Bhamati vs. Vivarana - 4 (B)

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

 

Concept of Jiva according to Bhamati Prasthana.

 

Concept of Jiva as consciousness limited by the conditioned of

limiting adjunct - Ajnana is advocated by Vacaspati Misra. The

theory is known as the Avacceda Vada. According to this theory,

Jivas are the avaccedas of Brahman. Vacaspati draws his influence

from Gaudapada Karika – Advaita Prakarana (3-7) which highlights the

following points.

 

a) Atman is similar to Akasa manifested in the form of the

Jivas which may be compared to the ether enclosed indide the pots.

b) Destruction of pot etc, the Akasa enclosed within the pot

merges with that of the expanse ether. So does the Jiva with Brahman.

c) So as in some pots, Akasa is impure with dust and others are

free from soil, plurality of Jivas is perceived which seemingly

experience misery and joy while in reality the Akasa is untouched by

any impurity as akin to the Jiva.

d) Though name and form of the pots differ in accordance with

the Akasa, the Jivas assume plurality while in reality it is one

only.

e) Ghata-Akasa is neither the effect nor a part of the expance

Maha-Akasa, and so does the Jiva with that of the non-dual Brahman.

 

As a distinctive theory, Avacceda vada as held by the Bhamati

Prasthana, is well supported by Sankara Bagavatpada, which is

evident from his commentary to the Karika Bhasya. Sankara infact

feels that this analogy of limitation of Akasa alone is apt to

present the basic Advaitic premise that Brahaman is non-dual and

Ajati. `Tadssidhyartam hetum drstAntam ca vaksyamityAha'. Brahma

Siddhikara also favours this Avacceda theory. The significant

position of Avacceda vada lies for the fact that the element

of `parinama' or modification of the Supreme Brahman is least

sponsored in explaining the creation, `appearance of soul' etc

unlike the Bimba-pratibimba vada and the Abhasa vadas which ascribe

reflection and refractions, imposing the element of transformation

upon the immutable non-dual subject.

 

Jiva in the Avacceda vada is merely a figurative expression that

purely exists in imaginary terms due to the projection of Upadhi,

which is Mithyabhuta or Vyavahara. Nirvisesa Brahman in its Kevala

Satta remains untainted by the presence of Upadhis and so does the

Jivas, which remain pure in actuality. Appayya Diskita elucidates

these points clearly in Siddhanta lesa Samgraha and shows his

leanings towards Avacceda theory in his celebrated work Nyaya

Raksamani and Kalpataru-parimala. In the Srsti-vicara prakarana of

Nyaya Raksamani, the author analyses the term `Iksata' using the

avacceda vada, where Diksita says `Jive hi hrdaya avaccedopAdika –

angusta mAtramanjasa sambhavati – antahkarana sampindo avaccedo –

JivaH'. Appayya Diksita further quotes Svetasvatara text 5.7-9,

while he uses the Avacceda theory to define the concept of Jiva

as `Hrdaya – avaccedopadhika – angusta matra varnanAt' – it is said

that Jivatva arises (utkrsta) as and when prana – indriyas condition

the pure Consciousness. This is akin to the ether entering the pot

as and when the Kulala makes the pot out of clay 1.3.24. (Bhamati

prasthana regards Kulala as the efficient cause – the wheel etc as

the sahakari karana).

 

Bhamati Prasthana in its broader perspective accommodates different

views to establish the Jivanhood in Advaita Vedanta. Vacaspati Misra

employs the concept of Pratibimba in varied prospects entirely in a

different accent from that of the Vivarana usage. In Brahma Siddhi

we find traces of Pratibimba theory particularly in the Tarka khanda

portion where Mandana observes `Jiva api Brahma tattva –

avyatirekAt – Visuddha svabhAvaH … Tavad bhinnavadat pratibimbam

krpanAdisu bhinnam' iti. Nevertheless, Vacaspati Misra, Mandana

Misra and his followers like Sankhapani give limited scope to the

Pratibimba theory, realizing its limitations involved. Hence Bhamati

Prasthana purely sticks to the Gaudapada's pattern of Avacceda vada,

while the Vivarana's theory of Pratibimba is prone to following

conceptual difficulties.

 

1) It is unsound that pure consciousness which is arupa – nirupa

(formless – colourless) impartite Brahman be reflected in a medium

which itself is colourless, inert etc.

 

Vacaspati Misra aptly anticipates this problem in Bhamati (pp 6-7

Catussutri TPH Edition) where he says – worth quoting : `Ayamabhi

sandi – Rupavaddhi dravya mati svaccetaya rupavato dravyAntarasya

tadvivekena grhyamAnasyApi cAyAm grhNiyAt, cidAtmAtu nIrupo VisayI

na VisayaccAyAmudgrAhayitumarhati' – `The idea is this : it is

indeed a substance with colour, which, on account of its absolute

transparency takes on the reflection of another with colour, though

apprehended as different from itself, the intelligent self, however,

is the colourless subject and cannot take on any reflection

(whatsoever).

 

2) The pratibimba vada is ambiguous in designating the Bimba

position of Brahman or Iswara. Padmapada makes a faint reference to

it, which is differently interpreted by Prakasatman, Sarvajnatman

and Akhandananda and so on. Failing to have a unanimous view

Vivarana school itself suffers factions.

 

3) Vidyaranya criticizes those who hold the view that `tat' pada of

Mahavakya refer Iswara as Bimba svarupa, saying, `tat' `tvam'

equation in such a case can never be comprehended for the reflected

image cannot be identical with that of the prototype Bimba.

Vidyaranya advances the following points against the Pratibimba

Vadins.

 

a) Reflected image is noticed to be present inside the mirror,

while the original one is not conditioned at all – one's neck is

placed in one's own shoulders.

b) Reflected image is different from the original since the

former faces the latter.

c) The prototype Bimba suffers taint with respect to the nature

of Upadhi which is not admissible; so does the Jiva which tends to

become innately impure due to the tadatmya sambanda of pratimbimba

with that of the mirror – the upadhi.

 

4) Lastly according to the Vivarana's theory of reflection, Jiva

attains liberation when the medium of reflection (Upadhi – Mirror)

is broken. This view is untenable; for the fact that when the medium

is destroyed it amounts to the Self being destroyed leaving no scope

for Aikya , as in the case of GhatAkasa – MahAkasa merger. Further,

the reflected image has no Svatantarya to make any attempt for

Sadhana in accruing Jnana, which leads to Mukti and hence liberation

is made totally impossible.

 

From all the above points, to sum up, we find that Avacceda Vada is

unanimously endorsed by the tradition (by Gaudapada, Sankara,

Mandana and others) and is acceptable to students of Advaita on

logical and psychological standpoints. In and through, Vacaspati

gives a lucid explanation to justify the element of `Jivatva' in

Advaita Vedanta without distorting the tenets of the system, unlike

the monopolistic interpretations from the Vivarana prasthana.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J