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

Anand Hudli anandhudli at hotmail.com
Mon May 11 12:18:32 CDT 2015

Dear Shri Chandramouliji,

>the use of the term " etc " leads to a confusion as to which are all the
>portions of the vakya are being referred to. Specifically is the
>immediately following portion << shrotavyaH, manthavyah,
>nidhidhyaasitavya,>> included in " etc " which would lead to the conclusion
>that it is also not considered to be a vidhi ( injunction in your post )
>vakya. In this regard kindly also refer to my reply to the post by Sri
>Sadanandaji. Perhaps you could also clarify your post.

Shankara's commentary on Br. Up. 2.4.5 makes it clear that realization of
the Self is through shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana, which means
"draShTavyaH" is only a term being used to refer to shravaNa, manana, and
nididhyAsana, taken together. So the question really is: do the words
"shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyo" indicate some kind of a vidhi
(injunction)? There is a diversity of views on this among advaitins, as
summarized by appayya dIkShita in his siddhAntaleshasaMgraha. Four views
are mentioned- 1. apUrva vidhi 2. niyama vidhi 3. parisaMkhyAvidhi and 4.
vidhi abhAva (no vidhi). The author of PrakaTArthavivaraNa and others think
it is an apUrva vidhi (atra prakaTArthakArAdayaH kecidAhuH
apUrvavidhiriyam). This view draws support from the shAnkara bhAShya on
brahma sUtra 3.4.47, "vidyAsahakAriNo maunasya bAlyapANDityavad
vidhirevAshrayitavyaH apUrvatvAd", according to which meditation leading to
"vidyA" has to be admitted as a vidhi, because it is not known elsewhere,
the word "pANDitya" denoting shravaNa. The second view says the vidhi
should be a niyama vidhi, presenting arguments and citing an example in
sUtra bhAShya 4.1.1 of the darshapUrNamAsa sacrifice where there is a vidhi
for husking rice is compared to that for shravaNa, etc.,
"darshanaparyavasAnAni hi shravaNAdInyAvartyamAnAni dRShTArthAni bhavanti|
yathA avaghAtAdIni taNDulaniShpattiparyavasAnAni||". A pertinent example
given here is that of vedic learning itself. One may learn the Veda through
books or through a Guru, but the adhyayana vidhi (svAdhyAyo adhyetavyaH)
rules out self-studying books to obtain Vedic knowledge. The Veda must
necessarily be learned from a Guru, not by self-study. The niyama vidhi
view is that of the followers of the vivaraNa school and that of the
saMkShepa shArIraka.

The parisaMkhyAvidhi view states that just as one who intends to study the
sushruta (medical) science could indulge in another activity (not related
to medicine), one who intends to study vedAnta could become distracted in
some other activity. In order to avoid this situation, a parisaMkhyA vidhi
is relevant for shravaNa and the rest. The followers of VAcaspati Mishra's
bhAmatI school are of the view that there is no vidhi for shravaNa and the
rest, although they hold that the general adhyayana vidhi that applies to
karmakANDa also applies to brahmakANDa (vedAnta).

That this is an important question to be answered is proved by the fact
that SureshvarAchArya devotes more than a hundred verses on the topic in
his vArtika on 2.4.5, bearing in mind Shankara's commentary on brahmasUtra
1.1.4 (tattu samanvayAt). He does, however, hold that an injunction makes
sense for the purpose of discriminating between Atman and anAtman by means
of the method of "anvayavyatireka." (anvayavyatirekAbhAm
AtmAnAtmavivechane). This injunction is not to be taken as prompting one to
action, but rather making known what is not known. The crucial verse is 115:

अज्ञातज्ञापनं चातो विधिरत्राभिधीयते।
अप्रवृत्तप्रवृत्तिश्च न्यायाभावान्न युज्यते ॥

Insofar as it (vedAnta vAkya) makes known what is not known, it is hence
considered to be an injunction (vidhi) here. (But) it does not enjoin one
to act since there is  no reason (to suppose) that it (signifies) activity
that one does not engage in.

appayya dIkShita quotes a verse as coming from some followers of
SureshvarAchArya that says "regardless of whether the vidhi is niyama or
parisaMkhyA, we meditate on the Supreme Self, not paying attention to the

नियमः परिसङ्ख्या वा विध्यर्थोऽत्र भवेद्यतः।
अनात्मादर्शनेनैव परात्मानमुपास्महे॥


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list