virodhaparihara-questions 19,20 and 21

[Guest guest]

19. nanu svarupajnAna abhAvAth anAdhikAla prayuktha dhEhAthma bhrAnthi

vasAnAm jeevAnam Athmasvarupam svaprakAsam ithi vachanam upalambha

viruddham ithi.

 

 

 

It is highly improbable that the real nature of the self is present

always to the jiva, as he is devoid of the knowledge of his real nature

and also has beginningless delusion that he is the body.

 

 

 

Desika answers that

 

 

 

aDHishTAnapratheethih khalu ArOpasya upayujyathE

 

thasmAth svarupE bhODHEna bhrAnthih naiva viruDHyathE

 

 

 

The delusion arises out of the existence of a substratum and hence the

illusory knowledge is not contradicting that of the reality.

 

 

 

When there is a delusion of snake in a rope, the rope is perceived but

due to the non-cognition of the difference of it from the snake the

delusion arises. Hence bhranthi or illusion can only result from the

perception of a real thing which is mistaken for something unreal.Here

also the real nature of the self is perceived but not cognised due to

the defect of avidhya. This gives rise to the illusion that self is the

body.So the the real nature is present but not cognised and as this

gives rise to the dhEhAthmabhrama it is not a self-contradiction at all.

The concept of independence to the jiva is due to the non-cognition of

the seshathva and other attributes because only the nature of self is

presented which is misconstrued as something else but the attributes

like seshathva, AdhEyathva etc. are not present.

 

 

 

 

 

20.EvamAthmanah jnAnasvarupathvE svayamprakAsathve cha susushupthAyAm

api prakAsah prasjyEtha.

 

 

 

If the Athman is self-illumined it should be present even in deep sleep.

 

 

 

But it does not, the usual experience being "I did not know anything"

and this is confirmed by sruthi also, as the statement 'svam apeethO

bhavathi' denotes only apyaya or dissolution.Hence the expression that

the self is of the nature of knowledge which is self -illuminating is

only aupacharikam,mentioned in a secondary sense.

 

 

 

In the passage referred to, the text is 'yathra Ethath purushah svapithi

nAma sathA soumya thadhA sampannO bhavathi svayam apeetho bhavathi,

(Chan.6-8-1) when a man sleeps he becomes united with Brahman and

attains dissolution in his own nature.

 

 

 

Desika says that it is not aupacharikam but has direct meaning only.

 

 

 

jnAthrthvam jnAna rupathvam dhvayam sruthyaiva gamyathE

 

svarupam jnAyatE supthou vaisishtyam thu na buddhyathE

 

 

 

Sruthi shows proof for jiva being jnAnasvarupa, of the nature of

knowledge as well as jnAna gunaka,having knowledge as an attribute.

'Esha hi dhrashtA sprshtA srOthA ghrAthA rasayithA manthA boddhA karthA

vijnAnAthma prushah, (Pras.4-9) this jiva is the seer,one who

touches,listener,smeller,taster,thinker, feeler and doer. He is of the

nature of knowledge.Thus the jiva has the attributive consciousness that

cognises the sense impressions and also the essence of knowledge.Thus in

sleep the nature of the self as knowledge alone is manifest and not the

attributive consciousness.Hence he is not aware of himself as

sleeping.The statement "I did not know anything all this while ," shows

the absence of objective experience while the statement "I did not know

myself," denotes that the awareness of one's self as distinguished by

the particular characterestics is absent.The experience that "I slept

well " is the proof of the presence of the natural state alone.Therefore

there is no inconsistancy.

 

 

 

 

 

21.jeevasya jnAnasvarupathvE jnAthrthva vAdhAnAm cha aoupachAArikathvam

nyAyyam. na khalu dharmabhoothajnAnasya jnAnasvarupasya jnAthrthvam

upalabhAmahe.

 

 

 

Since the self is of the nature of knowledge, knowership is attributed

to it only as aoupachArika, in secondary sense, since it is accepted

that the dharmabhuthajnana has no jnAthrthva.

 

 

 

Desika replies to this as

 

 

 

upalambhasya sAmarthyAth sruthi thaAthparyathOpi cha

 

EkajAtheeyayOh dharma-dharmithvam kim na yujyathE

 

 

 

Through apprehension and through the purport of the scriptures the

attribute and the attributed, dharma-dharmithvam, can apply to the same

thing though the two belong to the same class.

 

 

 

For instance when one wakes up from sleep there are two kinds of

cognition. One is that of having slept well in the form of 'sukhamaham

asvApsam, I slept well,' and the other is the cognition ' EthAvantham

kalam na kinchith aham ajnAsisham, I did not know anything all this

while.' The former is of the nature of the self as knowledge and the

latter denotes the absence of the dharamabhuthajnana in sleep. Thus both

the dharmi and dharma aspects are denoted.The sruthi also declares the

self as jnanasvrupa as well as possessing jnAthrthva.

 

 

 

Brahmasuthra also confirms this by 'jnO atha Eva' (BS.2-3-19) That is,

this self knows objects and hence he is the knower. To raise the

question that since the Self and the dharmabhuthajnAna are both

knowledge how can one be the possessor of the attrbute,knower and the

other the attribute knowledge, is nonsensical .says

Desika.'EkajAtheeyasya dharma-dharmibhAvah na ghatathE ithi chOdhyah

mandhapralApa Eva,' because it is found everywhere that between dharma

and dharmi, attribute and the attributed, there is certain aspect

similar to the class they belong to while they differ in other aspects.

It is however established that there is no knowership attributed to the

dharambhuthajnAna as it is only attributive and an attribute,dharma,

cannot be independent of the attributed, dharmi just as the light of a

gem, sun and a lamp has no existence of its own.

 

 

 

 

 

22. dhEhAdhivilakshaNathvena vibhakthasvaroopasya jeevasya

karthavyAnthram na upalabhAmahe;

 

athah svarupAnubhanDHi varNAsramAdhirAhithyavedhinah purushAh kaTHamiva

karmADHikAriNah bhavaishyanthi?

 

 

 

There is no karma for the jiva who is different from body etc. and

therefore how can those, who know that they are the self which is

beyond varNa or Asrama be fit for the karma enjoined in teh vedas?

 

 

 

The reference here is to the slokas in Vishnupurana and Mahabharatha

that declare the self as different from embodied beings.

 

 

pu