You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Jul 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00127 Jul 2006

 
Jul 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Brahman can be known and is also a knower.
Brahman is said to be jnAna avishaya, not an object of knowledge by 
citing the sruthi text, 'yasya amatham thasya matham yasya na veda 
sah;avijnAtham vijnAnathAm vijnAtham avijnAnathAm.'(Kena.2-3) This 
means that he understands it(Brahman) who comprehends it not;and he 
who who feels that he has comprehended it understands it not because 
it is beyond the instruments of cognition, namely indhriyas, manas 
and buddhi. Ramanuja objects that this interpretation would 
contradict the texts like ' brahmavidhApOthi param,'(Taitt.2-
1)'brahmavedha brahmaiva bhavathi,' (Mund.3-2-9) the knower of 
Brahman attains the highest, he who knows Brahman becomes Brahman, 
which shows that Brahman is  realised as an object of knowledge. All 
sruthis  mention the apavarga, release, to be the result of 
brahmajnAna, the knowledge of brahman.Ramanuja clinches the argument 
by saying ' jnAnam cha upAsanAthmakam, upAsyam cha brahma saguNam 
ithyuktham,' it is said in the sruthi that brahman with attributes is 
the object of meditation in the form of knowledge. 
Further Ramanuja points out that the text 'yathO vAchO nivarthanthE ' 
implies that brahman possessing innumerable auspicious qualities 
cannot be fully described by words or thought of by the mind both of 
which have their limitations, 'brahmaNah ananthasya aparicchinna 
guNasya vAngmansayOh EthAvath ithi paricchedhya ayogyathva sravaNEna 
brahma EthAvath ithi brahmaparicchEdha jnAnavathAm brahma avijnAtham 
amatham ithyuktham.'  So in view of this  the Kena text 'yasya 
amatham matham' means that Brahman cannot be known by those who try 
to limit it as 'this much.' 
  Desika expresses the same idea in his YadhavAbhyudhayam thus: 
Desika  portrays the Vedas as the bards trying to sing about His 
merits and he says that when they start extolling even one of His  
infinite auspicious attributes, they become tired. â?? Ekaika 
gunapraanthe sranthaah nigamavandhinah.â??  
The text 'na dhrshtEh dhrashtAram pasyeh;na sruthEh srOthAram 
srnuyAth; na mathEh manthAram manveeTHAh;na vijnAthEh vijnAthAram 
vijaneeyAh,' meaning 'you cannot see the seer of sight, hear the 
hearer of hearing,thinker of thought and knower of knowledge,' does 
not deny the seer,  knower etc says Ramanuja. It only refutes the 
view of the vaiseshikas that knowledge is the attribute of the Self 
and stresses that knowing and thinking etc. are the essential nature 
of the Self. It dismisses the individual self as the knower etc. and 
shows the Brahman , the real Self as the knower.
Similarly 'AnandO brahma,' (Tait.brg.) does not denote brahman as 
purely bliss but also as the Anandee, possessor of bliss, says 
Ramanuja. 'VijnAnam Anandam brahma,' consciousness, bliss is Brahman
(Brhd.3-9-28) shows that the knowledge and bliss is Brahman. Bliss is 
the nature of knowledge, that is Brahman, who is knower as 
well. 'AnandambrahmanO vidvAn,' the knower of the bliss of brahman
(Tait.2-9) and the text that says that a hundredfold bliss of 
prajApathi is a unit measure of Brahman, clearly indicate that 
Brahman is not only Ananda but Anandee as well and knowership, 
jnAthrthvam is itself blissfulness, Anandithvam.
Ramanuja then proceeds  to the denial texts that deny plurality of 
the world as being unreal, toshow that they do not actually negate 
the manifoldness of the world.They are, 'yathra hi dvaithamiva 
bhavathi,'(Brrhd.2-4-14) when there is duality as it were, 'neha 
nAnAsthi kimchana; mrthyOhO sa mrthyumApnothi ya iha nAnEva 
pasyathi,' here there is no separateness whatever ; he attains 
mortality successively who sees separateness. Since the manifoldness 
is established by texts such as 'thadhaikshatha bahusyam prajayeya,' 
(Brhad.4-4-19) it willed to become many, what is denied is the 
separate existence of the world apart from Brahman, who is its real  
Self and inner ruler.
The last text taken by Ramanuja to refute the denial of plurality 
is 'yadhA hyEvasha Ethasmin udharam antharam kurutheatha thasya 
bhayam bhavathi,' (Tait.2-7) there is fear for him who makes the 
least differentiation in it, that is, Brahman. This is interpreted as 
there would be fear for one who sees diversity in the world which is 
nothing but Brahman.Ramanuja says that this interpretation would 
contradict the Chandogya text ' sarvam khalu idham brahma thajjalAn 
ithi shAntha upAseetha,'(Chan.3-14-1) all this is brahman as it 
originates from, sustained by and absorbed in Brahman and thus one 
should meditate to attain calmness of mind. The word 'tajjalAn' is 
made up of 'thath, ja,la, an.' 'ja stands for janana, 
origination, 'la' for laya or annihilation and 'an' means to live, 
that is sustenance. So what the Taittiriya text means is that there 
is no fear for one who sees Brahman as the Self of all and meditates 
on Brahman as such and the fear comes only when he does not. If there 
is a break in this steady meditation there is fear which has been 
also mentioned by the great rshis.'yanmuhurthamkshaNam vApi vAsudevO 
na chinthyathe sA hanih than mahath chidhram sa brAnthih sa cha 
vikriya,' In that duration of time or a moment when there is no 
thought on Vasudeva there is  harm created by a great opening to let 
all illusions and wrong actions.
The suthras quoted by advaitin to prove that Brahman is nirvisesha, 
namely,'na sthAnathO api parasya ubhayalingam sarvathra hi,'(BS.3-2-
11) and 'mAyAmAthram thu kArthsnyEnaanabhivyaktha svarupahvAth,'(BS.3-
2-3) are in fact prove only the saviseshathva of Brahman ,says, 
Ramanuja.The first one is translated as 'not even accrding to place 
can Brahman have a twofold characterestic, for everywhere(it is 
taught to be without attributes.)' by the advaitin which means that 
Brahman cannot be with and without attributes and even when connected 
with the body etc. it does not therefore has attributes. But Ramanuja 
interprets this differently. He gives the following explanation. Not 
even on account of place,  being in the body,for instance, can there 
be imperfection in Brahman because through out (the scripture it is 
described) as having a twofold characterestics, namely, being free 
from all imperfections and having auspiciuos qualities.The second 
suthra is translated as 'but the dream creation is mere maya because 
of its nature of not being a complete manifestation'by the advaitin. 
Ramanuja on the other hand explains it thus:but it is mere maya on 
account of its true nature not being manifest fully. It is called 
maya because the dream world is something wonderful but it is not 
illusion. Brahman who is awake in us even in our sleep creates the 
experience in the dream and He is pure.So this establishes Brahman 
only as savisesha.
Next Ramanuja quotes profusely from the smrithis like Gita and 
vishnupurANa to prove that Brahman is not a nondual  consciousness 
but possesses infinite auspicious attributes. Brahman is  savisesha 
and the world of sentient and insentient beings is also real and 
forms the body of Brahman who is its inner Self.The Ramanuja proceeds 
with his criticism of the main tenet of advaita, namely the avidhya-
maya.
  
 



















































------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list