Brahman (the intelligent principle) is the first cause

Topic 5 (sutras 5 - 11) : Ikshatyadyadhikaranam [Ikshateh: on account of seeing; adhikaranam: section, topic, proposition]

I.1.5
ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम् |
Ikshaternaashabdam
On account of seeing (i.e thinking being attributed in the Upanishads to the cause of the world; the pradhana*) is not (to be identified with the cause indicated by the Upanishads; for) it is not founded on Scripture

*Saankhya philosophy puts forth an argument that the first cause of this world is pradhana (matter) which is a non-intelligent entity

Ikshateh(ईक्षते): on account of seeing (thinking); Na(न): is not; Ashabdam(अशब्दम्): not based on the scriptures


Commentary:
This sutra is stating that the cause of the world can be attributed only to the intelligent principle called Brahman and no other entity

Background

Introduction - part1, part2, part3, part4

Sutra - I.1.1, I.1.2, I.1.3, I.1.4

Brahman is the main purport of all scriptures

Topic 4: Samanvayadhikaranam [Samanvaya: coordination; adhikaranam: section, topic, proposition]

I.1.4
तत्तु समन्वयात्
Tattu Samanvayat
But that(I.1.3 Brahman is to be known only from the scriptures and not independently by other means is established), because it is the main purpose (of all scriptures)

Tat(तत्): that; Tu(तु): but; Samanvayat(समन्वयत्): coordination, on account of agreement or harmony, because it is the main purpose

Commentary:
Brahman or the absolute can be known only through the scriptures because all the passages of the scriptures can be harmonized only by such a doctrine. The scriptures refer to Brahman only because they have Brahman as their main topic. A very important point to be noted here is, Brahman cannot be realized through scriptures. Scriptures aims only at removing the ignorance about Brahman.

Background

Introduction - part1, part2, part3, part4

Sutra - I.1.1, I.1.2, I.1.3

Brahman is realisable only through the scriptures

Topic 3: Shaastrayonitvaadhikaranam [Shaastra: scripture, treatise; Yonitva: being the source of or the means of right knowledge; adhikaranam: section, topic, proposition]

I.1.3

शास्त्रयोनित्वात् | 

Shastrayonitvaat

The scripture being the source of right knowledge

Sastra(शास्त्र): scripture, treatise; Yonitva(योनित्व): being the source of or the means of right knowledge; 

Commentary:

Scripture is the source or the means of the right knowledge through which you have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the Brahman. As Brahman is formless, colorless, attribute-less, it cannot be grasped by the means of senses of direct perception. Since Brahman is attribute-less it cannot be established by inference or analogy. The omniscience of Brahman follows from him being the source of the scriptures. Sruti alone are the proof about Brahman

Background

Introduction - part1, part2, part3, part4

Sutra - I.1.1, I.1.2

Definition of Brahman

Topic 2: Janmadyadhikaranam [janma : birth, origin etc.; adhikaranam : section, topic,proposition]

I.1.2

जन्माद्यस्य यतः |

Janmadyasya yatah

(Brahman is that) from which the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance & dissolution) of this (world proceed).

janmadi (जन्मदि) : origin etc.; asya (अस्य) : of this (world); yatah (यतः) : from which

Answer to the enquiry of Brahman is given in this sutra. Brahman is the only cause, stay and final resort of this world. 

Commentary:

Brahman who is originator, preserver and absorber of this vast world must have unlimited powers or characteristics. Hence he is omnipotent or omniscient. Knowledge of Brahman can be obtained by reflection on its attributes. Inference or reasoning is an instrument which can be used to study the attributes of Brahman without conflicting with the vedanta texts. 

This sutra points to a vedantic text which gives a description of the characteristics of Brahman. It is the passage from Taittiriya Upanishad III-i: 

Bhrigu went to his father Varuna asking "Sir, teach me Brahman"

Varuna said 

यतो॒ वा इ॒मानि॒ भूता॑नि॒ जाय॑न्ते | येन॒ जाता॑नि॒ जीव॑न्ति । यत्प्रय॑न्त्य॒भिसंवि॑शन्ति | तद्विजि॑ज्ञासस्व | तद ब्रह्मेति॑ ||

yatO vaa imaani bhUtaani jaayaMtE | yEna jaataani jeevaMti | yat prayaMtyabhisaMvishaMti | tadvijijnaasasva | tadbrahmEti ||

That from whence these beings are born, that by which, when born they live, that into which they enter at their death, try to know That. That is Brahman

Note on Vedic Swaras

The above sanskrit text from Taittiriya Upanishad III-i, has annotations on top and below certain letters. They denote the Vedic swaras [variations in pitch]. The swaras are indicated for recitation purpose. As per the annotations the pitch of the voice has to be changed when reciting that particular letter. 

• The letters with no annotations are known as udaata (उदात) - normal pitch
• The letters with an underscore below them are known as anudaata (अनुदात) - low pitch
• The letters with a vertical line above it are knows as swarita (स्वरित) - high pitch
• The letters with two vertical lines above it are known as deerga swarita(दीर्ग स्वरित) - high pitch and stretch it

The above is just an overview, it is advised to learn vedic recitation from a well practiced teacher 


Background

Introduction - part1, part2, part3, part4

Sutra - I.1.1

Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman/GOD

Chapter I

SAMANVAYA ADHYAYA [Samanvaya : co-ordination]

Section 1 

Topic 1: Jignasadhikaranam [Jignasa : explore, curiosity, desire; adhikaranam : section, topic, proposition]

Like every other topic in Brahma sutra deals with the topic of Brahman, henceforth it is implicit without mention that this topic conveys the following purpose

The enquiry into Brahman 

I.1.1
अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा |
Athato Brahmajignasa 
Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman


[The index I.1.1 indicates Chapter I, Section 1 and Sutra 1. This numbering will be followed through out the entire text]

Atha (अथ) : now, then, after this; Atah (अतः) : therefore; Brahmajignasa (ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा) : desire to know Brahman [the enquiry into the real nature of Brahman]

This being the first sutra of the Brahma sutras, creates a doubt in the mind of the reader. Now, therefore does not mean to introduce a new subject but it is here taken to be as denoting immediate consequence. Hence the enquiry into Brahman has to be a consequence of a phenomena which occurred before this.

The question here is, if a phenomena is a pre-requisite for the enquiry into Brahman what is that and where should it occur?

Only those who have got an earnest desire for the knowledge of Brahman are fit for the study of Brahma sutras. In the previous posts i have described couple of reasons which drive a person to know the real  nature of Brahman.

In most of the commentaries on Brahma sutras, the preliminary qualifications for an individual to begin the enquiry into Brahman are

1) Discrimination between eternal and the non-eternal
2) The renunciation of all desire to enjoy the fruit (of one's actions) both here and hereafter
3) Six virtues

• Sama - control of mind
• Dama - control of external senses
• Uparati - cessation from worldly enjoyments
• Titiksha - endurance of pleasure and pain
• Sraddha - faith in the words of the preceptor and of the Upanishads
• Samadhana - deep concentration

4) Desire for liberation

It is a generally accepted fact across commentaries that, only if these conditions exist can an individual engage in the enquiry of the Brahman and come to know of it; but not otherwise.

Note: I have put the preliminary qualifications from the commentaries because the said sutra as such doesn't speak about such conditions explicitly. This also highlights the fact that Brahma sutras cannot be understood without a lucid commentary. It is also true that the commentary also is in need of further elaborate explanation.

If now, therefore part of the enquiry is understood, then the next question that arises is the
What are the characteristics of the Brahman?

Background:

Introduction - part1, part2, part3, part4

Introduction to Brahma Sutras

The Brahma sutras are concise aphorisms. They give the essence of the arguments on a topic. Many thoughts have been condensed into these sutras in as few words as possible. They have been divided into four chapters. Each of the chapters deal with a unique topic.

Each of the chapters consists of several Adhikaranas or topics or proposition which are grouped under different sections. Every proposition consists of the following parts

1) Vishaya - Thesis

2) Samshaya - Doubt

3) Purva paksha - Anti-thesis

4) Siddhanta - Synthesis or right conclusion

5) Sangati - agreement of the proposition with the other parts of the scriptures

There is a relation between the different propositions and they relate to each other by association of ideas. So the various propositions within a chapter are properly structured. The subject matter of the Brahma sutras being GOD/Brahman, any interpretation of the topic should not go away from the said subject.

With this background i will make an attempt to analyze the Brahma sutras and interpret it. A healthy discussion on the interpretations may help all of us involved in the discussion to come to a reasonable consensus.

Background:

Introduction - part1, part2, part3

Revealed Texts

The revealed texts of Sanatana Dharma are predominantly composed in a language called Sanskrit. From time immemorial these texts have been called as the Vedic literature. The term Veda means Knowledge which is derived from the root word Vid which means "to know". [I will from now on indicate the words in sanskrit with italics].

Vedic literature is divided into two categories

a) Shruti which means that which is heard

b) Smriti which means that which is remembered

If Shrutis are considered to be as revealed texts, Smritis are considered to be texts by tradition and not revelation. The Vedas which are four in number constitute the Shrutis. The post-vedic texts such as shastras [a treatise or text written to explain an idea], epics etc constitute the Smritis. A cross over between the Smritis and Shrutis is the Bhagavad-Gita which is considered as a revered text.

As we all know the vedas are four in number

a) Rig Veda

b) Yajur Veda

c) Sama Veda

d) Atharva Veda

Each of the above four vedas can be further divided into two parts

a) Mantra

It is also called as Samhita, which is a collection of hymns to be used in prayers and vedic sacrifices

b) Brahmanas

They are not to be confused with the Brahmana [varna/caste] which describe the rules and regulations of the vedic sacrifices and also the meaning and purpose of the mantras and rituals

These Brahmanas are further divided into Aranyakas and Upanishads

The Upanishad portion of the Vedas contain philosophical and meta physical writings about the nature of Brahman which in our context we call it as GOD [please read article1 and article2 ]. They are also referred to collectively as the Vedanta. They are regarded as one of the three canonical texts of Vedanta school. The other two being Brahma sutras and Bhagavad-Gita. Together the above three texts are called as Prastanatrayi[three starting points of Vedanta].

Upanishads - Shruti Prastana (starting point of revelation) & Bhagavad-Gita - Smriti Prastana (starting point of remembered tradition) are the basic source texts of Vedanta while Brahma Sutra - Nyaya Prasthana (logical starting point for vedanta philosophy) are the texts where teachings of Vedanta are set forth in a systematic and logical order.

No study of Vedanta is complete without the close examination of the Prastanatrayi. Let us begin our discussion with the Brahma Sutras which appear to be the logical starting point to the vedanta philosophy.

How to prove if GOD exists?

As discussed in the previous post, there are various means to acquire right knowledge.

Generally accepted means are

1) Knowledge gained by the means of senses

2) Knowledge gained by the means of inference

3) Knowledge gained by the means of analogy

4) Knowledge gained by the means of texts

I tried to answer the question Is GOD just a myth? by employing some of the above means. However the first three have their own limitations and they best act as tools to acquire right knowledge. The texts that speak about GOD are plenty and written by many authors. After all when an author writes he uses one of the above means to acquire right knowledge. For composing a text an author will refer to texts written by other authors prior to his work. This process of referring can go on infinitely until there was an ever existing text source from which all the future texts have been derived. This ever existing text source which speaks about GOD must have been a creation/revelation of/by GOD (ever existing entity) which otherwise would have been a referred work. This ever existing text source having been created/revealed by GOD must remain consistent irrespective of the time, situation, place and other necessary conditions.

Now in today's world we can observe that there are handful of such texts which are considered to be such revelations. In the interest of acquiring right knowledge from texts we have to explore and analyze the texts. But it is equally difficult to acquire complete knowledge from at least one text considering the average life span of a human being. So an attempt to study one of the texts, would be helpful in getting the right knowledge during the life span. If we agree there is re-birth, then we carry forward the knowledge acquired so far to the next birth. If we disagree then we are still better placed to have at least made an attempt to acquire right knowledge.

Having born in the frame work of Sanatana Dharma [eternal law] now interpreted as Hinduism, i will henceforth make an attempt to explore and interpret the ever existing revealed texts of sanatana dharma.

Is GOD just a myth?

When we took birth, we were ignorant of everything in this world. Ignorant of what?

We did not know what to eat? what to drink? what to wear? what to work on till we die? where to live? which is our family? ... in fact infinite number of such questions.

Before that we didn't even know if there were such questions to be asked? That was the ignorant state we were in.

Today we can answer most of these questions convincingly. How was this possible? Through out our lives we come across numerous other human beings(who might know answers to such questions) with whom we develop relationships. Our parents, teachers, elders, friends, books etc help us find answers to the infinite number of such questions.

When someone asks us "How did you deduce that sugar is sweet?"

We say when we eat sugar we sense the sweetness through our tongue. Therefore we declare sugar is sweet.

Similarly when we are asked "How did you deduce that fire will burn?"

We say when we touch fire, it burns our skin. Therefore we declare fire burns.

Now if someone asks a question "Is GOD just a myth?"

Some of us say it is a myth because we cannot see him. Our elders have told us GOD exists so we believe/don't believe GOD exists.

If you see the above three questions, we are happy because we know answers to all the three questions. But the impact of finding an answer to the third question in a way similar to the first two is really exciting & interesting. But how many of us have ever tried to find if GOD is just a myth or does GOD really exists? Is it as easy as finding the sweetness of sugar?

Knowing an answer to a question is acquiring knowledge. The knowledge acquired can be right or wrong. It is always good to acquire right knowledge unless we have other intentions! Right knowledge about any object can be acquired by us through various means.

Generally accepted means are

1) Knowledge gained by the means of senses

2) Knowledge gained by the means of inference

3) Knowledge gained by the means of analogy

4) Knowledge gained by the means of texts

Now coming to our questions Is GOD just a myth? We say we cannot see GOD, hence it is just a myth. Seeing is an action of one of our senses. We should try to perceive GOD through other senses.

It is a common practice in Science to infer something when you cannot practically prove it through senses. Similarly if we are not able to find, Is GOD just a myth? we have to infer it from the perceived facts. Any rational person who observes this creation (existence of the universe) - its complexity, its structure, coordination and beauty - makes an attempt to identify its cause (the sustaining principle behind it). We can easily say that creation is not an ignorant act. If it is then an intelligent act we can conclude that the entity from which the creation happened will be super set of all intelligence because any creation is just a part of that entity. So we can conclude that the entity responsible for the creation is OMNISCIENCE [knows everything].

Just like there is a potter behind a pot, we can say that there is an entity behind the creation. Now the entity which is responsible for the creation must be an ever existing aspect, if not then, that again will be a creation of another entity. So any creation must have come from an ever existing aspect. Therefore the entity from which creation happened is ever existing.

To create something we must have raw materials. For the creation to happen the entity responsible for it must create from nothing or from itself. Ruling out the former we can easily conclude that raw materials for creation came from the entity itself. So the entity manifests itself in all the creations. Hence the entity must be OMNIPRESENT[present everywhere]

Similar logical analysis must be done to get clarity on the subject. The entity mentioned in the above analysis is termed by theists as GOD. Well science calls that entity "Unexplored Science"

Inference has its limits and it acts as a very good tool to acquire knowledge about GOD. However it wont help us prove if GOD exists?

We have now got some clarity on the question Is GOD just a myth? I will continue the article in another post. Please keep watching the space...