Advaita and Brahmasutras

Baadaraayana’s “Brahmasutras” is one of the three canons of ancient Indian spiritual tradition, the other two being the “Upani­shads” and the “Bhagavadgita”. This presents the essential teachings of the Upanishads in 555 aphorisms in an analytical and coherent manner, reconciling the apparent contradictions we come across in the Upanishadic statements, and clarifying the meanings of some obscure words with cogent arguments based on logic, reasoning and scriptures.

Acharyas of all schools of thought, excepting nihilists and atheists, commented upon this work, and interpreted the aphorisms according to their own lights. Thus arose a motley of interpretations. An eager and inquisitive student is at a loss to grasp and arrive at the correct purport of the Sutras and read the heart of Baadaraayana.

In this context, Advaitins contend that the main import of the aphorisms cannot but be the Advaita as propounded by Sri Shankara, and that it is so, can be substantiated by a close and keen examination of the meanings of some Sutras themselves, and the wording therein.

Among all Sutras, the Sutra “Shaastra drishtyaa tu upadeso vaamadevaadivat” .(Br. 1-1-30), is a boon-yielding gem­–S. Chintaamani for Advaitins. So declares Sri Paramaachaarya of Kanchi Kaamakoti Mutt.

            Meaning of the Sutra – But the instruction here is from the scriptural vision (Seer’s vision) as in the case of Vaamadeva and others.

            The context – Pratardana, son of Divodaasa went to Indra’s beloved place, through war and valour. Indra asked him to choose a boon. Pratardana said, “You yourself choose for me a boon, which you deem is most beneficial to mankind”. Then Indra instructed Pratardana as follows. “Know me alone I (Indra) am Praana identified with consciousness (Prajnaa). You meditate upon me who am life (aayu) and immortality. That one is surely this Praana, which is bliss, ageless and deathless. The man who knows me is not harmed by any act, neither by theft nor by killing of foetus (Bhrunahatyaa) I killed Visvarupa, the three-headed son of Tvastra ... etc. Even though I committed such heinous crimes, not a hair was lost”. (Kaushitaki Upanishat)

            Doubt. Indra in his instruction “know me” referred to himself in the first person. Then he identified himself with Praana. This Praana he said is bliss and consciousness, etc. Who is this “me”? Is it Indra the divine being, Praana the vital air, Jiva, or Brahman whose knowledge makes one immune from all sins?

            Answer–. Baadaraayana says that “me” here means Brahman. Indra gave that instruction not as Indra, but as one who realised Brahman and hence became Brahman. It was as Brahman he spoke. He instructed Pratardana to meditate upon Brahman. He eulogised not himself, but the knowledge of Brahman, by saying “not a hair was lost.”

Baadaraayana says, Indra instructed from scriptural vision, or seer’s vision. What is this seer’s vision? “Aham Brahma asmi”. “Tat tvam asi” “Ayam Aatmaa Brahma”, (I am Brahman, That art Thou, This Atman is Brahman) etc., which are the Upanishadic statements, treasure this vision. Indra had this vision and hence he could speak so. “Know me” (Me - Brahman).

Is there any other such instance? Yes. Vaamadeva, a sage, and many others spoke in this vein, “Brihadaaranyaka Upanishat” describes thus. “Whosoever among gods” Rishis, or men know that (Brahman), becomes that “He becomes all this and is in all. Sage Vaamadeva saw (know) Brahman, became that, and declared “I was Manu and I was Surya”. As Brahman, Vaamadeva also became all and all-pervading, the immanent soul of all, and hence declared I was Manu, etc. (Sarvaatmaa) It is in this light that we have to understand Indra’s instruction, Baadarayana says, This is Sri Shankara’s interpretation of the Sutra and based on this he propounds that there is no difference between Atman and Brahman who are identical with each other.

Sri Ramanuja here differs from Shankara. Scriptural vision according to him means as follows. The non-difference enunciated in the statements “Tat Tvam asi”, etc., is that which exists between “Sharira”, body and “Sharirin” the embodied one, “antaryaamin”. This is the seer’s vision. According to this “Tat” refers to Brahman and “tvam” refers to Jiva as His body. Jiva stands for all this gross phenomena. He who has me or thee as his body (Antaryaamin) and He are the same. This in essence is the meaning of the sentence “Aham Brahmaasmi” or “Tat tvam asi”. According to this, Indra’s instruction means “Meditate upon him who has me as His body”. To get this meaning, Sri Ramanuja enunciates an axiom that, “Words denotative of sharira, body, extend their meaning to or connote” Dehi – shariri. The embodied also.

Advaitins do not accept this axiom. If we accept this axiom we have to face many hurdles, they say, and many incongruities crop up.

(a) There is a Vedic injunction “Braahmano Yajeta” – A Brahmin should perform Vedic sacrifices. The word Braahmana, or Paramaatman and this Vedic injunction should apply to Him also. This is most blasphemous as then, ‘He’ should also reap the fruits of that Karma and experience the misery or happiness resulting thereof.

(b) The word “tvam” in the vocative case cannot denote the idea of “the embodied one” (Sariri), and nowhere is it seen so.

(c) The meaning of the word “tvam” does not qualify the meaning of the word “Tat”. On the other hand the latter is to be construed as an adjective to the former with the relationship of “abheda” – non-difference (Tadabhinnah tvam asi). Thou art not different from Him). Tvam is a Viseshya = noun. Then only the word “tvam” agrees with the verb “asi” in the second person. The word “Tat” expressing Paramaatman, in the third person does not agree with “asi”. “Tat” is not the body of “tvam”. Similarly in the sentence “Aham Brahma asmi” Aham = Jiva, also must be the “Viseshya” as it alone agrees with the verb “asmi” in the third person. Construction of these sentences, or the words in the sentences in the reverse form is not admissible.

(d) At this juncture, we have to consider some other Upani­shadic sentences. In the Aitareya Aranyaka (2-2.46) we have the following sentences addressed to the Being in the solar orb “Tat Yoham Sosau” “Yosau Soham”. He is the same as I am, I am the same as He is. Similarly Jabalis declare as follows. “Oh, glorious deity. I am what you are. Thou art what I am”. (“Tvam va aham asmi Bhagavo aham vai tvam asi”).

Here there is reciprocity between He and I, and you and ‘I’. Here Aham means ‘I’ Jiva, Tvam = Paramatman (Dehi Antaryami – the embodied in most of all.) Here there is no trouble with the sentence “Aham vai tvam asi”. Thou art me (= Thee having me as your body - or the embodied in me). “Tvam vai aham asmi” cannot be construed likewise. It must mean “I (your body) am thee”? But Paramaatman can never be the body. Words denotative of body may connote the embodied one, but Paramaatman the embodied one cannot connote the body. It may however be argued that the word “tvam” means Paramaatman possessed of all virtues and “aham” means Paramaatman having “me” as his body. Then there can be identity between the two. In fact He is the same in both the instances. But in that case there is no use of reciprocal sentences. One sentence “My inner self art thou” is only sufficient. We cannot say reciprocity strengthens the idea of identity, because there is no doubt at all as to the identity of the “antaryaamino’ and the Paramaatman. There is doubt in the case of the identity of Jiva and Paramaatman only, because of their finiteness and infiniteness in many respects. So the said axiom cannot be accepted and hence the Advaita or non-difference alone of Jivaand Paramaatman has to be accepted.

Some Sutras also are not favourable to the Visishtadvaitins “Aakaasah Tallingaat” (1-1-22). This Sutra decrees that the word. “Aaakaasha” = space in the Upanishadic sentence, all things originate from space, merge in space – space is greater than all, and is the ultimate goal” (Chandogya 1-10-1), denotes Brahman alone, because of the Brahman’s indicatory marks (all things originate, merge etc.). According to the said axiom, space, one of His bodies, must also denote Him having itself as His body. Then there should not arise any doubt. Since Baadaraayana framed this Sutra, we have to conclude that he did not approve of this axiom, and the resulting interpretations thereof, and hence framed this Sutra.

The aphorism “Sukha Visishtaabhidhaanaadeva cha” (1-2-15) also is not favourable to them. The context is as follows. Sacrificial fires instructed Upakosala a celibate who tended them with care as follows: “Praana is Brahman”. Bliss is Brahman” , “space is Brahman” (Chandogya Upanishad 4-10-4), Upakosala said. “I know that Praana (Sutraatman) is Brahman. I do not know how bliss–­which is the result of contact of sensory organs and their objects, and is ephemeral and the inert material space – can be Brahman, the eternal and consciousness. The fires replied, “That which is Bliss is space and that which is apace is Bliss”. Here the word space is qualified by bliss. By this we have to understand that the space spoken of here is not the material space, but Brahman the infinite, that is, possessed of bliss (material space does not possess it) and is bliss itself. Now then the Sutra says, the word space here means Brahman, as the space is said to possess bliss. According to the axiom, the word space can directly connote Brahman, when there should arise no doubt as to it&’ meaning and no necessity for this Sutra. Baadaraayana evidently did not accept this. So he used the word “Visishtaabhidhaanaad” in the Sutra.

Another Sutra “Atman iti tu Upagacchanti” (4-1-3) also be­comes superfluous and unnecessary, if Sri Ramanuja’s view is accepted.
How to meditate upon and realise Brahman? This Sutra answers “Upanishads declare Brahman as the self and hence is to be realised as identical with Atman and as not different from it. This is in consonance with the statement “Aham Brahma”, “Atmaa Brahma”. ThisSutra, if other view holds good, should have been as “Aatma-Shariri” Atmaa – the embodied one. It is not so.

From such arguments as these, Advaitins claim that their interpretation is in accordance with Baadaraayana’s views.

(Ref: Brahmasutreshu Advaita Bhaavah – by Sri S. Krishna Murthy Sastry in the Advaitaakshara Maalikaa.)