NOTES ON BRAHMASUUTRA IIIC

[Guest guest]

Notes on Brahmasuutra IIIC

 

 

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.

 

vaastalya 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 (continued)

 

 

In the last notes we began the discussion of Shankara's shankhaa

samaadhaanam or response to the objections of the puurvapakshi that

aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is not possible since the four conditions required

for the adhyaasa are not met in the case of aatma-anaatma case. In response

to the objections, Shankara shows that the first condition is incorrectly

stated by the puurvapakshi and it should be prakaashhamaanatvam instead of

pratyaksha vishhayatvam. The second condition should be aamshika

aJNaatatvam instead of puurNa aJNaatatvam and this is fulfilled even the

aatma-anaatma case. The third condition is not universal and there are

exceptions and aatma-anaatma case falls in the category of the exceptions.

For the fourth condition involving 'samskaara' Shankara shows that it need

not have to be real snake to have previous samskaara, and even the samskaara

of a false snake can do the job. In the case of aatma-anaatma case also it

is the previous experience of false anaatma that leaves a samskaara, which

helps to project false anaatma on the aatma. The previous samskaara of

false anaatma occurs because of previous to previous samskaara of involving

false anaatma. The chain can go on. For the question of how did the very

first experience of false anaatma occurred. Shankara raises the issue that

one cannot ask about the beginning for the avidya. It is anaadi or

beginningless and it is similar to inquiring which is the first, chicken or

egg. It is anirvachaniiyam - naisargitoyam - it is inexplicable or

beginningless.

 

This above forms the first answer to puurvapakshi. This answer is

applicable to objectors that belong to both aastika and naastika camps. The

answer is given using the same laukika anumaana that puurvapakshi used in

his objections.

 

There is a second answer which is a more important answer, which is an

offensive argument. This part is mainly for the aastika puurvapakshi-s who

also believe in the validity of Veda-s as pramaaNa.

 

Shankara claims that adhyaasa that is talked about is Veda pramaaNa. The

rope-snake example is given not for proving adhyaasa. adhyaasa is not

derived from the rope-snake example. This example is given only as an

illustration of the nature of adhyaasa. Hence one should not try to extract

more than what is intended for, from the rope-snake example. It is not

meant for proving aatma-anaatma adhyaasa. The proof for that comes from

Vedas, directly. Not realizing that many puurvapakshi-s and objectors

focused their attention on the rope-snake example and extracted rules to

apply for aatma-anaatma adhyaasa. Even if one can disprove rope-snake

adhyaasa, that does not affect our arguments about aatma-anaatma adhyaasa,

since it is scriptural based not on laukika anumaana, such as on rope-snake

case. Arguments based on laukika anumaana are not applicable to adhyaasa

aatma since it is scriptural based anumaana. (The reader is referred back to

Ch.II to see the limitations of laukika or worldly example for application

to inference about aatma). For this adhyaasa, shruti is pramaaNa. This is

the first aspect to be noted.

 

The second aspect is this adhyaasa involving aatma-anaatma should not be

questioned by puurvapakshi-s coming from aastika group, because the

puurvapakshi-s themselves have accepted, in one form or the other, adhyaasa

in their own systems of philosophies, which they themselves are not aware

off. Here we are referring to puurvapakshi-s of aastika darashhaNa-s that

is saankhya, yoga, nyaaya, vaisheshhika, puurvamiimaamsa. In all their

systems aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is already there, whether they recognize it

or not. For example these systems also talk about aatma and they all accept

based on Veda pramaaNa that aatma is nityaH or eternal. They accept Veda

pramaaNa, karmakaanDa, puNyam and paapam (merits and demerits), aatma

surviving the death, and reincarnation into next birth - all implying the

continuity of aatma. They are all aware that aatma refers to 'aham' or 'I'

the self. Hence all of them say that 'I" the self is immortal or nityaH,

based on Veda pramaaNa. In spite of this fact about aatma, which they all

agree, they are conscious also of the fact that our experience is 'I am a

human being' " I am a male', I am a female', I am a husband', I am a wife',

I am a father' etc. Since aatma is neither human being, nor male, female,

wife, husband, or father, the above statements, 'I am male' refers to

anaatma only. Hence even according to their systems, I am a human being or

I am a mortal when such statements are made, are they error or knowledge?

They have to accept, and they do accept, that they are erroneous statements,

since they believe based on Veda pramaaNa that the self that I am is eternal

and not mortal. The error is 'deha aatma buddhi' or manushhyatva buddhi or

mR^ityatva buddhi - I am the body, I am a man, I am mortal - these errors

It is an error accepted by all aastika systems. It is called 'sthuula

shariira adhyaasaH', superposition of aatma on the gross body. They have to

agree for this sthuulashariira adhyaasa. In case if they do not accept it

as an error, then their philosophies will reduce to that of Chaarvaaka

system of philosophy, which does not belief in the existence of aatma leave

alone its eternity. This is because 'dehaatma buddhi' will become a fact,

if it is not an error. To be classified under Chaarvaaka will not be

acceptable to any aastika philosophers, and therefore they have to accept

that dehaatma buddhi (dehe aatma buddhi) is an error or adhyaasa and not a

fact. Hence the second point is adhyaasa - stuulashhariira adhyaasa, is

already accepted by puurvapakshi-s even though they are not conscious of it

when they raise this objection.

 

Since stuulashhariira adhyaasa, superimposition of aatma on gross body, is

inherently accepted by the puurvapakshi-s, they have to accept the extension

of this error as aatma-anaatma adhyaasa. Therefore puurvapakshi has no

basis to raise the issue of fulfillment of the four conditions for adhyaasa,

since they have accepted the stuulashhariira adhyaasa without applying their

four conditions. Let us take, for example the first condition, the

'pratyakshatvam' requirement for adhyaasa. It is not applicable, since in

stuulashhariira adhyaasa that puurvapakshi has already accepted as an error,

even though the superimposed aatma is apratyaksham. Similarly the same

applies with respect to all other conditions that the puurvapakshi has

raised. What saad^Rishyam or similarity is there between aatma and

stuulashariiram, gross body? Yet it is accepted due to shruti pramaaNa that

says aatma is different from the inert gross body.

 

Hence puurvapakshi has no basis to raise the issue against aatma-anaatma

adhyaasa. Another problem with puurvapakshi's argument is he is bringing

conditions pertaining to laukika anumaana which are not necessarily valid

for aatma-anaatma adhyaasa, which is based on shruti that is accepted by

both advaitin as well as puurvapakshi as valid pramaaNa.

 

While aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is based on shruti, one can not question even

the rope-snake adhyaasa also with the four conditions, since that adhyaasa

or error is experienced by us. Hence puurvapakshi can explain, but not

question the anubhava based rajju-sarpa adhyaasa. Different philosopher

have different explanations for the rajuu-surpa or rope-snake adhyaasa, and

these are called khyaati vaada-s.

 

aatmakhyaatirasakhyaatiH akhyaati khyaatiranyathaa|

tathaa nirvachanakhyaatiH ithyetat khyaati panchakam||

 

The yogachaara Budhhists say it is aatmakhyaati, which is one type of

explanation. Maadhyamika Budhhists say it is asakhyaati.

Nyaayavaiseshika-s say it is anyathaa khyaati, miimamsaka-s say it is

akhyaati, advaitins say it is anirvachaniiya khyaati; thus explanation vary

for the snake-rope adhyaasa. Shankara says whatever be the explanation, one

cannot question the snake-rope adhyaasa since it is based on anubhava or

experience or pratyaksha pramaaNa. Similarly the aatma-anaatma adhyaasa

also cannot be questioned since it is based shruti pramaaNa. Everyone's

explanation for it may differ but adhyaasa cannot be denied.

 

3-10. Degrees of adhyaasa in aastika darshaNam-s

 

Now, the difference between the puurvapakshi and adviatin is concerning to

what extent this adhyaasa has taken place. It is not the existence of

adhyaasa but to the degree this adhyaasa occurs. Here the different

philosophers disagree. Let us take for example the adhyaasa related to 'I

am a mortal'( anityatvam), 'I am a doer' (karR^itvam), and 'I am an

enjoyer'(bhokR^itvam). A nyaayavaiseshhika says that mortality is not a fact

but is due to a superimposition or adhyaasa and the truth is 'I am

immortal', whereas I am a doer, karthaa and I am enjoyer or bhoktaa are not

errors but facts only. Thus according to these philosophers, the first one

only is adhyaasa and the other two are facts. Saankhya and yoga

philosophers, on the other hand, says 'aham anithyaH' and 'aham kartaa' both

are adhyaasa but 'aatma is a bhoktaa' is a fact and there is no adhyaasa in

that. An advaitin says all the three are adhyaasa.

 

naadatte kasyachitpaapam nachaiva sukR^itam vibhuH|

aJNaanenaavR^itam JNaanam tenamuhyanti jantavaH||

 

hantaat chenmanyate hantum hataschenmanyatehatam|

ubhoutou na vijaaniitaH naayam hanti nahanyate||

 

The first sloka is from Geeta (V-15) and the second one is from

kaTopanishad. Because one is not a doer he nether acquires merits or

demerits. Only because of ignorance born delusion one thinks that one is a

doer and enjoyer. One thinks one is a killer and the other one is killed,

neither one knows the fact, there is neither a killer (kaR^itvam) nor the

one who undergoes killing (bhokR^itvam). Hence in addition to anityatvam

the kaR^itvam and bhokR^itvam are also due to adhyaasa.

 

Hence there is no disagreement in agreeing that there is aatma-anaatma

adhyaasa. Only in the extent of the adhyaasa there is a disagreement

between different schools of philosophy. Hence aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is

possible and is there.

 

With this, the third and fourth of the six topics that is adhyaasa shankhaa

samaadhaanam and adhyaasa sambhaavana are completed.

 

Next we will discuss adhyaasa pramaaNam.

-----------------------

 

For those who are studying with me, here are the questions in Chapter III up

to this point. Try to answer and cross check the answers with the notes.

 

Questions on IIIA&B

 

1. What are the four mahaavaakyaas that provide shruti pramaaNa for advaita?

 

2. What is adhyaasa? what is the source for any error? What is the

fundamental error? What is its importance?

 

3. Why Shankara says there is no path other than knowledge? How does the

knowledge solve the problem? What role the other paths play?

 

4. In the rope/snake adhyaasa - why it is called satya anR^ita

mithuniikaraNam? What does that mean? And how is this definition applicable

to rope-snake adhyaasa?

 

5. How the above definition satya anR^ita mithuniikaraNam applies to aatma

-anaatma case? How is that relevant to you and to everyone else?

 

6. What are the three definitions of adhyaasa?

 

7. List the four conditions for adhyaasa that the puurvapakshi presents to

dismiss the aatma-anaatma adhyaasa. How they are applicable to the

rope-snake case but not to the aatma-anaatma case.

 

8. How does Shankara addresses each of the four requirements for adhyaasa

that the puurvapakshi presents?

 

9. Why Shankara brings anaadi and anirvachaniiyam to account for how the

very first experience of anaatma occurs?

 

10. Now a bonus question! anaadi or beginningless and anirvachaniiyam, the

inexplicable nature -are they valid answers to the problem or are they just

a clover way of escaping to answer the question? How do the other

aachaaryaas get out of the problem of answering the question of 'How did we

all got into this problem of bondage in the first place?' - Or to rephrase

it, how did this cycle of janma to karma to janma started in the first

place? Which explanation you think is more logical and why?

 

To give enough time for people to think and to catch up, there will not be

any notes posted next week. That helps me also since I will be out of town

and also will give me some time to catch up on my office work! I have to

show that your taxes are at work!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

_______________________

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.