[Advaita-l] vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH

[Siva Senani Nori]

Namaste

But, Bhagavatpaada specifically refuted SphoTa in DevataadhikaraNam (1.3.28). A more plausible reason for the absence of any SUtra refuting SphoTavaada is that at the time of composing VedantasUtras, BhartRhari did not write Vakyapadiya, which is where SphoTavaada is clearly set out. In Mahabhashyam, all the concepts are presented but a separate name is not given and it could be simply assumed to be Advaita. If we follow the dates assigned by western scholars and the westernised academia then Vedantasutras are later than Mahabhashyam.
RegardsN. Siva Senani



 
      From: H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 To: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2015 10:59 AM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH
   
Namaste.

Perhaps one reason why Sri Bhagavatpada did not specifically rebut Sphota
Vada could be that it was already successfully rebutted by Mimamsakas with
their theory. So by rebutting the Vada advanced by the Mimamsakas, the
Sphota Vada also stands rebutted following the principle of " prathama
malla nyaya " ( प्रथममल्लन्याय ) according to which << if you defeat the
current reigning wrestler then you have won over all the other wrestlers as
well  >>.

Regards

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> The highest teaching is silence. That is why they say about Guru
> Dakshina Murthy, 'Gurostu Maunam Vyakhanam Shishyastu Chinna
> Samshayaaha'. In this no words are needed. But Patanjali's commentary
> is starting  Atha Shabdaanushaasanam . It is about words. Secondly in
> Vedanta itself we have Yato Vaacho Nivartante Apraapya Manasaa Saha.
> Words or Mind cannot reach Brahman. In Sravana, Manana and
> Nididhyasana only Sravana is using words. Manana and Nididhyasana are
> done without words. If Grammarians are saying Shabda is Brahman it
> cannot be Nirguna Brahma of Vedanta but only Saguna Brahman.
>
> Bhartruhari has said in Brahma Kanda - Brahman is without beginning or
> end is the indestructible essence of speech. Which is developed in the
> form of things and whence springs the creation of the world.
> Reference in Sarva Darshana Samgraha.
>
> This Brahman is the Sphota of the Grammarians. But in Advaita Vedanta
> the Brahman is not even Creator of the World. The Whole Creation is an
> illusion only. There is no Creation. How can the Shabda Brahman the
> Cause of Creation be the  Brahman of Vedanta? It can be taken as
> Saguna Brahma only.
>
> In the Sarva Darshana Samgraha the Yoga Darshana is placed last before
> Vedanta. It is the closest neighbor of Vedanta in this text.
>
> Another point is Adi Sankara wrote one detailed Vrtti on Yoga Sutras
> but he did not write anything on Vyakarana or Sphota.
> You can find it on Amazon.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.in/gp/product/8120829891/ref=ox_sc_imb_mini_detail?ie=UTF8&psc=1∣=A3RWP0QS4LMKI0
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I heard some people say Yoga System is close to Advaita but not
> Vyakarana. Adi Sankara has said "Nahi Nahi Rakshati Dukrun Karane" in Bhaja
> Govindam seeing a old man memorizing Panini Sutras like a fool. Adi Sankara
> has also rejected Sphota Vada of Sanskrit Grammarians. Nirvikalpa Samadhi
> of Yoga is close to Advaita Brahma Jnana.
> > ------------------------
> > Namaste
> > First about डुकृञ् करणे। The intention there is to promote Bhakti
> (amongst those Adhikaaris, for whom Bhakti is the best path), but we would
> be mistaken if we think that Bhagavatpada is against Vyakarana or Jnana in
> general. The meaning of the injunction स्वाध्यायो अध्येतव्यः is that Veda,
> along with all its angas including Vyakarana, should be studied.
> Bhagavatpada himself reserves the highest praise for Panini. In the Bhashya
> under 1.1.3 शास्त्रयोनित्वात् in order to portray Brahman as the source of
> Sastra, he gives the example of Panini: Just like Panini is known to know
> much more than Vyakarana, the author of a Sastra would know much more and
> only Brahman can know much more than all the Sastra that emanated from It.
> Here, if we ponder as to what is that Panini knew more than Ashtadhyayi, we
> realize that it refers to Philosophy.
> > This brings to the question: is sphotavada not refuted by Acaryapada in
> 1.3.28 (Devatadhikaranam)? At least one scholar, Prof. M. Srimannarayana
> Murthy, believes that Sankaracarya is agreeable with both doctrines
> (Sphotavada and Varnavada), but it is the later commentators like Vacaspati
> Misra, who introduced a refutation of Sphota. Much as I would like that to
> be true, from a careful study of the Devatadhikaranam, that view has to be
> rejected. So, unless the text we currently have is corrupted, refutal of
> Sphotavada by Adisankara cannot be denied. Those in the sampradaya say
> that, in reality there is no element of the refutation which is essential
> to uphold the tenets of Advaita, and that the refutation is done with a
> desire to avoid confusion. If VaiyaakaraNas propose Sabdabrahman as the
