sribhashya-adhyaya2-padha3 -amsadhikaranam-end of padha3

[Guest guest]

amsAdhikaraNam-2-3-7

 

 

 

suthra42-amsO nAnA vyapadhEsAth anyaTHA chApi dAsa

kithavAdhithvamaDHeeyatha EkE-2-3-42

 

 

 

The individual self is a part of Brahman as the difference being

declared and otherwise the mention of fisherman, slave etc.

 

 

 

The foregoing Sûtras have declared that the individual soul is an

agent, and as such dependent on the supreme self. Now the question is,

whether the individual selfl is absolutely different from Brahman or

Brahman itself under the influence of avidhya or Brahman determined by a

limiting adjunct (upâdhi) or is it a part (amsa) of Brahman.

 

 

 

The texts that speak of absolute difference are 'jna ajnou dvou eesa

aneesou,(Svet.1-9) the two, one knowing the other not knowing, both

unborn one the master the other servile.' Those who hold this view say

that the knower and ignorant are entirely different and to ascribe any

unity between them involves contradiction like saying 'sprinkle with

fire. so the texts that speak of unity should be interpreted as

conveying secondary meaning. This is the contention of the

dualist,dvaitha school.Nondualist view is that the jiva is Brahman

deluded by avidhya and imagines difference.They quote the texts like

'ayam AthmA brahma,this self is Brahman,' and 'thathvamasi' etc.

 

 

 

The third view is that the jiva is Brahman limited by adjuncts

 

 

 

The suthra refutes all these views and says that jiva is a part of

Brahman since there is declaration of both difference and unity.Some

texts speak of Brahman and the individual self as having the

relationship of the creator and created,ruler and the ruled,omniscient

and ignorant,independent and dependent,pure and impure, possessing

auspicious qualities and the opposite of it,master and the servant etc.

Other texts like thathvamasi etc declare unity. There is yet another

text 'Brahman are the slaves, Brahman are these fishermen,' and so on,

implying the all pervading quailty of Brahman. To consider the both

types of texts to be true the jiva must be accepted as an amsa,part of

Brahman.

 

Neither the texts that describe the individual soul being the creation

of, under the control of, belonging to, being the sarira of,supported,

protected and annihilate by, Brahman nor being a devotee through which

the jiva obtains,, by the grace of Brahman, the purushArTHas and moksha

ultimately, all of which declare the difference between the jiva and

Brahman can be denied . In the same manner the texts that describe the

'willing' of Brahman to become many and after creating the world

entering into everything as the indwelling soul cannot be dismissed as

illusion. From the above it also becomes clear that the jiva cannot be

Brahman conditioned by adjuncts. Therefore to reconcile the both kinds

of texts the jiva is the amsa of Brahman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-43-manthravarNAth-2-3-43

 

 

 

Also from the words of manthra.

 

 

 

In chandhOgya upanishad it is declared 'pAdhOasyavisvAbhoothAni

thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi,(Chan.3-12-6) all beings and the world

constitute one part(quarter) of the supreme self and the rest of the

three quarters are immortal in heaven.' The word pAdha denotes amsa.The

plural term bhoothani, is used as souls are many.

 

 

 

suthra-44-api smaryathE-2-3-44

 

 

 

It is also stated in the smrithi.

 

 

 

In Bhagavatgita the Lord declares 'mamaivAmsO jivalOkE jivabhoothah

sanathanah,(BG.15-7) an eternal part of Myself has become the individual

soul.'

 

 

 

An objection is raised that if the soul is part of Brahman all

imperfections of the soul will be of Brahman too. The next suthra anwers

that

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-45-prakAsAdhivatthu naivam parah-2-3-45

 

 

 

As in the case of light it is not so.

 

 

 

As the light of a luminous body, the genaric character(jati) of an

entity and the colour of an object, though being part of the object they

qualify are different from it so also Brahman is different from the

individual self which forms its mode.A visEshaNa, attribute and the

visEshya the objject having the attribute are inseparable yet different.

