SankarAcArya's bhagavad gItA bhAshya: 2. 16.

[Guest guest]

In verses 2. 12-15, we saw that the Atman is One and eternal, so that one

should be neutral to happiness and sorrow, and not give way to Soka

(grief) and moha (delusion). This and the next post in this series will

cover the commentary on verse 2. 16, a very important one in the gItA.

 

Vidyasankar

 

-----

 

Verse -

 

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

ubhayor api dRshTo 'ntas tv anayos tattvadarSibhiH || 2. 16 ||

 

nAsato = na asataH - not from/of the unreal

vidyate - is known

bhAvo - being/becoming/existence

nAbhAvo = na abhAvaH - no non-being/non-existence

vidyate - is known

sataH - from/of the real

ubhayoH api anayoH - of both these

dRshTaH - has been seen

antaH - the end, the truth

tattvadarSibhiH - by those who see the Truth.

 

The nature of being is never known of the unreal. The real is never known

not to exist. This truth about both the real and the unreal has been

perceived by those who see the Truth (tattva).

 

Notes -

 

The form sataH/asataH is used both in the ablative and the genitive cases,

so that a translation can use either "from" or "of" as the relevant

preposition. SankarAcArya uses the genitive (possessive) case in his

commentary.

 

Commentary -

 

That which is not to be known, like heat and cold, along with its cause,

has no real existence.

 

Cold and heat, along with their cause, cannot be shown to have real

existence, when examined according to valid means of cognition (pramANa).

It is simply a transformation, and a transformation is only temporary.

For example, a pot is never seen apart from the clay of which it is

constituted. Similarly, no transformation is to be seen apart from its

cause. Hence, the transformation is ultimately unreal. Before being born

and after being destroyed, an effect, like a pot, is not seen apart from

the clay. In turn, the clay (which is the cause of the pot) is not seen

apart from *its* cause. Thus, all effected states are ultimately unreal.

 

Notes -

 

The analogy of the pot made of clay is another standard one in Advaita

texts. The reference here is obviously to the chAndogya upanishad, where

uddAlaka AruNi teaches his son, Svetaketu, that pure Being (Sat) is alone

real and that all transformation is simply verbal (vAcArambhaNaM

nAmadheyo vikAraH ... mRttikety eva satyam etc). We will see how

SankaracArya handles the many dimensions of the words sat and asat.

 

Commentary -

 

If one objects that by holding effects along with their causes to be

unreal, this view reduces to one of, "everything is unreal," we say, not

so. For, in every cognition, one actually obtains two kinds of

understanding (buddhi-dvaya) - that of the real (sat), and that of the

unreal (asat). The understanding of that which is real is immutable. The

understanding of that which is unreal is mutable. These cognitions of

the real and the unreal, in the same substratum, are available to all, in

every cognition (samAnAdhikaraNa). The example appropriate here is not

like "blue lotus," but as in "the pot is,the cloth is,the elephant

is," and similarly everywhere (i.e. in every cognition). Of these two, the

understanding of pot etc. is changeable, as has been demonstrated. Not so

with the understanding of existence (sat) itself. Thus, the cognition of

pot and the rest is unreal, being changeable, but the cognition of

existence itself is constant and is real.

 

Notes -

 

This is a tersely argued passage, requiring some background explanation.

It is a standard argument proposed by SankarAcArya, that in every

cognition, everyone cognizes "Existence" and this cognition remains

constant throughout the entire gamut of human experiences. On the other

hand, the cognition of an effected state changes with place and time. This

epistemological distinction leads to an ontological division between that

which is real and that which is unreal. As many other philosophical

traditions have recognized, epistemology and ontology are shadow doubles

of each other.

 

We must then note the rule of samAnAdhikaraNa, which is common to many

schools of Indian philosophy. Here, two different attributes are placed in

the same locus. The term samAnAdhikaraNa is sometimes translated as

"coordinate predication." In the example of "blue lotus," the quality of

"blue-ness" and the quality of "lotus-ness" are seen in the same object,

so that one can talk of the "blue lotus." There is nothing very

extraordinary about this, people do this as a matter of course, e.g.

"plastic box,wooden table,infant girl" etc. Blue-ness and lotus-ness

are non-contradictory, and one may safely attribute both to the same

object. "Real" and "unreal" are, however, contradictory things, and cannot

be attributed to the same locus simultaneously. Instead of walking away

from here with a "common sense" view of what is real, SankarAcArya

institutes a fine process of questioning what exactly is "real" and what

is not. When we say, "this is a pot," what is never contradicted/changed

is the fact of existence, which remains constant. The "pot" itself, on the

other hand, is a lump of clay before being shaped into a pot, and is

simply pieces of clay when it is broken. The clay, in turn, is nothing but

a mixture of various earthy substances. The earth, in its turn, arises

from something else. In the traditional cosmological accounts, earth is

said to arise from water, water arises from fire, fire from air, air from

space, and space from Brahman. From a modern scientific viewpoint,

everything reduces to fundamental particles of matter, which are in turn,

only a form of stored energy. Whatever the view of this material

transformation may be, SankarAcArya's position is clear - ultimately, no

entity is real apart from the ultimate Brahman. Therefore, in the

brahmasUtra bhAshya, SankarAcArya uses the term

"satya-anRte-maithunI-kRtya" - having conjoined the real and the unreal.

>From an epistemological viewpoint, he has shown that all cognitions

involve cognition of the real (Existence) and cognition of the unreal

(change/effects). This has ontological implications, so that one may now

define the Real to be that which is changeless, i.e. Brahman.

 

----------

 

To be continued ...

[Guest guest]

This post concludes the commentary on verse 2. 16, where SankarAcArya

explicates the advaita vedAnta view of what is real and what is unreal.

As I had notified earlier, there will be a delay in posting the next

instalment in this series, because I will be traveling for a while, and

may not have ready access to email. This will also be an appropriate

place to pause and reflect upon the preceding verses and their commentary.

I will continue with verse 2. 17 late in December 1998, or perhaps in

early January 1999.

 

Regards,

Vidyasankar

 

--------

Commentary -

 

One may object that when the "pot" (ghaTa) is destroyed, the cognition of

the "pot" (ghaTa-buddhi) also changes, so that the cognition of

"existence" (sadbuddhi) should also change. (We say that) this is not so,

as the cognition of "existence" holds true for the cloth (paTa) also. The

object (vishaya) of this cognition of "existence" is only the attribute

(viSeshaNa). Another objection is that like this cognition of "existence"

(which is seen in objects other than the "pot"), the cognition of "pot" is

also seen, for example, in another pot. We respond that it (the cognition

of "pot") is not seen in "cloth."

 

A third objection - the cognition of "existence" is not to be had for the

pot that has been destroyed. Not so, because the referent (pot) is absent.

Although the cognition of existence has for its object only the attribute,

in the absence of the referent (pot), what would the attribute qualify?

It is not that the cognition of existence is totally absent.

 

Note -

 

The argument about "sat" is terse. The thrust of the above passage is this

- in ordinary sensory perception, "existence" is seen as an attribute of

objects. When the object, e.g. pot, is destroyed, one cannot conclude that

"existence" itself is destroyed. In the absence of the object, the

attribute of "existence" cannot qualify anything, but this does not mean

that the cognition of "existence" itself has changed. What has changed is

the cognition of the "pot." In other words, in the sentence, "this is a

pot," what has changed is the "pot-ness," but not the "is-ness" of "this."

 

Commentary -

 

A further objection may be that attributing two attributes (pot-ness and

is-ness) to the same substratum is impossible when the object (pot) is

absent. Not so. For example, the cognition "this is water (udakam)" is to

be had of light (marIci - mirage?) etc. even though the two (light and

water) are of mutually different natures.

 

Note -

 

This comment about "water" and "light" seems to presume some other

analogy, which I'm not able to place at this moment. One usual example

offered of erroneous perception is that of water in a desert mirage. On

the other hand, the word "marIci" usually refers to light, and I've

translated it likewise. Krishna Warrier also does so. However, here

"marIci" seems to mean mirage, so that I've included "mirage" in

parentheses, and with a question mark. I'm not aware whether there was any

theorizing about the cause of mirages being due to reflection of light. In

any case, the philosophical point being made is that in ordinary

perception, the attribution of two different attributes is possible even

when an object is absent. The point is that, like the perception of a

mirage, ordinary sensory experience is also flawed.

 

Commentary -

 

Therefore, the unreality of entities like the body, and all duality, with

its cause, is shown by the statement "na vidyate bhAvaH." Similarly, the

cognition of the real Atman is never absent. As we have already observed,

this is constant everywhere. Thus, those who see the Truth (tattva) see

the ultimate truth of both the real and the unreal, the Atman and the

anAtman - the real is always real and the unreal is always unreal.

 

"tat" is the name of the "all" that is brahman. "tat" being the name of

brahman, the nature of brahman is "tat-tva." Those who are fit to directly

perceive this (nature of brahman) are the seers (tattva-darSis). You too

(O Arjuna), endure Soka (grief) and moha (delusion), and take the

perspective of the seers - unstable dualities like cold-heat etc. are

simply transformations, ultimately unreal, and appear falsely, like water

in a mirage. The opinion (of Krishna) is, "Setting your mind upon this

conclusion, titikshasva (endure cold, heat etc)."

 

Note -

 

The final reference connects the commentary on verse 2. 16 back to verse

2. 14, which concluded "tAMs titikshasva bhArata."

----------