[Advaita-l] Fwd: Omnipresence

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Namaste,

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:32 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> It's easy to logically reconcile all such verses praising Sri Ganapati as
> him from whom this entire creation has arisen etc., As the *only* kartA,
> the *only* dhartA etc of the Universe only from an advaitic perspective as
> taught by Sri Shankara bhagavatpAda. Otherwise we have to do a lot of text
> torturing to accommodate verses like from these. The dvaita interpretations
> cannot explain how Ganapati (who is praised in the later part of that very
> upaniShad in its brAhmaNa portion as the usual devata worshipped on
> ganesha-chaturthi, with shruti words like lambOdara, ekadanta etc. ruling
> out any far fetched meaning of the word Ganapati) and he is the only kartA.
>
>
>
Ok it is time to write about vedic samanvaya as expounded in Dvaita
siddhanta.

Many places shruti texts seem to convey many contradictory ideas. See
following example to the question of who exactly is the creator of this
jagat;

'EkO rudrO na dwitIyAya tastE' (No one before creation except Rudra)

'hiraNyagarbhaH samavartatAgrE' (Charturmukaha was there in the beginning)

' jIvAd bhavanti bhUtAni ` (sristi is from jIva-s)

'pradAnAd IdamAvirAsIt' (sristi is from jada prakriti (pradAna) )

and add your quoted Ganapaty-atharva-shIrshOpaniShad which seems to
indicate this creation is by Ganapathi.

If you take them on the face value they all look like contradictions. You
have two options here -- 1. reject entire vedic texts saying they are self
contradictory and become bhudhist or chAruvAka etc. ; or 2. Do some
harmonization/reconciliation as mandated by sUtra framework.

Advaita did this reconciliation by saying all these names and forms are
adhyarOpa and hence not real and rejected prima facie shruti assertions
wherever they seems describe guNas of Brahman.

Dvaita took a different approach. The key to reconciliation is already
there in the form of Brahma sUtras.  These sUtras being nyAya-prasthAna,
provides the underlying framework for reconciliation and arrive at the true
meaning of these seemingly and wildly tangential vedic assertions. Hence
Brahma sUtra-s are considered as 'nirNayaka' or the texts by whom meaning
is decided, with all the other texts (vEdas) being `nirNeya' or texts whose
meaning is decided.

The entire samanvayAdhikarNa is meant for this reconciliation.

What is 'samanvaya'? Why did sUtrakAra used the qualifier 'sam' when He did
the shabda prayOga "OM tatu samanyayAt OM" ?

Here `anvaya' means application of tAtparya linga-s in understanding of
vEdic terms. These linga-s are upakrama, upasaMhAra, abhyAsa, apUrvata,
phala, arthavAda & upapatti.
Ok, then just saying anvayAt would have been sufficient, why did sUtrakAra
added 'sam' shabda? Sometimes, one can derive several opposite meanings for
a Upanishad
vAkya. Out of which, a particular meaning may be compliance with upakrama.
A totally opposite meaning would be in compliance with upasamhAra. In such
circumstances, we need to evaluate relative strength among these linga-s
and should come to the correct conclusion. Thus, 'sam' shabda is used to
drive home the idea that applying (anvaya) these linga-s correctly
(sam).

Using this principle of samanvaya, Srimad Anandatirtha reconciled all those
seemingly contradictory assertions. Following this principle, Achrya holds
that all vEdic names in their highest primary sense refer to one Supreme
Being only. This he called 'parama-mukhyArtha' (ultra-primary meaning). In
secondary sense the names refers to the other sentient /
insentient in their respective spheres of jurisdiction. Do not get me
wrong, this is not Madhva's own svakalpita theory, but very much explicitly
there in shruti itself. The Rg Veda text "Yo devanam namadhaeka eva"
preceded by " Indram, Mitram, Varunam, Agnim a - huh. etc." conveys the
truth that names of the various gods in their highest primary sense refer
to one Supreme Being and only secondarily to the other gods. Also there are
many evidences in this context.

Many people think that vEdic names such as Rudra, Vishnu, Ganapathi, Indra
etc. are proper nouns of those deities. This is quite wrong. In vEdic
domain, we have two types -- yOga and rUDi. Former is used to describe the
qualities of the entity being addressed (ex: sirA jAyatE iti sIta etc.)
Later is just a symbolic or by practice without any meaning. Hence they are
called rUDi.  Btw, this vEdic term rUDi became 'rudimentary' in western
tongue.

vEdic names should be understood in their yOgikArtha only. The name
'vishNu' is not a proper noun of the deity but in its yOgikArtha it conveys
deity Who is sarva-yApi. Similarly 'nArayaANa' as aayana of na-ara (dOSha
rAhita / one who is flawless) etc.

Ok,  the Rg Veda said "Yo devanam namadhaeka eva", fine, but Who is that
Brahman who bears all names?

Madhva holds it is VishNu. But why? Is it because he is vaishNava? Many
non-dvaitins thinks so. Not at all. He sees clear evidence in shruti itself.

In vEda: 'srijatO hi tE shrutayOanuvadanti'
In Upa. : 'sarvE vEdA sarvE GhOSha Ekaiva vyArhutiH'  , 'sarvE vEdA
yatpadamAmananti ......tadviShNOH paramam padam'
In Geeta: 'vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH'
In Bhagavata:  'vAsudEva parA vEdaH'
In Harivamsha: 'vEdE rAmAyaNE chaiva purANE bhAratE tadhA , AdavantE cha
madhE cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyatE'

This is how the sarva-shabda samanvaya framework is laid out in the dvaita
siddhAnta.

Question raises, how can one do samanya of some shabda such as 'dukhi' ,
'prakruti' etc in Vishnu?

That is possible because Brahman is accepted as sarva-guNa-pUrNa in all
dimensions (hence the very definition of brahma as  'bruhAnto asmin hi
guNAH iti brahma').  He is called dukhi not because He has dukha, but as
the controller of dhuki. This is just as the meaning of 'dhani'  as the one
who has the control of dhana.

Then what about 'prakriti' shabda? Sri.Madhvacharya says all feminine terms
such as `prakriti', `stree', `yOni' `sUti' etc denote vishNu only in their
primary sense. pUrvapaxa objects to this application of such purely
feminine terms to Brahman on the grounds of `tadgatatvam' or presence of
properties in question. It may however be justified on the grounds of
`tadadhInatvam' or dependence of such feminine attributes on Brahman.

Sri.Madhva also says that application of such purely feminine terms
to Brahman is fully admissible from the point of view of actual
presence (tadgatatva) of both female and male principles in Vishnu. A
purely conventional application of all names would not be competent to
achieve the true significance of `sarva-shabda-samanvaya' in Brahaman. This
can be achieved only when applied words are charged with the deep meaning.

Then, how would one apply both female and male principles in VishNu ?

Acharaya explains that, VishNu plays both, female and male roles
in creation. sUtra points out exactly this meaning that there is no
difficulty in understanding that female and
male principles are to be understood in their esoteric and fundamental
sense of bringing forth 'directly' and 'indirectly'.

VishNu as a female principle brings forth Chit prakriti (from the state of
praLaya) during the creation. This is His 'direct'  involvement. He is
called 'yOni' in this sense. In this context maha-nArayNa upanishad
describes Him as 'yata prasUta jagatha prasUti'.

Acharya also arrives at this from another perspective --  VishNu is called
`prakriti' in the sense that term `krit' (creative activity) of jada-prkrit
is indeed `pra' or stupendous. That is to say, jada-prakriti (the matter of
this universe) can not evolve on its own and has to depend on VishNu for
its evolution.  It is very necessary that VishNu should bloom creativity
from within by entering it (as stated in Taittariya Up. II.vi.1 ).

With this background of doctrine of "sarva-shabda-samanya", your quoted
Ganapaty-atharva-shIrshOpaniShad is easily explained.

Again do not get me wrong, this  doctrine does not mean  we ignore other
dEvatas. After all, it is Parabrahman vishNu vested His powers in these
dEvatas in theit respective domain for His cosmic governance. You may
question why He needs these dEvatas for this task. Do not forget
such dEvatas are also in their journey and needs to do sadhana for the
release. Such creative ability of Brahman is what shAstra calls
parama-Aishwarya of Parabrahman. Using any sAdhana in His creative activity
only indicates this parama-Aishwarya, because such sAdhanatva is also given
to that sAdhana by the same Parabrahman VishNu.

"sAdhanAnAm sAdhanatvam yadA AtmAdheenamishyatE
sAdhana-sampattihi Aishwarya dyOtikA bhavEt" - AchArya Madhva

krishNArpaNamastu
sv