[Advaita-l] जिज्ञासाधिकरणे वर्णकचतुष्टयम् [An essay on the First Sutra] - Part 5

[V Subrahmanian]

2011/9/6 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>

>  श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> जिज्ञासाधिकरणे वर्णकचतुष्टयम्
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> शंकरं शंकराचार्यं केशवं बादरायणम् ।
>>>>
>>>> सूत्रभाष्यकृतौ वन्दे भगवन्तौ पुनः पुनः ॥
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> चतुर्थवर्णकं तत्प्रसक्तिश्च


चतुर्थवर्णकप्रसक्तिं तत्रैव व्याख्याने द्योतितम् – प्रथमवर्णके बन्धस्य
अध्यासत्वोक्त्या विषयादिप्रसिद्धावपि ब्रह्मप्रसिद्ध्यप्रसिद्ध्योः
विषयादिसम्भवासम्भवाभ्यां शास्त्रारम्भसन्देहे पूर्वपक्षमाह – तत्पुनरिति ।
पुनःशब्दो वर्णकान्तरद्योतनार्थः । इति । विचार्यब्रह्म यदि विचारात्प्रागेव
ज्ञातं तर्हि ’ब्रह्म अज्ञातं इति न, तेन विचारेण
ब्रह्मविषयकाज्ञाननिवृत्तिरूपफलमपि न’ इति ब्रह्म न विचारयितव्यम् । तथा यदि
अज्ञातं ब्रह्म, तर्हि न कोऽपि तं जिज्ञासितुं विचारयितुं च शक्नोति,
अज्ञातविषयस्य ज्ञातुं उद्देश्यत्वायोगात् । यद्बुद्धावेव न आरूढं तं (ब्रह्म)
विचारात्मकशास्त्रं वा वेदान्ता (श्रुतिवाक्यानि) वा नैव प्रतिपादयितुं
शक्नुवन्ति । तेन अनुबन्धचतुष्टयान्यतमसम्बन्धाख्यः प्रतिपाद्यप्रतिपादकरूपः
(विषयः प्रतिपाद्यः, शास्त्रं प्रतिपादकम् इतिरूपः) नैव सिद्ध्यति इति
शास्त्रस्य आत्यन्तिकं फलं मोक्षोऽपि न सिद्ध्यति इति अनारम्भणीयं शास्त्रम्
इति प्राप्तम् । तत्र ब्रह्म प्रसिद्धं वा अप्रसिद्धं वा इति विचारः क्रियते
भाष्ये । सर्वस्य चेतनात्मकस्य स्वविषयकास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिं अनुभवप्रमाणीकृत्य
ब्रह्मणः सर्वस्यात्मत्वाच्च तेन आपाततोऽपि ब्रह्मास्तित्वज्ञानं साधयित्वा,
तथापि स्वात्मविषयकविशेषप्रतिपत्तिं प्रति विप्रतिपत्तिदर्शनेन अप्रसिद्धिमपि
साधितं भाष्ये । तेन ब्रह्म विषयत्वं भजति शास्त्रस्य विचारे, तेन च
उक्तफलरूपमोक्षासिद्धिरपि न सम्भवति इति परिहृत्य शास्त्रारम्भणे न व्यवधानमिति
उपसंहरति चतुर्थवर्णकम् । तत्पूर्वं अन्यदपि किञ्चित्प्रश्नपूर्वकं विचार्यते –
सूत्रे विचारवाचिपदं नास्ति इत्यतः विचारारम्भः करणीयः इति कथं
सूत्रशब्दादवगम्यते? इति । तत्र समाधानम् –
जिज्ञासाशब्दात्प्राप्तेच्छार्थकत्वेन विचारो लक्षितः तेन च तत्कर्तव्यता
बोधिता सूत्रेण इति ।



The Fourth VarNakam and its occasion:


The Ratnaprabha puts the occasion into perspective:   Even though through
the First varNakam the Vishaya and prayojanam stand firmly established yet
on the grounds of whether Brahman that is the subject matter of enquiry well
known or not well known, there can be the obstruction to commence the study.
That is to say:  If Brahman is well known, there is no need for the study.  On
the other hand if It is not at all known then too there is no way the study
can be undertaken.  Thus either way owing to the absence of the subject
matter, viShaya, the shAstra cannot be commenced.  With a view to settle
this question the Bhashyam takes up an objection:


//But, it may be asked, is Brahman known or not known (previously to the
enquiry into its nature)? If it is known we need not enter on an enquiry
concerning it; if it is not known we      cannot enter on such an enquiry.//


If Brahman that has to be enquired into is already known *a priori  *then
there is no need for the enquiry and therefore no knowledge will arise from
the study and therefore no liberation will ensue from the study.  If it is
unknown none will be able to even initiate the study for something that is
totally unknown can never become the object of investigation.  That which
cannot even enter one’s intellect will never be established by the Shruti or
shastra. In this scenario the other element of the anubandha chatuShTaya
namely ‘sambandha’ (connection between the enquired viShaya and the shAstra
that will teach about that ViShaya) will be absent and therefore the
ultimate fruit of the study, liberation, will not ensue.  Therefore this
study of BrahmamImAmSaa is not worthy of even initiating.


Against this objection the Bhashya undertakes a short enquiry on the
known-ness of Brahman and its unknon-ness.  Everyone of us, sentient beings,
experiences his/her own existence; none thinks that ‘I do not exist’.  This
way Brahman, which is the Self of everyone, is quite known to all.  Yet,
there is confusion as to the exact nature of the Self.  And in order to
arrive at the exact nature of the Self/Brahman, there is the need to study
the shaStra and this is enough justification.  Thus, even with this
perfunctory knowledge of Brahman there is occasion to undertake the enquiry
into Brahman. Hence there is no room for the stated objection.  The fourth
varNakam concludes here.

Just before that another question is raised and answered:  There is no word
to mean ‘enquiry’ in the sutra.  How is it concluded that the author of the
sutra intends an enquiry into Brahman to be undertaken? The reply is: this
is not a defect for the word ‘jijnAsA’ (desire to know Brahman) is
suggestive of an enquiry to know the nature of Brahman.  So that instructs
that an enquiry into Brahman is to be undertaken.



वर्णकचतुष्टयं सारांशत्वेन एवं ज्ञातव्यम् –

   - ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य मोक्षाय आवश्यकत्वोक्त्या तदज्ञानकार्याध्यासः
      तन्मूलकसंसारश्च प्रतिपादितः भाष्ये । तेन
अज्ञाननिवर्त्यब्रह्मज्ञानप्राप्त्यै
      विचार आरम्भणीयः इति प्रथमवर्णकसंक्षेपः ।
      - कृत्स्नस्य वेदस्यार्थः पूर्वमीमांसाशास्त्रादेव निर्णीतः इति यदि
      ब्रह्ममीमांसाशास्त्रमनारम्भणीयं तर्हि नैवम्, यतः सर्वज्ञैः भगवद्भिः
      सूत्रकृद्भिः बादरायणमहर्षिभिः ब्रह्मजिज्ञासात्मकशास्त्रं न
प्रणीतं स्याद्यदि
      धर्मजिज्ञासाशास्त्रादेव कृत्स्नस्य वेदस्यार्थः विधिपरत्वेन
निर्णीतः स्यात् ।
      तादृशार्थापत्त्या द्वितीयवर्णकं प्रवर्तते ।
      - अनुबन्धचतुष्टयान्यतमाधिकारिसिद्धावेव शास्त्रारम्भः स्यात् नान्यथा
      इति तत्सिद्धये सूत्रगताथातःशब्दपर्यालोचनात् साधनचतुष्टयवान् मुमुक्षुः
      सिद्ध्यत्येव इति श्रुतिबलान्निर्णयः तृतियवर्णकहृदयम् ।
      - यद्यपि विषयप्रयोजनसिद्धिः प्रथमवर्णकादेव कृता तथापि
      मुख्यविषयब्रह्मप्रसिद्ध्यप्रसिद्धिरूपकोटिद्वयविचारेण ब्रह्मण
      आपातप्रसिद्ध्यापि विचारः सिद्ध्यति इति स्थापनं चतुर्थवर्णकरहस्यम् ।
      - एवं चतुर्ष्वपि वर्णकेषु शास्त्रारम्भविषये आक्षेपोत्थापनं समानम् ।
      तदाक्षेपमूलं तथा तत्परिहारप्रकारश्च प्रतिवर्णकं भिद्यते इति विशेषो
      द्रष्टव्यः ।

अध्यापितगुरून् भक्तिपूर्वकं प्रणम्य तेषां चरणयोरर्पयामीदं लेखनम् ।

श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु



The Four VarNakams  - A Synopsis:

   - Since Brahman-knowledge is taught in the Sutra as indispensable for
   Moksha there is the implication that ignorance of/about Brahman is the cause
   of samsara which, in turn, is caused by adhyasa.  Thereby it becomes
   imperative to commence the study of the Brahman-teaching Vedanta and thereby
   the viShaya and the prayojanam are definitely available .   This is the
   First VarNaka in essence.
   - If it is said that the ultimate purport of the entire Vedic literature
   is in Karma as concluded by the pUrva mImaamsA shAstra and therefore there
   is no need for the enquiry into Brahman through the Vedanta sutras, the
   reply is: Not so.  If such is the case, an All-knowing Eminent Person
   that Veda VyAsa is would not be asking us to engage in Brahman-study by
   composing the Brahmasutra literature.  Therefore there can be no
   objection to its study.  This is the heart of the second varNakam.
   - By the close examining of the words ‘atha’ and ‘ataH’ of the sutra it
   is determined that since there is an eligible aspirant for the study of the
   Brahma-sutras there is no objection for its commencement.  The third
   varNakam conveys this idea.
   - Despite the viShaya-prayojana etc. available, there can be an objection
   on the grounds that if Brahman is either known or unknown the shAstra cannot
   be commenced.  The fact is that Brahman is known in general and yet not
   known in particular and in order to bring out the knowledge in its
   particularity there is the need for the study of the sutra literature.  The
   fourth varNakam has this for its purport.
   -    It is to be noted that even though the objection ‘The study of
   Brahman is not to be commenced’ is common to all the four varNakams, the
   details of the reasons for the objection and the manner in which these are
   met differ across all the varNakams.





I dedicate this presentation to the Acharyas who have taught me the
shAstram.

श्रीसद्गुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणमस्तु