Sribhashya -- adhyaya-3
Padha- 1
Thadhanantharaprath ipathyaDHikaraNa m-3-1-1
Suthra-1-thadhantha
raprathipatthou ramhathi samparishvakthah prasnanirupaNAhyAm- 3-1-1
The soul goes out enveloped by the subtle elements with a
view of obtaining another body which is known from question and answer.
In the first two adhyayas it has been established that Brahman,
who is free from imperfections , abode of infinite auspicious qualities
and of different nature from everything else is the first cause and
the views of the opponents were refuted on the basis of sruthi, smrthi and
reasoning. The next two adhyayas deal with the means and the
methods of attaining Brahman.
The third adhyaya is about the meditation as the means of
release which consists of the absence of desire in anything except the desired object,
namely Brahman. To attain this the
imperfections of the individual self moving about in different states of waking,
dreaming , deep sleep and swoon and the absence of it in Brahman, the abode of
auspicious attributes, is to be understood, which forms the subject
matter of the first two padhas of the third adhyaya.
The suthra affirms that the soul leaving the body takes with it
the subtle elements from which the new body is created as against the poorvapaksha
view that the soul can produce a new body wherever it goes. This is known from
question and explanation found in the sruthi.
In the instruction of the panchAgnividhya in ChandhOgya upanishad where PravahaNa. king of PAnchAlas after putting
several questions to SvEthakEthu regarding the destination of the soul
after death and the two paths, one of which leads to the point of no return and
the other by which the soul
returns taking rebirth says
'vEtTHa yaTHA panchamyAHuthAvApah
purushavachasO bhavanthi, (Chan-5-3-3) do you know how at the fifth oblation the liquid oblations come
to be designated as man.'
The answer is given later in the passage that the heavens is the
fire into which the deities, the prANas(indhriyas) of the sacrificer and their presiding
deities, namely fire etc offer sraddha, faith as the oblation.( This
means that a sacrificer who is competent and strong in his faith offers
himself as the oblation.)This is the first fire. The next is parjanya, the rain cloud. Into this fire the deities offer king
Soma, the moon as the oblation. That is the liquid oblation in the form of
faith develops into the form of the moon and when it reaches the second stage,
that of parjanya, it turns into rain. The third fire is the earth in to which the oblation of rain is offered. The fourth fire is
the man into whom the oblation of food is
offered. The fifth fire is the woman into whom the oblation of the
seed is offered.
The answer to the question at the outset is given as 'ithi thu panchamyAhuthAvApah purushavachasO bhavanthi, (Chan.5-9-1)
thus at the fifth oblation the waters come to be designated as man because
it turns into a child.
But the opponent raises a doubt that since only water is said to
accompany the soul to the next birth how can it be said that the soul takes
with it the essence of all the elements. The next suthra gives an answer.
Suthra-2-thrayAthma kathvAth thu bhooyasthvAth- 3-1-2
Because water consists of three elements but predominantly
water.
It is not only water but as shown in the process of tripartite is
only predominantly made up of water consisting of fire and earth in lesser
proportions.
Suthra-3-prANagathE scha-3-1- 3
Because of the going of the organs with the soul
In the text
'thamuthkrAmantham
prANah anuthkrAmathi; prANam anuthkrAMantham sarvE prANA anuthkrAmanthi, (Brhd.4-4-2)
The organs leaving
with the soul is mentioned and also in Bhagavatgita it is said that when the
soul leaves the body it takes with it the organs.
'manasshashaTAneend
hriyANi prakrthisTHAni karshathi; sariram yadhavApnOthiyadhAP
yuthkrAmtheesvar ah, grheethvaithAni samyAthivAyurganDHA nivAsayAth.'(BG.15-8)
'It draws to itself
the organs of sense, with the mind for the sixth. When the ruler (soul) obtains
a new body, and passes out of another, he takes with him those organs and then
moves on, as the wind takes the odors from their abodes.'
Suthra-4-agnyAdhiga thisruthEh ithi
cheth na bHakthathvAth- 3-1-4
The organs entering into fire etc is to be taken in the
secondary sense.
'yathrAsya
purushasya mrthasya agnim vAk apyEthi,'(Brhd.3-2- 13)
Since it is said that
when a man dies his speech enters into the fire, it is objected that the soul
carries the subtle elements with it but the suthra refutes it saying that this statement is to be taken
in the secondary sense as in the later text
'oushadheerlOmAni
vanaspatheen kEsAh, the hairs of the
body enters the herbs and the hairs of the head enter the trees.'
Suthra-5-prathamE asravaNAth ithi
cheth nathA EVa hyupapatthEh- 3-1-5
If it is said that there is no mention of water, it is not
so because water is that which is meant.
The opponent says that in the first oblation it is sraddha which is the offering
and not water and sraddha is known to be an attitude of mind. Hence it is not
correct to say that the soul goes out carrying the subtle element of water.
The suthra refutes this saying that by sraddha only water is meant as otherwise there will be discrepancy between the
question and the answer. sraddha is mentioned
as transformed into moon, rain etc and finally becoming the foetus and in the end it is said 'EvamApahpurushavac
hasah.' Moreover the word sraddha has been used in the sense of water in
the scriptures, ' apah praNayathi, sraddhAvA Apah ithi,
(Tait.sam.I- vi-8-1) he carries water sraddha is water.'
Suthra-6-asruthathv Ath ithi chEth na,ishtADHIkAriNAm pratheethEh- 3-1-6
If it is said that the jiva is not mentioned in the passage, it is
not so because the sacrificer is jiva only. Later in the same chapter it is
said that those who perform meritorious deeds go to the world of devas and
become Somaraja, (king moon) and on the exhaustion of their merits return to
the earth. This is exactly what has been described in the previous section by
mentioning the offering of sraddha from which arises king sOma etc. So the
entity which is denoted as having the body of sraddha is the same which becomes
the nature of the moon, both denoting the individual soul.
Suthra-7-bhAktham vA
anAthmavithvAthn thaTHA hi dharsayathi- 3-1-7
Soma being food of devas is meant in the secondary sense
because of not knowing the self and so the sruthi declares.
The opponent argues that from the text 'Esha sOmO rAjA
thaddhEvAnAm
The suthra refutes the above saying that because of the absence of
knowledge on the part of the sacrificer regarding his real nature he is said to
be the food of devas. By the sacrificial offerings, worship etc devas are
pleased and they enjoy them and hence the word food is used in the sense of
that which is enjoyed. As a result of sacrifice etc the individual self is also
able to enjoy the company of devas, the one devoid of the knowledge of Self is
mentioned as 'yaTHA pasuh EVam sa dhEvAnAm,
(Brhd.1-4-10) he is like a beast to the devas, meaning object of enjoyment.
Eating for the devas mean satisfaction and not actual act of eating which is
shown from the text,' 'na vai dhEvA asnanthi na pibanthi;EthadhEvAm
rtham dhrshtvA thrpyanthi,(Chan.3-6-1)
Ramanuja concludes by saying that it is settled that the soul moves from one
body to another taking the subtle elements with it. 'thasmAth bhoothasukshmaih samparishvakthah jivo ramhathiithi
siddham.'
Thus ends the thadhantharprathipa tthyadDhikaraNam
krthAthyayADHikaraN am-3-1-2
Suthra-8-krthAthyay E anusayavAn dhrshtasmrthibhyAm
yaTHEhamanEvam cha-
When the merit is exhausted the soul returns with the remainder of
karma as declared by sruthi and smrthi along the path it went by but with a
difference.
The sruthi says 'yAvath
sampAtham ushithvA aTHaitham Eva adhvAnam punarnivarthanthE,(Chan.5-10-5)
Having stayed there
till their karma is exhausted they return by the same path by which they
went.' The question is whether they return with any residual karma or not.
The poorvapkshin
says that there is no residual karma as it has been exhausted as declared by the above text.
The suthra refutes
this view and says that only the merit, that is, the good karma by which the soul has earned the
divyalOKa, is exhausted and the soul returns to experience the result of the
remaining karma. This is shown by both sruthi and smrthi.
'thadh ya iha
ramaNeeyacharaNA abhyAsO ha yatthEramaNeeyAm yonimApadhyEran, '(Chan.5-10-7)
Those whose conduct
has been good return to obtain a good birth like brahmin
etc and
'aTha ya iha
kapooyacharaNAabhyA so ha yatthEkapooyAm yOnim ApadhyEran,' (Chan.5-10-7) those who have been doing sinful deeds obtain a low
birth such as animals or a low caste. Also smrthis like dharmasathras confirm this.
The soul descends in the same way as it went up but with a
difference.
While ascending the soul is said to go by smoke, night, the dark fortnight, dhakshiNAyana,
pithrlOka and the moon. But while descending it does not touch the pithrlOka.
Suthra-3-1-9- charaNAdhithi chEth na thadhupalakshaNArTH Ethi kArshNAjinih- 3-1-9
The word 'charaNa' indirectly denotes karma and not conduct.
The text quoted in the previous suthra says that those whose
conduct is good attain good birth etc. and the opponent claims that the word
charaNa or conduct is not karma but denotes good conduct in general and not the
acts enjoined in the vedas as producing merit or demerit.
This suthra refutes this saying that the word charaNa
denotes karma indirectly, as opined by KarshnAjina AchArya.
Suthra-10-AnarTHaky am ithi cheth na thadhpEkshathvAth- 3-1-10
Good conduct is not purposeless as karma depends on good
conduct.
The objection is that if good conduct, charaNa denotes
karma then there will be no purpose served by good conduct as such because it
fetches no result but only karma does.
The suthra replies that it is not so because only a person with a good conduct is
entitled to perform the karma enjoined in the vedas like yajna etc. This is
indicated by the texts such as 'AchAraheenam na punanthi vedhAh,
him who is devoid of good conduct the vedas do not purify,' meaning that there
can be no result to the vaidhika karma if the good conduct is not observed.
Therefore KarshnAjina considers good conduct is implying karma.
Suthra-11-sukrthadu shkrthE Eva ithi thu
bAdharih- 3-1-11
But charaNa is merit and demerit (in the direct sense)
The word charaNa
means only conduct as the common expressions such as 'he practices dharma'
denote the good karma only as is meant by good conduct and hence there is no
need to assume secondary sense. This is the opinion of BAdhari and it is
approved by suthrakARa also, says Ramanuja, though the opinion of KArshnAjina
is partially accepted as much as the vedic acts like
sandhyAvandhana as meritorious acts, qualify for acquiring merit. Therefore the
souls descend with residual karma. Thus ends the krthAthyayADhikaraNam.
anishtADHikAryaDHik araNam-3- 1-3
Suthra-12-anishtADH ikAriNAmapi cha srutham-3-1- 12
The sruthi mentions that even those who do not perform
sacrifices etc go to the world of moon.
The sruthi declares 'yE vai kE chAsmAth lOkAth prayanthi
chandhrmasamEva thE sarve gacchanthi, whoever leaves this world go to the
moon.' So there will be no difference between those who do not perform the acts
enjoined in the vedas or do what is forbidden and those who follow the vedas.
The next suthra replies to this.
Suthra-13-samyamanE thu anubhooya
ithrEshAm ArOhAvarOhou thadgathi dharsanAth-3-
1-13
For them, (AchAraheenas) only after experiencing the punishment in
the realm of Yama there is ascent to and descent from moon. It is declared in
the sruthi 'ayam lOkO nASthi na parahithi mAnee punafpunarvasamApad
hyathE mE.' (Kato.1-2-6) He who thinks, this is the world there is no
other, falls again and again under my sway,' says Yama.
Suthra-14-smaranthi cha-3-1-14
The smrthis also declare this.
Parasara and others declare that all are under the sway of Yama.
Suthra-15-api saptha-3-1-15
There are seven hells mentioned.
Seven hells are mentioned for the sinners to go and expiate their
sins.
Suthra-16-thathrApi thadhvyApArAth avirODhah-3-
1-16
To the objection that if the sinners go to the seven hells how is
it said that they go to the realm of Yama, the suthra replies that even the
seven hells are only under the rule of Yama and hence there is no discrepancy.
Suthra-17-vidhyAkar maNOrithi thu prakrthathvAth- 3-1-17
The two paths are the result of jnAna and karma as they
are the subject under discussion.
The path of devas, devayAna is prescribed for those who have knowledge of Brahman and the path
of the manes,
pithryANa is that of those who
do the karmas enjoined in the Vedas
So the evildoers do not go by either of the paths
and do not reach the realm of the moon. The two paths form the subject matter
of the passage mentioned. In Chandhogya Upanishad, where the fifth oblation,
called water is said to be designated as man, the next section deals with the
progress of the soul after death.
There it is said 'thadhya ittham vidhuryE chEmE aranyE sraddhA thapa
ithyupAsathE, 'those who know this, (meaning the knowledge of the five
fires) and those who in the forest
(Meaning those with
jnAna) follow faith and austerities, go to light, (the path of light-devayAna) 'thE archisham abhisambhavanthiarc hishO ahah,'
And 'aTha ya
imEgrAmE ishtApoortham dhattahmithupAsathe,
Those who in villages
(meaning those who follow karmmarga) perform sacrifice and other karma enjoined
in the vedas,'thE DHoomam abhisambhavanthi, they follow the path of
smoke,' that is pithryANa.
And it is further
mentioned that all of them go to the realm of the moon.
For the evil doers
neither the devayAna on account of their lack of knowledge nor pithryANa is
prescribed as they have not done any good deeds.
But the opponent objects that since the fifth oblation is the origin of the new body even
the evildoers must go through the first four oblations which necessitate their
going to the realm of the moon. (Chan.5- 7) The next sutra refutes this.
suthra-18-na thrtheeyE
thaTHOpalabDHEh
Not with respect to third (evildoers) because it is seen to
be so from the scriptures.
The third class of
souls, namely the evil doers do not depend on the fifth oblation for the
origination of a new body.
In ChAndhOgya upanishad it is said that those who return to the evil
wombs do not go by either of these paths because they keep repeatedly revolving
between birth and death.
'thena
asou lOKah na sampoorryathE, hence this realm of moon is never filled up.' So the evildoers
never progress as far as the moon.
Suthra-19- smaryathE api cha
lOkE-3-1-19
Instances without the fifth oblation are known in the
smrthi.
In Mahabharatha for example the bodies of Drshtadhyumna and Draupadhi were
created without depending on the fifth oblation that is not through the process
of reproduction.
Sutra- 20-dharsanAccha- 3-1-20
Also by observation
Sruthi also declares that in some cases bodies originate without
depending on the fifth oblation. 'theshAm
khalu EshAm bhoothAnAmthreeNyEv a beejAni bhavanthiAndajam jeevajam udbijjam,
(Chan.6-3-1)
Of those mentioned there are only three kinds of origination,
those from egg, those from living being and those by germination. ‘The third kind do not depend on the fifth oblation as they originate
without mating. But the opponent comes up with an objection that there is no
mention of the beings born from sweat or moisture. To this the next suthra
replies.
Suthra-21-thrtheeya sabdhAvarODHah
sam sOkajasya-3- 1-21
The third class includes those born from moisture etc.
The word samsokaja means svedhaja or those born from sweat
or moisture. This is included in those that germinate, udbijja.
Therefore for the evildoers there is no attainment of the realm of
the moon.
Thus ends the anishtADhikAryaDHik araNam.
thathsvAbhAvyApatth yadhikaraNam- 3-1-4
suthra-22-thathsvAb hAvyApatthirupap atthEh
The soul attains similarity of nature descending from the
world of the moon with AkAsa etc. that being reasonable.
The descent of the soul from the realm of the moon is
described as
'yaThEtham Akasam AkAsAth vAyum
vAyurbhoothvA DHoomO bhavathi DHoomO bhoothvA abhram bhavathi,
They come to AkAsa, from AkAsa to air. Having become air
they become smoke.'
Now the
question is whether the souls becomes embodied in these elements or attain
similarity. The opponent claims that it become embodied in AkAsa etc since
the soul is said to become the moon in the srAdhha state and
The suthra
refutes this saying that the soul attains only similarity. When the soul
becomes the moon or a man, embodiment is needed for enjoying the result of
karma whereas in reaching the AkAsa etc. there is no such need. So it only
means that the soul becomes like AkAsa, air,etc when
it reaches the respective spheres.
This is the end of thathsvAbhAvyApathh
yaDHikaraNam
nAthichirADhikaraNa m-3-1-5
Suthra-23-nAthichir ENa visEshAth-3- 1-23
The soul’s descent does not take very long time because of
declaration as such.
To the question that on reaching each realm whether the soul
remains there for indefinite time before taking another embodiment the suthra
replies that it is not so.
There is a special statement 'athO vai khalu dhurnishprapatharam
,' from there the escape is set with many more difficulties, ' meaning that
the passing of the soul into the realm of AkAsA etc are not difficult and hence
accomplished easily but when the soul takes the form of rice, corn etc it is
not easy to pass on from that state. From this it could be inferred that the
soul stays in the previous stages for a short time only.
Thus ends the nathichiraDhikaraNam
anyADhishTithAdhika raNam-3-1- 6
Suthra-24-anyADHish
TithE purvavath abhilApAth-3- 1-24
The soul is
only in contact with the bodies of plants etc. which are ruled by other souls
for the same reason as stated in the previous suthra.
To the
question that whether the soul is born as rice etc in the primary sense of the
term the suthra replies that it is merely in contact with the bodies of the
plants as they are embodied by other souls. The reason for this is the same as
that given before, namely, there is no result of karma to be experienced in
those bodies. In the interval between leaving the heavenly regions after
enjoying the result of good deeds and the next embodiment awaiting as the
result of the residual karma there is no karma earned and hence no embodiment.
Suthra-25-asuddham ithi cheth na
sabdhAth- 3-1-25
If it is said that the karma like sacrifices are unholy (on
account of himsa involved) it is not so, according to scriptures.
The view of
the previous suthra is not accepted by the opponent who says that acquiring
bodies of plants etc. is possible because the karma enjoined in the vedas like
animal sacrifices involve himsa since the scripture itself prohibits killing by
'na himsyAth sarvabhoothAni'. If it is argued that the killing in the
sacrifices is not sin because there is no desire motivation for cruelty
because, even the sacrifices are undertaken with a desire only, such as
attaining heaven. So the soul after enjoying the beneficial result of good
karma descends into plant life to work out the bad karma.
This view is refuted by the
suthra. The sruthi says ’hiraNyasarira oorDhvah svargalOkam Ethi,
attaining golden body it goes to heaven,' of the animal killed in sacrifice. As
it releases the soul from body of the lower species and makes it ascend to
heaven it is beneficial and not himsa. That action which secures exalted status
even if it involves a little pain it is beneficial.
The manthra
which is pronounced while sacrificing the animal also declares
‘na
vA u EthanmriyasE na ripyasi dhEvAn idhEshi paTHibhih sugEbhih; yathra santhi
sukrthO nApi dhushkrthah,
Thou dost not die; thou goest to the gods on easy paths;
where virtuous men go, not evil-doers.'
Just as a
treatment for an injury, even if involves a little pain does a lot of good so
too the animal sacrifice in yajnas benefit the soul that inhabits
the body of the animal.
Suthra-26-rEthassig YOgO aTha-3-1-26
Then the soul gets connected with the one who performs the
act of generation.
After reaching the stage of plant the
soul enters into the one who eats and through him gets connected with the act
of generation, that is through him it reaches the human womb. So from this it
can be understood that the embodiment starts only after reaching the human
womb.
Suthra-27-yOnEh sariram-3-1- 27
From
the womb a new body is acquired. When the soul reaches the womb it acquires a
body according to the residual karma for experiencing pain and pleasure.
Padha-2
sandhyADHikaraNam-
3-2-1
Suthra-1-sanDHyE srshtirAha hi-3-2-1
In the previous adhyaya the wakeful state of the soul
is described. In this adhyaya the dream state is described along with the
auspicious qualities and wonderful powers of the Lord.
The sruthi says about the dream world
‘na thathra raTHA na raTHayOgA
na panTHAnO bhavanthi;aTHa raTHAn raTHayOgAnpaTHah srjathE,(Brhd.4-3-10)
Which means that there are no chariots nor horses nor
roads and everything is created by the soul? To the question whether this
creation is done by the individual self or Isvara, the opponent answers that it
is the jiva which creates in the intermediate stage, sanDHya
, so called because it is in between this world and next world. 'sanDhyam thrtheeyam svapnasTHAnam,(Brhd.4-3-9) the
state of dream is the third intermediary stage. It is created by the
jiva only. as said 'srjathE sa hi karthA,'
meaning, he is the creator who creates all these. It is said to connect
the two worlds because the dreamer not only sees what he experienced in the
wakeful state but also gets new experiences that can only belong to another
world.
Suthra-2-nirmAthAra m cha EkE puthrAdhayascha- 3-2-2
Some shAkhas say clearly that the jiva is the creator of dream
world.
In kaTopanishadit is said
'ya
Eshu supthEshu jAgarthi kAmam kAmam purushO nirmimANah, (Kata.2-2-8 )
The one who is awake
in those who sleep, fashions the desired objects. The word
'sarvAn
kAmAn cchandhathah prarTHayasva; sathAyushah puthrapouthrAn vrNeeshva,(Kata.1-1-25- 23)
Ask for all kAmas
according to your wish, ask for sons and grandsons who will live up to 100
years.' This view is refuted in the next
suthra.
Suthra-3-mAyAmAthra m thu
kArthsyEna anabhivyaktha svarupathvAth- 3-2-3
It is only the mAyA (of Isvara) as the real nature of the
self is not manifested in samsara.
The word mAyAmAthram here does not mean illusion but means IsvaramAyA,
the wonderful power of Isvara. It is wonderful because it is present only for
the particular soul and lasts only for a short time. The word mAyA is used to
denote wonder even in other places such as in the passage 'janakasya kulE
jAthA dhEvamAyEva nirmithA,' where Sita is described as being like the
wonderful power of the Lord.
This wonderful creation is possible only for the Lord who is
sathyasanlkalpa, of infallible will and not jiva, in whom the full powers
become manifest only in the released state. The creator of desired objects is
only denoted as Isvara in 'kAmam kAmam purushonirmimANah, '(Kata.2-2-8)
the subsequent texts that follow the one which mentions him, that keeps
awake in those who sleep, indicate that it is the supreme self only. It goes
like this. 'thadhEvasukram thadhbrahma thadhEvAmrtham
uchyathE, that is white, that is Brahman, that alone is called immortal.'
Since these characterestics apply to Brahman only the creator in the passage
cited earlier (Brhd.
Suthra-4-parAbhiDHy AnAtthu
thirOhitham thathOhyasya banDhaviparyayaou- 3-2-4
Due to the divine will the real nature of the individual
self is concealed.
To the question that
if the real nature of the soul is pure why should it not manifest the suthra
replies that it is according to the will of the supreme self,
because of the beginning less karma, causing the commission of sin, so
that the soul will exhaust the sinful karma by experiencing the result of it.
The bondage and the release both are effected by the
Lord only, as mentioned by sruthi
'yadhA
hyEvaishaEthaminnad hrshyeanatghmyE anirukthEanilayanE abhayam prathishTAm
vindhathE aTha sO abhayamgathO bhavathi;,(Tait.2-7)
Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in Brahman, the unperceivable,
formless, indescribable unsupported by anything else, he attains the state of
fearlessness.
Suthra-5-dhEhayOgAd hvA sOapi-3-2-5
Also due to the connection with the body
The concealment of real nature of the soul occurs due to its
connection with the body made of gross elements at the time creation and of subtle
elements at the time of dissolution when there is no manifestation into name
and form. Therefore its real nature being obscured by karma, the soul is not
capable of creating the dream objects. The Lord creates the dream world in
order to dispense the results of the acts of very little importance, not
considerably large to be exhausted in the waking state.
Suthra-6-suchakasch ahi sruthEh
AchckshathE cha thadvidhah-3- 2-6
As dreams serve as omens for a future events which is also
substantiated by sruthi
Certain dreams serve
as premonitions for events to come and hence they could not be the creation of
the dreamer. In ChAndhOgya upanishad it is said
'yadhA
karmasu kAmyEshusthriyam svapnEshu pasyathi samrddhim thathra jAneeyAth thasmin
svapnanidharsanE, (Chan.5-2-8)
While performing
rites for desired results if one sees a woman in his dream then he should recognize
the fulfillment of his desire in this vision of a dream.
Those who are proficient with the science of dreams also predict
good and bad results according to the dreams. The dreams that predict
bad results cannot be the creation of the dreamer and hence it is the creation
of the Lord only.
Thus ends sandhyADHikaraNam. .
thaDHabhAvADHikaraN am-3-2-2
Suthra-7-thadhabhAv O nAdeeshu
thacchrutherAthmani cha-3-2-7
The absence of dream takes place in the nerves and it is
declared by sruthi also.
Now the deep sleep
stage is examined. In the sruthi it is said
'yathraithathsuptha
h samsthah samprasannah svapnam na vijAnAthi Asu thadhA nAdeeshu supthO
bhavathi,
When a man sleeps
(meaning deep sleep) he does not know any dream and rests well and peacefully
he enters into the nAdis.' (Chan.-8-6-3) In BrhdArNyaka also it is said that
the soul rests in the region of the heart in deep sleep. Also in the text it is
said 'yathraithath purushah svapithi nAma sathA soumya thadhA sampannO bhavathi, when a man sleeps he
becomes united with the sath,' Hence the
poorvapkshin argues that as one cannot sleep in different places at the
same time, either they become the resting places for the soul alternatively or
they are collectively mentioned.
The suthra replies that the places mentioned are in the collective sense. as in the
_expression 'he sleeps in the palace, in a couch and on a bed,'the three are
taken to be in one place only, here also the nAdias are like the palace, the
region of heart is the couch and the Brahman is the bed. This explanation alone
will be in accordance with the alternate sruthi texts since they have to be
interpreted so as not be in conflict with each other.
Therefore Brahman is the sushupthisTHAnam, the resting place in deep
sleep.
Suthra-8-athahprabh ODHO
asmAth-3-2-8
Hence the awakening from that (Brahman)
Since Brahman is the resting place in deep sleep the scriptures
declare that the soul awakens form Brahman. The text 'satha Agaccha na vidhuh sathaAgacchAmahe, '(Chan.6-10-2) having come
from Brahman they do not know that they have come from it.' thus ends thadhabhAvADHikaraN am.
karmAnusmrthisabdha
viDHyaDHIkaraNam- 3-2-3
Suthra-9-sa Eva thu
karamAnusabdhavidhi bhyah-3-2- 9
The same person wakes up due to karma, remembrance and
according to the sruthi and injunction.
To the question whether the soul having rested in Brahman wakes up
as before or does it become emancipated and a different soul wakes up, the
suthra answers that the same soul wakes up. The remaining karma has to be
worked out by the same soul and on waking up one remembers that he is the one
who slept (anusmrthi). The sruthi also supports this. The text
'sa iha vyAgro vA
simhO vA vrkO vAvarAhO vA keetO vA pathangO vA dhamsO vA masakO vA
yadhyadhbhavanthi thadhAbhavanthi,
'Whatever these creatures are here, whether a
lion, or tiger, or wolf,boar,worm, fly,,gad- fly or
mosquito, that they become again' (Chan.. VI, io, 2).
Also the injunctions regarding attainment of release will be
purposeless if a soul becomes free in sleep.
The sleeping person is different from a released soul as he is not
free from limiting adjuncts of waking state even then. It is shown in the text
where Indhra was instructed by Prajapathi about the real Self. He was told that
the one who is full asleep is the Self but Indhra is not satisfied and says
'
Meaning, he does not know in deep sleep who he is or any of these
things and hence he goes into annihilation. '
On the other hand the released soul is described as 'param
jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE, having attained
the supreme light (Brahman) he manifests in his real nature,' in which state he
becomes all knowing 'sarvam ha pasyah pasyathi sarvam ApnOthi
sarvasah, he sees everything and knows everything.' Therefore the soul in
sleep having rested in Brahman for a while comes back to work out the remaining
karma. Thus ends the karmAnusmrthisabdhy aDHikaraNam.
MugDHADHikaraNam- 3-2-4
Suthra-10-mugDHE arDHasampatthih
parisEshAth- 3-2-10
In swoon it is partial death as it is the only
alternative left.
To the question whether the swoon is to be included in one of the three,
namely, wakeful, dream or deep sleep states or akin to death, the suthra replies that it is partial
death. It is not the wakeful or dream states as there is no knowledge,
neither it has the character of deep sleep because of the absence of peace and
rest and nor is it death as the soul returns to consciousness .So it could be
only described as partial death.
ubhayalingADHikaraN am-3-2-5
Suthra-11-na sTHAnathopi parasya ubhayalingam sarvathra hi
There is no imperfection
in Brahman because of place as it is said to have two fold characteristics.
The
condition of the jiva in different states of consciousness has been brought out
by the previous suthras in order to arouse dispassion in the mind of an
aspirant and now the nature of Brahman is described as being free from defects
and an abode of auspicious qualities in order to induce desire for attaining
Brahman.
The
poorvapkshin says that the defects of the different places such as wakeful state,
dream etc. will adhere to Brahman who is said to abide in them. He argues that
the soul by nature is pure but only due to the connection with a body it
acquires imperfections caused by karma. Even though Brahman abides in
different states with the soul voluntarily as its inner self, embodiment should
create imperfections, just
as a person, though clean will become impure if he falls into filth. The
texts such as 'yah prthivyAm thishTan,' etc which describe Brahman being
present in all entities as their inner self proves only that like an embodied
soul getting contaminated by the imperfections of the body Brahman also will be
so due to the body it enters in .
This view is refuted
in the suthra saying that the supreme self is not contaminated because
through out Brahman is said to have twofold characteristics by the sruthi,
namely, being free from all imperfections and possessing infinite auspicious
qualities.
Here
Ramanuja quotes from sruthi texts such as,
'apahathapApma, vijarO vimrthyuHvishokO
vijiGHathsOapipAsah sathyakAmah sathyasankalpah, (Chan.8-1-5)
free from
evil, free from old age, free from death, free from grief, free from hunger and
thirst; of infallible will and wish,' and from smrthi
'samasthakalyAna gunAthmakOasou
svashakthilEsAth dhrtha bhootha sargah, thEjObalaisvarya mahAvabODHasuveerya
shakthyAdhicuNai karAsih;parah parANAm sakalA na yathra klEsAdhayah santhi
parAvarEse,(VP-6-5-84/85)
He
possesses all auspicious qualities, by a fraction of his power supporting all beings.
In Him there are energy, strength, might, wisdom, valor, and all other
noble qualities. He is the supreme being the Lord of all, high and low, whom no
imperfections affect.’
From these
passages the twofold characteristics of Brahman can be understood.
Suthra-12-bhEdhAth ithi cheth na
prtyhEkam athadhvachanAth- 3-2-12
If it is said that Brahman
cannot avoid contamination on account of different bodies, it is not so because
of assertion to the contrary in each text.
To
the objection that Brahman should also be affected by the imperfections of the
different bodies ensouled by it like divine, human etc. the suthra answers that each
text where Brahman is described as the inner self like 'ya prthivyAm thishTan , ya Athmani thishTan' etc. ends with the assertion
'sa tha ASthmA antharyAmyamrthah, that is the Self ,the indweller who is
immortal.'
It cannot
be argued that even if the entry into the different bodies is self-willed,
Brahman cannot escape being connected with the imperfections which are the
nature of the bodies.
Ramanuja points out that even the inanimate
objects are not good or bad by nature but gives joy or sorrow according to the karma
of the individual who experiences them. In VishnupurANa it is said
'thadhEva preethayE bhoothvA ApunardhuhkhAya jAyathE;thadhEva
kOpAya yathah prasAdhAya cha jAyathe;thasmAth dhuhjhAthmakam nAsthi na cha kimchith sukhAthmakam,'(VP.2-6-48)
which means that the same thing which gives pleasure turns into a source of
sorrow and vice versa and hence nothing is of the nature of pleasure or pain.
So the
connection with bodies, while causes joy and sorrow for the jiva according to
his karma, to the supreme self it is a matter of sport only.
Suthra-13-api chaivamEkE-3- 2-13
Some also teach thus.
The text:
'dhvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA samAnam
vrksham parishasvajAthE; thayOranyah pippalam svAdhu atthi anasnananyah abhichAkaseethi,
two birds
of beautiful plumage, inseparable friends cling to the same tree; while one
eats the fruits sour and sweet the other looks on without eating,' declares
that though the individual soul experiences pain and pleasure as the result of
embodiment Brahman abiding in the same body as its inner self is not
affected.
But the
poorvapakshin quotes the text 'anEna jeevEna AthmanA anupravisya
nAmarupE vyAkaravANI,I will enter in with this soul
and provide name and form,' and says that this shows that Brahman also comes
under the sphere of names and forms and hence when the embodiment causes pain
and pleasure to the jiva due to karma how can Brahman be not affected being in
the same body. The next suthra replies to this.
Suthra-14-arupavadh Eva hi thath praDHAnathvAth- 3-2-14
Brahman is by
nature formless though the agent of names and forms.
Brahman is formless as there is no embodiment as in the case
of jiva due to karma and is superior being instrumental for the names and form.
This is evident from the text
'AkAsO vai nAma nAmarupayOh nirvahithA
thE yadhantharA thadhbrahma,
AkAsa
(meaning Brahman) is the agent of names and forms; that without these is
Brahman.'
The soul is connected with the respective name and form according
to its karma and for Brahman this is not the case and hence no form, though
abiding in the soul and its body as the antharyami, indweller, and
hence, says Ramanuja, retains the dual characteristics, namely nirastha
nikhila dhOshathvam, absence of all imperfections and kalyANAgunAkarathva
m , abode of all auspicious qualities.
Suthra-15-prakAsava th cha
avaiyarTHyAth- 3-2-15
Even as Brahman is
regarded as being essentially of light so too the twofold characteristics to be
taken as true so that the texts will not be devoid of meaning
The
concept of ubhayalingathvam is questioned on the basis of abhedha texts. The
text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma, truth, knowledge and infinity is
Brahman,' denotes Brahman to be nirvisesha, undifferentiated, (that is, according
to advaita only) while mentioning the qualities sarvajnathvam, omniscience,
sathyasankalpathvam, true willed, jagathkAraNathvam, being the
cause of the world, and sarvAntharyAmithvam, being the inner Self of all,
and again denying all attributes by the texts saying ' nethi nethi, not this,
not this. The opponent asks that how can Brahman be attributed with the
ubhayalinga, namely, being free from imperfections and being the abode of
auspicious qualities on the face of evidence to the contrary.
The suthra replies to this saying that just as the attribute of consciousness (prakAsathvam)
is to be understood in order to make the text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham,'
meaningful so too the ubhayalingathvam has to be affirmed so that the
texts mentioning sarvajnathvam etc. will not be devoid of meaning.
Suthra-16-Aha cha thanmAthram- 3-2-16
And the text quoted says
so much only.
The
text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma,' specifies only this being the
nature of Brahman and not negates the other qualities.
Suthra-17-dharsayat hi cha athO api
smaryathE-3- 2-17
This is shown by sruthi
and smrthi.
The
twofold characteristics of Brahman is shown buy sruthi texts such as :
'thameesvarANAmpara mam mahEsvaram tham
dhaivathAnAAm paramam cha dhAivatham,'(Svet.6-7)
He
is the Lord of lord as and supreme deity of all the deities,
'yah sarvajnah sarvavith
yasya jnAnamayam thapah,' (Mund.1-1-9)
He
is omniscient and knows all and His creative thought is knowledge itself, and
'nishkalamm nishkriyam shAntham
niravadhyam niranjanam,'
He who is without parts, without action, tranquil, without
fault, without taint. (Svet.
Up. VI, l9)
Smrthi
also says that the Lord is the cause of the world and pervades all but
unaffected by anything, 'utthamah purushah thu
anyah paramAthmA ithi udhAhrthah;yO lOkathrayam Avisya
bibarthyavyaya isvarah,' (BG.15-17)
Suthra-18-aTha Eva chOpamA suryakAdhivath-
3-2-18
Therefore the comparisons
of Brahman with the images of the sun etc.
Brahman
is compared to the sun which though reflected in different mediums is not
affected by the imperfections of the image which belong to the reflecting
medium only.
Suthra-19-ambuvatha grahaaNAth thu na
thaTHAthvam- 3-2-19
But
there is no comparison as Brahman is not apprehended as
the reflection of the sun in water etc.
THis suthra
presents an objection that Brahman is not apprehended in the places He
abides as the reflection of the sun in water, mirror etc. Moreover the
reflection is an illusion. But the scripture tells us that Brahman exists in
prthivee etc. in reality. So the comparison is not valid.
Suthra-20-vrddhihrA sabhAkthvamantha rbhAvAth ubhaya
sAmanjasyath Evam dharsanAth cha-3-2-20
The participation in
imperfections like increase and decrease alone is denied making the comparison
appropriate and thus it is seen.
Brahman
is compared to AkASa in a pot and other things and also to sun reflected in
different sources of water in order to show that his imperfections of the place
of abode do not affect Brahman. While the sun is not present in water the air
exists in the pots. Both the examples are for indicating the same characteristic
of Brahman, namely not being affected by the imperfections of the residing
place.
Ramanuja explains it thus:
yaTHA jalAdhishu vasthuthah
anavasTHithasya amsumathah hethvabhAvAth jalAdhidhOshAnabhis hvangah thaTHA
prthivyAdhishu avasTHithasyApi paramAthmanah dhOshprathyaneekAkA rathayA
dhOshahEthvabhAvAth na dhOshasambhanDHah ithi
This
means, just as the imperfections of the reflecting medium do not affect the sun
because it does not exist in water etc. in reality, likewise the Supreme self
,though existing in the entities like earth, is not affected by their
imperfections, being free from defects by nature.
Suthra-21-prkrthath Avathvam hi prathishEDHathi thathO braveethi
cha bhooyah-3-2- 21
The text denies only
that-muchness of Brahman and declares more than that.
The
poorvapakshin quoting the text 'nethi nethi,' says that Brahman is
defined as pure being and hence the ubhayalinga is not applicable, to which the suthra
replies that the text quoted does not deny the attributes of Brahman
but only denies limiting Brahman to this -much. Otherwise sruthi cannot negate
what has already said earlier and more so because of the declaration of more
qualities later and hence the texts have to be interpreted so as not conflict
with each other. It is said by sruthi
nahyEthasmAth ithi na ithi anyath paramasthi;aTha
nAmaDHEyam sathyasya sathyam ithi, (Brhd.4-3-6)
For there is not anything higher than this not
so Then comes the name, the True of the True;
Ramanuja explains the passage
thus:
the words 'na ithi' in the passage means that
there is nothing higher than Brahman both in nature and qualities, 'brahmanah
anyath svarupathah guNathah cha nAsthi ithyarTHah.' That Brahman is known
as 'sathyasya sathyam' the 'true of the true.' This epithet is explained
in the subsequent santence 'prANA vai sathyam thEshAm Esha sathyam, the
prANas (individual souls) are true and He is the truth of them. The souls are
called pranas because they are accompanied by prana and they are true in the
sense they do not undergo changes in form and nature like the insentient. .Of
these reals Brahman is the highest reality. He is termed as sathyasya
sathyam because the knowledge of the souls contract and expand according to
their karma whereas it is not so for Brahman who is free from sin. Therefore
Brahman is the highest truth of them all.
Ramanuja concludes that since the passages
complementary to that containing the denial,'nethi nethi' show that
Brahman has certain qualities the denial is not
in respect to the qualities already stated but it only denies that the nature
of Brahman is limited by those qualities only.'
athaschaivam vAkyaseshOdhitha guNajAthayOgAth
nethi netheethi brahmaNah saviseshathvam na prathishiDHyathE api thu
poorvaprakrthEya itthAmAthram. atha
ubhayalingam Eva brahma.'
Therefore
is confirmed that Brahman has twofold characteristics of being free from
imperfections and possessing infinite auspicious qualities.
Suthra-22-thadhavya ktham Aha hi-3-2-22
Brahman is unmanifest as
declared by scriptures.
Sruti
declares 'na sadhrsE thishTathi rupam asya na chakshushA pasyathi
kaschanaEnam,(Kata. 2-6-9) his form does not stands to be seen and no
one sees Him with the eye and 'na chakshushA grhyathE nApi vAchA, (Mund.3-1-8)
He is not grasped by eye or speech.' so there is no question of defining
Brahman or denial.
Suthra-23-api samrADHane prathyakshAnumAnAbh yAm-3-2-23
Brahman can be experienced
only through meditation says sruthi and smrthi (denoted by prathyaksha and
anumana)
SamrAdhana
is samyak preeNana, meditation combined with devotion and sruthi declares that
Brahman can be intuited only through the means of devotion and meditation.
'nAyamAthmA paravachanEna labhyahna mEdhayA
na bahuDHA sruthEna;yamEvaisha vrnuthE thEna labhyah,
(Kata.1-2-23)
The supreme
self cannot be attained through vedas, or intellect or learning; but can be
attained only by him, whom the supreme self chooses.' Smrthi also confirms this
by saying
'nAham vedhairna
thapasA na dhAnEna na chejyayaA--- -bhakthyAthvanan yayaA laBhyah,(BG.XI-53/54)
I cannot be attained through vedas, austerities,
charity, or by sacrifice. I become accessible only through devotion.'
Suthra24-prakAsAdhi vathcha avaiseshyamprakAsas cha karmani
abhyAsAth-3- 2-24
There
are non-differences in the case of light and apprehension through constant
practice of meditation.
The text
'thaddhaithath pasyan rshirvAmadhEvah
prathipedhE "aham manurabhavam suryascha", (Brhd.1-4-10)
Seeing
this vAmadeva understood, “I am manu and surya."
In
this apprehension through meditation, the knowledge and bliss as the
essential nature of Brahman as well as the universe of the sentient and the
insentient beings in subtle and gross form as the modes of Brahman is
understood.
Suthra-25-athO ananthEna thTHA hi lingam- 3-2-25
As Brahman is shown to be
infinite the characteristics apply.
Since
Brahman has been established as possessing infinite auspicious qualities the
twofold characteristics are confirmed.
ahikundalADHikaraNa m-3-2-6
Suthra-26-ubhayavya padhEsAth ahikundalavath- 3-2-26
It has been established that the texts saying 'not this, not
this,' deny only the iyatthA the limitation of Brahman. It has also been
shown that Brahman is the highest and truth of the true. Now the relationship
between the non sentient world and Brahman is examined in order to prove that
Brahman is free from imperfections. There are three alternative views, namely ahikundalanyaya,
the relation of a serpent to its coils, prabhAprabhAvathOh iva EkajAthi yOga, that between the light and the source
of light and amsaamsibhAvEna viseshaNa viseshyathA, like that of the
part and the whole as the attribute and the substance. This and the following
two suthras deal with each of the alternatives.
From the earlier suthras 'thadhanyathvam ArmbhaNa sabdhAdhibhyah,'
(BS.2-1-14) and 'prakrthischa prathishTAdhrshtAnt hAnuparOdhAth,
' (BS.1-4-23) it has been shown that Brahman distinguished by the
sentient and the non-sentient beings in their gross form has originated from
Brahman distinguished by the sentient and the non-sentient in their
subtle form.
The texts such as 'brahma Eva idham sarvam' (Brhd.2-5-1)
all this is Brahman and 'AtmaivEdham sarvam,'(Chan.7-25-2) all this is
the Self, speak about the identity of Brahman with the world while the texts
like 'anEna jivEna AthmanA anupravisya,' relating the entry of Brahman
into everything to distinguish names and forms mention the difference. Therefore
like the serpent and its coils the world is different in names and forms like
the coils of the snake yet not different as they are only Brahman in
substance, like the snake that exists in its coils.
Suthra-27-prakAsAsr ayavadhvA- 3-2-27
Or like the light and its source.
If brahman is said to appear as the world like the serpent and its
coils there will be contradiction with the texts denoting the difference and
hence the analogy of the light and its source is adopted in as much as
though both are different yet they are the same being(thEjas) the
element fire.
Suthra-28-poorvavad hvA-3-2-28
Or the relation is as given before.
In the first alternative Brahman itself existing as the
non-sentient world, the imperfections of the world will be unavoidable with
respect to Brahman. The second alternative means that as fire constitutes the
substance in light as well as its source, Brahmanhood forms the substance of the
non-sentient world and Brahman, in which case Brahman becomes a mere generic
character and not a real entity that pervades all. This means, instead of
Brahman existing in all, it will be Brahmanhood which forms the common basis of both the world and
Brahman and this is against the declaration in the sruthi that Brahman is the
supreme reality.
This leads to the conclusion that the relationship between Brahman
and the world is as described in the earlier suthras 'amsO
nANAvayapadhEsAth, ' (BS.2-3-43) and 'prakASAdhivatthu nAivam parah'
(BS. 2-3-45) according to which the non-sentient is also ,like the sentient
soul , an attribute of Brahman, being an inseparable part(amsa) of
Brahman. Thus the identity between the substance and the attribute as
well as the difference of the attribute and the substance is brought out
and hence Brahman is also shown as free from imperfections. Just as the light
of the entities belonging to the genus of luminous bodies like a gem, which is
inseparable from the gem etc, are considered as the part of the luminous body,the sentient and insentient entities form a part of
Brahman.
Suthra-29-prathishE DHAccha-3- 2-29
And because of denial
The texts such as 'nASya jarayA Ethath jeeryathE' (Chan.8-1-5)
it does not age with aging of the body, and 'sa vA Esha mahAnaja AthmA ajarO
amarah' this is the great Self, unborn,undecaying
and immortal, deny in Brahman the attributes of the nonsentient world. Hence
the relation between the two is only that of substance and attribute and the
nonsentient world forms a part of Brahman. Therefore Brahman is free from
imperfections, abode of auspicious qualities and possesses twofold characteristics.
Thus ends the ahikundalADHikaraNam.
ParADHikaraNam- 3-2-7
Suthra-30-paramatha
h sEthoonmAnasambhanD Ha bhEdhavyapadhEsEbhy ah-3-2-30
There is
something higher than Brahman because of the mention of bridge, measure,
connection and difference.
This suthra is
by way of fallacious prima facie view (poorvapaksha) that there must be a
higher being than Brahman, the material and efficient cause of the world.
The text 'atha
ya Athma sa sEthurviDHrthih,' mentions that the
Self is the bridge, the embankment, (Chan.8-4- 1) to be crossed 'Etham
sEthum TheerthvAanDHassan ananDHO byavahi', (Chan.8-4-2) by which a
blind person is able to see. Since a bridge is something to go across to
reach the other side there must be something else to be reached after crossing
it.
Brahman is
also mentioned as being limited by the text 'parimitham idham param brahma
chathushpAdbrahma shOdasalkalam, ' (Chan.3-18-2) the supreme Brahman
is limited, has four feet and sixteen parts, which indicates the existence of
something other than Brahman which is unlimited, to be reached by that bridge.
Also the texts 'amrthasya param sEthum, the highest bridge of
immortality' (Svet.6-19) and 'amtrthasyaisha sEthuh(Mund.2-2-5) he is the bridge
of the immortal,' all of which indicate something higher to be reached through
the bridge, that is Brahman.
That there is
something higher is also shown by 'parAthparampurusha m upaithi, (Mund.3-2-8)
he goes to the purusha who is higher than the highest and 'thEnEdham
poorNam purushENa sarvam,thathO yadhuttharatharam
thadharoopamanAmaya m, by this person the whole universe is filled and what
is higher than that is formless and without suffering. So from these it
is claimed that there is something higher than Brahman.
Suthra31-sAmAnyAth
thu-3-2-31
Because of similarity
The sutra
refutes the view given above. The word 'Sethu ' does not mean something
to be attained but the next phrase to the text quoted says 'EshAmlOkAnAm
asambhEdhAya' meaning, for the non- confounding of these worlds.
Ramanuja defines the word 'sEthu' as
'sinOthi baDHnAthi svasmin sarvam
chidhachitvasthujAt ham asnkirNam ithi sEthuh uchyathE'
Brahman binds the world of sentient and insentient beings
in itself so that there is no confusion and everything is in order (setu being
derived from 'si'to bind)
Etham sEthum
theerthvA
means after
crossing the bridge, that is reaching the
Suthra-32-buddhyarT Hah pAdhavath-3- 2-32
Brahman is denoted as having limitation for the sake of
meditation like four feet etc.
The
expressions such as 'chathushpAdhbrahma shodasakalam,' cited to prove
that Brahman has limit or measure is only to facilitate comprehension and for
meditation because the texts like 'sathyam jnAanam anantham
brahma' clearly show that Brahman who is the cause of the universe is
unconditioned and immeasurable. The texts speaking about measure like the one 'vAkpAdhahprANah
pAdhah chakshuh pAdhAhsrothrampAdha h,' (Chan.3-18-2) which declares
that the speech,prANa, eye and the ear as being the four quarters of Brahman,
are for the sake of meditation.
Suthra-33-sTHAnavis EshAth prakAsAdhivath- 3-2-33
The limitations are due to the special places as in the case
of light etc.
Just as light,
AkAsa etc are viewed as though limited by windows, pots and so on though
they are spread everywhere, Brahman is also spoken of as connected with the
limiting adjuncts like speech eye etc.
Suthra-34-upapatthE scha-3-2- 34
And it is possible.
From the text 'amrthasyaishasEthu
h,' it need not be concluded that there is something higher than
Brahman is to be attained because Brahman is both the means and the end as
ascertained by the statement 'yamEvaishavrNuthE thEna labhyathE,' he
whom the Self chooses , by him the Self can be gained.'
Suthra-35-thaTHA anyaprathishEDHAth- 3-2-35
Similarly because of denial of anything else
The texts
quoted to prove that there is something higher like 'parAthparam purusham,
(Mund.3-2-8) the supreme purusha above the highest,' and 'aksharAth parathah
parah, ((Mund.2-1-2) higher than the imperishable, 'etc are not so accepted
because the sruthi explicitly denies the existence of anything higher as seen from the
texts like 'yasmAth param nAparamasthi kimchith yasmANNANeeyO na jyAyO asthi
kaschith,(Svet.3-9) there is nothing else higher that Brahman and nothing
subtler or greater.
To the
question as to what is that which is indicated in the text 'thathO
yadhuttharatharam, ' (Svet.3-10) as being beyond it,
Ramanuja gives the reply as follows:
In the passage
immediately preceding that
'vedhAhamEtham purusham mahAntham
Adhithya varNam thamasah parasthAth;thamEva vidhithvA athimrthyum Ethi nAnyah
panTHA vidhyathE ayanAya,(Svet.3-8)
I know Him the supreme purusha of the hue of the Sun, who
is beyond darkness, knowing Him one crosses over death
to immortality and there is no other way than this.' And the next verse says 'yasmAth
param nAparamasthi kimchith, higher than whom nothing else exists.'
So the texts
quoted at the outset, to prove the existence of higher entity than Brahman,
only show that there is a supreme person with all His transcendental qualities
who is superior to the aggregate of all individual souls.,
namely Brahman . This alone is the explanation in accordance with the meaning
of the whole passage.
Suthra-36-anEna sarvagathathvam AyAmasabdhAhibhyah- 3-2-36
The omnipresence of Brahman is known from scripture
regarding the extent of Brahman.
The
omnipresence of brahman is known from the texts that
describe Brahman to be all pervading. 'thEnEdham
poorNam purushEna sarvam, all this is filled with this person,'(Svet. 3-9) yacchakimchith
jagath sarvam dhrsyathE srooyathE api vA antharbahischa thathsarvam vyApya
nArAyanassThithah, (Mahanarayana. 13-5) Other sruthi texts like 'brahmaivEdham
sarvam ,AthmAivEdham sarvam , ' also denote Brahman to be higher
than anything else.
PHalAdhikaraNam- 3-2-8
Suthra-37-phalamath a
upapatthEh-3- 2-37
From Him alone the fruit of actions is possible.
As the mere actions
cannot secure results, being insentient it is only from the Lord who is
worshipped through action the fruits of actions ensue.
Ramanuja says this is only appropriate as
'sa Eva hi sarvajnah sarvasakthih mahOdhArah
yAgadhAnahOmAdhibhi h ArADHithahAIhika Amushmika bhOgajAtham svsasvarupa
avApthirupam apavargam cha dhAthumeeshte. '
This means, He only being all-knowing, all-powerful,
supremely generous, pleased by sacrifices, gifts, offerings, meditation, etc
has the power to bestow enjoyment in this world and the next, and also
release, to attain Him.
Suthra-38-sruthathv Accha-3-2- 38
And also from the scripture
The texts like
'sa va Esha mahAnajaAthmA annAdhO vasu dhAnah' says the sruthi meaning that
the great unborn Self is the eater of food ( accepts
the offering) and giver of wealth (fruit of actions) and 'ESha
hyEvAnandhayathi' that He alone gives joy, proves this point.
Suthra-39 Dharma jaiminiratha Eva-3-2-39
Jaimini thinks that religious work brings fruits of
action for the same reason.
Jaimini thinks
on the other hand that the works alone brings the result, as against the above
view. In his opinion the acts like sacrifices create a power known as apurva
which brings the result at the appropriate time. He quotes the text from
purvamimamsa 'svargakAmO yajEtha, which enjoins that one who desires
heaven should perform the sacrifice.
Suthra-4-poorvam thu bAdharayaNah
hEthuvyapadhEsAth- 3-2-40
But Badhrayana
has the former view because Brahman has been declared as the cause.
Badharayana
thinks that Brahman is the bestower of the fruits of actions. Even in the
statements like 'vAyurvai kashEpishtA dhEvatha,' where Vayu is praised
to be the fruit giver being swift, only Brahman is referred to according to the
text 'yO vAyou thishTan yasya vAyuh sariram' etc. where brahman is denoted as the indweller and ruler of Vayu and
others. It is also declared by the Lord in Gita
'yOyO yAmyAm thanum bhakthah
sraddhayA archithum icchathi thasya thasya achalAm sraddhAm thAmEva
vidhaDHAmyaham,'
'Whomsoever devotee wishes to worship with faith to
whichever divine form, I make that faith unshakable for him.' Also He declares
that He alone is the one to whom all offering reaches as He is the master,
'ahamhi sarva
yajnAnAmbhOkthA cha prabhurEvacha. '
Ramanuja concludes by
saying that, as the king is propitiated through his officials so too the Lord
is worshipped by means of other forms.The vedanta texts
give the highest knowledge on the subject which transcends all others,
that of the supreme self, who is free from all imperfections, and abode
of auspicious qualities; and all sacrifices, gifts, oblations are
indirectly propitiate him just as the worship, meditation etc do so
directly. Thus propitiated, He bestows happiness in this world and enabled
the soul to attain final Release.
This is the end of phaladhikarana
The end of second padha of the third adhyaya
ADHyaya-3-pAdha- 3
SARVAVEDHANTHAPRATH YAYADHIKARANAM- 3-3-1
Suhtra-1-sarvavEdhA
nthaprathyayam chOdhanAdhyavisEshA th-3-3-1
What is understood from the vedanta
texts is one as there is no difference in injunctions etc.
The previous
suthras has served the purpose of kindling the desire of meditation on Brahman
by showing that the fruit of all karma is from Brahman only. Now the various
kinds of meditation are taken up for consideration. First it is to be examined
whether the same meditations such as vaisvAnara-vidhyA etc.whcih are mentioned
separately in different texts are the same or different.The opponent is of the
opinion that they are not the same because the same matter is repeated in
different shAkhAs under a different topic
This suthra
refutes this view and says that the meditation taught in different vedantha
texts is one and the same because the injunctions are the same, namely such as vidhyAth,'he
should know,' upAseetha, 'he should meditate,' etc. In ChandhOgya
and Vajasaneeya there is one and the meditation prescribes is of the same
nature, namely 'vaisvAnaram upAsthE,he should
meditate on vaisvAnara. The object of meditation, vaisvAnara, the name, the
knowledge of vaisvAnara (vaisvAnaravidhyA) and the fruit, attainment of Brahman
is the same in both cases. Therefore the vidhyas in different sAkhAs are
identical.
Suthra-2-bhEdhAth na ithi cheth
EkasyAm api-3-3-2
It is refuted that the vidhyas are several because they come
under different topics since even in one there may be difference.
The difference
is in the knower and not the known, that is, the subject matter, and hence
the same meditation is enjoined under different topics to impart cognition for
different knowers.
The repetition of same matter under different topics could be of different
object only if the knower is the same.
Suthra-3-svAdhyAyas aya thaTHAthvE hi samAchArE
aDHikArAccha savavaccha thanniyamah- 3-3-3
For (the sirovrata,
the rite of carrying fire on the head) relates to the study of the Veda; also because
(that rite) being a heading in the samAchAra and the restriction is like that of the libations.
This suthra
refutes an argument based on a rite enjoined in Mundaka upanishad.
The text 'thEshAm Eva EthAM brahmavidhyAm
vadhEtha sirovratham vidDHivath yaisthu cheerNam,(Mund.10-2-
10)
communicate this knowledge of Brahman only to those who perform sirovratha.'
This rite is an observance mentioned in aTHarva veda
and means carrying fire on the head. (It could mean a vratha regarding the
head, and some take it to mean renunciation by taking sannyasa which involves
shaving of the head.) This restriction of imparting the knowledge of Brahman
only to those observing the sirovratha does not indicate difference in
meditation but only prescribes certain qualification for the study of veda that too only for ATharvaNikas. This is made clear by
the subsequent text 'naithah acheerNa vrathO aDHeethE,(Mund.10-2-11) Moreover in the
text of ATHarvaNikas called samAchAra it is said 'idhamapi vEdhavrathEna
vyAkhyAtham, this has been already explained by the vow of the the study of
the vedas.' This restriction relates to the followers of aTHarva veda only just as the the restriction regarding the
libations offered in one fire used by AtharvaNikas instead of the usual three
fires.
Suthra-4-dharsayath
i cha-3-3-4
It is shown by sruthi also.
The meditation
enjoined by the vedantha texts is shown to be identical in the sruthi texts
also. In ChandhOgya the declaration 'thasmin yadhanthah thadhanvEshtavyam, '(Chan.8-1-1-
) that what is inside(the heart) is to be enquired into and in answer to
the question as to what is that, it is said that the supreme self
possessing the qualities such as freedom from evil etc. is to be enquired into.
This is also confirmed in Taittiriya which refers to the being within the small
space (the heart) who is to be meditated upon.This establishes that meditations
in both the texts are the same.
Suthra-5-upasamhArO arTHAbhEdhAth viDHiseshavathsamAn
Echa-3-3- 5
Meditation thus being equal, the attribute are to be
combined as they are common like the viDhisesha (that which subserves
injunction.)
The meditation
enjoined in all the Vedanta texts are thus shown to be equal and of the same
purport and hence the attributes that are subservient to the meditation in
various texts are to be combined. This is the end of sarvavedhAntha prathyayaDHikaraNam
ANYATHATHVADHIKARAN AM-3-3-2
Suthra-6-anyTHAthva
m sabdhAth iti cheth na avisEshATh-3- 3-6
If it is said that
there is difference because of the texts, it is not so, as there is no
difference.
So far it has been
shown that there is unity in meditations such as vaisvanaravidhya and dhaharavidhya.
Now certain particular meditations are examined to determine whether there is
unity of injunction. This suthra is of the nature of prima facie view.
The texts of
ChandhOgya and that of BrhadhAraNyaka contain the injunction regarding the
meditation on udhgeethA. The BrhadhAraNyaka text goes like this.
'thE ha dhEvA oochuh hantha asurAn
yajnEudhgeeyEnAthya yAma,(Brhd.1-1)
The devas said that they will
destroy the asuras with sacrifice by means of udhgeetha.'
The chAndhogya text says, 'thadhha dhEvA udhgeetham
Ajahruh anEna EnAm abhihanishyAmah' (Chan.1-2-1)
The devas took the udhgeetha saying
that they will overcome the asuras with this.'
The question that is
raised is that whether these two meditations are identical or different. The
poorvapakshin holds the former view and says that the two are the same because
the object of meditation in both cases is the same, namely the udhgeetha and
the result also is the same, the conquest of enemies and the name is the same
etc
The argument
that there is a difference in the texts and hence the two are not the same is
refuted by the poorvapakshin. The argument to show
the difference is as follows: 'rupabhEdhAth; rupAnyaTHAthvam hi sabdhAdhEva
pratheeyathE. ‘The text itself shows the difference in the form of
the two and because of that they are different.
The BrhadhAraNyaka text is
'aTHa ha prANam oochuh thvam nah
udhgAya ithi; thaTHethi thebhyah prAna udhagAyath,(Brhad.1-3)
They said to prANa "you sing the udhgeetha for us" and
the praNa saying 'very well' sang for them.'
The ChandhOgya text is as follows:
'aTha ha ya EvAyam mukhyah prANah
tham udghgeetham upAsAmschakrirE,(Chan.!-2-7)
Then they meditated on
the principal prANa as udhgeetha.'
In the first text the
object of meditation is the prANa as the singer of udhgeetha whereas in the
second it is prANa itself as udhgeetha. The opponent does not agree saying
that, in both it is the udhgeetha which is mentioned at the outset as the means
of conquering the enemies. The next suthra refutes this.
Suthra-7-na va prakaraNabhEdhAth
parovareeyasthvAdhi vath-3-3- 7
Not the same because of the difference in subject matter as
in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high.
The ChandhOgya
passage which starts with the struggle between the devas
and asuras introduces praNava as the object of meditation.
'OmithyEthadhakshar am udhgeetham upAseetha,(Chan-1-1-1)
Let one meditate on the
OmkAra as udhgeetha.' therefore the text
'aTHa ha EvAyam mukhyah prANah tham udhgeetham
upAsAmschakrire,' (Chan1-2-7) refers to the meditation on the
praNava as apart of udhgeetha.
In BrhadharaNyaka
passage the meditation on the whole of udhgeetha is mentioned. So there is difference in context which indicates difference in
subject matter and hence in the form of meditation.
The word in the
suthra parovareeyasthvAdhi vath ‘as in the
case of attribute being higher than the high,’ refers to the meditation on
udhgeetha in one and the same sakha. In the first text (Chan.1-6-6) the
supreme self is mentioned as being of golden colour while in the second
(Chan.1-9-2) He is mentioned as being higher than the high. Therefore these two
meditations are taken as being different due to the difference in attributes.
Suthra-8-sajnAthasc
heth thadhuktham asthi thu thadhapi-3-3- 8
If it is said to be the same on account of the names it
also found in different injunctions.
If it is argued that
since the name is the same, namely, udhgeethavidhya, there is no
difference this suthra refutes this by saying that identical names are found also
in different injunctions. For instance the word agihothra is
applied to the injunction regarding the regular agnihothra as well as to the
occasional one which is apart of the sacrifice kundapAyinAm.
Suthra-9-vyApthEsch a samanjasam-3- 3-9
This is appropriate also because of extension.
In ChandhOgya passage
the praNava as a part of ughgeetha is the object of meditation in the first chapter and it extends to the other
meditations also. But in BrahadhAraNyaka text the term udhgeetha denotes the
whole udhgeetha. Hence the two are different.Thus ends the anyaTHAthvADHikaraN am
SarvAbhEdhADHikaraN
am-3-3-3
Suthra-10-sarvAbhEd
hAth anyathra imE- 3-3-10
Because of nondifference of everything in other places also.
In ChandhOya and
BrhadhAraNyaka texts the meditation on prANa is enjoined where we find that the
attributes of prANA mentioned are the same.The qualities mentioned are ,jyEshTa
the best and srEshTa the oldest, besides certain other qualities
such as vasishTa,the richest, and being the support and abode of
all etc. In the Kousheetaki upanishad however while the meditation enjoined is
the same, that of prANA, the qualities such as the richest etc, are not mentioned and
therefore the poorvapakshin says that it is different from that mentioned in
ChandhOgya and BrhdhAraNyaka.
This view is
refuted by the suthra saying that the meditation is
common to all the three upanishads. the Kousheetaki text also contains the
same method with all its details proceeding to prove that prANa is the
best and the oldest.Hence the other qualities like being richest etc. are to be
considered as being relevant here also as prANa cannot be proved to be the
oldest and the best without them.Hence there is no difference.Thus ends
sarvAbhEdhAdhikaraN am.
AnandhAdhyaDhikaraN
am-3-3-4
Suthra-11-AnandhAdh
ayah praDHAnasya- 3-3-11
Bliss and other qualities of the main subject, Brahman (are
to be included in all meditations.)
Just as the qualities
like richness and others relating to prANa are to be included in all
meditations on prANa even when they are not explicitly mentioned, this suthra
tends to prove that the qualities of Brahman, without which the meditation on
Brahman is not possible, are to be included in all meditations on Brahman. The
view that the qualities that are not mentioned need not be included is refuted
on the basis that the object of meditation being Brahman which is the same in all meditations, the
qualities such as bliss, knowledge etc., being permanent qualities of Brahman,
have to be included.
Suthra-12-priyasira
sthvAdhi aprApthih upachayApachayou hi bhEdhe-3-3-12
The description of Brahman such as having joy for His head
etc are not taken as attributes as otherwise it will result in increase or
decrease in Brahman.
In Taittiriya upanishad there is a passage describing the blissful self 'anyO
anthara AthmA Anandhamayah, (Tait.II-5-1) there is another internal self
constituted of bliss.' There
is the subsequent text 'thasyapriyamEva sirah, joy alone is His head.'
These qualities, says the suthra, are not to be included in meditation on
Brahman as they are not real attributes of Brahman, but only due to figurative
presentation of an embodied being. Otherwise the head, sides, etc described
in the passage, being parts of Brahman, it will result in increase or decrease.
This will contradict the texts such as 'sathyam jnAnam anantham
brahma,'
Here an objection is
presented that if the above argument that all the qualities of Brahman, such as
being lordly,unfathomable ,all giving and merciful etc. are to be included in
meditation because they are inseparable from Brahman, then all the infinite
qualities are to be contemplated, which is impossible. The next suthra gives
the solution to this difficulty.
Suthra-13-itharE
thu arTha sAmAnyAth-3- 3-13
But the others like bliss etc are the essential qualities
and therefore common to Brahman.
The qualities like
sathyam, jnAnam, anantham,(truth, knowledge and
infinity) and Anandham,bliss and also being the cause of the world etc
constitute the nature of Brahman and have to be included. The others like
aisvarya.lordliness etc, though inseparable, are not the requisites that are
necessary to define the nature of Brahman Hence they are included only when
specified.
Suthra-14-AdhyAnAya prayojanAbhAvAth- 3-3-14
These attributes are for the purpose of meditation as there
is no other purpose.
An objecton is raised
that the figurative representation of Brahman having bliss for his head etc.
serves no purpose as in the case of 'AtmAnam raThinam viddhi, know the
self as the charioteer,' where the body is said to be the chariot
etc., in order to show that the body etc. are subservient to the self.
The suthra answers
that the figurative description is for the sake of meditation which is enjoined
by the text, 'brahmavidhApnothi param,(Tait.2-1)
one who knows Brahman reaches the supreme. The Brahman is denoted as divided
into joy,priyam (on getting a thing),happiness mOdha(in
experiencing it),pramOdha (exhilaration) and Anandha,bliss,
(Tait.2-5) for accomplishing the meditation which are figuratively
described as the head, right and left sides and the self respectively. Similar
is the description in the preceding sections of the self as
annamaya, prANamaya etc. (Tait.2-1to2- 4) As these
are only the secondary attributes of the Self (Brahman) and not its essential
nature thes are not to be included in all meditation of the Self.
Suthra-15-Athmasabd
hAth cha-3-3-15
Because of the term Self
From the text 'anyO
anthara AthmA Anadhamayah,there is another self made of bliss, which shows
that the self cannot have parts like head etc. these expressions are only
figurative.
But when the
preceding sections the expressions self of breath self of mind etc. are used to
denote something other than the real Self So how can the self of
bliss be taken to mean the real inner Self? The next suthra answers to
this.
Suthra-16-Athmagrhe
ethih itharavath uttharAth-3- 3-16
Only the Supreme self is denoted as in other texts, as known
from the later passage.
In the text ' anyO
anthara AthmA Anandhamayah, there is another self constituted of bliss,' the
term 'self' denotes only the supreme self as in the other texts. The word itharavath,
in the suthra refers to the texts like Athma vA idhamEka Eva agra Aseeth
sa eekshatha lOkAnnu srjjai,(Ait.1-1-1) the Self only was this in the
beginning; it thought, let me send forth the worlds,' where the term self
refers only to the supreme self. Like that in the later passage of
Taittitiya 'sO akAmayatha bahu syAm prajAyEya, it willed to become
many,' which refers to the self of bliss, it is proved that only the supreme
self is denoted.
Suthra-17-anvayAth
ith cheth syAth avaDHAraNAth- 3-3-17
Though the term self is connected with nonself it is
possible to draw the conclusion through ascertainment.
To the objection that
since the term is self is used with reference to nonself as prANamaya AthmA
etc, how can the term be taken to mean the suprme self only in the last passage
describing the blissful self, the suthra answers that it is ascertained
to be so.The passage says in the beginning 'thasmAth Va EthasmAth AkAsah
sambhoothah,(Tait.2-1-1) from that Brahman which is the self the AkAsa was
produced,' ascertaining that it is the supreme self only and that idea is
carried over in the subsequent reference to the self as annamaya, prANamaya
etc. denoting that there is a self other than each of the nonself referred to
as annamaya ,prANamaya etc., ending with the blissful self. Thus from the
beginning the term self is used to denote nonself with the idea that the
supreme self has entered into them as their inner self.Thus ends
AnandhyAdhyaDHikara
KAryAkhyAnADHikaraN
am-3-3-5
Suthra-18-kAryAkhyA
nAth apoorvam-3-3- 18
A new thing is enjoined in the meditation of the prANa due
to statement of what is to be done.
In the ChandhOgya and
BrhadhAraNyaka texts about the meditation on prANa water is mentioned as
the clothing of prANa.
ChandhOgya text says 'sa hOvAcha kim
mE vAsO bhavishyathi ithi, Apa ithi hOchuh.'
That is, prANa asked what will be my clothing and the senses replied
that it is water.
Similar text is found
in BrhadhAraNyaka passage also. Subsequent text
'thadhvidhvAmsah srOthriyA
asiahyantha AchAmanthi asithvA cha AchAmanthi;EthmEva thadhanam anagnam
kurvanthO manyanthE,
The sages well-versed in the vedas sip a little water (Achamanam)
before and after taking food. Then they think that they are clothing the
prANa.' (Brhd
The doubt here is
that whether the injunction is about Achamana or meditation on prANa having
water as its clothing.The poorvapakshin says that it is the former as there is
no injunction referring to meditation. The Achamana being said to clothe the
prANa is only in the form of eulogy of the rite.
To this the suthra
replies that since in the beginning and at the end of the passage clearly
enjoins the meditation on water being the clothing of prANA and also because it
is something not mentioned before, the text enjoins meditation on prANa having
water as clothing.The Achamana is already established by smrithi and
tradition.This is why in ChandhOgya there is no mention of Achamana but only of
clothing the prANa with water.
'thasmAth vA Ethadh asishyanthah
purasthAth cha uparishTAth cha adhbhih paridhaDHathi lambukO ha vAsO bhavathi
anagnOha bhavathi,(Chan.5-2-2)
Therefore indeed those who are about to eat,cover
it,both before and after with water.
Thus ends the kAryAkhyAnADHikaraN am.
SamAnAdhikaraNam-
3-3-6
Suthra-19-samAna
Evam cha abhEdhAth-3- 3-19
Attributes being the
same there is nondifference of meditations.
The meditation on
Brahman called sAndilya vidhya occurs both in sathapathabrAhmaNa and BrhadhAraNyaka. The former
text begins as 'sathyam brahma ithi upAseetha, meditate on Brahman as
truth,' and concludes as 'sa AthmAnam upAseetha,
manOmayam prANasariram bhArupam, (sa.10-6-3) he should meditate on
the Self who consists of mind, prANA as the body, and is the form of light.'
In BrhadhAraNyaka text it is said 'manO mayOayam purushah bhAh sathyah,
this person who consists of mind, who is in the form of light.'
Here a doubt is
raised that whether the two are the same or different. The view that they are
different because of the mention of qualities such as vasithvam, having
everything in control etc are not mentioned in the former text, is
refuted by the suthra.
They are the same as
both mention the same qualities, namely,manOmaya, consisting of the
mind, sathyasankalpa, True will bhArupa, having the form of
light, prAnasarira,having prANa as the body.the Extra qualities like vasithvam
are not really different from those already mentioned like sathyasankalpathvam
which are all inclusive.Thus ends samAnADHikaraNam.
SambanDHADHikaraNam
-3-3-7
SambanDHAdhEvam
anyathrApi-3- 3-20
Because of connection as in other cases also
In BrhadhAraNyaka
passage beginning with 'sathyam brahma,' the place of Brahman
in the orb of the Sun and in the right eye is mentioned and the meditation on
Brahman is enjoined as 'thasya upanihad ahar ithi' with respect
to Brahman as adhidhaivatham ruler of all and as 'thasya
upanishadhaham ithi,with respect to Brahman as aDhyathmam, the inner
self, the terms ahar and aham being the secret names given
to Brahman. Here the poorvapakshin holds the view that both are the same
Brahman, mentioned as being in different places and hence the meditation is one
and not different.The next suthra refutes this.
Suthra-21-na
vA viseshaAth-3- 3-21
Not so because of different abodes.
Since Brahman is to
be meditated in two different places, the orb of the sun and the right eye, the
meditations are different. But in sandilya vidhya Brahman is meditated in the
same place, namely, the lotus of the heart. Hence the case is not akin to
sandilyavidhya where the meditations are explained as being the same.
Suthra-22-dharsayat
hi cha-3-3-22
The text also shows this as such.
The person in the eye
is separately mentioned from the person in the sun in the subsequent passages
while maintaining that both are one, ie. Brahman.
(Brhad-1-7-5) So the separate entities mentioned is for meditation and hence
thuey are different.Thus ends sambanDHADHikaraNam .
SambhrthyaDhikaraNa
m-3-3-8
Suthra23sambhrthidh
yuvyApyathyapi cha athah-3-3-23
And for the same
reason supporting the powers and pervading the AkAsa (not to be included in
meditation.)
In the
Taittiriya text
'brahma jyEshTA veeryA sambhrthAni
brahmAgrE jyEshTam dhivam AthathAna,(Tait.brA.II-
iv-7)
Collected are the powers among which Brahman is the oldest;
Brahman as the oldest in the beginning pervaded the AkAsa.'
These attributes,
namely, collecting all the powers and prevading the AkAsa, are not mentioned
with any particular meditation. Hence are these to be included in all the meditation
is the question to which the suhtra answers in the negative. The reason being
the same as the previous suthra, that of difference of place
These qualities (like pervading the AkAsa) cannot be included in the
meditation on Brahman as residing within the heart referred to in
dhaharavidhya. Even though it is mentioned there that the AkAsa within the
heart is the same as that in the universe, this is to be taken in the
glorifying sense only.Thus ends the sambrthyaDHikaraNam
PurushvidhyADHikara
Nam-3-3-9
PurushavidhyAyam
api itharEshAm AmnAnth- 3-3-24
Since the attributes
in the purusha vidhya (of ChandhOgya) are not stated of the others
(ofTaittiriya) the two meditations are not the same.
There are two meditations
On purusha one mentioned in the ChandhOgya and
The other in Taittiriya
The doubt here is whether the two are the same meditation or not.
The suthra refutes the view of the poorvapakshin that they are the same on
account of the parts of the purusha being figuratively denoted as those of
yajna in both and also because of the same name. Though the fruit of the
meditation is mentioned in ChandhOgya as 'pra ha shOdasam varsha satham
jeevathi,' that is long life for hundred years, there is no mention of
fruit in Taittiriya and hence it has to be the same.
The
meditations are different because of other statements. The character of the two differs. For instance ChandhOgya passage
mentions three libations, morning,
VeDHAdhyaDHiklaraNa
m-3-3-10
Suthra-25-vedhAdhya
rTHabhEdhAth
Certain manthras referring to piercing etc. are no part of
meditation because they have some other purpose.
The ATharvaNikas
recite some manthras in the beginning of the upanishad such as 'sukram praviDHya , hrdhyam praviDHya, piece sukra, pierce the
heart.' Kataka and Taittiriyaka have manthras in the beginning such
as 'sam nO mithrassam varuNah,' to the question whether these form part
of the meditation because of the proximity with the texts on meditation the
suthra replies that it is not so. The manthras like 'pierce sukra' denote some
magical rites while those like 'may mithra be propitious ' are connected
with the study of the vedas.So they do not form part of the meditation.Thus ends the VEDHADHYADHIKARANAM.
HanyaDHikaraNam-
3-3-11
Suthra-26-hAnouthoo
pAyana seshathvAth kusAschandhah sthuthyupagAnavath thadhuktham- 3-3-26
The getting rid of
has to be combined with acquiring as it is supplementary as in the case of
kusa, metre, praises andrecitation.
In ChandhOgya it is
said ' asva iva romAni viDHooya pApam chandra iva rAhOrmukhAth
pramuchya dhrthvA sairam akrtham krthAthmA brahmalOkam abhisambhavAmi,(Chan.8-13- 1) meaning, one sheds off his sins just as a horse
shakes off its hair and acquiring divine form goes to brahmalOka.
In AtharvaNika text it is said 'thadhA vidhvAn puNyapApE viDHooya niranjanah
paramam sAmyam upaithi,then
the knower shedding off merit and demerit ,becoming pure attains equality
with Brahman.' (Mund.3-1-3) the sAtyAyanains have the text 'thasya puthrA
dhAyam upayanthi suhrdhah sAdhukrthhyAm, dvishanthah pApa krthyAm,his sons takes his inheritance, his friends the good deeds
and the enemies his bad deeds.'The kousheetakins read 'thath
sukrthadhushkrthE DHoonuthE; thasya priyA jnAthayah sukrtham upayanthi
apriyA dhushkrtham, he shakes off his good and bad karmas.his dear
relations takes the good and the enemies take the evil.
The first two speak
only of getting rid of merit and demerit while the third mentions the acquisition of them by
his friends and enemies. The last refers to both.Now both these matters are to
be included in all the meditations because attaining Brahman means
shedding off merit and demerit and unless they are shaken off it is not
possible for others to pick it up.
Now the point to be
considered is that whether the the shedding off the good and the evil and the
acquisiion of it by others are to be combined in all the meditations or is
there an option.Poorvapakshi n is of the view that there is an option but the
suthra refutes it.
The statement of
acquisition of karma by others is subsidiary to
that of abandoning of the karma .This is proved by analageous statements with respect to
kusas, metres,praises and recitations.
1. sAthyAyins- 'audhumbaryah
kusAh, kusAs are descendent of udumbara tree.(A
special statement) Kousheetakins-kusA vAnaspathyAh, kusas are the
descendent of trees.(A general statement.)
2.'dhEvAsurANAm chandhObhih' the metres of devas and asuras.(general statement) 'dhEvaschandhAmsi
poorvam.' the metres of the devas are prior. (special
statement)
3. 'samayAvishithE suryE shOdasinah sthOthram
upAkarOthi.' He assists the stotra of the shodasin when
the sun has half risen.((special statement) 'hiraNyEna
shOdasinah sthOthram upAkarothi.' He assists with gold the sthothra
of the shodasins.(general statement)
4.'nAdhvaryurupagAyEt
h.' the adhvaryu should not sing. Special statement) 'rthvijah
upagAyanthi.' all priests are singing. (General statement)
According to the rule
of mimamsa sasthra, when one special statement defines another general
statement the former is supplementary to the latter.Thus ends the hAnADHikaraNam.
SAMPARAYADHIKARANAM
-3-3-12
Suthra-27-sAmparAyE
tharthavyAbhAvAth thaTHA hyanyE-3-3-27
At the departure from the body there is no karma remaining
for the enlightened soul. Other texts also declare so.
Kousheetaki upanishad says,
'sa Agacchathi virajAm nadheem;thAm manasA
athyEthi; thath sukrthadhushkrthE dhoonuthE,
The soul comes to the river virajA in brahmalOka (or vaikunta for
Vaishnavites) and crosses it by the mind and sheds its good and bad deeds. The
text which tells about the son getting the inheritance, his friends his good
deeds etc. implies that the deeds are shaken off at the time of the soul
leaving the body. So it appears as though parts of the deeds are left behind at
the time of death and the rest during the journey to the world of Brahman.
THIS VIEW IS REFUTED BY THE
SUTHRA. At the time of leaving the body, sAmparAya, the soul of the
enlightened leaves all karma behind because there is no enjoyment of pleasure
and pain after the soul leaves the body except the attainment of Brahman. this is confirmed by the texts such as
'asariram vA va santham na priyApriyE
sprsathah, (Chan.8-12-1)
Pleasure and pain do not touch one who is without body,' and
subsequently
'Esha samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param
jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyE, (Chan.8-12-3)
This serene one rises out of the body reaches
the highest light and appears in his own form.’ And
'thasya thAvadhEva chiram
yAvannavimokshyE aTHa sampathsyE,
For him only so long is the delay as he is not liberated
from the body and then immediately he is merged in being.'
Suthra-28-cchandhat
hah ubhayAvirOdDhAth- 3-3-28
Scriptural texts must be construed to mean so as not to
contradict each other.
The text in
Kousheetaki upanishad 'thath sukrthadhushkrthE dhoonuthE, he shakes off
his good and bad deeds,' is to be taken preceding the one which mentions
the soul going on the path of devas,'Etham dhEvayAnam panThAnam Apadhya ,' in
meaning.
Suthra-29-gatherarT
Havathvam ubhayaTHA anyaTHA hi virODhah-3-3- 29
The journey of the self will have meaning only if there is
shedding of karma in two stages as otherwise there will be contradiction.
The poorvapakshin
says that if all the karma is shaken off at the time of leaving the body there
will be no subtle body because of absence of karma and hence it is not possible
for all karma to perish at the time of the soul's departure from the body. To
this the next suthra replies.
Suthra-30
upapannasthallaksha NArTHopalabDHEh lOka vath-3-3-30
It is justified as a subtle body with similar characteristics
is attained later as seen in the world.
The ChandhOgya says 'param jyothirupasampadhya svEna rupENa
abhinishpadhyE, (Chan.8-12-2)
Having attained the supreme light the soul manifests itself in
true form,'
'sa thathra paryEthijakshath kreedan
ramamANah,(Chan.7-25-2)
He moves about there laughing, playing and rejoicing,
'sa svarat bhavathi,(Chan.7-26- 2)
He becomes the self
ruler,'
All these indicate
the presence of a subtle body not through karma, which has been shed, but by
the power of knowledge, vidhyAmAhAthmya. This subtle body is acquired
in order to enable the soul to attain Brahman by proceeding along the
devayAna, path of the devas. This is akin to the use
of a tank which is erected for watering the fields being later used for storing
drinking water.
Suthra-31-yAvath
adhikAram avasTHithihADHikAri kANAm-3-3- 31
Those who hold certain positions have to remain as long as
it lasts.
It is known that
souls like Vasishta entered into other embodiments after leaving their
body and experienced pain and pleasure though they were enlightened souls. To
this point raised, the suthra replies that the destruction of karma takes place
only for those wise souls who travel along the path of light. For souls like
Vasishta they remain till their particular assigned post lasts. So there is no
travel for them along the path of light. Thus ends the sAmparAyAdhikaraNam.
ANIYAMADHIKARANAM-
3-3-13
Suthra-32-aniyamah
sarvEshAm avirODHah sabdhAnumAnAbhyAm- 3-3-32
There is no restriction and hence no contradiction between
sruthi and smrthi.
In the
upakosalavidhya (Chan.4-10to15) it is said that
those who meditate on Brahman go through the path of light. Here the doubt is
that whether only those who follow this particular kind of meditation go along
the path of light or all those who meditate on Brahman do so.
The SUTRA answers that there is no restriction as all
those who meditate on Brahman precede along the path of light.
In chandhOgya where the meditation on five fires is prescribed it is said
that those who do this go on the path of light.
'thadh
ya itthE vidhuryE cha imE araNyE sraddhA thapa ithyupAsathe thE archisham
abhisambhavanthi,(Chan.5-10- 1)
Those who in the forest meditate on faith and austerity go on
the path of light,' and
In BrhadhAraNyaka it is said 'ya
EvamEthath vidhuhyE cha amee araNyE sraddhAm sathyam upAsathe thE archisham
abhisambhavanthi (Brhd.6-2-15)
Those who in the forest meditate on faith and truth go on the
path of light.'
The words 'who know
this' refers to the PANCHAGNI VIDHYA and the said meditation is that on
Brahman as the terms sathyam and thapah mean only Brahman.
Similar description as that found in the upanishads regarding the progress of
an enlightened soul on the archiradhi marga, the path of light is found in
smrithi passage also.
The Bhagavatgita says 'agnirjyOthrahah suklahshaNmAsA uttharAyaNam;
thathra prayAtha gacchanthi brahma brahmavidho janAh, (BG.-24)
fire, the light, the day, the bright fortnight, the six months
of uttharAyaNa, proceeding by that road those who know Brahman go to Brahman.'
Hence the path by which the enlightened soul proceeds is common to all
meditations. Thus ends aniyamADHikaraNam.
AKSHARADHYADHIKARAN
AM-3-3-14
Suthra-33-aksharaDH
iyAm thu avarODHah sAmAnyahthadhbhAvAb hyAm
oupasadhavath thadhuktham- 3-3-33
The concept of the
imperishable (as Given in BrhadhaAraNyaka as negative attributes) have to
be included in all meditations because of the sameness of meditation and
they being the essential nature of Brahman as in the case of that of upasad
which is explained.
In
BrhadharaNyaka there is a passage
'Ethadhvai thadhaksharam gargi brAhmaNA abhivadhanthi asthoolam
anaNu ahrasvam adheergham,
This imperishable, O Gargi, is neither gross nor atomic, neither
short nor long.’etc.
In Mundaka also we find the following text 'aTha parA yayA
thadgaksharam abhigamyathE yath thadhadhrEsyam agrAhyam agothram avarNam, (Mund.1-1-5)
The imperishable is that which is attained by that supreme knowledge
and it is unperceivable, incomprehensible unoriginated and formless,' etc.
The question now is
whether these denied qualities are to be included in all meditations or only
where specified. The suthra affirms that they have to be included because
Brahman is common to all meditations and these qualities are implied as the
essential nature of Brahman. These qualities are as important as the
affirmative ones such as truth knowledge and bliss because they differentiate
Brahman from the world which is the opposite of the qualities denied in
Brahman. And the meditation on Brahman possessing these qualities is necessary
in order to detach oneself from the world.
SREE RAMANUJA EXPLAINS THIS AS
FOLLOWS:
'ASADHARANA AKARENA GRAHANAM HI VASTHUNAH GRAHANAM ;NA CHA
KEVALAM ANANDHADHI BRAHMANAH ASADHARANAM AKARAM UPASTHAPAYATHI
PRATHYAGATHMANYAPI ANANDHADHIRVIDHYAMA NATHVATH; HEYAPRATHYANEEKO HI BRAHMANAH
ASADHARANAM RUPAM; PRATHYAGATHMANSTHU SVATHAH HEYA VIRAHINO API HEYASAMBHANDHA
YOGYATHA ASTHI.
THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE IS THIS.WHAT GIVES DISTINCTION
TO AN ENTITY IS ITS SPECIAL CHARACTER. BEING THE NATURE OF BLISS ALONE IS NOT
ENOUGH TO DISTINGUISH BRAHMAN FROM THE INDIVIDUAL SELF AS IT IS ALSO THE
ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE INDVIDUAL SELF. THE SPECIAL CHARACTERESTIC FEATURE
OF BRAHMAN IS ITS FREEDOM FROM IMPERFECTIONS. EVEN THOUGH THE INDIVIDUAL SELF
ALSO HAS THIS ATTRIBUTE IN ITS PRISTINE STATE IT ALSO HAS THE CAPACITY TO GET
CONNECTED WITH THE IMPERFECTIONS IN ITS TRANSMIGRATORY STATE.
The analogy given in
the suthra is that of upasad offering. This ceremony is prescribed in
Yajurveda but the manthras related to it is in samaveda and as such they are
considered as subsidiary to the ceremony and chanted in undertones to show
that they are subordinate to the upasad offering which is the principal
matter.Hence Brahman being the principal object of meditation the qualities
like absence of grossness etc.,
which are susidiary must follow the principal matter, that is meditation
on Brahman.
Suthra-34-iyadhAman
anAth-3-3- 34
This much only on account of meditation
the poorvapakshin
comes with an objection that if it is to be accepted that the subsidiary must
follow the principal, then all attributes such as those given in the text of
ChAndhOgya for instance,viz. 'sarvakarmA sarvakAmah sarvaganDhah sarvarasah,
who is all that exists, whose are the pure desires who possesses all
agreeable odours and tastes etc., in all meditations.
The suthra refutes
this view.The word Amananam means anuchinthanam, direct
thinking.Only those attributes without which it is not possible to realize
Brahman are only to be included in all meditations. Others mentioned above are
to be included only when specified.This is the end of aksharaDHyadHikaraN am.
AntharathvADHikaraN
am-3-3-15
AntharAbhoothagrAma
vath svAthmanO anyaTHa bhEdhAnupapatthirit hi cheth na,
upadhEsavath- 3-3-15
If it is said that
the individual self is referred to in the former reply (in BrhadhaAraNyaka
passage to be quoted) the answer is 'no' as in the case of sadvidhya.
In BrhadAraNyaka Usastha asks Yajnavalkya?
'yath sAkshAth aparOkshAth brahma ya AthmA sarvAntharah thanmE vyAchakshva,(Brhd.3-4-1)
Teach me the Brahman that
is immediate and direct and the self within all,
'The reply is given as
'ya prANEna praNithi sa tha AthmA,
He who sustains life through prANa, he is the self.'
To the same question put by
Kahola later Yajnavalkya answers
'yO asnAyApipAse sokam moham
jarAmrthyumathyEthi , (Brhd.3-5-1)
He who transcends hunger, thirst, grief, old age and death,'
knowing that self etc.
The poorvapakshin
holds the view that the two meditations are different on account of the
difference in reply.The former refers to the individual self which is different
from prANa etc while the latter refers to the supreme self which is different
from the individual self, being free from hunger etc.
The suthra
refutes this view and says that in both cases it is only
the supreme self which is referred to. The question relating to
'yathsAkshAth aparOkshAth brahma ya
AthmasarvAntharah, Brahman that is direct and immediate,
the self within all, clearly shows that it is the supreme self only.
The qualities sAkshAtthvam and aparOkshathvam,
manifest and directly intuited refers to Brahman only.
The aparOkshathvam means, says Ramanuja,'sarvadhEsa
sarvakAla sambanDHithvam' and it applies only to Brahman who is defined as sathyam
jnAnam anantham. Also the word 'ya AthmA sarvAntharah' the
inner self of all means only Brahman known from the text
The answers also are
only about Brahman.In the first, 'yah prANEna praNithi,' who sustains
life through prANa is only the supreme self as the individual self has no
control over prANa in deep sleep. Similarly in the second answer, the one
beyond hunger etc is the supreme self only. As both replies end with the same
phrase 'athOanyadhArtham,' meaning, everything else is perishable, which
shows that they are of the same content.
This point is
illustrated by sadvidhya, cited as the example. The enquiry on Brahman is
reiterated in order to explain the glory of Brahman fully.
Suthra-36-vyathihAr o visimshanthi- heetharavath- 3-3-36
There is interchange of ideas; they indeed specify the
same Brahman as in other cases (meaning as in sadvidya)
The two cases of
interaction mentioned above are not different vidhyas because the subject
matter of the questions and the answers in both cases is the same, the term
enjoining the meditation is also similar. Both the questions are about Brahman
as the innerself of all. In the second question the term 'Eva' is
used which denotes that the question is about the selfsame Brahman as learnt by
Usastha with the qualities mentioned therein. This shows that Brahman as
the inner self of all is only the object of meditation in both cases. In the
former the innerself is denoted as the cause of sustenance of all beings while
in the latter it is mentioned as being free from hunger etc.
Here an objection is
raised that if the meditation is on Brahman as the self of all why should there
be the mention of Brahman as the cause of life in one answer and as
beyond hunger etc. in the other. The reply to this is,Brahman being the inner
self of all is ascertained on the basis of being the cause of life as an
answer to Usastha while KahOla repeats the question expecting to establish the
difference of Brahman, the inner self from the individual self and for this
reason YAjnavalkya describes Brahman as being opposite of all imperfections. as in the case of sadvidhya.
Suthra-37-saiva
hi sathyAdhayah- 3-3-37
It is the same, sathya etc.
It is the same,
namely Brahman who is denoted by the word sath is referred to in the
rest of the passage in sadvidhya beginning with 'thadhaikshatha,(Chan.6-3-2) it willed,' and also in the later texts in the
section such as
'yathA soumya madhu madfhukrthO
nisthishtTanthi,
As the bees, my dear, prepare honey,' and in the concluding part,
'EthAthmyam idham sarvam thath sathyam sa Athma thathvamasi ,
All this is ensouled by that; and it is the truth and the real
self and that thou art.'
Thus ends the antharathvAdhikaraN am.
KAmAdhyaDHikaraNam- 3-3-16
Suthra-38-kAmAdhi
itharathra thathra cha AyathanAdhibhyah- 3-3-38
Wishes etc. are to be accepted here and there because of the
abode etc.
In
ChandhOgya it is said
'aTHa yadhidham asmin brahmapurE
dhaharam pundareekam vEsma dhaharah asmin antharAkAsah thasmin yadhanthah
thadhanvEshtavyam, (Chan.8-1-1)
In the city of
And on
BrahadhAraNyaka there is a text
'sa vA Esha mahAnaja AthmA yO ayam vijnAnamayah prANeshu cha
EshO antharhrdhaya AkAsah thasmin sEthE sarvasya vasee sarvasya eesAnah, (Brhd.4-4-22) he is the great unborn self, consists
of knowledge,He sleeps in the AkAsa inside the heart.He is the controller and
the Lord of all.'
Now the question is
whether the two texts denote the same meditation or not.Because of the
difference in the character of the meditations the opponent says that they are
different.But the suthra refutes this as the object of meditation is the same
in both, namely, Brahman qualified by sathyakamathva, of true wish. The
meditations are the same since Brahman is mentioned as abiding in the heart in
both the passages. Therefore the two meditations are the same regarding their
object and contents. The fruit of meditation is also the same.
In chandhOgya it
is said
'param
jyothirupasampadhya svena rupeNa abhinishpadhyathE, (Chan.8-12-3)
Having reached the supreme light he manifested himself in in his own
true form.'
BrhadharaNyaka
text goes as
'abhayam vai brahma bhavathi, (Brhd.4-4-25)
He becomes fearless Brahman,'
Both the meanings are the same. The term AkAsa
denotes Brahman in both the texts. Hence the two meditations are the same.
Suthra-39-AdhrAdhal
Opah-3-3- 39
On account of
emphasis there cannot be omission of the auspicious attributes of Brahman.
The opponent says
that the attributes like vasithvam sathyakAmathvam etc are not
really the qualities of Brahman because of the texts denying qualities in
Brahman and hence should not be included in meditation. This suthra refutes the
view and says that the auspicious qualities should not be omitted.
Attributes such as sathyakAmathva
as made out by ChandhOgya and BrhadhAraNyaka and several other texts are to be
included as they are taught as the essential qualties of Brahman who is the
object of meditation in all these passages with a view of attaining final
release and hence has to be included.
Ramanuja says,
'na cha mAthApithrsahasrEbh yO api
vathsalatharam sasthram prathArakavath apAramArThikAn nirasaneeyAn guNAn
pramAnAntharaprathi pannAn AdharENa upadhisya samsArachakrapariva
rthanEnapoorvamE va babhramyamANAn mumukshoon bhooyo api bhramayithum alam.'
The meaning of the
passage is this:
Scripture being more caring than even own parents will not give
emphasis to qualities that are not known through any other means except by
scripture alone if they are unreal and thus to be disregarded, and make those,
who are already confused by the samsara and seek salvation, into deeper
delusion and distress. The expressions such as agrAhyah Na hi grhyathE aseeryah na
hi seeryathE, He is incomprehensible and undecayind
etc are to show the difference of Brahman from the world and from everything known
through other means of cognition
except through scriptures. In ChAndhOgya, Brahman is established as being
different from everything else by 'nAsya jarayA Ethath jeeryathEna vaDHEna
asya hanyathEEthath sathyam brahmapuramasmin kAmAh samAhithAh, (Chan.8-1-5)
and then it declares
the qualities such as sathyakAmathva and sathyasankalpathva etc.
Here the opponent
argues that the text 'thadhya iha AthmAnam anuvidhyavrajanthi Etham cha
sathyAn kAmAn, thEshAm sarvEshu lOkEshu kAmachArO bhavathi,(Chan.8-1-6) those who
depart from here having understood the Athman and these true desires, for them
there is freedom to act as they wish in all the worlds,' does not refer to the
state of release and hence enjoin the meditation on Brahman with attributes.
Only the text 'param jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathe,
having attained the supreme light he manifests in his own form,' refers to the
fruit of Brahmavidhya. To this the next suthra gives the answer.
Suthra-40-upasTHith Eh athah thadvachanAth- 3-3-40
The freedom of movement etc. is only with respect to the one
who is released as stated in the scriptures.
The text quoted to
prove the attainment of Brahman means that only for the one who has manifested
in his true form there is free movement.So the both texts imply the same thing
because the actual text is ’param jyOthrupaampadhya svEna rupENa
abhinishpadhyathE, sa utthama purushah, sa thathra paryEthi, jakshath kreedan,
having reached the highest light he manifests himself in true form, he is the
supreme person, he moves about eating playing etc..' So it shows that the free
movement is the result of the final release. Hence the sathyakAmathva
etc. are to be included in the meditation of Brahman.
ThannirDHAraNAniyam
ADHikaraNam- 3-3-17
Suthra-41-thannirva NAniyamah thaddhrshtEh
prthgghyaprathibanD hah-3-3-41
There is no restriction of that meditation on the udhgeetha
because that is seen; for there is separate fruit which is nonobstruction.
The meditation on "
The suthra
says that there is no restriction of the meditation concerned
regarding the sacrificial rites because thddhrshtEh, it is seen to be
so. The text itself says 'thEna ubou kuruthah yaschaithadhEvam vEdha
yascha na vEdha, (Chan.1-1-10) both perform the
sacrifice one who knows (the knowledge implied in the meditation) and one who
does not know.' So the text mention separate fruit for the meditation,namely,'yadhEva
vidhyayA karOthi sraddhayA upanishadhA thadhEva veeryavattharam
bhavathi, whatever he does with knowledge, with faith, with the Upanishad,
that becomes more vigorous,' which imparts greater strength to the sacrifice in
order to be free from obstacles in attaining the fruit. The general result of
the sacrifices such as attaining heaven etc. is different from this.The
meditation is not thus necessary though it may be done for attaining greater
strength in performance of the rites.Thus ends the thannirDHAraNAniyam ADHikaraNam.
PradhAnAdhikaraNam-
3-3-18
Suthra-42-pradhAnav
adhEva thadhuktham- 3-3-42
Just as in the
case of oblations this has been said.
In the section on dhaharavidhya in ChandhOgya, after
mentioning the meditation on Brahman in the lotus of the heart,there is a
separate mention of the qualities of Brahman viz sathyakAma sathyasanlalpathvAd
hi. The question is that whether in the meditation on the latter, the
meditation on Brahman as qualified by those attributes is also to be
repeated.The opponent is of the opinion that since Brahman is the possessor of
the attributes and as the meditation on Brahman possessed of all attributes is
already enjoined it is not to be repeated for the sake of the attributes.
The suthra refutes this view by saying
that the meditation has to be repreated as in the case of oblation.When Brahman
is meditated as prescribed in the section on dharAkAsa; it is done with
reference to His essential nature while in the section mentioning the
attributes like freedom from evil etc. it is Brahman qualified by these
attributes.
This is similar to the case of sacrificial oblations where
the offering of purOdAsa is offered to Indhra. The text in Taittiriya samhitha 'yaTHEndhrAya
rAjne purodAsam EkAdhasakapAlam nirvapEth, to Indhra, the king, purodAsa is
to be offered in eleven potsherds ,' continues the same injunction repeating 'indhrAya
aDHirAjAya,' to Indhra the ruler, 'indhrAya svarAjnE', to Indhra the
sovereign, etc.where oblations are separaely offered to Indhra, qualified by
kingship, rulership etc. and therefore considered as different deities.Thus ends the pradhAnADHikaraNam.
LingabhooyasthvADHi
karaNam-3- 3-19
Suhtra-43-lingabhoo yasthvAththaddhi baleeyasthadhapi-
3-3-43
Because of the abundance of signs which are sfronger than
the context.This also is declared.
In
Taittiriyaka, NarayaNa anuvAka, immediately after dhaharavidhya there is the
text
'Sahasraseersham dhevam visvAksham visvasambhuvam visvam
narAyaNam dhevam aksharam paramam prabhum,
this universe is truly the divine person only, the Lord NarayaNa,who
is many headed ,many eyed,and produces joy for the universe, the imperishable
supreme ruler.'
Here the doubt raised is that whether this meditation
describes attributes to be included in the meditation of dhahaavidhya or does
this passage describes the attributes of the supreme self to be meditated in
all upanishads.The opponent holds the former view because the context is
about dhaharavidhya.
The suthra refutes this saying that the section
describes only the qualities of the supreme self because of the abundance of
signs to that effect.The supreme self is denoted in all meditations as akshara,
sambhu parabrahman etc. and finally as Narayana.This is
true in dhaharavidhya also.thus ends the
lingabhooyasthyaDHi karaNam.
POORVAVIKALPADHIKAR
ANAM-3-3- 20
Suthra-44-poorvavik
alpah prakaraNAth syAth kriyA mAnasavath-3- 3-44
Mental fires are alternative to physical fires due to the
context and hence actions as in the case of mAnasa cups.
In the agnirahasya
section of the vajasanEyaka certain fires
are mentioned as built by the mind such as manschithah, built of mind, vAkchithah,
built of speeh, prANachithah, built of prANa etc. The question is
whether these mental fires, due to the context which is of performance of the
rites of fire, denote action or meditation. This suthra and the next ,being of the nature of
poorvapaksha presents the view that the mental fires are mentioned as the
alternatives of physical fires which are referred to earlier as being built by
bricks.It is similar to the rite in soma sacrifice where on the twelfth day a cup of soma is mentally
offered. Hence these mental fires also form a part of the action
connected with the sacrificial rites as the real fire built by bricks.
Suthra-45-athidesAc
cha-3-3-45
On account of transfer
There is a transfer
of the altars of mind known from the text 'thEshAm Ekaika EvathAvAn
yAvAn asoupoorvah, (sathapatha br.10-5-1to3) of these each one is as great
as the previous one (the altar built by bricks) where the powers are
transferred from the previous one to the mental fires. Hence these are auxiliary to the
main performance. The next suthra refutes this view.
Suthra-46-vidhyaiva
s thu nirDHAraNAth dharsanAccha- 3-3-46
But it is meditation only because of assertion and what is
seen.
The suthra refutes
the view that the mental fires are a part of the performance of the sacrifice
as the fire made of bricks by saying that it is only meditation. The text 'thE
haithE vidhyAchitha Eva, they are built by knowledge only,' declares that
it is a mental act such as meditation. Also it could be seen that the the mind,
speech, eyes etc. cannot be piled up like bricks.Moreover the text 'thE
mansA EVa aDHeeyantha, manasA Eshu grahA agrhyantha, manasA asthuvantha,
manasA asamsan,' in the same section, which means
that the fires are established, built up, the soma cups were taken up and
by mind they are chanted and recited, shows that these fires are part of mental
act of sacrifice.Therefore it is an act of meditation.
Suthra-47-sruthyAdh
ibaleeyasthAvAcc ha Na bAdhah-3-3-47
Since there is a greater power to the scriptures than that
of context, the latter cannot sublate what is declared by the former.
According to the
rules of Mimamasasathra sruthi, linga, vAkya and prakaraNa, direct scriptural
text, inferential mark, the syntactical connection and the context are of
decreasing importance in that order.In this instance the scriptural proof
consists in the statement 'thE haithE vidhyAchitha Eva, they are built
by knowledge only,' which means that the act of sacrifice is mental being of
the form of vidhya. There is the linga, inferential sign 'thAn haithAn Evam
vidhE sarvadhA sarvANi bhoothAni chinvanthyapi svapathE, all beings at all
times build them (the mental fires) for him who knows this, evenwhile he is
asleep.' The syntactical connection, vAkya consists in the connecting word 'EvamvidhE,
for him who knows this, and 'chinvanthi, they build.' The construction
by all beings at all times cannot possibly refer to the physical act of
sacrifice and hence it denotes only a mental performance ie. Meditation.
Suthra-48-anubanDHA
dhibhyah prajnAnthara prthakthvavath dhrshtascha thadhuktham- 3-3-48
On account of ingradients as in the case of separateness of other
meditations
The ingredients
for a sacrifice such as soma vessels, hymns and recitations etc are all
described as being mental.'manasAEshu grahA
agrhyantha manasA asthuvantha manasA asamsan, by mind the soma vessels were held, by mind the hymns are chanted
and by the mind the manthras are recited etc,' prove this. As dhaharavidhya
is separate than the sacrifice mentioned therein this mental sacrifice is also
different from the physical act of sacrifice.
The text 'thEshAmEkaika
Eva thAvan yAvAn asou poorvah, of these each one is as great as the
previous one,' shows an extended application of the results of act of
sacrifice represented by the fire built with bricks to the mental fires also,
says the opponent , and hence these are part of the previous sacrifice. This
view is refuted by the next suthra.
Suthra-49-na
sAmAnyath apyupalabDHEh mrthyuvath na hi lOkApatthihi
Not so as the extension can be obtained through similarity
as in the case of death."The person in yonder orb" does not
occupy the world of death.
The suthra means that
though the result may be the same the intermediate, operations need not be the same. In the
_expression 'sa Esha Eva mrthyuh ya Esha Ethasmin mandalE purushah'(satha.10-3-
6.3) "the person in yonder orb is death" there is only similarity in
the power of destruction and does not mean that the person mentioned is in the
land of death.Here also the act of sacrifice with respect to fire made of bricks
is said to be of equal potency
as that of mental fires.There is no need to assume their connection with the
actual sacrifice.
Suthra-50-parENa
cha sabdhasya thAdhviDHyam bhooyasthvAthqnuban Dhah- 3-3-50
From other text also the said nature of the word (being
vidhya only) is established. The connection with the previous one is due to
plurality.
From the subsequent
brAhmaNa text (satha.10-5- 4.1) it is known that only meditation is enjoined by
the mention of the mental fires. The text is 'ayam vA
va lOka EshO agnih chithah; thasya Apa Eva parisrithah, this altar of
fire built with brick is that (world); the waters (of the sea) are its
enclosing stones.' Further it is said 'sa yO haithadhEvam vedha lOkamprNAm
Evambhootham Ethath sarvam abhisampadhyathE, he who knows this fire as
filling this space, has all things come to him.' So the meditation is enjoined with a separate result of
its own. Similarly in vaisvAnara vidhya another meditation is njoined.
Therefore the text on agnirahasya
does not refer to sacrificial action.
This gives rise to the doubt as to why are
these meditations in agnirahasya instead of in the upanishadic section of
BrhadhAraNyaka.
The answer is given as bhooyasthvAththvanu bnDhah, because
of the abundance of ingradients which are to be imagined with respect to the
mental sacrifice it is included along with the fire built by bricks.
That is the details of the sacrifice as the physical one with the
fire made of bricks are to be thought of in the meditation which is a
mental sacrifice and hence the proximity to the physical one.Here ends the
poorvavikalpADHikar aNam.
SARIREBHAVADHIKARAN
AM-3-3-21
Suthra-51-Eka
Athmanah sarirE bhAvAth- 3-3-51
Some say that the individual self is to be meditated upon as
the knower experiencer and doer, because of its existence inside the body.
It is essential to
ascertain the nature of the upasaka, the meditating self as it was done so
regarding the nature of meditation and the object of meditation.
The question now is
whether the meditating self is the knower-doer- experiencer or the self as
described in ChandhOgya in the section of PrajApathy (Chan.8-7) as free from
imperfections etc.
The poorvapaksha view
is that it is the individual self in the form of knower-doer- experiencer, who
is the meditating self because he reides in the body. The result of the
meditation can also be applied to him only.It cannot be argued on the basis of
thathkrathu nyaya that the individual self is to be viewed as free fron sin
etc. by quoting the text 'yaTHA krathurasmin lOkE purushah bhavathi
thaTHEtha prEthya bhavathi, (chan.3-14- 1) just as his thoughts are in this
world a man becomes so
in the next world after death,' because that refers to the object of meditation
and not the meditating self. The next suthra replies to this.
Suthra-52-vyathirEk athadhbhAvabhAvi thvAth na
thu upalabDhivath- 3-3-52
But it is not so; rather different from it as in the case of
brahman-knowledge.
The meditating self
should be thought of as the one possessing the characterestics of freedom from
evil etc. This alone is proved by the text quoted from ChahdhOgya,'yaTHAkrathu'
etc. (Chan.3- 14-1) and the text 'thatTHEthah prethya bhavathi tham thaTHA
yaTHOpAsathE thaTHaiva bhavathi, (Mudgal up.3) however one meditate on him
he becomes the same.' These texts cannot be taken to refer only to the supreme
self and hence does not apply to the mediating self because the individual self ,being the body of Brahman , is included in the realm
of Brahman.So the individual self forming the body of Brahman, characterised by
the qualities such as freedom from evil, in other words, the pure self which is
the mode of Brahman, is the object of meditation.This is the meanng in the
passage in the section of Prajapathi in ChandhOgya.
Just as the essential
nature of Brahman is the object of meditation on Brahman so also the individual
self in the state of release is the object of meditation. Just as in the case
of 'svargakAmo yajetha' which prescribes the qualification for the
sacrificer here also being
the knower-doer- experiencer is the qualification of the meditator to enable
him to obtain the result of release.Thus ends the sarirEbhAvADhikaraN am.
ANGAVABADDHADHIKARA NAM-3-3-22
Suthra-53-angAvabad
dhAsthu na sAkhAsu hi prathivedham- 3-3-53
Meditations connected with limbs of sacrifice are not
restricted to the particular branches but to all branches of the Veda
There are texts such
as 'OmithyEthadhakshar am udhgeeTHam upAseetha, (Chan.1-1-1) let
one meditate on the syllable OM as udhgeetha,' and 'lOkEshu panchaviDham
sAma upAseetha, (Chan.2-2-1) let one meditate on the fivefold sAman as the
five worlds,' etc. mentioned in connection with the acts of sacrifice. The
question is whether they relate only to the branch in which they occur or to
all branches of the Veda in connection with udhgeetha etc. Even though all Vedanta
texts are in agreement, the udhgeetha differs in each Veda because of the
difference in accent.So this legitimate doubt is raised by the poorvapakshin
who holds the view that the meditations mentioned are restricted to the
particular sAkha to which they are connected.
This suthra refutes
the above view saying that the meditations of this kind is common to all sAkhas
since the text explicitly mention them in connection with udhgeetha in general.
Even though there is difference in accent the sacrifice enjoined is one
only.therefore the udhgeetha being a part of the sacrifice is the same.
Suthra-54manthrAdhu vath vA avirODhah - 3-3-54
Or there is no contradiction as in the case of manthras and
the rest.
As the manthras and
the rest, (meaning- jAthiguNasankhyAsAdhrsyakramadravya
karmANi- the generic characterestics, quality,substance, number,
similarity,order of succession and action) though they are mentioned in one
branch apply to all branches,based on valid texts, there is no contradiction
here as the principal sacrifice is one and the same.Thus ends
angAvabaddhADHikara Nam.
BHOOMAJYAYASTHVADHI KARANAM-3- 3-23
Suthra-55-bhoomnah
krathuvath jyAyasthvam- 3-3-55
Meditation on bhooman
(abundance) is superior as in the case of the sacrifice, the scripture thus
declares.
In ChandhOgya a meditation on vaisvanara is enjoined, the objject of meditation being the
supreme self, having the threefold world as its body and the heaven, the sun ,the
wind etc. as limbs.(Chan. 5-12) Now there is a doubt whether the whole cosmic
form, or its limbs or both together is to be meditated as in
the bhoomavidhya,
(Chan.7-23) where the meditation on name etc. with separate results for each
and in the end the meditation is enjoined on the bhooman with a result of its
own. .And hence says the opponents, the meditation is to be done on the
separate parts.
This view is refuted by the suthra.The meditation is on the cosmic form only, considering the
unity of the entire section. In the context five sages approach
Asvapathi, the king of Kekaya, to know the self of Vaisvanra. He teaches them
the self of Vaisvanara, who is having the universe as the body.The meditation
on the limbs is to emphasise this fact.The separate meditations on the parts
and their results are only in the nature of explanation of the whole, as in the
case of the sacrifice performed for the sake of progeny, in which the
oblations are to be offered in twelve potsherds and later the oblations are
said to be offered in eight, which is a part of the whole sacrifice. Moreover it
is denoted that the meditation is enjoined on the whole cosmic form by sruthi
itself as Asvapathi says to the rshis who were meditating upon the limbs of the
cosmic self ’your head would have fallen off if you had not come to me'
etc. which does not forbid meditating on the parts instead of the whole but only
emphasises the eminence of the meditation on the whole.Thus ends
BhoomajyAyathvAdhik araNam.
SABDHADHIBEDHADHIKA
RANAM-3-3- 24
Suthra-56-nAnAsabdh
AdhibhEdhAth -3-3-56
The meditations are separate because of the difference in
words etc.
The meditations which
are done for the sake of attaining Brahman, the result of which is mentioned as
final release, are the meditations such as sadvidhya,bhoomavidhya,dhaharavidhya,upakOsalavidhya,sandilyavidhya
vaisvanaravidhya etc.whether they belong to one sakha or different
sakhas. Those which have their object as praNa with special result are of
different category. Regarding the former category a doubt arises as to whether
they are all identical or separate. The poorvapkshin holds the former view
since the object of meditation Brahman, and the result, the final release, are
the same in all.
This view is refuted
by the suthra by saying that they are several on account of the difference in
the words etc., which means the difference due to abhyAsa,repetition,
sankhya,number, guNa,quality, prakriya, context and nAmaDhEya,name. The differences
are due to those in the subsidiaries. Though the object of all of them is
Brahman, they are distinct in as as much as they have Brahman qualified with
different attributes as their object, like being the sole cause of the
world, being free from evil etc.So all these meditations are different and
separate.Thus ends the sabdhAdhibhEdhaDHik araNam.
VIKALPADHIKADHIKARA NAM-3-3-25
Suthra-57-vikalpOav
isishta phalathvAth- 3-3-57
There is option on
account of result being nondifferent.
The question that whether the various vidhyas mentioned in the previous suthra are to be
combined by the meditator or should be undertaken optionally is considered
here. The poorvapakshin says that they should be combined because the results
of them are the same, namely, attaiment of Brahman. He cites the example of the
various rites such as agnihothra, darsa and poornamAsa
which are done together, as the result of them are the same, namely, the
attainment of heaven.
This view is
refuted by the suthra.In the case of agnihothra etc.
eventhough the result is the same, there is difference in the degree and
duration of the residence of the soul in heaven, varying according to the
efficacy of each rite. So they are done together in order to create more power
to the sacrificer in enjoying the life in heaven to a greater degree and for
longer duration. But in the meditations on Brahman, once the intuitive knowlege
of Brahman is acquired, infinite bliss results even through one meditation as
mentioned by the texts such as 'brahmavidhApnothip
Suthra-58-kAmyAsthu
yaTHA kAmam samuccheeyEran na vA poorvahETvabhAvAth
Those meditations which are desire-motivated may or may not
be combined due to the absence of the reasons mentioned above.
That is, since the
results of the meditations, undertaken with a desire other than the attainment
of Brahman, are finite, the meditations can be combined for achieving greater
results.Thus ends the vikalpADHIkaraNam.
YATHASRAYABHAVADHIK ARANAM3-3- 26
Suthra-59-angEshu
yaTHAsrayabhAvah- 3-3-59
The meditations are connected with the parts of the sacrifice such
as udhgeetha and hence form part of the sacrifice.
The suthras 59
to 62 present the prima facie view,.
The meditations such
as 'OmithyEthadhakshar am udhgeetham upAseetha,(Chan.1-1-1) 'let him meditate on
the syllable
Suthra-60-sishtEsch
a-3-3-60
Because there is an injunction to that effect
The injunction 'udhgeetham
upAseetha let him meditate on udhgeetha,' enjoins meditation as a
subsidiary to udhgeetha. As there is no other injunctive sentence as in the
case of that of godhOhana vessel, the meditation is to be considered as
subsidiary to udhgeetha and consequentially is a part of the sacrifice.
Suthtra-61-
samAhArAth-3- 3-61
Because of the rectification
A further reason is
given by quoting the text 'hOthrshadhanAddhai vApi dhurudhgeetham
anusamAharathi, ' (Chan.1-5-5) from the position of the hothr he rectifies
the defect in udhgeetha.' This shows that the meditation is required to correct
the mistake that may be made in the udhgeetha, which proves that the meditation
is an essential part of the performance of the sacrifice.
Suthra-62-guNa
sAdhAranyasruthEsch a-3-3-62
Because of the declaration of a quality common to all vedas
The text 'thEnEyam
thrayee vidhyA varthathe Omithi AsrAvayathi, Omithi samsathi, Omithi udhgAyathi,(Chan.1-1-19)
By means of that (OM) the threefold knowledge proceeds; with Om the adhvaryu
gives orders, with Om the hothri recites, with Om the udhgAthri sings, declares
the praNava to be common to all the three vedas and shows the meditation as
being a part of the sacrifice.The adhvaryu is the officiating priest of the
sacrifice and follows yajurveda in performing the different rites prescribed
therein, the hothri is the one who recites the rks, that is, the manthras and
offers oblations in the fire, the udhgAthri is the one who sings samans.As the
meditation is connected with the udhgeetha it is an integral part of the
sacrifice.The view of the opponent in the above four suthras are refuted by the
next.
Suthra-63-na
vA thathsahabhAvAsruth Eh- 3-3-63
Not so, because the text does not declare their coexistence.
The text 'udhgeetham
upAseetha,' does not mention any other qualification and also in the
subsequent text 'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthisraddhayA upanishadhA
thadhEvaveeryavatth aram bhavathi,(Chan.1-1-10)
whatever he does with knowledge, faith and upanishad that becomes more powerful,'
implying the fruit of meditation to be different from that of the
sacrifice.Hence the meditation cannot be subsiduiary to udhgeetha which alone
is the subsidiary part of the sacrifice.
Suthra-64-dharsanAt
h cha-3-3-64
As shown by scripture also.
The sruthi says 'Evam
viddha vai brahmA yajnam yajamAnamsarvan cha rthvijah abhirakshathi,(Chan.4-17-
10) which means that by the one who has the knowledge of Brahman, (denoted by
brahmA,) all are protected, viz. the sacrifice, sacrificer, and all the priests,
which shows that the knowledge is not restricted to the udhgAthri and others.
[Four types of
priests are employed in the soma sacrifice
(i)
A brahmA priest: He knows all the three
vedas and is engaged in superintending of sacrifice.
(ii)
Hothr: His duty is to recite the rk
manthras in the sacrifice.
(iii)
Adhvaryu: He pours the oblations into
the fire reciting yajur manthras.
(iv)
UdhgAthr:He
sings sAma hymns.This indicates that the brahmA priest is the one with the
knowledge of Brahman.
This can be known by
the text 'thasya manascha vAk cha varthanee, (Chan.4-16- 1) mind and
speech are the two paths of this sacrifice,' and 'thayoranyatharAm manasA samskarOthi brahmA,
(Chan.4-16- 2) one of these two paths the brahmA priest embellishes with his
mind,' which implies meditation.] Thus ends the yaThAsraya bhAvADHikaraNam.
The end of the third pAdha of third aDhyAya
PADHA- 4
PURUSHARTHADHIAKARA NAM-3-4-1
Suthra-1-purushArTH ah athah
sabdhAdhithi bAdharAyaNah- 3-4-1
The enquiry
into the unity or diversity of the meditations has resulted in determining, in
which cases the attributes mentioned in the meditations are to be
combined, and in which case they are not. Now this section examines whether the
highest purusharTHa, the principal object of human life, that is moksha, is a
direct result of meditation or of the works for which the meditation is
subsidiary.BhAdharAYana is of the opinion that the purushArTHa is the direct
result of meditation because scripture declares so. The texts like
'brahmavidhApnOthi
param, (Tait.2-1-1)
the knower of
Brahman attains the supreme
'vedhAhamEtham purusham mahAntham Adhithya varNam thamasah
parasthAth; thamEvam vidhvAn amrtha iha bhavathi, nAnyAh panThA visdhyathE
ayanAya, (Svet.3-8) I know that great Person of sun-like lustre beyond the
darkness. A man who knows Him truly passes over death; there is no other path
to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8); and
'yaTHA nadhyah syandhamAnAh
samudhrE astham gacchanthi nAma rupE vihAya; thaTHA vidhvAn nAmarupAth
vimukthahparAthpara m purushmupaithi dhivyam,(Mund.3-2-8)
As the rivers flowing, disappear inthe ocean, losing name
and form,so the wise man, free from name and form,goes
unto the highest of the high, the supreme divinity.
The poorvapkshin comes with an objection to this.
Suthra-2-seshathvAt
h purushArTHavAdhah yaTHA anyeshu ithi jaiminih-3-4- 2
The suthras 2to7 gives the view of the opponent which is
refuted by the subsequent suthras.
Knowledge is
subsidiary to the sacrificial acts and hence the statement about the benificial
result through meditation is only arTHavaAdha, laudatory, says Jaimini.
The
discussion is between vedantin and mimAmsaka. For the latter no scriptural
statement is valid authority unless it is connected with action, as seen in the debate
regarding the suthra 'Thatthu samnvayAth,' (BS.1-1-4) the opponent says
that purushArTHa cannot be the result of meditation. the statements such
as 'brahmavidhbbrahmai va bhavathi' are only to acquire the
knowledge of the real nature of the sacrificer.So the meditation is a purifying
rite subsodiary to the act of sacrifice.The declaration of result through
meditation is not direct but only through the performance of sacrifice and
hence such statements are only laudatory according to the aphorism of
poorvamimamsa 'dhravyasamskArakar masu parArTHathvAth phalsruthih
arTHavAdhah syAth, (Pu.mi.su.4- 3-1)
It could not
be argued by the vedanthin that the object of meditation is something different
from the individual self engaged in acts of sacrifice, being the attainment of
Brahman by those desirous of emancipation (mumukshu), which has been already
established by the earlier suthras, and hence meditation cannot be subsidiary
to sacrificial act. Though the texts like 'that thou art'
declare the identity of the individual slef with Brahman, who is proved to be
the inner self of all by the other suthras,the real purport of the vedantha
texts is to tell us about the real nature of the self and hence they are only
laudatory and subsidiary to the act of sacrifice.as no one will be inclined to
do sacrifice unless he knows that he is different from the body and hence
meditations are connected with the sacrificial acts by providing this
knowledge.
Suthra-3-AchAradhar sanAth-3- 4-3
Because it is known from scriptures from the conduct of
men of realization
Asvapathi and
Janaka who were men of realisation are seen from the scriptures to be engaged
in sacrificial acts.Asvapathi tells the rshis 'yakshyamANo vai bhagavanthO
aham asmi, (Chan.5-11-5) I am about to perform a sacrifice.' Smrthi also
confirms that the Brahman knowledge does not preclude one from sacrificial acts
as the Lord himself has said 'karmaNaiva hi samsiddhim AsTHithA janakAdhayah,'
(BG-3-20) Janaka and others attained perfection only through karma, which means
vedha vihitha karma like sacrifices.Thus knowledge is not independently
fruitful but only acquired for the purpose of purifying the doer as it shows
the real nature of the self.
Suthra-4-thath sruthEh-3-4- 4
That is known by the scriptures also.
By the text
'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthisraddhayA
upanishadha thadhEva veeryavattharam bhavathi, (Chan.1-1-10)
whatever
one does with knowledge, faith and upanishad that becomes more powerful,'
Is not to be taken to refer to
udhgeetha only as per the context because the direct statement, vAkya, being
more powerful than the context, prakaraNa. Hence the vidhya referred to in the
text means only the knowledge in general.
[Here the rule
applied here by the mimamsaka is that of purvamimamsa which says that when the
six items, namely, sruthi-linga- vAkya-prakaraNa- sThAna-samAkhyA, that
is, direct assertion, indicatio n, syntactical connection, context,
position and designation, relate to the same thing, each succeding one is
weaker than the preceding one because it it conveys its meaning less directly,
that is, by invoking the aid of the preceding ones.(Pu.Mi.
suthra.III- 3-14) ]
Suthra-5-samanvAram bhaNAth-3- 3-5
Because both go together
The text 'tham
vidhyAkarnaNou samanvArabhEthE, (Bhd.4-4-2) he is followed by both
knowledge and works,' shows that knowledge and work go together.
Suthra-6-thadhvathO viDHAnAth-3- 4-6
Because scripture enjoins work
Scripture
enjoins work for the one who acquired knowledge as can be seen from the text AchAryakulAth
veEdhamaDHeethya yaTHAbhiDHaNam karmAthiseshENa abhi samAvrthya kutumbE suchou
dhEsEsvADHyAyam aDHeeyAnah,(Chan.8-15- 1)
he who has
learnt the veda according to the prescribed rule in the time left over after performing his duty to
the guru, after coming back from the guru's house settles down in his household
and continues the study of the veda in a clean place.' Hence the knowledge of
Brahman has no independemt fruit but only as connected with works enjoined in
the vedas.
Suthra7-niyamAth- 3-4-7
On account of the compulsory rule
It is said 'KurvannevEha
karmANijijeevishEcc hatham samAh, (IsA. 2) which explicitly prescribe s
work for the whole lifetime to one who has the knowledge of the self.Hence for
all the reasons mentioned in the foregoing suthras the opponent claims that the
knowledge is only in connection with sacrificial activites.
Suthra-8-aDHikaupad hEsAtthu bAdharAyaNasya Evam
dharsanAth-3- 4-8
Because the scripture teaches about the one who surpasses
the individual self, the view of BadharAyaNa is vailid.
Ramanuja explains the term 'aDHika
upadhEsa' in the suthra thus:
‘karmasu karthuh jeevAth
hEyaprathyaneeka- anavaDHika- athisaya- kalyANaguNAkarat hvEna aDHikasya
,arTHAnthara bhoothasya parasya brahmaNah vEdhyathayA upadhEsAth.'
The meaning of the above passage is this:The scriptures
teaches us of the supreme being who surpasses the individual self, the doer of
works,by His limitless and wonderful auspicious qualities and who is free from
imperfections and hence different from the individual self.
These
qualities of the supreme self , says Ramanuja , cannot
by any stretch of imgination be attributed to the individual self either in the
state of bondage or in release.
In the texts like
'apahathapApmA ajarO vimrthyuh
vishokO vijighathsO apipAsah sathyakAmah sathya samnlalpah,
He is free from evil, old age, death, sorrow, hunger and
thirst, and those which speak about Brahman as the cause of the world, as the
ruler, inner self of all, of nature of bliss etc., there is not even
slightest reference to the miserable individual self, as
insignificant as a glow worm, entangled in the body due to nescience.
The result of
the knowledge of Brahman is declared to be immortality on attaining
Him.Therefore the knowledge of Brahman is the means of purushArTHa.
Suthra-9-thulyam thu
dharsanam-3- 3-9
The scriptures equally support both views.
The argument
that the men are of realisation is shown in the scritures to follow the path of
karma is not wholly true because there is evidence for the other view also.
In aithareya upanishad we have a
text
'rshayah kAvashEyAh;kimarTHA vayamaDHyEShyAmahe, kimargTHA
vayam yakshyAmahE,
The sages descended from Kavisa said: for what purpose
should we study the vedas and for what purpose should we perform sacrifices.'
As those who
have acquired Brahman knowledge are seen to give up karma as being of no use
for them who desire salvation, the meditation on Brahman cannot be susidiary to
sacrifice. But, says Ramanuja sacrificial acts may be performed by men of
realisation( such as janaka and ASvapathi) without attachment to fruits
and hence it is appropriate that they were mentioned as doing the sacrificial
rites.On the other hand sacrifices that are done with expectation of fruit are
opposed to knowledge of Brahman which has only moksha as the result. Hence the
meditaion on Brahman cannot be subsidiary to sacrificial acts
Suthra-10-asArvathr ikee-3-3- 10
The declaraion is not universal.
In the
sentence 'what he does with knowledge becomes more powerful'(Chan. 1-1-10) is
not applicable to all meditations but only to that of udhgeetha and connected with the
injunction 'let him meditate on the udhgeetha' (Chan.1-1-1) The phase 'whatever
he does with knowledge' refers only to udhgEetha and not action in general so
as to include the act of sacrifice
Suthra-11-vibhAgah sathavath-3- 3-11
There is division as in the case of hundred.
In the fifth
suthra it is said that knowledge and works go together as denoted by 'tham
vidhyAkarmaNee samanvArabhEthe, he is followed by knowledge and works.'
This suthra refutes the view.
The results of
vidhya and karma are different and they are clubbed together in the sense that
kniowledge brings its own result and so does the work. It is analageous to the statement 'kshethra
rathna vikryiNam sathadhvayam anvEthi, the man selling land and a gem
got two hundred which actually means that he got hundred for the land and
hundred for the gem.
Suthra12-aDhyayanam Athravathah- 3-4-12
It refers to
him who has merely made verbal sudy of the vedas.
This suthra is
in refutation of the sixth where it was argued that works are prescribed to one who has learnt the
vedas. The text quoted 'vEdham aDheethya--- -kutumbou suche dhese
svAdhyAyanam aDheeyAnah, ( Cha.8-15-1) which means that after
learning the vedas one should study what he has learnt while being in the
family doing the works prescribed by the vedas, apply only to one who has
simply learnt the text of the vedas and not to one who has cognised the
meaning.The one who has mastered the vedas becomes engaged in the worlks if he
is desorous of the fruits of karma or if he wishes for release, applies himself
to the study of the upanishads.Moreover mere learning of the meaning does not
constitute the knowledge of the upanishads in the same way as performing the
sacrifices does not mean that one has understood the real nature of them.Hence
vidhya which consists in devout meditation resuting in the highest purushArTha,
is entirely different from the mere knowledge of Brahman through the study of
vedas.
Suthra-13-nAvisEshA th-3-4-13
No; because there is no restriction.
This suthra
refutes what is said in the seventh, that work is prescribed (niyamAth) to the
one with knowledge.The text quoted 'kurvannEvEha karmANi jijeevishEth
satham samAh,(Isa.2) doing the works he lives for hundred years,' does not
restrict the man of knowledge to performance of sacrificial acts because it
does not refer to any particular work and may be taken to mean a work which is
subsidiary to knowledge.The line in Gita 'karmaNaiva hi samsiddhim AsThithA
janakAdhayah, Janaka and others attained perfection through
work only ,' means that for the knower of the self, knowledge and work
continue till the end of life.
Suthra-14-sthuthayE anumathirvA- 3-4-14
Or permission is given for the sake of glorification.
The upanishad
begins with 'IsAvasyam idham sarvam, (Isa-1) all this is
pervaded by the Lord,' which refers to knowledge of Brahman and the subsequent
passage 'kurvannEvEha karmANi,'etc is by way of giving permission to do
all work in glorification of knowledge which is shown in the next sentence 'Evam
thvayi nAnyaTHA ithah asthi na karma lipyathE narE, thus in
no other way can you be free from the taint of evil deeds. This means, a man
who is not completely absorbed in Athman has no other alternative than engaging
himself in meritorious activities in order not to be tainted by evil. Therefore
knowledge is not subsidiary to work.
Suthra-15-kAmakArEN a chaike-3-4-15
In some according to wish
In some sAkhAs
we find that the life of the householder can be given up by one who possesses
Brahman knowledge.For instance the text 'kim prajaya karishyamOyEshAm no
ayam Athma ayam Lokah,(Brhd.4-4-22) what shall we
do with the offspring ,we, to whom the is world is the self,' shows that
knowledge is not subsidiary to works because in such case voluntary
renunciation would not have been possible.
Suthra-16- upamardham cha-3-4-16
And destruction
There is vedantha text which explicitly states the
destruction of all work by knowledge of Brahman.
In the passage
'bhidhyathE
hrdhayagranTHih, cchidhyathE sarva samsayAh, kseeyanthE asya
karmAni thasmin dhrshtE parAvarE,(Mund.II-2- 9)
All his knots of the heart are
broken, all his doubts are cut asunder, all his karma is destroyed when he has
seen the high and low(Brahman)
This would not be possible if knowledge is subsidiary to
works.
Syuthra-17-oorDHva rEthassu cha sabdhE hi- 3-4-17
Scripture
declares that knowledge belongs to celebates.
Those in
the fourth asrama of sannyasa need not perform agnihothra and other rites. This
is stated in the scripture as 'ye chEmE araNyEsraddhA thapa
ithyupAsathe, (Chan.5-10-1) those in the forest (meaning sannyasins)
practise penance with faith.And 'EnamEva pravrAjinah lOkam icchanthah
pravrajanthi, wishing for the Brahman only the sannyasins renounce the
world.' The text relating to the life long performance of works 'yAvajjeevam
agnihOthram juhOthi' refers only to those who have not
renounced the world.
Suthra-18-parAmarsa m jaiminih achOdhanAth cha apavadhathi
hi-3-4-18
It is only a reference because of an absence of injunction
according to Jaimini.
There is
no injunction regarding celebacy, is the opinion of Jaimini, the mimAmsAchArya.
The text 'thrayO dharmaskanDhAh, there are three stages of life
as basis of dharma, do not contain any injunction, but only laudatory to the
meditation on Brahman as it ends with 'brahmasamsThah amrthathvam Ethi,' the
declaration that one who knows Brahman attains immortality.
Suthra-19-anushTEya m bAdharAyaNahsAmyasr
uthEh-3-4- 19
They are to be practised, thinks Badhrayana, for the scripture refers
equallty to all stages of life.
According
to Badarayana, all the stages of life including sannyasa are of equal
importance.
In the passage
'thrayO dharmaskanDHAh yajnO adhyayanam dhAnam ithi praTHamah,thapa
Eva dvitheeyObrahmachar yAchArya kulavAsee thrtheeyah,(Chan.2-23-1)
Three are the
branches of religeous duty,
Sacrifice, study and gifts are the first,
Austerity alone is the second, and
The celebate
student of sacred knowledge who lives in the house of his guru all his life
isthe third,
This ends as
‘BrahmasamsTHO amrthathvam EThi’
He who is established in Brahman attains
immortality, All
the traits mentioned, namely sacrifice, charity, study, austerity and celebacy
cannot be said to belong to the householder only While sacrifice, study and gifts
relate to the householder, austerity denotes the stages of vAnaprastha and
sannyasa. And the sentence 'who is established in Brahman attains immortality'
refers to all stages of life as it is possible to be a brahmasamsTha in
any stage.What the text means is that those who are desirous of wordly results,
being devoid of the knowledge of Brahman perform the religious rites for the
fulfilment of their desires but one who does them while being established in
Brahman attains immortality. The text 'yE chEmE araNyE sraddhA thapa ithupAsathE,(Chan.5-10- 1) and those who in the forest practise penance
with faith,'as it mentions the path of light for them, shows that the sannyasa
is recognised by the scripture.
Suthra-20-viDHirvA DHAraNavath- 3-4-20
Or an injunction as in the case of carrying
The text
quoted above about the three stages of life is to be accepted as an injunction
as it is not established by any other means. This is similar to the statement 'aDHasthAth
samiDHam DHArayan anudhravEth, carrying the figsticks below the
ladle he runs,' relating to agnihOthra where the carrying of figsticks in that
manner is taken as an injunction as it has not been declared anywhere else. So
the injunction 'yAvajjeevam agnihOthram juhOthi,' applies only to those
who are not free from attachment. The conclusuion is that as the knowledge of
Brahman is enjoined for the sannyasins it is not subsidiary to sacrificial
activities but is in itself a purushAQrTHa. This is the end of purusharTHADHikaraN am.
STHUTHIMATHRADHIKAR ANAM-3-4- 2
SthuthimAthram upADHAnAth ihi cheth na
apoorvathvAth- 3-4-21
If it is said that reference to udhgeetha is mere
glorification it is not so, because it is new.
In
ChandhOgya there is a declaration that udhgeetha does the essence of essences,
the supreme, deserve the highest place,'sa Esha rasAnAm rasathamah paramah parArghyah.'
(Chan.1-1-3) The opponent is of
the opinion that this text is a mere glorification as there is no injunction on
the meditation on udhgeetha. He considers this as being similar to that saying,'iyam
Eva juhvah svargah lOkah Ahavaneeyah, the ladle is the earth and the
Ahavaneeya fire is heaven,' where the words 'earth' and 'heaven' only used to
glorify the ladle and the fire.
The suthra
refutes the view on the basis that it is new. That udhgeetha is the best of
essences is not to be seen in any other place as there is no injunction on
udhgeetha other than this. So the text enjoins meditation on udhgeetha as
the essence of essences for the attaining great power and potency in
sacrifice.
Suthra-22 BhAva sabdhAccha-3- 4-22
Because of the word expressing injunction
The word 'upAseetha
, let one meditate' is used in connection with udhgeetha at the outset and
according to mimAsaka all the word which denote action are to be taken as
injunctions. Thus ends the sthuthimAthrADhiaka raNam.
PARIPLAVARTHADHIAKR
ANAM-3-4- 3
Suthra-23-pAriplavA rTHA ithi cheth na visEshithathvAth- 3-4-23
If it is said that upanishadic stories are for the purpose
of pAriplava, (that is, for the sake of telling stories) it is not so because
they are specified.
In the
asvamEdha sacrifice certain stories are recited which should be heard by the
sacrificer and his family. these are known as pAriplavas.There are some
stories in vedanta texts like that of Prathardhana, SvEthakethu etc. The question now is
whether they are of the kind of pAriplava or they impart some special
knowledge. The poorvapakdshin maintains the former view which is refuted by the
suthra.The upanishadic stories are connected with injunctions of
meditations. Not all stories are for the purpose of pAriplava but only
those specified for that purpose such as 'manuh vaivasvathO rAjA(Kou.10-7)
manu ,the son of vivasvat,' under the injunction 'AkhYanAni samsanthi, they
tell the stories.'
Suthra-24-thaTHA chaEkavAkyOpabanDHA th-3-4-24
From the textual connection also
These stories
are told in connection with the texts such as 'AthmA va arE
drashtavyah, the self is to be seen,' etc. like the stories such as sO
arOdheeth,he wept,' which are subsidiary to sacrificial acts and hence they
are subsidiary to injunctions of meditation.Thus ends pAriplavADHikaraNam .
AGNEENDHANADHIKARAN
AM-3-4-4
Suthra-25-athaEVa cha agneenDhanAdhi anapEkshA-3-
4-25
Therefore no kindling of fires required.
The topic now
returns to that of celibates.The opponent says that since the meditations,
which have sacrifice as their subsidiary, cannot be practised by the sannyasins
as they do not have the injunction of sacrifice enjoined for them. This view is
refuted by the suthra. The celebates are mentioned as connected with meditation
by the scriptural texts such as 'brahmasamsTHO amrthathvamEthi, (Chan.2-23-
1) he who is established in Brahman attains immortality, ' EthmEva
pravrAjinah lOkamicchanthah pravrajanthi, desiring Brahman alone the
sannyasins renounce this world,'etc. Hence they do not need to kindle the fire
as can be seen by 'yE chEmE araNyE sraddhA thapa ithyupAsathE,(Chan.5-10- 1) those in the forest practise penance with
faith.Thus ends the agneenDHanADHikaraN am.
SARVAPEKSHADHIKARAN AM-3-4-5
Suthra-26sarvApEksh A cha yajnAdhi sruthEh
asvavath-3-4- 26
There is need for sacrifices etc. because it is prescribed
by the sruthi, as in the case of horse (which needs grooming.)
In reply to
the argument that if meditation alone can result in immortality even the
householders may do away with works enjoined by the vedas, this suthra replies
that it is not so.
It is known from the sruthi texts such as
'ThamEvam
vEdhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnEna thapasA anAsakEna, (Brhd.4-4-22)
BrAhmanas seek to know Him by sacrifice, gifts and study of
the Veda,' from this it is known that sacrifice and other means are subsidiary
to knowledge.
Ramanuja says that just
because the sacrifice and other works are the means of knowledge it is said
that 'they seek to know by sacrifice' etc. as only by knowing the sword to be
the instrument in cutting one uses it for that purpose,
'YajnAdheenAm jnAnasAdhanathvE sathyEva yajnAdhibhirjnAnam
prApthum icchanthi iti vyapadEsah upapadhyathE, yaTHA aserhanansAdhanthvE sathi
asinA jighAmsathi ithi vyapadhEsah. '
The knowledge, says Ramanuja, is not mere
cognition of the meaning of the texts but refers to dhyAna and upAsana,
meditation and in the form of constant remembrance till the end of life.
'Visadhathamam prathyakshathApanna smrthi rupam
nirathisayapriyam aharaharabhyAsAthis ayam AprayANah anuvarthamAnam moksha
sAdhanam’
That is, meditation is a form of exceeedingly fond
remembrance, practised day by day, till death which secures release.Such
meditation is kindled in the mind of the devotee by the grace of the Lord who is pleased with
the different acts of sacrifice and worship.
As a horse needs attendents and proper grooming to make it
worthy for travel so also the knowledge which leads to release needs the daily
and occasional duties which cannot be abandoned.
This is confirmed by the Lord also in the Gita thus:
'YajnadhAnathapahka rma na tyAjyam
kAryamEva thath; yajnO dhAnam thapaschaiva pAvanAni maneeshiNam, (BG.18-5)
Sacrifices gifts and austerities should not be given up but
should be performed always as they purify the doer.Thus the sarvApEkshADHikaraN am.
suthra-27-SAMADHAMADHIKARANAM -3-4-6
SamadhamAdhyupEthah
syAth thaTHApi thu thdhviDHEh thadhangathayA
thEshAmapi avasyAnushTEyathvAt h-3-4-27
But all the
same he (the householder) must practise the austerities like sama and
dhama, inner and outer control, since they are enjoined as auxiliaries to works and
must neccessarily followed.
To the
question that whether the samadhamAdhi should be practised even by the
householder, the opponent says that it should not be practised because the
performance of works involve the external and internal organs and the control
of them is opposed to this purpose.
This
view is refuted by the suthra.Even the householder who is engaged in
sacrificial activities should practise self control measures because they
are subsidiary to knowledge.
This is
declared in the text,
'ThasmAth Evamvidh sAnthahdhAntha uparathah thithikshuh
samAhithO bhoothvA AthmanyEvAthmAnam pasyEth, (Brhd.4-4-23)
therefore he who knows this, having become calm, subdued,
satisfied, patient, and collected, should see the Self in Self.'
The austerities
and activities are not mutually exclusive because they relate to different
matters.Activity is concerned with those works to be done and abstinence is
towards those that are prohibited. Moreover the work enjoined by scriptures
pleases the supreme self when done as an offering to Him for which the inner
and outer control is necessary.Hence the householder should also practise the
samadhamAdhi. This is the end
of samadhamADHIkaraNam.
SARVANNANUMATHYADHI
KARANAM-3- 4-7
Suthra-28-sarvAnnAn umathischa prANAthyayE thaddharsanAth-
3-4-28
There is permission of all food at the event of danger to
life as it is seen to be so.
In connection
with prANa vidhya the text in both ChAndhOgya and BrhadhAraNyaka declare that
all food is lawful for one who has the knowledge of the prAna. 'Na ha vA asya anannam jagDHam bhavathi, (Brhd.6-1-14)
To him nothing is eaten that is non-food,' and
'na ha vA Evam
vidhi kimchana anannam bhavathi, (Chan.5-2-1) in the case of one who
knows this there is nothing that is not food.Now a doubt arises in the mind as
to whether this permission for all kinds of food for one who has knowledge, is
for all times or only when there is danger to life.The opponent says that it is
for all times on account of the absence of special condition being stated in
the text. But the suthra refutes this view and says that it is only on the
event of danger to life.
It is seen
from the sruthi that even the knowers of Brahman eat prohibited food only when
their life is in danger. There is a story in ChAndhOgya of Usasthi, the son of
Chakra, ate the grains that were left over from an elephant driver in
order to survive when the land was in famine but declined the offer of water
saying that he could eat what is forbidden when his life was in danger but further
than that whatever he eats or drinks is his option.So
prohibited food may be eaten only when the life is in danger and not at other
times.
Suthra-29-abADHAcch a-3-4-29
Because these statemants (on food) are not sublated
In ChandhOgya
it is stated 'AhAra suddhou satthva suddhih; satthvasuddhou dhruvAsmrthih, (Chan.7-26-2)
when the food is pure the mind is pure; when the mind is pure the remembrance
if firm,' which confirms that even knowers of Brahman are allowed to eat
prohibited food only when the life is in danger.
Suthra-30-api smaryathE-3- 4-30
The smrthi also says so.
In Manusmrthi
itis said
'prANA samsayamApannah yo annam
atthi yathasthathah; lipyathE na sa pApEna padhmapathrmivAmBHa sA,
When the life is in danger he can take food from
anywhere and he is not touched by sin like the water on a lotus leaf.
Suthra31-sabdhaschA thO akAmakAre-3- 4-31
Therefore the scripture prohibits doing whatever one
desires.
The
kATakasamhitha declares
'ThasmAth brAhmaNah surAm na
pibhathi pApmanA nothsrjA ithi,
Threfore a brahmaNa does not drink liquor thinking "may I
not be stained by sin.
Thus ends sarvAnnAnumathyaDHi karaNam.
VIHITHATHVADHIKARAN AM-3-4-8
Suthra-32-vihithath vAccha AsramakarmApi- 3-4-32
The works are for the asramas also because they are
enjoined.
Since it is
stated that the sacrificial acts are subsidiary to knowledge of Brahman it is
to be clarified whether the sacrificial acts are enjoined even to those
who have no desire for final release. The suthra confirms that these works are
to be performed even by those who merely wish to fulfil their duties of the
asrama as it has been enjoined by 'yAvajjeevam agnihOThram juhOthi, one
performs agnihOthra till the end of life as they are obligatory. From the text 'thamEtham
veda anuvachanEna,Him they seek to know by reciting the
vedas,(Brhd. 4-4-22) denotes that the same works have to be performed as
subsidiary to knowledge.
Suthra-33-sahakArit hvEnacha- 3-4-33
Also on account of their cooperation
The
sacrificial acts are auxiliary to knowledge in as much as they create a desire
for knowledge.There is no contradiction just as in the case of agnihOthra there
is a double injunction one for the performance till the end of life and another
for attaining heaven. Similarly the performance of sacrifice as subsidiary to
knowledge and as a duty of the asrama do not contradict each other.
Suthra-34-sarvaTHA api cha tha
Eva ubhayalingAth- 3-4-34
In all cases the same duties are to be performed because of
the twofold indicatory marks.
Either for the
sake of knowledge or as a duty of the asrama the works to be performed are the
same because of the same injunctions, using the same terms.
Suthra-35-anabhibha vam cha dharsayathi- 3-4-35
And the scripture also declares not to be overpowered.
The texts like
'dharmENa pApam apanudhathi, he drives away evil by sacred works,' shows
that the sacrificial acts by purifying the mind helps the rise of
knowledge by driving away evil.Thus ends
vihithathvAdhikaraN am.
VIDHURADHIKARANAM-
3-4-9
Suthra-36-antharA chApi thu
thaddhrshtEh- 3-4-36
But even those
who are outside the asramas are qualified (for knowledge) because it is seen to
be so.
Since those in
all the four asramas are shown to be qualified for knowledge of Brahman and it
is said that the duties of the asramas are helpful to gain that knowledge. Now
the question arises in the case of those who are outside the asramas, due to
poverty or being a widower etc. as to whether they are quzlified for knowledge.
The opponent says that they are not because the duties of the asamas are
instrumental in creating knowledge.
This suthra
refutes this view saying that scripture has evidence to the contrary.We have he examples of Raikva, Bhishma samvartha and others
who, though they did not belong to any asrama were brahmajnAnis. The text
'thamEtham vedhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnEna thapasA
anAsakEna,(Brhd.4-4-22)
, they seek to know Brahman by study of the vedas, sacrifices, gifts, penance,
fasting etc.,' shows that these acts not connected with any asrama can create
knowledge.
Suthra-37-api smaryathE-3- 4-37
It is declared by smrthi also.
Manusmrthi has
the following text,
'japyEnApi cha samsiddhyEth brAhmaNah
nAthra samsayah; kuryAdhanyanna va kuryAth maithrO brAhamaNa
uchyathe,
He attains perfection through japa whether he performs other
works or not.He is a brAhmaNa who shows friendship towards all beings.'
Suthra-38-visEshAnu grahascha- 3-4-38
There is also special benefit.
Not only
through reasoning and smrthi but sruthi also confirms this, as shown by the
text 'thapasA brahmacharyENasaddh ayA vidhyayAAthmAnam anvishya,
(Prsna.1-10) he should seek the Self by penance, celibacy, faith and knowledge.
Suthra-39-athasthvi tharajjyAyo lingAscha- 3-4-39
But it is better to be in the asrama because of inferential
mark.
Being in an
asrama is better than being outside.This means that unless one is prevented by
misfortune like losing his wife and not being able to remarry due to poverty
etc. one should belong to some asrama or other. The smrthi also says 'anAsramee
na thishTEth thu dhinam Ekamapi dhvijah, a
brahmin should not stay even for a day outside the asrama.This is the end of viDHurADHikaraNam.
THADHBHOOTHADHIKARA NAM-3-4-10
Thdhbhoothasya Thu nAthadhbhAvO jaiminErapi niyamAth
thadhrupAbhAvEbhyah -3-4-40
Once one has entered the asrama there is no remission from
the duties of that says Jaimini.
The question
is whether for those who has left the duties of the respective asrama, may it
be brahmacharya or sannyasa, is there any possibilty of attaining brahmavidhya
as in the case of those who are unable to remain in the asramas. The
suthra answers that it is not so the scripture states that one he goes to the
forest a celebate may not return to the family life.'AraNyamiyAth; thathO na
punarEyAth.' Thus those who have lapsed from the asramdharma are not
qualified for the knowledge of Brahman which view is also confirmed by Jaimini.
Suthra-41-na chADHikArikam api
pathanAnumAnAth thadhayOgAth- 3-4-41
To the
question whether one who has renounced the world and has became a naishtika suffers lapses in his dharma,
will such a person be fit to continue his meditation again after expiation of
his transgression, the suthra answers that it is not so.There is a smrthi text
to this effect. 'AroodOnaishTikam dharmam yasthu prachyavathe dvijah;
prAyaschittham na pasyAmi yEna sudhyEth sa AthmahA,(AgnEyapurANa- 16-5-23)
He who having once entered on the duties of a Naishthika lapses from
them, for such a slayer of the Self I do not see any expiatory work by which he
might become clean..' Therefore the expiation accordinhng to purvamimAmsa
(suthra-6) is only for those other than naishTikas.
Suthra-42-upapoorva mapeethYEkEbhAva masanavath
thadhuktham- 3-4-42
Some consider expiation possible even for celibates because
it is minor sin.
According to
smrthi (Gouthama dharma suthra) minor lapses on the part of celebates can be
expiated as long as it is not opposed to asrasma as in the case of those in
other asramas.So they are entitled to brahmavidhya after expiation for their
lapses.
Suthra-43-bahisthu ubhayathA apismrthEh AchArAccha-3- 4-43
But in either case these men are kept outside according to
smrthi and custom.
Whether the
lapse from celibacy is major or minor they are to be held outside the asrama
according to smrthi which says that there is no expiation that can purify such
fallen ones. 'Prayaschittham Na pasyAmi yEna suddhyEth SA Athmaha'
(AgnEya purANa-16-5- 23) and also the society treats them as being out of the
fold of asrama and hence no one will impart to them the knowledge of Brahman. So the
conclusion is they hare not qualified for brahmavidhya. Thus ends thadhbhrthADHikaraN am
SVAMYADHIKARANAM- 3-4-11
Suthra-44-svAminah phalasruthEH
ithiAthrEyah
The meditation on udhgeetha belongs to the sacrificer because of
the declaration of fruit by the scripture
The meditation on udhgeetha is a part of the sacrifice
and the question arises whether it should be performed by the sacrificer or the
udhgAthr, the priest who sings the saman. AthrEya is of the opinion that it
should be done by the sacrificer only because there is a special fruit declared
by the scripture which should accrue to the sacrificer and hence he has to do
the meditation on udhgeetha. He cites the example of dhaharavidhya where the
meditation and the result of the meditation belong to the same person. It
cannot be compared to the act of bringing water in a gOdhOhana vessel by the
priest who alone is qualified to do it because bringing water can be done only
by the priest but upasana is not so. The udhgeetha that is singing the saman can be done by the
priest but the meditation on udhggeetha should be done by the sacrificer only.
Suthra-45-Arthvijya m ithi aoudulOmih
thasmai hi parikreeyathE- 3-4-45
They are the priest's work, says Aoudulomi, because he is
engaged for that purpose.
Acharya AoudulOmi thinks that the meditation on the udhgeetha as
well as everything connected with the sacrifice is the work of the priest only
because he has been engaged, by paying dhakshiNa, to do the work.So
all his acts physical and mental, including the fruit, has been
purchased by the sacrificer. This seems to be the opinion of suthrakAra also.In
dhahara vidhya there is no injunction such as 'rthvijO vrNeethE,
rthvigbhyah dhakshiNAm dhadhAthi, he chooses the priests,
he gives them their fee,' etc. The text 'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthi--thadhEva
veeryavattharam, whatever he does with knowlege it is more powerful,'
refers only to the one who performs the sacrifice, that is the priest.In
dhahara vidhya since there is no mention of the priest, the rule that the fruit
of the sacrifice belongs to one who does it,'sasthraphalam prayOkthari,'
(Pu.Mi.Su.9- 7-18) holds good.Thus ends the svAmyaDHikaraNam.
SAHAKARYANTHARAVIDH YADHIKARANAM- 3-4-12
Suthra-46-sahakAryanthara viDhihpakshENa thrtheeyam
thadhvathO viDHyAdhivath- 3-4-46
There is an injunction for him who has that (learning) as in
the case of other injunctions (about auxiliary means) because it is the third
requisite.
Regarding the text
'thasmAth
brAhmaNah nirvidhya bAlyEna thishTAsEth; bAlyam cha pAndithyam cha nirvidhya
aTHa munih,
Therefore a seeker of Brahman,
having finished learning, should remain like a child and having finished
this stage and with learning, he becomes meditative.'
Here the question is whether the meditation is also enjoined as
the other two or just a mention of something already existing. The opponent
holds the latter view because knowledge and learning both means the same.Hence
there is no injunction regarding meditation.
The suthra refutes this view saying that the meditation is the
third requisite besides the learning and child-like state. Just as in the text
'Thametham
vedhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnena thapasA, (Brhd.4-4-22)
Brahmanas seek to know
Him reciting the Veda, by sacrifice, gifts and penance.'
The sacrifices etc are enjoined as aids in the same way as
'hearing' and 'reflection' are the aids enjoined in the text 'AthmA vA are
dhrashtavyah, srothavyah, manthvyah. (Brhd.2-4-5) Here also
learning, childlike state and meditation are enjoined as another aid to
knowledge. The meditation is not knowledge but a constant application of mind
to the object of knowledge. Thus these three requisites are are enjoined as
aids to knowledge as the sacrifice and other duties for other asramas.
The third requisite, that is, the state of meditation, is denoted
in the text by the word 'muni.' This is not in the sense of mananseelathvam,
reflection, says Ramanuja 'idham cha mounam
sravaNa prathishTArTHAth mananAth arTHAnthara bhootham upAsanAlambanasya punah
punah samseelanam thadhbhAvanAroopam, ' munithvam (mounam) is something different from reflection of what
is heard, being consistent and persistent remembrance of the object of
meditation.
Then Ramanuja explains the text as follows. A brAhmana has to
attain knowledge of Brahman perfectly through hearing and pondering and
purifying the mind through devotion because it is attained only by the grace of
the Lord as smrthi says 'nAham vedhaina thapasA na dhAnEna na
cheEjyaya, I cannot be reached by study of the vedas, nor by penance,
nor gifts nor sacrifice,' and that He is unable to attain except by devotion 'bakthyAthvananyayA
sakyah'(BG.11-53-54)
Sruthi also confirms by saying 'nayamAthmA pravachEna labhyah,'this
self cannot be attained by study of the vedas, and goes on to say 'yamevaisha
vrunuthE thEna labhyathE,' he whom the Self chooses, by him the Self
is to be attained. (Ka. Up. I, 2, 23)
After this state he is to be like a child, which Ramanuja says,
will be explained in a later suthra.l Later he has to engage his mind in
consistent and persistent thought on Brahman which is termed as the state of
muni. Thus he attains true knowledge.
The text further says 'amounam cha mounam cha
nirvidhyATHa brAhmaNah,' He is a brAhmaNa who employs amouna and mouna
to reach the highest knowledge. Amouna is explained by Ramanuja as 'mouna
ithara sahakAri kalApah', that is, all the auxiliaries of knowledge
other than mouna like sacrifices etc., while mouna is munithvam.
Suthra-47-krthsnabh AvAtthu grhiNopa
samhArah-3-4- 47
But since the knowledge exists in all asramas the scriptural
text ends with the householder.
To the question by the opponent that if the knowledge aided by the
duties of all the asramas, with mouna as a third requisite, is the means of
attaining Brahman, then how can the duties enjoined for a householder till the
end of life be explained, the suthra replies thus:As the knowledge belongs to
all asramas it is for the householder also.The duties belonging to all asrama
ends with the householder and the text 'brAhmaNAh puthraishaNAyAscha
vitthaishaNAyAscha lokaishaNAYAScha vyutTHAya aTHa bhikshAcharyam charanthi, (Brhd-3-5-1)
a BrAhmana having
risen above the desire for sons, the desire for wealth, and the desire for
worlds, wanders about as a mendicant,' relates to the duties of the ascetic
exclusively.
Suthra-48-mounavath itharEshAm api upadhEsAth-3- 4-48
Like the stage of muni other stages of life are also taught.
The injunction of mouna, though refers to the one who has
renounced all desires and wanders as a mendicant, is common to all asramas.The
text 'thrayO dharmaskanDHAh, there are three branches of
dharma,'(Chan. 2-23-1) which refers to the duties of all asramas ends with
'brahmasamsTHO amrthathvamEThi, one who is devoted to Brahman attains immortality,'
which means that the term brahmasamsTha is common to all asramas. So the text
enjoining learning, childlike state and mouna are aids to knowledge for
all.This is the end of sahakAryantharaviDH aDHikaraNam.
AAVISHKARADHIKARANA M-3-4-13
Suthra-49-anAvishku rvan
anvayAth-3-4- 49
Not manifesting oneself on account of context.
The term 'bAlya' mentioned in the suthra46 is now explained. In
the text 'thasmAth brAhmaNah pAndithyam nirvidhya
bAlyEna thishTAseeth, (Brhd.3-5-1) a brAhmana after learning should
remain like a child,' should be taken to mean the action of a child. But it has
to be specified whether all actions of the child like doing as one likes or
only those qualities as absence of pride etc. are meant here. The argument that in the absence of any particular specification
all activities to be included, is disposed of by this suthra. The nature
of a child in not manifesting the qualities like pride arrogance etc. is what
is meant here because of the context. Balya is to correspond to
knowledge and hence the nature of not manifesting the qualities of an adult is
only appropriate. That is, it means simplicity and unassuming nature. The
other characterestics are excluded by the texts themselves such as
'nAviratho
duschArithAnnAshAnt ho nAsamAhithah nAshAnthamAnasO vApiprajnAnEnainam ApnuyAth, (Chan. I, 2, and 24);
He who has not turned away from wicked
conduct, who is not tranquil and attentive, or whose mind is not at peace, he
can never attain the Self by knowledge.'
Thus ends anAvishkAraDhikaraN am
AIHIKADHIKARANAM- 3-4-14
Suthra-50-aihikam aprasthuthaprathiba
nDHE thddharsanAth- 3-4-50
Worldly prosperity arises when there is no obstacle present.
It is as seen from the scriptures.
There are two kinds of knowledge, one aiming towards worldly
prosperity and another relating to final release. The cause of the worldly
prosperity being acts of merit the question now arises that whether the
fruit of meritorious acts comes immediately or at some later time or life.The
opponent holds the former view beause according to what is said in Gita 'chathurvDHA
bajanthE mAm janAh sukrthinO arjuna, (BG.7-11) four kinds of men of
meritorius deeds worship me.' Hence as they have already done puNya there is no
reason why the fruit should not be immediate.
The suthra replies to this saying that the result will be
immediate only when there is no obstacle to prevent its happening. Worldly prosperity is created by knowledge which means
meditation and only if there is no obstacle due to some past deed which may be
more powerful than the meritorius deeds like knowledge and meditation the
result arises immediately after or else it may come sometime later which cannot
be specified. For this reason only scripture declares 'yadhEva vidhyayA
karOthi sraddhayA upanishadha thadhEva veeryavattharam, (Chan.1-1-10)
whatever one does with knowledge, faith and Upanishad that becomes more
powerful,' which means that it has the capacity to ward off obstacles.This is the end of aihikADHkaraNam.
MUKTHIPHALADHIKARAN AM-3-4-51
Suthra-51- Evam mukthiphalAniyamaht
hadhavasthAvaDhr thEh thadhavasTHAvaDHrth Eh-3-4-51
Similarly there is no rule for the fruit of final release
also because of him same condition.
This suthra is about the meditation for the sake of final
release.Here also the final release may be immediate only when there is no
obstruction such as offences formerly committed against knowers of Brahman etc.Thus ends the mukthiphalADhikaraN am.
The end of third adhyaya of
sribhashya
.