Guest guest Posted August 29, 2000 Report Share Posted August 29, 2000 Notes on Brahmasuutra -IIIa sadaashiva samaarambhaam shankaraachaarya madhyamam| asmadaachaarya paryantaam vande guruparamparaam|| I prostrate to the lineage of teachers starting from Lord Shiva who is ever auspicious and with Bhagavaan Shankara in the middle and all the way up to my own teacher. vaatsalya ruupam triguNairatiitam aananda saandram amalairnidhaanam| shree chinamayaananda guro praNiitam sadaa bhajeham tava paada pankajam|| Who is the very embodiment of motherly affection, who is beyond the three guNa-s, who is full with bliss, and who is the very source of purity, who is the best among the teachers, Shree Chinmayaananda, to his lotus feet I (sada) always prostrate. ----------------- Adhyaasa Bhaashhyam (The topic is presented in three parts - because it is quite long and also it helps to assimilate the subject providing enough time for discussions. I know some people are preserving in a file to study later. But I can guarantee that if you do not have the commitment to study now the probability that you will study later is almost zero. One needs to study couple of times before the concepts and the definitions become clear. The first three notes are very important since subsequent topics will relay heavily on the definitions and concepts discussed in these.) Shree Shankara bhaashhyam popularly known as shaariirika miimaamsa bhaashhyam starts with Shankara's introduction called adhyaasa bhaashhyam. Bhagavaan Shankara gives a great importance to adhyaasa since that is the basis of the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta and his interpretation of Brahmasuutra. As with all bhaashhyam-s, every bhaashhyakaara or author of bhaashhyam claims that his interpretation is close to the meaning of what was intended by Shree Baadaraayana. We should recognize at the outset that the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta does not depend on the validation of its concepts by Brahmasuutra-s. It rests squarely on the mahaavaakya-s, the four aphoristic statements, one in each of the four Veda-s; praJNaanam brahma (consciousness is Brahman), tat tvam asi (that thou art), aham brahmaasmi ( I am Brahman) and ayam aatma brahma (this self is Brahman). What Shankara shows is that Brahmasuutra is compatible with the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. With the advent of science in the twentieth century and with the development of relativistic and quantum mechanics, scientists vision of the Universe is coming more close to the precepts of Advaita Vedanta. For a saadhak or seeker, it is important to have a very clear understanding of the nature of the problem so that one can seek the solution that is appropriate to solve the problem. Hence mind should be doubt free, in terms of the goal and the path. For this one needs to reflect deeply (mananam) to insure that there are no traces of doubts about the goal and the means. Constant study of scriptures and contemplation on their meaning and applications of that to one own situation are all the steps recommended to have a clear vision. In that sense Shankara Bhaashhya helps to provide a necessary means to launch oneself into the contemplation of the reality. While the study of Brahmasuutra is helpful but it is not necessary, since as mentioned before Adviata Vedanta does not relay on the suutra-s for its validation. With this understanding we now enter into adhyaasa bhaashhyam. 3.1 What is adhyaasa and what is its importance? Before entering into the discussion of Brahmasuutra, Shankara provides an introduction, describing the adhyaasa aspect of Advaita Vedanta. adhyaasa means an error or a mistake. In this bhaashhyam Shankaraachaarya establishes the central cause for samsaara or human suffering, and it is due to adhyaasa or a mistake or an error. Once Shankara proves that samsaara is due to an error or adhyaasa, then removal of samsaara should be related to the removal of the error or adhyaasa nivR^itti. When the error is gone, then the error-caused problems are also disappear. If it is proved that samsaara is due to an error, naturally the question arises why there is an error or how did the error arise? Errors can arise because of different reasons. For example, when I do not know and I still act, I commit a mistake or an error. Even if I do not know that I do not know, I still commit a mistake. For example, lack of knowledge of the required language skills can be the cause of some of the errors in these notes. Here the lack of knowledge or ignorance is the cause. Sometimes even if I know, I still can make mistakes as in the typographical errors in this notes. Here too, if one analyzes carefully, the error is due to non-awareness or ignorance as the basic problem, since I am not conscious of what I am typing in relation to what I want to type. Errors can also arise if the instruments of knowledge are defective, like if I am, say, color blind or if there is insufficient illumination. In all these cases I am still ignorant of the truth and more importantly I take the false as real. Sometimes there is a double jeopardy since I not only take false as real but also real as false. In all these commissions, there is always a price I have to pay for committing an error. Thus there is always some suffering associated with it. If the error is not there, the associated suffering will also be not there. Thus fundamentally the root cause for all errors is lack of appropriate knowledge. Hence any error arises because of ignorance or aJNaanam. Therefore aJNaanam causes adhyaasa, error, and adhyaasa causes samsaara, suffering. For samsaara to go, adhyaasa should go, for adhyaasa to go aJNaanam should go, and for aJNaanam to go knowledge should come. Hence Shankara says in VivekachuuDaamani, na yogena na saankhyena karmaNaa no na vidyayaa| bramhaatmaikatva bodhena mokshssiddhyati naanyathaa|| One can do anything or follow anything - yoga, saankhya, karma, bhakti, direct path, straight path, curvilinear path etc. Through these process one cannot gain Moksha. They may be useful in gaining the saadhana catushhTayam, the four-fold qualifications, which help to gain the requisite knowledge. But to gain Moksha, the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and aatma alone is required. Otherwise even if all others are present, there is no liberation. Because the bondage is an error-based or due to adhyaasa, and adhyaasa can only be removed when ignorance goes, and ignorance goes only when the knowledge comes. In support of this we have declarations: 'na anyaH panthaaH ayanaaya vidyate', 'gataasuuana gataasuumscha na anusochanti paNDitaaH' - those who have gained the knowledge do not grieve for those who have gone and for those in the process of going'. And therefore 'athaato brahma giJNyaasa' - to gain that knowledge only, this inquiry into the nature of Brahman. This is the essence of the adhyaasa bhaashhyam. Now the details follow. 3.2 Example of adhyaasa: For conveying this concept of adhyaasa in Vedanta a well known example is taken as illustrated by Shree GouDapaada in his ManDukya kaarika: anishchitaa yathaa rajjuH andhakaare vikalpitaa| sarpadhaaraadibhiH bhaavaiH tadvadaatmaa vikalpitaH|| meaning, when there is a rope in front of us which is not clearly visible then there is a mistake of a snake or a stream of water. Similarly aatma is mistaken for something other than aatma. Hence a snake perception on a rope is an error or adhyaasa. rajjou sarpa budhhiH - on the rope the notion of a snake. When does the error takes place? If the rope is completely not seen when it is pitch dark, then no error takes place, and there is no fear of a snake. Hence it is said that 'ignorance is a bliss', as in deep sleep. In total ignorance, there is no error. Similarly in total knowledge also there is no error, since one can see clearly the rope. There is no fear of snake and hence knowledge is also bliss, as with a wise man. Only when there is a partial light or when the eyes are partially defective, the error can occur. When there is a partial light, then we know there is something in front of us. Thus we have some partial knowledge. But what is that something we don't know. That there is something is called 'saamaanya JNaanam' or partial knowledge. That part of the rope (that is the 'thingness' that exists) is called 'saamaanya amsha' (general existent part). The saamaanya amsha is not covered by darkness since we know that something exists there. Hence it is also called 'anaavR^ita amsha' (uncovered part). Since the existence of something is real, it is also called 'satya amsha' or real part. Since light is dull, that the existent thing is 'a rope' - that aspect is covered, which is the particular feature of the existent object. The 'ropeness' of the object is covered, which is the specific feature of that object. This specific feature of the object, that is the 'ropeness', is called 'visheshha amsha' also 'aavRita amsha' or covered part. 'There is a rope' is a fact or real. Of this total fact, one part is covered and another part is not covered. Of the total statement, 'there is a rope', 'there is' -, that part (saamaanya amsha) of the knowledge is not covered and ' a rope' - that part (visheshha amsha) is covered. When the visheshha amsha is covered, the mind projects with another visheshha amsha - which is 'a snake'. Hence 'snakeness' is the replaced visheshha amsha in the place of 'ropeness'. We are not replacing saamaanya amsha or satya amsha or real part but we are replacing only the visheshha amsha, a particular part, with a snake which is mithyaa or anR^itam or not real. Thus when we say 'there is a snake' it consists of two parts - saamaanya amsha, which is real and visheshha amsha which is unreal or anR^itam. Therefore in every error there is satya saamaanya amsha and mithyaa visheshha amsha. The unreal particular feature is there only because the real particular feature (visheshha amsha - the ropeness) is covered. When the light is shown, the true knowledge of the object takes place and we say now 'there is a rope'. The previous saamaanya amsha, 'there is' or the real part still remains. Only the previous visheshha amsha, the snakeness, which is not real is replaced by the other visheshha amsha (ropeness), which happens to be also real. When we say it is replaced, it is not that the snake is now replaced by the rope. Where did the snake go? - the snake was never there to go anywhere. But in the mind of the perceiver who says 'there is a snake', the snake was very much alive and it was a very frightening experience for him. The frightening experience that includes rapid heart beating, blood pressure raising and sweating are all as much real as the snake, for the one who sees the snake. He runs away to avoid the snakebite and that running away is real too. Can the false snake cause so much of havoc? False snake cannot cause any problem if one knows that it is false. Since it is a real snake in the mind of the perceiver, the perceived suffering is equally real in his mind. Thus relative to his state of mind, the snake is real. Only from the point of wise man, snake is mithyaa (for the time being we translate it is unreal) while rope is real. The snake appears to be real from the point of the perceiver, and is unreal from the point of the wise man. Thus off-hand there appears to be two realities, one from the point of the perceiver who sees the thing as a snake and the other from the point of the wise man who sees the thing as a rope. One is relatively real (vyaavahaarika satya) and the other is absolutely real (paaramaarthika satya). Thus relative realities depend on from whose reference we are discussing the issue. Most of the confusion in discussions arises when we inadvertently switch the reference states without realizing it. The discussion of real and unreal so far is from the point of a perceiver. But from the point of the object, it was rope all the time. It was just an innocent rope lying in semi dark alley, without realizing that it is the subject of so much discussion from GouDapaada on! It was rope before any one saw, it is a rope when people are mistaking it as a snake and it will remain as rope even when a torch light was shown on it. Rope never became a snake causing problems for the people. But people saw it as a snake and got frightened. Who created a snake out of a rope? Can we say ignorance created a snake out of the rope? Both questions will sound as ridiculous since there was never a snake where the rope is, for it to be called a created entity. But yet for the person who is perceiving a snake, there is indeed a snake where the rope is. But when we ask him later why he saw the snake there when it is a rope, his only answer is - I didn’t know it was a rope. From his point, ignorance of the rope is the cause for the snake creation in his mind. These concepts need to be clearly understood when we apply it to reality of the world, concept of creation and what is the adhishhTaanam or substratum for the creation or the world etc. Now when the light is shown, the reality of the object gets revealed by itself, since it is real, and the unreality disappears by itself since it is unreal. The correction is not in the saamaanya amsha but only in the visheshha amsha. When this correction takes place in the visheshha amsha, the fear caused by that unreal snake is also gone. The fears and tribulations are all related to the visheshha amsha, which is unreal and not to the saamaanya amsha, which is real. Thus when the inquiry is done about the nature of the visheshha amsha using a valid means of inquiry, in this case, say a torch light, then the reality of the object in total is known. The method of inquiry should be appropriate since the error is due to ignorance of the visheshha amsha, the rope, because of the dim light. Hence the means should be such as to eliminate the ignorance by throwing light on the object. No amount of prayers, actions such as jumping up and down, or japa or meditation on the rope ' idam rajjuH, idam rajjuH', 'this is a rope, this is a rope' etc., will help reveal the rope in the place of a snake. Hence Shankara say in VivekachuuDaamani: vadantu shastraaNi yajantu devaan kurvantu karmaaNi bhajantu devataaH| aatmaikya bodhena vinaa vimuktiH na sidhyati braham shataantarepi|| Let erudite scholars quote all the scriptures, let gods be invoked through endless sacrifices, let elaborate rituals be performed, let personal gods be propitiated. Yet, without the experience of one's identity with the self or self-knowledge, there shall be no liberation for the individual, even in the lifetime of a hundred Brahma-s put together. The problem is centered on ignorance and the solution has to be an appropriate knowledge that removes that ignorance. If I don't know Chemistry no amount of the study of Psychology will help remove my ignorance of Chemistry. Knowledge of Chemistry alone removes the ignorance of Chemistry. Similarly the knowledge of oneself removes the ignorance centered on the self. Hence discussion of any other paths is meaningless from the point of the stated problem - hence the shruti's declaration - na anyaH panthaa vidyate ayanaaya - no other path other than knowledge removes the samsaara. Hence Shankara insistence on the understanding of the nature of the problem, i.e. adhyaasa. Thus the problem itself will define the solution to that problem. 3.4. Role of adhyaasa in Vedanta: Similar to the case of rope-snake case, when a person says 'aham samsaarii' - 'I am a samsaarii', Shankaraachaarya says here too there is a 'saamaanya amsha' and 'visheshha amsha'. "I am' in the above statement is the saamaanya amsha, which refers to 'a conscious being' - conscious corresponding to 'chit' and 'being' corresponding to 'sat'. It is anaavR^ita amsha or uncovered part and is also 'satya amsha', part that is real. In fact this part is never covered or eternally true and is self evident or ever evident or 'pratibodha viditam' or JNaanaswaruupam, of the nature of the knowledge. That is, I am not only conscious but also I am 'self-conscious' - and therefore require no means of knowledge, pramaaNa, to know that I exist. I know that I am there even when it is pitch dark outside. Hence this particular saamaanya amsha is never covered - in fact nothing can cover it! In the above statement there is also a visheshha amsha, a particular part - 'a samsaarii', which is unreal like our snake. The unreal 'visheshha amsha' has come into existence only because of the covering of real visheshha amsha. Therefore covering as well as uncovering belongs only to 'visheshha amsha' and not to saamaanya amsha. What is that real visheshha amsha that is covered - Sat and Chit are evident in the saamaanya amsha. Then what is covered is aananda (bliss) amsha, or anantatva (unlimited) amsha, or puurNatva (complete) amsha or Brahmatva (infiniteness) amsha or in effect 'asamsaaritva amsha'. That is the visheshha amsha that is covered. In that place we have unreal visheshha amsha ' duHkii, (miserable) or asampuurNaH (incomplete) or parichchhinnaH(limited) or samsaarii'. Hence ' aham samsaaari or jiivaH' is an error and is the cause for all the human suffering. Therefore to solve the problem of human suffering there is no need to change the real part (in fact one cannot change it) that is the saamaanya amsha, which is 'I am', but only remove the visheshha amsha called 'samsaarii'. This has to be done by putting a 'torch light' to reveal the real visheshha amsha that 'aham asamsaarii' or 'aham Brahma asmi'. The torchlight is 'the Vedanta Knowledge' that is required to reveal the true visheshha amsha. 'aham asmi' is common both in the samsaarii state and in the realized state. In the samsaarii state, I have knowledge only as ' aham samsaarii asmi’ , which is replaced by real knowledge, that 'aham Brahma asmi'. The change is taking place only in the visheshha amsha, anR^ita amsha or mityaa amsha, the unreal part -just as the change is taking place from mityaa 'snake' to real 'rope'. Hence 'I am the samsaarii' notion goes away and is replaced by 'I am asamsaarii or puurNaH' knowledge comes and that is the aim of all the prasthaanatraya, Upanishads, Geeta and Brahmasuutra. 3.5 Examination of adhyaasa: This adhyaasa or error can be defined differently by looking at it from different angles - As mentioned before the study of knowledge and error comes under the science of epistemology. There are differences of opinions about error (some may be erroneous too!) and these are called 'khyaati vaada' or analysis of errors. From the standpoint of rope, one can call it as 'misapprehension' of rope - mistaking (missing the rope and taking the snake!) the rope is an error. In Sanskrit it is called 'anyathaa grahaNam or anyathaa khyaati'. The same error can be defined from the standpoint of snake also. From the point of snake error is 'superimposition of a snake', that is a non-existent snake is superimposed on the existing object. This is called 'addhaaropa' or 'adhyaasa'. A third definition is both from the point of rope and snake. From this point an error is a combination or mixing of some parts of real rope and some parts of unreal snake. When we say 'there is a snake', in that 'there is'- belongs to rope, which is saamaanya amsha, which is real. Hence the statement ''there is a snake' involves a real saamaanya amsha and unreal visheshha amsha. Hence error involves mixing up of satyam, real, and asatyam or unreal or anR^itam. Hence error is defined as 'satyaanR^ita mithuniikaraNam' - mixing up of real and unreal. By the mixing up of the two entities, real and unreal, a third singular entity is created that involves parts of the real and part of the unreal. A fellow while seeing a rope says 'there is a snake'. While saying, he does not know that there are two entities, real and unreal, which he is mixing. The problem is, in principle, is inconsequential, but for the fact that he is having a real suffering as a consequence of the mistaken identity or the presence of unreal snake. From our point who knew the whole truth, he is mixing up of the two entities. From the mistaker point, he is not aware of the two things. In his cognition, there is only one entity but only on analysis we find that in his unitary perception there is a satya amsha and anR^ita amsha. When he says 'the snake is frightening' - frightening part belongs to anR^ita amsha, the snake, whereas the 'is' part belongs to the satya amsha, the rope. 'It is a long snake' - the length belongs to the rope and it is therefore satya amsha. "It is a poisonous snake' - the poisonous part belongs to snake which is anR^ita amsha. ' It is a curved snake' - the curved part belongs to rope, hence satya amsha. Hence a peculiar mixture of some aspects which are satyam and some aspects which are anR^itam. He mixes them both to arrive at one unitary entity. Similarly when a person says 'I am so and so' - he takes himself as one unitary entity but Shankara says there are two aspects mixed in that statement - a satya amsha and anR^ita amsha, creating a jiiva who is miserable. When he says 'I am existent conscious being' - existent and conscious are from satya amsha. When he say 'I am a fat person' - fat person is anR^ita amsha. Hence jiiva is neither pure aatma nor pure anaatma, it is a mixture of aatma and anaatma, satya and anR^ita amsha. It is this mixed unitary entity, jiiva, is striving for liberation. This missing up is called 'error' called 'satyaanR^ita mithuniikaraNam. The purpose of Brahmasuutra is to inquire into the nature of jiiva to discard the unreal part and to get established in the real part. In this process, the samsaara which is associated with the unreal part gets dissolved and that is Moksha or liberation. This is the general background on adhyaasa. 3.6 Shankara's discussion of adhyaasa: The discussion of Shankaraachaarya on adhyaasa bhaashhyam can be broadly classified into six subtopics: 1. adhyaasa shankhaa (objections to the theory of error) 2. adhyaasa shankhaa samaadhaanam (answering to the objections) 3. adhyaasa lakshaNam (the definition of error) 4. adhyaasa sambhaavanaa (showing the possibility of error) 5. adhyaasa pramaaNa (proof for adhyaasa) 6. adhyaasa upasamhaaraH (conclusion of the adhyaasa topic). For convenience, we take the third topic first, adhyaasa lakshaNam, the rest of the topics will be discussed in the order. 3.7 Definition or lakshaNa for adhyaasa: Shankara gives two definitions for adhyaasa. An additional third definition is indirectly available and is often quoted. The first definition is: 'smR^iti ruupaH, paratra puurva dR^ishhTaavabhaasaH adhyaasaH'| meaning 'the perception of a previously experienced object on a wrong locus' - In the rope-snake example, one is perceiving a snake - a snake which is already experienced before. A person who has never seen a snake will not mistake a rope for a snake. I am superimposing an experienced snake upon a wrong locus, which is a rope. This is called an error. Second definition which is more popular and simpler and that is: 'atasmin tat buddhiH' meaning 'perception of an object on a wrong locus' - The snake is seen on a wrong locus that is the rope. Or perception of silver on a shell. The third indirect definition is what was discussed before 'satyaanR^ita mithuniikaraNam' - mixing up of real and unreal. When I say 'I am the body' - the error is seeing the body on a wrong locus 'aatma' which is not the body. I, the immortal, is seen as the mortal - I, the all pervading, is seen as the limited - This is the error. This is the adhyaasa lakshaNam. 3.8 Objections to adhyaasa -adhyaasa Shankhaa: The objections are raised by all other systems of philosophies, saankhya, yoga, vaiseshika etc., who claim that adhyaasa introduction is an improper introduction because aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is impossible. Rope-snake adhyaasa is possible which can be accepted but not aatma-anaatma adhyaasa. To establish that the puurvapakshi (the objector) gives the following reasons. Any super imposition like rope-snake super imposition requires four conditions to be satisfied simultaneously. Only if all the four conditions are fulfilled then this satyaanR^ita mithuniikaraNam can occur otherwise it is not possible. In the case of aatma-anaatma adhyaasa not a single one of the four conditions is satisfied. Hence the idea of adhyaasa is itself an adhyaasa or a mistake. Let us illustrate the four conditions using the rope-snake example. First, the rope is a 'pratyaksha vishaya', a directly perceivable object in front. Hence the first condition is 'pratyaksha vishayatvam', an object which is directly perceivable in front. That is 'there is a rope in front', for anyone to mistake it as a snake. The second condition is that the rope should not be completely known. One should be ignorant of the fact that it is a rope. Hence the second condition is called 'aJNaatatvam', absence of the complete knowledge of the rope. The third condition is saadR^isyam - there should be a similarity between what I superimpose and what is there in front. I mistake the rope only as a snake but not as an elephant or monkey, because there is no saadR^isyam between rope and the elephant or monkey. The fourth condition is 'samskaaram'. That is a false snake is superimposed because I had an experience of a real snake before which left the impression or vaasana in my mind. Because of that snake vaasana or 'samskaara' alone I commit the mistake that the rope as a snake. If I have not experienced a real snake before then there is no question of mistaking the rope as a snake. Therefore the fourth condition is 'puurva anubhava janya samskaaraH', a vaasana which is born out of the experience of a real snake before. Hence only when the four conditions, pratyaksha vishayatvam, aJNaatatvam, saadR^isyam and puurva samskaara, are there, then one can have an error due to the superimposition or adhyaasa. If one applies this to aatma-anaatma case, none of the four conditions is fulfilled. Hence aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is impossible. Let us examine this in detail. The first condition is pratyaksha vishayatvam - rope is clearly perceived as an object for the mistake to take place. In the case of aatma, is it an object to be perceived in front to commit a mistake? aatma is apratyakshaH, avishayaH -it is imperceptible and also not an object - Thus it is not an object in front for any one to commit a mistake. Hence the first condition is not fulfilled. aatmanaH apratyakshatvaat, a claim made by advaitin himself that aatma cannot be directly perceived, and that violates the first condition. The second condition is aJNaatatvam, ignorance with regard to rope in the rope-snake example. But in the case of aatma advaitin accepts that aatma is svayam prakaashaH(self evident or self-effulgent), nitya chaitanya swaruupaH (always conscious). Hence how can there be ignorance with regard to self-evident aatma? nityopalabda swaruupaH - swayam jyotiH -It is self-luminous or shines by itself - these are advaitin's own statements regarding aatma. If that is the case, how can there be ignorance in that chaitanya swaruupa swam prakaashha aatma, self-conscious, self-shining aatma? Hence the second condition of aJNaatatvam is not fulfilled and hence no adhyaasa is possible. The third condition is saadR^isyam, similarity. Between aatma and anaatma what similarity is there? They are diagonally opposite to one another in all features. aatma is the subject and anaatma is the object. aatma is chetanam (conscious entity) and anaatma is jaDam( inert), aatma is sarva gatam (all pervading) anaatma is alpa gatam (limited in time and space), aatma is nirguNam (attributeless) where as anaatma is saguNam(with attributes) - In every aspect they are opposite. Shankara says in his bhaashhyam 'tamaH prakaashavat viruddha swabhaavayoH, vishaya vishayinoH, yushmadashmat pratyaya gocharayoH' - they are diagonally opposite to each other like light and darkness, one is object and the other is subject etc. Hence saadR^isyam or similarity is not at all there. Hence the third condition is not fulfilled. The fourth condition is samskaaraH - Advaitin claims anaatma is unreal and aatma is real - since it involves satyaanR^ita mithuniikaraNam - satya aatma and anR^ita anaatma are mixed up. In the case of snake the unreal snake is possible because we have experienced a real snake before. The samskaara of real snake is there in the mind. In the case of aatma-anaatma superimposition, for the unreal anaatma to be superimposed on real aatma, we should have prior samskaara or experience of real anaatma, that is, we should have experienced before a real anaatma. But advaitin himself claims that there is no real anaatma at all because aatma alone is real, which is one without a second. Therefore the samskaara, the fourth condition is also not fulfilled. Since all the four conditions are not fulfilled the aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is impossible. Hence the very foundation of Advaita Vedanta is on shaky grounds. Thus according to puurvapakshi for adhyaasa to operate all the four conditions need to be satisfied - they are 1. pratyaksha vishayatvam, 2. aJNaatatvam, 3. saadR^isyam, and 4. samskaaraH. Puurvapakshi, the objector shows while all the things are applicable to snake-rope case but none for aatma-anaatma case. Therefore aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is impossible and hence the whole theory of based on adhyaasa is wrong. This ends the arguments of the puurvapakshi or an objector. (A Note: We pause here for few days for us to think deeply - Is puurvapakshi or objector right in his arguments? If we are convinced of Adviata can we contour his arguments to show that adhyaasa is possible in the case of aatma-anaatma case? - what do you think? How do you address these objections? Can one argue that all the four requirements are met in the case of aatma-anaatma case as in the case of rope-snake example and therefore adhyaasa is applicable? Or is it the time now to switch our party and move to a different list? The ball is now in your court.) _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2000 Report Share Posted August 30, 2000 namaste. I congratulate shri Sadananda garu for his scholarship and for his enthusiasm in presenting the Notes on Brahma sUtrA-s. The Notes is very clear and I am really grateful to him for this. On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote: > Notes on Brahmasuutra -IIIa > > [...] > (A Note: We pause here for few days for us to think deeply - Is puurvapakshi > or objector right in his arguments? If we are convinced of Adviata can we > contour his arguments to show that adhyaasa is possible in the case of > aatma-anaatma case? - what do you think? How do you address these > objections? Can one argue that all the four requirements are met in the case > of aatma-anaatma case as in the case of rope-snake example and therefore > adhyaasa is applicable? Or is it the time now to switch our party and move > to a different list? The ball is now in your court.) > But, isn't there a difference in our seeing the adhyAsa of snake on the rope and of anAtmA on AtmA? I am sure there is. anAtmA on AtmA: It is the anAtmA which is seeing this. anAtmA on AtmA will be identical to snake on the rope if it is the snake that is seeing the adhyAsa. In anAtmA on AtmA, it is the anAtma that is perceiving the adhyAsa. In snake on the rope, it is not the snake that is seeing it, but another entity. Just like snake does not have an existence apart from the rope, the anAtmA does not have existence either apart from the AtmA. However, because anAtmA *thinks* it has existence independent of AtmA, it falls into saMsAra and the whole misery. Because anAtmA wrongly sees AtmA as the object (which it can never do because anAtmA is the object and AtmA is always the subject), hence the difficulty in understanding adhyAsa, which we can do for snake on a rope but not as easily for anAtmA on AtmA. Am I correct in this presentation? Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2000 Report Share Posted August 31, 2000 > > >namaste. > >I congratulate shri Sadananda garu for his scholarship and for his >enthusiasm in presenting the Notes on Brahma sUtrA-s. The Notes is >very clear and I am really grateful to him for this. Murthy gaaru, While I thanks you for your kind words, let us all remind oursleves that it is all the borrowed knowledge - hence invocation to the lineage of all our teachers in the begining of the notes. We are so much blessed with such a rich culture, tradition and wisdom of our great teachers starting from Shree Veda Vyaasa and Bhagavaan Shankara to preserve in the form of suutra-s and bhaasya-s, there is nothing that we can give them back in return other than passing on the torch to the next generation so that they can appreciate their true inheritence. When I was in India for an year on sabbatical, I was deeply disturbed by so much of materialistic attutudes and degradation of our cultural values through TV networks- from A to Z TV-s with disco music in every language and every channel. We need to have agreesive approach to presever our cultural heritage and glorious teachings in the language that people can appreaciate its beauty. Any way this may not have anything to do with your comments but could not resist expressing my thoughts and frustration. If others are enjoying the notes as much as I do in putting them in a form that I can understand, I consider that the time is worth spent. >On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote: > >> Notes on Brahmasuutra -IIIa >> >> [...] > >> (A Note: We pause here for few days for us to think deeply - Is >>puurvapakshi >> or objector right in his arguments? If we are convinced of Adviata can we >> contour his arguments to show that adhyaasa is possible in the case of >> aatma-anaatma case? - what do you think? How do you address these >> objections? Can one argue that all the four requirements are met in the >>case >> of aatma-anaatma case as in the case of rope-snake example and therefore >> adhyaasa is applicable? Or is it the time now to switch our party and move >> to a different list? The ball is now in your court.) >> > >But, isn't there a difference in our seeing the adhyAsa of snake on >the rope and of anAtmA on AtmA? I am sure there is. In a way it is, since there is subject 'aatma' invovled which is beyond the loukika anumaana. Shankar will address this issue in his samadhaanam. First he needs to address the issues on their own grounds to show that puurvapakshhi is wrong. >anAtmA on AtmA: It is the anAtmA which is seeing this. anAtmA on >AtmA will be identical to snake on the rope if it is the snake that >is seeing the adhyAsa. In anAtmA on AtmA, it is the anAtma that is >perceiving the adhyAsa. In snake on the rope, it is not the snake >that is seeing it, but another entity. One has to be carefull. anAtma being jadam, it cannot see - Remember Ch. U. statement 'tad aikshata, bahu syaam .. etc. Seeing involves a chaitanya vastu, a conscious entity. Inert thing cannot see. So you cannot say anAtmA is seeing the adhyaasa. >Just like snake does not have an existence apart from the rope, the >anAtmA does not have existence either apart from the AtmA. However, >because anAtmA *thinks* it has existence independent of AtmA, it >falls into saMsAra and the whole misery. Because anAtmA wrongly >sees AtmA as the object (which it can never do because anAtmA is >the object and AtmA is always the subject), hence the difficulty >in understanding adhyAsa, which we can do for snake on a rope >but not as easily for anAtmA on AtmA. > >Am I correct in this presentation? Remember in the adhyaas there is mixing up of satya and asatya aspect. Your question is actually a clear example of this refection of this confusion because of the mix up. 'I am a samsarii' involves 'I am' aspect that includes the real or samaanya amsha or satya amsha - and that I am is both 'sat' and 'chit' involved. now the claim or statment that anaatma is seeing essentially because of this adhyaasa where the nature of the satya amsha is superimposed on the astya amsha. If you analyze your question again deeply I am sure you will discover how and where this adhyaasa is pervading. Please think about it. That is the saadhana Shankara wants us to do as we study his bhaashyam. Hari Om! Sadananda > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >---- > > > > > > > > >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of >Atman and Brahman. >Searchable List Archives are available at: >http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to ><advaitin-nomail > >To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to ><advaitin-normal > >To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to ><advaitin-digest > >To to advaitin list, send a blank email to ><advaitin-> K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2000 Report Share Posted September 1, 2000 >Dear Shri Sadananda, > >Just as Shankara shows that Brahmasutras are >compatible with the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta,do not >Madhvacharya and Ramanuja show that Brahmasutras are >compatible with their respective doctrines of dwaita >and visishtadwaita? In fact yes. Not only that, they quote subsequent analysists who agree with them that some of the suutra-s are more in tune with multiple souls and paramaatma different from jiivaatma and He is saguNa Brahman, etc. Each interpreter follows his philosophical approach and quote the necessary shruti's statements in support of their theory. Shruti has both types of statements and Shankara takes those that emphasize the adviatic aspects as primary and the rest of secondary importance. Shree Ramanuja in this introduction to Shreebhaashya discusses lagu and mahaa puurvapaksha mostly taking the tenants of Adviata Vedanta and refutes them proposing his lagu and mahaa sinddhaanta. Major criticism is on 'avidya' and 'anirvachaniiya' aspects. There are seven untenables he presents against the advaita concepts. Shree Vedanta Deshika of great fame builds on Shree Raamanuja's criticisms and theories and establishes VisishhTadvaita on a firmer foundation. He authored 'shatadhuushhani' - hundred criticisms mostly against advaita. But Madva was more vehement in criticizing advaita concepts. He called Shankara as 'prachhanna Bouddha' - a disguised Buddha - since according to him Shankara's philosophy is essentially non-vedic and more parallel to Buddhism. Jayatiirtha of Madhva philosophy, who is well known as Tiikaachaarya in that circle, has written voluminous book 'Nyaayasudha' which is essentially commentary on Anuvyaakhyaana of Madhvaachaarya. In Madhva circles this is considered as the ultimate book. Vyaasatiirtha of the same lineage has supposed to have given a biggest shock to Advaita Vedanta philosophy until Shree Madhusuudana came into picture. Dvaita and VishishhTadvaita circles give more importance to Brahmasuutra claiming that Vyaasaachaarya suutra-s are more in tune with their philosophy than advaita. This is just a partial background - there are many stalwarts in three philosophies that presented discussions and counter discussions. But these discussions did not affect any one of them other than reinforcing each in their own way. For our own benefit it is useful to take up some of the fundamental issues the other philosophers have raised against advaita and see how for they are correct. I hope to do that in future once this Notes on Brahmasuutras are over. >Now in the course of your study and analyses of >Brahmasutrsas,while essentially following Shankara,do >you propose highlighting the subtle differences(I >could say errors)in their two other interpretations >and discuss why the Dwaitins abd Visishtadwaitins' >interpretations are not LOGICALLY acceptable? In the end of the adyaasa bhaashhya as you will see, I have discussed the two major issues raised by the other doctrines against Adviata - one relates to avidya aspect and the other relates to pramaaNa aspect - Other than raising the issues, I refrained from discussing those issues in order not to diverge from Shankara's bhaashhyam. May be Shree Anand and Shree Vidya or any other can discuss them in more detail taking points and counter points. That will be educational. >Could you kindly give the word to word meaning of >"Atasmintat BuddhiH" since I could not understand the >exact meaning of the same in the context of your >explanation. The direct word meaning is simple - atasmin means ' on this' - this being an object in front - so for in the rope-snake adhyaasa, this naturally refers to the object in front that is the rope. 'tat BuddhiH' means here 'notion of that' - that refers to something from memory since it indicates remoteness (from the past and may be at different place)- here it is snake. - that it implies 'on the rope the notion of the snake' - I wrote it as 'perception of an object (snake) on a wrong locus (rope)' - which is essentially an implied meaning in the simplified words that use mostly pronouns. > >When we consider,Aham Sansari and Aham Brahmasmi,you >said, >"I the immortal,is seen as the mortal-I. >The all pervading is seen as the limited." >I ask," By whom ? " I think this question also refers to that raised by Shree Murthy. 'I am a mortal' - the 'I am' part is the satya amsha and refers to 'sat' and 'chit' aspect of mine. mortality is the limitation in time. It belongs gross body - or stuulasharriira, which is matter. it is vishesha amsha and since I am not stuulashariira, it is not real part of mine. Who sees - that itself involves an adhyaasa- in fact any suffix with 'er' see-er, do-er, swimm-er, enjoy-er etc are all involve adhyaasa - Shankara shows that aham akarthaa, abhoktaa. These will be made clearer by Shankara in his adhyaasa bhaashhyam itself and will be discussed in the coming parts. > >If it is the mortal I who says 'I am a sansari ' is >it not Satya?How can you question the Sat in it?As >long as we are in Vyavahara? Please read the notes again and again. It is very important. I can not reinforce any more than what Anand has suggested too. In the 'I am samsaarii' there are two aspects satya aspect and astya aspect and these are mixed together to arrive at a unitary experience as 'I am samsaarii'. Remember I donot need Vedanta to teach me that I am samsaarii. That is my day to day experience. what it teaches me is the opposite, I am not a samsaarii and I am Brahman or asamsaarii. I am samsaarii is due to adhyaasa and this has to be completely understood from the adhyaasa bhaashhyam - otherwise it will be difficult to proceed to the next notes. Vyavahaara satya is like the fellow trying to hide himself from snake bite since in his mind there is a snake out there while in fact it is only a rope. Vedantic torchlight is to shine on the asatya aspect to reveal that I am asamsaarii - from the very beginning and all the time, even when I was thinking that I was samsaarii. I am Brahmaasmi is the revelation that is gained through Vedanta knowledge. That is what Bhagavaan Shankara is trying to teach us through Vedanta. >Is it verily the mortal-I that sees and mistakes the >Immortal-I to be mortal? The all pervading to