhi, etc. are

sufficient to ensure the student of vedAnta will realize the Self through

shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana, without the need for further vidhis.



Anand

_______________________________________________

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita



To unsubscribe or change your options:

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l



For assistance, contact:

listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



 		 	   		  


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list