Thread by @Earthy_Virgoan, अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा - athāto brahma jijñāsā (Vedānta-sūtra (1.1.1))atha—now; atah—therefore; brahma—about Brahman; jijñāsā

अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा - athāto brahma jijñāsā (Vedānta-sūtra (1.1.1))

atha—now; atah—therefore; brahma—about Brahman; jijñāsā—there should be inquiry.

Now, therefore, one should inquire about Brahman (a Sanskrit noun denoting the absolute truth).

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि - ahaṁ brahmāsmi (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.10))

I am of the nature of Brahman.

That's right.

तत्त्वमसि - tat tvam asi (Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.8.7))

Thou art that.

Well, we all are that, i.e. Brahman, although the very concept defies simplistic understanding/interpretation.

प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म - prajñānaṃ brahma (Aitareya Upaniṣad (3.3))

Brahman, or absolute reality, is pure conscious awareness.

That is in fact the supreme state towards which we've been marching since time eternal. In itself, this shows how very difficult awakening the self is.

अयमात्मा ब्रह्म - ayamātmā brahma (Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (1.2))

The Self (Ātman) is Brahman.

Śruti tends to concur, in almost all declarations germane to the topic, that the Self, whether viewed microcosmically or macrocosmically, is identified with Brahman, the highest reality.

dvā́ suparṇā́ sayújā sákhāyā samānáṃ vṛkṣám pári ṣasvajāte
táyor anyáḥ píppalaṃ svādv átty ánašnann anyó abhí cākašīti - Ṛg Veda 1.164.20, Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.1, Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.6

Two Birds with fair wings, knit with bonds of friendship, in the same sheltering tree have found a refuge. One of the twain eats the sweet Fig-tree's fruitage; the other eating not regardeth only. - Ralph T. H. Griffith's translation

This śloka, as I reference above, is found no less than three times in shruti, in śāstras as revered as the Ṛg Veda, Muṇḍakopaniṣat and Śvetāśvataropaniṣat. The relatively simple idea it conveys is extremely important to understand for anyone who has serious spiritual goals,

I'm going to be adding on the foregoing at some point in the next few days, as somehow, I began re-thinking about the perennial spiritual topic about the ontological origin of the self, Atman.

At the very fundament of the human condition, we find ourselves with a question that literally marks the distinction between the rest of the species of living beings and us. The said question marks the unique ability of humans to enquire into existence: "Where did we come from?"

Let us take a look at the commentaries of some prominent vedAntAchArya-s: shaMkara, rAmAnuja, madhwa, baladeva vidyAbhUShaNa, nimbArkAchArya and shrInivAsa.

The sUtra in question is 2.1.35. (2nd Adhyaya, Pada 1, sUtra 35) in most versions.

“na karmAvibhAgAd iti cen nAnAditvAt”

2.1.35 - "If it be argued that it is not possible (to take karma into consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated, then we say, no, since the transmigratory state has no beginning."

shaMkarAchArya:-

“Since the inequality in creation is in accordance with the merit and demerit of the beings that are created, God is not to blame.” - commentary to sUtra 2.1.34

But what of the beginning of the world? The first beings had no previous births from which to inherit good or bad fortune, so how did inequality arise? shaMkarAchArya, in accordance with bAdarAyaNa (vyAsadeva) has an answer to this too.

“The objection would be valid if the world had a beginning. But since the world is beginningless, there is no reason why actions & inequality should not go on & on. Each of them is both the effect & cause of the other, like the seed and the plant. - shaMkara's comments on 2.1.35.

The AchArya states, “Moreover, the fact of the world being without a beginning, is seen in shruti & smR^iti.”

He then quotes R^ig veda saMhitA 10.190.3 in support.

सूरय्याचन्द्रमसौ धाता यथा पूर्वमकल्पयत् I
दिवं च पृथ्वीं च अंतरिक्षमथो स्वः II

“As the creator formerly devised (akalpayat) the sun & moon, which intimates the existence of former kalpas. smR^iti also declares the world to be without a beginning, 'Neither its form is known here, nor its end, nor its beginning, nor its support' (Bha. Gi. 15.3). +

And the purANa also declares that there is no measure of past and future kalpas.”

rAmAnujAchArya:-

“The Sutra disposes by saying 'on account of beginninglessness,' i.e. although the individual souls and their deeds form an eternal stream, without a beginning, yet non-distinction of them 'is reasonable' (i.e. may reasonably be asserted) in so far as, +

previous to creation, the substance of the souls abides in a very subtle condition, destitute of names and forms, and thus incapable of being designated as something apart from Brahman, although in reality then also they constitute Brahman's body only. +

If it were not admitted (that the distinctions in the new creation are due to karma), it would moreover follow that souls are requited for what they have not done, and not requited for what they have done.

