Regarding Chandogya verse

[sarabhanga]

Kapi is a name for the amla (Emblica officinalis) plant and for the olibanum or frankincense tree (Boswellia spp.).

Kapi- is also a common prefix in many evocative botanical names, for example: kapi-kacchu, kapi-koli, kapi-cUDa, kapi-pippalI, kapi-prabhA, kapi-priya, kapi-rasAdhyA, kapi-lolA, kapi-vallikA, kapi-shAka, kapi-kA, kapi-stha, kapi-iSTa, kapi-itaka, and kapi-itana.

Kapi- is also a common prefix indicating a particular color or quality, for example: kapi-kesha (brown-haired), kapi-loha (“monkey-colored metal” ~ usually brass), kapi-la or kapi-sha (“monkey-colored” ~ i.e. brown or tawny or reddish),

And kapIjya (kapi-ijya) means “to be revered by monkeys”, while specifically indicating the “silver-leaved ape-flower” (Mimusops kauki).

And kapi-ja (“monkey-born”) is a general name for incense or any fragrant inflammable resin or oil.

Arjuna is known by the name of kapi-ketana or kapi-dhvaja or kapi-ratha.

Hanuman and Sugriva are both known as kapi-pati or kapi-indra.

Rama is also called kapi-ratha or kapi-prabhu, and Vishnu is also kapi-indra (kapIndra ~ “lord of monkeys”).

And Narada is called kapi-vaktra (“monkey-faced”).

The solar orb and sacred fire are both well-known as kapi-la or kapi-sha.

And the kapi-kanduka (“monkey’s ball”) is only another name for the skull.

puNDarIka generally refers to the white lotus, and kapyAsa (kapi-Asa) here indicates the particular nature of this flower; with kapyAsam puNDarIkam translating simply as “monkey-seat lotus”.

And this trembling lotus, the kapyAsam puNDarIkam, is the flower of the shining ape (or mime) plant, named by Linnaeus as Mimusops.

[Sudarshan]

Response from Shri Jalasayanan:

visishtaadvaitin stance

1. "evam" usage refers to upamaanam has to be split to its roots. The meaning furnished for kapi as monkey been accepted by all advaitins as a rudi, i.e. it is meant by identification and not by etimology, thus breaking the evam rule.

2. "evam" usage also suggests there is no multiple upamaanam, as the usage of the word incates spliting to its roots, hence when two upamaanam is used, mandatorily "ca" has to be used either along with "evam" or instead of "evam"

3. There is not grammatical error in shriimad raamaaNujaa's commentary, as roots are just ka + pi, hence kapi. advaitin assumes that root is ka.m, hence this leads to wrong conclusion. WE have already shown that ka.m referring to water does not applies to all water bodies but specifically to only one. While talking about sun, no one can infer sun drinks (evaporates) water only from that water body

4. Why pi?, it is purely a trikaala sabdam, i.e. pi refers to drink, drank and drank, i.e. refers drinking activity in all three tenses, present, past and future (should I say past participle?)

5. Advaitin understanding of kapiH + Asam is wrong on following counts



kapiH+Asam results in kapisaasam, this is subtly indicated by Sarabhanga when he backed out stating right combination is kapi+Asam, hence I suppose he knows it, probably can check it out

Most of the advaitin had backed out from this traditional meaning offered by sha.nkaracarya, many feel that kapyaasam refers to some name of the plant, and few make this as blue lotus

Staunch advaitin mutts like Ramakrishna Mutt has accepted the meaning furnished by shriimad raamaaNujaa and desisted the idea of sha.nkaracharya


We are subtly making this as wrong, as we had already indicated this as an insulting remark and does not want to repeat the same again and again. One has to understand that hiina upamaana is another word in sanskrit for making an insulting comparison.

6. Demand for Amarakosa and niruukta though appreciated, one has to understand that neither of the indicated thesarus works are exhaustive, in the sense, one cannot conclude presense of word in the said thesarus makes it bound within that limit nor the absense makes a word debar itself from the having its meaning. Both the said works are only supportive works and not concluding works, hence caution has to first rule before working with that

7. Idea of rejecting the shades in comparison, like blood red and normal pale red is non understanding the nature of Veda. No known person will ever commit this mistake of ignoring different shades. If one says Veda does not differenciate between different shades of red, (esp blood red and normal red where in ample evidences are available in puraanaas and itihaasas on difference in shades) will lead to conclusion that veda does not knows colour differences. Hence we say, monkey nate is not comparable to lotus and monkey nate is not comparable to puruSa's eye for it is blood red

8. Stance that beautiful::ugly has to be accepted then, I should say there is no difference between beautiful and ugly, there by stretching a bit more, there is not difference between both the commentaries, there by there is right and wrong, hence advaitin saying visishtaadvaitin wrong is not tenable by advaitin's own logic, where in visishtaadvaitin accepting differences can still hold that stance of sha.nkaracarya is wrong

9. For the demand of showing direct meaning, we had given reference from most used sanskrit dictionary

10. For the list of kapi words indicating monkey, Ramkish has given three words where kapi is used as Sun. By and large, kapiladyuti is one word which has no reference to monkey or female elephant which are alternate meanings for the word kapi in any manner and is associated with sun and sun only

11. Just curious to know, how many hiina upamaana like this can an advaitin found in veda? Did veda in any other place indicate such ugly comparison to Lord? Why one has to assume this hiina upamaana while interpretting the said verse.

12. Reading the 1.6 of caandogya, one can see there are ample comparison in terms of colours and no relationship with hiina upamaana, while giving the set of meanings as suggested by sha.nkara, one can easily spot this as odd man out, for this part of the upaniSad has visible intention to undermine through such comparison.

13. Last but not least, Once again, try to understand the school of visishtaadvaita as it is, i.e. by works of its own authors. Why I am making this again because, the suggested interpretations of Truthseeker on "kam apa/jalam pibati iti kapiH" is taken from the discourse given by gaudiya vaishnavs and not by srivaishnavs. It is almost like believing professor of sociology explaining atomic science while attempting to understand an atom bomb

[sarabhanga]

tasya yathA kapyAsaM puNDarIkam evam akshiNI

That very one whose eyes are just like the blue lotus

That very one whose eyes are like the blushful lotus

evam may be “exactly so, in this manner only, in the same manner as above, thus, in this way, in such a manner, or such”.

evam may imply likeness, as “so”; sameness of manner, as “thus”; assent, as “yes or verily”; or affirmation, as “certainly, indeed or assuredly”.

And here, akshiNI (the twin eye) is likened with kapyAsaMpuNDarIkam.

The dualistic perspective has double vision, and every perfect twin is inevitablely divided by this cross-eyed philosophy ~ thus distinguishing the ruddy kapyAsam and the pure white puNDarIkam.

Jalasayanan goes on dividing, but is that the lesson of Vedanta?

The monist perspective is clearly focused, and in unity the term kapyAsaMpuNDarIkam provides a perfectly conceived illumination.

kapyAsa is a simple compound ~ kapy-Asa or “ape-seat”, and “seat” here assumes the sense of “throne” (from which one rises).

kapyAsa is (very simply) kapi (ape) + Asa (seat) = kapyAsa (ape-seat).

The term is a simple compound of kapi and Asa (i.e. kapyAsam, in accusative case).

Both kapi + Asa and kapI + Asa would equally give the desired kapyAsa.

The form of kapiH in simple compound is kapi, and kapi + Asa = kapyAsa.

kapiH + Asam results in kapisAsam, this is subtly indicated by Sarabhanga when he backed out stating right combination is kapi + Asam.

I have never suggested kapiH + Asam, as such, and have “backed out” of nothing here!

kapiH is nominative and Asam is accusative, and if they were combined the result would be kapirAsam ~ NOT kapisAsam ~ and certainly not kapyAsam.

But the term is a simple compound of kapi and Asa (i.e. kapyAsam, in accusative case)

It is clear that Jalasyanan’s understanding of the term “ape” is rather limited; and if he sees the inflamed behind of a monkey in this sublime verse, then that is his own problem.

And I have already provided a photograph of the exact species of flower whose attributes are evoked by the term kapyAsam ~ and the comparison is certainly NOT ugly or obscene!

No shades have been ignored here, only reconciled!

And the remainder of Jalasayanan’s comments are either irrelevant to Advaita or redundant (having been previously addressed).

[TruthSeeker]

Hi Jalaysayanan,

I can understand where you are coming from....


Shankara's interpretations are usually from a philosopher's point of view, and Ramanuja's from a devotee's point of view. Shankara is more abstract in his style while Ramanuja is more emotional. Shankara lays more emphasis on the pre eminence of Brahman while Ramanuja gives more emphasis on the personality of Brahman. Shankara's Brahman is incomprehensible, while Ramanuja's is more like a being. That explains the difference in their means of interpretation. Even the Saguna Brahman of Shankara is different from Ramanuja's Brahman in many ways.
If you do not like Shankara's in this context or cannot understand it, it is fine. You can take the views given by Sarabhanga.
However please note that for most Advaitins Shankaracharya's words are sufficient and they regard him as an incarnation of Shiva. Similarly for you, your Acharya must be infallible. It is not really a great idea to pass judgements on the capabilities of great Acharyas and if they said something, it must have some meaning. There are really no scholars on par with Shankara or Ramanuja in the present era and most discussions will be of amateurish quality, and we keep passing mere personal opinions.
However, I chose to reply solely because you have accused Shankara of defiling the vedas, and I have clearly explained how it is not so. Yet it seems you want to continue, so we go.

1. "evam" usage refers to upamaanam has to be split to its roots. The meaning furnished for kapi as monkey been accepted by all advaitins as a rudi, i.e. it is meant by identification and not by etimology, thus breaking the evam rule.
2. "evam" usage also suggests there is no multiple upamaanam, as the usage of the word incates spliting to its roots, hence when two upamaanam is used, mandatorily "ca" has to be used either along with "evam" or instead of "evam"

evam simply means yes, indeed, like this etc.

What is the basis for these two rules? Which texts speak of such a rule? If it is based on Panini, then you may be aware that for vedic interpretation, Panini is not essential and there are infact nine grammars. If it is based on mimamsa, then Advaita is not so keen about using that strictly as we do not hold Jaimini and Badarayana to be unitary in essence. So please give me the reference to these two rules to verify if they make sense for the Advaita tradition. kapiH is not necessarily rudi, I guess it can be done etymologically. I will get back on this. You have to check with the auNadika pratyaya to confirm whether kapiH used by Shankara is rudi or not..in case it is not rudi your objection does not hold.

3. There is not grammatical error in shriimad raamaaNujaa's commentary, as roots are just ka + pi, hence kapi. advaitin assumes that root is ka.m, hence this leads to wrong conclusion. WE have already shown that ka.m referring to water does not applies to all water bodies but specifically to only one. While talking about sun, no one can infer sun drinks (evaporates) water only from that water body

Unfortunately, what you wrote was "ka aapa asyam pibati iti" , which is wrong as pointed out.( changing Kam to ka is erroneous)

4. Why pi?, it is purely a trikaala sabdam, i.e. pi refers to drink, drank and drank, i.e. refers drinking activity in all three tenses, present, past and future (should I say past participle?)

You did not mention about the pI root until I pointed out in my footnotes. You had suggested pibati, for which the root is pA, and you will get kapaH. ( not pI)

5. Advaitin understanding of kapiH + Asam is wrong on following counts

kapiH+Asam results in kapisaasam, this is subtly indicated by Sarabhanga when he backed out stating right combination is kapi+Asam, hence I suppose he knows it, probably can check it out

Shankaracharya uses kapeH Asam kapyAsam.( "of" the monkey)

Most of the advaitin had backed out from this traditional meaning offered by sha.nkaracarya, many feel that kapyaasam refers to some name of the plant, and few make this as blue lotus
Staunch advaitin mutts like Ramakrishna Mutt has accepted the meaning furnished by shriimad raamaaNujaa and desisted the idea of sha.nkaracharya

Ramakrishna Mutt is not related to traditional Advaita. They teach a mix of all vedantas. They are Advaitic in beleif, but they are not scripturally equipped like the Shankara school, nor have they compiled any new commentaries for the prastAna, so their views are not binding on Advaita. While this approach is good and open minded, that does not make RK mutt an authority on classical Advaita. Maybe you can show us some references made by Sringeri or Kanchi Mutt, if they have deviated from what I have presented here.

We are subtly making this as wrong, as we had already indicated this as an insulting remark and does not want to repeat the same again and again. One has to understand that hiina upamaana is another word in sanskrit for making an insulting comparison.

Oh boy. It has been pointed out that there is no insult at all. We consider it unfair to compare Purusha with any perishable entity including a lotus. Moreover, Advaitins dont accept the idea of Purusha having eyes in a literal sense, but only in a figurative sense. Advaitins dont beleive in an anthropomorphic diety. Purusha's eyes are only understood as a sAkshi, and not as human like eyes.( and having some color based on the iris or the blood vessels!) Purusha is beyond human imagination. No, he does not have eyes and ears like us!

6. Demand for Amarakosa and niruukta though appreciated, one has to understand that neither of the indicated thesarus works are exhaustive, in the sense, one cannot conclude presense of word in the said thesarus makes it bound within that limit nor the absense makes a word debar itself from the having its meaning. Both the said works are only supportive works and not concluding works, hence caution has to first rule before working with that
7. Idea of rejecting the shades in comparison, like blood red and normal pale red is non understanding the nature of Veda. No known person will ever commit this mistake of ignoring different shades. If one says Veda does not differenciate between different shades of red, (esp blood red and normal red where in ample evidences are available in puraanaas and itihaasas on difference in shades) will lead to conclusion that veda does not knows colour differences. Hence we say, monkey nate is not comparable to lotus and monkey nate is not comparable to puruSa's eye for it is blood red

I have pointed out that it is an abandoned comparison, put in a beautiful way.

8. Stance that beautiful::ugly has to be accepted then, I should say there is no difference between beautiful and ugly, there by stretching a bit more, there is not difference between both the commentaries, there by there is right and wrong, hence advaitin saying visishtaadvaitin wrong is not tenable by advaitin's own logic, where in visishtaadvaitin accepting differences can still hold that stance of sha.nkaracarya is wrong

That is not very significant. Advaita has not said Vishistadvaitin commentary is wrong! ( I objected only because you have not justified your derivation yet commenetd that Shankara belittled the vedas) Since Purusha is considered to be Saguna, one could still have comparisons between beautiful and ugly, without violating the framework of Advaita.

10. For the list of kapi words indicating monkey, Ramkish has given three words where kapi is used as Sun. By and large, kapiladyuti is one word which has no reference to monkey or female elephant which are alternate meanings for the word kapi in any manner and is associated with sun and sun only

kapiH has a number of meanings, one is Vishnu( kapiladyuti makes sense?), or even Hanuman.

11. Just curious to know, how many hiina upamaana like this can an advaitin found in veda? Did veda in any other place indicate such ugly comparison to Lord? Why one has to assume this hiina upamaana while interpretting the said verse.

What is the need for it to be repeated at many places? You did not understand the purport even after I explained earlier. It just shows Purusha is beyond all comparisons.

What does Bhagavan say in the Gita?
If hundreds of thousands of suns were to rise at once into the sky, their radiance might resemble the effulgence of the Lord in that universal form.( 11.12)

How can you compare this Purusha with a mere lotus? A thousand refers to infinity, and hence Lord is as brilliant as infinite suns. How can we even attempt a comparison with a lotus - that is why hIna upamAna is more appropriate.

12. Reading the 1.6 of caandogya, one can see there are ample comparison in terms of colours and no relationship with hiina upamaana, while giving the set of meanings as suggested by sha.nkara, one can easily spot this as odd man out, for this part of the upaniSad has visible intention to undermine through such comparison.

All such comparisons with Purusha are to be understood as metaphors. Calling the Lord as black or colorful etc is imposing human attributes on him. He is beyond all such..The color with regards to Brahman must be understood to denote his various modes, black and dark blue usually represents akAla.(NB), White also denote akAla. Colors like red, yellow etc represent kAla. Gold is used to represent pure undifferentiated consciousness. When you say that Brahman is AdityavarNam, it does not mean Brahman is sun like( golden) in color. It is used to show the pure nature of Brahman.

13. Last but not least, Once again, try to understand the school of visishtaadvaita as it is, i.e. by works of its own authors. Why I am making this again because, the suggested interpretations of Truthseeker on "kam apa/jalam pibati iti kapiH" is taken from the discourse given by gaudiya vaishnavs and not by srivaishnavs. It is almost like believing professor of sociology explaining atomic science while attempting to understand an atom bomb

But your own interpretation was "ka aapa asyam pibati iti" which is the same as kaM pibati, and wrong. You have not apparently gone through the Vishsitadvaitin works yourself.

I am not aware of any Gaudiya literature in this regard.

[satay]

Response from Shri Jalasayanan:

namaste,

Are you jalasayanan's spokesperson? That member has been banned from this forum.
Please refrain from posting other (banned) members' responses.

Thanks,

[satay]

Hi Jalaysayanan,

namaste TS,
Please don't waste your time on responding to posts made by members that are no longer members of this forum. You can happily take this discussion over to jala's forum. I will PM you his site.

thanks...please focus on moderation activities.