2. Introduction (उपोद्घातः)
२.१. महानाम्नीशब्दार्थः
2.1 The meaning of the term “Mahānāmnī”
महानाम्नीनाम् ऋचाम् उपसर्गाः= ये उपसर्जनभूताः, तान् उपसृजति संयोजयति। महन्नाम यास्वृक्षु विद्यते ता महानाम्न्यः। परस्य ब्रह्मणो यन्नामेन्द्रादिकं तन्महार्थत्वान्महत्। महद्धि तत् परं ब्रह्म। अशेषगुणपूर्तेः।
The additions to the Mahānāmnī ṛcs are those which function as subordinate elements; one adds them, that is, joins them. Those ṛcs in which a great name occurs are Mahānāmnīs. Whatever name of the Supreme Brahman begins with Indra is great because its referent is great. For that Supreme Brahman is great, because of the fullness of all qualities without exception.
२.२. ब्रह्मणः सगुणत्वसमर्थनम्
2.2. Demonstration that Brahman is endowed with attributes.
तत्रैक आहुरगुणं ब्रह्मेति। न तद् युक्तम्। श्रुतियुक्तिविरोधात्।
On this matter, some say, “Brahman is devoid of attributes.” That is not tenable, because it conflicts with scripture and reasoning.
तथाहि श्रुतिः-
For accordingly, the Śruti says: …
“सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म” - तैत्तिरीयोपनिषत् २/१
“Brahman is reality, knowledge, and infinite.” — Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2/1
“विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म” - बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ५/९/३४
“Brahman is knowledge and bliss.” — Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 5/9/34
“यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद् यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः। तस्मादेतद् ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नं च जायते॥” - आथर्वणोपनिषत् १/१/९
“From him who is omniscient, who knows all, and whose austerity consists of knowledge, arise this Brahman, name, form, and food.” — आथर्वणोपनिषत् १/१/९
“दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः स बाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः। अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रो ह्यक्षरात् परतः परः॥”- आथर्वणोपनिषत् २/१/२
“For the Person is radiant and formless; he is indeed outside and inside, unborn, without vital breath, without mind, and pure—supreme beyond the Imperishable.” — आथर्वणोपनिषत् २/१/२
“एतावानस्य महिमा अतो ज्यायांश्च पुरुषः” - ऋग्वेदसंहिता १०/९०/२
“Such is his greatness, and the Puruṣa is greater than this.” — Ṛgveda Saṃhitā 10/90/2
“यो नः पिता जनिता यो विधाता धामानि वेद भुवनानि विश्वा” - ऋग्वेदसंहिता १०/८२
“He who is our father and begetter, who is the ordainer, knows the abodes and all the worlds.” — ऋग्वेदसंहिता १०/८२
“पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते। पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते॥” - बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ७/१/१
“That is complete; this is complete. From the complete, the complete arises. Having taken the complete from the complete, the complete alone remains.” — Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 7/1/1
“सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः। सर्वमिदमभ्यात्तोऽवाक्यनादरः” - छान्दोग्योपनिषत् ३/२/९
“Performing every action, possessing every object of desire, every fragrance, and every flavor, embracing all this, speechless and unconcerned.” — Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3/2/9
“विष्णोर्नु कं वीर्याणि प्र वोचं यः पार्थिवानि विममे रजांसि” - ऋग्वेदसंहिता १/१५४/१
“Now indeed I shall proclaim the heroic deeds of Viṣṇu, who measured out the earthly regions.” — Ṛgveda Saṃhitā 1/154/1
“परो मात्रया तन्वा वृधान न ते महित्वमन्वश्नुवन्ति” - ऋग्वेदसंहिता ७/९९/१
“O you who grow beyond measure in your form, they do not attain your greatness.” — Ṛgvedasaṃhitā ७/९९/१
“न ते विष्णो जायमानो न जातो देव महिम्नः परमन्तमाप” - ऋग्वेदसंहिता ७/९९/२
“No one being born, nor anyone born, O Viṣṇu, O god, has reached the furthest limit of your greatness.” — Ṛgvedasaṃhitā 7/99/2
इत्यादिका।
Such passages and the like.
युक्तिश्च। बुद्धिपूर्वं सर्वकर्तृत्वात् सर्वज्ञत्वादयो गुणा युक्ताः।
And reasoning: Since being the agent of everything is preceded by cognition, qualities beginning with omniscience are logically warranted.
“कर्तृत्वात् सगुणं ब्रह्म पुरुषं पुरुषर्षभम्” - भागवतम् ३/३३/१२
“Because of agency, Brahman is possessed of qualities—the Person, the foremost among persons.” — Bhāgavatam 3/33/12
इति च भागवते।
Thus also in the Bhāgavata.
नच,
Nor, …
“एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा। कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च॥” - श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् ६/११
“The one God, hidden in all beings, is all-pervading, the inner Self of all beings, the overseer of actions, the abode of all beings, the witness, the cognizer, the sole one, and devoid of qualities.” — श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् ६/११
इत्यादिविरोधः। सत्त्वादिगुणाभावोक्तेस्तत्र। अन्यथा “एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः” इत्यादीनामपि गुणत्वात् स्वोक्तिविरोधः।
There is contradiction with statements such as these. For the absence of qualities such as sattva is stated there. Otherwise, since even expressions such as “one God, hidden in all beings” are qualities, there would be a contradiction with its own statement.
२.२.१ निर्विशेषत्वनिरासः
2.2.1. Refutation of being without distinctions.
नच निर्विशेषं नाम किञ्चिदस्ति। निर्विशेषत्वोक्तेरेव व्याहतत्वात्। निर्विशेषत्वेन विशिष्टं न वेत्युक्ते यद्यविशिष्टं तर्हि न विशेषनिराकरणम्। विशेषवत्त्वमेव भवति। यदि तेन विशिष्टं स एव विशेष इति व्याहतिः।
Nor does anything called “distinctionless” exist, because the very assertion of distinctionlessness is self-contradictory. When it is stated whether it is qualified by distinctionlessness or not, if it is unqualified, then distinction has not been negated; rather, possession of distinction results. If it is qualified by that, that itself is a distinction, and thus there is a contradiction.
नच निर्विशेषत्वे किञ्चिन्मानम्। अशेषविशेषवचनानुभवयुक्तिविरोधश्च। नच मिथ्याविशेषवत्। व्याहतेः। मिथ्याविशेष इत्युक्ते ह्यसद्विशेष इत्येव भवति। तथाचाविशेषविशिष्टपक्षोक्तदोष एव।
There is no valid means of knowledge whatsoever for distinctionlessness; moreover, it conflicts with all assertions of distinction, experience, and reasoning. Nor is it as in the case of a false distinction, because of contradiction. For when “false distinction” is stated, it amounts only to “nonexistent distinction.” Thus precisely the defect already stated for the position of being qualified by absence of distinction applies.
२.२.२ अनिर्वचनीयत्वनिरासः
Refutation of indefinability.
नचानिर्वचनीयविशेष इति भवति। अनिर्वचनीयासिद्धेः। नहि तत्र प्रत्यक्षमस्ति। मिथ्याशब्दस्त्वभाववाच्येव। तदन्यत्र प्रमाणाभावात्। नचान्यत् प्रमाणम्। प्रतिज्ञाव्याहतेः। नहि सदन्तरादसतश्चान्यत् सदसद्विलक्षणं प्रसिद्धम्। ‘असन्न भवति’ इत्युक्ते
Nor is it the case that there is an indefinable particular entity, because no indefinable entity is established. Indeed, there is no perception of it. The word “false,” however, denotes absence alone, because there is no means of knowledge regarding anything other than that. Nor is there another means of knowledge, because it would contradict the thesis. Indeed, nothing distinct from the existent and the nonexistent is established as something other than another existent or the nonexistent. When it is said, “It is not nonexistent,” …
“द्वौ नञौ प्रकृतमर्थं सातिशयं गमयतः”
“Two negative particles convey the meaning under discussion with added emphasis.”
इति सदेव भवति। असदन्तरं वा विशेषविवक्षायाम्।
Thus it becomes indeed existent—or, when a distinction is intended, other than the nonexistent.
किञ्चैतद्वैलक्षण्यं भेदोऽभेदो भेदाभेदो वा। न तावद् भेदः, अनङ्गीकारात्। व्यावहारिकभेदश्चानिर्वाच्यसिद्धौ वक्तव्यः। नचाव्यावहारिकं किञ्चित्। नचाशेषव्यवहारनिवृत्तौ किञ्चिन्मानम्। नच मिथ्यातथ्ययोः सामान्यं व्यावहारिकत्वं धूमबाष्पयोर्धूमत्ववत्। नचाभेदः, अनङ्गीकारादेव। तथैवोभयम्। अभेदे चानिर्वाच्यब्रह्मणोस्तच्छब्दयोः पर्यायत्वम्। नच व्यावर्त्यविशेषेणापर्यायत्वं क्वचित्। व्यावर्त्यविशेषस्तद्व्यावृत्ते ब्रह्मणि विशेषमापादयति चेत्, विशिष्टवाक्यार्थता। न चेत्, न ब्रह्मज्ञानार्थिने पदान्तरं वाच्यम्। असङ्गतत्वात्। मिथ्याविशेषस्य चासिद्धिरुक्ता। अतोऽन्योन्याश्रयताऽनवस्थितिश्चक्रकं वा। भेदाभेदविलक्षणमप्युक्तरीत्यैवापाकृतम्।
Moreover, is this distinctness difference, non-difference, or difference and non-difference? To begin with, it is not difference, because that is not accepted. And empirical difference must be asserted in establishing the indeterminable. Nor is anything non-empirical. Nor is there any valid means of knowledge for the cessation of all practical dealings. Nor is empirical status common to the false and the real, just as smokiness is not common to smoke and vapor. Nor is it non-difference, for the very reason that this is not accepted. The same applies to both together. And if there is non-difference, the two words for the indeterminable and Brahman are synonymous. Nor is there anywhere non-synonymity owing to a distinction in what is excluded. If the distinction in what is excluded entails a distinction in Brahman as differentiated from that, the sentence meaning is qualified. If it does not, no other word should be uttered to one seeking knowledge of Brahman, because it would be irrelevant. The non-establishment of an unreal distinction has also been stated. Thus there is mutual dependence, infinite regress, or circularity. What is distinct from both difference and non-difference has also been refuted precisely in the manner already stated.
किञ्च, ‘असद्विलक्षणम्’ इत्यत्राभावान्यविरोधानां मध्ये नञः कोऽर्थः? यद्यभावः, न। असद्विलक्षणत्वं भावत्वमेव जगतः स्यात्। नच सतोऽन्यस्मादसतो विलक्षणं जगत्। असतोऽन्यत्वादिधर्मानङ्गीकारात्। ब्रह्मणश्च। असतोऽनिर्वचनीयत्वाङ्गीकाराच्च न वैलक्षण्यं ततोऽनिर्वाच्यस्य। तथापि चेद् वैलक्षण्यं नानिर्वाचनीयत्वं[5] जगतः। नच विरोधः। विरोधिनोरन्यतरनिषेधेऽन्यतरव्याप्तत्वानुभवात्। ‘अविद्यमानं न भवति’ इत्युक्ते विद्यमानमित्येव हि सर्वलोकानुभवः।
Moreover, in the expression “different from the unreal,” which—absence, otherness, or opposition—is the meaning of the negative prefix? If it is absence, that is not tenable: the world’s being different from the unreal would be nothing but its being existent. Nor is the world different from an unreal entity other than the existent, since otherness and similar attributes are not admitted for the unreal. Nor is it different from Brahman. And since the unreal is admitted to be indefinable, what is indefinable is not different from it. If, nevertheless, there is a difference, the world would not be indefinable. Nor can the meaning be opposition, because experience shows that, when either of two opposites is negated, the other invariably obtains. For when “It is not nonexistent” is said, everyone’s experience is precisely “It is existent.”
अतोऽनन्तगुणो भगवान् नारायण इति सिद्धम्।
Therefore, it is established that the Lord Nārāyaṇa possesses infinite attributes.
२.३ श्रुतीनां सिद्धबोधकत्वसमर्थनम्
2.3. Vindication of the Śrutis’ capacity to convey an established reality
नच सिद्धेऽर्थे वाक्यस्य प्रामाण्याभावादीश्वराद्यसिद्धिः। सिद्धातिरिक्तकार्याभावात्। लिङाद्यर्थस्त्विष्टसाधनत्वमेव। नहि कर्तव्यत्वं नामेष्टसाधनत्वादन्यत् किञ्चित्। तन्मानाभावात्। शब्दस्तु न तद् वक्तीत्युक्तम्। लिङादेरिष्टसाधनार्थत्वेनैव कृतार्थत्वे तदन्यकार्यकल्पने कल्पनागौरवं च।
Nor does the alleged absence of a sentence’s authoritativeness concerning an already established object entail the failure to establish Īśvara and the like, since there is nothing to be accomplished beyond what is already established. The meaning of the optative affix and the like, however, is solely being a means to a desired end. For there is no so-called being-required-to-be-done distinct from being a means to a desired end, since there is no means of knowing it. It has been stated, moreover, that a word does not express it. When the optative affix and the like already fulfill their function by having “a means to a desired end” as their meaning, postulating something-to-be-done distinct from that also entails a burdensome multiplication of postulates.
नच तत्कल्पकं किञ्चित्। विप्रतिपत्तौ चान्यन्मानं वक्तव्यं तद्भावे। नचानुमा। अप्रसिद्धविशेषणत्वात्। नचार्थापत्तिः। अनुपपत्त्यभावात्।
And there is nothing that provides a basis for postulating that. When there is disagreement, another means of knowledge must be stated to establish its existence. Nor can it be inference, because its qualifier is unestablished; nor presumption, because there is no inexplicability.
कार्याभावादेव कार्यान्वयिनि व्युत्पत्तिरित्यादि दूरतो निरस्तम्। कार्यान्विते व्युत्पत्तिरिति वदतोऽकार्यान्विते व्युत्पत्तिरित्युक्ते किमुत्तरम्? अध्याहार इत्युक्ते लोप इत्युत्तरम्। अशेषसिद्धपदानामर्थलोपाल्लिङाद्यर्थमात्रलोप एव गरीयान्।
Precisely because what is to be done is absent, claims beginning with “word-meaning acquisition concerns what is connected with what is to be done” are refuted out of hand. What answer does one who says, “Word-meaning acquisition occurs with respect to what is connected with what is to be done,” have when told, “Word-meaning acquisition occurs with respect to what is connected with what is not to be done”? If “supplementation” is proposed, the answer is “ellipsis.” Ellipsis only of the meaning of the optative ending and the like is indeed preferable to the loss of the meanings of all words denoting established entities.
‘हससि’ ‘हसामि’ इत्यादिसिद्धार्थ एव बालानां व्युत्पत्तेः। प्रथमप्राप्तत्वान्न तत्त्यागे कारणम्। तथैव व्युत्पत्तिदर्शनाच्च।
For children acquire linguistic understanding precisely with respect to already-established meanings, such as “you are laughing” and “I am laughing.” Since that is apprehended first, there is no reason to abandon it, and linguistic understanding is observed to arise in precisely that way.
अतः सिद्धार्थे प्रामाण्यसिद्धेश्च सिद्धं महागुणवत्त्वं विष्णोः।
Thus, since validity concerning an established fact is also established, Viṣṇu’s possession of great attributes is established.
