Percepts of advaitham Part 4 10 2024 KR IRS contd VENKATANATHA
by B. Sitamahalakṣmi M.A. Śrī Veṅkaṭanātha wrote an excellent commentary — Brahmānandagiri on Śrī Śaṅkara's bhāṣya on the Gītā. As is the case with all of our historical personages it is difficult to determine with any accuracy the date of Veṅkaṭanātha. His work does not contain even stray references to the biographical details of his life. A perusal of this commentary shows that our author criticises Madhusūdana Sarasvatī for having misconstrued some of the passages of Śrī Śaṅkara on the Gītā in his commentary on the Gītā-bhāṣya — Gūdārtha-dīpikā. From this we may conclude that Veṅkaṭanātha flourished after Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. Dharmarājādhvarin the author of the Vedāntaparibhāṣā speaks of one Veṅkaṭanātha as his guru: śrīmad veṅkaṭanāthākhyān velāṅguḍinivāsinaḥ jagadgurūnaham vande sarvatantrapravartakān. >From this we cannot conclude that Veṅkaṭanātha was the preceptor of Dharmarājādhvarin; for, the latter says in the following verse that his grand-preceptor was Nṛsiṃha. tam praṇaumi nṛsimhākhyam yatīndram paramam gurum. Veṅkaṭanātha states that he is the disciple of one Rāmabrahmānandatīrtha otherwise known as Abhinava Śaṅkarāchārya. Hence these two personages cannot be identical. The identity of Veṅkaṭanātha cannot be traced even through his other works. It is clear from his commentary on the Gītā that he has written three more works, namely, Advaitavajrapañjara, Mantrasārasudhānidhi and a commentary on the Taittirīyo’paniṣad-bhāṣya. We shall now set forth briefly some noteworthy features of the commentary Brahmānandagiri. According to Advaita, Ātman which is absolute bliss and consciousness when divested of avidyā is spoken of as liberation. Avidyā present in Ātman is the root-cause of all evils and its removal necessarily brings about the removal of all miseries. Ātman which is liberation is self-evident and it does not require any other thing for its manifestation. But, since it is veiled by avidyā and since avidyā could be removed only by the direct realisation of Ātman, the latter is said to be the means to liberation. >From a study of the Gītā as a whole, it is possible for us to gather that in it three paths are recognised as paths leading to the realisation of Ātman. And, they are: the path of knowledge (jñāna-yoga), the path of devotion (bhakti-yoga), and the path of action (karma-yoga). Of these three paths, the path of knowledge consists in realising the Absolute as it is in itself, pure and satire, unenveloped by any upādhi or veil. This is possible by pursuing Vedāntic study under a preceptor, reflection, and meditation. The aspirant must possess certain traits which are described as the four-fold aid of which control of intellect, and external senses is important. These are subordinate to the Vedāntic study. The prevalent view in Advaita is that the mahāvākyas of the Upaniṣads themselves give rise to the direct realisation of Ātman. This path is a difficult course of discipline because it aims at realizing the Absolute as it is in itself. It is because of this that this path can suit only those who live in the high intellectual plane and have definitely and decidedly transcended the sense region. But to average people this is not possible; they have not attained to that kind reflection, and meditation. The point that is of profound importance here is that those who worship the personal God with devotion reach the abode of Hiraṇyagarbha and there they get the knowledge of Brahman by pursuing Vedāntic study, reflection, and meditation, and thereby realize their identity with Brahman. Our author emphasises the view that Vedāntic study, reflection, and meditation, alone could give rise to the knowledge of Brahman. ‘nirguṇopāsanadvāraiva saguṇopāsanam mumukṣoḥ mokṣāya prabhavati, nānyathā; śravaṇa-manana-nididhyāsanābhāve jñānā-nudayāt’[6] The Gītā passage— ‘yogināmapi sarveṣām madgatenāntarātmanā śraddhāvān bhajate yo mām sa me yuktatamo mataḥ’ states that a devotee is superior to a jñānin, In the final analysis this passage means that bhakti is superior to jñāna. Our author says that this contention is wrong. The Upaniṣadic passage— ‘yasya deve parābhaktiḥ yathā deve tathā gurau’ and the smṛti texts such as— ‘udārāḥ sarva eva ete jñānī tvātmaiva me matam’ ‘bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaśchāsmi tattvataḥ tato mām tattvato jñātvā viśate tadanantaram’ affirm that bhakti is only a means to knowledge and it cannot be superior to knowledge. But what is intended to be conveyed in the Gītā passage ‘yogināmapi sarveṣām’, etc., cited above is that the worship of the Lord is better than the worship of Gods like Rudra, Āditya, etc. jñānasādhanatvenoktāyāḥ bhakteḥ phalatvena pradhānabhūtād jñānādādhikyāyogāccha; kiṃtu devatāntara bhaktiyogāpekṣayā bhagavadbhaktiyogasya śraiṣṭhyamuchyate- yogvnāmapi sarveṣām vasurudrādityaparāṇām iti bhāṣyokteḥ. Liberation, according to Advaita, necessarily requires the removal of avidyā present in Brahman. And, avidyā could be removed only by the intuitive knowledge of Brahman. To speak of bhakti as directly leading to liberation is, therefore, misleading. What is termed bhakti is the striving for the intuitive knowledge of Brahman by means of and through devotion to a personal God. And, intuitive knowledge of Brahman alone is the means to liberation. ‘premarūpā kṛyā baktiḥ jñānasyaiva sādhanam, jñānameva tu muktim prati sādhanam iti gītāchāryasya bhagavato matam’ Faith is the basis of devotion. Beginning with faith and worshipping with devotion the personal God, the aspirant attains to the intuitive knowledge of Brahman and thereby he is liberated. A perusal of this commentary Brahmānandagiri shows how very learned the author is besides being a very impartial critic. He is mainly concerned with emphasizing the fact that the Advaitic interpretation in accordance with the bhāṣya of Śrī Śaṅkara is the only correct interpretation of the Gita. Accordingly he misses no opportunity to criticise the interpretations of Śrī Rāmānuja and Śrī Madhva on the Gītā and the interpretations of Madhusūdanasarasvatī on the Gītā-bhāṣya of Śrī Śaṅkara. His interpretations are always to the point and in consonance with Advaita. His style is easy and unpedantic. It is a pity that none of his other works are available. If they are lost for ever, then it is indeed a misfortune to the Advaita literature. DA SARASVATI by N. S. Ramanujam Nyāya-Vyākaraṇa-Mīmāṃsā-Vedānta Śiromaṇi Mahādevānanda Sarasvatī, the author of the Tattvānusandhāna is a disciple of Svayamprakāśānanda. According to Das Gupta, these writers flourished in the seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries. The Tattvānusandhāna serves as a refresher to the serious student engaged in manana . All the Advaitic concepts are dealt with in this work in a very lucid way. The author himself wrote a commentary on it by name Advaita-chintā-kaustubha. Mahādevānanda’s most important contribution is his treatment of the concept of ajñāna. According to Advaita, Īśvara, jīva and jagat are but the appearances of a transcendental entity called Brahman. The principle that accounts for this seeming diversification of Brahman which is the sole Reality is ajñāna. The conception of ajñāna is thus the pivotol point of the Advaita. Ajñāna is the first cause of the phenomenal world and consequently corresponds to the prakṛti or the pradhāna of the Sāṅkhya system; but there are vital differences and metaphysically the two are completely distinct. The pradhāna of the Sāṅkhya system is conceived of as the source of the universe by being independent of the puruṣa. But ajñāna is considered as the primordial cause of the universe by being dependent on Brahman. ling, and vikṣepa-śakti or the power of revealing. By āvaraṇa-śakti it conceals Brahman and by vikṣepa-śakti it reveals it in the form of Īśvara, jīva, and jagat. Ajñāna is beginningless and it consists of three qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas. It is a positive entity (bhāvarūpa) and not an antecedent negation of knowledge (jñānābhāva). It derives its existence only from its superimposition on Brahman and it is held to be indeterminable (anirvachanīya) either as real or as unreal. It cannot be regarded as real, as it is