Works On Grammar
In the stanza [in the previous chapter] we saw that
the poet calls Siva "Candravatamsa". It means the god who has the
moon for a head ornament. "Candrasekhara" and "Indusekhara"
mean the same. Remarkably enough, "Indusekhara" occurs in the titles
of two grammatical works. One is Sabdendusekharam, and the other pariposendusekharam.
A student who has read grammar up to Sabdendusekharam is considered master of
the subject. If there are thirty books on Siksa, there are any number on
grammar. Foremost among them are Panini's sutras, Patanjali's bhasya for it and
vararuci's vartika (mentioned earlier). I make this statement in the belief
that Vararuci and Katyayana is the same person. Some think that they are not.
Vararuci was one of the "Nine gems" of Vikramaditya’s court.
Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiyam is also an important grammatical treatise. There are
said to be nine [notable] Sanskrit grammar works, "navavyakarana".
Hanuman is believed to have learned them from the sun god. Sri Rama praises him
as "nava-vyakarana-vetta ". One of these nine works is Aindram
authored by Indra. It is said that the basic Tamil grammar book, the
Tolkappiyam, follows Aindram.
Sanskrit and Tamil Grammar
Just as "illakanam", the Tamil word for
grammar, is derived from the Sanskrit "laksana", so too a number of
other words that have to do with grammar in that language are of Sanskrit
origin. For instance, there are two terms used in Tamil grammar, pakuti
(pahuti) and vikuti (vihuti). To illustrate in the word "Ramanukku"
(for Raman ), "Raman " is pakuti and "ku" is
"vikuti". Both terms pakuti and vikuti are derived from Sanskrit
grammar. "How do you say so? " it might be asked. "Is it not
pakuti an original tamil word derived from "pakuttal? " Pakuti in the
sense of that which has been divided is indeed a Tamil word. But I say that
there is another pakuti that is a corrupt form of the Sanskrit
"prakarti". It is in the sense of "prakarti" that the word
"Raman" in "Ramanukku" is described as pakuti. As for
"vikuti" it is from the Sanskrit "vikriti": there is no
such word as "vikuttal" in Tamil corresponding to pakuttal. From the undisputed
fact that vikuti is from vikriti, we may conclude for certain that pakuti is
from prakrti. (Vikrti also called "pratyaya", that which gives many
meanings to the same prakrti. When it is said "Ramanai aditten"-(I)
beat Raman-the pratyaya "ai" added makes Raman the person who is
beaten. If it is said Ramanal adipatten-(I) was beaten by Raman-the prakrti
Raman with the al makes him the one who beat.) It is not my purpose to claim
that Sanskrit is superior to Tamil. When do feelings of superiority arise to
make us happy? When we are conscious of differences between what we believe is
"ours" and what we believe is "theirs". Where we to have
racial bias, we could be tempted to speak in appreciative terms of what is
"ours" and to deprecate what is "theirs". If we realise
that to harbour feelings based on racial differences is itself wrong, that our
languages have sprung from the same family, from the same cultural tradition,
there will be no cause for speaking highly of one language at the expense of
another. On the subject of grammar I have mentioned certain facts and it is not
my intention to elevate one language above another.
Chandas
Foot Of The Veda Purusha, Pada Or Foot, Feet And The Syllables, How Poetry Was Born, Some Metrical Forms,
Foot of the Veda Purusha
We so often hear people [Tamils] speak of
"Chanda-t-Tamizh". Men of devotion say that the praises of the lord
must be sung in "Chanda-t- Thamizh". "Chanda (m)" is
derived from "Chandas". "Chandas", as I have already said,
means the Vedas. Bhagavan says in the Gita that the Vedas are leaves of the
pipal tree called Creation-- Chandamsi yasya parnani. Instead of
"Veda", the Lord uses the word "Chandas". However, the
"Chandas" I am going to speak about does not mean the Vedas but
prosody and represents the foot of the Vedapurusa. The Rgveda and the Samaveda
are entirely poetical in form. The Yajurveda consists of both prose and poetry.
It is because poetry forms their major part that the Vedas are called Chandas.
The tailor takes your measurement to make your suit. He will not otherwise be
able to cut the cloth properly. Similarly, poetry gives form to our thoughts
and feelings. Your shirt has to be so many inches wide, so many inches long,
isn't so? Similarly, poetry also has its measurement expressed in "feet"
and number of syllables. The Sastra that deals with such measurement is
"Chandas" and the text on which it is chiefly based is Chanda sutra
by Pingala. People who have received initiation into a mantra touch their head
with their hand, mentioning the name of the sage associated with the mantra,
touch their nose mentioning the chandas and touch their heart mentioning the
deity invoked. All Vedic mantras in verse are Chandas. Non-Vedic poetry is in
the form of "slokas". Prose is called "gadya" and poetry
"padya". In Tamil, poetry is called "seyyul", in Telugu
"padyam". The term chandas also refer to poetic metre (prosody).
There is a metre called "Anustubh" in which are composed the Ramayana
and the Puranas. There are rules governing the number of feet in each stanza,
and the number of syllables in each foot. The metre "Arya" is based
on matras, syllables short and long. Take the word "Rama": the long
syllable "Ra" is two matras while the short one "ma" is one
matra. There are stanzas in which each foot is determined by the number of
syllables, no matter whether they are short or long. Other metres are based on
matras. Men of devotion: The word the Paramaguru actually uses for "men of
devotion" is the Tamil adiyars, meaning those who support the feet of the
Lord with their head or those who are at the feet of the Lord.
Pada or Foot
I said Chandas is the foot of the Vedapurusa.
Poetry also has its foot. In tamil poetry there are "iradikkural"
(stanzas with two feet), naladiar (stanzas with four feet), etc: "adi"
here has the same meaning as "pada", that is foot. Naladiar does not
mean four adiyars. Great devotees are called adiyars because they lie at the
lotus feet of the Lord. (In Sanskrit too we have similar terms like
"Acaryapada", Govindapada", and "Bhaghavatpada".
Naladiar means stanzas with four feet. If "foot" is called
"pada" or "pada" in Sanskrit, it is known as
"adi" in tamil. (It goes without saying that "foot is the
English equivalent) A stanza must have a certain number of feet and its metre
must have a certain number of letters or syllables. "Pada",
"adi", "foot"--thus all languages have words with the same
meaning to denote a line of a stanza. The realisation that there is something
common to all mankind, something that shows the unity of the human race, is
inwardly satisfying. One-fourth of a mantra or a stanza is called a
"pada". In Tamil one out of four parts is called "kal"(that
is foot). The foot ("leg") forms one-fourth of the human body. From
the head to the waist is one half of the body and from the waist to the feet is
another half. And half of the latter half, i.e. one fourth is "kal"
in Tamil or foot (leg). The waist is called "arai" in that language,
meaning half. In Tamil "kal" usually means the entire leg and
"padam" or "padam" is used to denote the foot. But in some
contexts kal is used in the sense of the foot. For instance, in terms
"ullangal" and "purangal" (sole and upper part of the foot
respectively) only the foot is referred to. In Sanskrit too "pada"
means both leg and foot.
Feet and the Syllables
A Vedic mantra or the stanza of an ordinary poem is divided into four
parts. In most metres there are four feet and each foot is divided into the
same number of syllables or mantras. When the feet are not equal we have what
is called a metre that is "visama": "vi+sama" =
"visama". "Sama" indicates a state of non-difference, of
evenness. When we do something improper, departing from our impartial
"middle position", our action is characterised as "visama".
The word is also used in the sense of "craftiness" or
"cunning". But the literal meaning of "visama" is
"unequal". To repeat, if all padas of a stanza are not uniform they
are said to be "visama". If alternate lines or padas are equal they
are called "ardhasamavrtta". The first and second are unequal here,
so too the third and the fourth. But the first and third and the second and the
fourth are equal. In most poems the padas are equal. Let me illustrate with a
sloka with which, I suppose, all of you are familiar: The four feet of this
stanza:
Suklambaradharam
Visnum Sasivarnam caturbhujam Prasannavadanam dhyayet Sarvavighnopasantaye
Each
pada in this has eight syllables. Only vowels and consonants in conjunction
with vowels are to be counted as syllables; other consonants are not to be
counted. Then alone will you get the figure of eight. The eight syllables in
the first pada are :1. su; 2. klam; 3. ba; 4. ra; 5. dha; 6. ram; 7. vi; 8.
snum. The other padas will have similarly eight syllables each. The stanza with
four feet, each foot of eight syllables, is "Anustubh", which metre
is used in the Vedas and in poetical works of a later period.
How Poetry was born
There is no tonal variation in poetry as there is in Vedic mantras. The
unaccented poetic stanza corresponding to the accented Vedic mantra owes its
origin to Valmiki, but its discovery was not the result of any conscious effort
on his part. One day Valmiki happened to see a pair of kraunca birds sporting
perched on the branch of a tree. Soon one of the birds fell to the arrow of a
hunter. The sage felt pity and compassion but these soon gave way to anger. He
cursed the hunter, the words coming from him spontaneously: "O hunter, you
killed a kraunca bird sporting happily with its mate. May you not have
everlasting happiness".
Manisada pratistham tvam Agamah sasvatih samah Yat krauncamithunadekam
Avadih kamamohitam
Unpremeditatedly,
out of his compassion for the birds, Valmiki cursed the hunter. But, at once,
he regretted it. "Why did I curse the hunter so? " When he was
brooding thus, a remarkable truth dawned on him. Was he not a sage with divine
vision? He realised that the very words of his curse had the garb of a poetic
stanza in the Anustubh metre. That the words had come from his lips, without
his being aware of them himself (in the same way as he had, without his
knowing, felt compassion and anger in succession), caused him amazement. It
occurred to him that the stanza he had unconsciously composed had another
meaning. The words aimed at the hunter were also words addressed to Mahavisnu.
How? "O consort of Laksmi, you will win eternal fame by having slain one
of a couple who was deluded by desire. " Ravana and his wife Mandodari are
the couple referred to here and Ravana was deluded by his evil desire for Sita.
Sri Rama won everlasting fame by slaying him. Without his being aware of it,
the words came to Valmiki as poetry. Realising it all to be the will of Isvara,
the sage composed the Ramayana in the same metre. The "sloka"
(without the Vedic tonal variation) was born in this manner. Valmiki was filled
with joy that he had come upon the sloka as a medium that facilitated the
expression of the highest of thoughts in a form that made it easy to remember
like the Vedas themselves. Prose is not easily retained in memory, not so poetry
composed in metrical form. That is why in ancient times everything was put down
in verse. Prose developed [in any significant sense] only after the advent of
the printing press after which books began to be produced in large numbers for
ready reference, obviating the need to memorise everything. However it be, in
conveying an idea or a message (or in imparting information) poetry has greater
beauty and greater power. The Ramayana was the first poetical work, hence its
name "Adikavya". We received the gift of the birth of various
metrical forms used in the hymns to various deities, in the Puranas and in
other poetical works.
Some Metrical Forms
"Indravajra", "Upendravajra",
"Bhujangavijrmbhita", "Sragdhara" are some of the metres in
devotional and other poetical works. Some of them are intricate and only highly
gifted people are capable of composing them. As mentioned earlier, the foot of
a stanza with eight syllables Anustubh. With nine syllables it is
"Brhati" and with ten "Pankti". "Tristubh" has eleven
syllables and "Jagati" twelve. We have a 26syllable metre
("Bhujangavijrambhita") which belongs to the category of
"Utkrti". Beyond this is "Dandaka" of which there are
several types. The metre in which Apparasvamigal's Tiru-t-tandagam is composed
is related to this metre. Some metres have beautiful names. In poems composed
in a certain metre the flow of words reminds of a playful tiger lunging
forward; the metre is appropriately called "Sardulavikridita".
"Sardula" means tiger; "vikridita" is playfulness. (This
metre, belonging to the category of "Atidhriti", has 19 syllables).
Each pada in it is divided into 12 and 7 syllables. Adi Sankara's
Sivanandalahari is partly in this metre (a number of verses from the 28th
stanza onwards). The initial verses of the part called
"Stuti-satakam" of the Muka-Pancasati (which is a hymn to Kamaksi)
are in this metre. The concluding one hundred verses,
"Mandasmita-satakam", are entirely in this metre.
"Bhujangaprayata" is the name of another metre which suggests a snake(bhujanga)
gliding along. Our Acharya's Subrahmanyabhujangam is in this metre. It belongs
to the Jagati type with 12 syllables a foot, divided into six and six as in
Ma-yu-ra-dhi-ru-dham Ma-ha-va-kya-gu-dham
Our
Achrya's Saundaryalahari is in the Sikharini metre. It has 17 syllables in each
pada. (It belongs to the category of Atyasti) The 17 syllables are divided into
two parts of six and 11. The "Padaravinda-satakam" of the
Muka-Pancasati is in this metre. The metre called "Sragdhara"
suggests a flow of words breaking through the floodgates of poetry. It has 21
syllables (belonging to the "Prakrti" class) and each pada has three
sets of seven syllables. Our Acarya's hymns to Siva and Visnu (describing them
from foot to head and from head to foot - padadikesanta and kesadipadanta) are
in this metre. I mentioned "Indravajra" first. It belongs to the
Tristubh category with 11 syllables in each pada. Another 11 syllables metre is
"Upendravajra". A mixture of both is "Upajati": Kalidasa's
Kumarasambhavam is in this metre. All these metres belong to the post-Vedic
period and are employed in poetical works as well as in hymns to various
deities. "Gayatri", "Usnik", "Anustubh",
"Pankti", "Tristubh" and "Jagati" are Vedic
metres. "Gayatri" is a maha-mantra, the king of mantras. A mantra is
usually named after the deity it invokes. "Siva-Pancaksari",
"Narayana-Astaksari", "Rama-Trayodasi": in each of these
the name of the deity as well as the number of syllables in the mantra are combined.
The deity for Gayatri is Savita. Gayatri is the name of the metre also. The
metre too, one should infer from this, has divine power expressed through the
sound and tone of a mantra. Gayatri, unlike most other mantras and slokas, has
only three feet. Each foot has eight syllables and altogether there are 24
syllables. Because it has only three padas or feet it is called
"Tripada-Gayatri". There are other Gayatris also. The first Vedic
mantra, "Agnimile", is in the Gayatri metre. (The 24-syllable Gayatri
metre used in poetry and non-Vedic hymns has four padas, each of six syllables.
Usnik has also four padas, each of seven syllables). So far I have spoken about
metres based on the number of syllables, that is without worrying about whether
a syllable is long or short. In prosody the long and short syllables are called
"guru" and "laghu" respectively. Poems that make no
distinction between "short" and "long" are called
"vrttas": those based on mantras are called "jati". In the
latter type, a short syllable is one mantra and a long syllable is two mantras.
Instead of the number of syllables what matters here is the number of matras.
The "Arya-satakam" of Muka-Pancasati is in the Arya metre. Amba, as
Arya, belongs to the most plane; so it is proper that the verse used in singing
her praises should also belong to an equally high order. That is why they are
in the Arya metre, which is based on matras and not on the number of syllables.
if you go by the number of syllables you are likely to be misled into thinking
that the metre differs from verse to verse.
Uses of Chandas Sastra
Siksa sastra may be said to be a "guard"
to ensure the right enunciation of a (Vedic) mantra. But it is Chandas that
determines whether the form of the mantra is right. Of course the form of a
mantra can never be wrong. The mantras, as mentioned so often, were not created
by the sages and are not the product of their thinking. It was Bhagavan who
caused them to be revealed to them. Man, beast, tree and other sentient
creatures and insentient objects of creation exist as they should be according
to the law of nature. In the same way, the metre of a Vedic mantra must be
naturally correct. However, Chandas helps us to find out whether a mantra or
sukta that is being taught or chanted has come down to us in its true form. We
may check the hymn according to its metre and if we find it faulty we may
correct it in consultation with people who are wellversed in such matters.
Apart from the mantras, which appeared on their own, are the composition of
poets. Chandas is of help in giving shape to poetic thought and imagination.
Like tala to music is chandas to poetry. It is because poetry is composed
according to a certain measure and its rhythm determined in a certain order of
syllables that it acquires a definite form. It is also easy to memorise. Modern
society is discarding all those rules of discipline meant to give it a definite
character and purpose. In keeping with this new trend, poetry too is being
written without any metre and "poets" compose as they please. People
don't realise that to be free means to be firmly attached to a system, that
discipline is the road to a higher freedom. Chandas is the means by which we
ensure that the Vedic mantra is preserved in its original form, it being
impossible to add one letter to it or take away another. The very purpose of
the Vedas is the raising up of the Self. Must we then permit a single sound to
be added to it or be taken away?
Foot for the Vedas, Nose for the Mantras
Each mantra has a deity (the deity it invokes), its
own metre and its own seer (the seer who revealed it to the world). Mentioning
the name of the rsi and touching our head with our hand have their own
significance, that of holding his feet with our head. We first pay obeisance to
the sages because it is from them that we received the mantras. We then mention
the chandas or metre of the hymn and touch our nose with our hand. Chandas
protects the sound of a mantra and is like its vital breath. So we place our
hand on that part of our body with which we breathe. Without breath there is no
life. While for all the Vedas taken as a whole Siksa is the nose and Chandas
the foot, for the mantras proper Chandas is the nose. When we commence to chant
a mantra we must meditate on its adhi devata, or presiding deity, and feel his
presence in our hearts. This is the reason why we touch our hearts as we
mention the name of the deity. The Vedapurusa stands on Chandas. “Chandah pado
Vedasya": the Vedic mantras are supported by Chandas.
Nirukta
Ear of Veda Purusha
Nirukta serves the purpose of a Vedic dictionary,
or "kosa". A dictionary is also called a "nighantu", which
term is used in Tamil also. Nirukta, which deals with the origin of words,
their roots, that is with etymology, is the ear of the Vedapurusa. It explains
the meaning of rare words in the Vedas and how or why they are used in a
particular context. Many have contributed to Nirukta, the work of Yaksa being
the most important. Take the word "hrdaya" (heart). The Vedas
themselves trace its origin. "Hrdayam" is "hrdi ayam" : it
means that the Lord dwells in the heart. "Hrd" itself denotes the
physical heart. But with the suffixing of "ayam" - with the Lord
residing in it - its Atmic importance is suggested. The purpose of any sastra
is to take you to the Supreme Being. "Hrdaya" is so called because
Paramesvara resides in "hrd". Thus each and every word has a reason
behind it. Nirukta makes an inquiry into words and reveals their significance.
"Dhatu" means "root" in English. In that language one
speaks of the root only of verbs, not of nouns. In Sanskrit all words have
dhatus. Such words, transformed or modified, must have been adopted in other
languages. That is why we do not know the root of many words in these tongues.
After all, such an exercise would be possible only if the words in question
belonged naturally to them. Take the English work "hour".
Phonetically it should be pronounced "h o u r" ("h" being
not silent) or "h o a r". At one time the word indeed must have been
pronounced "hoar". "Horasastra" is the name of a science in
Sanskrit, "hora" being from "ahoratram" (day and night).
"Hora" is two and half nadikas or one hour. The English
"hour" is clearly from this word. In the same way "heart"
is from "hrd". There are so many words like this which could be
traced to Sanskrit. It must have taken a long time for words in other languages
to evolve into their present form. That is why those who speak them find it
difficult to discover their origin [or root]. How does it help to listen to
someone speaking a language without understanding what he says? It is as good
as not listening to him. In other words it is like being deaf. Nirukta finds
the meaning of words by going to the root of each. That is why it is called the
ear of the Vedapurusa: it is the ear of Sruti which itself is heard by the ear.
Western scholars learned Vyakarna and Nirukta from pandits in Kasi and
acquainted themselves with the origin of words as described in the latter
sastra. From this they developed the new science of philology. It is primarily
from our Vyakarana and the Nirukta that the linguistic science has developed.
From their researches, Western scholars have arrived at the conclusion that all
languages have one source. People all over the world are the descendants of the
original inhabitants of the area where this primal language was spoken. There
are differences of opinion with regard to this area, the home of this tongue.
We need have no worry about it. After all, we believe that all places on earth
are our home. "Yadum mure!" is a famous Tamil declaration.
"Svadeso bhuvanatrayam" - the three worlds are our motherland.
Jyotishya
Eye Of Veda Purusha, Astronomy And Astrology, Ancient Mathematical Treatises, Planets And Stars, The Grahas And Human Life, Omens And Signs, Modern Discoveries In Ancient
Works, Not Blind Belief, Empirical Proof
Eye of Veda Purusha
Of the fourteen branches of learning basic to our
Vedic religion, I have so far dealt with siksa, Vyakarana, Chandas and Nirukta.
These four form part of Sadanga (the six limbs of the Vedas). I will now speak
about Jyotisa, it being the first of the remaining two of the Sadanga. Jyotisa,
which is the science of the celestial bodies and the eye of the Vedapurusa,
consists of three "skandhas" or sections. So it is called
"Skandha-trayatmakam". Sages like Garga, Narada and Parasura have
written samhitas (treatises) on this subject. The sun god, in disguise, taught
the science to Maya, the carpenter of the Asuras. The work incorporating his
teachings is called the Suryasiddhanta. There are treatises on astronomy
written by celestials and sages and ordinary mortals. Of them some are by
Varahamihira, Aryabhata and Bhaskaracarya. In recent times we had Sundaresvara
Srautin who wrote a work called Siddhanta-Kausthubham. Why is Jyotisa regarded
as the eye of the Vedapurusa? What purpose is served by the eye? Near objects
may be perceived by the sense of touch. With our eyes we learn about distant
objects. Just as our eyes help us to know objects that are distant in space
(that is just as we see distant object with our eyes), Jyotisa sastra help us
to find out the position of the heavenly bodies that are distant in time (their
configuration many years ago in the past or many years hence in future). We can
find out directly the positions of the sun and the moon and other heavenly
bodies. Just as we can know near objects, even if we are blind, by feeling them
with our hands, we can learn about the positions of the heavenly bodies near in
time even without the help of astronomy. What is 50 feet away is to be
perceived by the eye. Similarly, if you want to know the position of planets 50
years ago or 50 years hence, you have to have recourse to Jyotisa. We cannot,
however, form a full picture of near objects only by feeling them. For
instance, we cannot know whether they are green or red. For this, we must see
them with our eyes. Again, even if we are able to see the planet with our naked
eye, we will need the help of astrology to find out its effects on our life,
how its positions in the heavens will influence our destiny. This is the reason
why Jyotisa is called the eye of the Vedapurusa. Vedic rituals are performed
according to the position of the various planets [and the sun and the moon].
There are rules to determine this. The right day and hour [muhurta] for a
function is fixed according to the position of the celestial bodies. Here
again, Jyotisa performs the function of the eye. This Anga of the Vedas is
indeed called "nayana" which word means "to lead". A blind
man needs to be led by another. So it is the eye that leads. Astronomy /
Astrology is the eye that enables us to fix the hours for Vedic rituals.
Astronomy and Astrology
Astronomy
examines the position of the planets and other heavenly bodies. It does not
concern itself with how they affect the life of the world or the individual. It
is not its function to find out how far the celestial bodies are beneficial to
us or how they may be made favourable to us. Such functions belong to
astrology. Jyotisa includes both astronomy and astrology. Telling us about the
results of performing a ritual at a given time, keeping in mind the position of
the planets, the sun and the moon and the naksatras ( asterisms ), comes under
the purview of astrology. The hours favourable to the performance of Vedic
rites are determined according to calculations based on the movement of
planets. All this entails mathematical work. The measurements of the place
where a sacrifice is to be conducted (yajnabhumi) are based on certain
stipulations. These must be strictly adhered to if the sacrifices are to yield
the desired benefits. Mathematics developed in this way as a handmaid to the
Vedic dharma.
Planets and Stars
How do the planets differ from the stars? The
planets revolve round the sun; the stars do not belong to the sun's
"mandala" [they are not part of the solar system]. If you hold a
diamond in your hand and keep shaking it about, it will glitter. The stars
glitter in the same way and twinkle, but the planets do not twinkle. The sun
and the stars are self-luminous. The stars dazzle like polished diamonds. The
planets Jupiter and Venus shine like the bigger stars but they do not twinkle.
The sun too has the brilliance of the stars[it is in fact a star]. If you gaze
intently at the sun for a moment the watery haziness surrounding it will
vanish. Then it will look like a luminous disc of glass floating in water and
it will not be still. The moon is not like it. I will tell you how to prove the
sun twinkles. Observe the sun sun's light pouring down from an opening in the
roof. Observe similarly moon's light also coming into your room. You see the
sun's rays showing some movement but not the moon's. The planets are also like
the moon. If the star is a big one, we may be able to see its light refracted
into the seven colours (vibgyor), like the colours emanating from a brilliant
diamond. The sun is called "Saptasva" (one with seven horses--the sun
god's chariot is drawn by seven horses). It is also said that there is only one
horse drawing the chariot but it has seven different names. "Asva"
also means "kirana" or ray. So "Saptasva" could mean that
the sun emits seven types of rays or colours. It is of course the same light
that is split into seven colours. In the Taittiriya Aranyaka it is clearly
stated that the same "asva" or ray has seven names: "Eko asvo
vahati saptanama.” The stars are self-luminous, while the planets shine by
reflected light. The light of the stars is not still. That is how we say,
" Twinkle, twinkle little star ". The stars rise in the east and set
in the West. The planets too travel westward but they keep moving a bit towards
the east every day. It is like a passenger walking westward on a train speeding
eastward. The seven planets thus keep moving eastward.
The Grahas and Human Life
The conditions of man correspond to the changes in
the position of the nine grahas. A human being does not enjoy happiness all the
time nor does he always suffer hardships-- that is he experiences a mixture of
happiness and sorrow. While he may be pushed up to a high position today, he
may be thrust down to the depths tomorrow. It is not man alone that is subject
to changes of fortune. Establishments too have their ups and downs, so also
nations. The sages saw a relationship between the position and movements of the
planets and the destiny of man, the sorrow and happiness experienced by him.
There is a branch of astrology called "hora--skandha". If we knew the
planetary position at the time of commencing a job or enterprise, with its help
we should be able to find out how it would take shape, how we would fare in it.
If our horoscope is cast on the basis of the configuration of the planets at
the time of our birth, our fortunes over the entire period of our life can be
predicted. Different reasons are given for the ups and downs in a man's life
for his joys and sorrows. It is similar to finding out the different causes of
the ailment he suffers from. The physician will explain that the disease is due
to an imbalance in the "dhatus". The mantravadin will say that it is
due to the gods being displeased with the patient, while the astrologer will
observe that it is all in his (the patient's) stars. The pandit versed in
Dharmasastra will explain that the illness is the fruit of the man's past
actions, his karma. And the psychologist will express the view that the bodily
affliction is related to an emotional disturbance. What is the true cause? All
these different causes may be valid. All of them together go to create an
experience. When it rains it becomes wet and the place is swarmed with winged
white ants. Frogs croak. All these are indicators of the rain. Many outward
signs manifest themselves as the fruits of our past karma. They are all related
to one another. The course of the planets governing our life is in accordance
with our karma. We come to know the consequences of our past actions in
previous births in various ways. Astrological calculations help us to find out
such consequences as indicated by the heavenly bodies.
Omens and Signs
Where can you discover water? Where does ground
water occur? Or where do streams flow inside the earth? By what signs on the
surface do you make out the presence of water underground? How are perfumes
manufactured? What are the right measurements for a house? These questions are
discussed in the samhita-skandha of Jyotisa. Also omens and signs.
"Sakuna" is one thing, "nimitta" quite another.
"Sakuna" literally means a bird: only signs connected with birds come
under the category of "Sakuna". All things in this world are
interrelated: all happenings are linked to one another. If we know the precise
scale and manner in which events are woven together, we would be able to know
everything. Everything in this world occurs according to the will of the One
Being and according to a precise system. So with reference to one we can know
all others. Palmistry, "arudam" (a method of divination), astrology,
all are interrelated. What does a bird flying from right to left indicate? What
is foretold by the chirping of such and such a bird? Question like these belong
to the sakuna-sastra. "Nimitta" means omen. "Nimittani ca
pasyami viparitani Kesava" says Arjuna to Krsna before the start of the battle
of Kuruksetra. He uses the right word "nimitta" while we use the word
"sakuna" carelessly. When a cat crosses our path it is an omen; when
an eagle flies above us it is a sakuna. To go back to Arjuna, the Lord tells
Arjuna: "Nimittamatram bhava Savyasacin". This is in answer to Arjuna
telling Krsna, lamenting, that it is sinful to kill one's enemies [or one's
kin]. Says Krishna: "I have already resolved to slay them in this battle.
So they are already as good as dead. It is I who will kill them. You are a mere
tool." (Nimittamatram bhava). A nimitta does not produce any result on its
own. It points to the result that has already been ordained by some other
factor - or, in other words, it merely indicates the fruits of our past karma.
Modern Discoveries in Ancient Works
There are a few scientific discoveries that are not
found mentioned in Varahamihira's Brhat-Samhita. How do heavenly bodies remain
in the skies? How is it that they do not fall? Everybody thinks that it was
Newton who found the answer to such questions. The very first stanza in the
Suryasiddhanta, which is a very ancient treatise, states that it is the force
of attraction that keeps the earth from falling. In Sankara's commentary on the
Upanisads there is a reference to the earth's force of attraction. If we throw
up an object it falls to the ground. This is not due to the nature of object
but due to the earth's force of attraction. "Akarsana-sakti" is force
of attraction, the power of drawing or pulling something. The breath called
"prana" goes up, "apana" pulls it down. So the force that
pulls something downward is apana. The Acarya says the earth has apana-sakti.
The Prasnopanisad (3. 8) states: "The deity of the earth inspires the
human body with apana". In his commentary on this, Sankara observes that,
just as an object thrown up is attracted by the earth, so prana that goes up is
pulled down by apana. This means that our Upanisads contain a reference to the
law of gravitation. There are many such precious truths embedded in our ancient
sastras. Because of our ignorance of them we show inordinate respect for ideas
propounded by foreigners, ideas known to us many centuries before their
discovery by them. Our Jyotisa is also some thousands of years old. Even so it
foresaw the mathematical systems prevalent in the world today. At the beginning
of the kalpa, all grahas were in alignment. But over the ages they have changed
their courses. When another kalpa commences, they will again remain in
alignment. The "samkalpa" we make before the performance of any
ritual contains a description of the cosmos, a reference to the time cycle, and
so on. All this is part of Jyotisa. Centuries ago, we knew not only about the
earth's force of attraction but also about its revolution round the sun. Aryabhata,
Varahamihira and others spoke of the heliocentric system long before the
Western astronomers or scientists. Until the 16th century people in Europe
believed that the earth remained still at the centre of the universe and that
the sun revolved around it. They further believed that this was how day and
night were created. If anybody expressed a different view he was burned at the
stake by the religious leaders. "It is the earth that revolves around the
sun, not the sun round the earth", declared Aryabhata. He used a beautiful
term to describe the logic behind his view: "laghava-gaurava nyaya".
"Laghu" means light, small, etc and "laghava" is derived
from it. The opposite of "laghu" is "guru", weighty, big,
etc. "Guru" also denotes a weighty personality, a great man, like an
acarya or teacher, one who has mastered a sastra. If the acarya is guru the
disciple must be laghu. The student is small and "light" compared to
his guru. So he goes round the latter. This is based on "laghavagaurava
nyaya". By adducing this reason for the earth going round the sun,
Aryabhata combined science with a traditional sastric belief. In the old days
religious leaders in Europe were opposed to science and even burned scientists
as heretics. But today we join the descendants of the very same people to make
the preposterous charge that the Hindu religion stood in the way of scientific
advancement, that it ignored the matters of this world because of its concern
for the other world. As a matter of fact our traditional sastras are a storehouse
of science. "The sun remains still and it is the earth that goes round it.
It is only because the earth revolves round the sun that it seems to us that
the sun rises every day in the east and sets in the west". This is
mentioned in Aitareya Brahmana of Rgveda. The text says clearly: "The sun
neither rises nor sets". That all learned people in India knew about the
earth's revolution is shown by a passage in the Sivotkarsa-Manjari by
Nilakantha Diksita who was minister of Tirumala Nayaka. One stanza in this work
begins like this: "Bhumir bhramayati" and from it we must also gather
that the author's great-uncle, Appayya Diksita, also knew about this truth.
What is the content of this verse? Siva is called "Astamurti". Earth,
water, air, fire, space, the sun and the moon, the yajamana or sacrificer--they
are all the personification (murti) of Isvara. Among them only the yajamana has
no bhramana or motion. All the rest have bhramana, says Appayya Diksita. That
he has said so is mentioned in the verse in question by his younger brother's
grandson, Nilakantha Diksita. We see that air has movement, that fire does not
remain still, that water keeps flowing. When we look up into the sky, we notice
that the sun and the moon do not remain fixed to their spots. As for space, it
is filled with sound and it cannot be still. But the earth apparently stands
still. Even so, says Appayya Diksita, it has motion. "It revolves".
Let us now consider the shape of the earth. Europeans claim that they were the
first to discover that the earth is like a ball, that in the past it had been
thought to be flat like a plate. All right. What word do we use for
"geography"? "Bhugola sastra", not just
"bhusastra". We have known from early times that the earth is a
"gola", a sphere. We call the universe with all its galaxies,
"Brahmanda". It means the egg created by Brahma (the cosmic egg). An
egg is not exactly spherical in shape, but oval. According to modern science
the universe too is oval in shape. The cosmos is always in motion, so observe
modern astronomers. "Jagat" is the word by which we have known it
from Vedic times. What does the word mean? That which does not stand still but
is always in motion, that which "is going". In our country too there
were people who refused to believe that the earth rotates on its axis. I will
tell you the view of one such school of thought. The earth's circumference is
about 25, 000 miles. So if it rotates once in 24 hours then it means it rotates
more than 1, 000 miles an hour or 16 or 17 miles in one minute. Those who did
not accept the fact of the earth's rotation tried to prove their point
thus:"There is a tree in Mylapore [in Madras]. Imagine there is a crow
perched on one of its branches. It leaves its perch this moment and soars high
and, by the next minute, it perches itself again on the branch of the same tree
in Mylapore. If the rotation of the earth were a fact how would this be
possible? The crow should have descended to a place 16 or 17 miles away from
where it had started. I have not checked on how this argument was answered. But
when I asked people who know modern science they said: "Surrounding the
earth for some 200 miles is its atmosphere. Beyond that there are other
spheres. When the earth rotates these too rotate with it". I may have gone
slightly wrong in stating the view of modern science. However it be, there is
no doubt that when the earth rotates, its atmosphere also rotates with it. What
are called Arabic numerals actually belong to India. This fact was discovered
by Westerners themselves. The zero is also our contribution and without it
mathematics would not have made any advance. Bhaskaracarya established the
subtle truth that any quantity divided by zero is infinity
("ananta"). He concludes one of his mathematical treatises with a
benedictory verse in which he relates zero to the Ultimate Reality. When the
divisor goes on decreasing the quotient keeps increasing, does it not? If you
divide 16 by 8 the quotient is 2; if the same quantity is divided by 4 the
result is 4. Divided by 2, the quotient is 8. Divided by zero? The quotient
will be infinity. Whatever the number divided, the result will be infinity if
the divisor is 0. Bhaskaracarya gives it the name of "khahara".
"Kham" means zero, "haram" means division. Bhaskaracarya
says : "I pay obeisance to the Paramatman that is Infinity".
Not Blind Belief
"Hindu sastras are all nonsensical, “exclaim
critics of our religion. "They say that north of the earth is the Meru
Mountain, that our one year is one day for the celestials residing there, and
that the sun revolves round it. They believe that, besides the ocean of salt,
there are oceans of sugarcane juice and milk, in fact several kinds of oceans.
They describe the earth with its five continents as consisting of seven
islands. It is all prattle. “Why should the ocean be salty? Who put the salt in
it? Why should not there have been an ocean tasting sweet or of milk? Is the
talk about the seven islands and the seven oceans absurd? What to the sastras
say about the position of the earth, the same sastras that speak about the
seven oceans, and so on? "Meru is situated on the northern tip of the
earth,” they state. "Directly opposite to it is the Pole star (Dhruva).”
The northern tip of the earth is the North Pole. Is the Pole star directly
opposite to it? No. "Eons ago,” scientists explain, "it was so. But
later big changes took place and the earth tilted a bit. “The sastras refer to
a time when the Pole star was directly opposite the North Pole and at that time
the seven islands and the seven oceans must have existed. When the rotating
earth tilted a bit the oceans must have got mixed and become salty and in the
process the seven islands must have become the five continents. If there is a
place above the North Pole it must be Meru where we have our svarga or
paradise. Let us imagine that this earth is a lemon. A spot on its top is the
Meru peak. In relation to that spot any other part of the fruit is south. Where
can you go from there, east or west? You can go only south. You will learn this
if you mark a point on the top of the lemon. For all countries of the earth,
for all "varsas", north is Meru. "Sarvesamapi varsanam
Meruruttaratahsthitah.” On the North Pole it is six months day and six months
night. We must have been taught this in our primary classes. It means our one
year is one day on the North Pole. This is what is meant by saying that our one
year is one day for the celestials. When the earth rotates, the northernmost
and southernmost points are not affected. In some places there will be sun for
18 hours and in other places only for six hours. There are many differences in
the durations of day and night with regard to different places on earth. Only
on some days does the sun rise directly in the east and is overhead without
departing even by one degree. On other days it rises from other angles (from
northeast to south-east). Such is not the case on the North Pole. There the sun
shines six months and the other six months it is darkness. And, again, during
the sunny months it would seem as if the sun were revolving round this
place(the North pole). The six-month period when there is sun in the North Pole
is called uttarayana and the similar sunny period on the South Pole is
daksinayana. The North Pole is called “Sumeru" and the South Pole
"Kumeru". ("Sumeria" is from Sumeru. In that land, it is
said, the Vedic gods were worshipped. ) Just as the North Pole is the abode of
the gods, the South pole is the abode of the fathers (pitrs) and hell. To see
the gods and the pitrs who are in the form of spirits and the denizens of hell
one must obtain divine sight through yoga. Merely because we do not possess
such sight we cannot deny their existence. There was Blavatsky who was born in
Russia, lived in America and later came to India. She speaks about the worlds
of the gods and of the spirits. A great scientist of our times, Sir Oliver
Lodge, affirmed the existence of spirits and deities and stated that mankind
could benefit from them. If you ask why Jyotisa, after dealing with the science
of astronomy, should turn to spiritualism, the answer is that there is no
contradiction between the two as supported by the example of a scientist like
Sir Oliver who too turned to spiritualism. Our sastras came into existence at a
time when mortals mixed with the gods. We would be able to appreciate this fact
if we tried to understand the samkalpa we make at the time of performing any
religious function. The samkalpa traces the present from the time of creation
itself. From Jyotisa we learn the position of the grahas at the commencement of
the yuga: then they were all in a line. Some calculations with regard to
heavenly bodies today are different from those of the past. And, if the
findings at present are not the same as seen in the sastras, it does not mean
that the latter are all false. The sastras have existed from the time the
grahas were in a line and the North pole was directly opposite the Pole star.
Since then vast changes have taken place in nature. Valleys have become
mountains, mountains have become oceans, and oceans have become deserts and so
on. Geologists speak about such cataclysmic changes, and astronomers tell us
about the change in the courses of the heavenly bodies. So what we see today of
the earth and the heavenly bodies is different from what is mentioned in the
sastras. The date of creation according to Jyotisa agrees more or less with the
view of modern science. Kali yuga--the age of Kali--has a span of 432, 000
years. Dvapara yuga is twice as long, 864, 000 years, Treta yuga is 1, 296, 000
years and Krta yuga 1, 728, 000 years. The four yugas together, called maha
yuga, are 4, 320, 000 years long. A thousand mahayugas add up to the period of
14 Manus. The regnal period of a Manu is a manvantara. There are royal and
republican rulers on earth, but God has appointed Manu as ruler of all the
worlds. There are fourteen Manus ruling the world successively from the
creation of man. The word "manusya" and “manuja" are derived
from Manu. So too the English word "man". In the samkalpa for any
ritual we perform we mention the year of the seventh Manu, Vaivasvata. If we go
back to the first Manu, Svayambhuva, we arrive at a date for the origin of the
human species which agrees with the view of modern science. The Sanskrit word,
"man", means to think. Manu was the first of the human race with its
power of thinking. There is a saying in English:" Man is a thinking
animal”. “Since man's distinctive characteristic is his capacity to think the
descendants of Manu came to be called "manusyas.” The life-span of the
fourteen Manus put together make one day (daytime) of Brahma, that is 4, 320,
000, 000 years. His night has the same length. While one day of Brahma is thus
8, 640, 000, 000 years his one year is 365 such days and his life-span is 100
such years. The life of his cosmos is the same. When Brahma's life comes to an
end the Brahman alone will remain and there will be no cosmos. Then another
Brahma will start creation all over again. It is believed that Hanuman will be
the next Brahma. Bhuloka, Bhuvarloka, Suvarloka, Maharloka, Janaloka, Tapoloka
and Satyaloka comprise the seven worlds. The gods, mortals and so on live in
these worlds. Bhuloka, Bhuvarloka and Suvarloka form one group.
"Bhurbhuvassuvaha,” we pronounce this so often while performing rituals.
The remaining four belong to higher planes. When Brahma goes to sleep at night
the first three worlds will be dissolved in the pralaya (deluge). This is
called "avantara-pralaya"("intermediate deluge"). All other
worlds will perish when his life-span ends. Scientists say that the heat of the
sun is decreasing imperceptibly. Without the warmth of the sun there will be no
life on earth. Scientists have calculated the time when the sun's heat will be
reduced so much that life on earth cannot be sustained. Then this world itself
will perish. The date on which this will occur agrees with that given by our
sastras for the next "avantara-pralaya". Half of Brahma's allotted
life-span is over. This life-span is divided into seven "kalpas". Now
we have come more than half way of the fourth kalpa, "Svetavaraha".
We mention in samkalpa how old Brahma is at the time we perform a rite, which
year we are in of the saka era, also the year according to the 60-year cycle
beginning with Prabhava--all details of the almanac including the day, the
asterism and the lagna. The date of Brahma's appearance, according to this
calculation is said to agree with the view of modern science of when this
cosmos came into being. Brahma is called "Parardha-dvaya-jivin". It
means he lives for two "parardhas". A "paradha" is half the
number meant by "para". When Brahma is called
"Paradha-dvaya-jivin" it means he lives as many years as is meant by
2*1/2 paras. Two half paras are the same as one para. Then why say
"parardha-dvaya" instead of just one "para". The reason for
this is that Brahma has already completed half of one para and is going on 51.
So it is meaningful to use the term "half of para"[two half-paras].
Fourteen Manus reign successively during one daytime of Brahma which lasts a
thousand caturyugas. So one manvantara is 71 caturyugas. Now running is the
28th caturyuga, the Vaivasvata manvantara. And of it, it is Kali Yuga now. In
our samkalpa we mention all this and, in addition, the day according to the
moon, the Lagna, etc. We also mention how we are situated in the space, from
the Brahmanda down to the locality where we are performing the function (for
which the samkalpa is made). It is all similar to writing the date and address
on a letter.
Empirical Proof
A ray of light pouring through an opening in the
roof of a building falls on a particular spot. Normally, we shall not be able
to tell where the same ray of light will fall next year. But a prediction can
be made with the help of Jyotisa. This is how it was done in the olden days. A
pearl attached to a thread was hung from the roof. If a man was able to
indicate correctly in advance where its shadow would fall on a particular day,
he received a reward from the king. One's competence in other sastras is
established through argument, but in Jyotisa it has to be proved by actual
demonstration. You cannot deceive anyone by employing the methods taught by
this science. The sun and the moon are witness to what you do. "Pratyaksam
Jyotisam sastram.”
Kalpa
Hand of Veda Purusha
The sixth limb or Anga of the Vedapurusa is Kalpa,
his hand. The hand is called "kara" since it does work (or since we
work with it). In Telugu it is called “sey ". Kalpa is the sastra that
involves you in "work". A man learns to chant the Vedas, studies
Siksa, Vyakarana, Chandas, Nirukta and Jyotisa. What does he do next? He has to
apply these sastras to the rites he is enjoined to perform. He has to wash away
his sins, the sins earned by acting according to his whims. This he does by the
performance of good works. For this he must know the appropriate mantras and
how to enunciate them correctly, understanding their meaning. Also certain
materials are needed and a house that is architecturally suited to the conduct
of the rituals. The fruits yielded by these must be offered to the Isvara.
Kalpa concerns itself with these matters. Why does a man learn the vedas? Why
does he make efforts to gain perfection with regard to the purity and tone of
their sound by learning Siksa, grammar and prosody? And why does he learn
Jyotisa to find out the right time to perform rituals? The answer is to carry
out the injunctions of Kalpa. How is a rite to be performed, what are the
rituals imposed upon the four castes and on people belonging to the four
asramas (celibate students, house-holders, forest recluses and ascetics)? What
are the mantras to be chanted during these various rites and what are the
materials to be gathered? What kind of vessels are to be used, and how many
rtviks (priests) are needed for the different rituals? All these come under the
province of Kalpa. A number of sages have contributed to the Kalpa sastra. Six
sages have composed Kalpasutras for the Krsna-Yajurveda which is predominantly
followed in the South - Apastamba, Baudhayana, Vaikhanasa, Satyasadha,
Bharadhvaja, Agnivesa, Asvalayana and Sankhayana have written Kalpasutras for
the Rigveda but the former's is most widely followed. For Sukla-Yajurveda there
is the Kalpasutra by Katyayana. For the Kauthuma, Ranayaniya and Talavakara
Sakhas of the Samaveda, Latyayana, Drahyayana and Jaimini respectively have
composed Kalpasutras. Kalpa contains Grhyasutras and Srautasutras for each
recension. Both deal with the 40 samskaras to be performed from conception to
death. The cremation of the body is also a sacrifice, the final offering: it is
called "antyesti" and it is also to be performed with the chanting of
mantras. "Isti" means a sacrifice and in antyesti the body is offered
in the sacred fire as a "dravya" or material. A Brahmin has to
perform 21 sacrifices: seven "haviryajnas" based on agnihotra; seven
pakayajnas and seven somayajnas. Of them the seven haviryajnas and the seven
somayajnas are not included in the Grhyasutras. They belong to the
Srautasutras. Together with these there are forty rites for a Brahmin -- they
are called samskaras. A samskara is that which refines and purifies the
performer. Agnihotra is performed at home and yajnas [of a bigger type] in
specially constructed halls. While the srautasutras contain instructions for
the conduct of big sacrifices, the Grhyasutras are concerned with domestic
rites. The names given before are of the authors of Srautasutras. The
Kalpasutras deal with the forty samskaras and with the eight
"Atmagunas" [qualities to be cultivated by individuals]. Apart from
the seven haviryajnas and seven somayajnas (together 14) the remaining 26
belong to the category of Grhyasutras. Among them are garbhadhana, pumsavana,
simanta, jatakarma, namakarana, annaprasana, caula, upanayana and vivaha. I
shall be dealing with them later. The eight Atmagunas are compassion, patience,
freedom from jealousy, purity or cleanliness, not being obstinate, keeping a
cool mind, noncovetousness and desirelessness. These are among the
"samanyadharmas", universal virtues, to be cultivated by all jatis.
When we do "abhivadhana" [as we prostrate ourselves before the fire
or before a preceptor or any elder], we mention, among other things, the sutra
that we follow. To illustrate: Samavedins mention Drahyayanasutra. Drahyayana
has authored only Srautasutra. Another, Gobhila, has written a Grhyasutra. In
the old days when it was a common practice to conduct big sacrifices the
Srautasutras which deal with them were mentioned in the abhivadhana. This
practice continues though we no longer perform srauta sacrifices and go through
only such functions as marriage which are dealt with by Grhyasutras. In the
past even poor people performed srauta rituals. They got all the materials
required by begging. Brahmins who were called
"prativasanthasomayajins" conducted soma sacrifices every year during
the spring [that is what the term means]. If a man had enough income to meet
three years' expenses (of his family) he conducted the soma sacrifice during
every season of spring. Now there is a decay in all fields. Things have turned
topsy-turvy. People spend three times their annual income but, ironically
enough, owing to changes in trade and commercial practices all, including the
rich, suffer from poverty and hardship. There must be moderation in everything.
All the ingenuity and resourcefulness of our times have led only to indigence
even in the midst of plenty. The rich man has brought himself to a position of
not being able to afford all his expenses. With moderation alone will there be
the means to do good works. The sikha, the pundra and the religious rites vary
from sutra to sutra. Some wear "urdhva-sikha" [lock of hair on the
crown of the head], some "purva-sikha" [lock of hair on the forepart
of the head]. Similarly there are differences in wearing the marks on the
forehead: some wear vertical marks (urdhva-pundra) and some horizontal
(tripundra). These are according to the tradition one follows. Cayana is an
important feature of sacrifices. There are two types of sulbasutras in Kalpa:
"samanya" (ordinary or common) and "visesa" (special).
There are sulba-sutras by Katyayana, Baudhayana, Hiranyakesin and so on. In the
south there is what is called "Andapillai-prayoga".
"Andapillai" belong to Tiruppanantal and was named after the deity
Ganesa ( "pillayar ") of Tiruvidaimarudur (Tanjavur district). It is
according to his method that srauta works are performed. The srauta sacrifices
are large-scale sacraments not conducted in the home but in a
"yagasala". Rites that are not so big are "grhya" and
performed at home. Since big sacrifices have become rare, the Grhyasutras have
gained greater importance. Besides, alien sastras, alien practices, are
becoming more and more popular. All our sastras have one goal, that of holding
the lotus-feet of Isvara. Whatever we read must be in the form of an offering
to the Lord and it must be capable of bringing us Atmic merit. Our sastras
belong to such a category. It is a matter for regret that the conduct of srauta
works (havir and soma sacrifices), which are of the utmost importance to the
Vedic religion, has become very rare. Among those who have authored
Kalpasutras, but for Drahyayana and Katyayana, all the rest, like Apastamba,
Baudhayana and Asvalayana, have written both Srauta and Grhya sutras. Apart
from the above two types of sutras, we have the "Dharmasutras". These
deal with a man's individual, domestic and social life. The Dharmasastra is
based on them. What we understand by the English term "law" is
derived from them. They are also the basis of the moral and legal sastras of
Manu, Mitaksara and so on. (The following Dharmasutras have been handed down to
us: those of Vasistha and Visnu for the Rgveda; those of Manu, Baudhayana,
Apastamba and Hiranyakesin for the Krsna- Yajurveda; and those of Gautama for
the Samaveda). Since the Atharvaveda has hardly any following its Kalpasutras
are not in observance. Kalpa deals with rites in their minutest detail. All the
actions of a Brahmin have a Vedic connection. Through each and every breath he
takes in, with each step he takes, he will be able to grasp the divine powers
for the well-being of the world because of this Vedic connection and only
because of it. The Kalpasutras contain rules with regard to how a Brahmin must
sit, eat, wear his clothes and so on. This "limb" of the vedas also
deals with the construction of houses. Why? The design -- or architecture -- of
a Brahmin's dwelling must be such as to help him in the performance of his
duties according to the scriptures. If, say, there is a rule about the doorway
where he should offer the " vaisvadeva-bali ", should not the doorway
be constructed in the required sastric manner? Is the modern "flat" suitable
for such rites? The character of the place where the " aupasana " is
to be performed is described in Kalpa. A class-room where children are taught
has to meet certain requirements: it must have a desk, benches, etc. The
laboratory has to be different from it. Similarly, the architecture of a house
and the design of a class-room differ functionally. I perform puja. The place
where I do it must have a certain special character. All rooms are similar in a
bungalow. If a puja is performed in such a place, rules regarding ritual purity
and difference based on varna and asrama cannot be properly maintained since
people will come crowding together. The bungalow is built according to the
white man's way of life. There must be separateness and at the same time
togetherness; there must be a place for everybody. Even if we wish to have a
place according to our customs and traditions, the new type of house does not
help in this way. Our architecture has developed according to our traditions
and needs. A cement floor cannot be maintained clean after eating. When washed
or scrubbed with water, the " eccil " will spread. Westerners living
in bungalows (or flats) eat at table. We must build our houses according to our
architectural science. The term "grhastha" itself is from
"grha" (house). Those who observe ritual purity in matters like
eating, living and clothing, must build their houses according to our
architectural concepts. But we are now accustomed to living in houses built in
an alien style. At first we may feel some qualms about the difficulty in
practising our customs and traditions. Eventually, however, we are likely to
get used to style of living and become careless about our religious
observances. Instead of abandoning such houses, we abandon the religious and
other practices which are part of our dharma. I shall be speaking to you in
some detail about the 40 samakaras included in Kalpa when I deal with
Dharmasastra. We have discussed ten of the caturdasa-vidya, the fourteen
branches of vedic lore - the four vedas, Siksa, Vyakarana, Chandas, Niruktha,
Jyotisa, and Kalpa. Four remain.
Mimamsa – Karmamarga
Explication Of Vedic Laws, No Concept Of God In Mimamsa, Nyaya And Mimamsa, Buddhism And Indian Society,
Shankara And Non Vedic Systems, Sankya, Mimamsa And Adi Shankara, Determining The Meaning Of
Vedic Text,
Explication of Vedic Laws
Of the fourteen branches of learning
(caturdasa-vidya), after the four Vedas and the Sadanga, we have the four
Upangas of the vedas remaining. "Upa+anga"="Upanga. "The
prefix "upa" is added to suggest what is auxiliary to a
subject.”Sabhanayaka" means speaker; "upasabhanayaka" means
deputy speaker. In the same way we have, after the six Angas (Sadanga), the
four Upangas. These are Mimamsa, Nyaya, the Puranas and Dharmasastra. "Mam"
is the root of the word "Mimamsa"; "san" is the pratyaya.
"Mimamsa" means "esteemed or sacred inquiry", an
exposition. What is esteemed or worthy of worship? The Vedas. Mimamsa is an
exegesis of the Vedas. Nirukta explains the meaning of the words of the Vedas,
also their etymology in the fashion of the dictionary. Mimamsa goes further, to
find out the significance of the mantras, their intent. It also gives its
decisions on these points. We have already discussed the karmakanda and the
jnanakanda of the Vedas. Karmakanda is called the purva-bhaga,the first or
early part of each Vedic recension, and the second or concluding part is the
uttarabhaga. Mimamsa too is divided in this way into Purvamimamsa and
Uttaramimamsa. The first holds that sacrifices and other rites of the karmakanda
form the most important part of the Vedas, while the second maintains that the
realisation of the self taught in the jnanakanda is their true goal. I spoke
about the Uttaramimamsa when I dealt with the Upanishads and the Brahmasutra.
Uttaramimamsa, that is the Brahmasutra as well as the Upanishads,
constitutes"Brahmavidya" or Vedanta here. It is the foundation of the
three important philosophic systems - Advaita (non-dualism or monism),
Visistadvaita (qualified non-dualism or qualified monism) and Dvaita (dualism).
Our present subject is Purvamimamsa. As a matter of fact the term
"Mimamsa" itself usually denotes "Purvamimamsa". But
mention of it brings to mind Uttaramimamasa also. Every system has, as we have
seen its sutras, bhasya, and vartika. The Purvamimamsa-sutra is by Jamini
Maharsi, its bhasya by Sabarasvamin and its vartika by Kumarilabhatta.
Kumarilabhatta's Bhattadipika remains the most important Purvamimamsa work.
Kumarila was an incarnation of Kumarasvamin or Subrahmanya. Prabhakara has
written a commentary or Purvamimamsa in which he expresses views which, on some
points, are divergent from Kumarlibhatta's. So, two different schools are
identified in Mimamsa-"Bhatta-mata" and "Prabhakara-mata".
Let us consider Mimamsa in general terms, ignoring the difference between the
two schools. "Bhattamata", it is obvious, gets its name from the fact
that it represents the views of Kumarilabhatta. Jaimini's Purvamimamsa-sutra is
a voluminous work and has twelve chapters, each having a number of "padas"
and each pada having a number of "adhikaranas". In all, there are
1000 adhikaranas. The Vedas constitute the law of Isvara. Since they are
eternal and endless the law is also eternal. All of us are the subject of the
monarch called Isvara. He has engaged many officials, authorities, like Indra,
Vayu, Varuna, Agni, Yama, Isana, Kubera, Nirrti and so onto take care of this
world. They need a law to protect the creatures of all the fourteen worlds. How
should we, the subjects of Isvara, conduct ourselves according to this law, how
are the officials appointed by Isvara to rule over his domain? We may find out
the answer to these by examining the Vedas. There are judges who deliberate on
the laws of this world and resolve doubts concerning them with the help of
lawyers. If the Vedas are the law that determines how dharma is to be
practised, it is jaimini who interprets the meaning of this law. His
interpretation is Mimamsa. When there is legal dispute, a verdict is given,
say, according to the decision of the Allahabad or Bombay high court based on
similar cases. The decision given by one court with regard to one case may be
applied to a similar case that comes up before another court. In Jamini's
Mimamsa a thousand issues (or points) are examined, taking into account the
views opposed to those of the author of the sutras, and the meaning of the
Vedic passage determined with cogent reasoning. To explain: first, a Vedic
statement is taken up; second, questions are raised about its meaning
("samasya"); third, the opposing school's point of view is presented
("purvpaksa"); fourth, that point of view is refuted
("uttarpaksa"); and, fifth, a conclusion is arrived at
("nirnaya"). The process of arriving at the meaning of each issue or
point constitutes an adhikarana. The sutras of Jaimini are very terse. Sabara's
commentary on them is called Sabaram. The word "sabari" usually means
a hunter. "Sabari" of the Ramayana, they say, was originally a
huntress. Sabara, the Mimamsa commentator, had an aspect of Isvara in him. It
is believed that Isvara composed the commentary (Sabaram) when we appeared as a
hunter to grant the Pasupata weapon to Arjuna. Since it has one thousand
adhikaranas, Purvamimamsa is called "Sahasradhikarani". One must add
here that in this work the meaning of the Vedic texts are determined by
countering many a captious argument ("kuyukti"). While Purvamimamsa
concerns itself with the meaning of the karmakanda of the Vedas, Uttaramimamsa
deals with the meaning of the jnanakanda that is the Upanisads. The Upanisads
speak primarily of the Paramatman and our inseparable union with him. Vyasa, in
his Brahmasutra, determines the meaning of the divine law constituted by the
Upanisads. Ironically enough, the sage who composed the sutras for
Uttaramimamsa, Vyasa, was the guru of Jaimini who composed the sutras of
Purvamimamsa. Suresvaracarya wrote a commentary on the Taittiriya and
Brhadaranyaka Upanisads from the non-dualistic point of view. It is not worthy
that he had earlier been and adherent of Purvamimamsa. He made the transition
from the path of works to the path of jnana, on becoming a disciple of Sankara
and wrote a commentary on his guru's bhasya. Before becoming a disciple of our
Acarya and a sannyasin he was called Mandanamisra. The story goes that Sankara
approached Mandanamisra for a philosophical disputation during a sraddha
performed by the latter. Vyasa and Jaimini were the two Brahmins to take part
in the ceremony.
No Concept of God in Mimamsa
|
Why
should the Acarya have sought a debate with Mandanamisra, the mimamsaka? (A
mimamsaka is an adherent of Purvamimamsa. We Uttaramimamsakas are called
"Vedantins". ) The Acarya it was who revivified the Vedic religion
and reestablished it on a firm footing. Why, then, should such a preceptor
have been critical of Mimamsa which is an Upanga of the very Vedas we
prompted? Before answering this question, we must consider the goal of any
sastra or system, whether it be Mimamsa or anything else. Any discipline, to
repeat what I said before, must have the ultimate purpose of leading us
towards Isvara. I further observed that even subjects like grammar,
lexicography, prosody had such an end in view and that was the reason why
they were included among the fourteen branches of Vedic learning. Now what is
the concept of God like in Purvamimamsa? We must here consider how Vedanta or
Uttaramimamsa views God, for it is the system to which is the Acarya gave his
wholehearted support and which he also commented upon. After all, it is the
Acarya who chiefly matters to us. And to him it is that Vyasa's Brahmasutra
matters most. What does this text have to say about Isvara? The Brahmasutra
declares: "Karta sastrarthavattvat. " It means Isvara is the
creator of the cosmos. Even adherents of other religions call God “Karta
". But Isvara is more than a Karta and has one more function. We do good
and bad - good actions and bad actions. It is Isvara who vouchsafes us the
fruits of such actions: "Phalam ata upapatteh". Isvara is the
"phaladata" (giver of the fruits of our actions) of our karma. We
do good and evil with our mind, speech and body. The lord is witness to all
this and he dispenses the fruits of our actions. These are the two
characteristics (laksanas) of Isvara according to Uttaramimamsa. What does
Purvamimamsa say about Isvara? Both Sankhyas and mimamsakas belong to the
Vedic system. But the Sankhyas believe that Isvara is not the Karta or author
of the jagat (universe). "Isvara is pure knowledge, jnana, " they
say. "This cosmos is insentient, made of earth and stone. What constitutes
jnana cannot be the cause of insentient matter. To believe that Isvara is the
author of the universe is not right. "Such is the Sankhya view.
Supporters of Sankhya describe Isvara, who unattached to the universe and is
pure jnana, as "Purusa". It is this Purusa that our Acarya calls
the ultimate "Nirguna- Brahman" (the Brahman without attributes).
However, he criticises the Sankhya concept maintaining that the
Nirguna-Brahman itself becomes the Saguna-Brahman of Isvara to create the world
and to engage itself in other activities. To mimamsakas only such rites
matter as are enjoined on us by the Vedas. They are silent on the question of
Isvara and of who created the world. However they are emphatic on one point -
that Isvara is not the one who dispenses the fruits of our actions. They
don't quarrel on the point of whether or not Isvara is the Karta of the
universe. They declare: "It is wrong to claim that Isvara gives us the
fruits of our actions according to whether they are good or evil. He is not
the one who metes out the fruits of our actions. It is the Vedic works
performed by us that decide the fruits to be earned by us. " So
adherents of both Sankhya and Mimamsa, in their different ways, reject the
view of the Vedas and the Brahmasutra that Isvara possesses the two laksanas
mentioned earlier. The mimamsakas believe that Isvara doesn't dispense the
fruits of our actions because, according to them, the Vedic works we perform
give rewards on their own. We earn merit or demerit according to how the
Vedas and sastras view our actions. So it is our karma that brings its
rewards or retribution, as the case may be, not Isvara. Among the religious
systems that accept the Vedas, Sankhyas and Mimamsa alone hold the view that
Isvara is not the creator of the world, that he does not award the fruits of
our actions.
|
|
|
Nyaya and Mimamsa: They brought about the Decline
of Buddhism
Why should the Acarya have sought a debate with
Mandanamisra, the mimamsaka? (A mimamsaka is an adherent of Purvamimamsa. We
Uttaramimamsakas are called "Vedantins". ) The Acarya it was who
revivified the Vedic religion and reestablished it on a firm footing. Why,
then, should such a preceptor have been critical of Mimamsa which is an Upanga
of the very Vedas we prompted? Before answering this question, we must consider
the goal of any sastra or system, whether it be Mimamsa or anything else. Any
discipline, to repeat what I said before, must have the ultimate purpose of
leading us towards Isvara. I further observed that even subjects like grammar,
lexicography, prosody had such an end in view and that was the reason why they
were included among the fourteen branches of Vedic learning. Now what is the
concept of God like in Purvamimamsa? We must here consider how Vedanta or Uttaramimamsa
views God, for it is the system to which is the Acarya gave his wholehearted
support and which he also commented upon. After all, it is the Acarya who
chiefly matters to us. And to him it is that Vyasa's Brahmasutra matters most.
What does this text have to say about Isvara? The Brahmasutra declares:
"Karta sastrarthavattvat. " It means Isvara is the creator of the
cosmos. Even adherents of other religions call God “Karta ". But Isvara is
more than a Karta and has one more function. We do good and bad - good actions
and bad actions. It is Isvara who vouchsafes us the fruits of such actions:
"Phalam ata upapatteh". Isvara is the "phaladata" (giver of
the fruits of our actions) of our karma. We do good and evil with our mind, speech
and body. The lord is witness to all this and he dispenses the fruits of our
actions. These are the two characteristics (laksanas) of Isvara according to
Uttaramimamsa. What does Purvamimamsa say about Isvara? Both Sankhyas and
mimamsakas belong to the Vedic system. But the Sankhyas believe that Isvara is
not the Karta or author of the jagat (universe). "Isvara is pure
knowledge, jnana, " they say. "This cosmos is insentient, made of
earth and stone. What constitutes jnana cannot be the cause of insentient matter.
To believe that Isvara is the author of the universe is not right. "Such
is the Sankhya view. Supporters of Sankhya describe Isvara, who unattached to
the universe and is pure jnana, as "Purusa". It is this Purusa that
our Acarya calls the ultimate "Nirguna- Brahman" (the Brahman without
attributes). However, he criticises the Sankhya concept maintaining that the
Nirguna-Brahman itself becomes the Saguna-Brahman of Isvara to create the world
and to engage itself in other activities. To mimamsakas only such rites matter
as are enjoined on us by the Vedas. They are silent on the question of Isvara
and of who created the world. However they are emphatic on one point - that
Isvara is not the one who dispenses the fruits of our actions. They don't
quarrel on the point of whether or not Isvara is the Karta of the universe.
They declare: "It is wrong to claim that Isvara gives us the fruits of our
actions according to whether they are good or evil. He is not the one who metes
out the fruits of our actions. It is the Vedic works performed by us that
decide the fruits to be earned by us. " So adherents of both Sankhya and
Mimamsa, in their different ways, reject the view of the Vedas and the
Brahmasutra that Isvara possesses the two laksanas mentioned earlier. The
mimamsakas believe that Isvara doesn't dispense the fruits of our actions
because, according to them, the Vedic works we perform give rewards on their
own. We earn merit or demerit according to how the Vedas and sastras view our
actions. So it is our karma that brings its rewards or retribution, as the case
may be, not Isvara. Among the religious systems that accept the Vedas, Sankhyas
and Mimamsa alone hold the view that Isvara is not the creator of the world,
that he does not award the fruits of our actions.
Sankya
According to Sankhya, the Atman is Purusa and is
the basis of all, though, at the same time detached from everything. In its
view Maya which keeps everything going is Prakriti. The cosmos is contained in
24 "tattvas" ["thatnesses" or principles or categories] of
which Prakrti is one- Prakrti is indeed the first of these and it has the name
of"pradhana". From it arises the second tattva of "mahat"
which is the intellect of Prakrti (like the intellect of man). From mahat (the
great) is derived the third tattva of "ahamkara", the ego,
self-consciousness, the feeling that there is a separate entity called
"I". Ahamkara divides itself into two: first as the sentient and
knowing life of a man, his mind, his five jnanendriyas and five karmendriyas.
The second is constituted by the five "tanmatras" and the five
"mahabhutas” of the insentient cosmos. The jnanendriyas are faculties with
which a man gets to know outside objects: the eyes that see objects, the nose
that smells, the mouth that tastes, the ear that hears and the skin that feels
by touch. With his karmendriyas he performs various actions. The mouth serves
as a karmendriya also since it performs the function of speech. The hand, the
leg, the anus and the genitals are all karmendriyas. The "asrayas"
for jnanendriyas are sound (ear), feeling, sparsa (skin), form (eye), flavour
or taste (mouth), smell (nose). These five are tanmatras. The tattvas in their
expanded insentient forms are space (sound), air (feeling or touch), water
(flavour), earth (smell), fire (form)- these are mahabhutas. Thus Prakrti,
mahat, ahamkara, mind, the five jnanendriyas, the five karmendriyas, the five
tanmatras, and the five mahabhutas- all these make up the 24 tattvas. These
tattvas are accepted by non-dualistic Vedanta also. According to it, it is
Isvara (the Brahman with attributes) who unites Purusa (or the Atman without
attributes) with Prakrti or Maya. Sankhya, however, is silent on Isvara. The
three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, according to the Sankhya
philosophy, are accepted by all Vedantic systems including non-dualism. Sattva
denotes a high state of goodness, clarity and serenity; rajas is all speed and
action and passion; and tamas denotes sleep, inertia, sloth. The Gita has much
to say on the subject in its "Gunatraya-vibhaga yoga". The Lord says:
"Nistraigunyo Bhava" (Go beyond all three gunas and dwell in the
Atman). Sankhya also believes that all undesirable developments are due to an
imbalance of the gunas and that they must be maintained evenly. But, unlike the
Gita, Sankhya does not tell us the means to achieve this- like worship of
Isvara, surrender to him, Atmic inquiry and so on. Purusa alone has life,
Prakrti is inert. By itself Prakrti is incapable of performing any function. It
manifests itself as the 24 tattvas only in the presence of Purusa. But Sankhya
also speaks contradictorily that Purusa is "kevala-gnana-swarupin"
unrelated to Prakrti. "Kevala" means what is by itself, isolated,
without the admixture of anything else. "Kaivalya" is the name
Sankhya gives to liberation. The state in which an individual, after discarding
the 24 tattvas and being released from inertia, remains in the vital Purusa by
himself is "kaivalya". (In Tamil "kevalam" has somehow come
to mean "inferior" or "unworthy".) Advaita also has the
goal of one being absorbed in Purusa, that is the Atman, and discarding all
else as Maya. To attain this state, the Acarya has cut out a path for us, the
path that takes us to final release through works, devotion and philosophic
inquiry. Sankhya does no such thing. Most of its teaching relates to forsaking
the 24 tattvas. Another unsatisfactory aspect of Sankhya is this. Purusa (the
Atman) is jnana by itself and has no function. Prakrti has a function but is
insentient and without jnana. How does this insentient Prakriti unfold itself
as the 24 tattvas? According to Sankhya, this phenomenon occurs in the presence
of Purusa. This is not a convincing explanation. How does Prakrti perform its
function under Purusa that has no function? Supporters of Sankhya answer:
"Are not iron filings brought into motion by the presence of a magnet?
Does the magnet consciously want to keep them in motion? The magnet is by
itself and the iron filings are in motion. Similarly, though Purusa is by
himself, Prakrti is activated as a consequence of its vitality. " Purusa
and Prkrti work together like a cripple carried by a blind man. The cripple
cannot walk and the blind man cannot see. So the cripple perched on the
shoulders of the blind man shows the way and the latter follows his directions.
Similarly, Prakrti which has no jnana carries Purusa who is full of jnana, but
Prkrti without jnana is behind all affairs of the world. This may sound good as
a story or a metaphor but it does not make sense unlike the explanation provided
by the Advaita concept- that the Nirguna- Brahman becomes Saguna-Brahman
(Isvara) to conduct the world. Another important difference between Advaita and
Sankhya is this. Although Sankhya believes in a Purusa made up of jnana it does
not state unequivocally like Advaita that all souls are the same as Purusa. All
individual souls, according to Sankhya, exist by themselves. Though the ideas
of Sankhya are confusing sometimes, it is regarded as one of our basic systems
of philosophy. ("Sankhya” means enumerating, numbers: from it comes
Sankhya.) The author of Sankhya Sutra is Kapila Maharishi. Notable works of
this system are Isvarakrsna's Sankhya karika and Vijnanabhiksu's commentary on
the Sankhya-sutra. The Gita too deals with Sankhya. When Bhagavan Krsna speaks
of the two paths, Sankhya and Yoga, He means jnana by the former and karmayoga
by the latter (not Rajayoga.) Sankhya does not go beyond asking us to have an
awareness of Purusa separate from Prakrti. Rajayoga, however, goes further from
this point and tells us the practical means, the "sadhana", to be
followed to become aware of Purusa dissociated from Prakrti. The concept of
Isvara and devotion to him is part of yoga and it has lessons to bring the mind
under control. What generally goes under the name of yoga is Patanjali's
Rajayoga, according to which yoga is the stopping the mental process (or the
oscillating vitality of consciousness). It is this yoga that has become popular
in Western countries. Sankhya and yoga are not included in caturdasa-vidya but,
all the same, they are important among our sastras. Though devotion to Isvara
is not part of Mimamsa, it accepts the authority of the Vedas. Likewise Sankhya
too respects the authority of the Vedas and does not support belief in Isvara.
Buddhism on the one hand, Nyaya and Mimamsa on the other which were opposed to
it, and Sankhya, which does not accept Isvara but respects the pramanas of the
Vedas: of these our Acarya accepts elements that are to be accepted and rejects
elements that are to be rejected. He establishes the Vedantic system which
harbours all these and which is their source. Sankara's view is not at variance
with the ultimate message of Buddhism, that is the exalted state of jnana. He
accepts some of the basic concepts of Sankhya like Purusa that is jnana by
itself and equivalent to the Nirguna-Brahman and Prakrti which is the same as
Maya. At the same time, he accepts the Vedic rituals of Mimamsa and the Isvara
of Nyaya. But he sees each of them as an aspect of the one Truth, not as the
final goal which it is to the various individual systems mentioned. He
integrates these different aspects into a harmonious whole in his own system of
thought.
Mimamsa and Adi Shankara
As we have already seen, Udayana and other
supporters of the Nyaya system criticised Buddhism on the score that it was
silent on the question of God, while mimamsakas like Kumarilabhatta attacked
the same because it did not favour Vedic rituals. The acarya was in sympathy
with these views and believed that Vedic sacraments, considered all-important
by the mimamsakas were essential to the cleansing of the mind and to the proper
conduct of the affairs of the community. However, he was opposed to the
mimamsakas not only because they did not accept an entity like Isvara as the
dispenser of the fruits of our actions but also because they did not believe
that, after being rendered pure by works, there is any need for one to go
further and take the path of jnana. He also did not agree with their view that
to become a sanyasin giving up all karma is not right. Kumarilabhatta and
Mandanamisra are particularly important among the mimamsakas. The Acarya had a
debate with Kumarilabhatta during the last days of that mimamsaka and won him
over to his viewpoint. Similarly, Mandanamisra also became a convert to Advaita
Vedanta and came to be one of the Acarya's chief disciples assuming the title
of Suresvaracarya. If the Acarya opposed Mimamsa, which is one of the fourteen
branches of Vedic lore, it was not because he thought it to be wholly
unacceptable. He was in agreement with the sacraments dealt with in that
system, but he differed from it on the question of devotion to the Lord. He
further believed that the fruits yielded by the rites, rewards like paradise,
must be dedicated to Isvara and that in this very act of renunciation the mind
is purified. Sankara's teaching is this: it is only if we realise that Isvara
is the Phala-data, the one who awards the fruits of our actions, that we will
not be tempted by petty rewards like paradise. Only then will we be inspired to
go beyond to attain the higher reward of inner purity. The Vedic works were
wholly acceptable to our Acarya. But for the mimamsakas they were an end in
themselves; they did not transcend them to become devoted to the Supreme
Godhead and to acquire jnana, the final realisation that Isvara and we are one
and the same. Sankara criticised mimamsakas for their failure to understand
this truth. That he did not oppose Vedic karma is proved again by the fact that
in his upadesa (teaching) -it is called Sopana-Panchaka- before giving up his
body he made the admonishment that the Vedas must be chanted every day and that
the rites mentioned in them must be performed. Vedo nityam adhiyatam Taduditam
karma svanushtiyatham The Acarya, however, taught us not to stop with karma
(performed for the sake of karma), but to go beyond it. The rites that we
conduct must be made an offering to Isvara. This is a means of obtaining inner
purity and also that of receiving instruction in jnana. That is the time when
we must give up all karma to meditate upon the teaching we have received,
indeed meditate on it with intensity and make it our inner experiential
reality. Sankara takes us, step by step, in this way to final release. He
opposed the mimamsakas because they failed to understand the purpose of Vedic
karma and refused to go beyond it. We must accept the Mimamsa system's
interpretation of the Vedas, especially because it surrenders wholly to the
"Sabda-pramana", the sound of the Vedas, its authority, and it is in
this spirit that it has understood the meaning of the scripture. An interesting
thought occurs to me. Mimamsa does not surrender to a perceptible God nor seek
to understand his form. Does that matter? The Vedas themselves constitute a great
deity. The sound of the Vedas does not take the form of a deity that can be
seen with our eyes but one that can be perceived with our ears. Let us perform
the works that that sound bids us to do without asking questions. Such an act
implies an attitude of surrender and it is in this spirit that the mimamsakas
have determined the meaning of the Vedas. So whether or not they believed in a
tangible God, they knew the God that could be grasped by the ears. (that is
they had a good understanding of the meaning of the Vedas).
Determining the meaning of Vedic Text
The Vedas,
as we know, contain "vakyas" and "adhyayas". How are we to
know their content, their meaning? What must we do to find out their purpose,
their message? The rules according to which the Vedas are to be interpreted are
contained in the Mimamsa sastra. If the Vedas are the law, Mimamsa is the law
of interpretation. As I said before, when the government enacts a great number
of laws, doubts arise as to their intention and application. So to interpret
these, the government enacts another law. Mimamsa is such a law with reference
to the Vedas. It formulates certain methods to discover the meaning of the
Vedic texts. Six methods are mentioned: upakarma-upasamhara, abhyasa, apurvata,
phala, atharvada, upapatti. According to Mimamsa the meaning, the intent, of
the Vedic Mantras may be understood by applying these methods
The reader is requested to refer to chapter 34,
Part Five, in which these six methods of Mimamsa sastra are dealt with
Mimamsa Belief
Let me now speak a little more on the doctrines of
Mimamsa. Let us not worry about whether or not there is a God. Let there be a
God or let there be none. Our duty is to perform the rites prescribed by the
Vedas and they will yield fruits on their own. Any work we do produces its own
results, doesn't it? Why do we need God in between? The work generates results
on its own. Do we pay the greengrocer if he fetches plantain leaves from our
own garden? It is the same to give credit to Isvara for the fruits we reap by
performing karma. We till the land and rice grows on it. It is the same with
performing karma. If we do what we do not know, as told by the Vedas, we will
derive certain benefits. Why should we think that the cosmos was created by
God? It has always existed as it exists today: why should we believe that it
came into being all of a sudden? "Na kadacit anidrsam jagat.” This
universe has always existed as it exists today. Do works; they will yield
fruits on their own. When the engine is wound the car starts. It is all like
that. The Vedas speak about things not comprehended by the human mind. If we
perform rites imposed on us by them, the fruits thereof will naturally follow.
Sound has always existed: it has indeed no beginning and the Vedas are this
sound. Like time and space they are ever-present. If you do evil, the
consequence shall be evil; if you do good the result shall be correspondingly
good. The rites keep yielding fruits, and we keep enjoying them - and thus we
go on and on. No God is required for all this. We should never cease to do work
because not to work is sinful. It will take us to hell. There are three types
of karma: "nitya", "naimittika", and "kamya".
"Nitya-karma" as the name suggests includes sacraments that must be
performed every day. "Naimittika" rites are conducted for a specific
purpose or reason or on a specific occasion. For instance, when there is an
eclipse we must bathe and offer libations to our fathers. When a great man
visits our home he has to be honoured ceremonially - this is also naimittaka.
Nitya and naimittaka rites are to be performed by all. A kamya-karma is a
ritual that has a special purpose. When there is a drought we conduct
Varuna-japa to invoke the god and seek his blessings in the form of rain. When
we are desirous of a son we perform the "putrakamesti"(sacrifice to
beget a son). These belong to the kamya category. The sacraments to be
performed everyday are defined in Mimamsa. "Akarane pratyavaya janakam,
karane'bhyudayam"-this statement refers to two types. The non-performance
of certain rites brings us ills, troublesthese form one type. On the other hand
some rites bring us happinessthese form the second type. A good house, wealth,
sons, fame, knowledge are part of “abhyudaya". Vedanta speaks of
"nihsreyas", the supreme bliss of liberation. “Abhyudaya” is
different; it is happiness on the lower plane. Mimamsa is concerned with the
latter, and does not speak of the ultimate blessedness of release from worldly
existence. If rites belong to the category of "nitya" are not
performed, we will have to face trouble. Suppose you ask a man to perform
sandyavandana and he replies: " I won't do it. I don't care whether or not
it does me good ". Mimamsa has an answer to it: Sandyavandana is not a
kamya or optional rite and its nonperformance will bring you unhappiness. It
stands to reason to say the performance of certain rites will bring you
happiness. But how do you justify the statement that the nonperformance of
certain other rites will have ill-effects? Not performing sandyavandana is
sinful, but its performance is not claimed to bring any good. It is because
this rite belongs to the category referred to in this statement, "akarane
pratyavaya janakam. . " Worshipping the deity in the temple, feeding the
poor, such acts are said to be beneficial and belong to the second category
referred to in the statement, ". . . . karane abhyudayam ". This
makes sense. But how is it sensible to say “akarane pratyavaya janakam"?
Are there examples to illustrate this dictum? Yes, there are. We give alms to
beggars, or make a donation to some organisation or other in the belief that
there is merit to be earned thereby. Sometimes we do not practice such charity
because we may not feel the urge to earn any special merit. We have, of course,
to do our duty, but not helping people with money or material cannot be said to
be sinful. Suppose we have borrowed Rs. 500 from a friend or an acquaintance.
How far are we justified in refusing repayment of the loan, saying: " I
don't wish to earn any merit by returning your money? ". Is it possible to
escape the obligation to the lender in this manner? He will naturally tell us:
" I came to ask you for my money. I don't care about whether you or I earn
any merit ". If we refuse to repay a loan we will be taken to court and
eventually we will have to repay it along with the penalty. This illustrates
the statement: “Akarane pratyavayajanakam. . . " Not performing
sandyavandana is like not repaying a debt. In Tamil the sandyavandana performed
at dawn and dusk are aptly called “kalai-kkadan” and " malai-k-kadan
" [" morning debt " and " evening debt " ]. These are
beautiful terms. You may wonder how sandyavandana can be described as something
“borrowed ". The Taittiriya Samhita (6. 3) of the Vedas says: “A Brahmin
is born with three debts. These are “rsi-rna",”deva-rna " and "
pitr-rna (that is a Brahmin is indebted to the sages, the devas and to his
fathers) ". The first debt is repaid by chanting the Vedas; by conducting
sacrifices and other rites the second is repaid; and by offering libations and
performing the sraddha ceremony the third is repaid. The Vedas enlighten us on
matters of which we are ignorant. From the pronouncements made in them, those
who have faith will find reasons to perform the rites. Others who perverse in
their reasoning will find an excuse for not performing the same. There are two
brothers. One is a magistrate and the other a Vedic scholar. The first cannot
refuse to attend the court saying, “My brother does not go to any law court.
Why should I? ". The authorities will tell him: "You applied for the
job of a magistrate. We issued orders appointing you to the office and you
accepted the job. So there is no choice for you but to attend the court ".
Similarly, we have applied for liberation, for moksa, and have received orders
that we have to perform certain rites. The one who issued orders is not seen by
us but he sees all and is witness to all. Such is the view of the Vedanta.
Mimamsa believes that the karma that we “applied for " gives its own
reward. According to it, the fruit of Vedic works come to us “automatically
". Our birth in this world is according to our past karma and we have to
perform the rites that are proper to it. If we do not, we will suffer. The
customs and rites must be adhered to properly. The duty of a Brahmin is to know
the truth contained in the Vedas, to bring solace to those who are sorrowing
and to give instruction to people in their respective vocations. Similarly,
each man must perform the duties allotted to him by virtue of his birth. The
oil-monger must produce oil; the cobbler must make footwear; and so on. The
Brahmin must keep his body, mind and Self pure and he must be careful about
what he eats. The reason for this is that not only has he to remain meditating
on the Paramatman, he has also the duty of bringing others to the path of
dhyana. It was for the proper discharge of such duties that in the old days he
was given gifts of rent-free lands. Then every worker was allotted land. If he
stopped doing the work assigned to him society would suffer. So he forfeited
his land an and it was allotted to another worker. According to the sastras,
not to do the work assigned to us is not only sinful but also disadvantageous
in a worldly sense. In the past one earned respect only because one did one's
karma, the duties expected of one. Our nation is in a lamentable state today
only because of the failure on the part of the people to follow their
respective callings, callings inherited from their forefathers. If everybody
does his allotted job, performs the duties expected of him by birth, there
should be happiness for all even in a mundane case. If there is so much poverty
in the country today it is because of our failure to maintain the social order
in which everybody is expected to do his allotted work, contributing to the
social prosperity and harmony. Sandyavandana and the like are everyday rites.
The nonperformance of nitya-karma is a sin; performance means we will not incur
any demerit. That apart, there will be general well-being. If we repay a loan
in instalments it means that we shall no longer remain indebted to the lender
(here we see a gain); additionally we earn a name for being honest and
trust-worthy. By performing nitya-karma no sin will attach to us and, besides,
it should mean some good to us. Thus there are two types of gains. Vedanta too
accepts the idea implicit in the statement "Akarane pratavaya janakam,
karane' bhyudayam". We must never fail to perform nitya-karma; for
instance, Srauta rites like agnihotra and Smarta rites like aupasana. It is the
view of mimamsakas that agnihotra must be performed so long as one is alive. So
they do not favour the sannyasasrama (the last stage of life, that of the
ascetic). In this asrama there are no rites like agnihotra. Giving up works,
according to the mimamsakas, is extremely sinful. To do so consciously and
become an ascetic is like embracing another religion. The Isavasyopanishad
(second mantra) says that a man must live a hundred years performing works. The
Taittiriya Brahmana has it that to extinguish the agnihotra fire is to earn the
demerit of killing a hero. According to Mimamsa, to give up nitya-karma is
tantamount to doing evil karma. "The sannyasin deprives himself of karma
('karma- bhrashta'). To look at him is sinful and you must atone for it. To
look at the sinner, to talk to him, to dine with him, “say Mandanamisra and
mimamsakas like, "is to earn sin. To look at a sanyasin is equally sinful.
" The jnanakanda of the Vedas, speaks of sannyasa, the Parabrahman,
liberation, jnana and so on. Why should concepts be attacked? What is answer of
the mimamsakas to this? It is true, they say, that the Upanisads speak of jnana
and Parabrahman. But what are the Vedas? The Vedas are sound, they are made up
of words. Why did they come into existence? To tell us about things that we do
not know. The Vedas constitute the Sabda-pramana which speaks about things that
cannot be perceived by the eyes and are beyond conjecture. Their purpose is not
to tell us about matters that are of no use. All words serve a two-fold
purpose. They bid you "Do this" or "Do not this. "
Pravrttirva nivrttirva nityena krtakyena va Pumsam yenopadisyete tacchastram
abhidhiyate Words that speak of things that serve no purpose belong to the
category of useless, idle talk. Suppose a man says, "The crow flies."
How does the statement help you? "The crow is black." Do these words
also help you in any way? Take this sentence for example: "Tomorrow night
a discourse will be held here." This has some purpose. It gives a bit of
information and implicit in it is an invitation to people to come and listen to
the discourse. Such usefulness is "pravrtti". If someone says that
there will be a discourse at Kumbhakonam tomorrow, it is as good as gossip. You
are in Madras and how will you go to Kumbhakonam in such a short time to listen
to the discourse? Any word, any sabda, must have some objective or other. It
must either involve you in work, "pravrtti" or keep you out of it,
"nivrtti". If the Vedas mention all the five terrible sins
(panca-mahapatakas) and bid us not to commit them, it is nivrtti, because they
warn us against committing those dreadful crimes. Words that do not serve the
purpose of either pravrtti or nivrtti are useless. One part of the Vedas asks
you to do this or that and another part asks you not to do this or that
(ordinances regarding what you must do and what you must not). But there is
another part which is like storytelling. The stories are meaningful only if
they are connected with the injunctions and interdictions of pravrtti and
nivrtti. Suppose there is an advertisement of a tonic that claims to give you
vigour and strength. It carries an illustration showing a man wrestling with a
lion. What is the purpose of this drawing? It is a kind of deception, the idea
behind it being to induce you to buy the tonic, and make money. Such
"stories" in the Vedas become purposeful only because of the
injunctions associated with them and they belong to the category of
"arthavada". Why does a doctor print his certificate in advertising
his medicine? To persuade people to buy it (the medicine). In this way in
arthavada untruth is mixed with truth. The untrue part is called
"gunavada". There is another term called "anuvada". It means
stating what is already known. For instance, the statement that "fire
burns". Mentioning the ingredients of a medicine is an example of
"bhutarthavada". "Gunarthavada" is to tell a story, even
though untrue, to make it useful for the observance of a rule. "Do not
drink liquor" is an injunction (or interdiction). To tell the
"story" that a man who got drunk was ruined is arthavada. The
purpose- or moral- is that one must not drink. To say that if a man drinks he
will be intoxicated is anuvada. All told, the stories or statements belonging
to arthavada must make us conform to the commandments of the Vedas. In dealing
with a sacrifice, the Vedas ask us to pay the daksina in gold, not in silver.
According to the Taittiriya Samhita silver should not be given as daksina in
sacrifices. In this connection a long story is told to illustrate the
"nisedha" or the prohibitory rule regarding silver. ("Do
this" is a "vidhi"; "do not do this" is a
"nisedha".) But the words by themselves in such arthavada do not
serve any purpose. It is in this manner that the mimamsakas try to counter the
objections raised against their system by adherents of the jnanakanda of the
Vedas. When the Upanisads speak about the Brahman there is no mention of any
work to be performed. The Upanisads themselves show that the realisation of the
Brahmans is a state in which there is no action. When do the Vedas become an
authority? When they speak about the performance of a karma. So the Upanisads
belong to the arthavada category because they deal with existing things. What
is it that we must know? Existing things or the karma we ought to perform?
"The Brahman exists. The Atman is the Brahman" In such pronouncements
there is no mention of any rites to be performed. It is obligatory for us to
conduct sacrifices and we need the Vedas only for that purpose, to tell us
about such works, not to speak about the things that exist. What exists will be
known at one time or another, even if we do not know it now. That part of the
Vedas which speaks of existing things belongs to arthavada. So the Upanisads
are not to be regarded as an authority. Then what is their purpose? They are
meant to elevate the sacrificer. By extolling him he would be made to perform
more and more works. It is not right to forsake karma to become a sannyasin.
The Upanisadic declaration that the individual self is the same as the Brahman
is meant only to glorify one who leads a life of works. The man who takes the
tonic (in the story mentioned earlier) will never be able to wrestle with the
lion. Similarly, the individual self will never attain the Brahman. The
Upanisads are in the nature of a story and we do not need any talk of the
Brahman, jnana, moksa, Isvara, and so on. Karma is all for us. So goes the
argument of the mimamsakas.
Shankara's Reply
What is Sankara's reply to this argument? What the
Vedas state need not necessarily serve the purpose of involving us in any work.
The mimamsakas accept the Vedas because, according to them, the karma mentioned
in them serves a purpose. So the purpose served by karma is the message of the
Vedas, not the karma itself. If to be without any karma, without any work, is
itself a great purpose, must not the jnanakanda of the Vedas then be acceptable
since it deals with a condition in which there is no karma to be performed, or
nothing is to be done? That is if being without karma is "useful" by
itself - if it serves a "purpose" - that can also then be the message
of the Vedas. So the underlying goal of the Vedas is not karma itself but the
purpose behind it. The Vedas admonish us: "Do not drink wine". How do
we react to this interdiction? We react by doing nothing; there is indeed
nothing for us to do. The message of this Vedic commandment is that we ought
not to ruin ourselves by drinking. To remain without doing anything is called
"abhava". All nisedha (prohibition) belongs to the abhava category.
The mimasakas themselves admit that the Vedas forbid certain actions. If it is
beneficial not to perform certain actions, how can you object to the
possibility that not doing any karma at all can also constitute a great
purpose? Vedanta has great "use" thus since it serves the supreme
purpose of the action-less or quiescent state in which we realise the Self.
This cannot be rejected as arthavada. Krsna says in the Gita: "Sarvan karma'
khilam Partha jnane parisamapyate" (All works, Partha, find their goal in
jnana). All karma must be consecrated to Paramesvara, must be laid at the feet
of the Supreme Lord. To be without work, and experience the bliss of the
Brahman is he greatest of "uses". In this state there is no birth
again and it means freedom from worldly existence. That is the ultimate message
of the Vedas. The karmakanda must be woven together with the jnanakanda if it
is to be meaningful and if it is to serve a purpose. Sankara succeeded in
convincing Mandanamisra, Kumarilabhatta and others about the rightness of this
view. To recapitulate his argument: "The karmakanda of the Vedas mentions
works because their performance is of some use in cleansing the mind. If the purpose
achieved by not performing them is a million - million times greater than that
gained by performing them, then that must be understood to be the message of
the Vedas, the ultimate teaching of the jnanakanda. The karmakanda helps a
seeker in his early stages. The performance of rites creates inner purity and
takes him to Isvara. Karma performed for the sake of karma leads a man nowhere.
The Vedas speak of the sannyasin's stage of life in which the ascetic, as he
attains the Paramatman, becomes the Paramatman". The Acarya spoke in this
vein to Mandanamisra [converted him to his point of view] and gave him
initiation into sannyasa. In the karmakanda certain acts are declared sinful.
If a person keeps doing them it is because he feels he finds some pleasure in them.
But such pleasure is momentary and becomes an obstacle in his efforts to know
the joy that is greater. The mimamsakas, respecting the injunctions of the
Vedas, abjure sinful acts. By the performance of Vedic karma they derive
certain fruits, a certain degree of happiness, find well-being in their mundane
existence and go to the pitr-loka or devaloka. But these do not mean
everlasting bliss. When the fruits of their virtuous acts are exhausted, the
joys also come to an end. Even if they go to the world of the celestials they
will have to plunge into this world again on exhausting their merit.
"Ksine punye martyalokam visanti". What is that well-being which is
eternal? The answer is that which is experienced by the jnanin when he
dissolves in the Supreme Godhead. Then there is no "doing" for him.
One must abjure sinful acts that afford petty momentary pleasure and instead
perform noble works such as those mentioned in the Vedas. But what use are even
these if they do not lead to the experience of plenary bliss? Are we, however,
capable of directly attaining such blessedness abandoning Vedic karma? No.
Jnana is not easy to obtain. For it the consciousness, the mind, must be made
pure and un-oscillating. So Vedic rituals are essential. But they must be performed
not for impermanent rewards like paradise but for the removal of inner
impurities. We must not be deflected from the higher path by the fruits yielded
by karma-these must be placed devotedly at the feet of the Lord. He will bless
us with the higher fruit of inner purity and then the mind will become mellow
enough for Atmic inquiry, for the inward journey. That is the way to the
supreme blessedness, the quiescent state in which one is oneself.
Vedanta and Mimamsa
Advaita or non-dualism is in agreement with Mimamsa
up to a point. It accepts Vedic karma as well as the six pramanas (perceptions
or sources of knowledge) defined by Kumarilabhatta. Sankara's non-dualism,
Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism, and Madhva's dualism are all Vedantic
doctrines and all three are not against Vedic rituals. While non-dualism
accepts all the six pramanas of Mimamsa, qualified non-dualism accepts only
three-pratyaksa, anumana and the Vedas. I will explain these terms when I deal
with Nyaya. The three leading Vedantic teachers (Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva),
do not completely reject Mimamsa, but the paths they have cut out go beyond the
mimamsic view: devotion in the case of Visistadvaita and Dvaita and jnana in
the case of Advaita. Mimamsa is called karmamarga since it teaches that karma
is all. But karma here does not have the same meaning as in Vedanta which
speaks of the three paths- karma, bhakti and jnana. In Vedanta karma is not
performed for the sake of karma and is not an end in itself, but consecrated to
Isvara without any expectation of reward. This is also karmamarga or karmayoga.
It is this view of karma that the Lord expounds in the Gita. In the karmamarga
of mimamsakas there is no bhakti. But, all the same, the Vedic rituals create
well-being in the world, lead to a disciplined and harmonious social life and
bring inner purity to the performer. Mimamsa holds karma to be a goal in
itself; Vedanta regards it as a means to a higher end.
How Mimamsa is Esteeme
Mimamsa is of great help in understanding the
meaning of the Vedic texts. For this reason many scholars, including those
opposed to its karmamarga, have made a thorough study of it and also written
books on it. Raju Sastri of Mannargudi (Tanjavur district), who was an
outstanding Vedantin, Venkatasubba Sastri of Tiruvisanallur, Nilamegha Sastri
of the same place, Krsnamacariyar of Rayampettah, Krsnatatacariyar, Cinnasvami
Sastri of Nandakullatur, and so on, were "scholar-lions" who made a
deep study of Mimamsa. Ironically enough, Tiruvisanallur Ramasubba Sastri was
opposed to sacrificial rites. However, though he was against the srauta karma
that is such an important part of Mimamsa, he was impressed by the theoretical
excellence of the system and was himself recognised as an authority on the
subject. The Sanskrit College, Mylapore, Madras, has produced outstanding
mimamsakas.
Nyaya
Science Of Reasoning, Padarthas, Paramanas, Rational Way To Know God, We Need All Types Of Knowledge,
Science of Reasoning
Nyaya is also called Tarka-sastra and its author is
Gautama. Its main purpose is to establish by reasoning that the Karta or
Creator of all this world is Parameswara. Indeed, it seeks to prove the
existence of Isvara through inference. Reasoning thus has a major place in
Nyaya. Logic or reasoning is of course indispensable to any study. The Vedas
make a statement and Mimamsa determines its meaning. Though we have faith in
the Vedas, doubts arise in our minds regarding the meaning of scriptural
passages. If these doubts are cleared through reasoning the message of the
Vedas will be affirmed. When we construct the marriage pandal we test the
strength of the bamboo or timber posts by trying to shake them. In the same way
we must subject truths to proper tests so as to confirm them. All logical
reasoning must be accepted but it must be firmly rooted in authority. Also,
arguments must not be of a carping character, stemming from the urge to be
merely contrary. When Sankara was about to depart from this world his disciples
requested him for a brief upadesa. It was then that he imparted his succinct
teaching in the form of five stanzas which go by the name of Upadesa-Pancaka or
Sopana-Pancaka. "Dustarkat suviramyatam - Srutimatastarko'nusandhiyatam",
is a line from it. It means that you must give up the habit captious arguments
and that in dealing with a question you must employ proper reasoning, duly
respecting the views of the Vedas. Without reason to guide us it is like
roaming aimlesssly in the forest. But reason must be founded on authority.
Nyaya finds the meaning of Vedic passages in this manner. Kanada too created a
Nyaya sastra: it is called Vaisesika. One object is distinguished from another
on the basis of the special characteristics or "particularities" of
the two. The name "Vaisesika" is derived from the fact that it
inquires into such particularities. There is a good deal of science in this
Nyaya sastra. Atmic matters like the individual self, the cosmos, Isvara, moksa
or liberation are examined (in Vaisesika "moksa" is known by the name
of "apavarga"). The Nyaya inquiry into truth is through the four
pramanas or instruments of knowledge of "pratyaksa",
"anumana", "upamana" and "sabda". Pratyaksa is
direct perception, what is perceived by the eyes and the ears and so on. It is
anumana or inference that is central to Nyaya. What is anumana? We see smoke
rising from the summit of a distant mountain: we notice only the smoke, not the
fire, which is concealed by the rock perhaps. But even if we do not see the
fire we may infer that the forest has caught fire. This is anumana. Here the
fire is called "sadhya" and the means by which we infer its presence
is "sadhana", "linga" or "hetu". In our Vedantic
system we must reflect upon the teaching imparted by our guru. This is manana
and it means going over an idea (in this case the instruction received from the
teacher) again and again in the mind, making use of our own ability to reason.
Here anumana is of help. Is it not through inference that we are able to know
things that cannot otherwise be perceived? The individual self and the
Paramatman are not directly perceived by our senses. Nor do we know the
liberation of senses. Nor do we know the nature of liberation or how to attain
it. We have to know such things by inference. Knowing an object on the basis of
another known object is anumana. When we hear the roar of the thunder we know,
by inference, that there are clouds [that the sky is overcast] By performing
Vedic works [let us take it] we have become pure within. We have also found a
good teacher and we have faith in his instruction. But, if we happen to hear
something different from what he tell us, doubts naturally arise in our minds.
These doubts have to be cleared; they must be discussed and a decision arrived
at. Here we must have recourse to a pramana (source or instrument of knowledge)
like anumana or inference. Both Nyaya and Vaisesika conduct inquiries based on
anumana.
Padarthas
Our religious system is such that if we go to the root
of all padarthas (categories)and understand their source, the Truth will become
illumined. We must make use of all pramanas (source or instruments of
knowledge) for this purpose. (That by which we perceive objects is a pramana).
Objects that are apprehended by the senses, that is by the eyes, ears, etc, are
not many. Others have to be known by inference. And inference helps us in
understanding the truths of the truths of the Vedas. That is why Nyaya is
called an Upanga (an auxiliary "limb") of the Vedas. In Nyaya the
padarthas are divided into seven categories. Of them there are two divisions:
"existent" and "non-existent" -- "bhavo
abhavasca", the latter being the seventh padartha. "Bhava" or
the existent is further divided into six sub-catagories. How does that which
does not exist become a padartha? What does "padartha" mean? In a
literal sense, it is the meaning of a pada or word. Is there not a word which
means No? There is nonexistence of certain objects in some places, and not in
some others. Here there are no flowers. There, in the pavilion where the puja
is performed, there are flowers which means that the nonexistence of flowers
does not apply to the pavilion. So there is nonexistence [of objects] in some
places and on certain occasions. Thus the fact of non-existence [of a thing] in
certain places and at certain times is also to be known as padartha. The seven
padarthas are: dravya (substance), guna (quality), karma (action), samanya
(association), visesa (difference), samavaya (inheritance) and abhava
(non-existence). Dravya, guna and karma are padarthas that belong to the
category of "sat" or being. We can demonstrate their existence but
not of the other four padarthas. Dravya can also be shown in its gross form.
But qualities like jnana, desire, happiness, sorrow, etc, cannot be shown as
independent entities. Redness is the quality of, say, the lotus and it cannot
be separated from that flower. That on which it is dependent is dravya. And,
though qualities like happiness and sorrow cannot be "shown", we can
know whether a person is happy or sad: we "see" in him happiness or
sorrow. When we see a red lotus we know what is red. Karma is work, activity.
Such "work" as movement, running, is karma and it is also dependent
on dravya. When a man runs, his "running" cannot be separated from
him. But we do see him running and know that he is not sitting or lying down.
That means we “see" the running. Samanya is the fourth padartha and it
means "jati" ("species"). We see a number of cows. They
have the common quality of being cows. This common quality is of jati. Among
objects or individuals that have a common quality there may still be
differnces. This is what is called "visesa". Suppose there is a herd
of cows (they belong to the same jati): among them we will be able to tell
apart individual cows because of their distinctive characteristics. What is
"samavaya"? The quality of a substance cannot be separated from
it(the substance), nor the work associated with it. The parts of a whole object
cannot be separated if it is still to remain the object that we know it to be.
Here we have samavaya, the quality inhering in something. Fire has a radiant
form. But this radiance cannot be separated from it. Here again is an example
of samavaya. When one dravya or substance combines with another substance we
have "samyoga". The two can remain independently without combining.
There is samavaya when a substance combines with guna or quality and there is
samavaya again when dravya and karma combine. The quality and the karma cannot
be separated from the substance. I have already spoken about
"abhava". Each of the seven padarthas is now further subdivided.
Dravya or substance is divided into nine: prithvi (earth), ap(water), tejas
(fire), vayu (air), akasa (space), kala (time), dik (direction), the Atman
(Self), manas(mind). The first five are called "pancabhutas".
Corresponding to them in the body are the five sense organs, the eyes that see,
the ears that hear, the tongue that tastes, the organ of touch that feels
warmth and cold, the nose that smells. The organ of touch is not skin alone;
the entire body possesses the sense of touch. It is because it exists within
the body too that we feel stomach ache, chest pain, etc. These faculties are
associated with individual parts of the body. Sight is in the eyes; the ears
cannot see. Music is heard by the ears; the eyes and the nose cannot hear it.
If an object comes into contact with your tongue, you know its taste but not
its smell - the nose does not know that sugarcane is sweet. So these five
qualities can be recognized individually by the five sense organs. The eye
recognizes the quality called tangible form, "rupa", which means
colour, size, shape, etc. White, yellow, green, red, brown are some of the
colours. The nose perceives pleasant and unpleasant smells. Heat and cold are
known by the skin. The tongue apprehends the six different flavours (rasas).
Thus there are five different sense organs for five different qualities and
they are called jnanendriyas. Without the sense organs or indriyas the quality
of an object will not be recognised. If we had six organs we could perhaps know
six gunas or qualities and if we had a thousand sense organs we could perhaps
appreciate a thousand qualities. We have no knowledge of all objects of the
universe. If we did not possess the sense organ of touch we would not be able
to feel heat and cold. We cannot claim that we have knowledge of cold or heat
(that is we can feel heat and cold) because they exist. We recognise qualities
only be means of our sense organs. The blind and the deaf do not perceive form
or sound though form and sound do exist in the world. All the five qualities,
form, flavor, smell, touch, and sound, are known respectively with the eye,
tongue, nose, skin and ear. The Lord had invested the pancabhutas, the five
elements, with these five qualities. The earth has all the five gunas or
qualities. It has form and flavour. Our body, aubergines, jaggery- all are
earth. Earth has smell. The fragrant flower is indeed earth. Earth has
qualities like cold and heat known by the sense of touch and it has also sound.
If you drop one end of a string to earth and keep the other end of it to your
ear you will hear sound. Water has four qualities but not smell. It smells only
when we mix perfume in it. If we beat its surface it sounds. Though earth has
all the five qualities its special quality is smell which is absent in the
other four elements. The special quality of water is flavour. Without water
there is no rasa. That is why the sense organ of taste, the tongue, is always
wet. If the tongue becomes dry you will not be able to appreciate any taste. As
a matter of fact, the word "rasa" itself also means water. Fire has
neither smell nor flavour but it has form, sound and touch, form being its
special quality. Vayu or air has no form, but it has sound and touch- the
lastmentioned is its special quality. That is how we know when the wind blows
on us. Akasa or space has only one quality, sound. To sum up, akasa or space
has only one quality; vayu or air has, in addition to sound, the quality of
touch; agni or fire has the three qualities of sound, touch and form; water has
the qualities of sound, touch, form and rasa; but earth has all the five
qualities. Such are the pancabhutas or five elements. The remaining four
subdivisions of dravya (substance) are time, dik, the Atman and manas. Terms
like "hour", "yesterday", "today",
"year", "yuga", indicate time. "Dik" means
direction or area, the points of the compass, what we mean by "here"
or "there". In short it denotes "space", "akasa".
The Atman is the entity that knows all this. He or It is of two types, the
intelligent and the unintelligent, the Paramatman and the jivatman. The
Paramatman is a mere witness to all that passes in the world while the jivatman
or the individual self is trapped in it(the world) and given to sorrow. The
individual souls are many while the Paramatman is one and only one. Both the
jivatman and the Paramatman are spiritual entities of jnana. According to
Vedanta, knowledge itself is the Atman; the Atman is jnana in a plenary sense.
Apart from it, and outside it, there is nothing to be known. Indeed we cannot
speak of different jivatmans. According to Nyaya, the Atman is a dravya or
substance, knowledge (jnana) being its quality. Nyaya describes the Paramatman
alone as jnana that is full since there is nothing that is not known to him.
The individual self possesses only a little knowledge. So we are called
"kinjijnas", "kinjit" meaning little. The Paramatman is
"Sarvajna", the One who knows all. We are in a mixed state of being
dependent both on jnana and ajnana. The Paramatman is dependent on (or is)
jnana alone. The Atman is "vibhu", all-pervading. Nyaya also says
that the Paramatman is all-pervading, but it does not speak of the two being
the same, the Atman and the Paramatman. The reason for this is that, according
to Nyaya, knowledge exists independently in each individual as a separate
factor. The place where it dwells is the mind- and it is the mind that causes
sorrow and happiness. In Nyaya guna is divided into 24 categories and karma
into five. The Truth will be known, says Nyaya, if we have knowledge of the
padarthas and develop detachment that will lead to release. Liberation is a
state in which we know neither sorrow nor happiness. Even if we adhere to the
Vedantic concept of liberation, Nyaya affords a method to reflect upon the
instruction received from our guru. We are able to know the pancabhutas or the
five elements, the individual self and the mind. But how are we to know the
Paramatman? He alone is not known. It is to know him that we must employ
anumana, the method of inference. To know the rest "pratyaksa
pramanas" or direct sources of knowledge are sufficient. The Vedas
proclaim the existence of Isvara; Nyaya establishes it with anumana or
inference. Let us now see a small example of inference. We know that the throne
on which I am seated must have been made by someone. Because we don't know him,
can we describe the fact of its having been made itself to be false? We have
seen other thrones being made and from that we deduce that there must be
somebody who must have made this one also. Similarly, there must be someone who
must have created this universe. He is omniscient, omnipotent and
compassionate- and he is the protector of all. Such matters are dealt with in
Nyaya: a proposition is stated, objections raised and answered.
Paramanas
The pramanas other than "pratyaksa" and
"anumana" are "upamana" and "sabda". What is
"upamana"? It is knowing what is not known by means of comparison
with the known. There is an animal called "gavaya". We do not know
what it looks like. It is like a wild buffalo: to look at it is like a cow, so
it is said. We go to the neighbourhood of the forest and there we spy an animal
resembling a cow, so we conclude that it must be a gavaya. Here we have
recourse to upamana. "Sabda-pramana" is verbally testimony, the
pronouncements of the Vedas and the words of great men. When the scriptures
speak of things that we do not know, their words must be accepted as authority.
The naiyayikas, or exponents of Nyaya, believe that the Vedas are the words of
Isvara. The words of great men who are wedded to truth are also verbal
testimony. These four pramanas are accepted in Kumarilabhatta's school of Mimamsa.
To them he has added two more: "arthapatti" and
"anupalabdhi". Thus there are six pramanas in all and they are part
of the non-dualistic doctrine also. Our Sastras give a clear idea of arthapatti
through an illustration. "Pino Devadatto diva na bhunkte". What does
the statement mean? "The fat Devadatta doesn't eat during daytime".
Though Devadatta does not eat during daytime, he still remains a fat fellow.
How? We guess that he must be eating at night. There is something contradictory
about an individual not eating and still not being thin. Here arthapatti helps
us to discover the cause of Devadatta being fat. Our guess that he eats at
night does not belong to the category of anumana. To make an inference there
must be a hint or clue in the original statement itself. There must be a
"linga" like smoke from fire, thunder from clouds. Here there is no
such linga. It is the same with upamana. When we come to the conclusion that
the animal we have seen is the beast called "gavaya", it does not
mean that we made an inference or anumana. We did not recognise the animal by
means of any sign but from the fact that its appearance tallied with the
description we had been given. The last pramana is anupalabdhi. It is the means
by which we come to know a non-existent object. I spoke about
"abhava", the last of the seven padarthas according to Nyaya.
Anupalabdhi is the means by which we know abhava. Suppose someone tells us,
"Go and see if the elephant is in the stable". We go to the stable to
see for ourselves whether or not the elephant is there. We find that there is
no elephant in the stable: to recognise such absence (non-existence) is
anupalabdhi. Arthapatti and anupalabdhi are part of Mimamsa and Vedanta, not of
Nyaya. (However, anupalabdhi is mentioned only in the Kumarilabhatta school of
Mimamsa, not in the Prabhakara School).
Om
Tat Sat
(Continued...)
(My humble Thankfulness to
H H Sri Chandrasekharendra Mahaswami ji, Hinduism online dot com Swamijis, and
Philosophers com for the collection)
(The Blog is reverently for all the seekers of truth,
lovers of wisdom and to share the Hindu Dharma with others on the spiritual path and also this
is purely a non-commercial)
0 comments:
Post a Comment