[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 01:11:40 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
-
References: <ghenDz4Lxr.4zI@netcom.com>
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote in article
<ghenDz4Lxr.4zI@netcom.com>...
>
> namaste.
>
> I have just obtained Swami Gambhirananda's translation of Shankara's
Brahma
> Sutra Bhashya (SBSB) from the Vedanta book store. It seems like a good
> translation to me
It's ok. The particular English words used to translate Sanskrit terms are
often unneccessarily unclear.
>(I have not read the Sanskrit original, and even I do, I'm
> sure I wouldn't understand it).
Well if you don't try you certainly won't. But why not make an attempt?
It would be time much better spent than reading translations of dubious
worth.
I am not the person to comment on how great
> a book the SBSB is, but there are some points that I'd like to share with
you
> all:
>
> 1) The SBSB begins with a preamble, and then proceeds onto commenting on
> the Brahma Sutras. The style is that of an (advaita) Vedantin either
arguing
> with an opponent or resolving doubts [of a student of advaita Vedanta].
> The opponent is so well read and argues with such force and clarity that
it
> becomes evident that the opponent too is none but Shankara himself!
>
> The first verse is,"Hence (is to be undertaken) thereafter a deliberation
on
> Brahman."
>
And what does thereafter (atah) mean? After the inquiry into Dharma which
is the topic of the Purva Mimamsa. This is why Vedanta is known as Uttara
Mimamsa.
[...]
> 2) Does Shankara accept Gautama, the Nyaya philosopher, as a knower of
Brahman?
>
> The SBSB (1.1.4) says,"There is also in evidence the aphorism of the
> great teacher Gautama, supported by reasoning..." and Shankara quotes
from
> the Nyaya Sutra (1.1.2).
>
Notice the view is only accepted as it is supported by reasoning. This
sutra is against the Buddhists. Advaita has always been willing to use the
views of others to its own ends. Quoting Gautama or even addressing him
respectfully (he is due respect on account of being a Vedic Rshi if nothing
else.) doesn't imply Shankaracharya in any way endorses the overall views
of the Nyaya-Vaisheshikas.
> 3) In SBSB(1.1.4), Shankara argues that mukti is not a thing to be
acquired,
> for it is ever-present: "...And no dependence on work can be proved by
assuming
> liberation to be a thing to be acquired; for it being essentially one
with
> one's very Self, there can be no acquisition. Even if Brahman be
different from
> oneself, there can be no acquisition, for Brahman being all pervasive
like
> space, It remains ever attained by everybody..."
>
> What struck me as strange was why Shankara should even consider the
possibility
> of Brahman being different from the Self. The argument that liberation is
> eternal since Brahman is one's Self seems quite sufficient.
>
Actually what Shankaracharya is arguing against is a theory held by some
early Vedantins that knowledge of Brahman is an action to be performed (in
the Mimamsak sense.)
> 4) Shankara, being Self-realized, is above any personality. But the
author of
> SBSB does have a personality which can at best be described as
*orthodox*,
> for he scrupulously agrees word for word with the Brahma Sutras even in
cases
> like animal-sacrifice and prohibition of the Shudra from knowledge of the
Vedas.
>
> Shankara, in accordance with the Brahms Sutras, seems to firmly hold that
a
> *born shudra* has no competence to study the Vedas. He gives argument
after
> argument why this is so.
>
> The verse is BSB (1.3.38) and a few preceding verses.
>
> BSB (1.3.38): " And because the smriti prohibits for the Shudra the
hearing,
> study, and acquisition of the meaning (of the vedas)."
>
> The opponent actually gives quite a coherent argument why the Shudras
should be
> allowed to study the Vedas,"..the apparent conclusion is that a Shudra
also is
> qualified, for he can have the aspiration and ability. And unlike the
> prohibition `Therefore the Shudra is unfit for performing sacrifices
(Taittiriya
> Samhita VII. i. 1.6),' no prohibition against his acquisition of
illumination
> is met with...And in the smritis are mentioned Vidura and others as born
in the
> Shudra caste but endowed with special knowledge. Hence Shudras have
competence
> for different kinds of knowledge."
>
> The Vedantin now quotes from smriti to prove that a Shudra is NOT allowed
access
> to the vedas, ending with "...a born Shudra has no right to knowledge
through
> the Vedas." But the Vedantin (i.e. Shankara) does admit that a Shudra is
> competent to study anecdotes and mythologies.
>
Anecdotes and mythologies here is a (bad) translation of Itihasa and
Purana.
> I'm sure many would've heard the story of Buddha, who, on seeing a goat
> about to be sacrificed, offered his own body for sacrifice (either taking
pity
> on the goat or to show that such sacrifices are wrong). Surely Shankara
would
> also agree that killing of animals for sacrifices is sinful?
>
> No. The Brahma Sutras say in (3.1.25): "If it be argued that rites
> (involving killing of animals) is unholy, we say, no, since they are
sanctioned
> by scriptures."
>
> Shankara agrees," ...knowledge of virtue and vice is derived from the
> scriptures. The scriptures alone are the source for knowing that such an
act is
> virtuous, for merit and demerit are supersensuous realities and they are
not
> invariable for all space, time, and environment. Any deed that is
performed
> as virtuous in relation to certain place, time, and circumstances,
becomes
> non-virtuous in relation to other places, times, and circumstances, so
that
> nobody can have any knowledge about virtue and vice unless it be from the
> scriptures. And from the scriptures, it is ascertained that the
Jyotishtoma
> sacrifice, involving injury, favour, etc., is virtuous."
>
A lot of perplexity can be avoided if we stop relying on faulty premises.
Instead of proceeding from the notion that Shankaracharya is
"self-realized" whatever the hell that means, think of him as one of a long
line of teachers in the Vedic tradition -- the entire Vedic tradition
consisting of Purva and Uttara Mimamsa. Then you'll find he makes a lot
more sense.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!
