Sribhashya-the knower is present in sleep and release

[Guest guest]

..Presence of'I' in deepsleep and release.

The advaitin says that the knowership belongs to the ego and not

the self and this is proved by the fact that in deep sleep and in

realisation the ahamkAra, ego, is absent. But Ramanuja refutes this

view and says that 'thamO guna abhibhavAthparAgarTHa anubhava

abhAvAccha ahamarTHasya vivikthasphutaprathibhAsa abhAvE api

AprabhOdhAth ahamithyEkAkArENA Athmanh sphuraNAth sushupthou api

nAhambhAvigamah.' In sleep one is pervaded by thamas in the form of

ignorance and hence there is no distinct experience of anything

because there is no external manifestation to the ego . But when

awakened one remembers his identity and therefore the concept of 'I'

must have been present in sleep. On rising from sleep one does not

remember having been only a witness of a perception with no

experience but always recollects that he has slept well. So there has

been a knower who experienced the sukha of deep sleep. Also because

one has a recollection of his actions done before he went to sleep.

To the objection that when awakened from sleep one also has the

feeling 'I did not know anything during the time of sleep,' Ramanuja

replies that it is not a denial of all experiences as otherwise even

the anubhuthi will be denied in sleep. The words 'I did not know'

proves the existence of 'I ' who did not know by which the perception

alone was denied. Sensible persons will not accept that the 'I' also

was absent at the time of sleep. Even the expression 'I' did not know

myself implies only the absence of the awareness of the identity of

oneself as so and so as in wakeful state but does not denote the

absence of 'I' itself.

Moreover the advatin proclaims that the Self continues to exist as a

sAkshi, the witness consciousness. SAkshitva is not possible without

being a knower. It cannot be pure consciousness. One who knows can

only be a sAkshi according to the great grammarian PANini who

defines the word sAkshi as 'sAkshAth dhrashtari samjnAyAm,' the one

who sees, that is, one who knows, is the sAkshi. The Self by its very

existence shines for itself and as the'I.'Hence the Atma that shines

even in deep sleep does so as the real 'I.'

Similarly it can be shown that the 'I' shines even in release.

Otherwise it will result in AthmanAsa, says Ramanuja. It cannot be

said that ahamarThah, the concept of 'I' is only an attribute wrongly

superimposed on the athman which alone disappears in release while

the athman remains. On the contrary the ahamarTha is not a mere

attribute but the very substance of the Self. Only the jnana is the

attribute of the Self. One aspires for moksha, relief, in order to

get rid of the thapathraya, the three kinds of suffering due to

samsara, which are AdhyAthmika, caused by one's own body and mind,

Adhidhaivika, due to destiny and Adhibhouthika caused by other by the

elements of nature, respectively. If there is the destruction of

the 'I,' the experiencer in release no one will strive for it. Hence

the 'I' which shines as a knower, is the inner self, prathyagathma.

This can be proved through inference also.The syllologism is stated

thus: ' Sa cha prathyagAthma mukthou api ahamithyeva prakAsathE

svasmai prakasamanathvath;yo yah svasmai prakasathE sah sarvo aham

ithyeva prakasathe; yaTHA thaTHA avabhasathvena ubhayavAdhi

sammathah samsaryAthma.' The Self shines only as the real 'I' even

in release because it shines for its own benefit. Whatever shines for

its own benefit shines as the 'I' as the samsAryAthma, the

transmigratory self. "Yah punah ahamithi na chakAsthi, nAsou svasmai

prakAsathE yaTHA ghatAdhih,' that which is not shining as aham,'I,'

does not shines for itself but requires another to manifest it, like

the pot.

Advaitin objects to this saying that if the Self shines as 'I' in

mukthi it will not be different from the ego which is the product of

ignorance. Ramanuja replies that ignorance could be of three kinds.

It could be svrupaajnana, ignorance of the real nature, or

anyaTHAjnAna, misapprehension or viprithajnAna, wrong apprehension.

To understand the real nature of Athma as the real 'I' is not

ignorance.

Next Ramanuja proves his point by citing the example of seers like

Vamadeva who have had the brahmasAkshAthkAra, by removal of avidhya ,

perceived themselves as 'I' only, and not as pure

consciousness. 'Thdvaithathpasyan rshirvAmabEvah prathipEdhe aham

manurabhavam suryascha ithi.'(Brhd.3-4-10). The seer VAmadEva seeing

that( Brahman) observed 'I was Manu and the Sun. 'Ahmekah praTHamam

Asam varthAmi cha bhavishyAmicha.' "I alone existed, exist and will

exist."

