A study of a chapter of the book ‘BhAmatI-samAlochanam’.

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Advaitins,

 

A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

 

This book is authored by Swami JnaanAnandendra SaraswatI, in

Sanskrit, published in 1982 in Mysore. Copies of the book are

available at the AdhyAtma PrakAsha KAryAlaya office, T.R.Nagar,

Bangalore. Price: Rs.Six only.

 

About the book: The author has listed many instances of `blunders'

committed by Sri VAchaspati Mishra, the renowned author of the

monumental work `BhAmatI', a gloss on the Brahmasutra Bhashya of

Acharya Shankara, which is being studied, taught and venerated in

the Advaita shastra sampradaya for the last several centuries.

While several of such instances of `mistakes', `misunderstandings',

etc. on the part of the BhAmati are listed in this book under

several heads, here, in the sequel, just one portion from the book

is taken up for analysis.

 

The author has listed several instances of one word, rather a

concept, used by the Bhaamati in many places with one connotation

and `contradicting' this very connotation in several other places

while using this same word, or concept.

(The Author has said in the prelude to this chapter, `Sri Vachaspati

Mishra has said `anEkArthasya anyAyyatvAt' [`gjving several meanings

is inappropriate'] and has himself flouted this rule')

 

[On a search in the BhAmati, my sincere thanks to Shri Sunder

Hattangadi ji for helping me locate this, this is one place where

we come across the quote the author has provided, as said by BhAmati:

 

In the commentary to the Acharya's bhashyam for the Sutra:

| ta indriyANi tadvyapadeshAt anyatra shreShThAt

(Brahmasutra_2,4.17|

 

(the BhAmati says)

//mâ bhût prâNo vrittirindriyâNâm /indriyâNyevâsya jyeShThasya

úreShThasya ca prâNasya vrittayo

bhaviShyanti /tadbhâvâbhâvânuvidhâyibhâvâbhâvatvamindriyâNâm

úrutyanubhavasiddhaṃ, tathâca

prâNaúabdasyaikasyânyâyyamanekârthatvam na bhaviShyati //

 

The gist of the above is: There is a discussion as to whether the

senses are different from the vital force, prANa. For, sometimes,

the senses are also termed `prANAH'. The prima facie view is that

the senses are NOT different from the Vital Force, for they are only

particular modes of the vital force. ….as such, moreover, the

meaning of one word `prANa' cannot have many meanings, it being

improper to ascribe so. The BhAmati is considering this objection

and sets about to refute this view and establish that the senses ARE

different from the vital force. This was mentioned just to show in

what context the BhAmati has said that `it is improper to ascribe

many meanings to one word/concept.']

 

Now, we shall revert to our main discussion of the book in question.

In substantiation of this `flouting', the author has listed the

following on page 46:

 

`sAkShAtkAro bhAvikaH, na asau kAryaH, tasya brahmasvarUpatvAt'

(Realization is innate, it is not to be effected since it is of the

very nature of Brahman). (p.99 of the BhAmati – the book with the

Bhashya, Ratnaprabha, Bhamati and Nyayanirnaya published by Motilal

Banarsidas).

 

Yastu brahma-svabhAva- sAkShAtkAro asau na kAryaH, tat-svabhAvatvAt

(the realization which is of the nature of Brahman, is not to be

effected, as it is of Brahman nature.)p.377

(Note: In fact, in this very place, in the just previous sentence

and after, the Bhamati talks about the vritti-rupa sAkshAtkAra. It

only differentiates the one from the other by admitting that one is

required for eradicating ignorance, happening in the realm of

ignorance, vyavahara alone, and the other is nitya.)

 

Brahma sAkShAtkArAya mokSha-apara-nAmne kalpate. Brahma-

sAkShAtkArasya svabhAvatvena nityatvAt akAryatvAt. Yastu

sAkShAtkAro bhAvikaH, na asau kAryaH. (meaning same as the

foregoing) p. 30

 

Another instance on page 31 is paraphrased. The author inserts a

comment here:

 

In these above sentences, the BhAmati has clearly said that

realization is of the nature of Brahman (eternal). But in other

places (the Bhamati) says that realization is of the nature of a

mental mode (antaHkaraNa vritti), that it is to be effected, born.

