[Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 397-399 Jahadajahallaxanaa

[V Subrahmanian]

The abheda bodhaka shruti,if it is admitted that it teaches abheda, is
countered, contradicted, by the bheda bodhaka shruti.  Then, one might
question, why not the bheda bodhaka shruti be countered by the abheda
bodhaka shruti? To such a question the reply Sri Vadiraja gives is: the
shruti that you say is abheda bodhaka is not teaching abheda at all: on the
contrary it teaches bheda, (antaryāmi  -  niyamya - niyāmaka
relationship).  Hence the bheda bodhaka shruti, which has no contestant (in
the form of abheda bodhaka shruti) remains unchallenged:  भेदश्रुतिरबाधिता
। कथं न बाधते मन्द प्रतिद्वन्द्वविवर्जिता |

In the above position one can see a defect:  Bheda shruti can counter
abheda shruti ONLY if abheda shruti is admitted to teach abheda. But that
is not admitted by the bhedavādin.  He holds that shruti to be teaching
bheda alone. But he questions: How indeed can the bheda shruti, which
remains unchallenged by the abheda shruti, not be a counter to the aikyam
which is not taught by shruti at all? By saying so he admits that the
abheda shruti at least prima facie teaches abheda.

If the bheda shruti has to be challenge/counter-free, then there should be
no abheda shruti.  But if the bheda shruti, if it is a counter to the
abheda shruti, then abheda shruti is to be admitted.  Sri Vadirāja wants
the bheda shruti to be challenge-free and yet wants that shruti to
counter/challenge the abheda shruti (the aikyam it at least purports to
teach). This is the defect.

Also, he says by resorting to lakṣaṇa, the lakṣya should not be a
non-entity, naraśṛṅga, human-horn.  Fine. The advaitin also accepts this
rule.  For the advaitin, the lakṣya is Brahman, free of attributes.  The
lakṣaṇā he resorts to renders the lakṣya, the viśiṣṭa (viśeṣya) free of the
viśeṣaṇas.  For him Brahman is sarvajñatvādiviśiṣṭam; only that by the
lakṣaṇā (jahadajahallakṣaṇā), the viśeṣaṇas are given up, just like the
time, place etc. are given up and the person denoted by the time-place etc.
upādhis is alone grasped (in the so'yam devadattaḥ example).  Surely, the
devadatta is not a non-entity; only that he is grasped as someone free of
those viśeṣaṇas.  On divesting of the viśeṣaṇas the viśiṣṭa does not become
shūnya. Just like Sri Vādiraja takes a positive entity, antaryāmin, as
denoted by that sentence, the advaitin too takes a positive entity,
Brahman, free of adjuncts, as denoted by that sentence.  Hence the charge,
if any, that the lakṣaṇā results in a non-entity, does not hold water.  In
the antaryāmi brāhmaṇa Shankara says: That antaryāmi is Consciousness, by
being just present there as a Witness, it controls everything.  And that
Chaitanyam, the mantra teaches, is your self: (Bṛ.up.3.7.3)

// देवताकार्यकरणस्य *ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन* हि नियमेन
प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती स्याताम् ; य ईदृगीश्वरो नारायणाख्यः, पृथिवीं
पृथिवीदेवताम्, यमयति नियमयति स्वव्यापारे, अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरस्तिष्ठन्,* एष त
आत्मा*, *ते तव, मम च सर्वभूतानां च* इत्युपलक्षणार्थमेतत्, अन्तर्यामी
यस्त्वया पृष्टः, अमृतः सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जित इत्येतत् ॥//

This mantra is teaching the abheda between the antaryāmin and the ātmā of
the jīva.

The above lakṣaṇa is found in the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa, a text held to be a
part of the Brahmāṇḍa purāṇa.  This text is popular among north-Indian
vaiṣṇavas.  It has even been expounded by a Madhva scholar. Here are the
verses from the Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa, uttara kāṇḍa, 5th sarga:

