NOTES ON BRAHMASUUTRA-IIID

[Guest guest]

Notes on Brahmasuutra - IIID

 

sadaashiva samaarambhaam shankaraachaarya madhyamam|

asmadaachaarya paryantaam vande guruparamparaam||

 

I prostrate to the linage of teachers starting from Lord Shiva who is ever

auspecious 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.

-----

3-10 adhyaasa pramaaNa - proofs for adhyaasa:

 

Now we take up the fifth topic - adhyaasa pramaaNa. What is the proof for

adhyaasa? It has already been stated that aatma-anaatma adhyaasa is based

on shruti pramaaNa. Puurvapakshi has no basis to question since he has

already accepted in his system of philosophy, the sthuulashariira adhyaasa,

error associated with the identification of aatma with the gross body, on

the basis of shruti only. There are two shruti based pramaaNa for adhyaasa;

one is called arthaapatti (postulate) pramaaNa and the other is called

shaastriiya anumaana (inference from shruti statements) pramaaNa.

 

arthaapatti, as discussed in Ch.II, is one of the six pramaaNa-s or means of

knowledge. It is a means of knowledge based on an idea, which is postulated

to explain an observed fact. For example, let us say, after I get up from

sleep, I see lot of water flooding all over the streets. Based on this

observed data, I postulate that last night, it must have rained heavily.

Since I had a sound sleep last night, I did not have any direct knowledge of

the rain. However I had to postulate that it rained last night to explain

the heavily flooded streets, particularly in Madras, where the drainage

system is very bad. Without postulating the last night rain, I cannot

explain the observed fact, the flooded roads. One can, of course, make a

different postulate, like for example, a 'miracle' must have occurred last

night. However, such a postulate is not agreeable to a rational intellect,

unless one first proves that the more probable cause, like rain, did not

happen. Since the observed fact can only be explained by postulating an

idea, that idea becomes a valid knowledge. Even though it is a postulated

idea, it is considered as valid knowledge or pramaaNa. Postulation is to

explain, as in the case of the rain, a pratyaksha anubhava, a directly

perceivable experience or a fact. Hence we can call this as pratyaksha

based, or direct observation based arthaapatti pramaaNa. But when we

postulate something to explain the shaastra or scriptures, then it is

scripture based arthaapatti pramaaNa. Shankaraachaarya points out that

adhyaasa or error is an idea postulated to explain the shruti statements.

adhyaasa is not directly mentioned in shruti. This does not imply that it

should be considered as Shankaraachaarya's imagination, just as the

postulation of last night rain to explain the flooded streets is not a

segment of my imagination. Hence adhyaasa should be considered as valid

knowledge, since it is postulated based on shruti pramaaNa. Some

philosophers, for example, shree Madhvaachaarya, consider that arthaapatti

is only an extension of anumaana pramaaNa (see Ch. II), and not different

from it. That is not completely incorrect, since one can possibly come up

with a concomitant relationship or vyaapti vaakyam, such as in the case of

flooded streets that 'where ever there are flooded streets there must be

heavy rains'. But here the concomitant relation between the rains and the

flooded streets does not necessarily apply at the same time and place,

making it as a poor example of anumaana. One can have rains upstate

somewhere at a slightly different times resulting in flooded streets down

stream later. The fact remains, however, that a postulation in arthaapatti

can be a means of valid knowledge or pramaaNa.

 

Just as in the case of postulation of rains to explain the flooded streets,

arthaapatti can be used to show that 'katR^itvam', doer-ship, bhoktR^itvam,

enjoyer-ship, and 'anityatvam', mortality, are all due to error. In

reality, I am neither a kartaa, a doer, a bhoktaa, an enjoyer and 'anityaa'

a mortal. For this we need to go to shruti pramaaNa, which tells me of a

particular fact -For example the above quoted sloka (Ref. IIIC)- 'hantaat

chenmanyate hantum .... ' is from shruti, kaTopanishad. In support of this

a very similar sloka also exists in Geeta, where only the first line is

slightly different but with the same meaning.

 

ya yenam vetti hantaaram yashchainam manyate hatam|

ubou tou na vijaaniito naayam hanti na hanyate||

 

In this sloka it is very clearly implied that aatma is 'akartaa' and

'abhoktaa', neither a doer, nor an enjoyer. It says aatma is not a killer,

killing representing all the actions, and aatma does not get killed, thus

representing that it is not a bhoktaa or an enjoyer. Krishna also says:

'naiva kinchit karomiiti yukto manyeta tatva vit' (Ch. 5-8), one who knows

the truth knows that one does not do any action. He knows that he is

'akartaa', non-doer. Also He says ' ....... naiva kurvan na kaarayan' (Ch.

5-13) - aatma does not do any thing nor instigate anyone to do. ' I am

never a doer', therefore, the statement that 'I am a doer' is an error.

Thus there is a Veda pramaaNa as well as smR^iti pramaaNa. A sloka from

Geeta (5-15) as provided before which shows that aatma does not take neither

merits nor demerits of anyone. There is also another statement in shruti

that say 'aatma is nirvikaaraH' - it is changeless. If aatma is kartaa,

doer or bhoktaa, enjoyer, it will have to undergo a change, since

action/experience requires a change. Hence aatma can be neither a kartaa or

a bhoktaa. From this we postulate that 'I am a kartaa or doer' or 'I am an

enjoyer or bhoktaa' is an error. Thus by arthaapatti pramaaNa based on

shruti as well as smR^iti we postulate that 'aham kartaa', 'I am doer' 'aham

bhoktaa', 'I am an enjoyer' are due to error or adhyaasa.

 

One may note that shruti based arthaapatti pramaaNa is used not only by

Shankara but also by other aastika daarshanika-s, such as saankhya-s,

nayyaayika-s, etc., when they agree that 'I am mortal' is an adhyaasa or an

error. Thus 'aatma anityatva adhyaasa', the error that self is mortal, is

based on 'aatma nithyatva', the aatma is immortal, shruti statement and

hence it is shruti based arthaapatti pramaaNa. In contrast to other

darshanams, advaita postulates, based on shruti statements, that aatma

anityaH, aatma is mortal, is an error, katR^itvam or doer-ship is an error

and bhokR^itvam, enjoyer-ship is an error.

 

Similarly, the next superimposition is 'I am a knower' 'pramaatutvam' is

also error or adhyaasa. 'I am the consciousness' is not a superimposition

but 'I am a knower' is. It is again postulated based on shruti statement,

which clearly says that aatma is not a knower. aatma is JNaanam, knowledge,

but not a JNaataa or pramaataa, a knower. In MaanDuukya Upanishad it says

'naantaH praJNam, na bahishhpraJNam, na ubhayatah praJNam, na

praJNaanaghanam, na praJNam, naapraJNam' meaning that aatma is not waking

knower (knower in the waking state, vishva JNaata), aatma is not a dream-

knower (taijasa JNaata), aatma is not a sleep-knower (praaJNa JNaata).

aatma is pure consciousness. Hence Shankara says that 'I am a knower' is

also an adhyaasa or an error based on shruti arthaapatti pramaaNa.

 

All these adhyaasa-s, I am a doer, enjoyer, mortal, knower, etc., can also

be derived using another shruti statement. 'aatma nirvikaaraH', aatma is

changeless from the statement 'achhedyoyam adaahyoyam avikaaryoyam uchyate'

-this is indestructible, incombustible, and changeless. If aatma is kartaa,

bhoktaa or pramaata, it becomes subject to change. To be a kartaa is to

undergo a modification. It is anubhava or an experience. Similarly to be

bhoktaa or pramaataa - these all involve anubhava or experience of doing,

enjoying, knowing etc. since they are all 'process' involving modification

of one's state from say aJNaata to JNaataa - state of being ignorant to

state of being knowledgeable, etc. In fact, in Sanskrit - any suffix 'taa'

as in bhoktaa, kartaa, JNaataa, etc. indicates a modification just as in

English the suffix 'er' after a verb - doer, enjoyer, knower, etc. involves

a modification. The suffix 'taa' or 'er' indicates an action, action

indicates a process and process indicates a modification or vikaara. But

shruti says 'aatma is nirvikaaraH' meaning aatma is not a kartaa, bhoktaa,

pramaata because 'nirvikaaratvaat', it is changeless. Thus from

'nirvikaara' shruti statement we can postulate that aatma is neither doer,

enjoyer, knower, etc. Since they do not belong to me, the self, then

katR^itvam, doer-ship etc., are adhyaasa.

 

There is also a third method to show that these are adhyaasa based on

shruti. This is also indicated by Shankara in his adhyaasa bhaashhyam. Any

kartaa or doer has to be associated by a karaNam or an instrument. He

cannot be a doer otherwise. For example, 'mind' is antaH karaNam, inner

instrument. Similarly sense organs are baahya karaNam, external

instruments. Instruments like spectacles or pen, etc., are called

upakaraNam. Thus doer will be associated with a karaNam or instrument of

doing, similarly a bhoktaa, enjoyer will also be associated with a bhojana

karaNam, instruments of enjoyment. Kartaa, bhoktaa, pramaataa - all have

association or 'sangha' with instruments of action. Thus if I am a kartaa,

bhoktaa or pramaataa, 'I am sa+sanghaH' - one who has associated with an

instrument. However scripture says - 'asanghohi ayam purushaH' - that is

aatmaa is not associated with anything. Hence aatma cannot be a kartaa,

bhoktaa or pramaata since to be a kartaa, etc., aatma has to get associated

with something other than aatma. Thus the shruti's statement that aatma is

detached or asanghaH, it is non-doer, non-enjoyer, non-knower, etc. Hence

katR^itvam, bhokR^itvam or pramaatR^itvam, doer-ship, enjoyer-ship,

knower-ship, etc., must be due to error or adhyaasa.

 

Next we consider another adhyaasa - parichchinnatvam -"I am limited' - I am

here, and not elsewhere - that the notion of space-wise limitation is also

an adhyaasa. How is this postulated? This is because shruti clearly says,

aatma is anantam - limitless. If limitlessness is the nature of aatma, then

limitation is an error.

In kaTopanishad (I-3-15) it says:

 

ashabdam asparsham aruupam avyayam

tathaarasam nityam agandhavachchayat|

anaadyam anantam mahataH param dhruvam

nichaayya tanmR^ityumukhaat pramuchyate||

 

aatma is beyond the five sense perceptions namely shabda, sparsha, ruupa,

rasa, gandha (sound, touch, form, taste, smell). It is eternal and

unlimited. Thus it is anaadi and anantam - beginningless and limitless.

One who knows that is beyond the sense of limitations and is eternal. Since

limitlessness is a fact, limitation must be an error - by shruti arthaapatti

pramaaNa. The limitlessness alone is called 'brahmatvam', infiniteness, and

limitation is 'jiivatvam', individuality. Brahmatvam is a fact and hence

jiivatvam is an error. Thus aham brahmaasmi is a fact and aham jiivosmi is

an a error or adhyaasa. Thus parichchinnatvam or jiivatvam, limitation or

jiiva-hood is an error or adhyaasa based on shruti arthaapatti pramaaNa.

 

Last example, which is also important is 'anekatvam' or 'bahutvam' or

multiplicity of aatma, is also an error or adhyaasa. That is, that 'there

are not one aatma but many aatma-s', is also an error or adhyaasa. That

there are many aatma-s is accepted by many philosophers - saankhya, yoga,

vaisheshhika, puurvamiimaamsa, and even those that give importance to

Vedanta such as VishishhTaadvaita and Dvaita. They all say that there are

many aatma-s. Shankara says 'anekatvam', multiplicity, is also an error or

adhyaasa based on shruti arthaapatti pramaaNa. There are shruti statements

that says aatma is ekaH - single. Shvetaashvatara Upanishad says:

ekodevaH sarva bhuuteshhu guuDhaH

sarvavyaapii sarvabhuutaantaraatma|

karmaadhyaksha ssarva bhuutaadi vaasaH

saakshii chetaa kevalo nirguNashcha||

(this is very important mantra that Shankara quotes very often)

'eko devaH' and 'saakshii chetaa kevalaH' in the above sloka imply that

aatma is one only.

There is one indweller who is enlivening all being hidden from all

perceptions, while being all-pervading as the inner self in all. He

presides over all actions and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness

and is pure consciousness free from all qualities or attributes.

 

yasmin sarvaaNi bhuutaani aatmaiva abhuuH vijaanataH|

tatra komoH kashcokaH ekatvamaanu pasyetaH||

 

when the wise man sees everything is nothing but aatma alone as ekaH, then

where is the delusion or sorrow, when one does not see anything other than

oneself - emphasizing singularity in statement 'aatma ekah eva abhuuH'.

Since aatma ekatvam or is single, is a fact then aatma anekatvam, that there

are many aatma-s, must be an error or adhyaasa.

 

Thus shruti arthaapatii pamaaNa, shankara shows that 'anityatvam

(mortality), katR^itvam (doer-ship), bhoktR^itvam (enjoyer-ship),

pramaatR^itvam (knower-ship), parichchhinnatvam (limitedness), and anekatvam

(multipulness) - are all due to adhyaasa.

 

So far we have discussed one pramaaNa - that is shruti arthaapatti pramaaNa

for adhyaasa. Now we will discuss the anumaana pramaaNa for adhyaasa.

 

In Ch. II we have discussed in detail the technical aspects involving what

is anumaana pramaaNa, the four factors that are involved, and its relation

to vyaapti vaakyam or statement of concomitant or coexistent relation

between hetu and saadhya. The famous example is 'yaatra yattra dhuumaH,

tatra tatra agniH', wherever there is a smoke there is a fire'. This

relation is required to establish the inferential statement, anumaana

vaakyam - 'parvatah agnimaan dhumavatvaaat yathaa mahaanase', the mountain

is fiery, because it is smoky, just as in the kitchen.

 

Hence to prove adhyaasa using anumaana, we need vyapti vaakyam or statement

of concomitant relation. We can express Shankra's analysis for adhyaasa in

vyapti vaakyam form as 'yatra yatra vyavahaaravatvam tatra tatra

adhyaasavatvam' 'wherever there is transaction there is adhyaasa. Any

transaction proves adhyaasa or error. Why? Shankara says 'aatma cannot do

any transaction' because aatma is different from the body, which is accepted

by all the 'aastika darshanam-s'. An example, Shankara gives for this

anumaana is 'pashhu aadi vyavahaaravat' -just the transactions of a cow and

other animals. 'pashhvaadibhischa avisheshhaat' is the statement in the

bhaashhya. When we are chasing a cow or showing fresh green grass to a cow,

the cow comes towards the grass - why does it come towards the grass?

Because the cow has the notion that 'I am the body, I am hungry and the

grass is tasty treat for me'. Only cow comes towards the grass because it

has the notion or error that 'I am this body'. In motivating the action,

the cow may think, "I am hungry and grass will remove the hunger, and the

fellow seems to be a nice guy offering me tasty grass". Because of deha

adhyaasa only (error or notion that I am the body), the cow comes towards

the grass. This is called pravR^itti vyavahaara or going after for some

thing conducive to one's happiness. This cannot happen without the deha

adhyaasa. Shankara gives another example - if the same person drops the

grass and takes a stick, a cow realizes that this person is worse than any

bruit that I know off, not dependable. It is true, beasts are more

trustworthy and predictable than humans, and there is a danger involved in

staying here - making such an inference the cow goes away from him - this is

called 'nivR^itti vyavahaara', going away form things that cause

unhappiness. This is again due to 'deha adhyaasa', because of the notion

that I am the body. The person is going to beat with the stick only the

sthuula shariiram, gross physical body and not the suukshma shariiram,

subtle body. - thus there is a sthuula shariira adhyaasa error that I am

this gross body. Hence both pravR^itti and nivR^itti vyavahaara takes place

only because of adhyaasa or error. Hence the study of the behavior of the

cow, provides an example or dR^ishhTaanta for vyaapti JNaanam. 'pashhu aadi

vyavahaaravat' - just as the transactions of the cow and other animals,

particularly since the behavior of humans is not different from animals. He

goes after something he likes, pravR^itti vyavahaara and he goes away from

things he dislikes, nivR^itti vyavahaara. Hence we can express the

statement of anumaana in our standard format - manushyaH adhyaasavaan

vyavahaaravatvaat, yathaa pashuvat - similar to our familiar statement -

parvataH agnimaan dhuumavatvaat, yathaa mahaanase. manushyaH is paksha,

adhyaasavaan is the saadhyam, hetu is vyavahaaravatvaat and pashhuvat is the

dR^ishhTanta.

 

Hence Shankara says all human activities are based on adhyaasa or error

since all activities can be considered as either pravR^itti going after or

nivR^itti or going away. Hence all human beings have got this adhyaasa.

This is the second pramaaNa for adhyaasa. Thus Shankara provides two types

of pramaaNa for adhyaasa.

 

With this adhyaasa pramaaNa section is also completed.

 

Next we will take up the concluding section of adhyaasa in terms of its

implication in human life. That constitutes the last section on adhyaasa.

 

Questions on Section IIID.

 

1. What are the two types of proofs Shankara provides for the adhyaasa?

How do the arthaapatti and anumaana serve as pramaaNa or means of knowledge?

 

2. How does Shankara prove each one of the following is an adhyaasa or an

error: 1.'I am a doer', 2. 'I am an enjoyer', 3. ' I am knower' 4. 'I am

limited', 5.'I am one of many aatma-s' etc.

 

3. How does Shankara prove that any vyavahaara or transaction involves an

error or adhyaasa.

 

End of Section IIID.

-----------

 

 

 

 

_______________________

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.