[Advaita-l] Discussion of the Adwaita group

[srikanta at nie.ac.in]

Dear Sri.Sadanandaji,Pranams

There is certainly a difference between the samandhikarana(syntactic
apposition) as used by Sankara and Ramanuja.For Ramanuja there is no use
for the Samanadhikarana,since he differentialtes between Brahman and jiva
even in the absolute sense.For Samanadhikarana principle to operate there
must be group of words which state its implied meaning(lakshana).There are
different types of implied meanings(lakhana).i)Exclusive
(jahallakshana),Inclusive(ajahallakshana) and
Exclusive-inclusive(jahajallakshna.Where there is difference in the group
of words like "This is that Devadatta"one has to discard the differences
indicated by "this" and "that".In the Mahavakya statement"Tat tvam
asi",since the term indicated by "Tat" and the term indicated by "tvam"
are different one has to discard the attributes of "Tat" and "tvam",in
order to understand the implied meaning.This is
"jahadajallakshana"(Exclusive-inclusive.This is also called "bhaga tyaga
lakshana".This is stated in the book,"Vedanta Paribhasha" of Dharmaraja
Adhvarindra.

But,Sankara uses the "badha samanadhikarana" for the meaning of the
statement"Tat tvam asi".After knowing what is "tvam",the statement "Tat
tvam asi" affects(badha) the wrong notion of the "tvam".Sureshvara also
uses "Badha samanadhikarana" in his Naishkarmyasiddhi.There are two types
of Samandhikarana)i)Gauna samanadhikarana and ii)Mukhyasamanadhikarana.The
samanadhikarana used in "vivarana"is "Mukhya samanadhikarana".In
Mukhyasamanadhikarana one has to take the chief or important meaning
indicated by the Mahavakya statement.In the Gauna samanadhikarana,which is
used by later Adwaitins,one has to take the implied meaning discarding the
differences,as in "baga tyaga lakshana"

Ramanuja doesnot use samanadhikarana in this light.For him there is
nothing that could affect(badha) in the noumenon.For him since he has
accepted parts which are jivas which are sarira of the Brahman,he also
accepts the differences which are indicated by their attributes.Hence he
is tending more towards the "saguna Brahman" of the upanishads in the
stated earlierin the upanishads  as ultimate truth than the nirguna
Brahman, which is stated later by the Mahavakyas.He is more concentrating
on the Upasana portion and interprets the mahavakyas to suit his view.
The intention is clear.He wants to combine both the karmasection with the
Jnanasection to make it Jnan-karma samuccaya to show that there is no
contradiction between the two sections.
Regards,                                              N.Srikanta.