Notes on BSB I-i-4-1K

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSB I-i-4-1K

 

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 .-1K

 

 

 

Shankara presented four arguments why Brahman cannot be result of

upaasanaa and hence brahma-upaasanaa is not needed, or required or

even valid after one obtains brahma j~naanam. The last argument was

that Brahman is not an "object of", but is the upaasakaa himself, who

is the subject, and subject cannot be an object. In response to the

last siddhaanta, puurvapakshi raises a counter objection as follows:

 

If vedantin argues that brahma upaasanaa is not possible because it

is not an object, then the vR^ittikaara asks a counter question. In

that case, he says even the brahma j~naanam is not possible, since

brahma j~naanam involves Brahman becoming an object of knowledge. In

fact in the same Upanishad, it says - anyat eva tat viditaat atho

aviditaat adhi | (Kena 1-4). Further it says:

 

yasya amataM tasya mataM mataM yasya na veda saH |

avij~naataM vijaanataaM vij~naatam avijaanataam.h || (Kena 2-3)

 

 

Those who think they do not know, they know, and those who think they

know, do not know, since Brahman is not an object of knowledge. Thus

the Upanishad very clearly says Brahman cannot even be an object of

knowledge. Hence if siddhaantin claims that Brahma upaasanam is not

possible then puurvapakshi argues that, in that case even brahma

j~naanam is also not possible, since Brahman can not be an object of

knowledge. Then the statement brahma j~naanena mokshaH is also wrong

since BrahmanaH aprameyatvaat, avishhayatvaat, avij~neyatvaat ca. If

you accept that brahma j~naanam is not possible then you cannot

declare that Vedanta is pramaaNam for brahma j~naanam because

pramaayaaH eva asambhave pramaaNasya pramaaNatvam katham siddhayet.

If it is not an object to be known, then where is the question of

validity of means of knowledge. PramaaNa is meant for gaining valid

knowledge and if that knowledge is impossible, how can Vedanta be a

valid pramaaNa? - Then the third suutra, shaastrayonitvaat will be in

trouble since there is no valid pramaaNam, while the suutra claims

that Vedanta shaastra is the pramaaNam. Therefore siddhaantin is

totally wrong.

 

For that Shankara answers - yes Brahma j~naanam is not possible - in

fact Brahma j~naanam is not required. This is because we have

repeatedly said that Brahman is all the time evident in the form of

consciousness. It is swayam siddhaH or swayam jyotiH bhavati.

 

atraayam purushham svayam jyotiH bhavati - BR^i.Up (Ref?)

 

jyotishaam api tat jyotiH tamasah param uchyate| Giita 13-18

 

na tatra suuryo bhaati na chandrataarakaM

nemaa vidyuto bhaanti kuto.ayamagniH |

tameva bhaantamanubhaati sarvaM

tasya bhaasaa sarvamidaM vibhaati || ( Katha-2-2-15)

 

Nothing is required to reveal consciousness because consciousness

reveals everything - shaastram need not reveal consciousness - in

fact consciousness reveals shaastram too.

 

Hence Shankara repeatedly says- na aatma j~naanam or Brahma j~naanam

sampaadaniiyam - There is no need to gain aatma j~naanam or brahma

j~naanam. We need not work for one thing and that is to gain the

knowledge of Brahma j-naanam. Then why all these suutra-s starting

with atha ataH brahma jij~naasa - then therefore inquire into the

nature of Brahman? Why then does the advaitin talk about acquiring of

brhamaj~naanam - brahma j~naanena mokshaH (if it is swataH siddham

where is the need of brahma j~naanam) and also the need of shaastram

as pramaaNam that says - tat vij~naanaartham sa gurum eva

abhigachchhet - to gain that knowledge one should approach a teacher.

These are important questions raised.

 

Now Shankaraacharya explains these using samanvaya adhikaraNam -

Hence the beauty of Shankara Bhaashyam - where many of the questions

an advaitic student has, are methodically answered by Shankara in the

pretext of puurvapaksha-siddhaanta bhaashya. That is an important

reason why one should study suutra bhaashya - which is to establish

oneself firmly in the abiding knowledge of the nature of the reality.

 

Shankara says our problem is not in knowing aatman or Brahman, our

problem is the misconception or misunderstanding of aatman which

requires a correction. The self-evident 'I' is mistaken for

something other than 'I'. The mistakes have to be eliminated. The

unmistaken I remain - Shankara says in Upadesha Saahasrii (II-18-4)

 

siddhaat eva aham iti asmaat yushhmat dharmaH nishhidyate |

rajjvaam iva ahidhiiH yuktyaa tat tvam iti aadishaasanaiH ||

 

Similar to the negation of the notion of snake from a rope based on

pratyaksha pramaaNa, notion of non-self from everything seen is

negated from 'I', based on shruti pramaaNa that says 'that thou art'.

So when I used the word aham 'I' , two things are evident - the I-

the self is evident as the aatma, and the anaatmaa - the body mind -

is also evident as 'this'. The self is evident as a

self-consciousness entity and this - the whole world including idam

shariiram etc, are also evident because of the same consciousness.

(Refer to the definition of adhyaasa - satya asatya mithuniikaraNam -

mixing up of real and unreal is adhyaasa). Thus two things are

shining intimately one is self-shining and other anya adhiina

prakaashaH - shining in the light of consciousness - tasya bhaasaa

sarvam idam vibhaati. When two things are shining intimately the

anaatma dharma or properties of non-self are superimposed on

consciousness out of sheer ignorance - I am father, mother, son,

employee, sukhii, duHkii etc due to this superimposed limitations of

the anaatma on the self. Hence shaastram is required not to reveal

Brahman but to remove the false notions of limitations due to

superimposition or adhyaasa. This removal of limitations is in the

form of vR^itti - a mode in the mind - and that vR^itti is called

'aham brahma asmi'. In the antaH karaNam a thought should take place

or a cognition should take place as aham brahma asmi. When it is

said - aham brahma asmi - I am not knowing any thing new - but I am

freeing ignorance that made me superimpose the limitations of anaatma

on myself. The limitations of anaatma still remain, I also remain as

I am - but what is negated is I am 'this' is negated (this standing

for all upaadhi-s) and "I am what I am" as brahma asmi is realized.

The dropping of the limitations is an intellectual process involving

vichaara or inquiry using shaastra as pramaaNa. This process is

called aatma j~naanam or brahma j~naanam. In this j~naanam - I am

not seeing anything new, I am not experiencing anything new, I am

only removing something old - or dropping of something - that is my

wrong notions about myself. This is just like dropping of the notion

of a snake which is never there to start with, in the knowledge of

rope. We are not gaining rope as if it is new - it was rope all the

time but we are dropping our notions that it is snake in the light of

knowledge of the truth. I am not acquiring, seeing or experiencing

anything new. Another example is 'snaanam iva' - like taking bath.

Why one should take both? -One can formally say that I want to gain

freshness - but what is actually done is getting rid of the dirt in

the body which does not belong to the body. The dirt is adhyaasa or

superimposed on the body and getting rid of it using a detergent is

the means of attaining what is swataH siddham or reaching my natural

state. The role of detergent is not to bring freshness but to get

rid of adhyaasa that does not belong to one. In the processing of

taking bath, both dirt and the detergent that is used to remove the

dirt, both are removed leaving myself to myself.

 

Hence aatma-j~naanam is possible not in the form of new experience

but in the form of intellectual elimination of limitations. Shankara

writes in his bhaasyam - pramaatR^i pramaaNa prameya ruupa tripuTii

nivR^ittiH eva aatma-j~naanam - elimination of three aspects -

knower, known and knowing is the role of aatma-j~naanam. akarataa,

abhoktaa - aj~naataa- aham eva - see adhyaasa bhaashya for details.

Such an aatma-j~naanam can come only through shaastram - hence

shaastram is the pramaaNam. brahma bodhaka ruupena shaastram na

pramaaNam, parantu ahdyaasa nivartaka ruupena shaastram pramaaNam

-not for teaching the knowledge of brahman but for eliminating the

superimposed error shaastra is pramaaNam. In fact Shankara quotes a

suutra -siddhantu nivartakatvaat - shaastram is pramaaNam not because

it reveals Brahman but because it removes the superimposed

limitations. Hence such a pramaaNam is called nishheda ruupa

pramaaNam. Hence brahma j~naanam is possible in this sense and

shaastra pramaaNam is also possible.

 

With this the fourth argument is completed: that is- brahma upaasanaa

is impossible but brahma j~naanam is possible indirectly in the

elimination of aj~naana.

 

Until now Shankara was refuting the arguments of a vR^ittikaara in a

general sense, hereafter Shankara takes up specific statements and

questions of vR^ttikaara and answers them.

 

1) The first argument is related to vR^ittikaara statement in

parallel to bhaaTTa and praabhaakara matam-s that kevala j~naanena

prayojanam na asti - mere knowledge is useless. It has to be combined

with karma or upaasana to be effective. In support of this, all of

them quoted jaimini suutra - 'aamnaayasya kriyaarthatvaat

aanarthakyam atadarthaanaam' - Veda will be useful only if it

instigates one into some action or other. Statements that do not

propel one into action are useless or apramaNam - kriyaa sambandha

rahitam vaakyam apramaaNam. Hence vidhi vaakyaani pramaaNaani,

arthavaada vaakyaani apramaaNaani - statements of command are

pramaaNam and statements of non-commands are apramaaNam, since they

do not involve action. Shankara negates them through a wonderful

argument. - Shankara asks -do you accept nisheda vaakyams in the

vedas as pramaaNam? These are statements of don't-s, like hi.nsam

na kuryaat - you should not harm anyone. kalamjam na bhakshayet -

you should not eat meat. suram na pibet - you should not drink liquor

- these are nishheda vaakyaani. The puurvapakshi-s accept that they

are pramaaNa vaakyam as valid as vidhi vaakyams. Now Shankara asks -

what action is involved in nishheda vaakyam-s for them to be

accepted as pramaaNam. I should not drink liquor - is the statement -

after knowing that from veda-s what action is expected of me?

Shankara says - avoidance of action is an absence of action. Hence

nishheda vaakyam-s do not instigate any action but only instigate

inaction - it is audaasiinyam - When we ask somebody what are you

doing and he may answer - I am doing nothing - but doing nothing is

not a doing - it involves doing no action. nishheda vaakyam only

instigate actionless-ness but not action. Hence even though kriyaa

sambandham is not there, the puurvapakshi-s have accepted nisheda

vaakyam-s as pramaaNam. Shankara extends their own logic and states

that kriyaa sambandha rahitam vedaanta vaakyam api pramaaNam eva, sa

prayojanatvaat, nishhedha vaakyavat. vedaanta

vaakyam-s are also pramaaNam even though no action is involved,

exactly like nisheda vaakyam. Hence the above jaimini suutram cannot

be applied indiscriminately.

 

2. Puurvapakshi asks if brahma j~naanam gives moksha then all the

students of Vedanta should be mukta purusha-s or liberated

individuals since they all studied Vedanta and gained knowledge.

Puurvapakshi says I have interviewed several who have studied Vedanta

for many many years and even teach vedanta to others. But if you ask

them if they are liberated - we hear only if's and but's and no one

claims himself as jiivanmuktaH. It is obvious that Vedanta j~naanena

moksham na sidyati - upaasanena sidyati - is the claim of

vR^ittikaara. Shankara says - I have never said a student of vedanta

will be free - only a knower of Vedanta is free from samsaara -

avagata brahmanaH or j~naata brahmanaH na tu sruta brahmanaH - the

one who has understood Vedanta is free not one who has listened to

Vedanta. ( One gentleman approached Swami Chinmayanandaji and asked

- swamiji I have been hearing your lectures. I understand it very

well. I understand that I am brahman and not this upaadhiis, the

body, mind and intellect - but then how come I am still suffering?

Swamiji smillingly asked him back - Sir this is also my question -why

are you suffering when you understood that you are Brahman? (JK

puts this beautifully- It is an understanding as "understanding as a

fact", not as an understanding as an "understanding as a thought").

Hence true knowledge and sa.nsaara can never go together. As long as

I doubt, my freedom and my knowledge is doubtful. As long as

knowledge is clear, the freedom can never be doubted. j~naanam and

bandha can never go together. If there is a doubt - the doubt will

be in the form - I know aatma or brahman is free but only my doubt is

whether I am free or not - that means there is still a doubt whether

I am aatma or Brahman or not. If I know I am aaatma and if I know I

am Brahman which is free from all limitations then where the

question of bondage? Hence listeners are many but knowers are few.

Knower is the one for whom "I am free" is a fact and not a thought.

Listener is one for whom "I am free" is the information contained in

the upanishads. A listener will say - upanishads say I am free - , a

knower will say - I am free is not an upanishadic information it is

ever established fact- Hence Shankara reiterates that where there is

j~naanam there is no question of sa.nsaara. Therefore after j~naanam,

no upaasanaa is required.

 

3) VR^ittikaara's next question was if vedanta-j~naanam -aham

brahmaasmi - gives moksha then why does Vedanta prescribe

nididhyaasanam after Vedantic study. aatmaa vaa are drashhTavyaH,

shrotavyaH mantavyaH nididhyaasitavyaH - it prescribes after mananam

nididhyaasanam which clearly means meditation which is nothing but

upaasanam. Hence after the study of Vedanta, scripture says the

nididhyaasanam must be done which is nothing but upaasana. By saying

nididhyaasitavyaH, it is imperative that one must do upaasanaa.

Hence through upaasanaa alone one gains moksha.

 

We will for the next post for Shankara's answer to this important

question of vR^ittikaara.

 

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