[Advaita-l] Is Brahman understood as vyakti by Dvaitins?

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Srinathji - PraNAms
Enjoyed reading your post,  presenting Dwaitin perspective. There are bheda vakyaas as well as abheda vaakyas in the shruti - 
Different Acharyas have provided importance either to the first or to the second, and developed self-consistent doctrinal systems. 
Let us bow down to their wisdom.
Hari Om!Sadananda






 

   On Friday, February 15, 2019, 3:05:18 AM GMT+5:30, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: 
 
 Dear Subrahmanian-ji,

You have asked some good questions.

In this post, I will try to explain the Dvaita's paksha  in my own little
humble capacity. I will primarily focus on the methods using which such
paksha  was arrived.

Please note that I am not all a scholar in this system and may not give
much clarity. Please be advised to study their original works or consult
any pundits in Bangalore.


On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:46 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Dear Srinath ji,
>
> It is well known that the use of 'bhAryA' / patnI etc. are metaphorical.
> It is done with a view to help the beginner aspirant to relate with
> Brahman. When presented as the Father of the creation with a Mother and
> sometimes with sons too, the aspirant who thinks he is a human can begin
> his relationship with Brahman. When presented as a Tattvam in the
> beginning, it is not possible to so relate and hence such methods in the
> shAstra. (mAtA cha pArvatI dEvI, pitA devo maheshvaraH, bAndhavaah....)
>
> However, does the Madhva system hold these as mere metaphorical?
>

Do Madhva's take them mere metaphorical?

No. Their paksha is that unless shruti pramANa itself indicates so  that
they are to be taken likewise, it is wrong to consider so. How does one
know sometimes shruti should be taken literally and sometimes as
metaphorical (or arthavAda or attavavEdaka etc.)?  Dvaita's stand is that
as long as there are no bAdhaka from niravakASha sentences elsewhere,
literal meaning should not be rejected.

Its siddhanta is also that all vaidIka words needs to be understood in
their yogika artha. So, the current terms 'bhArya' or 'patni' etc. should
not be understood in terms of rudyAtha (rudimentary meaning) and rejected
as metaphorical.

Then how do we suppose to interpret 'bhArya' shabda?  Words can be taken by
their tadgatatvam (presence of properties in question), or tadadhInatvam
(dependence of tatvas having such attributes on the anuyOgi where the word
is being applied) etc. So in this sense Sri/LakshmI tattva being depend on
Brahma tattva, there is no problem in Purusha sUkta calling them Brahman's
'patni' . It is our limitation applying our mundane meaning of patni on
vaidIka tatvaM.

For non-dualist, it is difficult to accept there are more than one tattvaM,
hence relationship (between tattava-s) is not acceptable. Hence they try to
explain away such words those seems to indicate relationships. But one
should understand the very fundamental ontological position of Dvaita and
hence meaning of those words as 'bhArya' etc. One should not just take
conclusions which are dislodged from such ontological position.



> I am asking because, even in moksha, I have read in Vidwan Nagasampige
> Acharya's book, mukta jivas will (also) reside in various parts of Vishnu
> (Brahman's) body and enjoy bhoga with Him. How can a Tattvam have a
> paaramaarthika deha with shoulders, stomach, etc. unless that Brahman is a
> vyakti? It is well known that only when human male-female union takes place
> there is the human offspring with the human head, hands, legs, stomach,
> etc. How can Brahma Tattvam have such a body unless it is a vyakti?
>

Your hEtu -- that having dEhAdi anga-s imply and possible only in physical
beings. Such hEtu is based on pratyakSha, not from Shruti. Madhva argues
given that Brahma tattvaM is indria agochara but  known only by shAstra (do
not forget the hEtu given by sUtrakAra B is only 'shAstra yOnitvAt'),
anything one says (positively or negatively) MUST come from shAstra only.
Pratyaksha and logic based on pratyaksha is impotent in telling anything
about Brahman.



>
> Moreover, only a vyakti can have bheda with others who are also vyaktis or
> vastus. Brahma-jagat bheda is possible only if Brahman is a vyakti. So is
> Brahma-jiva bheda only when B is a vyakti. A Tattvam cannot have bheda with
> anything or anyone since the Tattvam is the one that is
> everything/everyone. If not, such a Tattvam is no longer that; it is a
> paricchinna vyakti.
>
> While explaining 'Anantam' of Taittiriya (satyam jnanam anantam), Shankara
> has specified three types of pariccheda-s that Brahman is free of: desha,
> kAla and vastu. The first two are easy to understand but the third is not
> so easy of comprehension. [सर्वानन्यत्वम् = non-different from everything
> in creation]
>

Glad you mentioned this topic.

