Brahma sutra; Shankara bhashya Part 7

[Guest guest]

On the auspicious occasion of Guru Purnima I wish to resume my series on the

Brahmasutra Shankara bhashya based on Pujya Swami Dayananda-ji's discourses on

the chatusutri. Its been a long break - for those interested the previous 6

parts can be found at

 

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya.html

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-2.html

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-3.html

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-4.html

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/04/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashyam-5.html

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/04/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-6.html

 

 

Sadashiva samarambham shankaracharya madhyamam

asmadachara paryantam vande guru paramparam

 

Bhashyakara here says sarvatapitu na vyabhicharati - in whichever way you see

this adhyasa, paratra avabhasa lakshana is accepted by all the khyati vadas.

Further yukti is not necessary to establish adhyasa by logic or reason. There is

an adhyasa for which i give a lakshana. We are not interested in establishing or

revealing adhyasa. We know there is anubhava or experience - it is in our lot.

It is lokaprasiddha. So only lakshanam - i.e. paratraavabhasa is needed - there

is no need for any yukti. It is not paroksha it is pratyaksha in the way of our

anubhava We are not trying to infer adhyasa so yukti apeksha is not there -

aaropya mithyatve - because of the mithyatvam of what is superimposed. The

moment shell is recognized silver goes away - you done need yukti to establish

silverness is mithya.

tatha cha loke anubhava shuptikahi rajatavat avabhasate eka chandrah tad

dviteeyavat it

Therefore after the badha is done, then we have anubhava - in our experience.

Shell alone rajatavat avabhasate. -vat shabdena mithyatvam uchyate - from the

-vat suffix we understand badha pratyaksha siddham mithyatvam uchyate. One more

example is provided by Shankara - only one Moon appears as two. Due to timira -

some defect in the eye - this happens. If you press the eyeballs in a certain

way also you can perceive 2 moons instead of one - because upadhi is there - it

is part of the Order - there is a reason for it - it will continue to be there -

everytime you press it in that same way there will continue to be a perception

of 2 moons inspite of the knowledge -it is a sopadhika adhyasa.

Atmani ahankara adhyasa is nirupadhika adhyasa. There is no adhyasa except

ajnana and it goes away like shuptikahi rajatavat - nonrecognition of svarupa

alone is the hetu - when the hetu is gone - atma is not ahankara is very clear

and the adhyasa is completely gone. But in Atma which is nondual -

jnatr-jnana-jneya bhedam, guru-shishya difference, all these differences which

continue to be perceived - are sopadhika bhrama - there is no real difference

because upadhi is mithya and so if cause is mithya the effects are also mithya.

One alone appears as many due to upadhi - hence the eka chandra example.

 

Now purvapakshin says you have drshatanta no darshanta - you have example but

nothing to convey - let there be adhyasa of silver on shell - that is all OK -

but such a thing in the case of atma is not possible...listen..

 

katham punah prthyagatmani avishaye adhyasaha vishaya taddharmanam

ko vastite vishaye vishayantaram adyasapi yushmatpratyaya abhedasya cha

prthyagatmanah avishyatavam bravishi uchyate

na tavadayam ekantena avishayaha asmat pratyaya vishayatvat aparokshatvat cha

prthyagatma prasiddheh

nachayamastu niyamah purovastite vishaye vishayantaram adhyasitavyam iti

apratyakshepi aakakashe balaha talamalinatadi adhyasanti evam aviruddha

prthyagatmani api anatmadhyasah.

 

 

How again, is this possible? In the beginning you sounded very well - you said

yushmat and asmat prtyaya are different itaretara bhavanupapatti - In the vase

of the shell it is sitting there in front of you waiting for you to commit a

error. Here prthyagatma is Me - the very subject - it is not a object - how can

it - this subject me - become a object for me to make an error. Anatma cannot be

superimposed on the atma. So ahankara the karta si the atma - kartrtvam is his

nature (nyayika). Vishaya or anatma adhyasa and anatma dharma adhyasa are both

impossible...

 

 

Tikakara says - yatra aparoksha adhyasa adhistanatvam tatra indriya samyuktatvam

vyapti - there is a vyapti acc to the purvapakshin - wherever there is adhyasa

there should be aparoksha adhyasa adhishtanatvam - there should be a pratyaksha

object - and there should be a sambandha a contact of this with the sense organs

- the object must be available for sense perception - like a shell, etc But here

tatra vyapaka abhavat - indriya vishayatvam is not there for prthyagatma - atma

is not available for sensory objectification - and hence - such a adhyasa is not

possible. Atma is not available for sense perception. If it is not available how

are you going to mistake it? I cannot mistake a mans horn for a tail. So a

nonexistent nonperceived thing is not going to becme a locus for a mistake.

sarvohi purovastite vishaye eva vishayantaram adhyasati. Whenever anyone commits

a error of adhyasa that object is always available for a sensory perception.

Prthyagatma is

free from idam pratyaya - it can never be an object of " this " cognition -

avishayatvam bravishi. Tikakara idam prtyaya anarthasya na chakshusha adrshyate

acording to shruti adhysa lobhena because you have lobha for establishing

adhyasa -vishayatvangikare - if it becomes idam pratyaya it negates Shruti -

shruti baadhah - Shruti itself says shrotasya shrotram - and there is siddhanta

baadhah - your own siddhanta also falls apart.

 

This postulate vyapti of the purvapakshi Shankara is going to explain is

incorrect. Object must be available must be prasiddha - drop the sense

perception portion (purovastitvam) is going to be Shankara's answer.

 

If i say on the floor there is no blue pot, do i say there is no pot? Here also

prthyagatma is not vishaya - when i say - that does not mean it is aprasiddha.

If you say vishaya " alone " is prasiddha - that is not correct. Even though

vishaya is prasiddha through the sense organs and other pramanas, the vishayee

is not totally unavailable avishaya - it has got asmat prtyaya vishayatvam.

 

(This mistake is there in modern Vedanta - because atma is not objectifiable, it

is beyond sense organs, they say it has to be specially experienced and all

other erroneous implications follow)

 

It is available prasiddha as the i-notion. Being the very being of i-notion OR

in the ahankara it is manifest as bimba - ahankara vishaya. Is it a object of

ahankara? no. This point is crucial because, if we say atma is adhistana for

asmat prtyaya and ahankara is adhyasta - then you have anyonya ashraya - rajatah

is seen hence shupti must be there and vice versa. Unless you prove ahankara is

adhyasta you cannot prove atma is adhistana. idam amsha grahanam extablishes

existence of the object and sets in place the process of error. But here, not

being indriya prasiddha, we are not trying to establish existence of atma - why?

- becase it is nitya aparokshatvat, it is svaprasiddha. It is aparokshatvat cha

- it does not become eclisped at any time. it is nityaprasiddhatvat, as the atma

chaitanya - ; pramatr atma is there even before any pramana vyapara, including

Shastra pramana, can take place. No pramana is needed to establish " i " .

Prthyagtamanah prasiddeh

- atma is self-evident. There is sadrshya argument against adhyasa. What is the

sadrshyam between ahankara and atma? Why? smrtyamana rupah is there - there

should be some kind of similarity. Similarity is prthyagatma prasiddeh - akartr

atma is present in the karta I. Ahankara is conscious. So sadrshya siddhi is

also established. So, yatra adhyasa tatra adhistana prasiddhi wherever there is

superimposition the adhistana should be available and should be prasiddha - can

be sva-prasiddha. Indriya sannikarshatvam is not necessary/need not be through

sense organs.niyamah purovastite vishaye vishayantaram adhyasitavyam. Anyone who

has 2 legs is a human being is incorrect because a crow also ahs 2 legs - so you

disprove the hypothesis vyapti by an example vyabhicharat.

Suppose you say blue sky - can eyes see space? can they objectify the sky> no!

And yet we, baalah- indiscriminate,aviveki- superimpose on the sky when we say

" blue " sky, " cloudy " or " smoggy " sky - talam malinatadi - are all being

superimposed on the apratyakshepi aakasha - sky that cant be objectified.

(..to be continued)

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam