Sāmānādhikaraṇyam

Definition of Sāmānādhikaraṇyam  (sāmānādhikaraṇa + ṣyanj)

When two or more words in a sentence, each of which has a different meaning, together denote one and the same object, they are said to be in sāmānādhikaraṇyam (in apposition).

Śaṅkara has, in his BSSB 3.3.9, explained that sāmānādhikaraṇyam is of four kinds.

These four kinds are explained below.

1. Adhyāse sāmānādhikaraṇyam - Superimposition.

Here the word adhyāsa is not used in the sense of superimposition due to delusion but in the sense of a deliberate mental act of looking upon one thing as another for the purpose of meditation. The Upaniṣadic statement, “Meditate on a name as Brahman” is an instance of such a sāmānādhikaraṇyam. Here the idea of Brahman is superimposed on a name, but the idea of name persists and is not negated by the idea of Brahman as it happens in the case of a superimposition due to delusion. Another example is a meditation on an image as Lord Viṣṇu, where the idea of Viṣṇu, is superimposed on the image.

2. Ekatve sāmānādhikaraṇyam  (aka aikya-sāmānādhikaraṇyam) e.g. rāmo dāśarathiḥ

i) rāmo dāśarathiḥ

rāmaḥ = dāśarathiḥ. There is aikyam. They are equal as well as identical. It may be noted that equal and identical are different. They do not mean the same always.

However, rāmo dāśarathiḥ is not the same as - sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ brahma (Everything is God).

Everything (sarvam) is multifarious, variegated and perishable (naśvaram). Anything dṛśyam is jaḍam

ii) Another example of ekatvam/aikyam is satyaṃ jñānam anantaṃ brahma.   Here each of the three words, satyam, jñānam and anantam have a different meaning, but together they denote Brahman. Satyam, jñānam,  anantam are identical with Brahman.

iii) Yet another example is, “The pot-space is the same as the total space”. Here both are equally real (vyāvahārika sattā) and their identity is declared.

3. viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-bhāva-sambandhaḥ sāmānādhikaraṇyam - nīlo ghaṭaḥ

i) e.g. nīlo ghaṭaḥ.

Here, the meaning of both the words are different, the words are also different. But they are in the same case (vibhakti), pointing to the same object - the thing that is blue is a pot. Here there is viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-bhāva-sambandhaḥ. This is aikya-sāmānādhikaraṇyam .

Here the relationship between the words is that of substantive and attribute. An example is, “a blue (viśeṣaṇa) lotus (viśeṣya)”. The thing that is blue is pot. Here there is viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-bhāva-sambandhaḥ.

4. Apavāde sāmānādhikaraṇyam  (aka bādhāyaṃ sāmānādhikaraṇyam)

e.g. śuktikā-rajatam

a) The example given by Śaṅkara for this is - the idea that the body-mind complex is the Self, which has been persisting over innumerable births, is discarded on the rise of right knowledge arising from the Upaniṣadic statement ‘That thou art”. Here what was thought to be the Self is found to be not so. Thus the wrong knowledge is replaced by right knowledge.

b) Another example is the statement, “The silver is nacre” (śuktikā-rajatam). Here the meaning is that what appeared to be silver is really nacre. The statement sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ brahma (Ch. Up, 3.14.1), which means “All this is indeed Brahman” is of this type. It means that all this that appears has no reality and that there is nothing but Brahman.

In this kind of sāmānādhikaraṇyam, the two which are in apposition are of different levels of reality. Silver is prātibhāsika, while nacre is vyāvahārika. “All this” is vyāvahārika, while Brahman is pāramārthika.

Now the question is -

Q. Is sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ brahma  (Everything is God), like nīlo ghaṭaḥ, where nīlam is an attribute to ghaṭam (viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-bhāva-sambandhaḥ)?

A. No.

Q. Is it like rāmo dāśarathiḥ, where there is aikya-sāmānādhikaraṇyam between rāmaḥ and dāśarathiḥ?

A. No.

Thus, in sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ brahma  there is bādhāyāṃ sāmānādhikaraṇyam

(negation of the sāmānādhikaraṇyam). Yaḥ sarpaḥ, sā rajjuḥ.

Q. Where is your rajjuḥ?

A. Your serpent is the rajjuḥ.

Q. Is there a viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-bhāva-sambandhaḥ in yaḥ sarpaḥ, sā rajjuḥ? Are they identical?

A. No.

So, what you thought as sarpaḥ, is not sarpaḥ.

First see the false sarpaḥ as false. Don't jump. It is rajjuḥ. Extending this, what you perceive as jagat, is not jagat. It is Brahman.

In sarvaṃ khalu idaṃ brahman, what is taken as the other/multiple...is neither multiple nor other.

***

Pre-Sankara Advaita

17.11.2019

The metaphor of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes) expresses the meaning of "discovering truth by building on previous discoveries". This concept has been traced to the 12th century, attributed to Bernard of Chartres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

This picture is derived from Greek mythology: the blind giant Orion carried his servant Cedalion on his shoulders to act as the giant's eyes.

Isaac Newton said he had seen farther by standing on the shoulders of giants[1], 

The idea of knowledge as cumulative - a ladder, or a tower of stones, rising higher and higher - existed only as one possibility among many. For several hundred years, scholars of scholarship had considered that they might be like dwarves seeing farther by standing on the shoulders of giants, but they tended to believe more in rediscovery than in progress. - Issac Newton

What Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added many several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

Pre-Sankara Advaita

1. Bādari

2. Auḍulomi

3. Kāsakṛtsna

4. Āśmarathya

5. Ātreya

6. Kārṣṇājini

7. Bādarāyaṇa (400 BCE)

8. Upavarṣa (50-400 BCE)

9. Bodhāyana (5th century CE) Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda

10. Taṅka (550 CE) Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda

11. Brahmadatta Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda

12. Bharuch (9th century CE) Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda

13. Draviḍa (aka Dramiḍa)

14. Guhadeva

15. Kapardin

1. Bādari - an Advaita-Ācārya is referred to four times in Brahmasūtra[2] - 1.2.30, 3.1.11, 4.3.7, 4.4.10, and seven times in the Jaimini-sūtra 3.1.3., 4.1.27, 5.3.6, 6.1.27, 8.3.6, 9.2.23, 9.2.30. Thus, it is proved that he wrote on both Karma-Mīmāṃsā and Brahma-Mīmāṃsā.

He opined that everyone has right to perform the Vaidika Karma. Conversely, Jaimini refuted this and said - the śudras do not have right to perform Vaidika Karma.

2. Auḍulomi - an Advaita-Ācārya, is referred to in Brahmasūtra 1.3.21, 3.4.45, 4.4.6.

3. Kāsakṛtsna - an Advaita-Ācārya, is referred to in Brahmasūtra  1.4.22

4. Āśmarathya - an Advaita-Ācārya, is referred to in Brahmasūtra  1.2.29, 1.4.20[3] and Jaimini-sūtra 6.5.16.

As per Āśmarathya, the statement ātmani vijñāte sarvam-idaṃ vijñātaṃ bhavati shows Bhedābheda. This Bhedābheda was later confirmed by Yādavaprakāśa

5. Ātreya - an Advaita-Ācārya, is referred to in Brahmasūtra 3.4.44, Jaiminisūtra 4.3.18 

and 6.1.26 and in the Mahābhārata 13I.137.3[4].

He has written about the aṅgāśrita upāsanā which is

i) yajamāna-kartṛka and

ii) ṛtvik-kartṛka.

Now, doubt can be raised as to whom the result will go. Ātreya's contention is - the result will go to the yajamāna/kartā.

6. Kārṣṇājini - Referred to in Brahmasūtra 3.1.9.

7. Bādarāyaṇa (400 BCE)[5] wrote Brahmasūtra which is considered the Nyāya-prasthāna of the Prasthānatrayī. It has 535 sūtras as per Śaṅkara, 545 as per Rāmānuja and 564 as per Madhva.

https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/09/17/about-upavarsha-part-two/]

https://sreenivasaraos.com/

8. Upavarṣa (350-400 BCE) an Advaita-Ācārya (brother of Varṣa, Pānini’s guru). The

vṛttikāra in Brahmasūtra-bhāṣyam. Śāriraka-Mīmāṃsā-Vṛtti - a sub-commentary on the Brahmasūtra. He also wrote a commentary on Jaimini-sūtra. Upavarṣa is referred to by Śaṅkara in his BSSB 3.3.53.

Upavarṣa has referred to the six pramānas in his vṛtti. Referred to in Sābarabhāṣya (Mimāṃsāsūtra 1.1.5)

9. Bodhāyana (5^th century CE) (Jñāna-Karma-samuccaya).

popularly known as the vṛttikāra is an Advaita-Ācārya who wrote a concise vṛtti[7]  (Bodhāyana-Vṛtti (or Kṛtakoṭi) on Brahmasūtra dated around 400 BCE. Only one person had memorized. The text is not extant afterward.

10.Taṅka (550 CE) (Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda)

Taṅka (aka Brahmānandin or Nandin), an Advaita Ācārya was known as vākyakāra in the Vaiṣṇava tradition. He is described as Ātreya or Atrivaṃsīya (descendant of Sage Atri).

Taṅka, well-versed in the field of Vedanta, is said to have written commentaries on the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. His commentary on Chāndogya Upaniṣad  in the form of brief statements was referred to as sūtras by Madhusudana Saraswati, they being similar to Brahmasūtras. All his works are lost. But his sayings are quoted by the later scholars.  His time is estimated to be around 550 CE; which is, after Bodhāyana, but before Dramiḍa, Bhartṛprapañca and Śaṅkara.

The Viśiṣṭādvaitins consider Taṅka and Brahmānandin or Nandin as one person.

Hence, Taṅka emphasized the union of knowledge and action, which later came to be known as Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda.  He was opposed to the notion of instantaneous enlightenment.

In Taṅka’s work, the relationship between Brahman and the phenomenal world is likened to that between the ocean and its foam. Rāmānuja states that Taṅka puts forth Pariṇāma-vāda and explains the phenomenal world arising out of Brahman like dadhi (coagulated milk) from milk.

If we can try to summarize Taṅka’s views :

Brahman is the Ātmā of all and everything is pervaded by Brahman; That which exists in the space within the heart, the golden person seen in the eye and so on which are discussed in the Upaniṣads refer to Brahman. Its essence is pure consciousness Prajñā. It is eternal and has a form which is beyond the senses; yet, it resides in everything and controls the desires of all the deities and beings. Thus, Taṅka, it seems, held that each of the individual selves corresponds to the body of Brahman.

Rāmānuja has referred the name of at least six ācāryas who had written about Vedanta. And they were not nirviśeṣa brahmavādins. They were Bodhāyana, Taṅka, Dramida, Guhadeva, Kapardika, and Bharuchi. Amongst these, the contentions of Taṅka (aka Brahmānandi) is non-different from the contentions of the Vaiṣṇavas.

11. Brahmadatta (Jñāna-Karma-samuccaya-vāda)

He was a senior contemporary to Śaṅkara.

Brahmadatta was an upholder of jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda[10] and Dhyāna-niyoga. He propounded videha-mukti[11] and rejected jivan-mukti.

12. Bharuchi (Viśiṣṭādvaita) 9th century CE - (Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda)

Bharuchi (aka Baruchi) said to be an ancient scholar on Vedanta. Traditionally, he is placed before Dramiḍa.

Bharuchi, it seems, also advocated the combination of knowledge (Jñāna) and action (Karma) - Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda. He is said to have held the view that Sāṃkhya and Yoga as two systems that complement each other.  Rāmānuja held Bharuchi in high esteem, but does not explicitly quote any of his views.

Bharuchi is also recognized as an author or a commentator on Dharmaśāstra. He is said to have written a commentary on certain chapters of Manusmṛti [12]. He is also credited with commentary (Tīkā) on Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra. Bharuchi is mentioned as an authority   in Vijñāneśvara’s Mitākṣara[13] on Yājñavalkya-smṛti and, in  Mādhava's Tīkā on Parāśara-saṃhitā[14] and Saraswatīvilāśa[15] One of his quotations also occurs in the commentary composed on the Āpastamba Gṛhyasūtra by Sudarshana Suri, a teacher of Viśiṣṭādvaita.

However, none of his works on Vedanta has survived. Vishal Agarwal, a noted scholar, has attempted to reconstruct Bharuchi’s views on Vedanta issues as gleamed from the comments on certain verses of Manusmṛti.  According to that:

(a) Bharuchi appeared to have believed in the combination of action and knowledge as essential for salvation  (Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda). Bharuchi says - in all the stages of life, combination of knowledge and action is to be known as the means of attaining Brahmaloka. Performing rites such as Agnihotra regularly all through one’s life is obligatory, no matter whether one takes sannyāsa or not.

(b) He seemed to believe in a distinction between Jīvas and Brahman. Bharuchi supports the Sāṃkhya doctrine of duality of Puruṣa and Pradhāna.

(c) He appears to believe that the soul is nirguṇa in the sense that it does not have guṇas such as: sattva, rajas and tamas. However, he believes in the duality of souls and matter in the effected world.

(d) He refers to the distinction between dualists and non-dualists amongst Vedantins.

In summary, it appears that Bharuchi’s Vedantic views resembled those of Rāmānuja, Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa and other non-Advaitins, more than they resembled the views of Advaita Vedanta.

13. Draviḍa/ aka Dramiḍa

Draviḍa[16] was an ancient Vedantin/ Advaita-Acārya. He has written an elaborate commentary on Chāndogya Upaniṣad. He has also commented on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad,[17] Chāndogya-vākyas of  Taṅka, Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, as well as on Brahmasūtra.

Draviḍa is respectfully referred to as Dramiḍācārya, the bhāṣyakāra or bhāṣyakṛt, the commentator par excellence. His views are often cited by Rāmānuja in his Sribhāṣya and in Vedārtha-saṅgraha.

Śaṅkara has referred to him as āgamavit in Mānḍūkya Upaniṣad bhāṣyam 2.32, 2.20. Śaṅkara also cites Draviḍa as an authority at the beginning of his commentary on Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.10). In Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad-bhāṣyam, Śaṅkara calls him sampradāyavit. Śaṅkara has not refuted the contentions of Draviḍa, which shows that his contentions were not against Śaṅkara 's.

Draviḍa was later than Taṅka, as Dramiḍa is said to have written a bhāṣya on the vākyas of Taṅka[18].

It is said, Draviḍa explained Brahman as the absolute principle, creator of the universe (viśva-sṛj); as the Supreme Divinity (parā-devatā) having internal attributes (antarguṇa); and as Lord of the world (lokeśvara) who creates the phenomenal world and regulates all the worlds.

Draviḍa did not seem to make a distinction between Brahman and Īśvara. Brahman or Īśvara’s relation to the universe is compared to that of a king with his kingdom. The theistic doctrine of liberation is presented on the basis of the relation between the Lord and the individual self.

According to Draviḍa, the Highest Self and individual self belong to the same genus (jāti) just as the sparks coming out of the fire but are not identical.

The individual self purified from all taints by performing meditation is liberated by the grace of the Lord; and then attains union with the Lord. The liberation according to Draviḍa is that the individual self residing in peace with the Highest Self, and that is granted by the grace of the Lord.

And, while it is with the Lord, the individual self still retains its identity as before. Though it is in union with the Highest Self, it does not possess the powers of creation, sustenance and dissolution. On this point, Taṅka and Draviḍa are one, and it is close to the doctrine of Rāmānuja.

14. Guhadeva

Guhadeva and Kapardin were said to be ancient Vedanta teachers and authors. The two were referred to by Rāmānuja as śiṣṭa - wise and erudite. But, nothing much is known these scholars, and Rāmānuja does not also seem to quote from their works.

As regards Guhadeva, some scholars surmise -  if Guhadeva mentioned by Rāmānuja is the same as the ancient scholar Guhasvāmin, then it is possible that he could be the one who flourished during the first century BCE, and to whom the commentaries on the Āpastamba- Śrautasutra and the Taittiraya-Āraṇyaka are attributed.

15. Kapardin

Kapardin is a peculiar name. It does not seem to be the proper name of the person. It is a descriptive term. Kapardin[19] indicates one who has matted, braided hair or hair twisted into a bun on top (Kaparda-kapardi) - 

jaṭilo muṇḍaḥ smaśāna-gṛhasevakaḥ |

ugra vratadharo rudro yogi tripuradāruṇaḥ ||

In the context of Vedanta texts, Karpadi might refer to a sage who is said to have written commentaries on the texts of the Taittiriya (Āpastamba) śākhā of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda. We do not know if Rāmānuja was referring to this Kapardin. In any case, nothing much is known about the commentator Kapardin.

---

[1] https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/02/16/newton-standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/

[2] aka Śārirakasūtra aka Vedāntasūtra

[3] Śaṅkara in his Brahmasūtra-bhāshyam 1.4.22 has stated āsmarathyasya...

[4] where he is teaching Nirguṇa Brahman

[5] almost all scholars agree to this period

[7] (a short gloss explaining the Sutras  in a little more, extended manner, but not as extensively as a Bhashya, a full-blown commentary)

[8] adjective

 of the greatest importance; fundamental.

"two cardinal points must be borne in mind"

synonyms:

fundamental, basic, main, chief, primary, prime, principal, premier, first, leading, capital, paramount , pre-eminent;

[9] holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

[10] vehemently refuted by Śaṅkara in Taittiriya)

[11] Śaṅkara propounded jivanmukti on the basis of tat-tu samanvayāt. After jivanmukti, videhamukti is  

   superfluous.

[12] first four chapters, parts of chapter five, and verses of later chapters

[13] 1.18 and 2.124

[14] 2.3

[15] Ch 133

[16] It was Draviḍa, who illustrated the famous story of the huntsman and the prince in Chāndogya Upaniṣad wrt  tat-tvam-asi, adapted  by Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, Ānandagiri and Madhva.

[17] Referred to by Śaṅkara in Bṛhadāraṇyaka

[18] brahmānandi-virachitaṃ vākyānāṃ sūtra-rūpānāṃ bhāṣyakartā draviḍācāryo api.

[19] Rudra is often addressed as Kapardin (imā rudrāya tavase kapardine - RV.1.114.1 - Rudra with hair knotted like Kaparda, a cowry shell).

And, it seems during the Vedic times some men and women sported braids or plaits of hair. For instance; a woman having four plaits of hair was called chatuṣ-kapardin; and, the Vasithas wearing their hair in a plait on the right side were known as Dakṣinatas – kaparda.[Ref: Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, Volume 1; Volume 5 by Arthur Berriedale Keith]

It is also said; a certain Kapardin (Ca. 800-25 CE) assisted a Rashtrakuta Chieftain in extending his rule in the region due to which act the region came to be known in his honour as Kapardika - Dvipa or Kavadi - Dvipa.  The term Kapardika Dvipa occurs in the inscriptions of the Kadamba Kings who ruled over Goa and Banavasi region of North Karnataka. Some surmise that the name of the strip along the west coast – Konkan, may have derived from Kapardika.