sribhashya-1-1-2-janmAdhaDhikaraNam

[Guest guest]

janmAdhyaDhikaranam

 

 

 

suthra2- janmAdhyasya yathah

 

 

 

'From whom the origin etc. of this proceed. '

 

 

 

'Yathah' from whom , means Brahman, sarvesvara, who is nikhila hEya

prathyanika svarupa,whose nature is free from all impurities (that are

found in the universe), satyasankalpa, of infallible will,

jnAnAnadhyanEka kalyANa guna, who possesses infinite auspicious

qualities such as jnAna, who is omniscient,omnipotent and the Supreme

Purusha.The word 'Adhi' in 'janmadhi includes janma, srshti (creation),

sthithi (sustenance) and pralayam. (annihilation) and 'asya, of this'

means this wonderful variegated universe of beings starting from the

four-faced creator, Brahma till the common blade of grass, ordained to

experience the fruit of their respective karmas.This is how Ramanuja

explains the suthra.

 

 

 

The basis of this interpretation is the sruthi text 'yathO vA imAni

bhoothani jayanthe, yena jAthAni jeevanthi,

yathprayanthyabhisamvisanthi, thathvijijnAsasva thath

brahma.'(taitt.brg.1) This means, from whom all these beings originate,

by whom they are sustained and into whom they merge back at the time of

pralaya, know that to be Brahman.

 

 

 

Here an objection is encountered by Ramanuja that the word janmAdhi

denoting the creation etc. does noe define Brahman. The arguments given

to substantiate this are:

 

1. More than one attributes may denote more than one entity.The example

shown by the siddhanthin, namely, 'syamo yuva lohithAkshah devadatthah,

Devadattha is young, dark and red-eyed, is not applicable because the

person is seen to be one by the valid means of knowledge,

perception.Here there is only scripture that says so but no other direct

means of knowledge.It cannot be said that since the word Brahman

denotes one entity only the attributes also denote the same entity

because a person who has never seen a cow, on hearing, the cow is that

which is 'khanda munda purNa sringah gouh,' broken -horned, hornless or

fully horned, iunderstands it to denote different entities.

 

2. Neither the characterstics can be upalakshana, by implication as in

the case where a field is pointed out to be that of Devadattha, saying

'the field where the crane sits belongs to Devadattha, yathra ayam

sarasah sa devadattha kedarah, because such characterstics, different

from the object are used to denote only the entity already known through

other source. if it is said that to the Brahman already denoted by the

text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham' these characterstics could be the

upalakshana because both are characterstics only and the same objection

holds good for both.Therefore Brahman cannot be defined at all.

 

 

 

Ramanuja counters this objection thus:

 

Brahman is already known through the etymological meaning of the word

brhat meaning great or big, since there is none greater or bigger than

Brahman the word denotes Brahman only in its ultimate sense. To such

Brahman, known already, the origination etc are cited as the

characterestics and hence there is no contradiction of their being

upalakshaNa. Moreover the Brahman is described as the material an

efficient cause of the world by the Chandogya text, 'sadhEva soumya

idham agra Aseeth-----' where 'sadeva Aseeth' denotes the material

causation, 'adhvitheeyam ' implies efficient causation by dismissing the

existence of any other agent, and 'it willed to become many and created

fire' ascribes the creation to Brahman only, who is mentioned as 'sath.

thath ' etc. The characterestics denote different entities only when

there is conflict in their meaning as in the case of 'khanda,munda,

poorNasringa gouh.' In this context there is no conflict in the

characterestics of being creator, sustainer and annihilator attributed

to Brahman due to the difference in time of the respective functions.

 

 

 

Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying 'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni

jAyanthe' ithyAdhi kAraNa vAkyeEna prathipannasya jagajjanmAdhi

kAranasya brahmanah sakalaitharavyAvrtthamam svarupam

abhiDHeeyathe-sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma ithi.' That is,while the

Brahman is defined as that, from which all these beings are born etc.,

by the words 'existence, knowledge and infinity, the svarupa, nature of

Brahman, is described as being other than the world of sentient and

insentient, the latter being subject to changes and the former on

account of the association with it.The released souls are also excluded

because of their limited knowledge that existed while in bondage. In the

statement 'sathyam jnanam anantham brahma,' the word jnAna denotes the

eternal, complete knowledge of Brahman, the word sathya is to show that

Brahman is the absolute unconditional existence and the word anantha

refers to the characterestic of not being limited by time, place or

entity, 'dEsakAla vasthu paricchEdha rahithathvam.' Hence the three

words that show the nature of Brahman are the svarupanirupaka dharmas,

inseparable attributes of Brahman., defining the nature of Brahman. So

the objection that Brahman cannot be defined is refuted by Ramanuja.