[Advaita-l] Vaadiraaja Teertha's Yuktimallika - Advaita Criticism - Slokas 1-605 to 1-627
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 28 03:56:06 EDT 2017
Vaadiraaja is next planning a cunning attack on Advaiti theory of saying
Brahman does not have Gunas and Gunas are all false. He is first showing
there is no Bheda between Brahman and His qualities. Then he is saying if
you make Gunas false it is the same as making Brahman false and you are now
a Shunyavadi. But in between the Taarkika is interrupting and trying to
show Brahman's Gunas and Brahman are different. There is Bheda. Taarkikas
are also Bhedavaadis like Dvaitis but they don't agree here. Vadiraja has a
very clever argument to silence the Taarkika guns.
Two Srutis from Katha Upanisad are taken for this discussion. One is Neha
Naanaa Asti Kinchana and another is Evam Dharmaan Pruthak Pashyans
Taanevaanuvidhaavati. Vadiraja is arguing there is not any Difference
between Brahman and His Form and His qualities. The two Srutis from Katha
Upanisad are proving this. He is saying Advaitis are seeing Difference
between Brahman and His qualities because they say His qualities are false
and Brahman is Truth.
Once again there is a funny situation because Dvaitis are arguing for
Abheda and Vadiraja questions Advaitis why they are supporting Bheda if
they want to see Abheda everywhere.
सर्वत्र भेदमिथ्यात्वं साधयन्स्त्वं दुराग्रही ।
कथमद्याद्वितीयस्मिन् भिदामाधातुमिच्छसि ॥ 1-620
You are obsessively proving Difference is false everywhere. How are you
interested in making Differences in the Non Dual Brahman now?
किंचेयं श्रुतिरेवादौ नेह नानास्ति किंचन ।
इत्यादिना भिदामेनां निषेधति पदेपदे ॥ १-६२१
This Katha Upanisad Sruti is first saying there is NO diversity, No Svagata
Bheda in Brahman and is prohibiting this Difference in Brahman in every
एवं धर्मान् पृथक् पश्यन् तानेवानुविधावति ।
इति श्रुतेर्घटो नील इति व्यवहृतेरपि ॥ १-६०५
Like this the person seeing the qualities of Brahman separately from Him
will fall down and enter into darkness. The Sruti is saying this. In
Vyavahaara also we say 'The pot is blue' meaning there is no Difference
between Pot and its colour. Therefore there is complete Unity of Brahman's
qualities and Brahman.
Now the Taarkikas have some objection also with Sruti basis. They are
Logicians and they are using one Sruti statement also to argue with
Vadiraja. The support for Logicians is
नेक्षेतोद्यन्तमादित्यं नच नग्नां परस्त्रियम् This means we should not look
at Sunrise and another man's woman when she is naked. Looking at own naked
wife is allowed.
नेक्षेतोद्यन्तमितिवद् दृङ्मात्रस्य निषेधने ।
नार्थासत्त्वमिति प्राह विपश्चित् किल कश्चन ॥ १-६०६
We should not see the rising sun will not mean Rising Sun does not exist.
Sun is there and rising of Sun also is there. But we should not see it.
Similarly wife of another man will exist and she will become naked
sometime but we should not see her when she is naked. Similarly Difference
between Brahman and His qualities will exist. But we should not see any
Difference. Some Taarkika thinking himself to be a Pandita is saying this.
The Taarkika continues.
सूर्योदयोऽपि दिविजैः दितिजैः स्वेन चैक्ष्यते ।
दोषादभीरुभिर्दोषमजानद्भिर्नरैरपि ॥ १-६०८
The Rising Sun is seen by Devas, the Daityas, by Himself, by the atheists
not afraid of the Sruti Prohibition and by people not knowing the
Prohibition. This is happening in Solar and Lunar eclipses also. Sastra is
saying we must not have food when there is eclipse but many atheists are
not afraid and they are eating. On TV they showed once a college Professor
was having food with his family.
नग्ना स्त्री च स्वनयनैः स्वसखीनयनैरपि ।
रन्तॄणां रागकलुषचक्षुषा चेक्ष्यते किल ॥ १-६०९
The naked woman of another man is seen by her own eyes, by her female
friends and by people looking with sex desire polluted eyes finding joy in
seeing naked women. Women sometimes take bath with female friends and
relatives and when they are bathing the friends will see them naked. In
olden days people with sex desire used to secretly look through door and
window cracks but nowadays they use hidden cameras and mobile phone
cameras and there is Internet filled with pictures and videos also. Many
men are addicted to this bad habit. But a doctor doing pregnancy delivery
for a woman is not committing any sin in seeing her in naked condition
because his mind is not polluted. He is doing his duty. The Mind is the
Deciding Factor. If Mind is pure there is no sin. If Mind is impure it is
Sin. Archaka in temple of God if he has impure Mind and thinking bad
thoughts of women standing there is committing sin even though he is doing
Pooja to God with his body. A stranger rescuing a drowning wife of
another in a lake by tightly holding her, lifting her and bringing her to
the shore is not committing any sin.
Vadiraja's reply to Taarkika begins -
श्रुतिश्च चक्षुषैवैषां वीक्षणं नानुमन्यते ।
ईक्षा हि चाक्षुषज्ञानमनुमानागमादिभिः ।
अन्वमंस्त च तज्ज्ञानमतस्तद्बाधनं कुतः ॥ १-६१०
The Sruti is prohibiting seeing the Rising Sun and naked woman by the eyes
only. But it is allowing the knowledge of the Rising Sun and naked woman by
Inference, Agama and other Pramanas. Therefore how can there be Baadha of
those two - Rising Sun and naked woman? This means the Rising Sun and naked
woman exist but they cannot be seen with eyes. They can be known using
दर्शनायोग्यधर्मेषु पृथक्त्वस्य च दर्शनम् ।
ज्ञानरूपं प्रसक्तं स्यात् पश्यार्थं तद् वदन्ति हि ॥ १-६११
For qualities not capable of being seen by eyes any knowledge of those
qualities is prohibited. The Vaiyakaranas knowing the meaning of Pashya are
saying this. If something can be seen by eyes and Sruti says 'Don't see it'
the prohibition is for seeing only but knowledge of that can be got by
other Pramanas like Agama. But if something cannot be seen by eyes and
Sruti is saying 'Don't see it' any type of knowledge or Jnana Samaanya
using any Pramana is Prohibited. This means that object itself does not
exist. Sruti is saying Evam Dharmaan Pruthak Pashyans Taanevaanuvidhaavati
and is prohibiting Knowing any difference between Qualities of Brahman and
Brahman. But Qualities of Brahman are not visible to eyes. They are
Ateendriya Bhagavad Dharmas according to Teekaakaara. Therefore it means
the Difference between Qualities of Brahman and Brahman DOES NOT EXIST.
There is total Abheda between Brahman's qualities and Brahman.
यत् पृथक्त्वं परेणाशङ्क्यते तस्य पृथक्त्वस्य दर्शनं ज्ञानरूपमेव प्रसक्तं
स्यात् न तु चाक्षुषम् । Because the Qualities of Brahman are not visible to
eyes the 'Seeing' of the Difference between Brahman and qualities means
Knowledge of that Difference. But not Seeing the Difference with eyes.
तस्मात् तस्य निषेधे स्यादप्रमाणिकतैव हि ।
अर्थाभावाविनाभूता निन्दा सर्वत्र चेदृशी ॥ १-६१२
Therefore Prohibition of Knowing Difference between Brahman's qualities and
Him will mean that Difference does not exist because there is no Pramana
for it. Absence of that Difference and the Nindaa of Knowing the
Difference are always together. Absence of Difference means Nindaa of
Knowing the Difference and Nindaa of Knowing Difference means Absence of
Vadiraja is now continuing his argument with Advaitis. The Advaitis are
also making same mistake of Taarkikas saying Bheda of Gunas of Brahman and
Brahman because they say Gunas of Brahman are False and Brahman is True.
अतस्तद् ज्ञाननिन्दापि मिथ्याभूतार्थदृक्त्वतः ।
इति मन्यामहे तस्माद्धर्मा धर्म्यात्मकाः प्रभोः ॥ १-६२२
Therefore we accept this. The Nindaa of the Jnana of Difference between
Brahman and His qualities is because that Jnana is of a Mithya Vastu known
as Bheda between Gunas and Brahman. Therefore the qualities of Brahman are
Brahma Svarupa. They are also Brahman.
Vadiraja is now arguing there is no Bheda-Abheda possible also between
Brahman and His qualities.
धर्मिसत्त्वेऽपि यन्नश्येत् तत्र भेदोऽपि मृग्यते ।
भेदस्यासाधारणं हि कार्यं नाशाविनाशनम् ॥ १-६२३
When Dharmi the object is existing and Dharma of that is destroyed we can
search for Bheda. The Effect of Difference between two things is one thing
not getting destroyed and another thing getting destroyed. But Brahman and
His qualities are always existing. Therefore there cannot be Bheda-Abheda
also. It is strict Abheda only.
He now comes back to argue with Advaitis
नाप्यैक्यवाक्यबलतो विरोधिगुणविप्लवः ॥ १-६२५
You cannot reject the Virodhi Gunas like Sarvajnatva because of the
strength of the Aikya Vaakyas like Tattvamasi. Why? Answer in next two
विरोधिगुणसंत्यागे स्यादैक्यं वाक्यगोचरम् ।
अविरुद्धो हि वाक्यार्थो योग्यता यदपेक्षिता ॥१-६२६
For Aikya or Unity of Jeeva and Brahma you have to reject the Gunas of
Brahman opposing the Aikya. Then Aikya Vaakya like Tattvamasi will give
Jeeva Brahma Aikya meaning. Because for correct Shabda Bodha the Yogyataa
is necessary and there will be no opposing Pramana.
यदि वाक्योदिताद्वैतादेव तद्गुणमोचनम् ।
तदान्योन्याश्रयो दोषो वाक्यमर्थान्तरे नयेत् ॥१-६२७
If you say from the Advaita of the Vaakya Tattvamasi you will reject Gunas
of Brahman there will be Anyonya Ashraya Dosha meaning two things depend on
one another for proof. You have to give a different meaning for Tattvamasi
If Advaitis think Tattvamasi Vakya is saying Aikya of Jeeva and Brahma
because Gunas of Brahman will be rejected and Gunas of Brahman will be
rejected because of Tattvamasi Aikya Vaakya this is Anyonya Ashraya. To
prove Aikya of Jeeva Brahma you have to prove Gunas of Brahman should be
rejected. To prove Gunas of Brahman should be rejected you have to prove
Aikya of Jeeva and Brahma. It is like a Vicious Circle. You cannot prove
Aikya by this. You have to take a different meaning for Tattvamasi.
If some boy is mad they say if he gets married his madness will get cured.
But to get married his madness must be cured otherwise no girl will marry
him. This is a Vicious Circle.
Response - Vadiraja has wrongly interpreted the Kathopanishad Vaakyas as
usual. Neha Naanaa Asti Kimchana is not saying there is no Difference
between Brahman and His qualities. It is saying There is No Diversity in
Brahman. The Evam Dharmaan Pruthak Pashyans Taanevaanuvidhaavati is saying
anyone seeing Jeevas different from Brahman will keep on getting born in
different bodies again and again. There is no Anyonya Ashraya Dosha also
because we are getting support for Gunas of Brahman being Mithya and
Nirgunatva of Brahman from many Upanishad Vakyas like Kevalo Nirgunasca of
Svetashvatara Upanishad. We use Pramanas of other Vakyas and then come to
Tattvamasi. Then we say because other Vakyas are saying Nirgunatva of
Brahman we can reject them in Tattvamasi. When we drop Gunas of Brahman
like Sarvajnatva we will not have Sunya but Nirguna Brahman. We drop Gunas
of Tvam pada also for the Jeeva like Alpajnatva and then we say both Tat
and Tvam are the same Brahman. That is Aikya.
Requesting scholars to give more details and finer points.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list