Knowledge and The Means of Knowledge - 12

[Guest guest]

We are discussing the Vedanta ParibhASha of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra, as

I understand.

 

12. Perception at Individual and Global levels

 

We now examine the perception from two levels: one is from the point of

individual or jiiva’s level and the other from the point of totality or

Iswara or God’s level, i.e. individual and global levels. In the

process we also define individual, jiiva and Iswara or God. VP says

perception is again two fold. One is the perception due to witnessing

consciousness in the individual level (jiiva - sAkshin) and the other

from the witnessing consciousness at God’s level (Iswara - sAkshin) or

global level.

 

Jiiva and Jiiva-sAkshI:

 

At individual level, we differentiate two things – one is individual,

jiiva and the other is witnessing consciousness of the individual

(jiiva-sAkshin). These two can be referred as two aspects of jiiva, one

from the transactional level and the other from the transcendental

level. Ontologically they are not the same. Jiiva or individual is

defined as the consciousness limited by the mind and through the mind,

the body, etc., the BMI. When jiiva does not know his transcendental

nature, we say that he is covered by ignorance about his true nature.

Since knowledge is eternal, it gets revealed only when the vial of

ignorance is removed through appropriate pramANa. Ignorance is

beginningless (anaadi) but ends when vial of ignorance is removed and

the knowledge takes place. Self-ignorance can be removed by

self-knowledge alone, since they are opposite to each other, just as

chemistry ignorance is removed by chemistry knowledge. Chemistry

knowledge cannot remove physics ignorance. On the same token, no

amount of scientific objective investigation and reasoning can remove

the ignorance of the subject, the self. Objective investigation reveals

only objective knowledge. The pramANa that can remove the ignorance of

one’s own self alone can reveal self-knowledge.

In the state of ignorance, consciousness as though (a) reflected in the

mind and (b) identified with it constitutes empirical self or

transactional self, jiiva. Any reflected consciousness is, in general,

constitutes the knowledge of thing that is reflecting, since we now

become conscious of the thing that is reflecting, just as the reflected

light from an object reveals that object that is reflecting the light.

Jiiva involves two aspects. One is the formation of the reflected

consciousness in the mind (actually intellect part of the mind which is

the locus for knowledge in the mind), and the second aspect is the

identification with that as ‘I am this’ where this stand for intellect

to start with.

 

Vedanta discusses how the all pervading Brahman became a jiiva. After

the creation of both subtle and gross bodies, Upanishads declare that

Brahman entered into it (the statements are referred to as

‘anupravesha’ shruti statements). Since Brahman is all pervading

consciousness, it cannot enter into anything other than itself since

there is nothing other than itself; nor one can say it entered into

itself as it makes no sense to say I enter into myself. Hence Advaita

Vedanta explains the so-called ‘entering’ as when the gross and subtle

bodies that are formed are conducive to express life, the Brahman

itself manifests as jiiva. Anupravesha shruti declares the fact that

Brahman himself became multiple jiiva-s by identifying with the local

upandhis, thus establishing the identity of Brahman with jiiva-s, as

illustrated later by mahavaakyas. Here the formation of the reflected

consciousness in the intellect constitutes the entering of Brahman –

this is also called formation of ‘pratibimba’ (reflection of the

original bimba) or cidAbhAsa. The reflecting medium (purity of the

intellect) determines the quality of the reflection. Formation of the

reflected limiting consciousness is only one part. The second part

involves identification with the Upaadhis as ‘I am this’. The

identification involves ownership, as ‘I am this’ and ‘this is mine’

etc. With the identification, ‘I am’ ‘as though’ gets qualified by

‘this’, ‘this’ being intellect, mind (the emotional part) or the gross

body as well as all physiological functions associated with it. Hence

VP says ‘jjiva’ is a qualifying attributive limiting reflected

consciousness of the mind along with notion of ownership of those

qualifications as mine. All the above verbiage really means that the

upAdhis (BMI) are limited and the reflection therefore is limited, even

though Brahman is limitless. All pervading consciousness gets reflected

in the mind, and hence the reflected or formed pratibimba is limited;

it is like the Sun getting reflected in mirrors or pools of water. This

is termed as limiting reflected consciousness in the mind. When it

identifies with the attributive mind (mind includes BMI – since

identification is a thought in the mind as ‘I am this’), it becomes the

owner of the BMI attributes as my attributes. Hence, body is short, I

am short; body is weak, I am weak; intellect is dull, I am dull; and

mind is depressed, I am depressed, etc. The ownership crystallizes the

jiiva notion. Looking back at VP statement now, Jiiva constitutes the

qualifying attributive limiting reflected consciousness in the mind

along with the ownership of these attributes.

 

The original consciousness that gets conditioned in the BMI is called

sAkshI or witnessing consciousness. Even though Brahman is limitless

or unbounded, the condition of the BMI makes it appear as though sAkshI

is bounded. To illustrate this, let us consider clay forming into pot.

When a pot is formed we now have pot space. When we move the pot from

place A to place B, the space relative to the pot also moves, even

though space is immovable and all pervading and limitless. It is

similar to a fly that is flying inside the train compartment as though

moves along with the passenger at the same speed of the train. Pot

space appears to be constrained by the walls of the pot, but attributes

of the pot do not belong to the pot space. Hence VP says the difference

between a jiiva and jiiva-saakshii can be described simply as the

farmer is its transactional nature and the later is its transcendental

nature. In the former case the mind that is limiting the consciousness

becomes a qualifying attribute as Jiiva says ‘I am this’. Hence Jiiva

is called qualifying attributive limiting reflected consciousness. In

the case of sAkshI the mind is only a limiting adjunct but not

qualifying adjunct. It is a witnessing consciousness untainted by the

witnessed mind. In the jiiva’s case the mind with its attributes due to

sAtvic, rajasic and tamasic guNas forms the attributive content of

jiiva because of its identification with the mind. This identification

occurs, Vedanta says, because of not knowing my true nature which is of

transcendental nature. A conscious entity getting identified with

limiting inert entity, mind, is jiiva as reflected consciousness. The

conscious entity just witnessing the limiting mind (BMI) is sAkshI

chaitanyam.

To illustrate the difference, VP gives two examples. For jiiva – the

example given is ‘the colored jar is transitory’. Here the color is the

qualifying attribute of the jar. Jar identifying itself as ‘I am a

colored jar’ – identification with a limiting name and form with

attribute of color is the notion of ‘jar-jiiva’ and it considers itself

as transitory since the name, form and attributes are transitory. This

is the transactional view of the jar. Suppose if the jar recognizes

that I am clay in the form of a jar with a color, then jar has

transcendental understanding. It has no identification or ownership

with the form or color, and therefore does not feel it is transitory

ether. It realizes that now I am in the form jar, I can be in other

forms, the forms are only for transactions and my nature is pure

formless colorless clay. VP gives another example of sAkshI – it is

conditioned by the upAdhis but without identification – it is like

space in the inner ear. Space is nothing to do with ear but constrained

space within the walls of the inner ear constitutes part of the ear. In

the same way witnessing consciousness is although all pervading, the

limiting constraints of the mind (BMI) constitutes the sAkshI

chaitanyam which illumines the particular mind that it is associated

with it. It is like saying that the space in the jar is limited,

although the space is all pervading and the pot-space is connected to

outer space.

 

Shree Vidyaranya says in AnubhutiprakaSha the jiiva, jiiva-sAkshii and

Brahman can be considered as consciousness as though expressed in three

different ways: (a) vishiShTa caitanyam (b) upahita caitanyam and ©

nirupAdhika caitanyam. Limiting reflected consciousness identified with

attributes (visheShaNa) of the upAdhi is jiiva caitanyam or vishiShTa

caitanyam. Limiting illuminating consciousness (it is actually not

doing the illumination also) constrained by uaPadhis (with no

identification with the qualities of the upaAdhis) is upahita caitanya

or sAkshI caitanya. The lost one is without any upAdhis, that is, when

jiivanmukta drops his upaadhis during videha mukti. There is no

difference in last two other than the constraints of the upAdhis, just

as there is no difference between pot-space and the outer-space other

than constraining pot walls. Self-realization is the recognition by

jiiva that I am the illuminating consciousness, sAkshI, than the

reflected qualified or attributive conscious entity as ‘I am this’.

sAskhI ‘as though’ constrained by the upAdhis, is called jiiva-sAkshI,

since it can witness or illumine the upAdhis that it appears to be

constrained – just as we say, space in our house is limited, even

though space is limitless. VP says this jiiva-sAkshI in each individual

is different, for the limiting upAdhis are different, just as spaces in

different pots are different due to constraining walls of the pots.

Hence for this reason, what one individual, Caitra, knows, another

individual, Maitra, cannot recollect. Similarly if one individual

realizes the other individual does not, since as we discussed before,

realization involves recognition that the limiting reflected

attributive consciousness is nothing but the original unqualified or

attributeless conscious that is causing illumination and reflection.

That is vishiShTa caitanya is the same as upahita caitanya, in the

language of Shree Vidyaranya.

 

Iswara and Iswara-sAkshI:

 

Just as jiiva-sAkshI is consciousness with upAdhi-s as limiting

adjunct, Iswara-sAkshI or witness in God is the consciousness with mAya

as the limiting adjunct (mAya has been translated as cosmic illusion.

Since it is not an illusion for those who do not know that it is an

illusion, we retain the word mAya itself). Unlike in the jiiva’s case,

since mAya is singular, the limiting adjunct is also singular. Hence,

witnessing consciousness in God is also singular. In shruti texts some

times plurality is used. For example – it is said “The supreme Lord is

perceived as having manifold forms through His powers of mAya

(mAyAbhiH)” – Here the plurality corresponds to the diversity of powers

that are in the mAya (mAyAbhiH). Or the plurality can also be with

reference to three guNas – serenity (sattva), activity (rajas) and

inertia (tamas) that mAya comprises. The unity of mAya can be inferred

from the use of singular number, supported by the simplicity of the

explanation of shruti and smRiti statements such as – ‘one should know

the mAya is nothing but prakRiti or nature (mAyAntu prakRitim vidyAt

mAyinantu maheswaram and the ruler of that to be Great Lord – Sve. Up.

IV-10), ‘Salutations to that unknowable Embodiment of Knowledge who

being established in the heart, a yogin transcends the mAya, the all

pervasive nescience – tarati avidyAm vititAm hRidi yasmin nivEshitE|

yogI mAyAmamEyAma tasmai vidyAtmanE namaH|| - Vishnu PuraNa V-27-15),

similarly the other shruti’s statements.

 

Thus, in all the statements in both shruti and smRiti, singularity has

to be understood for simplicity and there are no pluralities of mAya.

The apparent plurality in mAya is implied and not plurality of mAya.

Iswara-sAkshI is the upahita caitanyam or limiting consciousness with

limiting adjunct of mAya just as jiiva-sAkshI is upahita caitanyam or

limiting consciousness with jiiva-upAdhi as its limiting adjunct. It is

beginningless, since the limiting adjunct mAya is beginningless. Having

defined the Iswara-sAkshI, VP now defines the Iswara. The definition

follows in parallel to jiiva caitanyam. Just as jiiva is the limiting

consciousness identified with the limiting adjunct, upAdhi, Iswara or

Lord is defined as limiting consciousness identified with the limiting

adjunct mAya. Thus with qualifying attribute of mAya it is Iswara or

God or Godhead and without the qualifying attribute but just with the

limiting adjunct, mAya, it is Iswara-sAkshI. Otherwise there is no

other difference between the two in terms of having different

attributes. One is vishiShTa caitanya and the other is upahita

caitanya.

 

Since mAya is triguNAtmikam that is possessing three guNas – sattva,

rajas and tomo guNas – the supreme Lord, although one, is designated by

the terms such as BrahmA (four-headed), ViShNu and Maheswara or Shiva,

according to the dominating guNas present – activity (rajas), serenity

(satva) and inertia (tamas), which are the limiting qualifying

attributes of the mAya.

 

Q: If the witness in God is beginningless, then how is one to explain

the beginning of the reflection on the part of the Supreme Lord just

before projecting the universe, mentioned in the texts like, “It

visualized, let me become many, Let me be born (as many) – tad aikshata

bahu syAm, prajAyeya” (Ch. Up. VI-2-3). There seems to be a beginning

for Iswara sAkhitvam or the witness in God.

 

A: The parallelism with jiiva-sAkshi is used to explain. Just as owing

to the sense organs and the mind in contact with the objects, different

mental states or vRittis arise in the mind, which forms the limiting

adjunct of the individual jiiva or self, similarly, owing to the past

karma or actions of all beings that are ready to germinate, the

projection in the order of priorities based on karma of those beings,

particular states (in analogy with vRittis at individual level) arise

at the cosmic level. “Now this has to be projected or originated

(brahma), now this has to be maintained (Vishnu) and now this has to be

destroyed (Shiva)” etc, arise in mAya, which is the limiting adjunct of

the Supreme Lord. Since these states have beginning, the consciousness

reflected in them is also described as having a beginning.

 

Creation, sustenance and annihilation are in fact a cyclic process.

When the cosmic sleep occurs, all the beings and the world go into

potential form or unmanifested form. One can say that Iswara is in yoga

nidra, just as when jiiva goes to deep sleep all the world of objects

and the attributive knowledge goes into potential form or unmanifested

form or pure vAsanas state. Vasanas which are nothing but consolidated

ignorance is illuminated and hence ‘I do not know’ is the only

knowledge without any place-wise, time-wise or object-wise

discriminative attributive knowledge. mAya at the cosmic level and

ignorance at the individual level with names and forms in potential or

unmanifested form constitute deep sleep states at each level. When

Iswara and jiiva get up they start projecting, Iswara at cosmic level

and jiiva at the individual level forms the waking state with the

unmanifested forms manifesting based on previous knowledge before they

went into unmanifested forms. Thus micro and macro levels operate in

parallel. Only difference is jiiva has ignorance as the cause for

projection with his own vAsanas forming the basis for projection while

for Iswara he does not have his own vAsanas – only the collective

vAsanas of all beings form the basis for projection. Hence Iswara is

not affected by the projection and is called mAyAvi or wielder of mAya

as his power of projection. Jiiva is ignorant of his own nature and

therefore he gets affected by the projection when that projection is

taken as real.

 

Knowledge reveals itself:

 

When there an object ‘pot’ right in front of me and when I open my

eyes, I cannot but see the object, if the mind is not preoccupied.

Sense input is immediate and vRitti of the object formed based on the

sense input is also immediate. When vRitti is illumined by the light

of consciousness and reflection of that light by vRitti constitute the

knowledge of the vRitti. Now not only I know that ‘this is pot’ and I

also know that ‘I know that this is pot’. That is besides having the

knowledge of the pot, I also know that I have the knowledge of the pot.

Pot knowledge is known by the limiting reflecting consciousness of the

pot-vRitti. If we ask what reveals knowledge of the pot knowledge, we

can only say that knowledge is self-revealing. Knowledge of an object

requires illumination by the light of consciousness, but we do not need

to illumine the illuminated knowledge. What it means is knowledge is of

the nature of illumination and one does need illumine another

illumination. We do not need a light to see the light. That is, it is

the very nature of the knowledge to reveal the nature of the object and

also reveal itself. Knowledge is self-revealing and does not need

another knowledge to reveal it, besides the fact that it leads to

infinite regress. Hence Citsukaachaarya says that knowledge is

immediately apprehended without being objectified since it is

self-luminous. Hence when I say, ‘here is a pot’ the pot knowledge is

apprehended along with the knowledge ‘I know here is a pot’ – here we

are essentially separating the knowledge of an object and cognition of

the object.

 

We will next address the nature of the errors in perception.