Decoding a Statement.

The difference between abhitananvyavada and anvitabhidanvada.Which one is accepted in advaita?

Abhihit-anvaya and anvita-abhidana both are different form of understanding. I don’t think we can fix one or the other for advaita.  Though, anvita-abhidana will be more apt.  People use one as the situation demands.

In abhita-anvaya first we understand the statement and then later understand the meaning, which is not understood earlier individually, is understood this way.

Anvita-abhidana on the other hand one has to understand the meaning of each word and do anvaya (co-relating) before coming to an understanding of the statement. Like in the statement "he got a shot in the arm", if we try to understand the word shot without reference to the whole context, we will miss the positive note. and in the statements like "you are that" if we don’t know the implied meaning of each word, we will definetly not be able to understand the proper meaning.

Probably, this is what Bhagavan Bhashyakara wanted to show us, in the kena upanishad bhashya by writing a pada and vakya bhashya.

There is another way of putting this, when dealing with the tatparya (inherent / implied meaning) of a statement we say, padaika-vakyata and vakyaika-padata. where, in padaika-vakyata the meaning of the whole sentence is understood with reference to the words and the other way in the vakyaika-padata.

Logical Arguments

There are three types of discussion possible, according to nyaya Shastra. They are 1. Vadha 2. Jalpa and 3. Vithanda.

Vadha –  “pramaana – tarka – saadhanopalambha – siddhantaaviruddha panca-avayava-upapanna paksha-pratipaksha-parigraha vaadha” (nyaya sutra)

With the help of the means of right knowledge “pramana”  and logic “tarka” following ones idea one should use the syllogory  endowed with all the five terms / parts of it and prove their idea is vaadha. Here, the important thing to notice is, both the people involved in the discussion are only interested in presenting their idea to come to a conclusion, which both can accept. That is, they don’t have any fixed idea of the conclusion.

The five parts of the syllogory is pratigna, hetu, udhaarana, upanaya and nigamana. Pratigna is to present the goal or aim of the syllogory / logic, hetu is the reason we use to prove it, udhaarana is the example we use which fits in both the aim and the reasoning, upanaya is to present the idea that there is a concomitance here and nigamana is to show that the logic fits in this place.

The syllogory will look like this – the mountain has fire, because it has smoke, like the kitchen fire, where there is smoke there is fire, here it is like this.

There are different schools of logicians who say that not all the five parts is necessary. Like, the vedantins only accept the first or the last three. The Buddhist accepts only two etc.

Jalpa - “Yathokthopapanna chala-jati-nigrahasthana-saadhanopalambha jalpa” (nyaya sutra)

In this type of dialogue, one should present one’s own idea and condemn the others idea by showing the error like jaati uttara, and other nigrasthana.

One is very sure of one’s own idea, and based on it he presents the logic to prove his point and based on it or some pre-decided idea shows the error in the opponents idea.

Before entering into a dialogue both the parties decide on a common ground of discussion. Like what will one base his dialogue and what will one not base it upon, what is the time one will take to reply (we cannot take years to reply) etc. during this discussion sometimes just to fool the opponent with a semblance of logic or logic based on the semblance of the pre-decided points if one throws a point, then if it is pointed out by the other, it is called nigrahasthana.

Vithanda - “satpratipaksha-staapanaa-hiina vitanda” (nyaya sutra)

In this type of dialogue, one should only resort to condemning the others idea, without presenting one’s own idea. And it is accepted. If the person says his side of idea or if he even accepts that he is doing a vithanda he loses the position of being a vaitandika.

Buddha according to Vedanta.

>>How should a follower of advaita vedanta,look upon Bhagawan Buddha.He

is considered to be an avatara of Shree Hari, yet Bhagawan Bhasyakar

in His Brahmasutra bhasya after refuting buddhism, criticizes Him

saying that He wanted to delude people,as so many contradictory views.

For an Advaitin everyone is an Avatar. (in tamil they use Avatar in pun, to refer to some naughtiness or troublemaker).

The ref to buddha as bhagavan comes in the purana, accepting him as one of the avatar of vishnu. though, this is not considered as one in the list of ten avatars, because there, only the famous, according to the tradition, is considered.

If it is so how come He is against the shastra and bhagavan bhashyakara against him ?

It is simple (maybe not so), each avatar has a purpose. one to save the world (sukara - pig), one to save a devotee (vamana - dwarf), one to destroy the asuras himself (Rama), one to be a catalyst in destroying the asuras (Krishna), one to help the people in general (Kurma - tortoise) etc.

In this we can list the avatar of BHAGAVAN Buddha as the avatar to divert the people from the shruti to protect the right knowledge. Half baked people with half knowledge or people without shraddha on the scriptures are like our neo-secular people, they are dangerous to the religion in general and to themself in particular. Destroying them is not a way in the scheme of creation, then, bhagavan will be like a person with likes and dislikes or like a dictator.

So, to protect the shastra he guided the others who have no or less respect towards shastra. When bhagavan bhashyakara condemns, he condemns the buddhism as a school of thought for realization, and not a person. If an advaitin condemns someone as a person, he will cease to be one, like a vithandavadi proclaimining himself to be so (if a vaithandika says he is one, then he ceases to be a vaithandika, vithanda base rule is only to condemn others idea and not proclaim his idea.)

Why study the Shastras ?

There was a discussion a couple of days ago with a swamiji, about the importance of studying Vedanta with the other schools and tools like, Sanskrit, Logic and Karma (Vyakarana, Nyaya and Poorva mimamsa).

For any study there is a direct result ‘drsta phala’ and indirect result ‘adrsta phala’. According to the poorva mimamsa people, when there is a direct result possible imagining an unseen result is not logical ‘drsta phalakatve sati adrsta phala kalpana anyayatvat’.

Now the direct result for studying these philosophies are the knowledge of it, which helps in understanding the Shruti statements in a better way, without any doubt.

And the indirect result is merit ‘punya’ or purification of mind ‘chittashuddi’, because these are though not the absolute means of knowledge; mind, I didnt say not means of knowledge ‘apraminika’; are still written by the Maharishis for the people who are at that level of intelligence.

But, apart from these two results, there is another direct and indirect result ‘drshta-adrsta’, in this case. Which is though it helps directly in the study of the shastras, but most importantly it gives Vairagya and Humility ‘vinaya’(does not mean being dull).  Manu and Chanakya warn us about overdoing this humility, understand great humility (showoff) is the mark of a bad person ‘ativinayam dhurta lakshanam’. So, as it is rightly said studying gives humility ‘vidya dadati vinayam’.

How so ? first, studying these shastras one sees the nuances and the nitty-gritties which take a lot of space in the book and in once intellect, one naturally develops a vairagya for these type of things, over a period. But most importantly, Humility, first when one sees these texts the very same nitty-gritties give a sense of awe, the maharishis have thought over every finer point in a very fine and precise way. And, most importantly, even if one dedicates his life for the study of any of these fields one will still find it difficult to claim to be a thorough with it. Even after spending a life time in Sanskrit, we cannot be sure (though we can make a meaning out of the word / sentence). Case in point, we have commentary ‘bhashya’ by different people for the same Upanishad / gita / brahma sutra etc.

Or, for that matter, Logic, there is always a better logician, who is able to see the things in a different light.  We can see this in the different interpretation of the navyanyaya text of Sri Gangesha upadhyaya (one of the eminent logicians, father of neo-logic school) interpreted by Sri Jagadisha acharya and Sri Gadhadhara acharya in different ways.

Let us take a simple example, the word Suresha. This is a proper noun, is a name of a person commonly seen in india. What does this word mean, if we ask the grammarians, they will tell you ‘Suraanam ishwara iti’. Now, what is this suranaam, a word in sixth case plural. 1. Sura may mean the devas (deities) and so, the lord of the deities. 2. Sura may be interpreted as ‘sushtu raati it’, one who protects nicely, and therefore, the lord of the protecters. 3. Or it can be, suraa – liquor, the lord of liquor J, whatever that may mean.

In logic, we have a common concomitance, where there is smoke there is fire ‘yatra dhuma tatra vahni’. Now, when we prove this, we give an example and counter example, kitchen ‘mahanasa’ and ocean ‘mahahradha’. Now, one student asked me this, there is fish in the ocean and in its stomach there is fire ‘jataragni’, why can it not be said to be ‘vrtti’ in the ocean too. I had to resort to the different levels of connection ‘sambandha’. Mountain with tree with fire and ocean with fish with stomach with fire. But this is just not a very proper way according to the logicians, because they accept the tree to be the mountain itself.

The more one studies the more one understands his limits of knowledge. if you have the vairagya and humility in abundance already, then, find some excuse to study J .