Misinterpretations of ambhraNI sUkta

An important line in the ambhraNI sUkta is the declaration made by the seer: yaM kAmaye taM tamugraM kR^iNomi tambrahmANaM taM R^iShiM taM sumedhAm. The direct translation of this verse is: Whom I wish (desire, want etc), I make him ugra, him Brahma, him a sage, him a wiseman. This line is taken to indicate the seer's superiority to Rudra, Brahma. ugra is one of the names of Rudra [See Shatapatha Brahmana 6.1.3 where Prajapati confers the following names to Rudra: rudra, sarva, pashupati, ugra, ashani, bhava, mahAndeva, IshAna]

Now, when somebody says "Whatsoever I love, I will eat that", the line is taken to mean "Whatsoever I love to eat, I will eat that". Similarly, when somebody says "yaM kAmaye, taM ugraM karomi" the obvious meaning is "yaM ugraM kartuM kAmaye, taM ugraM karomi".

But Griffith ignored this common-sense approach and decided to add his spice. See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10125.htm for his translation. He writes: "I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him a sage, a Rsi, and a Brahman". In addition to the above observation (which renders the translation nonsensical), note that the seer does not refer to any 'man' that she loves. That is Griffith's imagination. Ofcourse 'kAmaye' may mean 'desire' too, but it does not erase the fact that she decides who becomes rudra etc. Griffith thinks that the same 'man' is made ugra, brahma etc. In his rendition, the repetition of 'taM' is superfluous. The repeated 'taM' (as in 'taM ugraM', 'taM brahmANaM') shows that these are different titles, and that she makes him, whomsoever she wishes, any of those.

Wilson's translation is at http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/rigveda/rvbook10.htm . Read somewhere that this is based on Sayana's bhashya. He writes "whomsoever I will, I render formidable, I make him a Brahma_, a r.s.i, or a sage. [A Brahman: Brahma_, the creator]". Obviously, he has a problem here with the speaker saying she decides who becomes rudra, brahma etc. To avoid that he takes the etymological meaning of the words, 'ugra' and 'brahmANa'. But he adduces no reason, save prejudice, to forego the conventional meaning (rUDhi artha).

More on arthApatti...

This page: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part13/chap3.htm has the Late Kanchi swami justify why arthApatti is not subsumed under anumAna. He writes:
-----
Our Sastras give a clear idea of arthapatti through an illustration. "Pino Devadatto diva na bhunkte". What does the statement mean? "The fat Devadatta doesn't eat during daytime". Though Devadatta does not eat during daytime, he still remains a fat fellow. How? We guess that he must be eating at night. There is something contradictory about an individual not eating and still not being thin. Here arthapatti helps us to discover the cause of Devadatta being fat. Our guess that he eats at night does not belong to the category of anumana. To make an inference there must be a hint or clue in the original statement itself. There must be a "linga" like smoke from fire, thunder from clouds. Here there is no such linga.
-----

There are two wrong points: one is the wrong expectation that there must be a hint or clue in the original statement itself. Strictly speaking, the naiyyAyika doesn't expect this. The naiyyAyika expects pakShadharmatA, hetu among other things. Technically, there is no such thing as a 'clue' or 'hint'.

Secondly, it is wrong to say that there is an absence of hetu (linga) in the case of arthApatti. The linga in this case is: the impossibility of a normal man not eating at all, and still being fat. That could be used for a dUShanAnumAna. For sAdhanAnumAna, it could be: man eating at night is fat. It shouldn't be difficult to put this in the proper vibhaktyanta to make it a hetu. Strictly speaking, a hetu or linga is NOT a clue or hint.

Therefore arthApatti is a different form of anumAna.

Arthapatti and Inference

Sri Jayatiirtha shows, in his pramANa paddhati, how arthApatti is not a separate pramANa but a different form of inference and is subsumable under inference. The proof is really simple and elegant.

Now, some issue silly comments, out of prejudices:

One such can be seen at the following in http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/1996-July/005323.html :

"I think it is basically wrong to describe arthApatti as a special case of anumAna. A statement made as an arthApatti is something that *explains* the facts, not something that is directly inferred from the facts. But this will open up a completely different discussion on epistemology, so I don't want to go into it now".

arthApatti has been considered as a pramANa by advaita. pramANa is a means of knowledge (as generally accepted). So arthApatti, even in advaita, is not just an explanation of some facts, but a source of knowledge. Consider the standard example of arthApatti:
(i) Devadatta does not eat in day
(ii) he is not thin/weak etc.
(iii) Therefore Devadatta eats at night.

Now, to hold that (iii) is an explanation of facts (is it really?) and not a special case of inference is evidently wrong. Here's why: A Standard inference (in naiyyAyika's terms, not mAdhva) has five components (a loose translation):

a. pratijnA -- A Statement to be established. For example: This hill has fire on it.
b. hetu -- Reason. For, it has smoke.
c. udAharaNa -- Illustration. Just like the kitchen.
d. upanaya -- Generalization and application of the general rule to the pakSha. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. and there is smoke on this hill.
e. nigamana -- Summary, conclusion. Therefore this hill has fire.

It is easy to see that the standard example given for arthApatti well fits this scheme of things:

a. pratijnA = Devadatta eats at night.
b. hetu = because he is not thin/weak though he does not eat in the day.
c. udAharaNa = just like a well-fed man (like me!)
d. upanaya = whoever eats well, is not weak.
e. nigamana = Therefore, Devadatta must be eating well, when it is not day i.e. night.

The essential point to note is this: In case of arthApatti, there is an application of a generic relation between two events/entities/qualities. This is true of inference too. There is no point in gimmicks saying that 'arthApatti is only explanative'. Every explanation, if not indulging in siddhasAdhanatA (establishing that which is already established), and if it aims to serve as a pramANa (means of knowledge), must bring out an inference.

Obviously, this elegance in approach is given up to accomodate prejudices.

Review of Gosai.com (Gaudiya) on Caste - 1

The http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html makes a lot of noise about how mAdhvas have an incorrect understanding of Caste.

The Page starts with an objection (apparently from the mAdhva side, but this should apply to other schools of Vedanta such as advaita and vishiShTAdvaita) that many Gaudiyas are not Brahmanas, yet treat themselves like Brahmans. A Smriti is quoted. The response surprisingly has quotes from various scriptures that delineates a brAhmana's laxaNas (surprising).

Quite obviously, the gosai.com folks don't understand that both (i) janma AND (ii) samskArAs (which include laxaNas such as shama, dama etc) are needed for a person to be called brAhmaNa. Each is a necessary condition and niether is sufficient. They have themselves given the quotes for both. The Harita smriti quote is the pramANa to prove the necessity to have birth in a brAhmaNa family. Grhyasuutras are replete with such references. The Manusmriti has given different labels to people born from an intermixture. If a brAhmaNa were to be identified just on the basis of samskAra or laxaNa, what sense does one make of injunctions such as 'aSTame.varSe.braahmaNam.upanayet' (Perform the upanayana of a brAhmaNa in his eight year; from the Ashvalaayana grhyasuutra)? Who determines if the character of a boy matches that of brAhmaNa or kShatriya etc, at that tender age? This is not just about upanayana; the type of clothes to be worn, the material of which the sacred thread is made, the limiting age for upanayana -- all are different for different castes.

If predisposition (such as shama, dama) alone were to determine the caste of a person, why did Lord Krishna ask Arjuna to fight? In fact, Arjuna was predisposed to peace, not fighting the war etc. Why does the Lord condemn his thinking instead of asking him to take up sannyAsa?

The Quoted Mahabharata verses are pramANa that the necessary samskAras (and laxaNas like shama, dama etc) are also necessary. In fact, gosai.com has played tricks with evidence here, to which I will come in a later blog.

Therefore, niether the western born mlechCha nor the jAta-brAhmaNa without samskAras can be considered brAhmaNas. So much for the gosai's rhetoric. When one notices that the amount of rhetoric is much more than the argument, one wonders if they engaged a film script-writer to write that page :-)

More comments on this page http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html to follow.

Purpose

The Purpose of this Blog is to record and correct comments on tattvavAda made in non-tattvavAda fora (ok, forums, as used these days), pages, books etc. This Blog is purely personal (if it weren't, I'll post it on dvaita list). Secondly, I find that lot of things are said about dvaita everywhere, but they are too often so minor (and yet irritating) that they merit a response, not as a mail but just as a comment. Thirdly, this blog is for items in WIP (Work in Progress). A more proper mail or page might result when I am done.

This is not a forum to learn tattvavAda, by any means. Go to Dvaita list (where you will be asked, rightly so, to approach a teacher and learn tattvavAda).