Sridakshinamurtistotram Part VII - c

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part VII – c)

Aaste deshika-charaNam niravadhirAste tadIkshaNe karuNA |

Aaste kimapi taduktam kimataHparamasti janmasAphalyam ||

(There is the foot of the Guru. In his glance, there is limitless

compassion.  There is something that has been said by him.  What else

is there that constitutes the summum bonum of life?)

(A verse by Sri ShankaraBhagavatpada in his work 'SvatmanirupaNam'.)

 

 

 

The Shunyavada delineated by the Buddha is apparently a powerful

purvapaksha which the Sridakshinamurti stotram refutes in its sixth

verse that is now under consideration.  Says the Manasollasa (VI – 13

to 16):

 

If the cause of the universe be void, the universe cannot be as it is

found to be.

None ever says 'the pot is void', 'the cloth is void' ; on the other

hand, in parlance one asserts 'the pot exists, the cloth exists'.

If the universe were void, it would never have appeared any more than

a man's horn; it could not even be a subject of illusion.

What would one, seeking to secure a thing, resort to?  What would

one, who is afflicted by a burden, cast aside?  When one's own self

is a non-entity, who is there to command or prohibit?

This whole universe, therefore, having no cause for its existence,

could never be there.

 

In respect of the situation, the Panchadashi (II 30-35) says:

 

Revered Sri Bhagavatpada also observes in respet of these Madhyamikas

who are adepts in dry logic, that they are deluded in the matter of

this Atman that is Existence which transcends all thoughts.

 

The ignorant Bauddhas with inference as their only 'eye' stupidly

disregarding Sruti, arrive at the conclusion that there is no Atman.

 

You say that void existed.  Then it must mean either that existence

was associated with it or it was itself of the nature of existence. 

But both these are illogical in respect of void by reason of self-

contradiction.

 

The Sun is not associated with darkness nor is he of the nature of

darkness.  As existence and void are mutually contradictory, tell me

how 'void' could 'exist'.

 

The name and form of 'akasha' , etc., are clear superimpositions on

Brahman due to Maya.  If you say that in the same manner name and

form of 'void' are also superimposed, may you live long!(whereby

inadvertently you are admitting a substratum on which the 'void' is

superimposed).

 

If you assert that the name and form of even the Existent Reality is

a superimposition, tell me then, on what are they superimposed.  No

illusion without a substratum is anywhere in experience.

 

Refutation of Shunyavada is implied in the Sutras refuting

Vijnanavada:

 

In respect of the Shunyavada says the Sutrabhashya (2.2.5.31) that,

being opposed to all pramanas, it deserves no special attention. 

Taking the hint provided by this Bhashya, other commentators have

shown how the Sutras (2.2.5.28 to 31) refuting the Vijnanavada, can

themselves be re-read and employed to refute the Shunyavada as well. 

Sri Annambhatta, for example, in his Mitaakshara on the Brahmasutra

says:

 

In order to establish the non-existence of the universe, a non-

sublatable abiding existent must be admitted as the substratum. This

would not be possible in your system, Shunyavada, since it cannot be

cognised by means of pramanas, as everything is only void in your

system. Since the Bauddha teaches the existence of momentary entities

and in the same breath teaches that everything is void, his teaching

being self-contradictory, it cannot be accepted.

 

As the Shunyavada is opposed to all pramanas, there arises a

necessity for recognising an abiding substratum.  The Sutrabhashya

2.2.5.31 summarily disposes off this Shunyavada by observing that

this worldly parlance which, as is well known, is established by all

pramanas cannot be negated without recourse to another unsublatable

entity as the substratum since this general rule prevails, there

being no exception to it. 

 

In respect of this Bhashya, says the Brahmavidyabharanam:

 

What is it that is intended to be conveyed by the word 'shunya'?  Is

it some existent entity transcending the entire universe?  Or is it

non-existence?  Not the former for, in that case, it would be

tantamount to expounding the Brahmavada itself skilfully in different

terms.  In the second case it would be opposed to all pramanas. It is

impossible to establish that the negation of the entire universe

which is made known by all pramanas, is verily the ultimate reality. 

This defect being too patent, no separate Sutras for refuting it have

been compsed.  If it be said that the knowledge provided by pramanas

like perception is illusory, this being sublated by reasoning, it

cannot be, since the reasonings which are opposed to the pramanas

like perception would themselves be false.  Again where has it been

seen that what is refuted by mere reasoning is false?  If it be said

that it is seen to be so in the case of shell-silver etc., then it is

also seen that there is a substratum for this illusory shell-silver. 

Also whenever a negation is in evidence, it is also in evidence that

this negation is always related to a counter-entity and a locus which

are existents. In the same way, if the world be false, a real

unsublatable substratum must be accepted.  This is what is conveyed

by the Bhashya.  And this substratum cannot be non-existence, since

it (non-existence) cannot be by itself as it will have to be related

to a locus and a counter-entity. (For example, when the non-existence

of a pot is intended to be expressed, it is done so in the

terms: 'Here, on the ground, the pot does not exist'.  In this

expression, the 'ground' is the locus of non-existence and the pot is

the counter-entity, answering the question: What is non-existent?

This is called in the terminology of tarka, anuyogin (=locus) and

pratiyogin (= counter entity).) .

Also, an experience is declared an illusion only on the strength of

its negation.  Negation which is of the form - 'this' is not here, or

this is not 'this' – is verily the remaining over of the substratum. 

This is not possible in the Shunyavada which does not accept a locus

for non-existence. How then is it possible for the Shunyavadin  to

refute the general rule that 'the knowledge arising from perception

and other pramanas is valid' ?  Thus, since only those reasonings are

purposeful which are based on perception and other pramanas, and

those that are opposed to pramanas are false, and also since a

powerful pramana that can sublate the experiences arising from

perception etc., is not available for the Shunyavadin (who does not

accept the Sruti), it cannot be that Shunya alone is the ultimate.

 

Also, the Manasollasa (VI – 17,18) and the tika thereon point to the

untenability of the momentariness and more so of the non-existence,

of Atman, since even the deluded Bauddha thinks 'I shall become an

exalted one'.  If Atman were momentary, the doer cannot be the same

as the enjoyer of the fruits thereof; and in that case observances of

austerities lke 'chaityavandana', resulting in happiness in other

worlds, would be futile.  Thus his Shastras prescribing them would

not be pramana at all.  And what to say if Atman does not exist at

all! 

 

The Fourfold dialectic, Chatushkoti:

 

The Mandukyakarikas IV 82 to 84 bring out the fourfold dialectic

employed by the other schools and show how the Atman of the Vedanta

is never touched by this dialectic:

 

In respect of Atman, the position adotped by the four schools is:

Naiyayikas, etc. attribute changeability, 'It is', to Atman (because

of arising and disappearing of qualities like knowledge etc., in

Atman.)

 

Vijnanavadins say it is unchangeable (in respect of Its never being

different from the vijnana though different from the body etc., and

by virtue of Its momentary nature which is unchanging.

 

The Jainas hold the view of changeability-cum-unchangeability, 'It is

and it is not'.

 

The Shunyavadins hold total negation as brought out by the stance 'It

is not, not at all.'

 

These are the four different theories regarding the nature of Atman,

on account of attachment to which It always remains concealed from

one's view.  He who has known that Atman is ever untouched by any of

these predicates indeed sees all.

 

Atman to the known as the Witness of the 'void': Here is a reference

to the Vivekachaoodamani:

 

213-214. The Guru answered: Thou has rightly said, O learned man !

Thou art clever indeed in discrimination. That by which all those

modifications such as egoism as well as their subsequent absence

(during deep sleep) are perceived, but which Itself is not perceived,

know thou that Atman – the Knower – through the sharpest intellect.

215. That which is perceived by something else has for its witness

the latter. When there is no agent to perceive a thing, we cannot

speak of it as having been perceived at all.

216. This Atman is a self-cognised entity because It is cognised by

Itself. Hence the individual soul is itself and directly the Supreme

Brahman, and nothing else.

 

 

Strutis misquoted by Shunyavadin -  It is Brahman that is indicated

by 'Asat':

 

In respect of the Srutis quoted by the Shunyavadin in his favour,it

must be noted that they have been misquoted without taking into

account the context and the eomplementary passages, as the Sruti

itself and the Bhashya show.

 

1. "In the beginning, my dear, this universe was Being (Sat) alone, 

one only without a second. Some say that in the beginning this  was

non—being (asat) alone, one only without a second; and  from that non—

being, being was born." 

