Brahma Sutras; Shankara Bhasyam pt3

[Guest guest]

Previously

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya.html

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-2.html

__________________________

At this point the opponent asks some poignant questions. Let us see

what he has to say.

 

You are telling me you want to enquire into Brahman.

Please tell me, Sir, Is this Brahman known or unknown?

Suppose we say it is unknown. Like gagabubu. Now please tell me how

you are going to enquire into it. Even if foolhardily persist in such

an enquiry, how will you how will you perceive it. Even if you

perceive it how will you recognize it to be Brahman.

So unknown object like Brahman can never be enquired into.

Ok, now suppose you say it is known, then why waste both our time? If

it is known, the let it be. Why all this mimamsa, all this words and

analysis, and such. Even if it is known and you want to know it better

then what has Shastra got to do with this?

Either way, Sir, your enquiry is useless.

 

Also, a subject matter like you are talking about, about identity

between jiva and Brahman, simply does not exist – there is no vishayam

here – there is no object here.

Why?

It is everyone's common experience that he is a doer/enjoyer, a

karta-bhokta. No one has any doubt in his mind that when he talks, he

is indeed a talker, when he writes that he is indeed a writer. And the

Shruti says, Brahman is akarta, saakshi, etc.

How can doer and non-doer BOTH be the same entity?

I am solidly comprised of matter, of properties, of Gunas. And Shruti

says Brahman is Nirguna.

 

I see mountains I cannot even imagine I could ever climb, I see the

moon, stars and galaxies in a benumbing stretch of time and space - i

couldnt be more insignifcant, and you say I am jagatkAranam Brahman?

 

So you are dealing with two things that could not be MORE opposed.

viruddha dharmatvAt.

 

What you are postulating is similar to someone saying heat and cold

are the same – there is no difference between them – I cannot accept

this even as a hypotesis. So please, Sir, let us not begin this kind

of ridiculous enquiry.

 

Lastly Sir, even if for a moment I grant you that there might be a

subject such as what you are talking about, there is no prayojanam for

this knowledge – there is no benefit of such a knowledge. Why? How can

any knowledge directly produce any result? Suppose I have knowledge

about how to make a aeroplane. Will a aeroplane get made simply like

that? Suppose I have knowledge of engineering? Will I get any wealth

without putting this to use?

 

Also, a bondage that is real does not go away simply by some form of

knowledge. Imagine you have iron chains that are clasped onto your

hands and feet – now by simply imagining that " I am free " will these

chains go away. Some other " upaya " , some other means must be there for

you to get free – you have to " do " something.

 

In this world, there is real hunger, real pain, real death, real

sorrow, - it is pratyaksha – it is obvious to me and to everyone else

on the planet. At an individual level I have physical and emotional

pain. At the level of society there is dharma and adharma, there is

punya-pApa, there is very real karma-phala which the VEdas themselves

talk about. Just touch fire and you will know how real it is. - in

fact a tiny mosquito-bite itself is enough. And you say by knowledge -

by an analysis of words in a text, all this will be rendered invalid,

all THIS will be sublated! How can this be possible Sir? - please be

reasonable. Knowledge can certainly be a useful entity, can be a help

to you - sahakAri - I will grant you that.

 

[For example one school of thought says, Satyam Jnanam, etc are

kalyana gunas - divine qualities of Bhagwan – you have to know these

qualities to do upasana or meditation. Another school will say even by

knowing " I am Brahman " is not enough. One has to put this knowledge to

use – i.e. one has to meditate on this knowledge and then in the

" white heat of meditation " one will be able to see that indeed my

innermost self is Brahman. So knowledge they say is like a cookbook –

one then has to use this knowledge to make the meal. Or it is a

instruction manual, one has to use this knowledge to then meditate or

focus the mind. Or it is a roadmap – one then has to travel that route

to reach the Atma.]

 

In all of these instances, due to all of these reasons, we can see

that merely jijnasa, mere knowledge of jiva being Brahman does not

have any use; does not bear any fruit - phala asambhavAt.

Hence why undertake a detailed enquiry into this? You say " Atma is

Brahman " – OK – let it be so it is already a siddha vishaya – like

saying God is Great – how can such a knowledge ever negate anything?

jNAnamAtrAt nivrtti ayOgAt - why enquire into shAstra to gain some

knowledge which has no prayojanam – no utility . Let us look instead

look into what other means may be there for me to gain everlasting

happiness.

 

So - shastram na Arambhaneeyam - please do not start this Enquiry.

 

(to be continued)

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam