Posted by: adbhutam | May 21, 2015

‘VASTU-PARICCHEDA ABHĀVA’

Passages teaching ‘vastu pariccheda abhāva’ for Brahman

 

There are innumerous passages in the śruti, smṛti and purāṇas to denote that Brahman is free of the limitation caused by objects. That is, there are no objects really that can cause any limitation to Brahman. In other words, if there are objects/entities that are admitted other than, different from, Brahman on absolute terms, then there is no way that Brahman can remain ananta, infinite. Finitude can occur on three grounds: time, space and objects. Brahman is eternal and there is no time-wise limitation to It. Being all-pervading, in and out, Brahman is free of space-wise limitation. Having no objects other than Itself, Brahman is free of object-wise limitation too. In order to make this last aspect clear there are several passages in the scriptures:

  1. सत्यंज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म । (Brahman is Existence, Consciousness and Infinite) (Taittiriya Up. 2.1). The Bhāṣyam for this, in part, in particular the anantam epithet is:

कथं पुनर्वस्तुत आनन्त्यम्? सर्वानन्यत्वात् । भिन्नं हि वस्तु वस्त्वन्तरस्य अन्तो भवति, वस्त्वन्तरबुद्धिर्हि प्रसक्ताद्वस्त्वन्तरान्निवर्तते । यतो यस्य बुद्धेर्निवृत्तिः, स तस्यान्तः । तद्यथा गोत्वबुद्धिरश्वत्वान्निवर्तत इत्यश्वत्वान्तं गोत्वमित्यन्तवदेव भवति । स चान्तो भिन्नेषु वस्तुषु दृष्टः । नैवं ब्रह्मणो भेदः । अतो वस्तुतोऽप्यानन्त्यम् । कथं पुनः सर्वानन्यत्वं ब्रह्मण इति, उच्यते – सर्ववस्तुकारणत्वात् । सर्वेषां हि वस्तूनां कालाकाशादीनां कारणं ब्रह्म । कार्यापेक्षया वस्तुतोऽन्तवत्त्वमिति चेत्, न; अनृतत्वात्कार्यस्य वस्तुनः । न हि कारणव्यतिरेकेण कार्यं नाम वस्तुतोऽस्ति, यतः कारणबुद्धिर्विनिवर्तेत; ‘वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) एवं सदेव सत्यमिति श्रुत्यन्तरात् ।

[How again is Brahman infinite object-wise? Since It is non-different from everything. An object that is different from another object, limits the latter. The awareness about the other object is annulled by the awareness of the object that is being perceived at present. That which limits the consciousness (awareness) of the other object is the limiter of the latter. Just as cow-awareness is thwarted by the horse-awareness and thus the latter is certainly the limiter of the former. Such a limitation is seen in objects that are different from each other. Not so is a difference with respect to Brahman. Therefore Brahman is infinite object-wise too. How again is Brahman non-different from everything? This is said thus: Since It is the cause of all objects. Brahman is the Cause of all objects including time and space. Objection: Brahman is object-wise limited, finite, from the standpoint of Its effects. Reply: No, since the object called ‘effect’ is unreal. Never does an object remain different from its cause so as to thwart/annul the cause-awareness. For, the Chā.up. 6.1.4 teaches: ‘all clay-transformations are mere words and the material cause, clay, alone is real.’ Likewise ‘existence alone is real’ teaches another passage.

Continues the bhāṣya:

आकाशो ह्यनन्त इति प्रसिद्धं देशतः; तस्येदं कारणम् ; तस्मात्सिद्धं देशत आत्मन आनन्त्यम् । न ह्यसर्वगतात्सर्वगतमुत्पद्यमानं लोके किञ्चिद्दृश्यते । अतो निरतिशयमात्मन आनन्त्यं देशतः । तथा अकार्यत्वात्कालतः ; तद्भिन्नवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च वस्तुतः । अत एव निरतिशयसत्यत्वम् ॥] [It is quite well known that space, ākāśa, is infinite. Brahman is the cause of even space and therefore Brahman-Atman is infinite. It is not seen anywhere in the world that something all-pervading issuing forth from a finite cause. Therefore Atman’s infinitude is absolute. And since Brahman is not caused, that is, It is not a product, It is infinite time-wise too. (that which is a product, being absent before its creation, and after its destruction, is indeed finite time-wise and Brahman being uncaused, and thus indestructible, is ever existent and hence infinite time-wise too). And since there is no object other than Brahman, It is infinite object-wise too. Therefore alone is Its absolute Existence as well. ]

 

  1. The Tai.up. 2.6.1 says, in part: इदं सर्वमसृजत । यदिदं किञ्च । तत्सृष्ट्वा । तदेवानुप्राविशत् । तदनुप्रविश्य । सच्च त्यच्चाभवत् । …सत्यं चानृतं च सत्यमभवत् । [Brahman created all this and whatever is in creation and experienced as ‘this’. Having created It entered It. And became everything that is real and false…] The bhāṣya says: एतत्सर्वमभवत्, सत्यं परमार्थसत्यम्; किं पुनस्तत्? ब्रह्म, ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इति प्रकृतत्वात् । यस्मात्, सत्त्यदादिकं मूर्तामूर्तधर्मजातं यत्किंचेदं सर्वमविशिष्टं विकारजातमेकमेव सच्छब्दवाच्यं ब्रह्माभवत्, तद्व्यतिरेकेणाभावान्नामरूपविकारस्य, तस्मात् तत् ब्रह्म सत्यमित्याचक्षते ब्रह्मविदः । [ Brahman became all this. Since all transformation that is denoted as formed and un-formed is a manifestation of Brahman alone, being non-existent as different from It, therefore Brahman is called ‘Satyam’.]
  2. The Bṛ.up. 1.4.10 teaches ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेत् । अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति । तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत् ।[Brahman existed before. It knew Itself as ‘I am Brahman.’ Therefore It became all. The relevant bhashyam is:

तस्मात् — यत्प्रविष्टं स्रष्टृ ब्रह्म, तद्ब्रह्म, वै-शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः, इदं शरीरस्थं यद्गृह्यते, अग्रे प्राक्प्रतिबोधादपि, ब्रह्मैवासीत्, …..तस्मात् एवं विज्ञानात् तद्ब्रह्म सर्वमभवत् – अब्रह्माध्यारोपणापगमात् तत्कार्यस्यासर्वत्वस्य निवृत्त्या सर्वमभवत् ।

(Therefore) That Brahman that has created the world and entered into it, that Brahman, ‘vā’ is for emphasis, idam: that which is available in the body, was Brahman alone before the knowledge too.  Upon knowing Itself as ‘I am Brahman’, …it realized Its true nature of being ‘All’.

Here too, the Upaniṣad teaches that the nature of Brahman is to be ‘All’. That is being free of vastu-pariccheda, object-wise limitation.

 

  1. The Bṛ.up. 2.4.14 teaches: यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति तदितर इतरं पश्यति तदितर इतरं शृणोति तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर इतरं मनुते मदितर इतरं विजानाति यत्र वा अस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं शृणुयात्तत्केन कमभिवदेत्तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं विजानीयात् । येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयाद्विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादिति ॥ १४ ॥ [ “For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what,  what should one see and through what, what should one hear  and through what, what should one speak and through what,  what should one think and through what, what should one  know and through what? Through what should One know That  owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear,  should one know the Knower?”] In this passage too, just as the Bṛ.up.1.4.10 shown above, the ‘corrected’ vision of infinitude is taught through the words ‘sarvam’, ‘All’. In fact the corrected vision transcends the knower-knowing-knowledge tripuṭī, along with the instrument of knowing. This is an unmistakable mark of vastu-pariccheda abhāva to teach Brahman as Infinite. The anvaya-vyatireka method is involved in this mantra too, just as in the 1.4.10 where it is implied. In the state of ignorance, there is finitude, bondage. In the vision of Knowledge, there is infinitude, liberation.
  2. The famous passage पुरुष एवेदं सर्वम् (All this is verily the Puruṣa, Brahman) of the Puruṣa sūkta too teaches Brahman as one devoid of object-wise limitation. There is this explanation from the Dvaita school for this mantra: The identity between the ‘all’ and ‘Puruṣa’ is not the one of advaita but it signifies only a dependence of the all on the Puruṣa for its very existence, sattā. However, such a view only culminates in the ‘all’ being non-different from the category of the ‘rope-snake’ where alone there is dependence of the imagined snake on the real rope for its very existence. Ultimately such an explanation as above will render the ‘all’ no different from a superimposition. And thru that, the Advaitic identity.
  3. The Māṇḍūkya upaniṣad too teaches that everything is non-different from the Supreme: सर्वं ह्येतद्ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् ॥ २ ॥ [All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.]
  4. The Chāndogya up. 7.25.2 teaches: आत्मैवेदं सर्वमिति[All this is verily the Ātman]
  5. The Muṇḍakopaniṣat 2.2.11 too teaches on the same lines as the above: ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्ताद्ब्रह्म पश्चाद्ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण ।
    अधश्चोर्ध्वं च प्रसृतं ब्रह्मैवेदं विश्वमिदं वरिष्ठम् ॥ १२ ॥ [11 That immortal Brahman alone is before, that Brahman is behind, that Brahman is to the right and left. Brahman alone pervades everything above and below; this universe is that Supreme Brahman alone.]
  6. The Bṛ.up 2.4.6 makes this teaching extremely lucid: ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो ब्रह्म वेद क्षत्त्रं तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः क्षत्त्रं वेद लोकास्तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो लोकान्वेद देवास्तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो देवान्वेद भूतानि तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो भूतानि वेद सर्वं तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः सर्वं वेदेदं ब्रह्मेदं क्षत्त्रमिमे लोका इमे देवा इमानि भूतानीदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा ॥ ६ ॥[“The brahmin rejects one who knows him as different from the Self. The kshatriya rejects one who knows him as different from the Self. The worlds reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods reject one who knows them as  different from the Self. The beings reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The All rejects one who knows it as different from the Self. This brahmin, this kshatriya, these  worlds, these gods, these beings and this All — are that Self.]
  7. The Smṛti, Bhagavadgītā 7.19 emphatically teaches the mode of realization of the Self: बहूनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मां प्रपद्यते । वासुदेवः सर्वमिति स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः ॥ १९ ॥ [19 At the end of many births the man of Knowledge attains Me, (realizing) that Vasudeva is all. Such a high-souled one is very rare.] Shankaracharya’s commentary:

बहूनां जन्मनां ज्ञानार्थसंस्काराश्रयाणाम् अन्ते समाप्तौ ज्ञानवान् प्राप्तपरिपाकज्ञानः मां वासुदेवं प्रत्यगात्मानं प्रत्यक्षतः प्रपद्यते । कथम् ? वासुदेवः सर्वम् इति । यः एवं सर्वात्मानं मां नारायणं प्रतिपद्यते, सः महात्मा ; न तत्समः अन्यः अस्ति, अधिको वा । अतः सुदुर्लभः, ‘मनुष्याणां सहस्रेषु’ (भ. गी. ७-३) इति हि उक्तम् ॥ 7.19 Ante, at the end, after the completion; bahūnām, of many; janmanām, births, which became the repository for accumulating the tendencies leading to Knowledge; jnānavān, the man of Knowledge, who has got his Knowledge matured; directly prapadyate, attains; mām, Me, Vāsudeva, who am the inmost Self; (realizing)-in what way?-iti, that; Vāsudeva is sarvam, all. Sah, such a one, who realizes Me [Here Ast. adds the word Narayana.-Tr.] thus as the Self of all; is mahatma, a high-souled one. There is none else who can equal or excel him. Therefore he is su-durlabhah, very rare among thousands of men, as it has been said (in verse 3).

11.  The Viṣṇu purāṇa brings out the above teaching thus: सकलमिदमहं च* *वासुदेवः*

 

*परमपुमान्*परमेश्वरः स एकः ।

 

इति मतिरचला भवत्यनन्ते

 

हृदयगते व्रज तान्विहाय दूरात् ॥ 3.7.32 ||

 

[‘All this including me is nothing but Vāsudeva, the supreme Person (uttama puruṣaḥ), the supreme Ishwara, One alone.’ He who has fixed his mind thus in the Infinite Brahman that is established in his heart (‘yo veda nihitam guhāyām parame vyoman’ of the Taittiriya which teaches that the Supreme has to be realized in the heart) – will never be touched by death, samsāra).

Shankara cites another verse from the same Vishnupurāṇa in that

introduction, a little later:

 

*अहं हरिः सर्वमिदं जनार्द्दनो* नान्यत् ततः कारणकार्य्यजातम् ।

ईदृङूमनो यस्य न तस्य भूयो भवोद्भवा द्वन्द्वगदा भवन्ति ।। 1.22.86 ।।

 

(‘I am Hari, all this (universe) is Janārdana, there is none other than Him

as cause-effect combine. He who has thus realized will never be caught in samsāra.)

 

  1. Apart from the above kind of ‘postive’ teaching of ‘all’ being Brahman, there is the ‘negative’ kind of teaching too to drive home the same message: Bṛ.up.4.4.19: मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥ १९ [ ‘Through the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There is in It no diversity. He goes from death to death who sees in It, as it  were, diversity.’ ] All such non-advaitic explanations for the above mantra such as ‘this mantra only denies difference between the various Avatāras of Viṣṇu as Rāma and Kṛṣṇa and one who holds such absolute difference will go from death to death’ does not convey the Upaniṣadic purport. For, the Upaniṣad is never of the opinion anywhere that the perception of difference between Rāma and Kṛṣṇa is the cause of samsāra. The Upaniṣad comes to redeem us from ignorance that is the cause of samsāra. Anyone with a basic knowledge of purāṇa will know that Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, etc. are only manifestations of one Viṣṇu and there is no absolute difference between those forms/persons. The Upaniṣad need not therefore teach that such difference is censurable. On the other hand, it is not common knowledge that the perception of difference, duality, nānātva, is what is samsāra and the knowledge that annuls this is the one of Ekatva. Innumerable passages such as ‘यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥ ७ ॥ [7     To the seer, all things have verily become the Self: what delusion, what sorrow, can there be for him who beholds that oneness? ] teach us that it is the knowledge of Unity, oneness, that redeems one from delusion and misery, the manifestations of samsāra.

The foregoing passages from the śruti, smṛti and purāṇa are only a representative sample of several such passages that unmistakably teach that Brahman is devoid of the finitude caused by object-wise difference. In other words, if there are objects/persons/entities that are admitted to be absolutely different, atyanta bheda, from Brahman, then Brahman cannot be admitted to be ananta. Vastu-pariccheda will bring about paricchinnatva, finitude, limitation, in Brahman, by that very vastu, object/person/entity, that is admitted to be different from Brahman. Thus the Vedanta does not admit of such a finitude in Brahman. The Advaitic commentaries alone bring out in no unmistakable terms this aupaniṣadic ānantya of Brahman. In non-advaitic interpretations the ānantya of Brahman is only compromised as they do not admit of the vastu-pariccheda abhāva taught by the innumerable passages cited above. To sum up, the word ‘sarvam’ is the key to understand the negation of vastu-pariccheda in Brahman-Ātman.

 

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | May 21, 2015

Vāsudeva Mananam – Kannada Classes, Bangalore

This is to announce the slated commencement of the above classes on the 24th May, Sunday, 2015.  The venue is the Sringeri Shankara Maṭha, Bangalore (close to Chamarajpet).  Time: 10 AM to 11 AM.  At present the classes will be only on Sundays.  Information about the availability of the text will be given in the class.

All those interested in the above classes are welcome to attend.  Please inform your friends and relatives too.
Posted by: adbhutam | May 21, 2015

‘SRI DAKṢIṆĀMŪRTI STOTRAM’ – ENGLISH

The above work, after 30 years, is now available in new print and a new jacket.  The Sringeri Pīṭham has brought out the two volumes of this monumental book on Advaita Vedanta, authored by the revered Acharya (late) Sri D.S.Subbaramaiya.  The price, for both volumes put together, is Rs.400.  Cost of packing/forwarding will be extra.  Pl. contact for all your requirements:

Sri Venkatesh – ph 9036572651, Bangalore.  One may contact this email id too: srinivasan.rbi@gmail.com

Those who require just one volume, to complete their present collection, too can place their order.

 

Posted by: adbhutam | May 18, 2015

‘Brahma Satyam, Jaganmithyā’ – English

A new book with the above title has been published recently.

The book is a short rendering of the fundamentals of Advaita Vedanta  in a lucid style.
A file containing a few scanned pages from the book giving some details and also the list of publications of ‘Vedanta Bharati.’ can be downloaded from:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/e4214qg8v9z70cb/Brhmasathyam0001.pdf

Pages: about 160, Price: Rs Sixty only.

Copies can be procured from the ‘Vedanta Bharati’, C.M.Road, Krishnarajanagara, 571602, Mysore Dist. Karnataka, India.

Translator’s Note

When I read the Kannada original of this book, I found it to be very well written, presenting the salient aspects of the Advaita Darśana in a lucid and yet scholarly manner.  I felt an urge to render it in English for the benefit of a larger audience.  When I expressed this idea to His Holiness Śrī Śaṅkara Bhāratī Swāminaḥ, he readily consented and blessed me with the condition: ‘Complete it soon’.  While on the work of translation I had the direct experience of the’pariśrama’, labour, exerted by the Vidvān, Dr.M.L.Narasimhamūrti, Professor of Advaita Vedanta, Rashtriya Sanskrit Samsthān, Tirupati, who had authored the original.

The books  (Kannada and English versions) will be available in the following address at Bangalore:

Sri Ramashankara Prasada

No.537, 22nd Cross, BSK 2nd Stage,

Bangalore 560070       Ph. 080-26714992

Pl. phone Sri Nagaraj at 94499 12121 and go to the above place.  He is the one who manages that office.

One can also contact this email for placing orders: ysysmath@yahoo.com

 

Posted by: adbhutam | May 18, 2015

UPANISHAD ARTICLE SERIES – MAY 2015

Here are two articles in the Series for reading:

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-Prashnopanishat—Part-7.ashx

 

http://advaita-academy.org/Articles/The-muNDakopaniShat—Part-17.ashx

Posted by: adbhutam | May 7, 2015

Śaṅkara’s Date: Investigating Internal Evidence

Śaṅkara’s Date: Investigating Internal Evidence
Dr. H. N. Shankar and V. Subrahmanian

1. Introduction
Śaṅkara-bhagavatpāda’s period has been a matter of dispute and dates ranging from the sixth century BC to the ninth century AD have been proposed. The subject has been approached from various angles – biographies; epigraphic data; institutional records; genealogical lists in the Purāṇas and elsewhere; references and citations in the works of Bhagavatpāda and his disciples; and references in other works to those of Bhagavatpāda and his disciples.
In view of the undisputed importance of internal evidence, this article objectively scrutinizes some of it. To be specific, the following are considered and their pertinence to Bhagavatpāda’s period evaluated.
(i) The mention of the coin called kārṣāpaṇa in Bhagavatpāda’s bhāṣyas.
(ii) Some passages about Buddhists in Bhagavatpāda’s Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya and Upadeśa-sāhasrī and in Sureśvarācārya’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika.
2.1 Bhagavatpāda’s Mention of the Coin Called Kārṣāpaṇa in His Bhāṣyas
(a) The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad teaches:
so’yamātmā catuṣpāt | (Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 2)
[This Ātman, which is as has been described, has four quarters.]
Bhagavatpāda’s commentary on this is, in part:
so’yam-ātmā oṅkārābhidheyaḥ parāparatvena vyavasthitaḥ catuṣpāt, kārṣāpaṇavat… |
[This aforesaid Ātman, which is signified by ‘Om’ and exists as the higher and the lower Brahman, has four quarters (pādas), like a kārṣāpaṇa…]
(b) Sage Bādarāyaṇa has aphorised:
buddhyarthaḥ pādavat | (Brahma-sūtra 3.2.33)
[For comprehension (Brahman is spoken of as having size) like the ‘pādas (feet or quarters)’.]
Bhagavatpāda has elucidated this aphorism in two ways in his Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya. His second explanation is as follows:
athavā pādavad-iti – yathā kārṣāpaṇe pāda-vibhāgo vyavahāra-prācuryāya kalpate | na hi sakalenaiva kārṣāpaṇena sarvadā sarve janāḥ vyavahartum-īśate | kraya-vikraye parimāṇāni-yamāt, tadvad-ityarthaḥ |
[Alternatively, ‘pādavat’’ means ‘like quarters’. Just as in the case of the kārṣāpaṇa, it is taken to be divided into four quarters in order to facilitate transactions since not all seek to use the whole kārṣāpaṇa in every trading activity as the quantum in buying and selling is not invariant, likewise here (Brahman’s size is conceived of for the sake of contemplation).]
2.2 Conjectured Link Between Bhagavatpāda’s Mention of Kārṣāpaṇa and His Period
A supporter of the claim that Bhagavatpāda was born centuries before the start of Christian era has written, “Explaining Brahman, in Mandukya Upanishad Bhashya, Adi Sankara uses the term, Karshapana, which referred to a coin in vogue in his times. Karshapanam was used as a unit of monetary exchange all over Bharat between 6th century BCE and 2nd Century A.D. Hence, the date of Sankara in all probability, should be within this period.” Another backer of the aforesaid claim has, with reference to Bhagavatpāda’s mentioning the kārṣāpaṇa while expounding the Māṇḍukya Upanisad, contended, “Proffered for facilitating easy comprehension by all, the kārṣāpaṇa-illustration bears testimony to the kārṣāpaṇa being current in Bhagavatpāda’s time. Scholars of ancient history have held that the kārṣāpaṇa coinage was in vogue in India from eight centuries before Christ to the time of Candragupta Maurya [Translated from Sanskrit].”
There are, however, grounds that demonstrate that Bhagavatpāda’s period cannot be arrived at thus from his reference to the kārṣāpaṇa coin.
2.3 Mention of Kārṣāpaṇa in Various Texts and the Implication of Its Being Well-known
The mention of kārṣāpaṇa by way of illustration need not be confined to the period when this coin was current. This is because it is something well-known, it having been spoken of in the Veda, Smṛti and Purāṇa themselves as also in authoritative scriptural treatises, in traditional kośas and in the literature.
(a) Says the Sāmavidhāna-brāḥmaṇa of the Sāma-veda:
vyuṣṭāyāṁ rātrau bhūtau pañca hāsya kārṣāpaṇā bhavanti vyayakṛtāśca punarāyanti mūlam-aśūnyaṁ kuryāt … | (3.3.7)
[At the close of the night, two spirits (appear before him) and he acquires five kārṣāpaṇas. On being spent, these recur. A fraction of the original amount must be retained unspent.]
This Vedic passage has been elucidated thus in Sāyaṇa’s esteemed commentary, Vedārtha-prakāśa:
atha bhūta-vaśīkaraṇa-labhya-dhana-sādhana-prayogam-āha … rātrau vyuṣṭāyāṁ satyāṁ hau [dvau?] bhūtau paśyati / tayor-hastāt asya pañca kārṣāpaṇā bhavanti / bhūtau tān prayacchata ityarthaḥ | te ca kṛtavyayāḥ punarāyanti | teṣu madhye mūlaṁ kiñcit aśūnyaṁ kuryāt ava-śeṣayet | mūlāṁśaṁ sthāpayitvā śiṣṭaṁ viniyuñjīta | tathā saty-avaśeṣito mūlāṁśo vyaya-kṛtam-aṁśam tasmāt punaḥ ākarṣati ityarthaḥ |
[Hereafter, the procedure for acquiring wealth by means of subjugating spirits is spoken of… Upon the passing of the night, he sees two spirits. From their hands, he obtains five kārṣāpaṇas. On being spent, the kārṣāpaṇas return to him. (For that purpose,) a fraction thereof must be kept unspent. Having set aside that part, the remaining may be disbursed. The purport is that the portion so retained draws back what was spent.]
(b) It is said in the Manusmṛti:
kārṣāpaṇas-tu vijñeyas-tāmrikaḥ kārṣikaḥ paṇaḥ | ( 8.136).
[It should be understood that a copper paṇa weighing one kārṣa is a kārṣāpaṇa.]
(c) The Agni-purāṇa states:
tāmrikaḥ kārṣiko rāma proktaḥ kārṣāpaṇo budhaiḥ | (227.4)
[O Rāma, the knowledgeable speak of a copper kārṣa as a kārṣāpaṇa.]
(d) In the Sage Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī, ‘kārṣāpaṇa’ finds mention in the following aphorism:
vibhāṣā kārṣāpaṇa-sahasrābhyāṁ | (5.1.29)
[The ‘taddhita ’ suffix is not always in respect of enumeration; it may be optionally elided when in conjunction with the words ‘kārṣāpaṇa’ and ‘sahasra’.]
Moreover, the word ‘kārṣāpaṇa ’ is included in the ‘Gaṇa-pāṭha’ of Sage Pāṇini under the head ‘ardhaṛcādi’. This group has been referred to in the following aphorism:
ardhaṛcāḥ puṁsi ca | (2.4.31)
[The words ‘ardhaṛca ’ etc., are spoken of in the neuter gender and in the masculine gender.]
Sage Patañjali has illustrated the aforesaid rule as follows in his authoritative Mahābhāṣya:
ardhaṛcaṁ, ardhaṛcaḥ | kārṣāpaṇaṁ , kārṣāpaṇaḥ |
[‘Ardhaṛcaṁ’ (the word ‘ardhaṛca’ in neuter gender); ‘ardhaṛcaḥ’ (in masculine gender). ‘Kārṣāpaṇaṁ’ (the word ‘kārṣāpaṇa’ in neuter gender); ‘kārṣāpaṇaḥ’ (in masculine gender).]
Explaining the word ‘pādavat (like a quarter)’ of Sage Jaimini’s Mīmāṁsā-sūtra (6.7.20), Śabara-svāmin has (as done by Bhagavatpāda later when explaining Sage Bādarāyaṇa’s use of the same word) proffered the kārṣāpaṇa-quarter example thus:
pādavat, yathā kārṣāpaṇe dīyamāne pādo datto bhavati evam-ihāpi | (6.7.20)
[‘Pādavat (like a quarter)’. Just as when a kārṣāpaṇa is given, a quarter becomes given, so is it even here.]
(e) The word ‘kārṣāpaṇa’ is recorded in various traditional Sanskrit lexicons. Thus, we have in the Amara-kośa :
kārṣāpaṇaḥ kārṣikaḥ syāt… | (2.9.88)
(Kārṣāpaṇa is synonymous with kārṣika.)
In the Medinī-kośa, we have:
kārṣāpaṇo’strī kārṣike paṇaṣoḍaśake’pi ca | (Ṇānta 93)
[The word kārṣāpaṇa is non-feminine, refers to a kārṣika and even to sixteen paṇas.]
(f) Daṇḍin’s Dasakumāracarita provides an instance of the mention of kārṣāpaṇa in Sanskrit literature. We read therein:
ekām-api kākinīṁ kārṣāpaṇa-lakṣam-āpādayema | (2.8)
[We shall transform even a quarter of a paṇa into one hundred thousand kārṣāpaṇas.]
Sage Gautama has, while defining an ‘illustration’, unambiguously stated:
laukika-parīkṣakāṇāṁ yasminnarthe buddhi-sāmyaṁ sa dṛṣṭāntaḥ / (Nyāya-sūtra 1.1.25)
[An illustration is one about which the common folk and the investigators have a common understanding.]
Thus, for proffering an illustration, familiarity of the readers with what is being presented by way of analogy is what is needed and not that what is spoken of must be available. As seen, the kārṣāpaṇa is something well-known, it having been spoken of in the Veda, Smṛti, Purāṇa, authoritative scriptural treatises, in traditional lexicons and in Sanskrit literature. Hence, it cannot be justifiably avowed that since Bhagavatpāda has proffered the kārṣāpaṇa-example in his commentaries, this coin must have been in use in his time.
2.4 Mention of Kārṣāpaṇa by Writers Even After it Ceased to be in Currency
By virtue of its being well-known in the scripture and elsewhere, authors have, in fact, mentioned the kārṣāpaṇa in their illustrations even after this coin’s cessation from circulation.
An aphorism of Sage Pāṇini is:
udupadhād-bhāvādikarmaṇor-anyatarasyāṁ | (1.2.21)
[By virtue of a verbal root with the non-heavy vowel ‘u ’ in the penultimate position, there are alternative forms when referring to the ‘principal sense’ and to the ‘first act’.]
The word ‘kārṣāpaṇa’ does not find a place in this aphorism and in Sage Patañjali’s exposition of it in his Mahābhāṣya. Nevertheless, of his own accord, Bhaṭṭoji-dīkṣita has included it as follows when explaining this aphorism in his much-studied Siddhānta-kaumudī:
…bhāva ityādi kim? rucitaṁ kārṣāpaṇam |
[What is the specific purpose served by the qualifiers, ‘to the ‘principal sense’ and to the ‘first act’? (A case which may be taken note of is) ‘rucitaṁ (bright) kārṣāpaṇam’ (Here, though stemming from the verb root ‘ruc ’ which has a non-heavy vowel ‘u ’ in the penultimate position, the form taken is ‘rucitaṁ ’ and not ‘rocitaṁ ’).]
It is pertinent that the key word of the example is just ‘rucitaṁ (shining)’ and there would have been no lacuna even if the said adjective had not been followed up by the noun ‘kārṣāpaṇam’ (to convey ‘shining kārṣāpaṇa’ ) or if a word such as ‘ābharaṇaṁ (ornament)’ had been used in the place of ‘kārṣāpaṇam’.
Bhaṭṭoji-dīkṣita was born in the sixteenth century of the Vikramaśaka and it is beyond any dispute that the kārṣāpaṇa had, as a currency, ceased to be in circulation long before his birth. Nonetheless, as seen, he has mentioned kārṣāpaṇa and that too purely of his own accord. This is one instance of authors referring to the kārṣāpaṇa in their works even much after this coin had ceased to be in use.
Here is one more example. Upaniṣad-brahmayogin, who has penned glosses on all the 108 Upaniṣads, has expatiated as follows on the teaching of the Māṇdūkya-upaniṣad about the Ātman having four pādas (quarters):
ayam-ātmā brahma iti nirdiṣṭa-pratyagabhinna-paramātmanaḥ kārṣāpaṇavat catuṣpāttvaṁ vyaktīkaroti so’yamātmā iti | ṣoḍaśāvayava-viśiṣtatvaṁ kārṣāpaṇatvaṁ | na hi gaurivāyam catuṣpād bhavati | svājñadṛṣṭyā vyaṣṭi-samaṣṭi-tadaikyopādhyabhimānataḥ viśva-viśva-viraḍ-virāḍotrotrādi-bhedena tripañcadaśapād-ayamātmā bhavati ityarthaḥ |
[The Supreme Self, which is non-different from the innermost Self and was specified in the declaration, ‘This (individual) Self is Brahman’, is explained, in the portion ‘This very Self…’ as having four pādas like a kārṣāpaṇa. The characteristic of the kārṣāpaṇa is that it is made up of sixteen parts. This Self is not possessed of four legs (pādas) like a cow. The idea is that from the point of view of one’s own ignorance, this Self becomes possessed of eighteen parts by virtue of identification with the adjuncts of the individual and the aggregate, differentiated as viśva-viśva, virāṭ-virāṭ, otṛ, etc.]
It would have been noted that Upaniṣad-brahmayogin’s explanation is partially different from that of Bhagavatpāda. Further, in his glosses, he has sometimes presented examples other than those given by Bhagavatpāda. Yet, here, he has chosen to explain the Ātman’s being four-quartered through the kārṣāpaṇa analogy. Upaniṣad-brahmayogin flourished in the 18th century (- from his words at the close of his gloss on the Muktika Upaniṣad, it is discernible that he completed this work on 17.12.1751 -) and thus lived long after the kārṣāpaṇa had ceased to be in use.
2.5 Kārṣāpaṇa Coins Used Even Long After the Start of the Christian Era
According to an inscription of Nasik of the time of the Śaka-satrap Nahapāna (119-124 AD), his son-in-law Usavadāta permanently deposited 2000 kārṣāpaṇas with two weavers’ guilds (Epigraphica Indica, Vol. 8, p. 82; D. C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions, Vol. 1, p. 157). A kārṣāpaṇa of Vijayasena (240-250 AD) having a Greek inscription on one side and a legend in Sanskrit on the other has been studied and its photographs published (Prasanna Rao Bandela, Coin Splendour: A Journey into the Past, 2003, p. 56). D. R. Bhandarkar, a renowned epigraphist, has, after providing data, pointed out, “No reasonable doubt can therefore be entertained as to Karshāpaṇa having continued to circulate up to the seventh century (D. R. Bhandarkar, Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics, AES Reprint, 1990, p. 186).” Thus, even if it be unwarrantedly imagined that Bhagavatpāda must have referred to the kārṣāpaṇa only when the coin was in use, still, it cannot be concluded on this ground whether he lived centuries before or after the start of the Christian era.
3. Bhagavatpāda’s Citing the Buddhist Logician Diṅnāga in the Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya
Sage Bādarāyaṇa has aphorised:
nābhāva upalabdheḥ | (Brahmasūtra 2.2.28)
[(External objects are) not non-existent, owing to their being perceived.]
That this is aimed at refuting a Buddhist view is undisputedly acknowledged. In the course of his exposition of this aphorism, Bhagavatpāda has written in his Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya:
upalabdhi-viṣayatvenaiva tu stambha-kuḍyādīn sarve laukikā upalabhyante | ataścaivam-eva sarve laukikā upalabhyante, yat-pratyācakṣāṇā api bāhyam-artham-evam-ācakṣate ‘yad-antar-jñyeyarūpaṁ tad-bahirvad-avabhāsate’ iti | te’pi sarvaloka-prasiddhāṁ bahir-avabhāsamānāṁ saṁvidaṁ pratilabhamānāḥ pratyākhyātukāmāśca bāhyam-arthaṁ bahirvad-iti vatkāraṁ kurvanti | itarathā hi kasmāt bahirvad-iti brūyuḥ? na hi viṣṇumitro vandhyāputravad-avabhāsata iti kaścid-ācakṣīta | tasmād-yathānubhavaṁ tattvam-abhyupagacchadbhir-bahirevāvabhāsata iti yuktam-abhyupagantuṁ, na tu bahirvad-avabhāsata iti | (Bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.28)
[On the other hand, all people cognize a pillar, a wall, etc., as objects of perception. And it is for this reason that all people likewise understand the antagonists (the Buddhists) also as indeed referring to an external object even as the latter attempt to negate it by claiming, ‘The content of the form cognized within appears as if external’. They (the Buddhists) employ the phrase ‘as if’ in the clause ‘as if external’ as they experience what appears externally in the same way as is well known to all but wish to deny that external object. Else, why would they contend, ‘as if external’? Indeed, nobody asserts, ‘Viṣṇumitra appears like the son of a barren lady.’ Therefore, it is only reasonable that those recognizing what is experienced to be the truth must admit that an object is, as seen, outside and not that it ‘appears as if external’.]
That Bhagavatpāda was referencing a Buddhist assertion is patent, for he has said: ‘ācakṣate (they {the Buddhists} contend)’, ‘bahirvad-iti vatkāraṁ kurvanti (they employ the phrase ‘as if’)’ and ‘kasmād-bahirvad-iti brūyuḥ (why would they say ‘as if external’)’. Had the statement in question been that of Bhagavatpāda himself, these words of the bhāṣya would have been unbefitting. It is noteworthy that the portion ‘yad-antarjñeyarūpam…avabhāsate’ specified (as the Buddhist’s position) by Bhagavatpāda is not a prose-passage but one half (two pādas) of a verse in the anuṣṭup metre. So, it is clear that Bhagavatpāda was literally citing – not even just paraphrasing – a Buddhist work.
As what Bhagavatpāda has cited is one half of a verse in the anuṣṭup metre, the Buddhist work cited ought to be one that contains not only the cited portion in full but also the remaining half of the verse. The Buddhist work that fulfils this condition is the Ālambana-parīkṣā of Diṅnāga. Diṅnāga was a renowned Buddhist logician and Ālambana-parīkṣā is an authentic, short work of his comprising eight kārikās, on which he has penned a vṛtti (gloss) in prose. Dharmapāla and Vinītadeva have in their ṭīkas (commentaries) elucidated the verses as also Diṅnāga’s explanatory passages. The sixth verse of the Ālambana-parīkṣā is one in which Diṅnāga has, after presenting and attacking others’ views in the first five verses, stated his view. This kārikā is:
yadantar-jñeyarūpaṁ tu bahirvad-avabhāsate |
so’rtho vijñāna-rūpatvāt-tatpratyayatayā’pi ca || (Ālambana-parīkṣā 6)
[It is the object which exists internally in the knowledge itself as a knowable aspect which appears to us as if externally. Because that object is essentially of the nature of consciousness and because it acts as a condition (to the consciousness), the knowable aspect is the object.]
{The above translation is that given by N. Aiyaswami Sastri in ‘The Alambana-Pariksa of Acarya Dignaga With Commentaries of Vinitadeva and Dharmapala and With Tibetan Texts’, Bulletin of Tibetology, Nos. 1-3, 1980, p. 21.}
Certainly, vijñāna-vāda, with its claim that there is actually no external object and that the object is but its cognition, antedated Diṅnāga. However, what is pertinent here is only whether the half-verse that Bhagavatpāda cited and which is found in the Ālambana-parīkṣā along with the remaining half of the full verse is Diṅnāga’s own composition or was picked from elsewhere by Diṅnāga. If the verse is that of Diṅnāga himself, then the inescapable conclusion is that Bhagavatpāda has cited Diṅnāga and, thus, cannot be rationally taken to have lived before Diṅnāga.
That the verse is a composition of Diṅnāga is certain, for neither Diṅnāga nor Dharmapāla or Vinītadeva has either stated or even remotely hinted that this verse or a part of it is a citation. As Dharmapāla and Vinītadeva have, in their commentaries, pointed out whenever Diṅnāga has quoted some passage, it cannot be contended that the kārikā in question was taken by Diṅnāga from some source but that this borrowing was ignored by the commentators. That the verse’s author is none other than Diṅnāga is explicitly confirmed by the Buddhist scholar, Kamalaśīla who has stated as follows in his Tattvasaṅgraha-pañjikā:
ācarya-diṅgnāga-pādair-ālambana-pratyaya-vyavasthārtham-uktaṁ – ‘yad-antar-jñeyarūpaṁ tu bahirvad-avabhāsate | so’rtho vijñana-rūpatvāt-tatpratyayatayā’pi ca’ iti | (Tattvasaṅgraha-pañjikā 23.2081)
[With a view to determine the ālambana (basis) and pratyaya (causal condition), it has been stated thus by the revered teacher, Diṅnāga – ‘yad-antarjñeyarūpaṁ … ca (full verse quoted)’.]
In view of all this, it is definite that Bhagavatpāda has, in his bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra (2.2.28) that refutes Buddhism, cited the first half of the sixth kārikā of the Ālambana-parīkṣā of the famous Buddhist logician Diṅnāga. Incredibly, perhaps because of not having perused the texts concerned, an advocate of the view that Bhagavatpāda lived centuries before Christ has argued, ‘If it be admitted that one has cited another, how can it be decided that Śaṅkarācārya was the one who referenced Diṅnāga…Why should it not be the other way around [Translated from Sanskrit]’; while another pair of writers has gone to the extent of conjecturing, ‘The so-called “quotation”…might have as well been quoted by Kamalasila from the Sutrabhashya rather than the other way about’! Clearly these claims fly in the face of: (a) Bhagavatpāda’s explicitly quoting, in full, one half of a verse in the anuṣṭup metre, with the prelude, ‘they say’ and proceeding to write ‘They use the phrase as if’ and ‘Why would they say as if external’’ and (b) Kamalaśila quoting the verse in question with the prelude, ‘It has been stated thus by the revered teacher, Diṅnāga.’
To conclude, since Bhagavatpāda has definitely cited verbatim half a verse from the renowned Buddhist logician Diṅnāga’s Ālambana-parīkṣā, his period cannot be before that of Diṅnāga.
4.1 Bhagavatpāda’s Citing the Buddhist Logician Dharmakīrti in the Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya
In his work Pramāṇa-viniścaya, the eminent Buddhist logician Dharmakīrti has said:
sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedo nīla-taddhiyoḥ | (Pramāṇa-viniścaya 1.53ab)
[Because of invariably being apprehended together, (the colour) blue and its perception are non-different.]
This has been cited in full or in part or paraphrased by several writers. Dharmottara has, in his commentary, Pramāṇa-viniścaya-ṭīkā, not said or even hinted that this verse has any author other than Dharmakīrti. On the contrary, considering ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedāh (because of invariably being apprehended together, there is non-difference)’ as Dharmakīrti’s ground of inference, Dharmottara has clarified that by the word ‘abhedaḥ’ here, the mere negation of the difference between the colour blue and its perception is conveyed and not identity between them. He has argued that if identity was meant, then, as the form (ākāra) of an object is false, the cognition of that form too would be false, and this is incorrect. Additional confirmation that ‘sahopalambha-niyamāt (due to invariably being experienced together)’ was a reason advanced by Dharmakīrti comes from Jitāri’s taking up Dharmakīrti’s verse in his Sugatamata-vibhaṅga-bhāṣya and criticising Dharmottara’s interpretation of the word ‘abheda’ in it. Having presented his own interpretation, Jitāri expresses that that is what the ‘ācārya (Dharmakīrti)’ meant and, subsequently, avers that the ‘great intention of the Vārtikakāra (‘the author of the Vārtika’, that is, Dharmakīrti, who penned the Pramāṇa-vārtika)’ is that he who knows logic advocates that cognition has form. In view of all this, it is unmistakeable that according to the Buddhists, the verse in question is Dharmakīrti’s own composition and ‘sahopalambha-niyamāt (because of invariably being experienced together)’ is his specification of the ground for inferring the ‘abheda’ between an object and its perception.
{What has been presented here about Dharmottara’s interpretation and Jitāri’s repudiation of it is based on Shiro Matsumoto’s article ‘On the Philosophical Positions of Dharmottara and Jitāri’, Journal of Soto Sect Research Fellows, 12, 1980.}
In his Tattvasaṅgraha-pañjikā, Kamalaśīla has, on occasions, referred to Diṅnāga as ‘vṛddha-ācārya (elder preceptor)’ and to Dharmakīrti as ‘ācārya (preceptor)’. Expatiating on the portion of Tattvasaṅgraha in which the ‘sahopalambha-niyamād…’ verse of Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇa-viniścaya has been plainly paraphrased, Kamalaśīla has written:
īdṛśa evācāryīye ‘sahopalambha-niyamāt’ ityādau prayoge hetvartho’bhipretaḥ |
(Tattvasaṅgraha-pañjikā 23.2029-2030)
[In the expressions of the ācārya such as ‘sahopalambha-niyamāt (because of invariably being apprehended together)’, what is sought to be conveyed is the reason (the ground for inference).]
Kamalaśīla’s speaking of ‘sahopalambha-niyamāt (because of invariably being apprehended together)’ as the ācārya’s specification of ‘the ground for inference’ is a pointer to the famed Buddhist logician Dharmakīrti being the author of the verse with this portion as its first quarter.
In his Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya, Bhagavatpāda has quoted verbatim from Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇa-viniścaya what the Buddhists themselves have clearly recognised as Dharmakīrti’s own words and ground of inference. Bhagavatpāda has spelt out as follows that according to the Buddhists, ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedaḥ (because of invariably being experienced together, there is non-difference)’ between an object and its cognition:
api ca sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedo viṣaya-vijñānayor-āpatati | nahyanayor-ekasyānupa-lambhe anyasyopalambho’sti | na caitat-svabhāva-viveke yuktam, pratibandha-kāraṇābhāvat | tasmād-apyarthābhāvaḥ |…evaṁ prāpte brūmaḥ ‘nābhāva upalabdheḥ’ iti |
(Bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.28)
[Further, ‘because of being invariably apprehended together, these is absence of difference (sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedaḥ)’ between an object and its perception. Indeed, when one of the two is not experienced, the other too is not apprehended. Were the object and its knowledge to be innately disparate, there would not be this unfailing simultaneity of cognition, since, in that case, there would be nothing to preclude one of them being experienced without the other. For this reason too, there is no external object…This being the position (of the Buddhist idealist), we say, ‘(The external objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived (Brahma-sūtra 2.2.28).’]
Vācaspati-miśra and Ānandagiri have quoted Dharmakīrti’s inference in full when explaining Bhagavatpāda’s presentation of the Buddhist portion and, thus, confirmed that Bhagavatpāda was indeed referencing Dharmakīrti. The pertinent portion of Vācaspati-miśra’s gloss Bhāmatī is:
api ca sahopalambha-niyamād-iti | yad-yena saha niyata-sahopalambhanaṁ tat-tato na bhidyate, yathaikasmāccandramaso dvitīyaścandramāḥ |…tad-uktaṁ ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedo nīla-taddhiyoḥ | bhedaśca bhrānti-vijñānairdṛśyetendāvivādvaye’ iti (Bhāmatī on the bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.28)
[(Bhāṣya:) Also, ‘because of their being invariably experienced together’. Whatever is invariably experienced along with something is non-distinct from the latter, like the (misperceived) second moon from the sole moon. It has been said, ‘Because of invariably being apprehended together, (the colour) blue and its perception are non-different. They are seen as different due to erroneous notions, as in the case of the single moon (being misperceived as two).’]
Likewise, the relevant portion of Ānandagiri’s sub-commentary, Nyāya-nirṇaya, is:
yad-yena niyata-sahopalambhanaṁ, tat-tenābhinnaṁ yathaikena candramasā dvitīyaścandra-māḥ … ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedo nīla-taddhiyoḥ | bhedaśca bhrāntivijñānair-dṛśyetendā-vivādvaye’ ityuktam-upasaṁharati – tasmāditi | (Nyāya-nirṇaya on the bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.28)
[What is invariably cognized with something is non-different from that, like the second moon from the sole moon…It has been said ‘Because of invariably being apprehended together, (the colour) blue and its perception are non-different. They are seen as different due to erroneous notions, as in the case of the single moon (being misperceived as two)’. He (Bhagavatpāda) wraps up this statement thus: ‘Therefore…’]
That Bhagavatpāda was not just paraphrasing some Buddhist saying but was reproducing a key part of a verse of Dharmakīrti is confirmed even by the fact that Rāmānujācārya has cited this very verse when presenting and attacking the Buddhist position in his exposition of the Brahmasūtra, ‘nābhava upalabdheḥ (External objects are not non-existent, for they are perceived)’. Rāmānujācārya has written:
yattu ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedo nīla-taddhiyoh’ iti, tat-svavacana-viruddhaṁ, sāhityasya arthabheda-hetukatvāt | (Śrībhāṣhya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.28)
[As to (the Buddhist opponent’s claim), ‘Because of invariably being apprehended together, (the colour) blue and its perception are non-different’, that is self-contradictory, for ‘togetherness (the purport of ‘saha’, the first word of Dharmakīrti’s verse)’ calls for distinction between the entities.]
That sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedaḥ’ is a verbatim citation by Bhagavatpāda of Dharmakīrti is thus patent (a) from these words being the key part of a verse of Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇa-viniścaya; (b) from Buddhist writers accepting these as constituting an inference advanced by Dharmakīrti and not as some earlier Buddhist saying; (c) from Vācaspati-miśra and Ānandagiri citing the pertinent verse of Dharmakīrti when expatiating on this portion of Bhagavatpāda’s Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya wherein Buddhist idealism is refuted and (d) from even Rāmānujācārya quoting this verse in the same context of the refutation of Buddhism. As Bhagavatpāda has definitely referenced Dharmakīrti in the Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya, his period cannot be before that of the Buddhist logician Dharmakīrti.
4.2 Bhagavatpāda’s and Sureśvarācārya’s Citation of a Complete Verse of Dharmakīrti
Among Dharmakīrti’s seven undisputed works – Pramāṇa-vārtika, Pramāṇa-viniścaya, Nyāya-bindu, Hetu-bindu, Vāda-nyāya, Sambandha-parīkṣā and Santānāntara-siddhi – the foremost and biggest is Pramāṇa-vārtika, his gloss on Diṅnāga’s Pramāṇa-samuccaya. The Pramāṇa-vārtika has four chapters – Pramāṇa-siddhi, Pratyakṣa, Svārthānumāna and Parārthānumāna – and comprises over 1500 verses; Dharmakīrti has added a svopajña-vṛtti (auto-commentary) on the verses, in prose. This magnum opus of Dharmakīrti has been elucidated by Devendrabuddhi (Dharmakīrti’s disciple), Śākyasiddhi (Dharmakīrti’s pupil’s pupil), Prajñākaragupta (Dharmakīrti’s disciple’s disciple’s disciple), Karṇakagomin, Manorathanandin and others. A significant verse of the Pratyakṣa-pariccheda of the Pramāṇa-vārtika and one that has been cited by writers of different schools, such as Jainism, Nyāya, Yoga, Mīmāṁsā and Vedānta, is:
avibhāgo’pi buddhyātmā viparyāsita-darśanaiḥ |
grāhya-grāhaka-saṁvitti-bhedavān-iva lakṣyate || (Pramāṇa-vārtika 2.354)
[Even though cognition is devoid of division, it is seen by those of deluded understanding as if it has the division of object, knower and knowledge.]
Dharmakīrti and the sub-commentators on the Pramāṇa-vārtika such as Prajñākaragupta have not stated or even hinted that this verse or a part thereof is a citation. The Buddhists have not recognized anyone other than Dharmakīrti as its author.
Several reputed non-Buddhist writers of the past have, when presenting Buddhist idealism, specifically quoted Dharmakīrti’s ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedaḥ…(absence of difference because of being invariably experienced together…)’ verse that was taken up earlier as also the verse presently under consideration. This is indicative of their familiarity with the common authorship of the two verses. Four instances are given below.
(i) In his compendium Sarvadarśana-saṅgraha, Mādhava has cited the said two verses jointly in the chapter ‘Bauddha-darśana’, prefacing them with the words, ‘yathoktam (As to this, it is said)’. That Mādhava knew of the logician Dharmakīrti and his works is patent from the fact that a little before the portion referred to, he has written:
tat-kīrtitaṁ dharmakīrtinā ‘apratyakṣopalambhasya nārthasiddhiḥ prasiddhyati’ iti (Sarvadarśana-saṅgraha, Bauddha-darśana)
[It has been said by Dharmakīrti, ‘There would be no knowledge of an object if cognition were to be unperceived.’]
(ii) In his commentary on the Brahmasūtras, Bhāskara (an advocate of the Bhedābheda school who has attacked Bhagavatpāda’s Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya and been refuted by Vācaspati-miśra, Anubhūtisvarūpa and Ānandagiri in their sub-commentaries on Bhagavatpāda’s bhāṣya) has, when presenting Buddhist idealism, written:
tathoktaṁ viprabhikṣuṇā ‘apratyakṣopalambhasya nārthasiddhiḥ prasiddhyati’ ‘avibhāgo’pi buddhyātmā viparyāsita-darśanaiḥ | grāhya-grāhaka-saṁvitti-bhedavān-iva lakṣyate ||’ iti …itaśca ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedo nila-taddhiyoḥ… (Bhāskara’s bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra 2.2.28)
[As to this, it has been said by the Brahmin, Buddhist monk, ‘There would be no knowledge of an object if cognition were to be unperceived’; ‘Even though cognition is devoid of division, it is seen by those of deluded understanding as if it has the division of object, knower and knowledge {the full verse under consideration is cited}’…Further, ‘Because of invariably being apprehended together, (the colour) blue and its perception are non-different {Dharmakīrti’s verse that was considered earlier is reproduced}’…]
Bhāskara has stated that the verses cited by him are those of ‘the Brahmin, Buddhist monk (vipra-bhikṣu)’ and, as per Tibetan sources, Dharmakīrti was a Brahmin (vipra) who turned away from the Vedic path and became a Buddhist monk (bhikṣu). It is pertinent that a verse (‘apratyakṣopalambhasya…’) cited here by Bhāskara and that too jointly with the verse under consideration has been explicitly referred to by Mādhava, in Sarvadarśana-saṅgraha, as a composition of Dharmakīrti (‘tat-kīrtitaṁ dharmakīrtinā’).
(iii) When presenting and refuting Buddhist vijñāna-vāda in the course of his exposition of the Sage Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra (1.1.2), Jayanta-bhaṭṭa has written in his authoritative work, Nyāyamañjarī:
jñānam-eva grāhya-grāhaka-saṁvitti-bhedena lakṣyate | avidyā-viratau tu svaccham-eva sampadyate…tad-uktaṁ…‘avibhāgo’pi buddhyātmā viparyāsita-darśanaiḥ | grāhya-grāhaka-saṁvitti-bhedavāniva lakṣyate’ iti…yadapyavarṇi ‘sahopalambha niyamād-abhedo nīla-taddhiyoḥ’ iti, tadapi bāla-bhāṣitam-iva naḥ pratibhāti | (Nyāyamañjarī, Tattvāloka-prakaraṇa)
[Knowledge itself appears differentiated as cognised-cognisor-cognisance. On the cessation of ignorance, it becomes spotless…It has been said…‘Even though cognition is devoid of division, it is seen by those of deluded understanding as if it has the division of object, knower and knowledge {the full verse under consideration is cited}.’…Even his description, ‘Because of invariably being apprehended together, (the colour) blue and its perception are non-different {the verse considered earlier is cited}’, appears to us to be like a child’s prattle.]
It is undisputable that Jayanta-bhaṭṭa was conversant with the works of Dharmakīrti, for, in Nyāyamañjarī, he has not only cited, on different occasions, verses from Dharmakīrti’s works such as Pramāṇa-vārtika but also referred to the latter by name and to Dharmakīrti’s refinement (in Nyāyabindu) of a definition of Diṅnāga {‘lakṣaṇaṁ vaktukāmaḥ pada-yugalam-api nirmame …dṛṣṭam-etat…dharmakīrteḥ (Nyāyamañjarī, Pramāṇa-prakaraṇa)’}.
(iv) In Prakaraṇa-pañcikā, Śālikānātha, the leading exponent of the Prabhākara-school of Mīmāṁsā, has quoted Dharmakīrti’s ‘sahopalambha-niyamād’-abhedaḥ’ verse and then, with contextual preludes, cited two verses from Dharmakīrti’s Pramāna-vārtika, later pointed out how ‘sahopalambha-niyama, always being experienced together’ is said to imply ‘abhedaḥ non-difference’ and followed this up by citing the verse under consideration of the Pramāṇa-vārtika. The pertinent portions of the Prakaraṇa-pañcikā are:
tad-uktam ‘sahopalambha-niyamād-abhedo nīla-taddhiyoḥ’ iti…tathāparam-uktam ‘paricche-do’ntaranyo’yam…hyupaplavaḥ’ iti…tad-uktam ‘yadi buddhis-tadākārā…idam-arharti’ iti…saho-palambha-niyamena buddher-boddhuśca bhedo nirākriyate bhedasyāniyamavyāptatvāt. vyāpaka-viruddhopalambhena-bādhyamānatvāt. tad-āhuḥ ‘avibhāgo’pi buddhyātmā viparyāsita-darśa-naiḥ | grāhyagrāhakasaṁvitti-bhedavān-iva lakṣyate’ iti (Prakaraṇa-pañcikā 6.1; 8)
[It is stated, ‘Because of invariably being apprehended together, (the colour) blue and its perception are non-different.’…Likewise, it has also been said, ‘{Citation of verse 2.212 of the Pramāṇa-vārtika}’…It is said, ‘{Citation of verse 2.334 of the Pramāṇa-vārtika}’…By the rule of their ever being apprehended together, the difference between cognition and the cognisor is negated, for such difference is unattended by invariable, concurrent apprehension and because it is contradicted by the pervasive, concurrent apprehension. He says, ‘Even though cognition is devoid of division, it is seen by those of deluded understanding as if it has the division of object, knower and knowledge {the full verse under consideration is cited}.’]
Thus, the verse under consideration is a part of Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇa-vārtika; it is not ascribed by the Buddhists to anyone other than Dharmakīrti; and the way some famous, non-Buddhist writers have referenced it confirms Dharmakīrti’s authorship of it.
The relevance of this verse of Dharmakīrti in the present context is that Bhagavatpāda has cited it in full in his Upadeśa-sāhasrī. In the Tattvamasi-prakaraṇa thereof, taking up a Buddhist objection, Bhagavatpāda has written:
anubhuteḥ kim-anyasmin-syāt-tavāpekṣayā vada |
anubhavitarīṣṭā syāt-so’pyanubhūtireva naḥ ||
abhinno’pi hi buddhyātmā viparyāsita-darśanaiḥ |
grāhya-grāhaka-samvitti-bhedavān-iva lakṣyate || (Upadeśa-sāhasrī 18.141-142)
[(Objection:) Tell us what you gain by holding that knowledge is dependent on something else. If you contend that it is desirable that it be dependent on the cognisor, (we respond that) the cognisor too is, according to us, nothing but knowledge. Even though cognition is devoid of division, it is seen by those of deluded understanding as if it has the division of object, knower and knowledge (the verse under consideration is reproduced in its entirety).]
Upadeśa-sāhasrī is accepted by traditionalists and academics as a work of Bhagavatpāda and Sureśvarācārya has respectfully cited it in his Naiṣkarmya-siddhi. The above verses are found in all the printed editions and manuscripts containing its Tattvamasi-prakaraṇa. In their glosses on the Upadeśa-sāhasrī, Ānandagiri and Rāmatīrtha have expatiated on them and explicitly pointed out that a Buddhist objection has been presented here. For instance, Rāmatīrtha has written in his gloss, Padayojanikā:
atra kartṛkarmavihīna eva pratyayaḥ svamahimnā bhāsata iti vijñānavādī bauddhaḥ pratyava-tiṣṭhate (Padayojanikā on Upadeśa-sāhasrī 18.141)
[Here, the Buddhist subscribing to vijñāna-vāda objects that cognition shines of its own accord without (any distinct) subject and object.]
The corresponding portion of Ānandagiri’s gloss is:
uktam-amṛṣyamāṇaḥ śākyaḥ śaṅkate… (Ṭīkā on Upadeśa-sāhasrī 18.141)
[Without duly reflecting on what has been said (that cognition depends on something else), the Buddhist objects…]
Like Bhagavatpāda, Sureśvarācārya too has cited in its entirety the verse of Dharmakīrti under consideration. He has written in his Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika:
tasyaiva jñāna-mātrasya grāhya-grāhaka-lakṣaṇaṁ |
malaṁ prakalpya tat-svāsthyaṁ śuddhiṁ vyācakṣate’pare ||
abhinno’pi hi buddhyātmā viparyāsita-buddhibhiḥ |
grāhya-grāhaka-saṁvitti-bhedavāniva lakṣyate || (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika 4.3.473-476)
[Others (the Buddhists) conceive of impurity in the form of the cognisor and cognised in that which is just knowledge and speak of decontamination consisting in its being just knowledge. Even though cognition is devoid of division, it is seen by those of deluded understanding as if it has the division of object, knower and knowledge (the verse under consideration is cited in full).]
Explaining this, Ānandagiri has explicitly pointed out in his sub-commentary, Śāstra-prakāśikā, that Sureśvarācārya has referred to the position of the Buddhist idealists and cited the words of Dharmakīrti. The pertinent portion of Ānandagiri’s gloss is:
apare iti vijñāna-vādinām-evoktiḥ…tat-kalpitatve kīrti-vākyam-udāharati abhinno’pīti.
[(The verse with) ‘apare (others)’ refers to the claim of the vijñāna-vādins (Buddhist idealists) themselves…With regard to the distinction of knower and known being imaginary, he cites the words of Dharmakīrti, “Even though without division…”]
Thus, Bhagavatpāda in his Upadeśa-sāhasrī and Sureśvarācārya in his Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika have cited in full a verse whose author is, without doubt, the renowned Buddhist logician Dharmakīrti. Hence, their period cannot be before that of Dharmakīrti.
4.3 Sureśvarācārya’s Referencing and Naming Dharmakīrti
In his Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika, Sureśvarācārya has mentioned a Buddhist position about valid grounds of inference, critically analysed it and explicitly referred to it as Dharmakīrti’s proposition. He has drawn attention to the Buddhist portion as follows:
avinābhāva-siddhyarthaṁ nanvidaṁ varṇyate trayam |
triṣveva tvavinābhāvād-bhadram tairapi kīrtitam || (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika 4.3.742)
[This triad (comprising intrinsic nature, effect and non-apprehension) is indeed described for the establishment of invariable concomitance (that is pertinent for a ground of inference). It has been stated well even by them (the Buddhists) that this is because of invariable concomitance being obtainable in only the triad (of intrinsic nature, effect and non-apprehension).]
In his sub-commentary, Śāstra-prakāśikā, Ānandagiri has, as follows, pointed out that in the above verse, the view of the Buddhists as advanced by Dharmakīrti has been referred to and has also cited the relevant verse of Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇa-vārtika:
svabhāvāder-avinābhāva-sādhakatvaṁ bauddhair-api vyākhyātam-ityāha – triṣveveti. yatra svabhāvādyasti tatrāvinābhāvo yathā śiśapā-vṛkṣādiṣv-ataḥ svabhāvādy-avinābhāva-dvārā’nu-mity-aṅgatvād-arthavad-iti tair-uktam | yathāha kīrtiḥ ‘pakṣa-dharmas-tadamśena vyāpto hetus-tridhaiva saḥ | avinābhāva-niyamāddhetvābhāsās-tato’pare’ iti | (Śāstra-prakāśikā 4.3.742)
[‘triṣveva…’ – (In this portion of the verse), he says that the Buddhists too have propounded that intrinsic nature, etc., give rise to invariable concomitance. Wherever there is intrinsic nature, etc., (i.e. wherever there is intrinsic nature, effect or non-apprehension), there is invariable concomitance, such as between a śiṁśapā (a kind of tree) and a tree. Hence, via invariable concomitance, intrinsic nature and the rest form a constituent of an inference and, so, are relevant. As to this, Dharmakīrti has said, “By virtue of the rule of invariable concomitance, a ground of inference pervaded by an attribute of the subject of inference is of just three kinds (intrinsic nature, effect and non-apprehension). Hence, grounds of inference other than these three are fallacious reasons (Pramāṇa-vārtika 1.3).”]
The third verse of the Svārthānumāna-pariccheda of the Pramāna-vārtika as also Dharmakīrti’s ‘svopajña-vṛtti (auto-commentary)’ on it are taken into consideration by Sureśvarācārya in his subsequent critical analysis of Dharmakīrti’s contention.
Following his critical analysis, Sureśvarācārya has explicitly referred to Dharmakīrti as follows:
triṣveva-tvavinābhāvād-iti yad-dharmakīrtinā |
pratyajñāyi pratijñeyam hīyetāsau na samśayaḥ || (4.3.753)
[The proposition asserted by Dharmakīrti that (a valid ground of inference is of just three kinds) since invariable concomitance occurs in only the triad (comprising intrinsic nature, effect and non-apprehension) would undoubtedly fail.]
It is thus patent that Sureśvarācārya has referenced Dharmakīrti’s view, critically analysed it and unambiguously stated that it is what Dharmakīrti has asserted. So, Sureśvarācārya cannot have predated the influential Buddhist logician, Dharmakīrti.
5. Conclusion
Apropos the period of Bhagavatpāda, two forms of internal evidence were objectively examined in depth; one is his reference to the kārṣāpaṇa-coin and the other is his rebuttal of Buddhist vijñāna-vāda.
Bhagavatpāda’s mention of the kārṣāpaṇa-coin in his Māṇḍukyopaniṣad-kārikā-bhāṣya and in his Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya does not imply that the kārṣāpaṇa must have been in circulation in his time. This is because any writer can well proffer as an example something that is not in vogue in his time but with which people are familiar; such an example would satisfy even the formal definition of an illustration contained in Sage Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtras. As for the kārṣāpaṇa, it has been spoken of in the Veda, Smṛti and Purāṇa themselves as also in authoritative scriptural treatises, in traditional kośas and in the literature and, thus, has been well-known for long. Moreover, it has been referred to by authors even long after it ceased to be in circulation. Even if it were biasedly speculated that the kārṣāpaṇa must have been in circulation in his time, it would not follow that Bhagavatpāda lived centuries before Christ, for this coin was in circulation not only before but even centuries after the start of the Christian era. Thus, Bhagavatpāda’s period cannot be arrived at on the basis of his referring to the kārṣāpaṇa by way of an example.
It was determined that Bhagavatpāda has decidedly cited the influential Buddhist logician Diṅnāga in his Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya. It follows that he did not antedate Diṅnāga. Next, it was conclusively ascertained that: (a) Bhagavatpāda has cited and refuted the eminent Buddhist logician Dharmakīrti in his Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya; (b) Bhagavatpāda and Sureśvarācārya have, in the Upadeśa-sāhasrī and Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika respectively, reproduced in full a verse of Dharmakīrti; and (c) Sureśvarācārya has referenced and named Dharmakīrti in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya-vārtika. So, there is no question of Bhagavatpāda and Sureśvarācārya having flourished before Dharmakīrti.
*****
Appendix
Some Observations about the periods of Diṅnāga and Dharmakīrti
1. I-Tsing (now spelt as Yijing), the Chinese Buddhist scholar whose travels were in the period 629-645 AD and who collected many Buddhist texts during his long stay in India, has recorded, “They are to be likened to the sun and the moon or are to be regarded as dragon and elephant. Such were Nagarjuna, Deva, Asvaghosha of an early age; Vasubandhu, Asanga, Sangabhadra, Bhavaviveka in the middle ages; and Guna, Dharmapala, Dharmakirti, Silabhadra, Simhakandra, Sthiramati, Gunamati, Pragnagupta, Gunaprabha, Ginaprabha of late years {A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695) by I-Tsing, Translated by J. Takakusu, Oxford, 1896 p. 181}. In a footnote, the translator Takakusu has conveyed that the Chinese characters of I-Tsing’s text that have been translated as ‘early age’, ‘middle ages’ and ‘late years’ literally mean ‘remote’, ‘middle’ and ‘recent’ respectively. Thus, writing in the seventh century AD, I-Tsing, refers to Dharmakīrti as a ‘recent’ leading light.
In his list of recent teachers, I-Tsing has mentioned Śīlabhadra, Dharmapāla, Sthiramati and Guṇamati along with Dharmakīrti. Hieun Tsang (now spelt as Xuanzang), the Chinese Buddhist scholar, whose travels were in the period 629-645 AD, reports that he learnt from Śīlabhadra and, thus, the latter must have been alive in the first half of the seventh century AD. Dharmapāla was, points out Hieun Tsang, the teacher of Śīlabhadra and so, cannot be placed before the sixth century AD. Hieun Tsang has mentioned the association of Dharmapāla, Guṇamati and Sthiramati with the famed academy at Nālanda. Sthiramati has penned commentaries on the Yogācāra and Abhidharma works of Vasubandhu and has written in his Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya-ṭīkā that his teacher was Guṇamati. Hieun Tsang’s disciple Kuiji (632-682 AD), who penned short biographies of ten Buddhist masters, has stated that Sthiramati was from South India, was Guṇamati’s disciple and was an elder contemporary of Dharmapāla. As Sthiramati was a student of Guṇamati and was an elder contemporary of Dharmapāla, Sthiramati and Guṇamati too must have been alive in the sixth century AD. So, from the Chinese records, it is patent that Dharmakīrti, who was listed (in the seventh century AD) along with Śīlabhadra, Dharmapāla, Sthiramati and Guṇamati as a recent teacher must have lived several centuries after the start of the Christian era.
2. It is undisputed and recognised by scholars of Nyāya from even the words of Vācaspati-miśra that: (a) Sage Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtras and Vātṣyāyana’s bhāṣya on them were attacked by the Buddhist logician Diṅnāga and defended against Diṅnāga’s attack by Udyotakara in his Nyāya-vārtika; (b) Dharmakīrti attacked Udyotakara’s Nyāya-vārtika and defended Diṅnāga’s position; and (c) in his Nyāya-vārtika-tātparya-ṭīkā, Vācaspati-miśra strongly attacked Diṅnāga and Dharmakīrti and defended Udyotakara’s Nyāya-vārtika. Almost at the start of his Nyāya-vārtika-tātparya-ṭīkā, Vācaspati has explicitly referred to Diṅnāga as a recent writer thus:
…diṅnāga-prabhṛtibhir-arvācīnaiḥ kuhetusantamasa-samutthāpanena…
(Nyāya-vārtika-tātparya-ṭīkā)
(…due to the raising up of the darkness of fallacious reasons by recent ones headed by Diṅnāga…)
It is well-known that Vācaspati-miśra flourished in the ninth century AD; from his own words at the close of his Nyāya-kaṇikā, it is discernible that he completed this work in 841 AD. Decidedly, Vācaspati’s speaking of Diṅnāga as recent would be apt only if Diṅnāga – and thus, even Dharmakīrti who defended Diṅnāga – lived after the dawn of the Christian era. Moreover, were it to be conjectured that Diṅnāga and Dharmakīrti lived centuries before Christ, not only would the accuracy of Vācaspati’s statement have to be called into question, it would have to be unjustifiably conceived that the Nyāya-sūtras and Vātsyāyana’s bhāṣya were defended against the severe criticism of these Buddhist logicians only after the lapse of over a millennium.
~~~~

Posted by: adbhutam | May 5, 2015

‘VĀSUDEVA’ AND ‘ACHYUTA’ IN ADVAITA

‘Vāsudeva’, ‘Achyuta’ in Advaita

In the Bhagavadgitā Bhāṣya 4.6, we find a sentence thus: प्रकृतिं स्वां मम वैष्णवीं मायां त्रिगुणात्मिकाम्, यस्या वशे सर्वं जगत् वर्तते, यया मोहितं सत् स्वमात्मानं वासुदेवं न जानाति, तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् //Prakṛti, the Māyā of Viṣṇu consisting of the three gunas, under whose; spell the whole world exists, and deluded by which one does not know one’s own Self, ‘Vāsudeva';  -by subjugating that Prakṛti of Mine..//

Is this ‘Vāsudeva’ identifiable with the person ‘Vāsudeva’ or the Saguṇa Brahman or the Tattvam that is named ‘Vāsudeva?’  In order to decide on this we can apply this test: The bhāṣyam says that under the spell of Māyā, one is not able to know one’s true nature/self that is Vāsudeva. Supposing one has overcome the spell of māyā, then the knowledge should be ‘I am/my true nature is Vāsudeva’.  If that Vāsudeva is a person, then the knowledge of the one who has the right realization will have to be: I am Vāsudeva, the son of Devaki-Vasudeva, born in Mathura, grew up in Gokula, played with the gopis, slayed Kamsa, etc. etc. But from the Vedanta, especially from Shankara’s bhāṣyas we do not find this to be the proper realization of the Self. Also, such a realization of a person-vāsudeva is of no use since the Lord Himself says in the BG 4th ch. beginning: श्री भगवानुवाच बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि तव चार्जुन।तान्यहं वेद सर्वाणि न त्वं वेत्थ परन्तप।।4.5।। 4.5 The Blessed Lord said O Arjuna, many lives of Mine have passed, and so have yours. I know them all, (but) you know not, O scorcher of enemies! Identifying with a person(ality) who has taken birth and also gone will be of no real value to be cherished as liberation.

Nor does the name / entity Vāsudeva mean the saguṇa brahman.  This is because the saguṇa brahman is one endowed with māyā as upādhi and is admitted purely for the purpose of accounting for the world-creation, duality, samsāra management, etc. This has no ontological status in Vedanta. Realizing this as one’s true self is not taught anywhere nor is it possible and useful in liberating a jiva. By the method of elimination, finally the term ‘VAsudeva’ of the bhAshyam has to be the Tattvam known by that name.  That Tattvam has been variously defined in the puranas such as the one that pervades everything/one that is the substratum of everything in creation, etc. as for example, stated in the Viṣṇuprāṇa: सर्व्वाणि तत्र भूतानि वसन्ति परमात्मनि । भूतेषु च स सर्व्वात्मा वासुदेवस्ततः स्मृतः ।। ६-५-८० ।। [All the beings (creation) rests in That Supreme Self.  Also That Supreme Self rests / resides in all beings.  Such a one is called ‘vāsudeva’.] The ‘resting’ of all beings/creation ‘in’ That and That ‘residing’ in all creation has to be of the manner of a superimposition-substratum for otherwise a physical resting will require the vāsudeva to be made of parts. Only things made of parts can have a physical support-supported relationship.  If ‘vāsudeva’ is made of parts, it is perishable, being a created entity. Also, it will have to be insentient. Thus the realization ‘I am vāsudeva’, as the Vedantic Tattvam alone is meant by the bhāṣyam cited above.

Another reference: In the BGB 18.66: माम् एकं सर्वात्मानं समं सर्वभूतस्थितम् ईश्वरम् अच्युतं गर्भजन्मजरामरणवर्जितम् ‘अहमेव’ इत्येवं शरणं व्रज, न मत्तः अन्यत् अस्ति इति अवधारय इत्यर्थः । //śaraṇam vraja, take refuge; mām ekam, in Me alone, the Self of all, the same in all, existing in all beings, the Lord, the Imperishable, free from being in the womb, birth, old age and death-by knowing that ‘I am verily That’. That is, know it for certain that there is nothing besides Me.// Here again, the name ‘Achyuta’ of the bhāṣya does not refer to the deity/divine person.  Why? It is the teaching here that the aspirant has to identify himself as ‘I am that’.  Such an identification is not taught with the deity. Thus such names in the bhāṣya do not refer to the deity/person but to the Nirguṇa Brahman, the Tattvam. The word ‘achyuta’ is explained by the bhāṣyam itself as: the One that is responsible for all creation/actions (read Kenopanishad first few mantras), that is free of birth, old age, etc. This explanation exactly defines the word ‘achyuta’, that which has no ‘chyuti’, fall, transformation and destruction.

Om Tat Sat

Posted by: adbhutam | April 29, 2015

The Role of Lord Śiva in the Bh.Gītā 11th Chapter

The Role of Lord Śiva in the Bh.Gītā 11th Chapter

The Eleventh Chapter of the Śrīmadbhagavadgītā is called the ‘Viśvarūpa adhyāya’. It is in this chapter the depiction of the Cosmic form of Brahman was shown to Arjuna. There is a stage in the show where the cosmic event of destruction of the created universe occurs. Upon witnessing the graphic details of the destruction Arjuna, terribly frightened, pleads with the Lord to stop the show and resume the benign, usual, form.

In the course of the show, the Lord reveals to Arjuna who indeed he is, upon Arjuna asking:

आख्याहि मे को भवानुग्ररूपो
नमोऽस्तु ते देववर प्रसीद ।
विज्ञातुमिच्छामि भवन्तमाद्यं
न हि प्रजानामि तव प्रवृत्तिम् ॥ 11.31 ॥

11.31 Tell me who You are, fierce in form. Salutation be to you, O supreme God; be gracious. I desire to fully know You who are the Primal One. For I do not understand Your actions!

The Lord replies:

श्री भगवानुवाच
कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो
लोकान्समाहर्तुमिह प्रवृत्तः।
ऋतेऽपि त्वां न भविष्यन्ति सर्वे
येऽवस्थिताः प्रत्यनीकेषु योधाः।।11.32।।

11.32 The blessed Lord said I am the world-destroying Time, [Time: The supreme God with His limiting adjunct of the power of action.] grown in stature and now engaged in annihilating the creatures. Even without you, all the warriors who are arrayed in the confronting armies will cease to exist!

तस्मात्त्वमुत्तिष्ठ यशो लभस्व
जित्वा शत्रून् भुङ्क्ष्व राज्यं समृद्धम्।
मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव
निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन्।।11.33।।

11.33 Therefore you rise up, (and) gain fame; and defeating the enemies, enjoy a prosperous kingdom. These have been killed verily by Me even earlier; be you merely an instrument, O Savyasācin (Arjuna).

It is interesting to note that in the 12th Canto which is the Śāntiparva of the Mahābhārata there are these verses (12.352.72-76) addressed by Lord Krishna to Arjuna, post-war:

http://tinyurl.com/mxbb8g2

मया त्वं रक्षितो युद्धे महान्तं प्राप्तवाञ्जयम्।।
यस्तु ते सोग्रतो याति युद्धे संप्रत्युपस्थिते।
तं विद्धि रुद्रं कौन्तेय देवदेवं कपर्दिनम्।।
कालः स एव विहितः क्रोधजेति मया तव।
निहतांस्तेन वै पूर्वं हतवानसि यान्रिपून्।।
अप्रमेयप्रभावं तं देवदेवमुमापतिम्।
नमस्व देवं प्रयतो विश्वेशं हरमक्षयम्।।
यश्च ते कथितः पूर्वं क्रोधजेति पुनः पुनः।
तस्य प्रभाव एवाग्रे यच्छ्रुतं ते धनंजय।।

The translation of these verses as available here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c042.htm

Protected by me in the great battle, thou hast won a great victory. That Being whom, at the time of all thy battles, thou beheldest stalking in thy van, know, O son of Kunti, is no other than Rudra, that god of gods, otherwise called by the name of Kaparddin. He is otherwise known by the name of Kāla, and should be known as one that has sprung from my wrath. Those foes whom thou hast slain were all, in the first instance, slain by him. Do thou bend thy head unto that god of gods, that lord of Umā, endued with immeasurable puissance. With concentrated soul, do thou bend thy head unto that illustrious Lord of the universe, that indestructible deity, otherwise called by the name of Hara. He is none else than that deity who, as I have repeatedly told thee, has sprung from my wrath. Thou hast, before this, heard, O Dhananjaya, of the puissance and energy that reside in him!'”

What is striking in the above translation is those two lines, highlighted, and shown here:

A.      // He is otherwise known by the name of Kāla//

And

B.       //Those foes whom thou hast slain were all, in the first instance, slain by him.//

These two lines correspond to the two lines of the two verses of the Bh.Gītā 11th chapter shown above, again shown here:

कालोऽस्मि लोकक्षयकृत्प्रवृद्धो लोकान्समाहर्तुमिह प्रवृत्तः। (11.33A)

I am the world-destroying Time, [Time: The supreme God with His limiting adjunct of the power of action.] grown in stature and now engaged in annihilating the creatures.]

And

मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन्   11.33 B

[These have been killed verily by Me even earlier; be you merely an instrument, O Savyasācin (Arjuna).]

What transpires from the comparison of the Bh.Gītā verses and the MBh. verses is:

Brahman, who is the cause of the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world, in the form of Rudra, the aspect of Brahman engaged in the function of dissolution, is called Kāla, time. When the appropriate time comes, everything that has originated, comes to an end. That ending is effected by this power called Time, named Rudra. All creatures attain their end when their destined time comes. This is pre-determined. The actual mode of their end, by disease or being killed by any force of the nature or humans, is only instrumental. This is stated by the BG 11.33B. Arjuna, who is shown the cosmic form in its destruction aspect is being instructed thus: You are a mere instrument in the causing the death of these people who are your opponents. They have all been already put an end to by Destiny, Me.

Though one would get the feeling, quite naturally, by reading the Bh.Gītā 11th chapter that it is Lord Krishna that is the one engaged in the destruction act and he is the one that is ‘kāla’, the Time, and that he is the one that has ‘slain’ everyone ‘even before’ Arjuna would execute the actual killing, yet, from Sri Krishna’s personal instruction, post-war, to Arjuna, in the MBh. shows us in no unmistakable terms that the entity involved in the destruction (during the viśvarūpa-show of the BG during the war) and the one that has actually destined all those to die even before Arjuna would actually kill, is none other than Lord Śiva.

The first-person usages as ‘I’, ‘me’, by Krishna in the BG refers to Śiva, as per the MBh. verse. In other words, Brahman, in the form of Rudra, Kāla, effects the destruction. This shows that the cosmic function of creation, sustenance and destruction is carried out by Brahman through these three forms of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva. The One Brahman alone takes these three forms.

Interestingly, the commentary of Shankarachārya to the 11th ch. of the Bh.Gītā does not mention Śiva among those present in the cosmic form. This is precisely because it is Śiva who is the one conducting, performing, the destruction function and therefore not within the cosmic form. The juxtaposing of the BG and the MBh. verses also brings out the fact of Śiva-Viṣṇu abheda, which fact even Krishna brings out explicitly in the MBh. section that is annotated above. There, in Krishna’s words, Nārāyaṇa says to Śiva:

यस्त्वां वेत्ति स मां वेत्ति यस्त्वामनु स मामनु।
नावयोरन्तरं किंचिन्मा तेऽभूद्वुद्धिरन्यथा।।   12.352.67

अद्यप्रभृति श्रीवत्सः शूलाङ्को मे भवत्वयम्।
मम पाण्यङ्कितश्चापि श्रीकण्ठस्त्वं भविष्यसि।। 12.352.68

Translation:

Hari, then addressed the illustrious Īśāna and said these words:–He that knows thee, knows me. He that follows thee, follows me. There is no difference between thee and me. Do thou never think otherwise. The mark made by thy lance on my chest will from this day assume the form of a beautiful whirl (śrīvatsānka), and the mark of my hand on thy throat will also assume a beautiful shape in consequence of which thou shalt, from this day, be called by the name of Śrīkanṭha.

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे । शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णुः विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिवः ॥८॥ यथा शिवमयो विष्णुरेवं विष्णुमयः शिवः । यथान्तरं न पश्यामि तथा मे स्वस्तिरायुषि ॥९॥ यथान्तरं न भेदाः स्युः शिवकेशवयोस्तथा । देहो देवालयः प्रोक्तः स जीवः केवलः शिवः ॥१०॥

The above verses from the ‘skandopaniṣat’ bring out the oneness of Shiva and Viṣṇu. There are such verses in the Mahabharata too, for example, in the Vanaparva:

शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय विष्णवे शिवरूपिणे । दक्षयज्ञविनाशाय हरिरुद्राय वै नमः ॥

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | April 24, 2015

MULTILINGUAL TALKS ON SHANKARACHARYA

Dear all, namaste

On the auspicious occasion of Shankara Jayanthi today, the Advaita Academy
is pleased to release a series of talks in multiple languages on the
greatness of Adi Shankara Bhagavadpada.

The Youtube playlist for the talks is given below:

Celebrating Shankara Jayanthi 2015 by Advaita Academy –
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?action_edit=1&list=PLWjpkY4mU2RBNWSClBcA-_-XjxRSV5jRL

The playlist contains the following:

Sri V.Subrahmanian’s Kannada talk delivered at Shankar Mutt, Bangalore
Sri Aravinda Rao’s Samskrita talk delivered in Hyderabad
Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam’s Telugu talk delivered in Hyderabad
Prof.Yogananda’s walk-through / demonstration of the Advaita Sharada
Project on how to use the functionalities at the website
http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/

We hope to add two more talks in Tamil & Malayalam by Sri Mani Dravid
Shastrigal & Sri Maheshwaran Namboodiri respectively in the next few days.
The videos are currently being processed.

Posted by: adbhutam | April 22, 2015

‘KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE’

‘Kill two birds with one stone’

In the Mahābhārata Drona Parva there occurs a dialogue between Veda Vyāsa and Arjuna where two important ideas: 1. Rudra is unborn and 2. The Śatarudriyam is a vedic hymn addressed to Rudra are stated.  These two ideas directly annul the pet theories of bigoted vaiṣṇavas propagated in these blogs:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_17.html

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_8197.html

Here is where the MB, in the words of Veda Vyāsa, contradicts the idea that Shiva is a jiva and not the Supreme Brahman. The translation of Ganguly is:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07198.htm

// Whatever is highly mysterious in the several branches of the Vedas, in the Upanishads, in the Puranas, and in those sciences that deal with the soul, is that God, viz., Maheswara, Mahadeva is even such. That God is, again, without birth. All the attributes of that God are not capable of being enumerated by me even if, O son of Pandu, I were to recite them continually for a thousand years.//

And Vyasa, in this very dialogue, contradicts the ill-founded bigoted idea that the Śatarudriyam is not in praise of Shiva but Narasimha or Viṣṇu:

//The hymn approved of the Vedas, and called Śata-Rudriya, in honour of that God of gods (Rudra) that excellent, famous, life-enhancing, and sacred hymn, has now, O Partha, been explained to thee. This hymn of four divisions, capable of accomplishing every object, is sacred, destructive of all sins, and competent to drive away all stains and to kill all sorrows and all fears. The men that always listen to this succeeds in vanquishing all his foes and is highly respected in the region of Rudra. The person who always attentively reads or listens to the recitation of this excellent and auspicious account, appertaining to battle, of the illustrious Deity, and he worships with devotion that illustrious Lord of the universe, obtaineth all the objects of desire, in consequence of the three-eyed God being gratified with him.//

Vyasa instructs Arjuna about the greatness of Rudra:

dhRRitarAShTra uvAcha||

tasminnatirathe droNe nihate tatra sa~njaya |

mAmakAH pANDavAshchaiva kimakurvannataH param || 1||

sa~njaya uvAcha||

tasminnatirathe droNe nihate pArShatena vai |

kauraveShu cha bhagneShu kuntIputro dhana~njayaH || 2||

dRRiShTvA sumahadAshcharyamAtmano vijayAvaham |

yadRRichChayAgataM vyAsaM paprachCha bharatarShabha || 3||

sa~NgrAme nighnataH shatrU~nsharaughairvimalairaham |

agrato lakShaye yAntaM puruShaM pAvakaprabham || 4||

jvalantaM shUlamudyamya yAM dishaM pratipadyate |

tasyAM dishi vishIryante shatravo me mahAmune || 5||

na padbhyAM spRRishate bhUmiM na cha shUlaM vimu~nchati |

shUlAchChUlasahasrANi niShpetustasya tejasA || 6||

tena bhagnAnarInsarvAnmadbhagnAnmanyate janaH |

tena dagdhAni sainyAni pRRiShThato.anudahAmyaham || 7||

bhagava.nstanmamAchakShva ko vai sa puruShottamaH |

shUlapANirmahAnkRRiShNa tejasA sUryasaMnibhaH || 8||

vyAsa uvAcha||

prajApatInAM prathamaM taijasaM puruShaM vibhum |

bhuvanaM bhUrbhuvaM devaM sarvalokeshvaraM prabhum || 9||

IshAnaM varadaM pArtha dRRiShTavAnasi sha~Nkaram |

taM gachCha sharaNaM devaM sarvAdiM bhuvaneshvaram || 10||

mahAdevaM mahAtmAnamIshAnaM jaTilaM shivam |

tryakShaM mahAbhujaM rudraM shikhinaM chIravAsasam || 11||

dAtAraM chaiva bhaktAnAM prasAdavihitAnvarAn || 11||

tasya te pArShadA divyA rUpairnAnAvidhaiH vibhoH |

vAmanA jaTilA muNDA hrasvagrIvA mahodarAH || 12||

mahAkAyA mahotsAhA mahAkarNAstathApare |

AnanairvikRRitaiH pAdaiH pArtha veShaishcha vaikRRitaiH || 13||

IdRRishaiH sa mahAdevaH pUjyamAno maheshvaraH |

sa shivastAta tejasvI prasAdAdyAti te.agrataH || 14||

tasminghore tadA pArtha sa~NgrAme lomaharShaNe || 14||

droNakarNakRRipairguptAM maheShvAsaiH prahAribhiH |

kastAM senAM tadA pArtha manasApi pradharShayet || 15||

RRite devAnmaheShvAsAdbahurUpAnmaheshvarAt || 15||

sthAtumutsahate kashchinna tasminnagrataH sthite |

na hi bhUtaM samaM tena triShu lokeShu vidyate || 16||

gandhenApi hi sa~NgrAme tasya kruddhasya shatravaH |

visa~nj~nA hatabhUyiShThA vepanti cha patanti cha || 17||

tasmai namastu kurvanto devAstiShThanti vai divi |

ye chAnye mAnavA loke ye cha svargajito narAH || 18||

ye bhaktA varadaM devaM shivaM rudramumApatim |

iha loke sukhaM prApya te yAnti paramAM gatim || 19||

namaskuruShva kaunteya tasmai shAntAya vai sadA |

rudrAya shitikaNThAya kaniShThAya suvarchase || 20||

kapardine karAlAya haryakShNe varadAya cha |

yAmyAyAvyaktakeshAya sadvRRitte sha~NkarAya cha || 21||

kAmyAya harinetrAya sthANave puruShAya cha |

harikeshAya muNDAya kRRishAyottaraNAya cha || 22||

bhAskarAya sutIrthAya devadevAya raMhase |

bahurUpAya sharvAya priyAya priyavAsase || 23||

uShNIShiNe suvaktrAya sahasrAkShAya mIDhuShe |

girishAya prashAntAya pataye chIravAsase || 24||

hiraNyabAhave chaiva ugrAya pataye dishAm |

parjanyapataye chaiva bhUtAnAM pataye namaH || 25||

vRRikShANAM pataye chaiva apAM cha pataye tathA |

vRRikShairAvRRitakAyAya senAnye madhyamAya cha || 26||

sruvahastAya devAya dhanvine bhArgavAya cha |

bahurUpAya vishvasya pataye chIravAsase || 27||

sahasrashirase chaiva sahasranayanAya cha |

sahasrabAhave chaiva sahasracharaNAya cha || 28||

sharaNaM prApya kaunteya varadaM bhuvaneshvaram |

umApatiM virUpAkShaM dakShayaj~nanibarhaNam || 29||

prajAnAM patimavyagraM bhUtAnAM patimavyayam || 29||

kapardinaM vRRiShAvartaM vRRiShanAbhaM vRRiShadhvajam |

vRRiShadarpaM vRRiShapatiM vRRiShashRRi~NgaM vRRiSharShabham || 30||

vRRiShA~NkaM vRRiShabhodAraM vRRiShabhaM vRRiShabhekShaNam |

vRRiShAyudhaM vRRiShasharaM vRRiShabhUtaM maheshvaram || 31||

mahodaraM mahAkAyaM dvIpicharmanivAsinam |

lokeshaM varadaM muNDaM brahmaNyaM brAhmaNapriyam || 32||

trishUlapANiM varadaM khaDgacharmadharaM prabhum |

pinAkinaM khaNDaparashuM lokAnAM patimIshvaram || 33||

prapadye sharaNaM devaM sharaNyaM chIravAsasam || 33||

namastasmai sureshAya yasya vaishravaNaH sakhA |

suvAsase namo nityaM suvratAya sudhanvine || 34||

sruvahastAya devAya sukhadhanvAya dhanvine |

dhanvantarAya dhanuShe dhanvAchAryAya dhanvine || 35||

ugrAyudhAya devAya namaH suravarAya cha |

namo.astu bahurUpAya namashcha bahudhanvine || 36||

namo.astu sthANave nityaM suvratAya sudhanvine |

namo.astu tripuraghnAya bhagaghnAya cha vai namaH || 37||

vanaspatInAM pataye narANAM pataye namaH |

apAM cha pataye nityaM yaj~nAnAM pataye namaH || 38||

pUShNo dantavinAshAya tryakShAya varadAya cha |

nIlakaNThAya pi~NgAya svarNakeshAya vai namaH || 39||

karmANi chaiva divyAni mahAdevasya dhImataH |

tAni te kIrtayiShyAmi yathApraj~naM yathAshrutam || 40||

na surA nAsurA loke na gandharvA na rAkShasAH |

sukhamedhanti kupite tasminnapi guhAgatAH || 41||

vivyAdha kupito yaj~naM nirbhayastu bhavastadA |

dhanuShA bANamutsRRijya saghoShaM vinanAda cha || 42||

te na sharma kutaH shAntiM lebhire sma surAstadA |

vidrute sahasA yaj~ne kupite cha maheshvare || 43||

tena jyAtalaghoSheNa sarve lokAH samAkulAH |

babhUvurvashagAH pArtha nipetushcha surAsurAH || 44||

ApashchukShubhire sarvAshchakampe cha vasundharA |

parvatAshcha vyashIryanta disho nAgAshcha mohitAH || 45||

andhAshcha tamasA lokA na prakAshanta sa.nvRRitAH |

jaghnivAnsaha sUryeNa sarveShAM jyotiShAM prabhAH || 46||

chukrushurbhayabhItAshcha shAntiM chakrustathaiva cha |

RRiShayaH sarvabhUtAnAmAtmanashcha sukhaiShiNaH || 47||

pUShANamabhyadravata sha~NkaraH prahasanniva |

puroDAshaM bhakShayato dashanAnvai vyashAtayat || 48||

tato nishchakramurdevA vepamAnA natAH sma tam |

punashcha sa.ndadhe dIptaM devAnAM nishitaM sharam || 49||

rudrasya yaj~nabhAgaM cha vishiShTaM te nvakalpayan |

bhayena tridashA rAja~nsharaNaM cha prapedire || 50||

tena chaivAtikopena sa yaj~naH sandhitastadA |

yattAshchApi surA AsanyattAshchAdyApi taM prati || 51||

asurANAM purANyAsa.nstrINi vIryavatAM divi |

AyasaM rAjataM chaiva sauvarNamaparaM mahat || 52||

AyasaM tArakAkShasya kamalAkShasya rAjatam |

sauvarNaM paramaM hyAsIdvidyunmAlina eva cha || 53||

na shaktastAni maghavAnbhettuM sarvAyudhairapi |

atha sarve.amarA rudraM jagmuH sharaNamarditAH || 54||

te tamUchurmahAtmAnaM sarve devAH savAsavAH |

rudra raudrA bhaviShyanti pashavaH sarvakarmasu || 55||

nipAtayiShyase chainAnasurAnbhuvaneshvara || 55||

sa tathoktastathetyuktvA devAnAM hitakAmyayA |

atiShThatsthANubhUtaH sa sahasraM parivatsarAn || 56||

yadA trINi sametAni antarikShe purANi vai |

triparvaNA trishalyena tena tAni bibheda saH || 57||

purANi na cha taM shekurdAnavAH prativIkShitum |

sharaM kAlAgnisa.nyuktaM viShNusomasamAyutam || 58||

bAlama~NkagataM kRRitvA svayaM pa~nchashikhaM punaH |

umA jij~nAsamAnA vai ko.ayamityabravItsurAn || 59||

bAhuM savajraM shakrasya kruddhasyAstambhayatprabhuH |

sa eSha bhagavAndevaH sarvalokeshvaraH prabhuH || 60||

na sambubudhire chainaM devAstaM bhuvaneshvaram |

saprajApatayaH sarve bAlArkasadRRishaprabham || 61||

athAbhyetya tato brahmA dRRiShTvA cha sa maheshvaram |

ayaM shreShTha iti j~nAtvA vavande taM pitAmahaH || 62||

tataH prasAdayAmAsurumAM rudraM cha te surAH |

abhavachcha punarbAhuryathAprakRRiti vajriNaH || 63||

teShAM prasanno bhagavAnsapatnIko vRRiShadhvajaH |

devAnAM tridashashreShTho dakShayaj~navinAshanaH || 64||

sa vai rudraH sa cha shivaH so.agniH sharvaH sa sarvavit |

sa chendrashchaiva vAyushcha so.ashvinau sa cha vidyutaH || 65||

sa bhavaH sa cha parjanyo mahAdevaH sa chAnaghaH |

sa chandramAH sa cheshAnaH sa sUryo varuNashcha saH || 66||

sa kAlaH so.antako mRRityuH sa yamo rAtryahAni cha |

mAsArdhamAsA RRitavaH sandhye sa.nvatsarashcha saH || 67||

sa cha dhAtA vidhAtA cha vishvAtmA vishvakarmakRRit |

sarvAsAM devatAnAM cha dhArayatyavapurvapuH || 68||

sarvairdevaiH stuto devaH saikadhA bahudhA cha saH |

shatadhA sahasradhA chaiva tathA shatasahasradhA || 69||

IdRRishaH sa mahAdevo bhUyashcha bhagavAnajaH | […..Mahādeva is Unborn]

na hi sarve mayA shakyA vaktuM bhagavato guNAH || 70||

sarvairgrahairgRRihItAnvai sarvapApasamanvitAn |

sa mochayati suprItaH sharaNyaH sharaNAgatAn || 71||

AyurArogyamaishvaryaM vittaM kAmA.nshcha puShkalAn |

sa dadAti manuShyebhyaH sa chaivAkShipate punaH || 72||

sendrAdiShu cha deveShu tasya chaishvaryamuchyate |

sa chaiva vyAhRRite loke manuShyANAM shubhAshubhe || 73||

aishvaryAchchaiva kAmAnAmIshvaraH punaruchyate |

maheshvarashcha bhUtAnAM mahatAmIshvarashcha saH || 74||

bahubhirbahudhA rUpairvishvaM vyApnoti vai jagat |

asya devasya yadvaktraM samudre tadatiShThata || 75||

eSha chaiva shmashAneShu devo vasati nityashaH |

yajantyenaM janAstatra vIrasthAna itIshvaram || 76||

asya dIptAni rUpANi ghorANi cha bahUni cha |

loke yAnyasya kurvanti manuShyAH pravadanti cha || 77||

nAmadheyAni lokeShu bahUnyatra yathArthavat |

niruchyante mahattvAchcha vibhutvAtkarmabhistathA || 78||

vede chAsya samAmnAtaM shatarudrIyamuttamam |

nAmnA chAnantarudreti upasthAnaM mahAtmanaH || 79||

sa kAmAnAM prabhurdevo ye divyA ye cha mAnuShAH |

sa vibhuH sa prabhurdevo vishvaM vyApnuvate mahat || 80||

jyeShThaM bhUtaM vadantyenaM brAhmaNA munayastathA |

prathamo hyeSha devAnAM mukhAdasyAnalo.abhavat || 81||

sarvathA yatpashUnpAti taishcha yadramate punaH |

teShAmadhipatiryachcha tasmAtpashupatiH smRRitaH || 82||

nityena brahmacharyeNa li~Ngamasya yadA sthitam |

mahayanti cha lokAshcha maheshvara iti smRRitaH || 83||

RRiShayashchaiva devAshcha gandharvApsarasastathA |

li~NgamasyArchayanti sma tachchApyUrdhvaM samAsthitam || 84||

pUjyamAne tatastasminmodate sa maheshvaraH |

sukhI prItashcha bhavati prahRRiShTashchaiva sha~NkaraH || 85||

yadasya bahudhA rUpaM bhUtabhavyabhavatsthitam |

sthAvaraM ja~NgamaM chaiva bahurUpastataH smRRitaH || 86||

ekAkSho jAjvalannAste sarvatokShimayo.api vA |

krodhAdyashchAvishallokA.nstasmAchCharva iti smRRitaH || 87||

dhUmraM rUpaM cha yattasya dhUrjaTistena uchyate |

vishve devAshcha yattasminvishvarUpastataH smRRitaH || 88||

tisro devIryadA chaiva bhajate bhuvaneshvaraH |

dyAmapaH pRRithivIM chaiva tryambakashcha tataH smRRitaH || 89||

samedhayati yannityaM sarvArthAnsarvakarmasu |

shivamichChanmanuShyANAM tasmAdesha shivaH smRRitaH || 90||

sahasrAkSho.ayutAkSho vA sarvatokShimayo.api vA |

yachcha vishvaM mahatpAti mahAdevastataH smRRitaH || 91||

dahatyUrdhvaM sthito yachcha prANotpattisthitashcha yat |

sthitali~Ngashcha yannityaM tasmAtsthANuriti smRRitaH || 92||

viShamasthaH sharIreShu samashcha prANinAmiha |

sa vAyurviShamastheShu prANApAnasharIriShu || 93||

pUjayedvigrahaM yastu li~NgaM vApi samarchayet |

li~NgaM pUjayitA nityaM mahatIM shriyamashnute || 94||

UrubhyAmardhamAgneyaM somArdhaM cha shivA tanuH |

Atmano.ardhaM cha tasyAgniH somo.ardhaM punaruchyate || 95||

taijasI mahatI dIptA devebhyashcha shivA tanuH |

bhAsvatI mAnuSheShvasya tanurghorAgniruchyate || 96||

brahmacharyaM charatyeSha shivA yAsya tanustayA |

yAsya ghoratarA mUrtiH sarvAnatti tayeshvaraH || 97||

yannirdahati yattIkShNo yadugro yatpratApavAn |

mA.nsashoNitamajjAdo yattato rudra uchyate || 98||

eSha devo mahAdevo yo.asau pArtha tavAgrataH |

sa~NgrAme shAtravAnnighna.nstvayA dRRiShTaH pinAkadhRRik || 99||

eSha vai bhagavAndevaH sa~NgrAme yAti te.agrataH |

yena dattAni te.astrANi yaistvayA dAnavA hatAH || 100||

dhanyaM yashasyamAyuShyaM puNyaM vedaishcha sa~nj~nitam |

devadevasya te pArtha vyAkhyAtaM shatarudriyam || 101||

sarvArthasAdhakaM puNyaM sarvakilbiShanAshanam |

sarvapApaprashamanaM sarvaduHkhabhayApaham || 102||

chaturvidhamidaM stotraM yaH shRRiNoti naraH sadA |

vijitya sarvA~nshatrUnsa rudraloke mahIyate || 103||

charitaM mahAtmano divyaM sA~NgrAmikamidaM shubham |

paThanvai shatarudrIyaM shRRiNva.nshcha satatotthitaH || 104||

bhakto vishveshvaraM devaM mAnuSheShu tu yaH sadA |

varAnsa kAmA.Nllabhate prasanne tryambake naraH || 105||

gachCha yudhyasva kaunteya na tavAsti parAjayaH |

yasya mantrI cha goptA cha pArshvataste janArdanaH || 106||

sa~njaya uvAcha||

evamuktvArjunaM sa~Nkhye parAsharasutastadA |

jagAma bharatashreShTha yathAgatamari.ndama || 107||

\medskip ## \hrule Mahabharata Critical Edition Only for Personal Studies Encoding: ISCII

Electronic text (C) Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India, 1999

http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/statement.html for further details.

Unfortunately the bloggers have believed in a verse from the Mahābhārata (Dronaparva) that has been mistaken to say that ‘Rudra is (also) a target of the vaiṣṇavāstra’:

//tasmAtprAgjyotiShaM prAptaM tadastraM pArtha mAmakam |

nAsyAvadhyo.asti lokeShu sendrarudreShu mAriSha || 33||//

It is clear from the passages cited from the very Dronaparva of the Mahābhārata that Shiva is unborn.  The Bhagavadgītā 2.27 teaches: He who is born is bound to die and he who dies is bound to be born.  When Shiva is unborn where is the question of his being a target of any astra?  In fact Shiva is the one who destroys, absorbs, the entire creation at the time of pralaya according to the Vishnusahasranama Bhashya of Shankara and the Prashnopanishad and the Bhashya thereon.  So there is no question of Shiva being a target of any missile.

In fact the wording of the above verse where the plural occurs ‘lokeShu sendrarudreShu’ means: ‘all those lokas including that of Indra and the eleven Rudras..’ That the eleven Rudras are jīvas and that state can be attained by certain upāsana is established in the Chandogya upaniṣad.  See this article:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/610a95362eprvy3/Reference+to+Rudra+and+%C4%80ditya+in+the+Bh.g.pdf

In case someone argues that the Rudra in this verse is the Lord Shiva alone, then too, it must be noted, the plural in the verse will not be applicable to just Rudra but even Vishnu and Brahma.  For, all these are specific entities in the cosmos who manage certain portfolios. For, the Kaivalyopanishat has placed all these deities on an equal footing:

स ब्रह्मा स शिवः सेन्द्रः सोऽक्षरः परमः स्वराट् ।

स एव विष्णुः स प्राणः स कालोऽग्निः स चन्द्रमाः ॥ ८॥

[He the Supreme Imperishable alone is Brahmā, He alone is Shiva, Indra, Viṣṇu, Prāṇa, Kāla,Agni and Chandra.]

No astra of that magnitude has ever been allowed to take its full course once released by anyone.  Why? It is because there is a particular method, niyama, of creation, sustenance and dissolution which happen in a cyclical fashion. There is a timeframe too for this.  At no time has this final dissolution been done by employing a missile. Dissolution or absorption of the created world happens only by the Sankalpa of Shiva. If a missile of that magnitude is let to do its intended work, then all worlds including that of Vishnu will be destroyed.  It has been categorically decided in the Advaitasiddhi by Sri Madhusudana Saraswati that all lokas including Vaikunṭha are ephemeral as they are within creation.

Thus, if someone thinks that the MB verse holds that Indra and Rudra lokas will be targeted by the astra, there is no reason why the Vishnu lokas will not be.  This is because of one reason stated in the earlier paragraph:  all lokas are created.  The reason for Krishna ‘containing’ the vaishnavāstra in the Bhagadatta episode is purely for the reason that the Vishnulokas too are to be protected from the target of the astra.  This is the logical and unavoidable consequence of holding that this astra will target Indra and Rudra.

The additional reason is: Veda Vyasa, in the MB has said, through the very mouth of Krishna:

रुद्रो नारायणश्चैव सत्वमेकं द्विधा कृतम्।

लोके चरति कौन्तेय व्यक्तिस्थं सर्वकर्मसु।। 12-350-27a 12-350-27b.

Rudra and Nārāyaṇa are both really one Principle, only appearing as two.

So, whatever ‘fate’ falls on Rudra, Nārāyaṇa too cannot escape, according to the above verse.  That will be the logical and unavoidable consequence of anyone trying to adduce the alleged meaning to the MB Dronaparva verse on the Vaishnavāstra.

Also, if anyone wants to say that the dialogue between Veda Vyasa and Arjuna about the greatness of Shiva occurring in that very Drona Parva of the MB, is an interpolation, then none can succeed in giving even a single reason as to why the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna appearing in this very Parva where occurs the alleged verse ‘Indra and Rudra will be targeted by that astra’ also does not face the similar fate of interpolation.

Thus none can get away by making a preposterous claim that Rudra is a jiva without inviting a counter claim that Vishnu is a jiva.  If anyone tries to show this or that shruti or smriti passage to support the claim that Rudra is a jiva, there are equally passages from shruti and smṛti available to show that Vishnu is a jiva, born of Rudra. See this blog for such references:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/turiya-shiva-of-the-kaivalyopanishat/

The irony is, far from adding weight to the bloggers’ claim that Rudra is a jiva, the very MB Drona parva demolishes such a claim by showing that Rudra is not born at all.

Om Tat Sat

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers