[Advaita-l] Why Study the Brahma Sutras?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Why study Brahma Sutras? I completed a level of study of Gita Bhashya,
Upanishads and Brahma Sutras. I say a level of study because the depth to
which you can dive in depends on your knowledge of vyakarana, nyaya and
mimamsa. It is similar to how deep you can go in to Quantum Theory depends
on how deep your proficiency is in the underlying mathematics.  But with a
stalwart sampradaya vidvan, you can unravel the mysteries of the sastras. I
wanted to go deep into Brahma Sutras and in the process lesrn the required
vyakarana, nyaya and mimamsa. I will probably do it as my vādhyār is
committed to teach me though he has nothing to gain from it.  I would like
to summarise the first lesson though l don't intend to do it for all the
lessons. This is to give a glimpse of how critical thinking goes in to
vedanta studies.

"Let's go back to the basics first. I say that the vedas are merely poetry
of ancients and not apaurusheya. So, there is no need to study them as any
think more than a mundane literature. There are many reasons but the rishis
talk about wars that happened in their time and rivers that flowed then".
I  cited the verses that indicate contemporary events.

"I can argue that the vedas talk about you and me. On that basis, would you
agree that they are contemporary? The verses that you cited do not talk
about any war but yajna. Likewise for Saraswat." He explained how. "The
vedas clearly state that they are apaurusheya." He cited the verses from
the shruti that say that the vak is nitya.

"Ler the vedas say that they are apaurusheya. I say that it is only a
belief and as one committed to logical thinking, l don't subscribe to your
beliefs. You may be lying or be mistaken. There is no text  that does not
have an author."

"Every rule can have an exception. So, it is not necessary that vedas
should have an author because other texts do. That is the uniqueness of the
vedas. Also, you don't have evidence to say that l am mistaken or lying.
So, your conclusion is without a basis."

"The different āstika darshanas have different views on vedāpaurusheyatvam.
So, the concept is a speculative one."

"There is samanvaya (harmonisation) of different views about
apaurusheyatva." He explains the position. "Just because a concept is
described from different points of view, you can't say that it is
speculative or wrong."

"Let it be. Even though the vedas are apaurusheya, l don't have any utility
for them. I can show scientific errors in the vedas and smrti sastras based
on them. There is no need to labour over a text that has errors."

"You have to see what the purpose, of say, the episode that talks about
agni's tears becoming solver. It is not to teach how silver is formed but
give a vidhi that silver is not the dakshina to give in that yajna. The
vedas have to be understood using nyaya and mimamsa."

"As correct interpretation of the vedas depends on logic, vedas are
secondary to logic. So, l would rather live logically than depend on a
secondary pramana."

"The logic is also part of shruti not paurusheya. So, vedas are dependent
on an external means of understanding." He explained how logic is part of
shruti with examples.

"Let it be so. I will only accept the karma and upasana portions of the
vedas. There is nothing to be gained by studying the Upanishads which talk
about the nature of reality. They serve no purpose because you can't do
anything based on that."

"The Upanishads also teach sadhana for karma, upasana and jnana. Also, the
description of your ananda svarupa will help you realise that by mere
sravanam or manana and nidhidhyasana. So, they serve a purpose."

"Let it be so. I will then only study the Upanishads. There is no need to
study Brahma Sutras, which is merely a smrti sastra. The vaidikas
understood the Upanishads even before the time of Badarayana."

"The Brahma Sutras are based on previous granthas and shruti itself  it is
not possible to understand the Upanishads without using Brahma Sutras. The
guru teaches the Upanishads based on Brahma Sutras." He cites the example
on how certain Upanishad vākyās cannot be understood without reference to
Brahma Sutras.

"Let it be. The Brahma Sutras critique certain avaidika and partially
vaidika schools of thoughts. They are not relevant to critique modern
avaidika schools as we can see from the acceptance of avaidika schools by
even Shankaracharyas."

"Stating what is common is not an acceptance of adharmic, tamasic or
ignorant paths. Using the logic of Brahma Sutras, you can critique the
inconsistencies of other paths."

"Still, it is mere academic study. It won't give krama mukti or
aparokshānubhūti. I would rather do yoga and attain nirvikalpa samadhi."

"Yoga will not remove ajnana. It is like closing the eyes on seeing a snake
wheee a rope is. A stuudy of Beahma Sutras will develop an understanding
and may inspire mumukshutvam. For a mumukshu, the sravanādhi sadhana will
give aparokshānubhūti."

"Alright. Let me study." 🙏