TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING ”
Any verses which leads to such instances are called interpolations, Commentaries having such are to be rejected as unorthodox commentaries. The qualified commentator must ensure that his commentary is free from such instances. All the commentators have strictly adhered to this tradition.
The first four aphorisms are very important as they determine the approach employed by the commentator to expound the formulated aphorisms. The first four aphorisms establish itself as a valid source by meeting the four essentials like, 1. Purpose - ( उद्देश),2. Characteristics’ – (लक्षण), 3. Valid source –(प्रमाण),4. Careful examination to establish logical connection among various statements of upanishads- (परीक्षा).
॥ ओम् ॥ अथातो ब्रह्म जिज्ञासा ॥ ओम् ॥
This aphorism has four parts.
1. ||अथ || अथशब्दो मंगलार्थोधिकारानंतर्यार्थश्च |" उत्तमाधिकारी" ," अध्ययनमात्रवतः "
The word is used as an auspicious word for commencing the aphorism, and most importantly conveys that by studying vedic scriptures in detail under an able guru one becomes spiritually awaken and only such a person is qualified to write commentary on the Vedanthic aphorisms.
2. ||अतः || अतश्शब्दो हेत्वर्थः || यमेवैषवृणते तेन लभ्यः । तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम् ॥ कठोपनिषत् २-२३ ॥
Therefore, such a qualified person, supreme-self bestow his grace and guides from within to attain the highest abode.
3. || ब्रह्म ||
4. || जिज्ञासा || यतो नारायणप्रसादामृतेन मोक्षः नच ज्ञानं विनात्यर्थप्रसादः । अतोब्रह्म जिज्ञासा कर्तव्या ॥
Hence this enquiry in to “Brahman” ought to be done for the attainment of the highest abode which is possible only by the grace of Narayana.
On a traditional course, the commentary may conclude here as the commentator has defined all the intents of this aphorism. But Sreemadacharya finds it necessary to equate the word “Brahma” to Vishnu, Narayana. Hence gives an indicative lead to his opinion and justifies his view by quoting few verses from Shruti and smrithis.
5. After commenting on the Word “Brahma” Sreemadacharya further explains that “ब्रह्म शब्दश्च विष्णौ एव” - “Brahman is verily Vishnu”.
On the prima facie this may appear as the first instance of deviation as per the traditional approach, if not properly addressed. This equation, though true to the core, would throw an absurd question on the aphorism itself, “if then, why did Badarayana not formulate this aphorism as ॥अथातो विष्णु जिज्ञास॥.”???!!!.Inquiry of Vishnu.
Sree Shankara also gives a detailed account of misconceptions about the Brahman to be inquired as conceived by different schools.
Shankara had to deal with philosophies which considered body as soul; to some Mind was the soul; to some the conscience; Vital air and then the nothingness so on. So there was a serious issue which revolved around two concepts, soul & non-soul. But everyone knew about, in whichever way they conceived, Brahman was the soul. Hence it was easy for Shankara to directly relate that the Brahman to be inquired is verily the “ATMA”. Citing the Shruti “ATMA CHA BRAHMA”.
Sreemadacharya’s time was different and was so much messed up with people striving to prove Supremacy of Shiva and Vishnu, one over the other, and those who were out to prove oneness.Sreemadacharya had a tough opposition. So it was very important for him to address this issue before defining the characteristics of the Brahman to be inquired. So it will be unfair to ask such a question so as why not inquiry into Vishnu? But Sreemadacharya made sure that the intent of such reference is very much in line.Sreemadacharya further explores venues for justification which align with the nature of Brahman to be inquired in all aspects.
नामानि सर्वाणि यमाविशंति तं वै विष्णुं परममुदाहरंति ॥
ऋ. सं. १०.८२.०३
यो देवानां नामधा एक एव ॥ ऋ. सं. १०.८२.०३ ॥
Known by different names, there is only one, is none other than Vishnu.
Sreemadacharya, over stretches by quoting outside the requirement of this aphorism, as he quotes from one of the valid sources for his claim, taking a leap to the requirement, specific to third aphorism ॥ शास्त्रयोनित्वात् ॥ ,exclusively meant for the determination of valid source.
6. वेदे रामायणेचैव पुराणेभरतेकथा आदावंते च मध्येच विष्णुस्सर्वत्र गीयते ॥
Vedic scriptures, epics portray Vishnu as the Supreme.
This reference could also have been justified had it stopped, at this instance only.
But the very next reference which, is a clear case of interpolation, uncalled for, is exclusive for the third aphorism, openly declares
“॥न चेतर ग्रंथः ॥
एषमोहं सृजाम्याषुयो जनान्मोहयिष्यति । त्वंच रुद्र महाबाहोंओह शास्त्राणि कारय । अतथ्यानि वितथ्यानि दर्शयस्व महाभुज प्रकाशं कुरु चात्मानमप्रकाशं मां कुर्वति ॥ इति वराह वचनात्॥
श्वपचादपि ......यदैवं त्वं पाङ्मुखः ॥ इति स्कांदे ॥
नाहंन च शिवोन्येच .......तच्चैष मोहमित्युक्तम् ॥ इति च ब्राह्मे ब्रह्मवैवर्ते॥।
The above verses being interpolations in their own source, does not qualify to be referred for justification.
This interpolation leads to eight major syntax errors. We will establish the fact that Sreemadacharya would not have possibly mentioned these verses as they are absolutely unnecessary at this instance.
Surprisingly some of the versions of sarvamoola granthas both in palm leaf(TULU Language) and printed editions (North eastern Mutts) do not mention these verses.
However one can find Sree Jayatheertha commenting on these verses in his Teeka. Moreover, just because Sree Jayatheeertha has identified and commented on these verses, do not qualify as a valid source of justification for this aphorism, as it is a clear case of deviation from traditional way of writing commentary. We shall now discuss in detail about the errors these verses has thrown upon the aphorism.
Contd…
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING”
Part_07: Interpolations leading to eight major syntax errors.
: Interpolations in Brahmasutra-Bhashya of Shree Madhvacharya.
.
[12:05 PM, 10/25/2019] +91 92434 40412: H S Sathyaprakash TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING ”
.
[12:05 PM, 10/25/2019] +91 92434 40412: H S Sathyaprakash TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING ”
Part_03: How to ascertain exact meaning based on the Strength of the Six elements.
“Bala-abala pareeksha of the Tatparya linga samudaya” with glosses of HH Vyasateertha(HHVT) in tatparya Chandrika.
The Tatparya Chandrika of HH Vyasatheertha is a glossary on the “ tattva prakashika” of HH Jyateertha”s (HHJT).This work of HHVT purely discusses various sub-commentaries written on Shankara Bhashya by Bhamati,Panchapadika ,vivarana and Ramanuja Bhashya, but not on the Shakara-Bhashya itself which means to say this work has nothing to do with Core Shankar-Bhashya.However HHVT retains some erroneous inferences made by HHJT with respect to “Shastra-Yonitva” & “Samanvaya” drawn on Shankara-Bhashya. This has already been clarified in the First part of this article with appropriate references made from Shankara-Bhashya.Also, this erroneous reference made by both HHVT & HHJT was immediately pointed out by the Jagadguru Shankaracharya urdhvamnyaya peethadheeshwara HH Balakrishnaswamy (1500-1557) in his small work called “Upanishattattva-nishcaya” and HH reasons out this error on the part of the duo is because of the non-availability of original Shankara-Bhashya.(??).
HHVT methodical approach for Tatparya-nirnaya is again very much in line with Shankara and Madhva. But has erroneously ignored the exclusiveness of elementary approach laid down by Bhamati,Vivarana and Kalpataru , where they have negated the interdependency of Six elements for Tatparya-Nirnaya and they continue to provide few examples from jaimineeya Meemaamsa Shastra to prove their stand.
But in this case we cannot assume that HHVT was not aware of these commentaries as he has quoted the exact phrases from these sub commentaries. Astonishingly HHVT follows the same logic laid down by these commentators for his rebuttal which focus only on the negation part, ignoring the entire context. Thereby HHVT not doing justice to his own work which speaks about Upakramadi Six elements for Tatparya-Mirnaya.
This clearly indicates a sort of nexus between these two schools of philosophy which is proving to be unfortunate and irreparable aspect of error on the original path shown by the philosophical giants like Shankara and Madhva. This discussion will be taken later on the concluding part of this work Called “Tatparya-Nirnaya-Upasamhara”
However to keep this article focused to the point ,instead I will focus on the commendable Natural approach of HHVT in “Tatparya-Nirnaya”.
Shankara Bhashya :03.02.14
Arupavadeva hi tatpradhanatvat :- Verily Brahman is only formless on account of that being the main purport (of all texts about Brahman:-Tatpradhanatvat: on account of that being the main purport of scripture.
सति तु विरोधे तत्प्रधानानि अतत्प्रधानेभ्यो बलीयांसि भवन्ति — इत्येष विनिगमनायां हेतुः,
Scriptures , where, however, contradictions occur, the texts whose main purport is Brahman must be viewed as having greater force than those of the other kind
HHVT closely follows Shankara’s method in his Tatparya-Chandrika.
उपसंहारस्य व्याख्यान रूपत्वेन तद्विरोधे उपक्रम अप्रामण्योपपत्तेः तस्य ततोऽपि प्राबल्यम् ॥
Upasamhara is superior to upakrama on two grounds.
If the beginning has different import to that of the concluding part ,the Later has to be preferred.
Upasamhara is a sort of explanation of upakrama. Therefore what is stated in the upasamhara has to be preferred to that of Upakrama.
Example:
Tattiriya Upanishad.
01. Upakrama-Upasamhara
The seeker says “अधीहि भगवः ब्रह्म” ,Sir ,teach me Brahman.
Upakrama:- अन्नं ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् ॥
Upasamhara : आनंदो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् ॥
The question “why the upasamhara has more strength ?
The siddhanthi says, on the first instance “अन्नं ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्” the seeker comes back again saying that “Having understood that anna is brahma, again pleads “अधीहि भगवः ब्रह्म” ,Sir, teach me Brahman”, Which clearly says that sequel is not complete. The seeker continues to meditate upon the Vital Air (Prana) , Mind(ManaH) ,Knowledge (vijnana) at the end of each of these sequel, comes back and asks ‘“अधीहि भगवः ब्रह्म” ,Teach me Brahman.
The final sequel i.e “ आनंदो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् ॥“ He knew that “Bliss” was brahman, he does not seek further inquiry. The sequel which concludes, “upasamhara” ,bliss as brahman is to be preferred to that of food, Vital Air, Mind, or Knowledge because at this stage no further inquiry is needed.
02. Abhyasa :-
एवं उपसंहारादिरूपसकृदुक्तितः असकृदुक्तिरूपाभ्यासस्य प्राबल्यम् । तथा आनंदमयाधिकरणे "तस्यैष एव शारीर आत्मा । यः पूर्वस्य ॥ इति जीवप्रापकोपसंहाराद् ब्रह्मशब्दाभ्यासस्य ॥
It is already stated that “Abhyasa” ,repetition is not a drawback but helps to determine the purport.And also it is made clear that it has more strength than “Upakrama_Upasamhara”
For instance in Tattitirya upanishad “ anandamayadhikarana ,it is concluded that anandamaya refer to brahman (Contradicts HHJT) on the ground that word Brahman repeatedly occurs.
03. Apurvata :
एकत्र बहुवारोक्तादपि मुख्यस्य प्राबल्यात् अपूर्वतायाः ...॥
Can be held as authoritative which tells something new, other than what is not already comprehended by pratyaksha pramana, might have occurred only once but can supersede the former by its gravity. This points out at another method for better comprehension.
Here its superiority over abhyasa is established.
"इतरव्यपदेशाधिकरण"
A new import is superior to the repetitions. For in this adhikarana ,in the statement जीवाद् भवंति भूतानि जीवेतिष्ठ्यंत्यचंचलाः । (An exact import of Shankara on “annam pachyati”), the expression jeeva occurs repeatedly. However there is novelty in interpreting this word as refereeing to Brahman. This statement refers to ब्रह्म प्रादुर्भावः.(A partial acceptance of “Jeevo-Brahmaiva)
04. Phalam :
फलस्य उद्देशत्वात् उपक्रमादिभ्यः प्राबल्यम् ॥
ब्रह्मविद् ब्रह्मैव भवति ॥One who knows this becomes verily that itself.
भिध्यते हृदय ग्रंथिः ,छिद्यंते सर्व संशयः ॥ becomes freed from the modes of passion and ignorance etc are the fruits. This purport reflected in the Phala supersedes the Former ones.
05. Arthavadah:-
एवं फलमात्रात् करणाकरणयोः इष्टानिष्टकथनिरूपादर्थवादस्य प्राबल्यम् ।
Here the purport of veda has to be understood based on light of another pramana other than what is stated in Shruti depending on our expectations and our own contradictory ideas about the purport. To settle this a narration or a story is enjoined called as the “Arthavad”:
Example :- वरुणं पितरमुपससार । अधीहि भगवो ब्रह्मेति ।This is narration.
तपसा ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व । expectations is one has to do penance &
तपो ब्रह्मेति । and know penance is also Brahman ,contradictory ideas about the purport.
06. Upapattih :-
यथा "पृथगुपदेशादित्यत्र सार्थवादभेदश्रुतितः "भिन्नोऽचिंत्यः परमो जीवसंगात् " इति सोपपत्तिक भेदश्रुतिः ॥
Uapapatti is superior to Arthvavada. For instance under sootra “"पृथगुपदेशादित्यत्र” by Arthavada it is stated as jIva-brahma-bheda” giving reason is preferred to a Shruti that has Arthvada such as “jIva-brahma-bheda”. By this HHVT declares that Bedha has to be established on the basis of reasoning only.
Further HHVT follows the same path of the sub commentators to say that, In case the” upakrma – upasamhara” contradict each other , Among them upasamhara” is superior to the former.(Vivarana,Kalpataru)
Hari Om tat Sat.
Seetharama Sathyaprakasha.
Contd..
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING ”
Part_04: Spurious insertions in Brahmasutra-Bhashya of Shree Madhvavharya
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING ”
Spurious insertions in Brahmasutra-Bhashya of Shree Madhvavharya.
Part_04: -Introduction.
My Humble Pranaams to Shree Madhvacharya.
What is Sootra ?
अल्पाक्षरमसंदिग्धं सारवद्विश्वतोमुखं अस्तोभमनवद्यं च सूत्रं सूत्रविदो विदुः ॥
The characteristics of Sootras are defined such it should be concise, unambiguous, of high import, universal application, free from repetition & inaccuracies of word and sense.
“Brahma Sutras” is the Science of the Soul. Sutras are concise aphorisms. They give the essence of the arguments on a topic. Maximum of thought is compressed or condensed into these Sutras in as few words as possible. It is easy to remember them. Great intellectual people only, with realisation, can compose Sutras. They are clues or aids to memory. They cannot be understood without a lucid commentary (Bhashya). The commentary also is in need of further elaborative explanations. Thus the interpretations of the Sutras gave rise to various kinds of literary writings such as Vrittis (gloss), Deepikas and Karikas.
Writing commentary for such aphorism is possible only to divine intellects. Shankara undoubtedly has occupied the supreme position.
There is a methodology which is traditionally followed by ancient philosophers like Shankara. Before commencing everyone should vouch and abide by the injunctions the “Bhashya Shastra” and strictly, meticulously follow the same.
Hence I declare that,
इहान्वयमुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते । नामूलं लिख्यते किंचिन्नानपेक्षितमुच्यते ॥
Since the Brahma sootras are the essence of the Upanishads, “I , shall thrive to establish the Brahman as the main purport for all the texts in the scriptures by equating, Shall not miss or omit any crucial information neither deliberately nor by oversight while expounding, Shall not write anything other than what is stated in the “Moola” the original source , Shall not introduce or include unwanted or undesired aspects which is not in line with original subject.
There are as many as 34 Commentaries written on Brahma sutras. All of them have strictly adhered to the above promise…….
But for Sree Madhvacharya ??????? Is it so ?????????????? On the prima facie it looks like so.
But NO!!!!!!! NEVER!!!! Sorry for this.
Sree Madacharya has been even more consistent & sincere in his writings. It is because of the wilful insertions with vested interest by his own followers, just to oppose, degrade other commentaries, mainly Shankara.
This heinous act has been propagated in the name of Sree Madacharya.When compared with other traditionally written commentaries on Brahma Sootra , only Sree Madacharya’s works reflects interpolations.
No doubt, noted Madhvaite Narayana Pandita mentions twenty one of them and names them as Ku-Shastras, the bad treatises. And claims only Acharya-Madhva’s Bhashya is “The appropriate one”.
His knowledge about other commentaries is limited to mere information of nomenclature. He does not reason out his stance why he called them as ku-shastras.(This was the beginning ???) .
As a writer ,poet and philosopher Narayana Pandita has earned a coronet in Madhva philosophy for his statute, earned in whatever way, does not entitle him to consider other Bhashyas as “Ku-Shastras” ,bad-treatise, as the preceptor of this tattva-vaada , Sreemadacharya himself does not such derogatory remarks while criticising other’s view. Sreemadacharya’s polite and dignified style can only be found in Hrishikeshatheertha , Padmanabha theertha, Bidirehalli Sreenivasacharya, Sree Raghottama theertha,Sree Raghavendra theertha and Sree Vijayeendra Theertha.
Rest all, starting from Narayana Panditacharya have given more importance to polemical writings by ignoring the dignity of Sreemadacharya. After the departure of Sree Jayateertha none of them have even bothered to look into sarvamoolas. Instead, have contributed more polemical write-ups to suit their theories and condemn the Shankarites.
This work of mine, as I have made the promise in the beginning, will be restricted only to the extent of pointing out the interpolations, and this will be based only on Sreemadacharya’s original works.
I request my dear friends and ardent followers of Sreemadacharya to thoroughly go through and any sort of mistakes may be pointed out with proper references, shall be accepted whole- heartedly and will be corrected immediately. However I will also make it clear that I shall not entertain ku-tarka, false & personal allegations.
Contd….
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING ”
Part_05: Interpolations in Brahmasutra-Bhashya of Shree Madhvavharya.
BSB.01.Jignyasadhikarana.
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING ”
Part_05: Traditional way of writing commentary on Brahma-Sutras.
Before I commence this work, I declare that my work is restricted to identify only such interpolations which has led to philosophical shambles between Adavita & Tattva-Veda. I will be exposing how later philosophers have cooked up stories, introduced metrically accurate verses into to the Puranas ,smrithis , ithihasa , the Bhashyas of Sreemadacharya and claimed that Sreemadacharya himself has referred to them. This was deliberately used to degrade opponents like Shaivaites and mainly followers of Shankara and Ramanuja.
These people have been involved in intelligently convincing innocent followers Sreemadacharya, even to this day, about the authenticity of such interpolations and have successfully managed to establish that these interpolations are the original works of Sreemadacharya. However these fanatics were unaware of the inbuilt filters constructed traditionally by Sreemadacharya which clearly exposes such interpolations.
May I assert once again that my intention is to disprove allegations made on Shankara and Advaita under the banner of Sreemadacharya. Hence principally I shall not, at any point of time, try to question the authenticity or try to refute the basic principles of-Tattva-vaada of Sreemadacharya as it is against the intent of this write-up.
Brahma Sootra Bashya .01.01.Jignyasadhikarana. “ अथातो ब्रह्म जिज्ञासा “
The brahma sutras are aphorisms which are the essence of Upanishads, entwined systematically to give a proper import. It has been formulated in such a way that it has a definite sequential flow. Only persons with great vision , fullest knowledge of scriptures especially Vedas can understand and write commentary on Brahma-Sutras. While expounding each aphorism the commentator must abide by certain rules and conclude commentary in such a way that the concluding comment points directly to the next aphorism.
Further each aphorism reflects a definite subject matter and restricts commentator from expressing subjects which are outside the scope of the aphorism.
01. ॥ ओम् ॥ अथातो ब्रह्म जिज्ञासा ॥ ओम् ॥ Only a qualified person can start inquiry about the real nature of Brahman .This sutra must conclude with a lead question to next sutra. i.e. :- Who is this Brahman, What is the real nature and characteristics of this Brahman?
Because the very next aphorism “|| ओं ॥जन्माद्यस्ययतः ॥ ओं || “is formulated to give a brief account of the real nature of Brahman and his characteristics.
Hence The maximum scope any commentator can exercise on this first aphorism is that he can define, apart from defining who is adhikari and why so, refer to an indicative lead to the identity of Brahman. Any references other than the intent of the aphorism are undoubtedly a sign interpolation with divested interests.
Shankara_Bhashya :
The word “Now” indicates the attainment of pre-requisite, eligibility and do not mark the beginning of the aphorisms. The Acharya-traya absolutely have no difference of opinion here.
अथ शब्दः आनंतर्यार्थः परिगृह्यते न अधिकारार्थः ।।..... (1) नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकः , (2) इहामुत्रार्थभोगविरागः ,(3) शमदमाडि साधन संपत्, (4) मुमुक्षत्वम् ।....तस्मात् अथ शब्देन यथोक्त साधनासंत्त्यानंतर्यं उपदिश्यते ।
The inquiry of Brahman specially depends upon some antecedent conditions. The inquirer should be endowed with certain spiritual requisites or qualifications. Then only the inquiry is possible.
Atha i.e., after the attainment of certain preliminary qualifications such as the four means of salvation viz.,
(1) (discrimination between the eternal and the non-eternal);
(2) (indifference to the enjoyment in this life or in heaven, and of the fruits of one’s actions);
(3) (six fold virtues viz., Shama-control of mind, Dama-control of the external senses, Uparati-cessation from worldly enjoyments or not thinking of objects of senses or discontinuance of religious ceremonies, Titiksha-endurance of plea sure and pain, heat and cold, Sraddha-faith in the words of the preceptor and of the Upanishads and Samadhana-deep concentration);
(4) (desire for liberation).
Closely following Shankara, Sreemadacharya Starts his commentary traditionally.
अथ || Now , having attained the requisite spiritual qualities ,
अतः || Therefore
ब्रह्म जिज्ञासा ॥ This enquiry in to the real nature of “Brahman”
श्रीमध्वाचार्य भाष्य :
आनंतर्ये अधिकारस्य मंगलार्थे तथैव च । …..अतो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्या ॥
Sreemadacharya closely follows and further elaborates Shankara’s view in detail to discuss about the “अथ -adhikara” , “अत- Now therefore (हेत्वर्थ)”. and concludes by quoting a verse from “vyoma samhita” that, without the grace of the lord there can be no release hence the “ inquiry into Brahman” ought to be made .
Further Sreemadacharya gives an indicative lead that the word “Brahma is verily Vishnu “ " ब्रह्म शब्दश्च विष्णौ एव " , and quotes several vedic verses to establish his claim and also to establish supremacy of Lord Vishnu, in Vedas, Ramayana, Puranas, Mahabharata as Vishnu alone is referred everywhere, in the beginning, middle and at the end.
Actually the commentary concludes at the level “Inquiry into Brahman ought to be made”.
Now the defacing of Bhashya pops up. Who did it? What was the Motto behind?
The present feud among Madhvaites , Shaivaites & Shankaraites has answers for these questions.
Contd.
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING”
Part_06: Interpolations in Brahmasutra-Bhashya of Shree Madhvacharya.
***
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING”
Part_06: Interpolations in Brahma sutra-Bhashya of Shree Madhvacharya.
Previous part had attracted some undesirable and out of topic arguments. To curb any such intrusions I shall briefly define the meaning of Interpolation.
* इहान्वयमुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते । नामूलं लिख्यते किंचिन्नानपेक्षितमुच्यते ॥*
Interpolation is constructing a new data within the range of known data which may lead to repetitions (पुनरुक्ति), Undesirable subject or not relevant to the topic (अनपेक्षितम्), Telling about what is not stated in the source (नामूलं), non-equating phrases (अनन्वय), Sources which negate the real intent of vedic scriptures and so on.
.
Any verses which leads to such instances are called interpolations, Commentaries having such are to be rejected as unorthodox commentaries. The qualified commentator must ensure that his commentary is free from such instances. All the commentators have strictly adhered to this tradition.
The first four aphorisms are very important as they determine the approach employed by the commentator to expound the formulated aphorisms. The first four aphorisms establish itself as a valid source by meeting the four essentials like, 1. Purpose - ( उद्देश),2. Characteristics’ – (लक्षण), 3. Valid source –(प्रमाण),4. Careful examination to establish logical connection among various statements of upanishads- (परीक्षा).
॥ ओम् ॥ अथातो ब्रह्म जिज्ञासा ॥ ओम् ॥
This aphorism has four parts.
1. ||अथ || अथशब्दो मंगलार्थोधिकारानंतर्यार्थश्च |" उत्तमाधिकारी" ," अध्ययनमात्रवतः "
The word is used as an auspicious word for commencing the aphorism, and most importantly conveys that by studying vedic scriptures in detail under an able guru one becomes spiritually awaken and only such a person is qualified to write commentary on the Vedanthic aphorisms.
2. ||अतः || अतश्शब्दो हेत्वर्थः || यमेवैषवृणते तेन लभ्यः । तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम् ॥ कठोपनिषत् २-२३ ॥
Therefore, such a qualified person, supreme-self bestow his grace and guides from within to attain the highest abode.
