|
|
|
|
|
|
|
questions which the novice Advaitin must consider, thereby sharpening ever more finely his ability to question and read properly. This pedagogical, literary mode of extended argumentation allows us to understand their commentarial project; the fruit is increasing refinement, not correction or novelty. I illustrate their mode of clarification and complexification by a single example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacaspati shows that it is impossible to preserve the primary meaning of all the key words in the Taittiriya text"Brahman," "consisting of bliss" ([ananda]-maya,) and "tail" (puccha.)
23 As the text stands, it is impossible for all three words to keep their primary meanings: 1. "Brahman" cannot indicate Brahman if "Brahman'' here really means "tail;" 2. "-maya" cannot maintain a single primary meaning, if in the text it first means "consisting of" and then means "abundant in;" 3. "tail" cannot mean both "appendage," a minor portion, and "base," "support" (pratistha). A decision has to be made then about which of the words are to retain its primary meanings. Why then, Vacaspati asks, is Sankara right in arguing that Brahman is bliss, but not consisting of bliss, and that "puccha" here means "support," and not "tail," "minor part"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He calculates as follows. There are three ways to resolve the problem. 1. We can take "puccha" as indicating "tail" (meaning "part,") and in the sentence "Brahman is the puccha," take "Brahman" figuratively as indicating a mere part of the configuration, not that Brahman which is the object of Advaitic knowledge. 2. Or, we can take the "-maya" in "ananda-maya" as meaning "abundance," and then we will be able to construe ananda-maya ("abundant in bliss") as indicative of Brahman, even if this connection is not stated directly. 3. Or, we can consistently interpret "-maya" as "consisting of," allow "Brahman" to keep its proper meaning, and attribute only to "puccha" a secondary significance, so that it means "base" instead of "tail." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacaspati argues that 3. is the best option, because it preserves two primary meanings: "-maya" and "Brahman" maintain proper meanings, and only one word, "puccha," loses its primary meaning by coming to mean "base" and not merely "minor part." In alternatives 1. and 2. either "Brahman" or |
|
|
|
|
|