Upadesa Pancakam – Part II

by

उपदेश पञ्चकम्

S. Yegnasubramanian

Having given the instructions for the brahmacarya and gṛhastāśrama,

the author dwells upon the vānaprastāśrama and emphasizes the
jnānamārga and the various sādhanās, starting with systematic listening
and understanding or śravaṇam.

वाक्याथर्श्च िवचायर्तां श्रुितिशरः पक्षः समाश्रीयतां

दुस्तकार्त्सुिवरम्यतां श्रुितमतस्तकोर्ऽनुसन्धीयताम् ।
ब्रह्मास्मीित िवभाव्यतामहरहगर्वर्ः पिरत्यज्यतां
देहऽ े हम्मितरुज्झ्यतां बुधजनैवार्दः पिरत्यज्यताम् " ३ "

In this śloka, Śaṅkarācārya briefly mentions about śravaṇam in the first

line; mananam in the second; and nidhidhyāsana in the third.

In the upaniṣads, the vedāntic concepts are not explicit. The meemāmsā
śāstra provides the key to understand these intricate concepts. For
example, in the kaivalya upaniṣad, it is said,

एतस्माज्जायते प्राणो मनः सवेर्िन्द्रयािण च ।

खं वायुज्योर्ितरापश्च पृथ्वी िवश्वस्य धािरणी " 1.15 "

i.e from brahman are born, all the pañca bhūtās, the jñānendriyās,
karmendriyās and pañca-prāṇās.

But the upaniṣat strangely concludes that,

‘therefore they are not there’, in the 4th Sloka of section 2

न भूिमरापो न च विह्नरिस्त
न चािनलो मेऽिस्त न चाम्बरं च " 2.4 "

Similarly, the upaniṣat says, satyam, jñānam , anantam brahma –

Brahman is anantam – limitless, all pervading. And the Upaniṣat says,
that brahman created all the worlds; all the bodies, all the minds – all
pervading – and then on brahman entered in to them!

तत्सृष्ट्वा । तदेवानुप्रिवशत् ।

All these will cause great confusion unless we take the approach of
mīmāmsā.

When a statement is vague or confusion, to enable correct understanding,

one first takes into account, all other statements of the upaniṣat and try to
connect them. So, the answer to the question is not to be found outside the
upaniṣat, but within it only.

And this mīmāmsā method of analysis generally talks about six factors or
liṅgās –

उपक्रमािद षड् िलङ्गै ः तात्पयर् िनणर्यः मीमाम्सा अथवा श्रवणम्

This is called Śravaṇam or mīmāmsā. The author says,

वाक्याथर्श्च िवचायर्ताम् । vākyārthaśca vicāryatām — may you analyze the

meaning of every statement especially, mahāvākyārtha: – and when you
analyze that,
श्रुितिशरः पक्षः समाश्रीयताम् । śrutiśiraḥ pakṣaḥ samāśrīyatām — may you stick
to the statements of the Upanishats only, Śrutiśiraḥ pakṣaḥ. Śrutiśiraḥ
means Vedāntā – may you always be on the side of Vedāntā.

And through śravaṇam, we understand that the essence of jīvātmā is cit –

i.e., Consciousness is the essence of the individual and, the essence of the
world is sat or Existence, and that the Consciousness and Existence are
one and the same — which alone is called sat-cit-ātmā or jīva-aiśvarya-
aikyam — the one-ness of jīva and īśvarā.

Then mananam is introduced in the 2nd line. Mananam is logically

refuting all other systems which are contrary to vedāntic teaching.
Because, any knowledge involves knowing the right and also the wrong. So,
knowledge is knowledge, only if it cannot be shaken by any wrong or
fallacious understanding. Therefore, vedāntic study involves two stages –

1. Seeing vedāntic teaching as correct, and

2. Seeing other teachings as defective.

For example, if we accept advaita as ultimate then dvaita has to be

negated, and vice-versa.

Through śravaṇam, one knows the teaching of vedānta, and in mananam

one analyzes all the systems which say other than vedānta and see whether
they can be accepted or not. And this problem is more in the case of
vedānta because,

for a beginner, it is very difficult to accept the teachings of vedānta.

Because, vedānta tells something contrary to whatever idea one has been
habituated to. In fact, vedānta makes statements regarding three
fundamental things – namely, jīva, jagat and īśvarā.

Vedanta says that the jīva is infinite, is ānandasvarūpaḥ and is immortal!

Then, it makes a statement about the world — that the world is unreal,
which is even more unacceptable to a layman. And the third statement that
Vedanta makes it that you are non-different from īśvarā, which one
cannot comprehend at all — because we have heard that Lord is
sarvajñaḥ, sarveśvaraḥ, sarva śaktimān, whereas, I know, I am alpajñaḥ,
alpaśaktimān. Therefore, how, I can be identical with the Lord? The other
systems seem to be appealing because they all say that you are just a
mortal, and not brahman and all, and the jīvātmās and are distinct from
paramātmā, which is only one. They also say the world is solidly real –
jagat satyameva. Except advaita, all other darsanas are of this view only.
They also claim that they are rational systems based on logic and reasoning
– tarka-pradhāna śāstrās. For example, sāṅkyā, yoga, nyāya, vaiṣeśika,
jaina, bouddha, — are all tarka-pradhāna philosophies, whereas, the
advaitins claim to be Sruti-pradhAna based upon Sruti, the Vedas and
have kept tarka as only a tool or subsidiary to VedAnta. And that is why, in
the defining the eligible – adhikAri – for learning VedAnta – it is said that
SradhhA or faith in the Sruti is a must. Where as a rational person will
never talk of faith; they say that those who hold on to faith, belief etc are
weak people, without intellectual capacity and call the advaitins as
superstitious people holding on to some scriptures. And so, what is
required is a thorough analysis of those systems. And this is called
mananam – in which every other system is clearly weighed. And the
beauty is, when we study those systems, we cannot take the help of Vedas,
because they don’t give importance to Vedas – but to Logic. So, one has to
analyze all those systems with the measuring rod of logic itself, and that is
why all advaita AcAryas are great logicians also! Sankaracharya analyzes
in his brahmasUtra bhAshya – second chapter, which is dedicated
exclusively, where every system is thoroughly analyzed. Having dismissed
all those systems, Sankaracharya establishes that logic cannot be used in
the discovery of reality, because logic has got intrinsic limitations. Thus
Sankaracharya establishes the deficiencies of logic by using logic itself!
And He says that Sruti also says the same thing, namely,

naishA tarkeNa matirApaneyA proktA anyenaiva sujnAnAya preshTA

anIyAn hya-tarkyam aNupramAnA –

Sruti itself has talked about the limitation of tarka by using the word a-
tarkya: AtmA
and this logical refutation of other systems and seeing the innate deficiency
of logic alone will increase our faith in VedAnta. Therefore this is the
second job called mananam given in the 2nd line

दुस्तकार्त्सुिवरम्यताम्। dus-tarkAt su-viramyatAm — May you get away from all

those systems which are purely logic based. This is called mananam. Then
one may wonder, if logic is deficient and cannot reveal the truth, then does
it mean that logic should be totally given up? Sankaracharya says that
logic need not be totally given up, but logic can be used for understanding
the VedAntic teaching – as a tool to extract the meaning of the sastras.
That is, not to use logic to invent a philosophy – but use it to bring out the
teaching of the sastras. This tarka is called Sruti-matas-tarka: –
subservient to, the Vedas.

Because for all our questions and doubts, Vedas do not give explicit
answer, but at the same time, answers are hidden in Vedas for any
question implicitly. So, one has to extract the answer to remove a
particular doubt, and the method of bringing out the answer is through
logic. That is why, Sruti itself says, srotavya:, mantavya:,
nidhidhyAsitavya:

Srotavya: — Sruti pradhAna:

Mantavya: — tarka supported Sruti

And this should also be followed by,

अनुसन्धीयताम्। anusandhIyatAm – may you dwell upon. Thus answering all

of one’s doubts is mananam. The benefit of mananam is conviction in
VedAntic teaching. Sravanam gives knowledge; mananam gives
conviction.

There afterwards, if other people accept Vedanta or not, I don’t care, I am

doubly sure about what I have understood. I can say ‘aham brahmasmi”
without any vagueness.

The final stage of sAdhana is nidhidhyAsanam. It is a process by which

the knowledge has to be converted to mental, emotional or psychological
strength. Our original disease is ignorance which is purely at the level of
the intellect. But its symptoms are expressed at the level of the mind in the
form of attachment, hatred, fear, anxiety, worry etc. In fact all the
problems of samsaAra are at the emotional level only. So when we look for
the solution, the solution is at the intellectual level, namely, the ignorance
should go. But that is not enough – there is no use of saying aham brahma
asmi crying! One has to ask the question whether those emotional
symptoms of fear etc are rooted out. As long as they are not removed, the
knowledge is as good as no knowledge. So, it is a knowledge at the
emotional level as emotional strength, emotional duty, emotional
refinement etc., which we call as assimilation.

And that is called jivan mukti: – that is why Krishna describes a jivan
mukta: as

du:kheshu anud-vighnamanA: — when provoking situations are

there, one is able to remain calm – anud-vighnam – without getting
perturbed; and

Sukheshu vigata-spruha: — when things are going fine, one does not
get totally lost in them

vIta-rAga-bhaya-krodha: — there is no clinging to any thing; ready to

give up anything at any time –vIta-rAga:; vIta bhaya:, vIta: krodha:

The only difference is, in the case of the food that we eat, assimilation is a
natural process. But in the case of VedAnta, assimilation requires effort!

So it is a life long process of taking up every emotional issue and

consciously knocking them off. This is called nidhidhyasanam, and it
requires time, and constant alertness with introspection.

ब्रह्मास्मीित िवभाव्यताम्। brahmAsmi iti vibhAvyatAm — may you repeatedly

dwell upon – meditate upon – the teaching that I am Brahman, as the
Primary illuminator and not the secondary illuminator. Not only aham
brahmAsmi is to be brought to the mind positively – and the negative side
namely, I am the ahamkAra, stUla Sareeram, sUkshma Sareeram –
should be removed. That means, I must be able to see my own body as one
of the objects in the world! And,

देहऽ
े हं मितरुज्झ्यताम्। dehe aham mati: ujyatAm — I am the body-notion may
be given up; i.e , cultivate ‘I am Brahman’ knowledge and reject ‘I am body
notion’. And this nidhidhyasanam is for the rest of life, there is no time
limit for that!

And here afterwards, Sankaracharya gives some general instructions

regarding our day-to-day living, which are conducive to nidhidhyasanam,
keeping a sannyAsi in mind.

Because in the previous slokas, the AchaAya has talked about

brahmacarya ASrama and grihastha ASrama , and,

nija-grihAt tUrNam vinirgamyatAm à He spoke about

vAnaprasthASrama , and

driDha-taram karmAsu sam-tyajyatAm à He spoke about

sannyaAsa ASrama also.

Sankaracharya imagines a person who has passed these stages and who is a
sanyaasi now. So, some of the instructions may not be relevant to a
grihastha. Perhaps, one may have to modify a bit and take the
instructions. And, some of the instructions are common to both grihastha
and sanyaasi.

गवर्ः पिरत्यज्यताम्। garva: parityajyatAm — May you give away your

arrogance that might arise out of this knowledge. vidyA-garvam can be
very dangerous – therefore, be humble.

अहरहगर्वर्ः पिरत्यज्यताम्। aharaha: garva: parityajyatAm — May you constantly

remove the arrogance, and

बुधजनैवार्दः पिरत्यज्यताम्। budha-janai: vAda: parityajyatAm — May you never

argue with wise people. Here we have to make a subtle distinction between
vAda: and samvAda:

In the Gita, at the end of each chapter, it is said, KrishNArjuna samvAde –

that is a student asking question to the teacher for clarification – for
learning. That is called sam-vAda: – here Sankara is not dismissing
samvAda: but dismissing vAda: – argument

Generally there are several ways of distinguishing between vAda: and

samvAda:.For example,

1. In an argument, one looks upon that person as equal or inferior,

where as, in samvAda, one looks upon the teachers as superior. Thus
there is a basic diff in the attitude itself which reflects in one’s
addressing the other, the language, tone etc.
2. Often when one enters into an argument, one has made one’s
conclusion on a topic, and through argument, one tries to establish
one’s conclusion or refute the other. Whereas in a student’s approach,
the student may have some opinions, or notions, but he never made a
conclusion or wants to refute the teacher’s conclusion or teaching, He
is open-minded, and willing to accept his wrong understanding.
3. In arguments, one tries to talk more and almost, doesn’t allow the
other to talk at all. And if the other person talks, one doesn’t listen
properly, and one always interferes before the other has concluded.
Whereas a student talks the minimum , just enough to put his/her
idea briefly and, allows the teacher to talk more and listens with
200% attention without interference. And even after the teacher has
stopped, the student waits to see whether the teacher has anything
more to say.
4. In addition, in arguments, since one does not listen to the other, one
has nothing to reflect upon later. Whereas, in a samvAda with the
teacher – not only one listens, one also reflects upon the thought
giving maximum respect to the teacher.
5. Even after elaborate answering, one may not be convinced; politely,
one will ask again and again, if needed, and might want to think about
it more and ask again. Whereas, in an argument, there will be no room
 for this almost.
6. After samvAda, there is no disturbance or bitterness in the mind , but
in argument, there is always disturbance or bitterness in the mind

Thus there is lot of difference between a student asking a question to the

teacher, which is welcome and is part of learning, trying to argue with a
mahatma. Argument is positively condemned and asking questions for
clarification is encouraged. And therefore samvAda: kriyatAm; vAda:
prityajyatAm.

(to be continued)

Source Material:

1. Paramartha Tattvam – Volume 1 – The Vedas and Our Scriptures.

2. Lectures of Swami Paramarthananda, Chennai, India.
3. Sankara the Missionary Part 1, Central Chinmaya Mission Trust,
Bombay.