3. || ब्रह्म ||
4. || जिज्ञासा || यतो नारायणप्रसादामृतेन मोक्षः नच ज्ञानं विनात्यर्थप्रसादः । अतोब्रह्म जिज्ञासा कर्तव्या ॥
Hence this enquiry in to “Brahman” ought to be done for the attainment of the highest abode which is possible only by the grace of Narayana.
On a traditional course, the commentary may conclude here as the commentator has defined all the intents of this aphorism. But Sreemadacharya finds it necessary to equate the word “Brahma” to Vishnu, Narayana. Hence gives an indicative lead to his opinion and justifies his view by quoting few verses from Shruti and smrithis.
5. After commenting on the Word “Brahma” Sreemadacharya further explains that “ब्रह्म शब्दश्च विष्णौ एव” - “Brahman is verily Vishnu”.
On the prima facie this may appear as the first instance of deviation as per the traditional approach, if not properly addressed. This equation, though true to the core, would throw an absurd question on the aphorism itself, “if then, why did Badarayana not formulate this aphorism as ॥अथातो विष्णु जिज्ञास॥.”???!!!.Inquiry of Vishnu.
Sree Shankara also gives a detailed account of misconceptions about the Brahman to be inquired as conceived by different schools.
Shankara had to deal with philosophies which considered body as soul; to some Mind was the soul; to some the conscience; Vital air and then the nothingness so on. So there was a serious issue which revolved around two concepts, soul & non-soul. But everyone knew about, in whichever way they conceived, Brahman was the soul. Hence it was easy for Shankara to directly relate that the Brahman to be inquired is verily the “ATMA”. Citing the Shruti “ATMA CHA BRAHMA”.
Sreemadacharya’s time was different and was so much messed up with people striving to prove Supremacy of Shiva and Vishnu, one over the other, and those who were out to prove oneness.Sreemadacharya had a tough opposition. So it was very important for him to address this issue before defining the characteristics of the Brahman to be inquired. So it will be unfair to ask such a question so as why not inquiry into Vishnu? But Sreemadacharya made sure that the intent of such reference is very much in line.Sreemadacharya further explores venues for justification which align with the nature of Brahman to be inquired in all aspects.
नामानि सर्वाणि यमाविशंति तं वै विष्णुं परममुदाहरंति ॥
ऋ. सं. १०.८२.०३
यो देवानां नामधा एक एव ॥ ऋ. सं. १०.८२.०३ ॥
Known by different names, there is only one, is none other than Vishnu.
Sreemadacharya, over stretches by quoting outside the requirement of this aphorism, as he quotes from one of the valid sources for his claim, taking a leap to the requirement, specific to third aphorism ॥ शास्त्रयोनित्वात् ॥ ,exclusively meant for the determination of valid source.
6. वेदे रामायणेचैव पुराणेभरतेकथा आदावंते च मध्येच विष्णुस्सर्वत्र गीयते ॥
Vedic scriptures, epics portray Vishnu as the Supreme.
This reference could also have been justified had it stopped, at this instance only.
But the very next reference which, is a clear case of interpolation, uncalled for, is exclusive for the third aphorism, openly declares
“॥न चेतर ग्रंथः ॥
एषमोहं सृजाम्याषुयो जनान्मोहयिष्यति । त्वंच रुद्र महाबाहोंओह शास्त्राणि कारय । अतथ्यानि वितथ्यानि दर्शयस्व महाभुज प्रकाशं कुरु चात्मानमप्रकाशं मां कुर्वति ॥ इति वराह वचनात्॥
श्वपचादपि ......यदैवं त्वं पाङ्मुखः ॥ इति स्कांदे ॥
नाहंन च शिवोन्येच .......तच्चैष मोहमित्युक्तम् ॥ इति च ब्राह्मे ब्रह्मवैवर्ते॥।
The above verses being interpolations in their own source, does not qualify to be referred for justification.
This interpolation leads to eight major syntax errors. We will establish the fact that Sreemadacharya would not have possibly mentioned these verses as they are absolutely unnecessary at this instance.
Surprisingly some of the versions of sarvamoola granthas both in palm leaf(TULU Language) and printed editions (North eastern Mutts) do not mention these verses.
However one can find Sree Jayatheertha commenting on these verses in his Teeka. Moreover, just because Sree Jayatheeertha has identified and commented on these verses, do not qualify as a valid source of justification for this aphorism, as it is a clear case of deviation from traditional way of writing commentary. We shall now discuss in detail about the errors these verses has thrown upon the aphorism.
Contd…
TATPARYA NIRNAYA” or the ASCERTAINMENT OF EXACT MEANING”
Part_07: Interpolations leading to eight major syntax errors.
******
.
ಯಜ್ಞೋ ಯಜ್ಞಪುಮಾಂಶ್ಚೈವ ಯಜ್ಞೇಶೋ ಯಜ್ಞಭಾವನಃ |
ಯಜ್ಞಭುಕ್ ಚೇತಿ ಪಂಚಾತ್ಮಾ ಯಜ್ಞೇಷ್ವಿಜ್ಯೋ ಹರಿಃ ಸ್ವಯಮ್ || ೧೪ ||
ಓಶ್ರಾವಯಾಸ್ತು ಶ್ರೌಷಡ್ಯಜಾಥೋ ಯೇ ಯಜಾಮಹೇ |
ವಷಟ್ಕಾರಾನ್ತಕೈರ್ನಿತ್ಯಂ ಯಜುರ್ಭಿಃ ಪಞ್ಚಭಿರ್ವಿಭುಃ || ೧೫ ||
— ಇತಿ ತನ್ತ್ರಸಾರೇ
(ಮಾಧ್ವ-ಭಾಗವತತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯನಿರ್ಣಯ ೪ / ೭ / ೪೧)
ಯಜ್ಞ, ಯಜ್ಞಪುಮಾನ್, ಯಜ್ಞೇಶ, ಯಜ್ಞಭಾವನ ಹಾಗೂ ಯಜ್ಞಭುಕ್ ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಾತ್ ಪಂಚಾತ್ಮರೂಪೀ ಮಹಾವಿಷ್ಣುವು ಯಜ್ಞಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ ‘ಓ ಶ್ರಾವಯ’, ‘ಅಸ್ತು ಶ್ರೌಷಟ್’, ‘ಯಜ’, ‘ಯೇ ಯಜಾಮಹೇ’ ಹಾಗೂ ‘ವಷಟ್ಕಾರಃ’ ಎಂಬ ೫ ಯಜುರ್ಮಂತ್ರಗಳಿಂದ ಆಹುತಿಗೊಳ್ಳುವನು ಎಂದಿದೆ ತಂತ್ರಸಾರ..
.
.
ಯಜ್ಞೋ ಯಜ್ಞಪುಮಾಂಶ್ಚೈವ ಯಜ್ಞೇಶೋ ಯಜ್ಞಭಾವನಃ |
ಯಜ್ಞಭುಕ್ ಚೇತಿ ಪಂಚಾತ್ಮಾ ಯಜ್ಞೇಷ್ವಿಜ್ಯೋ ಹರಿಃ ಸ್ವಯಮ್ || ೧೪ ||
ಓಶ್ರಾವಯಾಸ್ತು ಶ್ರೌಷಡ್ಯಜಾಥೋ ಯೇ ಯಜಾಮಹೇ |
ವಷಟ್ಕಾರಾನ್ತಕೈರ್ನಿತ್ಯಂ ಯಜುರ್ಭಿಃ ಪಞ್ಚಭಿರ್ವಿಭುಃ || ೧೫ ||
— ಇತಿ ತನ್ತ್ರಸಾರೇ
(ಮಾಧ್ವ-ಭಾಗವತತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯನಿರ್ಣಯ ೪ / ೭ / ೪೧)
ಯಜ್ಞ, ಯಜ್ಞಪುಮಾನ್, ಯಜ್ಞೇಶ, ಯಜ್ಞಭಾವನ ಹಾಗೂ ಯಜ್ಞಭುಕ್ ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಾತ್ ಪಂಚಾತ್ಮರೂಪೀ ಮಹಾವಿಷ್ಣುವು ಯಜ್ಞಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ ‘ಓ ಶ್ರಾವಯ’, ‘ಅಸ್ತು ಶ್ರೌಷಟ್’, ‘ಯಜ’, ‘ಯೇ ಯಜಾಮಹೇ’ ಹಾಗೂ ‘ವಷಟ್ಕಾರಃ’ ಎಂಬ ೫ ಯಜುರ್ಮಂತ್ರಗಳಿಂದ ಆಹುತಿಗೊಳ್ಳುವನು ಎಂದಿದೆ ತಂತ್ರಸಾರ..
.
***
ಸರ್ವಮೂಲ ಚಿಂತನ🌺🌷
🌹 ಸಂಚಿಕೆ-2🌹
ಹರಿಧ್ಯಾನವೇ ಸಕಲ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳ ಸಂದೇಶ
ಆಲೋಡ್ಯ ಸರ್ವಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಾಣಿ ವಿಚಾರ್ಯಚ ಪುನಃ ಪುನಃ |
ಇದಮೇಕಂ ಸುನಿಷ್ಪನ್ನಂ ಧ್ಯೇಯೋ ನಾರಾಯಣಃ ಸದಾ ||
ಸಕಲಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳ ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ನಡೆಸಿದಾಗ ಪುನಃ ಪುನಃ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ನಡೆಸಿದಾಗ ಸಿದ್ಧವಾದ ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಮೇಯ -ಯಾವಾಗಲೂ
ನಾರಾಯಣನ ಧ್ಯಾನ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿರಬೇಕು.
ಕೃಷ್ಣಾಮೃತಮಹಾರ್ಣವ -52
ಇದು ಮಹಾಭಾರತದ ಶ್ಲೋಕ ಸಕಲಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳಸಾರ ಶ್ರೀಹರಿಯೇ ಧ್ಯೇಯ ಎಂದಾಗಿದೆ .ಎಂದರ್ಥ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಸಕಲಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಋಗಾದಿ ನಾಲ್ಕುವೇದಗಳು ಪಂಚರಾತ್ರ ಮಹಾಭಾರತ ಮೂಲರಾಮಾಯಾಣ ಎಂಬ ಇತಿಹಾಸಗಳು .ಶ್ರೀಮದ್ಭಾಗವತಾದಿ ಪುರಾಣಗಳು .ಮನುಸ್ಮೃತಿ. ಮೊದಲಾದ ಸಕಲಸಚ್ಚಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳು ಎಂದರ್ಥ .
