Final attack on Advaita vishaya - 9

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

With the last mail we completed the analysis on ajnaana of advaita by answering the arguments of madhva through the beautiful exposition of ajnaana by sureshwaracharya from the sambhandha bhashya vartika.

Even though there was the copy of the bhashya vartika with anandagiri’s commentary but that was in Chennai & hence didn’t have access to the same now. But of late, glanced upon an online version of the same scanned & hence have the bhashya vartika verses with anandagiri’s tika on the same – also found the brihadaranyaka vartikasaara of vidyaranya which is one of the base works of the vartika prasthaana. Will go through the same over the weekend & we will have a couple of mails next week on the same.

Continuing with the mayavada khandana of madhvacharya, madhva makes one final statement thereby closing the attack on the vishaya of advaita.

Mithyaatve chaikyasya aatatvavedakatvam aagamasya syaat – satyataa cha bhedasya

If Brahma-Atma aikya is mithyaa then sruthi would be propounding about something which is not real (as advaita accepts that sruthi propounds brahma atma aikya which in this case is mithyaa or not real).

Also in this case, as brahma atma aikya is mithyaa therefore bheda or difference between Brahman and atman becomes real which causes duality or dvaita.

Let us see Jaya teertha’s commentary on this part of the work as he explains this well:

Aikyam hi shaastrasya vishayathayaa parasya abhimatham

Aikya is accepted as the vishaya of the scriptures by others (here means advaitins).

Tatkimaatmasvaroopa athiriktham? utha tanmaatram?

Whether that aikya is different from the nature of atman or same as it?

Aadhye api satyam mithyaa vaa?

In the first case (if aikya is different from the nature of atman), is it real or illusory?

Na adhyah advaita haani prasangaath

It is not the first (aikya is not real and different from the nature of atman) as then it would lead against advaita or destruction of advaita.
Na dviteeyah

Nor even the second (aikya is not mithyaa and different from the nature of atman).

Aikyasya mithyaatve tat prathipaadakasya shaastrasya aatatvavevdakatvam syaat tathaa cha apasiddhanthah syaat

Aikya if it is mithya then shastra which propounds aikya will be propounding about unreal things – this will thus lead to apasiddhantha (deviation from one’s own theory – advaita propounds that shastra has the vishaya of brahma atma aikya and shastra is ultimate pramaana which will be wrong now as shastra will propound unreal things).

Jaya Teertha now explains about the words “satyataa cha bhedasya” thus:

Parasparavirudhayoh anyatharanishedasya anyatharavidhinaa vyaaptatvaad aikyasya mithyaatve bhedasya satyathaa cha syaat

Those which are mutually contradictory (brahma atma aikya and brahma atma bheda) & which is negated through a different way (brahma atma aikya is negated); its concomitance in a different way leads us to the fact that if aikya is mithya, then the bhedha (between Brahman and atman) becomes real.

Explanation

Please bear with the last sentence of Jaya Teertha which is a bit logical but will explain it a bit depth later in the mail.

Apasiddhanthah

The argument of brahma atma aikya being illusory and thereby sruthi propounding illusory brahma atma aikya has already been discussed previously and answered as well. Here just we need to understand that apasiddhantha happens when a person goes against his own definitions or his own theory. When “I” say that “vedanta is the final philosophy” and still follow the sankhya system (which believes in dvaita), it is apasiddhantha – as here I accept prakrithi (maya in Vedanta) as an illusory power of Brahman as per Vedanta but still hold the sankhya view that prakrithi and purusha are independent, eternal and separate. Hope the term apasiddhantha is clear now.

Jaya teertha tries to show that advaitins accept sruthi pramaana above all other pramaanas (even pratyaksha or anubhava which is considered as the strongest pramanaa but other systems). If they then accept brahma atma aikya as mithyaa, then sruthi would become invalid as it is propounding about an unreal thing or theory. Thus sruthi though is accepted as faultless and ultimate propounds faulty as well as illusory things.

This explains the first part of madhva’s argument which can be understood very well by jaya teertha’s tika on the same (which has been put above).

Bhedasya satyathaa – bheda becoming real

We will now try to see madhva’s argument of bheda becoming real if brahma atma aikya is mithyaa. We have here two entities of Brahman and atman. Brahman is the ultimate reality whereas atman is the seemingly limited kutastha (as per later advaita acharyas words). Brahman is pointed out through the word TAT whereas atman is pointed out through the word TVAM in the mahavakya TAT TVAM ASI.

Advaita propounds that the vishaya of scriptures is brahma atma aikya or oneness of Brahman and atman. If this brahma atma aikya is mithyaa, then automatically it gets proved that Brahman and atman are different.

Let’s consider this example:
A -> tree
B -> rock
A=B -> aikya

A=B is mithyaa, then A!=B.

If the oneness of A and B is mithyaa, then it means that A and B are different. Thus A-B aikya is mithyaa if A and B are different. If A and B are same, then the aikya cannot be mithyaa.

Extending this to Brahman as A and Atman as B:

A -> Brahman
B -> Atman

A=B -> Brahma Atma Aikya
A=B is mithyaa means A!=B or Brahman is not equal to Atman

A!=B means A and B are different
Brahman not equal to Atman means Brahman is different from Atman.
Brahman is different from Atman means “difference between Brahman and Atman is real”.

If the difference between Brahman and Atman is real, then this goes against advaita & hence Brahma-Atma aikya cannot be mithyaa. Brahma-Atma aikya cannot be real as well because it will lead to another entity of Brahma Atma Aikya as real other than Brahman (which will lead to two real entities). Thus advaita has to accept Brahma Atma aikya as svaroopa alone (brahma atma aikya as not svaroopa has been proved illogical even if brahma atma aikya is considered as real or unreal).

If Brahma Atma aikya is svaroopa, then the faults which madhva raised as to nirvisheshatva etc. will come & hence advaita cannot escape from this as well.

Thus the Brahma Atma Aikya vishaya of advaita is illogical.

The above argument of madhva and jaya teertha as the bheda being real if brahma atma aikya is mithyaa will be proved wrong through the advaitin’s reply to the same. We will see that in the next mail in the series.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God