Chapter 9.3e - Niyamavidhi in Śravaṇa by the Third Manner

As a person can engage himself in the investigation or consideration of the Vedanta under a teacher, similarly an expert person can acquire certain knowledge about Brahman by investigation of his own effort. It is true. But the niyamavidhi in śravaṇa prescribes that the knowledge of Brahman must be acquired by discussion under the guidance of a teacher of the Vedas. If this injunction is followed then it produces an invisible result which results in eradication of ignorance or delusion through wiping out the sins. But if the discussion (vicāra) does not take place under the guidance of a teacher, it can not wipe out sins and consequenltly, ignorance will not be eradicated. The knowledge acquired through this method about Brahman will also be an indirect one. In the previous proposal shown by the second manner, the road to brahmajñāna can be traced by the following serial:

śravaṇa —> invisible result (niyamādṛṣṭa) —> wipping out of sins —> the knowledge of brahman. Here the invisible result becomes the executing factor (vyāpāra) of brahmajñāna. But in the present opinion, brahmajñāna leads to the destruction or eradication of ignorance; but to get this result, destruction of sins by the invisible result is necessary. So, here the invisible result becomes the operational or executing factor (vyāpāra) of the eradication of ignorance.

Here the road can be drawn like this:

śravaṇa —> invisible result —> destruction of sins —> the knowledge of Brahman —> eradication of ignorance (avidyānivṛtti).

This opinion emphasizes on this fact that to have a pure and right knowledge of Brahman, a striver must eradicate his ignorance through the invisible result produced from the śravaṇavidhi in which niyamavidhi is acknowledged for the justification of the production of that invisible result.

Objection: Ignorance is not eradicated inspite of the appearance or production of knowledge. But wiping out of sins through the invisible result is necessary. This kind of opinion is illogical and does not stand.

Reply: It is not the case that ignorance is destroyed at the time of the appearence of knowledge. The absence of the impeding or obstructing factor (pratibandhakābhāva) also is to be counted always in the causal relationship. If there is any condition or cause of limitation (upādhi), the knowledge is obstructed even there is visual perception of an object. We know very well that our face is not entered into the mirror when we look at our face mirrored in the mirror. Yet we think that our face has entered into the mirror. Here the mirror acts as an upādhi. It is an impeding element to the eradication of error or misapprehension regarding reflection.

Similarly, it can be proved that the direct knowledge (aparokṣajñāna) of Brahman can not eradicate ignorance if this knowledge is impeded by the multitude of sins. As long as there are sins, so long as the ignorance can not be wiped out. For this reason, as the niyamavidhi is accepted in reading of the Vedas under the guidence of a teacher because of the possibility of reading from a hand-written manuscript without the guidance of a teacher, so also the consideration of the meaning of the Vedānta by one’s own effort becomes conducive to brahmajñāna which brings certainly about the supreme existence (sattāniścayātmaka) and so this kind of consideration (vicāra) gets pākṣika-prāpti. To regulate it, niyamavidhi should be acknowledged in śravaṇa.

Objection: The consideration of the Vedānta independent of the guidance of teacher can be refuted by the gurūpasadanavidhi,

“tadvijñānārthaṃ sa gurum evābhigacchet”^[1]

(A person desiring to know the eternal Supreme being should go to a teacher).

‘Upasadana’ means ‘going near’. This injunction enjoins ‘going’ of a striver to a teacher for brahmajñāna. So, this injunction is called ‘gurūpasadanavidhi ’. As the mother Veda herself declares this injunction, so it is unnecessary to admit niyamavidhi in śravaṇa dependent on the guidance of a teacher.

Reply: This complaint also can not be entertained, for in the absence of the śravaṇavidhi the ‘gurūpasadanavidhi ’ can not exist. The later injunction is subsidiary to the former. The subsidiary does not make the principal rite redundant.

As Śaṃkara says,

“Na hi varaghātāya kanyām udvāhayanti’^[2]

(Men do not make üwishý their daughter gets married for killing the bridegroom).

The ‘gurūpasadanavidhi ’ is also a subsidiary to the principal injunction named adhyayanavidhi, ‘svādhyāyo’dhyetavyaḥ’^[3]

If the view of the opponent is accepted, then the adhyayanavidhi becomes futile by the ‘gurūpasadanavidhi ’. Because niyamavidhi is accepted in the adhyayanavidhi to prohibit the reading of the written Vedas etc. without a teacher. Now, if this prohibition is done by the gurūpasadanavidhi, then admitting the niyamavidhi in adhyayanavidhi becomes fruitless.

So, niyamavidhi must be acknowledged in the śravaṇavidhi.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Muṇdakopaniṣad—1.2.12

[2]:

Śāṃkarabhāṣya on Brahmasūtra—4.1.2.

[3]:

Taittirīya Āraṇyaka——2.1.9