Bhamati vs. Vivarana

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sunder ji,

Pranams,

 

As I pointed out earlier that Sruthi declares ` Tametam Vedanu

vacanena Brahmana Vividhisanti yajnena dhanena tapasa nAsakena'-

where karmas like sacrifices charities and austerities are mentioned

to be subsidiaries to produce the `desire' to know and not `to

know'. Vividhisanti and not vidhanti. The Sruthi expression

grammatically falls in the `tritiya vibhakti' – the third case

ending where it denotes the `means' to the result of `immediate

proximity'. Let me explain this a little more. Tritiya vibhakti is

the instrumental `means' (`yajnena, dAnena etc'). This

instrumental `means' – `kriya' according to Yaska would end with the

goal `phala' that is indicated in the near proxiumity in the same

phrase. Ie, `means' is the auxillary cause for the `phala'. `Means'

is taken in two sense:

 

1) Proximate serving – samavayika upakaraka

2) Remote serving – Aradupaka upakaraka

 

Now, the element `Vidhanti' – `desire' in `vividhisant' `desire to

know' becomes the remote serving element which the `means' cannot

reach. On the other hand `Vividhisanti' – `desire to know' is

regarded as proximate serving element, that is immediately

accomplished by the `means'.

 

More deeply, we shall analyze the etymological perspectives of the

root term for the expression `Vividhisanti'. Yaska's Niruktha refers

that `Vividhisanti' has two forms of dhatus. They are `jna' – prefix

and `jna icca' – suffix. Bhamati brilliantly advocates that: `Dhatu

is the combination of prefix and suffix; prakrti and pratyaya

respectively. Here pratyaya with the grammatical sanctions is

regarded as primary aspect of a dhatu as compared to the prakrti

aspect of it, which is secondary. Hence the meaning suggested by

pratyaya `jna icca' holds the pivotal place as the root. Hence the

kriya pada of the karma, vividisanti is only `desire to know' and

not `to know'.

 

Bhamati is systematic, lucid and logical. Sunder ji, Vivarana vadins

only insists karma's role for jnana utpatti alone and not Moksa.

Even if this be the case, following are some inconsistencies

involved.

 

1) If karma aids jnana utpatti and not Moksa, what jnana utpatti is

it ? paroksa or aparoksa ? In either case, the place of karma in

jnana utpatti ridicules their own stand on scriptural testimony

alone as the source of knowledge per se and that karma cannot be

enjoined with that of Agamas.

 

2) Consider the following premises:

a) Jnana utpatthi = Avidya astamaya; dawn of knowledge = fall of

ignorance

b) Avidya astamaya = Moksa; Fall of ignorance = liberation

Hence c) Jnana utpatti = Moksa ; by hypothetical syllogism.

The conclusion as we may see is absurd and leads to Siddhanta Hani.

Thus Vivarana is proved wrong.

 

Shri Sunder ji, I thank you for your apt reference from Smrthi. It

makes lot of sense to go against Vivarana. I invite further opinions

on the above arguments from you, Shri Sada ji and others please.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sunder ji,

 

Small correction to me earlier post # 39343. The last part of logical

derivation must be read the following way.

 

According to Vivarana view;

a) Karma = Jnana utpatthi

b) Jnana utpatthi = Avidya astamaya; dawn of knowledge = fall of

ignorance

c) Avidya astamaya = Moksa; Fall of ignorance = liberattion

 

which implies d) Karma = Moksa; by hypothetical syllogism.

 

The conclusion as we may see is absurd and leads to Siddhanta

Hani.Thus Vivarana is proved wrong due to self contractions.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Devanthanji - PraNAms

 

First some general comments.

 

For the benefit of the members at large, we should

provide the meaning of all Sanskrit terms that we use.

If we are using the same word again, at least when it

is used for the first time we have to provide the

meaning. Otherwise we will lose the audience pretty

soon.

 

I am going to comment based on my understanding -

since the purpose our study is to know the truth

rather than which school is correct. I am assuming my

knowledge is based on Vivarana School, since I have no

knowledge of Bhamati. For me facts are more important

than schools.

 

 

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

> As I pointed out earlier that Sruthi declares `

> Tametam Vedanu

> vacanena Brahmana Vividhisanti yajnena dhanena

> tapasa nAsakena'-

> where karmas like sacrifices charities and

> austerities are mentioned

> to be subsidiaries to produce the `desire' to know

> and not `to

> know'.

 

I think the same meaning is given for jignyaasu in the

ahthatho brahma jignyaasa.

 

> Bhamati is systematic, lucid and logical. Sunder ji,

> Vivarana vadins

> only insists karma's role for jnana utpatti alone

> and not Moksa.

> Even if this be the case, following are some

> inconsistencies

> involved.

 

I get the feeling that you are quite biased towards

Bhamati School.

 

> 1) If karma aids jnana utpatti and not Moksa, what

> jnana utpatti is

> it ? paroksa or aparoksa ? In either case, the place

> of karma in

> jnana utpatti ridicules their own stand on

> scriptural testimony

> alone as the source of knowledge per se and that

> karma cannot be

> enjoined with that of Agamas.

 

 

 

First, from my understanding, karma is considered as

not as an aid to jnaana utpatti but aid to jnaanayoga

yogyata Siddhi - preparing one to qualify for the

jnaana yoga.

Knowledge, jnaana, being vastu tantra and not purusha

tantra, karma has no role. In fact, Shankara says in

Atma bhoda that

aviridhitayaa karma avidyam na vinivartayet|

Action being a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore

not opposite to ignorance. Only jnaana removes the

ignorance like light removes the darkness.

 

Hence your question of paroksha and aparoksha does not

even arise when we are discussing about karma. About

jnaana yoga - yes - we need to be concerned how

Vedanta is pramaaNa or means of knowledge.

 

Now about aparoksha - Vedas being bunch of words - and

words can normally give indirect knowledge - like

sitting in Madras and reading about Himalayas or

manasa sorovar.

 

Words can give direct knowledge only if the object

that is being described is right in front of me - that

I can directly see, as I hear. You are that- is a

direct speach - it can only be aparoksha jnaanam.

Then only Vedanta becomes a valid pramaaNa for brahma

jnaanam. If I have to do something else after Vedanta

shravana, then vedanta ceases to be a pramaaNa for

moksha - since I have to do something else to gain

moksha beside understanding the words of Vedanta.

 

To see what Vedanta shows as I am, for that only mind

should be ready and karma helps in preparing the mind

- not for seeing not for gaining moksha.

 

Seems to me very logical and lucid.

 

Not sure the rest of the logic you had about how

vivarana is causing siddhAnta haani!

 

Swami Paramaarthanandaji was taking the other day

Shankara bhAShya on B.G. III-3 - lokesmin

dvidhaaniShTaa .../- While Shankara was knocking

jnaana karma sumucchaya vaada - some interesting

comments were made of karma yoga and jnaana yoga. Now

I feel that I have to write it up and post those

comments, since it has bearing on what you mentioned.

 

Devanathanji - please give some numbers to your posts

on Bhamati and vivarana since we would loose track of

what post we are comenting on.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Pranams once more Devanathanji

Not sure why you are addressing me as Sunder - of course the original Shyam is

most Sunder (in stark contrast to yours truly!) so it is still quite appropriate

:-)

 

Thank you for your detailed reply - it is interesting.

I am however not sure it answers my original question - how does the Vivarna

school postulate karma leading to rise of Jnana without violating the siddhanta

of vastutantra Jnanam? After all I would imagine its proponents would not want

to be seen straying away from mulasiddhanta.

Perhaps a more balanced perspective may highlight where the subtle and possibly

contentious differences are? Perhaps you will be elaborating on this in your

future posts which I eagerly look forward to.

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Devanathan,

You had said in post #39262 that, while, according to bhAmatI the

omniscience of Brahman is derived from the essential nature of

Brahman, according to vivaraNa the omniscience of Brahman is

derived from the modes of Avidya.

The following sentence appears in Shri Shankara's bhAshya on

brahmasutra 1.1.1 (athAto brahmajijnAsA):---

asti tAvad brahma nityashuddhabuddhamuktasvabhAvam sarvajnam

sarvashaktisamanvitam, which means--

" There does exist brahman who is by nature eternally pure, conscious

and free, omniscient and endowed with all powers " .

Commenting on this sentence bhAmati says:

sadaiva muktaH sadaiva kevalaH anAdyavidyAvashAt tu bhrAntyA

tathAvabhAsata ityarthaH. tad evam anaupAdhikam brahmaNo rUpam

darshayitvA avidyopAdhikam rUpam Aha--- sarvajnam

sarvashaktisamanvitam.

The translation of this, as given in the book `Bhamati of Vacaspati'

by S. S. SuryanarayanaSastri and C. Kunhan Raja is as follows:

" Always free, always pure, it yet appears so (i.e. non-different

from the body, etc.), because of delusion due to the influence of

beginningless nescience. Having thus shown the adjunct-less form of

brahman, he declares its form as with the adjunct of

nescience: " omniscient and endowed with all powers " .

Thus it appears that according to bhAmati brahman becomes omniscient

only because of association with avidyA and that omniscience is not

its essential nature. This contradicts what Prof. Thangasami has

stated in his book.

In Siddhantalesasangraha there is a very brief paragraph on this

point which is not very clear. The commentary Krishnalankara too

does not elaborate it.

Could you please throw some light on this?

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Shyam ji,

Thanks for your pertinent question and close observations. Let me

try to answer your question " How does Vivarana postulate karma

leading to rise of jnana without violating the Siddhanta of Vastu

tantra? "

 

Karma and Jnana are both poles apart and that they are like light

and darkness by nature. This is the popular view of Sankara himself.

If this be the case how can Vivarana prasthana assert that karma

aids knowledge in the process of accomplishing Moksa? This question

may be added as supplement to your above question.

 

Karma – all actions are person dependent, which are known as Purusa

tantra and that all knowledge that is object dependent, are known to

be Vastu tantra in Advaita Vedanta. Padmapadacarya elaborately

discusses this issue in the third varnaka of Pancapadika while he

treats the term `jignyasa' there. He defines jignyasa as `Brahmano

jignyasa Brahma jignyasa' iti. Padmapada dissolves the compound

word `Brahma jignyasa' in the sixth case ending. By doing so

Tikakara takes up the vigraha vakya to convey the sense that

jignyasa is invariably related to Brahman where attainment of

knowledge is its result since the sixth sense is treated with Sasti

Samasa, which is `Karmani sasti' according to Panini. Karmani sasti

is the process of a particular act that results with the particular

goal, which according to context is `knowledge of Brahman'. Here

karma is oriented to the performer or the sadhaka and hence is

purusa tantra and the vastu tantra jnana is Brahmasraya where the

vastu visaya (content) is Brahman itself.

 

Vivarana prasthana further breaks the term `jignyasa' as `jnatum

icca' where jnatum `so as to know' is the ultimate goal towards the

purusArta vastu and that icca (desire) leads to perform karma that

ends with the knowledge that inclines towards knowing Brahman.

Further vivarana vadins argue that in Taitiriya shruthi, Varuna

advices to practice Tapas is that `tapasa vijignyasasva'; which is

added to `Brahma vijignyasasva' conveying the relentless search

through the sanctions of karma to know the supreme Brahman. `Avagati

paryantam vicaraH kartavyah' – the requisite of which is traced from

sadhana catustaya, and nitya naimittika karmas result in mental

stability. Here `kartavyaH' is a vicara vidhi according to Vivarana

School that inherently involves the role of karma, all of which

leads to the rise of knowledge. The vastu tantra is seriously kept

in mind by the vivarana vadins as they say `jneyatvena karmataya

anusAsanam' – the direct object – jneya is known by the performance

of karma.

 

To sum up vivarana prasthana advocates those karmas like yajna, dAna

etc stimulates desire for Brahman. Upasana dyAna etc prepare

spiritual fitness for Brahman realization and sustaines practice of

ordained karmas is used for regulating Mind in continuous

contemplation. By performing Karma, the aspirant develops complete

detachment (vairagya) and with this vairagya the sadhaka is no

longer a seeker of ordinary gains; for he sinks in moksa icca. Here

both mental purification and reninciation are both subsidiaries to

Brahman realization that is regarded as a product of Karma. Thus it

is considered that karmas are nurtured for citta suddhi while after

renunciation karma itself is denounced. The relinquishment of karma

is necessary step in progressing towards accomplishing Brahman

knowledge. The term Laukaikaksana by which verbal mental and

physical activities are directed towards the accomplishment of

knowledge and that are active until rise of knowledge and once

knowledge dawns actions becomes inactive.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Pranams Devanathan-ji

This is very nicely summarized.

I await your future posts - I shall try to withold my further

questions/comments, lest the whole thread get sidetracked prematurely - I know

you have a lot of ground to cover!

Thank you once again for your time and effort; my salutations to you.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

antharyami_in <sathvatha

advaitin

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 11:00:25 AM

Re: Bhamati vs. Vivarana

 

To sum up vivarana prasthana advocates those karmas like yajna, dAna

etc stimulates desire for Brahman. Upasana dyAna etc prepare

spiritual fitness for Brahman realization and sustaines practice of

ordained karmas is used for regulating Mind in continuous

contemplation. By performing Karma, the aspirant develops complete

detachment (vairagya) and with this vairagya the sadhaka is no

longer a seeker of ordinary gains; for he sinks in moksa icca. Here

both mental purification and reninciation are both subsidiaries to

Brahman realization that is regarded as a product of Karma.

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om ~

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

Paroksa and Aparoksa jnana are not irrelevant to the topic as you

see it. Vivarana Vadins argue that Karma catalyses Sastra for jnana

utpatti which gives Moksa. To what extent does karma play is our

question. Sastras according to Vivarana prasthAna is the source for

all knowledge – Paroksa and Aparoksa. If Karma extends upto Sastra,

we will end up with an unwelcome position to say that former aids

for the latter to manifest so as to give rise to Jnana. Sastras are

Svata prAmAnya. So Karma may have to give the avantara phala –

secondary result giving rise to Paroksa, subsequently giving the

Mukhya phala of Aparoksa at a later stage. This seems to go against

the Siddhanta and a hence a logical lapse with Vivarana standpoint.

 

And about your explanation to Aparoksa, Sada ji, I think you are

letting terms lavishly letting loose terms when they ought to be

used more carefully. Aparoksa ofcourse indirect knowledge is taken

in the sense of adhyAtma jnana. With this jnana, you cannot see

Himalayas from Madras please. Such a jnana is Nirvikalpaka jnana

which is antah karana vrtti rUpa. Aparoksa jnana (tern jnana is

aupacarika) which renders the akhandAkAra vrtti to get established

in Brahman itself.

 

Further there is no hard and fast rule that you gain knowledge of

the object only if it is in front of you; for we say `sarva

vyavahAra Hetur guno = jnana; tacca dvividam smrti anubhavam ceti' –

knowledge is sought in two fold methods vide, remembrance and

apprehension. Latter is your case while you have forgotton the Smrti

factor. I do not want to enter too much in this now, as it ends

nowhere. Only point I make here is that Sastra sanctions all jnana

for it leads to Moksa. Such a sastra gives out knowledge without the

blend of Karma in any amount.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Mrs Uma Shankar]

Sir, I am a distance education student of Rashtriya Samskritha samsthanam. Is it possible to take me as your student as the Acharya course has Vivarana and other subjects.

Can u be the Kind hearted Guru to accept me as student?

Uma