Notes on BSB I-i-4-1L

[Guest guest]

Notes on BSB I-i-4-1L

 

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 (sada) always prostrate.

---------

samanvaya adhyaaya - I

spashhTa brahma li~Nga vaakya samanvaya paada- i

samanvaya adhikaraNam.h .-4

suutra: tat tu samanvayaat.h .-1L

 

 

We are discussing vR^ittikaara-s argument that the upanishads say

that after gaining Brahma-j~naanam, one must do nididhyaasanam. This

implies that upanishads prescribe upasanaa after gaining

Brahma-j~naanam. Since it says nididyaasitavyam implying that it is

vidhi or one must do, it is clear that upaasanaa shruti declares that

Brahma-j~naanam is not sufficient and one must do upaasanaa to attain

moksha.

 

Shankara says -what vR^ittikara says is right- that nididhyaasanam is

important. But what it implies is that shravanam, mananam and

nididhyaasanam- all are meant for j~naanam only. They are not

practised after j~naanam, they are practised for j~naanam. How can

one prove that all these three are meant for j~naanam only? (This

answer is from sub-commentators) Shravanam is the main saadhana,

which gives j~naanam - it is called angi saadhana or mukhyasaadhana.

Shravanam reveals my true nature 'tat tvam asi'. Hence the emphasis

on the Vedantic or scriptural study as the most important saadhana -

Systematic, consistent listening to the scriptures. But even though

j~naanam takes place through shravanam, there are obstacles,

pratibandhaa-s, obstructing j~naanam from giving moksha. There are

two obstacles - one is doubt with regard to the goal - whether aham

brahmaasmi is a fact - this doubt can arise from my own intellect or

can come from other systems of philosophy. For example

vishishhTaadvaitam says 'you can never be Brahman'. It is sacrilege

and it is impossible - all you can be at the most is become a part of

Brahman. It is sheshha-sheshhii bhaava. There is an organic relation

between the jiiva and Brahman. Jiiva is only of the size of anu or

atom or finite and is part of Brahman and cannot be Brahman who is

infinite or ananta. In Advaita jiivanmukta is possible; in

VishishhTaadvaita jiivanmukta is not possible, only vidheha mukti.

Now both Advaita and VishishhTaadvaita are put forth by great

aachaarya-s - How can I decide who is right? Acceptance of one

philosophy is automatically is a rejection of the other. Similarly

several daarshanika-s have proposed philosophies that contradict one

another. In the adhyaatma vidya, my intellect cannot be diplomatic

and accept all. It has to accept one and accepting one involves

rejecting the rest. Thus intellect will have to be sure about the

nature of oneself and the nature of Brahman. As long as there is a

lingering doubt, it does not come under 'dR^iDha j~naanam' or firm

understanding - it comes under sa pratibandhaka j~naanam - incomplete

understanding. Thus samshhayaH or lingering doubt is the first

obstacle.

 

The second obstacle is the habitual notion that aatma is something

else other than I. We hear an advaitic vedanta student complaining -

I know I am Brahman, but I have problem with my wife or job, my son,

my neighbor or my employer etc. Such a self-contradiction is the

result of incomplete understanding due to habitual notion of taking

aatma as an entity other than oneself - this is called vipariita

bhaavana. (The purpose of serious study of brahmasuutra and other

scriptures as well as participating in Vedantic discussions should

become very clear now - it is to establish a firm logical foundation

for an understanding of the nature of the problem and the nature of

the solution. By discussing puurvapakshaa-s and siddhanta-s the

intellect is provided a field of inquiry to investigate and

understand clearly the fundamental problem of adhyaasa and firm

understanding that takes one beyond ones habitual notions). Because

of this vipariita bhaavana, we have only sa pratibandhaka j~naanam -

Hence mananam and nididhyaasanam removes the obstacles - mananam

removes doubt - whether I am Brahman or not - this should become

clear - with conviction one must accept one philosophy rejecting all

other systems of philosophies and any other interpretation of

Vedanta. It is not a fanatical approach to Vedanta, due to some

reverence to a tradition or to an aachaarya or to an upbringing, but

conviction based on clear understanding of the nature of the problem

and solution to the problem. I have to think, weigh and analyze the

philosophies presented - all the darshhana-s that have been put

forth as well as any other interpretations and in the final analysis

come to firm conclusion in my mind of what is right and what is wrong

and, thus I should be completely doubt free in my own mind.

 

This doubt-free knowledge involve four things: 1. One should know

what is right as right and 2. Should also know what is wrong as

wrong, 3. Why the right is right i.e. logically able to establish in

my own mind that, that right is right or that right cannot be wrong

and 4. Why wrong is wrong - what is wrong with the wrong or why it

cannot be right. In fact the second chapter of Brahmasuutra

discusses exclusively what is wrong with the wrong. Respecting a

person is one thing but accepting the philosophy that he preaches is

another. Hence one can have respect for Shankara or Ramanuja or

Maadhva, Kapila or Jaimini etc- but one should have firm conviction

what is the right philosophy and why is it the right philosophy and

what are the wrong philosophies and why are they wrong philosophies.

Respecting is the sign of a cultured person, but accepting all

philosophies is the sign of a confused person. If one is not

fanatical but convinced in one philosophy one should able to

communicate his knowledge without disrespecting the others.

 

Hence mananam removes samshaya pratibandha. Nidhidhyaasanam is meant

for removing the second obstacles - vipariita bhaavana - looking upon

aatma or Brahman as something other than oneself- it is this that

makes one to ask or state - I have studied all scriptures and

understand Advaita Vedanta, now what should I do? Enough of

intellectual analysis - it is useless - I want to withdraw myself or

want to devote myself (to non-intellectual?) to something more

useful. When Vedanta says it is swataH siddham - ever existing

eternally present - how does doing something or not-doing something

help or obstruct? But the very question and the statement implies the

vipariita bhaavana or habitual obstacles due to taking anaatma as

aatma and aatma as anaatma - that is looking aatma as some third

person. The solution is to start looking aatma as the first person

that is I am that aatma and I am not this anaatma. - I should not

wait for moksha or liberation - since moksha is here and right now.

 

I heard people saying Advaita is very difficult to understand and

follow and in the kaliyuga it is simpler and easier to get liberated

by kiirtana or through bhakti, etc. The fact is there is nothing to

practise in Advaita - it is some thing to be - as one's own self or

owning one's own self. Nididhyaasana involves firm establishment in

the correct understanding that there is nothing to do or achieve, and

one is already liberated - I am sidhha suddha mukta swaruupaH. This

is called changing the thought pattern or reorientating the ways of

one's thinking. A complete over-haul of one's mind. Nididhyaasanam

does not give j~naanam, it does not give moksha - it removes the

obstacles for j~naanam - It converts sa pratibandhaka j~naanam to

apratibandhaka j~naanam. Thus all the three- shravanam, mananam and

nidhidhyaasanam- are meant for dR^iDa j~naanaartham eva - for firm

abiding knowledge only. This can be illustrated by a simple example.

We know as soon as we turn on the switch, the electric bulb glows and

instantly the light of the bulb eliminates the darkness. Suppose when

the switch is turned on and the darkness still remained. Upon

inquiring we find there is nothing wrong with the switch nor with the

bulb nor with the line in between and we also know that current is

flowing and the bulb is also burning. Further investigation revealed

that the darkness is still there because the light from the burning

bulb is obstructed by two thick dark opaque sheets of clothes. Hence

even though the electric current has done its job and bulb is also in

working condition, yet the darkness remained only because of the

obstruction of the light coming from the bulb. All one has to do is

to remove the obstructing material and that very instant the darkness

will be removed by the light from the bulb. Now, the question is what

removed the darkness - is it light from the bulb or the action of

removing the covering sheets. Action of the removing the covering

sheets is required in this particular case but what actually

contributes to the removal of darkness is the turning of the switch

that resulted in passing the current to the bulb, which caused to

emanate the light. It is the light that is opposite to darkness.

Everything else is required but they are not the primary cause for

the removal of darkness. In the same way the Nididhyaasana is like

removing obstacles that obstruct the removal of darkness of ignorance

by the light of knowledge which is already glowing in the bulb of

intellect. Hence mananam and nididhyaasanam removes the two obstacles

for knowledge, the samshhayaH and vipariita bhaavana, but j~naanam

alone removes the ignorance and leads to moksha.

 

Hence the arguments of Shankara can be briefly

a) Nididhyaasanam is not after j~naanam but for j~naanam only. It is

not a upaasanaa after j~naanam as vR^ittikaara argues but it is part

of the process for j~naanam. Hence there is big difference between

the role of nididhyaasanam in the vR^ittikaara outlook versus an

advaitin outlook. b) The second difference is for vR^iittikaara

nididhyaasanam is a karma that comes after j~naanam whereas for

Vedantin nididhyaasana is not a karma after j~naanam, but a process

of j~naanam. c) In the vR^ittikaara mata nidhidhyaasana as upaasanaa

produces a puNya phalam where as in Vedanta, it is not karma

producing a positive result as adR^ishhTa phalam but for Vedantin it

only removes our habitual dehaatma-buddhi which is the dR^ishhTa

phalam. d) In upaasanaa one expects moksha to happen in future, an

event in future, a result after an action. In Vedanta nidhidhyaasana

is not with an expectation of moksha, but it is knocking of an

expectation of moksha - I am free here and now and not an event in

future will be the affirmative knowledge. Thus even though both

Vedantin and vR^ittikaara translates nidhidhyaasana as meditation -

the connotation and its implication are different. Hence from

Vedantin's perspective all the three, shravanam, mananam and

nididhyaasanam put to together as one gives the knowledge. Of these

shravanam has the positive role of producing knowledge and mananam

and nididhyaasanam have the negative roles of removing doubt and

habits, respectively. Thus all the three play different roles but the

ultimate result is j~naanam and after j~naanam there is nothing else

to be done.

 

Next comes the last puurvapaksha. Up to this point Shankara has

established using various arguments that there is no karma involved

in Vedanta. While negating karma he negated upaasanaa also since it

is only a karma but at mental level. Now vR^ittikaara puts forth his

last straw. If Vedantin says there is no moksha by karma and upasanaa

since they are activities, then j~naana also cannot give moksha since

it is also a kind of action involving mental activity or maanasika

vR^itti. If upaasanaa involving meditation is considered as a mental

activity then j~naanam should also be considered as a mental

activity, since both involve manasika vR^itti. Hence if upaasanaa is

negated as not a means for moksha, then j~naanam also gets negated

since it is also equally a karma involving mental activity. The

argument can be stated as - j~naanam karmaruupam, maanasa vR^itti

ruupatvaat, upaasanavat. j~naanam is also a type of karma, since it

involves a mental activity, just like upaasanaa. This is the

vR^ittikaara's argument.

 

Shankara refutes by this saying that j~naanam does not come under

karma. Even though upaasanaa and j~naanam both are maanasika

vR^itti-s, upaasanaa comes under karma but not j~naanam. Why is it

so? Shankara gives two arguments in support of this - these

arguments are presented in three stages.

 

1) The first difference between j~naanam and karma is j~naanam

depends on the object of knowledge - vastu tantram where as karma

depends on the subject of action - kartR^i tantram. For example

student who comes to the class performs two types of efforts - one is

a student is using the ears, j~naanedriyam to hear and he takes the

role of hearer. After hearing the student wants to take the notes.

Then he takes the role of kartaa, a writer of the notes. The moment

one becomes hearer, what one hears is not under the controller of the

hearer, it is under the control of speaker or a teacher since he

determines what the student hears. Thus what one hears does not

depend on the subject, the hearer, but the object of hearing.

J~naanam vastu tantram or prameya tantram and not pramaatR^i tantram.

Where as the moment the student becomes a note-taker or writer, what

one writes using the karmendriya-s depends on the writer. Hence the

first difference is j~naanam is vastu tantram where as karma is

kartR^i tantram.

 

2. The second difference is actually the same as the first but put in

a different way. j~naanam is dependent on the type of pramaaNam one

uses - pramaaNa tantram whereas karma, particularly shaastra karma or

ritual, depends on shaastra vidhi or chodana -hence it is chodana

tantram. If I am using ears for j~naanam then I am using shabda

pramaaNam, if I am using eyes for j~naanamm then ruupa prapancha.

Hence as a pramaataa or knower, the knowledge I get depends on the

type of pramaaNam that I use to gain the knowledge - I, the

pramaataa, cannot decide -or rather cannot choose - the choice

depends on the pramaaNa or the type of objective knowledge - is it

some thing to see, some thing to hear or something to taste or

something to smell etc. Thus it depends on pramaaNa. Karma is

chodana tantram, that is shaastric injunction will determine the type

of karma that one must perform. Shankara give a beautiful example

here - In Chandogya upanishad there is pa~nchaagni vidya. In that

context the upanishad talks about a type of meditation to be done

which is termed as pa~nchaagni vidya. In that meditation various

things in the creation are to be seen as agni. At the end of that

meditation as a final part it instructs - "purushhaH vaava

goutamaagniH | "- May you look upon the male or the father as the

fire principle. Finally it says "yoshaa vaava goutamaagniH | "-May

you look upon the mother or female also as fire principle. This is a

kind of upaasana or meditation. This type of meditation is chodana

tantram or shaastra vidhi or injunction by shaastra as karma.

Suppose a person sees a man as a man and woman as woman. Is it

because of shaastra vidhi or injunction by shaastra? Looking at man

as a man and woman as a woman is not considered as shaastra vidhi or

injunction by shaastra since it is natural to look woman as woman and

man as a man. It is not a chodana tantram whereas seeing a man as a

fire or anything other than a man is chodana tantram or an injunction

by shaastra. Hence seeing man as a man is j~naanam or knowledge

while seeing man as a fire is upaasanam. Seeing a stone as a stone

is j~naanam, seeing a stone as Vishnu is upaasanaa. Seeing a stone as

a stone does not depend on our choice, but seeing the stone as Vishnu

depends on seer's choice. A DMK fellow may not choose to look upon

the stone as God to do puuja for it, unless it is the statue of his

DMK founder! Hence j~naanam is pramaaNa tantram, karma or upaasanaa

is chodana tantram.

 

3. Karma can produce four types of results that we discussed before

-aaptiH or reaching a place; utpattiH or producing a new thing;

sa.nskaaraH or purifying a thing; and vikaaraH or modifying a thing.

Where as j~naanam does not produce any one of the four results. It

only reveals a thing as it is but it does not produce. Suppose I

learned about Himaalaya-s from a book. By that knowledge - there is

no reaching of Himaalayas. Similarly j~naama does not produce

anything - Reading a cook book does not produce a dinner on the

table. Similarly knowledge does not purify - knowledge that the house

is dirty does not clean the house. Action only cleans the house -

Hence Shankara says in VivekachuuDamani

-

chittasya shuddhaye karma na tu vastu upalabdhaye |

vastusiddhiH vichaareNa na ki~nchit karmakoTibhiH ||

 

Karma (yoga) purifies the mind only but does not help to gain the

knowledge. Only by inquiry into the nature of reality can one gain

the knowledge, and not by performing countless actions. Hence if you

want chitta suddhi mere knowledge will not do, you have to do karma

yoga. Does j~naanam modify any thing - knowing that I am fat does

not make me slim. Thus karma produces one of the four results where

as j~naanam does not produce these four results. Hence j~naanam and

karma are not identical. Hence self-knowledge is not a type of

karma. It does not produce anything -including moksha! j~naanam only

reveals the fact as a fact - the fact that I was, I am, I ever will

be a mukta purushhaH - thus it only reveals a fact! It does not make

one to reach, produce, purify or modify - it reveals the fact that I

am nitya muktaH. Therefore I have nothing to do. Thus j~naanam is not

karma and after j~naanam no karma is required either. Then why

karmaakaaNda- since there is no need of karma after j~naanam? Before

j~naanam it is useful - as the above vivekachuuDamani sloka

emphasizes, for chitta suddhi or for acquiring saadhana chatushhTayam

that is required before Brahman inquiry can be done as discussed in

Suutra 1.

With this Shankara concludes the vR^ittikaara khanDana also.

 

With this we end our discussion of the word 'tu' in the suutra ' tat

tu samanvyayaat'

 

Conclusion:

 

Now the conclusion where we present the fourth suutra in the standard

technical format.

 

vishhayaH - subject matter - vedanta shaastram

 

vishayaH or sa.nshayaH - doubt - whether it is karma param or brahma

param -some action to be done or just revealing Brahman.

 

puurvapaksha - karma param - Vedanta shaastra prescribes action -

karma alone gives one something whereas mere knowledge does not give

any benefit. Theory has to lead to technology for it to be useful.

 

siddhanta: Vedanta shaastram is brahma param - since ignorance is the

root cause for the human suffering, the knowledge alone is the

solution to this problem. Just as by mere knowledge of the rope the

fear associated with snake etc are gone. Karma cannot get rid of

ignorance. No action is necessary or possible for getting rid of

ignorance. Gaining knowledge does not involve action although

thinking or inquiry is involved in that process. Thinking or inquiry

is not an action like upaasana which for example involves visualizing

Vishnu while one is seeing a stone. Hence gaining j~naanam involves

no action - there is nothing to do but something to know. In fact it

involves in knowing that one is akarthaa or a non-doer.

 

sa~NgatiH -How is related to previous adhikaraNam-s? It is aakshepa

sangatiH - the fourth adhikaraNam is an answer to the objection,

which is raised on the third adhikaraNam. Brahman is the subject

matter of Vedanta is the third adhikaraNam and based on that

objection that Brahman is not the subject matter but karma is the

subject matter of Vedanta. That objection is answered - by tat tu

samanvayaat - that Brahman alone is the subject matter.

 

With this fourth adhikaraNa and forth suutra is over.

-

Generally people stop the study of Brahmasuutra-s with this fourth suutra.

But we will continue thanks to the help of Geetha, Sunder and Dennis

in making sure I work hard along with them.

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