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

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00257 Aug 2006

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


sribhashya-second adhyaya

 

                         First padha

 

smrthyaDHikaraNam-2-1-1

 

 

In the first chapter it has been shown that Brahman is the subject matter of all vedantha texts and that Brahman is different from the insentient matter known from perception and other means of cognition and also from the sentient soul, while in  bondage and in  release. Brahman, who is free from imperfections and possessor of infinite auspicous qualities has been understood as the cause of the world of sentient and insentient beings and the innersoul of all. Now  this chapter has begun in order to refute all arguments against this. First the view of sankhya is taken up and refuted.

 

 

 suthra-1-smrthyanavakAsadhOshaprasanga ithi chEth na anyasmrthyanavakAsa dhOshaprasangATH-2-1-1

 

If it is claimed that there would be no scope for certain smrthis (like  that of sankhya) it is not so as otherwise some others will be having no scope.

 

The opponent argues that the smrthi texts serve the purpose of elucidating the sruthi texts and the sankhyan smrthi by sage Kapila clearly shows that praDHAna, the premordial nture is the material cause of the world. It is true that if the smrithi is contrary to the sruthi it has to be set aside. But this view can be true only when there is no ambiguity in the meaning of the sruthi passages. Here the meaning of the vedantha texts are not explicit and hence the Kapila smrthi which explains the thatthvas has to taken as authoritative.The possible objection that in the smrithis like that of Manu there are arguments in favour of the causality of Brahman is set aside by the opponent by saying that the main purport of these smrthis is dharma and hence has relevance to karamkAnada only whereas Kapilasmrthi deals with the metaphysical and shows the path to happiness.As otherwise the Kapilasmrthi wiil be meaningless the vedantha texts have to be interpreted according to it

 

This view is refuted by the suthra. The smrthis like that of Manu do teach that Brahman is the cause of the world and to accept the smrthi of Kapila will result in their being rendered obsolete. We find in Manusmrthi the following passage: Beginning with the words 'Aseedhidham thamO bhootham, this world existed in the form of darkness,' and continues to say 'thathah svayambhoorbhagavAn avyakthO vyanjayan idham; mahAbhoothAdhi vrtthoujAh prAdhurAseeth thamOnudhah sOmiDHya cha sarirAth svAth sisrkshuh viviDHAh prajAh, apa Eva sasarja Adhou thAsu veeryam apAsrjath.' (Manu.1-5-8) This means, the Lord, self originated and unmanifest, made all this manifest. The great  elements and others came from the darkness and the Lord created from His body all these beings, first creating the waters and placing His seed in them.

 

In Bhagavathgita also we have the declaration 'aham sarvasya prabhavah matthah sarvam pravarthathE,(BG.7-6) meaning "Iam the source of everything and from Me everything proceeds." In Mahabharatha Bhishma was asked, from where is this universe of movable and immovable objects are created and in whom all this merges back at the time of annihilation and he answers 'nArAyaNO jaganmoorthirananthAthmA sanAthanah, that it is Narayana, the eternal and infinite  self , who manifests as the world  and further it is said that from Him the unmanifest prakrthi constituted of three gunas  originated. If Kapila smrthi is taken as authoritative these smrthis will be of no validity.

 

Ramanuja says that it is true that the meaning of vedanta texts are not understood by those with limited knowledge because the subject matter of those texts, being Brahman, is beyond perception and other means of cognition. But there are many smrthis composed by competent and reliable persons elucidating the purport of the vedantic texts and there is no need to resort to the works such as Kapilasmrthi which are opposed to the vedanthic view.

 

Even the smrthis like that of Manu which are said to deal with the karamkanda they inculcate all the works only as the worship of the Supreme self.'yathah pravrtthibhoothAnAm yEna sarvam idham thatham svakarmaNA tham abhyarchya siddhim vindhathi mAnavah,' (BG.18-46) which means, man achieves the highest  by worshipping Him, from whom all beings originate and by whom all are pervaded, through his own actions. In vishnupurana the following text 'yaih svakarmaparaih nATHa narairArADHithO bhavAn, thE tharanthyakhilAm EthAm mAyAm AthmavimukthayE,' meaning, by those who worship you ,Oh Lord, with their own works this maya is transcended. So even the smrthis which enjoin the various works for getting result in this and other world, actually emphasise the performance of the same works as an offering to the supreme self.

 

Ramanuja concludes by saying ' yadhuktam "rshim prasootham kapilam" ithi kapilasyaApthathayA samkirthanAth thathsmrthyanusArENa vEdhAnthArThavyavasTHApanam nyAyyam ithi--thadhasath; brhaspathEh sruthismrthishu sarvEshAm athisayitha jnAnAnAm nidharsanathvena samkirthanAth thathpraNeethEna lOkAyathEna sruthyarTha vyavasTHApana prasakthEh ithi.

 

What the passage means is this: If the smrthi of Kapila is to be accepted as being authoritative on the basis of his being mentioned as   competent in the svethasvathara upanishad and the vedanta texts have to be interpreted in accordance with it, then, it would follow that Brahaspathi being mentioned as the most competent and wise person, the atheistic and materilistic view of the smrthi composed by him should be held as being authoritative as well. What Ramanuja means is that just as the materialistic and atheistic view, that of the ChArvAkas, cannot be accepted being opposed to vedas, similarly the Kapila smrithi also cannot be accepted.

 

But the opponent says since Kapila by his yogic perception had intuited the truth  his view must be true. The next suthra answers this.

 

 

suthra-2-ithrEshAm cha anupalabDHEh-2-1-2

 

Because of the nonperception of others of the view.

 

Manu and others also had yogic perception but they did not come to the same conclusion as Kapila. Hence, Ramanuja concludes that the theory of Kapila is based  on misconception.

This is the end of smrthyaDHikaraNam.

 

 

yOgaprathyukthyaDHikaraNam

 

suthra-3-EthEna yOgah prathyukthah-2-1-3

 

Hereby the yoga is refuted.

 

The doubt that eventhough the sankhya smrthi  may be rejected, the yoga smrthi can be taken to be authoritative in as much as it recognises Isvara, as the one who directs pradhAna and also because it was propounded by Hiranyagarbha and proclaimed to be in accordance with the vedantic texts.

 

This view is refuted by the suthra as this smrthi is also based on error. Ramanuja gives the following reasons for rejecting the yoga smrthi.

1. The praDHAna and not Brahman is mentioned as the cause of the world.

2.Isvara is cited only as the efficient cause.

3.The yoga of meditation on the self and the Isvara as outlined in the yoga smrthi is avaidhic, contrary to vedas, because the self is not brhmAthmaka, ensouled by Brahman, and the Isvara who is only the efficient cause  is not the Brahman of vedanta , endowed with infinite auspcious qualities and the cause of the world.

4.The one who expounded the smrthi ,namely Hiranyagrbha is himself a created being and liable to the influence of rajas and thamas.

 

Hence, yoga, which is also based on error cannot be used to support the vedanthic texts. Thus ends the yOgaparthyukthyaDHikaraNam.

 

 

 

__._,_.___


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