(i) Ātreya Brahmanandi and Draidāchārya

ATREYA BRAHMANANDI AND DRAVIDACHARYA

by

Polagam Sri Rama Sastri

Śāstra-Ratnākara

These two personages who are among the early expounders of the pure Advaitic tradition were born in the beginning of this yuga. Of these two, Brahmanandī wrote a work called Vākva in sūtra form and it was an exposition of the purport of the Chāndogyopaniṣad. Dravidāchārya embellished that work by his bhāṣya on it. On account of this, these authors came to be known as Vākyakāra and a Bhāṣyakāra, respectively.

In the Chāndogyopaniṣad, from the first to the fifth adhyāya the following topics are expounded for the benefit of persons of inferior and not-so-inferior qualifications: three kinds of upāsanas namely, aṅgāvabaddhopāsanā which leads to the fruits of karma, svatantrapratīkopāsanā which bestows material welfare, and ahaṅgrahopāsanā which leads to krama-mukti. In the sixth, seventh, and eighth adhyāyas are expounded in order sadvidyā, bhūmāvidya, and prājāpatyavidyā. These have their fruition in sadyomukti or immediate release. These relate to the realisation of nirguṇa Brahman which is sacchidānanda and are expounded for persons of superior qualification. In the eighth adhyāya, for the benefit of persons of intermediate qualification, daharavidyā which relates to saguna Brahman is explained again. Thus two kinds of Brahman are treated of in the Chāndogyopaniṣad, the qualified Brahman to be worshipped and the Brahman free from any qualities which is only to be known and realised.

In his Vākya-grantha which is an exposition of the Chāndogyonaniṣad, Brahmanandī too clearly brings out, in accord with the Upaniṣad. the two-fold character of Brahman. Dravidāchārya also in his bhāṣya on the vākya, very clearly expounds the two-fold Brahman and his exposition is in line with the Upaniṣad and the vākya. Unfortunately, these two works are not available.

However, thirty statements of the vākya and twenty of the bhāṣya are available having been quoted in the works of early writers. Of these, eight statements of vākya-grantha and nine of the bhāṣya are found quoted in Advaitic works. Twenty-two of vākya-grantha and eleven of the bhāṣya are quoted in the writings of Śrī Rāmānuja and others. Thus from both the vākya and bhāṣya we are now in possession of only fifty statements. They have been set forth in the work entitled Draviḍātreyadarśanam.

Śrī Śaṅkara and others have quoted in their Advaitic works from the bhāṣya of Draviḍāchārya in the context of the explanation of the madhvvidyā and saṃvargavidyā found in the third and the fourth chapters of the Chāndogyopaniṣad. Śrī Rāmānuja and others quote from the vākya and bhāṣya passages in the context of the antarādityavidyā set forth in the first chapter of the Chāndogyopaniṣad.

Though Śrī Śaṅkara has not quoted verbatim from the vākya, yet in his exposition of the antarādityavidyā in his Chāndogya-bhāṣya, and in the antastaddharmādhikaraṇa devoted to an examination of it in the sūtrabhāṣya, he has expressed the same ideas in similar language. Thus, we find that Śrī Śaṅkara has given expression in his works to ideas similar in language to passages in the vākya and the bhāṣya and having the same meaning. Such parallel passages have been indicated in the work Draviḍātreya-darśanam. They have also been separately tabulated in that work for purpose of comparison under the heads of Brahmanandi-Bhagavatpāda-Vākya-Sāmarayam and Draviḍāchārya-Bhagavatpāda-Vākya Sāmarasyam.

The vākya-grantha gives six meanings to the antarādityavidyā passage in the Chāndogyopaniṣad : tasya yathā kapyāsam puṇḍarīkam evamakṣiṇī. In his Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣya Śrī Śaṅkara gives the conventional (rūḍhi) meaning of the word kapi. In the work Draviḍātreya-darśanam it has been shown that this interpretation is not affected by the criticism made against it by others. Śrī Rāmānuja and others adopt three other meanings of the word from the etymological (yaugika) point of view taking them from the vākya-grantha. It has to be emphasised that all meanings, the conventional and the etymological are those stated in the vākya itself.

In his vākya-grantha, the Vākyakāra observes that for the anugraha of the aspirants, the Lord’s form which is resplendent (jyotirmaya) is imperceivable by the sense of sight, but can be perceived only by those of pure mind who worship concentrating on the form of the sun (āditya-maṇḍala). This same meaning accepted by the Vākyakāra is conveyed by Śrī Śaṅkara in the exposition of the antarādityavidyāvivaraṇa of the antastaddharmā-dhikaraṇa and of the Chāndogyopaniṣad. The Vākyakāra says:

syādrūpam kṛtakam anugrahārtham tachchetasām aiśvaryāt;
rūpam cha atīndṛyam antaḥkaraṇa-pratyakṣam tannirdeśāt.

Draviḍāchārya’s bhāṣya on this passage is:

añjasaiva viśvasṛ-jorūpam tattu na chakṣuṣā grāhyam
manasā tvakalusheṇa sādhanāntaravatā gṛhyate.

Śrī Śaṅkara writes in the antastaddharmādhikaraṇa:

syāt parameśvarasyāpi icchāvaśāt māyāmayam rūpam sādhakā-nugrahārtham.

In the Chāndogyabhāṣya he says:

dṛśyate nivṛtta-chakṣurbhiḥ samāhita-chetobhiḥ brahmacharyādi-sādhanā-pekṣam.

‘It is seen by those whose eyes have been turned inward and whose minds are steadfast by reason of the practice of brahmacharya, etc.’

It is to be noted that corresponding to the expressions of the Vākyakāra, taccetasamanugrahārtham , aiśvaryāt and kṛtakam. Śrī Śaṅkara uses the words sādhakānugrahārtham, māyāmayam and icchīvaśāt. Similarly, where the Vākyakāra says atīndṛyamantah-karanapratvakṣam, the Bhāṣyakāra explains it as na chakṣuṣā grāhyam manasā tvakalushena sādhanāntaravatā gṛhyate, and Śrī Śaṅkara’s expressions for them are respectively dṛśyate nivṛtta-chakṣurbhiḥ, samāhitachetobhiḥ and brahmacharyādisādhanāpekṣam.

Thus, while the expressions in the vākya, the bhāṣya, and Śrī Śaṅkara’s explanations are in accord, not disposed to agree to this, Śrī Rāmānuja and others have altered the words rūpam chātīn-dṛyam into rūpam vā atīndṛyam. They also maintain that the statement syād rūpam is the pūrvapakṣa and that rūpam vā atīndṛyam contains the siddānta. They also say that the form of the Lord is not unreally assumed by Him, but that it is His real nature. The Vākyakāra says in the previous sentence that it is assumed for purpose of anugraha and he follows it in the succeeding sentence that that form is supersensuous, but perceivable in the antaḥkaraṇa. There is nothing irreconcilable in the Lord’s form being the result of art assumption and also supersensuous and cognisable by the pure mind. Where is the distinction of pūrvapakṣa and siddhānta between two positions which are not contradictory to each other? Dispassionate consideration will show that this has not been taken into account in a partisan view of this matter. That the Lord’s form is eternal has nowhere been stated in the vākya. All this has been clearly brought out in the work Draviḍā-treyadarśanam.

In his bhāṣya , Draviḍāchārya says that bhagavadrūpa, the Lord’s form is yathābhūta, that is, it is existent, and goes on to observe that form is not spoken of a devatā which is formless; for śāstra speaks only of what is. It is yathābhūta-vādī. It informs us of what has sattā. True, there is no instruction of rūpa in respect of what is arūpa, formless. The meditation on the form of the Lord is not based on adhyāsa or supposition as in the meditation of mind as Brahman, etc., but it is -the meditation of the existing rūpa. Śrī Śaṅkara too following the same text speaks in the same manner. This is what he says: There is no non-validity in respect of the texts which refer to the subject of upāsanā. Hence Śāstra which speaks of upāsanā refers only to the actually existing ātmā, Īśvara and devatā, etc. While explaining the third brāhmaṇa of the first adhyāya of the Bṛhadāranyakopaniṣad , he observes, ‘As that which is indicated as Paramātmā, Īśvara and devatā is non-empirical, it deserves to be spoken of as actually existing’. Similarly in the bhāṣya on the sūtra— svāpyayasaṃ - patyoh anyatarāpekṣamāviṣkṛtam hi. Śrī Śaṅkara says: That where this Īśvara’s nature is described, it refers to a different state like svarga, etc., and it is the locus of the saguṇavidyā.

The empirical reality of the Lord’s form subsists till the direct realization of Brahman. It is not transcendental (pāramārthika), non-sublatable in all the three periods of time like the qualitiless Brahman. This view is based on the passage laukikam tadvadevedam pramāṇamtvātmaniśchayāt, given at the end of the bhāṣya in samanvayādhikaraṇa. Śrī Rāmānuja and others maintain, however, that the Lord’s form is pāramarthikam. They rely on the following passage in Bhāskara’s bhāṣya on the Brahma-sūtra:

parameśvarasya sarvaśakutvāt upāsakānugrakāya (?)-saṃbhavāt, kiṃ māyāmayani rūpam? neti brūmaḥ, pāramārthaka-mevaitat, yathābhūtajñāpakam hi śāstram.

Attracted by this view, they delude themselves into believing that the same may be the view of the Vākyakāra and the Bhāṣyakāra.

But that is noi correct. Even as the Vākyakāra upholds the theory of vyāvahārika, so does the Bhāṣyakāra too. In the context of the explanation of the sadvidyā, taking up the Śruti vāchā-raṃbhaṇam vikāro nāmadheyam mṛttiketyeva satyam, Vākyakāra discards the theory that a thing should be either sat or asat only, and establishes on the basis of śruti the theory of the vyāvahārika - satya of the world which is neither exclusively sat nor asat. na saṃvyavahāramātratvāt. This conclusion of the Vākyakāra is clearly explained in the Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka, in the commentaries on it and in the Kalpataru. It is pertinent to ask those who proclaim that they are followers of the position of the Vākyakāra, why they have rejected the statements establishing the vyāvahāri-katva of the world and quoted in the Kalpataru and the Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka.

While explaining the sadvidyā the Vākyakāra says yuktam tadguṇakopāsanāt. He considers that antarguṇaka brahmaprāpti is a proper consequence of antarguṇakabrahmopāsanā.

The Bhāṣyakāra too explains this passage as follows :

antarguṇam pratyakguṇameva bhagavatīm paradevatām bhajata iti tatra tadguṇaiva devatā prāpyate.

Here the word tadguṇakam in the vākya is explained as antar-guṇa . And, the expression antarguṇa in the bhāṣya is explained as the pratyagātman. Antaḥ (inner) is a correlate of bahiḥ (outer), i.e. inner as opposed to outer. So we get the equation: tadguṇakopāsanāt antarguṇakopāsanāt pratyagrūpabrahmopāsanāt. By the ‘tatkratu nyāya’ it is proper to say tadguṇaiva antarguṇaiva pratyagsvarūpaiva. By this pratyagsvarūpa the paradevatā, the supreme deity which is parabrahma-rūpa is attained. This reasoned conclusion of the Vākyakāra and the Bhāṣyakāra is established beyond doubt. That the consciousness of the nondifference of the pratyagātman and Brahman arises from the knowledge of the identity of the two which is the purport of the mahāvākya tattvamasi is expounded by both of them.

The same is explained by Śrī Śaṅkara in his commentary on the Chāndogyopaniṣad. That this is the view of the bhāṣya of Draviḍāchārya is clearly stated in the Saṃkṣepaśārīraka also.

Explaining the mahāvākya tattvamasi, the Vākyakāra puts it in the form of a sūtra siddhantu nivartakatvāt. The Bhāṣyakāra explains it thus: A prince brought up among hunters thinks that he is a hunter. But when he is told on the basis of proper reasons that he is a prince, he realises his true nature. Even so the jīva thinks that he is a saṃsārī. But when a guru tells him of his brahmabhāva of which he was ignorant so long, he realises his true nature upon the removal of that nescience. Thus is established the validity of the declaration tattvamasi. The vākya is not to be understood as illumining what was not luminous itself. No other light can illumine what is already luminous. Thus this elucidation of Draviḍāchārya in the form of the story is found in several Advaitic works.

The fact that Advaita sannyāsins specially worship Draviḍāchārya at the time of Vyāsapūjā, proves his association with the propagation of the Advaita sampradāya.

And so, it is concluded with the prayer that every one may derive benefit according to his capacity by the study of the Advaita darśana which is the central teaching of the Upaniṣad, proclaimed in the Jñānavāsiṣṭha by the great sage Vasiṣṭha, enunciated by Bādarāyaṇāchārya in his Brahmasūtra, clearly explained by Vṛtti-kāras like Upavarṣa, made definite by Gauḍapādāchārya in his Kārikās on the Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad, established by Śrī Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda who stands for the pure Advaita saṃpradāya in his bhāṣyas, etc., annotated on in their ṭīkā, vārtika, etc., by āchāryas like Padmapāda and Sureśvara, by the authors of Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka and Vivaraṇa and by Vāchaspati Miśra, expounded in simple language by Śrī Vidyāraṇya and which has been transmitted through a holy and beginningless tradition and which dowers its votaries with supreme joy and eternal peace.