sribhashya-eekshathyadhikaranam continued-suthras6to12

[Guest guest]

suthra- 6- GouNascheth na AtmasabdhAth

 

 

 

It is not secondary due to the word Atman being used.

 

 

 

This suthra refutes the argument that the 'eekshaNa' the act of seeing

can refer to praDHAna, taken in the secondary sense. The later text

'aithadhAthmyam idham sarvam, sa athmA, all this is ensouled by that,

which is the Self of everything' refers to 'that' which is denoted by

the word 'sath.' As the insentient praDHAna cannot be termed as the

sentient self it means only Brahman. This meaning is further

strengthened by the text 'hanthAham imAh thisrah devatha anena AthmanA

anupravisya namarupe vyAkaravaNi, let me enter into these three deities

as their self and give them name and form.' So the eekshaNam cannot be

contrived as being figurative but is only in the primary sense

 

 

 

 

 

Suthra-7- Thannishtasya mOkshOpadhesAth-1-1-7

 

 

 

Because release is the teaching here to one who is desirous of it.

 

 

 

In the passage referred to here, the student svEtha kEthu is being

instructed by his father about salvation. After imparting the knowledge

'that thou art,' he is told that there will be delay only till this body

is discarded. This will not be appropriate if pradhAna is the subject

matter of the passage. Even to Sankhya, pradhAna is not instrumental to

release.

 

 

 

suthra-8-Heyathva avachanAccha-1-1-8

 

 

 

Also because there is no mention of discarding it(sath)

 

 

 

This means that if pradhAna is the meaning of 'sath,' since it is not

conducive to moksha the mumukshu, aspirant for release would be advised

to give it up. But here it is not so. On the contrary, he is instructed

'thou art that'.

 

 

 

 

 

Suthra-9 prathijnavirodhAth-1-1-9

 

 

 

It is contrary to prathijna.

 

 

 

Pradhana is not the purport of the passage because it would be contrary

to the promissory statement, prathijna, of knowing everything by the

knowledge of one. As pradhana can only be the cause of the insentient

beings the knowledge of it will not lead to that of the sentient beings.

 

 

 

Suthtra-10- svApyayaAth-1-1-10

 

 

 

Because of merging with the self.

 

 

 

The text 'svapnAntham mE soumya vijaneehi;yathra ethath purushah

svapithinAma, sathAsowmya thadhA sampanno bhavathi; svam apeetho

bhavathi, learn from me about the nature of sleep.When a man sleeps he

unites with 'sath' and merges into his self. In sleep there is no

identity of namarupa and the self exists in its pristine form and

becomes one with Brahman, its real self. Therefore the state of sleep is

akin to dissolution when all beings merge in Brahman. The sruthi text

mentions the state of sleep as that when 'prAjnena AthmanA

samparishvakthah na bAhyam kimchana vEdha nAntharam,(brhd.4-3-21)

embraced by the sentient self he knows nothing inside and outside.' On

awakening the identity of nAmarupa reassert themselves as per the text

'tha iha vyagro vA simhO vA vrko vA varAhO vA dhamsO vA masakO vA

yadyadbhavanthi thdhAbhavanthi,' all beings resume their identity as a

tiger, lion, wolf, boar, insect or a mosquito, whatever they were

before. Therefore as the merging into pradhAna in their sleep cannot

happen the word 'sath'denotes the Supreme purusha only.

 

 

 

Suthra-11- gathisAmAnyAth-1-1-11

 

 

 

Because of the uniformity of view.

 

 

 

Several texts referring to the creation mention Brahman as the creator.

'AthmA vA idhameka Eva agra Aseeth, this was only the sself in the

beginning,'(aith.aran.II-4-11) thasmath vA EthasmAth Athmana AkAsah

sambhoothah, AkAsAth vayuh,vAyoragnih,agnErApah,adhhyah

prthivi,(taitt.2-1) From the Self came the space, from space, wind, from

wind came fire,from fire, water and from water came the earth. In all

these passages Brahman is mentioned as the cause . So even in this

passage, namely 'sadheva soumya idhamgraAseeth,' the word 'sath' refers

to brahman only.

 

 

 

Suthra-12- sruthathvaccha-1-1-12

 

 

 

Because it is directly mentioned in the scriptures.

 

 

 

Ramanuja quotes various texts to show that by the word 'sath, only the

Supreme Self, omniscient omnipotent, support of all , of fruitful and

infallible will, free from all defects etc. is referred to. In Chandogya

itself it is stated by later passages that Brahman is the self of all.

'anena jeevena AthmAnam anupravisya nAmarupe vyakaravANi, I will enter

into this jeeva as its self and give name and form,' Later

'sanmoolAhsoumya imAh sarvAh prajAh sadhAyathnAh, satpravishtAh,all

these beings have 'sath' as their source, they reside in it and rest in

it,' and 'EthadhAthmyam idham sarvam thatsatyam sa AthmA, all these are

ensouled by that which is truth and which is their true Self.'

 

 

 

Ramanuja concludes that these and other texts which specifically mention

that the world has originated from the Lord NArAyaNa, the ocean of

infinite auspicious qualities, the Supreme Lord, all knowing, all

powerful etc. 'antharbahischa thatsarvam vyapya nArAyanassTHithah.(

Mahanarayana up. 11).

 

 

 

Since it is established by the above sruthi texts that Brahman must be

the Supreme person capable of manifesting as the world supporting all

beings as their inner Self, the advaita view that Brahman is

undifferentiated consciousness is also set aside, says Ramanuja.

 

Thus ends the 'eekshthyaDhikaraNam.'