//अपवादो नाम यत्र कस्मिंश्चिद्वस्तुनि पूर्वनिविष्टायां मिथ्याबुद्धौ निश्चितायां पश्चादुपजायमाना यथार्था बुद्धिः पूर्वनिविष्टाया  मिथ्याबुद्धेर्निवर्तिका भवति । यथा देहेन्द्रियसंघात आत्मबुद्धिरात्मन्येवात्मबुद्ध्

The venue:

‘KATTE BHAVANA’

7TH CROSS, KATTE BHAVANA ROAD

N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE 560019

CONTACT PHONE  26675678

The ten-day course will be conducted during evenings between 6.30 and 7.45 PM daily by Smt. Shashikala who has been authorised by ‘Aksharam’, Girinagar, Bangalore.  Anyone interested in learning to speak in Sanskrit can join the course which is free.

Pl. inform your friends/relatives.  Whole families can attend the course and derive the benefit of making Sanskrit a household language.

Even after the ten-day course there will be classes on several days a week where participants can fine-tune their grasp.

पठतु संस्कृतम्, वदतु संस्कृतम्

paThatu samskRtam, vadatu samskRtam  [Read/study Sasnkrit, speak Sanskrit]

–
Dr. Tirumala Kulakarni
Asst. Prof. Alankara Dept.
Poornaprajna Vidyaapeetha
Vidyapeetha Circle
BANGALORE 560 028
Ph: +91 9448879734

At the annual MahAgaNapati vAkyArtha vidwat sadas that concluded at Sringeri recenty, a scholar from Kalaty, Sri K.P.Babu Das, took up the prakaraNa work of Sri Madhvacharya named ‘Tattvodyota’ for a brief refutation.  For want of time, he touched upon only a selection of the points raised/objected to in the book.  In 2008 he had taken up the ‘mAyAvAdakhaNDanam’ of Madhva for replying.  This paper is already published by the Sringeri Mutt and I shall try to upload it shortly.

In the present discourse the scholar highlighted several points a few of which are:

1. Madhva says: The advaitins have accepted that ‘negation/sublation’ (of the world) ‘bAdhyatvam’ is also mithyA. This would render the world ‘abAdhya’, un-negatable. To this point the reply given  is: the pair bAdhyatvam and abAdhyatvam belongs to the vyAvahArika in Advaita.  As only the secondless Brahman is the ultimate reality all notions such as the world, its negatability or otherwise, etc. belong to the phenomenal.

2. All the verses quoted therein from a Buddhistic work to show that Advaita is no different from it only confirm the Upanishadic statements about the Truth, the world, etc. The scholar also quoted the verse from the ‘matta vilAsa prahasanam’ which I had quoted which says that the Buddhists formulated their system by taking inputs from the Upanishads and the Mahabharata.

3. Madhva says: प्रत्यक्षबाधितं च जगन्मिथ्यात्वम् । सदिति प्रतीयमानत्वात् । [The claim of unreality of the world is contradicted by pratyakSha as the world is experienced as 'is'. ]  The reply given for this is: The ‘is’ness of the adhiShThAna Brahman alone is experienced while the world is experienced as ‘is’.  So, there is no contradiction in the claim of the unreality of the world vs. its being experienced as ‘is’.  It is also to be noted that the Madhva school itself has admitted that the ‘sattA’ (‘is’ness) of the world derives from the ‘sattA’ of Brahman.   यदधीना यस्य सत्ता तत्तदित्येव भण्यते I (quoted by Sri Raghavendra Tirtha in the PuruSha sUkta bhAShyam )

Also it is to be noted that to prove that प्रत्यक्षबाधितं च जगन्मिथ्यात्वम्  one has to undertake the examination only AFTER the bhrama has gone.  In the case of the world-bhrama, the mithyAtvam is understood/determined only AFTER enquiry and the resultant realization.  In the post-enquiry/realization state there is no bAdha for this realization.  The pratyakSha-born prateeti as ‘the world is’ is no harm since such a prateeti is had even with regard to the experience of sunrise/sunset, the experiencing of the rotation/revolution of the world, etc.  In all these cases, even after the right knowledge has arisen (through another pramANa), the prateeti continues as nature would have it.  However, the knowledge about the real state of affairs is certainly present in the perceiver.

Some points other than what the scholar mentioned:
4. Madhva says: न च प्रत्यक्षसिद्धं अन्येन केनापि बाध्यं दृष्टम् . We have the experience that the Earth is stationary.  Yet, from the words of the scientists we come to know that such is not the case; the Earth is in constant rotation and revolution.  This is another case of प्रत्यक्षसिद्धस्य आप्त (अन्य) वाक्येन(शास्त्रेण) बाध्यत्वम् । So is the case with the ‘experience’ of sun rise and sun set. Nor can there be an objection, as stated by Madhva, such as: चन्द्रप्रादेशादिविषयं तु दूरस्थत्वादिदोषयुक्तत्वादपटु । [The illusion of the small size of the moon etc. when compared to their original/real sizes, is owing to their distant location from the seer on the earth and as such due to the inadequacy/incapacity of the perceiving eye to see the correct size of the moon, etc.] न च जगत्प्रत्यक्षस्यापटुत्वे किञ्चिन्मानम् । [Nor is there any proof for holding that the world-perception is due to the defect/inefficiency in the perceiving apparatus.]

To this observation of Madhva we have this to say:

Even in the case of the of the size of distant objects, it is to be reckoned as a case of illusion/bhrAnti.  This is because we come to know of the actual size of the object only from another pramANa, a shAstra that specializes in it.  Till then one believes that what one sees as the size of the object as the real size. Since our wrong knowledge has been contradicted/replaced / bAdhita by another yathArtha jnAna, it is indisputably a case of bhramA alone.  That the wrong knowledge was caused by ‘inefficient capacity of the sense organ – eye’ is no sufficient explanation for in every case of a bhrama there is one or the other cause, an incapacity in the indriya.  Even in the rope-snake illusion, it is only because the eye is incapacitated to have perfect vision of things in insufficient light does the bhrama takes place.  What is common to all illusions, including the one about the size of the distant object, however, is the baadha that comes about from a pramANAntara.  It is ONLY AFTER the bAdha comes about we seek explanations like defect/inefficiency, etc. as causing the bhrama and NOT BEFORE.  Hence these post-bAdha explanations do not save the situation from being experienced as a bhrama in the first place.

Similar is the case with the jagat bhrama.  It is owing to the ignorance about the true ‘thing’, ‘vastu’ Brahman that one gets into the bhrama of the deha-manas Self and the world of names and forms.  It is the Upanishad pramaNa that contradicts / corrects / brings about the bAdha of this bhrama pertaining to the atma and jagat.

The Upanishad wants the jiva to see Brahman and not the world.

ब्रह्मैवेदं पुरस्तात् ब्रह्म पश्चात् ……ब्रहमैव विश्वमिदं वरिष्ठम् [MundakopaniShat]

पुरुष एवेदं सर्वम्
तस्य को मोहः कः शोकः एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ।
यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत् तत्केन कं पश्येत् …
आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्, ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्
यत्र नान्यत्प्श्यति …तद्भूमा
यो मां पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति…[भ.गी]
ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविः….
वासुदेवः सर्वम्
By saying: मामुपेत्य तु कौन्तेय पुनर्जन्म न विद्यते the Lord says that once the realization of Brahman takes place, there is no longer the perception of the world as the world.  The perceiving instrument, the perceiving person and the perceived world, which are all part of mAyA/prakRti/Ishwara IcchA /moha shakti are now realized to be none other than the One akhaNDa Brahma vastu.

यत्र नान्त्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति …तद्भूमा , यत्र अन्यत्पश्यति…तदल्पम् By this teaching the Chandogya shruti makes it very clear that the non-perceiving of the world as the world but perceiving it as none other than the substratum Brahman is true realization.  The opposite of this vision is bondage.  By this anvaya-vyatireka method the shruti establishes the unreality of the world.  This is the reply to Madhva’s objection: न च जगतोऽज्ञानजन्यत्वे किञ्चिन्मानम् [Nor is there any proof for the ignorance-base of the world]. ज्ञाननिवर्त्यता / बोधनिवर्त्यता of the world-bhrama/perception is what is taught by such Shruti passages. Sri Krishna has made several statements to teach that ignorance is at the base of the world-experience:

अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः
मोहितं नाभिजानाति
ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषां नाशितमात्मनः
मम माया दुरत्यया
भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते पराम्

All these statements go to prove that it is owing to ignorance (of the Truth, Brahman, Atman, one’s own real nature) one experiences the world.  Shankaracharya comments on the Gita verse:
इति क्षेत्रं तथा ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं चोक्तं समासतः।
मद्भक्त एतद्विज्ञाय मद्भावायोपपद्यते।।13.18।।

//मद्भक्तः मयि ईश्वरे सर्वज्ञे परमगुरौ वासुदेवे समर्पितसर्वात्मभावः यत् पश्यति शृणोति स्पृशति वा ‘सर्वमेव भगवान् वासुदेवः’ इत्येवंग्रहाविष्टबुद्धिः मद्भक्तः। स एतत् यथोक्तं सम्यग्दर्शनं विज्ञाय, मद्भावाय मम भावः मद्भावः परमात्मभावः तस्मै मद्भावाय उपपद्यते मोक्षं गच्छति।।//

It is the one with the Brahman-vision that is able to give up the world-vision.  This correction of the world vision by jnanam into Brahman-vision is the proof that the world-experience is a bhrama.

The experience of distant objects with the distorted knowledge about their size, etc. , the experiencing of the superimposed snake and the experiencing of the world – all these three have one thing in common: what is being experienced is not the truth but the correcting / corrected knowledge is the truth.  There is a prior pre-correction knowledge and a  later post-correction knowledge to replace the former. पूर्वप्राप्त-अयथार्थज्ञानस्य पश्चात्प्रमाणान्तरप्राप्तज्ञा

श्रीसद्बुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु

जिज्ञासाधिकरणे वर्णकचतुष्टयम्

शंकरं शंकराचार्यं केशवं बादरायणम् ।

सूत्रभाष्यकृतौ वन्दे भगवन्तौ पुनः पुनः ॥

नत्वा गुरुवरान् भक्त्या स्मृत्वाशेषांश्च तद्गुणान्।

नित्यं तत्कृपां याचेऽन्तःकरणशुद्धये ॥

वेदान्तसूत्रतद्भाष्यतद्व्याख्याश्च मुमुक्षून् सम्यग्विचारसरण्यां नीत्वा तत्फलभूतां अपरोक्षावगतिं च प्रापयन्तीत्यत्र नास्ति संशयलेशोऽपि । आद्याधिकरणगतैकसूत्रं ’अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ इति यत्तावत्तद्भाष्यद्वारा अनुबन्धचतुष्टयप्रकाशकत्वेन तत्सम्बन्धिविचारबाहुल्येन द्योतते । ’भाष्यरत्नप्रभा’नामकतद्भाष्यटीकायां  यद्विचारः प्रवृत्तः भाष्यगतवर्णकचतुष्टयाभिव्यञ्जकः तस्याविष्करणरूपप्रबन्धोऽयमिदानीमारभ्यते ।

वर्णकशब्दस्य कोऽर्थः? इति प्रश्ने जाते इदं वक्तुं शक्यते – अस्मिन् प्रकरणे एकस्यैव सूत्रस्य व्याख्यानानेकत्वसम्भवे एकैकं व्याख्यानं वर्णकशब्देन निर्दिश्यते यथा ’प्रथमवर्णकं, द्वितीयवर्णकम्’ इति । अस्मिन्विषये रत्नप्रभाकारा आहुः वर्णकचतुष्टयस्य विस्तरावसाने – एवं प्रथमसूत्रस्य चत्वारोऽर्था व्याख्यानचतुष्टयेन दर्शिताः। सूत्रस्य चानेकार्थत्वं भूषणम् । इति ।  एवञ्च विविधदृष्ट्या सूत्रार्थालोचनं श्रुतितदनुकूलतर्कबलेन शास्त्रार्थविशदीकरणे बहूपयोगि इत्यत्र नास्ति सन्देहः । उक्तरीत्या अत्र वर्णकचतुष्टयं वर्तते यस्य संक्षेपतः प्रदर्शनमत्र क्रियते, विस्तरस्य तु भाष्यरत्नप्रभायामेव मूलतो द्र्ष्टुं पार्यत इति ।

वर्णकचतुष्टयस्य को वा अवसरः?

’अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ इति प्रथमसूत्रत्वादत्र वेदान्तमीमांसाशास्त्रस्यारम्भणमेव कथं उपपद्यते इति विचार्यते । यतोऽनुबन्धचतुष्टयत्वेन अधिकारी, विषयः, सम्बन्धः तथा प्रयोजनम् इति चत्वारि अंशाः प्रसिद्धाः । तेषु हि सत्सु शास्त्रारम्भमर्थवद्भवति नान्यथा इति शास्त्रमर्यादासत्वात् तेषां सिद्धिं स्थूणानिखननन्यायेन स्थापयितुं भाष्यकारा एव प्रथमं विषयप्रयोजनद्वयसिद्धये अध्यासस्वरूपवर्णनेन संसारलक्षणं प्रपञ्च्य अस्ति अत्र शास्त्रस्य विषयः ब्रह्मात्मैक्यज्ञानम् तत्फलकमोक्षश्च शास्त्रस्य प्रयोजनम् इति प्रतिज्ञापूर्वकं आहुः – एवमयमनादिरनन्तो नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तकः सर्वलोकप्रत्यक्ष: । अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते । यथा चायमर्थः सर्वेषां वेदान्तानां तथा वयमस्यां शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः । इति ।

प्रथमवर्णकम्

अत्र भाष्ये अध्यासवर्णनं संसारलक्षणप्रकाशनार्थम् । प्रकाशनफलं च कर्तृत्वाद्यनर्थहेतुः अध्यास एवेत्यवगतिसिद्धिः । सर्वत्राध्यासोऽधिष्ठानयाथात्म्यज्ञानादेव निवर्त्यते यतो तदज्ञानमेव तद्धेतुः । एवं च अयमप्यध्यासः स्वस्वरूपापरोक्षज्ञानादेव निवर्त्यत इति सिद्धम्, तदज्ञानमेव तत्कारणमिति । तादृशज्ञानं तु सर्वसंसारवर्जितशुद्धब्रह्मैव आत्मा नान्यत् इति प्रकारकम् । इदमेव वेदान्तवाक्यमीमांसाफलम् । एवं च ब्रह्मात्मैक्यज्ञानमस्य वेदान्तवाक्यविचारात्मकशास्त्रस्य विषयः । ज्ञानादध्याससमूलनाश एव अस्य शास्त्रविचारस्य परमं प्रयोजनम् ।  एवं विषयप्रयोजने अध्यासवर्णनेन साधिते भवतः । तयोस्सिद्धे सति विषयप्रयोजनसत्त्वात् शास्त्रमारम्भणीयमिति दर्शितं भवति । इदमेव प्रथमवर्णकम् ।

द्वितीयवर्णकं तत्प्रसक्तिश्च

विचारस्य यद्यपि साक्षाद्विषयः वेदान्ता एव तथापि तेषां गतार्थत्वं पूर्वशास्त्रेण सिद्धं इति मत्वा कृत्स्नस्यैव वेदस्य कर्मविधिपरत्वमेव, तस्याश्च विधेः ’अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा’ इति पूर्वमीमांसाशास्त्रेणैव विचारितत्वात् तत्र वेदान्तानामपि आर्थिकविधिपरत्वनिर्णयात् वेदान्तवाक्यार्थनिर्णयाय पृथक्शास्त्रारम्भणमनवश्यकमिति प्राप्ते इदमुच्यते  भाष्यकारैः –  वेदान्तमीमांसाशास्त्रस्य व्याचिख्यासितस्य इदमादिमं सूत्रम् – ’अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ इति । अत्रेदं न्यायप्रदर्शनम् – यदि विधिपरत्वमेव वेदार्थस्य तर्हि सर्वज्ञा भगवन्तः बादरायणाः ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाकर्तव्यतां न ब्रूयुः, पूर्वशास्त्रेणैव कृत्स्नस्य वेदार्थस्य विधिपरत्वनिर्णयात् ब्रह्मणि मानाभावात् । तथा च ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञास्यत्वोक्त्या सूत्रशब्दादेव सिद्ध्यति यत्केनापि शास्त्रान्तरेणानवगतब्रह्मपरवेदान्तविचारः आरम्भणीय एवेति ।  सूत्रकृदभिप्रायः भाष्यगत-व्याचिख्यासितस्य-इतिशब्दादवगम्यते । इदमेव द्वितीयवर्णकम् । पूर्वोक्तरीया ’अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ इत्येतत्सूत्रस्यैव दृष्टिभेदेन व्याख्यानत्वं प्रथमवर्णकाद्भेदश्चात्र स्पष्टमवगन्तुं पार्यते ।

अत्र वर्णकद्वयोपसंहारकत्वेन अग्रिमवर्णकस्य उपक्रमत्वेन च ’भाष्यरत्नप्रभा’व्याख्यानस्य वाक्यं दृश्यते – एवं वर्णकद्वयेन वेदान्तविचारस्य (१)विषयप्रयोजनवत्त्वम् (२) अगतार्थत्वं च इति हेतुद्वयं सूत्रस्यार्थिकार्थं व्याख्याय अक्षरव्याख्यामारभमाणः पुनरप्यधिकारिभावाभावाभ्यां शास्त्रारम्भसन्देहे सति अथशब्दस्यानन्तार्यार्थकत्वोक्त्या अधिकारिणं साधयति – तत्राथशब्द इति ।

तृतीयवर्णकम्

एतेन तृतीयवर्णकस्य विषयस्तु शास्त्रविचारस्य अधिकारिसिद्धिः इति स्पष्टम् । शास्त्रं हि सूक्ताधिकारिणमपेक्षते । किमप्यधिकारिणमनपेक्ष्य शास्त्रं न प्रणीयते केनापि । प्रकृते ’ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्या’ इत्येतत्पूर्वविचारेण स्थापितम् । इदानीं केन तज्जिज्ञासोपलक्षितविचारः कर्तव्य इत्यस्य प्रश्नस्य उत्तरत्वेन सूत्रगताथशब्दविचार आरभ्यते ।  भाष्येऽथशब्दस्य सम्भाव्यबह्वर्थविचारं प्रवर्त्य अन्ते आनन्तर्यार्थ एव सङ्गतत्वेन स्वीक्रियते । तथा हि भाष्यवाक्यम् – तस्मात्किमपि वक्तव्यं यदनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपदिश्यत इति । उच्यते – नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकः, इहामुत्रार्थभोगविरागः, शमदमादिसाधनसंपत्, मुमुक्षुत्वं च । तेषु हि सत्सु प्रागपि धर्मजिज्ञासाया ऊर्ध्वं च शक्यते ब्रह्मजिज्ञासितुं ज्ञातुं च न विपर्यये । तस्मादथशब्देन यथोक्तसाधनसंपत्त्यानन्तर्यमुपदिश्यते । इति ।

एवमथशब्दस्य अर्थनिर्णयेन साधनचतुष्टयस्य अविनाभावत्वमन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां स्थापितं भवति ।

सूत्रगतातःशब्दोऽपि अथशब्दसूचितसाधनचतुष्टयान्यतमयोः वैराग्यमुमुक्षे साधयति । तच्च भाष्यादेववगम्यते – अतःशब्दो हेत्वर्थः । यस्माद्वेद एवाग्निहोत्रादीनां श्रेयःसाधनानामनित्यफलतां दर्शयति – ’तद्यथेह कर्मचितो लोकः क्षीयत एवमेवामुत्र पुण्यचितो लोकः क्षीयते’ (छान्दो.८.१.६) इत्यादिः । तथा ब्रह्मविज्ञानादपि परं पुरुषार्थं दर्शयति – ’ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ इत्यादिः (तैत्ति.२.१) तस्माद्यथोक्तसाधनसंपत्त्यनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्या । इति ।

उदाहृतश्रुतिवाक्यद्वयस्य स्वारस्यं रत्नप्रभाकाराः व्याकुर्वन्ति – ’यदल्पं तदनित्यम्’ ’यत्कृतकं तदनित्यम्’ इति न्याववती ’तद्यथेह’ इत्यादिश्रुतिः कर्मफलाक्षयश्रुतेर्बाधिका (’अक्षय्यं चातुर्मास्ययाजिनां फलम्’ इत्यर्थबोधकश्रुतिवाक्यमत्र लक्षितम्) । तस्मात् ’अतोऽन्यदार्तम्’ इति श्रुत्या अनात्ममात्रस्यानित्यत्वविवेकात् वैराग्यलाभ इति भावः । मुमुक्षां सम्भावयति – तथेति । यथा वेदः कर्मफलानित्यत्वं दर्शयति, तथा ब्रह्मज्ञानात् प्रशान्तशोकानलमपारं स्वयंज्योतिरानन्दं दर्शयतीत्यर्थः । इति ।

उक्तरीत्या वैराग्योत्पादकश्रुतिः ’इदं तु मे नैव स्यात्’ इत्याकारिकवृत्तिं सम्पादयति । मुमुक्षुत्वबोधकश्रुतिः ’इदमेव मम रोचते, तदेवाहं कथमपि प्रापयामि’ इत्याकारिकदार्ढ्यं सम्पादयति । उदाहृतव्याख्यानात् विवेकपूर्वकवैराग्यमेवात्र दर्शितमिति ज्ञायते । तथापि किमिति भाष्ये विवेकस्य वा शमादेर्वा उत्पादकश्रुतिर्नोदाहृता इति चेदत्र विवेकचूडामणिश्लोकावलोकनं प्रयोजनकरं भवति –

वैराग्यं च मुमुक्षुत्वं तीव्रं  यस्य तु विद्यते ।

तस्मिन्नेवार्थवन्तः स्युः फलवन्तः शमादयः ॥ 29 ॥

एतयोर्मन्दता यत्र विरक्तत्वमुमुक्षयोः |

मरौ सलीलवत्तत्र शमादेर्भानमात्रता ||30|| इति ।

एवञ्च वैराग्यमुमुक्षुत्वकथनेन इतरेषाम् उक्तार्थत्वं सम्पादितं भवतीति मन्तव्यम् ।

इति तृतीयवर्णकम् अधिकारिसिद्धिं स्थाप्य शास्त्रारम्भणेऽन्तरायराहित्यं स्फुटयति इत्यत्र रत्नप्रभावाक्यम् – अथातःशब्दाभ्यामधिकारिणः साधितत्वात्तेन (अधिकारिणा/मुमुक्षुणा) ब्रह्मज्ञानाय विचारः कर्तव्य इत्यर्थः।इति।

चतुर्थवर्णकं तत्प्रसक्तिश्च

चतुर्थवर्णकप्रसक्तिं तत्रैव व्याख्याने द्योतितम् – प्रथमवर्णके बन्धस्य अध्यासत्वोक्त्या विषयादिप्रसिद्धावपि ब्रह्मप्रसिद्ध्यप्रसिद्ध्योः विषयादिसम्भवासम्भवाभ्यां शास्त्रारम्भसन्देहे पूर्वपक्षमाह – तत्पुनरिति । पुनःशब्दो वर्णकान्तरद्योतनार्थः । इति । विचार्यब्रह्म यदि विचारात्प्रागेव ज्ञातं तर्हि ’ब्रह्म अज्ञातं इति न, तेन विचारेण ब्रह्मविषयकाज्ञाननिवृत्तिरूपफलमपि न’ इति ब्रह्म न विचारयितव्यम् । तथा यदि अज्ञातं ब्रह्म, तर्हि न कोऽपि तं जिज्ञासितुं विचारयितुं च शक्नोति, अज्ञातविषयस्य ज्ञातुं उद्देश्यत्वायोगात् । यद्बुद्धावेव न आरूढं तं (ब्रह्म) विचारात्मकशास्त्रं वा वेदान्ता (श्रुतिवाक्यानि) वा नैव प्रतिपादयितुं शक्नुवन्ति । तेन अनुबन्धचतुष्टयान्यतमसम्बन्धाख्यः प्रतिपाद्यप्रतिपादकरूपः (विषयः प्रतिपाद्यः, शास्त्रं प्रतिपादकम् इतिरूपः) नैव सिद्ध्यति इति शास्त्रस्य आत्यन्तिकं फलं मोक्षोऽपि न सिद्ध्यति इति अनारम्भणीयं शास्त्रम् इति प्राप्तम् । तत्र ब्रह्म प्रसिद्धं वा अप्रसिद्धं वा इति विचारः क्रियते भाष्ये । सर्वस्य चेतनात्मकस्य स्वविषयकास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिं अनुभवप्रमाणीकृत्य ब्रह्मणः सर्वस्यात्मत्वाच्च तेन आपाततोऽपि ब्रह्मास्तित्वज्ञानं साधयित्वा, तथापि स्वात्मविषयकविशेषप्रतिपत्तिं प्रति विप्रतिपत्तिदर्शनेन अप्रसिद्धिमपि साधितं भाष्ये । तेन ब्रह्म विषयत्वं भजति शास्त्रस्य विचारे, तेन च उक्तफलरूपमोक्षासिद्धिरपि न सम्भवति इति परिहृत्य शास्त्रारम्भणे न व्यवधानमिति उपसंहरति चतुर्थवर्णकम् । तत्पूर्वं अन्यदपि किञ्चित्प्रश्नपूर्वकं विचार्यते – सूत्रे विचारवाचिपदं नास्ति इत्यतः विचारारम्भः करणीयः इति कथं सूत्रशब्दादवगम्यते? इति । तत्र समाधानम् – जिज्ञासाशब्दात्प्राप्तेच्छार्थकत्वेन विचारो लक्षितः तेन च तत्कर्तव्यता बोधिता सूत्रेण इति ।

वर्णकचतुष्टयं सारांशत्वेन एवं ज्ञातव्यम् –

• ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य मोक्षाय आवश्यकत्वोक्त्या तदज्ञानकार्याध्यासः तन्मूलकसंसारश्च प्रतिपादितः भाष्ये । तेन अज्ञाननिवर्त्यब्रह्मज्ञानप्राप्त्यै विचार आरम्भणीयः इति प्रथमवर्णकसंक्षेपः ।
• कृत्स्नस्य वेदस्यार्थः पूर्वमीमांसाशास्त्रादेव निर्णीतः इति यदि ब्रह्ममीमांसाशास्त्रमनारम्भणीयं तर्हि नैवम्, यतः सर्वज्ञैः भगवद्भिः सूत्रकृद्भिः बादरायणमहर्षिभिः ब्रह्मजिज्ञासात्मकशास्त्रं न प्रणीतं स्याद्यदि धर्मजिज्ञासाशास्त्रादेव कृत्स्नस्य वेदस्यार्थः विधिपरत्वेन निर्णीतः स्यात् ।  तादृशार्थापत्त्या द्वितीयवर्णकं प्रवर्तते ।
• अनुबन्धचतुष्टयान्यतमाधिकारिसिद्धावेव शास्त्रारम्भः स्यात् नान्यथा इति तत्सिद्धये सूत्रगताथातःशब्दपर्यालोचनात् साधनचतुष्टयवान् मुमुक्षुः सिद्ध्यत्येव इति श्रुतिबलान्निर्णयः तृतियवर्णकहृदयम् ।
• यद्यपि विषयप्रयोजनसिद्धिः प्रथमवर्णकादेव कृता तथापि मुख्यविषयब्रह्मप्रसिद्ध्यप्रसिद्धिरूपकोटिद्वयविचारेण ब्रह्मण आपातप्रसिद्ध्यापि विचारः सिद्ध्यति इति स्थापनं चतुर्थवर्णकरहस्यम् ।
• एवं चतुर्ष्वपि वर्णकेषु शास्त्रारम्भविषये आक्षेपोत्थापनं समानम् । तदाक्षेपमूलं तथा तत्परिहारप्रकारश्च प्रतिवर्णकं भिद्यते इति विशेषो द्रष्टव्यः ।

अध्यापितगुरून् भक्तिपूर्वकं प्रणम्य तेषां चरणयोरर्पयामीदं लेखनम् ।

श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु

Here are the last three (of the eight) verses quoted by Sri Madhvacharya in his Tattvodyota from a Buddhist source to demonstrate his stand that Advaita is not any different from Buddhism:

नास्य सत्वं न वा सत्वं न दोषो गुण एव वा ।
हेयोपादेयरहितं तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ ६

//The Supreme Reality can neither be categorised as ‘being’ nor as ‘non-being’.  It has neither ‘defects’ nor ‘virtues’.  It can neither be ‘accepted’ nor be ‘rejected’.  Such is the immutable reality that is ‘shUnyam’.//

In the above verse the first quarter नास्य सत्वं न वा सत्वं was commented in the earlier post as this portion appears in another verse forming part of this same set of eight verses, though in a slightly different form (भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं भावत्वं वा न तत्त्वतः  5).  This was shown as having a parallel in the Bh.Gita:

ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते ।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्य्ते ॥ 13.12 ॥

//I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being. //

The second quarter says: न दोषो गुण एव वा.  That Brahman has no defects is very explicitly stated in the Bh.Gita verse:
इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः ।
निर्दोषं हि समं ब्रह्म  तस्माद् ब्रह्मणि ते स्थिताः ॥ 5.19.

And that the Absolute Brahman is devoid of guNa, even as a virtue, is also very well known: Shvetashvataropanishat mantra 6.11 :

एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा
कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च.

All the ‘virtues’ of Brahman are categorically negated in the famous 7th mantra of the mAnDUkya upanishat नान्तःप्रज्ञं ….. All the ‘kalyANaguNa-s’ of Brahman too do not obtain in the Absolute Brahman, the Turiya.  These can exist only in the SaguNa Brahman, Ishwara, which / who is the subject matter of the sixth mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad.  The adorable virtues in Brahman like anantavIryatva, satyasankalpatva, icchA, apratihata-jnAnam, etc. can be traced to the shuddha mode of the three guNa-s of prakRti.  For example, the anantavIryatva is the shuddha-rajoguNa kArya of prakRti.  apratihata-jnAnam is the shuddha-sattvaguNa kAryam and the prapancha laya kartRtva (कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत् of the Bh.Gita ch.11) is the shuddha-tamaHkArya of prakRiti.  Thus any guNa, virtue, attributed to Brahman is ONLY relative, सापेक्षकम्, to the jiva/jagat.  In the absence of jiva-jagat there can be no scope/prasakti for these guNa-s in Brahman.  Anything paratantra-saapekShakam cannot, therefore, be the svarUpasiddhaguNa of the swatantra Brahman.  We have already seen a quote from Dr.B.N.K. Sharma’s book, the basis for this series of posts, where he says to mean ‘Brahman can very well do without the paratantra.  Yet out of Its inexorable will It does with it through an apekShA..’

The third quarter of the above verse is: हेयोपादेयरहितं.  This is very well enshrined in the Upanishads.  Since Brahman is one’s own Atman, It is the most loved/loveable.  None would like to reject, do away with the Self. Therefore it is अहेयः/अहेयम्.  For the very same reason that Atman/Brahman is one’s Self, it cannot be acquired/accepted/taken in just as we would acquire a house or a car.  As the Self is inseparable, it is not a thing to be acquired: अनुपादेयः/म्.  We can also look at the epithet  हेयोपादेयरहितं in a different way:

Brahman is the Self of All.  Hence there is nothing that lies ‘outside’ Brahman.  Brahman cannot reject or flush out anything from Itself as everything is superimposed in/on It.  So, there is nothing ‘heyaH’, rejectable, for Brahman.  So also nothing is ‘upAdeyaH’, acquirable, for Brahman as everything is already in It. Further as Brahman is ‘asanga’ as taught by the Upanishad ‘असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः’ It has nothing to be rejected or acquired. Hence the epithet: हेयोपादेयरहितम्.

