You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Aug 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00082 Aug 2006

 
Aug 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


AkAsADhikaraNam-1-1-8



Suthra-23-AkAsasthallingAth-1-1-23



AkAsa is brahman because of its characterestic marks.

So far in the chapter of sribhashya first pAdha it has been shown that
Brahman is the source of all beings and their inner Self and of the
nature of bliss and is different from the sentient and  the insentient
on the basis of sruthi texts that prove all this. Now in the last part
of the first pAdha it is proved that wherever there is special mention
about AkAsa   and other entities with respect to creation or control of
the world, the words denoting these entities mean only Brahman.



The text of chandhogya says 'asya lokasya ka gathih ithi;AkAsa ithi
hOvAcha, sarvANi ha vA imani bhoothAni AkAsadhyeva samuthpadhyanthE,
AkAsam prathi astham yanthi, AkAsa Eva hi Ebhyo jyAyan Aksah parAyaNam,
what is the origin of this world? Space, replied he, all these beings
originate from AkAsa and merge back into it. AkAsa is greater than them
and their rest.'



There arises a doubt as to whether the word AkAsa refers to the space,
which is one of the five elements or Brahman.



The poorvapakshin argues that it means only AkAsa. The reasons given for
this conclusion is that when the etymological meaning of a word is
relevant that meaning alone should be taken and not figurative one. when
it is explicitly stated that all this sprang from AkAsa there is no need
to consider the implied meaning referring to Brahman. Even the text
'Atmanah Akasah sambhoothah, (Taitt.II-1) the space was created from the
Self,' the word self is to be taken to mean the subtle state of AkAsa.
Hence the origin of the world as made out in the chandogya passage
starting from 'sadhEva soumya idhamagra Aseeth,' the word 'sath' refers
only to AkAsa, similar to the word Self in Taittreya.



This view is refuted by the suthra saying that the word AkAsa denotes
not the element but only Brahman because of the characterstics  of
Brahman previously established are indicated in this text also, namely
being the origin of all,being the greatest of all and into which all
beings  merge in the end. As the world consists of sentient beings as
well, the insentient AkAsa cannot be the origin and resting place. Nor
can an insentient entity can be cited as being the greatest which
requires eminent qualities that apply to Brahman only.



Moreover, says Ramanuja, the denotation of the word AkAsa needs to be
ascertained by other valid means of proof, to mean the space and not
Brahman. By the text 'sadheva soumya idhamagraAseeth Ekameva
adhvitheeyam , clearly establish Brahman as the cause of the world. So
the text, stating AkAsa to be the origin .being subsequent, must be
construed to mean Brahman only. While other texts like  'thadhaikshatha
bahusyAm prajAyEya' declare Brahman as possessing infallible will,
omniscience etc. it is not right to rely on one particular text and
interpret all these texts by  the etymological meaning of the word
Akasa. Therefore the word AkAsa in the passage quoted is Brahman only.



To the argument that the word self can be used figuratively even to
insentient things as in the expression 'mrdhAthmako ghatah, the clay is
the self of the pot,' Ramanuja says that even though this is found to be
the practice occasionally the word self is always used with respect to
embodiment  and hence the Self in the passage referred to, means only
the Universal Self, Brahman. The word AkAsa when derived as AkAsayathi
ithi AkAsah, make everything shine or AkAsathi, it shines, will mean
Brahman only.

Thus ends the AkAsaDHikaraNam.





prAnaDhikaraNam-1-1-9



Suthra-24-atha Eva praNah-1-1-24



For the same reason the vital air is Brahman.



The text in ChandhOgya which praises the prANa  and being asked which is
that deity it answers 'prANa ithi hOvAcha, sarvANi ha imAni bhoothAni
prANmEva abhisamvisanthi, prANam abhyujjihathE,it is prANa into which
all beings merge and from it they arise.'



Here also, as in the case of AkAsa, Brahman only is denoted by the word
vital breath. Even though all beings are dependent on the vital breath,
this applies only to sentient beings and not insentient like stone or
wood. Moreover all things arising and merging into Brahman has already
been established.The derivation of the word as prAnayathi ithi prAnah,
that which makes everything alive applies only to Brahman.Thus ends
AkasADHikaraNam.





JyothiraDhikaraNam-1-1-10



suthra-25-JYOTHISCHARAnaBHIDHaNaTH-1-1-25



The light is Brahman on account of the mention of pAdha,quarter.

The chandhogya text 'aTHa yadhathah parOdhivO jyothih dheepyathE
visvathah prshTEshu sarvathah prshTEshu anutthamEshu utthameEshu
lokEshu, idham vA va yadhidham asmin anthah purushE jyothih,' describes
the light that shines above in heaven,beyond all, higher than everything
in the highest world, beyond which there is no other worlds, that is the
same light which is within man.'(Chan.3-13-7)



Here there is a doubt raised by some that whether the light mentioned in
the passage refers to well known source of light like the Sun which
could have been meant to be the cause of everything, that is Brahman

or it refers to the highest person, omniscient, different from all
beings sentient and insentient, the supreme cause , the Brahman of
infallible will.



The poorvapakshin comes out with the argument that it is the well known
source of light such as the Sun because there is no indication in the
passage that it is the supreme self as in those about AkAsa and prANa.



Thiss suthra refutes the view of the opponent by saying it is Brahman
only which is referred to as the light here because of the mention about
charaNa, that is pAdha, feet or quarter. In a previous text it is said
'pAdhO asya sarvA bhoothAni thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi, one quarter or
padha of this consists of all beings and the other three quarters are in
heaven and immortal.' So this shows that the reference is only to the
highest being, that is, Brahman.



The opponent has given another reason for his conclusion that the
passage refers to the wellknown source of light by saying that there is
a mention of identity between the light with that inside the
intestines,'yadhidham asmin anthah purushE jyothi,' namely vaisvAnara.
But Ramanuja refutes this saying
'koukshEyajyOthishaikyOpadhesaschaphalAya thadhAthmakathvAnusanDHAna
viDHih,'  the reference to the fire inside the intestines is to enjoin
meditation on that as Brahman. The expression 'supreme light' is enough
to indicate that it is Brahman only and there is no need for any special
mention of the characterestics of Brahman separately.





suthra-26-cchandhbhiDHAnAthnaithichEth
na,thaTHAchEthoarpaNanigadhAth,thayA hidharsanam



If it is said that the metre (gAyathri) is denoted and not Brahman, it
is not so, because the meditation on Brahman is declared, as seen by the
other texts.



In the previous text  it is mentioned that 'gayathri va idham sarvam,
Gayathri is everything whatever exists in the universe,'and hence the
metre Gayathri is referred to as Brahman, says the poorvapakshin, which
is refuted by this suthra. Mere metre cannot be the cause of everything
and what is meant here is the meditation on gayathri as Brahman. the
Gayathri though has only three feet sometimes said to have four and
hence it is similar to Brahman who is also described as having four
pAdhAs as mentioned in the text 'pAdho asya sarvA bhoothAni
thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi.'



suthra-27-bhoothADHipadhavyapadhEsA  upapatthEsch Evam





Because of the representation of beings as the feet.



The text about Gaythri denote all beings, earth, body and heart as the
four feet, 'saishA chathushpadha', of Gaythri, which can apply only to
Brahman.





suthra-28-upadhEsabhEdhAnnaithichEth,na, ubhayasmin api avirodhAth



If it is said that the Brahman referred to in the passage about light is
not that referred to here on account of difference in specification, it
is not so because there is no contradiction.



In passage about Gayathri heaven is said to be the abode of Brahman,
'thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi' while in the passage on light it is said to
shine above heaven.So it is different ,says the poorvapakshin but the
suthra refutes this. There is no contradiction here and Ramanuja says
that there is essential agreement between the two as in the statements
'the bird is perching on the top of the tree' ,and  'the bird is above
the tree,'both of which means the same.'ubhayasmin api upadhesearTHa
svabhAva aikyEnaprathyabhijnAyAh avirODHAth, yaTHA vrkshAgrE syEnah ,
vrkshAthparathah syEnah ithi.'



Therefore,  says Ramanuja, only the Supreme purusha is shining above the
heavens as the most brilliant light 'ethAVan asya mahima,' this is the
glory of Him, of whom all beings are one foot, that is, a quarter, and
the three quarters are immortal in heaven. The words 'vEdhAham Etham
purusham mahAntham Adhithya varnam  thamsasthu pAre,' (svet.III-9)
describe Him as the glorious Being of the colour of the Sun and who is
beyond darkness. Hence Brahman alone is specified by the word light.Thus
ends the jyothiraDHikaraNam.





IndraprANADHkarNam-1-1-11



PrAnasthaTHA anugamAth-1-1-29



PrANa is Brahman because it is understood to be so.



In Kousheethaki upanishad there is the text that describes the
conversation between Indra and Prathardhana where the latter asks indra
to grant him the boon which is  most beneficial to man. Indra said
'prANOsmi prajnAthmA tham mAm Ayuh amrtham ithi upAsya, (koush. III-1-8)
I am the prANa and the intelligent self, and you meditate on me as the
life and as immortality'. Here the doubt arises as to whether it is the
individual self or Brahman on which the upAsanA is intended.



The argument that the individual self in the form of Indra is only the
intention of the passage is forwarded on the basis that Indra is a well
known purusha visEsha, special being, and since he was asked for a boon
it might be him whom the upAsana was intended.Since what is most
beneficial to mortals is the first cause as that alone can secure
immortality, Indra must be denoted as the cause of the universe here and
not Brahman.



This view is refuted by the suthra saying that it is the Supreme self
and not the individual self which is the purport of the passage because
of the mention of the qualities that apply to Brahman only, such as
bliss, immortality and free from old age .' sa Esha prANa Eva prajnAthmA
Anandho ajaro amrthah,(Koush.III-1-9) this prAna alone is the
intelligent self , bliss, free from old age and immortal.



Suthra-30-na vasthurAthmOpadhesAth ithi cheth adhyAthma sambanDHa bhooma
hyasmin.

If it is said that it is not Brahman because of the intention of the
speaker, it is not so as there is abundant reference to the Supreme self
in the chapter.



The argument that the speaker is Indra and it may be his intention that
Prathardhana should meditate on him, which is supported by the fact that
there is mention of Indra's killing of Thvashta in the passage, is
refuted by this suthra.



There are numerous references connected with the Supreme self. Ramanuja
quotes the passage from the same upanishad 'thadhyaTHA raTHasya
ArEshunemirarpithA Evam EvaithAbhoothamAthrAh prajnAmAthrasu arpithAh,
prajnAmAthrAh prAnE arpithAh, sa Esha prAnEva prajnATHma Anandho ajaro
amrthah.' (koush.3-8) The meaning of the passage is as follows:

In a chariot the rim of the wheel is connected to the spokes, the spokes
to the axle. similarly all non-sentient beings are connected to the
sentient beings which are in turn connected to the prANa. The prANa is
the prajna , blissful, non-aging and immortal. Being the abode of
everything is the character of only the Supreme self. Besides Indra is
denoted as prAna for the sake of meditation to attain the highest goal
of man, namely moksha and this  can only refer to the Supreme self.
Moreover in the same passage is found the text 'Esha Eva sADHu karma
kArayathi tham, yamEbhyO lOkEbhyah unnineeshathi, Esha EVa asADHU karma
kArayathi thamyam aDHo nineeshathi.' He makes those, whom He wants to
raise from these worlds, do good deeds and makes those, whom He wants to
degrade from these worlds , do bad deeds.This action of prompting good
and bad deeds is the dharma,attribute of   Brahman only. So as indicated
by 'Esha lokAdhipathih,esha sarvEsah'  it is only Brahman who is
referred to as Indra, that is prANa.





suthra-31-sasthradhrshtyAthoopadhesah vamadevavath



The instruction (of Indra to prathardhana) is possible through insight
into scriptures like Vamadeva.



What is meant here is that though Indra told Prathardhana  to meditate
on him what he could have meant is not the individual self as Indra but
only the supreme self due to his insight into the scripture as sage
VAmadeva has said "I was manu and the Sun."

The scriptural texts such as 'anENa jivEna AthmanA anupravisya nAmarupE
vyAkaravANi, I will enter in along with this self and make nama and
form,' and others denoting Brahman to be the self of all are referred to
here and through the knowledge of such texts indra might have meant only
the Supreme self  as himself and prANa.





suthra-32-jivamukhya prANa lingAth na ithicheth na,
upASathraividhyAthAsrithathvath iha thadyogAth



If it be said (that Brahman is not meant) on account of characteristic
marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air being mentioned; 
no, because of the threefoldness of meditation, which , found in other
places, is appropriate here also.

it is argued that the individual self only is meant in the passage
mentioned because of the reference to killing of Thvashtra and ,the
prAna being described as the conscious self etc. but it is refuted by
this suthra.

Brahman is denoted by these terms, namely, individual soul, prANa, and
prajnA for the purpose of threefold meditation.

1. The texts sathyam jnAnam anatham brahma , Anandhambrahma denote the
true nature of Brahman,

ThathsrshtvA thdhEva anuprAvisath; thadhanupravisyasath cha thyath cha
abhavath, after creating it(Brahman ) entered into that and became sath
and thyath(asath).

2. Sath means the sentient souls which form the body of Brahman.

3.thyath denotes the insentient prakrthi which also constitute the body
of Brahman.

Hence all the words denoting beings like HiraNyagarbha or inanimate
prakrthi have reference only to the Supreme self when they are described
as having qualities of Brahman or they mean Brahman by coordination,
sAmAnADHikaraNya. Thus ends indraprANaDHikaraNam.

End of  first pAdha of the first aDhyAya of sribhAshya.















































































































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list