Reflection on Vedanta as Śabda pramāṇa – An Advaita perspective (Śri Śankara Jayanthi 2022)
222
Reflection
on Vedanta as Śabda pramāṇa – An Advaita perspective
By
Eashwar Thiagarajan
Purpose and Organization
of the essay
Purpose:
The word Śabda in the phrase Śabda pramāṇa,
refers to the entire corpus of Vedic revelation. This covers the revelations in
the karmakāndā of the veda (i.e. topics like life after death, about swargā, about
puṇyā and pāpah, important yajna kratu
for achieving worldly and other worldly goals etc.) and the jnāna kānda (i.e. upaniṣads
also known as brahmavidyā or knowledge of Brahman). The essay (however) confines
itself, specifically to the jnāna kānda portions while discussing Śabda pramāṇa
and advaita vedanta. In other words, this essay tries to answer the question –
what does advaita vedānta mean, when it says upaniṣad is Śabda pramāṇa? The
essay proceeds to raise several pertinent points, questions for discussion and tries
to provide clarification based on the teachings of Śri Śankarāchāryā & Śri
Sureśvarāchārya, in the process. The
words śruti, Śabda, upaniṣad, brahmavidyā are all used interchangeably in the
essay.
Organization: Section I – Introduction, discusses how
pramāṇa other than Śabda, operate in domain of non-Self or unātman. Section
II – is brief discussion of śruti as the final pramāṇa, in the context of
the advaita method of teaching, namely adhyārōpa apavāda nyāya. This method of teaching (seen in veda) admits
the individuality of the student to begin with but later by virtue of removing the
ignorance (or our nondual Self) with śruti pramāṇa, it also denies any vestige
of separate reality attributed to the individuality. Section III – briefly
discusses Advaita’s metaphysical
position on Śabda pramāṇa. Section
IV – is based
on the text naiśkarmya siddhi by Śri Sureśvarāchārya. It discusses several
reasons to explain how Śabda pramāṇa is the only means to know Brahman. Section V ( also based on naiśkarmya
siddhi) mentions four reasons, as to why
one might refuse to accept the Śabda pramāṇa. Post concluding comments (i.e.
Section VI), there is also an important appendix section added, which
explains briefly, how Śri Śankara characterizes the Brahmavidyā as vastu tantra
(objectively knowable truth revealed in the śruti) and not puruṣatantra (i.e.
knowledge gained on account of individual specialty).
I.
Introduction
The
subject matter of Advaita Vedānta is the Self or ātman. This ātman is of the
nature of pure consciousness, which cannot be objectified. This being the case, how can the subject of
Vedānta (namely the Self or ātman) be studied objectively with pramāṇa (i.e.
means of knowledge) like pratyakśa, anumāna, athāpatti, upamāna, anupalabdhi[1]? All of these pramāṇa
operate on the individual, endowed with consciousness. Perception is based on the senses, which
themselves are rooted in the body, mind complex, called the individuality. This
individuality, presupposes consciousness, which is known as the real Self, in
Advaita. This Self (i.e. pure consciousness) is beyond, name, form, birth,
death etc, and is in itself self-revealed, self-luminous, so how then can
perception work with respect to studying consciousness?
If
one claims that perception can be used to study other’s consciousness, it shall
be nothing more than study of the devices that manifest consciousness – be it
body, or the brain – nothing conclusive can arrive from it that can match the
certainty of one’s experience of Self – expressed as “I am therefore I know”[2].
Thus,
Advaita Vedānta is not a school of thought specializing in some objective
phenomena. The ātman is not an object of study, it’s the very subject (i.e. the Self of the student of Vedānta). What
then is Vedānta according to Advaitins? By Vedānta is meant pramāṇa, as one of
the later texts of Vedānta, aptly puts - vedānto nāmopaniṣat pramāṇaṃ (verse 3
of vedāntasāra). This means that by Vedānta is meant pramāṇa obtained through
the upaniṣad. Said in another way, upaniṣad is the Śabda pramāṇa (i.e. means of
knowledge) for knowing about Self as the infinite Brahman (e.g. sākṣā̱d a̱parokṣād bra̱hma ya̱ ātmā̱ sarvāntara̱ḥ ~ Brahman that is immediate and direct – the self that is within all –
Brih.Up.3.4.1).
Śri Śankara knew clearly the
problem was not of the lack of experience of Self, but the problem was not
knowing the Self as Brahman (whose nature is only revealed by śruti) – beyond
all limiting adjuncts (which are superimposed on Self, through ignorance) and
of the nature of pure existence, consciousness-infinity (sathyam, jnānam,
anantam – Tait. Up 2.1.1.).
“I am of this nature” -
Without first determining the Self thus, none will attempt to determine the
knowable object. Never indeed is the Self unknown to anyone. Śāstrā which is the final authority, serves
as such only in so far as it enables to eliminate the attributes superimposed
on the Self ~ BG 2.18 Bhāṣya by Sri
Bhagavatpādā
In other words, to know I
exist and I’m self-aware – I do not need any pramāṇa for this basic experience
or knowledge. Infact, all the other pramāṇa like perception etc exist to
ascertain objects for my sake. However, to overcome the ignorance, which makes
me think – I’m the limited being, who is born, who dies, who transmigrates etc,
I need knowledge, which can only come from a means of knowledge (i.e. pramāṇa),
which gives us the vision of infinite Brahman, as the very Self (by removing
superimposition of attributes of non-Self unātman on the Self/ātman).
But unlike other pramāṇa
(i.e. perception etc.), the Śabda pramāṇa refutes and uproots the ignorance
(avidyā) which foists and fosters the notion of individuality. Remaining pramāṇa
like perception etc., are sense based and they are inherently rooted in the
reality of individual and serve transactional utility in their respective
domains, but they can’t sublate the idea of individuality, which Śabda pramāṇa
alone can do.
Function of perception and the like is not
possible, as we all know, without making use of the senses. And the senses
cannot possibly function without a body as their resting place. Nor can anyone
be active with a body on which the idea of its being one's own Self is not
superimposed. Nor can there be cognizership in the ātman, who is by nature
untainted by anything else, unless all this has been presumed. And no Pramāna can proceed to function
without cognizership (in ātman). Therefore, (it is clear that) perception and
other Pramānas and the śāstrās likewise
are only for persons influenced by avidyā. ~ Śri Śankara in his intro to Br.Su.
Bhāṣya.
So effectively the purpose of
the Śabda pramāṇa, is to overcome the avidyā or ignorance of the infinite
nature of the Self (i.e. individual is in reality the infinite Self also known
as (a.k.a) Brahman).
Sri Sankara in his intro to
Br.Su. Bhāṣya says : -
In order to eradicate this source of evil (i.e.
avidya) and in order to acquire the knowledge of the unity of the Self (i.e.
jeeva as identical with Brahman), is begun a discussion (after the study) of
all the Upaniṣads. We shall show in this discussion about the nature of the
embodied soul, that this is the purport of all the Upaniṣads.
II.
Śruti as the final pramāṇa and understanding this in the
context of the teaching method ~ adhyārōpa apavāda nyāya.
Adhyārōpa apavāda nyāya implies a
teaching method or logic, wherein first an intentional superimposition
(adhyārōpa) is made on Self, as the knower by śruti itself[3],
to facilitate easy adoption of Brahmavidya. Later the superimposition (made
earlier by śruti) is systematically removed (apavāda), so as to leave us with
the right knowledge of the Self as nondual Brahman. This is the method adopted
by teachers of Advaita tradition. Sri Sankara refers to this term/method in his
Gitābhāṣya 13.13[4].
The knower (i.e. jeeva or the
individual), knows this perceptible universe of names and forms. Anything
considered apart from the Self (ātma), is designated as non-Self or unātma.
Strictly speaking unātma is everything that is other than the singular infinite
consciousness. So - body, mind, sense, energy, time, space, name, form or any
concept is all unātma – because its revealed by ātma – i.e. pure consciousness.
It is thus, in the domain of the unātma
or non-Self, the pramāṇa like pratyakśa, anumāna etc (i.e. other than Śabda pramāṇa)
are used. Once śruti enables the seeker to get the brahmavidya - i.e. knowing that Self is nondual Brahman,
immediately and directly – then ignorance or avidyā (i.e. superimposition of
unātma on ātma – i.e. I am the body, mind complex etc.) is dispelled.
This implies the notion of unātma
being real (i.e. has independent existence apart from Self which is pure
consciousness), vanishes. This must also lead to sublation of the notion of
reality of anything that can be known (as apart from Self). The knowledge – all
this verily the Self[5],
arises. By this reasoning, one has to admit that even śruti in ultimate
analysis has to be deemed to be metaphysically unreal, after it has served it’s
purpose by granting us knowledge of the unity of Self (i.e. Self or ātman is Brahman).
Section III talks about śruti being (ultimately speaking) metaphysically
unreal.
Thus śruti (i.e. upaniṣad a.k.a. brahmavidya) is the
final pramāṇa, as it reveals that (i.e. Brahman=Self) by knowing which,
everything else becomes known[6]
(i.e. it removes all notions of difference in Self and helps us recognize
oneself as nondual consciousness). Thus, with this revelation, śruti as Śabda pramāṇa,
does the act of apavāda (in the adhyārōpa apavāda nyāya process) ~ i.e.
de-superimposition of earlier allowed idea(s) of individuality, duality,
creation of universe etc foisted on Brahman (or Self / ātman).
III.
Advaita’s metaphysical position on Śabda pramāṇa
Context:
In
Section II it was mentioned that “…even
śruti in ultimate analysis has to be deemed to be metaphysically unreal, after
it has served its purpose by granting us knowledge…”.
Q: If Advaita holds that
knowledge of Self leads to immediate cessation of ignorance. Then duality which
is a product of ignorance would also cease to be, in which case the śāstrās
which are within the realm of duality may be deemed useless ~ as they are understood/declared,
to be metaphysically unreal.
Answer: If śruti helps one to overcome
one’s avidyā, then to such an illumined person (a rarity), the śāstrās will
cease to be a pramāṇa (i.e. no longer means of knowledge). However, to those
who are still belaboring under avidyā, the śāstrās will continue to be the
final pramāṇa. So, to declare śāstrās become useless to one and all, post
realization, is inaccurate observation or conclusion.
Let
us examine it further. Due to avidya, the ideas of knowership are superimposed
on the Self – i.e. knower of sense objects and also the knower of Brahmavidyā.
All knowledge is essentially mental modification, i.e. chitta vritti. Even
Brahmavidyā is also a vritti (mental modification), but obtained from śruti
a.k.a brahmavidyā. As Brahman alone is real, even śāstrās are metaphysically
unreal, in the ultimate sense. But as discussed earlier, brahmavidyā is the
final pramāṇa, which means by knowing the truth revealed therein, nothing else
remains to be known (as apart from Brahman). This exalted clarity, however only
applies to the knower of Self, as it truly is (i.e. infinite nondual Brahman).
To the rest of us, the śāstrās will continue to be a pramāṇa (i.e. through
revelations in karma kānda and jnāna kānda).
See.
BG 13.2/3 Śankara Bhāṣyam - Sastra serves its purpose only in the state
of avidyā, even as all the dualists hold that is in only in the state of
bondage that śāstra serves its purpose and not in the state of liberation.
IV.
Śabda pramāṇa is the only means to knowledge of Brahman
Based on the study of
naiśkarmya siddhi (3.47-50) by Śri sureśvarāchārya,
the following reasons are enumerated, as to why Śabda pramāṇa can be the only
means to know about the infinite nondual nature of the Self.
1.
Reason
1: The Self is of the nature of consciousness, hence self-revealed. Thus,
it is in a category unlike unātman (non-Self). Thus, the pramāṇa which work
well in the domain of unātman – like pratyakśa, anumāna, etc. cannot work here
to reveal the Self – which is self-luminous.
One
interesting objection one can have to the reason given above is - since Self is
a category hitherto, unknowable by usual means, even Śabda pramāṇa must fail to
give us knowledge of the Self (as Śabda pramāṇa is found to be a mere
assemblage of words/texts in the domain of unātman). To this we can reply - Scriptures
reveal the Self, by removing misconceptions about the Self being the body, mind
complex etc. What the scriptures negate (i.e. phenomena superimposed upon the Self)
is within the realm of sense perception (i.e. names, forms, body, thoughts
etc.), so Scriptures can do its job of being a pramāṇa for Brahmavidyā, despite
being located along with the phenomena, in the domain of unātman.
To
say it in another way – śruti reveals Brahman. Śruti does not create the
Brahman experience, it only removes our ignorance of Brahman. This ignorance is
characterized by notions, ideas etc, all of which belong to the phenomenal
world. So śruti while remaining as unique thought pattern within the phenomenal
world, acts to negate avidyā based thought patterns, which is also within the
phenomenal world.
Any knowledge of non-Self,
presupposes the Self – the consciousness which reveals itself as “I am”. All
that is known as non-Self (unātma ~ i.e. starting with body, mind, senses,
prāna, sense objects etc) is illumined by the Self – which is pure
consciousness. Hence Self is the
innermost. Pramāna like perception (pratyakśa) can only operate in the
domain of the phenomena of sense objects, namely unātma. Inference presupposes
and/or is dependent on perception. Comparison (upamāna) functions through the
knowledge of similarity which presupposes difference in name, form,
characteristics – again all possible in the domain of plurality or domain of
unātma. Proof by postulation (arthāpatti) and non-cognition (anupalabdhi), are
also based on ideas of difference. But Self is the light of awareness which
illumines all of the notions of difference. So, the pramāṇa like perception
etc,. cannot reveal this infinite nature of the Self. Hence from śruti and
śruti alone, we get the knowledge of the infinite Self.
2.
Reason
2: The non-Self have qualities like name, form, color etc., whereas Self as
pure consciousness ~ is aśabdam (beyond sound) asparśam (beyond touch) arūpam (beyond
form, color)[7]. Thus, the usual
perception and perception based pramāṇa (like inference etc.) can’t indicate or
highlight or reveal the Self, as it truly is (i.e. nondual consciousness). So,
it’s given to Śabda pramāṇa (i.e. through upaniṣad vākyas a.k.a. Brahmavidya) alone,
to reveal the infinite nature of Self.
Śabda
pramāṇa (i.e. śruti or veda or upaniṣad) are unique in the sense they reveal
something which can’t be known through any other pramāṇa, as the Self
transcends sense perception. Now another question can arise “If śruti reveals that everything is verily Brahman
of the nature of consciousness, then does this not contradict with what sense
perception reveals?” This is answered by the simply logic that śruti does
not contradict the knowledge gained by sense perception, what it does is refute
the assertion that all that is known by sense perception is sathyam – i.e.
eternal and changeless existence. It helps us understand the objects of sense
perception are mithyā ~ i.e. neither sat (absolute existence) nor asat
(absolutely non-existent). Their apparent existence (confirmed by pratyakśa
etc.) is nothing more than Brahman (in reality) appearing, as if endowed with
name and form. Then it proceeds to negate the superimpositions and reveal Brahman,
as the very Self of the seeker.
3.
Reason
3: Inference can’t independently reveal the Self, as Self is doubtlessly
known to everyone. What inference can do, is ride on the shoulders of śruti and
provide clarification w.r.t .what Self is and what Self is not.
The
Self is sākṣā̱d a̱parokṣād bra̱hma ya̱ ātmā̱ sarvāntara̱ḥ ~ Brahman that is immediate and direct – the self that is within all –
Brih.Up.3.4.1. That which is known to one and all, can’t be
doubted whatsoever. So, the question of inference operating to reveal the Self,
which is doubtlessly known to one and all, is ruled out. What is needed for the
individual, is not experience of Self but removal of the ignorance in the form
of superimposition of finitude, on the Self (i.e. I’m limited being, born, will
die on day, I am body or I have body, I’m happy, I suffer etc.).
Cursory
reading of scriptures can lead one to observe that virāj gained
knowledge of Self through mere reasoning (Brih. Up.1.4.2) or Bhrgu gained knowledge of the Self by remembering and reflecting upon
the definition, given by his father (Tait Up 3.1) or Svetaketu gained the knowledge of the Self, taught by his father
(Ch.Up.6.7-10). Then the question can be raised, - If the
śruti itself is implying that one can gain Self-knowledge from others and also
from reasoning, why insist on the śruti (as an independent body of info) as the
only means for this knowledge?. To this we can reply - śruti is needed to know that this Self, which
one refers to as “I am”, is of the nature of satyam (existence), jnānam
(consciousness), anantam (infinite) brahma (Tai.Up.2.1.1). This clarification
allows us to develop ātma unātma viveka (discrimination between Self and
non-Self, while trying to recognize one’s essential nature as Self) which
culminates in ātma vichārā (persistent enquiry into the substratum of all
experience – namely Self of the nature of pure consciousness, nondual, as
revealed by śruti). The motivation for knowing the nondual Self, which is to
overcome all suffering[8], is also provided by
śruti. What is outward alone can be known through perception or inference. Since
the Self is the most inward, it is outside the purview of any pramāṇa, other
than Śabda pramāṇa.
V.
Why anyone would not accept Śabda
pramāṇa?
In
Naiśkarmya siddhi 3.35-37, Śri śuresvara
offers four reasons why anyone would not accept Śabda pramāṇa. Objectors may say that Śabda pramāṇa …
a.
is/are mere restatement (anuvāda) of what is already
known, which is not the case with brahmavidya (which reveals – I’m infinite
Brahman, beyond all limitations and suffering and nondual). It is not
information like fire is hot, or body is born and it shall die etc, which can
be obtained through other pramāṇa. The Śabda pramāṇa offers pramā (valid
knowledge) regarding the Self, as the one nondual reality, which no other pramāṇa
gives.
b.
is in contradiction with other pramāṇa. Which is
not the case, as other pramāṇa operate in the domain of unātman (discussed
earlier in the essay) while Śabda pramāṇa alone reveals the infinite nature of
the Self (discussed earlier in this essay).
c.
is doubtful, i.e. not reliable
revelation ~
This may be valid objection, if the revelation is about an extraneous reality,
whose existence one can possibly doubt. But here the reality under discussion is
the Self of the doubter! There can be no doubt – as its immediately and directly known as “I
am”. What is removed by the śruti revelation, is only the notions of finitude
which are erroneously superimposed on the Self.
d.
is no new information ~ Clearly this is not a worthy
objection! However, one who is so disconnected with subject matter, its
purpose, its fruits or the pre-requisites (adhikāritvam) may opine this way.
VI.
Concluding Comments
Sri
Ādi śankarāchāryā, the great bhāṣyakāra (commentator) of the Advaita tradition,
viewed vedānta as a pramāṇa. This implies instead of viewing it as mere source
of trust worthy information (āpta vākya as the nyāya school does), Śri Śankara
views it as direct means of knowledge (which is what pramāṇa means). This
knowledge liberates us from erroneous notion of Self as being born, being
finite, prone to suffering, fear etc. Vedānta, is thus viewed by Śri Śankara as
Śabda pramāṇa or Brahmavidya, which immediately culminates in liberating us
from the thralldom of ignorance (avidyā), which is the root cause of our
problems.
Appendix: Brahmavidya
(i.e. Śabda pramāṇa) is vastutantra and not puruṣatantra.
Śri
Śankara characterizes the Brahmavidyā as vastu tantra (objectively knowable
truth revealed in the śruti) and not puruśa tantra (i.e. knowledge gained on
account of individual specialty).
Śri
Ādi Śankarāchāryā in his Brahmasutra bhāṣya refers to Brahmavidya as vastutantram[9].
The essential meaning of this word (i.e. vastutantram)
is that brahmavidya (i.e. Śabda pramāṇa) is essentially an insight obtained
from the śruti revealing the truth about Self, in an objectively available manner. The knowledge we gain
from it, is entirely determined by the Śabda pramāṇa itself. Of course, our
ability to assimilate it, is based on our adhikāritvam (ability to fathom its
import, depending on prior sādhana). Despite that it still remains a knowledge
obtained from śruti itself and it does not presuppose any altered state of
consciousness or awareness in the individual trying to attain that knowledge of
Brahman. Śri Śankara is clear, in that,
brahmavidya is not puruśa tantra – i.e. it is not gained on account of individual
specialty, independent of Śabda pramāṇa. Just like the sun reveals and shines
on all things, brahmavidya shines the same on the able and the inept alike.
It’s inherently neutral, merely revealing the knowledge which includes the
means and ends of overcoming ignorance.
In
other words, if brahmavidya were puruśa tantra, it becomes individual
experience centric knowledge, which implies two things (a) it (i.e. experience
of Brahman) can vary from person to person and (b) śruti no longer becomes the
only means of Brahman knowledge. From this kind of proposition, one will have
to infer that Brahman itself is varying from person to person ~ an untenable proposition.
Experience of Brahman varying from
person to person, implies its not Brahman that varies but the upādhi which
manifest brahman that varies, so the individual experience is not of Brahman,
but of special modifications of the upādhi – which defeats the primary
purpose of claiming the unique individual experience of Brahman. If
śruti is not the yardstick for determining brahmavidya, then no amount of
experience of Self (as knower or Jeeva) can negate the primary ignorance of
identification of Self (pure consciousness) with non-Self (body, mind,
individuality) and vice-versa.
This
short discussion on why Śri Śankara views brahmavidya as vastu tantra (as per Śri
Śankara bhāṣya on Brahmasutra) shows how Advaita sampradhāyā views Śabda pramāṇa. Brahmavidya is knowledge available to the
individual, for objective learning through śravana, manana, nididhyāsana[10]. Upon assimilation, brahmavidya
debunks the superstition of the individuality while simultaneously generating
the conviction regarding the nonduality of Self. No amount of special cognitive
shift or mystical experience, can remove the notion of the individuality being
a myth, unless Brahmavidya is taught as such. This is why Iśvara bhakti, in
Advaita tradition takes the special form of Guru bhakti, i.e. viewing Iśvara as
the guru of vedanta sampradhāyā[11]. Primary meaning of upaniṣad
is brahmavidya ~ as Śri Śankara declares in Katha upaniṣad bhāṣya introduction.
Only secondarily it is referred to as text – i.e. assemblage of words[12].
Bibliography
1.
Brahmasutra
bhāṣya by Śri Śankarāchāryā – trans by Sri Swami Gambhīrānandaji,
2.
Naiśkarmya
siddhi by Śri Sureśvarāchārya – trans by Prof. Sri R. Balasubramanian
3.
Gitābhāṣya
by Śri Śankarāchāryā – trans by Sri Swami Gambhīrānandaji
4.
Gitābhāṣya
by Śri Śankarāchāryā – trans by Dr. Sri A.G. Warrier.
5.
Vedāntasāra
by Sadānandā – trans by Sri Swami Nikhilānandaji.
6.
Vedānta
paribhāśā by Dharmaraja adhvarīndra – trans by Sri Swami Mādhavānandāji.
7.
Eight
Upaniṣad – Volumes I and II – trans by Sri Swami Gambhīrānandaji
8.
Brihadāranyaka
upaniṣad – trans by Sri Swami Mādhavānandāji.
9.
Chāndogya
upaniṣad – trans by Sri Swami Swāhānandaji.
[1]
Pratyakśa
(perception), anumāna (inference), arthāpatti (postulation), upamāna
(comparison), anupalabdhi (non-cognition) all these five along with śabdha
(i.e. śruti) as the six, for the six acceptable pramāna or means of knowledge,
in advaita vedānta sampradhāyā ~ see text - vedānta paribhāśā by śri Dharmarāja
Adhvarīndrā.
[2] One’s
certainty in one’s existence is rooted in one’s awareness of one’s existence.
This is expressed with the phrase I am. This is doubtless expression of one’s
sense of being. One’s ability to know or think, is first based on one’s Being
or existence, which is of the nature of pure consciousness. So, one’s being-awareness
is presupposed, when one thinks. Therefore, its correct to say, “I am therefore
I think” or “I am therefor I know”.
[4]
tathā hi saṅpradāyavidāṅ vacanam -- 'adhyārōpāpavādābhyāṅ niṣprapañcaṅ
prapañcyatē - Vide the assertion of
traditional scholars: “The acosmic {Niṣprapañcaṅ} is objectified through the
process of superimposition (adhyārōpa) and sublation (apavāda)
[5] yatra vā asya sarvamātmaivābhūt ~ To the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self ~ Brih.Up.2.4.14
[6] ‘O adorable sir, (which is that thing) which having been known, all this becomes known ?’ – Mundaka Up 1.1.3
[7] By
knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so also
tasteless, eternal, odorless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and
constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death- Ka. Up. 1.3.15.
[8] a knower of Atman goes beyond grief – Chan.Up.7.1.3
[9] vastutantratvāt,
vastutantrameva (in Br.Su.1.1.1-2, 1.1.4, 2.1.11) & nahi
tatpuruśatantraṃ, vastutantrameva hi tat (Br.Su. 3.2.21)
[10]
“The
Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realized - should be heard of (śravana),
reflected on (manana) and meditated upon (i.e. nididhyāsana). By the
realization of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation,
all this is known” – Brih.Up 2.4.5
[11]
While
commenting on the gītā śloka 15.15, where Bhagavān says vēdāntakṛd vēdavidēva cāham, Śri Śankara explains phrase vēdāntakṛd as vēdāntārtha sampradaya kṛt ityarthah, meaning Iśvara is the originator of the Vedanta, i.e., the source of the
traditional school of the teachings of Vedanta.
[12]
Excerpts
from the Katha Upaniśad bhāṣya introduction, by Śri Śankara
QUOTE
Objection: Is it not a fact that by the
word upaniśad, the readers refer to the book in such sentences as: “We read the
upaniśad,” and “We teach the upaniśad” ?
Answer: Though, from this point of
view, the meanings of the root sad—such as loosening the causes of the world,
viz ignorance etc.—are inapplicable with regard to a mere book, and applicable
to knowledge, still this is no fault, since the book, too, being meant for that
purpose, can justifiably be denoted by that word. Thus, with regard to
knowledge (i.e. Brahmavidya), the word upaniśad is used in its primary sense,
while with regard to the book it is used in a secondary sense.
UNQUOTE
Comments
Post a Comment