sribhashya-chapter2-padha1-adhikaranas 1&2

[Guest guest]

sribhashya-second adhyaya

 

 

 

First padha

 

 

 

smrthyaDHikaraNam-2-1-1

 

 

 

 

 

In the first chapter it has been shown that Brahman is the subject

matter of all vedantha texts and that Brahman is different from the

insentient matter known from perception and other means of cognition and

also from the sentient soul, while in bondage and in release. Brahman,

who is free from imperfections and possessor of infinite auspicous

qualities has been understood as the cause of the world of sentient and

insentient beings and the innersoul of all. Now this chapter has begun

in order to refute all arguments against this. First the view of sankhya

is taken up and refuted.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-1-smrthyanavakAsadhOshaprasanga ithi chEth na

anyasmrthyanavakAsa dhOshaprasangATH-2-1-1

 

 

 

If it is claimed that there would be no scope for certain smrthis (like

that of sankhya) it is not so as otherwise some others will be having no

scope.

 

 

 

The opponent argues that the smrthi texts serve the purpose of

elucidating the sruthi texts and the sankhyan smrthi by sage Kapila

clearly shows that praDHAna, the premordial nture is the material cause

of the world. It is true that if the smrithi is contrary to the sruthi

it has to be set aside. But this view can be true only when there is no

ambiguity in the meaning of the sruthi passages. Here the meaning of the

vedantha texts are not explicit and hence the Kapila smrthi which

explains the thatthvas has to taken as authoritative.The possible

objection that in the smrithis like that of Manu there are arguments in

favour of the causality of Brahman is set aside by the opponent by

saying that the main purport of these smrthis is dharma and hence has

relevance to karamkAnada only whereas Kapilasmrthi deals with the

metaphysical and shows the path to happiness.As otherwise the

Kapilasmrthi wiil be meaningless the vedantha texts have to be

interpreted according to it

 

 

 

This view is refuted by the suthra. The smrthis like that of Manu do

teach that Brahman is the cause of the world and to accept the smrthi of

Kapila will result in their being rendered obsolete. We find in

Manusmrthi the following passage: Beginning with the words 'Aseedhidham

thamO bhootham, this world existed in the form of darkness,' and

continues to say 'thathah svayambhoorbhagavAn avyakthO vyanjayan idham;

mahAbhoothAdhi vrtthoujAh prAdhurAseeth thamOnudhah sOmiDHya cha

sarirAth svAth sisrkshuh viviDHAh prajAh, apa Eva sasarja Adhou thAsu

veeryam apAsrjath.' (Manu.1-5-8) This means, the Lord, self originated

and unmanifest, made all this manifest. The great elements and others

came from the darkness and the Lord created from His body all these

beings, first creating the waters and placing His seed in them.

 

 

 

In Bhagavathgita also we have the declaration 'aham sarvasya prabhavah

matthah sarvam pravarthathE,(BG.7-6) meaning "Iam the source of

everything and from Me everything proceeds." In Mahabharatha Bhishma was

asked, from where is this universe of movable and immovable objects are

created and in whom all this merges back at the time of annihilation and

he answers 'nArAyaNO jaganmoorthirananthAthmA sanAthanah, that it is

Narayana, the eternal and infinite self , who manifests as the world

and further it is said that from Him the unmanifest prakrthi constituted

of three gunas originated. If Kapila smrthi is taken as authoritative

these smrthis will be of no validity.

 

 

 

Ramanuja says that it is true that the meaning of vedanta texts are not

understood by those with limited knowledge because the subject matter of

those texts, being Brahman, is beyond perception and other means of

cognition. But there are many smrthis composed by competent and reliable

persons elucidating the purport of the vedantic texts and there is no

need to resort to the works such as Kapilasmrthi which are opposed to

the vedanthic view.

 

 

 

Even the smrthis like that of Manu which are said to deal with the

karamkanda they inculcate all the works only as the worship of the

Supreme self.'yathah pravrtthibhoothAnAm yEna sarvam idham thatham

svakarmaNA tham abhyarchya siddhim vindhathi mAnavah,' (BG.18-46) which

means, man achieves the highest by worshipping Him, from whom all

beings originate and by whom all are pervaded, through his own actions.

In vishnupurana the following text 'yaih svakarmaparaih nATHa

narairArADHithO bhavAn, thE tharanthyakhilAm EthAm mAyAm

AthmavimukthayE,' meaning, by those who worship you ,Oh Lord, with their

own works this maya is transcended. So even the smrthis which enjoin the

various works for getting result in this and other world, actually

emphasise the performance of the same works as an offering to the

supreme self.

 

 

 

Ramanuja concludes by saying ' yadhuktam "rshim prasootham kapilam" ithi

kapilasyaApthathayA samkirthanAth thathsmrthyanusArENa

vEdhAnthArThavyavasTHApanam nyAyyam ithi--thadhasath; brhaspathEh

sruthismrthishu sarvEshAm athisayitha jnAnAnAm nidharsanathvena

samkirthanAth thathpraNeethEna lOkAyathEna sruthyarTha vyavasTHApana

prasakthEh ithi.

 

 

 

What the passage means is this: If the smrthi of Kapila is to be

accepted as being authoritative on the basis of his being mentioned as

competent in the svethasvathara upanishad and the vedanta texts have to

be interpreted in accordance with it, then, it would follow that

Brahaspathi being mentioned as the most competent and wise person, the

atheistic and materilistic view of the smrthi composed by him should be

held as being authoritative as well. What Ramanuja means is that just as

the materialistic and atheistic view, that of the ChArvAkas, cannot be

accepted being opposed to vedas, similarly the Kapila smrithi also

cannot be accepted.

 

 

 

But the opponent says since Kapila by his yogic perception had intuited

the truth his view must be true. The next suthra answers this.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-2-ithrEshAm cha anupalabDHEh-2-1-2

 

 

 

Because of the nonperception of others of the view.

 

 

 

Manu and others also had yogic perception but they did not come to the

same conclusion as Kapila. Hence, Ramanuja concludes that the theory of

Kapila is based on misconception.

 

This is the end of smrthyaDHikaraNam.

 

 

 

 

 

yOgaprathyukthyaDHikaraNam

 

 

 

suthra-3-EthEna yOgah prathyukthah-2-1-3

 

 

 

Hereby the yoga is refuted.

 

 

 

The doubt that eventhough the sankhya smrthi may be rejected, the yoga

smrthi can be taken to be authoritative in as much as it recognises

Isvara, as the one who directs pradhAna and also because it was

propounded by Hiranyagarbha and proclaimed to be in accordance with the

vedantic texts.

 

 

 

This view is refuted by the suthra as this smrthi is also based on

error. Ramanuja gives the following reasons for rejecting the yoga

smrthi.

 

1. The praDHAna and not Brahman is mentioned as the cause of the world.

 

2.Isvara is cited only as the efficient cause.

 

3.The yoga of meditation on the self and the Isvara as outlined in the

yoga smrthi is avaidhic, contrary to vedas, because the self is not

brhmAthmaka, ensouled by Brahman, and the Isvara who is only the

efficient cause is not the Brahman of vedanta , endowed with infinite

auspcious qualities and the cause of the world.

 

4.The one who expounded the smrthi ,namely Hiranyagrbha is himself a

created being and liable to the influence of rajas and thamas.

 

 

 

Hence, yoga, which is also based on error cannot be used to support the

vedanthic texts. Thus ends the yOgaparthyukthyaDHikaraNam.