The last quarter तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् also stands explained in the earlier posts.  The very word ‘shUnyam’ was shown to be from an upanishad and also finding place in the Padma purANam to denote Brahman.

The next verse, 7th, in the series is:
अवाच्यं सर्वशब्दैस्तल्लक्ष्यतेऽखिलैः पदैः ।
अज्ञेयं ज्ञानलक्ष्यं च तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ ७

//Brahman is beyond any word and it is only indicated by all words.  It is not a ‘knowable’ like an object but only grasped/apprehended by Knowledge.  Such is the immutable reality that is ‘shUnyam’.//

The first quarter: अवाच्यं सर्वशब्दैः has been explained in detail in this article:

http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/vedapraamaanya/ 

This term too appears in a different form in the third of the eight Buddhist verses we have taken up for a deep study:

Also, these shruti passages are the pramANa for the above अवाच्यं सर्वशब्दैः nature of Brahman:

यद् वाचा अनभ्युदितं येन वाग् अभ्युद्यते तद् एव ब्रह्म, न इदम् यद् इदम् Kenopanishat 1.4

यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह..Taittiriya Upanishad.

The above passages conclusively establish that Brahman/Atman is beyond the reach of the mind and speech.  However, it is with the light of Brahman that the mind is known and speech gets its power to reveal things.

This term, in a slightly different form, too appears in another verse (of the set of eight) which has already been studied before:

निर्विशेषं स्वयंभातं निर्लेपमजरामरम् ।
शून्यं तत्त्वमविज्ञेयं मनोवाचामगोचरम् ॥ ३

Now this second quarter of the verse No.7 – तल्लक्ष्यतेऽखिलैः पदैः means that all words indicate Brahman.  Why is this so?  It is because Brahman is the One that has transfigured, vivarta, as the variegated world.  The world consists of objects which have form, ‘rUpa’ and name, ‘nAma’.  Says the PuruShasUktam:

सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरः, नामानि कृत्वा अभिवदन् यदास्ते

The sAyaNa bhAShya for this line is:

यः पुरुषः सर्वाणि रुपाणि देवमनुष्यशरीराणि विचित्य विशेषॆण निष्पाद्य नामानि च ’देवोऽयं मनुष्योऽयं पशुरयं इत्यादीनि कृत्वा अभिवदन् तैर्नामभिः अभितो व्यवरन्नास्ते…

//This virAT puruShaH having especially created all the forms consisting of the bodies of devas and humans and creating the appropriate names as well such as ‘this is a deva, this/he is a human, this is an animal.. etc’ remains doing all the transactions that are required for/in the sustenance of samsara. //

It is clear from the above that the projection of names and forms from a Conscious Entity is what is being spoken of here.  All the forms that have come out from that PuruSha are only He appearing in so many forms.  Therefore all the names that are associated with all the forms in the world ultimately refer to that PuruSha alone. This is what is stated by the verse under consideration:   तल्लक्ष्यतेऽखिलैः पदैः . 

The second half of the verse: अज्ञेयं ज्ञानलक्ष्यं च तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् too has been studied earlier as the purport here is already covered in an earlier verse (of the eight).  The overall meaning is: the Supreme Truth, Brahman, is not a knowable just as any inert object is in the world.  However, it is this Truth that is known every time we know anything, every time we get the knowledge of anything.  We have recently seen that the KenopaniShad mantra: प्रतिबोधविदितं मतम्….teaches that every knowledge-exercise is a pointer to the Brahman the Consciousness Principle that is what the knower, the knowing and the known are in truth. This Reality called ‘shUnyam’, another word from an Upanishad, never suffers destruction of any kind.

The last verse is:
यदखण्डं पदं लक्ष्यं सर्वैरपि विशेषणैः ।
सर्वैर्विशेषणैर्मुक्तं तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ ८

//It is infinite, all-pervading, without any break. All attributes only indicate It.  Yet it is free of all attributes.  Such is the immutable reality that is ‘shUnyam’.//

By far the best example of the above verse could be seen in the scheme of the Mandukya Upanishad.  Here, the Upanishad, with a view to teach the Supreme Brahman proceeds with the declaration: सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् [This Atman is endowed with four limbs/feet/quarters/parts].  After this preamble the Upanishad goes on to explain, describe, them.  By taking up the delineation of the waking, dream and deep sleep states, the Upanishad presents the Consciousness, Atman, Brahman, as the individual (vyaShTi) and the total (samaShTi) and the inert world in those three states.

This the Upanishad does with a view to enable the aspirant to ‘know’, ‘identify’ the Supreme Atman/Brahman.  After giving all these ‘attributes’, visheShaNas namely the three states, the Upanishad finally embarks on the description of the Fourth pAda, the turIya.  Here, by the words ‘नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिःप्रज्ञं……..the Upanishad negates all the ‘attributes’ covering the three states that it had ‘attributed’ to Brahman in the earlier mantras. Finally the Upanishad presents the Turiya as ‘प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवम् अद्वैतम् चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः’ [One bereft of the variegated, projected, attributed world and that which is Peace, Auspiciousness/Bliss, One Only without any kind of a second which is the One to be known/realized for liberation].

Thus, here we see that the Upanishad’s method is: first ‘attribute’ certain ‘visheShaNa-s’ to Brahman, with a view to appreciate Its existence and understand It यदखण्डं पदं लक्ष्यं सर्वैरपि विशेषणैः   and later ‘free It of all attributes’  सर्वैर्विशेषणैर्मुक्तं.

In conclusion of this series we reiterate that the eight verses, quoted by Sri Madhvacharya from a Buddhist source with a view to show that Advaita is only a re-presentation of Buddhism, can be seen to have for their purport the teaching of the Upanishads/Bh.Gita/puraaNa-s.  In other words, the verses only substantiate the point that Buddhism has not said anything that is not contained already in the Upanishadic lore.

What GaudapAdachArya and Shankarabhagavatpada have refuted might be the Buddhism that was prevalent in Their period through the Buddhistic works available then. It is said that the Buddhism that obtains today, with so many divisions, has grown to this shape over the centuries.  It is also the opinion of scholars that Shankara has formulated His refutation of the Bauddha based on inputs about their system from Kumarila Bhatta who has apparently stated that the ‘ultimate tattva’ of the Bauddha is an ‘abhAva’ and not a BhAva padArtha such as the Sat of the Upanishadic Brahman.

श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु

Here is a reproduction of a discussion I had with a Madhva scholar on certain Dvaita-Advaita issues.  The following is just one aspect of the discussion that actually covered several topics.

PRUSHOTTAMATATTVA

Dvaitin: Krishna who is none other than Ishwara who is in turn omniscient is experiencing and teaching Dvaita only. This is clear from his statements like द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके (15-16_20).

Advaitin: There is nothing in that set of verses to show that the Lord is teaching dvaita. He teaches the transcendental Truth in the verse यस्मात् क्षरमतीतोऽहं अक्षरादपि चोत्तमः…..पुरुषोत्तमः.  That alone is the Ultimate Truth, the other two (kshara and akshara) being only the relative reality.  It is akin to the pAdatraya of the mAnDukya Upanishad.  The PuruShottama is the Turiya, the pAdatraya-vilakShaNa Brahman of the Mandukya.

Dvaitin: Note that the very word द्वौ stands for Dvaita. There is absolutely no evidence in Krishna’s statements to show that only the Purushottama is the ultimate truth and Khshara and Akshahra are unreal. If Purushas are unreal his Purushottamatva would be meaningless.

