जीवात्मनोः पृथक्त्वं यत् प्रागुत्पत्तेः प्रकीर्तितम् ।
भविष्यद्वृत्या गौणं तन्मुख्यत्वं हि न युज्यते ॥ १४ ॥
jīvātmanoḥ pṛthaktvaṃ yat prāgutpatteḥ prakīrtitam |
bhaviṣyadvṛtyā gauṇaṃ tanmukhyatvaṃ hi na yujyate || 14 ||
The question comes if the Vedas wants to teach advaitam only whey should it talk about dvaitam at all. It seems to be unnecessary complication. Initially it should talk about dviatam. Thereafter it has to be condemned. Why talk and condemn. Why not keep quiet.
Why should I call you and say fool. It could have avoided dvaitam. It talks about dviatam throughout karmakanda. Even in the beginning of jnanakanda very much it is said. How do you account for it.
We say that to reveal advaitam we have to start from somewhere. Upanishad has to start from dviatam where the student is. Only from the place of the student or plane of the student Upanishad has to develop further and then take him to the destination. If I have to take you somewhere I have to pick you from the place where you are. Where is the student now? The student has to be in dviatam at this moment because of his mudhamati. Because of his basic ignorance. Therefore whenever Upanishad is talking dvaitam.
Upanishad is not revealing dvaitam as a fact but it is only introducing dvaitam paraphrasing dvaitam which is already in the mind of the student. Upanishad need not teach what the student already knows. Upanishad need not teach what the student already knows. That is why they tell the story of adviatic teacher.
An Advaita teacher was teaching advaitam to a student. Student was not convinced of adviatam and went to some other teacher to read dvitam with all logic etc. He went back to advaita teacher to argue and establish dvaitam. With that puffed mind he came to argue. The advaita teacher was having a shave due to pournami. He said please wait and afterwards we can have a debate. He was watching the whole procedure. The barber showed the mirror at the end to advaita teacher.
He was shining now,. You are so great that you have added so much shine in my face. You are Narayana. Guru started falling at the feet of barber. Barber felt so bad and he could not bear that.
He said How can I ordinary barber be equal to Narayana. When this statement was made by the barber he looked at the dvaitin. You took 12 years to establish the difference between jiva and isvara. This barber without study of any sasrta he already says I am not Narayana. Why should Upanishad be studied to talk about the difference of jiva and isvara. Everyone by birth is thinking that I am different from Isvara. Upanishad take all efforts to remove this fundamental ignorance.
This is one of the rules of mimamsa. Veda need not teach what is already in the mind of the people. This is technically called gatarthatvam. Already known fact. Veda need not tell that. Even an ant knows that I am not the sugar which I am eating. Why should the upanishad teach it elaborately. Adviatam is not naturally known. It is agatarthah. Not known through other pramanas. It is apurvam. Dvaitam is steppig stone. That person knows only snake. So I have to start from snake. Though ultimately I wish to prove that there is no snake at any time. Start with snake and end with negation of snake. So too with dvaitam and negation of dvaitam.
Destination is advaitam only.
Jivatmanoh prthaktvam - the difference between jiva and isvara.
Utpatteh prak - is talked about before the creation. The bheda is talked about before srishti. So that it can be condemned after srishti vakyas. It is all important technical ideas. Before talking about aikyam I say there are many pots, all pots are born of clay, sustained by it and resolve into it and pot is effect and clay is karanam and then say clay is reality of pot and pots are non-separate from clay and dismiss all pots. Mundaka started with srishti. Yatha sudiptat + Brahman was said to be karanam.
Finally Upanishad concluded that purusha eva idam sarvam. All that is there is Brahman. Began with duality and ended with advaitam. So it is initial statement.
Bhavishyat vrttya + These bheda vakyas are only secondary statements, unimportant statements or figurative. It is temporarily accepted for teaching. It is gaunam for what purpose. From the standpoint of adviatam which is primarily taught later. Bhavishyat is future. From the standpoint of future teaching of advaitam dvaitam is only secondary statement. Serving as a stepping stone.
Mukhyatvam na hi yujyate. You should not give too much importance to dvaita vakyas.
Ultimate importance is not there. They are condemned and dismissed later unlike abheda vakyas which are never condemned.
No comments:
Post a Comment