English
Thus in this section, after interpreting the sitra as attributing the world-creation to God’s playful activity, he remarks that it ought not to be forgotten that all the world-creation is but a fanciful appearance due to nescience and that the ultimate reality is the identity of the self and Brahman. The above discussion seems to prove convincingly that Badarayana’s philosophy was some kind of bhedabheda-vada or a theory of transcendence and immanence of God (Brahman)—even in the light of Sankara’s own commentary. He believed that the world was the product of a real transformation of Brahman, or rather of His powers and energies (Sakti). God Himself was not exhausted by such a transformation and always remained as the master creator who by His play created the world and who could by His own powers create the world without any extraneous assistance. The world was thus a real transformation of God’s powers, while He Himself, though remaining immanent in the x1] Philosophy of Badardyana and Bhartrprapatica 43 world through His powers, transcended it at the same time, and remained as its controller, and punished or rewarded the created mundane souls in accordance with their bad and good deeds. The doctrine of bhedabheda-vada is certainly prior to Sankara, as it is the dominant view of most of the purdnas. It seems probable also that Bhartrprapafica refers to Bodhayana, who is referred to as urttikara by Ramanuja, and as urttikara and U; pavarsa by Sankara, and to Dramidacarya, referred to by Sankara and Ramanuja; all held some form of bhedabheda doctrine!. Bhartrpra- pafica has been referred to by Sankara in his commentary on the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad; and Anandajfiana, in his commentary on Sankara’s commentary, gives a number of extracts from Bhartrprapafica’s Bhasya on the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. Prof. M. Hiriyanna collected these fragments in a paper read before the Third Oriental Congress in Madras, 1924, and there he describes Bhartrprapafica’s philosophy as follows. The doctrine of Bhartr- prapafica is monism, and it is of the bhedabheda type. The relation between Brahman and the jiva, as that between Brahman and the world, is one of identity in difference. An implication of this view is that both the jiva and the physical world evolve out of Brahman, so that the doctrine may be described as Brahma-parinama-vada. On the spiritual side Brahman is transformed into the antaryamin and the jiva; on the physical side into avyakta, sitra, viraj and devata, which are all cosmic; and jati and pinda, which are not 1 Prof. S. Kuppusvami Sastri, in an article read before the Third Oriental Conference, quotes a passage from Venkata’s Tattva-tika on Ramanuja’s com- mentary on the Brahma-siitras, in which he says that Upavarsa is a name of Bodhayana—vrttikadrasya Bodhayanasyaiva hi Upavarsa iti syan ndma—Pro- ceedings of the Third Oriental Conference, Madras, 1924. The commentators on Sankara’s Bhdsya say that, when he refers to Vrttikara in I. i. 9, I. i. 23,1. ii. 23 and Ill. iii. 53, he refers to Upavarsa by name. From the views of Upavarsa referred to in these sitras it appears that Upavarsa believed in the theory of jnana-karma-samuccaya, held also by Bhaskara (an adherent of the bhedabheda theory), Ramanuja and others, but vehemently opposed by Sankara, who wanted to repudiate the idea of his opponents that the performance of sacrificial and Vedic duties could be conceived as a preliminary preparation for making oneself fit for Brahma-knowledge. References to Dramidacarya’s commentary on the Chandogya Upanisad are made by Anandagiri in his commentary on Sankara’s commentary on the Chan- dogya Upanisad. In the commentary of Sarvajiiatma Muni’s Samksepa-sariraka, Ill. 217-227, by Nrsimhasrama, the Vakyakara referred to bySarvajfiatma Muni as Atreya has been identified with Brahmanandin or Tanka and the bhasyakara (a quotation from whose Bhdsy.a appears in Samksepa-sariraka, 111. 221, “‘antar- guna bhagavati paradevateti,” is referred to as a quotation from Dramidacarya ‘in Ramanuja’s Vedartha-samgraha, p. 138, Pandit edition) is identified with Dramidacarya, who wrote a commentary on Brahmanandin’s Chdndogyo- panisad-varttika. 44 The Sankara School of Vedanta [cH. cosmic, These are the avasthas or modes of Brahman, and re- present the eight classes into which the variety of the universe may be divided. They are again classified into three rasis, para- _matma-rasi, jiva-rasi and mirttamirtta-rasi, which correspond to the triple subject-matter of Religion and Philosophy, viz. God, soul and matter. Bhartrprapafica recognized what is known as pramana-samuccaya, by which it follows that the testimony of common experience is quite as valid as that of the Veda. The former vouches for the reality of variety and the latter for that of unity (as taught in the Upanisads). Hence the ultimate truth is dvaitadvaita. Moksa, or life’s end, is conceived as being achieved in two stages—the first leading to apavarga, where samsara is overcome through the overcoming of dsanga; and the second leading to Brahmahood through the dispelling of avidya. This means of reaching either stage is jfana-karma-samuccaya, which is a corollary on the practical side to pramana-samuccaya on the theoretical side. It is indeed difficult to say what were the exact characteristics of Badarayana’s bhedabheda doctrine of Vedanta; but there is very little doubt that it was some special type of bhedabheda doctrine, and, as has already been repeatedly pointed out, even Sankara’s own commentary (if we exclude only his parenthetic remarks, which are often inconsistent with the general drift of his own commentary and the context of the si#tras, as well as with their purpose and meaning, so far as it can be made out from such a context) shows that it was so. If, however, it is contended that this view of real transformation is only from a relative point of view (vyavahdartka), then there must at least be one sé#tra where the absolute (para- marthika) point of view is given; but no such sétra has been dis- covered even by Sankara himself. If experience always shows the causal transformation to be real, then how is one to know that in the ultimate point of view all effects are false and unreal? If, however, it is contended that there is a real transformation (parinama) of the maya stuff, whereas Brahman remains always unchanged, and if ma@yd is regarded as the power (saktz) of Brahman, how then can the sakti of Brahman as well as its transformations be regarded as unreal and false, while the possessor of the Sakti (or the saktimat, Brahman) is regarded as real and absolute? There is a great diversity of opinion on this point among the Vedantic writers of the Sankara school. Thus Appaya Diksita in his Sid- dhanta-lesa refers to the author of Padartha-nirnaya as saying that x1] Vivarta and Parindma in Vedanta 45 Brahman and mdyd are both material causes of the world-appear- ance—Brahman the vivarta cause, and maya the parinama cause. Others are said to find a definition of causation intermediate between vivarta and parinama by defining material cause as that which can produce effects which are not different from itself (sva- bhinna-karyajanakatvam upadanatvam). The world is identical with Brahman inasmuch as it has being, and it is identical with nescience inasmuch as it has its characteristics of materiality and change. So from two different points of view both Brahman and mdyd are the cause of the world. Vacaspati Misra holds that ma@yd is only an acces- sory cause (sahakari), whereas Brahman is the real vivarta cause}. The author of the Siddhanta-muktavali, Prakasananda, however, thinks that it is the ma@ya energy (maya-saktt) which is the material cause of the world and not Brahman. Brahman is unchangeable and is the support of maya; and is thus the cause of the world in a remote sense. Sarvajfiatma Muni, however, believes Brahman alone to be the vivarta cause, and maya to be only an instrument for the purpose?. The difficulty that many of the sétras of Badarayana give us a parinama view of causation was realized by Sarvajfiatma Muni, who tried to explain it away by suggesting that the parinama theory was discussed approvingly in the sétras only because this theory was nearest to the vivarta, and by initiating people to the parinama theory it would be easier to lead them to the vivarta theory, as hinted in sitra 11. 1. 143. This explanation could have some probability, if the arrangement of the siitras was 1 Vacaspati Misra flourished in about a.b. 840. In addition to his Bhamati commentary on the Brahma-sitra he wrote many other works and commentaries on other systems of philosophy. His important works are: Tattva-bindu, Tattva- vaisaradi (yoga), Tattva-samiksa Brahma-siddm-tika, Nydya-kayika on Vidhi- viveka, Nydya-tattvaloka, Nydya-ratna-tika, Nydya-varttika-tatparya-tikd, Brahma-tattva-samhitoddipani, Yukti-dipika (Samkhya), Sdmkhya-tattva- kaumudi, Veddanta-tattva-kaumudi. 2 He lived about a.D. 900 during the reign of King Manukuladitya and was a pupil of Devesvara. f s vivarta-vadasya hi purva-bhimir vedanta-vade parinama-vadah vyavasthite ’smin parinama-vade svayam samayati vivarta-vadah. Samksepa-sariraka, 11. 61. upayam atisthati piirvam uccair upeyam Gptum janata yathaiva Srutir munindras ca vivarta-siddhyat vikara-vadam vadatas tathaiva. Ibid. 11. 62. vikara-vadam Kapiladi-paksam upetya vadena tu sittra-karah Srutié ca samjalpati pitrvabhiimau sthitua vivarta-pratipadanaya. Ibid, 11. 64. 46 The Sankara School of Vedanta [cH.