Brahma Sutras

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

BTW, brahma sutras are just consolidation of the philosophy of the upanishads in a very concise manner. The brahma sutras was authored by Badarayana, the person who authored mahabarata. Since the sutras by nature are marked by brevity, they need to be interpreted to show what they actually meant. This also leads to the possibility of different interpretations. This is what exactly happened and there are 5 major interpretations or bhasyas of the brahma sutras being by Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva and Vallabha.

To those who want to know more about brahma sutras here is a summary from wikipedia:

"The Brahma sūtras (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म सूत्र), also known as the Vedānta Sūtras (वेदान्त सूत्र), are one of the three canonical texts of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy. A thorough study of Vedānta requires a close examination of these three texts, known in Sanskrit as the Prasthanatrayi, or the three starting points. The Brahma sutras constitute the Nyāya prasthāna (न्याय प्रस्थान), or "Logic-based starting point",[SUP][1][/SUP] of the above triplet (Sanskritन्याय, Nyāya: logic, order). Thus they are also referred to as the Yukti prasthāna, since Yukti (युक्ति) also means reasoning or logic. While the Upanishads (Śruti prasthāna, the starting point of revelation) and the Bhagavad-Gītā (Smriti prasthāna, the starting point of remembered tradition) are the basic source texts of Vedānta, it is in the Brahma sūtras that the teachings of Vedānta are set forth in a systematic and logical order.
The task of reconciling the different Vedic texts, indicating their mutual relations, is assigned to a scripture called the Mimāṃsā (मीमांसा) which means investigation or inquiry. In the orthodox Hindu tradition, Mimāṃsā is divided into two systems, the Purva-Mimāṃsāby Jaimini which is concerned with the correct interpretation of the Vedic ritual and Uttara-Mimāṃsā by Badarayana which is called Brahma-Mimāṃsā or Sariraka-Mimāṃsā which deals chiefly with the nature of Brahman, the status of the world and the individual self. Since it attempts to determine the exact nature of these entities it is also called nirnāyaka-shāstra.
The Brahma sūtra is the exposition of the philosophy of the Upanishads. It is an attempt to systematise the various strands of the Upanishads which form the background of the orthodox systems of thought. It is also called Uttara-Mimāṃsā or the investigation of the later part of the Vedas, as distinguished from the Mimāṃsā of the earlier part of the Vedas and the Brahmanas which deal with ritual orkarma-kānda. It is intended to be a summary of the teaching of the Upanishads. [SUP][2] "
[/SUP]

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

This is a very vast subject and at times can be too heavy on the mind and lots of debates of the Vedantin Vs Opponent kind..which sometimes derails the main topic I feel.

So where do you want to start from?

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I plan to start with the broad issues on which the major commentators differ. Then I will present Sankara's views as translated by the author on each of the chapters of the brahma sutras. Divergent views are strongly encouraged here.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

You start some topic and lets see how the discussion goes.

I somehow feel one needs to read the whole Brahma Sutra before starting off to debate each topic..but anyway at least there is an attempt to start off somewhere..so go ahead start some topic.

 

[sravna]

Some more introduction to the brahma sutras from wikipedia, before I proceed:

[h=2]" Overview[edit source][/h]The Brahma Sūtras are also known by other names: Vedānta Sūtras, Uttara Mīmāmsā-sūtras, Śārīraka Sūtras, Śārīraka Mimāmsā-sūtras. Vaishnavas also call this the Bhikṣu sūtras.
The Brahma Sūtras attempt to reconcile the seemingly contradictory and diverse statements of the various Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gītā, by placing each teaching in a doctrinal context. The word "sūtra" means "thread", and the Brahma sūtras literally stitch together the various Vedanta teachings into a logical and self-consistent whole.
However, the Brahma Sūtras are so terse that not only are they capable of being interpreted in multiple ways, but they are often incomprehensible without the aid of the various commentaries handed down in the main schools of Vedānta thought.
The Vedānta Sūtras supply ample evidence that at a very early time, i.e. a period before their own final composition, there were differences of opinion among the various interpreters of the Vedānta. Quoted in the Vedānta Sūtras are opinions ascribed to Audulomi, Kārshnāgni, Kāśakŗtsna, Jaimini and Bādari, in addition to Vyasa.
These sūtras systematize the jñānakāņda (path of wisdom, as opposed to Karmakāņda, the path of action) of the Veda, by combining the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of the Veda and argumentatively establishing the specific interpretation of the Veda adopted in the sūtras.
The sūtras also discuss the role of karma and God and critically address the various doctrines associated with Buddhism, Jainism,Yoga, Nyāya, Vaisheshika, Shaiva, Shakta, Atheism, and Sankhya philosophies.
[h=2]Structure[edit source][/h]The Brahma Sūtras consist of 555 aphorisms or sūtras, in four chapters (adhyāya), each chapter being divided into four quarters (pāda). Each quarter consists of several groups of sūtras called Adhikaraņas or topical sections. An Adhikaraņa usually consists of several sūtras, but some have only one sūtra.
[h=2]Contents[edit source][/h]

