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

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00171 Jun 2006

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


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/
 




[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