The Recent Debate - some clarifications

[Guest guest]

Namaste Friends:

 

This part of my post contains some explanations to some of the points that

were raised in the Questions of Swami Vivekananda and the response that some

members had come up with. The intention is only to set the record straight with

respect to the meaning of the particular sutrabhashyam that Sw.Vivekananda had

spoken about with regard to Vidura. This is not to heighten tensions. As a

List devoted to the proper understanding of the teachings of Shankara, this post

could be considered as a reply to a purvapaksha against the siddhanta. The list

moderators may decide what is best to do with this after giving this a careful

reading.

 

· First regarding the observation made (by a List member) regarding

the refutation of various schools by Shankara in the Sutra Bhashyam: In the

Yoga school refutation, Shankara has not resorted to outright, Lock stock and

barrel refutation. Instead he has shown several points of agreements and only

where disagreements are there, he has refuted. The Brahmasutras are given the

name of Shaariiraka mimaamsa. This means : A study of the nature of the

individual soul with reference to the teaching of the Vedanta. Shankara has

refuted that portion of the various schools that portray the jiva in a way that

is not in accordance to the teaching of the Vedanta. This method of his is

explicitly seen in the refutation of the Bhagavata school also. He makes it

clear to the student of the Bhashyam the points of agreement which do not

require refutation and specifies only those that are not in agreement with the

Vedantic teaching as requiring refutation. For example in the

Bhagavata school it is held that Sankarshana , the jiva, originates from

Vaasudeva, the Iswara/Paramatma. Shankara says this is not acceptable, for if

jiva is said to have an origination, his eternality, nityatvam, is not there at

all. The Vedanta teaches the nityatvam of the jiva. Shankara acknowledges the

need for the aspirant to contemplate on Iswara, worship him, etc. as part of

sadhana, as prescribed by the Bhagavata school. Then, the Cause-effect

relationship between Vasudeva and Sankarshana will lead to the defect of the

jiva, the effect, being destroyed upon merging with Isvara, the Cause, in

liberation. Is Shankara really 'uncompromising'?

 

The portion of Br.Vinayaka ji's question is taken up below.

 

 

 

Swamiji: Shankara's intellect was sharp like the

 

razor. He was a good arguer and a scholar, no doubt of

 

that, but he had no great liberality; his heart too

 

seems to have been like that. Besides, he used to take

 

great pride in his Brahmanism -- much like a southern

 

Brahmin of the priest class, you may say. How he has

 

defended in his commentary on the Vedanta - sutras

 

that the non - brahmin castes will not attain to a

 

supreme knowledge of Brahman! And what specious

 

arguments! Referring to Vidura he has said that he

 

became a knower of Brahman by reason of his Brahmin

 

body in the previous incarnation. Well, if nowadays

 

any Shudra attains to a knowledge of Brahman, shall we

 

have to side with your Shankara and maintain that

 

because he had been a Brahmin in his previous birth,

 

therefore he has attained to this knowledge? Goodness!

 

What is the use of dragging in Brahminism with so much

 

ado? The Vedas have entitled any one belonging to the

 

three upper castes to study the Vedas and the

 

realisation of Brahman, haven't they? So Shankara had

 

no need whatsoever of displaying this curious bit of

 

pedantry on this subject, contrary to the Vedas. And

 

such was his heart that he burnt to death lots of

 

Buddhist monks -- by defeating them in argument! And

 

the Buddhists, too, were foolish enough to burn

 

themselves to death, simply because they were worsted

 

in argument! What can you call such an action on

 

Shankara's part except fanaticism? But look at

 

Buddha's heart! Ever ready to give his own life to

 

save the life of even a kid -- what to speak of

 

"[(Sanskrit)]-- for the welfare of the many, for the

 

happiness of the many"! See, what a large -

 

heartedness -- what a compassion!

 

 

· In the Apashudraadhikaranam, the Bhashyam portion dealing with the

Vidura question in the Brahma sutras, the sutra 1.3.9.38 clearly specifies that

Vidura, Dharmavyaadha, etc. were endowed with Realisation as a result of the

samskaras, the state of the mind favourable to gaining Realisation,EARNED IN

THEIR PREVIOUS BIRTH/S. This is the meaning one can understand from the

Bhashyavaakyam: Yeshaam punaH Puurvakrta-samskaara-vashaat Vidura-

 

dharmavyaadha-prabhrtiinaam JnaanotpattiH….By no stretch of imagination

one can conclude that this means 'Vidura became a knower of Brahman by reason of

his Brahmin

 

body in the previous incarnation. Well, if nowadays

 

any Shudra attains to a knowledge of Brahman, shall we

 

have to side with your Shankara and maintain that

 

because he had been a Brahmin in his previous birth,

 

therefore he has attained to this knowledge? Goodness!' as charged by Swami

Vivekananda.

 

There is ample reason to prove why Shankara is correct in saying so:

 

 

 

In the Bhagavadgita there are statements: Bahuunaam janmanaamante Jnaanavaan

Maam prapadyate = At the end of several births, the Knower attains Me.

Aneka-janma samsiddhaH tato yaati paraam gatim =

 

For the first cited verse, the translation of Shankara's commentary: At the end

of many births occupied in spiritual regeneration as preparatory to the

attainment of wisdom, the man of mature wisdom resorts to Me, Vasudeva… Thus it

is clear that the struggle for spiritual fulfillment is spread over many births.

Then, we see in the 6th Chapter Gita, in the context of the yogabhrashta, one

who has not attained to the fruit of sadhana, owing to some obstacle, the

aspirant is born again to take up the sadhana and continue in the path. An

aspirant of any caste, any gender, could take to sadhana by the appropriate

means and pass through several births, and finally attain fulfillment. It is

quite logical.

 

 

 

The List moderators may choose to delete this portion below (upto the word

Conclusion) if it is seen to be inappropriate:

 

 

 

The entire discussion in the above Brahmasutra has been summed up by the work

Vaiyasika-nyaya-maala by Sri Vidyaranyaswami, at the beginning of the

Sutrabhashyam 1.3.9.34:

 

Shuudro adhikriyate vedavidyaayam na hi |

 

Atraivarnika-devaadyaaH iva shudro adhikaaravaan ||

 

DevaaH svayam-bhaata-vedaaH shuudro'adhyayana-varjanaat |

 

Na adhikaarii shrutau, smaarte tvadhikaaro na vaaryate ||

 

 

 

The meaning of the verse: The Question: Is a shudra eligible for vedavidyaa or

not?

 

The prima-facie view: He is eligible, just like, even though the Devas, etc.,

not being in the Traivarnika category (brahmana, kshatriya and vaishya), are

still eligible for vedavidya.

 

The final position: Devas, etc. are 'naturally' endowed with vedic knowledge and

hence do not have to go through veda adhyayana. The shudra, being not eligible

to veda-adhyayana, is not eligible to Knowledge through the study of Veda(nta).

However, he is not prohibited from gaining (spiritual) knowledge through the

Smrti. (This is not a copied translation and hence could be faulty)

 

 

 

What is to be noted is that these sutras in this adhikarana are authored by

Vyasacharya and NOT by Shankara who has only authored the commentary. The

wordings in the sutras themselves do not yield to any room for ambiguity as to

their meaning. Hence Shankara cannot be charged with any mischief!!

 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

 

 

The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 contains : Tad Yo YO devanaam pratyabydhyata

sa eva tadabhavat thathaa Rshiinaam Tathaa Manushyanaam…

 

Meaning: (My translation only) WHOEVER among the Devas, Rshis, and Manushyas

knows Brahman as 'Aham Brahma Asmi'…becomes that Brahman alone. We see here

that there is no condition as to so and so only among humans will/can attain to

that Liberating knowledge.

 

 

 

The Upanishads say that Kaschit dhiiraH= a rare daring person attains it. Being

a male or brahmana are not the conditions that are enough for this.

Manushyaanam sahasreshu…says the Gita. Only that, the paths for each person

differs; the destination is the same. Nobody can take away from an aspirant the

right to aspire for the Supreme.

 

 

 

What should be one's attitude towards the Acharya and his Bhashyam? This

question is answered by the following incident excerpted from the book: Sparks

from the Divine Anvil by Sri. R. Krishnaswamy Iyer:

 

 

 

 

 

In a large gathering of Pundits assembled on the occasion of a Sri

Shankara Jayanti celebration, HH Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal of Sringeri

Peetham asked one of them to expound a

 

particular topic in the Brahma Sutras. The Pandit did it admirably but in the

course of his exposition he added an argument of his own to

 

substantiate the proposition sought to be established in that context.

 

 

 

HH: Is that argument found in the Bhashya of our Acharya?

 

 

 

P: No.

 

HH: Then why did you advance it?

 

P: It is only an additional argument which will support and strengthen the

case.

 

HH: Evidently you think that our Acharya has failed to state it.

 

P: He might have included this also.

 

HH: Is it not really, 'He ought to have included this'?

 

P: I do not say so.

 

HH: Certainly not in so many words; but certainly you

 

think that the Bhashya will have looked better and more complete if

 

this argument had been included.

 

P: I thought so.

 

HH: That is, by advancing this argument you sought to improve the Bhashya?

 

P: No, No. It would have been impertinent on my part if I had sought to do any

thing of that sort.

 

HH: All the same, the idea was at the back of your mind

 

quite consciously; otherwise you would not have advanced a fresh argument.

 

P: I am sorry I did so if it gives rise to such an impression.

 

HH: Sorry or not, you have put forward that argument. We shall see how far it

is tenable.

 

 

 

HH in a few minutes analysed that argument and demonstrated that it was

not only irrelevant and fallacious but was itself destructive of the proposition

to be laid down in the context. The Pundit realized his mistake keenly.

 

 

 

P: I am very sorry that I advanced that argument. I see now that it is

quite untenable.

 

 

 

HH: Please do not think that my demonstration was intended to extract

from you an expression of regret or to show off my own dialectical skill. My

only object was to eradicate from your mind the slightest suspicion that the

All-knowing incarnate as our Acharya could have erred in any particular (aspect)

or omitted to mention any relevant matter. When we forget who He really was

(is) there is naturally a temptation to 'improve' on Him, for in our view He was

just a learned Pundit like ourselves. You must give up that idea altogether.

 

 

 

 

Pranams

 

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less