removed by the intuitive knowledge of Brahman. Nor can it be considered as unreal, because it is determinately perceived in the form of ‘I am ignorant’. An unreal thing like the horn of a hare is never experienced. It cannot be real and unreal at once on the ground that this conception is self-discrepant. Hence it is regarded as neither real, nor unreal, nor real and unreal at once, but anirvachanīya or indeterminable either as real or as unreal. Ajñāna is removable by the intuitive knowledge of Brahman. It is thus jñāna-nivartya. This ajñāna itself is termed māyā and. avidyā. Some Advaitins draw a distinction between māyā and avidyā and define the former as that which does not delude its abode, and the latter as that which deludes its abode. Mahādevānanda does not favour this distinction. He holds that ajñāna which is characterised by the predominance of radiant sattva is māyā and ajñāna which is characterised by the predominance of clouded sattva is avidyā. Māyā, avidyā and ajñāna are identical. Or, ajñāna in its aspect of vikṣepa-śakti is spoken of as māyā and in its aspect of āvaraṇa-śakti is spoken of as avidyāis Īśvara. This is precisely the view of the author of the Vivaraṇa. This view is known as pratibiṃba-vāda, Sarvajñātman in his Saṃkṣepaśārīraka holds that the reflection of Brahman in avidyā is Īśvara and the reflection of Brahman in avidyā and intellect is jīva. In both the views the consciousness that underlies both Īśvara and jīva is the witness-self. The jīva is three-fold owing to the difference in its hunting adjunct, as Viśva, Taijasa, and Prājña. The jīva when associated with avidyā, the intellect and the gross body regards itself as conscious of the waking condition and in this aspect it is termed ‘Viśva’ And the same jīva when associated with avidyā and intellect feels itself as conscious of the dream state and in this aspect it is called ‘Taijasa’ And when associated with avidyā and intellect in its subtle state, the jīva considers itself as conscious of the deep-sleep state and in this aspect it is termed ‘Prājña’. The waking slate (jāgradavasthā) is one in which the direct apprehension of the various objects is simultaneous with the functioning of the sense organs. And this state is experienced by the jīva as Viśva. When the meritorious or non-meritorious deeds which gave rise to the experience during the waking state are exhausted and when the deeds which cause the experience of the dream state begin to function, the belief in one’s identification with the gross body is removed by a vṛtti of ‘tamo guṇa’ called sleep; and thereupon all the senses become absorbed by their ceasing to function. And thereupon the Viśva is also spoken of as having been absorbed. Then begins the dream state (svapnāvasthā) in which the knowledge of things is acquired without the functioning of the sense organs and is due to the latent impressions present in the mind. And this state is experienced by the jīva as ‘Taijasa’. When the deeds which caused the dream state also are exhausted and when the intellect together with its latent impressions merge in avidyā, there appears the state of deep-sleep which is the resting place of the jīva which is exhausted on account of its experience of both waking and dream states. Deep-sleep or suṣupti is the cognition of avidyā only in the form ‘I did not know anything’. One who has awakened from deep-sleep recollects ‘I slept well; I did not know anything’. This recollection is impossible unless there was such an experience. It is clear that in the deep-sleep state there is the experience of bliss and also of avidyā. And this state is experienced by the jīva as ‘Prājnā’ By eliminating all the limiting conditions and by the knowledge of the pure Self there results liberation. The three-aspects of the jīva, viz., Viśva, Taijasa, and Prājña together with the three states of waking, dream, and deep-sleep are of the nature of avidyā and therefore not real. The absolute consciousness which is constant in, and also the witness of the three states is the fourth (turīya) and it is transcendent and real. And the pure Self which is the basis of the cognition ‘I’ is non-different from this. All the three states and the three aspects of the jīva are relevant before the rise of the true knowledge of Brahman and cease to be so after the rise of the knowledge of the true nature of Brahman. Parallel to this conception of jīva, we have a three-fold view of the cosmic self as Vaiśvānara, Hiraṇyagarbha, and Īśvara. It is essential to remember that the sentient element in all the three is identical and the only difference is in the limiting adjuncts. The consciousness that transcends these three is identical with Ātman which transcends the three states of waking, dream, and deep sleep. The aspirant, owing to avidyā has lost sight of his identity with Brahman. By pursuing Vedāntic study, reflection, and meditation, he attains to the intuitive knowledge of Brahman. Whether the major texts of the Upaniṣads themselves give rise to the knowledge of Brahman or whether meditation (nididhyā-sana) leads to the knowledge of Brahman, is a question of great importance in Advaita. The prevalent view is that the major texts of the Upaniṣads themselves give rise to the knowledge of Brahman. And, Mahādevānanda accepts this view. When such experienced conviction of unity arises in him he becomes a jivan-mukta. After the final fall of his body, he becomes Brahman itself. Mahādevānanda has not introduced any new line of argument in the interpretation of Advaita. As has been said in the beginning his work serves as a refresher to a student engaged in manana. He has had access to all the important Advaita works before his time; and by presenting the Advaita concepts in a lucid and admirable way for the benefit of posterity, he has rendered solid service to the cause of Advaita. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GANGADHARENDRA SARASVATI by T. S. Narayana Rao B.E. Gaṅgādharendra Sarasvatī is the author of the Svārājya-siddhi, a manual of Advaita. In the concluding verse of this work he gives his date as 1748 Vikrama Śāka (vasvabdhimunyavanimānaśake). This corresponds to 1792 A.D. No further details of the author are available except that his guru was one Rāmachandra Sarasvatī and his parama-guru Sarvajña Sarasvatī. The work Svārājya-siddhi deals with all the important concepts of Advaita especially with the means to realize the self-luminous Ātman free from the veil of avidyā. It consists of one hundred and sixty-five verses divided into three chapters which are termed adhyāropa-prakaraṇa, apavāda-prakaraṇa and kaivalya-prakaraṇa. The author himself has written a commentary on this work and it is known as Kaivalyakalpataru. Brahman, the ultimate Reality, is one without a second, and it is free from any attributes. The attributeless nature of Ātman is arrived at by adopting the method of superimposition and negation (adhyāropa and apavāda). This, in main, is the theme of the first chapter known as adhyāropa-prakaraṇa. This chapter contains fifty-four verses. The author deals with the illusory nature of bondage and discusses in detail the sense of the words tat and tvam in the sentence tat tvam asi. Thirteen views as regards the nature of the sense of the word tvam are referred to and critically examined. And, the view of the Upaniṣads that the sense of the tvam is Ātman which is identical with truth, consciousness, and bliss is established. As regards the nature of the sense of the term tat the author first states that it is Brahman which is the material and the efficient cause of the world. Of course, this is the primary sense of the term tat. He refers to the view-points of ten different school? of thought as regards the cause of the universe and then critically examines them. He concludes by pointing out that the secondary sense of the term tat is the attributeless Brahman which is truth, consciousness and bliss. The second chapter entitled apavāda-prakaraṇa consists of sixty three verses. In this chapter, the author establishes the indeterminable character of the universe and the non-dual nature of Brahman; and he does so on the basis of the Chāndogyopaniṣad text —‘vāchāraṃbhaṇam vikāro nāmadheyam, mṛttiketyeva satyam’. The universe appears owing to avidyā which is present in Brahman or Ātman. Brahman is the cause of the universe in that it is the substratum of avidyā and its modification, the universe. Brahman is the transfigurative material cause (vivarto’pādána) of the universe. while avidyā is the transformative material cause (paṛṇāmyupādāna). Avidyā and the universe belong to the same order of reality: both have empirical reality. Brahman and the universe, on the other hand, belong to different orders of reality. While Brahman is absolutely real, the universe is only empirically real. Just as the snake superimposed on a rope disappears by the knowledge of the rope, so also the universe superimposed on Brahman disappears by the intuitive knowledge of Brahman. The Advaitin postulates a two-fold definition of Brahman, one called svarūpa-lakṣaṇa and the other taṭhasthalakṣaṇa. The object of defining a thing is to differentiate it from everything else and this result is attained generally by reference to a property that is distinctive of it. To give an example, water is defined by reference to its liquidity—a feature which is found in it and in none other. This is an instance of svarūpa-lakṣaṇa; for this characteristic is an essential feature of the object defined. Taṭhasthalakṣaṇa, on the other hand, differentiates an object from the rest by reference to a property which is not its essential nature. For example, a house of a person Devadatta is defined by reference to the crow perching on its roof—a feature which is only external to the house and not a part of the nature of the house. Though the two types of definition differentiate the object defined from the rest, yet the svarūpalakṣaṇa alone gives us a notion of the nature of the object defined. The Advaitin defines Brahman by utilising the taṭhasthalakṣaṇa as the source of the universe. The author has selected passages from the five principal Upaniṣads, namely, the Aitareya the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, the Taittirīyaka, the Chāndogya and the Māṇḍūkya, to show that Brahman is the source of the universe. This is taṭhastha-lakṣaṇa in that the characteristic of being the source of the universe is not really present in Brahman, but is only brought about by avidyā abiding in Brahman. This definition only distinguishes Brahman from certain entities, but does not give us a notion of its nature. And that is done by svarūpa-lakṣaṇa. The Upaniṣadic texts such as ‘ satyam jñānam anantam brahma’ define Brahman as of the nature of existence, consciousness, etc. The author next proceeds to discuss the import o£ the five major texts of the Upaniṣads, namely, prajñānam brahma (Aitareya) , aham brahmāsmi (Bṛhadāraṇyaka), sa yaśchāyam purushe, yaśchasāvāditye, sa ekaḥ (Taittirīyaka), tat tvam asi (Chāndogya), and ayamātma brahma (Māṇḍūkya). The words such as tat and tvam, etc., constituting the sentences primarily convey Īśvara and jīva. Īśvara is mediate and omniscient. Jīva is immediate and ignorant. In view of the conflicting attributes which they have, there cannot be any identification between the two. Hence secondary signification is resorted to. The two words secondarily signify the absolute consciousness which is the essential nature of both Īśvara and jīva. The identity of the essential nature of Īśvara and jīva is the import of the major texts of the Upaniṣads. This identity is not identity involving duality, but it is identity-in-itself (svarūpābheda). In the Upaniṣadic text —‘nirañjanaḥ paramam sāmyamupaiti’, the word sāmya conveys the sense of identity and the word paramam conveys that that identity is identity-in-itself. The intuitive knowledge of the identity of the essential nature of Īśvara and jīva arising from the major texts of the Upaniṣads annihilates avidyā along with its products. The third chapter kaivalya-prakaraṇa consists of forty five verses. This chapter deals with the nature of release. The intuitive knowledge of Brahman is the sole means to release. Vāchaspatimiśra, the author of the Bhāmatī holds that nididhyāsana is principal among the means that gives rise to knowledge. Prakāśātman, the author of the Vivaraṇa, holds that śravaṇa is principal and the other two are its auxiliaries. From this it is clear that Prakāśātman holds that the Upaniṣadic sentences themselves give rise to the intuitive knowledge of Brahman. This is the prevalent view; and this author maintains the same. One who has attained to the knowledge of Brahman continues to live till his prārabdha-karma is exhausted by experiencing its results. This state is known as jīvan-mukti. Our author explains the state of jīvan-mukti in this chapter known as kaivalya-prakaraṇa. The outpourings of jīvan-mukta are set forth in fifteen verses in this chapter and these verses, according to the commentary Kaivalya-kalpataru constitute a section termed jīvan-mukti-gītā. These verses explain in an admirable way the highly evolved state of the infinite bliss enjoyed by the liberated souls. When the prārabdha-karma is exhausted by experiencing its results, the jīvan-mukta is dissociated from his physical accompaniments and he becomes Brahman itself. This is known as videha-mukti. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ARAMASIVENDRA SARASVATI by V. Jagadeesvara Sastri Vedānta Śiromaṇi There have been many great saints and mystics in our country, in every century. But it is only a very few, who have not only been distinguished and great souls on their own, but have been formal heads of established monastic institutions whose mission is to cater to the spiritual needs of mankind. The Kāñchī Kāmakoṭi Pīṭha is an ancient one, having been adorned by great saints and sages in an unbroken line from Śrī Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda. Among the great souls who adorned the illustrious Kāmakoṭī Pīṭha, Śrī Paramaśivendra Sarasvatī, who was a great saint and author of works on Advaita, was the fifty-seventh āchārya. He had several śiṣyas. One of his śiṣyas was the famous jīvanmukta of our land Śrī Sadāśiva Brahmendra Sarasvatī. Paramaśivendra Sarasvatī was a contemporary of Trayam-baka-makhi, Śaṅkaranārāyaṇa makhi, Śrī Rāmendra and Śrī Varadarāja. This can be known from the statement of Paramaśivendra himself at the end of his Daharavidyāprakāśa: eṣā trayambakamakhinaḥ Śrī rāmendrasya varadarājasya śaṅkaranārayaṇamakhivarasya cha abhyarthanāvaśat rachitā Paramaśivendra has written several works. Mention may be made here of a few: 1. Daharavidyāprakāśa, 2. Śivagītā-tātparyaprakāśikā, 3. and Vedānta-nāma-ratna-sahasra-vyākhyā or Svarūpānu-sandhāna. Among the works of Śrī Paramaśivendra Vēdānta-nāma-ratna-sahasra-vyākhyā is a very important one. It is in the nature of an encyclopaedia of the words that are applied to Brahman in the Upaniṣads. Śrī Sadāśiva Brahmendra Sarasvatī in his Ātmānusandhāna has dealt with several names that were described by Paramaśivendra in his work referred to above. Śrī Sadāśivendra declares as follows : śrīmatparamaśivendradeśikānām vayam mudā advaitānanda- mādhvikamaṅghripadmamupāsmahe Śrī deśikokta vedānta-nāmasāhasramadhyagānkāṃśchinnāmamaṇīn padmadāmabhirgrathayāmyaham The work Vedānta-nāma-ratna-sahasra-vyākhyā is available in manuscript [D. 15508] in the Madras Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. We shall now explain the aim of this work. According to Advaita, the intuitive knowledge of Brahman is the means to liberation. The performance of rituals purifies the mind of the aspirant and generates in his mind the desire to know Brahman. Possessed of the fourfold means, namely, nityā-nitya-vastu-viveka, ihāmutrārthabhogavirāga, śama-damādi-sadhana-saṃpat and mumukṣutvam, the aspirant resorts to a preceptor and pursues śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana. By śravaṇa is meant the ascertainment that the final import of the Upaniṣads is the absolute Brahman. Manana is arguing within oneself, after knowing definitely what the Upaniṣads teach with a view to convince oneself that that teaching alone is true. Nididhyāsana is the profound meditation upon the identity of the individual Soul and brahman. It has been said that the knowledge of Brahman is the sole means to liberation. And that could arise only from the major texts of the Upaniṣads like tat tvam asi , etc. The knowledge thus arising from the texts is not effective in dispelling avidyā, because the intellect of the aspirant who has such a knowledge is confounded by latent impressions arisen from enjoyment of worldly objects (viṣaya-bhoga-vāsanā) , doubt regarding the validity of the Upaniṣadic passages (pramāṇāsaṃbhāvanā), contrary notion as regards the import of the Upaniṣadic texts (prameyāsaṃ-bhāvanā) and an unconscious reassertion of old habits of thought (viparītūbhāvanā) incompatible with the truth since learnt. The four-fold means removes viṣayabhogavāsanā. Śravaṇa and manana remove pramaṇāsaṃbhāvanā and prameyāsaṃbhavana. And, viparīta-bhāvanā could be removed only by nididhyāsana. The latter consists in the meditation on one’s nature as free from body, senses, etc. Our author states: ‘ātmatattva-sākṣātkāravato’pi anekaśatasahasrajanma vāsanā-vaśāt anuvartamānā dehādyātmabuddhirūpā viparītabhāvanā madhye madhye punaḥ punaḥ anuvartate; . . . . . . ataḥ tannirāsāya viraktasya kṛta-śravaṇasya tyaktasarvaiṣaṇasya labdhasākṣāt-kāravato’pi nirantaram dehendṛyādi-dṛśya-prapañcha-pravilāpana-purassaram svarūpānusandhānaṃ kartavyam’ (p. 3). Meditation upon one’s nature as free from body, senses, etc., and as identical with Brahman should be pursued with the help of the words of the Upaniṣadic texts which convey the true nature of Brahman. ‘tasmāt ātmānantādiśabdaiḥ svarūpānusandhānam kartavyam’ (p. 7). Words like satya, etc., found in the Upaniṣadic texts convey in an affirmative manner the nature of Brahman as satya, etc. And words like asthūla, etc., found in the Upaniṣadic texts convey in a negative way the nature of Brahman as free from duality, etc. The author of the Brahma-sūtra prescribes a method of gathering the unrepeated words found in the affirmative Upaniṣadic passages in the aphorism— ānandādayaḥ pradhānasya (3.3.11), and applies the same consideration to the words found in the negative Upaniṣadic passages in the aphorism— aksḥaradhiyām tvavarodhaḥ sāmānya-tadbhāvābhyām-aupasa-davat taduktam (3.3.33). Our author states: taduktam sūtrakāraiḥ : ‘ānandādayaḥ pradhānasya’ iti ānandā-dayaḥ śabdāḥ vidhimukhena brahmasvarūpam pratipādayitum pravṛttaḥ; anye asthūlādayaḥ śabdāḥ dehendṛyādidṛśyaprapañcha-nishedhamukhena pravṛttāh — tadapyuktam-akṣaradhiyām tvava-rodhaḥ sāmānya-tadbhāvābhyām aupasadavat taduktam. (p. 7). In this way our author has collected one thousand words in the alphabetical order from the principal Upaniṣads and also from the Nṛsimhatāpinyupaniṣad, and has shown how those words convey Brahman. ataḥ . . . . . . nāmnām sahasram īśāvāsyādyāsu tāpaniyāntīsu śrutishu buddhisaukaryāya akārādikṣakārāntatayā saṃgṛhītam (p. 11). The words that are affirmative in character cannot convey Brahman through primary signification. Every word employed to denote a thing denotes that thing as associated with a certain genus, or act, or quality, or mode of relation. But Brahman which transcends both speech and mind, which is free from all qualities, has no genus, possesses no qualities, does not act, and is related to nothing else; therefore the primary signification would not hold good. The words that are affirmative in character convey the nature of Brahman only through secondary signification. The words that are negative in character negate all duality in Brahman and thereby indicate that the latter is devoid of any relation, quality, part, etc. It should be noted here that the words that are negative in character merely negate the forms brought about by avidyā in Brahman. They do not, like the affirmative ones, refer to some form and convey it as the essential nature of Brahman. Thus, by collecting and giving the meaning of one thousand words from the Upaniṣads, Śrī Paramaśivendra Sarasvatī has rendered a solid service to the cause of Advaita, particularly to those who, having reached the higher stage of manana, are desirous of overcoming viparītabhāvanā by meditating upon the nature of Brahman conveyed by the numerous words constituting the Upaniṣads. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx K Rajaram IRS 41024 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooRnJDRLjOGGZzx0BAY3VD6ccpk_UEneE9w8HyGwVHeqw%40mail.gmail.com.
