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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:04 AM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Dear Subrahmanian-ji,
>
> 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.
>

This is the crux. As to what is badhaka pramana is itself a point of
contention. So, what is badhaka pramana/vakya for Advaitin is not so for
the Dvaitin. Hence you cannot settle it on the above lines.

>
>  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.
>

This is agreeable to the Advaitin. The Lakshmi 'tattva' can be something
subservient/supportive to the Brahma 'tattva'. Naturally the mukhyartha of
bharya, patni, etc. is given up. That is what the Advaitin settles for.
When mukhyartha is given up what remains is only gaunartha. This is called
metaphorical.

>
>
>
>> 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.
>

Advaita also accepts only what comes from shaastra alone is pramana.
Shastra says 'ashabdam asparsham aruupam...' and also 'bhArupaH, hiraNya
smashru, etc. ('bright hue, golden mustache...etc'.) Advaitins hold that
Brahman cannot be both. They hold that specifying form, color, etc. is for
upasana purpose and the denying them is for jnana, saakshaatkaara, purpose.
Thus, body parts are possible only when Brahman is conceived of as a
person, saguna, savishesha, sopadhika.

>
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>

The Veda talks of both param and aparam Brahma. Advaitins take the
specification as above to be about aparam Brahma.

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

Actually advaita does not say the above. desha and kaala are separately
dealt with: Brahman is desha and kaala pariccheda shuunya. And it is vastu
pariccheda rahita too.

>
> 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.
>

Actually the two alternatives you give above is one only. When we say 1,
the 2 is implied in that. It is for the precise reason that Brahman should
not be material, the visheshana 'jnanam' is given by the Upanishad.

>
> 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.
>

In the Taittiriya bhashya, the development is thus: if Jnanam is admitted
to be finite, vritti, vikara jnanam, Brahman cannot be stated to be Ananta.
So, this Jnanam is jnapti, kevala chaitanyam, Chit. If Brahman has to be
anantam truly, sajaatiya, vijaatiya and svagata bheda should be denied.
There is disagreement between D and A only with regard to vijatiya bheda.


>
> 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.
>

Not so. Bheda is thought to be there only because of thinking the
Brahma-bhinna vastu/s to be real. The VaachaarambhaNa shruti teaches:
vikara is only a name and the upadana kaarana alone is satyam. So, whatever
is experienced as different from Brahman is actually Brahman's vivarta
alone and they are unreal as name and form. Thus the problems you try to
saddle Advaita with really do not exist for the Advaitin.

>
>
> 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 asminguNaaha' a genuine position would be logical,
> self consistent and therefore free from contradiction and confusion.
>

As I said before, this shruti is only about apara brahman.

>
> 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
> andvastu. Hence it is not opposed to the reality of  those entities.
>

For Advaita, even Anantatva is only from a relative point of view. When
there is Only one in the absolute sense, there is no reason to say it is
ananta. The need for the shruti to say 'brahman is ananta' is only in the
face of antavattva shankaa owing to taking the objects of the world as
brahma-bhinna.

>
>
> 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.)
>

Shrutis such as sarvam khalvidam brahma, brahmaivedam sarvam, Atmaivedam
sarvam are bAdhaka for the above idea. You may give different meanings to
these vaakyas. But, again, that is the crux of the DvaitAdvaita conflict.

>
>
> 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?
>

The reason is: in the world it is seen an object is limited by three
factors: desha, kaala and vastu. Hence to deny Brahman's paricchinnatva
shankaa due to these three factors, the three are separately dealt with.
Thus it would be wrong to say that desha and kaala are subsumed in vastu
category. In fact Advaita holds desha and kaala too to be kalpita just like
other objects. But the kalpana of any object, vastu, is done
'etaddesha-vartitvena, etat-kaala-vartitvena'. Hence desha and kaala are to
be separately dealt with.

>
> 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.
>

No so. They are unreal because the shruti 'vAchArambhaNam....mrittiketyeva
satyam'. The shruti declares all kaarya to be un real, mithya, and holds
only the kaaraNam to be abaadhita satyam. Only because baadha happens to
kaarya, that includes desha kaala and vastu, they are held to be unreal.
Not because Shankaracharya likes it to be so :-)

>
> AchArya Madhva corrects this position,
>

There is no need for any correction since it is based on shruti and yukti.


>
>
>
>> 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).
>

Shrutis such as 'ashabdam, asparsham aruupam, anantam' are baadhaka pramana
for shrutis that specify form, color, etc. to Brahman.


>
>
>> 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.
>

Advaita accepts aprAkruta thus: something that comes/arrives/born as a
transformation, vikara, evolution, of prakriti through pancha bhuta route,
is praakrutha, as for example, our bodies. But Brahman taking avatara-s
such as Narasimha is not through this route. It happens by mere sankalpa.
Even here, in bodies such as Krishna we know that the body grew, became
old, and even died. Yet it is held apraakrutha.

>
> 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.
>

There is no need to accept apraakrutha to hold Vishnu to be omnipresent.
The word Vishnu itself has the dhaatu: vish vyaapine. That is the meaning
of 'tad vishnoH paramam padam' for Advaitins. It is not Lakshmipathi or
Vaikunthapati for Advaitins.

>
>>
>>
> 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.
>

This holds to both parties. When purvapaksha is made, the other paksha has
to be clearly understood. The example is the nice way Sri Nagasampige
Acharya did the purvapaksha manDana in the video on Tat tvam asi you
shared.

regards
vs

>
> /sv
>
>
>