Brahma Sutra - a discussion Thread.

[Raghy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Greetings.

I like to assure members I am not going to take part in any main discussions.

I notice, Sri. Sravna opened a thread and getting stuck in replying to all the 'discussions'.

He is sincerely replying to everyone.... even to myself! Then one can easily see his sincerity.

I am requesting all members to shift their discussions to this thread, please so that Sri. Sravna may focus on writing 'Brahma Sutra' only in the original thread.

We can always refer the post number and or link from the other thread in the discussions.

Thank you guys!

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Greetings.

I like to assure members I am not going to take part in any main discussions.

I notice, Sri. Sravna opened a thread and getting stuck in replying to all the 'discussions'.

He is sincerely replying to everyone.... even to myself! Then one can easily see his sincerity.

I am requesting all members to shift their discussions to this thread, please so that Sri. Sravna may focus on writing 'Brahma Sutra' only in the original thread.

We can always refer the post number and or link from the other thread in the discussions.

Thank you guys!

Cheers!

Shri Sravna in hos OP of the other thread, had stated as follows:

"I just bought a book on brahma sutras translated by Swami Vireswarananda. The interpretation of the sutras is according to Sankara. I thought I would post a summary of each chapter in the book and let the members with different views including the atheists comment and debate on it. Since it is based only on logic I think anyone can join the debate. I hope the exercise turns out to be useful."

Hence, I expected the sutras and whatever the Swamiji had commented against each sutra - either in full or gist thereof. However, after about 14 or 15 posts, the thread veered off into criticisms of advaita, the role of maayaa and so on. Shri Sravna then tried to give his interpretations - based on space-time principles and modern science - and the net result was so much confusion.

I therefore suggest for consideration of all participating members not to post their views or objections in the original thread. I also request Shri Sravna to strictly adhere to the line of exposition done by Swami Vireswarananda and not to bring in any external arguments. space-time notions, etc., except (if he wants) in the discussions in this thread.

 

[sravna]

Greetings.

I like to assure members I am not going to take part in any main discussions.

I notice, Sri. Sravna opened a thread and getting stuck in replying to all the 'discussions'.

He is sincerely replying to everyone.... even to myself! Then one can easily see his sincerity.

I am requesting all members to shift their discussions to this thread, please so that Sri. Sravna may focus on writing 'Brahma Sutra' only in the original thread.

We can always refer the post number and or link from the other thread in the discussions.

Thank you guys!

Cheers!

I suggest that this thread be not only for the interpretation of brahma sutras in the traditional way but also take into account the modern knowledge so that we may offer fresh perspectives of the vedas. Relating the vedas to the modern knowledge is not only of academic interest but may also be of practical value.

 

[sangom]

I suggest that this thread be not only for the interpretation of brahma sutras in the traditional way but also take into account the modern knowledge so that we may offer fresh perspectives of the vedas. Relating the vedas to the modern knowledge is not only of academic interest but may also be of practical value.

I think that this thread should exclusively discuss the posts made in the other threads and discussions should not branch off, again, into terms like higher and lower realities etc., in the name of "modern knowledge".

 

[renuka]

Actually when we start a thread solely for discussion..the thought process comes to a standstill.

See till now this thread is still blank in the sense that an active debate has not started.

In the old Brahma Sutra thread even though thread gets diverted on and off but the thoughts were still flowing cos the input was coming from all directions.

It is not easy to discuss something in parts that is some part here and some part there.

Thought process is like our breath..it needs to flow smoothly.

If you ask me..I dont feel a separate thread will take off well..it also causes mental fatigue cos the mind has to realign itself again and again.

 

[sravna]

I think that this thread should exclusively discuss the posts made in the other threads and discussions should not branch off, again, into terms like higher and lower realities etc., in the name of "modern knowledge".

Sorry, I did not know modern knowledge is so profound.

 

[sangom]

Sorry, I did not know modern knowledge is so profound.

Dear Shri Sravna,

All knowledge can be profound. But in this case, I am of the view that bringing in the so-called "modern knowledge" will be like mixing water with oil.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

All knowledge can be profound. But in this case, I am of the view that bringing in the so-called "modern knowledge" will be like mixing water with oil.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I am not calling my views as modern knowledge. There are people like you who have a good understanding of modern knowledge. So I stay within my limits.

 

[sangom]

Folks,

I may be excused for this intrusion. But I feel this may help clear much of the problems which caused such discussions in the original thread.

१. अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा ।
(athāto brahmajijñāsā )
atha - now : ataḥ - therefore : brahmajijñāsā - the inquiry into Brahman

I have since got a copy of Swami Vireswarananda's (SVA) book and from a reading of it, find that the comments against this first Sutra dwell upon why an inquiry into Brahman or knowledge about Brahman is necessary and desirable for one. The commentary lays down the pre-requisites for getting into this brahmajijñāsā as under:

1. discrimination between things permanent and transient,
2. renunciation of the enjoyment of fruits of action in this world and the next,
3. the six treasures known as śama & dama, uparati, titikṣā, samādhāna and śraddhā, (The last item, viz., śraddhā or faith is a very crucial item here. It means, in essence, unquestioning faith in whatever is said by the guru. Hence, it becomes axiomatic that no questions can be raised except those which are raised by the bhāṣyakāra himself - Shankara or SVA, as the case may be, here, and are answered by him.)
4. intense desire to be free or mumukṣutvaṃ.

It is also very relevant to note the following portion from the commentary on sūtra 1 :


At the very beginning the utility of such an enquiry is questioned.

Objection: Such an enquiry is not worth the trouble. An intelligent man generally does not enter into an enquiry about an object which is already known, or the knowledge of which does not serve any useful purpose. He is always guided by utility.

To be continued tomorrow, getting too late today please...

 

[sangom]

...Continued from post # 9

śaṃkara gives a lot of explanation to the word atha in this first sūtra and tries to spell out the cardinal requirements/qualifications for a person trying to inquire into brahman. Rāmānuja also follows a similar course, as seen from his śrībhāṣyaṃ. [Note: I am using the name of śaṃkara on the premise that SVA's book gives a faithful reproduction of śaṃkarabhāṣya. If this is not the case, and if there are significant differences from śaṃkarabhāṣya, learned members, like Shri tbs, may kindly point out. My references to śrībhāṣyaṃ will, of course, be to the minimum; I am referring to the e-book downloaded from http://sadagopan.org.]

My doubt is whether such convoluted arguments are necessary at all? Of course, the bhāṣyakāras had to adhere to the requirements of a bhāṣya, which called for padachedaḥ (splitting and showing the individual words), padārthoktavigrahaḥ (etymological meaning of compound words like for example brahmajijñāsā, etc., as the lakṣaṇas of a true bhāṣya. It is to be noted that the jaiminīya pūrvamīmāṃsā also starts off as athāto dharmajijñāsā. So, śaṃkara’s argument that the words atha ataḥ (now, therefore) signify that brahmajijñāsā comes "after the attainment of the requisite spiritual qualities (as the results obtained by sacrifices etc.., are ephemeral, whereas the result of the knowledge of Brahman is eternal), the inquiry (into the real nature) of Brahman" are really not valid since the jaiminīya pūrvamīmāṃsā has no such thing to be done before studying it.

Not only that, we find that the āpastamba dharmasūtra also starting off with the sentence, athātassāmayācārikān dharmān vyākhyāsyamaḥ | āpastamba śrauta sūtra commences as athāto darśapūrṇamāsau vyākhyāsyāmaḥ |

Hence, for 21st. century learners like us, the words atha ataḥ can be well considered as the normal way in which writers of such texts on religious matters used to formally commence their works and we need not take into account the 4 pre-requisites stated above.

śaṃkara finds a very significant method to introduce his advaita, by adding, as follows to the explanation of the first sūtra :-

1. Now (after the attainlnent of the requisite spiritual qualities) therefore (as the results obtained by sacrifices etc.., are ephemeral, whereas the result of the knowledge of Brahman is eternal), the inquiry (into the real nature) of Brahman (which is beset with doubts owing to the conflicting views of various schools of philosophy, should be taken up).

śaṃkara’s explanation of (1) why an enquiry into brahman is not impractical, and (2) what the conflicting views on brahman were, during his days, are given below. (Reproduced from "The Brahma Sutras
with the commentary of Sankaracharya" by Rev. K.M. Banerjea : Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta 1870). My doubts, remarks and comments are given in italics and blue colour fonts at the respective places.

Now again, is that Brahma manifest or non-manifest ? If mani-
fest, it does not require to be inquired into. If non-manifest,
it cannot be inquired into. To this objection it is answered :
Manifest is Brahma, eternal, pure, intelligent, free-natured, all-
knowing, endowed with all power. For the word Brahma has
etymologically the sense of eternity, purity, &c., because it fol-
lows the sense of the verb brih. (The root brih does not seem to
convey the sense of eternity, purity, intelligence, etc.)

The existence of Brahma is also manifest because of its being
the spirit or self of all. Every one indeed believes in the existence
of the spirit or self, and not that " I am not." If the existence
of the spirit were not manifest, every one would believe (or say)
" I am not." Now the spirit is Brahma. (This underscores the statement
that from the advaitic view-point, the self is the same as Brahman.)

But if Brahma is manifest in the world as spirit, then the
objection recurs, that it is already known, and does not require
to be inquired into. Not so. For there is a conflict of opinions as
to its special nature. Men, destitute of the Sastra, and the
Lokayatikas [a sect of Buddhists] believe the soul to be nothing
more than the body [or physical organization] endowed with
sentience. Others say, the organs being sentient are themselves the
soul. Others again, the Mind. Some say, it is only a momentary
notion. Others, the Vacuum. Others again maintain, there is, be-
sides the body and its members, a fleeter both agent and patient
(karttā & bhoktā). Some, that it is only patient (bhoktā), not agent (karttā).

Some say, it is, besides that, God, all knowing and all powerful.
Others again maintain, that He is the spirit of the patient. Thus are there
many diverse opinions resting on reason and sastric texts, and
the semblance of both. Under these circumstances one that
may, without consideration, take up any of these notions may
be barred from eternal emancipation, and may come to evil.
Therefore, by setting forth Brahma-inquisitiveness, the settle-
ment of the Vedanta texts, aided by arguments not hostile to
them, is undertaken as the requisite of eternal Emancipation.

(It may be noted that Sankara claims that his commentary is
for "settlement of the vedanta texts", aided by arguments
not hostile to them, i.e., not hostile to those vedantic texts.
Hence, we may find that the explanations are not convincing
to the average learner of today.)

I shall continue with this if our members find any use of such a
treatment of the Brahma Sutras and the commentary of Sankara
on it.