Srinath Vedagarbha svedagarbha at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 19:13:25 EST 2019

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:02 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> The above and the other 'pramana-s' cited below by you are contradicted by
> various other pramana-s from shruti, smriti, agama, etc.
> There is no basis, justification, for Shaiva-Vaishnava quarrels - says
> Jayantha Bhatta, a vaidika, a naiyayika, of 9th Century CE in his
> Nyayamanjari.
The problem with Jayantha Bhatta is that during his time (9th Century),
there was no unified robust siddhanta which  had unified and did excellent
samanvya of vast vEdic and aagamic literature. He was yet to witness the
doctrine of sarva shabda (both vaidIka and loukIka alike) vacAchyatva to
Brahman expounded by Acharya Madhva later in 13th Century.

When viewed with only the mindset of rudyArtha/prassidhiartha, of course
various descriptions praising various deities as sarvottama in vedic
literature appears to be contradictory.. One's understanding goes haywire.
Hence various daarshanika-s takes one or the other position and conclude
either all deities are same or all names/forms are illusory.. It took no
less than caliver of poorna-pragna to property apply sUtra's mandate tattu
samanvayAt to all vedic texts and come with uniformed robust framework. One
needs to study that school's sUtra-bhAshya to understand how four types of
shabdas in vedic vaangmaya (such as tatraiva-prasiddhi, annyatra-prasiddhi,
ubayatra-prasiidhi and annyatraiva-prasiddhi) are harmonized and applied to

Fourth sUtra OM| tattu samanvayAt | OM constitutes four terms ; `tat',
`tu', `sam' and `anvayAt'. Here `anvaya' means application of tAtparya
linga-s in understanding of vEdic terms. These linga-s are upakrama,
upasaMhAra, abhyAsa, apUrvata, phala, arthavAda, upapatti. Why 'sam' shabda
is used in that sUtra by sUtrakAra? Any special significance He intended?

In several instances one can derive several opposite meaning for Upanishad
vAkya-s. Out of which, a particular meaning may be compliance with
upakrama. A totally opposite meaning would be in compliance with
upasamhAra. In such circumstances, one needs to evaluate relative strength
among these linga-s and should come to correct conclusion. Thus,
sam-anvayAt means applying (anvaya) these linga-s correctly (sam). Without
proper samanyava, one would get confused as which being(s) the vEda-s are

For example, consider following seemingly contradictory statements
regarding who exactly is the creator of this jagat ;

' EkO rudrO na dwitIyAya tastE ' (None existed before creation except Rudra)

` hiraNyagarbhaH samavartatAgrE' (Charturmukaha was there in the beginning)

` jIvAd bhavanti bhUtAni ` (sristi is from jIva-s)

`pradAnAd IdamAvirAsIt' (sristi is from jada prakriti (pradAna) )

Following this methodology of samanvaya, Madhva holds the position that all
vEdic names in their highest primary sense (yOgika parama-mukhyArtha)
refers to one Supreme Being. It is only in their secondary meaning refers
to the other sentient /insentient in their respective spheres of
jurisdiction as the context demands.

But why  vishNu  is designated as that Supreme Being? Why not Rudra? In
other words, why only 'vishNu' shabda refers to Brahman in its direct
primary sense and why not 'rudra' shabda?

To answer that question, one needs to understand the concept of

Take for example -- when you have a shabda 'nArAyaNa', by its yogika artha
it denotes 'flawlessness' (dOShavivarjitaM) only. How? 'ara' is dOSha. When
you have prefix of negation 'na' kaara it denotes absence of dOSha, which
is flawlessness. So the entity Who is 'aayana'  (aaShrya) for 'na-ara' ,
you have it!  Also you do have vAkya 'nArAyaNaM anAmayaM' etc, to further
enforce this concept. Given this notion of Naarayana being flawless, how
can you accept Shiva-para vAkya-s to denote sub-ordination of
Narayana/Vishnu to Shiva? Isn't sub-ordination a flaw? Btw, there is a work
called 'nArAyaNa shabdArtha' by Sri.Jalahalli Srinivasa Tirtha, in which
some 76 different yogika artha for nArayANa-shabda is expounded.

I can go on and on, but it is suffice to say Jayantha Bhatta is quite at
loss in his understanding.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list