• First chapter (Samanvaya: harmony): explains that all the Vedānta texts talk of Brahman, the ultimate reality, which is the goal of life. The very first sūtra offers an indication into the nature of the subject matter. VS 1.1.1 athāto brahma jijñāsā - Now: therefore the inquiry (into the real nature) of Brahman.

• Second chapter (Avirodha: non-conflict): discusses and refutes the possible objections to Vedānta philosophy.

• Third chapter (Sādhana: the means): describes the process by which ultimate emancipation can be achieved.

• Fourth chapter (Phala: the fruit): talks of the state that is achieved in final emancipation.

[h=2]Commentaries[edit source][/h]Many commentaries have been written on this text, the earliest extant one being the one by Sri Adi Shankara. His commentary set forth the non-dualistic (Advaita) interpretation of the Vedānta, and was commented upon by Vācaspati and Padmapāda. These sub-commentaries, in turn, inspired other derivative texts in the Advaita school.
Ramanuja also wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutra, called Sri Bhasya, which lays the foundations of the Vishishtadvaita tradition. In this, he firmly refutes the Advaita view as proposed by Adi Shankara in his commentary.
In the 12-13th century, Madhvacharya wrote commentaries on Brahma Sutras, which describe the supremacy of Lord Vishnu orNarayana. Thus he laid out the foundation for Tatvavaada or Dvaita tradition of Vedanta refuting all the previous commentaries on Brahma Sutras. Madhvacharya's four commentaries on Brahma Sutras are, 1-Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 2-Nyaya Vivarana, 3-Anuvyakhyana, 4-Brahma Sutra Anubhashya. Sri Jayatirtha wrote an extant subcommentary to Madhvacharya's Anuvyakhyana called Nyaya Sudha (Nectar of Logic) which is considered as magnum opus in Madhvacharya's school. Dr Surendranath Dasgupta in his work "A History of Indian Philosophy" (Vol IV) has cited, "In my opinion Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha present the highest dialectical skill in Indian thought".

 

[Nara]

sravna, you have been educating all of us about advaitam for a long time now, it is rather surprising that you are only now getting ready to read the stuff. It is also quite interesting and somewhat amusing that you are getting into it with your mind already made up.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

This time it is not only about advaitam. But about other major viewpoints too. That is the reason I said I strongly encourage views of people who are experts in other schools of thought. Let us see if consensus can really be achieved.

 

[mkrishna100]

Swami Paramarthananda's Comprehensive talks on the entire Brahma Sutras ( based on Shankara Bhashya ) are given in this link below
Swami Paramarthananda | Sumukam's Blog

Interested people can follow that link to download the talks and listen but before studying Brahma Sutra , one must have studied the Bhgavad Gita and the 10 Major Upanishads .

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

This time it is not only about advaitam. But about other major viewpoints too. That is the reason I said I strongly encourage views of people who are experts in other schools of thought. Let us see if consensus can really be achieved.

Dear Shri Sravna,

Since you have "encouraged" other views also, may I state that the sAreeraka meemAmsa does not appear to justify that term, viz., how exactly the One Absolute Truth has manifested as this visible and "experiencable" Universe. True that Sankara is at his best in giving abstruse reasonings and arguments and since Sankara is a very venerated personage of most Smartha brahmins, there is a lot of eulogy for the Brahmasutra Bhashya of Sankara. But he signally fails in explaining his notion of "adhyAsa" (which became mAyA in due course of time, although Sankara has written a separate "adhyAsa bhAshya" on that topic.

In a nutshell, we can say that Sankara did not clarify how the nirguna Parabrahman becomes sullied by the "adhyAsa" and becomes the ordinary jeeva or jeevAtma. Advaitic scholars have so far not been able to effectively rebut the criticisms on this point from visishtAdvaitins, dvaitins, etc., and that is one reason for the schisms in the hindu fold. Hence, in a way, Sankara was the cause for the divisions and he was not a unifier.

Unless you yourself, or some new vedantin scholar cracks the riddle of how and why (what for?) the nirguna parabrahman becomes the mAyA-ridden jeeva and from where does this mAyA originate and how, advaita will be a great philosophy only for those who are partisan.

We should also bear in mind that the same brahma sutras have been elaborately analyzed through bhAshyams by more than one acharya and each one of these has come to divergent and even contradictory conclusions. If a text is capable of such interpretations, I will say, it was lacking in clarity of expression and hence not very laudable.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sravna,

I will be reading with interest whatever you and others will be posting here in this thread. I may not join issue on any of the conclusions that are reached here because I know where I stand and what is liked here by the majority. But I will be certainly interested in understanding your view point. Thanks. Please continue.

 

[tbs]

hi sravana,

start with ATHATHO BRAHMA JIJNASA......JANMADSYA YETHAHA.....SASTRA YONITVAD.......TATVA SAMANVYAD..... i studied

brhmasutras in my undergraduate course...i studied basically sri sankara vedanta with bhamati teeka od sankara...i studied

same sutras based on SRI BHASHYAM based on sri ramanuja too....a lot of basic knowledge required prior to brhmasutra....

i studied in sanskrit only....not with english translation....i think english translations are most confusing than the original sanskrit text....

 

[sravna]

Shri Sangom, Shri Vaagmi and Shri TBS , thanks for your interest.

I will start with the concept of Adhyasa by Sankara, which has been a major issue of debate among the various schools of thought. The concept is introduced by Sankara in his commentary on brahma sutra.

Here is the concept of adhyasa as given in wikipedia:

Note: I will follow up with the objections of Ramanuja and Madhva and my own views on it. I also welcome the views of the members of the forum.

"Adhyāsa (Sanskrit:अध्यास) [from adhi above, over + the verbal root as to throw, cast] Throwing over or casting upon; misconception or erroneous attribution, the significance being that the mind casts upon facts, which are misunderstood, certain mistaken notions; hence false or erroneous attribution. Equivalent to Adhyāropa. Simply put Adhyasa means superimposition or false attribution of properties of one thing on another thing.
According to Advaita Vedanta error arises on account of the superimposition of one reality on another. Adi Shankara defines Adhyasa as "the apparent presentation, to consciousness, by way of memory of something previously observed in some other thing".
Adhyasa is the illusory appearance, in another place, of an object seen earlier elsewhere. It is similar in nature to recollection. For instance on seeing a rope in dim light and not recognizing it as a rope, a person mistakes it for a snake which he has seen elsewhere. The snake is not absolutely unreal, because it is actually experienced, and produces the same effect, such as fear and so on, as a real snake would. At the same time, it is not real, because it is no longer seen when the rope has been recognized. It is therefore described asAnirvachaneeya or what cannot be classified as either real or unreal.
Adi Shankara further points out in his Adhyasa bhashya on the Brahma Sutras that, when there is superimposition of one thing on another, the latter (the substratum) is not affected in the least by the good or bad qualities of the former. (e.g., nacre does not become more valuable because it is mistaken for silver, nor does a rope get the qualities of the snake which it is mistaken for). The implication of this statement is that the self which is identical with Brahman does not undergo any of the changes, nor does it experience any of the joys and sorrows, of the body, mind and organs which are superimposed on it. It is, however, only because of this mutual superimposition of the self and the non-self that all action, both secular and religious, including the study of Vedanta, becomes possible. The self, by itself, is neither a doer of actions, nor an enjoyer of the results. It becomes a doer and an enjoyer only because of this superimposition, as a result of which, as Adi Shankara says, the real and the unreal, namely, the self and the non-self, are blended into one, as it were.. All action, including the various rites laid down in the Vedas, thus come within the sphere of Avidya or nescience, which is the cause of the superimposition.
Adhyasa is of two kinds. When a rope is mistaken for a snake, the snake alone is seen. The existence of the rope is not known at all. Here the snake is said to be superimposed on the rope. This is known as Svarupa-Adhyasa. The second kind of superimposition is when a crystal appears to be red in the proximity of a red flower. Here both the crystal and the flower are seen as existing, and the redness of the flower is attributed to the crystal also. This is known as Samsarga-Adhyasa. Both these kinds of Adhyasa are present in the mutual superimposition of the self and the non-self.
Because of the superimposition of the non-self on the self, the existence of the self is not recognized at all, and the non-self, (that is, the body, mind and organs), is alone recognized as existing. This is Svarupa-Adhyasa. In the superimposition of the self on the non-self, only the existence and consciousness aspects of the self are attributed to the body, mind and organs. This is Samsarga-Adhyasa. The result of this mutual superimposition is that every one identifies himself with the body. This is the root cause of all suffering. Giving up this wrong identification with the body-mind complex and realizing that one is the self which is beyond all suffering and all the pairs of opposites such as heat and cold, success and failure and so on, is Vidya or knowledge. It is this knowledge that is contained in theUpanishads.
Svarupa-Adhyasa is also known as Nirupadhika-Adhyasa or superimposition without a limiting adjunct or Upadhi. The superimposition of an illusory snake on a rope is of this type. Upadhi has been defined by Bhaskararaya in his commentary on the name Nirupadhih(No.154) in the Lalitāsahasranāmabhāsya as Upa samipe adadhati sviyam dharmam that which imparts its own quality to an object near it. A red flower which makes a transparent crystal near it look red is an upadhi. The superimposition of the red colour on the crystal is a superimposition with upadhi and it is known as Sopadhika-Adhyasa, which is the same as samsarga-adhyasa.
In the superimposition of the snake on the rope, the substratum is considered to be the rope. But the rope itself is not real, and is a superimposition on Brahman or pure Consciousness. Therefore it is said in Vedanta that the substratum is Rajju-upahita chaitanyam or pure Consciousness apparently limited by the rope. Every object in this world should therefore be looked upon as Brahman limited by that object or Brahman in the form of that object Sarvam khalu idam brahma. The illusory snake is described as Pratibhasika or illusory; the rope, like everything in this world, is Vyavaharika or empirical reality. Brahman alone is Paramarthika or absolute reality. The aim of Vedanta is to enable one to attain this realization."

 

[sravna]

Before presenting the objections to Sankara's views, let me state my own position on the two related concepts of adhyasa and avidya. According to advaita there is something called as maya which does two things (i) projecting the physical reality (ii) veiling the spiritual or the ultimate reality. In my view Sankara meant the former as adhyasa and the latter the cause of avidya. Self realization is achieved by the process of unveiling or removal of avidya and so transcending the effects of adhyasa.

 

[sravna]

Ramanuja sees seven fundamental flaws in Sankara's advaita:

I will discuss the first objection of Ramanuja:

1. The nature of Avidya: Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.

My views: Maya is itself a projection and is illusory or unreal from the point of view of brahman. It creates the further illusion of the physical world and obscuration of brahman. The jivas created don't comprehend this illusion and see this as real till self realization is achieved.

We know that illusion can be seen as real or unreal depending on the nature of the entity.

 

[sravna]

I seek alternate views to the views I have expressed in my previous post.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

I might join in a bit later..may be at the later part of the day cos right now I am tied up reading Panini's Sutras and that takes lots of time.

You know if anyone wants to lose weight..just study Panini's Sutras..it needs intense concentration and one might not even feel like eating while studying it!LOL

So no need for diets or medication to lose weight..study the Sutras and you wont feel hungry!LOL

 

[sravna]

The second objection of Ramanuja was this:

The incomprehensibility of Avidya: Advaitins claim that Avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvachaniya.} All cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.

My Views:Let us say maya is real. Then you are under the spell of maya and cannot hope to comprehend it. If maya is unreal then it is still an illusion and you cannot hope to comprehend it. Therefore it is right to conclude that maya is incomprehensible.

You can comprehend something only when something falls within the limits of your comprehending ability. Maya is beyond that just as brahman is. When you are unfettered , maya is no longer there.

 

[sravna]

Third objection of Ramanuja:

The grounds of knowledge of Avidya: No pramana can establish Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

My Views: Recognizing maya is the same as recognizing brahman and once you recognize brahman, you recognize maya i.e., maya disappears. So by brahma vidya which is recognition of brahman one automatically is able to view maya from a higher level as something which grips the jivas.

 

[sravna]

Ramanuja's fourth objection:

The locus of Avidya: Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the (false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual soul's {jiva.} Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle

My Views: Since maya itself is illusory, the question of locus does not arise.

 

[sangom]

The second objection of Ramanuja was this:

The incomprehensibility of Avidya: Advaitins claim that Avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvachaniya.} All cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.

My Views:Let us say maya is real. Then you are under the spell of maya and cannot hope to comprehend it. If maya is unreal then it is still an illusion and you cannot hope to comprehend it. Therefore it is right to conclude that maya is incomprehensible.

You can comprehend something only when something falls within the limits of your comprehending ability. Maya is beyond that just as brahman is. When you are unfettered , maya is no longer there.

If mAyA and brahman are (both) beyond human limits of comprehension, how is it feasible that one of these, mAyA, can be overcome and the other "realized" by the human abilities?

 

[sravna]

Objections 5,6 and 7 of Ramanuja:

5. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman: Sankara would have us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness, obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this (impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it - equally absurd.

6. The removal of Avidya by Brahma-vidya: Advaita claims that Avidya has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya, the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated {nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of Divine Grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.

7. The removal of Avidya: For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya; knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.

My views: My views expressed with regard to the previous objections will answer the above objections. One addition is that the brahma vidya or the knowledge that shows itself to us is the real or the non-dual knowledge which is nothing but brahman. So non-duality will not collapse into duality.

 

[sravna]

If mAyA and brahman are (both) beyond human limits of comprehension, how is it feasible that one of these, mAyA, can be overcome and the other "realized" by the human abilities?

I believe both are realized simultaneously at the time of self realization. When you are under maya you can neither comprehend maya nor brahman.

 

[auh]

I believe both are realized simultaneously at the time of self realization. When you are under maya you can neither comprehend maya nor brahman.

I had the same doubt as Shri Sangom. If Maya is incomprehensible and so is Brahman, then how can we conclusively say that we can become unfettered on realization? I mean when there are incomprehensible things hovering about, we cannot say how we could comprehend them, can we? We can only overcome what we know, and not the unknown. At best, we can only speculate.

Also, if we allow for Maya and Brahman (both incomprehensible), then the concept of one Brahmam is demolished, isn't it?

 

[sangom]

Third objection of Ramanuja:

The grounds of knowledge of Avidya: No pramana can establish Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

My Views: Recognizing maya is the same as recognizing brahman and once you recognize brahman, you recognize maya i.e., maya disappears. So by brahma vidya which is recognition of brahman one automatically is able to view maya from a higher level as something which grips the jivas.

What this Brahma-vidyA is and how it works, have not been explained. If there is something called Brahma-vidyA which makes the incomprehensible (see post # 17), then brahman is no longer beyond human comprehension and that statement becomes false, does it not?

If, as you say, "recognizing maya is the same as recognizing brahman" it means that brahman and mAyA are identical; this again cuts at the root of advaita !

 

[sravna]

I had the same doubt as Shri Sangom. If Maya is incomprehensible and so is Brahman, then how can we conclusively say that we can become unfettered on realization? I mean when there are incomprehensible things hovering about, we cannot say how we could comprehend them, can we? We can only overcome what we know, and not the unknown. At best, we can only speculate.

Also, if we allow for Maya and Brahman (both incomprehensible), then the concept of one Brahmam is demolished, isn't it?

Dear Shri Auh,

When we are self realized we become unfettered. If you are unfettered you are one with brahman. So there is no question of incomprehensibility at that point. Both maya and brahman being incomprehensible when we are fettered doesn't mean that brahman is not one.