The declarations of identity and difference denote the two aspects, the

inseparability of the substance and its attribute and the distinctness

of the substance and the attribute, respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-46-smaranthi cha-2-3-46

 

 

 

The smrthis also state this.

 

 

 

In VishnupurANa ParAsara states 'EkadhEsasTHithasyAgnEh jyothsnA

visthAriNee yaTHA,parsyabrahmaNah sakthih thTHEdham akhilam

jagath,(VP.1-22-56) just as the light of a luminous body that exists in

one place spreads around, the power of Brahman pervades the whole world.

Also the individual self is declared to be the body of the

Lord.'thasyasrjyasya sambhoothou thath sarvE vai harEsthanuh,' all these

created are the body of Hari.

 

 

 

To the objection that if all souls are the amsa of the Lord why should

there be inequality such as some are qualified to study the vedas and

some are not etc. The next suthra answers.

 

 

 

suthra-47-anujnAparihAraoudhehasambahDHAth jyothirAdhivath-2-3-47

 

 

 

Permission and exclusion is due to the connection with the body.

 

 

 

Like the fire which is from the household of a brahmana is accepted

while that from cremation ground is not, though the fire is the same

everywhere, the difference in qualificaton is due to the purity or

otherwise of the body the soul occupies.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-48-asanthathEh cha avyathikarah-2-3-48

 

 

 

Because of non-connection there is no confusion.

 

 

 

Even though all souls are part of Brahman they being atomic and

different from each other the result of the karma is different for each.

This would not have been possible, says Ramanuja if the individual soul

is identical with Brahman but under the influence of ignorance or

 

conditioned by upADhis.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-49-AbhAsa Eva cha-2-3-49

 

 

 

The arguments ( of others) are fallacious.

 

 

 

Since Brahman is self illumined if it does not shine because of avidhya

it will result in the destruction of the svarupa of Brahman as already

shown in the arguments against the advaita view.And it is against sruthi

also, as indicated by the' cha 'kAra in the suthra,as the texts

'prthagAthmAnam prErithAram cha mathvA, (Svet.1-6)thinking himself to be

different from the ruler,' and 'thayOranyah pippalam svAdhu atthi

anasnan anyah parichAkaseethi,(Svet.4-6) of the two, one eats the fruits

sweet and sour and the other looks on without eating,' clearly show that

the individual self is different from Brahman.

 

 

 

suthra-50-adhrshta aniyamAth-2-3-50

 

 

 

Because of non-determination of adhrshtas.

 

 

 

The opponent, bhEdhAbhedhavAdhin says that this difficulty can be

surmounted if the upAdhis are real and the differences are taken to be

the cause of beginningless adhrshta, unseen principle, which cause

upAdhis.

 

 

 

But this suthra refutes it by saying that since the upadhis have their

substratum as Brahman, who appears as though different from the jiva due

to upADHis, there can be no rule that a particular adhrshta acts for the

particular soul and hence there will be confusion.

 

 

 

suthra-51-abhisanDhyAdhishvapi chaivam-2-3-51

 

 

 

Similarly there can be no restriction in the case of purpose etc.

 

 

 

Neither can there be any definite rule regarding the purpose of

adhrshtas.

 

 

 

suthra-52-pradhEsabhEdhAth ithi cheth na, antharbhAvAth-2-3-52

 

 

 

If it is claimed that plurality of upADHi is due to difference of place

it is not so,because they are all within.

 

 

 

Brahman being limited by upADHis which occupy different places the

difference of experience is possible, says the opponent which is refuted

by the suthra saying that the upADHis move here and there and also

Brahman being one, the suffering in one place will affect the whole.

 

 

 

The last three suthras refute the view of those who profess the absolute

unity of the soul with Brahman.

 

 

 

Thus ends amsADHikaraNam.

 

 

 

The end of the third pAdha of the second aDHyAya of sribhAshya