Notes on BSB I-i-4-1i

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSB I-i-4-1i

 

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 .-1i

 

 

We are currently discussing vR^ittikaara matam as a part of

puurvapaksha. This matam differs from puurvamiimaa.nsaka-s in that it

accepts the existence of Brahman. However, it s to the

theory that by just knowing Brahman one cannot gain Brahman. After

brahmaj~naanam one has to do upaasana to gain Brahman. There is some

similarity between this vR^ittikaara philosophy and Ramanuja's

vishishhTaadvaita in terms of saadhanaa where emphasis on upaasanaa

in addition to surrender or nyaasa to the Personified God-form is

emphasized as means for moksha. The similarity is only with reference

to the need for upaasanaa for moksha.

 

Shankara refutes this puurvapakshii. Shankara approaches this by

defining clearly the nature of moksha from different angles. He shows

that if one accepts the moksha definitions given, then one has to

conclude that such a moksha is never possible through upaasanaa ,

whatever be the upaasanaa. Here we are going to heavily criticize

upaasanaa just as Gaudapada does in

Mandukya-karika: III:1

 

upaasanaashritaH dharmaH, jaate brahmaNi vartate |

praagutpatteH ajam sarvam, tena asau kR^ipaNaH smR^itaH ||

 

Goudapada says every upaasaka (one who does upaasanaa) is an

unfortunate one. When we criticize upaasanaa, it should be understood

in the correct spirit. We are not criticizing upaasanaa totally. We

are criticizing upaasanaa presented as a means of moksha which comes

after brahma j~naanam. But we glorify upaasanaa before brahma

j~naanam as a means of mental purification. This has to be understood

clearly. What is criticized is vR^ittikaara's philosophy that states

upaasanaa as a means of moksha after acquiring brahma j~naanam.

According to Shankara, brahma j~naana anantaram kartavyam kimapi na

asti - after acquiring the brahma j~naanam there is no obligation to

do anything. Gita says:

 

Na eva tasya kR^itena arthaH na akR^itena iha kaschana |

na cha asya sarva-bhuuteshu kaschit artha-vyapaashrayaH || III:18

 

Because for that brahma j~naani there is no gain by performing any

action, there is no loss by not performing any action. Since he does

not depend on anything for his happiness, he has no self-centered

motivation to perform any action amidst all beings.

 

karmaNi akarma yaH pashyet akarmaNi cha karma yaH |

saH buddhimaan manushhyeshhu saH yuktaH kR^itsna-karma-kR^it.h || IV:18

 

One who sees inaction in action, action in inaction, he is the most

knowledgeable and yogi among men and he is fulfilled in terms of all

actions.

 

Hence j~naaana anantara upaasanaa we criticize but j~naana puurva

upaasanaa we glorify. Hence Shankara is going to criticize upaasanaa

as presented by the vR^ittikaara.

 

The definitions of moksha: The first one, which is normally given, is

a-shariirataa hi mokshaH - moksha is freedom from shariira

sambandhaH, freedom from body-relationships.

Naturally the opposite of that is sa.nsaara: sa-shariirataa hi

sa.nsaaraH - shariira sambandha is sa.nsaara. Where does Shankara

find these definitions? - From Chandogya Up. 4-12-1:

 

- nahhavai sa shariirasya sataH priyaapriayayoH apahatiH asti |

- ashariiram vaa va santaM na priyaa priye spR^ishataH||

 

When atmaa is embodied due to the notion of ego it suffers from likes

and dislikes. Along as one is embodied the likes and dislikes do not

leave. When there is no shariira, the likes and dislikes do not

touch that aatma. Hence Shankara says as long as shariira sambandha

is there sukha

and duHkha opposites cannot be avoided and that is sa.nsaara.

