A critical study of Ānandajñāna’s Tarkasaṅgraha
by Satyan Sharma | 2022 | 96,182 words
This page relates ‘refutation of Tejas’ of the study on the Tarkasangraha by Anandajnana (also, Anandagiri), a Sanskrit text from the 12th century which, supporting Advaita Vedanta, refutes the Vaisheshika branch—both schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy. This essay advocates for detachment from logic, aligning with the Advaita Vedantic path to liberation.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Part 2.3 - The refutation of Tejas
[Full title: Secondary Refutations (3) Tejas]
The refutation of Tejas can be divided into the following parts:
1. Based on Tejastva.
2. Based on ‘being a possessor of white bright colour’.
3. Based on ‘being a possessor of hot touch’.
4. Based on two types and threefold kārya.
Analysis.
In 1, Ānandajñāna says that tejastva can be refuted like aptva and so forth (aptva and pṛthivītva). Even after that, he begins a discussion about where tejastva resides. Jāti which is sāmānya, is dependent on the vyakti, which is why apara sāmānya is called the cause of the knowledge of anuvṛtti (genericity).[1] To bring about the knowledge of anuvṛtti of X-ness, we would need the vyaktis of X, like X1, X2, upto Xn. In this sense the knowledge of anuvṛtti of tejastva or tejas-ness depends on vyaktis of tejas. So, one could directly appeal to parasparāśraya in this case. For example, in the case of defining X as a possessor of X-ness, one could simply say that X’s knowledge is dependent on X-ness’s knowledge and X-ness’s knowledge is dependent on X’s knowledge, hence both are dependent on each other’s knowledge.
Since X cannot be both known and unknown at the same time, the implication of the aforesaid parasparāśraya would be that X would need to be different from itself, which is a contradiction, because X cannot be both X and non-X at the same time.
Śaṅkaramiśra in his Vādivinoda defines anyonyāśraya (parasparāśraya) as:
"svāpekṣāpekṣitvam"[2]
The knowledge of tejas is being said to be dependent on the knowledge tejastva which is a product of the knowledge of tejas, in which case, tejas should be different from itself. Showing such a fault seems more than enough for refuting the lakṣaṇa of tejas via tejastva. Ānandajñāna further asks a question; does tejastva reside in vyakti alone, or in a vyakti specified by tejastva?[3] It cannot be said to reside in vyakti alone, because then all vyaktis would be tejas.[4] If it is said to reside in a vyakti specified by tejastva, then there would be partial svāśraya fault as tejastva would reside in a viśeṣa (vyakti) specified by tejastva.[5] This line of argument could be used for all the padārthas which are defined by their jāti.
The arguments for 2 seem to be reasonable. He counters the bhāsvararūpa (bright colour) by saying that because it is based on the svarūpa of tejas, it cannot be included in its lakṣaṇa.[6] He uses this argument elsewhere too.[7] In case bhāsvaratva is an intermediate jāti of its svarūpa, it cannot become a vyañjaka of tejas.[8] The vyañjaka of tejas must be different from tejas. The case for rūpāntaraprakāśaka (illuminator of other rūpa) does not apply to suvarṇa (gold) and so forth, where suvarṇa is taken to be a taijasa dravya.[9] He also mentions that the white and bright colour is also possessed by sphaṭika (maṇi or gemstone), which is not taken to be taijasa, but pārthiva.[10]
In 3, he counters the ‘being possessor of hot touch’ with the Vaiśeṣika case of moon, where moon is taken to be taijasa but there is no knowledge of hot touch.[11] The possible counter by a Vaiśeṣika is the anumāna of it being hot, because it is taijasa.[12] Ānandajñāna counters it with the knowledge of coolness and that its being āpya (made of ap) has been established in the pañcāgnividyādhikāra.[13] [313] This pañcāgnividyādhikāra is some portion based on pañcāgnividyā, which is found in both Chāndogyopaniṣad and Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad.[14] In the former, Ādi Śankarācārya's commentary mentions the waters named śraddhā, connected with karman, which turn into moon.[15] Most probably, this is what Ānandajñāna is referring to here. He concludes the argument by saying that if it is said that the knowledge of cool touch is due to some other element, then it could apply even to water bodies.[16]
For 4, he says ‘pūrvavat pratividheyam’, suggesting that they are to be refuted in the same manner as done in the case of pṛthivī. Similar to the first pūrvapakṣa statement he mentions in 4,[17] a statement can be found in Kiraṇāvalī.[18] Another statement[19] seems similar to that of Mānamanohara.[20]
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
tatra param sattā mahāviṣayatvāt/ sā cā'nuvṛttereva hetutvāt sāmānyam eva/ dravyatvādyaparamalpaviṣayatvāt/ tacca vyāvṛtterapi hetutvāt... -Padārthadharmasaṅgraha (Praśastapāda) (Uddeśa Prakaraṇa), p. 5
[2]:
Vādivinoda (Śaṅkaramiśra) (Ullāsa 1, Hetvābhāsa Nirūpaṇa), p. 20
[3]:
kiṃ hi tejastvaṃ vyaktimātre vā tejastvāvacchinnavyaktau vā tiṣṭhati -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 37
[4]:
[5]:
tejastvāvacchinne viśeṣe tejastvasya avasthāne kathaṃ aṃśataḥ svāśrayatvaṃ na syāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 37 The text reads 'viśeṣatejastvasya', which seems to be 'viśeṣe tejastvasya'.
[6]:
nāpi śuklabhāsvararūpavattvaṃ tallakṣaṇaṃ viśeṣaṇavaiyarthyāt svarūpaparasya tasya lakṣaṇānantarbhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 37
[7]:
svarūpavācinaśca śabdasya lakṣaṇe niveśāyogāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 35
[8]:
bhāsvatvasya ca svarūpāvāntarajātitve vyañjakatvābhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 37 The text reads 'vyañjakābhāvāt', which should be 'vyañjakatvābhāvāt'.
[9]:
rūpāntaraprakāśakatvasya suvarṇādirūpādāvabhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 37 bhāsvaratvaṃ ca sāmānyaviśeṣaḥ / sa ca rūpāntaraprakāśakatvena vyajyate / -Kiraṇāvalī (Udayana) (Dravya Padārtha, Tejas), p. 49
[10]:
śuklabhāsvararūpavataḥ sphaṭikādeḥ ataijasatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 37 pāṣāṇā upalamaṇivajrādayaḥ -Padārthadharmasaṅgraha (Praśastapāda) (Pṛthivī Nirūpaṇa Prakaraṇa), p. 19
[11]:
[12]:
teṣāṃ taijasatvenoṣṇatvānumānāt -Kiraṇāvalī (Udayana) (Dravya Padārtha, Tejas), p. 49
[13]:
śaityopalabdhivirodhāt pañcāgnividyādhikāre ca candrasya āpyatvaniścayāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. [313]
[14]:
Chāndogya 5.3-10, Bṛhadāraṇyaka 6.2
[15]:
tā āpaḥ karmasamavāyinya itaraiśca bhūtairanugatā dyulokaṃ prāpya candratvamāpannāḥ - Śāṅkarabhāṣya on Chāndogyopaniṣad 5.10.4 (Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 2, p. 186)
[16]:
na ca upaṣṭambhakabhāgāvaṣṭambhāt tadupalabdhiḥ taṭākādiṣvapi tathāprasaṅgāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 37
[17]:
[18]:
taijasatve ca rasādyavyañjakatve sati rūpābhivyañjakatvāt pradīpavat -Kiraṇāvalī (Udayana) (Dravya Padārtha, Tejas), p. 50
[19]:
vimatā na pārthivāḥ pākānivartyarūpavattvāt toyaparamāṇuvat -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 39
[20]:
vivādādhyāsitāḥ paramāṇavo na pārthivāḥ atyantāgnisaṃyoge bhasmānārambhakatvāt jalaparamāṇuvat / -MM (Tejaso Nirūpaṇam), p. 19