The fact of the souls being without a beginning is observed, viz., +

to be stated in shAstra, 'The intelligent one is not born & dies not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18); so also the fact of the flow of creation going on since eternity, 'As the creator formed sun & moon formerly.” Which is again the same verse that shaMkara cited from the R^ig for support.

rAmAnujAchArya then cites gItA 13.20 for support: prakṛtiḿ puruṣaḿ caiva viddhy anādī ubhāv api vikārāḿś ca guṇāḿś caiva viddhi prakṛti-sambhavān

“Material nature & the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations & the modes of matter+

are products of material nature.”

S.M Srinivasa Chari, a shrI vaiShNava, also mentions in his book, “The Philosophy of the Upanisads,” on page 267. “The Upanisads which speak of both the evolution and the dissolution of the universe convey the idea of pravaha-nityatva +

or its continuous existence through the cyclic process of a beginning and an end without total annihilation.”

madhwAchArya:-

“The Lord can't be said to be merciless or partial as he dispenses to the jivas according to their karmas.” madhwAchArya then quotes prashnopanisat, “The Lord leads the souls to happiness in relation to their good deeds and leads them to miseries on account of +

their sinful deeds.

Then he refutes the pUrvapakShin's objection by saying, “It may be stated that the thing in consideration of which the Lord dispenses the fruit cannot be the action of the souls for even the action proceeds (is caused by) Him.” +

He then quotes kauShItaki upaniShad 3.8 in support of the opposition's view. “The Lord only makes him do righteous deeds whom the Lord chooses to elevate, and he only makes him do unrighteous acts whom the Lord chooses to throw downwards (towards misery, hell).” +

madhwAchArya then says, “this objection is futile, for there being a preceding karma as the the cause of every one of those subsequent karma-s which the Lord causes the soul to do, the series of karma is eternal.” +

madhwAchArya, to nail the point, quotes bhaviShya purANa, “viShNu impels the self on a course of action as is the necessary consequence of some previous action. Thus, karma/action being eternal, the fault of being partial and merciless can in no way attach itself to the Lord.”

nimbArkAchArya and shrInivAsa:-

nimbArkAchArya wrote a short work called vedAnta pArijAta saurabha while his follower shrInivAsa wrote vedAnta kaustubha which elaborates further.

nimbArkAchAra:-

“If it be objected that since the text: '"The existent alone, my dear, was this in the beginning'" (Chand. 6.2.1*) declares the 'non-distinction' of works prior to creation, the Supreme Being's dependence on the works does not fit in, — (we reply.) "no", +

as works exist even then, the works done by the individual souls in previous births being eternal. And a prior creation "fits in", as a sudden subsequent creation is unreasonable. And this is "observed also" in the text: +

'The creator fashioned the sun and the moon as he did before' (R^ig. V. 10.190.3) and so on. i.e. since a subsequent creation cannot arise all on a sudden we have to admit that it arises from a prior creation.”

+

So here again, we see nimbArka refer to R^ig Veda, i.e. shruti evidence that bhagavAn creates the world in accordance with how he made them in previous creation cycles. And he states that a sudden, ex-nihilo creation is unreasonable.

+

shrInivAsa:-

“The works, good and bad, done by the individual souls in a previous creation, become the cause of the diversities in a subsequent creation. "And" the continuity of creation "fits in" in accordance with the maxim of 'the seed and the shoot', and +

in accordance with the above-mentioned difference between the manifest and unmanifest effect, as well as because a sudden subsequent creation without a prior creation is inexplicable, this last reason being indicated by the particle "and" (in the sUtra).

+

This is observed also in scripture. That is, since the text: 'The creator fashioned the sun and the moon as he did before' (R^ig. V. 10.190.3), teaches the existence of a prior creation, the eternity of the flow of creation is established.

+

And in the scriptural and smR^iti texts like: 'With roots above, branches below is this eternal fig-tree' (kaTha 6.1), 'With roots above, branches below, the fig-tree is indestructible, they say' (gItA 15.1), the reality as well of mundane existence,

+

as having the Existent as its root, and as having the form of a continuous stream, is established. Previously, the effect has indeed been determined to be real. In the texts : ' Without beginning and without end '. 'A wise man is not born, nor dies' (kaTha 2.18 6 ),

+

'Know prakR^iti (matter) and puruSha (soul) to be both beginningless' (gItA 13.19), the eternity, too, of the sentient and the non-sentient substances, which are the powers of the Supreme Cause, is established.”

All these different commentaries are therefore unified in their explanation: karma is literally anAdi, and there is no beginning to our bondage in saMsAra due to beginningless avidyA.

अशुद्धमिति चेत्, न, शब्दात् ॥ ब्रह्म सूत्र २५ ॥

aśuddhamiti cet, na, śabdāt || Brahma sūtra 25 ||

If it be said (that sacrifices, which entail the killing of animals etc.) are unholy, (we say) not so, on account of scriptural authority.

Source: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras/d/doc74942.html

This Sutra refutes the point raised by the opponent in the previous Sutra that the descending soul is enveloped by its bad Karma such as the killing of animals in sacrifices and so is born as herbs etc. +

+ The killing of animals etc. in sacrifice does not entail any bad karma for the person, for it is sanctioned by the scriptures. - Commentary by Swami Vireshwarananda (1936).

This is Brahma sūtra 3.1.25, to be precise.

Here's a screenshot from the translation and commentary on shaMkara's vedAnta bhAShya.

And here I reproduce, in the form of screenshots, the relevant portions of shrIpAda rAmAnuja's vedAnta-bhAShya on how pashu-bali enjoined in the veda is definitely not sinful.

Here's madhwAchArya's TIkA on this sUtra (3.1.27 in the edition I consulted). Like shaMkara and rAmAnuja, shrI Ananda tIrtha unequivocally lends his support to shAstra-enjoined bali in the context of yaj~na.

We now look at Roma Bose's English rendering of nimbArkAchArya's bhAshya on vedAnta-sUtra 3.1.25. Like the other pUrvAchArya-s whose works have been consulted, in this instance as well, there is unambiguous support for shAstra-backed pashubali in the context of yaj~na.

I'll end the miniseries with the brahmasUtra bhAShya of baladeva vidyAbhUShaNa of the gauDIya vaiShNava sampradAya. As we see, there's essentially no difference in regard to this specific sUtra (3.1.26 in baladeva's commentary, translated by Srisa Chandra Vasu) with the others.

There is another important vedAnta-bhAShya I have to consider for the sake of completeness - shrIkaNTha's, the only known full commentary on the brahmasUtra-s from a shaiva vantage point. It comes as no surprise that AchArya shrIkaNTha doesn't depart from what we've already seen.

Śrīmaddevībhāgavatam, Book III, Chapter XXVI, Ślokas 32-34: more evidence for the validity of animal sacrifice in śāstra.

We continue presenting irrefutable evidence for पशुबलि from शास्त्र. This time, we turn to the premier sacred text for worshippers of the Great Goddess, the देवी माहात्म्यम्, चण्डी पाठ, or दुर्गासप्तशती. Specifically, we look at the द्वादशोऽध्यायः, or twelfth chapter.

बलिप्रदाने पूजायामग्निकार्ये महोत्सवे ।
सर्वं ममैतच्चरितमुच्चार्यं श्राव्यमेव च ॥ १०॥
जानताऽजानता वापि बलिपूजां यथा कृताम् ।
प्रतीच्छिष्याम्यहं प्रीत्या वह्निहोमं तथा कृतम् ॥ ११॥

सर्वं ममैतन्माहात्म्यं मम सन्निधिकारकम् ।
पशुपुष्पार्घ्यधूपैश्च गन्धदीपैस्तथोत्तमैः ॥ २०॥

In the above passages, माँ भगवती tells us of the various means through which she is normally propitiated. She then declares that simply by one doing श्रवण of the उत्तम चरित्र of her माहात्म्यम् once, she gets as pleased as when worshipped by all other methods stated just before.

The central point for the purpose of this thread, however, is that animal bali is listed amongst the modes through which भगवती is served. Her words are the supreme authority. What she says is सिद्धान्त, period. No amount of mental gymnastics by naysayers can alter this. जय माँ।

Latest Threads Unrolled: