ब्रह्मसूत्र(075)॰ 1.1.4.4 ॰ "सिद्धं ब्रह्मण: शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वम्" सफल-अज्ञात-अबाधितार्थ से प्रामाणिक

Описание: Refutation of the Claim that Vedānta Depends on Action or Meditation
1. The Logical Error in the Opponent’s Inference

The discussion begins by exposing a logical flaw in the opponent’s inference that Vedānta is invalid because it does not prescribe action. To understand the error, the text introduces the concept of Upādhi (a limiting condition in logical inference).

2. Definition and Role of Upādhi in Logical Inference

An Upādhi must satisfy two conditions:
(1) It must be present wherever the Sādhya (what is to be proved—here, “invalidity”) exists.
(2) It must be absent wherever the Hetu/Sādhana (the reason—here, “absence of action”) exists.

3. Arthavāda as a Counterexample

In Arthavāda (purely descriptive statements), both akriyārthatvam (absence of action) and aprāmāṇyam (invalidity) coexist. However, their invalidity does not arise from lack of action but from niṣphalārthakatvam (fruitlessness). This fruitlessness is the true Upādhi.

4. Application of Upādhi to Vedānta

When this reasoning is applied to Vedānta, the inference collapses. Vedānta is indeed actionless, but it is not fruitless—it yields liberation (mokṣa). Since the Upādhi (fruitlessness) is absent, invalidity does not follow. Hence, actionlessness does not imply aprāmāṇyam.

5. Classical Nyāya Illustrations Supporting the Argument

The text recalls examples from Nyāya Bodhinī to illustrate faulty inference when Upādhi is ignored:

Violence produces adharma, but ritual violence does not, because prohibitedness is absent.

Air has touch but is not visible due to absence of manifest color.

Destruction is produced yet imperishable, because perishability applies only to positive entities.
These parallels demonstrate how Vedānta is wrongly judged when the correct Upādhi is overlooked.

6. Fruitfulness of Self-Knowledge (Ātma-Vijñāna)

The Siddhānta firmly establishes that Self-knowledge is fruitful. Since ātma-vijñāna culminates in mokṣa, the scripture that reveals it cannot be dismissed as invalid. Liberation itself is the unmistakable proof of fruitfulness.

7. Vedānta as a Valid Pramāṇa

The Bhāṣya clarifies that “tad-viṣaya” refers to the instrument of knowledge, namely the Veda. Because the Veda successfully reveals Brahman, it is a valid pramāṇa, independent of action.

8. Why Scriptural Validity Does Not Depend on Action

Validity does not universally depend on action. Vedānta is valid precisely because it produces fruitful knowledge, not because it commands activity. The opponent’s attempt to define validity solely through action fails logically.

9. Svataḥ-Prāmāṇya of the Veda

The Siddhānta establishes svataḥ-prāmāṇya (intrinsic validity) of the Veda. Scriptural authority is not known through inference, as that would lead to infinite regress. Just as the eye reveals color by its own power, the Veda reveals Brahman by its own authority.

10. Absurd Consequences of Action-Based Validity

If validity depended merely on commanding action, even harmful commands like “fall into a well” would be valid. Hence, true validity is not action-based but rests on deeper criteria.

11. Criteria for Scriptural Validity

A valid pramāṇa must satisfy three conditions:
• Phalavat – it yields a result
• Ajñāta-jñāpakam – it reveals what is unknown
• Abādhita-artha-tātparyam – its purport is not contradicted
Vedānta fulfills all three, just like ritual injunctions.

12. Conclusion of the First Varṇaka (Samanvayāt)

This completes the First Varṇaka, establishing that Śruti alone is the valid means of knowing Brahman. This is the true intent of the sūtra Samanvayāt.

Introduction to the Second Varṇaka (Vṛttikāra View)
13. The New Opponent: Vṛttikāra

A new opponent, the Vṛttikāra, accepts Vedic authority but holds the theory of kāryānvita-śakti, according to which words gain meaning only when connected to action.

14. Vedānta Reduced to Upāsanā-Śeṣatva

According to this view, Vedānta does not independently reveal Brahman but merely supports an injunction to meditate (Upāsanā-vidhi). Liberation, they argue, arises from meditation—not from knowledge alone.

15. Analogy with Ritual Objects

Statements like “Satyaṃ jñānam anantam brahma” are said to function like descriptions of a Yūpa, Āhavanīya fire, or Indra—existing only to serve ritual injunctions.

16. The Central Question Moving Forward

Just as one asks “What is a Yūpa?” only to perform a sacrifice, the opponent claims one asks “What is Brahman?” only to meditate.
This raises the crucial question for the next section:
Does Vedānta teach Brahman independently, or only as subordinate to Upāsanā?