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

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00222 Jul 2006

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


janmAdhyaDhikaranam



suthra2- janmAdhyasya yathah



'From whom   the origin etc. of this  proceed. '



'Yathah' from whom , means Brahman, sarvesvara, who is nikhila hEya
prathyanika svarupa,whose nature is  free from all impurities (that are
found in the universe), satyasankalpa, of infallible will,
jnAnAnadhyanEka kalyANa guna, who possesses infinite auspicious
qualities such as jnAna, who is omniscient,omnipotent and the Supreme
Purusha.The  word 'Adhi' in 'janmadhi includes janma, srshti (creation),
sthithi (sustenance) and pralayam. (annihilation) and 'asya,  of this'
means this wonderful variegated universe of beings starting from the
four-faced creator, Brahma till the common blade of grass, ordained to
experience the fruit of their respective karmas.This is how Ramanuja
explains the suthra.



The basis of this interpretation is the sruthi text 'yathO vA imAni
bhoothani jayanthe, yena jAthAni jeevanthi,
yathprayanthyabhisamvisanthi, thathvijijnAsasva thath
brahma.'(taitt.brg.1) This means, from whom all these beings  originate,
by whom they are sustained and into whom they merge back at the time of
pralaya, know that to be Brahman.



Here an objection is encountered by Ramanuja that the word janmAdhi
denoting the creation etc. does noe define Brahman. The arguments given
to substantiate this are:

1. More than one attributes may denote more than one entity.The example
shown by the siddhanthin, namely, 'syamo yuva lohithAkshah devadatthah,
Devadattha is young, dark and red-eyed, is not applicable because the
person is seen to be one by the valid means of knowledge,
perception.Here there is only scripture that says so but no other direct
means of knowledge.It cannot be said that  since the word Brahman
denotes one entity only the attributes also denote the same entity
because a person who has never seen a cow, on hearing, the cow is that
which is 'khanda munda purNa sringah gouh,' broken -horned, hornless or
fully horned, iunderstands it to denote different entities.

2. Neither the characterstics can be upalakshana, by implication as in
the case where a field is pointed out to be that of Devadattha, saying
'the field where the crane sits belongs to Devadattha, yathra ayam
sarasah sa devadattha kedarah, because such characterstics, different
from the object are used to denote only the entity already known through
other source. if it is said that to the Brahman already denoted by the
text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham' these characterstics could be the
upalakshana because both are characterstics only and the same objection
holds good for both.Therefore Brahman cannot be defined at all.



Ramanuja counters this objection thus:

Brahman is already known through the etymological meaning of the word
brhat meaning great or big, since there is none greater or bigger than
Brahman the word denotes Brahman only in its ultimate sense. To such
Brahman, known already, the origination etc are cited as the
characterestics  and hence there is no contradiction of their being
upalakshaNa. Moreover the Brahman is described as the material an
efficient cause of the world by the Chandogya text, 'sadhEva soumya
idham agra Aseeth-----' where 'sadeva  Aseeth' denotes the material
causation, 'adhvitheeyam ' implies efficient causation by dismissing the
existence of any other agent, and 'it willed to become many and created
fire' ascribes the creation to Brahman only, who is mentioned as 'sath.
thath ' etc. The characterestics denote different entities only when
there is conflict in their meaning as in the case of 'khanda,munda,
poorNasringa gouh.' In this context there is no conflict in the
characterestics of being creator, sustainer and annihilator attributed
to Brahman due to the difference in time of the respective functions.



Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying 'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni
jAyanthe'  ithyAdhi kAraNa vAkyeEna prathipannasya jagajjanmAdhi
kAranasya brahmanah sakalaitharavyAvrtthamam svarupam
abhiDHeeyathe-sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma ithi.' That is,while the
Brahman is defined as that, from which all these beings are born etc.,
by the words 'existence, knowledge and infinity, the svarupa, nature of
Brahman, is described as being other than the world of sentient and
insentient, the latter being subject to changes and the former on
account of the association with it.The released souls are also excluded
because of their limited knowledge that existed while in bondage. In the
statement 'sathyam jnanam anantham brahma,' the word jnAna denotes the
eternal, complete knowledge of Brahman, the word sathya is to show that
Brahman is the absolute unconditional existence and the word anantha
refers to the characterestic of  not being limited by time, place or
entity, 'dEsakAla vasthu paricchEdha rahithathvam.' Hence the three
words that show the nature of Brahman are the svarupanirupaka dharmas,
inseparable attributes of Brahman., defining the nature of Brahman. So
the objection that Brahman cannot be defined is refuted by Ramanuja.











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






 
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