Response to Mr.V.Subrahmanian , by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
 |
| Shri Vidyamanyaru |
Shri Hari Vayu Gurubhyo namaH
A response will be given to the following mail from Mr. V Subrahmanian, who wrote in Advaita list.
His contention was that both Sri Vidyamanyaru and Dr. BNK Sharma committed error in interpreting the verse from Panchadashi by Sri Vidyaranya. It will be proven that there is no error in their understanding. Further, it will be shown that his reinterpretation is like going from frying pan to fire.
An Advaitin’s assessment of some Dvaita-remarks श्रीगुरुभ्यो नम:
The following remark is sourced from the site: www.dvaita.org
======== Quoted from Dvaita.org =======
//INTRODUCTION TO KANNADA EDITION of the Book ‘Gitaa-sAroddhAra’
Some commentaries on the Gita which have come down to us have tried to make out that Advaita-vada is the true message of the Gita. These look upon Sri Krishna, the supreme Lord, as still open to the illusion of duality. This may be gathered from the following verse of the Pancadasi of Sri Vidyaranya:
मायाख्याया: कामधेनो: वत्सौ जीवेश्वरावुभौ । (vi.236)
“The Jiva and Isvara are the calves of the divine cow of Maya.”
If Sri Krishna had really attained the experience of Advaitic unity, he should have realised the illusory nature of the universe and his own lordship over such a universe. In that case, it would be a gross deception on his part to claim to be the Lord of all beings (Bhutanam isvarah). In order to maintain the truthfulness of that claim, it will have to be admitted that from the Advaita point of view Sri Krishna is still subject to the illusion of duality. It is not clear how one who is not himself completely out of the illusion of duality can teach pure Advaita to others.
- SRI VIDYAMANYA TIRTHA SWAMIJI of the Sri Palimar Mutt of Udipi and the Bhandarakere Math of Barkur (S. K.)
Translated from the Kannada Introduction by Dr. B. N. K. SHARMA//
========
An Advaitin’s Response to the above observation of the Pontiff:
In the Panchadashi, is the verse:
मायाख्याया: कामधेनो: वत्सौ जीवेश्वरावुभौ ।
यथेच्छं पिबतां द्वैतं तत्त्वं त्वद्वैतमेव हि ॥
*mAyAkhyAyaH kAmadhenOH vatsau jIveshwaraavubhau |*
*yathEccham pibatAm dvaitam tattvam tu advaitameva hi ||* (VI.236)
[Jiva and Iswara, the two calves of the celestial cow called Maya, may enjoy the duality as they like.
In Hindi, the thought can be seen quite closely - जीव और ईश्वर दोनों बछड़े माया नामक कामधेनु से मन माँगा द्वैत पी रहें हैं
But the non-dual alone is the Reality.]
Great! The statement "non-dual alone is the Reality" is atleast a good start rather than saying "non-dual and dual - both are Realities" or "non-dual and dual - both are non-realities". From the above it is implied that duality is not a reality. However, both Jiva and Ishvara are enjoying this duality, which is not a reality.
Now X wishes to say something about Y and Z w.r.t 'water in mirage'. There are following possibilities, which X may say -.
"Y and Z are drinking water from a mirage" - 1s
"Y and Z are imagining that they are drinking water from a mirage"- 2s
"Only Z is drinking water from mirage" - 3s
"Only Z is imagining as drinking water from mirage" - 4s
"Only Y is drinking water from mirage"- 5s
"Only Y is imagining as drinking water from mirage" - 6s
"Both are not drinking and not imagining drinking water from mirage" - 7s
If X says 1s, then it means that all three - X, Y and Z are under the illusion that there is water in the mirage. - 1s-e
If X says 3s, then it means that X and Z are under the illusion that there is water in the mirage. However it is illogical that X, who is under the illusion can make a claim that Y is not. - 3s-e
If X says 5s, then it means that X and Y are under the illusion that there is water in the mirage. However it is illogical that X, who is under the illusion can make a claim that Z is not. - 5s-e
If X says 2s, then it means that Y and Z are under the illusion that there is water in the mirage. However X is free from that illusion. - 2s-e
If X says 4s, then it means that only Z is under the illusion that there is water in the mirage. However X and Y are free from that illusion. - 4s-e
If X says 6s, then it means that only Y is under the illusion that there is water in the mirage. However X and Z are free from that illusion. - 6s-e
If X says 7s, then it means that all three - X, Yand Z are not under the illusion that there is water in the mirage. All three are free from thatillusion. - 7s-e
The observation of the Pontiff of the Sri Palimar Mutt has arisen out of misinformation about the status of Ishwara and jiva in the Panchadashi in particular and in Advaita in general.
This is the standard accusation. We will get to the root of that now.
In the Panchadashi itself there are several verses that show the distinction between Ishwara and Jiva.
Wow! Then it is not Advaita. It is something else. If panchadashi shows the distinction between Ishwara and Jiva, then it is doing the job of Dvaita, which also states that there is that distinction.
While Ishwara is the Lord of Maya, jiva is the ‘victim’ of Maya. Hence, the two, Ishwara and jiva, *are not both deluded* by Maya.
I guess the position *are not both deluded* is meant to imply that only jIva is deluded. The above verse from Panchdashi doesn't say anything like that.
We may consider the following two positions:
1. In Advaita, samsara (transmigrative life), jiva and Ishwara (soul and God), bandha and moksha,(bondage and liberation) etc. are all within the realm of Maya. Brahman alone transcends Maya and is the Sole Reality.
2. In Advaita jiva and Ishwara are both deluded by Maya.
Of the above two statements, while 1 depicts the correct position of Advaita,
2 represents a misunderstood position of Advaita.
While taking positions, the approach itself is full of defects.
What is the criterion for taking positions? If "getting deluded", then
1. Neither jiva nor Ishwara is deluded by Maya
2. jiva and Ishwara are both deluded by Maya.
3. Only jiva is deluded by Maya
(The other ridiculous category - Only Ishwara is deluded by Maya - is not listed).
Then make a claim that Advaita goes with 3.
If being Reality is the criterion, then
Brahman is reality. And then list which ones else are reality.
If the criterion is on the basis of differences, then list the differences. Is Brahman same as Ishvara or different, etc?
Now let us delve deep into the "correct position of Advaita",
1. In Advaita, samsara (transmigrative life), jiva and Ishwara (soul and God), bandha and moksha, (bondage and liberation) etc. are all within the realm of Maya. Brahman alone transcends Maya and is the Sole Reality.
In Dvaita, there are two kinds of sentient entities - jIva and Ishvara. Should the above position be called Advaita or "traita" or something like that? It has bifurcated the Lord also. Now Ishvara is within the realm of mAya. Brahman alone transcends mAya. Does that mean that Ishvara is dfferent from Brahman and does not transcend mAya?
If it is, we have three kinds of sentient beings. If they are same, then where is the question of one being within the realm and one transcending? What a heavy confusion? Now to retrofit these, a heavy convoluted explanation has to be resorted to. If Brahman is the sole reality, jIva and Ishvara are not realities? If as the real Advaita claims, jIva, Ishvara and Brahman are all the same, then where is the position of Ishvara and where is the position of Brahman? As the Lord is all-pervading, how can it be justified, that Brahman is not within the realm of Maya and Ishvara does not transcend mAya?
Can a reality exist within the realm of mAya? if not, what are Ishvara and jIva? Non real phantoms? If yes, how can a real thing exist within an unreal thing? That is like saying, there is a real substance inside hare's horn.
We may consider the following two positions:
1. In Advaita, samsara (transmigrative life), jiva and Ishwara (soul and God), bandha and moksha, (bondage and liberation) etc. are all within the realm of Maya. Brahman alone transcends Maya and is the Sole Reality.
2. In Advaita jiva and Ishwara are both deluded by Maya.
Of the above two statements, while 1 depicts the correct position of Advaita, 2 represents a misunderstood position of Advaita.
Evidently, the Pontiff has subscribed to the position 2. No Acharya of the Advaita sampradaya has said that Ishwara is deluded by Maya.
That is the strange part.. No Acharya of Advaita said that, Yet every Acharya of Advaita said that. How?
Now, let us take the simple sample verse in question from Panchadashi of Vidyaranya.
Now take the statements 1s to 7s that I have listed in the prior posting. Replace X with Vidyaranya. Y with jIva, Z with Ishvara, mirage with 'mAyA named kamadhenu', water with dvaita.
Then we have - Vidyaranya wishes to say something about jIva and Ishvara.
There are following possibilities, which Vidyaranya may say -.
"jIva and Ishvara are drinking Dvaita from 'mAyA named kamadhenu'" - 1s-v
"jIva and Ishvara are imagining that they are drinking Dvaita from 'mAyA named kamadhenu'" - 2s-v
"Only Ishvara is drinking Dvaita from 'mAyA named kamadhenu'" - 3s-v
"Only Ishvara is imagining that He is drinking Dvaita from 'mAyA named kamadhenu'" - 4s-v
"Only jIva is drinking Dvaita from 'mAyA named kamadhenu'" - 5s-v
"Only jIva is imagining that he is drinking Dvaita from 'mAyA named kamadhenu'"- 6s-v
"Both are not drinking and not imagining drinking Dvaita from 'mAyA named kamadhenu'" - 7s-v
Now, we have to note one thing. Vidyaranya himself is a jIva. Let us grant that he is special and so, whatever he says about the other jIvas need not apply to him.
If Vidyaranya says 1s-v, then it means that all three - Vidyaranya, jIva and Ishvara are under the illusion that jIva and Ishvara are drinking Dvaita from the 'mAyA named kamadhenu'"- 1s-v-e
If Vidyaranya says 3s-v, then it means that Vidyaranya and Ishvara are under the illusion that Ishvara is drinking Dvaita from the 'mAyA named kamadhenu'. However it is illogical that Vidyaranya, who is under the illusion can make a claim that jIva is not. - 3s-v-e
If Vidyaranya says 5s-v, then it means that Vidyaranya and jIva are under the illusion that jIva is drinking Dvaita from the 'mAyA named kamadhenu'. However it is illogical that Vidyaranya, who is under the illusion can make a claim that Ishvara is not. - 5s-v-e
If Vidyaranya says 2s-v, then it means that jIva and Ishvara are under the illusion that they are drinking Dvaita from the 'mAyA named kamadhenu'. However Vidyaranya is free from that illusion. - 2s-v-e
If Vidyaranya says 4s-v, then it means that only Ishvara is under the illusion that He is drinking Dvaita from the 'mAyA named kamadhenu'. However Vidyaranya and jIva are free from that illusion. - 4s-v-e
If Vidyaranya says 6s-v, then it means that only jIva is under the illusion that he is drinking Dvaita from the 'mAyA named kamadhenu'. However Vidyaranya and Ishvara are free from that illusion. - 6s-v-e
If Vidyaranya says 7s-v, then it means that all three - Vidyaranya, jIva and Ishvara are not under the illusion that they are drinking Dvaita from the 'mAyA named kamadhenu'. All three are free from that illusion -7s-v-e
The only possibilities from the verse in question are 1s-v and 2s-v.
Sri Vidyamanyaru had been extremely gracious and wanted to be very considerate to the position of Sri Vidyaranya and so pointed out the flaw in that statement, without bringing in all the ramifications.
By virtue of the very next statement - तत्त्वं त्वद्वैतमेव हि Dvaita is granting that Vidyaranya is not under that illusion, and consequently, it may be 2s-v. Thus the simple implication can be seen in 2s-v-e.
Let us analyze more deeply this case.
In the verse in question, there is no usage of any words that says "imagining". So, the choice has to be 1s-v. This means that there are heavy self-contradictions.
1. Does Vidyaranya also drink dvaita or not?
1a. If he does, then which way is he erring -
By saying Advaita alone is the tattva, but still ignoring that and drinking Dvaita -
By drinking Dvaita and not realizing that he is
1b. If he does not, then which way is he erring
- By saying that Ishvara drinks Dvaita, but he does not, since he knows better than Ishvara
- By saying that all the jIvas are drinking, but he is not and so he is neither jIva nor Ishvara (a third entity)
2. Why there are two calves? If the claim is that it is within the realm of mAya and so there are two, one representing all the jIvas and the other representing the Lord, then the following questions arise.
The Maya, which is the root cause of troubles is compared to Kamadhenu and is mithya. The Dvaita that comes out of it is also mithya. That is the mother cow is mithya and the product that comes out is also mithya. However the calves are real and drinking the Dvaita, which is mithya. Also, the twoness is again mithya and it should have been one calf. NO - the twoness cannot be mithya, because one calf is Ishvara, who is the Lord of the mother Kamadhenu of Maya and the other calf is jIva, a victim of the mother Kamadhenu of Maya.
3. The first three pAda-s of the verse indicate that Vidyaranya is also under the illusion that Dvaita is real, since the description says that Dvaita is drinkable that too heart-full. However the fourth pAda(which says that only Advaita is real) indicates that Vidyaranya is not under the illusion that Dvaita is real. So, is he or is he not under the illusion "that Dvaita is mithya"? By the first 3 quarters of the verse he is and by the 4th , he is not.
4. Ishvara is the Lord of the mAyA and so He is not under the illusion, but He is drinking the Dvaita to His mind-full and so He must be under the illusion. So, from this verse, He is under that illusion (that is exactly what Sri Vidyamanyaru and Dr. BNK Sharma wrote). From elsewhere in that work, He is not. However, when analyzing this verse, only this verse is to be used and that is what our scholars did. If Vidyaranya could self-contradict himself in this verse itself in so many ways, why, where and how is it surprising that he would self-contradict in his entire work, by implying that Ishvara is under the control of Maya in this verse and that He is Lord of Maya else where?
5. Is VidyaraNya included in the category of Jiva?
5a. If he is in that category, then he must also be under the illusion as the jIva is a victim of Maya and also drinking the Dvaita. However he is not under the illusion as he is able to see that only Advaita is real.
5b. If he is not in that category, then where does he belong in this realm of Maya?
If Dvaita is not a reality and both of them are drinking and enjoying Dvaita, what does that mean? This is the double tongue that goes on an on in all their writings. This gives them the opportunity to switch back and forth. In fact, that seems to be the whole intent, but why?
"Jivatma is same as paramAtma, jIvatma is deluded, but Paramatma is not." - is the type of argument. This kind of argument exposes the obvious ridiculousness in there. To avoid that ridiculous state, several layers of complication are introduced only to obscure the matter. Using such obscuring explanations, accusations are launched that Dvaita never understood the correct position of Advaita. Are they really not aware of the tremendous amount of self-contradictions that they are having?
In Advaita, samsara is mAyika in nature. Bondage and liberation are within MAyaa.
What does it mean by liberation is within maya? If it is, then it is no liberation at all.
The jiva in bondage as well as Ishwara, the bestower of the means for liberation, belong to the realm of mAya alone.This is because, according to Advaita, the Only Reality, Brahman, has neither samsara nor liberation. Brahman is untouched by Maya.
This is the ridiculous realm that they enter into. This Brahman is the nirguNa brahma and Ishvara is the saguNa brahma that they talk about.
They claim - "Brahman is untouched by MAyA. Ishvara belongs to the realm of MAya alone."
If Ishwara is the Lord of Maya, jiva is the ‘victim’ of Maya, then Ishvara must be aware of the doings of Maya. If He is not aware, then He is not the Lord of maya and He is also incapable of teaching others what He himself is not aware of. If He is aware, then he must NOT be seeing any jIva different from Him. (Note the ridiculous situation here - Ishvara must NOT see a different jIva and the jIva must be seeing different jIvas).Then whom does He teach or help? (as He does not see others).
It is only in order to ‘explain’ samsara and liberation that Maya is brought in temporarily.
Is Maya like that "Gumma" ? It is brought in by whom? If one wants to explain something, he wants to bring in something real and not a Gumma. Did Ishvara bring in Maya? That is not possible, since Ishvara is one, who is already within the realm of Maya. So, only that One who is beyond Maya has to bring that in. That is only Brahman can bring in the Maya. Why does He bring that in to create a problem for Himself? If one claims that "No, No, He is bringing in Maya to give problem to someone else.", how can there be someone else before bringing in Maya?
Once the purpose of Maya is over, it is also discarded.
What is the purpose of Maya? As questioned above, who wants to achieve that purpose?
Hence it is said in the Panchadashi that both Jiva and Ishwara are akin to ‘ two calves of the celestial cow Maya.’
OK, and one calf is the Lord of that celestial cow (Lord of Maya) and another calf is a victim of that cow (victim of Maya). yet, the Lord of the cow and the victim of the cow are put on the same pedestal in the aspect of "drinking the dvaita" from that cow!!
The play of Maya continues, for the jiva, until he realizes his Brahman nature.
Wonderful ! How does he realize that? By using various things in Maya itself - just like one has to realize that there is no Gumma, by analyzing and using various things that are present in Gumma?! Once the Gumma ceases to exist, the child realizes its identity with his mother?!
Thereupon there is neither jivahood for him nor is there an Ishwara. All the jiva-Ishwara vyavahara takes place within the plane of duality created by Maya.
What is the proof to say that duality was created by Maya ?
And who created Maya? Either it created itself or no one created it?
If it created itself, then it will destroy itself. That means a jaDa entity, which is not even real has more independence than the Lord Himself ! If no one created and it is anAdi, then like the jIva and Paramatma, it is eternal and real. There is no trikAla bAdhitatva and so, it is real only !
All the jiva-Ishwara vyavahara is for jIva only or for Ishvara also ?
In other words, is Ishvara having Ishvarahood or He is also engulfed by Jivahood? If He has Ishvarahood, then He can't see any jIva different from Him. If He is Himself engulfed by Jivahood, then we can imagine our fate ! We can't even say "God save jIva" ! What a disaster?
To escape this disaster, they have to go with the position that Ishvara is Lord of the Maya only. This Ishvarahood must also give Him the capability not to see any Jivas different from Him. He must be devoid of Avidya and so He must also be devoid of any effects of superimposition. How are they missing this simple point ? Why do they level an accusation that Dvaita does not see advaita correctly ? Why do they claim that Dvaita misstates the Advaita position?
The Transcendental Truth, however, is Brahman, the Advaitam.
Brahman is advaita or advitiya (second to none), whether He is inside mAya or outside Maya. The Maya should be under His control and not the other way around. That is what is Transcendental Truth. That should not be obscured. It is a double tongue to say "He is Lord of Maya and He is within the realm of Maya" which is same as saying "He is controller of Maya and He is controlled by Maya".
This is what is meant by the verse quoted above.
The verse says very damaging thing about the Lord. It bifurcates Him. Three quarters of the verse depicts one part of the Lord by keeping Him in the same status as jIva by His "drinking the dvaita from the cow of Maya". The rest of the verse is saying Advaita is ultimate truth, which Advaitins use to indicate that it is meant to depict Nirguna Brahman. Thus it actually landed not in Monism, but in fact a tripartite situation of Jiva, SaguNa Brahman and NirguNa Brahman..
In Advaita, NirguNa Brahman, in association with Maya, is called Ishwara, the SaguNa. Ishwara is ‘shuddha sattva pradhAna’ of the Maya’s three guNas. Jiva is ‘malina-sattva pradhana’ while in bondage. Thus Ishwara is capable of bestowing upon the jiva the Advaita Jnana which is possible when the jiva attains immense purity in mind. This distinction between Ishwara and Jiva makes Ishwara never a subject to the binding force of Maya. Ishwara is always Sarvajna in Advaita.
What a confusion galore! Just because someone is in company of someone else, will that one become a different person? That too, the Supreme Lord, just because He is in association with Maya, will He become someone totally different? If it is only 'calling', but SaguNa brahma and NirguNa brahma are the same, then why bother to picture them differently? One may claim that MatsyAvatAra and RamAvatAra are pictured differently, and SaguNa Brahman and NirguNa Brahman are the same type. That is a silly argument as the Advaitins do not claim that Saguna Brahman is just an avatAra of Nirguna brahman. They attribute different statuses, different realities and different loci. When SaguNa Brahman is Lord of Maya, how will the association affect Him? If it does not affect, why treat NirguNa brahman and SaguNa Brahman differently?
If one says that Ishvara is shuddha sattva pradhAna, that one should remember the Gita verse - Sri Krishna says -
अवजानन्ति माँ मूढा मानुषीम् तनुमाश्रितम् |
परम् भावमजानँतॊ मम भूतमहेश्वरम् || 9-11||
("The ignorant disregard Me as one possessing a human body, not knowing my Supreme eternal and perfect nature")
It is not enough to say that "manuSha tanu" is malina-sattva pradhAna. Here "mAnuShIm tanu" refers to prAkritka body. There will be different levels of malinatva. Shuddha sattva pradhAna is also prAkritika only. There is no prAkritika deha for the Lord. Period.
Maya can create bondage as well as release one from bondage.
What does that mean? It is like saying "the screw-driver will screw and unscrew the screws." It is not the screw-driver, which does it. It is the person using the screw-driver, who does it. Maya is jaDa. Also, the word Maya has several meaning. For Advaita, they are aware of only one unreal Maya, nothing else. By giving the same meaning and stretching things, they create such a havoc.
When it accomplishes the release of a person from bondage, Maya extinguishes itself. Ishwara is that releasing principle.
What does it mean? How can a jaDa entity accomplish any thing? How can a jaDa extinguish itself? Even worse, how can an unreal thing extinguish itself? It is like saying "Gumma" extinguishes itself. Further worse, a self-contradicting statement. If Maya accomplishes the release, what does the statement 'Ishvara is that releasing principle' mean? It is better to make up the mind, rather than such contradictory and confusing statements.
Bhagavan says in the Gita that He incarnates with the aid of His Maya. He is the Lord of Maya.
He does not need the aid of anything or anyone. When He is real, how can His Maya be unreal? It is like saying "His Gumma".
संभवामि आत्ममायया …(iv.6)
This is partial quote, and is completely missing the very context and meaning?
अजोऽपि सन्नव्ययात्मा भूतानामीश्वरोऽपि सन् |
प्राकृतिम् स्वामधिष्ठाय संभावाम्यात्ममायया ||
(Though I am unborn and deathless in all respects including body-wise, Lord of all beings, even so, I give birth to myself in this world out of my own will, utilizing the nature, that is under my control.)
Here Maya means "Will or ichchha" [of the Lord].
If the meaning of delusion is to be taken, then it can also mean "Though I am unborn and deathless in all respects including body-wise, Lord of all beings, even so, I give birth to myself in this world, utilizing the nature created prAkritik bodies [of ones like Devaki and Vasudeva as just nimitta], thereby causing the delusion [that I am having prAkritik body].
The Lord is not within the realm of Maya, nor does He get any body made of any prAkritik elements.
It is one thing to disagree with a proposition but quite another to disagree with another.We may consider the following two statements to bring out the force of this statement:
1. I disagree with the Marxian ideology (for reasons….)
2. I disagree with all those who hold that cow’s milk is a black paste.
The Pontiff’s disagreement with Advaita is akin to 2 above.
There is a third option.
3. I disagree with all those who hold that cow’s milk is X and a black paste is Y and X is Y.
This is similar to 2, but a little round-about way of saying that. People with logical thinking will not treat 3. different from 2.
People who go with such round about statements may argue that X and Y can also take some other values, etc.
To elucidate, no one in the Advaita sampradaya holds that Ishwara is deluded by Maya. He has disagreed with Advaita on a misunderstood ground that ‘in Advaita, Ishwara is still deluded by Maya’.
There is no misunderstanding what so ever. There are many self-contradicting statements in Advaita. In the present verse in question, if one drinks dvaita, that one must be in a state, in which one thinks that dvaita is true.
Now look at the weird situation for Advaita.
1. It is impossible to think that dvaita is not true and drink dvaita.
2. It is equally impossible to "realize Advaita" and yet see that the world is still there.
3. It is also impossible not to realize Advaita and impart that Advaita knowledge to others.
4. It is exactlly Catch -22 for Advaita. If some one needs to teach Advaita to others, that some one must see others. If that one sees others, that one has not realized Advaita. If one has not realized Advaita, that one cannot teach what he has not realized. If one realizes Advaita, he can't see others and so can't teach others. If one has to see others, one must not realize Advaita and so He can't teach what he himself has not realized.
5. This being the fate of all the Advaita gurus, one must make a decision or agree upon whether a guru is an accomplished Advaitin. No matter what the agreement is the problem persists.
6. For SaguNa Brahma, the problem gets further complicated. In addition to the above Catch-22, He ends up with an additional Catch-22.
If He is master of Maya and an accomplished soul, then He cannot remain as SaguNa Brahman. He in fact becomes Nirguna Brahman and so can't teach any one. For Him not to become the NirguNa Brahman, as Lord of Maya, he must order Maya to be more powerful than Him so that He does not realize Advaita. If He realizes, he can't teach others due to His becoming NirguNa Brahman. If He does not realize, how can He teach others how to become NirguNa Brahman, the quality that He Himself lacks?
In the sequel are shown some verses, from the Panchadashi itself, where the distinction between jiva and Ishwara is clearly brought out:
मायाधीन: चिदाभास: श्रुतौ मायी महेश्वर: ।
( The jiva is ‘subject to MaayA’ and Ishwara is the Lord of MAyA. Ishwara is the Indweller, Omniscient and the Origin of the Universe.)
In verse 19 of the dvaitaviveka ch. 4 he says:
मायावृत्त्यात्मको हि ईशसंक्ल्प: साधनं जनौ ।
(Ishwara’s will characterized by a MAyAvRtti is the means for creation of the universe. The jiva’s will of the nature of a mode of mind is the means for experiencing the fruits of karma.)
माहेश्वरी तु माया या तस्या निर्माणशक्तिवत् ।
(Ishwara’s MayA has two powers: The world-creating power *of Ishwara* and the deluding power that *deludes the jiva*.)
मायोपाधिः जगद्योनि: सर्वज्ञत्वादिलक्षण: (vii.72)
( Ishwara endowed with the MAyOpAdhi is the source of the universe and is characterized by *omniscience,* etc.)
All the above verses, from the Panchadashi, bring out the clear difference between Ishwara and jiva.
अन्तर्यामी च सर्वज्नो जगद्योनि: स एव हि ॥ (vi.157)
मनोवृत्त्यात्मको जीवसंकल्पो भॊगसाधनम् ॥ (iv.19)
विद्यते मोहशक्तिश्च तं जीवं मोहयत्यसौ ॥ (iv.12)
What is being proved here? If VidyaraNya can have self-contradiction within one verse, what is surprising that he self-contradicts in his entire work?
Ishvara is within the realm of Maya and is drinking Dvaita. How can One who thinks that Dvaita is not true drink Dvaita? Thus He must be dluded. But He is master of Maya and so not deluded. If He is not deluded and Jiva is deluded, the difference has to be depicted properly and not in self-contradicting statements.
If a clear difference is to be shown, then one must have written that only Jiva is drinking Dvaita and Ishvara is not drinking it (like in the shruti statement - from Mundakopanishat -
द्वासुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानम् वृक्षम् परिषस्वजातॆ |
तयॊरन्यः पिप्पलम् स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यॊ अभिचाकशीति || 3-1-1||
It is also in Shvetashvataropanishat 4-6.
" Two intimate birds namely Jivatma and paramatma are seated on the Ashvattha tree like body. Among these two, the bird named Jiva partake the karmaphala as if it is tasty, though it is tasteless essenceless. The other bird named Ishvara is resplendent even though it does not partake it."
One of the major differences between Jiva and Ishvara is brought out here by mentioning that one partakes and the other doesn't.
This example is to show how to indicate a difference. )
Ishvara, who is master of Maya, also drinks Dvaita, which is Maya and Jiva, who is victim of Maya also drinks Dviata, which is Maya. Apart from lack of proof, this statement also indicates that both Jiva and Ishvara are put on the same footing "IN RESPECT OF DRINKING DVAITA".
The claim is that the following are misunderstandings about Advaita and yet those are statements found in Advaita.
"Advaita alone is reality and yet sagUna Brahma drinks Dvaita heart-full, because He is within the realm of maya, though He is the master of Maya. The world is an illusion. The Maya is an illusion. This illusory Maya creates the illusory world. This creating power is an illusion (all like Gumma). SaguNa Brahma is that master of this illusion and yet He is within the realm of Maya. The JIva is also drinks Dvaita heart-full and is a victim of Maya. The difference between Jiva and Ishvara is only vyAvahArika."
This illusory Maya is sometimes depicted as His will and some times as Lakshmi, whose position is again quite vague in Advaita. The best way to bring any sanity or clarity is to call it vyAvahArika satya and does it really bring clarity and sanity?
Also, this Rg Veda mantra says that the jiva and Ishvara both ‘reside’, operate, in the realm of MAyA:
चतुष्कपर्दा युवतिः सुपेशा घृतप्रतीका वयुनानि वस्ते ।
तस्यां सुपर्णा वृषणा निषेदतुः यत्र देवा दधिरे भागधेयम् ।
एकः सुपर्णः स समुद्रं आविवेश स इदं विश्वं भुवनं विचष्टे ॥। (10.114.3,4)
The mantra does not say any thing like that. Pathetic is the
explanation given there. One must see AmbhraNi sukta along side
of this to get proper understanding. This is describing Lakshmi.
Maya is also a name for Lakshmi. This has nothing to do with
any illusion.
(See blog: The Four ‘Glories’ of MAyA at
http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/the-four-glories-of-maya/ for a detailed explanation of the above mantra)
Instead of making an attempt to analyze the Rgveda verse, a jump is made to a verse in shatashloki, which takes partial expressions from the above verse. What is worse, the person, who takes that verse from shatashloki translates the word "aghatanaghataNaapaaTavaM" incorrectly. To see the problem in there, let us analyze how many levels, they have to jump to arrive this wrong meaning.
First level - expertise in making the impossible to happen. Second level - what could be the greatest impossibility?
Making us believe what we are not really. Third level - She is an expert in making the impossible appear as though it is real. Fourth level - What is impossible? The unreal is impossible. So, replace 'making the impossible appear' with 'making the unreal appear'.
Speak about imaginations running wild !! The hidden agenda must be clear now. Since, she can make the unreal things appear as real, "she is making this unreal world appear as real". So, this world is unreal !!!
Why can't it be like this?
Since she is an expert in making the impossible to happen, she is making a big number of people imagine, believe and vehemently declare that this real world is infact mithya, even if your pratyaksha is giving you the real experience. All that need be done is pick up a few examples like snake-rope, mirage, nacre-silver and Gumma, etc. How wise is it for a person to think like this - The water in the mirage appears to be there, but it is not there and it can't quench my thirst. Likewise, this water in the cup in my hand appears to be there, but it is not there and it can't quench my thirst ?
How worthy is the Lordship of an illusory universe? Otoh, it makes lot more sense to speak of the Lordship of a real universe.
What a waste of breath and effort for all the scriptures to extoll the Lord's creation power, when in fact this world is mere illusion, worthy of rejecting?
If the purpose of Rigveda verse is to speak about illusion, what about "devaa dadhire bhAgadeyam"? Then suddenly switch the gear - vyAvahArika satya? Now everybody is working under mAya?
Then, look at another pathetic move in the explanation/translation -
"She is never affected by old age. The body and senses become decrepit, yet She remains young and energetic."
Where does it say that "the body and senses become decrepit"?
Also, this is description of a strI. So, one should imagine that this is illusion personified as woman?
According to Advaita, when one gets knowledge, this mAya ceases to exist!! Does Lakshmi cease to exist ?
Also, according to Advaita, is this maaya a sentient being or a non-sentient?
If it is former, then it is non-different rom God (as according to Advaita there is only one sentient, the Supreme one). How can God Himself cease to exist ?
If it is latter, then is it real or illusory? If it is real, then it is anti-thesis, as there can't be any real other than God. If it is latter, then how can this illusory entity be described so effectively by Advaitins themselves? Why are they wasting their breath to describe 'Gumma' ?
In fact their description of maaya is a clear mishmash of completely self-contradicting group of statements.
To conclude, let us look at what Sri Shankaracharya says about Ishwara in
the Sutra bhashyam:
स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् ।
(1.1.vii.20)
(Ishwara, out of compassion, takes on, by His Maya, a form to grace the spiritual aspirant.)
Again, what is the point in saying that one Advaitin contradicts another or one Advaitin contradicts himself?
Note the word "ichchhavashAt" used by Sri Shankaracharya. If it is His own will and His Maya, then where is the question of His drinking Dvaita along with the jIva. The Jiva thinks that there is Dvaita and so is quite justified in drinking it. How is it justified to say that Lord drinks Dvaita as well, which by virtue of His being the Lord, is known to Him as illusion?
Says the AvadhUta GitA:
ईश्वरानुग्रहादेव पुंसामद्वैतवासना ।
महाभयकृतत्राणात् द्वित्राणामेवोपजायते ॥ ( 1)
Though this work from Advaitins has lot of problems, the context here is that an Advaitin is claiming that Ishvara is not under the delusion of Maya. Giving quotes from elsewhere does not correct the problem at hand. How will and how can an Advaitin defend the concept of Ishvara drinking Dvaita? If this statement of drinking Dvaita is true, it contradicts not only the scriptures, it also contradicts other Advaitic statements. If that is false, it means that it has the flaw of stating false statement. In either case, it becomes a self-damaging statement
[It is only by the Lord’s grace, the savior from the worst of fears, that propensity pertaining to Advaita-sAkShAtkAra arises and that barely in respect of two or three (seekers).]
When, it is Advaita, where is the question of two or three seekers. Speak about self-contradiction!
Says the Sarva-vedanta-siddhAnta-sAra-sangraha:
जन्मानेकशतै: सदादरयुजा भक्त्या समाराधितो
भक्तैर्वैदिकलक्षणेन विधिना सन्तुष्ट ईश: स्वयम् ।
साक्षात् श्रीगुरुरूपमेत्य कृपया द्रूग्गोचरस्सन् प्रभु:
तत्त्वं साधु विशोध्य तारयति तान् संसारदु:खार्णवात् ॥ (225)
[The Lord, being pleased with the constant and unflinching devotion and worship in the prescribed manner, extending over many lives on the part of the seeker, manifests Himself, in His infinite mercy in the human form of the Guru, thereby becoming accessible to the shishya for shushrUshA and vichara which culminate in his crossing over the perilous ocean of samsara.]
1. Lord manifests Himself, in His infinite mercy in the human form.
2. He is master of maaya and so He is aware of Advaita.
3. The Jivas see the Lord as one different from them.
4. The Lord does not see them as different from Him.
Lord does not have the problem of seeing Dvaita. He sees only Advaita. But He has a different problem - He can't see other Jivas as different from Him (even granting vyAvahArika situation - He is not a victim of vyAvahArika). So, whom will He teach?
Thus, there is no question of Ishwara being under the illusion of duality according to Advaita.*
Then, why give the statement that He is drinking Dvaita? His drinking Dvaita contradicts with "not being under the illusion of duality".
It would be good if the website organizers of www.dvaita.org take note of this and inform the Pontiff in turn.
This is like saying "It would be good if the website organizers of http://advaita-vedanta.org/ take note of this and inform Vidyaranya."
The chances are the same for both, as neither is in the mortal coil.
It is also surprising that Dr.B.N.K.Sharma too failed to notice the mistaken view of the Pontiff while making the English translation.
Is it not surprising that so many Advaitins failed to notice the mistaken view of Sri Vidyaranya, be it while making the translation or prior to that?
This concludes this series.
Shri KrishNArpaNamastu.
Other rebuttals by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri :
Link to VishishtAdvaita Vishleshana VivEchanam
Link to Jaina Rebuttal
Avidya in Advaita & Gumma of Purandaradasa
Krishnastu bhagavAn swayam
Comments
Post a Comment