Notes on BSB I-i-2-1E

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSBI-i-2-1E

 

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 |

 

 

 

 

We are discussing Shankara's description of the Iswara in terms of

sarva-j~natvam.

 

Shankara in his description uses another adjective- manasaa api

achintya rachanaa ruupasya. A scientist can possibly determine how

the brain functions, but he cannot recreate such a complex organ.

The Lord not only has omniscience - the know-how of how to create but

to implement that knowledge or execute that technology. That is, He

has enough power and skill to produce such a complex creation. One

can see and destroy an ant or bug easily or swallow the whole chicken

in few minutes after frying it. But to produce such a complex living

entity that can reproduce itself is unimaginable and we can not but

admire that great designer and executor. Hence Shankara says He is

sarvaj~na and sarvashaktimaan due to sarva kaaraNatvaat - cause for

everything.

 

This is the final meaning of the suutra 2. To summarize - the

meaning is yasmaat abhinna nimitta upaadaana kaaraNaat, aananda

swaruupaat, sarvaj~naat, sarva shaktaat, pratyaksha prapanchasya

sR^ishhTi sthiti layaaH sambavanti, tat brahma. Because of which the

non-differentiable intelligent and material cause, which is of the

form of pure bliss, omniscient, omnipotent cause for creation,

sustenance and dissolution of the visible universe - that is Brahman.

 

With this Shankara concludes his commentary on the second suutra.

After the conclusion he enters into another discussion by introducing

a puurvapaksha or objection from nayyayika-s (nyaaya philosophers).

Because of its importance we will discuss that aspect here.

 

The first suutra says that we have to do Brahman inquiry. This can

done only after it is established that there is something called

Brahman. To establish Brahman, it was said that - lakshaNa

pramaaNaabhyaam vasti siddhiH - we need a lakshaNam or a definition

and pramaaNa and means of knowing it. The second suutra provides

that lakshaNa for Brahman and the third suutra will provide pramaaNa

required. In the third suutra it is said that the pramaaNam for

Brahman is shaatram - shaatra yonitvaat. Now nayyaayika comes up

with a suggestion. He says why cannot one take the second suutra

itself as a pramaaNam for Brahman also. According to him, the second

suutra defines Brahman or Iswara as jagat kaaraNam, cause for the

world. Since jagat kaaraNam is Brahman, conversely jagat is kaaryam

of Brahman. That is if Brahman or Iswara is the defined as the cause

or kaaraNam, then the world is the effect or kaaryam of Iswara

(nayyayika-s use Iswara instead of Brahman). Hence naayayika-s say

that the invisible Iswara can be inferred from the visible world just

as the invisible fire can be inferred from the visible smoke. Hence

nayyayika-s say the pramaaNam for Iswara can be simply anumaanam or

inference or logic. This anumaanam is popularly known in tarka

shaastra as - kaarya lingaka anumaanam - the inference of invisible

kaaraNam or cause from visible kaaryam, or effect. From this

nayyayika arrives at a conclusion that shaastra pramaaNam is not

required to prove the existence of Iswara. Logic itself can do the

job without the need of shaastra. Generally it is understood that if

direct perception, pratyaksha, can establish an object, then we do

not need logic. Likewise, if pratyaksha cannot but logic can do the

job, then we do not need the next one, shabda pramaaNa to establish

the object. Hence Nayyaayika-s argue that there is no need for

shaastra pramaaNa to establish Iswara.

 

Advaitins as well as other vedantins would not agree for that. Iswara

cannot be established by pure logic without the help of shaastram.

There is a radical difference between tarkika and the vedantin. For

tarkika the logic is the primary means of knowledge with regard to

Iswara and shaastra is only of secondary importance while for

Vedantin it is the other way around (see Notes I for reference). We

will analyze this in detail since the relative roles of shaastra

pramaaNa versus anumaana pramaaNa will be established from the point

of two different philosophies, aastika-s vs. naastika-s.

 

Nayyayika-s argue that we do not need shaastra to prove the existence

of the Iswara. Just as when we see a person, even though we do not

know any thing about his parents, we know that he must have parents.

The very presence of an effect presupposes the existence of the

cause. Hence if there is a product there must be a producer whose

existence I can infer. Since the world or jagat is seen, there must

be a creator, Iswara. Thus by inference or anumaana, I can know the

existence of Iswara without the need of shaastra-s. Hence for

establishing Iswara or Brahman, anumaanam can serve as pramaaNam and

shaastram is not required - this is nayyaayika-s argument.

 

Shankara says it is not so. The second suutra does not provide

anumaana pramaaNam for brahma siddhi or Iswara sidhhi. Shankra gives

a simple reason for this, but the subcommentators provide additional

reasons. The argument is as follows. Vyasacharya does not propound

a new philosophy by using his reasoning power. This is in contrast

to many of darshanams (see Ch.I-for details) where the basis of their

new philosophy is the reasoning or anumaana pramaaNa. These include

sankhya, yoga, nyaaya, vaisheshhika, etc. all of which propound new

philosophies primarily based on tarka or anumaanam; and Shankara

calls all of them together as taarkika-s. They accept the sruthi

pramaaNam only as subservient to anumaaNa. Uniqueness of

Brahmasuutra is Vyasacharya does not establish the philosophy through

reasoning. He uses reasoning not to propound a new philosophy but

only to derive a cogent systematic philosophy of the Veda-s. Hence

every suutra has got one or many Vedanta vaakyam-s or vishhaya

vaakyam-s as its basis. If one claims that the second suutra

establishes Iswara by anumaana pramaaNa then the very purpose of

Brahasuutra is defeated. Hence Shankara uses a beautiful line which

is often quoted and which was provided in Ch. I - vedaanta vaakya

kusuma grathanaarthatvaat suutraanaam - every suutra is providing an

anumaaNam or reasoning alright but this reasoning is not an

independent anumaanam. It is used only to bring out the Vedantic

teaching in cogent form. It is like a thread to create a necklace or

garland of the flowers of Vedanta Vaakyam-s. Here the garland is the

Vedanta darshanam and the flowers are the veda vaakyam-s. The

tarka-thread is only hiding behind the flowers as subservient factor

and has no independent utility other than tying the flowers together

to form a beautiful garland of cogent vedatic philosophy. Hence the

second suutra does not provide an independent anumaana pramaaNa but

it is there to analyze the Vedanta vaakyam quoted before: "etova

imaani bhuutaani jaayante ...." to provide lakshaNa suutra but not

pramaaNa suutra. - This is the simpler answer Shankar gives. The

subcommentators provide further arguments.

 

It is clear from their puurvapaksha, nayyaayika-s believe that Iswara

can be logically established. Vedantins vehemently disagree with

nayyayika-s in this aspect. Vedantins strongly believe that Iswara

or Brahman is revealed through shaastra alone. For Vedantins, Iswara

that is revealed through shaastra can be assimilated through logic.

In the discussions that follow we will see that nayaayika-s use

aanumaana pramaaNam to establish Iswara and Vedantins take the

position like that of DMK politicians in Madras to show that their

logic is defective.

 

Now nayyayika-s arguments: They deduce Iswara through three

anumaanam-s or logical statements. (See Ch. II for discussion of

anumaana pramaaNa.) 1. kshityankuradhikam (or jagat) sakartR^ikam,

kaaryatvaat, ghatavat. - That is, the world must have a creator,

because it is an effect or product like a pot. The vyaapti vaakyam

for this is - yad yad kaaryam tad tad sakartR^ikam, that is, whatever

is product, it must have been created (by a creator). From this

anumaanam, they deduce first that there is a creator. 2. The second

anumaanam vaakyam is, jagat kartaa IswaraH, jiiva bhinnatvesati

chetanatvaat, vyatirekena kulaalavat. In this anumaanam nayyayika

establishes that the creator must be Iswara alone, because no jiiva

can create this world and since the creator has to be an intelligent

or conscious being. Since there are only three entities, jiiva,

jagat and Iswara, conscious intelligent being other than jiiva is

only Iswara, and hence the creator of this world has to be Iswara.

This is called paarisheshha nyaaya, the logic by elimination and

residue. It is unlike a pot-maker, since like example cannot be given

as it is one of a kind. The vyaapti vaakyam is yat

jiivabhinnatvesati chetanam tat IswaraH - whatever is conscious being

other than jiiva that must be IswaraH. 3. The third anumaana vaakyam

is - IswaraH sarvaj~naH sarvakartR^itvaat vyatirekena kulaalavat -

that is IswaraH is omniscient since he is a creator of everything

unlike alpaj~na kulaalaH or our good old pot maker who has knowledge

of only how to make a pot. The vyaapti vaakyam is yatra sarva

kartR^itvam tatra sarvaj~natvam api bhavati. This is called lakshaNa

lingaka anumaanam. Thus nayyayika logically establishes sarvaj~na

IswaraH, omniscient Lord. Therefore he argues that existence of

Iswara can be established logically and we do not need Veda-s to do,

that. A modern day rational intellect is more happy with a nayyayika

than a Vedantin who relays on shaastra which requires a faith.

 

Vedantin claims all these anumaana vaakyam-s or logical statements

are defective. Let us examine the first anumaanam - jagat

sakartR^ikam, karyatvaat, ghatavat - the world is a creator because

it is a product, like a pot. For this nayyayika uses a vyaapti

j~naanam - yad yad kaaryam sakartR^ikam, wherever there is product

there must be a creator - example is like a pot. Every anumaana

vaakyam must require a vyaapti and this vyaapti vaakyam (statement

expressing concomitant relationship between hetu and saadhya - see

Ch. II) is derived from pratyaksha pramaaNa only. anumaanam requires

vyaapti j~naanam and vyaapti j~naanam is established by pratyaksha

pramaaNam alone. If vyaapti j~naanam is established by another

anumaanam then that second anumaanam requires another vyaapti and

this leads to infinite regress problem. It cannot be by shaastram

either, since nayyaayika-s have already rejected shaastra pramaaNam.

Like the example we gave in Ch. II - yatra yatra dhuumaH tatra tatra

agniH - this vyaapti j~naanam is arrived only by pratyaksha pramaaNam

only - or by direct observation. vyaapti arrived by observation is

valid only if it holds good in all the cases. Hence wherever there

is a smoke there is a fire is a valid vyaapti but the converse

wherever there is fire there is smoke is not a valid vyaapti, since

it does not hold good all the time.

 

Now Vedantin argues - if you say where there is product there is a

creator - this is proved by pratyaksha only if the products are

man-made. How about natural products - there the creator for these

products are not perceptually proved. Therefore the defect in the

first anumaana is vyaapti asidhiH since there is no pratyaksha or

direct observation of the creation of the universe by IshwaraH.

 

Let us examine the second anumaana - jagat kartaa IswaraH, jiiva

bhinnatvesati chetanatvaat, vyatirekena kulaalavat - Iswara is the

creator of jagat, since He is a conscious entity different from

jiiva. For this vyaapti j~naanam involves establishing that wherever

there is a conscious being other than jiiva is involved, it must be

IshwaraH. That means the vyaapti statement involves a presupposition

of the existence of Ishwara who is other than jiiva. But vyaapti

j~naanam must be gathered by pratyaksha pramaaNam only or by direct

perception since nayyayika has already discarded shaashtra pramaaNam.

But through perception we cannot talk about a conscious being other

than jiiva. Hence the second anumaanam is also defective since

vyaapti vaakyam cannot be established by pratyaksha.

 

Now the third anumaana: IswaraH sarvaj~naH sarvakartR^itvaat

vyatirekena kulaalavat - Iswara is omniscient since He is the creator

of everything. Now to negate this anumaana we need to examine some

'axioms' that nayyayika-s have assumed in developing their

philosophy. Nayyayika-s say that every knowledge is born out of

mind. - yat j~naanam tat manojanyam - This axiomatic statement is

made since they depend heavily on the perceptions and inferences for

their philosophy. There may not be any problem with this statement

but in a different place they make another statement which appears to

be unrelated to this - IswaraH asshariiraH - that is Ishwara does not

have body- that statement includes sthuula suuksham kaaraNa

shariiraani - gross, subtle and causal bodies - which obviously

includes the mind which is part of subtle body. The reason they took

mind away from Iswara is of their presumption that wherever there is

mind there is samsaara - since Ishwara cannot have samsaara, He is

made devoid of mind. Since according to nayyayikaas own statements

- that the mind is required for j~naanam and Iswara does not have

mind - hence it follows that Iswara being mind-less cannot have any

knowledge leave alone the sarvaj~natvam. This defect is called -

swa,abhyupagama virodhaH - defect involving self-contradiction or

contradicting ones own statements. Thus Vedantin proves that

nayyayika-s third anumaanam is also defective. (For the record,

these arguments are from the commentary called PuurNaanandiiyam by

PuurNaananda Saraswati which itself is a comentary on Bhaashya

Ratnaprabha by Govindaananda Saraswati which is in turn a comentary

on Shankara Bhaashyam).

 

Hence anumaanam which is based on pratyaksha cannot be a pramaaNa for

establishing Ishwara, who is beyond the human perception and hence

beyond inference. Iswara established by anumaanam can be negated by

anumaanam. Hence shaastra alone is the valid pramaaNa for that which

is beyond the perceptual knowledge. If vedantin uses logic it is

blessed by shaastram - shruti sammata tarkena Iswara sidhhiH, na tu

kevala tarkena or sushhka tarkena Iswara sidhhiH. That is logic

supported by the shaashtra is only valid for entities that cannot be

established by direct perception. The logic supported by direct

perceptions are invalid to establish Iswara since He is beyond direct

perception.

 

One more point Shankara makes in his bhaashyam. The discussion does

not mean that tarka is totally useless in the inquiry. Shankara

emphasizes that tarka is important when properly used with the

support of Shaastra. - shrotavyaH, mantavyaH, nidhidhyaasitavyaH -

the word manthavyaH indicates tarka is imporant for understanding

Vedanta. In fact the whole Brahmasuutra is called nyaaya prasthaanam

- logical analysis of upanishhad-s. Hence the use of tarka as

subservient in understanding Vedanta. Shankara gives the reason why

tarka is important in Vedanta. He contrasts the karma kaandam and

j~nanakaandam - in karma kaanDa tarka has got a limited role. There

procedures of rituals is more important - what should be done rather

than why should it be done - There the knowledge of a ritual does not

produce the results - performance of the ritual does. The benefit is

the result of accomplishment of a ritual in time or time-bound.

Hence Shankara's language - karmakaandasya saadhyavishhayatvaat karma

pradhaanam, j~naanam apradhaanam - since it deals with something to

be produced in future doing is important and knowing has only an

indirect role. Suppose if moksha is something to be produced in

future then like karma kaanDa, procedure is important than knowledge

- hence people say I have studied Vedanta and now I have to practice

or do more practice - some meditation or something else. Shankara

says this is the common misconception. Vedanta does not deal with a

future event - the result of a process or procedure. We are not

learning any procedure, any technique or method of meditation through

Vedanta or implement something after Vedantic study. It is dealing

with the fact of moksha - which is an accomplished fact! - which one

has to understand. The whole Vedantic saadhana is only a process of

understanding and there is nothing to implement after understanding.

With the understanding the end is accomplished. Whatever the

obstruction in understanding need to be eliminated. One of the

obstruction is the intellect itself in the form of samshayaH or doubt

- Hence tarka or mananam is very important - it is not an independent

tarka but to remove the intellectual obstacles created in

assimilating the Vedantic teaching. Hence tarka serves in the

understanding the Vedantic teaching and in assimilating that teaching

as ones own. There is nothing to do after understanding since the

very understanding involves - I am akarthaa and abhoktaa. - I have

nothing to do as I am ever liberated. - Hence Shankara says shruti

is imporant, yukti is important and finally anubhava, which involves

assimilating the knowledge as ones own, is important. Anubhava is

important only because our samsaara is present only in the form of

anubhava - I am limited, I am small, the helplessness- the feeling of

inadequacy, the misery due to that feeling, the doubt about oneself,

the doubt about the teaching of Vedanta, etc. The moksha is freedom

from these sensations - the puurnatvam, the samatvam - it is not

anubhava or experience in the form of mystic experience that comes

and goes, but anubhava in the form of full freedom from all

limitations. The understanding is complete when the samsaara

bhaavana or vipariita bhaavana goes away- Hence the benefit of this

understanding is HERE and NOW - That I am eternally free and never

was bound for any process of un-bounding required. Hence inquiry is

to be done using shaastra sammata tarka.

 

With this Shankara's commentary on the second suutra is over. Next

the conclusion part.

 

Notes on Brahmasuutra-s are now stored in a folder and can be accessed at

advaitin/Notes+on+Brahmasuutra/

for personal study.

 

Copyright Protection - These notes are copyright protected.

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Sign of old-age is showing up! The notes just posted should be Notes

BSB-I-i-2-1D rather 1E. Please make corrections to the the title.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

NO!! I think you danced too much around the stage and got

exhausted, and posted it without mailing the draft to Dennis and

myself!! Remember you are old [puraaNaH] but ever new!!

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

advaitin , "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

> Sign of old-age is showing up! The notes just posted should be

Notes

> BSB-I-i-2-1D rather 1E. Please make corrections to the the title.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

> --

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

>Namaste,

>

> NO!! I think you danced too much around the stage and got

>exhausted, and posted it without mailing the draft to Dennis and

>myself!! Remember you are old [puraaNaH] but ever new!!

>

>Regards,

>

>s.

Actually dancing didn't do it. That is the part of life's drama and

we will stop dancing when the life leaves us. One can say He is

dancing through the equipments and why bother about it. That is

true too. Dennis says no you have no free will to dance, it has been

determined as the vector sum under the circumstances. That is also

true too. Murthy gaaru says all dancing is all due to His grace - I

am sure he would include the resulting exhaustion is also part of His

grace - of course that is true since without his grace nothing can

dance. But the real truth transcends all. And that is, ..........

 

The fact of the matter is I had originally had split notes into

shorter versions and some how compressed to make each little larger

and in the process the letter designation got mixed up.

 

Sunder it looks like you are also aging with me being ageless! I did

send the draft and got back from you the corrected one. Looks like

Dennis has already provided the new words.

 

Does the glossary file also go into the Brahmasuutra folder?

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

But the real truth transcends all. And that is, ..........

>

>

> Sunder it looks like you are also aging with me being ageless! I

did

> send the draft and got back from you the corrected one. Looks like

> Dennis has already provided the new words.

>

> Does the glossary file also go into the Brahmasuutra folder?

 

Namaste Sadaji,

 

That's for sure! The draft was picked up from the posting,

and it did not arrive by e-mail as usual!

 

Yes, Dennis has sent me the new word-list.

 

I was waiting for the completion of this round of postings to upload

the glossary to the folder. If you would like it done sooner, I shall

proceed.

 

Regards,

 

s.

[Guest guest]

>

>Yes, Dennis has sent me the new word-list.

>

>I was waiting for the completion of this round of postings to upload

>the glossary to the folder. If you would like it done sooner, I shall

>proceed.

>

>Regards,

>

>s.

Sunder there is no hurry. Take your sweet time. -Sada

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623