IS THERE A BHEDA-ABEDHA PADAM IN VEDAS
One fine morning, a man walking outside a house heard a ladies' sound from
within: "Son, please drink milk, it is very good for your health. Do not
insist on eating this fried potato, it is not good." In the evening, going
by the same way he heard the woman's voice: "Why are you insisting on milk?
What is in it except water? Potatoes are ready, eat them." At another time
he heard the woman saying: "You are continuously sitting and studying. If
you continue like this you will get indigestion. Go out and play for some
time." Later he heard her say: "Why are you always playing here and there
like an idle dog? Sit down and study. If you go outside again, I will
thrash you." Hearing these contradictory statements, the man concluded that
the woman was very impatient, quarrelsome or even mad. So much for the
simple lady; but what about the Supreme Vedas? [ idam porul eval குறள் 675:
பொருள்கருவி காலம் வினையிடனொடு ஐந்தும்
இருள்தீர எண்ணிச் செயல்.
வேண்டிய பொருள், ஏற்றக்கருவி, தக்க காலம், மேற்கொண்ட தொழில், உரிய இடம் ஆகிய
ஐந்தினையும் மயக்கம் தீர எண்ணிச் செய்ய வேண்டும்.
Do an act after a due consideration of the (following) five, viz. money,
means, time, execution and place.
poruLkaruvi kaalam vinaiyitanoadu aindhum
iruLdheera eNNich seyal) Words uttered must be studied in depth and then
the conclusions shall be reached.
2 Is there bheda-abedha statements in Vedas? Today morning I
was hearing Velukkudi where he was justifying the visishta Dvaitham ,
interpreting the Advaitham and visishta Dvaitham and how Ramanujar was
more perfect than Adi Shankara. The story in para 1 might distinguish
whether Ramanujar was right or not. Velukkudi says that WHEREAS THE
SHANKARA ADVAITHAM SAYS THAT ALL IN ONE WHERE THERE IS NONE AS THE SECOND,
RAMANUJAR SAYS THAT THERE IS NOTHING AS EQUAL AS BRAHMAM OUTSIDE, AMONG ALL
THAT ARE SEEN. In simple terms that it is told by Advaitham as there is
nothing as secondary outside the Brahmam, since Brahmam is the virtual as
well as unreal according to the perceptions; that a rope is only one, but
appears a s a snake too for the mind of fear; so too the MAYA appears as
real, where the MAYA is also a the brahmam. There is nothing as second.
2A Ramanujar felt that There are really so many objectives, like
Brahmam the GOD, the earth, the human, the species, the forest and wooden
articles, ropes and snakes etc etc but all the bundles seen other than the
Brahmam, are not equal to Brahmam; that is visishta, slightly varied,
Advaitham; it says all are true but none are equal to The Brahmam; Brahmam
is true; there is no second is Advaitham; there are many outside the
brahmam perishable which is also true which is VISISHTA. Ramanujar based
these concepts arguing that THE VEDAS IN ITSELF CONTRADICS; WHILE MANY SAID
VEDA IS PERFECT AND IN DOUBT ASK THE LEARNED TO CLEAR THE DOUBTS; RAMANUJA
XCREATED A DOUBT UNDER THE VAISHNAVA SAMPRADHAYAM; HE DID NOT ONLY ASKED
THE ELDERS, BUT BECAME AN ELDER TO ANSWER CREATING A DOUBT IN THE MIND OF
THE AVIVEKI, WHETHER Brahmam is many concept as well as one concept and are
there bhedam in Vedas?
3 The ultimate source for discerning the nature of God are the
collection of scriptures known as the Vedas. However, it is not easy to go
through them. Why? Consider the following example:
A 'God has hands and legs everywhere, eyes, ears, heads and faces
everywhere; and envelopes everything in this world.' (Shvetashvatara
Upanishad 3.16 and Bhagavad Gita 13.13)
B However, the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad says:{Dvaitha Guru writes}
'God is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, neither shadow
nor darkness, neither air nor space. God is without eyes and ears or mouth.
It is without taste or smell, speech or mind, without an exterior or an
interior. It neither eats anything, nor anything eats It.' (3.8.8)
C The Isha Upanishad: adds further that:
'God is without a body, sinless and without any wound.' (Isha Upanishad:
mantra 8)
D And finally, 'God is Not this, Not this (neti neti). There is no other
more appropriate description of God.' (Brahadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6)
We therefore see that the scriptures have described *God*
<https://www.exoticindiaart.com/sculptures/bronze/god/> in both ways – with
form and attributes (saguna; savishesha), and without any form or
attributes (Nirguna; nirvishesha). {If so is that bhedam?] We know that
each and every word of the *Vedas*
<https://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/hindu/vedas/> is sacred. Nothing can
be left out. How, then can we reconcile these apparently contradictory
statements?
E The correct thing obviously would be to study its context and then
interpret. For example, in the illustration given above, after
investigation it turned out that the woman was dissuading a small child
from eating fried potatoes and insisting on him to take milk, while a grown
up child was being offered potatoes. One studious boy was being encouraged
to go out and play, while an errant one was being forced to sit down and
study. Interpreted in this contextual way, everything fell beautifully into
place and there remained no contradiction at all.[vide para 1]
F Similarly, whether we have to accept God with or without form depends
on who is making the choice. A sadhaka in the initial stages of sadhana
should accept God with both form and qualities, and then set out to perform
ritual worship (puja) etc, as prescribed in the scriptures. Engaged in
these auspicious activities he should then slowly and steadily give up
interest in karma and internalizing his sadhana, start comprehending the
formless, featureless God (Nirguna Brahman).
*4 When I say the following, humbly I may add these to Sri Ramanujar
thinking also as to why should he deviate? And Adi Shankara replied in
these lines also. *
*A Doubt:* Leaving the sadhana issue apart, if it is asked what actually
is God, Nirguna or Saguna, what would be your reply?
*Resolution:* Many people say that God is both Nirguna and Saguna. However,
this is erroneous, because to describe One God we cannot use contradictory
statements. Therefore, we have to accept one of them as the actual truth
and reconcile the other with it. Such a reconciliation is known in *Vedanta*
<https://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/hindu/vedanta/> as 'samanvaya.'
{where there are two factuals, one is the trurth and the other is MAYA,
which does not mean , magical but that which is not permanent or
perishable] }
According to one school of thought, God is Saguna only, but the adjectives
used to describe His qualities and features are transcendental, not
material (prakritik). The Nirguna statements are merely metaphorical,
indicating that God is extremely subtle. {According to Dvaita of
Madhvacharya and Vishistadvaita of Ramanujacharya, Brahman is conceived as
Saguna Brahman (personal deity) or ishvara (Lord of the universe) with
infinite attributes, including form.}
B In such a scheme, we can easily reconcile the adjectives like
'without smell' (a-gandham), or without taste (a-rasam), i.e. we can say
that God has transcendental taste and smell.
However, what about the attributes 'not gross', 'not subtle', or 'not
short' 'nor long'? If we say that these qualities refer to transcendental
features, then we would have to say that God is transcendentally both gross
and subtle, short and long. Thus again we are saddled with contradictory
features in God.
Not only this, if we interpret 'without a body' as meaning that God does
not have a material body but a transcendental one, then we will have to
interpret 'without wound' as God having a transcendental wound; and
'sinless' would mean having transcendental sins. This obviously will not be
acceptable to anybody, not even to those who propound the above
interpretation.
*5 Doubt:* No, no. We have to accept only those features which reflect
on God's benevolent nature, and discard the unpleasant qualities like
'without a wound' etc.
*Resolution:* We must realize that even though a wound is harmful for the
one possessing it, it is not so for the worm who finds shelter and
nourishment in the wound. From the viewpoint of which creature are you
calling a particular feature harmful or beneficent? We cannot discard any
part of the Vedas. Not only this, the scriptures also say that even the
negative, harmful aspects of the world are but God only:
'God has desire, anger and adharma' (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5)
Brahma Sutras with Shankaracharya's Commentary (Kailash Ashram Edition)
'Fishermen, gamblers, all are God' (Atharvaveda, quoted by Shri
Shankaracharya in Brahma Sutras 2.3.43).
Hence, it is clear that such a narrowing down of the meaning is not
sufficient at all. Therefore, now there is no other way other than
reconciling the Saguna statements with a Nirguna God; i.e. God is
fundamentally Nirguna only, but due to 'upadhi', seems Saguna.
*6 Doubt:* What is the meaning of this term 'upadhi'? You have
introduced it without defining it first.
*Resolution:* 'Upadhi' is a precisely defined technical term in Vedanta. It
will not be an exaggeration to say that if we grasp the essence of this one
term, much of Vedanta will fall into place for us, and things will become
much easier to understand. Consider the following example:
We go to somebody and ask him what is gold? In answer, he shows us a ring.
Therefore, the ring becomes useful for understanding gold. Even though we
recognize gold through the ring, the gold is totally independent of the
ring; i.e., we could have come to know what gold is through a ring,
bracelet, or a necklace. Whatever the shape may be, we will we get to know
gold only. Even though the ring etc. is by itself not a part of gold, it
helps us to recognize gold. The ring is called an 'upadhi' for gold.
B Mandukya Karika, verse 3.6 Chapter III - Advaita Prakarana
(Non-duality)
<https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya/d/doc143670.html>
रूपकार्यसमाख्याश्च भिद्यन्ते तत्र तत्र वै ।
आकाशस्य न भेदोऽस्ति तद्वज्जीवेषुनिर्णयः ॥ ६ ॥
rūpakāryasamākhyāśca bhidyante tatra tatra vai |
ākāśasya na bhedo'sti tadvajjīveṣunirṇayaḥ || 6 ||
6. *Though form*, *function and name are different here and there yet this
does not imply any difference in the* Ākāśa (*which is one). The same is
the conclusion (truth) with regard to the* Jīvas.
Upādhi (उपाधि).—1 Fraud, deceit, trick. Deception, disguise (in
Vedānta). Discriminative or distinguishing property, attribute,
peculiarity; It is of four kinds :-जाति, गुण, क्रिया, संज्ञा (*jāti, guṇa,
kriyā, saṃjñā*).
C It is not necessary that an 'upadhi' be always be in contact with
the object we wish to understand. It can remain away from it also. Consider
the example of a Linga made of crystal. Being by itself colourless, it is
difficult to distinguish. However, if we keep a red flower behind it we can
distinguish it clearly. But, rather than its colourless nature, we now see
it as red. This red flower is an 'upadhi' for the Linga. Even though the
Linga seems red due to its proximity with the red flower, in actuality it
is not red because it seems blue due to an upadhi of a blue flower. In this
manner, because the same Linga seems to take on the different colour of its
various upadhi, the only possible conclusion is that it is by itself
colourless. Even though the Linga is invisible to the eye, we can come to
this conclusion because of its upadhi. This is the advantage of an upadhi.
However, we need to be cautious on one point regarding upadhi: Though due
to an upadhi we could clearly see the colourless Linga, even then, the
upadhi showed it different from its true nature, i.e., it showed the Linga
to be red while it was colourless. Therefore, after having recognized an
object through its upadhi, to know its true nature we have to discard the
upadhi.
D This is the only faultless theory. God is without any form, otherwise
how can It take any form? This is what the scriptures declare again and
again. The Brahma Sutra, the ultimate authority on Vedanta composed by sage
Vyasa, says:
'Arupa-vat eva hi tat pradhanatvat' (Brahma Sutras 3.2.14): God is formless
because this is the primary meaning of the Vedas.
What then is the significance of the statements in Shruti (Vedas), where
God is described as formless and without any qualities? The next sutra gives
the answer:
'Prakasha-vat cha a-vaiyyarthyat' (3.2.15): God assumes forms various forms
like light, because no statement in the scriptures is without significance.
E Shankaracharya's commentary on the above sutra says: 'God may be said
to take various forms due to Its contact with various upadhis, just as the
light of the sun, even though it pervades all space, is said to become
straight or curved when it comes into contact with curved or straight
things. But this does not mean that the character, which appears to belong
to God on account of these upadhis, is Its true nature. So long as avidya
(ignorance) exists, there exist the upadhis and the various forms ascribed
to God, allowing room for the worship of Saguna Brahman.'
6.1 Another set of examples: You are a man; one only. But you are the
son because of Upadhi Parent; a brother, because of the upadhi of elder and
younger brother and sisters; like this so many names for that one man, a
NIRGUNA; MANY SAGUNAS. If so is there only you or too many and any
contradictions?
*7 Doubt:* So, the scriptures give sanction to both Saguna and Nirguna
Brahman?
*Resolution:* Yes. Not only that, the Prasna Upanishad names them as Para
(Higher) Brahman and Apara (Lower) Brahman – Prasna Upanishad 5.2
Nirguna God is Para Brahman and Saguna is Apara Brahman. Negating the
transient, ever-changing world, what is described in the Brahadaranyaka
Upanishad as "Neti Neti – Not This, Not This", is the Nirguna Brahman. The
God which is described in the terms of the world of names and forms is
Saguna Brahman.
*8 Doubt:* If you speak thus, will it not contradict the scriptures,
which have consensus in declaring that God is one and one only?
Resolution: Not at all. God is one only and that is Para Brahman. Those who
cannot know this accept the God defined by various upadhis and perform
karmas and worship. Para Brahman is knowable, and Apara Brahman is
attainable (Param gyatavyam, Aparam prapatavyam) – Shri Shankaracharya's
commentary on the Katha Upanishad (1.2.16)
Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna and Mundaka Upanishads with The Commentary of
Shankaracharya
However way God is described, it is only on account of some upadhi. In its
true nature God is indescribable. That is why, however way we describe It,
Shruti calls it "Neti Neti".[KR When things are described positively, by
negation in so many terms, a level of understanding may be established. A
denial is not a positive admission as certain learned and the jurist
interpret. That is stupidity]
*9 Doubt:* If God is neither this nor that, then is God 'Nothing'
(Shunya)? [KR: vide my comment above; the ways of positive constructions
mean, not revealing the unauthenticated wrong deductions]
*Resolution:* No. Whatever we see in front of us has come from God. How
then can it be Shunya? And nothing can arise out of nothing is physics. God
is. However, being essentially Nirguna, nothing can be explained about It.
Even then, the compassionate Vedas decide to explain God to us. Therefore,
they describe God as having contradictory qualities:
'God moves not. God is swifter than the mind. Standing still It surpasses
other runners'. (Isha Upanishad 4)
'It moves, It does not move. It is far, It is near'. (Isha Upanishad 5)
'God is very far, God is very near'. (Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.7)
A Svetasvatara Upanishad
'God walks and holds without hands or legs, It sees without eyes and hears
without ears'. (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.19)
'God is light (tejomaya), God is without light (a-tejomaya). God has desire
(kamamaya), God is without desire (a-kamamaya). God has anger (krodhamaya),
God does not have anger (a-krodhamaya). God has dharma (dharmamaya), God
does not have dharma (a-dharmamaya).' (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5)
B Here we see that these are not different mantras giving contradictory
versions, but same mantras presenting apparently conflicting perceptions of
God. Obviously then there has to be a purpose behind these strange
statements. Take the example of a colourless crystal. Sometimes it is red
and sometimes it is not. At other times it is blue, and at others it is not
blue. From theses descriptions it is clear that the crystal is neither red
nor blue, rather, it seems to take on the colour of the upadhi. In itself
it is colourless.
Thus fundamentally God is One and upadhi-less. When It assumes the form of
the gods (Indra etc), it has a lustrous body made up of light, when It
takes on the form of lower creatures like animals etc, it is said to have
dark forms, lacking in light. God is desireful when associated with the
upadhi of those like us bound by desire. When by performing sadhana we
become free from kama God is called a-kamamaya. When our desires are
thwarted, we become angry, and when we are peaceful, a-krodhamaya.
Similarly, God seems dharmamaya and a-dharmamaya on account of the various
creatures engaged in dharma or dharma.
God does not move. It is both here and there (everywhere). However, when
joined with the upadhi of this moving world, it seems endowed with
movement. God is far from those who do not know It; but is near for those
who do know It.
However, in its fundamental form (svarupa), God is neither angry nor
wrathless. It is "Neti Neti", - Not This, Not This. Actually, Neti Neti is
the negation of all upadhis in God.
*10 Doubt:* How is it possible for God to be totally Nirguna? This
world is full of various names and forms, with different qualities and
features, how can such a world come from Someone who has no features?
*Resolution:* God is Nirguna exactly because It is the root cause of this
diverse world. All features can come only from that which is Itself
featureless. Light, though it consists of all colours is by itself
colourless. Clay, which can take any shape, is by itself shapeless. It is
by association with the various colours and shapes that they are said to
possess those qualities. Any quality comes only through the association
with upadhi.
*Chhandogyopanishad*
*Doubt:* Caught you! By accepting the presence of upadhis which are
associated with God, you are propounding duality; i.e. there are two things
- God and upadhi. This clearly contradicts your principle that 'everything
is God' (sarvam khalu idam Brahman, Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1)
*Resolution:* No, on the contrary, the whole purpose of this analysis is to
show how everything in this world is God.
At one level we have considered this world to be an upadhi for God. At
another we have already seen that this world is but God only, because of
the latter being the material cause of the former. Upadhi means something
different from God. However, we already know that there is nothing
different from It. Therefore, how to reconcile these two statements?
Fundamentally, everything being God only, there can be no upadhi different
from It. Actually, the shape of an object is also fundamentally the cause
only. The shape of a pot is also clay only. What else can it be?
Shankaracharya says: 'the shape of the effect too is fundamentally nothing
but the cause itself' – karya-akaar api karanasya atmabhuta eva (Commentary
on the Brahma Sutras, 2.1.18) [KR: IT IS A BAD LOGIC AS BAD AS CALLING YOU
AND BROTHER ARE TWO AND NOT ONE!]
Brahma Sutras (With Shankaracharya's Commentary and Ratnaprabha
Subcommentary) - In Three Volumes: Put thus, even the shape of a thing
cannot fundamentally become an upadhi for God. There cannot be any upadhi
for the One and Only God without a second. Therefore, when there is no
upadhi, then God has no feature whatsoever. Hence, in Its true nature, God
is Nirguna and only Nirguna. However, even though God has no features, It
is there. Why? Because it is the cause of this world, and an effect can
never exist without its cause inhering in it. A pot cannot exist without
clay. Fundamentally, a pot is nothing but clay only.
CONCLUSION: Among the various concepts of religious principles conceived
by so many, including Ramanuja and Madwa and so many like, they did want to
create a deviated road, but they were only circuitous, joining again in the
main road; so, Advaitham stands on the rock tall and sturdy, safe and true;
the aspects deviating from are concepts accepted by a broad dharma the
Sanatana of us, as ALL OF DO BELIEVE IN THE CNCEPT OF EVEN THE DWTHEETIYAM
IS ALSO ONLY THE BRAHMAM. K RAJARAM IRS 15 9 23
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZor5iDNv1pVgrthtg%2BQnTSnBnEsxi2tyjXY%3Drvk%3DgKn3qA%40mail.gmail.com.
