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

[Anand Hudli]

Dear Shri Chandramouliji,

You wrote:
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.

shrImad appayya dIkShita, himself the renowned author of the
kalpataru-parimala text of the bhAmatI school, has perhaps proposed the
bhAmatI view as the "final view" on the subject of vidhi for shravaNa,
manana, and nididhyAsana. He has presented the bhAmatI view at the end,
after explaining all others. Broadly, there are two reasons for rejecting
any view that says there must be a vidhi. First, as VAcaspati says, no
person can be enjoined to have Brahma sAkShAtkAra, direct realization of
Brahman (na tAvad brahmasAkShAtkAre puruSho niyoktavyaH), because it is of
the very nature of Brahman, eternal, and cannot be produced (tasya
brahmasvAbhAvyena nityatvAdakAryatvAt). Further, if upanishad vAkyas become
injunctions they cannot retain their status as revealing the true nature of
the Self. Rather, their significance would become limited to conveying
injunctions. Thus, it is established that the upanishads are not about
injunctions regarding knowledge (tasmAnna bodhavidhiparA vedAntA iti
siddham).

Second, there are other vidhis already in place that make further vidhis
for shravaNa and the rest redundant. For example, there is the general
vidhi "svAdhyAyo adhyetavyaH" which enjoins one to learn the Veda
(including VedAnta). There is also a vidhi that enjoins one to approach a
Guru, "tadvijnAnArthaM sa gurumevAbhigacchet", which says one should
approach only the Guru to know That. Those who believe in a parisaMkhyA
vidhi because it enjoins one to give up other activities and focus on
vedAnta vichAra are not right. For, it is not possible for those who are
not sannyAsins to give up other (vaidika and/or laukika) activities. And
regarding sannyAsins, there is a vidhi "brahmasaMstho amRtatvameti",
meaning one who is a brahmaniShTha will attain mokSha, which prescribes
sannyAsa and rules out any other pursuit besides contemplation on Brahman.
When sannyAsa is prescribed it implies one has to give up all other
pursuits. Another vidhi based on "shrotavyaH etc." would be redundant and
without a purpose. If the argument is about accepting a vidhi to focus only
on advaita vedAnta and not be distracted by other philosophies, for example
dvaita, even this is not right, because even a hundred vidhis cannot save
one who is so deluded to accept other philosophies. Such a person without
shraddhA in advaita surely does not have the grace of Ishvara, for there is
a saying "IshvarAnugrahAdeva puMsAmadvaitavAsanA."

Regarding Shankara bhagavatpAda's acceptance of vidhi in sUtrabhAShya
3.4.47 (as explained in my previous message), there is not really a vidhi
here. For, shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana clearly make known what is to
be known and that they do this is evident in the world, without any need
for a vidhi (vastvavagamavaishadyahetutvasya ca lokasiddhatvena teShu
vidhyanapekShaNAt). So Shankara's seeming acceptance of a vidhi in 3.4.47
is not acceptance of a vidhi, but rather a vidhi-ChAyA, a semblance of a
vidhi, which is what he refers to in sUtra bhAShya 1.1.4. This vidhi-ChAya
is like an arthavAda and serves the purpose of  praising shravaNa, manana,
and nididhyAsana so that one may practice them excellently.

In short, the followers of the bhAmatI school hold that well known and
accepted vidhis such as the adhyayana vidhi, gurUpagamana vidhi, etc. are
sufficient to ensure the student of vedAnta will realize the Self through
shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana, without the need for further vidhis.

Anand