Part V - Samayapaada Contd

[Guest guest]

To give continuity of thought on the Samayapaada, I have repeated a para from

my previous email.

 

Vedavyaasa criticises and evaluates the positions of some early thinkers -

Jaimini, Aasmarathya, Baadari, Aoudulomi, Kaashakrtsna, and Aatreya. In this

connection, he shows how their positions are different from his and how

therefore they do not help the knowledge of Brahman.

 

Vedavyaasa presents himself in the name of BaadaraayaNa and thereby

signifies how important his view is. In expounding these

ideas Srimad Acharya shows how BaadaraayaNa's omniscience knows no

bound and how Jaimini and others fail even to approach BaadarayaNa.

He illustrates in this context, how BaadaraayaNa is the absolute and one Lord

of all learning

and how other thinkers somehow own some idea

(eka-desha) of his thought bereft of its context and make much of it

and shine as great thinkers.

 

Srimad Acharya defines Baadaraayana's position as being such that once

it is understood it can never be given up. It follows from this that

Jaimini and others because of their defective outlook, and in this

circumstance they imagine something and present it as truth.

 

The difference between Baadaraayana and other thinkers is this:

 

While the other thinkers expound some position with absolute ignorance

of BaadarayaNa's position, Baadaraayana establishes his position with

careful understanding and evaluation of the positions of other thinkers.

When this point is noted, justice is not done to Brahma-Mimamsaa to

take BaadaraayaNa as one of the thinkers, thereby

suggesting that there were or may be others equal or superior to him.

Without the proper appreciation of BaadaraayaNa as THE ONE thinker of

the world, Brahma-Mimamsaa can never be within the reach of the

student. This does not mean one has to have " faith or belief " in BaadaraayaNa,

because that would create dogmatism in the believer.

To consider BaadaraayaNa to be the highest philospher of all ages is

a matter of understanding, which one can realize only by means of

a careful study of shaastra.

 

One may ask, how can Jaimini and others understand BaadarayaNa's exposition of

the

Brahma-Sutras even before he composed those?

To answer a question like this, BaadaraayaNa and following him Srimad Acharya

would

draw a distinction between two classes of thinkers,

1. those that imagine things in the absense of knowledge and

2. those that hanker after knowledge till it is obtained.

It is needless to say the second ones are superior to the first ones, and

the second ones are the proper students of shaastra.

 

The order in which BaadaraayaNa criticizes systems of thought is

different from the Naastika and Aastika order that is presented under

Indian Philosophy today viz., Charuvaaka, Boudhha, Jaina, Nyaaya Vaisheshika,

Samkhya Yoga, poorva-mimaamsa, and vedaantha .

 

In the course of his early exposition, he criticises

Purva-Mimaamsaa in the name of Jaimini and Yoga. In the second paada

of the Avirodha adhyaaya, he criticises several schools of thought in

the order: Niriswara-Samkhya, Seshwara-Samkhya, Lokaayatha,

Purushopasarjana-prakriti-kartrtva-vaada,

Prakrti-upasarjana-purusha-kartrtva-vaada,

paramaaNvaaramabha vaada, Anviikshakii or Tarka vaada, ParamaaNu-punja-vaada,

Shoonya vaada, Vijnaana Vaada, Syaad-vaada, Paashupata-vaada, and

Shakti-Paksha. All these schools of thought and ideas consistent

with any of them are shown to negate Brahmman and they are therefore

shown to be of defective thinking.

 

We need to note that Srimad Acharya has criticized twenty-one Bhashyaaas

that preceeded his Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya and shown that

they are expressions of defective thinking and that they fall far

short of Brahma-Mimamsaa.

 

Jayatheetha Tikachaarya brings this to our attention in Tattva-Prakaashika as,

" Avidyaa patala pihita nayanaihi anyaihi anyathaa vyakyaathaani

Brahma-SutraaNi yathaavad vyaachikhyaasuu Bhagavaan Achaarya varyaha... "

 

(The most revered teacher, i.e., Madhwaacharya desires to expound the

actual teaching of the Brahma-Sutras, seeing that by others who wrote

Bhaashyas, ideas that are not supported by the Sutras are presented

as constituting the teaching of the same ( Anyathaa vyaakhyaataani)

because of the defective thinking and wrong outlook ( Avidyaa patala

pihita nayanaihi)

 

In the same context Srimad Acharya, illustrates, how the positions of these

Bhashyas are already criticized by BaadaraayaNa himself in the Sutras. We can

take Mayaavaada of Shankaraacharya and Vishistaadvaita

of Ramaanujaacharya as examples from these 21 Bhaashyaas and see

how they are criticized by BaadaraayaNa himself. Srimad Acharya

explains that Mayaavaada is criticized under Shoonya-vaada namely

|| " OM Naasato adrshtatvaat OM || and vishitaadvaitha under

prakrti-adhikaraNa namely,

|| OM Prakritischa pratijnaa-drishtaamtaanuparodhaat OM ||

 

One may ask how can these vedantic schools be criticized by BaadaraayaNa

who composed sutras far earilier? Srimad Acharya shows

how Veda and Brahma-Mimamsaa are inseperable and as this whole presents

the final system of thought, how the criticism of all ideas that fall

short of it is presupposed by it. Veda is impersonal. Brahma-Mimamsaa

is the language of the reason innate or hidden in Veda. This is how

the two are one and the same and they are inseperable. Hence Veda

necessarily presupposes the criticism of all thought that in any sense

opposes it. Any idea that falls short of it is a defect in thinking

and it creates an obstacle in the way of understanding ParaBrahman.

Therefore it is as good as opposing Veda. Hence it is criticised by

Veda, and this criticism is innate in the Vedic statement and

Brahma-Mimamsaa brings it to light.

 

As impersonal Veda is beginningless. The thought it criticises also

is beginningless. Thus both knowledge and non-knowledge are ever there

with all their details. At particular periods of time particular ideas

are favoured by men and the same old ideas are presented as being

the most original. Even Mayaavaada and Vishistaadviata are no exceptions to

this rule.

 

Srimad Acharya compares the philosophical schools to the flow of a river which

occur with intervals.

The underlying idea is that knowledge presupposes a conscious criticism of

non-knowledge.

For this reason, whenever there is the need for establishing knowledge, there

is already operation of non-knowledge. It is in this circumstance

BaadaraayaNa expounded Brahma-Mimaasaa and Srimad Acharya composed Bhashya.

 

Harihi Om Tatsat.

 

Jayakrishna Nelamangala

-

-------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

-

-------