तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत्, तन्नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियत, असौनामायमिदंरूप इति; तदिदमप्येतर्हि नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियते, असौनामायमिदंरूप इति; स एष इह प्रविष्ट आ नखाग्रेभ्यः, यथा क्षुरः क्षुरधानेऽवहितः स्यात्, विश्वम्भरो वा विश्वम्भरकुलाये; तं न पश्यन्ति । अकृत्स्नो हि सः, प्राणन्नेव प्राणो नाम भवति, वदन् वाक्, पश्यंश्चक्षुः, शृण्वन् श्रोत्रम्, मन्वानो मनः; तान्यस्यैतानि कर्मनामान्येव । स योऽत एकैकमुपास्ते न स वेद, अकृत्स्नो ह्येषोऽत एकैकेन भवति; आत्मेत्येवोपासीत, अत्र ह्येते सर्व एकम् भवन्ति । तदेतत्पदनीयमस्य सर्वस्य यदयमात्मा, अनेन ह्येतत्सर्वं वेद । यथा ह वै पदेनानुविन्देदेवम्; कीर्तिं श्लोकं विन्दते य एवं वेद ॥ ७ ॥taddhedaṃ tarhyavyākṛtamāsīt, tannāmarūpābhyāmeva vyākriyata, asaunāmāyamidaṃrūpa iti; tadidamapyetarhi nāmarūpābhyāmeva vyākriyate, asaunāmāyamidaṃrūpa iti; sa eṣa iha praviṣṭa ā nakhāgrebhyaḥ, yathā kṣuraḥ kṣuradhāne'vahitaḥ syāt, viśvambharo vā viśvambharakulāye; taṃ na paśyanti | akṛtsno hi saḥ, prāṇanneva prāṇo nāma bhavati, vadan vāk, paśyaṃścakṣuḥ, śṛṇvan śrotram, manvāno manaḥ; tānyasyaitāni karmanāmānyeva | sa yo'ta ekaikamupāste na sa veda, akṛtsno hyeṣo'ta ekaikena bhavati; ātmetyevopāsīta, atra hyete sarva ekam bhavanti | tadetatpadanīyamasya sarvasya yadayamātmā, anena hyetatsarvaṃ veda | yathā ha vai padenānuvindedevam; kīrtiṃ ślokaṃ vindate ya evaṃ veda || 7 ||
Through what kind of vision can he know It? This is being explained: The Self alone is to be meditated upon. That which possesses the characteristics such as living that have been mentioned—includes them—is the Self. Combining all the characteristics, It then becomes the whole. It is as the Reality that It includes those characteristics due to the functions of particular limiting adjuncts such as the vital force. As it will be said later on, ‘It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were’ (IV. iii. 7). Therefore the Self alone is to be meditated upon. When perceived thus as the Reality, It becomes complete. How is It complete? This is being answered: For all these differences due to the limiting adjuncts such as the vital force, and denoted by names arising from the functions of living etc., as described above, are unified in It, become one with the unconditioned Self, as the different reflections of the sun in water become one in the sun.
[Page 126] ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon'—this is not an original injunction (but a restrictive one), for meditation on the Self is known as a possible alternative. (In fact, neither injunction is necessary on the point, for this meditation is inevitable, in the following way:) The knowledge of the Self has been imparted by such Śruti passages dealing with the subject as, 'The Brahman that is immediate and direct' (III. iv. 1-2; III. v. 1), ‘Which is the Self? This (infinite entity) that is identified with the intellect,’ etc. (IV. iii. 7). The very knowledge of the nature of the Self removes the ignorance about It, consisting in identification with the non-Self, and the superimposing of action, its factors, principal and subsidiary, and its results (on the Self). When that is removed, evils such as desire cannot exist, and consequently thinking of the non-Self is also gone. Hence on the principle of the residuum thinking of the Self follows as a matter of course. Therefore meditation on It, from this point of view, has not to be enjoined, for it is already known (from other sources).
On this some say: Apart from the question whether meditation on the Self is known as just a [Page 127]possible alternative or as something that is always known, the present case must be an original injunction, for knowledge and meditation being the same, this (meditation on the Self) is not something already known. The clause, ‘He does not know,’ introduces knowledge, and the sentence, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ coming just after that, indicates that the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘meditation’ have the same meaning. Such Śruti texts as, ‘For one knows all these through It’ (this text), and ‘It knew only Itself’ (I. iv. 10), show that knowledge is meditation. And this, not being familiar to people, requires an injunction. Nor is a man induced to act merely by a statement of the nature of a thing. Therefore this must be an original injunction.
