Sesatatparya-candrika, as stated in the previous volumes, is an endevour by Sri Raghunatha tirtha to complete the Tatparyachandrika of Sri Vyasatirtha which discontinued at the end of second chapter of Brahma Sutras. The present volume consists of the fourth Pada of third chapter and the en- tire fourth chapter. This introduction is intended to prepare the reader to go through the volume deeply.
Following is the summary, according to the Bhasya of Madhvacarya, of the seventh adhikarana known as Samanadhikarana (Sutra 7-14. II Pada IV Chapter).
Apparent reading (purvapaksa)
In the course of dissolution of Universe the principle of SRI i.e. Mahalakshmi, merges with the highest principle i.e. Lord Visnu. So States the Chandogya Upanisad “tejah parasyam devatayam”. This means SRI is afflicted with bondage like other finite souls as merger happens to bonded souls only. Therefore the principle of SRI cannot be considered as eternally free or never-bonded. The never-bonded status would make SRI equal to the Lord Visnu and this in turn makes her as much supreme as Visnu. This is against the stated import of Srutis and reason.
Critical reading (siddhanta)
“Samavetau prakrtisca paramasca nityau sarvagatau nityamuktan” - This is Souparna Sruti. Here, it is very clear that the principle of SRI (prakrti) and Lord Visnu (parama) are equal to the extent of eternal freedom or never-bondedness. This does not make them equal in respect of their virtues. The following difference to must be noted: Those finite souls who merge with or enter in Visnu do not come back to the cycle of births and deaths. But those who do with SRI do come back (SRI is dependent on Visnu; Visnu is totally independent)
The merger of SRI with Visnu does not entail the contigency of bondage to her. The merger of SRI is not similar with that of finite souls who have accomplished the aim of seeing Lord Visnu. Actually there is no merger of SRI with Lord Visnu. It is only the closest proximity. This is called merger in the secondary sense of the term. A pupil who resides very closely to his teacher is generally described as one who resides with the teacher. Gurou Vasati. This is only a figurative expression. The talk of SRI’s merger is similar with this. Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja read the first word in the aphorism 4.2.7 differently. It is samana..... according to them.
A nescient (who has not accomplished self realisation) is destined to be reborn. Embodiment of soul is rebirth. The five elements are essential to constitute a body. Therefore when he passes away the five elements, in their subtle form, have to accompany him. But the one who has accomplished self realisation attains emancipation. So states the scripture Amrtatvameti. Therefore, he does not have to pass away.
Utkranti is common to both the nescient and the enlightened. The nescient is tied to his karmans and therefore his Utkranti results in going back to a mortal body, i.e., rebirth. The enlightened does Utkranti and attains emancipation.
In the arrangement of Adhikaranas any haphazard reading is considered apparent reading purvapaksa. It should be sensible as far as possible. In the present case the critical reading, according to the Bhasya of Sri Sankara is as follows:
The Enlightened are of two kinds according to the Advaita school.
1) Enlightened in Paravidya.
2) Enlightened in Aparavidya.
Of the two the enlightened in paravidya has realised Advaita and therefore there is no world to him; nor has he a mortal body; nor there is a division of places to him. Utkranti is an upward movement of the soul from his mortal body to reach a destination. This Utkranti is therefore untenable to a soul who has realised Advaita. The apparent reading must be opposite to the critical reading according to the basic structure of Adhikaranas. When the critical reading according to Sri Sankara, does not uphold Utkranti to the enlightened soul (in paravidya) the apparent reading cannot take the position that there is no Utkranti to the enlightened soul.
The enlightened in Aparavidya does Utkranti according to the Advaita school. Therefore the Apparent reading can say that there is no Utkranti. True. But Adhikarana under discussion is not dealing with Aparavidya. Therefore any presentation with reference to Aparavidya is irrelevant. Bhamati says this: “paravidyaya eva amrtattvapraptih atra ucyate”. This means:
The attainment of emancipation by means of paravidya is the import of this adhikarana.
Upanisads, as a matter of fact deal more with Aparavidya than with paravidya. This matches with the proverb theives outnumber the merchants in the market place. The view that paravidya leads to emancipation can neither be found in Brahrnasutras nor in the Srutis - the origin of Sutras. Upanisad describes, as the end benifit of the pursuit of Daharavidya and similar Aparavidyas, the attainment of Brahmaloka and the pleasures available there. Journey to Brahmaloka requires Utkranti from the present body. Therefore the purvapaksa that one who pursues Aparavidya does not make Utkranti (Upward journey of the soul after escaping from the mortal body) is untenable.
Kalpataru, a commentary on Bhamati says: The import of this adhikarana is : The learned in Daharavidya attains emancipation. Emancipation is the final fruit of paravidya. The one who is learned in paravidya does not make Utkranti. Therefore the opponent of the conclusion of this adhikarana cannot present the view that the learned in Daharavidya does not make Utkranti. Therefore this presentation is the result of illusion.
This is not correct. The full text that avers the fruit of Daharavidya is this: ‘Tayordhvama-yannamrtattvameti’. This means: “Rises up from Brahmanadi and attains emancipation.” It is clear that Utkranti precedes emancipation. In view of this if the opponent of the conclusion of this adhiharana says that the learned in Daharavidya does not make Utkranti it is the correct position.
Besides, Kalpataru says that there is no apparent view on the subject discussed in this adhikarana - Vastutastu nasti purvapaksah: This is self-contradictory. Purvapaksa and Siddhanta are the essential characters of adhikarana. In the absense of purvapaksa what is called adhikarana is not so really.
Besides Kalpataru presents the following purvapaksa: The learned in Aparavidya does not have to make Utkranti. Because he has to reach Sagunabrahman. It is omnipresent like space. Utkranti is not necessary to reach him. This view of Kalpataru contradicts the Bhasya of Sri Sankara It says: The learned in Aparavidya does make Utkranti with subtle (five) elements. The subtle elements are required to take another body.
Bhutasuksmani grhitvaiva Utkramanam Karoti”
The presentation of Siddhanta also, in Kalpataru, is wrong. Because it does not answer the point, made in purvapaksa, that Utkranti is not necessary to reach Sagunabrahman as he is omnipresent.
Your email address will not be published *
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend