Essay name: Srikara Bhashya (commentary)

Author: C. Hayavadana Rao

The Srikara Bhashya, authored by Sripati Panditacharya in the 15th century, presents a comprehensive commentary on the Vedanta-Sutras of Badarayana (also known as the Brahmasutra). These pages represent the introduction portion of the publication by C. Hayavadana Rao.

Page 345 of: Srikara Bhashya (commentary)

Page:

345 (of 953)


External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)


Download the PDF file of the original publication


Warning! Page nr. 345 has not been proofread.

284
INTRODUCTION
Atharvana text:-Tamēvaikam janatha ātmānam anyā-
vāchō vimunchatha || Understand him alone definitely
as Atma and leave away all other words. Texts like
Asuptēḥ āmrutēḥ kālam nayēt vēdinta chintayā 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 Chandrō-
daya, in the Yadvatō Vidyadhivat-adhikarana, the
Paramāradhyas have been stated to have attained the
Brahman without any means other than the one above
described. From the expression parisankhyā vā śrava-
nadishu sambhavēt, it would seem that sometimes the
parisankhyā 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.
Object of Jignasa is Brahman.
Therefore in this Sūtra, the chief matter for considera-
tion being the knowledge of Brahman as the desired result,
the object is, therefore, according to the Srutis, Brahman
alone. It should not be supposed that this desired
knowledge of Brahman may be obtained by any other
method as suggested by the word kartavya. (It is hinted
that the vidhitraya should be adopted for the purpose.)
Brahman is not always attributeless (Sadā Brahmanō
na nirviśēshatvam). If he is ever attributeless, what is left
to one to enquire about Brahman? The Sruti text goes :-
Parāsya saktiḥ vividhaiva śrūyatē svābhāvikī gnāna bala
kriya cha
The Brahman to be discussed and known has
always two forms, corporeal and incorporeal (mūrtāmūrta-
tram). Sruti texts like Dvěvāva Brahmaṇōrūpē Tadādi
madhyānta vihīnamēkam vibhum chidānandamarūpa madbhu-
tam || Umāsahāyam paramēśvaram prabhum trilōchanam
Nilakantham praśāntam Dhyātvā munirgachchati bhūta-
yōnim samastasākshim tamasaḥ parastāt etc., sufficiently
well declare that such (both) forms (of Brahman) should be
thought of. Else the meaning intended by the Sruti texts
||

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: