Obfuscation by Dvaitins (was Re: Manish Tandon's query ...)
Mani Varadarajan
Shrisha has challenged me to show where Dvaitins obfuscate.
I accept the challenge.
Let me first make clear what I mean:
(a) Dvaitins are *so* averse to *any* abheda vaakya
(statement of unity) in Sruti and smriti that
they usually resort to pulling meanings out of
hats for words, when the context never calls
for such an interpretation.
This happens to such an extent that I feel Dvaita
hermeneutics should be dubbed ``ati-lakshaNArtha-vAda.''
This will become clearer below.
(b) Shrisha will doubtless write a 300-400 line article
refuting the facts that I have lay down below.
The fact that he will do this is simply an example
of the second method of obfuscation to which
Dvaitins resort, particularly modern-day Dvaitins.
The theory seems to be, ``Since the meaning at face
value *can't* make sense, (Why? Because unity would
be implied, and that *can't* be the case!) let's
beat the opponent to death with some so-called logic
and extraneous citations. Let's muddle the issue so
much that the opponent just gives up in fear or
frustration.''
But lo! Shrisha is not the only example of this style of
argumentation. Let us look at Sri Anandatirtha's (Madhva's)
comments itself.
First, the ``aham brahmAsmi'' text I brought up last week.
Shrisha wrote, carefully following Anandatirtha:
Now, the word 'aham' in "aham brahmaasmi" does not mean
"I" -- it means "aheyam" -- that which cannot be avoided,
that which is not to be given up.
Is anyone actually going to take this claim seriously?
It is a completely baseless assertion for several reasons.
(1) Why would Sruti resort to such a confusing use
of terminology? ``aham'' make obvious sense as ``I''
when taken as is. Are the Veda vAkyas so
misleading that we need to resort to such indirect
and derived meanings to understand a basic sentence?
Is the Lord so merciless?!
(2) Please give me another example in Sruti where
aham means aheyam. Alternatively, an example
from Yaska's Nirukta or the Nighantu will do.
``asmi'' is then intepreted as a strange compound of obscure
meanings of ``as'' and ``mi'', instead of the obvious meaning
``I am'' unanimously accepted by other commentators. Oh,
poor Sruti-mAtaH, how much they twist you to suit their
philosophy!
The preceding is an example of charge (a) outlined at the top.
Shrisha goes on to say:
In addition to this, the word 'a' denotes Vishnu ...
So it does. But what relevance does this have in this
context? What if the word were ``avidya''? Would ``a''
refer to Vishnu there too? Why not?
This is an example of charge (b). Obfuscate with unnecessary,
irrelevant, and misleading quotations.
Why not fess up to the face value of the Sruti vAkya:
I am Brahman.
Accept the vAkya as is, at least its basic meaning.
Then use samanvaya to interpret its philosophical meaning.
Don't bludgeon the words to mean what you think they should mean.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Next example: the ``neti, neti'' (not this, not this) vAkya
-----------------------------------------------------------
This occurs in the BrhadAraNyaka Upanishad. A short
example of obfuscation from Anandatirtha's bhashya be
shown here.
This vAkya is a very important one -- so important that
it is repeated several times in the course of the Upanishad.
As an aside, it is strange that Anandatirtha treats it
almost casually.
Anyway, the vAkya first appears in the mUrta-amUrta brAhmaNa.
This name comes from the first sentence of the passage,
``dve vAva brahmaNo rupe, mUrtaM ca amUrtaM ca.'' The
vAkya declares that Brahman has two forms, the concrete
and the subtle.
This is the obvious and natural meaning, which various
non-Dvaita commentators interpret metaphysically in various
ways. However, Madhva concludes that this *cannot* be
the meaning, that Brahman is neither mUrtam nor amUrtam!
This is an extremely clever way of escaping the metaphysical
question raised by the Upanishad. Further, this conclusion is
an unnatural one, as it further mystifies the issue entirely.
However, Madhva provides a ``justification'' for his
interpretation. What does ``mUrta'' mean, according
to him? Naturally, he presses some obscure text to
his service:
mUrta means ``something pervaded by sin.''
mUram pApam hi tEnAptam mUrtam ity abhidhIyate |
amUrta means Lakshmi and Vayu which have an
opposite nature.
How ingenious! But it thoroughly evades the question
and obfuscates the issue. The assertion is made so
clearly by Sruti itself that Brahman is in some way
mUrtam and amUrtam. Why not face up to it?
Let me provide an answer. Dvaita philosophy is simply
a good exercise in logic. Nothing more. Without resorting
to obscure or unknown texts (Brahma-tarka, Paingala Sruti,
etc.), Dvaita philosophy has no solid basis in Sruti.
I am not saying Anandtirtha ``made'' texts up and
said they were Sruti. Only that the texts that he
accepts as Sruti pramANas simply are not in the
canon of Vedanta, and cannot be fairly pressed to
service in the interpretation of the ancient Upanishads.
Shrisha's accusation against the Gaudiyas rings
true in his own backyard -- ``parampara-abhAvAt!''
Madhva and many of his successors were great bhaktas,
but they view Sruti through Dvaita colored glasses,
rather than impartially looking at the vAkyArthas.
It is clear to me that Madhva was so obsessed with
refuting Sankara that he went to the opposite extreme --
ignore all abheda instead of giving it its rightful place
in Vedantic metaphysics.
namo narayanaya,
Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.22, 2/6/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----