[Advaita-l] [advaitin] vidhi-vAkya and nishedha-vAkya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

*//What I meant was that the category labelled  a)  which you mentioned,
would have to be phrased as a) Some of vidhi vAkyas (including but not
limited to mahAvAkyas ) can generate tattvajnAnam while niShedha vAkyas can
only do anuvAda and do not have the capacity to independently generate
tattvajnAnam.//*

vidhi-vAkya basically refer to those vAkyAs which refer to Brahman through
vidhi-mukha and not through nishedha-mukha. So, they apparently seem to
describe Brahman positively.

However, a differentiation is made among them. They can be either
*mahAvAkya* OR* avAntara-vAkya* OR *arthavAda*.

*mahAvAkya* are well-known vidhi-vAkya.

*avAntara-vAkya* are those vAkyAs which are required for shOdhana of tat
and tvam padArtha. ShOdhana refers to determination in the form of
akhaNDa-ekarasa-chaitanya. That the meaning of the sentence is not in the
literal meaning but in the intended meaning. [तत्संशोधनं च
चैतन्य-आनन्द-एकरसस्य विनिश्चयः.... वाच्य-अर्थे न वाक्य-तात्पर्यम् अपि तु
लक्ष्यमात्र इति निश्चय एव तयोः संशोधनम्.] Satyam, jnAnam, anantam Brahman
is an example of avAntara vAkya. [Samskepa ShArIraka TIkA by MS 1.256/1.262]

*arthavAda *are five-fold. The vidhi-vAkya related to Brahman which deal
with srishTi, sthiti, pralay, niyamana and pravesha - are all arthavAda. As
we know, arthavAda and vidhi-vAkya have unity of purport. For example-
“This cow should be purchased, it yields a lot of milk” (“इयं गौ:
क्रेतव्या”, “बहुक्षीरा”). Here, the intent of the speaker is to propound
that the cow should be purchased. “It yields a lot of milk” is only the
door through which one goes to the desired place i.e. “this cow should be
purchased”. Therefore, the intended meaning is the chief meaning while the
literal meaning is subsidiary.

Similarly, all srishTi, sthiti, pralaya, niyamana, and pravesha shruti are
arthavAda and help mahAvAkya in generation of pramA of nirguNa Brahman.
They don't have intent in their vAchya-artha, rather in the intended
meaning which is nirguNa Brahman. [Samskepa ShArIraka TIkA by
MS   1.259/1.260]

srishti-sthiti-pralaya-Shruti -- यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते । येन जातानि
जीवन्ति । यत्प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति ।

niyamana-Shruti -- एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ विधृतौ
तिष्ठतः

pravesha-Shruti --स एष इह प्रविष्ट आनखाग्रेभ्यः

The *crux of the matter* is that pramA is generated by mahAvAkya *only*
which is only a subset of vidhi-vAkya. Other vidhi-vAkya may help mahAvAkya
in generation of pramA. While avAntara-vAkya help in shOdhana of tat and
tvam padArtha, arthavAda help through firming up the artha of mahAvAkya.
These arthavAda are upakArI to mahAvAkya [Samskepa ShArIraka TIkA by MS
1.260 एभिः अद्वय-चैतन्यात्मक-प्रत्यक्-ब्रह्म-अभेद-पर
तत्त्वमादेः-एव-अर्थ-दृढ़ीकरणात् तस्य-एव-तत्कृत-उपकारक-भाक्त्वम्].

*//1. Can we say nEti nEti will only accomplish apavAda and so adhyarOpa
has to be assumed or we need other sentences to unfold adhyArOpa before
nEti nEti completed the apavAda?//*

As I understand, adhyArOpa is by way of
srishTi-sthiti-pralaya-niyamana-pravesha Shruti. That is well-accepted.
nEti-nEti negates the adhyArOpa and achieves apavAda.

However, the discussion is regarding the stage at which nEti, nEti comes
into picture. Is it result of arising of Brahma-pramA, i.e. is it merely an
anuvAda OR is it helpful in generation of pramA.

So, first view is that -- one comes to know of rope as rope, and then says
-- this is not snake!! [Samskepa ShArIraka TIkA by MS 1.257]

Another is -- one uses the knowledge "this is not snake" to arrive at --
this is rope. [Samskepa ShArIraka TIkA by MS 1.256]

So, in the first case nEti-nEti becomes anuvAda whereas in the second case,
nishedha-vAkya, like avAntara-vAkya, is for tat and tvam-padArtha shOdhana.

*//2. Or can we say that point 1. written above is actually assuming SDV
whereas in DSV or EJV, there is direct arrival at aikyaM by bAdha of all
attributes and so even nEti nEti, asthUlam-anaNu etc are sufficient for
tattva-jnAnaM?//*

I need to apply mind on this and go through texts further. However, I feel
that such pre-eminent position of mahAvAkya vis-a-vis nishedha-vAkya is
possible only in case of mukhya-sAmAnAdhikaraNya which uses
bhAga-tyAga-lakshaNA. That is the view of VivaraNa which uses
pratibimba-vAda. In case of bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya, I feel both mahAvAkya
and nishedha-vAkya will be equally effective for tattva-jnAna. However, I
stand open for correction in this regard.

I wish there is more participation from members on this issue, after due
deliberation, as it has immense significance on meditation practice.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.