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

[V Subrahmanian]

Many thanks Sri Anand ji, for the details and summing up.  This sentence of
that Tattu samanvayāt bhāṣya passage, I think, is quite 'clinching':

तत्रैवं सति यथाभूतब्रह्मात्मविषयमपि ज्ञानं न चोदनातन्त्रम् ।* तद्विषये
लिङादयः श्रूयमाणा अपि अनियोज्यविषयत्वात्कुण्ठीभवन्ति उपलादिषु
प्रयुक्तक्षुरतैक्ष्ण्यादिवत्, अहेयानुपादेयवस्तुविषयत्वात् । *किमर्थानि
तर्हि ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः’ (बृ. उ. २-४-५)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Brha&page=02&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9F%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83%E2%80%99%20%28%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%83.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%A8-%E0%A5%AA-%E0%A5%AB%29#BR_C02_S04_V05>
इत्यादीनि *विधिच्छायानि वचनानि* ?

The translation of the underlined sentence is:

(Since Brahman-Knowledge Jnānam, is a siddha vastu, it is not
injunction-subservient, chodanā tantram) In the realm of Jnānam even though
the liṅg, loṭ, etc. which are vidhi-denoting suffixes, are found (in the
upanishadic sentences), since Jnanam (Brahman) is not something that can be
a matter for injunction, (those suffixes) become blunted (ineffective),
just as the sharp-edged sword gets blunted when struck against a rock,
etc.  since Brahman-Atman is that which can neither be rejected nor
acquired.  (It is one's own svarūpa which cannot be discarded nor can be
sought afresh).

In this sentence the intent of the Bhāṣyakāra is made known.  All
statements he has made in the other parts of the bhāṣya are only to justify
the suffixes that are present in those sentences while at the same time not
contradicting the above well-reasoned intent. And that is the reason why
the bhāṣyakāra uses the 'chāyā' (semblance) adjective to these sentences,
even in the question: *विधिच्छायानि वचनानि* ?    The अज्ञातज्ञापनं चातो
विधिरत्राभिधीयते gives the true purport of the concept of 'vidhi' in this
context.

As to the second half of the verse cited you:

अनात्मादर्शनेनैव परात्मानमुपास्महे, I am reminded of the Panchadaśī, second
chapter concluding verses.  I am citing these in good detail just to help
mananam:


सांख्यकाणादबौद्धाद्यैर्जगद्भेदो यथा यथा ।
उत्प्रेक्ष्यतेऽनेकयुक्त्या भवत्वेष तथा तथा ॥१००॥

The followers of Sānkhya, Vaisesika, the Buddhist and other schools have
established with quite an array of arguments (the real nature of) the
multiplicity in the universe. Let them have these. We have no quarrel with
them. (In the pragmatic world we too accept them all.)

 अवज्ञातं सदद्वैतं निःशंकैरन्यवादिभिः ।
एवं का क्षतिर्रस्माकं तद्द्वैतमवजानताम् ॥१०१॥

There are philosophers who, holding an opposite view, disregard the real
non-dual entity. That does not harm us, who (following the Veda, reason and
experience, are convinced of our own unshakable position and therefore)
have no regard for their conclusion.
द्वैतावज्ञाफलमद्वैतम्(द्वैतस्यानादरः, अद्वैतफलस्य प्रतिपादनञ्च)
 *द्वैतावज्ञा सुस्थिता चेदद्वैता धीः स्थिरा भवेत् ।  *(This is what
corresponds to the above Sureshvara verse: अनात्मादर्शनेनैव
परात्मानमुपास्महे,)
स्थैर्ये तस्याः पुमानेष जीवन्मुक्त इतीर्यते ॥१०२॥

*When the intellect disregards the notions of duality, it becomes firmly
established in the conception of non-duality. *The man who is firmly rooted
in the conviction of non-duality is called a Jīvanmukta (liberated in life).

 एषा ब्राह्मी स्थितिः पार्थ नैनां प्राप्य विमुह्यति ।
 स्थित्वास्यामन्तकालेऽपि ब्रह्मनिर्वाणमृच्छति ॥१०३॥

Śrī Krishna says in the Gita: ‘This is called having one’s being in
Brahman, O P areha. None, attaining to this, becomes deluded. Being
established therein, even at the last moment, a man attains to oneness with
Brahman’.

सदद्वैतेऽनृतद्वैते यदन्योऽन्यैक्यवीक्षणम् ।
तस्यान्तकालस्तद्भेदबुद्धिरेव न चेतरः ॥१०४॥

‘At the last moment’ means the moment at which the mutual identification of
the illusory duality and the one secondless reality is annihilated by
differentiating them from each other; nothing else.

The above portions copied from:
http://www.vedantavichara.com/bhutaviveka.html


regards
subrahmanian.v



On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> non-Self."
>
> नियमः परिसङ्ख्या वा विध्यर्थोऽत्र भवेद्यतः।
> अनात्मादर्शनेनैव परात्मानमुपास्महे॥
>
> 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
>