sribhashya-samanvayadhikarana-1-1-4

[Guest guest]

SamanvayADHikaraNam-1-1-4

 

 

 

suthra-4 thatthu samanvayAth

 

 

 

Thath thu- but that( the scriptures alone are the pramANa for

establishing Brahman) is samanvayAth because it is the main purport (

of the sruthi.)

 

 

 

The aim of the vedas is the paramapurushArTha, the final goal of life

which is the attainment of release, moksha. Since the subject of the

upanishads is Brahman, the knowledge of which leads one to Moksha,

Brahman is connected with the parampurushArTHa through the

vedas.Therefore Brahman is known only through the vedas being its main

purport.

 

 

 

Brahman is understood by the texts like 'yathO vA imAnibhoothAni

jAyanthe' from whom all the beings emerge and 'sadhEva sowmya

idhamagraAseeth,' sath alone was in the beginning and 'thadhaikshathaB

bahusyAm prajAyEya, 'it willed to become many, and the like, to be the

origin of everything and defined as 'sathyam jnAnamanantham

brahma,'Brahman is existence,knowledge and infinity, denoting the

Supreme Being as the one possessed of infinite auspicious attributes and

devoid of all imperfections. The validity of the texts about Brahman as

above cannot be questioned on the basis of their not being connected

with activity or the cessation of it. There can be no denial of

validity in the case of statements like 'your son is born',or ' this is

not a serpent ' because there also is some activity like the joy or fear

respectively.

 

 

 

The opponent here is the mimAmsaka, according to whom sruthi texts that

do not deal with some activity, initiating or prohibiting, are not

valid. Hnce the texts about Brahman are not authoritative. The opponent

argues that perception and other pramANas can deal with things already

established but sruthi texts must always be purposeful like 'svargakAmO

yajEtha,' one who desires heaven should perform sacrifice, which is an

injunction or 'na kalanjam bhakshayeth,' one should not eat garlick etc.

Even in daily life we only hear sentences such as 'arTHArthee rAjakulam

vrajEth,one who needs wealth should go to the king ,' etc., which

indicate some activity or like ''mandhAgnirnAmbu pibEth,' one with weak

digestion should not drink water, which prohibits activity.

 

 

 

The opponent,mimAmsaka, asks whether in the case of statements like 'a

son is born to you, or this is not a serpent ' the joy or removal of

fear occurs by the event itself or the knowledge of the fact conveyed

through the sentence. If it is said that the action of joy etc . cannot

happen unless there is the knowledge about it, then by the mere

knowledge of a thing even without its existence can produce an effect.

So scripture too need not refer to things actually exidting and hence

need not be the valid means of knowledge unless it refers to action

injunctive or prohibitive.Therefore vedanta texts cannot be taken as the

authoritative proof of Brahman.

 

 

 

Next the purvapakshin, the mimAmsaka, considers the view of the advaitin

who says that vedantavakyas are valid even in the sense of denoting an

injunction. Brahman who is percieved as being connected with the world

through avidhya has to be freed from the illusion and this is the

injunction which is denoted by the sruthi texts which have the knowledge

of Brahman as their purport. They quote the texts such as 'na dhrshtEh

dhrashtAram pasyEh;na mathErmanthAram manveeThAh , you cannot see the

seer of sight, you cannot think the thinker of thought,' meaning that

Brahman is the pure perception and pure knowledge.

 

 

 

MimAmsaka askas the advaitin to specify the qualification of the person

to whom the injunction is addressed. For instance it is said that

agnihothra should be performed as long as one lives where the life of

the person to whom oit refers to is the qualification. But in the case

of Brahman -knowledge it can only be directed to a person who already

has the perception of the real nature of Brahman in order to negate the

world. Again Brahman cannot be a phala, fruit of action like heaven in

which case it would become transcient. Moreover Brahman cannot be the

object of the injunction since it is not a kriya.

 

 

 

Another argument forwrded by some ( called dhyAnaniyogavAdin) who say

that vedanta passages are nevertheless authoritative as they enjoin

dhyAna, meditation as shown by the texts such as nidhiDH' aAthmA vA are

dhrashtavyah srOthavyah manthavyah nidhiDHyA sithavyah,(Brhd.2-4-5) the

self is to be seen, heard, thought of and contemplated,' and

'AthmAithyEva upAseetha,(Brhd.1-4-7) Let one meditate upon himself as

the Self.' The passages such as 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma, sadeva

soumya idham agra AseethekamEva adhvitheeyam define the nature of

Brahman in answer to the question "What is the nature of the Self to be

meditated?" But this is objected by the mAyAvadin (advaita) who says

that Brahman cannot be realised through injunctions on meditation but

only through knowledge gained by texts such as 'thathvamasi,thou art

that.' But the former argues that mere knowledge cannot secure release

as by merely being told that this is not a snake will not dispell the

fear until one actually sees the rope. If the avidhya comes to an end

by mere knowledge from vedic texts then the injunctions on sravana

manana and nidhiDhyAsana become meaningless.Therefore bondage can only

be terminated through the injunctions on meditation which results in

direct intuitive knowledge of Brahman.

 

 

 

VedAntha vakyas enjoining meditation lead to the knowledge of Brahman as

one only without a second and of the nature of existence,knowledge and

bliss,sacchidhAnadham, speak of the unity while the karma portion of the

vedas relate to the difference. As difference and nondifference are

mutually exclusive, Brahman is proved only by the vedantha vAkyAs that

contain injunction on meditation as a means of securing the knowledge.

 

 

 

Now mimamsaka refutes all this by saying 'dhyAnavidhi seshathvE api

vEdhAntha vAkyanAm arThasathyathve prAmANya ayOgAth.' That is , it

should be made clear whether the texts that refer to Brahman do so in

connection with the injunctive texts or independently. If it is the

first, they become a part of the injunctive texts and will not be

authoritative with respect to Brahman. If they do so independently they

cannot be authoritative since they are devoid of any reference to

action.

 

 

 

It cannot be said that the dhyana involving continous rememberence

requires an object of meditation which is given by texts like ' idham

sarvam yadhayam Athma, sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma, all this is that

Self and Brahman is existence knowledge and bliss,' and hence these

texts are connected with injunctive texts, to form one whole and hence

they are referring to existing thing because meditative texts are found

to deal with unreal things also as 'nAma brahma ithyupAseetha,meditate

on the name as Brahman. Hence, concludes mimAmsaka,the scripture is not

the valid authority on Brahman.

 

 

 

Ramanuja meets the arguments of the mimAmsaka by saying, 'thatthu

samanvayAth, but that because it is the main purport,' is the reply of

suthrakara to the view of mimAmsaka that the texts on Brahman are not

authorityative because they do not deal with injunction or prohibition

relating to activity. The word 'thu' meaning 'but' refutes the view of

the opponent. Ramanuja derives the word samanvaya as samyak anvaya, well

connected.VedAntha texts denote Brahman as the highest purushArTha, the

ultmate goal of man,the infinite bliss free from all imperfections. To

say that they are without purpose because they do not denote any

activity is , says Ramanuja, is absurd like the statement denying any

purpose to a descendent of royal family because he does not belong to

the family of low- born.

 

 

 

All beings from devas down to a blade of grass, empowered with

beginningless avidhya in the form of karma, are ignorant of the true

reality and get involved in different kinds of activities and

enjoyment.The purpose of the vedantha texts is to impart knowledge to

them about the highest purushArTha, Brahman, with whom in the state of

release they merge and, who imparts infinite bliss to them by His

infinitele auspicious qualiies.

 

 

 

On enquiring as to how this knowledge is brought about, the texts like

'brahmavid ApnOthi param, the knower of Brahman attains the

Supreme,'(Brhd.2-1-1) and 'AthmAnam Eva lokam upAseetha,(Brhd.1-4-15)let

one meditate the world as his Self,' enjoin meditation as the means of

attaining Brahman. The attainment is compared to that of a man who is

told that there is a treasure under the groungd of his house or to the

situation where a prince getting lost and being brought up by a brahmin,

instructed in all the sasthras is told " your father, endowed with all

the kingly qualities, is waiting for you at the door step." the

impliation here is that the treasure which is our birth right, that is,

moksha, is just waiting to be found and we are like the prince who lost

his identity.

 

 

 

Ramanuja further answers the objection of the mimamsaka that the

sentences which teach about an already existent thing without reference

to any activity is like the stories told to children because they serve

no purpose. Even the stories, says Ramanuja, will be believed only as

long as they appear to be true and the moment they are known to be

unreal they cease to give pleasure to the children. The texts relating

to Brahman serve the purpose of being the highest purushArTha only

because the Brahman is known to be real.

 

 

 

Ramanuja ends the samanvayADHikaraNa saying that the texts like 'yathO

vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthE' etc. teach the existence of Brahman as

being the cause of the world, free from all imperfections and endowed

with infinite auspicious qualities and of the nature of unparlleled

bliss.