[Advaita-l] vedAnta mahAvAkya - A query

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste
This argument is not appropriate - what advaitin-s argue is that the
prAmANya of the Veda is in revealing the tAtparya viShaya.

That aikya is the mukhyatAtparya can be established by the sixfold tAtparya
linga-s. Therefore sentences that reveal that aikya have prAmANya.

By saying that much where is the prAmANya of avAntaravAkya denied? They
have tAtparya in avAntara viShaya like revealing karma etc.

The classification of Vedic sentences into mahAvAkya and avAntaravAkya is
not to imply that only the former has prAmANya and the latter does not. It
is to imply that the former is revealing the mukhyatAtparya and the latter
is revealing the avAntaratAtparya.

This is not a case where advaitin-s become bheda vAdin-s and dvaitin-s
become abheda vAdin-s.

What the dvaitin-s argue is that mahAvaakya sentences should give up their
primary meaning of revealing aikya, because they are in conflict with those
Vedic sentences that talk of bheda. We do not agree that they are in
conflict at all. We say the mukhyatAtparya is talking of a pAramArthika
vastu and sentences talking of bheda are talking of vyAvahArika bheda - and
the pAramArthika satya can coexist with vyAvahArika satya. Thus, in the
advaitin's interpretation, both types of sentences have sAvakAshatva, scope
of application, whereas the dvaitin's interpretation will require that the
mukhyatAtparya is renounced.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 09:21 Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> Purvapakshis argue the whole Veda is equally important. Why are you saying
> Veda has Mahavakyas and subordinate Vakyas? Every Vakya is equal to others.
> This is a case when Advaitis become Bheda Vadins and Dvaitins become Abheda
> Vadins. Reversal of roles is happening. Advaitins see Taratamya in Veda
> Vakyas. Mahavakyas are Supreme in importance because they teach Abheda of
> Jeeva and Brahman. Other Vakyas teaching Bheda are subordinates to
> Mahavakyas. Dvaitins are asking - Why do you make this Bheda in Veda
> Vakyas? It is a funny situation. It is all because of Ishwara's Maayaa. She
> makes you laugh at the world.
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:17 AM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > praNAms
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > We have four mahAvAkya-s from 4 veda-s.  For example tattvamasi from
> sAma,
> > ahaM brahmAsmi from Yajurveda etc.  But who first advocated these are the
> > ONLY four mahAvAkya-s from vedAnta / shruti??  I don't think prasthAna
> > traya bhAshyakAra anywhere categorically said these are the ONLY four
> > mahAvAkya-s and nothing else.  In sUtra devatAdhikaraNa (first chapter)
> > bhAshya, bhagavatpAda uses the word 'mahAvAkya'  but used in the context
> of
> > grammar.  Here when determining the 'mantrArtha' pUrvapaxi expresses some
> > doubt about it, in that context, based on grammatical issues he uses the
> > word mahAvAkya, mahAvAkya here means 'whole sentence' or group of
> sentences
> > which gives the same meaning as avAntara vAkya-s ( sub sentence or upa
> > vAkya) etc.  apart from this I don't think bhAshyakAra insisted that the
> > whole vedAnta/ Upanishad has only four mahAvAkya-s which is jnana
> pradhAna
> > and meditating on it gives the self-realization etc.  tattvamasi,
> ayamAtma
> > brahma, prajnAnaM brahma, ahaM brahmAsmi ascribed to four Amnaya mutts
> etc.
> > have the reference only in shankara's biographies not credible enough to
> > come to conclusion.  Since these vAkya-s also avAntara vAkya-s (part and
> > parcel of mantra samucchaya in the upanishads) why only these four
> vAkya-s
> > to be considered as mahAvAkya-s??  Is it because of these vAkya-s
> teaching
> > abedha, Ikyata, parabrahma tattva directly??  I don't think this would be
> > the only reason!!  Atman is not prajnAna ghana says maNdUkya though we
> find
> > prajnAnam brahma in itareya shruti and Atman is prajnAna ghana in
> mAndUkya
> > itself.  And bhAshyakAra interestingly along with tattvamasi (mahAvakya)
> > used some other vaakya-s also which give same meaning as tattvamasi. For
> > example : tattvamasi, neti neti, AtmaivedaM, ekamedvAdviteeyaM,
> > brahmaivedamamrutaM, nAnyadatOsti drashtru, tadeva brahmatvaM viddhi
> > etyaadi vAkyAnAm tad viditvAt (br.bhaashya).  See here shankara without
> > explicitly saying tattvamasi as mahAvAkya uses it casually with other
> same
> > meaning giving vAkya-s.  And more importantly bhAshyakAra at somany
> places
> > uses shAstra janita jnana, vedAnta vAkya shravaNa, vAkya janita jnana
> etc.
> > but nowhere insist only four!!! Under these circumstances why this
> special
> > emphasis on ONLY four vAkya-s when the corpus of whole vedAnta /shruti is
> > the untya pramANa in tradition!!??
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>