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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:10 AM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> There is lot of misunderstanding on Dvaitin's understanding regarding
> Brahman. As a result one member charges Dvaitins and argues Brahman/Tatva
> is rendered as vyakti in Dvaita.
>
> Here is his claim;
>
> I am not sure where you got these idea. I am afraid you are not
> >> representing your pUrvapaxa correctly.
> >>
> >
> > I get the idea from Madhva's commentary in the BG where he says 'Prakriti
> > is Brahman's bhAryA'. Only human-like persons can have bhAryA. A Tattva
> > cannot have any relationship with anything/anyone. The Tattvam is asanga.
> > Brahman has son (aniruddha, brahmaa), grandson (pradyumna?, shiva), etc.
> as
> > per non-advaitins. Advaitins do not take puranic pictorial descriptions
> as
> > literal.
> >
> >>
> >>
> The wrong idea is quite obvious. He thinks bhAryA is only bhAryA in loukika
> sense. Such wrong idea is refuted by both shruti and smiriti.
>
> Purusha Suktha quite clearly says Purusha having patItvaM "hRiischate
> lakshmiitscha patnyou', aho raatre paarshve ..." Purusha identified as
> husband of hRii and Lakshmi.
>

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? 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?

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]

कथं पुनर्वस्तुत आनन्त्यम् ? सर्वानन्यत्वात् । भिन्नं हि वस्तु वस्त्वन्तरस्य
अन्तो भवति, वस्त्वन्तरबुद्धिर्हि प्रसक्ताद्वस्त्वन्तरान्निवर्तते । यतो यस्य
बुद्धेर्निवृत्तिः, स तस्यान्तः । तद्यथा गोत्वबुद्धिरश्वत्वान्निवर्तत
इत्यश्वत्वान्तं गोत्वमित्यन्तवदेव भवति । स चान्तो भिन्नेषु वस्तुषु दृष्टः ।
नैवं ब्रह्मणो भेदः । अतो वस्तुतोऽप्यानन्त्यम् । कथं पुनः सर्वानन्यत्वं ब्रह्मण
इति, उच्यते - सर्ववस्तुकारणत्वात् । सर्वेषां हि वस्तूनां कालाकाशादीनां
कारणं ब्रह्म । कार्यापेक्षया वस्तुतोऽन्तवत्त्वमिति चेत् , न ;
अनृतत्वात्कार्यस्य वस्तुनः । न हि कारणव्यतिरेकेण कार्यं नाम वस्तुतोऽस्ति,
यतः कारणबुद्धिर्विनिवर्तेत ; ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव
सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S01_V04&hl=%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D>
एवं
सदेव सत्यमिति श्रुत्यन्तरात् ।

Such non-difference is possible only when Brahman is the upadana kAraNam of
jagat.

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. 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. 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.

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.

regards
subbu



>
> In mahAvishNu-purANa, shri VedavyAsa states :
>
> "mahAlakshmIriti parA bhAryA nArAyaNasya yA | prakritir nAma sA jnyEyA
> prakarshEna karOti yat ||
> tasyAstu treeNi roopANi sattvam nAma rajas tamaha | srishTi kAlE
> vibhajyantE
> satvam shreehi sadguNaprabhA ||
> rajO ranjana kartrtvAt bhooho sA srishTikaree yataha | yadAvEshAdiyam
> prithivee bhoomirityEva kathyatE ||
> jeevAnAm glapanAd durgA tama ityEva keertitA | EtAbhihi tisribhihi jeevAha
> sarvE
> baddhA amuktigAha ||
>
> Now, will that member accuses Purusha Sukta and VP with the same charge as
> he accused Madhva?
>
> /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
>