[Advaita-l] Sayana one with Shankara on the 'formlessness' of Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

In continuation of the earlier post on the topic, we have to see what
Shankara has said in the Brahma sutra bhashya: 3.2.14:

He cites passages from the Upanishads that clearly deny any form to Brahman
and concludes that we have to conclude, on the basis of such statements,
that Brahman is 'nirAkAra', formless, alone. And those passages that speak
of form for Brahman, have to be taken as upaasana-specific ones. Thus, the
position of Veda Vyasa is that Brahman is formless: arUpam.

कथं पुनः आकारवदुपदेशिनीषु अनाकारोपदेशिनीषु च ब्रह्मविषयासु श्रुतिषु सतीषु ,
अनाकारमेव ब्रह्म अवधार्यते, न पुनर्विपरीतम् इत्यत उत्तरं पठति —

अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात् ॥ १४ ॥
 भाष्यम्
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/BS?page=3&id=BS_C03_S02_V14&hlBhashya=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%AA#bhashya-BS_C03_S02_V14>
रूपाद्याकाररहितमेव हि ब्रह्म अवधारयितव्यम् , न रूपादिमत् । कस्मात् ?
तत्प्रधानत्वात् ; ‘अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घम्’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ८ । ८)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=3&id=BR_C03_S08_V08&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%98%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D>‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’
(क. उ. १ । ३ । १५)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Kathaka?page=1&id=Ka_C01_S03_V15&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D>,
(मुक्ति. उ. २ । ७२), ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा
तद्ब्रह्म’ (छा. उ. ८ । १४ । १)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=8&id=Ch_C08_S14_V01&hl=%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%88%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE>‘दिव्यो
ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Mundaka?page=2&id=MD_C02_S01_V02&hl=%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%83>
 ‘तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यमयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः’ (बृ. उ. २ ।
५ । १९)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=2&id=BR_C02_S05_V19&hl=%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%83>इत्येवमादीनि
वाक्यानि निष्प्रपञ्चब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वप्रधानानि, न अर्थान्तरप्रधानानि —
इत्येतत्प्रतिष्ठापितम् ‘तत्तु समन्वयात्’ (ब्र. सू. १ । १ । ४)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/BS?page=1&id=BS_C01_S01_V04&hl=%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%81%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D>
 इत्यत्र ; तस्मादेवंजातीयकेषु वाक्येषु यथाश्रुतं निराकारमेव ब्रह्म
अवधारयितव्यम् । इतराणि तु आकारवद्ब्रह्मविषयाणि वाक्यानि न तत्प्रधानानि ;
उपासनाविधिप्रधानानि हि तानि ;

The entire adhikarana consisting of a few more sutras can be studied.

warm regards
subbu

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:10 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> In the Bhashyam for the Narayana suktam, Sayanacharya has said after
> giving
>  a famous etymological verse from a purana:
>
> "आपो नारा इति प्रोक्ताः आपो वै नरसूनवः । अयनं तस्य ताः प्रोक्तास्तेन
> नारायणः स्मृतः" and says that he who rests in the pancha bhuta-s. Or, he is
> beyond prakrti and from Him the world has emerged.
>
> He also says 'नारायणः पर एवात्मा, न तु अपरो मूर्तिविशेषः ।’ ’Narayana is
> the Supreme Atman and not the apara= inferior formed one.
>
> This above comment has irked some sectarians who could not stand 'their'
> finite, formed, 'Narayana' to be portrayed as a formless Tattva. Since they
> cannot go beyond a form that has the human or animal characteristics of
> hands, feet, head, etc, they have accused Sayana as a post-Shankara
> avaidika who has parted company with the 'great' vaishnava advaitin that
> Shankara was in their view.
>
> The compunction of these sectarians boomerangs on them with what Shankara
> himself saying in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama Bhashya for the name 'amurti'
> (830):
>
> Shankara gives two meanings to this name of Brahman:
>
> Murti or form, consisting of the movable and immovable things, is capable
> of being borne, i.e., the Universe. The Sruti (Ai.Up.3.2) says: From that
> agitation the form came to exist.' He is devoid of such a form.
>
> He who is devoid of the bodily organs and limbs.
>
> In both the meanings a specific, default, form for Brahman is denied by
> that name listed by Veda Vyasa.
>
> Thus we see Sayana is quite compliant with the norm the Veda, Veda Vyasa
> and Shankara have stipulated. The Kathopanishat says:
>
> *न संदृशे**  तिष्ठति रूपमस्य* न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् । हृदा मनीषा
> मनसाऽभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥ 2.3.9 ॥
>
> The bhashyam:  कथं तर्हि तस्य अलिङ्गस्य दर्शनमुपपद्यत इति, उच्यते — न
> संदृशे संदर्शनविषये न तिष्ठति प्रत्यगात्मनः अस्य रूपम् । अतः न चक्षुषा
> सर्वेन्द्रियेण, चक्षुर्ग्रहणस्योपलक्षणार्थत्वात्, पश्यति नोपलभते कश्चन
> कश्चिदपि एनं प्रकृतमात्मानम् । कथं तर्हि तं पश्येदिति, उच्यते — हृदा
> हृत्स्थया बुद्ध्या, मनीषा मनसः सङ्कल्पादिरूपस्य ईष्टे नियन्तृत्वेनेति मनीट्
> तया मनीषा विकल्पवर्जितया बुद्ध्या । मनसा मननरूपेण सम्यग्दर्शनेन अभिक्लृप्तः
> अभिसमर्थितः अभिप्रकाशित इत्येतत् । आत्मा ज्ञातुं शक्य इति वाक्यशेषः ।
> तमात्मानं ब्रह्म एतत् ये विदुः अमृताः ते भवन्ति ॥
> The upanishad says that Brahman/Atman is not an object for ocular
> perception.  It has no form. By extension, it is not an object of any
> perception, of touch, nose, sound and taste. These are specifically denied
> by another mantra of the upanishad:
> अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथारसं नित्यमगन्धवच्च यत् ।
> अनाद्यनन्तं महतः परं ध्रुवं निचाय्य तं मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते ॥ १५ ॥ 1.3.15
> The first cited mantra says,therefore, the way to know, realize, Brahman
> is only through the prepared mind, a subtle, pointed, intellect.
>
> Vaishnavas might say that the above are only a denial of praakruta,
> material, form for Brahman and not a denial of an apraakruta form.  But
> this argument does not hold water since a human/animal like form is by
> default a product of union of male and female species in prakruti. The
> Taittiriya Upanishad says: from prthvi 'annam' is born and from annam the
> purusha, human, is born.  There is no pramana whatsoever for a
> non-annam-product form that resembles the human/animal form.  The scripture
> only adopts this concept in order to help the uninformed aspirant who
> cannot think beyond his own-type form by applying that form, to please,
> appease, the aspirant, to Brahman too, so that the aspirant can relate, in
> that level, with Brahman. Upon travelling to a higher level, the aspirant
> has to come to terms with the reality of the above Upanishadic statements.
>
> There are other names in the VSN too such as 'aprameya',
> 'anirdeshya'...which also yield the same conclusion as above.
>
> Om Tat Sat
>
>
>