[Chaturamnaya] Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada, Commentator Par Excellence (3)

[S Jayanarayanan]

(Continued from previous post)
 

Canonical Interpretations

The Bhagavatpada’s Sutra bhashya follows in several places the
commentary by Sabaraswami in the first part of the Vedas, the
Karmakanda. All scholars say that Sabaraswami’s commentary is
authentic. Similarly, none will doubt the authenticity of
Bhagavatpada’s commentary.

Both parts of Mimamsa, namely the first part relating to the Vedas
dealing with karmas and the second dealing with the Brahman,
generally take sentences from the Vedas and attempt to establish
the correct meaning. There is no doubt in this respect among the
learned men. But in dealing with each adhikarana (section) and
particular Veda vakyas, the Acharya’s bhashya alone should be the
authority. In canonical interpretations, the Bhagavatpada’s
intellectual acumen is unparalleled.

In the section on Anandamaya, there is a sentence, Anyontara
atmanandamayah. Here is the word Anandamayah. Does it refer to
jiva or Brahman? Many scholars conclude that it refers to Brahman.
The Bhagavatpada, too, while initially pointing out to this view,
dismisses it as incorrect on the basis of Sruti pramana, Brahma
puccham pratishtha. He asked whether the word Brahma in this
passage was a part of Anandamaya, or its independent state as
Brahman, the substratum.

He concluded in favor of the latter, namely the independent plenary
Brahman.

The sutra, Atah eva pranah was introduced to explain the meaning
of prana occurring in the Vedas. There is no dispute about this. But
doubts have been raised about the meaning of prana in the sutra.
Some people think that this prana in the sutra refers to Sruti texts,
such as Prana bandhanam hi saumya manah, Pranasya pranam (O
amiable One, the mind is tethered to prana, vital force of the vital
force), but this is not a graceful interpretation of Badarayana
sutra.

A sutra is required only when doubt arises about the meaning of a
word in the Sruti. In regard to Pranasya pranam, there is no doubt,
as not only the word, but the chapter is different. In the Udgita
section, we find a sentence, Katama sa devateti, Pranah iti ho
vacha. Here the Bhagavatpada says that the sutra on prana was
introduced to clarify and confirm that this word refers to Brahman
in the text.

Next the sutra, Kampanath (because of vibration) is taken up to
decide which sruti text is under reference. But no such text occurs
with the word kampana. Therefore the Bhagavatpada said that sutra
is introduced to deal with that Sruti in which a word with an equal
meaning has been used, namely: Yadidam kimcha jagat sarvam
prana ejati nisrutam, Mahadbhayam vajramudyatam ya etat
viduramrutaste bhavanti. (Whatever universe there is, it has
emerged and vibrates because of prana that is a great terror like an
uplifted thunderbolt. Those who know this become immortal.)
 
 

(To be Continued)