By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
OM prANastathAnugamAt OM || 1\.1\.28||
OM na vakturAtmopadeshAditi chedadhyAtmasaMbandhabhUmA hyasmin OM || 1\.1\.29||
OM shAstradR^iShTyA tUpadesho vAmadevavat OM || 1\.1\.30||
OM jIvamukhyaprANali~NgAnneti chennopAsatraividyAdAshritatvAdiha tadyogAt OM || 1\.1\.31||
--------
OM prANastathAnugamAt.h OM || 1\.1\.28||
In Antima prANAdhikaraNa, by virtue of jIvanahetutva and sarva devopAsyatva and repeated application of such things, which are applicable to ViShnu only, prANa shabda refers to Vishnu only in the
Madhva-VishayavAkya -
“aitareya” - statements starting from “tA vA etAH shIrShan shriyaH shritAshchakShuH shrotraM mano vAkprANaH”,.
pUrvapakSha says prANa does not denote Vishnu and siddhAnta says it is Vishnu only for the reasons stated above. Also other following statements like -
“taM devAH prANayanta”, “sa eSho.asuH sa eSha prANaH”. “prANa R^icha ityeva vidyAt”, “tadayaM prANo.adhitiShTati”, etc.
Then from skanda purANa -
“viShnumevAnayandevA viShNuM bhUtimupAsate | sa eva sarvavedoktastadratho dwha uchyata”
-----
ViShayavAkya for Shankara -
KauShItakI brAhmaNopaniShad – “pratardano ha vai daivodAsirindriyasya priyaM dhAmopajagAma yuddhena cha pauruShna cha”
Further down there are other statements like -
“sa hovAcha prANo.asmi praj~nAtmA taM mAmAyuramR^itamityupAsva”
“atha khalu prANa eva praj~nAtmedaM sharIraM parigR^ihyotthApayati” ---
RamAnuja took same viShayavAkya
----------
OM na vakturAtmopadeshAditi chedadhyAtmasaMbandhabhUmA hyasmin OM || 1\.1\.29||
vaktuH AtmopadeshAt na iti chet adhyAtma-saMbandhabhUmA hi asmin |
vaktuH [vishvAmitrasya] [indreNa] Atmana [eva] upadeshAt [prANaH] na [brahmA] iti chet hi [na] asmin adhyAtma-saMbandhabhUmA |
PurvapakSha presents two things -
1. Conversation between Vishvamitra and Indra. 2. Indra claiming himself to be prANa.
SiddhAnta corrects both the things -
1. Conversation between Vishvamitra and IndrAntaryAmi indra-nAmaka Paramatma.
2. IndrAntaryAmi indra-nAmaka Paramatma claiming himself to be prANa.
PurvapakSha partly takes it and says “Even if the claim is that Paramatma is PrANa, Indra should have said - PrANa-nAmaka Paramatma is in me” - Obj-1
Madhva-VishayavAkya -
“prANo vA ahamasmyR^iShe”
“prANastvaM prANaH sarvANi bhUtAni”
In aitareya bhAShya very elaborated – which is missing in both Shankara and Ramanuja.
-------------
ViShayavAkya for Shankara -
“mAmeva vijAnIhi”
“prANo.asmi praj~nAtmA” ---
RamAnuja took same viShayavAkya
----------
For answering Obj-1, next one -
OM shAstradR^iShTyA tUpadesho vAmadevavat OM || 1\.1\.30||
As I mentioned before, note that here Vamadeva is compared to Indra and not Vishvamitra.
When Vamadeva said “ahaM manurabhavaM sUryashcha”, it is the antaryAmi of Vamadeva who said that I am “Manu” and “Surya” and there also Manu and Surya refer to Paramatma and not the actual Manu and Surya. When PurvapakSha keeps thinking that the word Manu and Surya refer to actual Manu and Surya only, but not Paramatma, then it is emphasized that such is not possible, because Vamadeva is not actual Manu and Surya and so Vamadeva himself can not claim that he is actual Manu and Surya and so only his antaryAmi has to say that. If his antaryAmi says that, then the word Manu and Surya also can not refer to actual Manu and Surya. So only option left is that the antaryAmi has to say that and it has to refer to Paramatma only. Similar is the case of Indra.
Madhva-VishayavAkya -
“ahaM manurabhavaM sUryashcha”
OM prANastathAnugamAt OM || 1\.1\.28||
OM na vakturAtmopadeshAditi chedadhyAtmasaMbandhabhUmA hyasmin OM || 1\.1\.29||
OM shAstradR^iShTyA tUpadesho vAmadevavat OM || 1\.1\.30||
OM jIvamukhyaprANali~NgAnneti chennopAsatraividyAdAshritatvAdiha tadyogAt OM || 1\.1\.31||
--------
OM prANastathAnugamAt.h OM || 1\.1\.28||
In Antima prANAdhikaraNa, by virtue of jIvanahetutva and sarva devopAsyatva and repeated application of such things, which are applicable to ViShnu only, prANa shabda refers to Vishnu only in the
Madhva-VishayavAkya -
“aitareya” - statements starting from “tA vA etAH shIrShan shriyaH shritAshchakShuH shrotraM mano vAkprANaH”,.
pUrvapakSha says prANa does not denote Vishnu and siddhAnta says it is Vishnu only for the reasons stated above. Also other following statements like -
“taM devAH prANayanta”, “sa eSho.asuH sa eSha prANaH”. “prANa R^icha ityeva vidyAt”, “tadayaM prANo.adhitiShTati”, etc.
Then from skanda purANa -
“viShnumevAnayandevA viShNuM bhUtimupAsate | sa eva sarvavedoktastadratho dwha uchyata”
-----
ViShayavAkya for Shankara -
KauShItakI brAhmaNopaniShad – “pratardano ha vai daivodAsirindriyasya priyaM dhAmopajagAma yuddhena cha pauruShna cha”
Further down there are other statements like -
“sa hovAcha prANo.asmi praj~nAtmA taM mAmAyuramR^itamityupAsva”
“atha khalu prANa eva praj~nAtmedaM sharIraM parigR^ihyotthApayati” ---
RamAnuja took same viShayavAkya
----------
OM na vakturAtmopadeshAditi chedadhyAtmasaMbandhabhUmA hyasmin OM || 1\.1\.29||
vaktuH AtmopadeshAt na iti chet adhyAtma-saMbandhabhUmA hi asmin |
vaktuH [vishvAmitrasya] [indreNa] Atmana [eva] upadeshAt [prANaH] na [brahmA] iti chet hi [na] asmin adhyAtma-saMbandhabhUmA |
PurvapakSha presents two things -
1. Conversation between Vishvamitra and Indra. 2. Indra claiming himself to be prANa.
SiddhAnta corrects both the things -
1. Conversation between Vishvamitra and IndrAntaryAmi indra-nAmaka Paramatma.
2. IndrAntaryAmi indra-nAmaka Paramatma claiming himself to be prANa.
PurvapakSha partly takes it and says “Even if the claim is that Paramatma is PrANa, Indra should have said - PrANa-nAmaka Paramatma is in me” - Obj-1
Madhva-VishayavAkya -
“prANo vA ahamasmyR^iShe”
“prANastvaM prANaH sarvANi bhUtAni”
In aitareya bhAShya very elaborated – which is missing in both Shankara and Ramanuja.
-------------
ViShayavAkya for Shankara -
“mAmeva vijAnIhi”
“prANo.asmi praj~nAtmA” ---
RamAnuja took same viShayavAkya
----------
For answering Obj-1, next one -
OM shAstradR^iShTyA tUpadesho vAmadevavat OM || 1\.1\.30||
As I mentioned before, note that here Vamadeva is compared to Indra and not Vishvamitra.
When Vamadeva said “ahaM manurabhavaM sUryashcha”, it is the antaryAmi of Vamadeva who said that I am “Manu” and “Surya” and there also Manu and Surya refer to Paramatma and not the actual Manu and Surya. When PurvapakSha keeps thinking that the word Manu and Surya refer to actual Manu and Surya only, but not Paramatma, then it is emphasized that such is not possible, because Vamadeva is not actual Manu and Surya and so Vamadeva himself can not claim that he is actual Manu and Surya and so only his antaryAmi has to say that. If his antaryAmi says that, then the word Manu and Surya also can not refer to actual Manu and Surya. So only option left is that the antaryAmi has to say that and it has to refer to Paramatma only. Similar is the case of Indra.
Madhva-VishayavAkya -
“ahaM manurabhavaM sUryashcha”
-----------
ViShayavAkya for Shankara -
None. He had no clue what to do and so continued previous sutra thing only and did not mention Vamadeva or his topic in any way.
RamAnuja-VishayavAkya -
“ahaM manurabhavaM sUryashcha”
Went a bit similar to Madhva, but had no clue to give antaryAmi meaning for shAstra. Took literal meaning of shAstra. Still not bad.
ViShayavAkya for Shankara -
None. He had no clue what to do and so continued previous sutra thing only and did not mention Vamadeva or his topic in any way.
RamAnuja-VishayavAkya -
“ahaM manurabhavaM sUryashcha”
Went a bit similar to Madhva, but had no clue to give antaryAmi meaning for shAstra. Took literal meaning of shAstra. Still not bad.
Shri Krishnarpanamastu !
Comments
Post a Comment