[Advaita-l] Interpretation of a Sanskrit passage

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:55 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> In the following URL, there is a passage of Brahmanandi, the commnetary of
> the Advaitasiddhi:
>
> http://narayanastra.blogspot.i <http://goog_2012187213>
> n/2012/01/saguna-brahman-and-k <http://goog_2012187213>
> rama-mukti-in_24.html
>
> quote:
>
> //ityādiśruteḥ bhūtatvāvaccedena brahmajanyatvanāśyatvakalpane lāghavāt *abhautika
> vaikuṇṭhaloke mānābhāvāt* anāditvena śrutiyuktisiddhamāyādibhinnajaḍatvāvaccedena
> lāghavāt brahmopādānakatvāt sopādānakamātrasyāvidyakatvenāvidyānāśyatvāt
> jaḍasāmānyasya vināśitvamityuktavākyasthaṃ nityādipadamavāntarapralayasthaparamiti
> bhāvaḥ ।
> Purport (for the last paragraph above): The cited shrutivAkya-s show that
> the limitation of (i.e., notion of/characterisation as) “bhUta”, while
> associating naturally (lAghavAt) with the creation and destruction of the
> universe from Brahman, cannot be considered to exist/associated with (
> mAnAbhAvAt) the Vaikuntha worlds that are abhautika (not of the nature of
> bhUta-s). Hence, their eternality is declared. But this is just like the
> eternality of avidyA, which shruti also declares in the statement “
> gauranAdyantavatI” (quoted by Madhusudana in the immediately preceding
> lines). However, since even these Vaikuntha worlds are also avidyAtmaka,
> they cease along with avidyA after Nirguna Brahman realisation.
>
> (Laghucandrika, from the same source as above)
>
> It is amusing to see desperate ones mistranslating “abhautikavaikuNThaloke
> mAnAbhAvAt” as “pramANAbhAvAt” i.e., there is no pramANa for abhautika
> vaikuNTha loka.//
> Unquote
>
> Your attention is drawn to this highlighted portion (hetu):
> *abhautika vaikuṇṭhaloke mānābhāvāt.   *(the parsing of the samasa:
> abhautikavaikunthaloka)
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>


It is interesting to see what Madhusudana says there:


एतेन भगवल्लोकादेरपि  नित्यत्वमपास्तम् । Hence the eternality (nityatvam) of
the Lordl's abode etc. also stands refuted.]

This is a clear statement about the nityatva (and not mithyaatva) of
Bhagavan's loka.


This is in perfect tune with the Vedanta siddhanta that has been so very
clearly enunciated by Shankara in the Mundakopanishad 3.2.6 bhashyam:

वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः संन्यासयोगाद्यतयः शुद्धसत्त्वाः ।
ते ब्रह्मलोकेषु परान्तकाले परामृताः परिमुच्यन्ति सर्वे ॥ ६ ॥

परामृताः परम् अमृतम् अमरणधर्मकं ब्रह्म आत्मभूतं येषां ते परामृता जीवन्त एव
ब्रह्मभूताः, परामृताः सन्तः परिमुच्यन्ति परि
समन्तात्प्रदीपनिर्वाणवद्भिन्नघटाकाशवच्च
निवृत्तिमुपयान्ति परिमुच्यन्ति परि समन्तान्मुच्यन्ते सर्वे, न देशान्तरं
गन्तव्यमपेक्षन्ते । ‘शकुनीनामिवाकाशे जले वारिचरस्य वा । पदं यथा न दृश्येत
तथा ज्ञानवतां गतिः’ (मो. ध. १८१ । ९) ‘अनध्वगा अध्वसु पारयिष्णवः’ ( ? ) इति
श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्याम् ; देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव,
परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन
गन्तव्यम् । यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात् ,
मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं
ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति । अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥

The salient points of the above bhashya are:

1. Vedantic moksha is realizing the Imperishable Brahman as one's own self.
[In the Kenopanishat bhashya 1.5 Shankara has clearly stated that the
Upanishad mantra teaches that if the realization is not so, such a Vishnu
is anatma and a-brahma.]

2. This frees one from all bondage.

3. Since there is nothing to bind, limit, that mukta, there is no need for
him to go to any other geographical locality like Vaikuntha. Shankara calls
it exactly this, desha.

