hasiddhantha-knower is not ahamkara anddoes not manifest anubhuthi

[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' of Yamunacharya

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.

..

Ramanuja asks, 'kimchAsyasmvitsvarupasya Athmanh ahamkAra nirvarthyA

abhivyakthih kim rupA?,' what is the nature of the manifestation of

samvid, which is Athman, for advaitins? It is not produced since

samvid or anubhuthi is said to be unoriginated. Nor does it appear,

as the anubnuthi is said to be not the object of another perception.

It cannot also be an indirect manifestation through another means

like the sense-contact with the object or by removing the obstruction

that prevents manifestation.The first kind is seen in the perception

of jati by seeing the vyakthi, the object that belongs to the jati

and the perception of the face in the mirror by the contact of the

eye with the image.The second is the removal of defect from the

perceiver which obstructs the perception, as the control of mind and

senses through samadhamadhi in order to help the comprehension of the

sasthras, which provide the knowledge of Brahman.Ramanuja dismisses

both kinds of manifestation of anubhuthi by ahamkara by quoting from

Athmasiddhih. "KaraNAnAm abhoomithvAth na thathsambandha hEthuthA;

ahamarThasyaboddhrthvAthna sa thenaiva soDhyathE." The first is not

possible since anubhuthi is not an object of sense perception and the

second also is impossible since ahamkara is the perceiver according

to advaitin and hence cannot remove its own defect.

Neither does Ahamkara help perception in the way that a lamp helps

the eye to perceive the object which was hitherto in darkness. There

can be no obstacle to be removed in the case of perception through

ahamkAra. AjnAna cannot reside in anubhuthi which is self -luminous

and ajnAna can only be removed by jnAna. Since samvid is said to be

of the nature of jnAna, being the same as Atman,ajAna cannot reside

in it as jnAna and ajnAna are mutually exclusive. AjnAna, ignorance

can reside only in the knower and not in the known, like ghata. Since

anubhuthi, identical with Athma for advaitin, is not the knower but

a mere perception and a witness ajnAna cannot reside in it.

Moreover if ajnana is said to be a bhava padhArtha, a positive entiy

it will be refuted later. If on the otherhand it is mere absence of

jnAna, it is not an obstacle and comes to an end as soon as the jnAna

arises. So by no reason whatsoever ahamkAra can manifest anubhuthi.

Also the contention that anubhuthi is manifested by ahamkAra as

abiding in it is not acceptable. The manifesting agents like a bright

light do not show the object they manifest, as abiding in them. Even

a mirror does not manifest the face but only the light does it which

when reflected inside the mirror shows the face as though it is

inside the mirror.Similarlt the jnAna is the manifestor and not the

ahamkAra. anubhuthi being self-proved is not perceived by the eye and

hence ahamkAra cannot show it as an erraneous perception appearing

itself as a knower. AhamkAra is therfore not the knower and thre real

knower is the Self and the anubhuthi is not the Self.