Notes on BSB I-i-2-1D

[Guest guest]

Inadvertently an uncorrected version got posted in the morning. Here

is the corrected version. (These passive voices are useful, aren't

they, to put the blame on non-free will factors!). Please substitute

the new version in place of the old. The contents, of course, remain

the same, since it is 'vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam' (the

transformation is only apparent in the name and form) and we are

advaitins!

 

 

Notes on BSB I-i-2-1D

 

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

sarvaj~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

sarva-j~na and sarva-shaktimaan due to sarva kaaraNatvaat - cause for

everything.

 

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

thing - the meaning is yasmaat abhinna nimitta upaadaana kaaraNaat ,

aananda swaruupaat , sarva-j~naat , sarva shaktaat , pratyaksha

prapa~nchasya sR^ishhTi sthiti layaaH sambhavanti , 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

be done only after it is established that there is something called

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

pramaaNaabhyaam vastu 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 shaastram - shaastra 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 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 li~Ngaka 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.

 

Advaitin 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 taarkika and the vedantin. For

taarkika 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 iishwara sidhhi. Shankara

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 or anumaana pramaaNa. These

include saa~Nkhya, 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

shruti pramaaNam only as subservient to anumaaNa. Uniqueness of

Brahmasutra 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 Vedas. 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 vedaanta vaakyam -s. Here the garland is

the vedaanta 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 vedantic philosophy.

Hence the second suutra does not provide an independent anumaana

pramaaNa but it is there to analyze the vedaanta vaakyam quoted

before: "etova imaani bhuutaani jaayante ...." to provide lakshaNa

suutra but not pramaaNa suutra. - This is the simpler answer

Shankara 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 anumaana 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. kshitya~Nkuradhikam (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 - yat yat kaaryam tat tat 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 anumaana vaakyam is, jagat kartaa iishvaraH , jiiva bhinnatve

sati 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 iishvara , 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 jiiva

bhinnatve sati chetanam tat iishvaraH - whatever is conscious being

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

is - iishvaraH sarva-j~naH sarva-kartR^itvaat vyatirekeNa kulaalavat

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

unlike alpa-j~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 sarva-j~natvam api bhavati. This is called

lakshaNa li~Ngaka anumaanam. Thus nayyayika logically establishes

sarva-j~na iishvaraH, omniscient Lord. Therefore he argues that

existence of Iswara can be established logically and we do not need

Vedas to do that. A modern day rational intellect is more happy with

a nayyayika than a Vedantin who relies 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, kaaryatvaat, ghaTavat - the world is a creation because

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

j~naanam - yat yat 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 asiddhiH since there is no pratyaksha or

direct observation of the creation of the universe by Iswara.

 

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

bhinnatve sati 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 Iswara.

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: iishvaraH sarva-j~naH sarva-kartR^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 - iishvaraH 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 sa.nsaara - since Ishwara cannot have sa.nsaara, He is

made devoid of mind. Since according to nayyayikaa 's 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 sarva-j~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

Purnananda Saraswati which itself is a commentary on bhaashya

ratnaprabhaa by Govindananda Saraswati which is in turn a comentary

on Shankara Bhashya).

 

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 iishvara sidhhiH, na tu

kevala tarkeNa , or shushhka tarkeNa iishvara 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 mantavyaH indicates tarka is imporant for understanding

Vedanta. In fact the whole Brahmasutra 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~nana kaandam - 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 - karma-kaandasya

saadhya-vishhayatvaat 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 sa.nshayaH 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 one's 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 one's 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 sa.nsaara 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-binding 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