Notes on Brahmasuutra-I-i-1-1C

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSB: I-i-1-1C

 

sadaashiva samaarambhaa.n sha~Nkaraachaarya madhyamam.h |

asmadaachaarya paryantaa.n vande guruparamparaam.h ||

 

I prostrate to the lineage of teachers starting from Lord Shiva who is

ever auspicious and with Bhagavaan Shankara in the middle and all the

way up to my own teacher.

 

vaatsalya ruupa.n triguNairatiitaM

aananda saandram amalairnidhaanam.h .|

shrii chinmayaananda guro praNiitaM

sadaa bhaje.aha.n tava paada pa~Nkajam.h ||

 

Who is the very embodiment of motherly affection who is beyond the

three guNa-s, who is full with bliss, and who is the very source of

purity who is the best among the teachers, Shree Chinmayaananda, to

his lotus feet I (sadaa) always prostrate.

----

samanvaya adhyaaya - I

spashhTa brahma li~Nga vaakya samanvaya paada- i

jij~naasaa adhikaraNa 1

suutra 1: athaato brahma jij~naasaa

 

 

 

In this section we take a few puurvapaksha-s or objections against the

above-implied meaning for atha shabdaH.

 

Objection:

 

Some philosophers have ascribed different intended meanings for the word

'atha'. They agree with Shankara that 'atha' means anantaram or thereafter

but disagree that thereafter means saadhana chatushhTaya anantaram. The

other commentators suggest that 'atha' means 'puurvamiimaa.nsa anantaram',

that is, only after the study of puurvamiimaa.nsa or the first portion or

karmakaaNDa portion of the Vedas, one should inquire into the nature of

Brahman. To put in Shankara's language they say 'karmaavabodha aanantaryam

arthaH' - that is after the study of karmakaaNDa portion of the Veda-s.

Shankaracharya elaborately refutes this meaning. We will go over this since

these ideas are also engraved in some form in the Vishishta-advaita and

Dwaita interpretations that give lot of weight to the karmakaaNDa portions.

 

What is puurvamiimaamsa?

 

We need to have some understanding of this before we can appreciate

Shankara' refutation of their meaning to atha shabda. Purvamimamsa is the

analysis of the first portion of the Veda-s. Where as, Brahmasutra-s are

uttaramiimaa.nsa containing the analysis of the final portion of the Veda-s.

The first portion deals with karma and upaasanaa and the last portion

deals with j~naanam aspect. Hence puurvamiimaa.nsa is the analysis of karma

and upaasanaa and uttaramiimaa.nsa is the analysis of Brahman or j~naanam.

Now puurvapakshi or the objector says that the very word 'puurvamiimaa.nsa'

indicates that it should come puurva or first and the

very word 'uttaramiimaa.nsa' indicates that it should come later or after.

Therefore 'atha' should be translated as 'puurvamiimaa.nsa anantaram' that

is after the study of the puurvamiimaa.nsa only the inquiry into the nature

of the Brahman. Purvapakshi's logic is as follows: puurvamiimaa.nsaa deals

with karma and upaasanaa. We all know that karma and upaasanaa are needed to

get the qualifications such as chittashuddhi etc. and saadhana

chatushhTayam. Therefore one should study puurvamiimaa.nsaa, follow karma

yoga and upaasanaa, thereafter acquire saadhana chatushhTaya sampatti, and

thereafter he should come to the study the uttaramiimaa.nsa and Brahmasutra.

Since we know that everybody requires qualifications, and further since

qualifications require the puurvamiimaa.nsa, one should give the meaning for

the word 'atha' as puurvamiimaa.nsa anantaram.

 

Response:

 

Shankara refutes puurvapakshi's arguments using both yukti or logic and

shruti support.

 

yukti pramaaNa: Shankara give four reasons to refute the puuvapakshi's

views: The first reason is called 'vyabhichaara doshhaH' - we

can roughly translate as error due to inconsistency. Suppose the word

'atha' is translated as 'after the study of puurvamiimaa.nsaa' - then we

will run into two problems. Suppose a person completes the study of

puurvamiimaa.nsaa. Next he will take up the study of uttaramiimaa.nsaa as

per the purvapakshi's argument, thinking that he is now qualified to study

the uttaramiimaa.nsaa. Shankara says that there is a danger involved.

After the study of puurvamiimaa.nsaa he may become a scholar of

puurvamiimaa.nsaa and does not necessarily have the required saadhana

chatushhTaya sampatti for uttaramiimaa.nsaa. The study of puurvamiimaa.nsaa

does not necessarily guarantee that one will have acquired viveka,

vairaagya, shhatkasampatti and mumukshutvam. Therefore unqualified student

thinking that he is qualified will end up studying uttaramiimaa.nsaa. A

person may become an expert in karma-s, yoga-s, rituals etc but that does

not guarantee that he acquired saadhana chatusshTaya sampatti. On the other

hand he may get more interested

in heavenly pleasures etc. MunDaka U. (1-2-10) exemplifies these

karmakaanDi-s –

 

ishhTaapuurtaM manyamaanaa varishhThaM

naanyachchhreyo vedayante pramuuDhaaH|

naakasya pR^ishhThe te sukR^ite anubhuutvaa

imaM lokaM hiinataraM vaa vishanti||

 

Thinking that these 'ishhTaapuurta karma-s are most supreme and there is

nothing more beneficial than these and one goes after heavenly pleasures

and thereafter go down the hill into lower worlds. This is what can happen

if one hangs on to the karma-s thinking that they are important rather than

acquiring the needed saadhana chatushhTayam. There are many expert

ritualists and they do not have any interest in Vedanta. On the other hand

they want to perform more and more rituals. Hence Shankara says that there

is no guarantee that after the study of puurvamiimaa.nsaa one gets the

necessary qualifications for the Vedantic study. He will not gain anything

out of it. Thus the first problem that Shankara says is that an unqualified

person taking up the study of Vedanta.

 

There is a second problem also. There can be some rare cases where a person

is born with saadhana chatushhTaya sampatti because of puurva janma

saadhana. (Shankara's own disciple - Hastamalaka is an example). Hence

such students who are already having saadhana chatushhTaya sampatti do not

require puurvamiimaa.nsaa since they already have the saadhana chatushhTaya

sampatti. Then why should they waste their time in studying

puurvamiimaa.nsaa? Right from brahmacharya aashrama they are ready for

Vedantic study. Therefore if puurvapakshi says that only after

puurvamiimaa.nsaa one should study Vedanta, then even an otherwise qualified

student will end up wasting his time in studying puurvamiimaa.nsaa. Thus the

puurvapakshi's ascribed meaning to 'atha' word that it implies

'puurvamiimaa.nsaa anantaram' or after the study of puurvamiimaa.nsaa will

result in two problems; one an unqualified student entering into the study

of Vedanta and the second a qualified student being denied immediate access

to the study of Vedanta. On the other hand, as Shankara's ascribed if

'atha' implies 'saadhana chatushhTaya anantaram brahma jij~naasa' that is

only after acquiring the four-fold qualifications one should inquire into

the nature of Brahman, it automatically eliminates both problems stated

above. One can acquire these qualification through puurva janma sa.nskaara

(from previous birth) or in this birth through karma and upaasana. What is

important is to emphasize the actual qualifications that are required rather

than insist on a particular means, which does not necessarily guarantee

acquisition of those qualifications. In this interpretation, the four-fold

qualifications become compulsory than the study of puurvamiimaa.nsaa for

all. Only for the unprepared minds, karma and upaasana can help in

acquiring the four-fold qualifications and for them the study of the

puurvamiimaa.nsaa will be beneficial. This is the first reason why

puurvapakshi is wrong in his interpretation of the meaning to 'atha'

shabdam.