रामगीताश्लोकाः केचन -

श्रद्धान्वितस्तत्त्वमसीति वाक्यतो गुरोः प्रसादादपि शुद्धमानसः ।

*विज्ञाय चैकात्म्यमथात्मजीवयोः *सुखी भवेन्मेरुरिवाप्रकंपनः ॥ २४ ॥

आदौ पदार्थावगतिर्हि कारणं वाक्यार्थविज्ञानविधौ विधानतः ।

तत्त्वंपदार्थौ परमात्मजिवकावसीति चैकात्म्यमथानयोर्भवेत् ॥ २५ ॥

प्रत्यक्परोक्षादिविरोधमात्मनोर्विहाय संगृह्य तयोश्चिदात्मताम् ।

संशोधितां लक्षणया च लक्षितां ज्ञाता स्वमात्मानमथाद्वयो भवेत् ॥ २६ ॥

एकात्मकत्वाज्जहती न संभवेत्तथा जहल्लक्षणता विरोधतः ।

*सोऽयंपदार्थाविव भागलक्षणा युज्येत तत्त्वंपदयोरदोषतः *॥ २७ ॥

*रसादिपंचीकृतभूतसंभवं* भोगालयं दुःखसुखादिकर्मणाम् ।

*शरीरमाद्यंतवदादिकर्मजं मायामयं स्थूल**मुपाधिमात्मनः* ॥ २८ ॥

सूक्ष्मं मनोबुद्धिदशेन्द्रिर्यैर्युतं प्राणैरपंचीकृतभूतसंभवम् ।

भोक्तुः सुखादेरनुसाधनं भवेच्छरीरमन्यद्विदुरात्मनो बुधः ॥ २९ ॥

*अनाद्यनिर्वाच्यमपीह कारणं मायाप्रधानं* तु परं शरीरकम् ।

*उपाधिभेदात्तु यतः पृथक्स्थितं स्वात्मानमात्मन्यवधारयेत् क्रमात् *॥ ३० ॥

कोशेषु पंचस्वपि तत्तदाकृतिर्विभाति संगात्स्फटिकोपलो यथा ।

असंगरूपोऽयमजो यतोऽद्वयो विज्ञायतेऽस्मिन्परितो विचारिते ॥ ३१ ॥

बुद्धेस्त्रिधा वृत्तिरपीह दृश्यते स्वप्नादिभेदेन गुणत्रयात्मनः ।

अन्योन्यतोऽस्मिन्व्यभिचारतो मृषा नित्ये परे ब्रह्मणि केवले शिवे ॥ ३२ ॥

देहिन्द्रियप्राणमनश्चिदात्मनां संघादजस्त्रं परिवर्तते धियः ।

वृत्तिस्तमोमूलतयाऽज्ञलक्षणा यावद्भवेत्तावदसौ भवोद्भवा ॥ ३३ ॥

*नेति प्रमाणेन निराकृतोखिलो ह्रदा समास्वादितचिद्धनामृतः । *

*त्यजेदशेषं जगदात्तसद्रसं पीत्वा यथाऽम्भः प्रजहाति तत्फलम् ॥* ३४ ॥

regards

subrahmanian.v






On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Commentary - Vaadiraaja has conceded 3 consecutive sixes in 3 balls.
> He is looking confused. Captain Madhvacharya is speaking to him. Two
> other players Jaya Teertha alias Teeka Rayaru from cover and Vyasa
> Rayaru from point have run to Vaadiraaja. The four are having a
> discussion what ball should be next. One says it should be a bouncer
> in line with the body. Another is saying it should be a slower off
> cutter. Another is saying it should be an underarm delivery to prevent
> one more six. Vaadiraaja is confused more now. He himself does not
> know what ball he must bowl. He starts walking to his run up to bowl.
>
> Slokas 397 - 399 are showing confused thinking of Vaadiraaja and his
> ignorance of Advaita Doctrines. He is accusing Advaitis without
> knowing the facts.
>
> न हि गंगापदाल्लक्ष्यं नृशृंगं क्वापि कथ्यते ।
> किन्तु प्रामाणिकं तीरं तथान्तर्यामिलक्षकम् ॥
> अहमादिपदं स्याद्धि न त्वप्रामाणिकं वदेत् ।
> अतः सर्वश्रुतिभ्योऽपि बहिर्भूतमभूदिदम् ॥
> एवं चाश्रौतमैक्यं ते भेदश्रुतिरबाधिता ।
> कथं न बाधते मन्द प्रतिद्वन्द्वविवर्जिता ॥
>
> Nobody will take direct meaning for the sentence 'The village is on
> Ganga' 'गंगायां घोषः' because a village on Ganga is like Man's horns.
> It is not existing anywhere. But people will understand the village is
> on the bank of Ganga but not on Ganga water. Similarly for shruti
> sentences like 'I am Brahman' अहं ब्रह्मास्मि and 'You are That' तत्
> त्वं असि the word 'I' अहं is indicating the Inner Controller
> अन्तर्यामि and it is not invalid. Therefore the Identity Doctrine is
> outside all Srutis. How can the valid Bheda Sruti Difference Doctrine
> with no opposition not cancel the unVedic Identity Doctrine, you Fool?
>
> The Bheda Doctrine is saying for the sentence 'I am Brahman' we cannot
> take the direct meaning वाच्यार्थ. It is not like a simple sentence
> 'Bring the horse' अश्वं आनय. For this sentence the direct meaning is
> correct. But for the sentence 'The village is on Ganga' the direct
> meaning is not correct. Because a village cannot be directly on the
> Ganga river water. It is impossible. The indirect meaning लक्ष्यार्थ
> has to be taken. It means the villlage is on the bank of Ganga river.
> Similarly for 'I am Brahman' and 'You are That' the direct meaning is
> impossible. Because Jeeva cannot be Ishwara. It is impossible. The
> indirect meaning is 'My Inner Controller is Ishwara' and 'Your Inner
> Controller is That Ishwara'. This is the correct meaning. Ishwara is
> the Inner Controller inside me and controlling me.
>
> Advaiti Response - People learned in Advaita Doctrines have told me
> this above method of Vaadiraaja is not correct for the Sruti Vakyas
> like 'I am Brahman'. It is known as Jahallaxanaa. It is rejecting the
> direct meaning totally and taking a indirect meaning. But the correct
> method to follow is the Jahadajahallaxanaa.
>
> In this Jahadajahallaxanaa method we have to take one part of the
> direct meaning and reject one part. Example given is the sentence
> 'This is that Devadatta' सोऽयं देवदत्तः. You have seen a young man
> Devadatta in Delhi. After 30 years you are seeing him again in
> Varanasi. But he is old man now. His appearance has changed.But still
> you have to say 'This is That same Devadatta'. If you follow the
> Difference Doctrine seeing only difference in all things like a fool
> you will say 'This Devadatta is different. That Devadatta was
> different.' But it is a foolish and wrong statement. The correct
> method is to accept one part of Devadatta and reject one part.  Reject
> his outwardly appearance and take only his individual personality.
> Then we can say he is the same person.
>
> For the sentence 'I am Brahman' and 'You are That' also we have to
> follow the same Jahadajahallaxanaa method. Ishwara is Universal
> Consciousness and Jeeva is Individual Consciousness. The Universal
> Consciousness is because of some Upadhis like being the Lord of all,
> having all powers, having knowledge of all Sarvajnatva and so on. The
> Individual Consciousness is also because of some Upadhis like having
> limited power, limited knowledge and so on. But we have to reject the
> Upadhis of both and take only Consciousness. Why? Because the Upadhis
> are not real. Then both Ishwara and Jeeva are the same Consciousness.
>
> It is like this. 'I am Brahman' and 'You are That' are saying
>
> Individual Consciousness = Universal Consciousness
>
> How can this be true? We cancel 'Individual' from Left Side and
> 'Universal' from Right Side. Why? Because they are Mithyaa only. Then
> after cancelling 'Universal' and 'Individual' we have only
> Consciousness on both sides. This is a true equation.
>
> Ishwara is there because He is Universal He has Universal powers.
> Jeeva is there because he has limited time and space and he has
> limited powers. But all these Universal and Individual properties are
> Mithyaa or Unreal. Without these properties Ishwara and Jeeva are only
> Consciousness Cit. They are the same.
>
> I request learned members to share more information on this.
>
> There is one more method Ajahallaxanaa but it is not correct to follow
> it for Sruti Vakyas like 'I am Brahman' and 'Tat Tvam Asi'. In this
> method direct meaning plus something more is added to get correct
> meaning. Example is 'Protect the rice from crows'. The direct meaning
> plus also unsaid and implied meaning 'protect it from other birds and
> animals like dogs' is the correct meaning. We have to protect rice not
> only from crows but also other birds and animals.
>
> Vaadiraaja has not understood Advaiti position. He is thinking
> Advaitis are taking the direct meaning of 'I am Brahman'. But they are
> not taking the direct meaning. They are not fools like he thinks.
>
> Commentary - The confused Vaadiraaja has bowled a slower ball short of
> length and outside the off stump. The Advaiti has easily hit it over
> the Point boundary for another six runs. Point fielder Vyaasa Rayaru
> can only stand still and watch it like a spectator.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>