Re: [advaitin] Digest for advaitin@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Rammohan Subramaniam
Mar 15, 2024, 7:53:06 PM3/15/24
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Hari Om
This article from Triveni 1933 by Dr Radhakrishnan is very relevant when some long discussions on Vedanta is not reaching any conclusions easily. He explains that the diverse views by Philosophers on the Absolute reality stems from intuition not reenforcing rational thinking and over reliance on mere Rational thinking. Well presented.
The part about Vastutantra and Purushatantra is significant eye opener.
Shri Rammohan
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 3:27 AM <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>: Mar 15 09:14AM
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I am really proud of myself because ‘paamara pralaapa’ from a purely ‘loukika’ getting the attention of full time vedAntins and anushtAnavanta stalwarts in Advaita like your goodself and Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji. But I must confess here despite having clarifications from your good-selves I am yet to be convinced myself that some statements are not mere statements but can be proved with traditional logic!! That might be due to my lack of exposure to Indian classical nyAya and my inability to understand and contemplate on what has been said here by both of you. With the risk of I myself being fussy would like to continue this discussion. However to avoid reader fatigue and confusion I would keep my reply very ‘brief’
“Bottom line prabhuji as per my understanding : If we consider veda as Vishaya and if we try to ascertain its validity in the triad of pramAtru, prameya (prama) and pramANa it is aveda in sushupti and paramArtha jnana as there is no transaction here. But when the same veda treated as sAmAnya and its Shabda nityatva which is an exhalation of parabrahman, which is not different from brahman (or existence) which meets ikyata in brahman then it is too Shuddha Chaitanya only. There is no third unique state that can be attributed to it to say it is neither brahman nor jagat.”
This point was discussed in the Advaitin Yagoogroup during the discussion that followed the presentation of the Series on Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas. The question was then raised in the context of the Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya:
“Since it is Existence itself that is perceived otherwise through the duality of different forms, therefore, there is no non-existence of anything anywhere. That is what we say...... As the Nyaya school, after assuming that a thing is different from existence, says again that it has no existence before its birth and after its destruction – it is not assumed by us in that way, at anytime or anywhere, that any word or anything denoted by the word can be there differently from Existence.” (Ch.VI.ii.3).
Now if all names and forms are non-different from Brahman and are not subject to birth and destruction, they may also be considered eternal just as Vedic words are.
Ø The nAma and rUpa has the pariNAmi nityatva on the basis of kUtastha nityatva. nAma rUpa before creation in avyAkruta (unmanifested form) and during sustenance vyAkruta rUpa and at the pralaya goes back to its origin. Hence it has the parinAmi nityatva (then only mAyA satkAryavAda operates) or pravAha nityatva as Sri Venkatraghavan explained. And that is the reason why kArya as jagat like kAraNa brahman ‘trikAla’ abhAdhita. The cows (nAma rUpa / kArya/ particulars) may be different but cowness (gOtva – kAraNa/ sAmAnya) remains the same. As we know, the cows are described as vAchAraMbhaNa supporting the speech necessary to know the cowness. (vAchAraMbhaNam, vAgAraMbhaNam vAgAlambanaM ityetat (ch.6.1.4) they are only particulars / nAmadheya there is no purport in themselves if considered as particulars or independently. The crux is in its sAmAnya tattva i.e. ‘cowness’. Jagat as an independent existing entity does not serve any purpose here but jagat viewed from its sAmAnya tattva is nothing but brahman. It is because of this reason only I have taken both veda and jagat in the same compartment and said jagat and veda in sAmAnya tattva brahman only and jagat and veda when viewed as Vishaya / anAtma have the restricted existence hence said in sushupti veda is aveda. Have I erred here anywhere??
This being so, what is the special significance of Vedic words by virtue of which Vedic words alone obtain the status of being apaurusheya?
The answer to this question is that the universe arises from Vedic words.
Ø Arising of the universe is NOT like brahman thinking about srushti doing srushti becoming nimittOpadAna kAraNa of the srushti. bhAshya clears ‘what type of srushti’ it is from veda Shabda. Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji already given the explanation of veda Shabda which brahman thought before srushti and subsequent srushti which is not like upAdAna of the jagat. And I am just comparing veda Shabda before veda srusht AND avyAkruta / mAya before jagat srushti and seeing on the ‘same’ platform. Am I going wrong here??
Vedic words must therefore be logically prior to creation; for otherwise it would lead to mutual interdependence between Vedic words and creation.
Ø Prabhuji this creation with the help of veda mantra (Shabda) is not consistently emphasized in srushti prakriya in all through the shruti. As you know srushti order is NOT the main purport of shruti. All this was/is/will be indeed Atman alone in the beginning/end/sustenance and nothing else. That is ultimate siddhAnta. Yes, as discussed Ishwara with the help of already existing veda Shabda did the srushti kriya that means he just followed the ‘order’ of srushti ‘as is’ in veda Shabda which is nitya. So if veda mantra with regard to srushti is in order and not subject to any change the resultant srushti and its order also not subject to any change and it is also nitya. It is because of this I said dhAta yathA pUrvamakalpayatu. And coming back to srushti and the ‘material’ the Ishwara took to create is varies. Take for example prashna shruti (6th prashna and 4th mantra) sa prANamasrujata prANAchandaH khaM vAyurjyotirApaH pruthiveendriyaM manaH. annamannaadirvayaM tapO ‘maNtrAH’, karma lOkA lOkeshu chaM nAma cha. Please see what bhAshyakAra explains what is the meaning of the word ‘maNtra’ in this mantra. bhAshya vAkya : mantrAH tapOvishuddyAntaHbahirkaraNebhyaH karma sAdhana bhUtAH ‘rigyajuhsAmAtharvAngirasaH tataH karma agnihOtrAdi lakshaNam. (here A good English translation is required from any available authentic source). Here it is quite evident that ‘maNtra-s like rig yajur sAma and atharva created by hiraNyagarbha/prANa inbetween other srushti-s. This indeed would help to get the more clarity with regard to taittireeya mantra (2-3) on manOmaya kOsha and bhAshya. And in Itareya sa Ekshata bhAshyakAra and veda mantra too does not speak anything about the help of veda Shabda. And in spider example too in mundaka the helping nature of veda Shabda not there. Ok one may argue that these are all about physical srushti not about veda Shabda srushti but those who argue this should give the convincing explanation with regard to prashana maNtra srushti krama.
Now, in another post you say:
“So, all big big statements with regard to veda-s speciality, its aloukika nature of words, its paavitrata and its exclusivity etc. from other paUrusheya texts stand as mere statements only and aloukikatva of the veda words just believed because it is said so in tradition.”
It is not so. While it is true that the aloukikatva of Vedic words is made known from the tradition, it is at the same time a proposition that is justifiable by reason. It is not a mere belief without a reasonable foundation, as you state.
* Prabhuji, kindly allow me to ask you a simple question without mentioning any source if I give you a word / statement can you decide whether it is a apaurusheya veda or smruti or purANa or itihAsa just looking at that word / statement?? If that is not possible and if we dependent on some traditional background to decide which is shruti and which is smruti or man made, how can it be justifiable by reason without the taking help of tradition which has some axioms with regard to this ?? Agama prakaraNa for us is gaudapAda virachita for dvaitins it is shruti. Some Upanishad (which is aparusheya as per them) is fabricated and concocted one for us advaitins just because it is saying something against what we believe as Upanishad siddhAnta. So we always suspicious about its origin. So without traditional belief you / we cannot categorically conclude any words / statements whether it is mantra of veda-s or just man made statements in smruti.
If you have the conviction that the universe arises from Brahman, then what is the difficulty is seeing that there needs to be words, existing prior to creation, by which Brahman expresses the universe?
Ø Yes, at one place veda says this the words in which brahman think is veda Shabda and another place it is (veda like rig, yajur saama etc. placed among other creation) and yet in other place shruti (veda) exclaims in wonderment : kO addha veda ka eha pravOchat eyaM visrutiryatha AvabhUva!!?? So as I said when srushti order itself not the main purport why this undue elevated status to veda Shabda. This doubt can arise both from vyAvahArika ( as veda aveda in sushupti since avasthAtraya in kevala vyAvahArika) and from pAramArthika ( as there exists nothing apart from brahman).
For, as pointed out by Sri Venkatraghavan-ji, any creation from a sentient being must be preceded by a contemplation of that which is going to be created and such contemplation requires the availability of words by which it may be contemplated. What is it that is not reasonable in this proposition? Why should it be considered as a mere belief?
* I am not talking about reasoning behind the sequence i.e. sentient-his mind-language in which he thought of creation– doing creation according to his thought process etc. I am just wondering how can these words exist at all as separate words in his mind?? When some other shruti saying he wished may I become plenteous, may I be born as the manifold. He created all this, whatsoever we find here. The real became both the real and the unreal. Whatever there is here it is called as reality. And as per shruti the creation is not like a civil contractor thinking about construction, preparing blue print taking some outside help and constructing the building etc.. Here for the creation HE is nimitta, HE is upAdAna and HE himself is ‘sahakAri’ kAraNa. So this is the reasoning accepted based on shruti vAkya ( shruyukta tarka) which is not so helpful, like other pramANa tarka, this tarka too operates only under the sphere of triad. So we being the vaidika what is the stand that we have to take ?? we rely completely on supremacy of the shruti that has originated from paramAtma hence it is the most authentic pramANa, shruti is the source to believe the existence of Ishwara and Ishwara is the source of shruti, here anyOnyAshraya dOsha is quite unavoidable as per the outsider but for us it is not pramANa siddha and shruti is having the status of svataH siddha without depending on any other pramANa. Perhaps you might now see the problem that we saMpradAyavAdins facing when presenting these theories to the outsiders.
If however, you do not have the conviction that the universe arises from Brahman or a Conscious Being, then please present your argument to support an alternate view and we shall then examine which of the two views – that the universe arises from Brahman or that it arises from a non-conscious source – is the more reasonable proposition and which of them amounts to a mere belief.
* Have I said anywhere I don’t have the conviction that the universe is not arising from brahman!!?? OTOH I have been reiterating the fact that as per shruti brahman is the abhinna nimittopadAna kAraNa for this universe as against avidyA (mUlAvidyA or primordial) is the upAdAna kAraNa for the jagat / adhyAsa.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>: Mar 15 11:27AM
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I just asked simple question whether veda comes under the category of kAraNa or kArya in other words in which compartment one should put veda whether it is jeeva, jagat or brahma in the sphere of vyAvahArika as we both agreed veda nityatva is kevala vyAvahArika.
Ok. The answer to the question is Vedas are also brahma-kArya only –
* Thanks for clarifying this. So before creation (kArya-jagat) veda too kArya of the brahman but prior to another kArya i.e. jagat, it is quite acceptable since as per shruti IT is ekamevAdviteeyaM at the very beginning and it is nirvisheha.
that is why in the first varNaka of the shAstrayonitva adhikaraNa, the bhAShyakAra uses this fact to argue for Brahman's omniscience.
Ø Yes that is right prabhuji na hi Edrushasya shAstrasya RigvedAdi lakshaNasya sarvajnaguNAnvitasya sarvajnAt anyataH saMbhavOsti. None other than the omniscient be the source of the complex shAstra of Rigveda, etc. So it is agreed that the source of RigvedAdi shAstra is none other than sarvajna paramAtma.
However, the same sUtrakAra who wrote shAstrayonitvAt also said ata eva ca nityatvam. Thus, even though Vedas are brahma kArya, as Ishvara doesnt have svAtantrya in their creation, the Vedas are nitya.
Ø This pravAha nityatvasiddhi can happen if it agreed Ikyata with the kUtastha nitya, like pariNAmi nityatva agreed for kArya jagat to say kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM that is what bhAshyakAra clarifies in T.bh. otherwise it would become mere kArya / Vishaya/anAtma and suffers from anityatvam.
> Anyway thanks for taking trouble to quote bhAshya vAkya-s from 1-3-28 & 29 from sUtra devatAdhikaraNa. But may I bring to your kind notice that, like veda-s below, the jagat too has been explained from this universal (sAmAnya) and particulars ( vishesha) perspective in the bhAshya.
* But we are reluctant to give any status to this veda, it is neither kAraNa nor kArya.
There is no reluctance to say Veda is BrahmakArya - however, just because Vedas are a product, we cannot say that its nityatva (unchanging nature) in vyavahAra is lost. The purpose of differentiating between Vedas and world is only to say that the Vedas are nitya (unchanging) even in vyavahAra, whereas the world is not nitya (unchanging) in vyavahAra also.
Ø Prabhuji I have bit problem in understanding this. You are implying here veda’s nityatva is proven beyond any doubt even in vyavahAra but if that is the case why there is veda is aveda in sushupti?? And why jagat is not getting the status of nityatva in vyavahAra?? After all it is vyAvahArika ‘satya’ and borrowed this satyatva from pAramArthika satya?? Don’t we agree and argue that jeeva’s association with buddhi exists in the unmanifest form during the deep sleep later it become manifest during the jAgrat and Svapna?? Because of the simple fact that nothing come into existence on its own accidentally. Similarly when it comes to samashti we have to accept that the unmanifest prakruti does exist during sushupti / pralaya and before creation just on the basis of its manifestation during the creation. If we see these two things i.e. veda and jagat (in its mUla prakruti rUpa and vyAkruta rUpa) from this vyAvahArika perspective is there any problem in accepting both are nitya in vyavahAra??
The reason given for that was no one has svAtantrya to change the Vedas, not even Ishvara.
* That is true prabhuji, as pravAha nitya veda-s so is pariNAmi nitya jagat. Both are vyAvahArically nitya in its own sphere but pAramArthically one with brahman. Is there any problem in this stand!!??
However, according to you, is Shankaracharya saying that the nityatva of Vedas is a vyAvahArika nityatva, or is it pAramArthika nityatva?
* pAramArthika nityatva can be attributed to one and ONLY one i.e. parabrahman. If anything that can be said as nitya during its cognition period (vyAvahArika) then for that nityatva source is pAramArthika nityatva and these cognized vyAvahArika nitya vastus should go back to its source then only it is fit to be called nityaM. Otherwise it would become Vishaya / anAtma which is unreal.
Is Shankaracharya saying "seeing the vedas having aikya with brahman is the only reason why they are nitya"?
* If the nityatva carries its true meaning then both world and veda have to go back to its source then only it is called nitya otherwise it has to carry special prefix pravAha / pariNAmi / vyAvahArika tags to say these are ‘nitya’ only at one particular point of view.
* Bottom line prabhuji as per my understanding : If we consider veda as Vishaya and if we try to ascertain its validity in the triad of pramAtru, prameya (prama) and pramANa it is aveda in sushupti and paramArtha jnana as there is no transaction here. But when the same veda treated as sAmAnya and its Shabda nityatva which is an exhalation of parabrahman, which is not different from brahman (or existence) which meets ikyata in brahman then it is too Shuddha Chaitanya only. There is no third unique state that can be attributed to it to say it is neither brahman nor jagat.
The only purpose of drawing a distinction is to explain why there is a vyAvahArika nityatva of the Vedas (when the world does not have vyAvahArika nityatva) and explain apauruSheyatva of the Vedas in vyavahAra. By nityatva, I am referring to the unchanging nature of the Vedas in vyavahAra. The world does not have an unchanging nature in vyavahAra.
* The changing nature of world is nitya if unchanging is the nature of veda. Former is pariNAmi nitya ( what is so consistent in jagat is ‘changing’ is its consistency😊) and later one is pravAha nitya hence I said both are nitya in its own sphere and for these two nitya-s ‘kUtasTha nitya’ is the source. (kUtasthan cha nityaM brahma sarvavikriya pratishedhAt). Though prakruti have the pariNAma ( vyAkruta and avyAkruta rUpa) it is eternal. This does not contradict the stand that ONLY brahman exists because prakruti is not different from brahman in srushti prakriya. The jagat retains its seed form during pralaya it is born only from that seed form. If that is not the case then it would lead to fault of accidental creation ( kindly see sUtra bhAshya 1.3.30).
By that much, I am not denying that the Vedas have pAramArthika nityatva in their aikya with Brahman. However, that is not the topic of the discussion here.
In my understanding of Shankaracharya's bhAShya to the taittirIya upaniShad, he is explaining the reason for why the yajuh, rig, sAma and atharveda-s are considered to be various parts of the manomaya sharIra - that is, Shankaracharya is not referring to the external Vedas, but the mental modes of the various rig, yajuh, sAma, atharva mantra-s, because it is in that sense that the Upanishad is referring to the four vedas as parts of the manomaya sharIra.
* Just wondering if that is the case why bhAshyakAra brings the topic of ikyata to prove the veda nityatva!! See prashna mantra 4 from 6th prashna where it is said mAntra-s of four veda-s come within the certain order of creation of hiraNyagarbha I think this would help us to do samanvaya with t.bhashya where ikyata insisted for nityatva.
Thus, it would be helpful if you can present your understanding of the following:
1. Is Shankaracharya's position that Vedas are apauruSheya in vyavahAra.
> As per Sri SSS nityatva and apaurusheyatva here in devatAdhikaraNa accepted as per the Jaimini (meemAmsaka sUtra he gives sUtra reference as well) and shankara nirNaya on veda nityatva well established based on taittireeya bhAshya 2.3. If you need exactly his words I can quote his observation in Kannada but unfortunately you cannot read it.
1. Is Shankaracharya's position that Vedas are nitya in vyavahAra.
* Do you think anywhere bhAshyakAra categorically bifurcate the status of veda nityatva like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika, the inference is drawn only based on his contextual observation on veda nityatva. Or if you have any reference to this kindly share.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages