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

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00224 Aug 2006

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


vAkyAnvayADHikaraNam-1-4-6

 

suthra-19-vAkyAnvayAth-1-4-19

 

Self in the passage shown is Brahman because of the connected meaning.

 

In the BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad there is this text 'na va arE pathyuh kAmAya pathih priyO bhavathi, the husband is loved not because of himself ,' which  continues to enumerate all relations and possessions in this manner finally saying that everything is loved because of the love of the Self.'na vA arE sarvasya kAmaya sarvam priyam bhavathi;Athmanasthu kAmAya sarvam priyam bhavathi.' (Brhd.IV-5,6) The text ends with 'Atma va arE dhrashytavyah srothavyah nidhiDhyAsthavyah;maithrEyi Athmani khalu arE dhrshtE,sruthe mathE vijnAthe idham sarvam vidhitham, this Self is to be seen,heard, thought of and meditated upon when all will be known.'

 

Here a doubt is raised by the poorvapakshin as to whether the self described therein is the individual self,the purusha of sankhya, or the supreme self. He claims that it is the former because of the reference to the individual self from the beginning to the end. At first the various individual selves like husband, wife son etc are mentioned. In the middle it is said that the sentient soul, denoted by the term vijnAnaGhana, rises from the elements and and goes back into them and when the soul departs there is nothing left.'vijnAnaGHana Eva EthEbhyah bhoothEhyah samutthAya thAni Eva anuvinasyathi;na prethya samjnA asthi.'(Brhd.II-4-12) Thus the origination and the destruction of the soul is mentioned and in the end by the words 'vijnAthAram arE kEna vijAneeyath'(Brhd.II-14) who can know the knower the same individual self is indicated as the knower.

 

There may be a possible argument, says the poorvapakshin, that by the words in the text, 'amrthathvasya thu na AsA asthi vitthEna, money can never arouse desire for immortality,'it is evident that only the Brahman who is referred to as the self. But this cannot be an objection because what is meant here is the real nature of the individual self acquired through the knowledge of the distinctness of the purusha from praDHAna and its evolutes, which makes him a freed soul. When  the nature of all the released souls are known to be the same, the knowledge of all by the knowledge of the self makes sense since all beings from devas to the plants are of uniform nature and the difference is only due to the prkrthipariNAma, the intermingling of the three guNas, the constituents of prakrthi only.

 

This view is refuted by the suthra because the meanings of the various passage are found to be connected only when the purport of all of them are taken to mean Brahman. When YAjnavalkya told MaithrEyi who asked him the reason for his leaving all his property and going away he replied that the immortality cannot be attained through wealth. Then she wanted to know about immortality 'yEnAham nAmrthAsyAm kimaham thEna kuryAm;yadhEva bhagavAn vedha thadhEva mE broohi,' (Brhd.2-4-3) meaning, as there is no use of all the wealth he is giving her she wanted to know that which will make her immortal. Thereupon he started instructing her on brahmavidhya. The self thus taught is not the individual self but it is  Brahman, as the scriptures say that the immortality can be attained only through the knowledge of Brahman. The texts 'thamEva vidhithvA athimrthyumEthi,and 'thamEvam vidvAn amrtha iha bhavathi,' (svet.3-8) show this clearly. The same Brahman is referred to in the passage 'AthmA vA are dhrashtavyah' etc Moreover the  declaration that all the vedas were breathed out by the great Being,'asya mahathah bhoothasya nisvasitham Ethath yadhrgvEdha' will apply only to Brahman., who is the cause of the universe. Also 'AthmanO vA are dharsanEna sarvam vidhitham,' (Brhd.2-4-5) that by seeing the Athman all is known, can be true only with respect to Brahman. What is said that by knowing one individual self all is known is not correct because it does not involve the knowledge of the insentient universe.The text mentions of different categories such as brAhmaNa, kshathriya devas and all beings and says that all this is only the Self, 'idham brhma idham kshathramimElokAh,imE dhEvAh ,imAni bhoothAni idham sarvam yadhayam AthmA, ' (Brhd.2-4-6) which could be only Brahman. The preceding sentence 'sarvam  tham parAdhAth yO anyathra Athmanah sarvam vedha, all these mentioned leave him who sees the self elsewhere,' eliminates everything else but Brahman from being the self. The attributes found in a later passage, 'Evam vA are idham mahathbhootham anantham apAram vijnAnaGHna Eva,' namely, the greatness, infinity, limitlessness and essence of knowledge suit only the Supreme Self.

 

Ramanuja takes up next the claim of the opponent that the individual self is the subject matter of the maithreyi brAhamanA because of the connection with husband etc. He says that  on the other hand the connection clearly is established only with the supreme self because the phrase 'the self is indeed to be seen,'AthmA vA arE dhrashtavyah,' etc. which has been proved to denote Brahman will not otherwise be in accordance with the opening text. Hence the context is as follows: all the things which are dear to man like wife son,wealth etc. are not productive of joy by themselves and hence dear, but, they are so  because of the will of the Lord who is the self of all. This is known from the text in Taittiriya 'Esha hyEva AnandhayAthi, (tait.2-7) this Supreme self makes all happy.' It is also indicated that the things by themselves are not conducive to happiness or sorrow by 'thadhEva preethyE bhoothva punarduhkhAya jAyathE, thdhEva kopAya yathah prasAdhAya cha jAyathe; thasmAth duhkhAthmakam nAsthi na cha kimchith sukhAthmakam,' meaning,that which gives pleasure turns out to be the cause of sorrow and that which angers itself gives peace and hence there is nothing inherently joyful or painful.

 

The view that the word self in the beginning may denote the individual soul while the self to be seen etc may be the supreme self on account of the realisation that the husband etc are not conducive to eternal happiness , is set aside by Ramanuja who says that in the section the word self is used only in the sense of the supreme self as everything is said to exist for the pleasure of the Self and the self  which  is to be seen are one and the same.

suthra-20-pratijnAsiddhErlingam Asmarathyah-1-4-20

 

Asmarathya thinks that the word indicating the individual self is the indicatory mark of proving the promissory statement. because of the identity between Brahman and the individual self.

 

By the statement that the self alone was existing in the beginning 'AthmA vA  idham eka Eva agra Aseeth, (Aith.2-4-1-1) the oneness of the individual soul with Brahman is declared and the former  being the effect of Brahamn is shown by the text in mundaka upanishad which speaks of all beings produced from Brahman as sparks from the fire and merge back into Brahman in the end.'yaTHA sudheepthAth pAvakAth visphulingAh sahasrasAh prabhavanthE saroopAh, thaTHA aksharAth viviDHAh soumya bhAvAh prajayanthe thathra cha Eva apiyanthi.' Hence the individual souls being the effects of Brahman they are identical with it and therefore the promissory statement of knowing one resulting in the knowledge of all is proved.

 

 

suthra-21-uthkramishyatha Evam bhAvAth ithi aoudulomih-1-4-21

 

The nature of the individual soul which rises from the body denotes that it is Brahman, says Aoudulomi.

 

Aoudulomi does not accept the view that the promissory statement is proved through the identity of the individual soul with Brahman and by its being the effect of Brahman.He says that the soul is shown to have no origination from the text 'na jAyathe mriyathe va vipaschith, the discriminating self is not born and does not die,' If the souls are created by Brahman, the world being created according to the result of karma of the individual souls will not make sense  and if they merge with Brahman like the pot becoming clay losing its identity the aspiration for moksha will not be there. Therefore  as per the text Esha samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param jyOthrupasampadhya svena rupENa abhinishpadhyathE;  (Chan.8-3-4) this serene self rising from the body reaches the highest light appears in its true form,' the individual soul possesses the characterestics of Brahman in its state of release. Hence the word denoting the individual self refers to Brahman only.

 

suthra-22-avasThithErithi kAsakrtsnah-1-4-22

The words denoting the individual self  refers to Brahman because it resides in the individual self, says KAsakrthsna.

 

The view that because the individual self becomes Brahman when it rises from the body, the word denoting it refers to Brahman in reality, is refuted by Kasakrthsna because, if the individual self is not Brahman before departure from the body due to its essential nature it can never become Brahman. If the difference from Brahman before departure is due to a limiting adjunct, it means that the soul was Brahman even before departure but only limited by the adjunct. If it is said that the real nature is obscured while in the body,if the obscuration is real it cannot be removed. if it is unreal it cannot obscure the soul which is self illuminated in reality, being Brahman.

 

Therefore AchArya Kasakrthsna, says Ramanuja, states that the individual self being ensouled by Brahman, the word denoting the individual self can be taken to mean Brahman. Scriptural texts  are several to show that the inner self is Brahman such as 'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanah antharah yamAthmA na veda yasya Athma sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha AthmA anthryAmyamrthah,(Brhd.3-7-22) He who stays inside the self whom the self does not  know ,whose body is the self and who rules the self from within ,He is the inner self and immortal. The text in Taitthiriya (1-3-21) 'anthah pravishtah sAsthA janAnam sarvAthma. the one who has entered into all beings as their self,' also confirms this.

 

Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying that this relationship of the individual soul and Brahman, namely the sarirasariri bhAva renders explanation of all the scriptural texts, proclaiming the characterstics of Brahman such as omniscience, blemishlessness  and being the cause of the universe etc. Therefore the suthrakAra also accepts only the view of Kasa krthsna as there is no more argument presented after it.

 

Hence the passage in Maitreyi brAhmaNA of BrhadhAranyaka upanishad is to be explained as follows:

When Maithreyi wanted to know that which will lead to immortality, Yajnavalkya explains the meditation on  the highest self, Brahman, the cause and the ruler of all beings. Then he shows that the individual self of the meditator, when it departs from body  is no longer limited in knowledge as the karma which made its knowledge contracted, has been destroyed. That Brahman is known only through meditation which alone is the road to immortality. With this ends the vAkyAnvayADHikaraNam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__._,_.___


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




__,_._,___
[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