 

Shankara gives three more reasons. To understand these reasons one should

understand the background of the Shankaracharya's times when he was

responding to these objections. When the puurvapakshi says one should come

to Vedanta after studying puurvamiimaa.nsaa, this philosopher has got a

particular philosophy in his mind, which was very prevalent during

Shankara's time. According to that philosophy, mere knowledge cannot give

liberation - 'kevala j~naanena mokshaH na sambhavati'. As an example, the

puurvapakshi points out the state of most of the Vedantic students. This

example may very well be applicable then as well as now. There are very

many great Vedanta experts who can quote from one end to the other, some

even in Orange robes. Some can give eloquent lectures and have big ashrams

and number of disciples. They have studied Vedanta for many years. But

their behavior and their language of communication is worse than the Vedanta

illiterates. In the name of tradition, they propagate only fanaticism.

Hence the puurvapakshi argues that these have studied Vedanta and still have

not gained any benefit from it. Hence it is very clear that 'kevala

j~naanena na mokshaH' by the Vedanta knowledge alone one cannot gain moksha.

Hence j~naanam must be combined with karma. "j~naana karma samuchchhayena

mokshaH' that is only by combining j~naana and karma one can gain moksha

and not by j~naana alone. The proof is the direct evidence of the presence

of so many Vedanta experts who have not gained what they intend to gain

through the knowledge alone. This is the view of one philosopher who is

called 'j~naana karma sumuchchaya vaadi', a proponent of the mixture of

j~naana and karma for moksha (Some people now a days give more fancy name

called- 'Integral yoga' - involving a samuchchaya of several things!).

Hence his contention is that everyone should study puurvamiimaa.nsaa first

so that he can know about all rituals or karma-s or upasana-s. Once he

learns them, he should practice them or implement them - Yagna-s, various

types of puuja-s, japa, vratams, etc. While implementing these, he should

study the Vedanta to gain knowledge. Then he can combine both karma and

j~naana required for moksha. Hence 'atha' means puurvamiimaa.nsaa anantaram

one should enter into Brahman inquiry and while the inquiry is going on he

should perform in parallel the rituals that he learned through the study of

puurvamiimaa.nsaa. This way he can combine karma with j~naanam - This is

the contention of j~naana karma sumuchchaya vaadi - or a puurvapakshi's

argument.

 

Shankara refutes this j~naana karma samuchchaya philosophy. For this, he

gives three reasons. This is the topic Shankara enters into very often

since this philosophy was very prevalent in his times. This may be little

divergence, but some aspects of this philosophy is also prevalent at least

in the practices of vishishhTa-advaita and more so in dwaita where the

emphasis on the upaasanaa and puujaa dominates the field.

vishishhTa-advaita emphasizes the sharaNaagati aspect with Bhakti involving

archanaa, stuti or stotrams and japa as a means while in Dwaita major

emphasis is on the puujaa with rigorous aachaara or practices. Puja-s look

and sound spectacular with aarati of the deity, Krishna or NaaraayaNa, with

one, two, five, ten, twenty-four, forty-eight, etc flames with as many drums

and bells as possible making a deafening sound. Vedic upaasanaa and

observance of various vrata-s became a norm of the practice than inquiry

into the nature of the reality. Hence the study of puurvamiimaa.nsaa and

karma is given importance in daily life.

 

Shankara provides three reasons to refute the j~naana-karma sumuchchaya

philosophy. Three reasons are namely; karma j~naana kaanDayoH (between

karma and j~naana) (a) vishhaya bhedaat (themes are different) (b) prayojana

bhedaat (utilities are different) and

© pravR^itti bhedaat (means are different). Because of these three

reasons karma, j~naana cannot be combined.

 

Each one of these will be explained in the next post.

 

End of Notes on BSB-I-i-1-1C.

 

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.