Notes BSB I-i-2-1A

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSB: I-i-2-1A

 

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

janmaadi adhikaraNam 2

suutra 1 : janmaadyasya yataH |

 

Introduction:

 

After the upodghaata or introductory suutra, which indirectly deals

with the anubandha chatushhTayam or the four-fold requirements,

Vyasacharya begins the shaastram with the second sutra. The second

suutra belongs to second adhikaraNam. This adhikaraNam is known as

the janmaadi adhikaraNam because the suutra begins with the word

janmaadi. This adhikaraNam also has only one suutra. The suutra is

'janmaadyasya yataH'.

 

We will follow as usual the three-stepped approach; first the general

analysis, then specific word by word analysis and then the conclusion.

 

1. General Analysis:

 

The topic of discussion in this adhikaraNam is Brahma lakshaNam or

the definition of Brahman. Hence the second suutram is also called

Brahma lakshaNa suutram. There is a well-known statement in the

shaastra which says: 'lakshaNa pramaaNaabhyaam vastu siddhiH', which

means that any object is established only through two factors;

lakshaNam and pramaaNam. Only after the object is fully established

(siddham), there is a possibility for further inquiry into the nature

of the object. No inquiry can be done if the existence of the object

itself is not established. The inquiry in such a case can only be

limited to the extent whether such an object exists or not. Hence

vichaara or inquiry of an object presupposes the knowledge of its

siddhatvam or existence. Furthermore, even if an object can be

defined by its lakshaNam or definition that is not sufficient to

establish its siddhatvam or existence. In addition to lakshaNam, we

need a valid pramaaNam or valid means for knowing the object. For

example, even if someone provides a lakshaNam of a full moon in the

sky, that is not sufficient to establish the existence of a moon, if

I do not have the eyes to see. Hence we require at least two

entities for any inquiry, a lakshaNam and a pramaaNam. If either one

is present without the other, it is still useless for me to inquire

into that object. Even if I have the eyes to see (pramaaNam), I will

not know about the moon, unless I have the definition of the moon

that distinguishes it from many luminary objects in the sky. To put

in Sanskrit (one can skip these lines if you want, without losing the

continuity)

lakshaNa satve api, pramaaNam vinaa na vastu siddhiH |

pramaaNam satve api, lakshaNam vinaa na vastu siddhiH |

yatra lakshaNam cha vartate, pramaaNam cha vartate, tatra eva

vastunaH siddhiH |

 

Once the moon is established through the lakshaNam and pramaaNam one

can spend his whole lifetime, if he wants, inquiring into the moon.

Thus vichaara or inquiry presupposes siddhi or existence, and siddhi

requires both lakshaNam and pramaaNam.

 

1.1 lakshaNam and pramaaNam of Brahman:

 

We are discussing in Brahmasuutra -s about the inquiry into Brahman.

Inquiry into Brahman is possible only if there is such a thing called

'Brahman'. To know Brahman's existence therefore we need 'Brahma

lakshaNam and Brahma pramaaNam. Hence in the second suutra

Vyasacharya gives Brahma lakshaNam and in the third suutra he gives

Brahma pramaaNam. Only from the fourth suutra on, we get into Brahma

vichaara or inquiry.

 

In this context it is worth discussing Shankaracharya's comments at

the end of the first suutra. There Shankara asks a question - Is

Brahman known or unknown before we can talk about the inquiry of

Brahman? Purvapakshi comes and says either way the inquiry is not

required. If Brahman is unknown, how can one make an inquiry of an

object that one does not know. If I ask a student to inquire on

'gaagaabuubuu' and if none of us know what that blessed

'gaagaabuubuu' is or whether such a thing exists or not, then how can

one do any inquiry. If Brahman is already known, then one is already

a 'brahmaj~naani'. Then any further inquiry into Brahman is also

useless. Hence Brahmasutra need not be studied. There is an

interesting shloka in Vivekachudamani (shloka 59) to this effect.

 

avij~naate pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa |

vij~naate api pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa ||

 

If one does not know the Brahman, the study of the shaastra -s is

futile. Having known the Brahman, the study of the shaastra -s is

again futile.

 

In response to puurvapakshi, Shankara says, Brahman is not unknown.

It is known through Veda pramaaNa. Even the word 'Brahman', one is

conversant with only because of Veda-s. When a Vedic student studies

Veda, he comes to know that there is something called 'Brahman'.

Veda teaches him 'brahmavit brahma eva bhavati', 'brahmavidaapnoti

param', 'satyam j~naanam anantam brahma'. The very word 'Brahman'

indicates that the object in question is infinitely big, since the

word is derived from the root 'bR^ih' meaning 'bR^ihati' or

'bR^inhati' - in the meaning of vR^iddhi or expansion or bigness.

Hence the student comes to know that there is an entity which is very

big. Further Shankara says that the very word 'big' is a relative

word. The meaning of the word 'big', which is an adjective, itself

gets qualified by the noun that it qualifies. There is a big

mountain ahead if we say, not only the mountain is qualified by its

bigness, but bigness is also qualified by the word mountain in

relation to a normal size mountain. In contrast if we say there is a

big mosquito in my net, the bigness of the mosquito is qualified by

the normal size mosquito which is different from the normal size

mountain. The dimensions of the bigness for a mountain are different

from those of a mosquito, or an ameba. When upanishhad talks about

Brahman it uses the adjective 'big' as the noun itself, as The Big.

That is there is no noun to condition the bigness, as the big itself

is used as a noun. That is it is unconditionally big, meaning it is

infinite. Similarly we use existence not as an adjective but as a

noun referring to Brahman. Thus adjectives are used as nouns to

indicate that we are not talking about any object that is conditioned

but that which is beyond any conditioning. Hence Shankara says

through veda pramaaNa, one comes to know that there is infinitely big

entity called Brahman. Since all my experiences are about finite

things or entities and that one has never experienced an infinitely

big entity, one would doubt the existence of such a thing indicated

by Vedas. Hence to remove such a doubt the scripture says that

entity is nothing but one's own Self, the aatma. If so, I can never

doubt the existence of Brahman, since doubting the existence of

Brahman means doubting my own existence. Nobody doubts whether 'I am

or not', since the very doubt presupposes my existence. Doubter

cannot be doubted, because doubt cannot exist without a doubter.

Hence Shankara says 'na kaschit naahamasmiiti pratyeti', no one can

question his own existence. Hence there is no doubt regarding aatma

astitvam, and thus brahma astitvam, existence of Brahman. And such a

'Brahman', I come to know through veda pramaaNa. Therefore the

inquiry is into 'known Brahman' only and not unknown Brahman.

 

But puurvapakshi still questions, if you have already known Brahman,

why do you need to do inquiry? For that Shankara says that from

scriptures, I learn that Brahman is aatma. Hence one does not doubt

about the existence of oneself, but one still does not have complete

knowledge of oneself. One does not know 'who am I?' I do not have

clear knowledge of my self due to adhyaasa (See Ch. III). Because of

this reason only different philosophers have different notions about

I, the self. The chaarvaaka -s say 'I am the body'. The naiyyayika

-s say I am not the body, but the soul, which is all pervading.

There are many souls or aatma -s ,'aneka vibhu aatmaanaH', each one

is all pervading, but locused, one on each body and is kartaa and

bhoktaa. The saa.nkhyaa -s say, these all pervading multiple aatma

-s are not kartaa -s but only bhoktaa -s. Thus regarding 'who am I'

there is so much of confusion, and hence Shankara concludes that

inquiry is required. Thus Brahman is neither totally known nor

totally unknown, but it is unclearly known. Hence 'aapaata j~naanam'

or unclear or vague knowledge or paroksha j~naanam exists. Hence

Brahman inquiry is required to convert the unclear knowledge or

paroksha j~naanam into aparoksha j~naanam or clear and direct

experiential knowledge. Thus Shankara discusses in his introduction

to suutra 2, that there are pramaaNam and lakshaNam for Brahman.

 

1.2 taTastha and swaruupa lakshaNam-s:

 

The lakshaNam or definition is of two types; swaruupa lakshaNam and

taTastha lakshaNam. When an object is defined through its intrinsic

feature, that definition is called swaruupa lakshaNam. When an

object is defined through an incidental feature or a temporary

feature which is not intrinsic feature of the object, it is called

taTastha lakshaNam. The word taTastham consists of two words taTa

and stha. taTaH means the bank of a river, and sthaH means existing.

taTastham means that which remains in the bank of the river, hence is

not a part of the river and hence is not an intrinsic feature of the

river. An example that is given is 'prakR^ishhTa prakaashhaH

chandraH' - moon is brightest luminary in the (night) sky.

Brightness of the moon is its intrinsic feature (forgetting the

science now) and hence it is swaruupa lakshaNam of moon. Likewise

satyam, j~naanam and anantam or aanandam - are swaruupa lakshaNam of

Brahman since they are the intrinsic feature of Brahman. The

definition of swaruupam lakshaNam is 'swaruupam sat vyaavartakam

swaruupa lakshaNam' that intrinsic feature of an object which reveals

or defines an object. Typical example of taTastha lakshaNam which

can be appreciated easily in America where most of the houses look

alike (indistinguishable swaruupa lakshaNam-s) is ' That house on

which a crow is sitting right now is John's house' - The sitting of a

crow is only an incidental feature of the John's house and not a

swaruupa lakshaNa of the house. The definition of taTastha lakshaNam

is 'kaadaachitkam sat vyaavartakam, taTastha lakshaNam', temporarily

that which pin-points is taTastha lakshaNam.

 

The taTastha lakshaNam of Brahman is 'jagat kaaraNam Brahma', Brahman

is that which is the cause of the universe. To decide if this is

taTastha lakshaNam or swaruupa lakshaNam of Brahman, one should ask

if the world is an intrinsic feature of Brahman or an incidental

feature of Brahman. It is an incidental feature since before the

creation there is no world and after the desolation there is no

world. For videha mukta, the world is permanently not there. Hence

world is only an incidental feature of Brahman, thus a taTastha

lakshaNam of Brahman. The second suutram is presenting only a

taTastha lakshaNam of Brahman and we can say it is 'taTastha lakshaNa

suutra of Brahman'.

 

Next we take the general meaning and then word by word meaning of the suutra.

End of Notes on BSB I-2-1A

----

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623