A close look at two BSB's

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Sadhakas,

 

Recently there was occasion to look at the Brahmasutra bhashyam

Chapter III.ii.22,23 etc. Here is a note on what could be learnt by a

close look at two sutra bhashyams: the 23rd and the 24th in particular.

 

The Background:

 

In the Sutra 22, there is a very detailed discussion on the import of

the Sruti 'Neti Neti'. The question as to whether this Sruti goes to

negate the entire creation and Brahman and ends up in a kind of non-

existence, abhAva is taken up. The final admitted view that Acharya

Shankara lays out is that the negation is only of the entire creation

and the Substratum/Cause Brahman is retained as the One Without a

Second.

 

Now, when the entire creation, the objective universe, is negated,

there arises a doubt as to what is it that remains, if at all. For,

when the creation consisting of the manifest as well as the unmanifest

states are negated, one will be forced to come to a conclusion that

there is nothing indeed left; Brahman included. This is because,

nothing is grasped/graspable then. With a view to remove this

misconception, the next Sutra, no.23 is given out.

 

There is something interesting here. In the Shastra, there is the

method of 'anvaya-vyatireka', concordance-discordance or agreement-

disagreement method to establish a proposition. We find this method

being employed here, although not explicitly spelt out as such. The

method works like this:

 

In the 23rd sutra, Brahman is shown as existent through the method of

vyatireka, 'negative'ly. The Bhashyam speaks for itself:

 

 

 

//23. That (Brahman) is unevolved; for (thus scripture) says.

 

If that highest Brahman which is different from the world that is

negatived in the passage discussed above really exists, why then is it

not apprehended?--Because, the Sûtrakâra replies, it is unevolved, not

to be apprehended by the senses; for it is the witness of whatever is

apprehended (i.e. the subject in all apprehension). Thus Sruti

says, 'He is not apprehended by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the

other senses, not by penance or good works' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 8); 'That

Self is to be described by No, no! He is incomprehensible, for he

cannot be comprehended' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 26); 'That which cannot be

seen nor apprehended' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 6); 'When in that which is

invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported' &c. (Taitt. Up. II,

7). Similar statements are made in Smriti-passages; so e.g. 'He is

called unevolved, not to be fathomed by thought, unchangeable.'//

 

The question: 'If Brahman exists, why is It not grasped?'is answered

in the above Bhashyam.

 

Now, as this alone is not sufficient to establish that Brahman exists

after the negation is done, the next Sutra is given. In 24,

the 'anvaya' method, or the 'positive' method of saying that Brahman

does exist is employed. The Bhashya, again, speaks for itself:

 

 

//24. And in the state of perfect conciliation also (the Yogins

apprehend the highest Brahman), according to Sruti and Smriti.

 

At the time of perfect conciliation the Yogins see the unevolved Self

free from all plurality. By 'perfect conciliation' we understand the

presentation before the mind (of the highest Self), which is effected

through meditation and devotion.--This is vouched for by Sruti as well

as Smriti. So, e.g. Ka. Up. IV, 1, 'The Self-existent pierced the

openings of the senses so that they turn outward; therefore man looks

without, not within himself. Some wise man, however, with his eyes

closed and wishing for immortality, saw the Self within.' And Mu. Up.

III, 1, 8, 'When a man's mind has become purified by the serene light

of knowledge then he sees him, meditating on him as without parts.'

Smriti-passages of the same tendency are the following ones, 'He who

is seen as light by the Yogins meditating on him sleepless, with

suspended breath, with contented minds, with subdued senses; reverence

be to him 1!' and 'The Yogins see him, the august, eternal one.'//

 

In the above, the question: 'If Brahman is stated to be existent, when

is It grasped?' is answered.

 

Thus, by the method of anvaya-vyatireka the existence of Brahman after

negation of the entire creation is established in the above two

Sutra/Bhashyams.

 

There is not just this much that is accomplished by these two sutras.

There is something that is of vital importance as well that these two

sutras contain. We know from the Shastra that there are two kinds of

jnanam, realization, knowledge, that arise from the study of the

shastra: paroksha and a-proksha or mediate and im-mediate or indirect

and direct knowledge. The first kind, although not false or invalid,

is the earlier stage not leading directly to liberation. It, however,

facilitates the arising of the second, direct, aparoksha jnanam that

straightaway results in liberation. These two are succinctly defined

in the Panchadashi as:

 

asti brahmeti ched veda paroksha-jnAnameva tat

aham brahmeti ched veda sAkshAtkAras-sa uchyate (VI.16)

 

(see also VII.45,51,52,54 and VI.15)

 

[To know that 'Brahman (the same as my true Self) is' is mediate

knowledge; and to know that 'I am Brahman' is immediate direct

experience.]

 

In the above two Sutras, the first one: no.23 speaks of paroksha

jnanam by saying that Brahman exists. But the next one, no.24

specifies the aparoksha jnanam by speaking of 'by whom, how and when'

this jnanam is directly secured.

 

Pranams to the revered Sutra-kAra, the Bhashya-kAra and all the

Teachers who propagate this lofty sampradaaya.

 

subbu

Om Tat Sat