परस्परं विरुध्यन्ते तैरयं न विरुध्यते ॥ १७ ॥
svasiddhāntavyavasthāsu dvaitino niścitā dṛḍham |
parasparaṃ virudhyante tairayaṃ na virudhyate || 17 ||
Advaitam is primary teaching. Dvaitam talked of is a stepping stone for inferior seekers. Karma, upasana sadhanams are prescribed accepting dvaitam. We do not condemn people who do puja or worship. But they should not get stuck up there for ever. Jiva utpatti is negated by pointing out jiva is ajam like brahman.
In 17 to 19 Gaudapada is going to contrast advaitam with all dvaita darsanam. Ramanuja, Madhva, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya - all these are dvaitams. What is the difference between both teachings. There are some misconceptions about this.
1) One is everyone thinks Advaitam is another system of darsanam having its particular view like many other systems. Every system has its particular view and advaitam also has its particular view. So all of them are on equal footing.
So they think that each one is a fanatic philosopher claiming that his system alone is holding the truth. Advaitam is one of them. How can we say one alone is truth and so we should have a open mind. Like college professor - who will teach different philosophies as this is the view of dviatam. This is the view of visishtadvaita. Who is correct. Every body is correct from his own standpoint. Nobody has got a special privilege to claim.
2) Second misconception is that advaitam is not one point of view. It is a catholic system. It accepts all points of view. It says all of them are correct. It has a whole vision in which it accepts all of them. It is total view.
One is advaitam is one of the views. Another is it is not one view but it accommodates all views. They tell a story also. Story of seven blind man and one elephant. One man having eye. One blind says it is like pillar feeling the legs of elephant. Another says it is a rope feeling the tail. Another says it is wall feeling the stomach.
Another says it is winnow feeling the ears. Each one claims I am correct. One who has eyes says all views are correct. So too advaitam is mixture of all dvaitam. We have a whole vision in which all of them are included. It looks like right. Another interesting example of chameleon. It seems one person saw at one time as reddish. Another person saw another time that it was green. Both were quarrelling that it was only red or only green. The one who noticed all the time that both are correct.
All these will be okay if Brahman is like elephant or chameleon. They have many parts and each one knows one one part and so partially true. I have seen whole elephant and all parts put together becomes total. Brahman does not have parts. Brahman does not change. So it cannot be like chameleon. So that cannot be taken. It is total consisting of many parts. Nor it is subject to change and so both examples are wrong. To say advaitam is a point of view is also wrong and to say adviatam includes all points of view also is wrong. Then which is right? These are only two possibilities.
Gaudapada says that one point of view alone is true from paramarthika drishti. All other points of views are correct from vyavaharika drishti. One is absolutely true and all other are true from relative angle. Paramrthikam is one and vyavahrika drshtya many are true. Ramanuja etc are true from, vyavahrika drishti. We accept duality in vyavahara. He worshipped deities. Installed maths. Is it one point of view or many points of view put together.
Sva sva siddhanta-vyavasthasu niscita dvaitino drdha
Dvaitinah - all other systems. They strongly hold on to and fanatically hold on to their own systems of conclusion of teaching. Not only that. Each one of them strongly contradict the other person. Criticise the other person. Advaitns do what? He does not join the fray of conflict. Taih +
With all those conflicting philosophies advatic teaching never enters. Advaitic teaching is different from others. Why?
The reason is this. All dvaitins accept duality. That is why they are dvaitans. They all have vikalpas of knower-known-knoweldge and arrive at the truth which is other than themselves. They are analysing the truth with the help of pramanas. Truth is one of the prrameyams. The prameyams you understand depend upon the pramanas you use. If you use your eyes you look at the world, for you the world is world of colours and forms. If you are blind and you have got only ears, for you the world of colours and forms are not there but your world consists of all sounds.
The type of instruments will determine the type of prameyams you experience. If you have an atomic eye,. you will not see walls and people but a bunch of atoms moving violently Who is right? One uses this pramanas and so he gets one view and another using another pramana will get another view. Two views will never coincide. Each is correct from its standpoint. Each will be wrong from another’s standpoint. So the truth arrived at by them will be relative. Not only that. When pramanas are used, you have to use the intellect also. Each one has his own personality background. he will interpret it in his own way. Experience remaining the same, each one will confirm his own ism.
So world remaining the same different people react differently because of different types of buddhis. So both pramanam and pramata will certainly colour the prameyams, You will never get at the absolute. Science proves that alone. Subjective involvement is there and so objective truth we cannot arrive at. How to arrive at then prameya objectively?
You should not use any pramanam. Can you know a prameyam without any pramanam or pramata. So as long as truth is a prameyam it will be relative truth coloured by pramata and pramanam.
What will be the absolute truth then? If it is prameyam you cannot have same statement. or universal view uniform opinion. How is that person? Some will say he is nice. Some who say he is unapproachable. You are meeting only once a week,. I am his neighbour. I know him more. So absolute has to be aprameyam that which is not revealed through any pramanam. or interpreted by any pramata. What is that vastu? It can be only one vastu and it is atma. Aprameya svapraaksa manovacama gocara. I illumine all concepts. It is not the object of any concept. If you can have two different views about atma, then we can say it is relative. From one view like this and from another view it is like that. It is not a viewed thing, to have different views. But it is viewer. So it is absolute. So when dvaitins quarrel they are doing so regarding various prameya vastus.
Advaitin is not bothered about prameys which belong to relative reality. Quarrel requires different views. Different views are possible only with respect to prameyas, So all people are quarrelling with respect to prameyam. Advatin says it is relative reality. I am not talking about prameyam. I talk about the quarreller’s truth regarding which there cannot be any quarrel because it is always drk and not drsya. They quarrel. quarrel. Tai ayam + The most important point is advaitam is not a point of view. They belong to prameyam or dvaitam. There is only you.
No comments:
Post a Comment