 

The moksha is - ashariiraM vaa va santaM na priyaapriye spR^ishataH |

One for whom there is no shariira sambandha the priya and apriyaa

will not touch. Having given the definition, Shankara says - both

karma and upaasanaa are actions, one is kaayikaM karma, physical

action and the other is maanasaM karma, mental action. Wherever

actions are there, there will be both quantitative and qualitative

gradations, taaratamyam, in those actions. Hence there will be

taaratamya or gradations in the puNya or merits produced also. Hence

the results also will have taaratamya or gradations in the

puNyaphala. The type of bodies that one gets depending on the puNya

phalam. Hence puNyaM can only improve sa-shariiratvam but cannot make

you a-shariiraH that is improvement in the body that one does not go

beyond the body. One can get human body or even divine body of Indra

or bR^ihaspati or prajaapati etc. Any amount of karma and upaasanaa

will keep one only with sa-shariiratvam wherein gradations cannot be

avoided - priya and apriya or likes and dislikes cannot be avoided -

hence sa.nsaara cannot be avoided. Hence Shankara says four things

are interrelated - karma or upaasanaa, puNyam or merits,

sa-shariiratvam or acquiring a body, and

sa.nsaaraH. One will get caught up in this cycle as long as karma or

upaasanaa is there. That is the reason we never accept moksha that

involves going to some loka or field of experience. In other systems

of philosophy the moksha is defined as going to some loka where God

is residing. Advaita

never accepts this as moksha as long as it is a loka and as long as

the jiiva retains their individuality -he will have sa-shariiratvam.

There will then be gradations that will lead to comparisons, some are

more fortunate being close to the Lord compared to the other etc.

(First class versus business class versus economy seats depending on

ones upaasana phala or credit card balance!) Hence Shankara's first

argument is upaasanaa phalam mokshaH na bhavati - Moksha cannot be

the result of a upaasanaa.

 

tasmaat upaasana phalam sa-sariiratvam eva bhavati naiva

a-shariiratvam. As a result of upaasanaa one gets only field of

experience with different types of bodies and as long as there is a

body there will be gradations in phalam - as Tai. Upa. says:

II:viii:1 :

 

te ye shatam manushhya gandharvaaNaam anandaaH |

sa eko deva gandharvaaNaam aanandaH| ..

te ye shatam deva gandharvaaNaam aanandaaH |

... sa eka indrasyaanandaH |

te ye shatam indrasyaanandaaH |

sa eko bR^ihaspate aanandaH |

te ye shatam bR^ihaspateH annandaaH |

sa ekaH prajaapateH aanandaH |

 

One is happier than the other. The happiness of Gandharva-s is

hundred times that of human. Deva's happiness is hundred times that

of Gandharva-s. Indra's happiness is hundred times that of deva-s,

and Prajapati's ananda is hundred times that of Indra. Hence as long

as one has body, there are gradations in types of bodies and

gradations in happiness that one gets. Hence moksha is obtained not

by karma not by upaasanaa, but by knowledge alone.

 

But one can say all other upaasanaa-s can give better sa-shariiratvam

whereas brahma upaasanaa can be so powerful that it can give moksha

with a-shariiratvam that is without a body. Shankara says no.

A-shariirataa cannot be result of any karma or upaasanaa. This is

because a-shariiratvam

is the very intrinsic nature of aatmaa or the self. Whatever is the

intrinsic nature (swadhrama) of a thing, it should be there always.

That is the definition of intrinsic nature, that is intrinsic swataH

siddham, just as the heat is the intrinsic nature of the fire.

Shankara says a-shariirataa is the very intrinsic nature of every

jiiva, and being nature, it is nitya siddha swaruupam, eternally

accomplished thing. On the other hand, any karma or upaasanaa phalam

is not available now but it will come later after the completion of

that karma or upaasanaa. Hence karma or upaasanaa phalam is not

siddham (already acquired) but saadhyam (yet to be acquired). Hence

a-shariirataa which is a nitya siddham of jiiva cannot be equated to

saadhyam which is yet to be acquired. Therefore a-shariirataa ruupa

mokshaH, liberation that is free from any body, cannot be the result

of upaasanaa phalam.

 

This raises the question that on what basis one can say that

a-shariirataa is the very nature of aatmaa. The shruti [Katha

I:ii:22] says:

 

a-shariiram shariireshhu anavastheshhu avasthitaM mahaantaM vibhuM

aatmaanaM matvaa dhiiro na shocati |

 

Thus upanishads clearly state that aatmaa is a-shariiram. In Mundaka

Upa. 2-1-2 says:

 

divyo hi amuurtaH purushhaH sa baahyaabhyantaro hi ajaH |

apraaNo hi amanaaH shubhro aksharaat parataH paraH ||

 

amuurtaH means sthuula shariira rahitaH (without gross body), apraaNa

amaNaaH means suukshma shariira rahitaH (without subtle body) and

shubhraH means kaaraNa shariira rahitaH (without causal body) - Thus

upanishads says aatmaa is shariira-traya varjitaH, without the three

bodies. In the Mundaka, I:i:6 it says :

 

yat tat adreshyam agraahyam agotram avarNam achakshuH-shrotram tat

apaaNi- paadam -

 

it cannot be seen, it cannot be grasped, from relations, and color

or caste etc. and no eyes, ears, hands and legs etc.- thus

emphasizing a-shariirataa.

 

In Ishaavaasya Upa. mantra 8:

 

sa paryagaat shukram akaayam avraNam asnaaviram shuddham apaapaviddham -

 

thus says aatmaa is all pervading consciousness and is akaayam -

meaning a-shariiram, without a body. asnaaviram, shuddham apaapa

viddham - means shariira-traya rahitaH aatmaa -free from gross,

subtle and causal bodies. Hence a-shariirataa is not a goal to be

accomplished by karma or upaasanaa but it is a fact to be recognized.

Hence it cannot be upaasanaa phalam. - expressing this in anumaana

vaakyam (Refer to Ch. II of the notes for anumaana) - mokshaH na

upaasanaa saadhyaH, siddhatvaat, chaitanyavat.

 

There comes a side objection from a secondary puurvapakshii (a

madhyasthaH) - how can an advaitin define a-shariirataa as moksha -

if he does that then he cannot accept jiivanmukti, that is a

liberation while living in the body, that is he is liberated yet

sa-shariiraH. Hence moksha will be only after death when the body

falls down. Shankara says jiivanmukti is possible. jiivamukta is

a-shariira only. The others around him may think he is sa-shariira.

It is their problem. The upanishad-s reveal a-shariiratvam as our

very nature or swa-swaruupam. Then when am I

a-shariira? The upanishad-s point out that I am a-shariiraH all the

time, it is swa-swaruupam, one's very intrinsic nature - nitya

a-shariiraH as stated by the upanishad-s above. Secondly aatmanaH

asa~NgaH - asa~NgaH na hi sajyate - asa~NgaH hi ayam purushhaH (Bri.

Up III:ix:26) - It cannot have any relationship with any object -

like aakaasha - like space. Hence aatma asa~Ngatvaat nityam

a-shariiraH - It is eternally formless since it is not related to any

thing, like space. shariira sambandha (relationship with body) comes

as a result of karma phalam. Karma-phalam comes only to a kartaa or

doer. aatma being ever a-kartaa - there is no question of karma and

hence karma phala and hence body to experience karma-phalam - hence

aatmaa nitya akartR^itvaat shariira sambandhaH na eva bhavati -

aatmaa being non-doer has no relation to body. Hence aatmanaH

a-shariiratvam nitya siddham.

 

If so then how can one say sa-shariiratvam is sa.nsaara - since there

will never be a sa.nsaara since aatmaa is eternally a-shariiraH. For

that Shankara says although aatmaa is nitya a-shariiraH, it can be

mistaken as sa-shariiraH. aatmaa cannot become sa-shariiraH but it is

mistaken as

sa-shariiraH - as Murphy's Law states (Murphy's upanishadic mantra!)

that what can go wrong will go wrong! - Hence sa-shariiratvam is

adhyaasa siddham - hence Shankara says that is the reason why I wrote

first adhyaasa bhaashhyam! If sa-shariiratvam is due to error then

how does one get

a-shariiratvam? If rope is mistaken for a snake then how can one get

the snake converted back to rope? There is no conversion process - it

is only understanding or knowledge that, there was, there is and

there will be rope only all the time and never a snake to start with.

Hence sa-shariiratvam is

adhyaasa or error and it is not by dying one gets a-shariiratvam but

by knowing that aham aatmaa nitya shariiraH sambandha varjitaH asmi -

I was, I am and I will ever be aatmaa without a body or without any

body-relations. I am ever free from shariira sambandha.

 

Hence jiivanmukta is a-shariiraH only. So is aj~naani a-shariiraH or

sa-shariiraH? He is also a-shariiraH but he does not know that -He

thinks he is sa-shariiraH and hence he is aj~naani. Shankara quotes

Bri. Up.IV:iv:7 that says:

 

tat yathaa ahinirlvayanii valmiike mR^itaa pratyastaa shayiita evam evedam

shariiragm shete | athaayaM ashariiraH amR^itaH praaNaH brahma eva

tejaH eva saH aham.h |

 

It gives the example of the snake and its skin. The snake removes its

skin and skin continues to be there close to the snake. But snake has

no attachment to its discarded skin. Hence whatever happens to the

skin the snake is not affected. In the same way the j~naani continues

to be in the

body but whatever happens to the body he does not claim that it is

happening to him. It is not that the body becomes free from karma -

it undergoes its own course (praarabdha-karma) but j~naani never

claims those pleasures and pains as his pleasures and pains. He says

aham nitya ashariiraH.

 

Giita says: II:56

 

duHkheshhu anudvignamanaaH sukheshhu vigata-spR^ihaH |

viita-raaga-bhaya-krodhaH sthita-dhiiH muniH uchyate ||

 

Hence a-shariiratvam is moksha and moksha is nitya siddha. By j~naana

it is owned-up and it is not a product of upaasanaa.

 

That completes the first argument for why moksha cannot be the result

of upaasanaa.

 

Shankara provides a few more arguments, which we will discuss in the next post.

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

End of the 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

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

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

 

Thanks for sharing this. I am in awe of the erudition. As an

English speaking person, however, this argument is very difficult

to follow without a dictionary at hand to translate all these terms.

(The fault is not yours, but mine, let me add). Nonetheless, for

the laymen, this is like reading an artcile on advanced

mathematics or physics. It's not that the laymen isn't smart

enough to grasp the ideas or logical argument, but unless he

know, for example, what the terms of quantum-chromodynamics

are, he will not understand about "strangness,spin,color"

"up" and "down" and so on in reference to quarks! (Or perhaps

even know what a "quark" is! <g>

 

For starters, just what is "upaasanaa?" With even that "leg up"

the whole argument that follows would be a lot easier to

understand. I beg your patience on this, because your ideas are

worth understanding.

 

Respectfully,

Steve

[Guest guest]

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

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

>

>

>For starters, just what is "upaasanaa?" With even that "leg up"

>the whole argument that follows would be a lot easier to

>understand. I beg your patience on this, because your ideas are

>worth understanding.

>

>Respectfully,

>Steve

 

Upaasana can be ritualistic prayers, glorification of God singing

hymes and prayers and meditation on the Lord etc. Upa means near and

aasana means sittting - Sitting near the God or prayer room or near

the alter of meditation (physically and mentally) and contemplating

on the Lord - that involves action on the part of the seeker - that

is what is upaasana.

 

Steve these are not my ideas - this is my notes on Shankara-s

bhaashyam on Brahmasuutra. The glossary of the words will be posted

soon by Sundar. In the folder in archives you may find Brahmasuutra

folder where in previous posts are there along with glossary.

 

HariOm!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623