Such is the mode of expression even about Brahman, 'hanthAham imAh

thisrAh devathah' (Chan.6-3-2), 'I will enter these three

devathas,' 'bahusyAm prajAyEya,' 'I will become many' 'sa eekshatha

lokAnnusrjA ithi,' ' He willed; I will create the worlds.' In

bhagavatgita the lOrd says,iam the Self of all ,' and several similar

expressions are found in Gita.The svarupa of the Self is the only

real 'I' and the ahamkAra normally understood as'aham' is only a

product of matter as mentioned by the Lord

Himself 'mahAbhoothAnyahamkArO buddhiravyakthamEvacha,' the elements,

buddhi and ahamkAra are the products of the unmanifest prakrthi. The

word ahamkAra means that it makes one regard as 'I' that which is

not 'I'. The word is used in gita to denote pride; 'ahamkAram balam

dharpam'(BG18-53) and hence ahamkAra is only the product of

ignorance, which gives the impression of 'aham' in body, mind and

intellect. ParAsara has mentioned this in vishnupurana 'srooyathAm

chApyavidhyAyAh svarupam kulanandana; anAthmani AthmabuddhiryA' (VP.6-

7-10) "Hear the nature of avidhyA;it is the notion of athma in

anAthma."`

Ramanuja says 'yadhi jnapthimAthramEva AthmA thadhAanAthmani

AthmAbhimAne jnapthimAthraprathibhAsah syAth; na

jnAthrthvaprathibhasah.' If anubhuthi is the self then in the

perception of 'I' in the body etc. will be mere anubhuthi and not as

a knower.Therefore 'I', the knower alone is Athma. To quote

YAmunAchArya 'athah prathyaksha siddhathvAthukthanyAyAgamAnvayAth

avidhyA yogathaschAthmA jnAthAham ithi bhAsathE.(Athmasiddhi) The

Athma, knower, shines as 'I' and this is proved by perception

inference and sruthi and the effect of ignorance as pointed

out.'Dehendhriya manafprAnadheebhyOanyOanayasAdhanah nithyO vyApee

prathikshethramAthmA bhinnah svathah sukhee.'(Athmasiddhi) The Athma

is other than body,senses, mind, prAna and intellect and is self-

proved, eternal all pervading,separate in each body and happy by

nature.Here vyApee means the most subtle nature capable of entering

into all beings.

[Guest guest]

-

sarojram18

Oppiliappan

Saturday, July 15, 2006 10:48 PM

Sribhashya-the knower is present in sleep and release

 

 

.Presence of'I' in deepsleep and release.

The advaitin says that the knowership belongs to the ego and not

the self and this is proved by the fact that in deep sleep and in

realisation the ahamkAra, ego, is absent. But Ramanuja refutes this

view and says that 'thamO guna abhibhavAthparAgarTHa anubhava

abhAvAccha ahamarTHasya vivikthasphutaprathibhAsa abhAvE api

AprabhOdhAth ahamithyEkAkArENA Athmanh sphuraNAth sushupthou api

nAhambhAvigamah.' In sleep one is pervaded by thamas in the form of

ignorance and hence there is no distinct experience of anything

because there is no external manifestation to the ego . But when

awakened one remembers his identity and therefore the concept of 'I'

must have been present in sleep. On rising from sleep one does not

remember having been only a witness of a perception with no

experience but always recollects that he has slept well. So there has

been a knower who experienced the sukha of deep sleep. Also because

one has a recollection of his actions done before he went to sleep.

To the objection that when awakened from sleep one also has the

feeling 'I did not know anything during the time of sleep,' Ramanuja

replies that it is not a denial of all experiences as otherwise even

the anubhuthi will be denied in sleep. The words 'I did not know'

proves the existence of 'I ' who did not know by which the perception

alone was denied. Sensible persons will not accept that the 'I' also

was absent at the time of sleep. Even the expression 'I' did not know

myself implies only the absence of the awareness of the identity of

oneself as so and so as in wakeful state but does not denote the

absence of 'I' itself.

Moreover the advatin proclaims that the Self continues to exist as a

sAkshi, the witness consciousness. SAkshitva is not possible without

being a knower. It cannot be pure consciousness. One who knows can

only be a sAkshi according to the great grammarian PANini who

defines the word sAkshi as 'sAkshAth dhrashtari samjnAyAm,' the one

who sees, that is, one who knows, is the sAkshi. The Self by its very

existence shines for itself and as the'I.'Hence the Atma that shines

even in deep sleep does so as the real 'I.'

Similarly it can be shown that the 'I' shines even in release.

Otherwise it will result in AthmanAsa, says Ramanuja. It cannot be

said that ahamarThah, the concept of 'I' is only an attribute wrongly

superimposed on the athman which alone disappears in release while

the athman remains. On the contrary the ahamarTha is not a mere

attribute but the very substance of the Self. Only the jnana is the

attribute of the Self. One aspires for moksha, relief, in order to

get rid of the thapathraya, the three kinds of suffering due to

samsara, which are AdhyAthmika, caused by one's own body and mind,

Adhidhaivika, due to destiny and Adhibhouthika caused by other by the

elements of nature, respectively. If there is the destruction of

the 'I,' the experiencer in release no one will strive for it. Hence

the 'I' which shines as a knower, is the inner self, prathyagathma.

This can be proved through inference also.The syllologism is stated

thus: ' Sa cha prathyagAthma mukthou api ahamithyeva prakAsathE

svasmai prakasamanathvath;yo yah svasmai prakasathE sah sarvo aham

ithyeva prakasathe; yaTHA thaTHA avabhasathvena ubhayavAdhi

sammathah samsaryAthma.' The Self shines only as the real 'I' even

in release because it shines for its own benefit. Whatever shines for

its own benefit shines as the 'I' as the samsAryAthma, the

transmigratory self. "Yah punah ahamithi na chakAsthi, nAsou svasmai

prakAsathE yaTHA ghatAdhih,' that which is not shining as aham,'I,'

does not shines for itself but requires another to manifest it, like

the pot.

Advaitin objects to this saying that if the Self shines as 'I' in

mukthi it will not be different from the ego which is the product of

ignorance. Ramanuja replies that ignorance could be of three kinds.

It could be svrupaajnana, ignorance of the real nature, or

anyaTHAjnAna, misapprehension or viprithajnAna, wrong apprehension.

To understand the real nature of Athma as the real 'I' is not

ignorance.

Next Ramanuja proves his point by citing the example of seers like

Vamadeva who have had the brahmasAkshAthkAra, by removal of avidhya ,

perceived themselves as 'I' only, and not as pure

consciousness. 'Thdvaithathpasyan rshirvAmabEvah prathipEdhe aham

manurabhavam suryascha ithi.'(Brhd.3-4-10). The seer VAmadEva seeing

that( Brahman) observed 'I was Manu and the Sun. 'Ahmekah praTHamam

Asam varthAmi cha bhavishyAmicha.' "I alone existed, exist and will

exist."

Such is the mode of expression even about Brahman, 'hanthAham imAh

thisrAh devathah' (Chan.6-3-2), 'I will enter these three

devathas,' 'bahusyAm prajAyEya,' 'I will become many' 'sa eekshatha

lokAnnusrjA ithi,' ' He willed; I will create the worlds.' In

bhagavatgita the lOrd says,iam the Self of all ,' and several similar

expressions are found in Gita.The svarupa of the Self is the only

real 'I' and the ahamkAra normally understood as'aham' is only a

product of matter as mentioned by the Lord

Himself 'mahAbhoothAnyahamkArO buddhiravyakthamEvacha,' the elements,

buddhi and ahamkAra are the products of the unmanifest prakrthi. The

word ahamkAra means that it makes one regard as 'I' that which is

not 'I'. The word is used in gita to denote pride; 'ahamkAram balam

dharpam'(BG18-53) and hence ahamkAra is only the product of

ignorance, which gives the impression of 'aham' in body, mind and

intellect. ParAsara has mentioned this in vishnupurana 'srooyathAm

chApyavidhyAyAh svarupam kulanandana; anAthmani AthmabuddhiryA' (VP.6-

7-10) "Hear the nature of avidhyA;it is the notion of athma in

anAthma."`

Ramanuja says 'yadhi jnapthimAthramEva AthmA thadhAanAthmani

AthmAbhimAne jnapthimAthraprathibhAsah syAth; na

jnAthrthvaprathibhasah.' If anubhuthi is the self then in the

perception of 'I' in the body etc. will be mere anubhuthi and not as

a knower.Therefore 'I', the knower alone is Athma. To quote

YAmunAchArya 'athah prathyaksha siddhathvAthukthanyAyAgamAnvayAth

avidhyA yogathaschAthmA jnAthAham ithi bhAsathE.(Athmasiddhi) The

Athma, knower, shines as 'I' and this is proved by perception

inference and sruthi and the effect of ignorance as pointed

out.'Dehendhriya manafprAnadheebhyOanyOanayasAdhanah nithyO vyApee

prathikshethramAthmA bhinnah svathah sukhee.'(Athmasiddhi) The Athma

is other than body,senses, mind, prAna and intellect and is self-

proved, eternal all pervading,separate in each body and happy by

nature.Here vyApee means the most subtle nature capable of entering

into all beings.