Veda defines Brahman as "brihantO hi asmin guNaaha"  for its own question
'ata kasmAt ucchatE bhrhmEti'. What is that brihAt nature of His guNas?

"Anantam"  should not be interpreted as non-difference from
space-time-vastu. Why?

Brahman is aparichinna - Unlimited, if it is taken by itself, ends in
contradictions and confusion. Why ?
To understand why so, let us examine advaita vedAnta that you are already
familiar with.

To hold that there is a second thing different from Brahman, is to hold
that Brahman is limited by that second thing. To solve this, one may say
either,
1) Brahman and the thing are non-different or
2) There is nothing apart from Brahman.

The first one makes Brahman a material object, and to hold that Brahman is
spiritual becomes impossible, after that. Unless Brahman is spiritual, it
can not be svaprakAsha, self-evident. Unless it is self-evident there is
nothing to present It. If we ever come to this conclusion, is to lose
Brahman and with it all higher values in life. So, Brahman can not be
identified
with matter.

But to hold that there is matter, is to limit Brahman. Therefore, it
becomes necessary to hold the second alternative i.,e that matter is
unreal. Anything apart from Brahman,
Space, time etc all have to be unreal. Hence, to hold that Brahman is
unlimited actually results that
anything other than Brahman is unreal.

But in this option, the difficulty does not end there. If matter is unreal,
then the absence of limitation from it becomes unreal too. This ends up in
saying that presence of
limitation is real.

Hence the supposition that Brahman is aparichinna along with non-brahman
vastus are either non-different / unreal ; ends up in hopeless
contradictions.

Please remember that Veda has already defined 'brihantO-hi asmin guNaaha'
by the very word Brahman. If Brahman were to be understood as expounded by
Shruti, 'brihantO hi asmin
guNaaha' a genuine position would be logical, self consistent and therefore
free from contradiction and confusion.

So,  the correct alternative is that non-difference and non-limitation are
not the implications of each other.

Brahman may be unlimited, but it may not be non-different. In spite of its
being different from particular entities, It may still be aparichinna,
unlimited.

AchArya Madhva sees that the logic behind the conception of aparichinna
requires the cognition of difference, bhEda of Brahman from dEsha, kAla and
vastu. Hence it is not opposed to the reality of  those entities.

If I remember correctly Sri. Sadananda-ji was saying this relation as
"Advaita in spite of Dvaita" , of course he was saying in a different
context, but quite true as for as aparichinntva of Brahman!

Sri VyAsateertha (of nyayAmrita fame) explains it in His tAtparya-chandrikA
as,
"deshataha kAlataschiava guNataschApi poorNatA brahmatA. natu bhEdasya
rAhityam brahmatA ishyatE"
(The completeness from the standpoints of space, time, and attributes is
what constitutes Brahman-hood. It is never non-difference that constitutes
Brahman-hood.)

The conception of aparichinnatva when taken with bhEda, i.e.,
non-limitation taken with difference necessarily results in guNa-poorNatva.
If it is not recognized, then neither aparichinnatva nor bhEda becomes
justified. Aparichinnatva taken by itself ends up in contradictions and
confusion as seen above. On the otherhand, bhEda taken by itself ends up in
pluralism  i.e, exclusiveness of things (remember hopeless dualism?) . In
either case, knowledge is not obtained, Shruti which defines Brahman as
"brihantO hi asmin guNaaha" is not understood and Vedic Brahman is lost.


In advaita school, Brahman is said to be 'beyond' space and time. But when
it comes to vastu  paricchinnatvaM, why it was told vastu is unreal? For
that matter, both dESha and kAla are indeed vastu-s in their own rights. If
Brahman is beyond dESha-kAla, so also He is beyond vastu. Why that should
make vastus unreal?

Sri Shankara thinks that these three, because they are jaDa in nature, must
be different from Brahman and with this difference Brahman cannot be
aparichinna, he holds that these entities are unreal. (the word  mithyA is
not going to help either). So, his position amounts to saying that these
entities are not unreal on their own merit but they are unreal because as
real
entities they do not suit his theory. His theory is founded on an
assumption that aparichinna means only the idea he has in his mind and
bhEda means the negation of aparichinna.

AchArya Madhva corrects this position, by recognizing that the logic behind
the conception of aparichinna requires the recognition of difference, bhEda
of Brahman from dEsha, kAla and vastu. Hence it is not opposed to the
reality of these entities. Without the recognition of these ideas, it
becomes wrong to hold that Brahman is all-exclusive. Without being
all-inclusive Brahman cannot be aparichinna. All-inclusiveness is
poorNatva. Hence aparichinna means the state of being pUrNa from the stand
point of dEsha, kAla and vastu.

Vastu, dEsha, kAla are all expression of attributes, guNas. This is how,
aparichinnatva along with bhEda, has resulted in guNa-poorNatva of Brahman
in Dvaita vEdAnta.



> It is alright for the shruti and puranas to depict Brahman as a person, a
> vyakti, for upasana purposes. But for tattvajnana for moksha, Brahman
> cannot be a vyakti.
>

As discussed above, this conclusion is not correct.

Other tatva-s (other than Brahma tatva) are real for Madhva. The
relationship of these other tatva-s with Brahman is also real. This
relationship is that of dependence nature. To explain these things, He is
the only one among tri-mAtAchraya wrote bhAshya on RigvEda. In that work he
explains all about  Brhamn and His dEvAtA parivAra in all its glory. Please
read if you find a chance.




> I was witness to a vakyartha in Uttaradi maTha a few months back on the
> topic of 'Brahmano nirAkAratva bhanga'. Swami Sathyatma Tirtha at the end
> summing up the debate said 'Advaitins hold there is no form for Brahman and
> we hold there is form(s). We have the 'vishvAsa' (this is the word he used)
> that Brahman has form.'  ['sarvatah pANi pAdam...of the Bh.gita was cited
> in the debate by dvaitins as one pramaNa] I have also heard 'Aditya varNam
> tamasaH parastAt' of Purusha sukta is also a pramana for 'color' of Brahman
> for Dvaitins. For Advaitins, this varNam is only a metaphor for  shuddha
> chaitanyam and not any physical color.
>

There is no shAstra pramANa to hold so (that such are only metaphor).


> Also, the idea of aprAkrutha form/body, shape, color, etc. are not
> admitted by Advaita. The term aprAkrutha has a different meaning as stated
> in the Advaita siddhi.
>


If aprAkrutha is not admitted, there are host of contradictions arise. You
cannot explain arrival of Narashima from jada pillar. No body accepts two
prakritika vastus would occupy same space at the same time.

If aprAkrutha is not admitted, you have no fidelity in saying 'Vishnu' word
indicates omnipresence. Nobody would accepts two two prakritika vastus
would occupy same space at the same time.



>
> A vyakti alone can have a form, because the very word 'form' reveals that
> it is finite, has contours. A Tattvam cannot have form. It is the Truth
> that underlies all forms, all finititudes.
>
> Coming to the 'mahAvishnu purana' you cite, I have no access to it to see
> what else it says. In the available popular Vishnu purana, however, Vishnu
> is stated as non-different from the Trimurtis, the vishnu within the
> Trimurti triad is taught as a vibhuti of Brahman, Vishnu, Brahaman alone,
> assuming the three guNas appears as the Trimurtis for the three cosmic
> functions, etc. Also, in the Prahlada stuti of VP that I shared recently,
> Prahlada expresses his identification with Brahman. Such ideas are possible
> only if Brahman is a Tattvam and not a vyakti. That was my point.
> Therefore, there is no reason to fault the shruti/smriti for a proper
> vyavasthA is possible for the use of terms such as patni/bharya/mAtA etc.
> as vyAvahArika and not pAramArthika.
>
>>
>>
In the end I can only advice you that  -- In arriving at all your
arguments, please do not focus only on the conclusions of your
pUrvapakshin, but instead try to understand the method and means used to
arrive at their conclusions. Epistemology is fundamental and as critical as
Ontology to know any siddhAnta.  In Dvaita school, they give high
importance to study and understand Advaita in all its epistemology,
ontology and theology among all other things. They just do not teach how
one needs to understand, but they also teach how one not to understand
wrongly so.

/sv
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org