Bhamati vs. Vivarana - 1

[Guest guest]

Hari Om ~

Topic 2

B: Realization of Brahman arises through instrument of mind.

V: The direct knowledge of Brahman arises from the mere Upanishadic

text.

 

Let me first make a note on the Vivarana standpoint and then proceed

to Bhamati.

 

`Jnanamaparoksa rUpam; Paroksa-aparoksa Brama nivartakatvAnupapatte

| Tacca aparoksa jnAnam `Tattvamasi' yAdi vAkyaditi kecit; manana

nidhidyAsanena samskrta antahkarana devetpare |

 

That knowledge is immediate. Mediate knowledge is incapable of

removing error which is immediate. There are two views for Brama

nivartaka. Vivarana vadins say that immediate knowledge arises from

dictums like `Tattvamasi' directly. While Vacaspati Misra says that

such an immediate knowledge arises from mind itself, purified by

manana and nidhidhyasana.

 

Vivarana School claims that immediacy of cognition of Brahman raise

from the scriptural dictum. Knowledge whether mediate or immediate

depends on the nature of object and not on the organ or mind. When

the object is in association with the sense organ, perception is

possible and is made possible even from the sabda pramana. For

instance `you are the tenth man' is where the perception is made

possible by the sabda pramana pointing out the `object' self at an

immediate range. Such is the case with Brahman knowledge. The ever-

lasting identity of Brahman and Self is indicated immediately by the

verbal Testimony. In Kausitaki Brahmana Upanishad Indra declares

that `I am Prana myself' where Prana is taught to be one with

Consciousnes. This is revealed by Vedas referring to Brahman says

Indra. An objection is raised here. `How can insentient vital force

be identified one with consciousness; for which Indra

answers `Scriptures declares this immediate knowledge – Mun II.8

prAnasya prAnaH'. Again `why did Indra – the speaker teach about

himself? " Answer: `He is a divine Being who had through seers vision

gained from scriptures' just as Vamadeva realized himself as Sun and

Moon from Upanishads which declares `Who ever among Gods knew this

became that' B.S.Bh I.i.30 where Acharya says `BrahmetyArsena

darsanena yatA sastram pasyannupadisati' iti. All this show that

scriptural – verbal testimony has the potency to produce the

immediate knowledge of Brahman especially the

dictums `Tattvamasi' `Aham BrahmAsmi' etc. PadmapadAcarya

emphatically declares `Vaidhika Vakyas as the Maha vakyas are

meaning loaded sentences which are capable of giving akhandArta

vrtti which alone gives BrahmasAksatkAra. Such a vaidhika sabda

pramana is defined as follows. `SabdaH adrstakanaranatvAt' That

which is instrumental agency free from defect of what is seen; it is

apauruseya that is not fault prone; `Sabdasyaiva tadeka nisatatvena

tannyamAt' – it is unique with its power and function to reveal the

ever revealed `yah parah sabdah sa sabdArtah'. Vedanta vakyas

involve adhyayana vidhi which in course of time `sravana' reveals

the truth of ultimate Brahman – atman identity. So with the

saying `Ananda is Self' the sole target content of Upanishads are

svArta Matra nishtatvam – the adhyayana vishi along with `atma va

are drastavyaH' with Sastra vidhi – which makes Sabda give aparoksa

anubhuti. Vivarana school further argue that every Sabda `Sabdi

buta' form of Sabda is potent with twofold implications `parama

tatparya' and `avantara tatparya' primary implication and secondary

implication respectively. In the Vedanta vacana `Tametam Brahmana

vedAnu vacanen vividhisanti' Br Up 4/42 – the primary implication

parama tAtparya here is Brahman itself while secondary implication

is yajna, dAna and tapas etc.

 

Bhamati Prasthana portrays limitations of Sabda to say that Mind

purified by manana n nidhidyasana act as the instrument for gaining

the direct knowledge of Brahman. Bhamati's view will continue…

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J