Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya

[Sankar Jayanarayanan]

namaste.

I have just obtained Swami Gambhirananda's translation of Shankara's Brahma
Sutra Bhashya (SBSB) from the Vedanta book store. It seems like a good
translation to me (I have not read the Sanskrit original, and even I do, I'm
sure I wouldn't understand it). I am not the person to comment on how great
a book the SBSB is, but there are some points that I'd like to share with you
all:

1) The SBSB begins with a preamble, and then proceeds onto commenting on
the Brahma Sutras. The style is that of an (advaita) Vedantin either arguing
with an opponent or resolving doubts [of a student of advaita Vedanta].
The opponent is so well read and argues with such force and clarity that it
becomes evident that the opponent too is none but Shankara himself!

The first verse is,"Hence (is to be undertaken) thereafter a deliberation on
Brahman."

The opponent: Is that Brahman, again, familiar or unfamiliar? If It be familiar,
It need not be deliberated on for the sake of knowledge. Again, if It be
unfamiliar, It cannot be deliberated on.

(This is the fundamental problem of all philosophy which has knowledge as the
 object of its enquiy (epistemology). Only if we know the Truth can we
 "search" for it, but when we "know" it, the search is already over!
 The answer that Shankara gives to this objection is very beautiful.)

The answer (of the Vedantin) is: As to that, Brahman does exist as a well-known
entity--eternal, pure, intelligent, free by nature, and all-knowing and
all-powerful. For from the very derivation of the word Brahman, the ideas of
eternality, purity, etc. become obvious, this being in accord with the root
"brmh." [footnote: The root "brmh" means growth, and the suffix "man," added to
it, signifies an absence of limitation (in expanse). So Brahman derivatively
means that which is absolutely the greatest. And eternality, etc. follow as a
matter of course from this limitlessness.] Besides, the existence of Brahman is
well known from the fact of Its being the Self of all; for everyone feels that
his Self exists, and he never feels,"I do not exist." Had there been no general
existence of the recognition of the Self, everyone would have felt,"I do not
exist." And that Self is Brahman.

Opponent: If Brahman be well known in the world as the Self, then It being
already known, there arises the difficulty again that It is not to be
deliberated on.

Vedantin: No, for there is a conflict about its distinctive nature. Ordinary
people as well as the materialists of the Lokayata school recognize the body
alone to be the Self possessed of sentience. Others hold that the mind is the
Self. Some say that it is merely momentary consciousness. Others say that it
is a void. Still other believe that there is a soul separate from the body,
which transmigrates and is the agent (of work) and the experiencer (of results).
Some say that the soul is a mere experiencer and not an agent. Some say that
there is a God who is different from this soul and is all-knowing and
all-powerful; others say that He is the Self of the experiencing individual.
Thus there are many who follow opposite views by depending on logic, texts
and their semblances. If one accepts any one of these views without examination,
one is liable to be deflected from emancipation and come to grief. Therefore,
starting with the presentation of a deliberation on Brahman, here is commenced
an ascertainment of the meaning of the texts of the Upanishads with the help
of reasoning not opposed to the Upanishads themselves, for the purpose of
leading to emancipation (through knowledge).

2) Does Shankara accept Gautama, the Nyaya philosopher, as a knower of Brahman?

The SBSB (1.1.4) says,"There is also in evidence the aphorism of the
great teacher Gautama, supported by reasoning..." and Shankara quotes from
the Nyaya Sutra (1.1.2).

3) In SBSB(1.1.4), Shankara argues that mukti is not a thing to be acquired,
for it is ever-present: "...And no dependence on work can be proved by assuming
liberation to be a thing to be acquired; for it being essentially one with
one's very Self, there can be no acquisition. Even if Brahman be different from
oneself, there can be no acquisition, for Brahman being all pervasive like
space, It remains ever attained by everybody..."

What struck me as strange was why Shankara should even consider the possibility
of Brahman being different from the Self. The argument that liberation is
eternal since Brahman is one's Self seems quite sufficient.

4) Shankara, being Self-realized, is above any personality. But the author of
SBSB does have a personality which can at best be described as *orthodox*,
for he scrupulously agrees word for word with the Brahma Sutras even in cases
like animal-sacrifice and prohibition of the Shudra from knowledge of the Vedas.

Shankara, in accordance with the Brahms Sutras, seems to firmly hold that a
*born shudra* has no competence to study the Vedas. He gives argument after
argument why this is so.

The verse is BSB (1.3.38) and a few preceding verses.

BSB (1.3.38): " And because the smriti prohibits for the Shudra the hearing,
study, and acquisition of the meaning (of the vedas)."

The opponent actually gives quite a coherent argument why the Shudras should be
allowed to study the Vedas,"..the apparent conclusion is that a Shudra also is
qualified, for he can have the aspiration and ability. And unlike the
prohibition `Therefore the Shudra is unfit for performing sacrifices (Taittiriya
Samhita VII. i. 1.6),' no prohibition against his acquisition of illumination
is met with...And in the smritis are mentioned Vidura and others as born in the
Shudra caste but endowed with special knowledge. Hence Shudras have competence
for different kinds of knowledge."

The Vedantin now quotes from smriti to prove that a Shudra is NOT allowed access
to the vedas, ending with "...a born Shudra has no right to knowledge through
the Vedas." But the Vedantin (i.e. Shankara) does admit that a Shudra is
competent to study anecdotes and mythologies.

I'm sure many would've heard the story of Buddha, who, on seeing a goat
about to be sacrificed, offered his own body for sacrifice (either taking pity
on the goat or to show that such sacrifices are wrong). Surely Shankara would
also agree that killing of animals for sacrifices is sinful?

No. The Brahma Sutras say in (3.1.25): "If it be argued that rites
(involving killing of animals) is unholy, we say, no, since they are sanctioned
by scriptures."

Shankara agrees," ...knowledge of virtue and vice is derived from the
scriptures. The scriptures alone are the source for knowing that such an act is
virtuous, for merit and demerit are supersensuous realities and they are not
invariable for all space, time, and environment. Any deed that is performed
as virtuous in relation to certain place, time, and circumstances, becomes
non-virtuous in relation to other places, times, and circumstances, so that
nobody can have any knowledge about virtue and vice unless it be from the
scriptures. And from the scriptures, it is ascertained that the Jyotishtoma
sacrifice, involving injury, favour, etc., is virtuous."