Anubhuthi is not theSelf as claimed by the advaitin.

[Guest guest]

Criticism of the claim that anubhuthi is atman

 

Anubhuthi being devoid of all differences it has no separate

perceiver and hence it is the atman, says the advaitin. Ramanuja asks

him whether the perception, samvith shines or not. If it does there

will only be sadharmathA, that is, shining itself will be a

dharma,attribute, of the perception.If it does not, it will be

nonexistent like a skyflower. Here the word prakasa, shining, is used

in the sense of being available for practical purposes, vyavahAra

anuguNyam. A thing shines for someone on something. That is, the

cognition of puthrathva, having a son, is the cognition of the son

for the father. Advaitin may say that samvideva athma, perception is

nothing bur the self because they do not accept a viewer apart from

the samvid,but Ramanuja asks him 'who is this AthmA? Has there been

any perception ever experienced apart from that of an object to a

knower? In reality perception is the attribute of the Athma because

of the nature of perception such as, 'ghatamaham jAnAmi,' I know the

pot, 'idham artTHam avagacchAmi,' I comprehend this,'patam aham

samvedhmi' I cognise the cloth etc.This is because any action like

knowing which has an object must necessarily have a subject too.

 

Now the recollection in the form of 'I have experienced this already'

proves the sthirathva, permanency of the knower and also the

origination, sustenance and the disappearance of the object

experienced, as in the case of sukha and duhkha, says Ramanuja,

ThaTHAhyasyakarthuh sTHirathvam karthrdharmasya

samvEdhanAkhyasyasukhaduhkhAdhiriva utpatthi sTHithanirOdhAtcha

prathyakshmeekshyanthe.' That samvid is not permanent is shown from

the cognitions like 'I know,I do not know, 'this knowledge known

before by me is lost now' etc. If this samvid is identified with

Athman the memory of having seen a thing before will not arise.

Therefore anbhuthi is anubhuthi only and not the Self as claimed by

the advaitin.

 

Advaitin tries to prove that in the perception 'Iknow' the 'I'

element is not athma but the ego because it is not proved by itself,

does not shine by itself and requires another proof for its

existence. Since anubhuthi is self proved, shines by itself and does

not depend on another for proving its existence it is the AthmA.What

s meant here is that the 'I' element in perception is also the object

of perception since in the perception 'Iknow this,' aham' , 'I', is

perceived to have the perception of 'this.'But Ramnuja does not agree

with this and says that in the perception 'Iknow,' anubhuthi appears

as an attribute, dharma, and the 'I' is the ownerof the attribute,

dharmi. This is the prathyaksha, sense perception and any anumAna,

inference to prove the contrary cannot be accepted, prathyaksha being

a more valid pramANa than inference.

 

The 'I' in the cognition 'I know' is the self, says Ramanuja,

because it is prathyak, internal apart from everything else, which

becomes the object of perception and hence external, parAk, of

the 'I. 'The one who is mOkshArThee, desirous of mOksha, expects the

unalloyed bliss devoid os duhkha and hence tries for mOksha. If

mOksha is said to result in the destruction of the 'I' , no one will

try for it. There can be no knowledge without a knower. When the

cutter and the axe are absent there can be no cutting operation.

Therefore the 'I' who is the knower is the Athma.It is said in

Bhagavatgita 'EthadyovEtthi tham prAhuh kshEtrajna ithi thadvidha,'

(BG-13-1) the Athman is said to be the knower of the field which

consists of all that is not Athma. This idea will be made clear later

by the suthras 'nAthmA sruthEh' the self is not born(2-3-17) and 'jnO

atha Eva',(2-3-18) therefore he is an eternal knower.Hence Anubhuthi

is not Athma.