Part 24.1 - The Nature and Object of Jijnasa

[Full title: An Outline of Sripati's View (1) The Nature and Object of Jijnasa]

An Outline of Sripati's View. We may now pass on to consider Sripati's Bhashya under certain convenient heads for a better understanding of its contents. In what follows, the mode of argumentation adopted by Sripati is closely followed and care has been taken to set down in a non-technical manner his views on the fundamental points raised by him. This is intended to be no more than a mere outline, the reader being referred to the work itself for a fuller understanding of it. The Nature and Object of Jijnasa. In commenting on I. 1. 1, Sripati remarks that Parasara embraced the Maha-Pasupata diksha. His son was Vyasa. He was the author of the Sutras. He enunciates the first Sutra to remove some doubt. Is Brahman existent or not? In the Veda, in one place it is stated there was originally nothing existent and in another that Brahman was existent. There is a conflict thus between these two views. Does "non-existent" mean "not visible to the eye," or that it would be visible hereafter some time after we get the vision for it through the knowledge of Brahman? For we do not know by experience that any man who has once died has ever come back. Further there is the saying: To the body which has been burnt to ashes, where is the re-birth? Therefore, by all means contract debts and drink ghee (i.e., enjoy in boundless fashion life without the fear of having to pay for it even in another life).00 Further the 00 Bhasmibhutasya dehasya punaragamanam kutah Tasmat sarvapravatnena rinam kritva ghritam pibet || Compare the above with the doctrine of the Charvaka Siddhanta,

mixture of lime and saffron creates red colour. Similarly on this earth, inanimate and animate beings are created and destroyed, from samyoga and viyoga of five elements, prithvi etc. This is improper, as such a thing is not within our experience. If this were so, then, why not create beings by cutting off a part of the body of human beings or animals? It is seen that Isvara has located in cowdung and the like life-matter (jivatvam) in an unseen form."1 And even to a Maharaja who is provided with every source of happiness, there appear suddenly mental and physical anxieties, diseases, etc., which reduces him to poverty and misery and finally kills him. The conclusion is thus arrived at that it is Isvara that allots to us these results of the fruit of our actions done in our previous births, be they good or bad. So Jiva and Sarira are not different. This is one view. Another Vedic view is that Sarira is not eternal, whereas the Jiva is. If the Jiva is eternal, there is no need for a Creator. Thus there are three views:-(1) Brahman is existent; (2) Brahman is non-existent; and (3) Sarira and Jiva are not different. attributed to Brihaspati as formulated in the Sarvadarsana Sangraha :- Yavadjivam sukham jivennasti mrutyoragocharah | Bhasmibhutasya dehasya punaragamanam kuta iti || The 01 This saying recurs in Sripati's Bhashya more than once. belief underlying it is treated as an exception to the general maxim Sadrusat sadrusodbhavah, which literally means Lake produces like. This maxim, according to Hindu writers, does not enshrine a fixed principle. Jayanta Bhatta thus denies its truth on the ground that scorpions are produced from cowdung, in his Nyayamanjari (Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, Edn. 1895, page 466) :-Nachaisha niyamo loke sadrusat sadrusodbhavah Vrischikadeh samutpado gomayadapi drusyate This belief regarding the scorpion is found in the Mahabhashya, I. 4. 30, and is used as an illustration by Sankaracharya in his commentary on the Brahma-Sutras, II. 16. Ramanuja also uses || Udayana quotes it in his Vritti on the Kusumanjali, II. 2. while Haridasa remarks that a scorpion can be produced from cowdung as well as from a scorpion. Of course, the modern view, as propounded by writers on biogenics, is that life can only come from the touch of life." See Col. Jacob's Laukikanyayanjalih, II. 81.

And there are three different kinds of discussion (Vadabheda or Jijnasa):-(1) Vidhi; (2) Mantra; and (3) Arina Vada. Sruti is thus of three different kinds. In this three-fold division, the offering of Jyotishtoma and other sacrifices with the desire to obtain Svarga is Vidhi Vada. In Mantra Vada, worship (upasana) is essential. In the same way, Artha Vada consists in offering praises to God (Stotras). To Jivas, according to their past Karmas, God allots on their birth their respective meeds of joy and sorrow (Sukha and Dukkha). If this were so, there would be no need for Jijnasa. The reading of Upanishads would also prove of no utility; even Yagnas would not be necessary, since they all treat of Artha and Kama, the realization of desires. Such a proposition requires consideration, i.e., we should endeavour to ascertain its truth or untruth. Hence the need for Jijnasa. Jijnasa is necessary to establish the ultimate truth and set at rest the doubt. About what are we to undertake a Jijnasa for? Is it for the purpose of establishing that Para-Siva (Brahman) is in Sarira or Savira in Para-Siva. There is no truth in the first; for it is said that Satyam jnanamanantam Brahma; Brahman is all-truth (Satya), all-wisdom (jnana) and eternal (Anantam). Eka eva Rudro na dvitiyaya taste, 'Only there was one Rudra and no second," here only one Rudra is mentioned. Again Rudra ekatva mahuh, Rudra alone is said to have existed; Rudro vai sasvatam vai puranam iti; "Rudra is eternal", "Rudra is ancient", etc., are statements contained in hundreds of Sruti texts. These go to show that Para-Siva is true Brahman. The termination "Aham" refers to the Self inside the Sarira who reflects outside and no other second. The fruit of Jijnasa is that which could be elucidated by Jnana becomes Jnana. Accordingly is Brahman one that could be elucidated or not? If he could be elucidated, then he is different, which is against hundreds of Sruti texts. If he could not be elucidated, then Jijnasa becomes a vain matter, i.e., a discussion of no value. Because, it is

said that Ajamekam lohita sukla krishnam, there is only one, never-born, and which is alone, and which appears in red, white and black colours. Inside there are two: Isa and anisa (the chief and the subordinate), gnu and agna (the knower and the ignorant). Thus says the Veda in different places. In this way, to understand that Sarira has no end would be of no avail, for it would end in mukti. Thus it is also stated in one place in the Veda. Ayamatma Brahma "This Atma is Brahman", Tatvamasi "That Thou Art" and other sayings occur elsewhere. Jiva and Brahman are identical and one. But Aham pratyaya is used in some places, thereby denoting bheda pratibhasa (i.e., difference between Jiva and Brahman). This creates the doubt, why should it not be so, i.e., why should they not be identical? This Aham pratyaya does not really indicate a difference but shows as if there was a difference and thereby weakens the argument of Svayam prakasa of Brahman, i.e., weakens the position that Brahman is self-evident by his glory. Aham pratyaya also weakens the power of self-knowing Brahman by bringing him into the orbit of never-ending Avidya, and drags him into the smaller sphere of man, which is much less than that of Brahman. This is a misnomer. This leads to a discussion from which no salvation is possible, i.e., the argument ends in the destruction of the discussion. Further just as darkness and light are different and are opposed to each other in their characteristics, those who stick to the one-sided argument, viz., Yalho vacho nivartanta and other sayings of the Veda, according to which Brahman cannot be perceived even mentally, it comes to this that there can be no use in beginning the discussion of the Vedanta Sastra. If this doubt arises, we answer it thus:-It should not be thus viewed because we have to say this: It is meet we should begin the study of the Mimamsa Sastra which deals with the Dvaitadvaita doctrine which is in conformity with the essence of all the Upanishads. You may ask why? If Brahman is real, he can be seen physically and perceived mentally through the aid of the evidences afforded by the Agama. Because it is said

"There is only Rudra and none others." This is said in many Agamas and Vedas so that the evidence afforded by them are put as Surya, Chandra, Seasons, Ocean and Timeall these are guided by the Will of God and denote their own Dharma (i.c., nature). In this world those blessed with wealth, knowledge and all kinds of conveniences, still have not got what they seek after. While those who have none of these conveniences, at some time or other, they obtain what they desire for. This shows plainly that God administers over these (human affairs) by His existence. This is sufficient ocular proof of His existence (lit. He can be physically perceived). In the world we find cars, towers, storeyed mansions, enclosures (probably fortifications) and the like which are the production of man's intelligence. In a similar manner, there is Paramesvara who is assumed to be the maker of the animate and inanimate worlds. Some say that just as by the combination of chunam and saffron, a reddish appearance is created to the eye, in the same way, by the combination of the earth with the other four elementals, the animate and inanimate creation comes into being of its own accord. This, however, is not true. It is not within the experience of anyone-i.e., nobody has borne testimony to-such a combination of the earth and the four elementals producing the animate and inanimate world consisting of domestic animals, birds and ferce natura (wild animals). If it is asked why we should not assume that it is possible to visualize the animal, human and other creations in the same body, with their different qualities in it, then we have to suggest that this is against human experience. It is known to experience that we have to altribute to Isvara the creation of countless hidden beings (.e., worms) in a lump of cow-dung 22 just in the same way that we have to attribute even to a mighty king who though he never for a moment desired mental or physical anxieties and old age, death or poverty, yet we see him subject to these calamities. In the same way, it is certain that Jivas 02 92 See footnote 91, on p. 233 ante.

It realize happiness or discomfort according to their previous good conduct or bad conduct, according to the awards of an Isvara. But it may be asked if there are not men in this world who do not enjoy happiness in place of the misery that they should experience and vice versa-as in the case of those coming under the heads of thieves and adulterers-we would answer that this is a part of Dharma Mimamsa which it is unnecessary to discuss here. would therefore seem to follow that the argument of Kapila and Kanada that this world originates out of jada (i.e., inanimate matter) is without foundation. In the Sruti text it is stated:-Asadva idamagra asit. The use of the asad herein has to be interpreted as indicating that there was an infinitesimally small world, because the word asit is subsequently used. If it is not so construed, there would be contradiction as in the further part of the same Sruti the following words occur:-Tato vai sadajayata. These words ("From that Sat came out") show that the above interpretation is the correct one. Here in this Sruti text the word asat is used. Why cannot it be taken to mean that From nothing Sat came into being? This would be like saying that a pair of horns have come out of the head of a rabbit; that flowers are growing in the sky; or that an impotent person has borne children. Therefore what has been said at first is the truth, and this is supported by Badarayana in his Sutra, Asaditi chenna pratishedha matratvat (II. 1. 7). He has sufficiently expounded Asat in this Sutra as meaning that infinitesimally small matter. What is Brahman? And how is it clearly understood and how are doubts relating to it cleared by going into the Vedas and the Agamas? It is for clearing doubts and for realizing Brahman from the Vedas and the Agamas that Jijnasa is needed. Brahman is possessed of endless power and is the sole cause of the visible and the invisible worlds and is the author of worldly attractions (pasu) and bondage (pasa), of Sakala and Nishkala (the faulty and faultless), of Sthula and Sukshma; he exhibits himself as Chit and achit; he

is possessed of endless good qualities (anantakalyanaguna); he is all happiness. What is Jiva? It is endless (anadi); from birth bound down by Maya (Mayapasabaddha); eternally kept in family ties of no consequence. (ghora apara nissara samsara vyapara); always subject to tapatraya (three kinds of passions); and consequently always subject to birth and death (nana sarira pravesa nirgama). Also, it is ever immersed in self-pride (abhimana visishta), which results in desires and anger (kama krodha) leading to sukha and dukkha (i.e., happiness and sorrow). The Jiva is the abode of all (this) happiness and misery (Sukha and Dukkha). This is Jivatman. The Jiva and Brahman appear to possess mutually contradictory qualities; both are beginningless (ajanya) and both are eternal (avinasi). Are both these one or different is the doubt raised in our minds? In the Veda (i.e., Upanishads) since texts like Tatvamasi, Aham Brahmasmi, Brahmavid Brahmayeva bhavati, etc., etc., occur denoting abheda between the two (i.e. Brahman and Jiva), it is not meet to distinguish between the Jiva and the Brahman as being different from each other. To so distinguish between them would be wrong. The texts above quoted would be rendered meaningless if we distinguished between them, though Brahman is described as possessed of saviseshatva and the Jiva is described as possessed of parichchedatva, the Jiva's qualities being Mayapasabaddha (i.e. Brahman is possessed of never-ending good qualities. and the Jiva is ever subject to alterations in the forms of Sukha and Dukkha, Janana and Marana, etc.). When Maya leaves him, the Jiva will be one with the Brahman-agreeby to the Upanishadic texts mentioned below. Ghata (the pot) is indestructible (matter); but the Jiva is in the ghata and can obtain liberation by coming out of the ghata. And when it comes out, it joins Brahman influenced by atmajnana, as it is said, Sa atma neti neti, asthulam, ananvam, adirgham, etc., in the Upanishads. These are qualities of the Brahman which cannot be kept in bondage (parichchedatva). So Brahman is fully described in the

