Part 24.5 - Devadharana Necessary for Jijnasa

Again, the Sruti text Apama (somamamruta abhuma) etc., which agrees with what is enunciated in Smriti texts like :-Abhuta samplava sthanam amrutatvam hi bhavyam, etc., which state that those who go to mukti after the dissolution (Pralaya) of the world is complete, must be considered to have entered the Abode of All and become eternal. Accordingly the vidhi of Devadharanam, though fixed by reason of a general requirement (sadharanakaranatvena) eventually leads to final bliss (amrutatva). Therefore, in order to definitely know the Pasupati svarupa Brahman, the enquiry into Vedanta (Vedantavakya vichara) must necessarily be undertaken after devadharana vidhi. This means that devadharana vidhi is necessary for Brahma-jijnasa and that both are necessary to attain the knowledge of the Brahman. Accordingly the Sruti text thus enunciates the Brahma-jijnasa vidhi :Satyakamah satyasankalpah so'nveshtavyah sa vijignasitavyah " Atma va're drashtavyah srotavyah mantavyah nididhyasitavyah" Also in the Sruti text Prapanchopa- samam santam sivam advaitam chaturtham manyante sa Atma sa vigneyah etc., the word Atman" is definitely intended to have no other meaning than Parasiva. " Here in the Sutra, Brahmano-jijnasa etc. is karmani shashthi and not sesha shashthi, because we must take it to have been used in the genitive case as a prescribed vidhi and not as a jijnasa that could be treated lightly and as used in the sesha shashthi (jignasyopekshitatvat sesha shashthi parigrahane). Therefore Brahmano-jijnasa

should be considered as sambandha samanya nishthatva which method determines the idea of Brahman as an important (pradhana) result. Some say that in this Sutra the word kartavya need not be understood (as a necessary addition). If this word is not supplied, then the Sutra which suggests that there is a definite object to be gained (ie., Brahma knowledge through jijnasa), will end in a fruitless discussion (nish prayojananuvade doshabhavat). But if one asks how will the mere supplying of the word kartavya remove all doubt, then we answer that according to the Sruti text Vishnurupamsu yashtavyo ajamitvaye etc., in which the suffix tavya shows that what cannot be attained in any other way can be attained in this particular way. Similarly in the texts Tattvamasi, Ayamatma Brahma, 113 etc., wherein also the mode of discussion is involved, such a suffix as tavya should be understood and supplied. For this Sutra is one which should be discussed and then a decision arrived at according to the Vidhyapekshitanyaya (which lays down that a prescribed rule should be followed before arriving at a conclusion) and therefore a common verb which will satisfy both the Sruti and the Sruti and Sutra should be supplied. Therefore the word jijnasa should be taken to mean the discussion which is intended to determine the bhedabheda vichara denoted in the mahavakyas such as Tattvamasi, etc. To state that Sruti texts like Yatha nadyah syandamanah samudre || Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati Gnatva Sivam santim atyantameti || Nanyah pantha vidyate ayanaya || etc., etc., enunciate the unity of the Brahman and the jiva and make such unity the chief characteristic (lakshana) of both is un-Vedic, because by so doing we would be leaving out of consideration their primary meaning. Such an interpretation will end in the contradiction of the Ikshatyadhikaranam. 112 Chchandogya Upanishad, VI. 8. 7 and VI. 9. 3. 113 Brihad. Upanishad, IV. 5. 19; Mandukya Upanishad, I. 2.

|| na Further Sruti texts like Tamevam viditva atimrityumeti Nanyah pantha vidyate ayanaya Dhyatva munirgachchati bhutayonim samastasakshim tamasah parastat " etc., enunciate that only a dual method of worship of God Siva (bhinnatmopasakasyaiva) will bring unity with God. Sruti texts like Tarati Sokam Atmavit " Atma va're drashtavyah etc., assuredly lay down that a dualistic mode of worship only should be adopted.111 And only he who adopts such a dualistic mode of worship as is laid down in the Sruti texts referred to, realizes the duality that exists between Atma and jiva (Sruti-vihitatmopasanasya bhinnatma vishayatvam siddham). But the parisankhya niyama 115 vidhi is not always applicable. Nor does one who adopts a separate form of worship (sadhana) obtain unison with God (samuchchitya praptyabhavat). To one who follows a different mode of adoration, Vedanta vichara is impossible throughout his life. It will result in sin (for him to attempt it). Also, is it necessary for one who wants to attain unity with God that he should be a Sanyasi or an Asanyasi; (we answer) he need not be the latter, for it is impossible for him (asakyatvat); nor need he be the former, for he must be one who rigidly follows all the conditions that bind a Sanyasi. It is said in the Chchandogya text, Brahmasamsthah amrutatvameti, no one else except he who follows strictly the mukti sadhana can attain Brahman (amrutatva). For it is said in the Sruti texts like :Sampurvatishtates samapti vachitvasya agnishtoma samsthe etc. The phrase Brahma samstha referred to in the Chchandogya texts means no other form except that of Brahman (ananya vyapararupatvat), as stated in the 114 The idea is that aikya results only when there is the relationship of pujya and pujaka, upasya and upasaka. 115 Parisankhya in the Mimamsa philosophy means exclusion or limitation to that which is enumerated or expressly mentioned, so that everything else is excluded. Parisankhya is opposed to vidhi which lays down a rule for the first time, and to niyama which restricts the choice to an alternative which is expressly stated when several such alternatives are possible.

Atharvana text:-Tamevaikam janatha atmanam anyavacho vimunchatha || Understand him alone definitely as Atma and leave away all other words. Texts like Asupteh amruteh kalam nayet vedinta chintaya and others occurring in the Srutis, declare that one should never employ any means other than the prescribed vidhi which alone will lead to the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore, this is the chief vidhi prescribed. In the Kaivalya Chandrodaya, in the Yadvato Vidyadhivat-adhikarana, the Paramaradhyas have been stated to have attained the Brahman without any means other than the one above described. From the expression parisankhya va sravanadishu sambhavet, it would seem that sometimes the parisankhya vidhi may also be employed to attain the knowledge of Brahman. But such a method is not always to be taken as the chief one of the three vidhis mentioned.