ಈ ಶ್ಲೋಕದ ವಿಸ್ತ್ರತರೂಪವಾಗಿ ತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯನಿರ್ಣಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀಮದಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ಹೀಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ .
ಅರ್ಥೋಯಮೇವ ನಿಖಿಲೈರಪಿ ವೇದವಾಕ್ಯೈ
ರಾಮಾಯಣೈಃ ಸಹಿತ ಭಾರತ ಪಂಚರಾತ್ರೈಃ |
ಅನೈಶ್ಚಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಚನೈಃ ಸಹ ತತ್ವಸೂತ್ರೈ-
ರ್ನಿರ್ಣಿಯತೇ ಸಹೃದಯಂ ಹರೀಣಾ ಸದೈವ ||
ಎಲ್ಲ ವೇದವಾಕ್ಯಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ರಾಮಾಯಣ ಭಾರತ ಪಂಚಾರಾತ್ರಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಸೂತ್ರಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ಬೇರೆ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಚನಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ಸದಾ ತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯಯುಕ್ತನಾಗಿ ಶ್ರೀಹರಿ ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸುತ್ತಾನೆ ಎಂದು
ಜಗದ್ಗುರು ಶ್ರೀಮಧ್ವಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ .
ಮಹಾಭಾರತ ತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯನಿರ್ಣಯ 1-22
|| ಶ್ರೀಕೃಷ್ಣಾರ್ಪಣಮಸ್ತು ||
ಶ್ರೀಐತರೇಯ....
**
ಸರ್ವಮೂಲ ಚಿಂತನ🌺🌷
🌹 ಸಂಚಿಕೆ-2🌹
ಹರಿಧ್ಯಾನವೇ ಸಕಲ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳ ಸಂದೇಶ
ಆಲೋಡ್ಯ ಸರ್ವಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಾಣಿ ವಿಚಾರ್ಯಚ ಪುನಃ ಪುನಃ |
ಇದಮೇಕಂ ಸುನಿಷ್ಪನ್ನಂ ಧ್ಯೇಯೋ ನಾರಾಯಣಃ ಸದಾ ||
ಸಕಲಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳ ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ನಡೆಸಿದಾಗ ಪುನಃ ಪುನಃ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ನಡೆಸಿದಾಗ ಸಿದ್ಧವಾದ ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಮೇಯ -ಯಾವಾಗಲೂ
ನಾರಾಯಣನ ಧ್ಯಾನ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿರಬೇಕು.
ಕೃಷ್ಣಾಮೃತಮಹಾರ್ಣವ -52
ಇದು ಮಹಾಭಾರತದ ಶ್ಲೋಕ ಸಕಲಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳಸಾರ ಶ್ರೀಹರಿಯೇ ಧ್ಯೇಯ ಎಂದಾಗಿದೆ .ಎಂದರ್ಥ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಸಕಲಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಋಗಾದಿ ನಾಲ್ಕುವೇದಗಳು ಪಂಚರಾತ್ರ ಮಹಾಭಾರತ ಮೂಲರಾಮಾಯಾಣ ಎಂಬ ಇತಿಹಾಸಗಳು .ಶ್ರೀಮದ್ಭಾಗವತಾದಿ ಪುರಾಣಗಳು .ಮನುಸ್ಮೃತಿ. ಮೊದಲಾದ ಸಕಲಸಚ್ಚಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳು ಎಂದರ್ಥ .
ಈ ಶ್ಲೋಕದ ವಿಸ್ತ್ರತರೂಪವಾಗಿ ತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯನಿರ್ಣಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀಮದಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ಹೀಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ .
ಅರ್ಥೋಯಮೇವ ನಿಖಿಲೈರಪಿ ವೇದವಾಕ್ಯೈ
ರಾಮಾಯಣೈಃ ಸಹಿತ ಭಾರತ ಪಂಚರಾತ್ರೈಃ |
ಅನೈಶ್ಚಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಚನೈಃ ಸಹ ತತ್ವಸೂತ್ರೈ-
ರ್ನಿರ್ಣಿಯತೇ ಸಹೃದಯಂ ಹರೀಣಾ ಸದೈವ ||
ಎಲ್ಲ ವೇದವಾಕ್ಯಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ರಾಮಾಯಣ ಭಾರತ ಪಂಚಾರಾತ್ರಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಸೂತ್ರಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ಬೇರೆ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಚನಗಳಿಂದಲೂ ಸದಾ ತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯಯುಕ್ತನಾಗಿ ಶ್ರೀಹರಿ ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸುತ್ತಾನೆ ಎಂದು
ಜಗದ್ಗುರು ಶ್ರೀಮಧ್ವಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ .
ಮಹಾಭಾರತ ತಾತ್ಪರ್ಯನಿರ್ಣಯ 1-22
|| ಶ್ರೀಕೃಷ್ಣಾರ್ಪಣಮಸ್ತು ||
ಶ್ರೀಐತರೇಯ....
**
No comments:
Post a Comment