4. If there is a need to travel to some other location, it is a travel
limited by space. In the language of tarka it is:
एतद्देशविच्छेदपूर्वक-अन्यदेशसंयोगः - separating from this location and
joining some other location. This is what is meant by desha paricchinnaa
gatih.

5. All such travel is in the realm of samsara alone and cannot be called
moksha. The hetu given by Shankara for this is: the saadhya, goal, is
limited and the means is also limited. Thus, if one has to go to Vaikuntha
for moksha, the goal, the destination, both the place and the Lord, are
limited.

6. Brahman, being infinite, is not something that is to be attained or
reached as one would reach a place.

7. If Brahman (Vishnu) were located in a place, then it would be like a
'murta dravya', formed object be endowed with a beginning and end,
depending on something/some place other than itself (because it has to be
located in a place), made of parts (sine it is formed, it will have parts),
limited by time, anityam, and krtakam, a product, that is, it has to be
produced to come into being.

8. But Brahman cannot be of the aforementioned kind.

9. Hence 'attaining Brahman' cannot be something limited by space.

All these defects apply to the moksha, Brahman and the gati in all schools
other than the Vedanta. Naturally, the loka and the Vishnu that the
vaishnava aims to go to for moksha are endowed with all these defects.

Madhusudana Saraswati has summed up all this in his crisp statement:

एतेन भगवल्लोकादेरपि  *नित्यत्वम*पास्तम् । Hence the eternality (nityatvam)
of the Lordl's abode etc. also also refuted.]

That this statement has philosophical overtones is also clearly seen from
Madhusudana's another work:Vedanta-kalpa-latika:

In the section on Mokshasvarupam with regard to various schools that are
outside the Vedanta and as per the Vedanta, Madhusudana mentions, among
other schools that:

Read the complete account of that section here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ugj1nqqeh75cb8y/Moksha_
svarupa_according_to_various_schools_K.pdf


//Vaiṣṇavas consider mokṣa to be the invoking of Viṣṇu’s grace by
practicing the dharma-s prescribed for viṣṇu bhaktas and thereby *reaching
Viṣṇu’s abode*.//

Thus, in vaishnavism, there is the need for the jiva to travel to a
different location than where he is already residing. And therefore, all
that Shankara has said in the Mundaka Bhashya cited above will apply in
complete measure to the vaishnava moksha and vaishnava deity.

The śaiva-s, vaiṣṇava-s and the hairaṇyagarbha-s are also outside the
purview of the Vedānta. In other words, these schools, including the
vaiṣṇava-s, are veda bāhya according to Veda Vyasa, Shankara, Vāchaspati
Misra, Sureśvasra, Sarvajñātman, Amalānanda, Madhusudana, etc. and are
therefore refuted as un-vedāntic.Badarayana Vyasa has lined up all these
schools together only with the view to show them as being outside of the
Vedanta doctrine.

Shankara, apart from stating, in accordance with Badarayana, that the
Pancharatra is outside the Vedanta in the Brahma sutra bhashya has once
again emphatically said in the Dashashloki 'na tat paancharaatram' and
thereby has made the position of Vedanta very clear.  This work has been
commented upon by Madhusudana Sraswati in his Siddhaanta Bindu by
acknowledging that the Dashashloki is a work of Shankara. In this work too
MS endorses Shankara's view about the Pancharatra.

Thus, the subject matter of the Advaitasiddhi passage in question is
clearly nityatva (not mithyaatva) of Vaikuntha which has been elucidated by
the commentary of Brahmananda by giving several hetu-s, one among them
being: abhautika vaikuntha loke maanaabhaavaat: since there is no pramana
for the existence of a non-material vaikuntha loka. This is the hetu for
its anityatvam. Shankara has given the reason: yat krtakam tat anityam in
the cited bhashya. That which is produced is time-bound. If something has
not to be time-bound, it  has to be un-created. The Vedantins conclude that
any loka, lokyate, anubhuuyate, iti lokah, that which is seen, experienced,
is loka, and therefore paricchinna, kshetram, jada and anitya.

Such is the contribution of these two great 'vaishnava' advaitins to the
cause of vaishnavism!!

Om Tat Sat