Granted that the injunctive texts are sublated by the vedanta texts
but how can the texts like "parAsya shakthir viviDhaiva srooyathE
svAbhAvikee jnAnbalakriyAcha,'(svet.6-8) His supreme power is heard
of as being diverse and His knowledge, power and action are
svAbhAvikee, His nature, He is 'sathyakAmah, sathya
sankalpah,'(Chan.8-1-5) He is of true wish and true will, which means
that whatever is His wish or will, it comes to be true, be sublated ?
Advaitin replies 'nirguNavAkya sAmarthyAth,' on the strength of the
nirguNa texts like 'asthoolam anaNu,ahrasvam adheerGHam,' (Brhd.5-8-
8) Brahman is described as neither gross nor atomic, neither short
nor long etc. by which the Brahman is denied having any qualities,
which are affirmed by the epithets 'nirguNam, niranjanam,'
attributeless and colourless(formless). By the rule of sublation the
stronger texts sublate the weaker ones. In order to deny the
existence first, that which is denied is postulated as the
prathiyogi,countercorrelate to its abhAva,nonexistence. That is, only
something shown as existent can be denied and not something never
been existent like the horn of the hare.
But the text, 'Sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma,' quoted by the advatin
to substantiate his view that Brahman is nirvisesha chinmAthra do
attribute the qualities of truth, existence and infinity to Brahman
and how can these be explained to mean nirgunathva of Brahman?
Advaitin explains this by means of the precept of sAmAnADHikaraNya.
sathyam, jnAnam, and anantham are not attributes of brahman because
these terms stand in co- ordination and have oneness of meaning.that
is, they all mean the same thing and not used as adjectives.The
principle of sAmAnADHIkaraNya is defined as
as 'BHinnapravrtthinimitthAnAm sabdhAnAm Ekasmin arTHe vrtthih,'
when words of different meaning when put in apposition, denote the
same object, so that there is EkArTHathvam, oneness of meaning.
To say that attributes having different meaning can still denote
EkArTHathva is , says advaitin, an ignorant statement of one who does
not understand what is meant by denotation, 'anaBhiDHAnajnO
devANAmpriyah.' Oneness of meaning is identity of meaning of
different words. Here the different words satyam etc. mean Brahman
only and not the qualities as in the case of 'neelothpalam,'blue
lotus 'syAmo yuvA lohithAkshah dEvadatthah,' the darkyoung red-eyed
Devadattha etc., where the different epithets mean the same thing,
namely, lotus and Devadattha. For this, they would not be symonyms
because they refer to one thing.
Advaitin explains this as follows.The sruti says 'brahmavidhApnothi
param', the one who knows Brahman attains the supreme reality. This
gives rise to the enquiry 'which is Brahman'? Brahman is defined,
distinguishing it from what is not Brahman and for this purpose only
the texts like 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma are given. The terms
are not taken in their denotative meaning,mukhyArTha but in their
connotative meaning, lakshyArtha. Thus the term sathyam is not the
quality of Brahman but its svarupa, as being the opposite of all that
is not real, asathyam. Similarly jnAnam is to differentiate Brahman
from ajnAna and anantham is used to distinguish Brahman from what is
finite.Thus truth,knowledge and infinity are its nature and not
attributes even as whiteness as distinguished from blackness.
Therefore the texts like 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma' describe
brahman only as a self-illumined attributeless consciousness.This
interpretation only justifies the purport of the declaration 'sadhEva
soumya idham agra Aseeth EkamEva adhvitheeyam.'
Abandoning the direct meaning and resorting to the implied meaning
is no defect because the purport of the sentence is to be given
preference to the direct meaning of the words. For instance to
prevent one from eating food in the house of an enemy another
says.'visham bhunkshva, eat poison.' Here the muKHYarTha is not what
is meant but the lakshanArTHa, that to eat in enemy's house is like
eating poison. In the present context the purport of the
sAmAnaDHikaranya of the words sathyam etc.is oneness and hence direct
meanings of the terms cannot be taken.
Advaitin claims that the implied meaning can be seen in both
injunctive and imperative sentences. In the
injunction 'jyothishtomEna svargakAmO yajEtha', one who aspires for
heaven should perform jyothishtoma sacrifice, the sacrifice does not
give the result of svarga but the apoorva, unseen power created by
the sacrifice. So here the lakshyArTha is adopted. Similarly in the
imperative sentence 'gAm Anaya, bring the cow,' the words have
meaning only connected with the action. So in order to arrive at the
import of the sentence all the words can be taken in the implied
sense.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/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/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |