Chapter 9.3l - Conclusion Regarding Śravaṇavidhi

It must be mentioned that the author of ‘Bhāmatī ’, Vācaspati Miśra did not accept injunction in śrarvaṇa etc. in the explanation of the samanvayasūtra.^[1]

But in the explanation of the aphorism ‘sahakāryantara-vidhiḥ...’^[2] he admitted injunction in śravaṇa etc. by saying:

“apūrvatvāt vidhiḥ āstheyaḥ”

(The junction must be sheltered because of its unknownness or unprecedentedness).

The author of the commentary ‘Vedāntakalpataru’, Appaya Dīkṣita removed this contradiction saying this that in the former case, Vācaspati Miśra did not admit apūrvavidhi in śravaṇa etc. and in the later, he accepted niyamavidhi in śravaṇa etc. So, there is no contradiction.

Appaya Dīkṣita wrote—

“evaṃ ca ‘avidheyatvam uktam’ iti asya apūrvavidhyaviṣayatvam uktam, iha tu niyamavidhiviṣayatvam ucyate iti pūrvāparavirodhaparihāro draṣṭavyaḥ”.^[3]

Actually, the niyamavidhi is accepted in śravaṇa etc. to eradicate and prevent the wrong thinking (asambhāvanā) and opposite thinking (viparītabhāvanā) regarding Brahman. Being prompted by this niyamavidhi, a striver engages himself in śravaṇa etc. This is the conclusion of almost all of the Advaitavedāntins.

This long and elaborate discussion helps us indirectly to realize the real nature of apūrvavidhi, niyamavidhi and parisaṃkhyāvidhi. Their distinction is also clear from this important discussion.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahmasūtra—1.1.4. (‘tattu samanvayāt’)

[2]:

Brahmasūtra—3.4.47.

[3]:

Vedāntakalpataru on Bhāmati on Brahmasūtra—3.4.47.