Advaitin: द्वौ is vyavaharika satya, being paratantra.  Anything that is paratantra satya which depends on the Swatantra Satya is unreal.  Sri Raghavendra Tirtha in his commentary on the Purusha Suktam has cited a smriti: यदधीना यस्य सत्ता तत्तदित्येव भण्यते where it is clear that the ‘इदं सर्वम्’ of ’पुरुष एव इदं सर्वम्’ is the world of chetanAchetana which has no sattA of its own but has to depend on the sattA of the Swatantra Brahman.  The best example for something that has no sattaa of its own but depends on something else’s sattA for its very being is the rope-snake.  The adhyasta sarpa has no ‘isness’, sattA, being, of its own; it depends on the adhiShThAna rope for its very being.  The state, fate, of the paratantra kShara (manifest world) and akShara (the unmanifest, beeja, cause of the manifest world called mAyA, prakRti) is the same as the adhyasta sarpa  of the example. क्षराक्षरयोस्स्वतन्त्रसत्ताभावात् स्वतन्त्रस्य ब्रह्मणः सत्ताधीनत्वात् परतन्त्रसत्यत्वेन तयोः मिथ्यात्वं सुलभमवगम्यते रज्जुसर्पदृष्टान्तेन ।  तावतीत्य वर्तमानस्य ब्रह्मणः एव पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वमुपपद्यते ।  पूर्वमेव द्वितीयाध्याये ’नासतो विद्यते भावः’ इत्यत्र  क्षराक्षरयोरभावत्वं उपदिष्टं भगवता तत्त्वदर्शिनिर्णीतत्वेन । तत्स्मरणीयं इदानीं पञ्चदशे पुरुषोत्तमतत्त्वावगमे ।  एतेन पुरुषोत्तमाख्यब्रह्मणः तथात्वं क्षराक्षरापेक्षितत्वात् न स्वरूपलक्षणता ।  माण्डुक्येऽपि पादत्रये प्रथमद्वौ क्षरः तृतीयस्तु अक्षरः इति विभागः । तत्रापि चतुर्थपादवर्णनावसरे पादत्रयं निराकृतम् भवति ’नान्तःप्रज्ञं…..प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं…स विज्ञेयः ’ इत्यनेन मन्त्रेण । एवं च एतच्छ्रुत्याधारेण गीतायामपि पुरुषोत्तमतत्त्वं वेदितव्यम् । यत्स्वयमेव सत्ताशून्यं तत् कथं परमार्थसत्ताभाक्भवितुमर्हति?

Dvaitin: After mentioning his Purushottamatattva, he mentions that that is गुह्यतम ie.  Ultimate secret. The तमप् प्रत्यय here clearly shows that this is the most superior tattva.

Advaitin: True.  The pArmaarthika Satyam is what is taught by the word ‘guhyatama’.  The other two, kshara and akshara are only ‘guhyatarau’.

Dvaitin: गुह्यतमम् never stands for  पारमार्थिकसत्यम्. It means ultimate secret only. Krishna is referring to the entire Purushottamatattva he has taught in the foregoing verses and drawing the conclusion that this is the ultimate secret thereby denying any other like Nirguna Brahman.

Advaitin: As stated in the previous paragraph, all that Krishna taught in the foregoing verses is about the jiva and jagat, along with their kAraNam.  On the basis of the Mandukya, the sakAraNa jiva-jagat in its entirety is the dependent tattva, not having even the sattA of its own.  Like the superimposed serpent, it has to depend for its very being on the swatantra.  Therefore Krishna concludes saying that he who knows that the dependent kSharAkshara is mithyA and the transcendental Tattva the Independent Brahman, here called PuruShottama, is the sole Satya is the buddhimAn. It goes without saying for the serious student of the prasthAnatraya that the guhyatamatattva has to be the one free of any guNa-s that are relative to the dependent reals: the jiva and jagat.  These guNa-s restrict, constrict, Brahman.  The aim of the Scripture is to free Brahman of all such upAdhikRta guNa-s and present It as the NirguNa tattva for mokshaprApti.  The knowledge of the SaguNaBrahman will have the fruit of taking the aspirant to Brahmaloka and through that path, kramamukti, get the final liberation.

Dvaitin: Recently you have mentioned that you accept ज्ञानम् and आनन्दः in Nirguna Brahman according to the statement विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म. If you are ready to accept these two virtues in Brahman despite contradicting Nirgunatva, why not you accept other virtues like valor, charm, strength etc.? Just as one can argue that knowledge and happiness of Brahman are much different from the ones famous in the world, so also one can argue that the other virtues are also much different from those perceived in the world. In fact this is in accordance with the Brahmasutra कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम् (3-3-19). Similarly actions like creation of world can also be accepted as actions much different from the ones perceived in the world.

Thus if you are ready to accept that Brahman has लोकविलक्षणगुणरूपक्रिया there would not be no debate between us in this regard. This is in accordance with the Shrutis like परास्य शक्तिर्विविधैव श्रूयते स्वाभाविकी ज्ञानबलक्रिय़ा च। आदित्यवर्णं तमसः परस्तात्।

Advaitin: I have already pointed out that all these virtues going by various names ‘vibhuti’, ‘icchA’, etc. are attributed to Brahman ONLY in relation to the jiva or / and the jagat.  As they are जीवजगत्सापेक्षं they cannot be the true, inherent, nature of Brahman which even according to your school ‘can do very well without the paratantra’ (as per Dr.BNK’s words).  Hence only the जीवजगन्निरपेक्षगुण/स्वभाव can be admitted in Brahman. Hence only jnAnam, Sat, Anandam are svarUpabhUta svabhAva of Brahman. I have also shown how the scripture (Upanishad for you) negates all these virtues by the words: आप्तकामस्य का स्पृहा .  Actually आदित्यवर्णं तमसः परस्तात् very clearly teaches that the ‘tamas’ consists of the entire ‘tamaHkAryam’ that is the jiva-jagat paratantratattva and the One that transcends these is the Effulgent One.  तमोलक्षितपरतन्त्रः प्रकाश्यः स्वप्रकाशशून्यत्वात् । तत्प्रकाशकं ब्रह्म तु स्वप्रकाशं सत् तदतीत्य वर्तते इत्येतदेव ’परस्तात्’ इत्यस्यार्थः ।  तत्तु सर्वपरतन्त्रापेक्षितगुणवर्जितमेव भवितुमर्हति ।

Dvaitin: Your attention is drawn towards the statement ब्रह्मेति परमात्मेति भगवानिति शब्द्यते( भागवतम् 1-2-11). This would mean that there is no distinction between God and Brahman. This is further supported by addressing Krishna as परब्रह्म by Arjuna and Uddhava.

Advaitin: Actually, as I had pointed out before, the word Brahman can be easily used/applicable for Ishwara, saguNa Brahman.  So, in this sense there is still scope for distinguishing Ishwara from NirguNa Brahman.

Dvaitin: You have accepted that भगवान् stands for six virtues like समग्रैश्वर्यम्।If you are ready to accept ज्ञानम् as a virtue not coming in the way of Nirgunattva what prevents you to accept the other virtues stated in the same statement?

Advaitin: Even in that shloka षण्णां भग इतीरणा the समग्रज्ञानम् would come under the vibhUti of Ishwara, Brahman, and therefore not the svarUpa of the Supreme Brahman.  The ‘samagra’ refers to the jiva-jagat and all knowledge about it/them will be only useful for creation, etc. activities of Ishwara.  So, such a (samagra)jnAnam is outside the true nature of Brahman whose Jnanam is pure Consciousness, vijnAnaghana, viShayarahitakevalajnAnam.

Dvaitin: There is no statement in Gita in favor of Nirguna Brahman. You have accepted that even the statement निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च stands for Brahman being void of Satva, Rajas and Tamas.

Advaitin: All the statements like ‘parAprakRti’ (differentiating Brahman from the aparAprakRti (7^th chapter) consisting of the paratantra kShara-akShara), ‘kShetrajna’ (differentiating Brahman from the kShetram  (13^th chapter) that is  aparAprakRti consisting of the paratantra kShara-akShara) and Sat of the BG 2.16 differentiating It from ‘asat’ in that verse itself, are undoubtedly statements teaching the NirguNa Brahman.  Yes, Brahman void of the guNatraya is NirguNa Brahman.  Yet, all the Divine Virtues stem still from the prakRti alone: His valour is shuddha rajaHkAryam, His samagrajnAna, vairAgya are shuddha-sattvakARyam and His कालोऽस्मि-लोकक्षयकृत्त्वं is shuddha-tamaHkAryam of prakRti.  NirguNam Brahman is the one that is free of even this shuddha-kaaryam of prakRti.

Dvaitin: Considering these arguments supported by scripture too, we can easily come to the decision that Sri Krishna or Vishnu is super most.

Advaitin: This is not questioned.   Actually KrishNa is:

कृषिर्भूवाचकः शब्दो णश्च निर्वृतिवाचकः।
तयोश्चैक्यं परं ब्रह्म कृष्ण इत्यभिधीयते॥

The root कृष् means to be, Being, combined with the suffix Na = Bliss,
makes the word कृष्ण to mean परं ब्रह्म = The Supreme Being endowed with
eternal bliss. This is the PauraNika-s definition.

ViShNu really means ‘vyApanashIlaH’.  Shankaracharya has said in the तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम् (KaThopaniShat 1.3.9) thus:

तद्विष्णोः व्यापनशीलस्य ब्रह्मणः परमात्मनो वासुदेवाख्यस्य परमं प्रकृष्टं पदं स्थानं सतत्त्वमित्येतद्यदसौ आप्नोति विद्वान् -  (That man of knowledge reaches the end of the road, i.e. the very supreme goal to be reached beyond samsAra.  He becomes free from all the worldly bondages.  That is the highest place, i.e. the very nature, of ViShNu, of the all-pervading Brahman, of the Supreme Self, who is called Vasudeva.)

For the name ‘ViShNu’ of the Vishnusahasranaama too, in the Bhashya, Shankaracharya gives a similar meaning, as one of the many.

व्याप्ते मे रोदसी पार्थ  क्रान्तिश्चाभ्यधिका मम ॥

अधिभूतनिविष्टश्च तद्विश्वं चासि भारत । क्रमणाच्चाप्यहं पार्थ विष्णुरित्यभिसंहितः ॥ (mahaabharata शान्ति.३५०.४२-४३) …

Surely, in Advaita the ultimate goal, as different from saguNa brahma loka, is Moksha and that is what is meant by the above BhAshya on the term ‘ViShNu’.   The term ‘VAsudeva’ too has a meaning that is different from saguNa Ishwara.

ओं तत् सत्

Whenever a reference is made to the body/attributes of Brahman/Ishwara/avatAra it is said to be ‘aprAkRta’.  It would be beneficial to know exactly what this term means.  The dictionary gives these: 1. not vulgar 2.Not original 3. Not ordinary, extraordinary 4. special.

Of these the first two are out of our context.  The latter two may be considered.  However, it is often sought to be made out that this ‘aprAkRta’ is something that is not a product of prakRti.  To be specific, something that is not a product of the three guNas, the five elements.  In other words it is ‘apAnchabhautikam’.  Now a question arises as to what exactly this means.  What is this ‘substance’ ?  In the scripture we have two things that are talked about: 1. Brahman/Atman, also called Chit, PuruSha, etc. and translated/translatable as ‘spirit’. 2. prakRti or triguNAtmikA mAyA, also called jaDa tattva, matter.  A third entity is not there spoken of anywhere.

So, if something is ‘aprAkRta’ does it mean that it is non-matter or non-material?  Going by the ‘only’ two tattvas as above, that which is ‘apraakRta’ has to be Chit or spirit.  If it is not matter/material, it has to be spirit.  If it is not either, then what is the ‘substance’ with which the body of Brahman/Ishwara/Vishnu made? We better take it as ‘chinmayarUpam’ if we want to ward off praakRta/pAnchabhautika rUpa and its consequences.  It is a vivarta of Brahman.

Then, is the body of Brahman only spirit/Chit?  Now, we have the scripture itself declaring that the spirit is ‘avikArI’/'avikAryaH’.  If the Chit is of such a nature, how is it that the shape/form of a ‘ body’ is taken on by Chit?  How is this possible when the Chit is avikAri? Also, whenever we talk of a form, it is paricchinna, finite.  How can the ‘shareera’, aprAkRta, though, still be aparicchinna/sarvavyApaka?  In the शेषशयन ViShNu’s case, we can see that VishNu is reclining on the snake-bed which is itself placed in the ksheera sAgara.  Now, the body of VishNu is certainly not pervading the snake-bed or the milk-ocean.  It is finite.  If it is said that Vishnu is infinite then we have to take that the snake-bed, the ocean, Lakshmi, etc. are all VishNu alone appearing in those names-forms.  This will be no different from saying that He is vishvarUpa, akin to the vishvarUpa darshana of the Bh.Gita. सहस्त्रशीर्ष-सहस्रपात्-सहस्राक्षः will all be meaningful only if we look at the situation as: all the heads, feet, hands, eyes, etc. that are there in the world are His/He alone.  Otherwise we will be imagining a multi-headed hydra or a centipede or millipede-kind of creature of ViShNu.

Shankaracharya has used this word in the Gitabhashya 4.9 thus:

जन्म मायारूपम्, कर्म च साधुपरित्राणादि, मे मम दिव्यम् = अप्राकृतम् - ऐश्वरं एवं यथोक्तं यो वेत्ति तत्त्वतः …

Interestingly Shankara has commented for the preceding verse thus:

तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् अधिष्ठाय वशीकृत्य संभवामि देहवानिव भवामि जात इव आत्ममायया आत्मनः मायया, न परमार्थतो लोकवत्।

And Bhagavan Himself has said that this prakRti/mAyA is His:  मम माया दुरत्यया.

Here we get the hint that it is only ‘controlled prakRti’ that is called ‘aprAkRtam’.  In other words, when prakRiti is handled in such a way that it does not bind a person, it is aprAkRtam.  It is the shuddha sattva/rajas/tamas guNas that are involved as against the malina sattva, etc. that characterize the jiva’s samsara/samsaritva.

I have also heard that ‘aprAkrtam’ janma/karma means that it is not the way a jiva comes to take birth: owing to ajnana, through past karma, to reap the effects thereof and work for creating new janma-s.  That alone is the difference between the janma/karma of a bound-jiva and Brahman taking a birth/body.  It also admits of reason that a difference is made between the avatAra body and its growth, old-age, etc. and final disappearance AND the ‘eternal’ body of VishNu such as seen reclining on the anantha. In the former case, all the prAkRta functions are seen even though great miraculous displays of power do manifest.  Even these have to be seen as within the vast, infinite, scope of maayA, prakRti.  In the case of bound jiva-s the manifestation of only limited powers of prakRti is seen whereas in the avatAra’s case the extraordinary powers of prakRti come to the fore.

The shruti says: अशरीरं शरीरेषु अनवस्थेषु अवस्थितम्. महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ( Kathopanishat 1.2.22)

न संदृशे  तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् । हृदा मनीषा मनसाऽभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥ 2.3.9 ॥

In the above we find that the Upanishad is categorical about Brahman not having a form.  None can ‘see’ Brahman with the physical eye.  One can however ‘know’ that it is Brahman that appears as the vishvarUpa.  Again, one can know through the disciplined mind that Brahman which is without any form whatsoever.

However, as Shankara says in the BSB, Brahman/Ishwara can and does take on a form, any including the ones spoken of above, to bless/help an aspirant in his sadhana.:

स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् । (1.1.vii.20) (Ishwara, out of compassion, takes on, by His Maya, a form to grace the spiritual aspirant.)

The case of हिरण्यश्मश्रुः is about a form, of golden hue, described by the Upanishad for upAsana purpose.  It says such a One’s finger-joints are the Rg.Veda, etc.  We cannot say that this kind of a form of Brahman is ‘niyata’ because we know that Rg.veda etc. have come out of Brahman as Its Breath: यस्य निश्शवसितमेतदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदो….  (Also do we not see VishNu picturised as clean-shaven!!) The ‘hands’ are described in the Purusha sUkta as representing the kShatriya.  Such varied descriptions of Brahman’s form and the various parts only show that these cannot be the niyata rUpa of Brahman. The above quoted Katha shruti and the Mundaka: दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः. अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शोभ्रो ह्यक्षरात् परतः परः ॥ (2,1,2) teach in unequivocal terms that there is no form/body/mind, sense organs for Brahman.  There is nothing in these mantras to suggest that ONLY the prAkRta body, etc. are negated here.  There are no statements to say that Brahman has a specific, natural body, with parts, mind, etc. that are ‘aprAkRta’ either.  The body/forms of Brahman described in purANa-s and painted by artists following such descriptions only serve as an aid to sadhakas to concentrate their mind upon them, by withdrawing from the forms that the world of senses provide.