> ultimate, Alaankaarikas would propose Rasabrahman, and somebody else,
> Gandhabrahman, Sparsabrahman etc. and the saadhaka might be confused. (Is
> the Naadabrahman of Tyaagaraaya Swami different from Parabrahman, for
> instance?) If we examine their argument that the refutation is not
> essential, we find that it is indeed so. The only reason offered in the
> entire Devatadhikaranam, is that there is gaurava in conceptualizing
> Sphota, whereas varNaanupuurvI is sufficient to explain (how meaning is
> expressed). If Sphota is admitted, a Vedantin has no baadhaa to any of his
> positions. There is no other refutation anywhere else by Bhagavatpada.
> Among later Advaitins, Vimuktatman does criticize Sphota in his Ishtasiddhi
> [1], but apart from that I could not find refutation of Sphotavada at other
> places. (I request learned members to let me know if they came across
> Sphotakhandana by Advaita scholars before twentieth century anywhere
> else).For instance, in Sarvadarsanasangraha, every preceding Darsana is
> criticized and refuted by the next Darsana presented, but this is done very
> curiously with respect to Sphota - Vyakarana's Vivartavaada stands refuted
> by the Parinamavada of Sankhya. Now, ultimately Parinamavada does not stand
> and once it stands refuted by Advaita (the last Darsana), it obtains that
> Sphotavada is not effectively refuted in Sarvadarsanasangraha.
> > In comparison, there is disagreement with respect to the ultimate
> between Yoga and Advaita. The ISvara of Yoga is an emasculated one, who
> does not create, sustain or dissolve the world unto himself, who is a कश्चन
> पुरुषविशेषः. In fact, Pradhaana remains the highest principle of Yoga as
> well, that is why in Sarvadarsanasangraha refutation of Paata~njaladarSana
> consists of refutation of pariNAmavAda and refutation of PradhAna. This of
> course, follows the Brahmasutras and Saankarabhaashya. Under 2.1.3 (एतेन
> योगः प्रत्युक्तः), PradhAna as the highest principle, and the fact that
> they (Sankhya and Yoga) are dualist systems is cited as the reason for
> their rejection.
> > In summary, those who say that "Yoga System is close to Advaita but not
> Vyakarana", are not evaluating the available textual evidence
> appropriately. Yoga is a dualist school, avaidika (not my words, but that
> of Vidyaranya muni in his Vaiyaasikanyaayamaalaa), refuted clearly by the
> Sutrakara himself, and differs from Advaita in most important aspects. On
> the other hand, VyaakaraNa is an Advaitic school, is an anga of the Veda,
> not refuted by the Sutrakara, and does not differ from Advaita in any
> manner. Even the bhashyakara refutes Sphota not in the section (2nd
> Adhyaya) devoted to Khandana, but elsewhere.
> > The only reason for the perceived closeness of Yoga is that Yoga is
> definitely most useful in Saadhanaa. Its practical utility must not be
> confused as doctrinal similarity. On the other hand, Sphotavada is so close
> to Advaita, that it could plausibly be said that it differs no more from
> the teachings of Sankaracarya than Bhamatiprasthana or Vivaranaprasthana
> do. If we treat Sphotasiddhi+Brahmasiddhi-minus-jnanakarmasamuccaya (as
> jnanakarmasamuccaya weakens Advaita and is incorporated by Mandana Misra to
> accommodate Purvamimamsa) as a third prasthana within Advaita tradition,
> this claim can be examined and found plausible.
> > RegardsN. Siva Senani
> > [1] Ishtasiddhi is an early prakaranagrantha, from which Ramanujacarya
> took the summary of Advaita. This summary in Sribhashyam is called
> Mahapurvapaksha and is sometimes cited as the best summary of Advaita! (by
> those not familiar with Ishtasiddhi). The refutation of Sphotavada by
> Vimuktatman follows the path of Jayanta Bhatta (of Nyayamanjari fame),
> which deliberately understands the word Sabda differently. If the same
> understanding is applied to 1.3.28, then the sentence of Bhashyakara - अतः
> प्रभवात् । अत एव हि वैदिकात् शब्दात् देवादिकं जगत् प्रभवति। - would stand
> negated. Let me demonstrate. One ridicule, opponents of Sphota (including
> Vimuktatman, but Jayanta Bhatta is the one who has done it first, if not
> the author of SivadRshTi) throw at VaiyaakaraNas is: since you do not
> differentiate the Sabda "annam" and the corresponding external entity, i.e.
> food which is eaten, when you are hungry, simply eat the Sabda "annam". In
> 1.3.28, Sankaracarya is saying the world emanated from Sabda because Sabda
> primarily denotes Jati, Jati is nitya, and the origination is of only the
> individuals (that is cowness is always there, and it is only the individual
> cows which are born). If origin of Vyaktis from the nitya Jatis is not
> accepted, the words "अतः प्रभवात्" cannot be explained. It follows that the
> Sabda and the external entity represented by it are not different and the
> result is that either Acarya Vimuktatman's refutation is wrong, or he does
> not agree with Sutrakara and Bhashyakara.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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


>
_______________________________________________
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