Brahma Sutra; Shankara Bhashya; Pt5

[Guest guest]

(I am resending with an updated title to enable ease of following the

series - my apologies for the repost.)

 

Previously

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya.html

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-2.html

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-3.html

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-4.html

 

Shankaram ShankarAchAryam KEshavam BAdarAyanam

SUtrabhAshya kritau vandE Bhagavantau punah punah

 

 

Three objections are raised in regards to the possibility of such error

a. it is not tenable

b. it is not perceptible i.e. I do not see it

c. it has no cause

These objections are answered or will be answered by saying

The fact that it is not tenable is a alankAra for us, the fact that

there can never be a real association between atma and anatma is what

we assert and want you to see for yourself.

The second objection is answered by pointing out that when you say I

am ignorant of this – you yourself are pointing to a witnessing

principle that is illumining your ignorance; else how do you know that

you are ignorant? The I involved in the superimposition is partly

known - it is not a completely unknown entity like svarga - and in

addition to being partially known, the other requirement for adhyAsa

is buddhi or intellect - if these two factors are there adhyAsa is

certainly possible and is also seen whenever we use expressions like I

am sukhi, I am dukhi, you are admitting that there is a mixing up of I

the atman with different states of the mind and so something that is a

matter of your experience – how can you dismiss?

Thirdly, now, if you do experience such a mixing there must be a

cause, there must be an ingredient that is involved and this is hence

a matter at the least for further enquiry.

Further

tathApi anyonyosmin

anyonya atmani anyonya atmakathAm

anyonya dharmascha adhyasya

itaretara avivekena

atyanta viviktayoho dharmadharminoho

mithyajnana nimittaha satyanrte mithinikrtya

aham idam mama idam iti

 

naisargikoyam lokavyavahArah

Even though yadyapi, committing such a error is not possible mithya

iti bhavitum yuktam

TathApi – Inspite of this, Even so, this is a matter of common

experience – what a marvel it is; that regrettably, the impossible is

made possible aghatita ghatana – because we see that indeed it is our

common anubhava – it is lokavyavahAra. The term lokavyavahara refers

to both the universal knowledge (erroneous) as well as experience born

of such knowledge, as well as the activities or transactions that stem

from such a experience – why does this happen; how is this possible?

Because of itaretara avivekena – lack of discrimination between what

is atma and anatma. Idam is taken as aham – see how beautifully and

powerfully Adi Shankara conveys to us at the very outset the magnitude

of the problem here - " this " is taken as " me " . So with complete

conviction i says " I am a man " " I am this body, " This is

tAdAtmyadhyAsa. And yet again, sometimes there is some confusion even

at this level when I am able to look at as an object - and then i say

my body is tired, my mind is in anguish, etc - here one develops a

sense of objectivity to the body/mind but one retains complete

ownership of it - mama idam. This is samsargadhyAsaha. Difference is

seen, but is owned. The very first adhyasa is I am this body and then

follows in its wake a whole host of adhyasas - I am a male, i am sad,

happy, etc etc - so first is dharmi adhyAsa then follow all the dharma

adhyAsas. Then why mention dharmadhyAsa separately (anyonya

dharmascha) - because with reference to the sense organs there is no

dharmi adhyAsa - no one says " I am the eye " but one readily takes on

the dharma of the eye by saying " i am blind " whence blindness belongs

to the optical apparatus.

So what is seen is a mixing up mithinikrtya of subject and object -

satyanrte - why specify satyanrte - why not leave it at simply

anyonyosmin - mutually superimposing -this is to specify that of the

two entities invovled one is sat and the other is mithya - otherwise

if A is being superimposed on B and B is being superimposed on A and

each is sublated what one is left with is shunyA!

How can such a lokavyavahAra be possible - it must have a special

kAranA - after all like we already saw - the two things being

superimposed are tamahprakAshavat viruddhasvabhAvayoho - of opposing

polarity like light and darkness - it is nothing but mithya and ajnana

- mithyajnana.

This term has become a source of great contention and schools of

thought have emerged based on alternative interpretations of this one

complex word.

Mithyajnana in this context does not mean false knowledge - i.e.

mithya plus jnAna - why?

Let us examine this a bit in detail.

We have already seen that there is a mixing up of levels and that this

is lokavyavaHara. If Shankara were to simply say that this is due to

false knowledge then he is leaving a whole lot of things unexplained.

He has to complete the sentence by pointing to the cause of this

problem. This is indicated here by the word nimitta - cause - what is

the cause mithya and ajnAna.

If one were to say that the cause for this false knowledge, as

indicated by the term lokavyavahAra, for this mixing up or

superimposition is false knowledge, then one is left having to explain

what is the cause of that false knowledge - it is absurd to say the

cause for the tree is the tree. We cannot expect Shankara to leave out

a gaping unanswered hole in this sentence of why? and we are assured

that he doesnt by his own use of the term nimitta. This way the entire

essence of the what how and why of adhyAsa is fully conveyed in one

masterful sentence.

 

Mithya here is a ontological word - meaning anirvachhaneeyam. That

which cannot be categorized - it is neither existent nor nonexistent.

It is avidya - and has two shaktis - a Avarana shakti called ajnAna

and a vikshepa shakti called avidyA. This avidyA is what is referred

to as avyaktA in the Bhagawad Gita. Because of avidyA alone there is

agrahana and because of mAyA there is anyatha grahana.

Now another school of thought interprets it such - mithyajnAna is not

mithya plus jnAna but ajnAna alone - but this ajnAna is abhAva alone.

It is absence of knowledge. Why can't we take it like this? Why say

mithyA refers to anirvachhaneeyam when it can just as well as refer to

abhAva or nonexistence ? Absence of anything is absence alone. Between

knowledge absence, and wealth absence and pot absence, the absence is

the same - there is no difference in the absence - nonexistence is

nonexistence alone, and this nonexistence cannot be a nimitta - a

cause for anything. Can we say sat-chit-ananda plus abhAva created the

world or is the cause for adhyAsa? There is no special thing called

" jnAna abhAva " and to explain creation you need to have a cause other

than abhAva.

Also even if we were to contend that absence of knowledge (ajnAna)

alone is the cause for this superimposition, then who should this

absence of knowledge belong to? where should this ajnAna abide? in the

cause of the effect? Of course in the cause. We cannot say jivA is the

effect of the false knowledge and still contend that ajnAna belongs to

the jivA. So this would necessarily mean that ajnAna belongs to the

Atma. So satyam jnanam anatam brahman now has a attribute - ajnAnam.

And attributeless Atma can never have any attributes let alone one of

ajnAna - Atma is ekamEva, and morover it is ekarasaha - uniform. So

Atma can never have ajnAnam. So ajnAnam in the sense of abhAva - or

absence of knowledge cannot be said to be a nimitta for this

superimposition.

So having established that ajnAnam cannot be nonexistent, now can we

swing the pendulum to the other side and say this ajnAnam is existent-

no! - if ajnAnam is real it can never go away - this ajNanam is purely

notional - it is opposed to knowledge - jnAna nivrttyaha adhyasa - and

hence alone the term mithya beautifully explains it as anirvachhaneeyam.

Now another point - vishayaprayojanam. Is Shruti or knowledge obtained

from Shruti opposed to mithyaJnanam or false knowledge? No. It is

opposed to ajnAnam alone.

When i see a snake where there is a rope, then " snake jnAnam " is not

the cause for the snake, absence of rope knowledge alone is the cause

for the snake. If I need to see the rope, can I (or do I need to)

first remove the superimposition of the snake? Can i first remove

snake -knowledge? No.

This superimposition can never be removed without seeing the rope -

mere removal of snake knowledge will only replace some other

superimposition on the rope if the rope ie yet unseen. Secondly

without seeing rope how will you definitively this snake knowledge is

false?

So when I see the rope - do i remove snake adhyAsa or gain rope-knowledge?

It is only through gain of rope knowledge. Without gaining knowledge

of the rope, I cannot sublate the erroneous notion of the snake. So

only Jnana is responsible for removal of adhyAsa. No other factor can

be said to be an instrument for removal of adhyAsa. Similarly Shastra

as a pramAna has nothing to do with the adhyAsa - there is no

connection between adhyAsa and the vastu except ajnAna. And since

ajnAna (not mithya jnana nor jnana abhAva) alone is jnAna virodhi,

Shruti pramAna serves to give us the jnAna that serves to eliminate

ajnAna - and thus alone there is vishaya prayojanam for Shruti. JnAna

nivrttyeva ajnanam. One cannot knock off avidya by any factor besides

jnAna. Once mithyAjnAna is taken as false knowledge then of course it

cannot go away by " mere " jnAna, Sabda (or mahAvAkya) is no longer a

pramAna, and then one is forced into conjuring up all manners of

theories to explain this away. The bottomline is - one cannot

postulate a removal of adhyAsa without the simultaneous gain of

knowledge of the vastu.

Now next question is when did this ajnAna start - ignorance can never

have a beginning in the sense that one can never arrive at its

beginning - ignorance is not brought into being - hence the term

naisargika - if it was mithya-jnAna then t would be agAntuka - the

fact that is mithya and ajnAna alone accounts for the term naisargikA.

 

(to be continued)

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

[Guest guest]

Dear all:

 

Sri Shyam has in fact requested the moderators to revise the subject

title of the previous post to confirm with the continuity of the

series. Unfortunately, will not allow the list moderators

to change the subject title once it is released to the list and stored

in the archive. Consequently, we have requested Shyam to repost the

message with the correct title - Brahma Sutra; Shankara Bhashya; Pt5.

In the archive the duplicate posting with the wrong title has already

been removed.

 

We are posting this to make all members aware that the moderating board

has no control over changing subject title or its content after it is

being released to the members. Since this is a open list with no

moderation (for almost all members) we don't control the subject title

or its contents. We will be more than happy to delete any post if the

poster wants to repost the same article with corrections.

 

With our warmest regards to all of you,

 

Advaitin List Moderators

 

advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

>

> (I am resending with an updated title to enable ease of following the

> series - my apologies for the repost.)

>