MANASOLLASA - VI

[Guest guest]

It is because of the great deluding power of the Lord, Maya,

that the materialists, Buddhists and others, who, though interested

in knowing the truth, could not know it! When this Maya is dispelled

by the grace of their Lord, the Atman who is ever present

automatically shines. It is the Atman who is beyond the three states

of consciousness, namely waking, dream state and the state of deep

sleep. It is he who is free from all defects like attachment,

aversion or delusion. He is the one who can be compared to the seed

of the banyan tree. This seed is extremely small, but produces a

mighty banyan tree. Similarly, the Atman is extremely fine and

subtle, but is capable of manifesting this apparently limitless

universe. The Atman is without parts or modifications. Anything that

has parts or gets modified is liable to destruction. Since the Atman

is eternal, he is partless and without modifications. He is the

unmanifest. He cannot be comprehended by the mind like the other

objects. He is full and all-alone. The Atman inside is the Supreme

Lord of the outside world also.

Words have been coined to describe experiences got through

the senses and the mind. Since the nature of the Atman is beyond the

ken of sense-experiences, it cannot be grasped by the ordinary,

impure mind nor described through words.

We already proved that the Atman is both the material cause

and the efficient cause of the world. Hence, from the standpoint of

this world of names and forms, which constantly undergoes changes,

the Atman is Savikalpa (with changes). But, when the Upadhis

(limiting adjuncts) like the body etc., are ruled out or negated, he

shines in his own glory as Nirvikalpa (changeless). If a person

considers Brahman as non-existing, then he himself will become verily

non-existent. If he knows Brahman as existing, then people know him

as existing. Whatever be the state, the sense of `I' inside does not

change. `I who was a child, am now an old man', `I who had slept, am

waking up now'- this is how the `I consciousness' persists through

all the states.

The knowledge, `that is that', with regard to any object

perceived previously, and being perceived now, is said to be

Pratyabhijnaa or recognition. Just as, after eliminating the

different place, time, shape etc., which are incidental, the same

object which is inherent is described as, `This is that', in the same

way, after eliminating `little knowledge' etc., brought about by the

contact of Maya, the knowledge that the Atman is omniscient etc., is

Pratyabhijnaa or recognition of the Atman. The young one of an animal

proceeds to drink the milk of its mother by itself, because of the

remembrance of the experience of the previous lives. Because it is

not possible for a newborn baby to drink the milk of its mother's

breast without the remembrance of a previous experience, therefore,

it is concluded that the Atman is eternal even in different bodies.

Hence the wise should Pratyabhijnaa as a means of knowledge. It is to

be included under the category of Pratyaksha (direct perception)

itself.

The Atman, who exists at the previous time of experience and

subsequent time of remembrance, recollects the object, which is in

himself as an impression. Let us hear more objections from the

dualists. `If mere remembrance of objects is described as

Pratyabhijnaa, then how can remembrance attain the status of a valid

source of knowledge with regard to the permanence of the Atman?

Pratyabhijnaa is a form of memory. At the time of remembering an

object, the object is not directly present. Nor is its experience

present since it has disappeared after the withdrawal of the sense

organ from that object. Inference about the existence of the object

based on certain signs is also not there during memory. There is no

simultaneous existence of the object and its experience also in the

memory. Any other relationship between the two – for instance, that

between a quality and the qualified - is also not seen. Hence memory

cannot be accepted as a valid source of knowledge. Then, even

remembering the object meant by a name, will become a source of valid

knowledge! Pratyabhijnaa being memory in another form, cannot be

granted the status of a Pramaana or a valid source of knowledge'.

This is what they argue. We shall confront and refute this argument.

Memory arises from the basic material called Samskara

(inherent tendency) which is routed in the Atman and which springs up

from the base of the previous experience that has already passed off.

Memory reminds us that, even after the direct experience of the

object passes off, the Atman who experienced that object is eternal.

For example, a king who has renounced the world in old age may think

thus: `I who enjoyed the kingdom of wealth, elephants, horses etc.

earlier, am now enjoying this peaceful atmosphere of the Himalayas on

the banks of the river Mandakini!'

Not all memories are accepted as valid sources of knowledge.

It is only aspect, the Pratyabhijnaa, that is accepted so. If this is

not accepted, the continuity of the Atman through the various

experiences, cannot be accounted for. When the object disappears and

when the experience also goes out of existence, the Atman who never

disappears, remembers the object, which is resting in Himself as

Samskara or impression. Irrespective of the object and the experience

coming and going, the being who experiences is always present.

The ignorance of the Atman of the inquirers has been brought

about by the darkness of Maya. Like shade and light of the sun, Maya

and knowledge are two powers of the Lord. Maya covers all. Vidya

uncovers the truth that the real or essential nature of the Jiva is

indeed the Atman or Ishwara. Verily, it is Pratyabhijnaa that proves

the validity of all means of knowledge. What we have to follow is

that Pratyabhijnaa is not just `re-cognition', an aspect of memory.

It is really the reflection of the witness-consciousness (Sakshi-

Chaitanya) in the mind. Maya produces the dichotomy as `Ishwara is

different and I am different'. The memory that arises in the form, `I

am Ishwara', after dispelling Maya by Vidya or knowledge, is

Pratyabhijnaa. Ishwara, who was covered by the veil of Maya and hence

who shone very little, now shines brightly like the sun, when the

veil is removed completely. So, what Vidya does is just to remove the

veil and nothing more. It does not produce the Atman-consciousness.

The way ignorance hides the reality of an object and the way it is

removed, revealing it, are both Anivarchaneeya, beyond words and

mysterious!

Just as due to illusion, one moon is seen in water as many, a

fierce serpent in a harmless rope, a magical city in the all-

pervading sky, water of mirage in bright sunlight, similarly the

world which is without reality as it were, is superimposed on the

Atman out of delusion. When the ignorance is destroyed, the truth,

which is, as always, self-luminous, of the form of existence itself

and bereft of both illusion and its negation, is recognized. When the

limiting adjunct, such as the body etc., is shaken off, the Atman

verily, becomes Ishwara. It is to prove conclusively that

Pratyabhijnaa is a valid means of knowledge that the Vedas have

described other means of knowledge such as Smriti, Pratyaksha etc.

 

A NOTE ON THE THEORIES OF ERROR

 

It may be useful here to discuss briefly the various theories

of error. Knowledge is of two kinds: Pramaa (valid knowledge) and

Bhramaa (illusion or false knowledge). Pramaa is produced by the

various Pramaanaas (valid sources of knowledge) and leads to

meaningful actions. Bhramaa, on the other hand, arises due to any one

of the several factors like ambiguous nature of the stimulus, defect

in the sense organ, physiological disturbances as well as mental

disturbances. A through analysis of Bhramaa was considered necessary

by the various schools of philosophy so as to prevent it or dispel

it, leading to the discovery of truth. For Advaita Vedanta, this was

absolutely essential since its entire metaphysical structure is built

on the theory of Maya.

The ofquoted and most widely discussed illustration of

Bhramaa is that of seeing silver in nacre, technically called Sukhti-

rajata-Nyaya. The various views of explanation known as Khyaatis may

be set forth below arranged in the alphabetical order.

 

1. Akhyaati (non-apprehension): According to this theory put forward

by the Prabhakara group of Mimamsakas, the erroneous perception of

nacre as silver comprises two separate factors, perception of the

object and remembrance of silver perceived elsewhere. The error

consists in non-apprehension of this separateness, and so mixing up

the two.

2. Anivarchaneeya Khyaati (apprehension of the indescribable): This

is the most accepted view of Advaita. Since the silver is perceived

in the nacre, it is not unreal. Since it is later sublated by the

correct perception of the nacre, it is not real rather. Hence it is

Anivarchaneeya or indescribable. The knowledge that arises out of

this perception is Anivarchaneeya Khyaati.

3. Anyathaa Khyaati (apprehension of other than what it is):

According to this view propounded by the logical schools of Nyaya and

Vaisesika, the error consists in mistaking one thing for other

(Anyathaa). The nacre is mistaken for silver, which it is not. This

view is also called Vipareeta Khyaati sometimes.

4. Asat Kyaati (apprehension of the non-existent): One school of the

Buddhists (nihilists to be specific) holds that there is only Asat

(non-being) and that all perception of internal and external objects

is erroneous. The non-existent silver is apprehended as if it exists.

This is called Asat Kyaati.

5. Atma Khyaati (apprehension of one's own mental state projected

outside): This is the view of another school of Buddhists (subjective

idealists) according to which, there is no external objective reality

at all. It is the subjective idea of silver that is projected outside

and seen as if existing outside.

6. Sat Khyaati (apprehension of the real): This view held by the

Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, considers all perception as revealing

something real. Since both nacre and silver are ultimately products

of the five fundamental elements of earth etc., it is this group of

real elements that is appearing as silver.

This was a brief note describing the various views on the theory of

error (Bhramaa).

 

If, apart from the light of consciousness, nothing at all

exists, then, how does one proceed with the day-to-day life right up

to the teaching concerning the highest truth? Let us examine this!

Uncompromising Advaita goes so far as to deny even teacher-

disciple relationship as a product of Maya. But it also asserts the

importance of this stage, without passing through which, such a

realization cannot come. The commentary Tatvasudha quotes the

following verse of Sankshepasariraka (2.162.163): `Therefore, you

have to understand that it is Brahman, having attained the state of

the Jiva by Avidya, being established in your own form that has

produced this world of sky right up to the earth, by the vibration of

your own mind. Again, when knowledge arises in that Brahman by such

means as teacher, Veda etc., which are creations of its own Avidya,

then to him who has destroyed his delusion by the rise of this

knowledge, comes about the establishment in his own resplendent

form'. As long as Avidya or Maya has not been dispelled by Vidya

(knowledge of the one atman), multiplicity does appear to exist

giving scope to all activities of daily life.

It is the supreme Ishwara, who, by his own sweet will, sports

in the form of the deity and the worshipper, teacher and the

disciple, master and servant etc. He, who is the son to his father,

is verily the father to his own son. The same person, because of the

difference of words, is imagined to be different. Therefore, while

determining the nature of the highest truth, it should be remembered

that effulgence alone exists and that appearance of distinctions is

an illusion, imagined in the Atman due to Maya. Illusion

means `liable to be dispelled'. When perfect knowledge arises, even

the teacher, the disciple, the teaching etc., appear like a dream.

Like the icon of a deity, a picture or a reflected image, the Vedanta

also, though itself unreal, teaches about a real object. The icon is

not the deity. But, the deity accepts the worship of its icon and

grants the boons asked for by the worshipper. A picture of a tiger is

not the tiger itself. But it can give not only an idea of it, but may

even produce fear in the minds of children. The mirror image helps to

know if our face is clean and we clean it if needed. Similarly,

Vedanta also helps us to know and attain our Atman.

All this activity is a display of Maya. The waking up to the

reality of the Atman dispels this Maya, which is like deep sleep.

Maya is stated to be the name of that appearance, which is

incomprehensible to logical thinking. Being seen, it is not unreal;

being sublated, it is not real either. Like the dark shadow of the

sun, this Maya is not different from the Effulgence. Because it is

insentient, it is not identical with it. Nor does it comprise of both

because of mutual contradiction. The shadow, which is dark, is

completely different from the sun who is all-light. Similarly is Maya

different from the Atman, the effulgence? No. Then is it identical?

No, because Maya is insentient whereas Atman is consciousness itself.

Then, is it both identical and different? No, because two opposite

qualities cannot exist in the same object. It will be interesting to

quote here, the Vivekachudamani, a very popular work by Sri Acharya,

which gives a highly poetical description of Maya: `Avidya

(nescience) or Maya, called also the "undifferentiated", is the power

of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three Gunas

and is superior to the effects. She is to be inferred by one of clear

intellect only from the effects she produces. It is she who brings

forth this whole universe (108)'.