sribhashya-mahasiddhantha- Knower is not ahamkara

[Guest guest]

The knower is not ahamkara which is the product of ignorance.

 

Advaitin claims that anubhuthi is without a knower, asraya and the

known, vishaya. Due to illusion it appears as the knower as the

shell silver appears as silver. Anubhuthi is the adhishtAna or

substratum of illusion like the silver and hence real. Ramanuja says

that this is untenable. The perception is always is of the form 'I

perceive, ' and not as 'I am the perception.' Anubhuthi shows the

knower to be separate from the object of perception as when Devadatta

is seen having a staff, it is not the perception of the staff alone

but also the one who is holding the staff. So the experience 'I

perceive' shows the 'I' having the anubhuthi, and is not of anubhuthi

only.

 

Ramnuja refutes the view that the concept of knower is an

illusion,mithyA, as in the identification of AthmA with the body

saying 'I am stout'etc.If so, even the identification if anubhuthi

with the AtmA would be delusion because it is perceived by the one

under illusion. If it is argued that the knowledge of Brahman which

removes all illusion does not affect perception, anubhuthi ,(the

perception in the abstract meaning and not that of objects) and hence

it is not an illusion, then the same argument holds good for the

Self which is having the perception.and is hence the knower and

therefore cannot be mithyA.

 

` Advaitin contends that since the Self is devoid of changes it

cannot be the knower. Knowing involves changes as knowing is an

action and the AthmA is actionless. To be a knower requires an object

to be known and the action of knowing, all of which are the effects

of avidhya. So the knowership abides in ahamkara and not in the Self.

Otherwise the imperfections of the body will adhere to the Self.

Ramanuja refutes this. JnAthrthva, knowership does not belong to the

ahamkara which is jada, It is distinguished from the Self on the same

grounds that the body and other objects which are all dhrsyas,

objects of perception, are , being outward, being perceived. Ahamkara

is also perceived and hence not the perceiver.. It is also the

product of avidhya and therefore jada. Being not the perceiver the

ahamkara cannot be the knower.

 

The reason given to show that the knower is not the Self, namely,

that it is subject to change, is not correct, says Ramanuja, 'na cha

jnAthrthvam vikriyaAthmakam jnAthrthvam hi jnAnaguNAsrayathvam jnAnam

cha asya nithyasya svAbhAvika dharmathvEna nithyam; nithyam cha

Athmanah "nAthmA sruthEh" ithi vakshyathi. The knower is not subject

to changes . JnAthrthvam, knowership, has jnAna as its attribute and

jnAna is the essential attribute of the Self which is eternal and

hence jnAna is also eternal. That the Self is eternal is shown by the

suthras ' nAthmA srutheh'(BS.2-3-18), jnO athaEva (2-3-19 which means

that the Self is not a product but is eternal and so is the

knowledge which is its attribute which is confirmed by the sruti

texts.

It could not be argued that if jnAna is eternal and the essential

characterestic of the Self, then one should be knowing all at all

times because the jnAna though unlimited by nature attains samkocha

vikAsa, contraction and expansion depending on the state of bondage

and that of release. The contraction of jnAna is not svAbhAvika,

natural but is due to the amount of karma at a particular time and

therefore it is karmakrtha, effect of karma. Thus the Self is

changeless in reality. So the jnAhrthva, knowership pertains only to

the Self and not to ahamkara, ego.

Advaitin comes up with an explanation that the ahamkara appears to

be the knower due to close proximity with the perception, anubhuthi

created by the falling of shadow upon one another. Ramanuja asks

him 'kA chitcchAyApatthih? kim ahmakAracchAyApatthih samvidhah

uthasamvicchAyApatthih ahamkaarasya? na thAvath samvidhah jnAthrthva

ANbhyupagamAth;nApyahamkArasya, ukthareethyA thasya jadasya

jnAthrthva ayOgAth.' It should be specified as to the shadow of which

falls on which. Either ahamkara casts its shadow on the samvid or

vice versa. Samvid is not accepted as the knower as shown already and

ahamkara is jada being the product of avidhya, and therefore cannot

be the knower.There is yet another valid reason for neither of them

to be the knower, says Ramanuja, 'dhvayOrapi achAkshushthvAccha,na hi

achAkshushANAm cchAyA dhrshtA,' both being not seen by the eye and a

thing not seen is not known to cast a shadow.

If it is said to be similar to the situation where a piece of iron

put into the fire attains the heat of the fire and thus the

knowership appears in ahamkAra with the contact of anubhuthi that

also fails to prove the point. Since anubhuthi itself is not a knower

it cannot impart the knowership to ahamkAra.

Advaitin tries to surmount this difficulty by saying that neither

ahamkAra nor anubhuthi is the knower. AhamkAra only reflects

anubhuthi like a mirror and gives an appearance of anubhuthi to be in

it.So ahamkAra seems to be the knower of anubhuthi. This argument is

forwarded on the basis that the concept of knower is not real

according to the theory of advaita.Even this cannot be accepted

because ahmkAra is incapable of manifesting anything being a jada

and anubhuthi is said to be self-proved and manifests everything else

including ahamkAra. Ramnuja quotes from 'Athmasiddhi' a work on

advaia to disprove this explanation. It says,'shAnthAngAra iva

Adhithyam ahamkArO jadAthmikA svayamjyothisham aAthmAnam vyanakthi

ithi na yukthimath,' AhamkAra being insentient cannot manifest the

Athma, which is self illumined as an extinguished fire cannot

manifest the Sun.

As anubhuthi is self-proved according to the advaitin it is

contradictory to ahamkAra which is jada and if anubhuthi is said to

be manifested by ahamkAra it ceases to be anubhuthi as per the

theory of advaita. To quote from Athmasiddhi

again, 'vyangthrvyangyathvamanyOnyam na cha syAt prAthikoolyathah

vyangyathvE ananubhuthithvam AthmanisyAth yathA ghatE.' The

relationship of the manifestor and manifested cannot happen between

two entities of conflicting nature.It cannot be said that like the

rays of the Sun enter through a hole are manifested on the hand

samvid is manifested in ahamkAra because the rays of the Sun are not

manifested by the palm which only obstructs them and they manifest

themselves.