नानात्वं निन्द्यते यच्च तदेवं हि समञ्जसम् ॥ १३ ॥
jīvātmanorananyatvamabhedena praśasyate |
nānātvaṃ nindyate yacca tadevaṃ hi samañjasam || 13 ||
nānātvaṃ nindyate yacca tadevaṃ hi samañjasam || 13 ||
Now a problem comes. Purvapakshi (generally dvaitin, includes all philosophers) says you are only taking the aikya statements from Vedas. Whatever is convenient for you you are taking. If you really go to Vedas you have enough statements which reveal the difference also.
Why do you choose abheda only. How do you account for bheda vakyas. Where are they? The entire Karma kanda talks of it only. Worshipper worshipped, karma karta and karma phala data iti.
Even in Upanishads we have such vakyas as dva suparnau sayuja sakhayau samanam vrkshma parishasvajate tayo + In khato rtam pibantau + Two different ones. Like chaya and atapa.
Mamaiva amsah + in Geeta. So jivatma and paramatma are not one and the same. If so, then jiva is birthless like paramatma iti you cannot say. Advaitin is quoting abheda vakyas and dvaitin is quoting bheda vakyas. Veda seems to support both of them.
Which one can we take? We have to use mimamsa here. Mere language and reasoning is not enough. Whatever is praised that must be the intention of the vedantic teaching. Whatever is condemned cannot be the tatparya of vedantic teaching. Through praise, it says what is a fact.
Uniformly advaitam is glorified and great phalams are given for advaita jnanam. Stutyartha vadah and utkrishta phala vacanam. Moksha phala danena prasasyate.
Jivatmanoh + Identity of jiva and atma is praised. Is glorified.
Through what? Abhedena -through many statements of identity. By saying tarati sokam atmavid etc. Yasmin sarvani + Tai - sa yascayam + etam annamayam + sama gayan aste. He is equated to isvara himself.
Whereas when dvaitam comes, upanishad uniformly condemns. Mrtyoh + & Anyah asau + sah na veda. Sa devanam pasuh.
Offering ahutis. Tad evam hi samanjasam - Avaitam alone has to be taken as proper.
Why do you choose abheda only. How do you account for bheda vakyas. Where are they? The entire Karma kanda talks of it only. Worshipper worshipped, karma karta and karma phala data iti.
Even in Upanishads we have such vakyas as dva suparnau sayuja sakhayau samanam vrkshma parishasvajate tayo + In khato rtam pibantau + Two different ones. Like chaya and atapa.
Mamaiva amsah + in Geeta. So jivatma and paramatma are not one and the same. If so, then jiva is birthless like paramatma iti you cannot say. Advaitin is quoting abheda vakyas and dvaitin is quoting bheda vakyas. Veda seems to support both of them.
Which one can we take? We have to use mimamsa here. Mere language and reasoning is not enough. Whatever is praised that must be the intention of the vedantic teaching. Whatever is condemned cannot be the tatparya of vedantic teaching. Through praise, it says what is a fact.
Uniformly advaitam is glorified and great phalams are given for advaita jnanam. Stutyartha vadah and utkrishta phala vacanam. Moksha phala danena prasasyate.
Jivatmanoh + Identity of jiva and atma is praised. Is glorified.
Through what? Abhedena -through many statements of identity. By saying tarati sokam atmavid etc. Yasmin sarvani + Tai - sa yascayam + etam annamayam + sama gayan aste. He is equated to isvara himself.
Whereas when dvaitam comes, upanishad uniformly condemns. Mrtyoh + & Anyah asau + sah na veda. Sa devanam pasuh.
Offering ahutis. Tad evam hi samanjasam - Avaitam alone has to be taken as proper.
No comments:
Post a Comment