|
OM
Ajnanatimirintasyajnananjanasalakaya
Cakshurunmilitam yena tasmai
srigurave namah
ADVAITA VEDANTA
D Krishna Ayyar
ANNEXURE II – SANKARACARYA,
SURSWARACARYA, VIDYARANYA, PRAKASATMAN, VACSPATI MISRA
A. Sankaracarya
Creation
1. In TUB 2.6.1 (commenting on the passage in Tu which describes
creation – ‘idam sarvam asrjata….satyam ca anrtam
ca satyam abhavat’) Sankaracarya talks of three orders of
reality – Brahman as the sole absolute reality (ekam eva hi
paramaartha satyam brahmaa….satyam jnaanam anantam) from which
everything in creation is born and of creation consisting of relative
reality, i.e. empirical phenomena like water which has a higher
order of reality compared to mirage (vyavahaaravishayam aapekshikam
satyam) and absolutely false things like mirage (anrtam) (satyam
ca vyavahaaravishayam-adhikaaraat-na-paramaarthasatyam; ekam- eva
hi paramaarthasatyam brahma; iha punah-vyavahaaraharavishayam-aapekshikamekam
satyam, mrgatrshnikaadi-anrta-apekshaya-udakaadi-satyam ucyate;
anrtam ca tat-vipariitam; kim punah? Etat sarvam abhavata, satyam
paramaartha satyam; kim punah tat? Brahma, satyam jnaanam-anantam
brahma-iti prkrtatvaat). Thus, he gives support to the Advaitic
doctrine of three orders of reality –(a) absolute reality
(paaramaartika satyam) which is the unconditioned, attributeless,
nondual Brahman (nirupaadhika, nirguna, advidiiya Brahman) , (b)
empirical reality (vyaavahaarika satyam which is the entire universe
including the qualified Brahman (saguna Brahman, Iswara), Maya and
the bodies and minds of living beings (c) subjective reality (praatibhaasika
satyam), which is the kind of things like the dream world (swapna
prapanca), the mirage etc.
2. (a) In the first chapter of BSB, Sankaracarya starts talking
of Brahman as the material and intelligent cause of the universe
(upaadaana kaaranam and nimitta kaaranam respectively and as the
omniscient and omnipotent source of the manifestation of name and
form (naama roopa) that are associated with diverse agents and experiences,
actions and results, with well regulated space, time and causation
and as the ordainer and designer of the manifestation. But all this
is in the context of refuting the Sankya thesis that pradhaana (equated
with Maya), an insentient entity, is the material cause of the universe,
Later, however, in BSB 1.1.12, he clarifies that Brahman is known
two aspects – one as qualified by the upaadhi in the form
of the varieties of modification of name and form (nama-roopa-vikaara-bheda-upaadhi-visishtam)
and the other free of all upaadhis (sarva –upaadhi-varjitam).
When he comes to the second Chapter of Brahma Sutra, he points out
that Brahman cannot undergo change, and explains, in BSB 2.1.14,
that the one becoming many as nama roopa is an empirical (vyaavhaarika)
phenomenon conjured up by Avidya; all notions of differences and
of the division of the experiencer and the experienced are due to
unreal nama roopa conjured up by Avidya and are there only in a
state of ignorance and that rulership (iisritatvam), omniscience
(sarvajnatvam) and omnipotence (sarvasaktitvam) are relevant only
in the empirical plane; in the plane of absolute reality ( (paaramaartika),
there are no empirical transactions. . In BUB 3.8.12 and AUB 3.1.3,
he says that the transcendental Brahman, devoid of all attributes
and all action, pure, non-dual, eternal becomes, by the association
of the upaadhi of extremely pure knowledge ( atyanta- visuddha-prajna-upaadhi-sambandhena)
becomes the Omniscient , Iswara and is known as antaryaami by virtue
of his activator and controller of the activity of the unmanifested
seed of the universe (sarvajnam iiswaram-sarva- saadhaarana-avyaakrta-jagat-bija-pravartakam
niyatrutvaat antaryaami samjam bhavati); when it has the upaadhis
of the bodies and minds and sense organs, characterised by ignorance,
desire and action, It is called the transmigrating individual (samsaari
jiva). In TB 9, he defines Iswara as Brahman conditioned by Maya.
(In VC, the synonyms of Maya are given as avyaakrta, avyakta, and
ajnaana. (The word, prakrti is also a synonym. The term, prajaanam
used in Sankhya philosophy also refers to the material cause of
the universe, but there, it is as real as Brahman, whereas in Advaita,
Maya is of a lower order of reality).
(c) In BSB 2.3.42 and BSB 3.2.38, while he deals with karmaphalam,
he introduces it as the vyaavahaarika aspect of Brahman in the form
of the division between the ruler and the ruled and says that the
ordainer of karmaphalam is Iswara; logically, it is Iswara who is
the ordainer of karmaphalam. For it is He alone who presides over
everything and because of his knowledge of the variegated environments,
time and events involved in the process of creation, preservation
and dissolution, He alone is in a position to ordain karmaphalam
in accordance with the karma of Jivas; the inequality in the karmaphalam
of jivas is due to the differences in their karma; Iswara is only
an instrument for apportioning karmaphalam in accordance with the
karma of jivas and ( as he clarifies in BSB 2.1.34) there is no
question of partiality or cruelty on the part of Iswara. In TB 9,
Sankaracarya defines Iswara as Brahman conditioned by Maya
(d) In BSB 1.4.3, Sankaracarya refers to the power called avyakta
without which the creatorship of the supreme God (parameswara) cannot
be logically explained and to its subservience to and dependence
on parameswara; the dependence of Maya on Brahman is mentioned also
in Tattvabodha 7.1., 7.2 and 7.3, BSB 1.4.3 and BSB 1.2.12. In PB
105, he makes a distinction between Maya and Avidya; he says that
Maya is dependent on Brahman and Avidya is dependent on jiva (maaya-brahmopagataa-Avidya
jiivaasraya prokta).
(e) Citing Mundakopanishad 2.1.2 and Svesvatara Upanishad 4.10 (‘Know
Maya to be Prakriti and Maheswara, the great God to be maayii, the
master of Maya, Sankaracarya reiterates Brahman’s superiority
over avyakta which is the seed of nama roopa. The lower of reality
of Maya is also indicated in his bhashyam on Mundakopanishad 2.1.1
and 2.1.2 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 – ‘The nature of this Maya
is to be inferred from the fact of its being the limiting adjunct
(upaadhi) of that higher Immutable – the Purusha….formless,
birthless…without a second.
(f) In TB 7.1, Maya, depending for its existence on Brahman, is
said to be of the nature of the three guna’s, satva, rajas
and tamas. In VC 113, 115, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146 , Sankaracarya
says that Maya brings forth the universe with moveable and immoveable
(objects); he talks of the projecting power (vikshepa sakti) of
Maya, pertaining to rajas and the veiling power (aavaarana sakti)
of Maya, pertaining to tamas; the vikshepa sakti is of the nature
of activity ( i.e. creation of the world); it is also the cause
of the wrong projection by jiva and the human activity and jiva
and the mental modifications like attachment, pain, grief, etc.;
like raahu concealing the orb of the sun, the aavarana sakti envelops
the infinite, eternal, non-dual Brahman; By ignorance caused by
the aavarana sakti, man takes unreal things to be real and is caught
up in bondage (samsaara).
(g) In VC 111 and PB 99 Sankaracarya says that Maya is neither existent
nor non-existent, neither different (from Brahman) nor non-different
(from Brahman), neither with parts or without parts. It is very
wonderful and of a form which is inexpressible ( sannapyasannaapyubhyaatmikaa
no bhinnabhyabhinnaapyubhyaatmikaa no sangaapyaasangaapyubhayaatmiko
no mahaatbhootaa-anirvacaniiyaroop).
(h)In VC 200, Sankaracarya says that Avidya and its effects are
beginningless.
(i) That Maya is of a lower order of reality than Brahman is indicated
by Sankaracarya in MUB 2.1.2 (Mu – “Purusha is transcendental….
He is pure and superior to the superior immutable (divya hi amoortah
purushah sabaahyaantarah hi ajaah apraanah hi amanah subhrah hi
aksharaat paratah parah) (MUB – akshara-naama roopa-bijopaadhi-lakshita-swaroopaaat
sarva-kaarya-karana-biijatvena-upalaksshyamaanatvaatt-param tattvam
tat-upaadhi-lakshanam avyaakrtam-avyayam –aksharam sarva-vikaarebhyah
tasmaat-paratah-aksharaat-parah nirupaadhikah purushah iti-arthah).
