sribhashya-jijnAsADHikaraNa-laghupurvapaksha

[Guest guest]

Laghupurvapakshah- The arguments of Advaitin.

 

Advaitin argues further that the word aTha explained in the

meaning of Anantharya,'after that' thus referring to the study of

purvamimAmsa being the forerunner to the study of UttaramimAmsA is

not tenable. One can attain the knowledge of brahman through the

study of UttharamimAmsA which alone can destroy the avidya , the

cause of the perception of manifoldness of the universe. Hence the

study of PurvamimAmsA helps in no way towards enlightenment ,on

the contrary is detrimental to it because the study of PurvamimAmsA

makes one get involved in the manifold world and may as a consequence

turn him away from brahmajijnaAsA. The study of the vedas itself can

give the idea of the transitory nature of karmaphala and there is no

necessity for the inquiry into purvamimAmsA.

 

But it remains to be explained as to what does the word aTHa

means if it is not used with the implication of Anantharya to

purvamimAmsA. Advaitin comes with the answer that though the word is

used in the sense of Anantharya, 'after something,' it really means

that the brahmajijnaAsA follows after the saDHana chathushtaya,

namely nithyAnithyavasthuvivekah, discrimination between what is

permanent and what is not, samadhamAdhi sAdhanasampath, the

acquirement of inner and outer control, ihAmuthraphalabhogaviraAgah,

detachment towards the karmaphala in this world and the next and

mumukshuthvam, an intense deire for moksha. If one is endowed with

these as a result of his merits in purvajanma he has no need of

enquiry into the karmakanda.

 

Advaitin presupposes the counter argument that the

injunctions about Udgita etc found in UttharamimAmsA with reference

to upasanA requires the knowledge of purvamimAmsA and says '

anabhijno bhavAn sAreerakasasthravijnaAnasya.'Sudarsana suri explains

this as,'sasthre pradhAnathayA prathipAdhyam jnAnam idham ithi

thvayaA na jnAtham ithyarthah'. This means "You do not seem to

understand the main idea explicit in the sAreerakasAsthra.

 

We should remember when reading the arguments of the

opponents that it is Ramanuja's words and not that of the opponent as

it is the practice to supply the counter arguments and establish

one's own siddhAntha by answering them

 

The upasana texts in Utthara mimAmsa though connected with

karamkanda. are not actually so, because, the karma expounded in

purvamimAmsA has no connection whatsoever with the subjectmatter of

UttharmimAmsA , namely, brahman.

 

Besides the sruti texts like'thath yatTHEha karmachithah

lokah ksheeyathE EvameEva amuthra puNyachithah lokah ksheeyathe'

(ch.8-1-6) also denote karma as an obstacle to the attainment of

brahmajnana. Even the texrs like 'yajnEna dhAnEna thapasA anAsanEna

brAhmaNAh vividhishanthi' (Brhad.-6-4-22) enjoin only anthahkaraNa

nairmalya, puriity of inner equipment, and not for the sake of result

or moksha.

 

Work done without desire for fruit purifies anthahkaraNa and

creates desire for knowledge. when the anthahkaraNa is pure Then

knowledge is acquired through sravaNa, manana and niidhiDhyAsana.

Sravana consists in hearing or learning the meaning of the

vedantavakyas affirming the unity of Atman with brahman , such

as 'satyam jnanam anantham brahma,'(tait.ana.1), Brahman is

existence, knowledge and infinity, 'ayam Athma brahma , (brhd.6.4.5),

this atman is brahman, 'thathvamasi'(chan.6.8.7), 'that thou art,'

from an acharya. Assimilating the teaching of the acharya and making

its one's own is manana. Continous contemplation of the same in order

to get rid of the beginningless vAsana is nidhiDhyAsana. Therefore

the prerequisite of brahmajijnAsaA is only the sADHana chthushtayam

and not the inquiry into work.