Why study the Shastras ?

There was a discussion a couple of days ago with a swamiji, about the importance of studying Vedanta with the other schools and tools like, Sanskrit, Logic and Karma (Vyakarana, Nyaya and Poorva mimamsa).

For any study there is a direct result ‘drsta phala’ and indirect result ‘adrsta phala’. According to the poorva mimamsa people, when there is a direct result possible imagining an unseen result is not logical ‘drsta phalakatve sati adrsta phala kalpana anyayatvat’.

Now the direct result for studying these philosophies are the knowledge of it, which helps in understanding the Shruti statements in a better way, without any doubt.

And the indirect result is merit ‘punya’ or purification of mind ‘chittashuddi’, because these are though not the absolute means of knowledge; mind, I didnt say not means of knowledge ‘apraminika’; are still written by the Maharishis for the people who are at that level of intelligence.

But, apart from these two results, there is another direct and indirect result ‘drshta-adrsta’, in this case. Which is though it helps directly in the study of the shastras, but most importantly it gives Vairagya and Humility ‘vinaya’(does not mean being dull).  Manu and Chanakya warn us about overdoing this humility, understand great humility (showoff) is the mark of a bad person ‘ativinayam dhurta lakshanam’. So, as it is rightly said studying gives humility ‘vidya dadati vinayam’.

How so ? first, studying these shastras one sees the nuances and the nitty-gritties which take a lot of space in the book and in once intellect, one naturally develops a vairagya for these type of things, over a period. But most importantly, Humility, first when one sees these texts the very same nitty-gritties give a sense of awe, the maharishis have thought over every finer point in a very fine and precise way. And, most importantly, even if one dedicates his life for the study of any of these fields one will still find it difficult to claim to be a thorough with it. Even after spending a life time in Sanskrit, we cannot be sure (though we can make a meaning out of the word / sentence). Case in point, we have commentary ‘bhashya’ by different people for the same Upanishad / gita / brahma sutra etc.

Or, for that matter, Logic, there is always a better logician, who is able to see the things in a different light.  We can see this in the different interpretation of the navyanyaya text of Sri Gangesha upadhyaya (one of the eminent logicians, father of neo-logic school) interpreted by Sri Jagadisha acharya and Sri Gadhadhara acharya in different ways.

Let us take a simple example, the word Suresha. This is a proper noun, is a name of a person commonly seen in india. What does this word mean, if we ask the grammarians, they will tell you ‘Suraanam ishwara iti’. Now, what is this suranaam, a word in sixth case plural. 1. Sura may mean the devas (deities) and so, the lord of the deities. 2. Sura may be interpreted as ‘sushtu raati it’, one who protects nicely, and therefore, the lord of the protecters. 3. Or it can be, suraa – liquor, the lord of liquor J, whatever that may mean.

In logic, we have a common concomitance, where there is smoke there is fire ‘yatra dhuma tatra vahni’. Now, when we prove this, we give an example and counter example, kitchen ‘mahanasa’ and ocean ‘mahahradha’. Now, one student asked me this, there is fish in the ocean and in its stomach there is fire ‘jataragni’, why can it not be said to be ‘vrtti’ in the ocean too. I had to resort to the different levels of connection ‘sambandha’. Mountain with tree with fire and ocean with fish with stomach with fire. But this is just not a very proper way according to the logicians, because they accept the tree to be the mountain itself.

The more one studies the more one understands his limits of knowledge. if you have the vairagya and humility in abundance already, then, find some excuse to study J .