be >limited? In this statement , could you explain as to >which is Adhyasa and which is Adyaropa? In the rope-snake example, from the point of snake if one looks at the problem then it is superimposition of snake on the real aspect, which is, rope. That is called adhyaasa or adhyaaropa. Applying to 'I am mortal' - mortal is the vishesha amsha that is not real. the real vishesha amsha is 'I am immortal' or I am Brahman' or I am ananda since being mortal is a limitation and hence ananda. Just as unreal vishesha amsha is superimposed or adhyaasa on the real object which is rope, here the unreal 'mortality' is a superimposition on I am 'immortal or eternal or Brahman'. That is the adhyaasa. Actually in the sat chit ananda, I know I exists and I know I am conscious being. Hence I donot need Vedanta to teach me those two - what Vedanta teaches is the existent and conscious being that I am is also free from all limitations, and mortality is one of the limitations I superimpose on myself. Please read the notes again, this will become clearer now. Hari Om! Sadananda >With warm regards, > >Swaminarayan _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2000 Report Share Posted September 11, 2000 >I have not been able to follow the notes right on the screen (esp with the >need to contemplate) and so have opted to get myself a printout. So the >size has not bothered me, actually I find the stretch and continuity more >helpful since often we find answers to the questions coming up as we move >further with the reading and thoughts. Thanks Surjitji for your input. You are right it is important not to breakup the thought sequence. We will try to balance in terms of length. Most important is to have enough time to study and discuss till we understand. Input from other knowledgable people will also help to clarify the issues that are being discussed. I request all the readers not to hesitate to discuss or comment - by these discussions even the others also get benefit since some of the questions and comments are relavent and would help everyone by raising those. >The ongoing thread on "advaita as a way of life" has been very informative >and I have been able to find idea/concepts answering some of the doubts i >had developed reading BS notes about being able to recognise a situation >where we are out of the adhyaasa of "i am a samsaari". In the case of the >rope and snake we very well know and recognise both in the right >environment, but when it comes to distinguishing between the samsaari and >Bhraaman nature of the self, we really do not have much personal knowledge >of the Bhraaman while there is all the puurva puurva adhyaasa of the >samsaari. I understand/presume faith in the Vedanta's along with a devoted >path along the lines of sAdhana catuShTayam, manaman and nidhydhyAsanam are >the solution to this. > True - you have summarized the problem extremely well. See Anandaji's comment also regarding this. >3.4. Role of adhyaasa in Vedanta: Similar to the case of rope-snake case, >when a person says 'aham samsaarii' - 'I am a samsaarii', Shankaraachaarya >says here too there is a 'saamaanya amsha' and 'visheshha amsha'. "I am' >in the above statement is the saamaanya amsha, which refers to 'a conscious >being' - conscious corresponding to 'chit' and 'being' corresponding to >'sat'. It is anaavR^ita amsha or uncovered part and is also 'satya amsha', >part that is real. > >How is the 'saamaanya amsha', 'I am' we refer to here to be seen/ >recognised and how is this different from what is 'aahamkaar'. Is this the >part that we call consciousness, the one which tells me I should not do >something since its wrong although I (driven by my mind) would have liked >to do it. there is also intelligence which plays a role in these thoughts >apart from the mind and consciousness. I would be thankful for any comments >that can put these apart and highlight the saamaanya amsha of 'I am'. Here is a simple example - suppose you are in a pitch dark room and you cannot see anything. Suppose I call you from out side - Hai Surjitji are you there? - what would be your answer. You cannot say I do not see anything here, it is pitch dark here. I donot know if I am here or not. - that means your existence is not based on any pratyaksha pramaaNam. You will not also say that Sadaji I am able to hear you. Since I cannot hear unless I am here, therefore I must be here somewhere in the room! - implying that your existence is not based on any anumaaNa or inference. You cannot even say that yes shaastra-s says I exist and therefore I should be here somewhere! This means your exitence is not based on any PramaaNa. Because you exist, all pramaaNa-s, including the shaastra become valid - you extend your validity even to shaastra-s too! Hence to answer your first question, no means is required to establishe that 'I exist" and 'I am conscious'. All means are valid only becuase I exist and I am conscious. - Please think about it. Even others may deny your presence since you are an object for them, but you cannot ever deny your presence. That 'I am' is what is being referred to as satya amsha - Being satya, it is eternal and unnegatable. When I take something other than myself as myself - that is the adhyaasa part. About ahankaara, there is a kartR^itva bhaava - 'aham kartaa' - and it is adhyaasa as we will discuss in the next few notes. This aspect gets clarrified as we go along. If not you can raise the issue again. >Coming out of the Rope/Snake -> Ananda Bhramma/ Samsari analogy, I am >curious and wonder what an Advaitins response would be to a real situation >where there is partial darkness and a rope/snake lying in front of him. I >intend no pun with this question and am only curious to know how an advatin >would think. Well, as long he mistakes rope for a snake there is less of a problem. If he mistakes snake as a rope, he will have a real problem. Is it not all our problems, adviatins or not - taking the ropes as snakes and snakes as ropes, and then complain about it! Hari Om! Sadananda >I once again thank you all for your time and affectionate interest to >uplift. With best regards, Surjit _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.