Re: Regarding Chandogya verse
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
Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.
Bookmarks