sribhashya-adhyaya3-padha3-adhikarana3 and 4

[Guest guest]

sarvAbhEdhADHikaraNam-3-3-3

 

suthra-10-sarvAbhEdhAth anyathra imE-

 

3-3-10

 

Because of nondifference of everything in other places also.

 

In ChandhOya and BrhadhAraNyaka texts the meditation on prANa is

enjoined where we find that the attributes of prANA mentioned are the

same.The qualities mentioned are ,jyEshTa the best and srEshTa the

oldest, besides certain other qualities such as vasishTa,the richest,

and being the support and abode of all etc. In the Kousheetaki upanishad

however while the meditation enjoined is the same, that of prANA, the

qualities such as the richest etc,. are not mentioned and therefore the

poorvapakshin says that it is different from that mentioned in

ChandhOgya and BrhdhAraNyaka.

 

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that the meditation is common

to all the three upanishads. the Kousheetaki text also contains the same

method with all its details proceeding to prove that prANa is the best

and the oldest.Hence the other qualities like being richest etc. are to

be considered as being relevant here also as prANa cannot be proved to

be the oldest and the best without them.Hence there is no

difference.Thus ends sarvAbhEdhAdhikaraNam.

 

 

 

AnandhAdhyaDhikaraNam-3-3-4

 

suthra-11-AnandhAdhayah praDHAnasya-

 

3-3-11

 

Bliss and other qualities of the main subject, Brahman (are to be

included in all meditations.)

 

Just as the qualities like richness and others relating to prANa are to

be included in all meditations on prANa even when they are not

explicitly mentioned, this suthra tends to prove that the qualities of

Brahman, without which the meditation on Brahman is not possible, are to

be included in all meditations on Brahman. The view that the qualities

that are not mentioned need not be included is refuted on the basis that

the object of meditation being Brhaman which is the same in all

meditations, the qualities such as bliss, knowledge etc., being

permanent qualities of Brahman, have to be included.

 

 

 

suthra-12-priyasirasthvAdhi aprApthih upachayApachayou hi bhEdhe-3-3-12

 

The description of Brahman such as having joy for His head etc are not

taken as attributes as otherwise it will result in increase or decrease

in Brahman.

 

In Taittiriya upanishad there is a passage describing the blissful self

'anyO anthara AthmA Anandhamayah, (Tait.II-5-1) there is another

internal self constituted of bliss.' there is the subsequent text

'thasyapriyamEva sirah, joy alone is His head.' These qualities, says

the suthra, are not to be included in meditation on Brahman as they are

not real attributes of Brahman, but only due to figurative presentation

of an embodied being. Otherwise the head ,sides, etc described in the

passage, being parts of Brahman, it will result in increase or decrease.

This will contradict the texts such as 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma,'

 

Here an objection is presented that if the above argument that all the

qualities of Brahman, such as being lordly,unfathomable,all giving and

merciful etc. are to be included in meditation because they are

inseparable from Brahman, then all the infinite qualities are to be

contemplated, which is impossible. The next suthra gives the solution to

this difficulty.

 

 

 

suthra-13-itharE thu arTha sAmAnyAth-3-3-13

 

But the others like bliss etc are the essential qualities and therefore

common to Brahman.

 

The qualities like sathyam, jnAnam, anantham,(truth, knowledge and

infinity) and Anandham,bliss and also being the cause of the world etc

constitute the nature of Brahman and have to be included. The others

like aisvarya.lordliness etc ,though inseparable, are not the requisites

that are necessary to define the nature of Brahman Hence they are

included only when specified.

 

 

 

suthra-14-AdhyAnAya prayojanAbhAvAth-

 

3-3-14

 

These attributes are for the purpose of meditation as there is no other

purpose.

 

An objecton is raised that the figurative representation of Brahman

having bliss for his head etc. serves no purpose as in the case of

'AtmAnam raThinam viddhi, know the self as the charioteer,' where the

body is said to be the chariot etc., in order to show that the body

etc. are subservient to the self.

 

The suthra answers that the figurative description is for the sake of

meditation which is enjoined by the text, 'brahmavidhApnothi

param,(Tait.2-1) one who knows Brahman reaches the supreme. The Brahman

is denoted as divided into joy,priyam (on getting a thing),happiness

mOdha(in experiencing it),pramOdha (exhilaration) and Anandha,bliss,

(Tait.2-5) for accomplishing the meditation which are figuratively

described as the head, right and left sides and the self respectively.

Similar is the description in the preceding sections of the self as

annamaya, prANamaya etc. (Tait.2-1to2-4) As these are only the

secondary attributes of the Self (Brahman) and not its essential nature

thes are not to be included in all meditation of the Self.

 

 

 

suthra-15-AthmasabdhAth cha-3-3-15

 

Because of the term Self.

 

>From the text 'anyO anthara AthmA Anadhamayah,there is another self made

of bliss, which shows that the self cannot have parts like head etc.

these expressions are only figurative.

 

But when the preceding sections the expressions self of breath self of

mind etc. are used to denote something other than the real Self So how

can the self of bliss be taken to mean the real inner Self? The next

suthra answers to this.

 

suthra-16-Athmagrheethih itharavath uttharAth-3-3-16

 

Only the Supreme self is denoted as in other texts, as known from the

later passage.

 

In the text ' anyO anthara AthmA Anandhamayah, there is another self

constituted of bliss,' the term 'self' denotes only the supreme self as

in the other texts. The word itharavath, in the suthra refers to the

texts like Athma vA idhamEka Eva agra Aseeth sa eekshatha lOkAnnu

srjjai,(Ait.1-1-1) the Self only was this in the beginning; it thought,

let me send forth the worlds,' where the term self refers only to the

supreme self. Like that in the later passage of Taittitiya 'sO

akAmayatha bahu syAm prajAyEya, it willed to become many,' which refers

to the self of bliss, it is proved that only the supreme self is

denoted.

 

 

 

suthra-17-anvayAth ith cheth syAth avaDHAraNAth-3-3-17

 

Though the term self is connected with nonself it is possible to draw

the conclusion through ascertainment.

 

To the objection that since the term is self is used with reference to

nonself as prANamaya AthmA etc, how can the term be taken to mean the

suprme self only in the last passage describing the blissful self, the

suthra answers that it is ascertained to be so.The passage says in the

beginning 'thasmAth Va EthasmAth AkAsah sambhoothah,(Tait.2-1-1) from

that Brahman which is the self the AkAsa was produced,' ascertaining

that it is the supreme self only and that idea is carried over in the

subsequent reference to the self as annamaya, prANamaya etc. denoting

that there is a self other than each of the nonself referred to as

annamaya ,prANamaya etc., ending with the blissful self. Thus from the

beginning the term self is used to denote nonself with the idea that the

supreme self has entered into them as their inner self.Thus ends

AnandhyAdhyaDHikaraNam.