sribhashya -adhyaya3-padha3-adhikaranas15 and 16

[Guest guest]

(adhikaranas 12,13 and 14 already sent)

 

antharathvADHikaraNam-3-3-15

 

antharAbhoothagrAmavath svAthmanO anyaTHa bhEdhAnupapatthirithi cheth

na, upadhEsavath-3-3-15

 

If it is said that the individual self is referred to in the former

reply(in BrhadhaAraNyaka passage to be quoted) the answer is 'no' as in

the case of sadvidhya.

 

In BrhadAraNyaka Usastha asks Yajnavalkya 'yath sAkshAth aparOkshAth

brahma ya AthmA sarvAntharah thanmE vyAchakshva,(Brhd.3-4-1)teach me the

Brahman that is immediate and direct and the self within all,'the reply

is given as 'ya prANEna praNithi sa tha AthmA, he who sustains life

through prANa , he is the self.' To the same question put by Kahola

later Yajnavalkya answers 'yO asnAyApipAse sokam moham

jarAmrthyumathyEthi, (Brhd.3-5-1) he who transcends hunger,thirst,

grief, old age and death,' knowing that self etc. The poorvapakshin

holds the view that the two meditations are different on account of the

difference in reply.The former refers to the individual self which is

different from prANa etc while the latter refers to the supreme self

which is different from the individual self, being free from hunger etc.

 

The suthra refutes this view and says that in both cases it is only the

supreme self which is referred to. The question relating to

'yathsAkshAth aparOkshAth brahma ya AthmasarvAntharah, Brahman that is

direct and immediate, the self within all, clearly shows that it is the

supreme self only. The qualities sAkshAtthvam and aparOkshathvam,

manifest and directly intuited refers to Brahman only.The aparOkshathvam

means, says Ramanuja,'sarvadhEsa sarvakAla sambanDHithvam' and it

applies only to Brahman who is defined as sathyam jnAnam anantham. Also

the word 'ya AthmA sarvAntharah' the inner self of all means only

Brahman known from the text

 

The answers also are only about Brahman.In the first, 'yah prANEna

praNithi,' who sustains life through prANa is only the supreme self as

the individual self has no control over prANa in deep sleep. Similarly

in the second answer, the one beyond hunger etc is the supreme self

only. As both replies end with the same phrase 'athOanyadhArtham,'

meaning, everything else is perishable,which shows that they are of the

same content.

 

This point is illustrated by sadvidhya, cited as the example. The

enquiry on Brahman is reiterated in order to explain the glory of

Brahman fully.

 

 

 

suthra-36-vyathihAro visimshanthi-heetharavath-3-3-36

 

There is interchange of ideas ; they indeed specify the same Brahman as

in other cases (meaning as in sadvidya)

 

The two cases of interaction mentioned above are not different vidhyas

because the subject matter of the questions and the answers in both

cases is the same, the term enjoining the meditation is also similar.

Both the questions are about Brahman as the innerself of all. In the

second question the term 'Eva' is used which denotes that the question

is about the selfsame Brahman as learnt by Usastha with the qualities

mentioned therein. This shows that Brahman as the inner self of all is

only the object of meditation in both cases. In the former the innerself

is denoted as the cause of sustenance of all beings while in the latter

it is mentioned as being free from hunger etc.

 

Here an objection is raised that if the meditation is on Brahman as the

self of all why should there be the mention of Brahman as the cause of

life in one answer and as beyond hunger etc. in the other. The reply to

this is,Brahman being the inner self of all is ascertained on the basis

of being the cause of life as an answer to Usastha while KahOla repeats

the question expecting to establish the difference of Brahman, the inner

self from the individual self and for this reason YAjnavalkya describes

Brahman as being opposite of all imperfections. as in the case of

sadvidhya.

 

 

 

suthra-37-saiva hi sathyAdhayah-3-3-37

 

It is the same, sathya etc.

 

It is the same, namely Brahman who is denoted by the word sath is

referred to in the rest of the passage in sadvidhya beginning with

'thadhaikshatha,(Chan.6-3-2) it willed,' and also in the later texts in

the section such as 'yathA soumya madhu madfhukrthO nisthishtTanthi, as

the bees , my dear, prepare honey,' and in the concluding part,

'EthAthmyam idham sarvam thath sathyam sa Athma thathvamasi , all this

is ensouled by That; and it is the truth and the real self and that thou

art.' Thus ends the antharathvAdhikaraNam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kAmAdhyaDHikaraNam-3-3-16

 

suthra-38-kAmAdhi itharathra thathra cha AyathanAdhibhyah-3-3-38

 

Wishes etc. are to be accepted here and there because of the abode etc.

 

In ChandhOgya it is said 'aTHa yadhidham asmin brahmapurE dhaharam

pundareekam vEsma dhaharah asmin antharAkAsah thasmin yadhanthah

thadhanvEshtavyam, (Chan.8-1-1) in the city of Brahman there is a

mansion , a small lotus and in it is the small AkAsa.' and on

BrahadhAraNyaka there is a text 'sa vA Esha mahAnaja AthmA yO ayam

vijnAnamayah prANeshu cha EshO antharhrdhaya AkAsah thasmin sEthE

sarvasya vasee sarvasya eesAnah, (Brhd.4-4-22) he is the great unborn

self, consists of knowledge,He sleeps in the AkAsa inside the heart.He

is the controller and the Lord of all.'

 

Now the question is whether the two texts denote the same meditation or

not.Because of the difference in the character of the meditations the

opponent says that they are different.But the suthra refutes this as the

object of meditation is the same in both, namely, Brahman qualified by

sathyakamathva, of true wish. The meditations are the same since Brahman

is mentioned as abiding in the heart in both the passages. Therefore the

two meditations are the same regarding their object and contents. The

fruit of meditation is also the same. In chandhOgya it is said 'param

jyothirupasampadhya svena rupeNa abhinishpadhyathE, (Chan.8-12-3)having

reached the supreme light he manifested himself in in his own true

form.' BrhadharaNyaka text goes as 'abhayam vai brahma bhavathi,

(Brhd.4-4-25)he becomes fearless Brahman,' both meaning the same. The

term AkAsa denotes Brahman in both the texts. Hence the two meditations

are the same.

 

 

 

suthra-39-AdhrAdhalOpah-3-3-39

 

On account of emphasis there cannot be omission of the auspicious

attributes of Brahman.

 

The opponent says that the attributes like vasithvam sathyakAmathvam

etc are not really the qualities of Brahman because of the texts denying

qualities in Brahman and hence should not be included in meditation.

This suthra refutes the view and says that the auspicious qualities

should not be omitted.

 

Attributes such as sathyakAmathva as made out by ChandhOgya and

BrhadhAraNyaka and several other texts are to be included as they are

taught as the essential qualties of Brahman who is the object of

meditation in all these passages with a view of attaining final release

and hence has to be included. Ramanuja says, 'na cha

mAthApithrsahasrEbhyO api vathsalatharam sasthram prathArakavath

apAramArThikAn nirasaneeyAn guNAn pramAnAntharaprathipannAn AdharENa

upadhisya samsArachakraparivarthanEnapoorvamEva babhramyamANAn

mumukshoon bhooyo api bhramayithum alam.'

 

The meaning of the passage is this:Scripture being more caring than even

own parents will not give emphasis to qualities that are not known

through any other means except by scripture alone if they are unreal and

thus to be disregarded, and make those, who are alreadyconfused by the

samsara and seek salvation, into deeper delusion and distress. The

expressions such as agrAhyah na hi grhyathE aseeryah na hi seeryathE, He

is incomprehensible and undecayind etc are to show the difference of

Brahman from the world and from everything known through other means of

cobgnition except through scriptures. In ChAndhOgya Brahman is

established as being different from everything else by 'nAsya jarayA

Ethath jeeryathEna vaDHEna asya hanyathEEthath sathyam brahmapuramasmin

kAmAh samAhithAh, (Chan.8-1-5) and then declare the qualities such as

sathyakAmathva and sathyasankalpathva etc.

 

Here the opponent argues that the text 'thadhya iha AthmAnam

anuvidhyavrajanthi Etham cha sathyAn kAmAn,thEshAm sarvEshu lOkEshu

kAmachArO bhavathi,(Chan.8-1-6) those who depart from here having

understood the Athman and these true desires, for them there is freedom

to act as they wish in all the worlds,' does not refer to the state of

release and hence enjoin the meditation on Brahman with attributes. Only

the text 'param jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathe,

having attained the supreme light he manifests in his own form,' refers

to the fruit of Brahmavidhya.To this the next suthra gives the answer.

 

 

 

suthra-40-upasTHithEh athah thadvachanAth-3-3-40

 

The freedom of movement etc. is only with respect to the one who is

released as stated in the scriptures.

 

The text quoted to prove the attainment of Brahman means that only for

the one who has manifested in his true form there is free movement.So

the both texts imply the same thing because the actual text is 'param

jyOthrupaampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE, sa utthama purushah,

sa thathra paryEthi,jakshath kreedan,having reached the highest light he

manifests himself in true form, he is the supreme person,he moves about

eating playing etc..' So it shows that the free movement is the result

of the final release. Hence the sathyakAmathva etc. are to be included

in the meditation of Brahman.