(k)The unreality of the world i.e., the superimposed nama roopa
is mithya, as distinguished from the adhishtaanam, Brahman, as Existence)
is brought out in many parts of Sankaracarya’s commentaries
and in his other works - e.g., BUB 2.1.20 - The relative conditions
of the transcendent atma are erroneous, like the notion of that
a crystal is red or any other colour owing to its association with
its upaadhis. US 17.13 – This universe is unreal. Existence-Consciousness
alone is real. It is the forms only that are unreal. US 19.10 –
Unreal like the circular form of a burning torch (alaatacakravat),
superimposition has no existence independent of that of the non-dual
Atma. BSB 2.1.33 – The Vedic statement of creation does not
relate to any reality……such a text is valid only within
the range of activities pertaining to name and form conjured up
by Avidya and the purpose is to teach the fact that everything is
Brahman. US 16.35 – All the modifications of Maya are to be
understood to be unreal on the basis of Sastra which says that they
are nothing but words. US 17.29, 30 – Just as a magician comes
and goes on an elephant (created by his own magic), so also, Atma,
though devoid of all motion, appears to be undergoing conditions
such as Hiranyagarbha, waking, dream, deep sleep etc., none of which
has real existence.
3. From a harmonious construction of what has been cited above,
we can conclude that according to Sankaracarya, the attributeless
Brahman (nirguna Brahma) is neither the intelligent cause (nimitta
kaaranam) nor the material cause (upaadaana kaaranam) of the universe;
the intelligent cause of creation and the guiding factor for Maya
being the material cause of creation is a qualified Brahman (saguna
brahma), Brahman with May as upaadhi; Maya is the material cause
of creation, in the sense of seed of nama roopa evolving into manifested
nama roopa and being superimposed (adhyastam, aropitam) on the reality,
the nirguna Brahman.
Jiva
4. Sankaracarya’s description of jiva seems to the fore runner
of all the three prakriyas. TUB 2.6.1, he talks of jiva as being
perceived in the cavity of the intellect, as possessed of such distinctions
as being a seer, a thinker, a knower etc. In BUB 2.1.14, he talks
of Brahman conforming to upaadhis, like space conforming to pots,
jars, etc. ( The example of space in pot, jar, cave etc. is also
given in BSB 1.1.5, BSB 2.3.7 and MUB 2.1.1 for the conditioning
of the consciousness by the intellect whereas in US 12.1, he talks
of the intellect as being pervaded by a semblance of pure consciousness.
In US 5.4, he says that the modifications of the intellect are pervaded
by the reflection of consciousness and in BUB 1.4.7, he says that
atma is perceived in the as a reflection of sun etc, in water and
the like. In PB 114, he says that the Pure Consciousness which is
reflected in the intellect is called the jiva and the jiva causes
the manifestation of (the sense) of “I” in the body.
In PB 117 and 118, he says that just as the light of the sun which
is reflected in the vessels made of bell metal and the like, having
entered into the interior of a house, illumines other objects, the
reflection of pure consciousness in the intellects which has become
the jiva, illumines the objects outside through the paths of the
eyes and other senses. In 4.3.7,he talks of atma imparting its luster
to the intellect like an emerald dropped in milk. In MUB 3.2.7,
he comparison of pot space and reflection in sun, moon etc. in water
appear in the commentary on the mantra which talks of the fifteen
constituents of the body going back to their sources. The various
terms that he uses are caitanya-pratibimba (reflection of consciousness
– US 5.4, drasht-aabhaasa (semblance or false replica of the
witness-consciousness – US 12.1, chaaya (shadow – US
14.33), caitanya aabhaasa (semblance or false replica of consciousness-
US ) atma-aabhaasa (semblance or false replica of atma) –
US 18.53 aabhaasa (semblance or false replica) – US 18.107,
18.120).
5. Even though it seems that Sankaracarya does not preclude from
the teaching any of the three prakriyas, the weightage seems to
be in favour of aabhaasa vaada, and not pratibimba vaada or avacceda
vaada. The extracts below would support this view.
(a) In TUB 2.6.1, The anupravesa sruti, - “That (Brahman),
having created (that) entered into all that is exists –Tat
srshtvaa tat eva anupraavisat” is discussed. Sankaracarya
establishes that the entry is not actual entry; it has entered,
as it were; that is, it is perceived within the cavity of the intellect,
as possessed of such distinctions as being a seer, a hearer, a thinker,
a knower etc. Inasmuch as Brahman has no distinct attributes, It
cannot be realized elsewhere; Brahman is recognized only through
Its association with the antahmarana, since the antahkarana has
proximity to atma and has the nature of lllumination (consciousness)
like the atma. In there course of the discussion, one of the opponent’s
suggestions refuted by Sankaracarya is ,”The entry may be
like that the sun etc in water” Sannkaracarya argues that,
for a reflecxtion, the nconditions to be requird are (i) the entity
reflected should have a form, like the sun, (ii)the reflecting medium
should be different from the entity that is reflected, just as water
is different from the sun, (iii) the entry reflected and the reflecting
medium should be in different places in space, just as sun being
above in the sky and water being below on earth. But there can be
no reflection of Brahman, since (i) Brahman has no form, (ii) there
is no real entity other than Brahman and (iii) Brahman is all pervading
and there is no place for Brahman to enter. The objection may be
raised that Vedantin also talks of cidabhasa (reflection of Brahman
that is cit in the antahkarana). To that, the answer is that just
as the antahkarana is mithya, the reflection of consciousness is
also mithya, i.e, the consciousness of the antahkarana is of a lower
order of reality than the Brahman-consciousness).
Brahman but entry means that Brahman available for accepts the argument
that a limited entity with certain features can produce a reflection
on a transparent thing e.g., the sun reflected on water but one
cannot talk of the entry of the all pervading principle, Brahman,
into something else and since Brahman is infinite in terms of space,
there can be no other substance to hold Brahman’s reflection
by being placed in a point apart from Brahman. The diacussion is
(a) In BUB 1.4.7, the opponent asks” If Paramatma has entered,
the jivas entered into being subject to samsaara, Paramatma will
also become subject to samsaara and will be happy, miserable and
so on.. Sankaracarya’s answer is “No, the perception
of (of misery) etc. are the objects of only the particular form
that Paramatma takes owing to the Its being the support of Its upaadhi
(i.e., the intellect.).
(3) In CUB 6.3.2, the opponent asks “Is it not incongruous
for the omniscient Deity, not being a samsaari, to deliberately
wish and enter into the body and subject Itself to sorrow?”
.The answer is “Yes, if the Deity had desired ‘ I will
enter in my unmodified form and I will experience sorrow’.
But it is not so. As the Upanishad states expressly, the ‘entry’
is in the form of several jivas. A Jiva is merely a semblance (aabhaasamaatram)
of the Deity. …It is like the reflection of a person seeming
to have entered into a mirror and like the sun in water etc. The
contact of the Deity with the intellect results in a semblance of
consciousness (caitanya aabhaasa). ……The Deity does
not Itself become connected with the human happiness, sorrow etc…..
(5) BUB 3.4.2 – The atma is the witness of vision. Vision
is of two kinds, worldly and paaramaartika. Wordly vision is a mode
of the mind…… It arises as a reflection of the atma.
It has a beginning and an end
(6) In MUB 3.2.7, the atma consisting of knowledge identified with
the intellect etc. entering the different bodies is talked about
(vijaanamaya-atma-avidyaakrta-buddyaadi-upaadhim-aatmatvena matva
jalaadishu sooryaadi-pratibimbavat-iha pravishtah
dehabhedeshu karmanaam tat-phalaarthatvaat-saha tena-eva vijaanamayenaatmanaa
).
(7) In PS 125, Sankaracarya asks, “When one vessel (made of
bell metal and the like in which the light of the sun is reflected
is broken by chance, does the sun perish? Des the sun become a moving
object on account of the moving nature of the reflected image?”
(8) In BUB 2.4.12 and 2.4.13, (the commentary on the passage “na
pretya samja asti”), in the dialogue between Maitreyi and
Yajnavalkya, there is a clear distinction between the eternal, all
pervading consciousness and the differentiated, individual consciousness
(i.e., the objective consciousness). Yajnavalkya tells Maitreyi
“In the one who is freed of the body-mind complex, there is
no more the differentiated (i.e. individualized) consciousness ceases
to exist such as ‘I am the son of so and so; this is my land
and wealth; I am happy; I am miserable, because it is engendered
by Avidya. Since Avidya is absolutely destroyed by knowledge of
Brahman where is the possibility of differentiated consciousness
for the knower of Brahman who is established in his nature as Brahman?
Even when the body is there the particular consciousness is not
there; where is the possibility of its being there, when he is absolutely
freed of the body mind complex?” ( na tatra pretya visesha-samjna-asti
kaaryakaranasanghatebhyo-vimuktasya iti evam maitreyi bhraviimi
na asti visesha samjna asti iti aham asou amushya putrah mama idam
kshetram dhanam sukhii, dukhii ityevamaadi-lakshanaa avidyaakrtatvaat-tasyaah
; avidyaayaa-ca bramavidyaayaa niranvatah nasistatvaat kutah vishesha
samjna sambavah brahmavid-caitanya-svabhaava-avasthitasya? sarira-avasthitasya-
api visesha-samjna na-upapadhyate kimuta kaaryakaranavimuktasya-sarvatah?)
In BUB 2.4.13, Maitreyi says, “ By talking of opposite features
in the same entity, Brahman, you have confused me.” (Atra-eva
ekasmin-eva ekasmin-vastuni brahmani viruddha-dharmarnatvam-acakshanena
bhagavatah mama moha krtah….) Having said first that atma
is homogenous (eternal) consciousness, then you say when the body
dies, consciousness is no more there. How can it be homogeneous
consciousness and after death cease to be consciousness? .…….
(poorva-vijaanaghana-eva iti pratijnaaya punah na pretya samjna
asti iti; katham vijnanaghana eva? katham va na pretya samjna asti
it?). Yajnavalkya’s significant reply is,” I did not
attribute them to the same entity. You have mistaken the same entity
to have opposite attributes. (na maya idam ekasmin dharmini abhihitam.
Tvayaa eva idam viruddha-dharmatvena-ekam vastu parihgrhiitam bhrantyaa)
What I said was this: The differentiated form of the atma associated
with the body mind complex engendered by Avidya - when that is destroyed
by knowledge, the differentiated consciousness connected with the
body mind complex characterized by a vision of otherness is destroyed
when the upaadhi , the body mind complex is dissolved, like the
destruction of the reflection of moon and the reflected light etc
when their support, water etc. are destroyed. But there is no destruction
of the transcendental Brahman, the homogenous consciousness , just
as there is no destruction of the real moon etc. (yasya-tu-avidya-prasrtyupaapitah-kaarya-karana-sambhandii
aatmanah khilyabhaavah – tasmin-vidyayaa nasite, tannimittaaa
yaa viseshasamjnaa sariiraadi-sambhandinii anyatva-darsana-lakshanaa,
saa kaarya-karana-sanghaata-upadhou pravilapite nasyati hetu-abhaavaat
udakadi-aadhaara-naasaad-iva candraadi-pratibimba- tvannimitta-ca-prakaasaadi:
na punah paramaartha-candraaditya-swaroopa-anaasavad-asamsaari-brahm-swaroopasya
vijaanghnasya nasah)
(9) US 18.32, 18.33 – The semblance of the face is different
from the mirror because it behaves as the mirror does. The face
which does not depend on the semblance of the face is different
from the semblance in the mirror. Similarly the reflection of atma
is held to be different from atma. The ego is also regarded like
the reflection of the face which is different from the face. The
pure Self is considered to be different from its reflection like
the face. (mukhaat-anyah mukha-aabhaasah yatha adarsah anukaaratah;
aabhaasaat-mukham-api-eva darsana-aanuvartaanaat; ahamkrti-aatamani-aabhaasah
mukha-aabhaasavat-ishyate; mukhavat-smrta aatma-anyah). In US 18.
114, the semblance of consciousness in the intellect is compared
to the appearance of snake on the rope. US 18. 37 - The reflection
of the face (mukha aabhaasa) in the mirror is neither a property
of the face nor of the mirror. If it were either, it would continue
even if the other was removed. US 18.38 – It cannot be the
property of the face, because it is not seen even when the face
is there (and the mirror is removed). US 18. 39 - It is not the
property of both, because it is not seen when both are present (but
improperly placed.)
(10) BSB 2.3.50 – It is to be understood that the jiva is
only a semblance of Paramatma like the sun in water. The (empirical)
Jiva is not the atma itself. US 18. 27 – On account of the
constant proximity of the atma (consciousness – described
in US 18. 26), the ego becomes its semblance (samnidhou sarvadaa
tasya syat tat aabhaah abhimaanakrt).
(Continued in Part II)
Annexure I – Prakriya bheda in Advaita Vedanta
Part II
Sureswaracarya
Creation
6. Brahman is non-dual, eternal, changeless and is neither cause
nor effect. It is the cause of time,. It has no parts. There is
no material external to Brahman working on which Brahman can create
anything. Brahman has no organs of perception and is devoid of intellect,
desire and will. To talk of creation of the universe by Brahman
of such a nature is illogical. ( TUBVII.140, 142,143,144,375, BUBV
Vol 1- 2.1.385, 2.4.244, M II 54).
7. Without avidya , desire cannot arise. Brahman can be the cause
of the universe only when Brahman is considered as having the upaadhi
of ajnana (avidya, ,Maya). Iswara, the semblance of Brahma caitanyam
in Maya, is the cause of the universe, is the Inner Controller and
is the witness of the world process. Iswara is omniscient (sarvajna)
and omnipotent (sarvasaktimaan). