Notes on BSB I-i-4-1C

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSB - I-i-4-1C

 

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

samanvaya adhikaraNam.h .

suutra: tat tu samanvayaat.h .

 

 

Now The Analysis of the word 'tu':

 

We will now analyze the word 'tu', which we skipped before for

convenience. It is the most important word of this suutra. This

simple looking word 'tu' received the most elaborate analysis by

Bhagavatpada Shankara.

 

The word 'tu' is used for emphasis. In English it means only or

alone. We have said that Brahman is the subject matter of Vedanta

shaastram. By adding 'tu' Vyasacharya is emphasizing that Brahman

alone is the subject matter of Vedanta shaastra. This is called

avadhaaraNam or emphasis. Indirectly Vyasa is implying that nothing

else is the subject matter. Hence every emphasis involves indirectly

a negation of non-essentials. This exclusion in Sanskrit is called

vyaavR^itti - thus every avadhaaraNam implies a vyaavR^itti. tu

shabdhaH vyavR^ityarthaH. Hence Shankara says 'tu' involves

puurvapaksha vyaavR^itti artham. By using the word 'tu', Vyasa is

negating all other interpretations, and all other puurvapakshi-s.

Here the puurvapakshi-s include all those who claim that the subject

matter of Vedanta shaastram is other than Brahman. Who are those

puurvapaksha-s? Obviously it includes only those who analyze the

Vedanta shaastram. Hence naastika-s are not of concern here since

they do not believe in Veda pramaaNa. Hence the puurvapaksha-s are

the aastika-s, that is those who accept Veda pramaaNam. There are six

aastika darshhanam - saa.nkhya, yoga, nyaaya, vaisheshhika, puurva

miimaa.nsaa and uttaramiimaa.nsa or vedaanta (see Introductory

chapter for details). The first five are the possible puurvapaksha in

relation to Vedanta. Of these we reduced them to three since saankhya

and yoga are practically the same and they are bunched as one as

saa.nkhya-yoga system. Similarly nyaaya and vaisheshhika are almost

the same and together are referred to as nyaaya-vaisheshhika system.

Hence the three puurvapaksha-s; saa.nkhya-yoga, nyaaya-vaisheshika

and puurvamiimaa.nsaa are negated using the word 'tu'. Vyasa has to

negate each one. He considers saa.nkhya-yoga as the most powerful

puurvapaksha. Hence he spends the rest of the first chapter, from

fifth to one-hundred & thirty four, for two tasks; establishing

Vedanta that is brahma samanvaya and negating saa.nkhya-yoga

puurvapaksha. Hence the rest of the 130 suutra-s in this chapter is a

commentary on the word 'tu'. He extends this negation of

saa.nkhya-yoga even to the second chapter. The nyaaya-vaisheshhika is

not looked upon as that powerful but only a weak puurvapaksha for

refutation. In the second chapter nyaaya-vaisheshhika is discussed

very briefly. In one suutra Vyasa says it is not at all relevant.

 

puurvamiimaa.nsaa is only left out. It is the ritualistic section of

the Veda and is analyzed using sutra format by Jaimini maharshi, who

was in fact a disciple of Vyasacharya. There is a bhaashhyam also for

this suutra by shabara swami - shaabara bhaashhyam. Shankara holds

this bhaashhyam with high regard. We normally do not consider the

puurvamiimaa.nsaa and shaarbara bhaashhyam as puurvapaksha at all,

since the puurva bhaaga of Veda-s are relevant and useful since it is

a means for dharma, artha and kaama - dharma artha kaama

purushhaartha siddhyarthaM puurvamiimaa.nsaa atyantam upakaarakam. In

addition it is useful for chittashuddhi, for purification of the

mind. Hence it is called dharma shaastram. It is helpful to obtain

the saadhana chatushhTaya sampatti, discussed with reference to

suutra 1. Hence puurvamiimaa.nsaa is not really a puurvapaksha. But

we emphasize that puurvamiimaa.nsaa cannot give moksha. According to

Vedantins, Jaimini as well as Shabara muni also accept this. However

later there were subcommentators who wrote subcommentaries on the

shaabara bhaashhyam and presented the puurvamiimaa.nsaa as a means of

moksha. Subsequently the subcommentators pushed their arguments

further to claim that puurvamiimaa.nsaa alone gives moksha, and

uttaramiimaa.nsaa is utterly useless. Therefore the puurvamiimaa.nsaa

as presented by these subcommentators forms puurvapaksha. Here

puurvapaksha does not include other vedantins such as

vishishhTaadvaita and Dvaita but only with non-vedantins. The

difference of opinions among the vedantins in the interpretation of

Brahmasuutra comes under yaadaviiya kalahaM, internal differences

only in interpretations since all vedantins come under one category

as uttaramiimaa.nsaka-s. Here all the puurvapakshins are aastika

anyottaramiimaa.nsaka-s. Vyasacharya is going to negate elaborately

the saa.nkhya-yoga and to some extent the nyaaya-vaisheshhika in the

first and second chapters, since those two were considered important

at that time. Since Vyasa does not discuss the puurvamiimaa.nsaa to

that extent, Shankara uses this opportunity to cover also the

puurvamiimaa.nsaa elaborately in his bhaashhyam under the pretext of

the word 'tu', Brahman alone or only. This is because of the renewed

emphasis on puurvamiimaa.nsaa or karmakaanDa at the time of Shankara,

due to the influence of Prabhakara and Kumarila Bhatta, who were the

two influential sub-commentators of the shaabara bhaashhyam of the

Jaiminisuutra-s. The story of the debate between Shankara and Mandana

Misra, the disciple of Kumarila Bhatta is well known. Kumarila

Bhatta's subcommentary is in the form of vartikam or verses known as

bhaTTa vaartikam-s and the philosophy that was expounded based on the

puurvamiimaa.nsaa is called bhaaTTamatam. Similarly Prabhakara's

commentary which is in prose form is called bR^ihatii. There he

presents another version of puurvamiiimaa.nsaa called

praabhaakaramatam. Hence bhaaTTamatam and praabhaakaramatam form the

puurvamiimaa.nsaa puurvapaksha-s for our analysis.

 

First the discussion of puurvapaksha. Under this we will first

discuss the common views of both matam-s and later point out where

they differ. Later we negate the puurvapaksha using siddhaanta. This

is like exercise while learning atomic theories; first we learn about

Rutherford model and then later we discard it for the better quantum

mechanical model. It provides the glimpse of the logic of the thought

that went in the analysis. As noted in the very introduction of the

suutra-s, all this analysis and the study of Brahmasutra is not

necessary for a saadhak for self-realization, but would help in

confirmation of his understanding, particularly when the mind is

still full of doubts about the nature of the reality and means to

accomplish the goal.

 

According to puurvamiima.nsaka-s, the entire Veda or Vedic statements

can be broadly classified into two types. 1) siddha bodhaka vaakyaani

or statements of facts 2) kaarya bodhaka vaakyaani or statements of

commandments persuading one to act, consisting of imperative and

potential moods - kuryaat, kartavyaH, na hantavyaH, etc - statements

of injunctions. Statements of facts will lead one to only knowledge,

where as the statement of commandments or injunctions will lead one

to action. They further argue that since the siddhabodhaka vaakyaani

or statement of facts give only knowledge, they are not much of

benefit to us. This is because mere j~naanam will not help in

accomplishing anything. Knowing itself is not an accomplishment or

end in itself. Hence j~naanam does not give any purushhaartha, it is

utterly useless. For example, if I come to know that there is a

heaven; I have only the information about the heaven now. By knowing

that there is a heaven what benefit do I get? In fact it can make me

more miserable because I have now something to compare with. Hence

knowledge does not give any benefit. If you go to a doctor, the

doctor diagnoses and says this is the disease you have. Now I have

clear knowledge of the my disease. Previously I used call it as

stomachache but now I call it with more sophisticated technical name.

How does that knowledge relieve my pain? Knowledge does not give

either sukha or sukhapraaptiH or get rid of pain or duHkha

nivR^ittiH. It does not give any purushhaartha - that involves sukha

praapti or duHkha nivR^itti or both. Therefore j~naanam does not give

any benefit. siddhabodhaka vaakyaani aprayojanaani -For example, aham

brahmaasmi - aham brahmaasmi - knowing that how does the problem is

solved. Even after knowing aham brahmaasmi, the headache or

stomachache that one has still remains. The starving pains due to

poverty in the house still remains. One still has to pay for school

fees. Did it solve family problems? Did it solve national problems?

Did it solve the problems due to hunger and poverty in India? Did it

solve the war between India and Pakistan or China? What does one get

out of any knowledge particularly the Vedanta j~naanam? On the other

hand kaaryabhodhaka vaakyaani make one to do something and by doing

alone we get some puurushhaartha in the form of either sukhapraapti

or duHkhanivR^itti. Medicine knowledge did not remove the pains only

kaaryam involving taking the medicine relieves the pain. Similarly

knowledge of heaven does not give any benefit.

 

swarge loke na bhayam ki.ncha naasti,

na tatra tvam na jarayaa bibheti,

ubhe tiirtvaa ashanaayaa pipaase,

shokaatigo modate swargaloke || (KaTha. U. 1-1-12)

 

Nachiketa says to Yama, the Lord of Death, there is no fear in the

heavens, you (death) are not there to have any effect. No fear of

oldage and disease. No pains due to hunger and thirst. Without any

sorrows one enjoys the heavenly bliss.

 

The above statements come under siddhabodhaka vaakyam. It says heaven

is so wonderful, etc. By knowing what do I gain. On the other hand by

doing a ritual - jyotishhToma yaga- based on the kaarya bodhaa

vaakyam one can go to heaven. jyotishhTomena swarga kaamo yajeta -

which asks one to do jyotishhToma yaga by which one can attain as

purushhaartha the heavens. Hence puurvapakshi-s assert that all the

kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s will lead to actions which will lead to

either sukhapraapti or duHkha niV^itti. Hence kaaryabodhaka vaakyams

are saprayojanaaNi or useful.

 

In support of their arguments puurvapakshii-s show that many Vedantic

scholars are direct proof for their assertion. They argue that even

after any amount of Vedantic teaching, the student still asks in the

end, what should I do here after? Why they want to do something? They

ask - give me a practical recipe so that I can practice or do. Give

me a mantra so that I can do japam. Now that I know I am Brahman,

what should I do now? Enough of this intellectual analysis and

studies of Brahmasutra-s etc will not help. It is just a waste of

time. What we need to do is we need to sit down and meditate or

contemplate. Every student asks for doing something since he feels

that he has not benefited much out of just the study of Vedanta. This

is only because by action only something can be achieved and not just

by knowledge. If the students got benefit from knowledge as Vedantins

claim then why should they want to do something. Hence we cannot but

conclude that siddhabodhaka vaakyaani aprayojanaani, kaaryabodhaa

vaakyaanii eva saprayojanaani. Both Praabhakara and Bhatta matams

agree with these assertions.

 

The third point is as follows. These puurvamiimaa.nsaka-s accept with

other aastika that Veda-s are pramaaNam. If all the credit of driving

Buddhi-ism out of India, it actually belongs to the

puurvamiimaa.nsaka. Kumarila Bhatta in fact disguised himself as a

student of Buddha to learn their intricate teachings and used that

knowledge only to defeat them later on their own grounds. For

deceiving his own teacher of Buddhism he later felt guilty and

immolated himself for the sin he has committed. Therefore

puurvamiimaa.nsaka-s accepts vedapramaaNam. What does it mean when we

say Veda is pramaaNam. The popular definition of pramaaNam is:

' anaadhigata abaadhita artha bodhakam pramaaNam' - pramaaNam reveals

something that which is not revealed by other pramaaNam

(anaadhigatam).

 

If Veda is pramaaNam it should reveal something that is not revealed

by pratyaksha or anumaana or logic not even by science. To be a valid

pramaaNa Veda has to reveal something, which is even beyond the scope

of science (objective). This is what anaadhigatam implies. The second

condition abaadhitam that which is not contradicted by other

pramaaNam. Veda should not reveal something, which contradicts our

pratyaksha pramaaNam. If Veda tells that fire is cold, it is rejected

since it is baadhitam, contradicted by pratyaksha. It should not make

illogical statements even if it is beyond logic. It should not

contradict science either. At the same time it should reveal

something that cannot be revealed by other pramaaNa. Hence it should

be, unrevealed and uncontradicted by other pramaaNam-s. To this

definition the puurvamiimaa.nsaka-s add one more qualification or

condition. The altered definition is anaadhigata abhaadita phalavat

arthabodhakam pramaaNam. Vedantins are not keen but do not reject the

added condition. phalavat means it should be saprayojanam, should be

useful. Hence pramaaNam is that which reveals something which is

useful and unrevealed and uncontradicted by other pramaaNam-s.

 

Since puurvapakshi-s argue that siddhabodhaka vaakyaani

aprayojanaani, kaaryabodhaka vaakyaani saprayojanaani (statements of

facts are useless and statements of commandments are useful),

applying the new definition of pramaaNa, they conclude that

siddhabodhaka vaakyaani apramaaNaani while kaaryabodhaka vaakyaani

pramaaNaani. That is the former are invalid as pramaaNa since they

are useless, while the latter are valid as they are useful. They

claim all these ideas have been revealed in one important jaimini

suutram which is key suutram. 'aamnaayasya kriyaarthatvaat

aanarthakyam athadarthaanaam' - aamnaayasya means vedasya,

kriyaarthatvaata meaning kaarya bodhakatvaat, statements of

injections being important (because they are useful), aanarthakyam

meaning apramaaNam (invalid referring to all other statements other

than kaarya bodhaka vaakyaani), athadarthaanaam meaning

sidhhabodhakaanaam, statements of facts. In summary it states that

the statements of commandments are valid and statement of facts are

invalid as pramaaNam, since the former is useful and the later is

useless.

 

The entire j~naanakaaNDam deals with only siddhavastu - talks about

Brahman, talks about sR^ishhTi or creation, talks about aatmaa but it

does not talk about any karma to be performed. The very word j~naana

indicates that it only gives us knowledge. We already established

that kevala j~naanam is aprayojanam or if it cannot be put into

action it is useless. Hence the entire j~naanakaaDam is apramaaNam or

invalid, siddhabodhaka vaakyatvaat. What benefit do I get by knowing

that Brahman is satyam j~naanam and anantam? What benefit do I get

that the five elements were created? What benefit do I get knowing

that there are pa~ncha kosha-s or pa~ncha praaNa-s in me? By mere

knowledge of these, I do not get any benefit, will not put dinner on

my table, will not remove the pain in my back or in the neck, or pay

the skyrocketing doctor's bill. Hence the entire j~naanakaaNDa is

useless. vedosharaaH vedaantaaH - Vedanta is like a desert in an

otherwise fertile land. This is the puurvamiimaa.nsaka-s puurvapaksha.

 

We will continue in the next post.

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

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

advaitinNotes+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