SRIBHASHYA
ADHYAYA-4
PADHA- 1
AvrtthyaDhikaraNam- 4-1-1
Suthra-1-Avrtthyasa krdhupadhesAth- 4-1-1
Repetition (of meditation) again and again because of
teaching
In the third adhyaya the meditation along with the means of it was
discussed. Now the results of meditation are considered in this
adhyaya. Before that some
points regarding the nature of
meditation are examined.
The texts emphasize the importance of meditation as a means of
attaining Brahman by 'brahmavidhApnOthi param, (Tait.2-1-1) one who
knows Brahman reaches the highest,' 'thamEva vidhithvA athimrthyumEthi,
(Sve.3-8) knowing Brahman one transcends death,'brahmavEdha brahmaiva
bhavathi, (Mund.3-2-9) he who knows Brahman becomes like Brahman,
etc. The question that now arises is whether this meditation is to be done
repeatedly or only once.
The poorvapakshin states that meditation done once is enough because in the text 'brahmavidh
brahmaiva bhavathi,' only knowledge alone is mentioned and nothing
is said about the repetition. Knowledge is not a visible action instrumental
for any result like that of beating the rice grains till the husk is removed.
The knowledge through meditation is performed once only like the jyOthishtOma sacrifice
done once as the AraAdhana of the supreme person fetch the
result of all purushArThas.
The suthra refutes
this view and says that meditation is to be repeated again and again. This is according to the instruction of the sasthras as the
words knowing,vEdhana , contemplation ,DhyAna
and meditation, upAsana are used in the scriptural texts as synonyms.
The text that begins as 'manO brahma ithyupAseetha, (Chan.3-18) meditate
the mind as Brahman,’ ends with 'bhAthi cha thapathi cha keerthyA yasasA
brahmavarchasEna sa Evam vEdha, he who knows thus, shines and warms with
fame and celebrity and with the holy effulgence born of sacred wisdom.'
Similarly the knowledge of Raikva is first referred to as 'yasthadhvEdha
tath sa vedha sa mayA Ethadhukthah' he who knows what he knows is thus
spoken by me,' and later as 'sAdhi mAm dhevathAm upAsthE, teach me the
deity whom you meditate on.' Thus in all the texts the words vedhana and
Dhyana are used synonymously. DHyAnam, defines Ramanuja, is chinthanam,
which is smrthisanthathiroop am, continuous remembrance and not smrthimAthram,
just remembrance. UpAsana also has the same meaning, EkAgrachitthavrtthi
nairanthryE pryOga dharsanath, concentration of mind on an object with
uninterrupted thought. Therefore as the
words vEdhana, DHyAna and upAsana are synonymous in the
texts such as 'brahmavidh brahmAiva bhavathi' the word 'vEdhana'
etc only means repeated meditation.
Suthra-2-lingAccha- 4-1-2
Because of inferential mark
Here inferential mark means smrthi. In VishnupurANa It is said
'thadhrupaprathyayE
chaika santhathischAnyanis sprhA; thadDHyAnam praTHmaih shadbhih angaih
nishpAdhyathE thaTHA,
The meditation on
His form is one continuous remembrance without desiring anything else;
meditation on Him is thus generated by the six limbs of the yOga.'
So according to scriptures
meditation is to be repeated again and again. Thus ends the AvrtthyaDhikaraNam.
AthmathvOpAsanADHik araNam4-1- 2
Suthra-3-AthmEthi thu
upagcchanthi grAhayanthi cha-4-1-3
Meditators worship Brahman as their self as apprehended from
the scripture.
To the question whether Brahman is meditated as one's self or as
different from oneself, the poorvapakshin replies that Brahaman is worshipped
as being different from oneself as proved by the suthra 'aDHikam thu
bhEdhanirdhesAth,'(BS.2-1-22)
This view is refuted by the suthra by saying that Brahman is
meditated only as the self. As the individual self is to the body, Brahman is
to the individual self in the same way. This is how the devotees of ancient
times meditated as shown in the text 'thvam vA aham asmi bhagavO
dhEvathe aham vai thvamasi,Oh LOrd indeed You are me
and I am You.' This relationship is claimed by the devotee because it
has been apprehended so from the texts like 'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanah
antharah yamAthmA na vedha yasyAthmA sariram ya AtmAnam antharO yamayathi
sa tha AthmA antharyAmyamrthah, (Brhd.3-7-22) he who dwelling within the
Self is different from the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self
is the body, who rules the Self from within; he is thy Self, the inner ruler,
the immortal one,' 'sanmoolAh soumya imAh sarvAh prajAh sadhAyathnAh
sathprathishTAh, EthasdhAthmyam idham sarvam, In the sath all these beings
have their root, they dwell in the sath, they rest in the sath- (Chan-6-8) all
that exists has that as Self,' and 'sarvam khalu idham brahma
thajjalAn,(chan.3-14- 1) all this is brahman,from Him they originate, in
Him they merge back and by Him they are sustained.'
All concepts are based on Brahman and all words ultimately
denote Brahman as shown by the text 'thvam va
aham asmi bhagavO' etc.thus when the relationship between Brahman and the
self is understood there will be no contradiction between the texts that teach
the unity and difference. The difference is like that of individual self and
the body. and the non-difference is due to Brahman
being the inner self of the individual self. Thus ends AthmathvOpAsanADhik araNam.
PratheekAdhikaraNam -4-1-3
Suthra-4-na pratheekE na hi sah-4-1-4
The self should not be meditated on the symbol because it is
not the self.
In the meditations such as 'manO brahma ithupAseetha' (Chan.3-18-1)
there is a doubt as to whether the symbols should be meditated as the self. The
poorvapakshin affirms this view because meditation on the symbol is that of Brahman who is the inner self of
the meditator .
The suthra refutes this view as the self of the meditator is Brahman
and not the symbol. The meditation is symbolic as what is not Brahman is
meditated as Brahman.
Suthra-5-brahmadhrs htih uthkarshAth-
4-3-5
The symbol is to be viewed as Brahman because of
superiority.
To the objection of the opponent that the symbols like mind cannot
be viewed as Brahman because of their limited power and therefore only Brahman
is to be meditated through symbols.
The suthra refutes this view. The mind etc can be viewed as
Brahman because they are inferior and not vice versa. That is, Brahman cannot
be viewed as mind. It is like viewing the servant as the king whIch
is appropriate but not viewing the king as the servant .This is the end of pratheekAdhikaraNam.
AdhithyAdhimathyaDH ikaraNam- 4-1-4
AdhithyAdhimathayas cha anga
upapatthEh- 4-1-6
And subsidiary such as udhgeetha has to be viewed as Adhithya etc
because it is consistent.
In the text 'yamEvAsou thapathi thamudhgeetham upAseetha,' one
should meditate upon him who shines, that is Adhithya, as the udhgeetha,' the
question is whether Adhithya should be viewed as udhgeetha which is subsidiary
to the sacrifice or vice versa. the opponent says that as already established in
the previous suthra that the inferior should be viewed as the superior,
udhgeetha which is subsidiary to the sacrifice is the means of attaining the
fruit and hence superior and hence adhithya should be viewed as
udhgeetha.
The suthra refutes this view. The udhgeetha should be viewed as
Adhithya because it is consistent. Adhithya and other deities are superior
because the sacrificial acts are done to propitiate them in bringing about
fruits so udhgeetha which is subsidiary to sacrifice is inferior and therefore
it is to be viewed as Adhithya.Thus ends AdhithyAdhimathyaDH ikaraNam.
AseenAdhikaraNam- 4-1-5
Suthra-7-Aseenah sambhavAth-4- 1-7
Sitting because of possibility
After establishing that the meditation is the means of attaining
release and that it has to be repeatedly done, now the
discussion turns to the manner of practicing it.
The opponent says as there is no rule about the posture, it
can be practiced in any posture like sitting, standing walking or lying
down.
This view is dismissed by the suthra because mental
concentration is only possible while sitting only and this should be the posture adopted when one is
meditating. Standing and walking requires some effort while lying down will
induce sleep.
Suthra-8-DHyanAccha -4-1-8
And on account of meditation
As meditation has been described to be constant remembrance of one
subject uninterrupted by other thoughts and it is enjoined by text 'nidhiDHyAsithavyah,
the self should be meditated upon.'
Suthra-9-achalathva m chApekshya-4-
1-9
Immovability is necessary for meditation.
Meditation is mentioned with reference to AkAsa, earth etc.
in the text 'DHyatheeva prthivee,DHyAyathee va anthriksham, DHyatheeva
dhyouh, DhyAtheeva Apah, DHyAyatheeva parvathAh, (Chan.7-6-1) AkAsa
meditates as it were, earth meditates as it were, heaven meditates as it were, waters meditates as it were,
mountains meditates as it were' to denote immobility of meditation which
implies sitting only.
Suthra-10- smaranthi cha-4-1-10
The smrthi also declares so.
In the Gita we have the specification for meditation as 'suchou
dhEsE prathishTApya sTHiram Asanam Athmanah---thathrai
kAgram manah krthva ,having established a clean spot and a firm seat
there one should meditate with mind concentrated on single object,' etc.
Suthra-11-yathraikA grathA thathra
avisEshAth-4- 1-11
Wherever
concentration of mind (is possible), there the meditation to be done; there
being no specification.
For meditation the
only requirement is that the place should be conducive to concentration. The
text 'samou suchou sarkarAvahni vAlukAvivarjithE, in a level and clean
place without pebbles fire and sand,' is only for the purpose of choosing a
quiet and conducive place for concentration. Thus ends the AseenADHikaraNam.
AprayANAdhikaraNam- 4-1-6
Suthra-12-AprayANAt h thathrApi hi dhrshtam-4-1- 12
Until death, for it
is seen in the scriptures to be so.
To the question
whether the meditation is to be continued day after day for whole
life time? The suthra affirms that it is so. Scripture declares that the
meditation is to continue from the time of starting till death as can be seen
from the text 'sa khalu Evam varthayan
yavadhAyusham brahmalOkam abhisampadhyE, (Chan.8-15-1) living thus
through out his life he reaches Brahman. Here ends the AprayANADHikaraNam
ThadhaDHigamADHikar aNam-4-1- 7
Suthra-13-thadhaDhi gamauttharapurvA ghayOh aslEshavinAsou
thadhvyapadhEsAth- 4-1-13
Attaining that (meditation) results in nonclinging and
destruction of earlier and later sins because it is declared thus.
Having dealt with the nature of meditation the suthras now
start discussing the result of it. The text 'thadhyaTHA pushkarapalAse ApO na slishyanthE
EvamEvamvidhi pApam karma na slishyathE, as water does not cling to a
lotus leaf, so too no evil deed clings to him who knows this,' (Chan.4-14-3)
and 'ThasyaivAthma padhavittham vidhithvA na karmaNA lipyathE pApakEna,(Brhd.4-4-23)
having known Brahman he is not contacted by any evil deeds, '. Same idea is
expressed in 'ksheeyanthE asya karmANi thasmin dhrshtE parAvarE, (Mund.2-2-8)
all karma is destroyed when one knows Brahman.' The doubt here is whether this
is due to the result of mere meditation or not,
and the opponent quoting 'nAbhuktham ksheeyathE karma
kalpakotisathairapi , (Brahmavaivarthapur ANa-prakrthikAnd a-26-70) no work
not experienced will perish even after millions of aeons,' says that the
nonclinging and destruction of sins will not result from meditation and what is
said to that effect is only by way of eulogy.
The suthra refutes this saying that the scripture declares that
not only the evil deeds do not cling but also they are destroyed by
the power of knowledge. 'EVamvidhEvamvidhi pApam karma na slishyathE as
said in ChandhOgya(
There is no contradiction between the texts quoted above and
that quoted by the opponent about the karma not being destroyed without
experiencing because the two refer to different subjects. According to the
opponent work has the power to produce result which has to be experienced. but the knowledge has the capacity to destroy the power of
past karma and to obstruct that of subsequent karma. So both declarations are
valid as the power of fire to produce heat and of water to quench it. are both valid and not contradictory to each other.
The power of sinful actions to produce the results is due to the
displeasure of the Lord and meditation on the supreme person destroys that and
hence prevents the results from origination and destroys the results of
subsequent actions. Thus ends the thadhaDHigaNMADhika raNam.
ItharaDHikaraNam- 4-1-8
Suthra-14-itharasya api Evam asamslEshah pAthE thu-4-1-14
Of the other (good deeds) also there is nonclinging and
destruction. But regarding some deeds nonclinging occurs only after death
It has been stated that evil deeds do not cling to one who has
knowledge and their results destroyed by knowledge. This suthra is for the
purpose of denoting that even the good deeds do not cling etc. because both the
good and evil deeds are obstruction to the final release. Thus the scritures
say 'sarvO pApmAno athO nivarthanthe, (Chan.8-4-1) all sins turn away
from him, and 'thath suktha dushkrthE DhoonuthE, (Kaus.-1-4) he shakes
off both good and bad deeds.' But , asks the opponent, the result of good deeds
like rain, food etc. are beneficial to a man of knowledge for assisisting in
meditation and hence why are their destruction brought about.To this the suthra
replies that some of the results which are conducive to meditation will remain
till the fall of the body. This is the end of itharADHIkaraNam.
anArabDha kAryADHikaraNam-
4-1-9
Suthra-15-anArabDha
kAryE Eva thu poorvE thadhavaDHEh- 4-1-15
Only those previous deeds the results of which have not yet
begun are destroyed as the deeds which have begun to yield fruit last till
death.
The question as to whether all deeds are destroyed by knowledge
or only those which have not yet begun to yield fruit, the opponent says
that all deeds should be destroyed according to the text 'sarvE pApmAnah
pradhooyanthe, ' ( han.5-25-3) all sins are burnt.' The existence of
the body after he deeds are destroyed is due to the impetus as in the case of
the potter's wheel which continues to rotate even after the operation is over.
The suthra refutes this by saying that only those which have not
yet started giving results are destroyed because the text says 'thasya
thAvadhEva chiram yavath vimokshye aTha sampathsye.' (Chan.6-15-2)
for him there is delay as long as he is not liberated from the body.
There is no proof of the impetus that keeps the body going except God's will. Here ends the anArabDhakaryADHIka ranam
agnihOthrAdhyaDHika ranam-4-1- 10
Suthra-16-agnihOthr Adhi thu thath kAryAtyaiva thaddharsanATH- 4-1-16
AgnihOthra etc. are to be performed for generating the
effect that produces knowledge as seen from the scriptures.
Since it has been shown that there is no clinging of results of both good and
evil deeds due to the
power of knowledge, the opponent comes with an argument that the acts like
agnihothra need not be performed by one who does not desire their result to
accrue to him.
The suthra refutes this saying that they have to be performed for the sake of creating the
knowledge.
The scripture confirms this by the text
'thamEtham vedhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA
vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnEna thapasA anAsakEna, (Brhd.4-4-22)
The brAhmaNas desire to know Him by reciting the vedas, by
sacrifices, by gifts, by penance and by fasting. As the meditation has to be practiced
again and again till death the acts like agnihothra purifies the mind and hence
are to be done as otherwise the mind will lose its clarity which will obstruct
meditation.
suthra -17-atho anyA api
hyEkEshAm ubhayOh-4-1- 17
According to some, other than those (agnihothra etc.) there
are many good deeds done before and after the generation of knowledge.
The text 'thasya puthrA dhAyamupayanthi, suhrhdah sADhukrthyAm,
his sons get his inheritance, his friends his good deed etc. refer
to the good deeds before and subsequent to the production of knowledge, other
than agnihothra and the like, which are for generating knowledge,the results of
them being obstructed by other stronger karma. The next suthra refers to these obstruction
to such results.
Suthra-18-yadhEva vidhyayA ithi hi-4-1-18
Because of the text
'yadhEva vidhyayA', that
alone which is performed with knowledge becomes more vigorous.
The text declares 'yadhEva vidhyaya karOthi thadhEva
veeryavattharam, '(Chan.1-1-10) that alone which is performed by
knowledge becomes more vigorous, referring to the power of udhgeetha to
ward off the obstacles that prevent the result of sacrifice. Hence it is
understood that there is obstacle even to the works that are actually performed
and not only to those before or after the generation of knowledge. Hence the text
declaring that his friends inherit his good deeds refers to those good deeds
performed by a man of knowledge. And hence did not give out the fruit
during his lifetime, which on his death they are transferred to others. This is
the end of agnihOthrAdhyaDHika raNam.
itharakshapaNADHika raNam-4-1- 11
Suthra-19-BhogEna thvitharEKshapayith
vA aTha sampadhyathE- 4-1-19
After destroying the good and bad deeds which have begun to
yield fruit, by experience he attains Brahman.
In suthra 15 it is said that those good and evil deeds which have
not started to yield fruit will be destroyed by the power of knowledge. Now the
question is whether those which have started to yield fruit are destroyed at
the end of that bodily existence or after several bodily existences or there is
no definite rule. The opponent is of the opinion that they are destroyed after
that bodily existence according to the text 'tasya thAvadhEva chiram yAvanna
vimOkshye aTha sampatsyE, (Chan.6-14-2) and for him the delay is only as
long as he is not freed from the body.'
The suthra refutes this view by saying that having destroyed
by experience the results of good and bad deeds that have already started
yielding their fruit the man of knowledge attains Brahman. If the fruits
require many bodies to be experienced then he attains Brahman at the death of
the body in which he finishes experiencing their result because the deeds which
have begun to yield fruit must be destroyed only through experience., This is
the meaning of the text in ChandhOgya. ( 6-14-2) It means that there is no
limit fixed for bodily existence and the embodiment will continue till all the
karma that has begun to yield fruit are exhausted by experience. As the
result of works, performed after the rise of knowledge, does not cling to him,
when the man of knowledge has shed the ultimate bodily existence his friends
get his good deeds and enemies his bad deeds. This is the end of itharakshapaNADHika
raNam
The end of first padha of fourth
adhyaya
Ibhashya-adhyaya4- padha2
VAgaDHikaraNam- 4-2-1
Speech combines with mind because it is seen and also known
through the scripture.
Now the discussion turns to the actual progress of the man of
knowledge towards Brahman. At first the departure of the individual soul from
the body is considered. In ChandhOgya it is said 'asya soumya purushasya
prayathah vANgmanasi sampadhyathe, manah prANE, prANah thEjasi, thEjah parasyAm
dhEvathAyAm, (Chan.6-8-6) when a man departs from here the speech is
combined with mind, mind with prANa, prAna with fire and the fire with the
supreme self. Here the doubt is about the combining of the speech with
mind as to whether it is the function, or, the organ of speech that combines
with mind. The view that only the function of speech is combined with the
mind as the essential nature of the speech is
not dependent on the mind is put aside by the suthra.
Since it can be seen that even when the organ of speech is not
functioning the speech is present in the mind it is only the essential nature
of the speech which combines and not merely the function of speech. From
scripture also this can be seen as quoted above which says that the vAk only combines
with the mind and not merges in it and hence the argument that
the speech cannot become one with mind as the latter is not the cause of speech
cannot be valid.
Suthra-2-atha Eva sarvANyanu-4- 2-2
And for the same reason all follow after.
Speech combines with the mind is thus explained as only
conjunction with the mind and not absorption. Similarly all the other organs
that follow speech are also said to combine with mind.
'thasmath upashAntha thEjAh punarbhavam indhriyaih
sampadhyamAnaih,' (Pras.3-9),
Therefore with the body
heat extinguished he goes for rebirth with his senses resting in the mind.'
ManOaDhikaraNam-
4-2-2
Suthra-3-thanmanah prANa uttharAth-4-
2-3
That mind reaches prANa because of the subsequent passage.
The mind combined with all the senses is said to combine with
prANa and not only the function of the mind, (manOvrtthimAthram), according
to the text 'manahprANE. '
Here the poorvapakshin comes out with a theory that the mind is
absorbed in its causal substance, by quoting the texts, ' annamayam hi
soumya manah, (Chan.5-6-5) mind consists of earth,' 'thA
The suthra replies that the statement that the mind consists of
earth and prANa is made of water only means that, the mind and prAna has
anna, food, (which is from earth) and water, as their main source of
nourishment, and not that they are the cause of mind and prANa respectively.
Mind is a form of ego and prANa is a form of AkAsa. The word prANa may denote
water in the secondary sense, as water is necessary for its sustenance. This is the end of ManoaDhikaraNam.
aDHyakshaDHikaraNam -4-2-3
sO adhyakshE
thadhupagamAdhibhya h-4-2-4
It (prANa) reaches the ruler of the organs (the individual
self) because of the expression 'going to' etc.
The text ' EvamEva Evam AthmAnam
anthah sarvE prANAh abhisamAyanthi,' (Brhd .4-3-38) at the time of death
all prANAs go to the individual self,' declares this fact and again they are
said to go out of the body with the individual self by 'Tham uthkrAmantham
prANo anuthkrAmathi,(Chan.4-4-2) when the individual self departs praNa
follows.' The coexistence of prANA along with
the self is declared in 'kasmin uthkrAnthe uthkrAnthO bhavishyAmi kasmin vA
prathishTithe prathishTAsyAmi,' (pras.6-3) "In whose departure will I
depart , in whose staying will I be staying," the answer being given
is, 'the individual soul.' So the text 'prANA
thEjasi,' means that the prANa joining with the individual self reaches the
fire.
Ramanuja compares this to the statement 'Yamuna reaches the sea'
though actually it only combines with Ganges and reaches the sea together. Thus ends the aDHyakshADHikaranam.
bhoothADHikaraNam. 4-2-4
Suthra-5-bhoothEshu thathsruthEh-
4-2-5
PrAna reaches the elements as declared in the sruthi.
The question as the whether the prAna combined with the individual
self reaches only the fire or all the elements, is answered by quoting the text
in BrhadhAraNyaka 'sa vAayamAthma brahma----prthiveem aya,ApOmaya, vAyumaya
AkAsamaya sthEJomaya, 'etc. (Brhd.4-4-5) which declares that when the soul
departs it consists of all elements.
Suthra-6-naikasmin dharsayathO
hi-4-2-6
Not with one element because both sruthi and smrthi declares
so.
The suthra refutes the view that praANa and the self join with
each element in succession because the elements are not capable of producing
the effects individually. This is supported by sruthi and smrthi. The
text
'anEna
jeevEna athmanA anupravisya nAmarupE vyAkaravANi thAsAm thrvrtham
thrvrthamEkaikAm karavANi, (Chan.6-3-2)
having entered these
beings with this soul let me give them names and forms--let me make each
of these three tripartite,' shows that the tripartite combination of each
element is done to make it capable of producing effects.
The smrthi also
denotes the same by 'nAsaknuvanprajAh srashtum asamAgamya krthsnasah;
samEthya anyOnya samyOgam parasparsamAsrayAh mahadhAdhyA visEshAnthA andam uthpAdhayanthi thE, (VP-1-2-52.54) these
(elements), being separate from one another, were unable to produce effects
without combining. But having entered into mutual conjunction they, from the
Mahat down to individual beings, produce the cosmos. Therefore prANa and the
soul combine with the aggregate of elements and the word 'thEjas' denotes fire
joined with other elements only. This is the end of bhoothADHikaraNam.
AsrthyupakramADHIka raNam-4-2- 5
Suthra-7-samAnA cha ASrthyupakramAth
amrthathvam cha anupOshya-4- 2-7
It is common till the beginning of the path.
Is the departure from
the body of the soul described so far is common to men of knowledge and the
ignorant or only to those without knowledge? The poorvapakshin says that this
holds good only for those without knowledge because for the men of knowledge
there is no departure at all. He cites the text
‘YadhA sarvE
pramuchyanthE
when all the desires in
the heart are cast off the mortal becomes immortal here and now, attaining
Brahman.'
This view is refuted by the suthra saying that for man of knowledge
also the same way of departure is prescribed till he attains the beginning of
the path, that is, till the soul enters the nAdis when, the knower passes out
through the sushumnA nAdi. This is declared by the sruthi also thus: 'sathE
chaikA cha hrdhayasya nAdyah thAsAm moorDHAnamabhinissr thaikA; thayOh
oorDHvamAyann amrthathvam Ethi, (Chan.8-6-5) there are hundred and
one nAdis of the heart of which one goes through the crown of the head. Moving
upwards by that, man reaches immortality. ‘Up to that moment the departure of a
man of knowledge does not differ from the ignorant.
There is a difference mentioned after that point as
'thEna pradhyOthEna AthmA nishkrAmathi chakshushO vA moordhnO vA
anyEbhyO va sariradhEsEbhyah, Brhd.4-4-2)
By that light the soul departs, through the eye, through the
skull or through any other part of the body. The soul of the
enlightened, passes through the head by sushumna. while
for others it is through other parts o the body. The text about attaining
Brhman here and now means that the man of knowledge through meditation experiences
the bliss of Brahman through intuitive knowledge while in embodiment.
Suthra-8-thadhApeet haih
samsaravyapadhesath -4-2-8
The texts describe the state of transmigration till
attainment of Brahman.
The texts such as 'thasya thAvadhEva chiram yAvanna vimokshyE, (Chan.6-14-2)
there is delay for him till he is not released from the body,' and 'asva iva
rOmANi vidDHooya pApam chandhra iva rahOrmukhAth pramuchya DhoothvA
sariram akrthah krthAthmA brahmalOkam abhisambhavAmi ( Chan.8-13) Shaking
off all evil as a horse shakes his hairs, and as the moon frees himself from
the mouth of RAhu;
having shaken off the body , having fulfilled all ends, I attain the uncreated
world of Brahman,' show that till the attainment of Brahman takes place
after the soul travelled through the path of light to a certain place, the
state of samsara exists.
Suthra-9-sukshmam pramANathascha
thaTHOpalabDHEh- 4-2-9
The subtle body persists which is known from pramANa and
being seen from the scriptures.
The scripture says that the knowing self engages into conversation
with moon and others when he is on the path of devas (DevayAna). From this it
is known that the subtle body persists till that stage and hence bondage is not
destroyed.
Suthra-10-nOpamardh EnAthah-4- 2-10
Hence not destruction of bondage
Attaining immortality here and now in the passage quoted earlier
does not mean that kind of immortality where bondage is
dissolved as it seems.
suthra-11-asyaiva chOpapattherooshmA
Warmth belongs to the subtle body which is reasonable.
At the time of death it is usually observed that warmth is
left in some part of the body. As this cannot be attributed to the gross
body it is inferred that it belongs to the subtle body which is about to make
its departure. This confirms the view expressed in suthra-7 that the departure
is common to all.
Suthra-12-prathishe DHAth ithi chEth na,sArirAth
spashtah hyEkEshAm-4- 2-12
If it is said that the departure is denied in the scriptures
it is not so because it is said only about the non-separation of prANa from the
individual self. According to some, this is clear.
From the text 'aTHa akAmayamanah, yO akAmO nishkAma ApthakAma
AthmakAmah, na thasya prANA uthkrAmanthi, brahmaiva san brahma apyEthi, But
he who does not desire, who is without desire, free from desire, who has
obtained his desire, who desires the Self only, of him (tasya) the prÃnas
do not pass forth,--being Brahman only he goes into Brahman, ' Thus the departure
from the body of the soul is denied with reference to a man of knowledge, says
the opponent.
This view is refuted by the suthra. Here the departure of prANAs
are denied from the individual soul only and not from the body because the
subject of the passage denoted by the word thasya is the individual soul
from whom the prANa does not depart in the path of devas till he reaches
Brahman.
The expression in the suthra 'according to some it is clear,'
means the mAdhyandhinas who read the text as 'na thasmAth prANA
uthkramanthi, ' the prANas do not depart from him, which makes the point
clear.
Suthra-13-smaryathE cha-4-2-13
Smrthi also declares thus.
In YAjnyavalkyasmrthi it is said 'oordDhvamEkah sTHithasthEshAm
yO BHitthvA suryamandalam; brahmalOkam athikramya thEna yAthi parAm gathim,' 'Of
those, one is situated above which pierces the disc of the sun and passes
beyond the world of Brahman; by way of that the soul reaches the highest goal'
(YAjnavalkya smrthi-III-167) which denotes that even for enlightened ones the
departure is from the nAdi in the head. This is the end of
AsrthyupakramADHika raNam.
parasamptthyaDHikar aNam-4-2- 6
Suthra-14-thAni parE thaTHA
hyAha-4-2-14
These merge in the supreme self for the scripture says
so.
It has been shown that the individual self at the time of
departure from the body merges with the subtle elements along with the senses
and the prAnas and that there is no difference in the mode of departure with
respect to the enlightened soul and to the ignorant. Now the question is
whether these subtle elements move on to produce their effects with some other
soul or merge in the supreme self. The view of the opponent that they proceed
further to produce their effects according to karma and meditation, to other
souls is refuted by the suthra saying that they merge with the supreme self.
The evidence for this is provided by the scripture 'thEjah parasyAm
dhEvathAyAm, (Chan.6-8-6) the fire merges with the supreme deity that is
Brahman.Thus ends parasamptthyadDhika raNam.
avibhAgADHikaraNam- 4-2-7
Suthra-15-avibhAgo vachanAth-4- 2-15
Non-difference (of the individual self with the supreme
self) according to statement of the scripture
The question is raised regarding the meaning of merging, sampatthi,
as to whether it is like dissolution to its cause as in deluge or does it mean
the merging in the form of non-differentiation .
The answer is given in the suthra that it is non-difference that
is meant. The individual self with subtle element becomes indistinguishable
from the supreme self. This is proved by the text 'thEjah parasyAm
dhEvathAYam, the fire in the supreme self,' has to be connected with the
previous one, 'vAngmanasi sampadhyathE, the speech merges in the
mind,' and the word merges is of special significance. There is no
evidence of the elements entering into their cause as there is no statement to
that effect.This is the end of avibhAgADHikaraNam.
ThadhOkODikaranam-
4-1-8
Suthra-16-thadhOKO
agrajvalanam thathprakAsithadvAr O vidhyAsamarthyAth thacchEshagathyanus
mrthiyOgAccha- 4-2-16
The individual self is blessed by the Lord residing in the
heart due to the power of meditation and the meditation on the path, which
is its subsidiary, and his abode becomes lighted from above. The passage thus
illuminated by the Lord, he departs through
the hundred and first nAdi.
To the objection that it is difficult to ascertain by which nAdi
the soul departs as they are minute and numerous, the suthra says the soul of
the man of knowledge departs from the hundred and first nAdi in the crown
of the head. The knower can easily
distinguish this particular one by the power of meditation and the repeated
remembrance of the path, which is the subsidiary of meditation which pleases
the Lord who is in the heart, when, the heart, the residence of the soul is
lighted from above. Thus by the grace of
the Lord the enlightened person is able to discern the particular nAdi through
which he departs. Here ends the thadhOKODHikaraNam
rasmyanusArADHikara Nam-4-2-9
Suthra-17-rasmyanus Ari-4-2-17
Following the rays
Scripture says that the soul of the man of knowledge, departing
through the hundred and first nAdi, following he rays of the sun reaches the
orb of the sun.
'aTha
yathra EthadhasmAth sarirAth uthkrAmathi aTha EthairEva rasmibhih oorDhvam
AkramathE, (Chan.8-6-5)
When he departs
from this body he goes upwards by these rays only.’
The objection here is that the departure cannot said to be strictly following the
rays of the sun because when one dies in the night there are no sunrays
visible. So it could only refer only to some cases.
This view is refuted by the suthra. The word Eva in the text clearly shows that the soul
of a knower leaves following the rays of the sun only. As the nights in summer
are hot it is evident that the rays are present also in the night though not
visible. In winter also they are present but are overpowered by the cold.
Scripture
definitely indicates a connection between the nAdis and the rays of the sun.
This is known from
'thdhyaThA mahApaTha
Athathah ubou grAmou gacchatheemanchAmum cha, EvamEva Etha Adhithyasya ubou
lOkou gacchantheemamchAmu ncha; amushmAdhAdhithyAth prathAyanthE thA Asu
nAdeeshu srpthAh;AbhyO nAdeebhyO prathAyanthe thE amushmAn AdhithyE srpthAh,
'As a very long
highway goes to two villages, so the rays of the sun go to both worlds, to this
one and to the other. They stretch themselves forth from the sun and enter into
these nAdis'; they stretch themselves forth from these arteries and enter into
yonder sun.' (Chan. VIII, 6, 2)
Therefore rays being present in the night also, the souls of those
who attain Brahman follow the rays of the sun only. Thus ends rasmyanusArADHikara Nam.
nisADhikaranam- 4-2-10
Suthra-18-nisi nEthicheth na sambanDhasya yAvaddhEhabhAvithva th dharsayathi
cha-4-2-18
If it is said that it cannot be the night, it is not so because
the connection persists as long as the body lasts. The scripture also declares
this.
The question now is whether the soul of one who dies in the
night attains Brahman or not. The opponent says that they do not reach brahman because the death at daytime is praised by the
scriptures and that in the night is said to be highly objectionable.
The suthra refutes this view and says that because the karma of the man of knowledge comes to an end
at the time of leaving his body in his last life, he attains Brahman though he
dies at night. This is proved by the text, 'thasya thAvadhEva chiram
yAvanna vimOkshyE aTha sampathsyE,(Chan.6-14-
2) the text quoted by the opponent, namely, 'dhivA cha suklapakshaschautth
arAyaNam Eva cha; mumoorshathAm prasasthAni vipareetham thu garhitham, Daytime,
the bright half of the month and the northern progress of the sun are excellent
for those about to die; the contrary times are unfavorable, ' is for those who
have not attained knowledge. Thus ends the nisADHikaraNam
dhakshiNAyanAdDhika raNam-4-2- 11
Suthra-19-athaschAy anEpi
dhakshiNe-4- 2-19
For the same reason even dying in dakshiNAyana the
enlightened attains Brahman.
But a doubt arises that because it is said that those who die in
DhakshiNAyana reach the world of pithrs and while those who die in utthraAyaNa
reach the moon. The former are said to return to earth when their merits are
exhausted. Bhishma and others who were knower’s awaited the uttharAyaNa and
hence it looks as though those who die in dhakshiNAyana cannot attain
Brahman.
The answer to this is that those who have knowledge even when they
go to the world of the moon do not return to earth but go further to attain
Brahman and the stay in the world of the moon is only a rest for them.
Mahanarayana upanishad declares that from there one
reaches Brahman.' thasmAth brahmaNAah mahimAnam Apnothi.' (
(Mahanarayana. 25-1) Bhishma and others postponed their death not because they
cannot attain Brahman by dying in dhakshiNAyana but only to demonstrate the glory of uttharAyana
for promoting dharma and AchAra.
Suthra-20-yOginahpr athi
smaryathEsmaArthE chaithe-4-2- 20
And those two paths are mentioned in the smrthi with
reference to yogis.
In the gita it is said that those who die during the day etc .do
not return to earth but those who die at night etc. do return. This is not said
in order to denote a special time to die but it relates only to the two paths,
devayAna ,the path of the devas and pithryAna, path of the pithrs for persons practicing
yoga. Thus ends the dhakshiNAynADHikara Nam.
The end of the second padha of the
fourth adhyaya
PADHA3
ARCHIRADHYADHIKARAN AM 4-3-1
suthra-1-archirAdhi nA thathpraTHithEh- 4-3-1
The self of the knower reaches Brahman through the path of
light as well known from the scriptures.
The path through which the soul of a knower of Brahman passes and
attains Brahman is discussed in this padha. There are various passages on
the subject and in ChAndhOgya there is a detailed description as
'aTha
yadhuchaivAsmin cchavyam kurvanthiyadhi cha na,archisham Eva abhisambhavanthi,
archishah ahah, ahnah ApooryamANa paksham, ApooryamANa pakshAth yAn shad udhang
Ethi mAsAn,tnanmAsEbhyah samvathsaram, samvathsarath Adhithyam,AdhithyAt h
chandhramasam, chandhramasah vidhyutham tath purushO amAnavaha EnAn brahma
gamayathi, Esha dhEvapaThah brahmapaThah EthEna prathipadhyamAnAima m mAnavam
Avartham nAvarthanthe. '
The meaning of this passage is as follows:
Now as for such
persons, that is the knower’s of Brahman, whether the
cremation rites are performed or not, they go to light, from light to
the day, from the day to the bright fortnight, from the bright fortnight to the
six months of uttarAyaNa,from that to the year, from the year to the sun, from
the sun to the moon, from the moon to the lightning when, a person from the
region of Brahman comes and guides them to realize Brahman. Those who go by
this path do not return to this mortal world. Another description is also given
in the same upanishad later as
'aTHa yathra asmAth
sarirAthuthkrAmathi aTha EthairEva rasmibhih oorDhvam AkramathE--- yAvath
ksipyEthmanah thAvath Adhithyam gacchathi; Ethadhvai khalulOkadhvAram
vidhushAm,
when he departs from the body he proceeds upwards through
these very rays---as long as it takes the mind to travel, in that short time he
goes to the sun. That indeed is the door to the world of Brahman for the knower’s.'
There is a different version in Kousheetaki upanishad as
'sa Etham
dhEvayAnam panTHAnam Apadhya agnilOkam Agacchathi,sa vAyu lOkam, sa varuNa
lOkam, sa indhralOkam, sa prajApathi lOkam sa brahmalOkam .
'Thus the journey
is described as from devayana to world of fire, that of air, that of water,
that of Indhra and to that of Brahma, the
creator, and from there to brahmalOka.
The poorvapakshin presents a view that these roads are several and
independent. This is refuted by the suthra. All roads are one,
that of light only and the difference in description is only due to the
details.As the divinities mentioned are the same they differ only in minor
points.
This is the end of archirAdhyaDHikaraN am
vAyvaDhikaraNam- 4-3-2
suthra-2-vAyumabdhA th avisEshAbhyAm-
4-3-2
From the Year to Vayu because of
general and specific words.
The different texts describing the path of the man of knowledge,
though are of same content, the order of the places reached seem to differ in
each.
In Chandhogya the soul is said to reach the month, year and the
sun in that order, while in BrhadhAraNyaka
the order is given as the month, the world of devas and the sun
respectively. Since the path is the same according to both texts, the
additional information given in each has to be supplemented in the other. In
ChAndhOgya for instance the period described seems to be from that of shorter
to that of longer duration. So since the month
is shorter than the year, it should come before the year while the year should
precede the world of devas.
In BrahadhAraNyaka also there
is the text
'yadhA vai purushO
asmAth lOkAth praithi sa vAyum Agacchathi thasmai cha thathra vijiheethE yaTHA
raTha chakrasya kham;thEna sa oordhvam Akramathe, sa Adhithyam Akramathi, (Brhd.5-10-1)
when a man departs from this world he goes to
the air, who makes for him an opening like wheel of a chariot through
which he proceeds upwards and comes to the sun.'
The kousheetaki text on the other hand places the world of vAyu after that of agni,
light, and before the world of devas. But as the term upward has greater force
than the succession, vAyu has to be placed before the sun.
Now it is clear that the world of devas and Vayu come after the
year and before the sun. But there is a doubt whether the world of devas and
that of Vayu mean one and the
same thing or different. The poorvapakshin says that they are different which
is refuted by the suthra. This is proved by the general and specific words used
to denote it. the word 'the world of the devas' is used in the general sense
which includes that of vAyu as well while the term 'vayu' is specific denoting
only the deity Vayu. the _expression 'world of vAyu
only means that the world that is vAyu,the air.That vAyu may be viewed as the
world of devas is known from the text,'Yo ayam pavathE Esha Eva dhEvAnAm
grhAh, ( Jaimini upanishad-brAhman- 3-1) he who blows(vayu) is the home of
devas. This is the end of vAyvaDHikaraNam.
varuNADHikaraNam- 4-3-3
suthra-3-thatithO aDHi varuNah
sambnDhAth-4- 3-3
Beyond lightning there is VaruNa because of connection.
In kouisheetaki text it is said that the soul goes to the worlds
of vAyu,varuNa ,Indhra, prajApathy and to the world of
of Brahamn in that order. Hence there is a doubt whether the world of the
deities mentioned are to be included after vAyu or after lightning at the end according to the text of ChAndhOgya ' samvathsarAth
Adhithyam , AdhithyAth chandhramasam, chandhramasah vidhyutham.'
(Chan.4-15-5)
The view of the poorvapakshin that the order mentioned in the
kousheethaki text is to be accepted is refuted by the suthra. VaruNa is placed
after lightning because of the connection of varuNa ,the
deity of waters, with lightning which is the part of rain bearing clouds. As the order according to the meaning is stronger that the
mentioning of the order in the text, varuNa, along with Indhra and prajApathy
must come at the end after lightening. This is the end of
varuNADHikaranam.
AthivAhikADHikaraNa m-4-3-4
suthra-4-Athivahika h thallingAth-
4-3-4
They are those who guide , this
being indicated.
To the question as to whether the light , vayu etc. mentioned with
respect to the progress of the soul towards Brahman are the landmarks
indicating the path to be pursued or places of enjoyment, the suthra replies
that they are not mere signposts to indicate the path but the divinities ordained
by the Lord to guide the soul. This is known by the text 'thathpurusho
amAnavah sa EnAn brahma gamayathi, (Chan.5-10-2)
there is a divine person who leads them to Brahman.'
suthra-5-vaidhyuthE naivathathah
thacchruthEh- 4-3-5
From there by him who belongs to lightening, because of
sruthi
Only that divine person guides the soul from the stage of
lightning to Brahman while the others like varuNa and VAyu assist the divine person.
Thus ends the AthivAhikADhikaraNam
kAryaDhikaraNam- 4-3-6
suthra-6-kAryam bAdharirasya
gathyupapatthEh- 4-3-6
Badhari thinks that the deities conduct only him who
meditates on kAryabrahman, that is, HiraNyagarbha, because for him only going
is possible.
To the question whether the deities mentioned lead the one
who meditates on karya brahman, the HiraNyagarbha or those who meditate
on the supreme brahman, BhAdhari answers that the group of deities lead
only the one who meditates on HiraNyagarbha because for him only the going
applies. To the one who meditates on parabrahman there is nowhere he has to go
as he realizes Brahman as his own self, who is immovable all pervading etc.
suthra-7-visEshitha thvAccha- 4-3-7
Because it is specified also.
The text 'purushO mAnasa Ethya brahmalOkAN gamayathi, (Brhd.6-2-15)
the person consisting of mind leads them to the worlds of Brahman means only
the worlds of HiraNyagarbha as specified by the use of the plural 'worlds.'
also there is reference to the one going by the path of light reaching the
world of HiraNyagarbha by the text 'prajApathEh sabhAm vEsma prapadhyE,
I enter the hall of prajApathy, the abode.'
suthra-8-sAmeepyAtt hu
thadhvyapadhEsah-4-3-8
Because of nearness the designation is given.
The objection that in the text 'thathpurushO amAnavah sa EnAn brahma gamayathi, (Chan.5-10-2) the word Brahman is put in
neuter,denoting supreme brahman only as other wise it should be brahmAnam
gamayathi in masculine if it were to refer HiraNyagarbha instead of brahma
gamayathi', BAdhari replies that because HiraNya garbha is next to Brahman
as the first created being, the designation 'brahma' has been assigned to
HiraNya garbha.
suthra-9-kAryAthyay e thadhaDhyakshENa
saha athah paramaBhidhAnAth- 4-3-9
With the dissolution of the of
the world of HiraNyagarbha along with him the soul of the one who has
reached there goes beyond . So it is stated.
There is a further objection that if the individual soul
goes to the world of HiraNyagarbha the texts that state the attainment of
immortality such as 'thayOrDhvamAyAn amrthathvamEthi, (Chan.4-15-6) will
have no meaning as according to the statement of the Lord in the Gita 'AbrhambuvanAllOkAh
punarAvrtthinO arjuna, the worlds up to that of Brahma are subject to
return.' Also because the scritures state the dissolution of
HiraNyagarbha at the end of the period known as dviparArDHa.
To this BAdhari replies that on the dissolution of the world of
HiraNya garbha along with him the individual self attains true knowledge and
goes through the path of light and attains immortality.
This, he says, is also evident from the text 'thE brahmalOkE thu parAntha
kAle parAmrthAth parimuchyanthi sarvE, (Mund.3-2-6) they attain immortality
in the world of Brahman at the end of time known as the end of the life of
HiraNyagarbha.
suthra-10-smrthEsch a-4-3-10
From the smrthi also.
there is also evidence from the smrthi that the souls in brahmalOka
attain brahman at the end of the time known as '
suthra-11-param jaiminih
mukhyathvAth-4-3-11
The supreme Brahman only, says Jaimini because of the
primary meaning.
Jaimini is of the opinion that the deities lead only those who
meditate on Brahman because of the text 'thathpurusho amAnavah sa EnAn
brahma gamayathi,' a divine person leads them to Brahman.The primary
sense of the word 'brahman' being appropriate there is no need of resorting to
the secondary meaning of HiraNyagarbha. Even though Brahman is all pervading, the final realisation comes only by the soul
reaching a particular place. From the text 'thamEtham vEdhAnuvachanEna
brAhmanA vividhishanthi,(Brhd.4-4-22) it is known that the origination of
knowledge depends on varNAsrama dharma, the duties of asrama and
caste, soucha, purity, AchAra, good conduct and dhEsakAla,
place and time.
The plural in 'brahmalOkAn, worlds of Brahman' does not
indicate the worlds of HiraNyagarbha but as in the case of 'nishAdhasThapathi'
which denotes a nishAdha who is a sThapathi, the word brahmalOka means
Brahman who is itself a lOka and the plural indicates that the divine worlds
which spring from the will of Brahman are infinite.
suthra-12-dharsanAt h cha-4-3-12
Because sruthi also says so.
The text 'Esha samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya
paramjyOthirupasamp dhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE, now the serene one,
rising out of this body, attains the supreme light and appears in his own
true form' declares that the individual self traveling through the devayAna
attains the supreme self.
suthra -13-na cha kAryE
prathyabhisanDhih-4-3-13
And there is no desire to attain the kAryabrahman.
There is no desire to attain the world of HiraNya garbha on the
part of the aspirant but only to attain Brahman as can be seen from the text 'yasO
ham bhavAmi brAhmaNanam, (Chan.8-14-I) I become the glory of the
brAhmaNaAs,' shows that the intention is to shed the ignorance and realise the
supreme self, because of the preceding passage
'asva iva rOmANi viDHOOya pApam, chandhra
iva rAhOrmukhAth pramuchya Dhoothva,sariram akrtham krthAthma brahmalOkam
abhisambhavAmi,
as a horse shakes his
hairs and as the moon frees himself from the mouth of Rahu; having shaken off the
body I may attain the eternal world of Brahman.'
Therefore , claims Jaimini, the deities beginning with light lead only
those who meditate on Brahman.
suthra
-14-apratheekAlamba nATh nayathi ithi bAAdharyaNah; ubhayaTHA cha dhOshAth,
thathkrathuscha- 4-3-14
Bhadharayana says that the deities lead
those who do not meditate on symbols, as both cases are defective and there is
also the law of thathkrathu, ie. one becomes
what he meditates.
Now Badharayana declares his own view as the final conclusion. He
says that both the views of Badhari and Jaimini are defective. To say that the
deities lead those who meditate on Hiranyagarbha goes against the
declaration of the sruthi 'asmAth sarirath samutthAya pram
jyOthirupasampadhya ,'(Chan.8-3-4) that the soul rising up from the body
attains the supreme light.And the view of Jaimini that they conduct only those
who meditate on supreme self will contradict the text 'thadhya
iTTHamvidhuryE chEmE araNye sraddhA thapa ithyupAsathe thE archisham
abhisambhavanthi' (Chan.5-10-1) those who have the knowledge of the five
fires and those who meditate in the forest with faith and austerity go through
the path of light.
And there is also the law of thathkrathu, based on the text 'yaTHAkrathurasmin
lOke putusha bhavathi thTHaithah prEthya bahvathi,(Chan.3-14-
1) which means that, after departing from this world, one becomes that
which he meditates on. So the meditator on Brahman attains Brahman and not
others.
suthra-15 visesham cha
dharsayathi- 4-3-15
And the scriptures shows the
difference.
The text 'yAvannAmnO
gatham thathrAsya yaTHA kAmachArO bhavathi, (Chan.7-1-5) He who meditates
on name as Brahman, for him there is movement as he wishes as far as name
extends,' shows that the fruit of meditation of those who meditate on symbols,
beginning with name and ending with prANa is of limited duration. The
deities do not lead those who meditate on sentient mixed with insentient matter
and only those who meditate on Brahman or on the individual self separated from
prakrthi, having Brahman as its self are led by
the deities through the path of light This is the settled conclusion, says Ramanuja,
'api thu param
brahmOpAseenAN AthmAnam cha prakrthi viyuktham brahmAthmakam upAseenAn
AthivAhikO gaNo nayatheethi siddham.'
The end of the third padha of the fourth adhyaya
PADHA4
SAMPADHYAVIRBHAVADH
IKARANAM- 4-4-1
suthra-1-sampadhyAv irbhAvah svEna
sabdhAth-4-4- 1
After attaining Brahman the individual soul manifests in his
own true nature which is known by the word 'svEna.'
This last padha of the last adhyaya discusses the kind of
existence the released souls enjoy. To the question whether the soul rising up
from the body and attaining the supreme light acquires a new divine body or
manifests himself in his own natural form, the poorvapakshin says that the
individual self acquires a new divine body. He argues that the release would have no advantage otherwise as
the true nature of the self cannot be the desirable goal. The release is
described as not merely a cessation of pain but a definite state of infinite
bliss. It cannot be argued that the nature of the soul is one of infinite bliss
which is concealed by nescience in the transmigratory state which is regained
on the attainment of light. Moreover if the release is only manifestation in true form there is no
meaning in the text 'svena rupENa abhinishpadyathE,
(Chan.8-12-3) he becomes manifest in his true form.' Thus the word 'appear'
means origination and the true form mentioned is the one
particular form qualified with absolute bliss etc.
This view is rejected by the suthra. The individual self becomes
manifest in his true form which does not mean origination and this can be seen
from the words 'in one's own, svEna rupENa,' in the text. if it means the acquisition of a new body it cannot be
termed as own true form .
suthra-2-mukthah prathjnAnAth-
4-4-2
It is only the released self according to the promise.
To the objection that as the true nature of the soul is eternally
accomplished the manifestation of it on attaining the supreme light will have
no meaning, the suthra replies thus:
What the text refers to as manifestation of the true nature is
that even though the true nature is eternally
established it is concealed by nescience ,the removal of which is the
manifestaion. This is known from the promise. After describing the self as
being freed from sin, freed from the connection with three stages of waking,
dream and deep sleep, from the body acquired through karma resulting in joy and
sorrow,
the passage on prajApathy's instruction concludes with
'Evam Eva Esha samprasAdhah
asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param jyOthirupasampadhya svEna
rupENa abhinishpadhyathE,(Chan.8-12- 3)
this serene soul
rising from the body, attaining the supreme light manifests in its own true
form.
suthra-3-AthmA prakarNAth-4- 4-3
It is the self, because of the context.
To the objection that the self is in its natural state in deep
sleep, which is only cessation of pain and which cannot be the goal desired to reach, the suthra replies that from
the context it is known that the individual self possesses in its
essential nature all the characteristics such as freedom from evil etc., but it
is obscured by nescience which is destroyed when it reaches the supreme light
and the true nature manifests itself. The text is 'ya AthmA apahathpApmA vijarO vimrthyuh visOkO
vijighathsOapipAsah sathykamah sathyasankalpah, the self who is free
from sin, from old age, from death, from hunger and thirst, and of true will
and desire.' So it is not origination but manifestation of the qualities
already exists. ‘
Ramanuja here quotes
Bhagavan Sounaka who says
'yaTHA
na kriyathE jyOtsnAmalaprakshAl anAnmaNEh; dhOsha prahANAnna jnAnam Athmanah
kriyathE thaTHa.'
Just as by
polishing a gem no new lustre is produced similarly by destruction of evil no knowledge is produced in the self but what is
already there manifests. Thus ends the sampadhyAvirbhAvAdh ikaraNam.
avibhAgEna
dhrshtathvADHikaraN am-2
avibhAgEna dhrshtathvAth-
4-4-4
Released self experiences Brahman as
inseparable from itself because it is seen to be so from the scriptures.
Is the individual self on attaining
Brahman experiences his own self as separate or inseparable from Brahman? The
poorvapakshin adopts the former view citing the texts such as ;sO asnuthE
sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipaschithA, ( Taitt.-2-1-1) he attains
all the attributes along with the omniscient Brahman.' and 'thadhAvidhvAn
puNyapApE viDhooyaniranjanah paramam sAmyam upaithi, (Mund.3-1-3) then,
possessing perfect knowledge, and shaking off good and evil, free from all
passions he reaches the highest equality (with Brahman)'
The suthra rejects this view and says that the released self experiences his own self as
inseparable from Brahman and this is known from the scripture which declares
that the individual self manifests in his true nature on attaining Brahman. The
true nature is having Brahman as the inner self and the individual self
standing in relation of mode to Brahman.
Ramanuja quotes several texts such as 'Thathvamasi, that thou art,' (Chan.6-8-7) , 'ayamAthmA
brahma, this self is Brahman,' 'EtahAthmyam idham sarvam,
all this is ensouled by that,' etc. which show the relation between the
individual self and the supreme self in coordination 'sAmAnADHikaraNya nirdhEsAth.'
That the relationship is one
of sarira and sariri is known by the text
'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanh antharh
yamAthmA na vedha yasya AthmA sariram ya AthmAnam antharo yamayathi sa tha
AthmA antharyAmyamrthah, (Brhd.mAdh.3- 7-22)
The passages describing the
similarity with Brahman mean that as a mode the individual soul is equal to
Brahman.Hence there is no contradiction. Here ends the avibhAgEna
dhrshtathvADHikaraN am.
BrAhmADHikaranam- 4-4-3
suthra-5-BrAhmENa jaiminih upanyAsA dhibhyah-4-4- 5
Jaimini is of the opinion that the
released soul becomes like Brahman based on the scriptural statement to that
effect.
The text in ChAndhOgya 'ya AthmA apahatha
pApmA vijarO vimrtyuh vishOkO vijighathsO apipAsah sathya kAmah
sathyasankalpah, (Chan.-7-7-1) the self, free from sin, from old age,
from death, from grief, hunger and thirst, and of true desire and will,'
the qualities ascribed to the individual self are the same
qualities pertaining to Brahman as mentioned in dhaharavidhya in earlier
section. Hence Jaimini says that the individual self
manifests himself with the attributes of Brahman.
suthra-6-chithithan mAthrENa
thadhAthmakathvAth ithi aoudulOmih-4- 4-6
Aoudulomi thinks that the released self
manifests as mere consciousness because it is of this nature.
The text in
BrhadhAraNyaka declares the nature of the self to be of consciousness.
'sa yaTHA
sainDHavaganah anantharO abAhyah krthsnah rasaghana Eva, Evam vA arE ayam
AthmAanantharOabAhy ahkrthsnah prajanaghanaEva,(Brhd.4-4-13)
as the lump of salt
has neither inside nor outside but is of homogeneous mass of salty taste,
similarly this self is of consciousness through out. Hence Aoudulomi says that the essential nature of the self is
of consciousness which manifests in the state of release.
suthra-7-Evamapyupa nyAsAth
poorvabhAvAth avirOdham bAdharAyanah- 4-4-7
Because of the attributes mentioned earlier and statements
to that effect there is no contradiction, says Badharayana.
The view of Badharayana reconciles the two views stated above. He
says that there is no conflict. As the salt being a mass of salty taste, the
qualities like hardness, form etc. are not
contradictory to its nature of being salty. Similarly even though the self is
essentially consciousness the qualities like freedom from sin etc. are not
contradictory to its essential consciousness.
However the text (Brhd.4-4-13) does not convey the meaning of the
self being nothing but knowledge, but only that the self is essentially
self-illumined, that is , not depending on any other
means of knowledge.
Ramanuja explains the purport of the passage thus:
'YaTHA trasvathsu AmraphalAdhishu
thvagAdhipradhEsa bhEdhEna rasabhEdhE sathyapi sainDHavaghanasya sarvathra
Ekarasaikathvam, thaTHA AthmanOpi vijnAnasvaroopathva m, svaprakAsa roopathvam
ithyarThah.'
This means, 'just
as, while mango and other tasteful things taste differently in different parts,
the salt is salty throughout, the self is also of the nature of knowledge
throughout or of self luminosity. Thus ends brAhmADHikaranam
sankalpADHikaraNam- 4-4-4
suthra-8-sankalpAdh Eva thacchruthEh-
4-4-8
By mere will, because the
scripture says so.
The text 'thathra paryEthi jakshath kreedan ramamANah
streebhirvA yAnairvA jnAthibhirva nOpajanam smarannidhamsariram , (Chan.8-12-3)
there he moves about , laughing, playing, rejoicing with women,vehicles or relations,
not remembering this body in which he was born,' denoting thus all wishes are realized
for the released self through will. Here the doubt arises whether these happen
by mere will as that of the supreme self or through any effort.
The view of the poorvapakshin that
it requires effort as in the case of kings whose will is realised through
effort only, is rejected by the suthra. The realisation of all wishes is only
through mere will as stated by the scripture. The text 'sa yadhi pithrlOka
kAmO bhavathi sankalpAdhEva asya pitharah samutthishTanthi,(chan.8-2-1) if he becomes
desirous of the world of fathers by his will the fathers arise.'
suthra-9-atha Eva cha ananyADHipathih- 4-4-9
And therefore there is no one as his Lord.
Because he realizes all his wishes the released soul has no one as
his Lord. This is what is meant by 'sa svarat bhavathi, (Chan.7-25-2) he
is his own ruler,' which means that there is no one else but himself.This is the end of sankalpAdhikaraNam.
abhAvADHiakaraNam- 4-4-10
suthra10-abhAvam bAdharirAha
hyEvam- 4-4-10
There is absence of body and senses for the realised self
because the scripture says so, Badhari thinks.
The text says 'na ha vai
sasarirasya sathah priyApriyayOh apahathirasthi; asariram vA va santham na
priyapriye sprsathah, (Chan.8-12-1) as long as he is in the body
there is no freedom from pleasure and pain; the pleasure and pain do not touch
him when he is free from the body' And there is also the declaration that
the released self is free from the body. "asmAth sariraaaaAth
samutthAya param jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE,(Chan.8-12- 3) rising out of this body attains supreme
light and appears in his own true form.' Hence Badhari claims that the
released soul does not have body and senses.
suthra-11-bhAvam jaiminih
vikalpAmananAth- 4-4-11
Because the text declares manifoldness the released soul has
body and senses, says Jaimini.
The text 'sa EkaDhA bhavathi thriDHA
bhavathi panchDHA sapthaDHA, (CHan.7-26-2) he is one, he is
threefold, he is fivefold ,he is sevenfold,' denotes diversification into many
forms. Vikalpa in the suthra means viviDhah kalpah, manifoldness. So
jaimini says the released self has body and senses. The statement of
disembodiment only means freedom from body due to karma.
suthra-12-dvAdhasAh avath ubhayaviDham
bAdharAyanah- 4-4-12
Badharayan says the released soul is of both kinds as in the
case of twelve days sacrifice.
Badharayana holds the view that the
released soul can exist in both ways, that is, with or without body by his will.
This is akin to the twelve days sacrifice which is called as sathra or ahina
according to the will of the sacrificers and the injunction is denoted by upaithi(Resortsto) and yajathi (he sacrifices).
suthra-13-thanvabhA vE
sanDhyadhuthpatthEh -
In the absence of a body it is possible as in dreams.
It has been said that the released soul can create a body at his
will. Now the suthrakara says that it is not invariably created by the soul
only but as in dream a person experiences things created by the Lord in
released state also he can experience in the world created by the Lord.
The reference here is to the text in BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad
which says ' na thathra raTHA na raThayOgA na panTHAnO bhavanthi aTha
raTHAn raTHaygAn paTHan srjathE----sa hi karthA,' he creates chariots horses road
etc,. he is the creator.
suthra-14-bhAvE jAgradhvath-
4-4-14
When there is a body as in the waking state.
Even when the individual soul creates a body by its own will
through which he experiences joy of sport as in waking state, still it falls
under the realm of the will of the supreme self only.
suthra-15-prasdheep avathAvEsah,
thaTHA hi dharsayathi- 4-4-15
The entrance into many bodies of the released soul is like
that of the lamp; thus the scripture shows.
To the objection that the individual soul being atomic in size how
can he be connected to many bodies, the reply is given in this suthra that just
as the lamp existing in one place spreads its light all over, the
individual soul ,though atomic pervades all the bodies through his
attributive consciousness and makes them his own. But this attributive consciousness
(dharmabhoothajnAna which is one of the exclusive concepts of visishtadvaita)
is contracted in the embodied state due to karma and attains its infinite
proportions at the state of release. This is also declared by the scripture. In
the text 'vAlAgrasathabhAgas yasathaDHA kalptithasya cha;bhAgO jeevah sa
vijnEyah sa cha AnanthyAya kalpathE, (Svet.5-8) a hundredth part of
the point of hair, divided into a hundredfold, one part of which is the size of
the individual self and he is capable of infinity.
suthra-16-svApyayas ampatthyOhanyath
rApEksham Avishkrtham hi-4-4-16
It refers to deep sleep or death as is shown by the
scripture.
To the objection that it is said in the scriptures that when the
individual self reaches Brahman all its inner and outer consciousness cease to
exist 'prAjnEna AthamanA
samparishvakthah na bAhyam kimchana vEdha nAntharam,'(Chan.4-3- 21)
embraced by the omniscient self the individual soul knows nothing within and
without,' and hence how can it be possible for the soul to have al pervading consciousness,
the suthra replies as follows:
The text quoted does not refer to the state of release but only to
deep sleep or death. this
is shown by 'purushasya prayathah vAngmanasi sampadhyathE manah prANE praNA
thEjasi thEjah parasyAm dhEvathAyam, (Chan.6-8-6) When a man departs his
speech merges in mind ,mind in prana, prana in thejas and thejas in the supreme
self.
That in deep sleep
there is no consciousness is declared in
'naha
khalu ayam idham samprthyAthmAnam jAnAthi ayam aham asmi ithi nO Eva imAni
bhoothAni vinAsam Eva apeethah bhavathi,' (Chan.8-11-1)
this one does not know
himself as "I am he," nor indeed these beings. It seems as if
he has gone to annihilation. ' In the same text there
is an account of the omniscience of the released self as
'sa vA Esha Ethena dhaivEna chakshushAmansA
EthAn kAmAn pasyan ramathE ya EthE brahmalOkE,
through this divine eye in the mind experiences all desired objects which
are in the world of Brahman.
In BrhadhAraNyaka the absence of consciousness is mentioned in
death. 'EthEbhyah bhoothEbhyah samutTHAya thAnyEvAnuvinasyath i, rising
up from these elements he goes to destruction after them. The phrase 'he goes to destruction' only means that he does not
perceive. Therefore the meaning of the text 'prAjnEna AthmanA
samparishvakthah' refers to the two states, deep sleep and death. Here ends abhAvADhikaraNam.
jagathvyApAravarjAD HikaraNam- 4-4-6
suthra-17-jagathvyA pAravarjamprakar
aNAth asannihithathvAccha -4-4-17
The released souls possess all powers of the Lord except
cosmic activity, because of subject matter and non-proximity.
The view of the poorvapakshin is that,
the released soul attains equality with the supreme self as denoted by the text
'niranjanah paramam sAmyam upaithi, (Mund.3-1-3) free from taint he
attains the highest equality,' and also because it is mentioned that such
soul acquires the power of realizing all its desires which is possible
only with omnipotence.
The sutra refutes this view and says that the released self acquires
all the powers of the supreme self except the control of the cosmos. The individual self becoming free from all karma that
conceals his true nature, acquires the power to
perceive the essential nature of Brahman intuitively but does not possess
the powers of controlling the world of beings. This is known from the subject
matter.
The text
'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni
jAyanthE yEna jAthAni jeevanthi yasmin abhisamvisanthi, (Tait.3-1-10)
from whom all these
beings emerge by whom they are sustained and into whom they merge back,'
denotes that the Brahman alone has the power to create, sustain and annihilate
the world of sentient and insentient beings. This would not be considered as
the definition of Brahman if the released souls also contain this power.
There are many more texts to this effect such as 'sadhEva
soumya idham agra Aseeth EkamEva adhvitheeyam, thadhaikshatha bahusyAm
parajAyEya, thatthEjO asrjatha, (Chan.6-2) all this was sath only in the
beginning, one only without a second, It willed to become many and it created
the fire,'
Moreover in the context where Brahman is spoken of as the
controlling power of the world the individual self is nowhere mentioned as
having these powers.
suthra-4-4-18-
prathyakshOpadhE sAth na ithi chEth, na,ADhikArikamandal asTHa ukthEh- 4-4-18
If it is said that it is not so because
of direct statement, it is not so, because the text refers to the enjoyment of
that within the spheres of special deities.
The poorvapakshin quotes the text ' sa svarAt bhavathi, thasya
sarvEshu lOkEshu
suthra-19-vikArAvar thi cha thaTHA hi
sTHithim Aha-4-4-19
Brahman is beyond all change; and the scripture declares
that the self abides in Brahman.
To the objection that if the released soul also confined to
certain regions of enjoyment then there is no difference between that state and
that of bondage, the suthra replies that the scripture declares that the
released soul abides in Brahman as the enjoyer.
Ramanuja explains this as
'nirDhootha
nikhila vikAramnikhila hEyaprathyaneeka kalyANaikathAnam nirathisayAnandham
param brahma savibhoothikam sakalakalyANaguNam anubhaVathi mukthah;
thadhvibhoothyantha rgathathvEna vikARAvarthinAm lOkanam api mukthabhOgyathvam,
the supreme self which is free from all change and free from
evil and abode of all auspicious qualities along with its manifestations of
glory , is the object of enjoyment for the released soul. Even the worlds
which are subject to change also being included in the manifestation of the
glory of Brahman become the object of experience for the released soul.'
The text 'yadhA hyaivEsha
Ethasmin adhrsyE anAthmyE anirukthe anilayanE abhayam prathishTAm vindhathE,
aTha sO abhayam gathO bhavati, (Tait.2-7)
when he abides in that
which is invisible, without a body, undefined, unsupported, then he has
attained the fearless,' mentions Brahman to be the abode of the released
soul. That the whole world is the manifestation of His glory is known from the
text 'thasmin lOkAh sTHithAhsarvE thadhu nAthyEthikaschana, (Kous.5-8)
on HIm the worlds rest and no one goes beyond Him.'
Therefore the meaning of the passage beginning with 'sa svarAt bhavathi ,'(Chan.7-25-2) saya Ramanuja, is that the
released soul, conscious of Brahman and His glories experiences the objects
which lie within the limited spheres of HiraNyagarbha and the like and does not
indicate the powers of controlling the universe on the part of the individual soul,
because they exclusively belong to the Lord.
suthra-20-dharsayat haschaivam
prathyakshanumAne- 4-4-20
And thus sruthi and smrthi show.
Prathyaksha refers to sruthi and anumana to smrthi. The
texts such as
'bheeshASmAth
vAthah pavathE, bheeshAdhEthi suryah bheeshAsmAth agnih cha indhrascha
mrthyur dhAvathi panchamah,'(Tait.2-8-1)
which means that from
the fear of Him the wind blows the sun goes, the fire, Indhra and Yama do
thieir work, and
'EthasyEvA
aksharasya prasAsanE gargi suryAchandhramasou viDHoothou thishTathah, (Brhd.3-8-9)
by the command of
this imperishable one, oh gargi, the sun and moon stand apart,' shows Him
to be the controller of the universe.
The smrthi also confirms this as could be seen in the Gita, 'mayADHyakshENa
prakrthihsooyathE sacharAcharam,(BG.9-10) under my control the prakrthi gives birth
to sentient and insentient beings.'
Both sruthi and smrthi declare that
the supreme self is the causeof the bliss enjoyed in the state of release. ' Esha hyEvAnandhayathi, He alone causes
bliss,' (Tait.2-7-1) and
'mAm
cha yO avyabhichArENabhakt hiyOgEna sEvathe sa guNAn samatheethyaithAn
brahmbhooyAya kalpathE;brahmaNO hi prathishTAham amrthasya avyayasyacha,
sAsvathasya cha dharmasya sukhasyaikAnthikasy a cha, (BG-15-26/27)
He who serves me
with unswerving devotion he surpasses the guNas and
becomes qualified to attain Brahman.I am the abode of the infinite,
immortal Brahman of eternal dharma and absolute bliss.'
The qualities like freedom from evil etc ,
are of the essential nature of the realized soul nevertheless depends upon
Brahman as well as their permanency. Thus the equality with the Lord of the
released soul does not extends to the cosmic activity.
suthra-21-bhOgamAth rasAmyalingAccha -
And because if the indication of
equality with enjoyment only.
The text 'sO asnuthE sarvAn kAmAn sahabrahmaNA
vipschithA,
he attains all objects
of desire together with the all-knowing Brahman,' denotes that the equality of
the released soul with Brahman is only with respect to mere enjoyment. Thus in
accordance with the texts mentioning Brahman to be the sole controller of the
universe it is concluded that the power of the released soul is devoid of
cosmic activity.
suthra-22-anAvrtthi sabdhAth
anAvrtthin sabdhAthh-4- 4-22
There is no return because the scriptures say so. (This
statement is repeated to denote the end of the sasthra)
To the question that if the power and glory of the released soul
depends on the will of the supreme self will there be a possibility of return
to the world by the soul thus released., the suthra answers that it
is not so.
Ramanuja explain this
in his own style.
'yaTHA nikhila hEya
prathyaneekakalyANa ikathAnah jagajjanmAdhikAraNa m samasthvasthyuvilak shaNah
sarvajnah sathyasankalpah AsrithvAthsalyaikaj alaDHih paramakAruNikah nirastha
samAbhyaDHikasambhA vanah parabrahmAbhiDHAnah paramapurusho asthi ithi sabdhAth
avagamyathE, Evam aharahanushteeyamAn a varNasramadharma anugrheetha
thadhupAsanarupa thathsamArADHanpree thah upAseenAn anAdhikAlapravrttha anantha
dhusthara karma sanchayarupa avidhyAm vinivarthya sva yATHAthmyarupa anavaDHika
athisayAnandham prApayya punarnAvarthayathee thyapi sabdhAdhEva
avagamyathE.'
The meaning of the passage is this.
Only through
scriptures it is known that there is a supreme self, who is free from all evil,
source of all auspicious qualities, the cause of the world, different from
everything else, omniscient,true- willed, the ocean of
love to those who take refuge in Him, who has infinite mercy, to whom there is
none equal or superior, and who is known as the parabrahman. Similarly from the
scriptures alone we come to know that the supreme purusha who is pleased with those who follow the varNasramadharma every day and
meditate on Him and worship Him, destroys the nescience which is the cause of
beginningless karma which is otherwise difficult to overcome, and bestows
infinite bliss that enables them to experience Him in His true essential nature
and He does not cause their return to samsara.
There is scriptural evidence to this, says, Ramanuja, quoting the
text
'sa
khalu Evam varthayan yAvadhAyusham brahmalOkam abhisampadhyathE, (Chan.8-15-1)
he, indeed lives thus
throughout life, attains the world of Brahman and never returns again.
smrthi also confirms this.
'AbrahmabuvanAlOkAh
punarAvrtthinO arjuna, mAmupEthya thu kounthEya
punarjanma na vidhyathE, (BG.8-16)
all the worlds up to that
of BrahmA are subject to return but attaining Me there is no birth again.'
Ramanuja says,
'na
cha ucchinnakarmabanDha sya asankuchithajnAnasy a parabrahmAnubhavaik a
svabhAvasya thadhEkapriyasya anavaDHik athisayAnandham brahma anubhavathah
anyApEksha athadharTHArambhAdh yasambhavAth punarAvrtthi shanka; na cha
parampurushah sathyasankalpah athyarTHa priyam jnAninam labDHvA kadhAchith
Avarthayishyathi.
That is, for the
released soul who has destroyed all his karma,his
knowledge being expanded to its real form , his nature established in the
experience of Brahman cannot have any possible desire and no work to be
undertaken on that account. The Lord ,who is of
infallible will make his most dear devotee return to samsara again.
This has been the promise made by the Lord Himself. In Gita He
says
'priyO
hi jnAninO athyarTHam aham sa cha mamapriyah;UdhArA sarva Evaithe jnAnee
thvAthmaiva mE matham;AsTHithassa hi yukthAthma mAmEvAnutthamAm gathim;
bahoonAm janmanAm anthE jnAnvAn mam prapadhyathE; vAsudhEvassarvam ithi sa
mahAthmA sudhurlabhah.
" I am very dear to a
jnani and he is dear to Me. All these are great (meaning Arthtee,
the suffering, arTHarthee, one who yearns for something, jijnAsu,
one who is desirous of knowledge) but jnani, a a man of knowledge is Myself. It
is because having his mind integrated in Me alone he
resorts to Me as
his highest goal. A man of knowledge reaches Me after many births and such a
man for whom VasudhEva is everything is very
rare to find.'
Thus ends the fourth padha of the
fourth adhyaya.
The end of
sribhashya
__._,_.___