Brahma Sutra

 The 4th sutra is "tat tu samanvayaat". Here, tat means Brahman. That's because the first sutra talked about Brahman. The second, third and fourth reference Brahman (indirectly) which is mentioned explicitly, only in the first sutra.

Quick background info:

The first 4 sutras are also the first 4 adhikaranams (topics). In Brahma Sutra, the "topic" is important. That's because each topic talks about a "rule of interpretation". These rules have to be remembered whenever any text (Upanishad, Geeta, Purana etc.) are interpreted.

There are 191 adhikaranams in the entire Brahma Sutra- that means 191 rules of interpretation. Each adhikaranam can have 1 or more sutras under it. In all Brahma Sutra has 555 sutras!

Of these, we have seen 4 sutras. The first 4 sutras happen to be the first 4 adhikaranams also! We have names for the adhikaranams derived from the first sutra under it. Hence, till now, we have seen- "jignyaasa adhikaranam", "janmaadya adhikaranam", "shaastra-yonitva adhikaranam" and "samanvaya adhikaranam".

These topics (191 of them) are so important that Vidyaranya has written a work called "Vaiyaasika nyaaya maalaa" just focusing on these topics.

Tat tu samanvayaat summary:

This sutra's main purpose is to establish that "Brahman" is the "theme" of Vedanta. Why is this rule important? That's because, there are many philosophies that claim that "Brahma upaasanam" is the theme of Vedanta. As per them, just knowing what Brahman is, is of no use! We should use that knowledge to "do" something- like meditation on Brahman (upaasanam), and through that gain punya, to take us to moksha.

But, we do not accept that point of view. For us, Brahman as defined in Vedanta, becomes a "pramnaanam". Using this pramaanam, we gain the knowledge of Brahman (as Me essentially). And this knowledge of Brahman (as Me), is moksha. Hence, there is nothing "to do" after this knowledge. 

Hence, this sutra says, Brahman (tat) is the taatparya (central theme) of the entire shaastram, and we see that through "through samanvaya" (i.e. through the consistency maintained in the Brahman theme, in all the Upanishads). The word "tu" refers to objections to this notion. Hence, we can say, "setting aside the objections from other points of view (other philosophies), we arrive at Brahman as the central theme of the shastram". This is tat tu samanvayaat.

This conclusion is very important because it gives direction to sadhana (for a seeker). He may conclude that he first needs to get "theoretical knowledge" from the shaastra and later, confirm this knowledge, through "actual experience". Tat tu samanvayaat breaks this erroneous conclusion. The knowledge got by employing shaastra as a pramaanam, is more than enough. You do not have to supplement this with anything else.

Of these 4 sutras, samanvaya adhikranam (and hence the tat tu samanvayaat sutra), is very important because the chapter itself is called "samanvaya adhyaaya". In the first adhyaya, there are 134 sutras. Of these, we have seen 4. The remaining 130 sutras, will all be dedicated to the fact that revelation of Brahman is the theme of the entire Upanishads. 

Chandogya chapter-6 is a great example to show- Brahman is the central theme of shastra, by using the 6 lingas in chapter 6 itself. (Note: Sadananda, in Vedanta Saara text, shows how the 6 lingas point to Brahman alone, in this chapter).

Who are the 2 main purvapakshis for this sutra?

(1) Purva meemamsa - Both bhaatta matam (Kumarila Bhatta) and praabhaakaara matam (Prabhakara mishra) are discussed

(2) Vrttikaara matam - Not mentioned, but we infer this purvapakshi as "Upavarsha acharya" (who lived before Shankara's time and whom Shankara bows to, in the Brahma Sutra itself as "bhagavan upavarsha")

Of these Purva Meemamsa says, Veda exists only to prescribe "action". You have to "do" something- some ritual, to gain some benefit. These "to do" injunctions in the Veda are called "kaarya bodhaka vaakyam". As per this group, if Brahman is defined in the Veda, it is useless on its own! It has to be combined with "some action" and the Brahman definition portions are mainly to encourage, to do stuti- of either the performer or the devata. Hence, mere definitions of Brahman in the Upanishads, called "siddha bodhaka vaakyam" is utterly useless on their own! You have to combine these definitions with some specific "vidhi" some specific ritual. 

Vrttikaara matam says there is Brahman. There is Brahman knowledge also, to be got from the shaastram. Till this point, he agrees with us. But, as per them, this knowledge is not enough. You have to do upaasanam, meditation on this Brahman. This will generate punyam. This punyam ultimately gives moksha. Thus, as per them, moksha is "through action" (mental action, i.e. upasana, i.e. meditation).

Thus, both the above purvapakshis are mainly emphasising "action" (either ritualistic action OR meditation action). As per them, this is the main theme (tatparyam) of the Veda.

The "tu" in tat tu samanvayaat, is to defend our proposition from these two views. 

Don't we also talk about meditation?

Yes, we also talk about meditation. The Upanishads themselves say- "shrotavyah, mantavyah, nididhyaasitavya"- You have to listen to the teaching, dwell over it, to remove doubts and finally "meditate" on it (nididhyaasanam). This is the full package of gnyaanam, as per us. This is what makes "pragnyaa" into "sthira-pragnyaa". Yes, this is true, we also talk of meditation, nididhyaasanam. 

The only difference is, in the intent. Why are we doing meditation/nididhyaasanam? We say, complete knowledge is gained through shravanam only. But there are 2 obstacles which may fail to give us the benefit of this knowledge. One is doubt (samshaya) and the other is "habit-based behavior, where I continue to behave as a jiva)". For removing these 2 obstacles alone, we do mananam and nididhyaasanam respectively. Hence, we differ ONLY in the "purpose of nididhyaasanam".

How can we say knowledge alone is enough?

Remember the 3 examples:

- 10th man story: You are the 10th man! (Referenced by Shankara in Taittiriya bhashyam)

- Rama reminded that he is NOT a jiva, but saakshaat Vishnu, by kaala-devata (who was sent by Brahmaa ji) (Uttara kaandam, Ramayana)

- Karna reminded that he is NOT Radheya. He is actually a Kaunteya! (Mahabhaaratam)

In all these 3 examples, the receivers of this knowledge, "did NOT have to do anything" after that. The knowledge was enough for them to tackle their individual issues. So too, with shaastra. Tat tvam asi, properly assimilated, is more than enough. We do not have to "do" anything more.

7 topics discussed in tat tu samanvayaat

(1) Upanishad clearly says karma is connected with shariram (e.g. varna-ashrama abhimaana, kartrtvam etc.) and "sasharirataa" is the cause of samsara. That being the case, karma (physical/mental), is only going to perpetuate karma. And karma can give only 4 types of results- aapti, utpatti, samskaara and vikaara. And moksha cannot be gained by any of these! 

(2) Karma is limited. And a series of limited karmas, cannot give the infinite- plain and simple!

(3) All siddha bodhaka vakyams are NOT useless. When the rope is known, and we realize it is not a snake, there is instant prayojanam. Hence, we cannot generalize and say and all siddha bodhaka vakyams are useless. Maha Vakya falls in this category- the most useful siddha bodhaka vakyam in life!

(4) Purva Meemaansa says- the whole veda is made up of "dos"- kaarya bodhaka vaakya. But even in Veda Purva, we have "nishiddha karma vakyams"- no suraam pibet. In this case, there is "nothing to do". That itself shows that even for them, Veda does convey ideas where there is nothing to do!

(5) We have many people who have read/studied Vedanta for years. They continue to be samsaris. That shows that mere knowledge is not enough. This idea is refuted. Yes, we have "shruta brahma" and "avagata brahma". Avagata brahma is someone who has "understood Vedanta". He hears shastra having done atma-anatma vichara and sees himself as "sakshi"- the lakyshyartha. For such a person, the result of Vedanta is never away.

(6) Isn't gnyaanam itself a form of karma? Isn't it the same as mental karma, since vrtti is involved even here? No. In karma, we have "vidhi" (stipulation based) and "will-based". We may do the karma, not do it, do it differently. But gnyaanam has no scope for stipulation or will. We submit to the pramaana. The pramaana does the job, and we gain knowledge. We gain the knowledge helplessly, like when we open the eyes, and "helplessly" see form and color! So too, with Self Knowledge. When a prepared mind exposes itself to the teaching, he helplessly gains it- ananya protey, agatir atra naasti. There is no will or stipulation here!

(7) In Veda purva, we have karma. If we had only one shastram that covers both Veda purva and Veda anta, then, there is NO need for Vyasacharya to write Brahma Sutra starting with "athaato brahma jignyaaasaa". Anyway, Jaimini maharishi has written "athaato dharma jignyaasa". He could have continued for Vedanta also! We believe in "shastra dvaya vaada"- the anubandha chatushtayam is different for veda-purva and veda-anta- i.e. the adhikari, vishaya, phalam and sambandha are totally different. This shows- Vedanta is a separate shastram with revelation of brahman as the main theme.

Sundara paandya quotations

1.1.4 (as tat tu samanvayaat) is called, quotes 3 verses at the end. They are attributed to Sundara Pandya by scholars, who lived before Shankara! 

How is the topic related to the previous topic?

The previous adhikaranam was shastra yonitva adhikaranam. We gave 2 defintions- Brahma is Veda kaaranam (shastra yoni). Through this, we emphasize brahman's nimitta kaaranam status and omniscience in particular. The second explanation is shastra is the ONLY pramanam for brahma. Brahman can be known ONLY through Veda and NEVER through any other pramanam (e.g. pratyaksha, logic (anumaanam) etc.). Hence, we say "aupanishadam brahma"

That being the case, Brahman is revealed in the Veda. That's when an akshepa is raised- how do you say Brahman is revealed in the Veda. Isn't Brahma-Upasana the main theme of veda/vedanta? That's how this adhikaranam "tat tu samanvayaat" is related.

Having said, Brahman is revealed, through "tu", we negate all views contrary to this taatparyam, the central teaching.  Hence, any akshepa is taken care in tat tu samanvayaat. We say this "akshepa sangati".

Note the definition of adhikaranam: vishayah (bone of contention), vishayi, purva-paksha and sangati- it must cover these 4 topics. 

What is the "vishaya vakyam" for tat tu samanvayaat. It is the entire vedanta! 

One final point- Vedanta talks about what topic- "Brahman" or "Brahma gnyaanam". The answer is "Brahman". Gnyaanam arises by exposing ourselves to Vedanta, where Brahman is revealed.

If you need to memorize, these are the following:

(1) Shloka that defines what is an adhikaranam

(2) Jaimini's sutra- "aamnaayasya..."

(3) The 3 verses from Sundara Pandya

(4) The 2 definitions related to "sashariratvam and samsaara" and "ashiram vaava santa na priyaa-priye sprshatah"

Note: The above "amnaayasya kriyaarthatvaat" quotation.

Adhikaranam-4 Eeekshat-adhikaranam

The topic of srishti:

In this adhikaranam, the topic is creation. Senior Vedantic students may not like this topic. They may favor Maandukya that talks about "ajaati vaada"- there is no creation at all. But, that can be appreciated only if we go through other Upanishads that talk about creation.

Creation is important because through that, we say Brahman is jagat kaaranam. This is tatastha lakshanam. This is easier to appreciate than swarupa lakshanam of brahman which is "satyam gnyaanam anantam".

We say Brahman is kaaranam and jagat is kaaryam. This is adhyaropa stage. Next, we say, there is no world other than brahman. That being the case, Brahman alone is appearing as the world. Hence, we remove kaaryam status to the world as a separate entity. We remove the "causal status" to Brahman also. This is apavaada stage. 

Thus, we start with kaarana-kaarya status and move to adhishtaanam-adhyasta status. In this, the world is mithya. Brahman is "vivarta kaaranam" (if you still want to refer to Brahman in terms of kaaranam and kaaryam).

It is for this revelation of Brahman that srishti prakaranam is present in all Upanishads (except Mandukya). Shankara quotes the shloka related to "adhyaropa-apavaada" in Geeta bhasyam (Chp 13). 

Note above: Shankara's explanation for "sarvatah paanipaadam tat" (Geeta: 13.13). He has quoted adhyaaropa apavaadaa verse, but not in full.

What is the bone of contention?

Now, comes the bone of contention. The world is inert. What should be the cause? The cause should also be inert because between the kaaranam and kaaryam, we have saalakshanyam. All darshanas other than Vedanta say- inert principle has to be cause of this inert world. 

Saankhya-Yoga say "prakrti" or "pradhaanam" is the cause of creation. From prakrti/pradhaanam, the world comes.

Nyaaya (Gautama)-Vaisheshika (Kanaada) say "paramaanu" is the cause of creation.

Only Vedanta says- Consciousness is the kaaranam and the world is a kaaryam! This is the bone of contention.

Who are the purvapakshis here?

Purva-Mimansaka is not in discussion. He says, world has always been around. There is no srishti as such. He was anyway discussed and dismissed in the previous sutra.

Hence, here, we are mainly dealing with Saankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika. Of them, the most powerful, prathama malla is Saankhya.

All these matams are "tarka" (logic) pradhaana. They accept Shruti, but only as "anuvaada", not as primary. We are veda pradhaana. They say, they can "infer" the cause through the creation. We say, no inference is possible. As far as the cause of the universe is concerned, it is Veda-revealed and that's it! 

For Saankhya, he says, he can explain the cause using anumaanam as well as using shruti (veda). In Shruti, he interprets (misinterprets!) "sad eva somya idam agrey aaseet" (Chandogya) as though it is talking about "pradhaanam" (inert). In case of Saankhya, there is NO Ishvara. We have pradhaanam that evolves into the world. We have many jivas (purusha). Both, these multiple purushas and pradhaanam are both real, and having the same order of reality. And yes, there is no ishvara. As per him, "tat tvam asi" is to ensure that the jiva meditates that pradhaanam is his cause! This is his understanding of maha vakya!

Also, in this adhikaranam, we will bring in the naastika darshanaani also (Buddhism and Jainism).

Shlokas to memorize:

(1) Adhyaropa apavaada defintion verse

On Vyasa's greatness: