Chapter 9.3a - The Category and Nature of Śravaṇavidhi

Appaya Dikṣita was a great and famous Indian scholar of the 16th century A. D. His ‘Siddhāntaleśa-saṃgragaḥ’ is an excellent compendium of the Advaita philosophy. In the first chapter of this book Appaya Dikṣita has elaborately disussed the nature and category of the Śravaṇavidhi [śravaṇa-vidhi].

Śravaṇavidhi means,

“ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyah.”^[1]

(O! My dear Maitreyī! The self should be witnessed, listened, reflected and meditated).

This vedic sentence is famous as śravaṇavidhi. Here it should be remembered that the great Śaṃkarācārya has not taken the above sentence as śravaṇavidhi.

He has choosen [this following sentence as śravaṇavidhi]—

“tasmāt brāhmaṇaḥ pāṇḍityaṃ nirvidya bālyena tiṣṭhāset, bālyaṃ ca pāṇḍityaṃ ca nirvidya atha muniḥ, amaunaṃ ca maunaṃ ca nirvidya atha brāhmaṇaḥ”^[2].

The meaning of this sentence is that as the desire for having children, the desire for wealth and the desire for fame—all are nothing but desires and as there is no distinction among them because of their being qualified by desireness, so a brāhmaṇa (A person who knows the apparent or general meaning of the Vedas), after having certainly acquired pāṇḍitya (i.e. śravaṇa which means ascertainment of the purport of the upaniṣadic sentences in one Brahman) should desire to stay in bālya (i.e. manana or discarding the improper and opposite thinking about the Brahman or the supreme reality known by śravaṇa by logical arguments mainting a prideless, egoless and pure state of mind like a child). Having acquired bālya and pāṇḍitya certainly, he should be a muni (a person who maintains nididhyāsana or meditation). Thus acquiring amauna (i.e. bālya and pāṇḍitya) and mauna (nididhyāsana) certainly, he becomes a brāhmaṇa i.e. he directly relizes, “I am the Brahman”. This is the meaning of ‘tasmāt brāhmaṇaḥ....’.

Now the question is: Why did Śaṃkara take this sentence as the śravaṇavidhi in his commentary on the Brahmasūtra ‘sahakāryantaravidhiḥ pakṣeṇa tṛtīyaṃ tadvato vidhyādivat”^[3] instead of the sentence ‘ātmā vā are....’?

Because the last portion of the sentence ‘ātmā vā are....’ is

“śravaṇena matyā vijñānena idaṃ sarvaṃ viditam”

(By witnessing, reflection and knowledge of the self, everything can be known.)

From this text it is clear that ‘nididhyāsana’ means ‘vijñāna’, but not ‘dhyāna’ (meditation).

The author of ‘Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika’ Sureśvara Ācārya says—

‘dhyānāśaṃkānivṛttyarthaṃ vijñāneneti bhaṇyate |
nididhyāsanaśabdena dhyānam āśaṃkyate yataḥ ||^[4]

According to Sureśvara ‘nididhyāsana’ means ‘aparāyattabodha’. So he wrote ‘aparāyattabodho’tra nididhyāsanam ucyate”^[5]

‘aprāyattabodha’ means a kind of indirect knowledge obtained after śravaṇa and manana on Brahman and the form of this knowledge is ‘I am Brahman’ or ‘This is such’.

The author of ‘Saṃkṣepaśārīraka’ Sarvajñātmamuni wrote—

“anubhavavihīnā yaivameveti buddhiḥ |
śrutamanana-samāptau tannididhyāsanaṃ hi ||”^[6]

So, in the sentence ‘śrotavyaḥ mantavyo nididhyāsitavyaḥ’ the word ‘nididhyāsana’ does not mean meditation. For this reason Śaṃkara did not take this sentence for discussion for the adhikaraṇa (topic of discussion) ‘Sahakāryantaravidhyadhikaraṇa’.

Again a question arises. Why there is repetition of the śravaṇavidhi in the Veda? This repetition does not lead to any fault. Because in ‘tasmāt brāhmṇaḥ....’ ‘nididhyāsana’ (meditation) is enjoined with ‘śravaṇa’ and ‘manana’ which were previously enjoined in the sentence, ‘śrotavyo mantavyo....’ But this sentence is regarded as the śravaṇādividhi or ‘śravaṇavidhi because it is well established among the phillosophers and authors.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad——2.4.5

[2]:

Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad——3.5.1

[3]:

Brahamasūtra [=Brahmasūtra?]——3.4.47

[4]:

Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika——2.4.233

[5]:

Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika——2.4.217

[6]:

Saṃkṣepaśārīraka——3/346