 

2.   Aruni said: "But how, indeed, could it be thus, my dear? How 

could Being be born from non—being? No, my dear, it was  Being alone

that existed in the beginning, one only without a  second.

Chandogyopanishat 6.2.1,2.

 

"In the beginning all this was non—existent. From it was born what

exists. That created Itself by Itself…(Taittiriyopanishat 2.7.1)

 

The Bhashya on the last quoted Sruti says: In the beginning i.e.,

prior to creation, this was verily asat i.e., the unmanifest Brahman,

as distinguished from the universe with specific names and forms

manifested. It does not mean absolute non-existence.  'This' refers

to the universe composed  of specific names and forms.  From that

asat arose 'sat' i.e., the one with specific names and forms

distinctly marked.  That asat created Itself by Itself.

 

The above Srutis have been discussed in the Brahmasutras (2.1.2.7 and

2.1.6.17) and the Bhashya as well.

 

The method adopted by the Sruti to teach Brahman is unique.  Although

the unqualified Brahman cannot be spoken of in words, yet the Sruti

is careful in pointing out that Brahman is to be comprehended

as 'Is'.  The Kathopanishad (2.3.12,13) says:

' Atman cannot be attained by speech, by the mind, or by the eye.

How can It be realised in any other way than by the affirmation of

him who says: "He is"?

' He is to be realised first as Existence limited by upadhis and then

in His true transcendental nature. Of these two aspects, Atman

realised as Existence leads the knower to the realisation of His true

nature.

After saying that the Atman has to be known as existent, the Bhashya

says on the above mantra:

Atman in association with the adjuncts and known previously as

existent alone, is the one cognised as existent because of the

adjunct viz., the effect which is an existent.  Subsequently the real

nature of Atman, devoid of all adjuncts, different from both the

known and the unknown, of non-dual nature and indicated by the

Srutis 'Not this, not this', 'Not gross, not subtle, not short', 'In

the invisible, bodiless, indescriobable, abodeless' etc., presents

Itself for revelation to one who had previously realised Him as

existent. 

The import of Sruti is Brahman-Atman identity; not Shunyavada:

The Upadeshasahasri (III 1-4) points out that the Srutis are

meaningful only if  they are taken as pertaining to Atman and not to

anything else:

If Brahman were different from Atman, the aspirant cannot realise

that he is Brahman.  If he realises that Atman is Brahman, this is

right knowledge, the dstroyer of Avidya.  What would be the use of

description by Sruti, of qualities like 'not gross', etc., if they

were to pertain to Ishwara as different from Atman, as in that case,

the description would in no way help in making Him known.

If it pertains to Atman, however, it would then be of use in negating

the opposite qualities falsely superposed on Atman given expressionn

to as 'I am stout' etc.  Otherwise it would amount to a description

of void.

Moreover, the Sruti 'devoid of the vital force, devoid of mind; and

pure' would be meaningless if these qualities were meant to be

negated from an aspirant other than Atman.

Dispelling of Avidya veiling Brahman by Akhandakaravritti:

Thus, though it has been established by the Sruti itself that words

fail to convey directly Brahman-Atman and that mind is unable to

comprehend It as an object, still it may be recalled that It is to be

known only by Srutipramana and the teaching by the Acharya

(Brihadaranyakopanishat 5.9.26 and Kathopanishat 1.2.8) by having

recouse to the method of lakshana; and also that the appropriate

mental mode namely vrittivyaapti, is necessary – manasaivaanu

drashtavyam (It has to be realised through the mind alone)

(Kathopanishat 2.1.11).  Even when It is spoken of as being revealed

by the Sruti and Akhandakaravritti, it is only by way of dispelling

Avidya veiling Brahman-Atman which shines of Its own accord.

Existence of Atman – Evidenced from Deep Sleep Experience – Bliss:

Having thus refuted, on the basis of Sruti and reasoning, the various

aspects of the Bauddha doctrine, showing up in their full bloom in

the Shunyavada as claimed by them, attention may now be focused upon

the indubitable evidence in respect of the existence of Atman,

provided by the experience, as voiced by this sixth stanza of the

hymn, 'Raahu-grasta…..' referring to the

recollection 'prAgasvApsamiti prabodhasamaye yaH

pratyabhijnAyate' , 'I slept hitherto'. 

(to be continued)