Once upon a time...

[Guest guest]

I chanced to read a posting by Mani Varadarajan in the ancient USENET

newsgroup alt.hindu, and was wondering if Mani's challenge still holds:

 

http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1994/msg00757.html

 

--------------------

Re: superstitions

Mani Varadarajan <mani

Wed, 19 Oct 1994 12:11:36 -0700

Newsgroups: alt.hindu

 

[..]

 

Ramanuja, the other major expositor of the Sutras, certainly

cannot be accused of "filtering" the text through the Vaishnava

tantras. The sole foundational texts for his understanding of the

Sutras are the Upanishads, and secondarily the Gita and Vishnu

Purana (texts used by Sankara himself). If you can show me where

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

in his Sri Bhashya Ramanuja departs from these exegetical principles,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I will wear the ashes of an Advaitin forthwith!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--------------------

 

I'm not sure if the "Sri Bhashya" refers to Ramanuja's Brahma Sutra

Bhashya, but if such is the case, then the translation of Ramanuja's BSB

that I have with me does indeed point out several instances where Ramanuja

quotes from Puranas other than the Vishnu Purana.

 

-Jayanarayanan

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure what exactly constituted the challenge originally, but I took

it to mean, "Ramanuja uses puranic authority in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya

just as much as Shankara does, and this cannot be proved false."

 

I find that Ramanuja cites the Puranas more often than Shankara

(Ramanuja's 4 to Shankara's 2 or 3 :-)) in his interpretation of the

Brahma Sutras. But some of Shankara's quotes referred to as "Smriti" can

well be from Puranic sources.

 

Anyway, the instances that Ramanuja quotes from the Puranas in his Sutra

bhashya are listed below, and the corresponding passage from Shankara is

also given for the sake of comparison.

 

The books that I will be using are:

 

1) "Brahma Sutras" According to Sri Ramanuja by Swami Vireswarananda and

Swami Adidevananda.

 

2) "Brahma Sutras" According to Sri Sankara by Swami Vireswarananda.

 

3) "Brahma Sutra Bhashya" of Shankaracharya, by Swami Gambhirananda.

 

All of them are RK Math publications.

 

I should clarify that I HAVE NOT READ any of the above books in detail. In

order to confirm the number of Puranic quotes of Ramanuja in his Sri

Bhashya, I simply looked up "Purana" from the index and it had 4

references, one each to Agneya Purana, Kurma Purana, Brahma-vaivarta

Purana and the Vishnu Purana. I then looked up what Shankara had to say in

that context. Unfortunately, the books on Shankara's BSB do not list the

references to the Puranas in the index, so I don't know if Shankara quotes

from the Puranas in certain instances when Ramanuja does not :-).

 

 

 

Case # 1 -- Sutra (3.4.41)

 

"And (expiation) mentioned in the chapter dealing with qualification (in

PUrva-mImAmsA) is not for him, because a lapse is inferred from the smrti

and because it (i.e. the smrti) does not prescribe (expiation)."

 

Ramanuja: The expiation mentioned in the chapter dealing with

qualifications (Pu. Mi. Su. 6.8.22) cannot apply in the case of Naisthikas

who have lapsed from that state, on account of the following smrti text:

"For him, who lapses after taking the vow of Naishthika Brahmacharin, I

see no expiation by which such a suicide can be cured" (Agneya-Purana,

14.5.23). Therefore, the expiation referred to in PUrva-mImaamsaa applies

to celibates other than Naisthikas.

 

Shankara: Pretty much the same thing, except that he simply refers to the

quote as "smriti". Perhaps he means the Agneya Purana also?

 

----------------------------

Case # 2 -- Sutra (4.1.13)

 

"On attaining that, non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and

previous sins will result respectively, because it is so declared (by the

scriptures)."

 

Ramanuja: Having thus far investigated the nature of meditation (i.e.

knowledge), now, the SUtra-kAra begins to consider the fruits of

meditation. The scriptures state that, after the attainment of knowledge

of Brahman, the destruction of previous sins and the non-clinging of

subsequent sins will result with regard to the meditating devotee, as in

the following passages: "As water does not wet the lotus leaf, even so no

sins cling to him who knows this" (ChA 4.14.3)...Here the doubt arises

whether or not these non-clinging and destruction result as the fruits of

meditation. The opponent holds that they will not result, because the

scripture declares, "No work, which is not experienced, will perish even

after millions of aeons" (Brahma-vaivarta Purana: prakriti Kanda, 26.70).

The Sutra refutes this view and says that, on attaining meditation,

non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and previous sins will result

respectively through the greatness of knowledge as stated in the above

texts...

 

Shankara: When That, namely Brahman, becomes realized, then come the

non-attachment of subsequent sins and the destruction of the earlier ones.

Why? "Because it is so declared" (in the scriptures). Thus it is declared

in the course of dealing with the knowledge of Brahman that a future sin

that might be expected to arise in the usual way does not arise in the

case of a man of knowledge: "As water does not stick to a lotus leaf, even

so sin does not contaminate a man of knowledge" (ChA, 4.14.3)...It was

argued that on the assumption that the results of works get destroyed even

before being experienced, the purport of the scripture will be

distorted... But we assert that this power is arrested by other factors

like knowledge etc. The scripture is committed to the existence of the

power of work, but not to the existence or non-existence of opposing

factors. Besides, the Smrti texts, "For the results of work are not

destroyed", is only a general rule; for the potential result of work does

not get destroyed except through experience, inasmuch as it is meant for

that...By the term non-attachment the aphorist implies that the knower of

Brahman has no idea of agentship whatsoever with regard to the actions

occurring in future. Although the man of knowledge appeared to have some

ownership of the past works on account of false ignorance, still owing to

the cessation of false ignorance through the power of knowledge, those

works also are washed away.

 

--------------------------------

Case # 3 -- Sutra (4.3.10)

 

"And because the smrti declares it."

 

Ramanuja: The above meaning is made clear from the smrti also, as in the

following text: "When the dissolution has come, they all together with

Brahmaa, at the end of time called "Para", enter the supreme abode" (Kurma

Purana, 1.12.269)...

 

Shankara (It is 4.3.11 in his BSB): Says almost same thing, after quoting

the Kurma Purana.

 

-

Case # 4 -- Sutra (4.1.2)

"Because of the indicatory marks."

 

Ramanuja: Here Linga means smrti. This meaning is made out from the smrti

also, which says that Vedanta (knowledge), which is the means of release,

has the nature of continued remembrance, as in the following passage of

Vishnu Purana (6.7.91): "The meditation of His form is one continued

stream without attachment to any other object. Meditation of Him is thus

generated by the six limbs of `yoga.'" Therefore the purport of the

scripture is that meditation has to be repeated again and again.

 

Shankara: "Reflect upon the rays, and you will have many sons" (Ch.

1.5.2). This text prescribes repeated meditation by asking to meditate on

the UdgItha as the rays instead of as the sun. And what holds good in this

case is equally applicable to other meditations also. And it is not true

that repitition is not necessary. If it were so, the Sruti woud not have

taught the truth of the statement "That thou art" repeatedly. There may be

people who are so advanced, and so little attached to the world of sense

objects, that in their case a single hearing of the statement may result

in Knowledge...

-----------------------------

 

Regards,

 

Jayanarayanan