bhāṣya and ṭīkā

In many ways, commentaries rule the world. Those who are competent to do so are certainly free and able to understand vedāntic texts in the original. Those who are not generally rely on traditional interpretations by commentators of sub-commentators. In the advaita-vedānta tradition, the most celebrated commentator (bhāṣyakāra) is ādi śaṁkara, and the most celebrated sub-commentator (ṭīkākāra) is ānandagiri. 

The role of the bhāṣyakāra is to take the various seemingly disparate statements of veda and gītā and thread them into a singular vision. The role of the ṭīkākāra is to add context to bhāṣyakāra's statements. There are some traditional ślokas which define these roles differently, but they over-generalize and/or over-specify the roles.

The bhāṣya's introduction to the muṇḍaka upaniṣat offers a good example. It starts:

• The upaniṣad, starting with "brahmā devānām" belongs to the atharva-veda.
• By way of eulogy, the upaniṣad itself reveals at the very beginning the connection, forged by a succession of teachers of the knowledge, that this upaniṣad has.

The ṭīkā frames the context for each statement. It answers questions such as:

• Why does śaṁkara comment on this upaniṣad rather than another of the many upaniṣads associated with the atharva veda? 
• Since this upaniṣad talks about brahma's teachings, taught by teachers to students, doesn't it suffer from the pitfalls of human authorship?
• How is it appropriate for the upaniṣad to eulogize itself?

The bhāṣya and ṭīkā are very powerful, eloquent tools. 

hastāmalakīyam

hastāmalakācārya was one of the four primary disciples of ādi śaṁkara. When the ācārya asked him who he was, he spontaneously replied with 12 beautiful verses. It is said that ādi śaṁkara himself composed a commentary on these verses, which was published in the vāṇi vilāsa edition of his complete works. The 4-sentence introduction to this bhāṣya is particularly short and eloquent.

iha hi sarvasya jantoḥ “sukhaṁ me bhūyāt”, “duḥkhaṁ me mā bhūyāt” iti svarasata eva sukhopāditsā-duḥkhajihāse bhavataḥ |

Every being that is mired in saṁsāra naturally wants to find happiness, and be free of sadness.

tatra yaḥ kaścit puṇyātiśayaśālī avaśyaṁbhāviduḥkha-avinābhūtatvāt anityatvācca vīṣayajaṁ suḥkhaṁ duḥkhameveti jñātvā, yatnena sasādhanāt saṁsārāt tyaktāsaktiḥ atyantaṁ virajyate |

And, of these samsārīs, those that are fortunate renounce. They detach themselves from saṁsāra by understanding it to be duḥkha for two reasons – (1) it can never be totally free from duḥkha and (2) it is impermanent.

viraktaśca saṁsārahānau yatate |

After detaching themselves, they then try to destroy his samsāra in it’s entirety.

saṁsārasya ca ātmasvarūpa-aparijñānakṛtatvāt ātmajñānāt nivṛttiḥ iti taṁ prati ātmajñānam ācārya upadiśati |

The bond with saṁsāra exists because the self has not been completely understood, and because the seeker has not been engaged in understanding the self. To remedy this, the ācārya starts his teaching.

digambarānucara

While looking for the dīpikā of śaṁkarānanda on the īśāvasyopaniṣad, I came across the artha-prakāśa of digambarānucara, published by the ānandāśrama  (#76). I have not come across this author before, and a quick internet search did not turn up any results.

I have only read a page or two thus far. It’s style is not as simple or pleasing as that of śaṁkara or śaṁkarānanda, though he certainly belongs to the advaita school. In defining jagat, he points out the statement from the chāndogya –

sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma, tajjalān iti śānta upāsīta (chāndogya 3.14.1)

and understanding tajjalān is impossible without some help:

tajjaṁ ca tallaṁ ca tadanaṁ ca tajjalānam (ānandagiri)

Well, useful as it is, some more explanation is in order:

tasmāt brahmaṇo jātam tajjam
tasmin eva līyate iti tallam
tasmin eva sthiti-kāle aniti prāṇiti ceṣṭate iti (excerpts from the bhāśya)

And this entire discussion is very much along the lines of “īśā vāsyam idaṁ sarvam”

ātmānaṁ na vijugupsate (īśa 6)

In the 6th verse of the iśāvāsyopaniṣat,

yastu sarvāṇi bhūtānyātmaṇyevānupaśyati |
sarvabhūteṣu cātmānaṁ tato na vijugupsate || īśa 6

In this mantra, the tattvavit is described as a person who sees all beings in the self, and the self in all beings. What is the result of this ? It is – ātmānaṁ na vijugupsate.

There are two different ways to understand this –

1. vidvān kimapi na nindati | svātamo ‘nyasya adarśanāt (maṇiprabhā)
2. ātmānam ātmā na vijugupsate, na guptaṁ karoti, tasya dṛśyo bhavati (prasāda)

The first explanation, in line with bhāṣyakāra and the next verse, says that the vidvān stops blaming any other beings, because he sees as himself in the self. The second explanation on the other hand, takes ātmā itself as the kartā. For such a vidvān, ātmā stops hiding. In other words, it becomes self-evident.

tadejati tannaijati (īśa 5)

The dual-natured contradictory statement from the previous mantra continues in the present mantra.

tadejati tannaijati taddūre tadvadantike |
tadantarasya sarvasya tadu sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ || (īśa 5)

The method through which the contradiction is resolved is worth noting. Here are some excerpts from the bhāṣya –

ātmatattvam ejati, tadeva svato na calati, svato’calam eva sat calati |
tad dūre, aviduṣām aprāpyatvāt dūre iva, tadvad antike viduṣām |
tadu sarvasya asya bāhyato vyāpakatvād, atisūkṣmatvād antaḥ | (bhāśya)

The prasāda commentary uses interesting terminology to describe the viduṣa and aviduṣa. The viduṣa is an ātma-citta, while the aviduṣa is a jagat-citta.

Of course, bhāśyakāra’s basic point is clear – The unmoving ātmā, known by those possessing vidyā pervades in the inside of the moving world which is seen as the ātmā by the ignorant, and forms the outside in the sense of nāma-rūpa.

anejad ekam manaso javīyaḥ (īśa 4)

After condemning those without brahma-vidyā as verily the destroyers of the self – ātma-hano jānāḥ – the 4th mantra of the īśāvāsyopaniṣat starts describing the self.

anejad ekam manaso javīyo, nainad devā āpnuvan pūrvam arṣat |
tad dhāvato ̍’nyān atyeti tiśḥṭhat, tasminnapo mātariśvā dadhāti || īśa 4

First, it’s interesting to note the connection between the gloss on anejad, and a previous post which discussed jagat as carācaram. Here, bhāṣyakāra glosses kampanam as “calanaṁ, svāvasthā-pracyutiḥ” which fits in quite nicely with that discussion.

The blatant contradiction between anejat and javīya is once explained through nirupādhi and sopādhi points of view. In what sense is the unmoving ātmā quicker than the mind? Because the ātmā, even as it reflects in the jīvā can never be the object of the sense.

mano-vyāpāra-vyavahitatvād ābhāsa-mātramapi ātmano naiva devānāṁ viṣayī-bhavati (bhāṣya)

The maṇiprabhā has a couple of interesting points to add to the bhāṣya on this verse. It explains “pūrvam arśat” and it’s necessity as proving the astitvam of the ātmā which might otherwise be negated because it can’t be the object of the senses.

manasā … aprāpyatvena asattva-śaṅkāṁ prāptāṁ vārayati – pūrvam iti (maṇiprabhā)

When talking about how it runs faster while remaining unmoving (dhāvato ‘nyān atyeti), bhāśyakāra explains what is surpassed –

ātma-vilakṣaṇān mano-vāg-indriya-prabhṛtīn atyeti atītya gacchati. (bhāṣya)

Here, the maṇiprabhā adds the notion of time explicitly to the list –

anyān kāla-vāyvādīn atyeti ullaṅghya yāti (maṇiprabhā)

The last quarter of this mantra is no trivial matter. It is clearly loaded with inner meaning, and is better left to experts. It is interesting to note the occurrence of these words in the brahma-sūtras.

etena mātariśvā vyākhyātaḥ (2.3.8)
āpaḥ (2.3.11)

It is used in a different context in these sutras. Here are the conclusions:

vāyurjāyate (2.3.8)
sad brahma naiva jāyate (2.3.9)
tejaso vāyujanyatvaṁ kathitam (2.3.10)
āpaḥ tejaso jāyante (2.3.11)

asuryā nāma te lokāḥ (īśa 3)

After discussing the three paths, the īśāvāsya upaniṣad discusses the truly ignorant.

asuryā nāma te lokā andhena tamasā’’vṛtāḥ || 3

Undivine are those worlds enveloped in blinding darkness (profvk translation)

The word lokāḥ is quite interesting, because it is not merely understood in the sense of the world in the universal sense, but as the world that the deluded experiences through the limiting adjuncts of the repeated birth in a womb.

lokāḥ karmaphalāni, lokyante dṛśyante bhujyanta iti janmāni (bhāṣyam)

The prasāda commentary calls this the lokastha-tattad-yonayaḥ, or all possible births in these lokas. And, in line with bhāṣyakāra’s statement – devādayo’pi asurāḥ – that even devas who are ignorant of the self are truly asuras who reside in the hells called asuryā, the maṇiprabhā says:

lokāḥ karmaphala-bhūtāḥ sva-sūkarādi-dehaviśeṣāḥ, īśvarāpekṣayā ajñadevā’pi asurā eva (maṇiprabhā)

Thus, any yoni can be the ignorant hell named asurya, be it because of birth in a body that supports no reasoning beyond animal reactions (like that of a dog or a pig in which the external im

purity signifies the internal impurity), or be it in a divine body that is none the less characterized by a lack of self-realization, or by a sense of kartṛtvam.

Who is a sura, and who is an asura? Says the maṇiprabhā –

suṣṭhu ramante iti surā ātmārāmā vidvāṁsaḥ, tebhyo ‘nye ‘surāḥ

Those who truly sport by abiding in the self are suras, and anyone else is an asura. What happens to the asura? yathākarma yathāśrutam – he gets what he deserves.

ātma-ghātasya prāyaścitta-vidhānādarśanāt saṁsaraṇam eva phalam (ānandagiri)

V. Panoli points the strong connection to the following gītā verse:

āsurīṁ yonim āpannā mūḍhā janmani janmani |
mām aprāpyaiva kaunteya tato yāntyadhamāṁ gatim || (gītā 16.20)

as well as the almost identical phrasing in the bṛhadāraṇyaka

anandā nāma te lokā andhena tamasā’’vṛtāḥ  (4.4.12)

The bhāṣya thereupon is worth looking at:

ye … sādhya-sādhana-lakṣaṇām upāsate karmānuvartante … (te) tamaḥ saṁsāra-niyāmakaṁ praviśanti (bhāṣyam).