By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
Following is a question based on Gita Tatparya for the verse
no 42 in Chapter 3.
Acharya says
"na cha 'indriyebhyaH parA hi arthAH ',
'rudro.ahaMkR^itirUpakaH' ityAdi virodhaH |"
What is the virodha (apparent contradiction) here that
AchArya is referring to and how is parihAra (resolution) given ?
Answer:
What is virodha or contradiction? It is inconsistency in
thought flow, to the extent that to favor one position, one is forced to
forsake or give up the other position(s). Some times, these are just apparent
contradictions and we resolve these and so we don't give up any
statement/position and they all hold good.
Ex: If one says A > B and B > A, how is that
meaningful?
How do you resolve? You ask if it is for same values of A
and B. If not -
When A is 100 and B is 50, A > B.
When A is 150 and B is 200, B > A.
For one set of values of A and B, both A > B and B > A
cannot be true.
If A >= B and B >= A, then together, these imply A =
B.
How many kinds of such virodha can be there in present
discussion?
For now, let us classify them into four kinds.
1. Self-contradiction between sentences from current text
and its commentaries - meaning one statement from current text or its
commentaries contradict with another statement from current text or its
commentaries.
2. Contradiction between sentences from current text or its
commentaries and sentences from other valid texts - meaning one statement from
current text or its commentaries contradict with another
statement from other works or their commentaries.
3. Self-contradiction between logical conclusions of the
sentences from current text and its commentaries - meaning logical conclusion
of one statement from current text or its commentaries
contradict with logical conclusion of another statement from
current text or its commentaries.
4. Contradiction between logical conclusions of the
sentences from current text and that from sentences from other valid texts -
meaning logical conclusion of one statement from current text or its
commentaries contradict with logical conclusion of another
statement from other works or their commentaries.
For each of these, we have to give the resolution and
explain how that is resolved.
Gita shloka says -
indriyaaNi paraaNyaahurindriyebhyaH param manaH manasastu
parA buddhiryo buddheH paratastu saH |
Indriyas are superior -
G1
Manas is superior to indriyas - G2
Buddhi is superior to manas - G3
Paramatma is superior to Buddhi. G4
Then three questions come to our mind -
1. By indriyas, manas, etc. are those jadas referred?
2. Indriyas are superior to whom?
3. Are these to be taken as they are without any addition?
1A. It is not jaDas that are referred. It is the abhimaani
devatas that are referred. So, this is meant to describe devataa taaratamya.
As an answer to 2 and 3, Rayaru gives the following in
GitavivRuti, where he emphasized the adhyaahaara. I have enclosed the
adhyaahaaras in brackets [ ]. Also marked each statement with
identifier markers like S1, S2, etc
Indriyaabhimaani devatas are superior [to sharIraabhimaani
devatas] - S1
[arthaabhimaani devatas
are superior to Indriyaabhimaani devatas] - S2
mano.abhimaani devatas are superior to [arthaabhimaani devatas and] Indriyaabhimaani
devatas - S3
buddhi abhimaani devatas are superior to mano.abhimaani
devatas - S4
[mahattatva abhimaani devatas are superior to buddhi
abhimaani devatas] - S5
[Avyakta tatva abhimaani devatas are superior to mahattatva
abhimaani devatas] - S6
Paramatma is superior to [Avyakta tatva abhimaani
devatas, mahattatva abhimaani devatas
and] buddhi abhimaani devatas. S7
Why take this kind of adhyAhAra? GitabhAshya says -
"Liberation cannot be obtained purely by ekadeshajnAna or points mentioned
in just one specific place. But, one has to indulge in the understanding of global concept of various guNas of the
Lord. So, not only that the Lord is superior to Budhhi, but also to
Avyakta." and it is quoted from GaruDa purANa - "One must see in the
Lord,
all those guNas that are mentioned in apauruSheya vedas,
Vishnu veda-s(Bharata, Pancharatras) and also those passed on by Sampradaya or
upadesha parampara. Then only mukti is assured."
In Gita tAtparya it is mentioned (by quoting Brahmatarka) -
Indriyaabhimaani devatas like Indra, et al are superior to
[all devatas (NyayadIpika of Tikarayaru crystallizes this term 'all devatas' to
'arthaabhimaani devatas' ## )] - S8
mano.abhimaani [Rudra] is superior to Indriyaabhimaani
devatas - S9
buddhi abhimaani [Sarasvati] is superior to mano.abhimaani
[Rudra] - S10
[mahattatva abhimaani Brahma is superior to buddhi abhimaani
Sarasvati] - S11
[Avyakta tatva abhimaani Lakshmi is superior to mahattatva
abhimaani Brahma] - S12
Sri Hari Himself is superior to [Avyakta tatva abhimaani
Lakshmi, mahattatva abhimaani Brahma
and] buddhi abhimaani [Sarasvati]. S13
## (sarvebhyo.arthAbhimAnibhyaH - sarvebhyo means 'as to
arthAbhimAni devata-s')
Then in Gita tAtparya, Acharya says "na cha
'indriyebhyaH parA hi arthAH ', 'rudro.ahaMkR^itirUpakaH' ityAdi virodhaH
|" meaning -
"These two statements - 'arthaabhimaani devatas are superior to Indriyaabhimaani
devatas' (S2)
and 'Rudra is ahamkAra abhimaani devata' (S14), etc. do not
lead to any contradictions."
Now the question is "do these two statements apparently
contradict each other or do these two statements apparently contradict some
other statements".
Let us first go by what TIkAcharyaru says and then later add
other possible contradictions and their resolution as well. Let us denote the virodhas as V1, V2, etc.
First all virodhas will be listed and parihara-s or
resolutions will be given at the end.
V1.
yaduktamarthaabhimaanibhyo.apiindriyaabhimaaninaamuttamatvam na
tadyuktam | 'indriyebhyaH parAhi arthAH' iti shrutivirodhaat |
What ever is told 'Indriyaabhimaani devatas are superior to
arthaabhimaani devatas' (S8) is not
proper because of its going against the
shruti vAkya 'arthaabhimaani devatas are superior to Indriyaabhimaani devatas'.
(S2)
For appreciating this, let us see the shruti vAkya from
KAThakopanishat.
"indriyebhyaH parA hyarthA arthebhyashcha paraM manaH |
manasastu parA buddhiH buddherAtmA mahAn paraH | mahataH paramavyaktaM avyaktAt
purushaH paraH puruShAnnAparaM kiMchit
sA kAShThA sA parA gatiH |"
"arthaabhimaani devatas
are superior to Indriyaabhimaani devatas - S2
mano.abhimaani devatas are superior to arthaabhimaani devatas - S3
mahattatva abhimaani devatas are superior to buddhi
abhimaani devatas - S5
Avyakta tatva abhimaani Lakshmi is superior to mahattatva
abhimaani devatas - S6
Purusha nAmaka Vishnu is superior to Avyakta tatva abhimaani
devata - S7
None is superior to Vishnu - He is All-supreme and sole goal
to be reached." S15
And Acharya comments -
"devebhyaH indriyAtmabhyo jyAyAMso.arthAbhimAninaH |
somavittapasUryApyAH ashvyagnIndrendrasUnavaH | yamo dakShashchendriyeshaaH
suparNii vaaruNii tathaa umeti
chaarthamaaninyaH tisro dvidvyekadevatAH | mano.bhimAnino
rudraviindra sheShAstrayo.api tu | te shreShThAH arthaabhimaanibhyaH tebhyo
buddhissarasvatI | tasyaa brahmaa mahaanaatmaa
tato.avyaktaabhidhaaramaa | tasyaastu puruShO viShNuH
pUrNatvaannaiva tatsamaH | kashchit kutashchit shreshThastu naastiiti kimu saa
kathaa ||"
"arthaabhimaani devatas
are superior to Indriyaabhimaani devatas - S2
Chandra, kubera, sUrya, varuNa, ashvinI devatas, agni,
indra, indra's son Jayanta, yama , dakShaprajaapati are indriyaabhimaani
devatas - S16
SauparNi vAruNi and Parvati are vishayaabhimaani devatas -
SauparNi for Shabda, Sparsha, vAruNi for Roopa, Rasa, and Parvati for Gandha
- S17
GaruDa, Shesha and Rudra are mano.abhimaani devatas - S18
All these three mano.abhimaani devatas are superior to arthaabhimaani devatas - S3
buddhi abhimaani Sarasvati is superior to mano.abhimaani
devatas - S4
mahattatva abhimaani devatas Brahmaa and Vayu are superior
to buddhi abhimaani devatas - S5
Avyakta tatva abhimaani Lakshmi is superior to mahattatva
abhimaani devatas - S6
Sakala guNa paripUrNa Purusha nAmaka Vishnu is superior to
Avyakta tatva abhimaani devata - S7
None equal to Vishnu - nowhere, nowhen - where is the
question of one superior to Vishnu?"
S15
Rayaru has taken this shruti based structure in GitavivRuti.
Gita tAtparya statement 'Indriyaabhimaani devatas are
superior to arthaabhimaani devatas' (S8)
from Brahmatarka seems to clash against the
shruti vAkya 'arthaabhimaani devatas are superior to Indriyaabhimaani devatas'.
(S2)
and so S8 is not proper and need to be rejected.
V2. Now Rudra is ahamkAra abhimaani devata'
(S14) - how is this leading to a virodha?
One approach people can take is -
Ahankara tatva includes manastatva or manas is just one of
the prabheda-s of Ahankara and so this implies Rudra is mano.abhimaani.
Manas is an indriya and so this implies that Rudra is
indriyaabhimaani and so by using the other statement which is S2, it implies that SauparNi vAruNi and
Parvati are superior to Rudra and this is a virodha.
But this approach has following problems. Ahankaara, manas,
buddhi, chitta and chetana are all prabhedas of Ahankara. So, will the
ahankara-abhimaanitva of Rudra imply that Rudra is abhimaani of Buddhi, chitta
and chetana also? In that case why is it mentioned that Sarasvati is abhimaani
of Buddhi? Also the statement from Gita - indriyebhyaH param manaH (Manas is
superior to indriyas - G2 ) and also S3
and S9 actually excludes manas from the general listing of Indriyas. So this
approach does not go too well.
Then what issue does S14 cause? For this let us again go to
NyaayadIpika -
Tikarayaru says -
“naapi rudrasya mano.abhimaanitvam yuktam |
'rudro.ahaMkR^itirUpakaH' iti vaakyavirodhaat |”
“And also mano.abhimaanitva of Rudra is not proper because
it clashes with ahankaara-abhimaanitva of
Rudra.”
This means the prabhedas are treated differently only. So,
Rudra's mano.abhimaanitva is to be rejected?
V3. Acharya saind “na cha … ityaadi virodhaH”.
What else is indicated by the word “Adi (etc.)” ?
Tikaraayaru says -
“evaM sarasvatyaa
buddhyabhimaanitvam cha na yuktam | vij~naanaabhimaanitvokti virodhaat
|”
“Likewise, buddhi abhimaanitva of Sarasvati is not proper
because it clashes with vij~nAna-abhimaanitva of Sarasvati.”
So, buddhi abhimaanitva of Sarasvati is to be rejected ?
Resolution or virodha-parihAra:
For these virodhas, Acharya gave resolution and Tikarayaru
explains -
“ityata Aha | na cha iti | kuto na virodha ityata Aha |
sarveti | tarhi srIravyaktasya, brahmaa mahata ityaadi pR^ithagabhimaanasthaanoktiH
lakshmyaadiinaam shaastreShu kathamityata Aha | uttareti | avyaktAdInAm
krameNAdhikatvAt tadabhimAnitvoktyAbhimAninAmapyuttarottarAdhikyam j~nApayitum
pR^ithagabhimanyamAnasthAnAnyuchyanta ityarthaH | kimarthamuttarottarAdhikyam
j~nApyamityarthaH | Adhikyeti | sarve.api sarvAbhimAnina ityuktasyApavAdamAha |
sthAneShviti | adhamAnAmukteShvabhimanyamAnasthAneShvabhimAnitvenottamA
vartante | na tUttamAbhimanyamAnatvenoktasthAneShvadhamA ityarthaH | evaM
chedavyaktAbhimAnitvam sarasvatyAdInAM purANAdau kathamuchyata ityata Aha |
tathaapIti | upacharyate, yasmAditi sheShaH |
atra shruti chAha | yatreti | yasmin vastuni putrasya
svAmyamasti tasmin vastuni pituH
svAmyamastyeva | yasmin vastuni pituH svAmyamasti tasmin putrasya
svAmyamupachAreNAsti...”
“For that it is replied thus. It is not so (meaning none of
those statements need to be rejected). If it is asked 'why there is no
virodha', the reason is this. 'All devatas are abhimAnis for all kinds of
things.'
Then why separate abhimAna sthAnas for Lakshmi, et al are
mentioned in shAstras like Lakshmi is for Avyakta, Brahma for Mahat, etc.?
Avyakta tatva, etc have gradation and the usage of sentences indicating AbhimAnitva is to indicate and remind
the gradation among abhimAni devata-s also. Why should such gradation need to
be indicated or reminded? The purpose of the shAstras is to indicate such
gradation only. How should we take the statement - 'All devatas are abhimAnis
for all kinds of things.'
The sthAnas or places where adhama devatas are abhimAnis,
all the higher devatas are automatically abhimAnis, but not vice versa. If that
were the case, how come in purANa-s, it is mentioned that Sarasvati, et al are
abhimAnis for Avyakta, etc. ? Even so, that is honorific or symbolic.
Shruti is quoted that when the son has control over certain
objects, the father automatically has control over them. When the father has
control over certain objects, the son's control over them is symbolic or
honorific.”
With this explanation, let us see how they get resolved.
When it is said -
“arthaabhimaani devatas are superior to Indriyaabhimaani
devata-s”
take SauparNi, et al are arthAbhimAni devata-s and Indra, et
al are IndriyAbhimAni devatas.
When it is said -
“Indriyaabhimaani devatas are superior to arthaabhimaani
devatas”
take the five sons of
Shiva (upaprANa-s) are arthAbhimAni devata-s and Indra, et al are
IndriyAbhimAni devatas.
Rudra can be abhimAni for both manas and AhankAra. Sarasvati
can be abhimAni for Buddhi and Vij~nAna. In this case Buddhi abhimAni is higher
than mano.abhimAni.
When we hear a statement that mano.abhimAni is higher than
buddhi abhimAni, take uma as abhimAni for Buddhi.
The point to note is that tAratamya or gradation is the guiding
factor, abhimAnitva is to be taken accordingly.
Since Indra and kAma are abhimAnis for manas, Rudra
automatically becomes mano.abhimAni.
Here we are talking about apparent contradictions only. If
we bring real contradictions, then we have to reject the incorrect statement.
“Uma (arthAbhimAni) is higher than Rudra (mano.abhimAni)” …
S19
conflicts with
“mano.abhimaani devatas are superior to arthaabhimaani devatas” - S3
Using the statement 'All devatas are abhimAnis for all kinds
of things.', can we make both the above statements valid? No, because S19 is
against the rules of gradation. So, we just reject S19.
So, if we bring examples to show contradiction, then we just
have to reject the examples, if they violate the gradation.
buddhi abhimaani is superior to mano.abhimaani devatas
- S4
mano.abhimaani is superior to buddhi abhimaani devatas
- S20
vivakShAbhedena (taking appropriate cases), both can be made
valid. In case of S4, Buddhi abhimAni is Sarasvati and in case of S20, Buddhi
AbhimAni is Uma. In both cases, mano.abhimAni is Rudra.
Shri KrishNArpaNamastu !!
Comments
Post a Comment