Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika
by R. Balasubramanian | 151,292 words | ISBN-10: 8185208115 | ISBN-13: 9788185208114
The English translation of Sureshvara’s Taittiriya Vartika, which is a commentary on Shankara’s Bhashya on the Taittiriya Upanishad. Taittiriya Vartika contains a further explanation of the words of Shankara-Acharya, the famous commentator who wrote many texts belonging to Advaita-Vedanta. Sureshvaracharya was his direct disciple and lived in the 9...
Verse 2.703
Sanskrit text and transliteration:
व्यावृत्तिः परतोऽभावो न च तस्येन्द्रियेण हि ।
सम्बन्धोऽस्ति ततो भेदः प्रमाणैर्नोपलभ्यते ॥ ७०३ ॥
vyāvṛttiḥ parato'bhāvo na ca tasyendriyeṇa hi |
sambandho'sti tato bhedaḥ pramāṇairnopalabhyate || 703 ||
English translation of verse 2.703:
If it be said that) difference from other things (like the annamaya, etc.) is abhāva, it has, indeed, no relation with the sense-organ. Consequently, difference cannot be known through pramāṇas.
Notes:
The Niyogavādin may argue that the Self is not known through the method of negating the annamaya, the prāṇamaya, etc., which are not-Self, but it is known as different (bhinna) from them.
This argument will not do. It is necessary to inquire into the nature of difference (bheda) which is said to exist between the Self, and other objects. Is it positive (bhāva-rūpa) or negative (abhāva-rūpa)? If the former, it must be considered to be a distinct entity. Such a view involves a number of fallacies like mutual dependence (anyonyāśraya).
Consider the statement, “This object is different from that object.” One can speak of this object and that object only if the difference between them is already known; and the difference can be known only if we know the one as other than the other. Further, if difference is a separate entity other than the two objects which are said to be different, how is it known? It cannot be said that it is known through another difference, as such an argument will lead to infinite regress. In view of these difficulties, it is not possible to hold the view that difference (bheda) is positive (bhāva-rūpa).
With a view to avoid these difficulties, the Niyogavādin may argue that bheda is negative (abhāva). Difference, according to this view, is anyonyābhāva, i.e., the absence of one thing in the other. The difficulty here is that being an abhāva it cannot be known through perception which requires sense-object contact. Since difference is viewed as abhāva, it cannot have any contact or relation with the sense organ. If it cannot be known through perception, it cannot also be known through anumāna and other pramāṇas which are all dependent on perception.