Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Once upon a time...

From the Bhakti List Archives

Sankaran Kartik Jayanarayanan • March 21, 2002 


I'm not sure what exactly constituted the challenge originally, but I took
it to mean, "Ramanuja uses puranic authority in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya 
just as much as Shankara does, and this cannot be proved false."

I find that Ramanuja cites the Puranas more often than Shankara
(Ramanuja's 4 to Shankara's 2 or 3 :-)) in his interpretation of the
Brahma Sutras. But some of Shankara's quotes referred to as "Smriti" can
well be from Puranic sources. 

Anyway, the instances that Ramanuja quotes from the Puranas in his Sutra
bhashya are listed below, and the corresponding passage from Shankara is
also given for the sake of comparison. 

The books that I will be using are:

1) "Brahma Sutras" According to Sri Ramanuja by Swami Vireswarananda and
Swami Adidevananda.

2) "Brahma Sutras" According to Sri Sankara by Swami Vireswarananda.

3) "Brahma Sutra Bhashya" of Shankaracharya, by Swami Gambhirananda.

All of them are RK Math publications.

I should clarify that I HAVE NOT READ any of the above books in detail. In
order to confirm the number of Puranic quotes of Ramanuja in his Sri
Bhashya, I simply looked up "Purana" from the index and it had 4
references, one each to Agneya Purana, Kurma Purana, Brahma-vaivarta
Purana and the Vishnu Purana. I then looked up what Shankara had to say in
that context. Unfortunately, the books on Shankara's BSB do not list the
references to the Puranas in the index, so I don't know if Shankara quotes
from the Puranas in certain instances when Ramanuja does not :-).


---------------------------------
Case # 1 -- Sutra (3.4.41)

"And (expiation) mentioned in the chapter dealing with qualification (in
PUrva-mImAmsA) is not for him, because a lapse is inferred from the smrti
and because it (i.e. the smrti) does not prescribe (expiation)."

Ramanuja: The expiation mentioned in the chapter dealing with
qualifications (Pu. Mi. Su. 6.8.22) cannot apply in the case of Naisthikas
who have lapsed from that state, on account of the following smrti text:
"For him, who lapses after taking the vow of Naishthika Brahmacharin, I
see no expiation by which such a suicide can be cured" (Agneya-Purana,
14.5.23). Therefore, the expiation referred to in PUrva-mImaamsaa applies
to celibates other than Naisthikas. 

Shankara: Pretty much the same thing, except that he simply refers to the
quote as "smriti". Perhaps he means the Agneya Purana also? 

----------------------------
Case # 2 -- Sutra (4.1.13)

"On attaining that, non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and
previous sins will result respectively, because it is so declared (by the
scriptures)." 

Ramanuja: Having thus far investigated the nature of meditation (i.e.
knowledge), now, the SUtra-kAra begins to consider the fruits of
meditation. The scriptures state that, after the attainment of knowledge
of Brahman, the destruction of previous sins and the non-clinging of
subsequent sins will result with regard to the meditating devotee, as in
the following passages: "As water does not wet the lotus leaf, even so no
sins cling to him who knows this" (ChA 4.14.3)...Here the doubt arises
whether or not these non-clinging and destruction result as the fruits of
meditation. The opponent holds that they will not result, because the
scripture declares, "No work, which is not experienced, will perish even
after millions of aeons" (Brahma-vaivarta Purana: prakriti Kanda, 26.70).
The Sutra refutes this view and says that, on attaining meditation,
non-clinging and destruction of subsequent and previous sins will result
respectively through the greatness of knowledge as stated in the above
texts...

Shankara: When That, namely Brahman, becomes realized, then come the
non-attachment of subsequent sins and the destruction of the earlier ones.
Why? "Because it is so declared" (in the scriptures). Thus it is declared
in the course of dealing with the knowledge of Brahman that a future sin
that might be expected to arise in the usual way does not arise in the
case of a man of knowledge: "As water does not stick to a lotus leaf, even
so sin does not contaminate a man of knowledge" (ChA, 4.14.3)...It was
argued that on the assumption that the results of works get destroyed even
before being experienced, the purport of the scripture will be
distorted... But we assert that this power is arrested by other factors
like knowledge etc. The scripture is committed to the existence of the
power of work, but not to the existence or non-existence of opposing
factors. Besides, the Smrti texts, "For the results of work are not
destroyed", is only a general rule; for the potential result of work does
not get destroyed except through experience, inasmuch as it is meant for
that...By the term non-attachment the aphorist implies that the knower of
Brahman has no idea of agentship whatsoever with regard to the actions
occurring in future. Although the man of knowledge appeared to have some
ownership of the past works on account of false ignorance, still owing to
the cessation of false ignorance through the power of knowledge, those
works also are washed away. 

--------------------------------
Case # 3 -- Sutra (4.3.10)

"And because the smrti declares it."

Ramanuja: The above meaning is made clear from the smrti also, as in the
following text: "When the dissolution has come, they all together with
Brahmaa, at the end of time called "Para", enter the supreme abode" (Kurma
Purana, 1.12.269)...

Shankara (It is 4.3.11 in his BSB): Says almost same thing, after quoting
the Kurma Purana.

----------------------------------
Case # 4 -- Sutra (4.1.2)
"Because of the indicatory marks."

Ramanuja: Here Linga means smrti. This meaning is made out from the smrti
also, which says that Vedanta (knowledge), which is the means of release,
has the nature of continued remembrance, as in the following passage of
Vishnu Purana (6.7.91): "The meditation of His form is one continued
stream without attachment to any other object. Meditation of Him is thus
generated by the six limbs of `yoga.'" Therefore the purport of the
scripture is that meditation has to be repeated again and again. 

Shankara: "Reflect upon the rays, and you will have many sons" (Ch.
1.5.2). This text prescribes repeated meditation by asking to meditate on
the UdgItha as the rays instead of as the sun. And what holds good in this
case is equally applicable to other meditations also. And it is not true
that repitition is not necessary. If it were so, the Sruti woud not have
taught the truth of the statement "That thou art" repeatedly. There may be
people who are so advanced, and so little attached to the world of sense
objects, that in their case a single hearing of the statement may result
in Knowledge...
-----------------------------

Regards,

Jayanarayanan



--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/