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

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Anandji,


 Namaskarams.


 Thanks for the detailed discussion on the issue. While you have stated
that


 << 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. >>


 others have indeed taken the view that the term << draShTavyaH >> is the
desired Goal to achieve which shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana are the
means and hence the two are to be distinguished. Since this Goal concerns
jnana it is considered that , as discussed elsewhere in vedanta , “
draShTavyaH “ is not considered a vidhi here also. I do not think there is
any different view on this from any quarters.


 As regards shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana , as you have brought out ,
there are differing views. For the first three alternatives namely apurva /
niyama /parisamkhya vidhis, you have also mentioned the supporting Bhashya
references relied on by the respective groups. From your comments on verse
115 of the Vartika by Sri Sureshwaracharya I presume you are concluding
that he considers this to be a parisamkhya vidhi. I have come across
another respected author who mentions that Sri Sureshwaracharya considers
this as either niyama or parisamkhya << niyamah parisamkhya va >> . However
for the fourth alternative namely << vidhi abhava ( no vidhi ) >> held by
the Bhamati school , you have not mentioned if they rely on any supporting
Bhashya references. Are there any such supporting references or is it to be
concluded that its view is contrary to the Bhashyam. No doubt Sri
Subrahmanianji has cited BSB 1-1-4 in this regard to conclude that it is
not a vidhi, but Sri Sureshwaracharya also has cited the same ( as
mentioned by you ) Bhashya for his conclusion. I would be grateful for a
response.


 Regards

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
>