Liberation in early Advaita Vedanta
by Aleksandar Uskokov | 2018 | 195,782 words
This page relates ‘The Practice of Meditation on Brahman’ of the study named “Scripture and the Hermeneutics of Liberation in Early Advaita Vedanta” which highlights how liberation (in Sanskrit: Moksha) is posited as the “highest good”—i.e., it represents freedom from the cyclical process of birth and rebirth. It further shows that Shankara’s doctrine emphasizes that liberation is solely derived from knowledge of Brahman.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
4. The Practice of Meditation on Brahman
Now the question is, how was a brahma-vidyā or brahmopāsana to be practiced? While Bādarāyaṇa clearly talks only about meditation as the means of attaining Brahman, all Vedāntin commentators have understood brahma-vidyā as consisting of three limbs. The topical text which became canonical for this division came from Yājñavalkya’s teachings to Maitreyī: ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyaḥ, “The Self, honey, is to be seen: it is to be heard about, pondered over and meditated upon.”[1] Vedāntins have universally interpreted the first gerundive, draṣṭavyaḥ, as stating the goal, that one should eventually achieve a vision of Brahman, whereas the other three as expressing the procedure: that goal can be accomplished through instruction in scripture, presumably a specific text delineating a vidyā (śravaṇa); reflecting on the meaning of what was heard (manana); and meditation proper on Brahman as the constructed meditational object (nididhyāsana).[2]
Two related points are important in this regard. First, these three were supposed to be practiced sequentially: one hears from scripture first, clarifies the meaning of what was heard, and finally meditates. In terms of soteriological causality, the contribution of each preceding limb is harnessed by the following. Second, the first two are in general not discussed in pre-Śaṅkara Vedānta at all or very vaguely, from what we know from Maṇḍana and Śaṅkara’s and Sureśvara’s engagement with opponents: meditation proper was the means. Bādarāyaṇa’s sole concern was with meditation, and darśana as the goal and dhyāna as the means were essentially the same thing, a vision of Brahman achieved through practice. Srinivasa Chari’s observation may be profitably quoted on this point: “Three stages are mentioned as preparatory to the vision of Brahman (darśana). These are śravaṇa or hearing, manana or reflection and nididhyāsana or meditation. … According to this teaching, nididhyāsana or upāsanā is the direct means to mokṣa, whereas śravaṇa and manana are subsidiary or aṅga to upāsanā.”[3] As we will see in the next chapter, Śaṅkara will have dramatically different ideas in this regard.
We have, thus, zeroed in on meditation proper. Bādarāyaṇa had several things to say on the practice of meditation. First, in terms of type of awareness, the meditation on Brahman was a fixed concentration on a notion or an idea: “Because meditation is of the nature of concentration.”[4] This “fixed concentration” was a persistent feature of Vedāntic characterizations of meditation. We saw some of the definitions of vidyā/upāsana in the beginning, but it may be worthwhile to revisit a few: it is a repetition of the same thought or notion (Bhāskara: samāna-pratyayāvṛtti); it is a representational flow, focused mentation (Rāmānuja: smṛti-santati-rūpam; ekāgra-cinta-vṛtti); a continuous flow of a uniform notion/thought of the meditational object (Śrīnivāsa: dhyeyākāra-pratyaya-pravāha-rūpasya); uniform stream of thought called contemplation, cultivation, meditation (Maṇḍana: tat-santānavatī dhyāna-bhāvanopāsanādi-śabda-vācyā).
In terms of content, the meditational thought that one would have mulled over would have been a self-identification with Brahman through a variation of the [BV] proposition that I formulated above.[5] As was generally characteristic of meditation in South Asia, meditation on Brahman was to be practiced strictly in a sitting posture, but there was no restriction in terms of place: it was to be practiced “wherever concentration is possible.”[6] This is a clear giveaway that the paradigmatic meditator on Brahman would have been a householder.
Along the same lines, this meditation was supposed to be accompanied by ritual and other religious practices, which included the daily Agnihotra and practices such as charity and austerity for the individual āśramas, as well as cultivation of certain virtues for everyone. We saw how Mīmāṃsakas struggled to justify why ritual had to be performed by everyone, and the best they could offer was prevention of bad karma. Bādarāyaṇa, on the other hand, proposed that ritual along with one’s duties could also foster meditation when performed in the pursuit of liberation.[7] The individual āśramas were supposed to continue performing their individual duties under the provision that they are conducive to liberation,[8] which provision was traced to Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22: “It is he that Brahmins seek to know by means of vedic recitation, sacrifice, gift-giving, austerity and fasting.”[9] Charity was the duty of the householders and austerity and fasting of the renunciants, while sacrifice consisting of the daily Agnihotra was to be performed by everyone, the only exemption being “one Vedic branch some of whose members never light up the fire.”[10] The reference is to Vājasaneyin renunciants who would take up renunciation without ever marrying.[11]
Along with their āśrama duties, all who aspired after liberation were expected to cultivate certain virtues which were considered enjoined, in the Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad immediately following the previous provision: “A man who knows this, therefore, becomes calm, composed, cool, patient and collected.”[12] Calm, self-control, tolerance, etc., thus, became mandatory virtues, and along with the āśrama duties they were subsidiaries to meditation.[13] In fact, Bādarāyaṇa and the commentators were typically Mīmāṃsic in turning the tables on Mīmāṃsā: ritual and the āśrama duties were, really, primarily for achieving liberation by assisting meditation, but mandatory even for those who do not aspire after liberation, under the different provision that they are to be practiced as long as one lives, just as the kratvartha khādira wood or yoghurt can become puruṣārtha through the process which we discussed.[14] “You want yoghurt? I’ll give you some yoghurt!”
Finally, meditation on Brahman was supposed to be practiced one’s whole life.[15] This last stipulation is immediately relevant to considering the results of meditation, as it answered the question, what should one do when the meditational practice has borne fruit? The question was prompted by the assumption that there comes a point in time during one’s life when the meditation has become perfect, at which stage one becomes a vidvān, a knower of Brahman.[16] The commentators do not have much to say about what this achievement was supposed to look like: Brahman becomes manifest (Nimbārka: vyajyate; Śrīnivāsa: brahma vyaktaṃ bhavati; Rāmānuja: asya sākṣāt-kāraḥ) in meditation which is of the nature of devotion (Nimbārka: bhakti-yoge dhyāne; Śaṅkara: bhakti-dhyāna-praṇidhānādy-anuṣṭhānam; Bhāskara: bhaktiḥ, dhyānādinā paricaryā; Rāmānuja: samyak-prīṇane bhakti-rūpāpanne; Śrīnivāsa: nididhyāsana-lakṣaṇe bhakti-yoge). A lexeme that is characteristically used is “steady recollection” (dhruvānusmṛti),[17] which implies that once one has experienced Brahman, such awareness had to be maintained till the end of life—one is still in saṃsāra up until reaching brahma-loka—for which purpose the practice of meditation had to continue till one’s final breath, along with Agnihotra and religious duties that nurture it. Meditation, thus, became something like the principal nitya-karma for the aspirants after liberation.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5 and 4.5.6.
[2]:
The second is Maṇḍana’s preferred term.
[3]:
Chari 2002:283.
[4]:
dhyānāc ca, “Because of concentration.” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 4.1.8. Nimbārka’s gloss: upāsanasya dhyāna-rūpatvāt.
[6]:
asīnaḥ sambhavāt, “(Meditation should be practiced while) seated, because it is possible (only in that way).” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 4.1.7. yatraikāgratā tatrāviśeṣāt, “Wherever concentration (is possible), there, since there is no specification.” 4.1.11.
[7]:
agnihotrādi tu tat-kāryāyaiva tad-darśanāt, “But, Agnihotras and the rest are for that effect, because that is seen.” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 4.1.16. Cf. Nimbārka’s Vedānta-Pārijāta-Saurabha commentary on the Brahma-Sūtra thereon, p.1214: vidyayāgnihotra-dāna-tapa-ādīnāṃ svāśrama-karmaṇāṃ nivṛtti-śaṅkā nāsti vidyā-poṣakatvād anuṣṭheyāny eva yajñādi-śrutau vidyotpādakatva-darśanāt, “There is no question of ceasing the duties of one’s āśrama, such as Agnihotra, charity, austerity, etc., through meditation. They must be observed because they nurture meditation, because we see in the ritual texts that they give rise to knowledge.” Also, Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 3.4.33: sahakāritvena ca, “And, as being assistants.”
[8]:
sarvāpekṣā ca yajñādi-śruter aśva-vat, “(Meditation) depends on all (āśrama duties), as per the text about sacrifice and the rest, in the manner of the horse.” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 3.4.26. The horse is interpreted differently, but Nimbārka’s is the simplest: “as one depends on a horse for going.”
[9]:
Translation Olivelle 1998:125.
[10]:
kāma-kāreṇa caike, “One branch [say that knowers of Brahman give up action] voluntarily. Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 3.4.15.
[11]:
“It was when they knew this that men of old did not desire offspring, reasoning: ‘Ours is this self, and it is our world. What then is the use of offspring for us?’ So they gave up the desire for sons, the desire for wealth, and the desire for worlds, and undertook the mendicant life. The desire for sons, after all, is the same as the desire for wealth, and the desire for wealth is the same as the desire for worlds—both are simply desires.” Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22.—Translation Olivelle 1998:125.
[12]:
4.4.23, translation Olivelle 127.
[13]:
śama-damādy-upetaḥ syāt tathāpi tu tad-vidhes tad-aṅgatayā teṣām avaśyānuṣṭeyatvāt, “Still, he should be possessed of calm, self-control, etc., since they are to be practiced mandatorily on the strength of being subsidiary to meditation as per the injunction.” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 3.4.27.
[14]:
vihitatvāt cāśrama-karmāpi, “Because they are enjoined even as āśrama-duties.” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 3.4.32. Cf. Nimbārka’s Vedānta-Pārijāta-Saurabha commentary on the Brahma-Sūtra on 32-3, p.1141-3: yad vidyāṅgādi tad amumukṣuṇā cāśrama-karmatvenāpy anuṣṭheyaṃ yāvaj-jīvam agnihotraṃ juhoti iti vihitatvāt. vidyā-sahakāritvenāpi vividiṣanti yajñena ity-ādinā yajñāder vihitatvān mumukṣuṇām apy anuṣṭheyaṃ samyoga-pṛthaktvenobhayārthatva-sambhavāt. “Sacrifice etc., which are subsidiaries to meditation, should also be performed be the one who does not aspire after liberation, through the injunction ‘He offers Agnihotra as long as he lives.’ Since they are enjoined as subsidiary to meditation in the text ‘Brahmins seek to know it through sacrifice,’ etc., aspirants after liberation should perform them as well, since that is possible by the rule of conjunction and separation [Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra attributed to Jaimini 4.3.5].”
[15]:
āvṛttir asakṛd upadeśāt, “(There should be) repetition (of meditation) more than once, because such is the instruction.” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 4.1.1. ā prayāṇāt tatrāpi dṛṣṭam, “Until death, for it is seen in scriptures (that it is done) even then.” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 4.1.13.
[16]:
api saṃrādhane pratyakṣānumānabhyām, “And, (Brahman is revealed) in perfect meditation, because of (the evidence) of perception and inference [that is, śruti and smṛti].” Brahma-Sūtra attributed to Bādarāyaṇa 3.2.24.