[Advaita-l] Yoga sutra 1.7 - with commentaries

[Siva Senani Nori]

Sometime back, there was mention of what Vacaspati Mishra says on YS 1.6. 
 
-------- start of quote ----------
From: Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

I will type up the explanation of Vachaspati Mishra on Sutra 1.6 (given in Edwin Bryant's book) when I find some time. According to that book, he is one of the commentators who takes the authority of scripture to be dependent on its truths being perceived by someone, ultimately Ishvara's pratyakSha (as opposed to being an authority independent of anyone's pratyakSha). 
--------- end of quote -----------
 
YS 1.6 only names the five vrittis, pramaaNa being the first amongst them; the next sutra, 1.7 names the three pramaaNas as pratyaksha, anumaana and aagama, while bhashyakaara discusses them. The relevant extracts are given below.
 
Yours truly
N. Siva Senani
 
 
First, Vyasabhashya in Sanskrit, concerning the third pramANa mentioned in 1.7 namely "aagama":
आप्तेनदृष्टोऽनुमितो वार्थः परत्र स्वबोधसंक्रान्तये शब्देनोपदिश्यते, शब्दात्तदर्थविषया वृत्तिःश्रोतुरागमः यस्याश्रद्धेयार्थो वक्ता न दृष्टानुमितार्थः, स आगमः प्लवते, मूलवक्तरि तु दृष्टानुमितार्थे निर्विप्लवः स्यात्।
 
And, then Vacaspati Misras TattvavaiSaaradee on the above bhashya, again in Sanskrit:आगमस्य वृत्तेर्लक्षणमाह – आप्तेनीति।तत्त्वदर्शनकारुण्यकरणपाटवाभिसम्बन्ध आप्तिः, तया सह वर्तत इत्याप्तः, तेन दृष्टोऽनुमितो वार्थः। श्रुतस्यपृथगनुपादनतस्य दृष्टानुमितमूलत्वेन ताभ्यामेव चरितार्थत्वात्। आप्तिचित्तवर्तिज्ञानसदृशस्य ज्ञानस्य श्रोतृचित्ते समुत्पादः स्वबोधसङ्क्रान्तिस्तस्यै, अर्थ उपदिश्यते
 श्रोतृहिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारोपायतया प्रज्ञाप्यते। शेष सुगमम्। यस्यागमस्याश्रद्धेयार्थो वक्ता, यथा यान्येव दश दाडिमानि तानि षडपूपाभविष्यन्ति इति च न दृष्टानुमितार्थः, यथा चैत्यं वन्देत स्वर्गकामः इति स आगमः प्लवते। तन्वेव मन्वादीनामप्यागमः प्लवेत। न हि तेऽपि दृष्टानुमितार्थाः। यथाहुः – “यः कश्चित्कस्यचिद्धर्मो मनुना परिकीर्तितः। स सर्वोऽभिहितो वेदे
 सर्वज्ञानमयो ही सः।।“ इत्यत आह – मूलवक्तरित्विति।मूलवक्ता हि तत्रेश्वरो दृष्टानुमितार्थइत्यर्थः ।। 7 ।।
 
Now, English translation of Vyasabhashya by Ganganath Jha:A certain object, having been either perceived or inferred by an authoritative person, is verbally expressed for the sake of transferring that cognition to another person. The function having, through words, such a thing for its object, is Testimony for the listener. That Testimony fails which is based on the assertion of an untrustworthy speaker, who has neither seen nor inferred an object truly. If however, the original speaker has seen and inferred an object truly, then the testimony becomes infallible. 
Note (10) “If the original sepaker &c.” – This is added in order to validate the authority of the Smritis, where the original speaker is said to be God Himself.
 
Next, English translation of Vyasabhashya by James Haughton Woods:
A thing which has been seen or inferred by a trustworthy person is mentioned by word in order that his knowledge [thereof] may pass over to some other person. The fluctuation{vritti}[in the mind-stuff] of the hearer which arises from that word and which relates to the object-intended by that [word] (tad-artha-vishaya) is a verbal-communication. That verbal-communication is said to waver, the utterer of which declares an incredible thing, not a thing which he himself has seen or inferred; but if the original utterer has himself seen or inferred the thing, [then the verbal-communication] would be unwavering.
 
