Strategies of interpretation: Samkara's commentary on 'Brhadaranyakopanisad.'

• Author: Hirst, Jacqueline Suthren

1. INTRODUCTION

   The aim of this article is to explore Samkara's theological method with reference to one of his greatest, yet little studied, commentaries.(1) I shall try to demonstrate the close link that exists between certain of Samkara's exegetical strategies and the hermeneutics of his whole theological system. In other words, I shall develop the claim that, for Samkara, scripture is the source of both theological content and method and that there is a close interrelation between the two.(2)

   In order to establish this, I shall focus on three major themes: firstly, the place of sravana, manana and nididhyasana (hearing scripture, reflection, and contemplation) as a Vedantin method; secondly, and linked with this, the relation between scripture and reason; thirdly, and again based on the foregoing, the refutation of opponents, taking the Buddhists as my example. I shall try to show that not only are these issues clearly addressed in the Brhadaranyakopanisadbhasya, but that they are central to the Advaitin enterprise, as Samkara sees it. Before turning to these issues, I shall briefly justify my choice of commentary and indicate its place amongst Samkara's works and the wider Advaitin tradition.

   1.1 Choice of Commentary

   The Brhadaranyakopanisad is a very important text, both in the upanisadic corpus and in Samkara's own writings, yet there has been little explicit study of its Bhasya, compared with, say, that on the Brahmasutra.(3) Its importance to Samkara can be indicated in various ways. With the Chandogyopanisad, the Brhadaranyaka is the upanisad Samkara cites most frequently.(4) Like the Brahmasutrabhasya, the commentary on the Brhadaranyakopanisad provides ample opportunity for Samkara to warm to his main themes: the oneness of the Self and Brahman, the world of name and form, the sufficiency of knowledge alone for release. It also contains extended arguments against key opponents that are less constricted than in his commentary on the Brahmasutra, whose own agenda of refutations and whose vrttikara shape Samkara's approach.(5) The earlier commentator on the Brhadaranyakopanisad, whom Anandagiri identifies as Bhartrprapanca, is simply another opponent to be challenged, rather than a predecessor to be followed where possible. This is one of several good reasons for thinking the Brhadaranyakopanisadbhasya to be a mature commentary(6) and hence another justification for studying it in some detail. In addition, it is one of the two upanisadbhasyas on which Suresvara, a direct disciple of Samkara's, wrote a major varttika. Samkara's own tradition, then, from the earliest times, has regarded it as an important work. Finally, it contains numerous, clearly articulated comments by Samkara, both on the method of the upanisad as he sees it and on his own method in explaining what the text means. It thus provides vital material for understanding Samkara's theological method.

   The Brhadaranyakopanisad is, however, also important in the wider Advaitin tradition. From 2.4.5 and its parallel 4.5.6 is derived the triple method of hearing, reflecting, and meditating, long regarded as the basis of Advaitin, or even Vedantin, practice. Thus, for example, Dasgupta writes of the person qualified for Vedantic instruction:(7)

   [He] should try to understand correctly the true purport of the Upanisads (called sravana), and by arguments in favour of the purport of the Upanisads to strengthen his conviction as stated in the Upanisads (called manana) and then by nididhyasana (meditation) which includes all the Yoga processes of concentration, try to realize the truth as one. (Dasgupta 1922, 1:490)

   This threefold process has become almost synonymous with Advaitin method. As early as Mandana Misra, an opponent is using the triple phrase to indicate the Advaitin way of inculcating knowledge (though he believes it to lack efficacy).(8) In his fifteenth-century Essence of the Vedanta, "one of the best and most widely read introductory books in Sanskrit for the study of Vedanta," Sadananda lists sravana, manana, and nididhyasana as necessary preparations for realization.(9) A contemporary swami of the Ramakrishna Mission employs the method innovatively as the foundation of his practice, giving this as one of several reasons for the importance of the Brhadaranyaka commentary in his view.(10)

   It is clear that one reason for the method's centrality is precisely its perceived scriptural sanction. This is not just a matter of excerpting it from the two verses mentioned above. When Radhakrishnan makes a (somewhat artificial) link between the structure of the three kandas of the Brhadaranyakopanisad and this scheme (1953: 147), this is no invention of his. Anandagiri's commentary already promotes such a view. Bhartrprapanca, before Samkara, found the scheme presented within the upanisad in 2.4-2.5. The method is seen to be embedded in the form of the text itself. For this reason, we shall begin our investigation of Samkara's commentary by examining his own treatment of sravana, manana, and nididhyasana. This will sharpen our understanding of his rather different perception of the text's structure and methods and will lead into our consideration of the relation of scripture and reason.

2. SRAVANA, MANANA, AND NIDIDHYASANA

   As soon as we turn to Samkara's commentary, it becomes apparent that he is at odds with the view just outlined above. In the introduction to BUBh 2.5 we find Samkara stating quite clearly: "Therefore, in our opinion, the allocating of separate sections to hearing, reflection, and meditation is meaningless."(11) The man regarded as the arch-commentator of the Vedanta seems to be slighting its central method, this terse comment apparently ignored by succeeding generations!

   In this section of the paper, I wish to argue that there are three overriding reasons why Samkara is unwilling to follow the construction of the text proposed by "others."(12) These are: his understanding of the way scripture functions as a unity; his fundamental distinction between action and knowledge; and his insistence that sabda as a pramana demands close attention to the particularities of text and context. All of these are grounded in his understanding of scriptural content and methods. We shall look at each briefly in turn and then see how these affect his understanding of the triple method.

   Samkara perceives the unity of scripture, its ekavakyata, to be grounded in the very oneness of the Self. This is made most clear in a verse from the Upadesasahasri, with its nice play on words:

   The wise know that (Veda) to be a single passage because it is concerned with the sole end of realization. For the oneness of the Self is to be known by discovering the purport/meaning/goal of the passage.(13)

   It follows that any methods the Veda recommends for understanding non-duality are simultaneously focused on and culminate in that single non-dual subject. We shall see how this principle affects both the way Samkara interprets the upanisad's encouragement that the Self is "to be heard, reflected on and meditated on" and his rejection of Bhartrprapanca's allocation of separate sections of the upanisad for each task.

   Within the unity of the Veda, Samkara does, though, recognize one fundamental division of texts. This relates to his sharp distinction between action and knowledge and results in the categorization of sruti texts into a section on action and a section on knowledge (karmakanda, jnanakanda)(14) The former is concerned with dharma, the world of ends and means, the preserve of the Purvamimamsakas. The latter seeks Brahman, transcending ends and means, the field of Vedanta (or Uttaramimamsa). They do not neatly correspond with what have been regarded as different genres of Vedic texts. It is the content of a text which determines whether it counts as karmakanda or jnanakanda. The Brhadaranyaka contains instances of both, at least in Samkara's reckoning. This is one reason why Samkara would reject the kanda scheme suggested by Anandagiri and Radhakrishnan. It is quite clear that the sixth adhyaya's rather precise instructions for ensuring male issue relate to (ritual) action, means and ends, not to meditation on the one Self (nididhyasana). Similarly, in the opening section, meditating on the horse sacrifice functions for Samkara as a way of inculcating dissatisfaction with the world of ends and means. It is hence merely preparatory to knowledge of the Self. While this shows that the distinction between karmakanda and jnanakanda is not always as sharp as the demands of polemic require, this preparatory meditation does not constitute direct hearing of the Self and so kanda 1 cannot be described as sravana (of the Self) without ambiguity.

   More importantly, this fundamental distinction stresses that ritual action creates its own results, whereas knowledge is of that which already exists. There can be no way in which the Self to be known is dependent on the knowing of the seeker. Hence it cannot be enjoined, since what is enjoined is dependent on whether the agent actually follows or ignores the injunction. Rather, the Self is simply to be known as such.(15) It is this view, which is quite unnegotiable, that leads to ambiguity in Samkara's understanding of nididhyasana and his tendency to ignore it where possible, as we shall see below.

   The same assumption (that knowledge cannot be enjoined) also underlies the way he reads BU 2.4.5, the particular attention he pays to the grammatical structure of its key phrase and the way he relates it to its wider upanisadic context. This is fully in accordance with his principle that the language of sruti is to be examined minutely in determining its sense, since it is as sabda that it is a valid means of knowledge, pramana. This is, of course, a principle derived from Purvamimamsa exegesis, but it is applied in the light of his Advaitin presuppositions, indicated above. It constitutes the third reason why Samkara...