By: Jayakrishna Nelamangala
|| ōm̐ śrī gurubhyō namaḥ hariḥ ōm̐ ||
उपनिषत् upaniṣat
योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि ॥ १७ ॥
yō’sāvasau puruṣaḥ sō’hamasmi || 17 ||
The definiteness in knowledge about prateekas, and prateekōpāsana, comes from a proper study of prateekādhikaraṇa in the phalādhyāya of Brahma-mīmāmsā. What is taught there is that, Parabrahman should only be meditated as being present in the symbols or prateekas such as āditya, āgni, vāyu, etc, and not as being identical with them. Why does a doubt such as “Maybe āditya itself is Parabrahman” even arise? Such doubts arise when the literal meanings of Upanishadic sentences are taken. For example, “ādityō brahma ityādeshaha” – chāndōgya III.19.1
Then other Upanishads tell us that – Sun, Wind, Fire, etc – all can function only because of Parabrahman, the all-Controller.
“भीषास्मात् वातः पवते भीषोदेति सूर्यः । भीषाद् अग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चम इति” “bheeshāsmāt vātah pavate bheeshōdeti sūryaha | bheeshād agnischendrashca mrutyur dhāvati panchama iti” – kaTa
यत् चन्द्रमसि यत् च अग्नौ तत् तेजो विद्धि मामकम् – “yat candramasi yat ca agnou tat tejo viddhi mAmakam” – geetA
“तन्नशशाक दग्धुम् सतत एव निववृते – “tannashashāka dagdhum satata eva nivavRute” – kēna
As we have been studying throughout this series of articles on Isha, the Brahma-sūtras are there as “nirṇāyaka”, and they fix the meaning of vēda. That is the reason why a knowledge of Upanishads that comes without Brahma-mīmāmsā is very vague, contradictory, and confusing at times.
śrī vēdavyāsa has given us the meaning of various Upanishads words in various purāṇās. In Brahma-sūtras, He has also given us the ‘वैदीक-युक्ति vaidīka-yukti’ or ‘logic’ that is hidden in the vēdas, which are to be used in arriving at the meaning of Upanishadic sentences. Thus, only that interpretation, which is consistent with the sūtras, and which relies upon śrī vēdavyāsa as the source of knowledge, will be the correct one. All other interpretations will be merely imagined meanings of Upanishads. We may observe here that, the theory of adhyāsa is an alien concept to Brahma-sūtras, hence it had to be added as a preamble to sūtras.
If a system of vedānta is the correct understanding of śrutis, then how can it be opposed to śrī vēdavyāsa? In the name of anādi-sampradāya, how can anyone accept what is opposed to śrī vēdavyāsa himself? Why would Śrī vēdavyāsa not teach us anādi-sampradāya? These are the fundamental questions every student of vedānta should bear in mind. Let us not forget that prasthāna-traya is all a one-man show and that one-man is none other than śrī vēdavyāsa Himself. Why? It is so because what is prasthāna-traya? It is sūtras, Gītā, and Upanishads. vēdavyāsa recompartmentalized the four vēdas and he authored both sūtras and Gītā. Thus, the three pillars of vedānta belong to śrī vēdavyāsa and no one else. In explaining what is in those three pillars of vedānta, we have three major schools of thought. So, any serious student of vēdaanta necessarily has to get back to śrī vēdavyāsa to get the correct knowledge from prasthāna-traya and give up on any thoughts that are opposed to the teachings of śrī vēdavyāsa in prasthāna-traya. Looking at it from this point of view, there can’t be multiple vedāntas at all. There is only one school of thought that follows śrī vēdavyāsa and hence the correct philosophy. Treading a path that does not follow śrī vēdavyāsa is the chief cause for all self-contradicting philosophies. When śrī vēdavyāsa, the vedānta-pravartaka, is not followed, who else was followed is not of much significance, because of the simple fact that śrī vēdavyāsa is the father of vedānta, and no one else can take that place.
Looking at it from this point of view, there are only two kinds of philosophies.
1) Those that followed śrī vēdavyāsa and
2) Those that are opposed to śrī vēdavyāsa.
We should remember that there are no percentages in truth. The final truth taught by vēda is established by śrī vēdavyāsa as vedānta. The significance of this can be understood only by examining all these different schools of thought which do not follow śrī vēdavyāsa and all the confusion and self-contradiction they create because of that, and then contrast it to what śrī vēdavyāsa has taught as vedānta. This is the reason why any study of philosophy is never complete without a proper study of all. If we don’t, let us understand the consequences by taking this mantra #17 as an example.
” स एव अहमस्मि sa eva aham asmi”
When a śruti vākya like this is first read, a serious student of shāstra encounters difficulties interpreting it. Encountering that difficulty is an indication of his “fittedness” for shāstra. Without encountering any difficulty to proceed with the shāstraic study is not a sign of “fittedness” or adhikāra at all, because, from such a study there won’t be any consistency in his knowledge, and hence there is no progress in knowledge either.
What is that difficulty?
“स एव अहमस्मि sa eva aham asmi” if you go by Sanskrit grammar, Sanskrit dictionary, etc that we have learned in the loukika sense, then accordingly we may understand it as,
स sa – what has been established so far as the jaganniyāmaka, sarva-kartr, the anugraha-kartr Parabrahman
एव eva – that Parabrahman with these attributes is indeed
अहमस्मि aham asmi – is me or I AM THAT.
So, what? One may ask. This is what the philosophy based on non-duality has always been teaching anyways. In the beginning of this Upanishad, that adhikārin, the person with “fittedness” to study shāstra, has understood that everything is Ishāvāsya, i.e, everything is under the control of Parabrahman. After having understood this, he has grasped the Parabrahma-svarūpa through “anejadekam”, and then he has grasped the fact that mukti comes only from tattva-jñāna which includes anyathā-jñāna-nirākaraṇa, and mukti is only from jñāna i.e, mukti is only from paramātma-prasāda, and for such a prasāda while he is praying for that prasāda, if he gets familiar with this mantra which teaches him that “sa eva ahamasmi” or “I am that Parabrahman indeed”, then, of course, it is very natural that difficulties will arise in his mind. So, if he has understood the meaning of all mantras up to this one, then his mind refuses to accept the meaning “I am myself that Parabrahman”. That is the difficulty.
Even if there is a hint that there is another meaning for this mantra, the meaning that is consistent with what he has understood so far from the Upanishad, he has an inescapable desire to know it. At this stage, either the Guru who has taught him so far may help him get over this difficulty or he tries to obtain a more able Guru who can solve his difficulty. Only for such an adhikārin, there is a chance that he may understand shāstra.
In case he does not have the “fittedness” for shāstra, meaning, there is no paramātma-prasāda on him and hence no jñāna either, his mind does not reject “I am that Parabrahman” instead it starts accepting that loukika meaning, then he sacrifices all he has learned so far from the earlier part of the Upanishad and latches onto this new meaning that “I am Brahman” despite it being contradictory to what all he has learned so far. In this situation, he has to go back and understand every line of shāstra that he had so far understood, in a different way, all because of this one new line of shāstra. In this situation, instead of this line becoming an explanation of all that was learned earlier, all that was learned earlier must be changed just to suit the apparent literal meaning of this new line. What a pity!! Even if he is happy with the dictionary meaning, he is now under the doubt that there is no guarantee that he won’t find another line next time, where all these understandings must be changed again based on the dictionary meaning of that new line. In this situation, no definite knowledge results and there is no path for śrēyas that is supposed to result from shāstra, at all.
If we see the gravity of this problem, then we will also be in a position to understand the greatness of the highest level of Grace, anugraha that a person has received from Parabrahman which makes that person understand Śruti consistently, without sacrificing one part of śruti for any other part. From this consideration, it also becomes clear that it is quite dangerous to interpret a śruti-vākya based on what is generally familiar as Sanskrit grammar. If I were Parabrahman, I should have known it even before any philosopher came along to tell me. The fact that a jīvātman has come to bondage and the fact that Vedic Brahman never comes into bondage should tell us that I can’t be that Vedic Brahman. It is defective knowledge to think the two are identical.
An adhikārin should take care to see that such a defect does not occur in his study of shāstra. In the world of shāstra, the majority of the population following a certain thought does not make it right. Popularity and acceptance by the majority are not nirṇāyaka of anything. They may work only in political, social, and mundane democratic matters. In the path of knowledge, mundane or otherwise, when there is only one Einstien, one ācārya Shankara, one ācārya madhva, one ācārya rāmānuja where is the question of the majority? It does not work at the group level at all. It only works at the individual level.
A student of shāstra having contemplated on all this, wants to find out what that special ‘asādhāraṇa’ meaning of shāstra is from a Guru, which removes all his doubts. That is the only path of śrēyas. Shāstra is purely adhyātma. Concurrence with the majority of people is a wrong criterion for it to be pure. Whether it should apply to the general public, be accepted by most of the society, or only by a minority, etc. is not even a criterion when it comes to knowledge. Protecting people, protecting the right knowledge, and such other tasks is the work of The One who created them, to begin with. It is not the work of anyone else.
Please remember that we are talking about Veda and the final meaning that comes out of the study of that Veda. The origin for the former is none of the human beings because Veda is authorless. The origin for the latter is śrī vēdavyāsa. After all the final meaning that comes out of a study of Veda, i.e., veda+anta is vedānta
With this background, we will continue our study of mantra #17 in the next part.
śrī kr̥iṣhṇārpaṇamastu,
Leave a Reply