Finally, translation of TattvavaiSaradee by James Haughton Woods:Of the fluctuation which is a verbal-communication he gives the distinguishing characteristics in the words <<a trustworthy persno>> [and so on]. Insight and compassionatness and dexerity-of-the-sense-organs combine into trustworthiness. A man whose ways are governed by that is a trustworthy one. He is the one by whom the object is seen or inferred. Unless there be a heard word, there is no receiving [of the seen or inferred object on the part of another person], because in so far as this [word] is rooted in something seen or inferred, it is only by these two that its meaning becomes complete. <<His knowledge [thereof} passing over>> [to some other person] means that in the mind-stuff of the hearer there arises [into consciousness] knowledge similar to knowledge found in the mind-stuff of the trustworthy person. To effect this [passing], <<a thing is mentioned>> [that is,] is made known, as
 a means to obtain what is good for the hearer and to avoid what is bad [for him]. The rest is easy. The verbal-communication <<the utterer of which declares an incredible thing>> - for example, ‘The identical ten pomegranates are going to be six cakes,’ - <<not a thing which he himself has seen or inferred>> - for example, ‘A shrine let him worship who desireth heaven,’ – that verbal-communciation <<wavers.>>
 
An objector says, ‘If that be so, then the verbal-communication even of such persons as Manu would waver, [and thus they would not be supreme authorities,] for even they [declared] things which they themselves had not seen or inferred.’ In reply he says <<but if the original utterer.>> For in the case of such persons (tatra), the original utterer was the Isvara, who had himself seen or inferred the things. For instance, it is said [at Manu ii.7], “”Whatever law has been ordained for any person by Manu, every such [law had been already] laid down in the Veda. That, surely, contains within itself all the knowledge.” This is the meaning.
 
There is one more explanation of Vyasabhashya, namely the Yogabhashyavaarttika by Vijnanabhikshu. For those who might be interested, here it is:आगमाख्यावृत्तिं लक्षयति – आप्तेनेति। भ्रमप्रमादविप्रलिप्साकरणापाटवादिदोषपरिहितेनेत्यर्थः। मूलवक्त्रभिप्रायेण श्रुतो वेति नोक्तं, तदप्युपलक्षणीयम्। स्वबोधसङ्क्रान्तये स्वबोधसदृशबोधोत्पत्त्यर्थमित्यर्थः। श्रोतुर्वृत्तिरिति व्युत्क्रमेणान्वयः। अत्राप्तोक्तार्थविषयिणी शब्दजन्या
 वृत्तिरित्येवागमाप्रमाणस्य लक्षणं, शेषं त्वागमशब्दव्युत्पत्तिमात्रमाप्तादागच्छति वृत्तिरित्यागम इत्याशयः। तदर्थविषयेऽत्यन्तविशेषणव्यावृत्त्यात्र प्रमाणमागमवृत्तिं दर्शयति – यस्येति। दृष्टानुमितार्थकत्वाभावेन अश्रद्धेयार्थोऽवेद्यप्रतिपाद्यको यस्यागमस्य वक्ता स आगम शास्त्र "चैत्यं वन्देत स्वर्गकाम" इत्यादिरूपं प्लवते, प्रमाणवृत्तिजननासमर्थ
 इत्यर्थः। नन्वेव दृष्टानुमितार्थकवक्त्रनिर्मितस्य श्रुतिमूलस्याधुनिकामस्यापि प्लवः स्यादत आह – मूलेति।
 
Translation (by yours truly)
Now is defined the vritti named Agama (aaptena iti). Apta is one devoid of bhrama (delusion), pramaada (mistake), vipralipsaakaraNa (deceiving), apaaTava (inability, lack of expertise) and other such defects. The original speaker, or Apta, might come to know of a thing by way of hearing in addition to Pratyaksha and Anumana. This Apta effects an understanding similar to the one in his buddhi to the listener. Thus, Agama is that vritti of the chitta by which the knowledge of the object-of-word-uttered-by-an-Apta arises. The rest is the derivation of the word 'Agama', the intent is to show that Agama is that comes from an Apta.
 
(I skip the rest because it follows Vacaspati Misra's explanation).
 
PS: The one about ten promegranates and six cakes occurs in Mahabhashya on sutra I.2.45