Its similarity to the injunctions about rites also corroborates this view. For instance, ‘One should sacrifice,’ ‘One should offer oblations,' etc., are injunctions about rites, and we do not see any difference between these and the injunctions about meditation on the Self such as, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ and ‘The Self, my dear, is to be realised’ ill. iv. 5; IV. v. 6). Besides knowledge is a mental act. Just as mental acts are enjoined by such (ritualistic) texts as, ‘Just before uttering the invocation ending with ‘Vauṣaṭ’ (the invoking priest) should meditate upon the deity to whom the offering is to be made’ (Ai. B. XI. viii.), similarly cognitive acts are enjoined by such texts as, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ ‘(The Self) is to be reflected on and meditated upon’ (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6). And we have [Page 128] said that the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘meditation’ are synonymous. Another reason in support of this view is that the requisite effort (in meditation also) should have its three divisions. That is to say, just as in the effort in connection with the injunction, ‘One should sacrifice,’ we know that in order to satisfy our curiosity about the proposed act, it must have three divisions, viz. ‘What is it?’ ‘Through what means?’ and ‘In what way?’—similarly, in the effort in connection with the injunction, ‘One should meditate,’ in answer to one’s queries regarding what to meditate upon, through what means to meditate, and in what way to meditate, the scriptures themselves support these three divisions by saying that the Self is to be meditated upon, through the mind, and by the practice of renunciation, continence, equanimity, self-control, self-withdrawal, fortitude etc., and so on. And just as the entire section dealing with the new and full moon sacrifices etc. is used as part of the injunction regarding these sacrifices, similarly the section of the Upaniṣads dealing with meditation on the Self must be used only as part of the injunction regarding this meditation. Such passages as ‘Not this, not this’ (II. iii. 6), ‘Not. gross,’ (III. viii. 8), ‘One only without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. i), ‘Beyond hunger etc.’ (III. v. i, adapted), are to be used as setting forth the particular nature of the Self, the object of meditation. And the result is liberation or the cessation of ignorance.
[Page 129] Others say that meditation generates a new special kind of consciousness regarding the Self, through which the latter is known, and which alone removes ignorance, and not the knowledge due to the Vedic dicta about the Self. And in support of this view they cite such texts as the following: ‘(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge’ (IV. iv. 21), '(The Self) is to be realised—to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon’ (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6), ‘That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realise’ (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3).
Both views are wrong, for there is no reference to anything else in the passage in question. To be explicit: The sentence, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ is not an original injunction. Why? Because except the knowledge that arises from the dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and refuting the non-Self, there is nothing to be done, either mentally or outwardly. An injunction is appropriate only where, over and above the knowledge that arises immediately from hearing a sentence of the nature of an injunction, an activity on the part of a man is easily understood, as in sentences like, ‘One who desires heaven must perform the new and full moon sacrifices.’ The knowledge arising from a sentence enjoining these sacrifices is certainly not the performance of them. This depends on considerations such as whether a person is entitled to perform them. But apart from the knowledge arising from such passages delineating the Self as, ‘Not this, not this,’ there is no scope for human activity as in the case of the new [Page 130] and full moon sacrifices etc., because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any activity, since such passages as, ‘One only without a second,’ and ‘Thou art That’ (Ch. VI. vii. 7), merely remove the consciousness of any other entity but the Self or Brahman. And when this is gone, np activity is possible, for they^are contradictory to each other.
Objection: The mere knowledge arising from those passages does not suffice to remove the consciousness of entities other than the Self or Brahman.
Reply: Not so, for such passages as, ‘Thou art 1 That,’ ‘Not this, not this,’ ‘All this is but the Self’ (Ch. VII. xxv. 2), ‘One only without a second,’ ‘This universe is but Brahman and immortal' (Mu. II. ii. n), ‘There is no other witness but This’ (III. viii. n), and ‘Know that alone to be Brahman' (Ke. I. 5-9), describe the Reality alone.
Objection: Do they not supply the object for the injunction about realising the Self?
Reply: No, for we have already answered that point by saying that there is no reference to anything else in those passages. That is to say, since sentences such as, ‘Thou art That,’ which only delineate the nature of the Self, immediately lead to Its realisation, there is no further action to be done with regard to the injunction about that realisation.
Objection: A man does not proceed to know the Self immediately on hearing a statement of the nature of the Self, unless there is an injunction to that effect.
Reply: [Page 131] Not so, for the knowledge of the Self is already attained by hearing the dictum about It. So what is the good of doing It over again?
Objection: He may not even proceed to hear about the Self. (So an injunction is necessary.)
Reply: Not so, for it would lead to a regressus in infinitum. In other words, just as without an injunction he does not proceed to hear the meaning of a passage about the Self, similarly he would not, in the absence of another injunction, proceed to hear the meaning of a passage enjoining this; so another injunction is necessary. Similarly with that injunction too. Hence there would be a regressus in infinitum.
Objection: Is not the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self generated by the passage relating to It something different from the knowledge itself arising from the hearing of It (and hence that is to be prescribed)?
Reply: No, for thé remembrance of the Self comes automatically. That is to say, as soon as the knowledge of the Self arises in consequence of hearing a dictum delineating It,' it necessarily destroys the false notion about It. It could not arise otherwise. And when this false notion about the Self is gone, memories due to that, which are natural to man and concern the multitude of things other than the Self, cannot last. Moreover, everything else is then known to be an evil. In other words, when the Self is known, things other than It are realised as evils, being full of defects such as transitoriness, painfulness and impurity, while the Self is contrary to them. Therefore the memories of notions about the non-Self die out when [Page 132] the Self is known. As the only alternative left, the train of remembrance of the knowledge that the Self is one, which comes automatically, is not to be prescribed. Besides, the memory of the Self removes the painful defects such as grief, delusion, fear and effort, for these defects spring from the opposite kind of knowledge. Compare the Śruti texts, ‘Then what delusion can there be?’ (Īś. 7), ‘Knowing (the bliss of Brahman) he is not afraid of anything’ (Tai. II. 9), 'You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka' (IV. ii. 4), ‘The knot of the heart is broken’ (Mu. II. ii. 8), and so on.
Objection: Well then, the control of the mind may be something different. In other words, since the control of mental states is something different from the knowledge of the Self arising from the Vedic texts, and since we know this has been prescribed for practice in another system (Yoga), let this be enjoined.
Reply: No, for it is not known as a means of liberation. In the Upaniṣads nothing is spoken of as a means to the attainment of the highest end of man except the knowledge of the identity of the self and Brahman. Witness hundreds of Śruti texts like the following: ‘It knew only Itself.... Therefore It became all’ (I. iv. 10), ‘The knower of Brahman attains the highest (Tai. II. i. 1), ‘He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman’ (Mu. III. ii. 9), ‘He only knows who has got a teacher. It takes him only so long (as he does not give up the body)’ (Ch. VI. xiv. 2),’He who knows it as such indeed becomes the fearless Brahman’ (IV. iv. 25; Nr. Ut. [Page 133] VIII). Besides there is no other means for the control of mental states except the knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it. We have said this as a tentative admission; really we know of no other means of liberation except the knowledge of Brahman.
Moreover, there being no curiosity to know, no effort is necessary. To be explicit: You said, in the effort in connection with injunctions such as, ‘One should sacrifice,’ there is the curiosity to know what the sacrifice is about, what its means are, and how it is to be performed, and it is satisfied by the mention of the goal, the means and the method of the sacrifice; similarly here too, in the injunction about the knowledge of the Self, those things are necessary. But you are wrong, for all curiosity is ended as soon as one knows the meaning of such texts as, ‘One only without a second,’ ‘Thou art That,’ ‘Not this, not this,’ ‘Without interior or exterior’ (II. vi. 19; III. viii. 8), and ‘This self is Brahman’ (II. v. 19). And a man does not proceed to know the meaning of those passages, prompted by an injunction. We have already said that if another injunction is needed for this, it would lead to aregressus in infinitum. Nor is an injunction noticed in such sentences as, ‘Brahman is one only without a second,’ for they finish by simply stating the nature of the Self.
Objection: Do they not lose their authority (as Vedas) by being mere statements of the nature of a thing? In other words, just as passages like, ‘He (the deity Fire) cried. That is why he was called Rudra’ [Page 134] (Tai. S. I. v. i. i), being a mere narration of an event, have no authority, so also the passages delineating the Self have none.
Reply: Not so, for there is a difference (between the two sets of passages). The test of the authority or otherwise of a passage is not whether it states a fact or an action, but its capacity to generate certain and fruitful knowledge. A passage that has this is authoritative, ánd one that lacks it, is not. But we want to ask you: Is or is not certain and fruitful knowledge generated by passages setting forth the nature of the Self, and if so, how can they lose their authority? Do you not see the result of knowledge in the removal of the evils which are the root of transmigration, such as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear? Or do you not hear those hundreds of Upaniṣadic texts such as, ‘Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who secs unity?’ (Īś. 7), ‘I am but a knower of (Vedic) Mantras, not of the Self, so I am tormented with grief, and you, sir, must take me beyond the reach of it’ (Ch. VII. i. 3). Do passages like, ‘He cried,' lead to this kind of Certain and fruitful knowledge? If they do not, they may well be without authority. But how can the fact of their having no authority take away the authority of passages leading to certain and fruitful knowledge? And if these are without authority, what trust can one repose in passages dealing with the new and full moon sacrifices, for instance?
Objection: These have authority because they generate knowledge leading to action on the part of a[Page 135] man. But passages inculcating the knowledge of the Self do not do that.
Reply: True, but it is nothing against them, for there is reason enough for their authority. And that reason is what we have already stated, and none other. It is not a reason to disprove the authority of passages inculcating the Self that they generate knowledge which has the effect of destroying the seeds of all activity, rather it is their ornament. You said (p. 129), sentences like, ‘(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone should attain intuitive knowledge,’ convey the necessity of meditation in addition to knowing the meaning of the Vedic dicta. It is true, but they do not constitute an original injunction. Since meditation on the Self is already known as a possible alternative, they can only be restrictive.
Objection: How is that meditation already known as a possible alternative, since, as you said, on the principle of the residuum the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self is an inevitable fact?
Reply: It is true, but nevertheless, since the resultant of past actions that led to the formation of the present body must produce definite results, speech, mind and the body are bound to work even after the highest realisation, for actions that have begun to bear fruit are stronger than knowledge; as for instance an arrow that has been let fly continues its course for some time. Hence the operation of knowledge, being weaker than they, (is liable to be interrupted by them and) becomes only a possible alternative. Therefore [Page 136] there is need to regulate the train- of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by having recourse to means such as renunciation and dispassion; but it is not something that is to be originally enjoined, being, as we said, already known as a possible alternative. Hence we conclude that passages such as, ‘(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge,’ are only meant to lay down the rule that the train of remembrance— already known (as a possible alternative)—of the knowledge of the Self must be kept up, for they can have no other import.
Objection: This should be a meditation on the non-Self, for the particle ‘iti’ (as) has been used. In passages such as, ‘It should be meditated upon as dear’ (IV. i. 3), the meaning is not that features such as dearness are to be meditated upon, but that the vital force etc. possessing these features should be meditated upon. Similarly here also, from the use of the particle ‘iti’ along with the word ‘Self’ it is understood that something other than the Self (i.e. the Undifferentiated) but having the features of the Self is to be meditated upon. Another reason in support of this view is the difference of the passage in question from another where the Self is presented as the object of meditation. For instance, it will be stated later on, ‘One should meditate only upon the world of the Self’ (I. iv. 15). In that passage the Self alone is meant to be the object of meditation, for there is the accusative inflexion in the word ‘Self.’ Here, however, there is no accusative inflexion, but the particle ‘iti’ is used along with the word ‘Self.’ Hence it is understood [Page 137] that the Self is not the object of meditation here, but something else having the features of the Self.
Reply: No, for at the end of this very passage (this text) the Self alone, we find, is presented as the object of meditation, ‘Of all these, this Self alone should be realised,’ (and elsewhere), ‘This Self which is innermost’ (I. iv. 8), and ‘It knew only Itself’ (I. iv 10).
Objection: The Self is not the object of meditation, for the vision of that which entered is negated. In other words, the Śruti precludes the vision of that very Self whose entrance (into the universe) was described, for the words, ‘People do not see It’ (this text), refer to the Self which is under consideration. Hence the Self is certainly not to be meditated upon.
Reply: Not so, for this is because of the defect of incompleteness. In other words, the preclusion of the vision is only to indicate the defect of incompleteness in the Self, not to forbid It as an object of meditation, for It is qualified by possessing the functions of living etc. If the Self were not meant to be the object of meditation, the mention of Its incompleteness when endowed with single functions such as living, in the passage, 'For It is incomplete (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic' (this text), would be meaningless. Hence the conclusion is that that Self alone which is not possessed of single features is to be meditated upon, for It is complete. The use of the particle ‘iti’ along with the word ‘Self,’ to which you referred, only signifies that the truth of [Page 138] the Self is really beyond the scope of the term and the concept ‘Self.’ Otherwise the Śruti would only say. ‘One should meditate upon the Self.’ But this would imply that the term and the concept ‘Self’ were permissible with regard to the Self. That, however, is repugnant to the Śruti. Witness such passages, as ‘Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6), Through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the Knower?’ (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), ‘It is never known, but is the Knower’ (III. viii. 11), and ‘Whence speech returns baffled together with the mind’ (Tai. II. iv. 1 and ix. 1). As for the passage, ‘One should meditate only upon the world of the Self,’ since it is meant to preclude the possibility of meditation on things other than the Self, it does not convey a different meaning from the one we have been discussing.
Objection: Since they are alike incompletely known, the Self and the non-Self are both to be known. Such being the case, why should care be taken to know the Self alone, as is evident from the passage, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' and not the other?
Reply: Of all these, this entity called Self, which we are considering, alone should be realised, and nothing else. The ‘of’ has a partitive force, meaning ‘among all these.’
Objection: Is the rest not to be known at all?
Reply: Not so. Although it is to be known, it does not require a separate knowledge over and above that of the Self. Why? For one knows all these [Page 139] things other than the Self through It, when the Self is known.
Objection: But we cannot know one thing by knowing another. '
Reply: We shall answer the point while explaining the passage relating to the drum etc. (II. iv. 7).
Objection: How is the Self the one that should be realised?
Reply: Just as in the world one may get a missing. animal that is wanted back, by searching it through its footprints —‘foot’ here means the ground with the print of hoof-marks left by a cow etc.—similarly when the Self is attained, everything is automatically attained. This is the idea.
Objection: The topic was knowledge—when the Self is known, everything else is known. So why is a different topic, viz. attainment, introduced here?
Reply: Not so, for the Śruti uses the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘attainment’ as synonymous. The non-attainment of the Self is but the ignorance of It. Hence the knowledge of the Self is Its attainment. The attainment of the Self cannot be, as in the case of things other than It, the obtaining of something not _ obtained before, for here there is no difference between the person attaining and the object attained. Where the Self has to attain something other than Itself, the Self is the attainer and the non-Self is the object attained. This, not being already attained, is separated by acts such as producing, and is to be attained by the initiation of a particular action with the help of particular auxiliaries. And that attainment of something new is transitory, being due to desire and [Page 140] action that are themselves the product of a false notion, like the birth of a son etc. in a dream. But this Self is the very opposite of that. By the very fact of Its being the Self, It is not separated by acts such as producing. But although It is always attained, It is separated by ignorance only. Just as when a mother-of-pearl appears through mistake as a piece of silver, the non-apprehension of the former, although it is being perceived all the while, is merely due to the obstruction of the false impression, and its (subsequent) apprehension is but knowledge, for this is what removes the obstruction of false impression, similarly here also’ the non-attainment of the Self is merely due to the obstruction of ignorance. Therefore the attainment of It is simply the removal of that obstruction by knowledge; in no other sense it is consistent. Hence we shall explain how for the realisation of the Self every other means but knowledge is useless. Therefore the Śruti, wishing to express the indubitable identity of meaning of knowledge and attainment, says after introducing knowledge, ‘May get,’ for the root ‘vid’ also means ‘to get.’Now the result of meditation on the characteristic ia being stated: He who knows It as such, knows how this Self, entering into name and form, became famous through that name and form as the ‘Self,’ and got the association of the vital force etc., obtains fame and association with his dear ones. Or, he-who knows the Self as described above obtains Kirti or the knowledge of unity coveted by seekers of liberation, and Śloka or liberation which results from that knowledge —gets these primary results’ of knowledge.
Now what is the solution? what should one do to solve this issue
The next line ātmetyevopāsīta is a very important verse a mahavakyam which is the foundation for more elaborate analysis later in the Upanishad. It is known as vidya sutra
Sakshi is always limitless. When I says I (as Sakshi) is limited it is delusion. A thought correction is needed to remove this delusion. When the mind is awake it looks as though sakshi is extrovert. When the mind is dream it looks as though sakshi is introvert. But extrovertedness and introvertedness belongs to the mind, and not to the sakshi. In sushupti mind is inactive, not sakshi. Even the sense of location that I am in such and such body is belonging to the mind alone. Sakshi awareness is unlocated. I should know myself as consciousness which is in the shrota manta but which is different from shrota manta etc
Hence Up says Atma iti Upasita nirvishesha nirguna chaitanyam
Shankara defines Atma here as apnoti iti atma. That which encompasses all pervades all is atma.
Hearer minus hearerhood is consciousness
Seer minus seerhood is consciousness
You minus your hood is consciousness
Remove all the functions of the organ, you as the conscious principle are the sakshi and hence is Atma.
To understand the atma the best reference is keno upanishad
By the word atma another idea is conveyed. The hearer, seer, thinker etc are mutually exclusive. When you have one function you cannot at the same time have another function. Each of these is vyabhichara svarupa cannot be exclusive - and that means none of these can be my intrinsic nature - when speaker comes seer is gone, when thinker comes seer is gone, because when one comes the other disappears.
But Atma is absolute. Atma alone is alone sarvabhinna paramatma svarupa and that Atma alone is my intrinsic nature.
So Atma upasita
Here upasita means jaanita know,, not upasana. In this nirvishesha chaitanyam all the other roles and personalities are superimposed. Atra hyete sarva ekam bhavanti; in that awareness names and forms come and go and resolve but I the atma am always eternal
This vidyasutram is mahavakyam. Jivatma paramatma aikya jnanam. Oneness of jiva and paramatma.
Since this is an important mantra Shankara writes a important bhashyam called vidya sutra bhashyam
Here purva-mimamsaka (PM) makes an argument. Purvamimamsa consists of rituals only and do's and dont's.. and hence they are soaked in karma.
Coming to philosophical portion or vedanta also they continue same line of thinking of karma - vedanta is also karma - with do's and dont's. Entire veda is karmapradhana.. Aamnayasya kriyarthatvat aanarthakyam athatardanam
Jnanam is only important to enable one to do person - jnanam is a stepping stone to perform karma and karma alone is important.
And since karma is important vedic statements that prescribe karma commanding statements they become very important. Fact revealing statements are less important. Hence for purvamimasa statement like tat tvam asi are not important - because it does not enjoin any action. Siddha bodhaka vakyam fact revealing statement does not enjoin any action and should not be given importance. Instead vidhi vakyam statements enjoining action are the primary aim.
Advaitins response is this stress on vidhi nisheda is appropriate only in karma kanda but not in jnana kanda.
Jnana kanda relates to knowing a fact not doing anything
Practical vedanta pr Practice of vedanta is a contradictory statement.
Vidhi means a statement of commandment - Do
Nisheda is also a statement of commandment in a negative way - Dont
Here PM wants to make a statement that in jnana kanda also there is vidhi nisheda
And in this vidya sutra PM gets an opportunity to make his case - because in the word upasita there is a verb that indicates commandment - you should know - the "ta" verbal termination is indicative of a commandment or vidhi. And so PMs point is vedanta also has commandments and hence it is karma pradhana just like karmakanda.
Here PM has a peculiar way of interpreting or understanding vedas and vedic vidhi. PM belives in rituals, in Vedas, in swarga but he does not believe in God. Since they dont accept a God - Veda is not given out by God by PM. (wheras we accept Veda as Ishwara's teaching). PM says Veda is anaadi - no one has created the Veda. There is no Ishwara that reveals it. Vedas themselves are anaadi.
Hence when there are commandments vidhi the question is who commands? We say through Veda Ishwara commands. Shruti Smrti mameiva aajnaye
Question then for the PM is how can the inert Veda issue a commandment?> a conscious entity alone can make a commandment. His response is the very verb is capable of making the commandment - this is called bhAvana or creative or generating power. At the end of every verb like "yajeta" "upasita" these "ta" terminations have bhavana. And since this generating power in the word it is called shabda or shAbdi bhavana. the shabda bhavana generates a tendency to do action. And this inclination to do action is generated. In the mind when you hear the vidhi, an inclination occurs. This inclination is called aarthi or artha bhavana - because it alone is responsible for attaining purushartha,
Shabda and artha bhavana both have 3 factors - amsha trayam. When I want to or have an inclination to do something 3 questions
What do i want to accomplish? By what mMeans? and How do I accomplish or Methodology? yajeta svarga kamah jyotishtomena
As an example.
What do i want to accomplish - Svarga
By what means - Jyotishtoma yagna
How - the methodology for the ritual is describedThe entire chapter is then centered on the amsha trayam and once we know all three you go to that vidhi, fulfill the action, and then get the karmaphalam - this is how every chapter of Veda has been visualized by PM in his schema of interpreting the Veda and he brings that same rule to the Upanishad. He says atmaiva upasita. By the shabdi bhavana of "ta" this will generate arthi bhavana in the mind "I should do upasana or I should know atma" which is a vidhi or commandment coming from Veda. Now amsha trayam - what should I know? with what means? and how? Such and such an atma by such and such method one should know is the PM contention
Shankara refutes this. In the case of jyothistoma yaga it is possible to interpret this in this manner because there are 2 things -knowing and doing. First you study and get to know the adhyayam and you gain knowledge of what you need to know and means etc. In Upanishad you read the prakaranam with artha bhavana of knowing Atma, and when you read the Atma, is described through the atmavadi vakyams words revealing Atma.
Here Vidhi becomes irrelevant as I have already known the atma having read the chapter. In jyothistoma after knowing there is doing. PM responds atma iti upasita asks a person to know the atma. This atma is described in the later portions of the text. You can know the atma only by reading the later portion. So commandment is read the following section. So you cannot say it is not relevant. VIdhi vakyam commands you to read study atmavadi vakyam is the PMs contention. Shankara refutes. Vidhi vakyam is a veda vakyam - atmavadi vakyam is also a veda vakyam - to read one veda vakyam you require a commandment from another vakyam according to you - to read the 1st you will require another veda vakyam and so on infinite regress anavastha dosha and is hence ridiculous. PM now comes back with a 3rd objection - ok, there is no commandment to know the atma. Upasita here means constant remembrance smrti santana karanam.
Shankara refutes and provides several reasons. artha praptatvat when you know someone you can remember. For anatma remembrance what meditation did you do? If a knowledge is born memory will be there. Atma jnanam will be remembered and you dont have to work at it. Then one may argue both atma and anatma remembrance may be there - what then? Shankara replies atma jnanam will not only be remembered but it is more powerful than anatma memory because anatma jnanam is mithya jnanam wheras atma jnanam is right knowledge and is hence more powerful. A 2nd reason is that even as a sadhaka he has learnt to see the doshas of anatma janma mrtyu etc and he is trying to turn away from anatma and therefore the mind dwelling not upon anatma is a natural thing for such a seeker. Hence because of these 2 reasons you cannot have a commandment to remember the jnanam.
PM now comes back with another argument - why cant you take as a commandment for yogic meditation? upasita must refer to yogic meditation. Atma jnanam is indirect book knowledge and is insufficient. Once has to practice chitta vrtti nirodhah as outlined in yoga sutras and this is the commandment. Yoga sutra says that when all vrttis thoughts are emptied tada drahstuh svarupe avasthanam you will be established in your true nature. This remaining in the self without any vrtti alone is moksha. Vrtti sarupyam itaratra - when you are not in samadhi vrtti takes place and you become one with the vrtti and do not remain in your svarupam. Shankara says whole yoga sutra has already been refuted in brahmasutra - in the yoga shastram whatever is not contradictory to vedic teaching alone we accept. Chitta vrtti nirodha for moksha is contradictory to vedantic teaching. Vedanta asks you to do vichara and not remove thoughts. It is by analysis of teaching you get moksha not by removal of thoughts.
Yoga apramanam is established by Shankara in brahmasutra. Yoga is for attunement and refinement of personality.
Next argument by PM if no vidhi is there there cannot be any karma and without karma there cannot be karmaphala and without karmaphala there cannot be any purushartha at all.
Shankara replies that PM's mistake is only through karma you get purushartha and jnana does not give you purushartha. But by sheer knowledge itself we do get purushartha and he gives an example of rope snake. Mistaking a rope a snake I suffer fear etc - here my suffering is born of mistake because of ignorance - then knowledge removes this triad of ignorance, mistake and suffering. Rope ignorance, snake mistake and snake fear are all removed by knowledge of rope.Since jnanam can itself purushartha there is no need for karma and hence no need for vidhi. Shankara says that in certain instances jnanam alone cannot give purushartha without karma, but in a certain circumstance, jnanam itself can give purushartha.
Finally PM gives one more argument. He says you are given your view with various arguments. But if you look at the statement itself, it is favorable to my position - upasita - the ta itself means should. Should means commandment has come - shabdi bhavana which produces arthi bhavana, etc. 2nd the verb Upas means to meditate which is also an action. 3rd word iti is generally used in the context of upasana or meditative action. By convention as an example manah brahma iti upasita the word iti indicates visualize the mind as Brahman - mind is not Brahman but visualize meditate as Brahman. Shankara says upas is not taken as meditation but taken as knowledge - because in this context both preceding and following sections all refer to knowledge only - anupravesha shruti and mahavakya. Hence in the context upas means knowledge and not meditation. Sankshepashareerakam is a work written by sarvajnata muni disciple of Sureshwara turns the tables back and refutes the PMs position on the use of "ta" by pointing out karmakanda PM himself violates grammar rules - in certain statements in karmakanda where vidhi is not there - since the context was about action PM takes it as vidhi based on purely on the context. Thus PM himself violates or overrides the grammar rules if the context is conducive. Using this argument against the PM he says that here is jnanam context and hence we have to understand ta in that sense only and not as a commandment.
Shankara's argument is as follows - in a commandment a curiosity is created - aakanksha - kim kena katham bhavayet iti aakanksha - what, how and by what means should I accomplish. When vedanta tells me I am everything what other curiosity can come in the mind? All akanksha will gone. How can there be any curiosity now. I am all. Krtyakrtya krtsna karmakrt. When I have nothing to accomplish. And he clarified about the iti is to make sure Brahman is known without objectification - i.e. brahman is myself. Brahman is not something to be known as a object but owning up to myself as Brahman is the meaning of the term iti avishyatvat bodhanartham iti shabda.
One knows brahman as atma without objectification is the meaning of atma ityeva upasita. This is vidya sutra - the upakrama vakyam of the entire Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.
Beginning of a text teaching is upakrama and end of teaching is samhara. This is not the beginning of the text - like in Bhagwad Gita Dharmakshetra is not the upakrama DharmaKshetre but Asochyan Anvasochatvam and the upasamhara is not the last text of text Yatra yatra but the the last line of teaching is Sarva Dharmaan .. the rule is both upakrama and upasamhara should both be sutras and they both should contain the essence of the teaching in condensed form.
So here upakrama of Brhad Up is atma ityeva upasita; vidya sutra. Upasamhara comes in 4th Ch (even though there are 6 chapters) - Neti Neti Atma. This is the upasamhara mantra of Br Up. Within these 2 mantras the entire teaching is contained in the Br Up.
Atra hy ete In this consciousness all of them shrota manta vijnata ekam bhavanti resolve into oneness. All particular or objectifiable knowledge rise rest and resolve into objectless awareness. Always awareness is the substratum. When thoughts rise in the mind, that awareness gets specified as a particularized knowledge. Pot knowledge tree knowledge etc - particularized awareness of pot, tree, etc arise rest and resolve into awareness.
Tad etat padaniyam It alone is worth knowing. Anena hi etat sarvam veda Through this knowledge one knows everything. Ekasmin vijnate in Mundaka also says the same thing. Self knowledge makes you omniscient. Padena anuvindet evam Just like you can trace a cow with the help of a hoof mark. Similarly through atma jnanam everything can be known. Kirtim slokam vindate - Fame and attainment or fulfilment of desires through this knowledge. In this context Sankara gives another meaning moksha - association with Freedom. Yaha evam veda One who knows Paramatma alone is Jivatma atyanta abhedam gets Moksha