Chapter 9.3b - Apūrvavidhi in Śravaṇavidhi

Śravaṇa means ascertainment of the purport of the upaniṣadic sentences in the unique Brahman. Now, the question is: To which kind of injunctions, the śravaṇavidhi belong? What is its category? Philosophers have different views regarding this.

Some philosophers like Anubhūti Svarūpācārya, the author of ‘Prakaṭārthavivaraṇa’, etc. regard the śravaṇavidhi as an apūrvavidhi. Their argument is that this injunction is unobtained by any proof other than the Veda. So it is an apūrvavidhi.

Objection: Śravaṇa (logical consideration of the upaniṣadic sentences) is the cause of the realization of Brahman. If śravaṇa is there, there is the realization of Brahman. This is the method of agreement (anvayaniyama). If śravaṇa is not there, there is not the realization of Brahman. This method of discontinuance (vyatireka-niyama) is also applied here. So, śravaṇa is related to some regulation. Therefore, niyamavidhi must be accepted in śravaṇa.

Reply: No. Generally it is seen that a person having śravaṇa of the Vedānta theories, also does not realize the Brahman.

Again, though Vāmadeva did not listen to Vedānta at the time of his situation in his mother’s womb, yet he realized Brahman. So, there is the violation of the above mentioned two methods.

Objection: In music there is a general rule—only listening to music is the cause of perception or apprehension of the subject. So listening leads to realization of anything—this general rule can be drawn. This rule is accepted as an universal rule. So, though there is the absence of anything like apūrvavidhi or anvaya-vyatireka expressing the casual relationship regarding the śravaṇavidhi, yet by the power of that universal rule of music, śravaṇa of the Vedānta can be the cause of realization of Brahman.

Reply: This doubt also can not stand. Though listening is regarded as the cause of the apprehension or knowledge of seven notes (ṣaḍja, ṛṣabha, gāndhāra, madhyama, pañcama, dhaivata and niṣāda) in music, yet this rule is violated in the karmakāṇda or in sacrificial work. Because it is a fact that a person having śravaṇa of the karmakāṇda of the Veda does not have perception of spiritual or religious entities. So, the general rule is violated. The sacrificial work can be explained by special rule. So, śravaṇavidhi must be an apūrvavidhi.

In the commentary of the Brahmasūtra “sahakāryantaravidhiḥ”^[1] Saṃkarācārya has accepted the śravaṇavidhi as an apūrvavidhi. He has used three special words from Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad to explain this aphorism of Bādarāyaṇa. These words are—pāṇḍitya (śravaṇa) bālya (manana) and mauna (nididhyāsana).

The meaning of the above formula is—

“an injunction must be accepted regarding mauna (nididhyāsana) which helps acquiring knowledge. By the word ‘mauna’ we should understand ‘nididhyāsana’, for it is third with respect to śravaṇa and manana. This mauna is enjoined for a sannyāsin (an ascetic) who has indirect knowledge about Brahman. This injunction becomes fruitful because this mauna (meditation) is unobtained in one side to an ascetic who has the knowledge of dualism (dvaitabodha). It may appear irrelevant to refer to injunction to the context of Brahmavidyā. But it is justified like the principal injunction (vidhyādivat) i.e. as the fore-sacrifices have been enjoined in the context of principal injunction regarding the Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifices, so also here ‘nididhyāsana (mauna) can be laid down as the means of knowledge which is principal.”

The word ‘vidhyādi ’ is constituted by the ‘ṣaṣṭhītatpuruṣa’. It is expounded as ‘vidheḥ ādi ’ meaning ‘the principal injunction’.

In the explanation of the above formula Śaṃkarācārya wrote—

“vidyāsahakāriṇaḥ maunasya bālyapāṇḍityavat vidhiḥ eva āśrayitavyaḥ, apūrvatvāt^[2]

(Injunction must be accepted regarding meditation which is an helping means to acquiring knowledge about Brahman, as it is accepted with respect to bālya and pāṇḍitya. Because mauna is new.)

From this comment of Śaṃkarācārya it is proved that apūrvavidhi is acknowledged in śravaṇa. For the justification of the word “apūrvatvāt’ in the commentary, it is ‘apūrvavidhi ’.

It can not be urgued that mauna is understood from the word pāṇḍitya, for ‘muni ’ means a person who has excessive knowledge and who is characterised by manana (meditation).

So, Śaṃkara wrote—

“nanu pāṇḍityaśabdena eva maunasya avagatatvam uktam. naiṣaḥ doṣaḥ, muniśabdasya jñānātiśayārthatvāt, ‘mananāt muniḥ iti ca vyutpattisaṃbhavāt”^[3]

By this discusion it is proved that there is apūrvavidhi in śravaṇa.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahmasūtra—3.4.47

[2]:

Śaṃkarācārya on Brahmasūtra—3.4.47

[3]:

Śaṃkarācārya on Brahmasūtra—3.4.47