sAmAnAdhikaraNyam/intros and table

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- Srikrishna Ghadiyaram <srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Hari Om !!
>
> Continuing my previous question:
>
> Referring to "tat tvam asi", the author says as
> follows:
>
> "it cannot be a
> > upAsana
> > vAkya, but it must be a tattva-vAkya."
>
> Originally in the foot note it is referred as "upadEsa
> vAkya", and now it is called as "tattva vAkya" How
> these two types of sentences are similar or different
> ?
>
> Om Namo Narayanaya !!
>
> Srikrishna
>


                     >
In relation to Srikrishna's question related to 'tat tvam asi' - I am
taking liberty of copying  part of my own post in advaitin where same
  topic was discussed. -The discussion is related to slokas in Ch. I
(tatva viveka) of panchadasi There is a discussion on tat tvam asi by
vidyaranya and he also provides a purvapaksha related to this
mahavaakaya. This may not be out of place in relation Ken's postings
on
  saamaanaadhikaraNyam.

 Discussion on Panchadasi I-49-50

At the request of Prof. V.K. I am providing my understanding of the
two sloka-s of Panchadasi to the best as I can, which discuss
savikalpa and vikalpa aspects.

Before I start the discussion of sloka 49 – since it is related to
puurvapaksha or objection to the previous discussion in the earlier
sloka-s (up to 48), pertaining to the lakshaNa mahaavaakya – tat tvam
asi -  I need to provide some background for the discussion of sloka
49.

The topic of discussion before the objection was raised is related to
Brahma lakshaNa – using ‘tat tvam asi’ statement that involves
bhaaga-tyaaga lakshaNa.  The meaning of bhaaga tyaaga is discarding
part of the implied meaning of the statement, while retaining the
rest to make a complete meaning of the sentence.  The classical
example that Pancadasi also mentions is – soyam devadaataH – he
(this) is that devadatta.  This statement involves three segments –
‘He’  ‘that’  and ‘is devadatta’.  This instruction will make sense
only to that person who is familiar with ‘this devadatta’ and ‘that
devadatta’.  – There are two independent statements which are
combined here- ‘This is devadatta’ and  ‘that is devadatta’ – each of
the two if they are used independently give only an introduction to
some Devadatta that the listener is meeting for the first time.  But
the combined unitary statement – this is that devadatta – involves a
deeper meaning involving lakshaNa vaakya of devadatta,  which
involves a bhaaga tyaaga.  That devadatta – refers to, say, that cute
little devadatta who was so handsome that we all met long time ago,
say in India many years ago.  Hence that refers to – desha, kaala,
guNa and kriya bedha-s – space wise, time-wise, quality-wise and
action wise – a completely different Devadatta with completely
different upaadhi-s – body, mind and intellect.  Similarly, ‘this
devadatta’ refers to the one who is right in front of us – a
completely different time and space and also differs in terms
upaadhi-s along  with guNa and Kriya as well – say this fat, bald,
ugly looking person right in front of us – Hence when the teacher say
‘this is that devadatta’ – the knowledge involves – two aspects –
rejection of all the upaadhi-s of this devadatta that include guNa,
jati and kriya etc but retaining the essence of that devadatta –
substantive of devadatta – that is bhaaga tyaaga – discarding part of
‘this’ and also rejecting all the upaadhi-s of that devadatta – along
with guNa, jaati and kriya etc. (bhaaga tyaaga) but retaining again
the essence of that devadatta, and then equating only the
substantives – the devadatta devoid of all the upaadhi-s in both
cases.  There are contradictions in the upaadhi- s of this devadatta
and that devadatta – but contradictions are negated or discarded and
still a total meaning is gained using the equation provided.  But
here even though the statement is a lakshaNa vaakya (more about
lakshaNa follows), the understanding is instantaneous for the one who
is familiar with that devadatta, and this devadatta that I am looking
at right now.  This is called aparoksha j~naana, a direct knowledge
in contrast some indirect knowledge of devadatta (paroksha j~nana).
The immediate response from the attentive listener (attentive is
underlined) is –Oh! What a wonder – this is THAT devadatta! – Here
the teacher has provided a proper set up, with the student’s mind
well prepared, for the immediate understanding of the implied meaning
of the statement.  This is the essence of bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa.

Now applying this to ‘tat tvam asi’ statement – tat refers to the
Iswara whose upaadhi-s are total maaya – with total body, total mind
and total knowledge etc – sarvaj~na, sarva shaktimaan etc- and tvam
meaning you, whose upaadhi is avidya – with notions of limited body,
mind and intellect – asi - is equation of the two – where one cannot
literally equate the two, tat and tvam – the equation is the equation
of the substantives – using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa – discarding all
the upaadhi-s of the Iswara – and Iswara without upaadhi-s is only
sat chit ananda Brahman, and discarding the upaadhi-s of jiiva and
jiiva without his upaadhi-s is also only sat chit and ananda – thus
equating only the substantives since upaadhi-s are only
superimpositions on the substantives and do not belong to them.
Since sat, chit and ananda is akhanDa – indivisible – there cannot be
two sat chit and ananda-s and hence equation is equation of the
absolute.  Hence tat tvam asi involves recognition of identity of
oneness of Brahman with oneself – provided the student is cable of
discarding or doing bhaaga tyaaga.  Here bhaaga tyaaga is discarding
the notional understanding of oneself with his upaadhi-s, which is
different from Iswara’s Upaadhi-s.  This discarding is not done at
physical level but at mental level since it is the mind that has the
notions and it is deeply engraved in the understanding as ‘I am this’
reinforced repeatedly through experiences of many lives.  All the
discussion is what was presented by Bhagavaan Vidyaranya in the
preceding sloka-s starting from sloka 43.

In sloka 49, as Prof. VK pointed out, Vidyaranya presents a
puurvapaksha or an objection by an objector, puurvapakshi.
Puurvapakshi catches hold of the word lakshaNa and uses that as the
basis for his objection – to understand the objector’s objection –
one has to have some understanding of the Indian tarka shaastra,
where the objects and qualities are analyzed exhaustively, each
aachaarya taking a stance that sometime agrees with logicians,
taarkika-s (which include naayayika-s and vaiseshika-s) and sometime
disagreeing with these logicians.  Here the objector is most likely
from post Shankara period probably from VishishhTaadvaita or Dvaita
schools. This becomes clear as we take up the objection. This
objection and the following discussion contain hair splitting
Vedantic dialectic arguments that most of the vedantins were all
familiar at that time. This is just a worning to the readers since a
clear understanding is not guaranteed, if one is not familiar with
these logical excursions.

Discussion of Sloka 49.

Objection: Since ‘tat tvam asi’ is claimed by advaitin as a statement
of Brahma lakshaNa and since advaitin also claims that Brahman is
without qualifications (nirguNa Brahman), claims by advaitin that
Vedic statement ‘tat tvam asi’ as maahaavaakya as  Brahma lakshaNa
vaakhyam (sentence) is contradiction in terms. (perhaps atat tvam asi
has a better chance than tat tvam asi!).  This is because, any
lakshaNa by definition has a quality, lakshyatvam, that is a quality
of being able to be defined by lakshaNa. Now the objector asks – is
does this lakshaNa involves savikalpa or nirvikalpa.  It has been
accepted in tarka shaastra (Indian Logic) that,  that which has a
quality is only savikalpa and not nirvikalpa.  Objector askes:  If
according to you, Brahman itself an object to be revealed by an
lakshaNa vaakya (by statements like tat tvam asi) it means that
Brahman is itself has an attribute of ‘lakshyatvam’,   a quality of
being revealed by an lakshaNa vaakya, that is lakshaNa Brahman
enjoying lakshyatvam.  Once Brahman becomes lakshya, with its quality
of lakshyatvam, it becomes a savikalpa Brahman only.

If he is savikalpa, then as per you advaitin, it must be a avastu
(belonging to the category of objects- since according to advaita
that which has qualities is only an object – and Brahman is not an
object and has no qualities) But by your statement of Brahma
lakshaNa, Brahman now has quality, and hence it is no more the vastu
(unless advaitin ceases to become an advaitin and changes his theory
that Brahman has qualities).  By knowing one object, avastu, one is
not going to know every other avastu – whereas knowing Brahman
involves knowing the substantive of every object (yat j~naatvaa
naaparam j`neyam- knowing which nothing else is there to be known).
If you know ring you cannot know bangle.  By knowing vastu
(substantive – like gold in the ornaments) everything is as well
known, and in that case liberation is possible since essential
knowledge is known. Brahman as per your lakshaNa statement, has a
quality, lakshyatvam,  that is, a quality of becoming a lakshaNa, and
hence it becomes a avastu and not vastu.   If you accept it is
savikalpa then it is avastu then as per your theory there is no
liberation by the lakshaNa vaakya. Whole your theory is wrong.

On the other hand, if you say it is nirvikalpam laksyatvam then there
is no chance of knowing it through the words nor it can be
experienced.  Since whatever is revealed by words is only savikalpa.
A nirvikalpa vastu cannot be seen,  na dRishTam, or can ever be
possible to exist, na sambavi.  Hence nirvikalpa vastu cannot become
a lakshya for a sentence. All means of knowledge can only for
savikaplam.  Hence the ultimate conclusion that the objector wants us
to reach is that there is no such thing as nirvikalpa Brahman, that
is, nirguNa Brahman.  Since Veda-s are using words to teach us about
Brahman, Brahman can only be saguNa Brahman. Brahman can not be
devoid of qualities.  Hence he can only be IswaraH who is
sarvasankalpa – with auspicious qualities – kalyaaNa guNa aashraya.
This is the puurvapaksha or objector’s objection.

Siddhanta or Response: sloka-s 50+

The Shree Vidyaranya chose to answer the objector in a way, what is
known as vRishhTira lakuTika nyaaya (not sure if I have it right!)–
nyaaya of a camel with a load of firewood.  Once a camel carrying
firewood was misbehaving or became wild.   It was a desert with
nothing but just sand everywhere.  Nothing else is there to control
that camel.   The camel driver was not carrying any whip or ankusha
(used for elephant) to control the animal. Hence he takes the same
stick on the back of the animal that it is carrying, to beat the
camel and to bring it under control. Similarly here the objector’s
logical statement itself is used to shut him off.  The arguments are
somewhat subtle and rests on some of the epistemological issues
discussed in the tarka shaastra.

Shree Vidyaranya shows that objection is absurd from several points –
or there are several logical errors involved in the very objection
itself – these errors that are pointed out are 1. vyaahati – or
self-contradiction 2. aatmaasraya dosha – error of self-dependency,
3. anyonya aasraya dosha, error of mutual dependency  4. chakra
dosha, error of circular argument and 5. anavastu dosha  - error of
infinite regress -  Five  logical absurdities.  Hence objector’s
objection is invalid.

Error of vyaahati – self-contradiction:
Vidyaranya say: Because I used the word lakshya you raised an
objection that if what is revealed by the lakshaNa vaakya, statement
of definition,  is it sa-vikalpa or nir-vikalpa – and that was your
(objector’s) the central question.  Before we take up the answer
related to Brahman whether Brahman has a quality of lakshyatvam, I
can turn the table against you by posing your own question to your
statement – to show the invalidity of your question itself. (the
arguments comes close to vitanda vaada).  You are asking whether it
is sah- or nir- vikalpa but the very use of the word vikalpa itself
involves a choice – since vikalpa means any thing that is subject to
a choice or division (In your question itself you have provided an
implied choice – sa vikalpa vaa or nirvikalpa vaa?) Now posing back
the same question to yourself related to your question– does that
vikalpa –which has intrinsic duality due to the choices you have
provided –that vikalpa you used that itself is it a nirvikalpa or
savikalpa?  If you say it is nirvikalpa – then that nirvikalpa by
your own statement can neither be seen (na dRishhTam) nor ever be
possible (na sambhavam)– that is you will be contradicting your own
statement and that leads to vyaahati dosha or self-contradition (
what amounts to is, you are accusing me about an error that you
yourself is making in the very accusation).  (My comments: The very
questioning of nirvikalpa involves a vikalpa and that is
fundamentally invalid –the questioning of nirvikalpa – makes it as
savikalpa because there is questioner and question to start with and
within the question there is a choice or division which is vikalpa –
all this means is the Brahman which is akhanda sat chit ananda
Brahman (see sloka 48) is indivisible and no vikalpa or division can
exist- hence very question related to Brahman as savikalpaa vaa or
nirvikalpaa vaa –is dividing that which is indivisible) – Hence error
of self-contradition arises.  It amounts to saying I am a vandyaa
putraH (son of a barren woman) or I have no tongue to speak.  What it
amounts to is- nothing can be said about Brahman, period.  Here Shree
Vidyaranya is twisting the arm of the puurvapakshi who is trying to
be smart by catching the use of the word lakshaNa – and Shree
Vidyaranya giving the same medicine for objector’s use of the word
vikalpa).
If, on the other hand, the objector says the vikalpa that I used is
not nirvikalpa but savikalpa (to avoid the error of
self-contradiction), then he is in a deeper trouble since he is now
committing four logical errors.  (This is what is called killing a
dead snake).

The other four errors:

If the objector say it is savikalpa – that means the objector will be
answering as vikalpa is not nirvikalpa but is savikalpa. But what is
savikalpa – the definition of savikalpa is vikalpena saha vartate iti
savikalpa  - by the statement vikalpa is savikalpa – it amounts to
saying vikalpa is savikalpam which itself is vikalpena saH vartate –
There are two things – a nominative case or first case – savikalpam
and vikalpena saH – is instrumental or third case.  Thus now we have
two choices in the very definition – one is vikalpa is savikalpam
which has again a vikalpa with a choice – now a question arises
whether the second vikalpa is the same as the first vikalpa or
different from the first vikalpam – if it is the same, we have double
error one is anyonya aasraya and the other is chakram or circular
logic.  (KS – here is the hair-splitting arguments that is normally
carried in the tarka – to give a simple example to unravel the puzzle
– let us take an example – a stick-man is waking – in this statement
– A man is the one who has a stick to walk– man is first case and
stick is the third case (with a stick – dandi is dandena saH )
qualifying the man since it differentiates him from all other men who
do not have sticks.   But if we go deeper, as the objector seems to
do, and ask the question – what is qualifying what- is it a stick or
a man? – stick-man is waking and therefore stick is also walking by
implication.  What is a stick – stick is that which a man is carrying
– that is stick is nominative being qualified by the man who is
carrying it. man – attached to a stick! since this particular stick
is differentiated from all other sticks, where men are not attached
at one end. (reminds me B. Shah-‘s definition of cigarette– cigarette
is that with fire at one end and fool at the other end).  On the
other hand, man is nominative and he is qualified by the stick he is
using for walking. This leads to two errors – one is anyonya aasraya
and another one is chakra – circular definition – since man is
qualified by a stick and stick is qualified by a man – this is like a
priest answering what is God – god is truth and what is truth – truth
is God – all we have ended up is instead of one unknown two unknowns.


Epistemological issue: What is being pointed indirectly is the
fundamental problem of defining what is a quality and what is a
substratum – in fact this is true for all objects in the universe if
one goes into detail – let us take  a classical example in tarka  –
what is a cow? What is that essential quality that differentiates the
cow from, say horse? It has been answered that cow is that which has
cow-ness which obviously different from horse-ness.  That –ness which
in Sanskrit is –tvam as in lakshyatvam in the objector’s statement.
Otherwise how do we define a cow- other than that which has cow-ness,
since any other qualification is not specific enough that can
differentiate it from the rest of the four-legged animals.   But what
is cow-ness and where is that cow-ness in the cow?  Since substantive
which is the first case is different from the instrumental case or
third case – since definition is cow is that which has cowness.
Cowness can only be defined has that which cow has?  We have not
really become any wiser.  It becomes a circular definition as well as
anyonya aasraya or interdependent definition.  These two errors are
inherent in any object, which has qualification since without
qualification it is not an object.

Back to the discussion:
With this example if we examine the Vidyaranya-s counter question the
error of the objector becomes obvious.  If he says vikalpa is not
nirvikalpa but savikalpa then he runs into a statement – viakalpa has
savikalpa and savikalpa has by definition has vikalpa – if this
vikalpa that the savikalpa has is the same as the first vikalpa then
he has both circular definition, chakram dosha as well as anyonya
aasraya, mutual dependence like our stickyman!

If on the other hand the objector say the vikalpa in the savikalpa is
different from the first vikalpa then Vidyaranya will pose next
question that second vikalpa is it nirvikapa or savikapa?  - if
objector says it is nirvikalpa – back to self-contradiction.  If he
says no it is savikalpa – with its own vikalpa – we run into infinite
regress or anavastu dosha.  Essentailly objector is cought in his own
words -
In fact Vidyaranya gives us a glimpse of the problem in the logic
that always leads ultimately to an infinite regress.

Having put the objector in his place, Vidyaranya explains further the
fundamental problem in asking these questions related to Brahman.

Vidyaranya says the question is absurd.  If you talk of savikalpa
then you will never make sense.  If you talk of nirvikalpa, it will
at least may make some sense since it is the ultimate substative. You
may say nirvikalpa cannot be talked -na dRisyate na sambavam – but
actually it is the other way around - savikalpa cannot be talked.
Any talk on savikalpa will never make any sense if one examines
properly.  One ends up with all those errors that have been pointed
with reference to any object.  Since object has only qualities and
cannot be independently defined other than with adjectives.  There is
no substantive independent for each object out there.  The
substantive of every object is only nirvikalpa Brahman.  Like what is
a cow or what is pot – pot is that which has potness and what is
potness is that which pot has- interdependent qualifications with
fundamentally no substantive (dravya) that can be identified.  The
problem arises because there is no substantive for any object in the
world other than Brahman.  But Brahman cannot be differentiated.  And
without substantive the objects with quality has no basis.  Since
Brahman is akhandam and advayam and therefore by definition no
independent dravyam apart from Brahman.  Hence fundamentally
nirvikalpa alone makes sense and not savikalpa – it is alright to use
for day to day transactional purposes – vyaavahaarika level.  For
nirvikalpa there is no coming or going. From nirvikalpa, in principle
savikalpa cannot  come-  But it appears to comes – as the whole world
comes from Brahman (uppadaana kaaraNa- in principle snake does not
come from inert rope but it comes.  It is only as a thought it comes
(bahu syaam – let me become many).   Thus if the analysis is hooked
to nirvikalpa then everything becomes possible – otherwise, one gets
caught up in logical absurdities as noted above.  Savikalpa has an
apparent beginning – which means there is no real beginning.  If you
try to arrive at the beginning one will end up the doshas – including
anavastu desho – anaadi pravaaH.  It is nitya.  Creation has to be
anaadi – beginning less. For the apparent creation, there is in
between the savikalpa and nirvikalpa a connection factor, and  the
connecting factor is as good as creation – the creation factor maaya
is as good as creation.  If the creation is apparent then maya is
apparent.  Apparent creation is accounted by apparent power called
maya.  Where does that maya exist – it cannot exist in creation – it
is Brahma aasrayaa maaya  - with the maaya as upaadi Brahman becomes
Iswara – someway jiiva is also Brahman – but upaadi is avidya.

Lakshyate – I am not accepting that Brahman has got property of
lakshyatvam – but it is used as upaaya – for convenience for
teaching– for one who is ignorant it forms a revealing sentence – to
establish you are Brahman – in Brahman  there is  nothing other then
Brahman to point out – hence to point out you are Brahman, I have to
establish, I, separate from you. But in understanding or realization
– I and You – the duality gets dissolved into one akhadam advitiiyam.
 Even though it is one, you do not know it – for the fact to be known
not as this is Braham but as I am Brahman – it is sentence is used to
remove the ignorance of separateness but not as lakskyatvam with
savikalpam.  It is something to be known. He is that devadatta –
there is no duality.  Whatever duality is only apparent and apparent
is rejected to arrive at the substantive, which is one devadatta.
This makes sense only to the one who is familiar with this devadatta
and that devadatta and the equation unifies the two as one removing
any vikalpa or duality. This can only be done by a teacher who is
familiar with the oneness of the Devadatta in this devadatta and that
devadatta.  Finally it is aparoksha j~naanam a direct knowledge of
the one who is required qualifications.

Hari OM!
Sadananda



=====
What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/