Intro
Here we consider cases where shankara (with varying degrees of certainty) deliberately misrepresented brahma-sUtra-s of bAdarAyaNa.
First 2 sUtras
En
bAdarAyaNa’s originals (Thibaut’s translation of S’s bhAShyam) :
- Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.
- (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c. (i.e. the origin, subsistence, and dissolution) of this (world proceed).
to which S provides absurd commentary :
sUtra 1 refers to nirguNa brahman.
But sUtra 2 refers to an illusory saguNa-brahman (=nirguNa + mAyA) who’s into illusory activities with illusory objects.
Suppose I say -
“Now I will talk about Mr X. He’s the one who writes good reports.”,
and someone, claiming to interpret me correctly, says -
“Mr X in the first sentence refers to our friend, who is the main X;
but X of the second sentence is not about him -
rather about an illusory Mr X who appears to write illusory reports.”
Would that sound right? What would you call him?
Sa
ये तु निर्विशेषवस्तु जिज्ञास्यमिति वदन्ति,
तन्मते “ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा”, “जन्माद्यस्य यतः” इत्यसङ्गतं स्यात्;
निरतिशयबृहत् बृंहणं च ब्रह्मेति निर्वचनात्;
तच्च ब्रह्म जगज्जन्मादिकारणमितिवचनाच्च।
इति रामानुजः श्रीभाष्ये।
वरदार्येण साधूच्यते -
“अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा” इति प्रथमसूत्रेण
सूत्रकारेण ब्रह्मजिज्ञासां प्रतिज्ञाय
“जन्माद्य् अस्य यतः” इति द्वितीयसूत्रण
तस्य जगज्-जन्मादि-कारणत्व-लक्षणेऽभिहिते सत्य् अपि
इदं लक्षणं न मुख्यस्य निर्विशेषस्य ब्रह्मणः
इत्यादिव्याख्यानं कथं स्वरसं भवेत्? 🤣
माध्वेषु व्यासतीर्थो ऽपि तात्पर्य-चन्द्रिकायाम् अलक्षयद् इदम् -
आद्य-सूत्रे ऽहम्-अर्थे हि
प्रसिद्धिः प्रतिपादिता ।
जिज्ञासार्थं द्वितीये हि
जगज्-जन्मादि-हेतुता ॥ १॥
अविद्यमानाहम्-अर्थे
लक्षणत्वेन कीर्तिता ।
ईश्वरस्य तृतीये तु
निर्विशेष-प्रमाणता ॥२॥
शास्त्रस्योक्ता चतुर्थे च
तस्मिन्न् एव समन्वयः ।
प्रतिज्ञातोऽन्तरित्यादौ
सविशेषं तु कथ्यते ॥३॥
ब्रह्मेति मायिनां पक्षस्
तत्र किं केन सङ्गतम् ।
तत्त्व-विद्वेष-मात्रेण
श्रुति-सूत्रे कद्-अर्थते ॥ ४ ॥
Appeal to context?
A judgement here does not require sophisticated philosophical knowledge - just basic reading comprehension and honesty.
These are literally the first two sentences off the author’s mouth. One cannot argue that the context (complete Śruti corpus) should be accounted to make sense of these - same as in the case of वृद्धिर् आद् ऐच्, अथाथो धर्मजिज्ञासा, धीश्रीस्त्री म् ॥ etc.
pAncharAtra
shankara has casually (and badly) dealt with the section dealing with pAncharAtra; as if he doesn’t care about the accuracy of his understanding of brahma-sUtras there. Details in the data-errors page.
Deliberateness
नमो मायाविने तस्माय्
अध्यास-व्यसनात् स यः।
चिक्षेप ब्रह्म-सूत्रेषु
विवर्तं भाष्य-भाषितम्॥
It is clear from his own admission, that he was interested in foisting nirguNa-brahma-vivarta-vAda on to brahma-sUtra-s, rather than explaining it as it is. (Contrast अध्यासवादं प्रसाध्य - “यथा चायमर्थो वेदान्तानां तथा वयमस्यां शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः” with R’s “तन्मतानुसारेण सूत्राक्षराणि व्याख्यास्यन्ते”).
Besides rAmAnuja and the mAdhvas, it was noticed by bhAskara as well -
सूत्राभिप्राय-संवृत्या
स्वाभिप्राय-प्रकाशनात् ।
व्याख्यातं यैर् इदं शास्त्रं
व्याख्येयं तन्-निवृत्तये ॥
Other Commentary
One can excuse language / interpretation errors, and even logical errors saying
his capacity is only that much, we all make mistakes,
but not dead-obvious outright fraud.
shankara’s motivation for this hopeless task is considered elsewhere.
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
Was going to say how my regard for shankara reached “record levels” upon noticing this, but then what to say about us v1s for whom this is the (numerically) preeminent darshana!?
But maybe it’s too much to expect much else considering “uttarAyaNa” and all.
Still points to a deep systemic failure. The most charitable guess is that the muzzie invasion is to blame for the “time-freeze” and major talent loss.