नेति नेति

 नेति नेति

 

नेति  नेतीति  वीप्सया प्रतिषेधार्हं सर्वं प्रतिषेधति श्रुतिः।

ननु किं प्रतिषेधार्हम् इति चेन्निखिलं दृश्यजातम् इति ब्रूमः। अज्ञैरात्मत्वेनाभिमन्यमानान्यपि देहादीनि

दृश्यान्येव सन्ति प्रतिषेधार्हाणि भवन्ति।

सेयं  श्रुतिः  निषेध्यं  दृश्यजातं निषिध्य प्रतिपेधानर्हे परमात्मनि पर्यवस्यति।

सकलप्रतिषेधस्यापि साक्षिभूतः सन्नयमात्मा प्रतिषेधं नार्हति।

प्रतिषिद्धे समस्ते दृश्यजाते त्वविद्या तत्कार्याणि च प्रतिषिद्धानि भवन्तीत्त्यात्मनः  संसारधर्माभावः सिध्यति।

तार्किककल्पितानामन्येषां पदार्थानामपि दृश्यत्वादेव प्रतिषेध्यकोटौ प्रवेशोपरिहार्य इत्यद्वैत एव

वेदन्तानां परमतात्पर्यमनेन वचसा निश्चितं भवति।

ननु निषेधवचसैवाद्वैतस्य सिद्धौ किं विधिमुखैः सत्यादिवाक्यैरिति चेत्?

नैवम्। निषेधवचसा जगतोभावः साक्षात् प्रतीयते। अनुभूयमानस्य जगतः शशविषाणवदत्यन्तासत्त्वावगमश्च नोपपद्यते। तस्मादनुभूयमानत्वे सत्यसत्त्वरुपं मिथ्यात्वं सर्वस्यापि जगतो नेति नेतीति वचसा बोद्ध्यते। निरधिष्ठानस्य कल्पनानुपपत्ते:, निस्साक्षिकस्य

निषेधस्याप्यनुपपत्तेः, जगन्निषेधावधिभूतं तदतिष्ठानं किञ्चिदर्थाज्ज्ञायते।

 तस्मान्नेतिनेतिवचसा जगतो मिथ्यात्वं मुखतो ज्ञाप्यते अर्थादेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म ग्राह्यते। यावद् अद्वितीयस्य  ब्रह्मण: सत्यत्वं लक्षणं

तेन जीवस्यैक्यं  मुखतो न प्रतिपाद्यते श्रुत्या, तावत्  प्रत्यगभिन्नस्य परमात्मन:   सत्त्वं स्वरुपं च सन्दिहानं प्रति श्रूतिः सत्यादिवाक्यैः

विधिमुखेन प्रत्यगभिन्नं चिद्रूपं ब्रह्म ग्राहयति।

तस्मान्न विधिप्रधानानां सत्यादिवाक्यानां नैरर्थक्यं  शङ्कनीयम्।

वेदान्तानां तात्पर्यम्

 

 वेदान्तानां तात्पर्यम्

 

वेदान्तानान्तात्पर्यङ्किमित्यत्रास्ति वैमत्यम्। निखिलानामपि तेषां कर्मपरत्वं कैश्चिद् भण्यते चेदपरैरुपास्तिपरता ।

 कैश्चिद् द्वैतपरत्वं चेद् विशिष्टाद्वैतपरत्वमन्यैः।आधुनिकाश्च केचित् सर्वेषामपि मतानां समवायमिच्छन्ति।

वेदान्ता न केवलमद्वैतपरा अपि तु द्वैतपरा विशिष्टाद्वैतपरा कर्मपरा उपास्तिपरा चेति ते निगदन्ति।

तत्राद्वैत एव वेदन्तानां तात्पर्यं नान्यत्रेति संप्रदायविदो निश्चिन्वन्ति।

वेदान्ते तावद् उपक्रमादिषड्लिङ्गान्यद्वैतपराण्येव लभ्यन्ते नान्यपराणि। अद्वैतावगमस्यैव मोक्षहेतुत्वान्न कर्मपरत्वं वोपास्तिपरत्वं वा तेषां निर्णेतुं शक्यते।

अपि च नेह नानास्ति किञ्चनेत्यादीनि भेदनिन्दावाक्यान्यपि वेदान्तेषु तत्र तत्र श्रूयन्ते येन वेदान्तस्य  द्वैतबोधकत्वाभावः सुनिश्वितो भवति।

    वेदान्तस्त्वाधुनिकैर्द्वैतादिसकलमतविधायक इति कल्प्यते।

 ते प्रष्टत्याः--

किमेकेनैव वाक्येनाद्वैतं तद्भिन्नान्यपि मतानि बोध्यन्त उत भिन्नैरेव वाक्यै:?

तत्राद्योनुपपन्नः। एकस्यैव प्रामाणिकस्य वाक्यस्य विरुद्धनानार्थबोधकत्वं न सम्भवति। तथा कल्प्यते चेत् वेदान्तानां प्रामाण्यभङ᳭ग एव स्यात्।

अपि च पारमार्थिकस्य वस्तुनोद्वैतत्वं  भेदवत्वं च न सम्भवति। युगपदेकस्य वस्तुनो  विरुद्धनानाधर्मवत्त्वकल्पनं न्यायविरुद्धम्।

तस्मादेकस्यैव महावाक्यस्य सर्वमतबोधकत्वं परिहृतम्।

तत्वमस्यादीनां महावाक्यानामेकत्रैव तात्पर्यं स्वीकार्यम्।

तदप्युपक्रमादिलिङ्गबलाद् अद्वैत एव।

यदि भिन्नैरेव वाक्यैर्भिन्नानि मतानि बोध्यन्त इति तैषामभिप्रायस्तर्हि त एवं प्रष्टव्याः -

किम् ज्ञेयपरैर्वाक्यैर्वोपास्तिपरैर्वाक्यैर्वाद्वैतभिन्नानि मतानि प्रतिपाद्यन्ते?  नाद्यः। ज्ञेयपराणां तत्त्वमस्मादिवाक्यानाम् अद्वैतमात्रपरत्वात् ।

 तत्प्रकरणपठितानां सृष्ट्यादिवाक्यानां न स्वार्थे तात्पर्यं किन्त्वद्वैतबोधन एवेति न तेषां द्वैतादिपरत्वम्। अन्येषामपि तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्तीत्यादीनां वाक्यानामप्यविद्यादशायां सिद्धस्यैव द्वैतस्यानुवादकत्वम्, न  तु  द्वैतबोधकत्वम् । तेषाम् द्वैतबोधकत्वे प्रकरणविरोध: स्यात्।

उपास्तिपराण्यपि वाक्यानि लोकसिद्धं द्वैतम् अनूद्याविद्यावत उपास्तीर्विदधति। तेषां वाक्यानाम् उपास्तिविधान एव पर्यवसानान्न द्वैतस्य बोधकत्वम्।

 

ननु यथा निर्गुणस्य ब्रह्मणः पारमार्थिकत्वं निर्गुणवाक्यैरवधार्यते तथैव उपस्तिप्रकरणे श्रूयमणैः सगुणवाक्यैस्तस्यैव

सगुणत्वमपि कुतो नावधार्यत इति चेत् ? 

नैवम्। उपास्तिप्रकरणस्थैर्वाक्यैस्तद्गुणानां पारमार्थिकत्वं न विवक्ष्यते। तेषामुपास्तिविधिपरत्वाद् गुणानां पारमार्थिकत्वाभावेप्युपास्तेः सुसम्पादत्वात्। निर्गुणवाक्यानां तु ज्ञेयपरत्वाद् तदुपदिष्टस्यैव पारमार्थिकत्वमुररीकार्यम्।

किञ्च तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासत इति श्रूतिरेव तस्य सगुणत्वं निराकरोति।

तस्मादुपास्तिपरैरपि वाक्येर्न वेदान्तानां द्वैतादिपरत्वम् सिध्यति।

ननु वेदन्तेषु उपास्तिपराणि ज्ञेयपराणि च वाक्यानि दृश्यन्त इति यथा अद्वैते तेषां तात्पर्यं तथैवोपास्तिविधानेपि किं नाङ्गीक्रियत इति चेत्?

नैवम्। उपास्तिविधीनां प्राधान्याभावात् ।

तमेव विदित्वा अतिमृत्युमेतीति ज्ञानादेव परमपुरुषार्थसिद्धेरुपास्तीनां प्राधान्यं नोपपद्यते।

तस्मान्निर्गुणप्रकरणापेक्षया सगुणप्रकरणानां गौणत्वं निश्चेयम्। ज्ञानयोग्यतासिद्ध्यर्थानि  ह्युपासनानि न तु साक्षन्मोक्षसाधनानि।

तस्माद् अज्ञानदशायां सिद्धं द्वैतम् अनूद्य निर्गुणेपि ब्रह्मणि गुणानारोप्योपास्तीर्विधत्ते श्रुतिः। उपासनया योग्यतामापन्नं प्रति निर्गुणमेवात्मतत्वम् अवबोधयति। तस्मादुपासने वा तद्विषये सगुणे ब्रह्मणि वा न वेदन्तानां पर्यवासानं किन्त्वद्वैत एव परमतात्पर्यवन्ति निखिलान्यपि वेदशिरोवचांसि।

Samskrtam - The Eternal Language

 सुष्ठु / सम्यक् कृतम् संस्कृतम्

It is properly and precisely formed - well refined.

It can be justified through following points:

1. Phonetic precision - every sound in the language is clearly understood with place of articulation, effort etc. Also the phonetic change - sandhi - is properly understood.

2. Words are derived from a set of roots and affixes. Sanskrit grammar understands the basic principle of derivation and usage of words. The whole universe is divided into action and 6 factors of action. Everything in the universe can be named in terms of a given set of actions and how it is related to a given action.

3. Since words are formed with the help of roots and affixes, one can form any number of new words following the rules of grammar. One can easily understand the meaning of a word by looking into the component roots and affixes. 

3. Principle behind formation of compounds is well understood. Using this, one can form new compounds and every compound can be precisely explained.

4. Sanskrit is a declentional language. The form of a word indicates the role of the word in a sentence. Therefore, a word conveys its meaning correctly irrespective of where it is positioned in a sentence. Change of syntax does not affect the meaning of the sentence. In other languages like English, the role of a word in a sentence is understood by its position in the sentence. Hence, syntax plays a major role in determining the meaning of the sentence. Hence, in English, grammar is primarily aimed at studying the syntax. In Sanskrit, Vyakarana is the study of words and their forms and not about syntax.

5. Since Sanskrit has a precise and systematic grammar, it has retained its original form through thousands of years. For one who has studied Paninian grammar, the sanskrit literature like Bhagavadgita and works of Shankaracharya do not sound ancient. He can easily relate to the language and connect to the great minds of the past. The English used a hundred years ago is now obsolete.

6. Unlike other languages, in Sanskrit we can form abstracts of every word. This speciality makes the language handy for philosophical discussion.

7. Sanskrit has an evolved system of metres and prosody, which makes it a favourite of literaries.

Purport of Vedanta

 

Purport of Vedanta

Jnana-kanda portion of the Vedas is called Vedanta. It consists of the Upanishads. It is a pramana – source of knowledge – as it reveals the absolute truth. Unlike the relative truth, one cannot arrive at the absolute reality through senses and reasoning. The words of Vedanta reveal the absolute reality.

The process of ascertaining the purport of Vedanta with the help of a competent Guru is called Sharavana. It is not easy to understand the true purport of Vedanta. An attempt to understand Vedanta on one’s own, without Guru's guidance, can lead to wrong conclusions. Hence, the role of a Guru is indispensable.

The Guru should be a sampradayavit. He should have proper understanding of the vision of the Vedanta text as per the tradition. Sampradaya is the way to clear understanding of the Vedanta texts and an effective communication of the same.

Nowadays, one might come across many popular interpretations of Vedanta. Most of them are not in keeping with the sampradaya. Some of them are ancient. Yet, they do not resonate with the true purport of the Upanishads. Some of the modern spiritual teachers call themselves Vedantis. They become popular spiritual teachers without any understanding of the sampradaya. Sri Shankaracharya warns a spiritual seeker against such spiritual teachers. असंप्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदुपेक्षणीयः They may speak well and have a good following. Popularity is not a proof of authenticity.

The true purport of Vedanta is advaita. The absolute reality – Brahman – is free from all dualities. It is infinite – with no parts and limitations. Jiva – the individual – is not different from Brahman. Jagat - the universe is mithya – unreal. Hence, neither the jiva nor the jagat can be counted as a parallel reality against Brahman. Hence, Brahman, the absolute reality, is advaita - without a second.

On a close and honest analysis of the statements of Vedanta, one can find that advaita is the central and unambiguous message of Vedanta. Yet, unfortunately, many philosophers and scholars fail to understand the same. Let us discuss some of the misconceptions and understand their fallacies.

1.    Vedanta reveals Karma

According to Mimansa philosophers, Vedas reveal only karma – actions in the form of rituals etc. A Vedic statement is considered valid if it reveals an action or a component associated with action. Karmas are useful as they produce their results. A valid Vedic statement should serve some purpose to the mankind. If it does not serve any purpose, it cannot be considered valid. If a statement reveals a fact which is not useful in any action, it does not serve any purpose and hence it loses its validity. Vedanta is an integral portion of the Vedas. Hence, like karma-kanda, the statements of Vedanta should reveal Karma and its accessories. Though they do not reveal an independent action, they should reveal certain facts that are useful in action. Understanding of the absolute reality does not serve any purpose in karmas. Also, the Brahman is free from all Karmas. It is neither an action nor a result of action. Hence, Advanta cannot be the purport of Vedanta.

The contention of the Mimansa philosopher lacks the understanding that Moksha cannot be attained through Karma. Moksha – the ultimate goal of human life – is a result of jnana. The results of Karma are temporary. Hence, the statements of Vedanta are not redundant. They are the means for the knowledge of Brahman.

Also, jnana does not need the help of Karma to produce its result. Jnana is capable of dispelling the ignorance without the assistance of Karma. Hence, the statements of Vedanta cannot be subordinated to the karma-kanda portion of the Vedas.

Unlike Karma-kanda, Vedanta does not enjoin any action. In Vedanta, one cannot find vidhi (injuction) or nishedha (prohibition). Instead, they talk about Brahman - the reality. Also, the Upanishads are clear in stating that the knowledge of Brahman leads to moksha. Hence, Vedanta does not reveal Karma.

 

2.    Vedanta reveals Dvaita

Dvaita means duality. According to Dvaita phiolosophers, Brahman – the Lord - and jiva are different from each other and the jagat is real. A jiva can never become Brahman A jiva can worship Brahman and attain his proximity. Being close to the Lord is Moksha.

The fallacies of Dvaita can be very easily undersood as the Vedanta leaves no stone unturned in negating all dualities.

3.    Vedanta expounds Vishishtadvaita

According to Vishishtadvaita, jiva is a part of Brahman – the Lord. The Lord encompasses everything – world and Jiva. The world is real and so are our bodies and minds. A jiva can never be Brahman. Yet, he can be a closer and prominent part of Brahman through spiritual practices.

The contention of Vishishtadvaita seems correct at first glance. On a closer probe, one can find out that it is not the intended message of the Vedanta. Brahman is nishkala – free from parts and nitya – eternal. Hence it cannot have parts. The unequivocal emphasis on the oneness of jiva and Brahman rules out the amsha – amshi – bhava i.e., part-whole relation between jiva and brahman.

4.    Vedanta teaches Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Advaita

Some modern teachers try to reconcile all existing interpretations. According to them, Vedanta proclaims Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Advaita alike. A seeker is free to choose any of them as per his or her inclination. This interpretation seems very convincing as long as we do not analyse the Upanishads properly. On a close scrutiny of the Vedantic statements, we can understand the following:

a.    The central teaching of Vedanta is summed up in the Mahavakya. The Mahavakya equates jiva with Brahman. It is an equation. All other statements of the Upanishads are subservient to Mahavakya. Hence, they are in alignment with the message of Mahavakya.

b.   Vedanta, being a valid source of knowledge, cannot proclaim two messages that contradict each other. The absolute truth cannot be non-dual and dual at the same time.

c.    To determine the purport of a given passage of Vedanta, we take into account the indicatory signs like upakrama (introduction), upasamhara (conclusion at the end of the passage), abhyasa (repetition) etc. They are the tools to ascertain the purport of a given passage of the Vedas. All such indicatory signs are in favour of advaita.

d.   There are statements in Vedanta that negate all forms of duality like नेह नानास्ति किंचन, नेति नेति etc. If Vedanta intends to convey duality also, it could not have negated it.

e.    The world cannot be real and unreal at the same time. If it is satya, it canot be mithya.

f.     Jiva cannot be limited and limitless at the same time. The statments that negate the reality of the universe cannot be reconciled with reality of the universe. Hence the statements that seem to affirm the presence of the universe like creation etc. should not be understood as the conclusion of Vedanta. The purpose of discussing srshti (creation) is to establish non-duality. It is quite clear on analysing Chapter 6 of Chandogyopanishad.

g.    Some people think Advaita is a state. It is not true. It is the only reality that cannot be to a confined to a given state. All states belong to the domain of duality.

On account of the above and many more reasons, one cannot amalgamate various interpretations. An effort to reconcile two opposite view turns out to be futile. The earth cannot be flat and globe at the same time. Is it not ignorance to describe the earth as a flat surface floating on water?

 

Question: If Advaita is the only purport of Vedanta, why there are statemnets like द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया? (There are two birds – refering to jivatma and paramatma – on the same tree, namely, the body.)

Answer: Such statements do not reveal duality. Such statements should be understood as अनुवाद – statement of something that is true from the ignorant seekers’ point of view. To convey the absolute truth, the shastra makes reference to the seeker’s point of view and eventually corrects the same. For example, an ignorant child perceives a rope as a snake and gets frightened. Then, a grown-up man, intending to clear the child’s delusion, might say, “This snake is just a rope.” The part of the statement ‘this snake’ is an अनुवाद. The speaker does not mean to convey the reality of the snake. He is just referring to the perception of the child with the objective of negating the same.

 

Question: Some Upanishads contain Upasanas. They are meditations of Brahman with qualitie, i.e., saguna-brahma. It is not possible without duality. Qualitie belong to the domain of duality. Also, meditator is different from the object of mediation. Hence, do not the sections of Vedanta dealing with Upansana convey Dvaita etc.?

Answer: Yes. There are such sections in the Upanishads. But they do not convey the absoluteness of Dvaita etc. Just like the Karmas enjoined in Karma-kanda secton, the Upasanas are meant for a seeker who is not ready to receive the knowledge of Advaita yet. Upasana serves as a means for being qualified for understanding the true nature of Paramatma. Such statements also operate with the principle of अनुवाद. They take recourse to the duality that is perceived by the seeker and prescribe certain spiritual discipline. On being ready, the seeker understands Advaita from the Mahavakyas and attans Moksha.

 

Question: You pin down Vedanta to Advaita alone and reject other contentions, including the all-encompassing view that reconciles all views. Is it not fanaticism? Does it not hurt others’ sentiments and cause disharmony?

Answer: 1+1 is always 2. It cannot be 3 pr 4 or 0. Is it fanaticism to say so? One cannot bring about social harmony by endorsing the incorrect. Being honest and open to the truth is the only way to harmony and peace in the world.