These `contrasting' instances are listed below:

 

sAkShAtkAro antaHkaraNasyaiva vritti-bhedaH (realization is a

special mental mode alone). P.31

 

avidyA-nivrittistu upAsanA-kAryAt antaHkaraNa-vrittibhedAt

sAkShAtkArAt iti draShTavyam (it has to be known that the

eradication of avidya, ignorance, however, is effected by the result

of meditation that is a special mental mode.) p.41

 

brahmopAsanAyaaH brahma sAkShAtkAraH kAryam abhyupeyaH (realization

has to be admitted to be the effect of meditation on Brahman). P.91

 

yadA sAkShAtkAraH upajAyate (when realization dawns…) p.429

 

brahma sAkShAtkAro…….AtmAnamapi prapanchatva-avishEshAt unmOlayati

(the gist of this long passage is: realization, a mental mode,

arises due to the culturing of the mind owing to shravaNa, etc. like

the realization of the sound `ShaDja, etc.' of the science of music,

where a person owing to hearing the nuances of the music science,

gets to the perfect realization of these notes. This mental-mode of

Brahman realization uproots the entire wrong cognition of this

imaginary world and finally eradicates itself as well.)p.94

 

sAkShAtkAro vijnAnam, vishiShTam hi taj jnAnam pUrvebhyaH

(realization is direct knowledge, being quite unlike the earlier

ones) p. 222

 

 

sAkShAtkAreNa vidyayA ..(by the knowledge of realization)..p.333

 

anubhavo antaHkaraNa vritti bhedo brahma sAkShAtkAraH (this special

mental mode of realization is experience).p.52.

 

RESPONSE (to the above objections):

 

This response is by no means a well documented/referenced one. It

is especially addressed to those who are familiar with the

Prasthanatraya and the Bhashya. Hence, some `liberty' is assumed.

 

On a very general note, a response to the above could be made on the

following lines:

 

It is the firm view of the Upanishads and Acharya Shankara that

although Atma Jnanam is eternal (vastu tantra) and need not be

brought about afresh, yet, in order to end the erroneous delusion of

samsara one has to specifically effect a `realization'. This

realization is of a special mental mode, vritti, that happens in

time. It is this vritti, called `akhandAkAra vritti', that arises,

destroys the basic ignorance along with its effects of samsara and

finally subsides. This is because, since shravana, etc. are

undertaken in the state of ignorance, the resultant mental mode that

arises due to these practices is also in the realm of ignorance

alone. The destruction of ignorance is also in the realm of

ignorance alone. The resultant liberation however, an experience,

is effected by destroying the ignorance/samsara. With this

background, we can see some specific cases where the (1) Upanishads

themselves talk about this specific knowledge, vritti, called

liberating knowledge and (2) Acharya Shankara Himself says

specifically these things.

 

In the Samanvaya Bhashya (i.i.4), for instance, the Acharya talks

about vastu tantra jnanam. We have recently seen this. He says

that this Atma jnanam is eternal, not to be brought about afresh and

never an effect of work, action, karma. Yet, He says, for example,

in the Bhashya for the sutra `lingAccha' (IV.i.2):

bhaved…..brahmAtmatvam anubhavitum shaknuyAt. (an experience of

Brahman-Atman is possible). Yadyapi pratipattavya Atmaa niramshaH (

even though the Atman that has to be `realized' is without parts….)

tattu pUrvarUpameva AtmapratipatteH (that, however, is before the

realization of Atman). yeShAm punaH nipuNamatInAm….tattvamasi

vaakyArtham anubhavitum (those endowed with a sharp intellect… it is

possible for experiencing the meaning of the sentence tat tvam asi

even when once taught). Sakrit utpannaiva hi AtmapratipattiH

avidyAm nivartayati (when this Atman-experience arises even just

once, it destroys ignorance).

 

In the Taittiriya Up. we have `Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma'.

Certainly, Satyam, and Jnanam are not the changing types. They are

eternal. Bhashya says this: That which is determined in such and

such way and never yields to any transformation, is Satyam. Again,

trikAla-abaadhyam satyam. So is Jnanam. It is the Svarupa of

Brahman/Atman. Yet, this very Upanishad teaches: tad vijijnAsasva =

seek to know It experientially. That means, although Jnanam is the

essential unchanging svarupa of Atman, a sadhana is required

to `know' It. The Upanishad ends with `Anando Brahmeti vyajAnAt'.

Bhrigu got the experience of Brahman. He `knew'. That means It

becomes known in a vritti. It is an anubhava. Is the

Upanishad/Bhashyam contradicting what was said earlier? No. This is

exactly what the Bhaamati also says.

 

In the above sample of the Bhashyam we saw:

 

1. Atman Knowledge is eternal. It need not be created afresh.

2. A specific Atman-experience is required to eradicate

Avidya. This is the result of shravana, etc. This experience is the

one that liberates the samsaari/sadhaka.

3. In the Mandukya Upanishad Bhashya for the seventh mantra, we

have (also seen recently) the Acharya speaks of this specific

akhandaakaara vritti which is of a momentary nature.

4. In the Brahmasutra itself we recently saw the sutrabhashya

for the sutra `api cha samraadhane…' where the aproksha anubhava

utpatti/saakshAtkara is spoken of. The bhashyam quotes the KAtaka

and Mundaka Shrutis in support.

5. The Kenopanishad II.i. 1 and 2 mantras speak of this.

Shankara describes the transformation the student/sadhaka undergoes

between the first mantra and the second one, dramatically: evam

AchAryoktaH shiShyaH yEkAnte upaviShTaH samAhitaH san, yathOktam

AchAryeNa AgamArthato vichaarya, tarkatashcha nirdhArya,

SVAANUBHAVAM KRUTVAA, AchAryasakAsham upagamya uvAcha : manye aham

atha idAnIm viditam Brahma iti. (After having been told so by the

Teacher, the disciple sat in solitude with his mind concentrated,

deliberated, made It a matter of personal experience and

approached the teacher (in the class) and said: `Now I think Brahman

is known'.)

 

Surely, Brahman which cannot become an object, is made an object of

experience to get liberated. Shankara stops short of giving

a `date and time' for this anubhava that arose in the Kenopanishad-

sadhaka's mind.

 

Again, in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya for `shrotavyo mantavyo', the

Acharya's bhashya is: Atmaa darshana-vishayataam aapaadayitavyaH.=

Atman is to be made an object of realization/meditation.

 

 

In the Bhagavadgita too we have this kind of `dual' statements:

 

For example, in the II chapter we have seen the Atman being

described as Eternal, all-pervading, etc. In the 13th chapter we

have: na sat na asaduchyate, anAdi mat param Brahma, etc., meaning:

Brahman is Eternal, it is not said to be existent or non-existent,

etc. Yet, we have the `other, contrasting' statements like: jnAnena

tu tat ajnAnam yeshAm nAshitam AtmanaH'= `by realization the

ignorance pertaining to Atman is destroyed' showing that this

realization `arises'. In the 13th chapter we have a specific verse,

24, where it is said: by meditation some see the Atman in their

mind. This implies that this liberating realization, a mental

mode, arises.

 

Sri Sureshvaracharya says:

tattvamasyAdi-vAkyottha-samyagdhI-janma-mAtrataH

avidya saha-kaaryeNa nAsIdasti bhavishyati

(Even as the Right Knowledge ARISES as a result of the sentence Tat

tvam asi, avidya, along with its effects gets eradicated.)

 

We have other smritis quoted by the Acharya too, perhaps:

 

jnAnam utpadyate pumsaam kshayAt paapasya karmanaH (Atman

Knowledge `arises' in those whose sinful tendencies/karma has come

to an end).

 

In Sutra bhashya: III.iv.26 there is a smriti quote:

kaShAya-paktiH karmANi jnaanam tu paramA gatiH |

kaShAye karmabhiH pakve tato jnAnam pravartate || (Performing of

ordained karma will purify the mind and GIVE RISE to the dawn of

Jnanam.)

 

Again, we find from the above quotes that although Atman Jnanam is

eternal, `sarvadA vartamAna-svarUpatvAt', still It is spoken of as a

specific realization arising and destroying the Avidya.

 

Now, are we to find fault with the Upanishads, the Gita and the

Acharya Shankara and Sri Sureshwaracharya for saying `Atman

Knowledge is vastu tantra, eternal, not to be brought about afresh'

in some places and averring in some other places,

quite `contradictory' statements like `liberating Atman

Knowledge `arises', it is an experience, that it is a mental vritti,

it destroys ignorance and subsides/gets destroyed itself' etc.?

 

There are several instances in the Upanishads, the Gita and the

Bhashya where one word carries different connotations, depending

upon the context. For example, the word `Atma'. In the

Kathopanishad mantra: Atmendriya-mano-yuktam bhoktetyAhur

manIShiNaH', the word Atma is used to mean the gross body. Atma is

used sometimes in the sense of the mind. In the Gita we see this.

So too, the word `Jnanam.' Even the word `Brahman' is sometimes

used as saguna Brahman, the Cause of the universe along with

Maya. `Yoga' is another word that has several meanings. Again,

there is the instance of the word `samAdhi'. Shankara uses this

word in different senses. In the Bhashya to the Mandukya kArikA

III.37, for the word `samAdhi' occurring in the verse, the Acharya

gives two meanings: //Samaadhi: divine absorption – so called since

It (Atman) is realizable through the insight ARISING out of the

deepest concentration (samaadhi). OR It (Atman) is called `samaadhi'

because It is the object of concentration.// (Here, the latter

meaning gives the idea that the Self is `fixed', being an object of

concentration. The former meaning, however, gives the idea that

Self-realization is an `effect', result, of absorption.)

 

If stating - `brahma-sAkshAtkAra' is natural, eternal and also

saying that it has to be brought about through a vritti - is a

reason to reject the BhAmati, then we have no option to rejecting

the Shruti, the Gita, Shankaraacharya and Sri Sureshwaraacharya. It

is true that ascribing several meanings to one word is improper as

it would lead to confusion. But where context demands, one will

have to ascribe different meanings to the same word. The several

instances of this we saw above in the prasthana traya/Bhashya.

 

In conclusion, what we can say about the book/chapter under

consideration is:

 

The author has either not cared to know the Vedanta/ShAnkara

prakriyaa for Atma/Atma jnana/avidya/avidyaa nivritti/ avidyaa

nivritti upaaya/saakshatkaara/ and the saakshaatkaara prakaara OR

that he has known about these but written this book/chapter out of

mere prejudice against the Bhaamati. I read those portions in the

Bhamati that the author has taken so much pains to annotate with

page number references. It was, (my sincere thanks to the author) a

wonderful experience, nay, a lovely spiritual tour, of the Bhamati

teachings. One can gain a wealth of information about sadhana, the

shastra, etc. In no place could I find any

misunderstanding/misrepresenting on the part of the Bhamati that

could be seen as being against the shastra or the revered Shankara.

It gives a deeper insight into the Bhashyam/Shruti/Sutra.

 

Some eminent scholars (both living and of the past) have contributed

commendations to this book. Except one the others have put

themselves on the side of the author. I humbly feel that if only

these renowned scholars had taken the pains to verify the statements

made by the author, they would have certainly distanced themselves

from this publication. They have had the audacity to implicate the

Author of the Bhaamati, Sri VAchaspati Mishra, of `committing

blunders', `being ignorant of the Shastra despite being a great

scholar of not just one, but four disciplines'.

 

While every chapter could be shown to be of the nature of wrongly

understanding the Bhamati/Advaita, I have limited my observations to

just this one chapter. This is because, in my humble opinion, here

contains the vital Atman Knowledge, liberation etc, subject

discussed.

 

With humble pranams to all and to the learned, respected Sannyasi-

author,

 

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear Sirs,

In advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> ShrIgurubhyo namaH

>

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

What do we gain by reading the above mentioned book? Does it lead

to Self-Realization? Why controvertial subjects, which are not

conducive to Atmaj~jAna, should be raised at all in this forum? It

is rather most unfortunate that we are wasting our time in fruitless

discussions. Most of the readers have not studied Sri Sankara's

commentaries in original nor they are familiar with other famous

texts like Bhamathi or Panchadasi.There is every possibility of

mistaking these vain and controversial discussions as genuine Vedanta.

My request to the learned and enlightened members is this: IS IT

POSSIBLE TO REALIZE ONE'S TRUE NATURE WITHOUT INDULGING IN THESE

PSEUDO SCHOLARLY DISCUSSIONS? Please help genuine mumukshus by

presenting the teaching in a non-scholarly way to suit to the needs

of 21st centuary mumukshus. Let us not follow obsolete methods of

teaching. The TEACHING REMAINS CHANGELESS BUT THE METHOD OF

EXPOSITION OF TRUTH SHOULD CHANGE TO SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE PRESENT

DAY SEEKERS.

Let us not become scholars, let us be Atmaj~JAnis.

Let us not mistake scholarship for wisdom.

Let us not mistake the husk for the grain.

Let us give the tattva, not the words.

 

With lots of pain in my heart I, who was blessed with the

Ambrosia of Sri Sankara Vedanta, am posting this letter.

I request everybody to ponder over deeply before giving vent

to their reactions to this posting.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy