Vastu tantra, kartru tantra, etc. as per Shankara

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

In His Brahmasutra bhashyam for the sutra I.i.4 `tat tu samanvayAt',
the Acharya discusses at length the nature of an effect
accomplished by action, karma, with a view to show that the nature
of Atma/Atma-jnanam differs from the action-born effect. He
considers various types of karma, both vedic and secular, and shows
how a `new' effect emerges as a result of action. He does all this
in order to categorically rule out the possibility of bringing karma
as an immediate means to Atmajnana. Atmajnana, He says, is of an
ever-existing nature and does not depend upon action for its coming
into being. He compares Atmajnana to a generating of any knowledge
of any object by using the appropriate pramana, instrument, like the
eye. Once the instrument is available and duly activated, the
knowledge of an object arises. This knowledge has not to
be `created'; it has only to be `known'.

While discussing various possible karmas, he considers meditation,
dhyana, and rules that even dhyana is karma alone, depending upon a
karta, involving the possibility of options namely, `initiating an
action', `not initiating an action' or `accomplishing it in some
other manner'. An example He gives elsewhere is: a person might
undertake to reach a village by foot, or on horseback or would opt
to cancel the journey itself. The litmus test is: If in any
situation this triad of possibilities is present, then there is
karma involved. But Jnanam, on the other hand, being an already
existing entity, cannot be a subject of any of the triad we
considered above.

A little down this discussion, the Acharya takes up the question of
those Upanishadic passages which have an unmistakable injunctive
wording in them. For example, He takes up the Brihadaranyaka
II.iv.5 passage:

'AtmA vA arey draShTavyaH, shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH…'

(The Self is to be realized. It has to be heard, reflected upon and
meditated upon.)

(Note: the suffix `tavya' connotes an injunction, a command: `it has
to be done', etc. Other expressions signifying the injunctive
sense are: veda (verb), upAsIta, etc.)

The following is a quote from the Tibaut translation of the
Brahmasutra bhashya I.i.4 (available in sankaracharya.org):

(This whole commentary for this sutra runs to close to ten pages in
small print. Hence, only the portion relevant for this discussion
is shown here.)

//The meditation, for instance, on man and woman as fire, which is
founded on Ch. Up. V, 7, 1; 8, 1, 'The fire is man, O Gautama; the
fire is woman, O Gautama,' is on account of its being the result of
a Vedic statement, merely an action and dependent on man; that
conception of fire, on the other hand, which refers to the well-
known (real) fire, is neither dependent on Vedic statements nor on
man, but only on a real thing which is an object of perception;IT IS
THEREFORE KNOWLEDGE AND NOT AN ACTION (emphasis mine, just to put
the discussion in perspective). The same remark applies to all
things which are the objects of the different means of right
knowledge. This being thus, that knowledge also which has the
existent Brahman for its object is not dependent on Vedic
injunction. Hence, although imperative and similar forms referring
to the knowledge of Brahman are found in the Vedic texts, yet they
are ineffective because they refer to something which cannot be
enjoined, just as the edge of a razor becomes blunt when it is
applied to a stone. For they have for their object something which
can neither be endeavoured after nor avoided.

But what then, it will be asked, is the purport of those sentences
which, at any rate, have the appearance of injunctions; such as,
AtmA vA arey draShTavyaH, shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH…

(The Self is to be realized. It has to be heard, reflected upon and
meditated upon.)?'—

They have the purport, we reply, of diverting (men) from the objects
of natural activity. For when a man acts intent on external things,
and only anxious to attain the objects of his desire and to eschew
the objects of his aversion, and does not thereby reach the highest
aim of man although desirous of attaining it; such texts as the one
quoted (shrotavyo, etc.) divert him from the objects of natural
activity and turn the stream of his thoughts on the inward (the
highest) Self. //unquote.

Thus, here we see that the Acharya states that a dhyAna involved in
Atmadarshanam endeavour,(adhyAtma yoga of the Vedanta) is not
something aimed at `producing' Atman, but only to divert the mind
from the inimical things that scuttle the sadhaka's effort to
realize the Self. Hence, the Acharya says, this dhyana is not to be
regarded as kartru-tantra. We get another conclusion here: Not only
is the subtle `action' of dhyAna is not truly action, but even the
grosser ones involving shravana, hearing and manana, reflecting,
too, are not actions in the normal sense. Thus, the Acharya frees
the entire gamut of shravana, manana and nididhyasana from the
category of action (kartru tantra).

Now, to reiterate, what is pertinent to our discussion is, as per
the Acharya, although `dhyana' was categorized by Him as kartru-
tantra, person-dependent, (in the portion not quoted by me but only
explained by me above) yet, when it comes to the realization of the
Self, based on Upanishadic injunction, the dhyana, meditation,
involved in this endeavour is not kartru-tantra. We already saw
(msg. No. 33797) that the Acharya has commented (on the portion
relevant for our discussion), on the Upanishadic passage:

(this passage is unique in the sense that it is perhaps the only
Upanishadic passage giving the Key Vedantic sadhana of shravana,
manana and nididhyasana for Atman realization, in one single
sentence.):

// AtmA vA arey draShTavyaH, shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH…

(The Self is to be realized. It has to be heard, reflected upon and
meditated upon.)// thus: // nididhyAsitavyaH - (tato) nishchayena
dhyAtavyaH (and then steadfastly meditated upon)//

Let us remember that in the above Sutrabhashya discussion, the
Acharya raised a question exactly on this above passage where the
word `nididhyasitavyaH' = 'nishchayena dhyAtavyaH' steadfastly
meditated upon) occurs.

(The word `dhyAtavyaH' is composed of the root word `dhyEi' =
chintAyAm with the `tavya' suffixed to it to give the noun form
meaning: (The Atman) is to be meditated upon.)

Having seen that as per the Acharya, `nididhyAsana' = dhyAna, let
us have a closer look at this very upanishadic passage ,'……
shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH…'

In this passage, we see the three-step means to secure
the `darshana' of Atma. In this unmistakable sequence, we find
nididhyasana (= dhyana) as the last. In other words, after this
there is no other sadhana involved. It is shown as culminating in
Atmadarshanam otherwise called `samyagdarshanam'.

For someone who is familiar with the Acharya's Bhashya for the Gita,
it is yet another instance of how the Acharya is consistent in His
commentary. In His introduction to the 5th chapter 27th verse, He
says:

//Thereafter, now, with the idea, 'I shall speak elaborately of the
yoga of meditation which is the proximate discipline for full
realization,' (dhyAna-yogam samyag-darshanasya antarangam
vistareNa…) the Lord gives instruction through some verses in the
form of aphorisms: //

Immediately after, in His very first sentence of the introduction to
the Ch.6. He recalls the above:


//The verses, 'Keeping the external objects outside' etc., forming
aphorisms on the Yoga of Meditation which is the proximate
discipline leading to complete illumination, (dhyAna-yogasya samyag-
darshanam prati antarangasya…) have been presented at the end of the
just preceding chapter. This sixth chapter is begun as an exposition
of them.//

Thus it is seen that as per the Acharya's Bhashya(s),

1. Vedantic nididhyasanam = dhyAnam (as per His Upanishad
bhashya)
2. dhyAnam = the proximate means to samyagdarshanam (Atma-
darshanam, realization, as per His Gita bhashya)
3. dhyanam (nididhyasanam) is the subject matter of the Gita
6th chapter.
4. This dhyanam, meditation (nididhyasanam)/adhyAtma yoga of
the Gita 6th chapter aimed at samyagdarshanam, (as explicitly
illustrated by the Acharya in the Sutrabhashya discussion, involving
this very Upanishadic passage), is NOT kartrutantra.

This is the view that is decidedly concordant with the views of 1.
The Upanishad, 2. Veda Vyasa, 3. Bhagavan in the Gita and 4. Acharya
Shankara in His prasthanatraya bhashya, an example from each of
which we have seen above.

With humble pranams to all sadhakas
Subbu
Om Tat Sat