BSB - Sri Saxena's text / Part 2

[Guest guest]

Author: Sri Subhanu Saxena (subhanu)

Copyright: Sri Subhanu Saxena (subhanu)

----

Note: Sanskrit text changed to ITRANS 5.2 by Ravi

Please refer to http://www.aczone.com/itrans/ for details. Also

I am adding the orginal text of sha.nkara as it is.

 

Original document of shrI Saxena is at

http://www.geocities.com/ambaal_daasan/bsb/

 

2) THE NATURE OF CONFUSION

==========================

 

--

Original Text continuation:

 

tathaapi anyonyasmin.h anyonya aatamakataa.m anyonya dharmaaH cha

adhyaasaH itara itara avivekena atyanta viviktayoH dharma dharmiNoH

mithyaj~naana nimittaH satyaanR^ite mithuniikR^itya "ahamida.m"

"maamedamiti" naisargiko.aya.m loka vyavahaaraH |

---

Sri Saxena's notes:

 

yuShmadasmat.h pratyaya adhyAso mithyeti bhavitu.m yuktam.h

 

In a manner that is classic of sha.nkara's style, the author of the

bhAShyam.h begins with an objection. The objection runs as follows:

Atman is real, and is the eternal subject I . Everything else is not

real, and is perceived as a separate object you (yuShmat.h). How is it

possible to confuse or superimpose (adhyAsa) the distinct concepts

(pratyaya) of subject and object (the "I" and the "you"), and related

attributes (dharma-s), as they are by nature as different as night and

day (tamah prakAshavat.h)? Such confusion should be impossible

(mithyeti bhavitu.m yukta.m). sha.nkara's objection simply states that,

in theory, it should be crystal clear to all what reality is, since it

is so different from the unreal, so what is all the fuss about, and

what is the need to write a whole book about reality and how to

perceive it?

 

sha.nkara's reply runs as follows:

 

tathApi anyonyasmin, naisargiko.aya.m loka vyavahAraH

 

It is, however, a matter of common experience (loka vyavahAraH),

that, through lack of discrimination (avivekena), we superimpose

concepts on each other (anyonyasmin.h anyonyAtmakatA.m) and their

attributes (anyonyadharmAn.h cha adhyAsa), even though they and their

attributes are utterly distinct in nature (atyanta viviktayoH

dharma-dharmiNoH), impelled by false knowledge (mithyAjnAna nimittaH),

it is an innate human error (naisargikaH) to confuse the real and the

non-real or the "I" and "mine" (satyAnR^ite mithunIkR^itya, aha.m ida.m

mameda.m iti).

 

In other words, sha.nkara tells us, but common experience shows us

that we do it all the time! We see duality where in reality there is

none, we mistake one thing for another every day?. That we do this is

not through any mystery but is innate. The mixing up is

adhyAsa. sha.nkara will later go on to say that this adhyAsa has

always been there, and is therefore beginingless. It is important to

make an important clarification here. sha.nkara proceeds on the same

basis as the shruti, which takes it as axiomatic that brahman.h is the

ultimate reality. We find very few instances where discussions occur

to "prove" that the correct view of the world is that there is an

Ultimate Reality called brahman.h. For sha.nkara and the shruti this

was self evident that Atman is self -established (svaya.m

prasiddhatvaat.h). Viewed from this transcendental viewpoint of reality

it is clear why sha.nkara views this mixing of the real and the non

real as an error. This is fundamental to understanding sha.nkara's

tradition of advaita. All that is required for knowledge is to remove

this error to reveal brahman.h, and the universe will naturally be seen

in its true light

 

 

NB: A side note for the specialists. If you want to stick to the

essence of the meaning, skip the next paragraph

 

In this passage we find the first divergence of opinion amongst post

sha.nkara commentators. In the panchapAdikA sub-commentary, attributed

to padmapAda, the word mithyAj~nAna is explained as "mithyA cha tat.h

aj~nAna.m cha", meaning an unreal ignorance. The other way to decompose

this word is as "mithyA cha tat.h j~nAnam cha", meaning a

misconception,

or false knowledge. Using the former definition , the sub-commentator

has explained that the cause of this adhyAsa or avidyA is some other

material cause (upAdAna kAraNa) that he defines as a mysterious

avidyA shakti, that is indescribable (anirvachanIya), and inert

(jaDAtmikA). The later writers have used the term mulAvidyA, or Root

Ignorance, for this material cause, and equate it with the term

mAyA. This gives a different flavour to the nature of avidyA than a

literal reading of mithyAj~nAna. The question as to whether sha.nkara

really meant just false knowledge or something more mysterious is the

subject of great debate. This is not the place to go in to this in

detail. I will be explaining the adyAsa bhAShyam.h using the literal

meaning of simply false knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!