Notes on BSB I-i-1-4J

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the delay in posting this notes - we are streamlining the

editing processes and hopefully these processes become smooth. My

sincere thanks to Geetha who took up the major responsibility in the

editing process, and to Sunder and Dennis as usual for their efforts.

-Any mistakes obviously are mine. Hari Om! Sadananda

--\

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

 

 

Notes on BSB I-i-1-4J

 

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 .-1

suutra: tat tu samanvayaat.h .-4J

 

We are discussing Shankara's response to the vR^ittikaara's arguments

that upaasanaa is required after acquiring brahma-j~naanam. In the

last post we have presented the first argument of Shankara and in

this we present the other three arguments. As we noted in the

previous notes, these arguments have relevance also in relation to

vishishhTa-advaita as well as dvaita approaches to moksha.

 

2. For the second argument, Shankara gives a second definition of

moksha from a different angle.

brahma bhaavaH hi mokshaH | -

 

This definition is given since every philosopher agrees that moksha

or liberation is nitya or eternal. From the scriptures, from adviatic

point, we come to know that there is only one nitya vastu that is

Brahman (dwaitins and vishishhTa-advaitins do not accept this, but do

accept that moksha is nitya - – yat gatvaa na nivartante tat dhaama

paramaM mama –) Gita | (15:6)

 

Therefore from adviata point moksha and Brahman have to be one and

the same. Hence moksha praaptiH is equal to brahma praaptiH.

Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati – knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. The

question of 'Can moksha be upaasana phalam?' translates now to ' Can

Brahman be upaasana phalam?'. brahma bhaavaH upaasanena labhyate vaa

na vaa ?-

 

Shankara says any karma or upaasanaa can produce only four types of

results or phalam: 1. aaptiH, meaning reaching -Thus by doing an

action we can reach a place. 2. utpattiH, meaning production - Just

as a farmer producing the produce. 3. vikaaraH, meaning modification

or conversion - Converting a bangle into a chain. 4. san.skaaraH,

meaning purification - Purification of water for drinking.

 

The question is - 'Can Brahman come under any one of the four types

for it to be a phalam?'.

(a) Reaching Brahman is out of question, brahmanaH sarvagatatvaat

(Brahman is all pervading) - If Brahman is all pervading and moksha

is attaining Brahman - and what should one do for that -some say that

one has to die first (since this body is impure) then, through '

shuklagati uttaraayaNa maargah' jiiva has to travel and go to some

loka and thereafter merge into that Bhagavan – - which Bhagavan?, the

sarvavyaapakaH bhagavaan, the one who is everywhere! Hence all

pervasiveness of Brahman and travel are contradiction - tasmaat

brahma aapyam na bhavati or therefore Brahman or moksha is not of the

type involving going somewhere or reaching somewhere, vaikunTa or

kailaasa, etc.

 

(b) There is no question of utpatti or to be a product of an action

for Brahman because brahmanaH nitya siddhatvaat - ever present.

(people ask; Sir, when can we attain Brahman or make statements we

cannot attain moksha in this life, but may be in the next life - it

is like asking when is the snake going to become a rope? - it is all

the time a rope even when one is thinking it is a snake.) - Hence

'when?' cannot be the question since Brahman is ever present.

 

© Can Brahman be the result of a modification or vikaara? Brahman

cannot be an end product of any process because brahmanaH

avikaaryatvaat –Brahman cannot be neither cause for modification or

effect of modification since Brahman is eternal. 'avyaktaH ayam

achintyaH ayam avikaaryaH ayam uchyate – The shruti says that

Brahman is unmanifested, unthinkable, does not undergo any

modification.

 

(d) . Brahman cannot be the result of purification process.

Shankara says brahmanaH nityashuddhatvaat, 'apraaNaH hi amanaH

shubhraH' (This mantra was provided before). He is ever pure. Hence

He cannot be the product of purification process. The sa.nskaara or

purification process is subdivided into two types - i) doshha

apanayana-ruupa sa.nskaaraH - refinement by the removal of impurity

and ii) guNa adhaana-ruupa sa.nskaaraH- addition of various virtues.

In the case of Brahman, doshha apanayana na bhavati -

nitya-shuddhatvaat- since He is eternally pure, there is no question

of purification process. Also guNa adhaanam api na bhavati,

nirguNatvaat , since he is guNaatiitaH. (guNa is a concept of

intellect and he is beyond any guNa-s since he is beyond any

intellectual comprehension). Also being infiniteness, nothing can be

added and nothing can be subtracted. Hence Brahman cannot be

sa.nskaaryaH also. Therefore, Brahman is chaturvidha karma phala

vilakshaNaH - different from all the four types of karma phalam.

Moksha is also different from all the types of karma phalam. Hence

moksha cannot be upaasanaa phalam.

 

The next argument is called abhyupedya vaadaH -an assumption -

assuming that puurvapakshi is right and showing that such an

assumption leads to contradiction thereby invalidating the

puurvapaksha. We assume first that the argument of puurvapakshi that

'moksha is upaasana phalam' is right. Then what will be the nature

of moksha? If it is a result of upaasanam, then it will certainly

have a beginning - since result is accomplished by following a

saadhana and not before. It is not there before and it comes after

the upaasana is completed. It is called praak abhaavaH - not

existent before the upaasana took place. But, whatever has a

beginning will certainly have an end. jaatasya hi dhruvaH mR^ityuH

dhruvam janma mR^itasya cha | (Gita 2-27) - Hence the upaasana

phalaruupa mokshaH will be anitya mokshaH or is impermanent moksha.

Gaudapada says beautifully in his kaarikaa

 

anaadeH antavatva.n cha sa.nsaarasya na setsyati |

anantataa cha aadimataH mokshasya na bhavishhyati || 4:30

 

Eternity is not possible for moksha which has a beginning if it is

the result of upaasanaa, therefore moksha becomes anitya.

Fortunately all the philosophers have agreed that moksha is eternal.

The very purpose of moksha is to go beyond mortality. In Chandogya

Up., it is said that whatever is acquired here in this loka is

impermanent and whatever is acquired as a result of puNya phala in

the other loka-s is also impermanent -

 

tat yathaa iha karma chitaH lokaH kshiiyate, evam eva amutra

puNyachitaH lokaH kshiiyate | -Hence the conclusion is nitya mokshaH

upaasana phalam bhavitum na arhati, upaasana phalasya anityatvaat -

 

Eternal moksha cannot be the result of upaasana phalam since upaasana

phalam is impermanent. In fact the very word phalam - Shankara says

-phalgutayaa liiyate iti phalam - that which becomes rotten and gets

destroyed in time is called phalam.

 

This completes the second argument.

 

3. For the third argument Shankara says upaasanaa cannot be or is

not the theme of Vedanta. upaasanaa vedaantasya taatparyam bhavitum

na arhati. Why? This is because miimaa.nsaa or samanvaya shows that

the theme of Vedanta is not upaasanaa. This has been proved using

upakramaadi shhaD-li~Ngaani or six-fold factors beginning with

upakramaa. (These six factors were discussed in relation to this

suutra in the earlier posts). By using these six factors it is

established that Vedanta talks about acquiring a moksha which is here

and now. Vedanta does not talk about accomplishing something new in

future - that is which is not available now and here. In Vedanta the

mahavaakyam in the same 6th chapter of Chandogya. Up., that was

analyzed above, says- tat tvam asi - 'that thou art' - by using asi

the present tense Vedanta clearly shows moksha is in the present. If

it is not here and now, it cannot be anywhere at any time. Either

one is nitya muktaH or nitya baddhaH. That which is not here and now

and comes in future can never be moksha that involves freedom from

all limitations, since it is not eternal and ever existent as it is

not here and now hence that kind of moksha is itself is limited. That

which is limited cannot be a freedom from limitation.

 

In addition in BR^ihadaaranyaka. Up., there is a discussion of karma

and upaasanaa phalam. putreNa ayam lokaH jayyaH, karmaNaa

pitR^ilokaH, vidyayaa deva lokaH (1:5:16). It is said through the

putra, father can gain the birth of human later, through karma one

can gain swarga or heaven and through vidya or upaasanaa one can gain

deva lokaH or brahmalokaH. Having enumerated karma phalam and

upaasanaa phalam, BR^ihadaaranyaka. Up., (3:5:1) glorified a

sa.nnyaasii and says -

 

putraishhaNaayaaH cha vittaishhaNaayaaH cha lokaishhaNaayaaH cha

vyutthaaya atha bhikshaacharya.n charanti | 3:5:1

saH eshha na iti na iti aatmaa agR^ihyaH na hi gR^ihyate ashiiryaH na

hi shiiryate asa~NgaH na hi sajyate asitaH na vyathate na rishhyati |

3:9:26

 

I do not want putra phalam, I do not want karma phalam, I do not want

even upaasanaa phalam, all I want is moksha - by rejecting, neti neti

- not this - not this - he goes after that which cannot be

objectified, that which is without a body, therefore eternal, that is

free from all attachments, eternally free.

 

Thus, shruti says by rejecting all that which can be obtained by

karma and upaasanaa phalam, he goes after moksha. Thus here it

indirectly indicates that moksha will not come under karma or

upaasanaa phalam. Hence how can one bring karma and upaasana in

Vedanta. Hence upaasana is not the taatparyam of Vedanta. In the

previous argument it was established that samanvayaat (in terms of

the six-factors) upaasanaa is not the central theme of the Vedanta.

In this argument it is established that mokshasya upaasanaaphala

vilakshaNatvaat, upaasanaa is not the taatparyam or the central theme

of Vedanta.

 

Next Shankara gives a technical reason - The entire Veda is divided

into two portions - karma kaaNDa (upaasana is included) and

j~naanakaaNDa (Vedanta). The first part is analyzed by Jaimini in his

puurva-miimaa.nsaa suutraaNi which begins “atha ataH dharma

jij~naasaa”. Vedanta is analyzed by Vyasa in this brahmasuutra which

begins with “atha ataH brahma jij~naasaa”. Now Shankara raises a

question - whether all karma and upaasanaa should be analyzed in Veda

puurva or Veda anta? It should be analyzed only in the puurva

kaaNDa. Because karma or upaasanaa produces dharma or puNyam and

hence everything connected with Dharma should be analyzed in the

puurvakaaNDa. If Vedanta deals with moksha and if moksha is upaasanaa

phalam, and if Vedanta also deals with upaasanaa, there is no reason

to separate it from puurvakaanDa and it should be covered under

puurva-miimaa.nsaa under dharma jij~naasaa. Hence Shankara says

Vedanta would not have become a separate part of the Veda. It would

have come under karma kaanDa itself and would have come under

jaiminii suutra-s. Vyasacharya chose to write a separate suutra for

the Uttara-miimaa.nsaa only because it does not come under karma or

upaasanaa. Only because Vedanta has nothing to do with Dharma

(karma)- It is dealing with aatmaa which is

 

anyatra dharmaat, anyatra adharmaat, anyatra asmaat kR^itaa akR^itaat

anyatra bhuutaat cha bhavyaat cha yat tat pashyati tat vida ||

(KaTha. Up. 1-2-14)

-It does not deal with dharma or adharma, karma or akarma, and past

and future - that is to be known.

 

yadaa pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNam

kartaaram iishaM purushaM brahmayonim

tadaa vidvaan puNyapaape vidhuuya

niranjanaH paramam saamyam upaiti || (MuNDaka. Up. 3-1-3)

 

Vedanta deals with vidvaan who renounces both puNyam and paapam -

which are karma upaasanaa phalam. In the Gita Krishna says - sarva

dharmaan parityajya maam ekam sharaNam vraja - Give up all the karma

and upaasana which comes under dharma. (actually no achaarya advises

one to give up karma - what is advised is to give the kartR^itva

bhaava or notion of the doership - His will, will be done). Therefore

moksha is dharma vilakshaNatvaat. Upaasana is not the taatparyam of

Vedanta. That completes the third argument. The first argument was

moksha cannot be upaasanaa phalam. The second argument was if moksha

is upaasanaa phalam it becomes anityam or impermanent. The third

argument was upaasanaa cannot be the central theme of Vedanta.

 

This completes the third argument. Now the fourth argument.

 

4. Shankara says, brahma upaasanaa itself is not possible. The

question of brahma as the upaasana phalam will arise until one

settles the issue whether one can even do Brahma upaasanaa at all

before settling the issue of Brahman can be obtained as upaasana

phalam. Upanishad clearly says 'tat twam asi' - you are yourself

Brahman. Which means Brahman is not an object at all for upaasana. It

is the upaasaka swaruupam - the very nature of upaasaka, one who does

upaasana. How can the upaasaka Brahman become upaasya Brahman -

kartR^i karma virodhaat ? Subject can never be an object, object can

never be the subject. Therefore nobody can meditate on Brahman.

Therefore Brahman cannot be an object of upaasana - hence the very

basis of the argument of the puurvapakshi has no validity. It is

illogical to talk about Brahma-upaasanaa. The Kena Upanishad clearly

says:

 

yat vaachaa nabhyuditam yena vaak abhyudyate |

tat eva brahma tvam viddhi na idam yat idam upasate || [1:5]

 

The student asked for Brahman and the teacher very clearly says

whatever you do upaasana upon is not Brahman.

 

yat manasaa na manute yena aahuH manaH matam.h .|

tat eva brahma tvam viddhi na idam yat idam upaasate || [1:6]

 

yat chakshushhaa na pashyati yena chakshuu.nshhi pashyati |

tat eva brahma tvam viddhi na idam yat idam upaasate || [1:7]

 

yat shrotreNa na shR^iNoti yena shrotram idam shrutam.h |

tat eva brahma tvam viddhi na idam yat idam upaasate || [1:8]

 

yat praaNena na praaNiti yena praaNaH praNiiyate |

tat eva brahma tvam viddhi na idam yat idam upaasate || [1:9]

 

Thus it repeats that statement five times indicating the importance

of the statement. It says the object of upaasanaa or meditation

cannot be Brahman - it is anaatma. The meditator is Brahman. When

one cannot even do any upaasanaa on Brahman, where is the question of

Brahma upaasanam producing moksha.

 

Thus the fourth argument is Brahma upaasanam is not possible because

brahmanaH avishhayatvaat (Brahman is not an object - it is seeing the

truth as the truth - like seeing rope as a rope and it is not

acquiring, reaching or producing - aatmani atmanaa atmaanam pastyet -

realization of ones own self by oneself in oneself.).

 

This completes the four arguments of Shankara that Brahma upaasanaa

is not possible and is not required for moksha. Only knowledge is

the solution to the problem since the problem is caused by adhyaasa

or an error in the vision - To understand the nature of adhyaasa one

should go back and study again the adhyaasa bhaashhyam of Shankara

(Ch. III in this 'Notes on Brahmasuutra').

 

We will try to complete the discussion on Suutra 4 soon.

 

********

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]

>Would it be possible to post the translated new words for the glossary,

>please, Sada? (I think this has been the reason for the delay, hasn't it?) I

>still haven't tried to study the new notes yet since I was waiting for the

>words to make the task a bit easier.

>

>Dennis

 

Yes Dennis in principle. One has to fill up the words meaning from

dictionary or from the notes if they are outlined. Unfortunately it

is quite an involved task for Geetha and other volunteer did not

respond - I am not sure his whereabouts. Sunder is quite busy. My

problem is time to get to them. Hence the status quo for the word

meaning. I am not sure if any in the list who can help us in this

task - I am mailing the note to all so that any volunteers to take up

this task may come forward. I am actually ready with the next post

to send it to Geetha.

 

Any volunteers?

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623