It is only because we, as humans, have an adhyAsa-based attachment to our body/senses, relationships, tastes, behaviours, etc. that the scripture, on the nyAya of यक्षानुरुपो बलिः depicts Brahman variously as with a human-type body शिरःपाण्यादिमान् देह्ः, with a female consort, a family, an abode, etc. There are ways to ‘satiate’ Brahman’s hunger through a variety of neivedyams, a lot of services, upachAra-s, nRtya, geetha, ashvArohaNa, gajArohaNa, etc. ..everything meant to sublimate our own slavery to these tastes, behaviours, requirements, etc.

To conclude, ‘aprAkRtam’ means only ‘controlled prAkRtam’ and ‘mAyAmayam’.  It can take the name of ‘IshvarEcchA’ too.  In any case it does not constitute the true, absolute nature of Brahman as taught in the Upanishads, some of which we have seen above. Not getting aged/diseased, etc. of a divine form is also within the infinite, unimaginable powers of Maya: अघटितघटनापटीयसी माया.  Sri Krishna too says in the Gita that there is no limit to His vibhUti-s.

In all such discourses we have to remember that everything, the divine form, vibhUti pradarshanam, etc. is never without the jiva-jagat (paratantra) in mind.  It is by default परतन्त्रसापेक्षक. Anything that is dependent on the paratantra for its manifestation/display/existence cannot be deemed to be the स्वरूपभूतस्वभाव of the स्वतन्त्रब्रह्मन्. It is ‘for the sake’ of the jiva/jagat that Brahman, as Ishwara, takes on  form/s.  If this ‘sake’ is not there, there is no need for Brahman to assume such form/s.  

Venkatachala Nilayam Vaikunta Pura Vasam
Pankaja Netram Parama Pavitram
Shanka Chakra Dhara Cinmaya Rupam
Venkatacala Nilayam Vaikunta Pura Vasam ||

Read the entire lyrics and also hear the song here:

http://meerasubbarao.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/venkatachala-nilayam-vaikuntha-pura-vasam-lyrics/

Om Tat Sat

भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं भावत्वं वा न तत्त्वतः ।
विश्वाकारं च संवृत्या यस्य तत्पदमक्षयम् ॥ ५

The overall meaning of the above verse is:

The ultimate Truth cannot be said to be existent or non-existent in absolute terms. Owing to ignorance of the Truth one perceives the variegated world.

The first half of the verse conveys a very important concept pertaining to the Vedantic Brahman.  What is immediately recalled to our mind is this verse of the Srimadbhagavadgita:

ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते ।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्य्ते ॥ 13.12 ॥

//I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being. //

In the above profound verse, the Lord begins to expound the nature of Brahman which is to be known (for mokSha).  This Brahman alone was taught as the KShetrajna in the beginning of the chapter.  What we have on hand is the portion corresponding to the second half of the above verse: ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्य्ते
That Brahman is called neither being nor non-being.  This is what is being stated by the ‘Buddhist’ verse in the first half: भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं भावत्वं वा न तत्त्वतः.

Now, what does this line, either of the Gita or of this buddhist verse mean? न भावत्वम् (not existence). Why is Brahman described in these terms?  Is not the Vedantic Brahman an existent entity?  Yes.  However we have to note that the ‘Existence’ of Brahman is markedly different from the ‘existence’ of any other object in the world.  For example, a pot is said to be existent: ‘The pot is’ ‘घटोऽस्ति’.  Here, before the pot was produced and came into being, we could not say ‘the pot is’.  We say ‘the pot is’ ONLY after the pot has come into existence.  Thus, the existence of a pot is CONDITIONAL to its coming into being upon being produced.  Brahman, on the other hand, need not come into being anew to Exist.  It is ever existent, Sat. Thus, the scripture takes pain to bring out this seminal distinction between the existence of a produced object and the Existence of the Ever-Existent Brahman.  With this in view the verse says: ‘Brahman is not sat’.

When a pot is destroyed we no longer say ‘the pot is’; we say ‘the pot is not’, ‘नास्ति घटः’. When we have said ‘Brahman is not ‘existent’ (like a pot is existent) one might conclude ‘Brahman is non-existent’ ‘नासि ब्रह्म’.  In order to correct this misconception the scripture says: न भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं , न असत्. ’न भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं’ means that which is ‘not non-existent’ or ‘that which is not the opposite of existent’.

Thus, Brahman is neither ‘existent’ (like a pot is existent) nor ‘non-existent’ (like a pot that goes out of existence upon destruction) because we have said that Brahman is ‘not existent’.  So Brahman can neither be put under the ‘existent’ category nor can It be said to be ‘not existent’ in absolute terms. We can neither say ‘अस्ति’ nor ‘नास्ति’ with regard to Brahman. This is the meaning of the ‘Buddhist’ verse: भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं भावत्वं वा न तत्त्वतः  and the Bh.Gita verse:  न सत्तन्नासदुच्य्ते.

Now, we shall take up the other half of the ‘Buddhist’ verse: विश्वाकारं च संवृत्या यस्य तत्पदमक्षयम् .  Here the cause of the appearance of the world is brought out.  यस्य= यद्विषयक संवृत्या=आवरणेन (अज्ञानेन) विश्वाकारं = विश्वं जगत्तया जगदाकारेण अनुभूयते तत्पदमक्षयम् = तत् अविनाशि ब्रह्म. Owing to the ignorance of (about) Brahman one perceives the world.  In this line both the concealment, AvaraNam, and the projection, vikShepa, are presented.  अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः 5.15 of the BhagavadgItaa.  Brahman alone, owing to ignorance, is seen as the world.  It is with this in view alone the scripture teaches abundantly: यो मां पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति । तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मे न प्रणश्यति ॥ gita 6.30॥ ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्तात् ब्रह्म पश्चात् ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण । अधश्चोर्ध्वं च प्रसृतं ब्रह्मैवेदं विश्वमिदं वरिष्ठम् ॥Mundaka Up.2.2.11.  पुरुष एवेदं सर्वम् (puruSha sUktam). These passages teach us in unmistakable terms that it is Brahman that is seen as the world owing to ignorance. How does one conclude from these passages the ignorance part? It is from arthApatti that we conclude so.  The Upanishad aims at removing our ignorance by giving us the knowledge of Brahman.  And that Brahman is taught as appearing as this universe that we observe.  By saying that the observed universe is none other than Brahman the scripture teaches that if one sees the universe alone and remains in samsara it is indeed due to ignorance. And the teaching that the knowledge that the universe is none other than Brahman is liberating knowledge also confirms that it is due to ignorance that one perceives the world.  By pratyaksha pramaaNa one experiences the world.  By the Upanishad pramANa one learns to negate the world-vision and gain the Brahman-vision.  Thus this is a teaching of the Upanishad pramANa that comes later negating / falsifying the earlier svAbhAvika pratyakSha pramANa.

Thus the ‘buddhist’ verse is actually bringing out the central teaching of the Upanishad about the true nature of Brahman and the true nature of the world.  It brings out the cause of samsara by talking about ignorance and also suggests, hints, the remedy: Knowledge of Brahman. It gives the svarUpa lakShaNa of Brahman as akShayam, padam and also what Brahman is not through the words ‘neither existent  nor non-existent really.’

Om Tat Sat

The following is the fourth Buddhist verse quoted by Sri Madhvacharya in his ‘Tattvodyota’, as stated by Dr.BNK Sharma, in support of the stand that Advaita is no different from Buddhism:

जाड्यसंवृतिदुःखान्तपूर्वदोषवि