sribhashya-vakanvayadhikaranam-1-4-6

[Guest guest]

vAkyAnvayADHikaraNam-1-4-6

 

 

 

suthra-19-vAkyAnvayAth-1-4-19

 

 

 

Self in the passage shown is Brahman because of the connected meaning.

 

 

 

In the BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad there is this text 'na va arE pathyuh

kAmAya pathih priyO bhavathi, the husband is loved not because of

himself ,' which continues to enumerate all relations and possessions

in this manner finally saying that everything is loved because of the

love of the Self.'na vA arE sarvasya kAmaya sarvam priyam

bhavathi;Athmanasthu kAmAya sarvam priyam bhavathi.' (Brhd.IV-5,6) The

text ends with 'Atma va arE dhrashytavyah srothavyah

nidhiDhyAsthavyah;maithrEyi Athmani khalu arE dhrshtE,sruthe mathE

vijnAthe idham sarvam vidhitham, this Self is to be seen,heard, thought

of and meditated upon when all will be known.'

 

 

 

Here a doubt is raised by the poorvapakshin as to whether the self

described therein is the individual self,the purusha of sankhya, or the

supreme self. He claims that it is the former because of the reference

to the individual self from the beginning to the end. At first the

various individual selves like husband, wife son etc are mentioned. In

the middle it is said that the sentient soul, denoted by the term

vijnAnaGhana, rises from the elements and and goes back into them and

when the soul departs there is nothing left.'vijnAnaGHana Eva EthEbhyah

bhoothEhyah samutthAya thAni Eva anuvinasyathi;na prethya samjnA

asthi.'(Brhd.II-4-12) Thus the origination and the destruction of the

soul is mentioned and in the end by the words 'vijnAthAram arE kEna

vijAneeyath'(Brhd.II-14) who can know the knower the same individual

self is indicated as the knower.

 

 

 

There may be a possible argument, says the poorvapakshin, that by the

words in the text, 'amrthathvasya thu na AsA asthi vitthEna, money can

never arouse desire for immortality,'it is evident that only the Brahman

who is referred to as the self. But this cannot be an objection because

what is meant here is the real nature of the individual self acquired

through the knowledge of the distinctness of the purusha from praDHAna

and its evolutes, which makes him a freed soul. When the nature of all

the released souls are known to be the same, the knowledge of all by the

knowledge of the self makes sense since all beings from devas to the

plants are of uniform nature and the difference is only due to the

prkrthipariNAma, the intermingling of the three guNas, the constituents

of prakrthi only.

 

 

 

This view is refuted by the suthra because the meanings of the various

passage are found to be connected only when the purport of all of them

are taken to mean Brahman. When YAjnavalkya told MaithrEyi who asked him

the reason for his leaving all his property and going away he replied

that the immortality cannot be attained through wealth. Then she wanted

to know about immortality 'yEnAham nAmrthAsyAm kimaham thEna

kuryAm;yadhEva bhagavAn vedha thadhEva mE broohi,' (Brhd.2-4-3) meaning,

as there is no use of all the wealth he is giving her she wanted to know

that which will make her immortal. Thereupon he started instructing her

on brahmavidhya. The self thus taught is not the individual self but it

is Brahman, as the scriptures say that the immortality can be attained

only through the knowledge of Brahman. The texts 'thamEva vidhithvA

athimrthyumEthi,and 'thamEvam vidvAn amrtha iha bhavathi,' (svet.3-8)

show this clearly. The same Brahman is referred to in the passage 'AthmA

vA are dhrashtavyah' etc Moreover the declaration that all the vedas

were breathed out by the great Being,'asya mahathah bhoothasya

nisvasitham Ethath yadhrgvEdha' will apply only to Brahman., who is the

cause of the universe. Also 'AthmanO vA are dharsanEna sarvam

vidhitham,' (Brhd.2-4-5) that by seeing the Athman all is known, can be

true only with respect to Brahman. What is said that by knowing one

individual self all is known is not correct because it does not involve

the knowledge of the insentient universe.The text mentions of different

categories such as brAhmaNa, kshathriya devas and all beings and says

that all this is only the Self, 'idham brhma idham kshathramimElokAh,imE

dhEvAh ,imAni bhoothAni idham sarvam yadhayam AthmA, ' (Brhd.2-4-6)

which could be only Brahman. The preceding sentence 'sarvam tham

parAdhAth yO anyathra Athmanah sarvam vedha, all these mentioned leave

him who sees the self elsewhere,' eliminates everything else but Brahman

from being the self. The attributes found in a later passage, 'Evam vA

are idham mahathbhootham anantham apAram vijnAnaGHna Eva,' namely, the

greatness, infinity, limitlessness and essence of knowledge suit only

the Supreme Self.

 

 

 

Ramanuja takes up next the claim of the opponent that the individual

self is the subject matter of the maithreyi brAhamanA because of the

connection with husband etc. He says that on the other hand the

connection clearly is established only with the supreme self because the

phrase 'the self is indeed to be seen,'AthmA vA arE dhrashtavyah,' etc.

which has been proved to denote Brahman will not otherwise be in

accordance with the opening text. Hence the context is as follows: all

the things which are dear to man like wife son,wealth etc. are not

productive of joy by themselves and hence dear, but, they are so

because of the will of the Lord who is the self of all. This is known

from the text in Taittiriya 'Esha hyEva AnandhayAthi, (tait.2-7) this

Supreme self makes all happy.' It is also indicated that the things by

themselves are not conducive to happiness or sorrow by 'thadhEva

preethyE bhoothva punarduhkhAya jAyathE, thdhEva kopAya yathah

prasAdhAya cha jAyathe; thasmAth duhkhAthmakam nAsthi na cha kimchith

sukhAthmakam,' meaning,that which gives pleasure turns out to be the

cause of sorrow and that which angers itself gives peace and hence there

is nothing inherently joyful or painful.

 

 

 

The view that the word self in the beginning may denote the individual

soul while the self to be seen etc may be the supreme self on account of

the realisation that the husband etc are not conducive to eternal

happiness , is set aside by Ramanuja who says that in the section the

word self is used only in the sense of the supreme self as everything is

said to exist for the pleasure of the Self and the self which is to be

seen are one and the same.

 

suthra-20-pratijnAsiddhErlingam Asmarathyah-1-4-20

 

 

 

Asmarathya thinks that the word indicating the individual self is the

indicatory mark of proving the promissory statement. because of the

identity between Brahman and the individual self.

 

 

 

By the statement that the self alone was existing in the beginning

'AthmA vA idham eka Eva agra Aseeth, (Aith.2-4-1-1) the oneness of the

individual soul with Brahman is declared and the former being the

effect of Brahamn is shown by the text in mundaka upanishad which speaks

of all beings produced from Brahman as sparks from the fire and merge

back into Brahman in the end.'yaTHA sudheepthAth pAvakAth visphulingAh

sahasrasAh prabhavanthE saroopAh, thaTHA aksharAth viviDHAh soumya

bhAvAh prajayanthe thathra cha Eva apiyanthi.' Hence the individual

souls being the effects of Brahman they are identical with it and

therefore the promissory statement of knowing one resulting in the

knowledge of all is proved.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-21-uthkramishyatha Evam bhAvAth ithi aoudulomih-1-4-21

 

 

 

The nature of the individual soul which rises from the body denotes that

it is Brahman, says Aoudulomi.

 

 

 

Aoudulomi does not accept the view that the promissory statement is

proved through the identity of the individual soul with Brahman and by

its being the effect of Brahman.He says that the soul is shown to have

no origination from the text 'na jAyathe mriyathe va vipaschith, the

discriminating self is not born and does not die,' If the souls are

created by Brahman, the world being created according to the result of

karma of the individual souls will not make sense and if they merge

with Brahman like the pot becoming clay losing its identity the

aspiration for moksha will not be there. Therefore as per the text Esha

samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param jyOthrupasampadhya svena

rupENa abhinishpadhyathE; (Chan.8-3-4) this serene self rising from the

body reaches the highest light appears in its true form,' the individual

soul possesses the characterestics of Brahman in its state of release.

Hence the word denoting the individual self refers to Brahman only.

 

 

 

suthra-22-avasThithErithi kAsakrtsnah-1-4-22

 

The words denoting the individual self refers to Brahman because it

resides in the individual self, says KAsakrthsna.

 

 

 

The view that because the individual self becomes Brahman when it rises

from the body, the word denoting it refers to Brahman in reality, is

refuted by Kasakrthsna because, if the individual self is not Brahman

before departure from the body due to its essential nature it can never

become Brahman. If the difference from Brahman before departure is due

to a limiting adjunct, it means that the soul was Brahman even before

departure but only limited by the adjunct. If it is said that the real

nature is obscured while in the body,if the obscuration is real it

cannot be removed. if it is unreal it cannot obscure the soul which is

self illuminated in reality, being Brahman.

 

 

 

Therefore AchArya Kasakrthsna, says Ramanuja, states that the individual

self being ensouled by Brahman, the word denoting the individual self

can be taken to mean Brahman. Scriptural texts are several to show that

the inner self is Brahman such as 'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanah antharah

yamAthmA na veda yasya Athma sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa

tha AthmA anthryAmyamrthah,(Brhd.3-7-22) He who stays inside the self

whom the self does not know ,whose body is the self and who rules the

self from within ,He is the inner self and immortal. The text in

Taitthiriya (1-3-21) 'anthah pravishtah sAsthA janAnam sarvAthma. the

one who has entered into all beings as their self,' also confirms this.

 

 

 

Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying that this relationship of the

individual soul and Brahman, namely the sarirasariri bhAva renders

explanation of all the scriptural texts, proclaiming the characterstics

of Brahman such as omniscience, blemishlessness and being the cause of

the universe etc. Therefore the suthrakAra also accepts only the view of

Kasa krthsna as there is no more argument presented after it.

 

 

 

Hence the passage in Maitreyi brAhmaNA of BrhadhAranyaka upanishad is to

be explained as follows:

 

When Maithreyi wanted to know that which will lead to immortality,

Yajnavalkya explains the meditation on the highest self, Brahman, the

cause and the ruler of all beings. Then he shows that the individual

self of the meditator, when it departs from body is no longer limited

in knowledge as the karma which made its knowledge contracted, has been

destroyed. That Brahman is known only through meditation which alone is

the road to immortality. With this ends the vAkyAnvayADHikaraNam.