Chapter 11.1 - Means of Interpretation according to Uttaramīmāṃsā

[Full Title: Corrections and Additions (1): Means of Interpretation according to Uttaramīmāṃsā]

According to the Uttaramīmāṃsā or Vedānta philosophy, an aspirant must practise śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana and samādhi (self-absorbed spiritual meditation during which the meditator loses his or her entity and becomes one with the Supreme Being) until he realises his own true nature and until he gets salvation. Here the word śravaṇa means to ascertain the purport of all Upaniṣads in Brahman by six kinds of proofs.

These proofs are:

1. upakrama (inception),
2. upasaṃhāra (end),
3. abhyāsa (repetition),
4. apūrva (new) or apūrvatā (newness),
5. phala (result),
6. arthavāda (eulogy) and
7. upapatti (logic or argument).

(1-2) Upakrama (inception) and Upasaṃhāra (end):

When the subject-matter of a context is mentioned in the very beginning and in the end, then these two techniques are called upakrama and upasaṃhāra respectively. For example, the non-dual Brahman (the Supreme Being) is mentioned in the sixth Prapāṭhaka of Chāndogyopanisad by this sentence—

“ekam eva advitīyam” (6/2/1).

At the end of this prapāṭhaka, Brahman is also mentioned by the sentence:

“aitadātmyam idaṃ sarvam”.

(3) Abhyāsa (repetition):

Repetition of a subject is abhyāsa. For example, in the same sixth Prapāṭhaka of Chāndogyopaniṣad, the non-dual Brahman is mentioned nine times by the sentence:

“tattvam asi”.

(4) Apūrva (new) or Apūrvatā (newness):

When a matter is not proved by any other proof of knowledge than the Vedic knowledge, then it is called apūrva (new). Brahman is understood only from Upaniṣad. So it is apūrva. The other proofs like perception, inference, analogy etc. can not make Brahman their subject. Because Brahman is without any name and form. On the other hand, the objects of perception, inference etc. are limited by their names and forms. So, Brahman is not realized by laukika (mundane or ordinary) proof. It is realized from the Veda only.

(5) Phala (result):

The purpose is regarded as result. For example, the knowledge of the unity of Brahman and jīvātmans is the purpose of the means like śravaṇa, manana etc. and the purpose of the knowledge of Brahman is realization of Brahman.

The Chāndogyopaniṣad declares:

“tarati śokam ātmavit” (7/1/ 3).

It means that the knower of self or Brahman surpasses sorrow or grief. From this sentence it is implied that this seventh Prapāṭhaka of this Upaniṣad discusses and establishes the theory of Brahman only. So, phala (result) can be used as a method of interpretation of Vedic sentences.

(6) Arthavāda (eulogy):

Arthavāda (eulogy) is praising the subject discussed in a context. For example, Brahman is praised in the sentence

“uta tam ādeśam aprāksyo yena aśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavati, amataṃ mataṃ, avijñātaṃ vijñātaṃ”
   (Chāndogya Upaniṣad—6/1/3).

(My child! Did you ask the subject for instruction by the knowledge of which everything is known, by meditation of which everything is meditated and by attaining of which everything is attained?)

From this eulogy it is understood that the nature of the matter (Brahman) is real and appropriate. Otherwise, how can there be such kind of praising?

(7) Upapatti (logic or argument):

Upapatti is reasoning or an argument shown in a context to establish a subject-matter. For example,

“somya ekena mṛtpiṇḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syāt vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttikā ityeva satyam”
   (Chāndogya Upaniṣad—6/1/4).

(O handsome boy! By the knowledge of one earthen pot, all earthen materials can be known, because modification of a matter are nothing but names. Only clay or earth is real.)

Here an argument is shown as an analogy to establish the real nature of Brahman. From this argument it is known that the subject of the context is Brahman.

These six proofs for ascertaining the purport of all Upaniṣads express only Brahman, sometimes individually and sometimes in a united or combined way. In human sentences, this purport is known as the intended meaning of a sentence. For example, in the context of eating the sentence “saindhavan ānaya” means “Bring salt” and it does not mean, “Bring the horse”. So, though the word ‘saindhava’ has two meanings, yet in one context it will convey only one meaning according to the intention of the instructor.

According to the Naiyāyikas this purport is the intention of God in the case of Vedic sentence. But the Mīmāṃsakas do not acknowledge the Omniscient God. So, the Vedāntins give the definition of purport as follows:

The capability of producing the intended meaning is called purport.

Now the question is: Are intention and purport same or identical? The answer is: No. Because a purport excludes the unintended meaning also. So, the Vedāntins say “taditara-pratīti-jananechayānucaritatve sati tatpratītijananayogyatvaṃ tatparyam”. It means that after excluding the unintended meaning, a purport expresses the intended meaning.