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

[V Subrahmanian]

Very nice reply.  One can add these two examples:

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । प्रथमं
ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः २० - भाष्यम्

अत्र च सम्प्रदायविद आख्यायिकां सम्प्रचक्षते — कश्चित्किल राजपुत्रः जातमात्र
एव मातापितृभ्यामपविद्धः व्याधगृहे संवर्धितः ; सः अमुष्य वंश्यतामजानन्
व्याधजातिप्रत्ययः व्याधजातिकर्माण्येवानुवर्तते, न राजास्मीति
राजजातिकर्माण्यनुवर्तते ; यदा पुनः कश्चित्परमकारुणिकः राजपुत्रस्य
राजश्रीप्राप्तियोग्यतां जानन् अमुष्य पुत्रतां बोधयति — ‘न त्वं व्याधः,
अमुष्य राज्ञः पुत्रः ; कथञ्चिद्व्याधगृहमनुप्रविष्टः’ इति — स एवं बोधितः
त्यक्त्वा व्याधजातिप्रत्ययकर्माणि पितृपैतामहीम् आत्मनः पदवीमनुवर्तते —
राजाहमस्मीति । तथा किल अयं परस्मात् अग्निविस्फुलिङ्गादिवत् तज्जातिरेव
विभक्तः इह देहेन्द्रियादिगहने प्रविष्टः असंसारी सन्
देहेन्द्रियादिसंसारधर्ममनुवर्तते — देहेन्द्रियसङ्घातोऽस्मि कृशः स्थूलः सुखी
दुःखीति — परमात्मतामजानन्नात्मनः ; न त्वम् एतदात्मकः परमेव ब्रह्मासि
असंसारी — इति प्रतिबोधित आचार्येण, हित्वा एषणात्रयानुवृत्तिं
ब्रह्मैवास्मीति प्रतिपद्यते । अत्र राजपुत्रस्य राजप्रत्ययवत् ब्रह्मप्रत्ययो
दृढी भवति — विस्फुलिङ्गवदेव त्वं परस्माद्ब्रह्मणो भ्रष्ट इत्युक्ते,
विस्फुलिङ्गस्य प्रागग्नेर्भ्रंशात् अग्न्येकत्वदर्शनात् ।

In the Br.up. Bhāṣya 2.1.20 Shankara cites an old parable admitted by the
'sampradāyavits'.  Anandagiri has identified this traditional Acharya as
'Draviḍācārya'.  The translation by Swami Madhavananda is:

A certain prince was discarded by his parents as soon as he was born, and
brought up in a fowler's (hunter) home.  Not knowing his princely descent,
he thought himself to be a fowler and pursued the fowler's duties, not
those of a king, as he would if he knew himself to be such.  When, however,
a very compassionate man, who knew of the prince's fitness for attaining a
kingdom, told him who he was - that he was not a fowler, but the son of
such and such a king, and had by some chance come to live in a fowler's
home - he, thus, informed, gave up the notion and the duties of a fowler
and, knowing that he was a king, took to the ways of his ancestors.

Similarly this individual self, which is of the same category as the
Supreme Self, being separated from It like a spart of fire and so on, has
penetrated this wilderness of the body, organs, etc., and, although really
transcendent, takes on the attributes of the latter, which are relative,
and thinks that it is this aggregate of the body and organs, that it is
lean or stout, happy or miserable - for it does not know that it is the
Supreme Self.  But when the tacher enlightens it that it is not the body,
etc. but the transcendent Supreme Brahman, then it gives up the pursuit of
the three kinds of desire and is convinced that it is Brahman.  When it is
told that it ha been separated from the Supreme Brahman like a spark, it is
firmly convinced that it is Brahman, as the prince was of his royal birth.

We know that a spark is one with fire before it is separated......[one can
read this paragraph too on p-211 for complete benefit of the bhashyam.  The
fire-spark example is given by this very mantra of the upanishad. ]

Apart from this, similar to this, Sri Appayya Dikshitar, in his 'Siddhānta
leśa sangraha' has alluded to the example of Karna.  Karṇa, though really
Kunti's son, was abandoned by her  soon after his birth, only to be found
and brought up by a couple belonging to  charioteer's class.  He grew up
with the notion that he is of this class, son of this couple, identifying
himself as the son of Rādha (mother).  It was only much later in the
Mahabharata war situation he was revealed the truth of his parentage.  Then
he realized himself to be Kaunteya, shedding his erroneous notion of being
Rādheya.

The above accounts will also apply to reply to Sri Vādiraja's objection in
the Yuktimallika that upon the advaitic realization the jīva will attain
svarūpa nāśa (total extinction).  In a Dvaita-Advaita meet a scholar read
out those objections from that text.  A few young Dvaita scholars in the
assembly intervened to say: In advaita there is no svarupa nāśa for the
jiva but only the giving up, shedding, of the erroneous jīvabhāva, while
the consciousness aspect (Brahman), which is what the svarupa is, remains
in tact.  But they went unheard.




On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Commentary - Seeing Vadiraja bowling underarm last ball the umpire
> Vedanta Desikachar has given him a strict warning. 'If you bowl
> underarm again I will disqualify you from this game'. Vadiraja has run
> out of options. But Captain Madhvacharya has given him an idea. If you
> tell the batsman some disturbing news he will lose his mental
> concentration. Then you can easily get him out. Vadiraja is walking to
> the batsman to tell him something.
>
> कर्ता कर्म न चेद्ब्रह्म गम्यं दृश्यं मतं श्रुतम् ।
> ध्यातं गातं द्रष्टृमन्तृश्रोतृध्यातृचितः पृथक् ॥
> यद्यैक्यश्रुतिसाचिव्यादभेदः कर्तृकर्मणोः ।
> तर्हिचेत्स्वप्रकाशत्वश्रुत्या वेद्यस्यवेत्तृता ॥
> तत्र श्रुतेर्बलवती युक्तिश्चेदत्र पञ्चधा ।
> स्पष्टं निरूपितायुक्तिः पञ्चबाणशरोपमा ।
> तव श्रुतिस्त्रियं चोरः कुरुते स्वैरचारिणीम् ।
> आत्मा वा इति वाग्ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति वाक् च ते ॥
> ब्रह्मणः कर्मतामाह पञ्चधा या प्रपञ्चिता ।
> If you say Subject cannot be Object but the Brahman should be reached
> should be realized should be heard of should be reflected on should be
> meditated on. The one reaching, realizing, hearing, reflecting and
> meditating should be separate from Brahman. If you take help of Abheda
> Srutis saying Jeeva and Brahman are same there will be nondifference
> of Subject and Object. The Svaprakasha Sruti will make the Known and
> Knower nondifferent also. If your reasoning of Subject and Object is
> strong because of Sruti the second reasoning in five ways is like the
> five arrows of Kaama Deva. The thief is making your wife Sruti to
> behave as she likes and go to other men. The Srutis 'Atma Va Are' and
> 'Brahmavid Apnoti Param' are saying Brahman is an Object in five ways.
> But you are showing it is a deception.
>
> Vadiraja is trying to show a Contradiction in Advaitis reasoning. They
> are using three reasonings. A) Subject and Object in Perception cannot
> be same. They must be different. B) The Srutis आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः
> श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो and ब्रह्मविद् आप्नोति परम् are
> saying Brahman can be Object in five ways. 1) We can Attain it. 2) We
> can see It. 3) We can hear of It. 4) We can reflect on It. 5) We can
> meditate on It.  C) The Abheda Srutis like 'Tat Tvam Asi' are telling
> Jeeva and Brahman are the same. A is  saying Subject and Object must
> be different. But B and C are C combined are saying Brahman is both
> Subject and Object. In the sentence 'I am seeing a book'  the Subject
> is myself and the object is the book. I am the Knower the book is the
> Known and the Knowledge is 'This is a book'. The Subject and Object
> are different. The Self is like a light shining on all objects in the
> world. When the Self light shines on some object the Self can see it
> and know it. But how can the Self see  itself? How can the light shine
> on itself?
>
> How to solve this Contradiction?
>
> You Advaitis are saying A is very strong. Subject and Object cannot be
> same. The Atma Va Are and Brahmavid Apnoti Srutis are also strong
> because in 5 ways they are saying Brahman is Object.  Therefore C
> cannot be correct. Jeeva and Brahman Abheda Sruti like 'Tat Tvam Asi'
> cannot be correct literally. It must have a meaning Jeeva and Brahman
> are different.
>
> He is giving a Poetic Simile here. For Advaiti the Abheda Srutis are
> his faithful wife. But the 5 ways of making Brahman an Object are like
> the 5 arrows of Kaama Deva. He is shooting the 5 flowery arrows at
> her. She beomes very uncontrolled with Passion and goes to other men.
> She will not be faithful to her husband Advaiti. She will lose her
> character and start loving other men like Dvaitis.
>
> Advaiti Response -
> People learned in Advaita have pointed to big blunders in the above
> argument. Vaadiraaja has not read even Adi Sankara's Adhyaasa Bhaashya
> properly. A person will make a Superimposition on the Self like this.
> 'I am fat', 'I am thin', 'I am fair', 'I am dark' and so on. In these
> sentences the Subject and Object are the same. He is not saying some
> other person or thing is fat, thin, fair and dark. He is saying he
> himself is fat, thin, fair and dark. The Subject is the person saying
> it. The Object is also the person saying it. There is nothing wrong in
> Subject and Object being same. But here the Self is Superimposed by
> things not Self. This is Error.
>
> To correct the Superimposition Error the Upanishads will give
> instruction on Self. This Instruction is like 'You are Brahman' and 'I
> am Brahman'. The person will hear of, reflect on and meditate on his
> Self as Brahman. The Subject and Object are the same here also. The
> person will meditate on himself as Brahman. Take the example 'You are
> the 10th man'. Ten people were crossing a river with strong currents.
> After crossing one man was counting others. He was counting only nine
> people and became worried one was missing. Someone told him 'You are
> not counting yourself. You are the10th man'. The counting man realized
> 'I am the 10th man'. His worry was removed. Here in 'I am the 10th
> man', the Subject is myself and object is also myself. I am not
> realizing some other person as 10th man. I am realizing myself as 10th
> man.
>
> In the Adhyasa Bhashya Adi Sankara has said -
> कथं पुनः प्रत्यगात्मन्यविषये अध्यासो विषयतद्धर्माणाम् ? सर्वो हि
> पुरोऽवस्थित एव विषये विषयान्तरमध्यस्यति ; युष्मत्प्रत्ययापेतस्य च
> प्रत्यगात्मनः अविषयत्वं ब्रवीषि । उच्यते — न तावदयमेकान्तेनाविषयः,
> अस्मत्प्रत्ययविषयत्वात् अपरोक्षत्वाच्च प्रत्यगात्मप्रसिद्धेः ;
> Translation by Gambhirananda - How again can there be any
> superimposition of any object or its attributes on the inmost Self
> that is opposed to the non-Self and is never an object of the senses
> and the mind? For everybody superimposes something else on what is
> perceived by him in front and you assert that the Self is opposed to
> the non-Self and is not referable by the concept 'you'. The answer of
> the Vedantin is: The Self is not absolutely beyond apprehension
> because it is apprehended as the content of the concept 'I' and
> because the Self opposed to the non-Self is well known in the world as
> an immediately perceived entity.
>
> Here Adi Sankara is saying the Self is 'Asmatpratyaya Vishaya'. It is
> the Object of the 'I' idea.
>
> In 1 - 1 - 4 Sutra Bhashya he is saying -
> अविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रयोनित्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्, न ;
> अविद्याकल्पितभेदनिवृत्तिपरत्वाच्छास्त्रस्य । न हि शास्त्रमिदंतया
> विषयभूतं ब्रह्म प्रतिपिपादयिषति । किं तर्हि ? प्रत्यगात्मत्वेनाविषयतया
> प्रतिपादयत् अविद्याकल्पितं वेद्यवेदितृवेदनादिभेदमपनयति । तथा च
> शास्त्रम् — ‘यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः । अविज्ञातं विजानतां
> विज्ञातमविजानताम्’ (के. उ. २-३) ‘न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः’ (बृ. उ.
> ३-४-२) ‘न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः’ (बृ. उ. ३-४-२) इति चैवमादि ।
> Translation by Gambhirananda - Opponent: If Brahman be not an object
> of knowledge It cannot logically be presented by the scriptures.
> Vedantin: Not so, for the scriptures aim at the removal of the
> differences fancied through ignorance. Not that the scriptures seek to
> establish Brahman as an entity referable objectively by the word
> 'this'. What do they do then? By presenting Brahman as not an object
> on account of Its being the inmost Self (of the knower) they remove
> the differences of the 'known', the 'knower', and the 'knowledge' that
> are fancied through ignorance. In support of this are the texts
> 'Brahman is known to him to whom It is unknown while It is unknown to
> him to whom It is known. It is unknown to those who know and known to
> those who do not know'. (Ke. II.3) 'You cannot see that which is the
> witness of vision ... you cannot know that which is the knower of
> knowledge'. (Br. III.4.2) and so on.
>
> The Atma that is Brahman cannot be known like an object of the world.
> But it can be an object of Sravana, Manana and Nididhyasana and the
> person doing this can Realize and Attain It.The Atma Va Are and
> Brahmavid Apnoti Srutis are saying this only. Therefore the Aikya
> Srutis like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and 'Aham Brahmasmi' will not lose the
> Abheda meaning of Jeeva Brahma Abheda.
>
> More comments and points from learned members are welcome.
>
> The Poetic Simile given by Vaadiraaja is not correct. This is the
> correct simile. The wife is the Abheda Sruti like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and
> 'Aham Brahmasmi'. The God of Love Kaama Deva will shoot his 5 flowery
> arrows at her to arouse her passion. She will go to the only man in
> the whole world - her husband. There is no other man in the world
> because there is only one Jeeva. That Jeeva with Sruti's help will do
> 5 things and will enjoy Bliss for ever.
>
> Commentary - Vaadiraaja walks to the Advaiti batsman to tell him
> something and mentally disturb him. He says 'Your wife Mrs. Sruti is
> having affairs with some of our team members'. Then he plans to bowl
> the next ball. He is sure the batsman will lose his concentration
> after hearing the disturbing news. But the Advaiti batsman immediately
> knows it is only a trick. He has full faith and trust in his wife's
> 'Paativratya'. It is impossible for her to do anything like this. He
> waits for the next ball undisturbed. Vaadiraaja bowls an out swinger
> moving away from the off stump. The batsman elegantly hits it over the
> third man boundary for another six.
>
> --
> 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
>