Notes on BSB I-i-4-1D

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSB I-i-4-1D

 

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

samanvaya adhikaraNam.h .-4

suutra: tat tu samanvayaat.h .-1D

 

 

We have been discussing the Shankara's presentation of puurva

miimaa.nsaa puurvapaksha under the explanation of the word 'tu'.

 

puurva miimaa.nasaka-s reject that siddhabodhaka vaakyam-s,

statements of facts, which are essentially the whole of j~naakaanDa,

as apramaaNaani or invalid, since they are not useful. However, in

presenting these, puurva miimaa.nsaka-s themselves encounter a

problem in their arguments. The puurva miimaa.nsaka-s accept that the

whole Veda as pramaaNam, since it is

apaurushheyam, and hence does not have any defects that can arise if

it is authored by a human intellect (nirdushhTa pramaaNa- defect-free

pramaaNam). puurvamiimaa.nsaka-s do not accept iishwara as the

revealer of the Veda-s. For them Veda is ultimate and it is

unrevealed even by

iishwara since they are eternal and anaadi or beginningless. For

puurvamiimaa.nsaka the Veda enjoys the same status as iishwara. But

through this aamnaayatvaat suutram he has divided the Veda into two

parts - siddhabodhaka vaakyam and kaaryabodhaka vaakyam - of which

the farmer is apramaaNam. Hence he made now the part of the Veda as

apramaaNam.

 

The question they had to face is how can one accept on one side the

whole Veda as pramaaNam and on the other side reject part of it as

apramaaNam. For that they say that siddhabodhaka vaakyam-s are

apramaaNam in the direct sense but they are useful indirectly, when

they are applied. All the siddhabodhaka vaakyam-s help indirectly the

implementation of kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s. For example when Veda-s

are glorifying heaven, swarga (see sloka quoted before), naturally we

get a desire to go there. Once the desire comes, one looks for the

means to go there and Veda-s help him instructing that jyotishhtomena

swarga kaamo yajeta - a desiree of swarga should do the ritual

jyotishhTa.

 

Thus student is directed to kaaryabodhaka vaakyam because he learned

about swarga. Learning about swarga did not help him directly to go

to swarga but indirectly helped him to have a desire and which caused

of action that he has to do to go to swarga. Hence all swarga varNana

vaakyam (statements describing heaven) should be linked to kaarya

bodhaka vaakyam - jyotishhTomena swarga kaamo yajeta. When they are

linked like that to kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s they become useful hence

become pramaaNam. Thus the whole Veda is pramaaNam, part dealing with

kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s are directly, while the part dealing with

siddhabodhaka vaakyam are only indirectly by linking to kaaryabodhaka

vaakyam-s. This aspect is conveyed by another puurvamiimaa.nsaa

suutram - vidhinaathu ekavaakyatvaat stutyarthena vidhinaamsyuH -

vidhinaam means kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s, eka vaakyatvaat means

sambandhavatvaat, by linking with, stutyarthena vidhiinaa, by

assisting kaaryabodhaka vaakyam they become pramaaNam. They use two

technical words - siddhabodhaka vaakyam-s are sheshha or dependent

and kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s are sheshhi, independent. sheshha-sheshhi

sambandhaH or mukhya-amukhya sambandhaH. Hence they consider that any

Vedantic statements (upanishhadic statements) are independently

useless. They have to be linked to one or the other kaaryabodhaka

vaakyam-s for them to be indirectly useful. They are useless unless

it is hooked to some kaaryabodhaka statement. That is why some people

claim that Vedanta has to be put into practice or to be applied.

 

What about Brahman revealed in Vedanta - satyam j~naanam anantam

brahma. puurvamiimaa.nsaaka-s says - there is no such thing called

Brahman at all. It is only a bhrama or illusion. This negation of

Brahman is there in both praabhaakara and bhaaTTamatam-s. Veda will

not reveal Brahman because Brahman is utterly useless. Upanishads

clearly state that Brahman is not attainable or knowable, by

statements such as adreshyam, agraahyam, it is imperceptible and it

cannot be grasped by the intellect, etc. Brahman is avyayahaaryam,

being so it is not available for any transaction. It cannot be a

subject, an object, an instrument, a locus etc , it is not a kartaa,

karma, kriya, karaNam, sampradaanam, or apaadaanam - Vedantins

themselves say that it is kriyaa kaaraka phala vilakshaNam - it is

neither an end nor a means to an end. Hence brahman na asti. There is

no such thing called Brahman.

 

What about aatma j~naanam, self-knowledge. That also is not

acceptable since self is intimately known to everyone. Why should

Veda reveal that which is already siddham or self-evident?

Swatasiddhasya aatmanaH vedavedyatvam kathaM bhavati? - pramaaNa

should reveal something, which is not known otherwise. Since aatmaa

is self-evident, why should Veda waste its breath to reveal

something, which is already known. Then what is use of Vedanta?

Whenever aatmaa is talked about in Vedanta one should take it as

statement glorifying the yajamaana or doer of the

ritual, so that he will be so happy to perform the ritual. It is like

a mother-feeding a child telling the stories of how great the child

is so that the child can eat the food. Wherever Brahman is talked

about, it should be understood as the glorification of yaaga

devata-s, the deities of rituals, so that the yajamaana is encouraged

to offer oblations to those devata-s. Thus all the Vedantic

statements have to be connected to the kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s,

statements of injunctions.

 

If every Vedantic statement has to be connected to one or the other

kaaryabodhaka vaakyam, the question arises which one to be connected

to what? Is it optional or is there some rule of connection? With

respect to this technical point, the two matam-s, the bhaaTTamatam

and praabhaakara matam differ.

 

According bhaTTamatam, all the j~naanakaanDa vaakyam-s should be

connected to karmakaanDa vidhi vaakyam or kriyaa vaakyaani.

praabaakara-s disagrees that this connection can be that arbitrary.

The karmakaanDa vaakyam-s are far away from the Vedantic vaakyam-s,

the arbitrary

connection he calls as prakaraNa bhedaH, totally far apart. According

to him the j~naanavaakyam-s should be connected to the closest

kaaryavaakyam-s. In the j~naanakaanDa itself there are many upaasana

vaakyam-s which are kaaryabodhakam. Hence all the brahmabodhana

statements should be connected to upaasana-s prescribed in Vedanta.

Because of this the person achieves purushaartha, and that is the

final goal of kaaryam, action. There is no direct use of j~naanam,

one has to do something, that something can be karma as in

karmakaanDa or upaasanaa as in j~naanakaanDa. Action is the essence

of Veda.

 

So far we have discussed puurvapaksha of puurvamiimaa.nsaa consisting

of both praabhaakara and bhaaTTamata-s.

 

We next take up Shankara's siddhaanta.

 

********

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