Upanishads as being quite free from the touch of all worldly connections-Sthula sukshma prapancha vyaTherefore such a Brahman should be discussed and understood. vrutta. Sripati opines that the first Sutra should be answered affirmatively. He says Brahmajigynasa yuktah, i.e., it is meet to discuss the nature of Brahman. In support he quotes texts such as: Brahmavid apnoti param; Gnatva sivam santam atyantam yeti; Isam gnatva amrita bhavanti; Dhyana nirmathanabhyasat pasam dahati panditah; Siva ekodhyeyah sivam karah; Sarvam anyat parityajya; Ksharam pradhanam amrutaksharam harah; Ksharatmana vikshate deva ekah; Tasyabhidhyanadyojanat tatvabhavat bhuyasyante visvamaya nivrittih; Tamakratum pasyati vitasoko dhatu prasadan mahimanam isam; Gnatva devam muchyate sarva pasaih, etc. By discussing the nature of such a Brahman according to Vedic and Upanishadic texts, Brahmajnana is obtained: to know that the Jiva is not different from Brahman. After knowing this, the Jiva will be rid of all bondage created by worldly ties. There will be extinction of sorrow and finally the Jiva will obtain paramapurusharthatva, which is ParaSivatva, i.e., Para-Brahmatva. Sripati starts with Brahmatva and arrives at ParaSivatva. So this Brahman is Para-Siva, i.e., Paramasiva.ª³ The Why It is significant that Sripati calls his work Brahmamimasa, etc., and not Sariraka-mimamsa, etc. former is in accordance with Anandatirtha's designation; while the latter is the designation of Sankara. Sripati does so will be evident when we remember that he accepts the dualistic theory up to a limit, whereas Sankara does not. Sankara advisedly designates his work Sariraka-mimamsa because he identifies in argument Sarira (the human or individual Soul) with the 93 Cp. Parosi Narayanayeva nanyatha in Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva, where Para means above all ",

Brahman.0+ Sripati's three points are:-Samsaya, Doubt Vishaya, Subject; and Prayojana, Result. The result of discussing of Brahman is to know that he is no other than Jiva and to break off the curtain separating them is the object of the Jijnasa. There is difference between Bhramara and Kita, between loha and rasa. When the bhranti is gone, then the kita becomes bhramara, rasa becomes loha. In the same way, Tatvamasi and the like texts in the Upanishads expound the view that there is no difference between the two-the Jiva and the Brahman, i.e., they will be one when the screen of ajnana is removed. It is very clearly stated in the Srutis, without the least doubt, that just as all rivers, as stated in Sruti texts like Yatha nadyah syandamanah samudre astam gachchanti namarupe vihaya tatha vidvannama rupad vimuktah paratparam purushamu paiti divyam iti, enter the sea and become one with it, losing their separate individualities and names, similarly a wise man-after obtaining wisdom -gets himself free from his name and form and gets into para and parama purusham, i.e., the highest effulgent Self, i.e., Brahman. So it is that all Srutis declare that Jiva is capable of attaining to Brahmatva. This cannot well be otherwise-this is not said for the sake of formality; else all the abovenamed Upanishadic texts will not have spoken the Truth. Not only that; they will also have differed from the primary teaching of the Ikshyatadhikaranam (I. 1. 5). And we will also be vainly troubling our mind for a thing of no consequence with a matter from which we cannot obtain liberation (Moksha). But every Sruti (ex: states that there is Moksha. 94 Sariraka.-From Sarira, which means relating to the body; hence, the incorporate or embodied spirit; human or individual soul. Sariraka, therefore, means relating to the body; corporal; incorporate, embodied (as the soul). Sariraka is the inquiry into the nature of that spirit (ie., the embodied spirit), a term adopted by Sankara and Ramanuja for their Bhashyas on the Brahma-Sutras.

Sripati next passes on to formulate how he differs from Sankara. According to the Upanishadic text Aham ajnah, etc., which means "I am ignorant," etc., whereby the Jiva says that he is environed by bondage of attractive bodily (worldly) ties. If such a thought as Aham ajnah is entertained by the Jiva, even as the result of ignorance or otherwise (mayapasa baddha), then it would amount to this that the Brahman, who is nirvisesha (i.e., attributeless) is bound by mayopadhi, i.e., ignorance or illusion, which cannot be explained how it could be, while the Veda explains, Yas sarvagnas sarvavit iti, Prajnanam Brahma iti, etc., i.e., that the Jiva who is all-knowing and who is a pragna, how can he fall into ignorance (or become subject to illusion). If this were conceded, one would be falling a prey to confusion of thoughts as regards the qualities of Brahman and the Jiva. If avidya is conceded, there is no chance of attaining Brahmatva (Brahmatva bhanga). If Brahman is really subject to avidya, and if avidya is also one of the entities, then there will be the fallacy called. anyonya asraya. (That is, Brahman will have been associated with avidya and avidya with Brahman, which is mutually contradictory).05 Further, the Sruti text goes: Aprano hyamanassubhrah. As Brahman is said to be devoid of mind (manah) and life (prana), how can such a Brahman be subject to the influence of Maya? Here Sankara's theory that manah and prana disappear at one stage, is disputed. Sripati asks, at such a stage how can Brahman be subject to the influence of Maya? In reply, if we admit that the Jiva is subject to ignorance (i.e., Maya), then we have to admit that there is something else beyond Brahman (Brahmanantara) to remove this ignorance (Maya). If so, unsettledness (i.e., confusion) will prevail. The Taittiriya text Vacharambhanam vikaro namadheyam mrittiketyeva satyam and other similar Upanishadic texts, state that 95 Anyonya asraya (anyonya asrayah).-This is a term in Nyaya which treats of the fallacy of the reciprocal relation of cause and effect. The term suggests mutual or reciprocal dependence, support, or connection. 18 F

the world forms the body of Isvara, Prapanchasya tadatmyabodhakatvam vidhiyate nacha mithyatvam. This means that the world cannot be unreal as it forms the body of Isvara, which again is clearly formulated by the Sutra Tadananyatva marambhana sabdadibhyah, which states that the world which was created was brought into existence in his own (bodily) form. If there is untruth in this Sutra is the body untrue or Isvara Himself untrue? Not the first -not the body; not the second- because the Sruti says Sadeva somyeda magra asit, i.e., that Being existed originally (from before the creation). If we now accept that there was some one else also, then we will be forced to admit that the Advaita doctrine is contradicted (bhanga). Therefore, just as darkness and brightness prevail, we have to admit that bheda and abheda co-exist. Because the two forms, Dvaita and Advaita, seen in Isvara, in the forms of Sarira and Asarira, always exist as the subjects of discussion. Therefore, those holding the tenets of Nirviseshadvaita will find that Adhyasa (Ajnana, i.e., Maya) is not clearly made out. Therefore, Advaitins cannot hold that Vyavahara is only true so long as we are in the world and not after we have left it. This process of reasoning is fallacious. Because if Abheda is accepted by us, as urged by them, the Bheda enunciated in the Sruti text, Dva suparnau sayujau sakhayau iti, cannot be explained easily. If exclusively bheda is accepted, then the abheda enumerated in Sruti texts like Tatvamasi, etc., cannot be met. Therefore to meet the arguments of all the Srutis taken together, the only natural way open is the enunciation of the doctrine of Dvaitadvaita, which will be in accord with both sets of Sruti texts. If we belittle Sruti texts in any way, we will only be stultifying ourselves. By so belittling Sruti texts, we will be approaching the domain of Buddhism, which denies the authority of the Vedas. Vedic texts like Yatova imani bhutani jayante, etc., declare that the world and the creatures in it have been created by Brahman. This proves that the world consists

of both Dvaita and Advaita consisting of cause and effect, as expounded by the Sutra, Pratigna siddherlingamasmarathyah, etc., and the two Sutras following it (I. 4. 21-22). In these Sutras the different tenets of the three doctrines of the Vedanta philosophy (Bheda, Abheda, Bhedabheda) are clearly explained. And subsequent Sutras like Ubhaya vyapadesattvahi kundalavat (III. 2. 26) establish the fact that the Bhedabheda doctrine is the only doctrine that can be pointed to as not being open to any objection and as one not suffering from any contradiction. Agreeably to this view, it is explained in the Suta Samhita, Bhedabhedastathabhedo bheda ete matastrayah iti, etc. Also in the Mahimnastava, it is thus declared: Dhruvam kaschid brute sakala ma parastva dhruvam idam paro dravyadravyah iti, etc. Thus according to some, everything is true and eternal; according to others, everything is unreal-both material and immaterial.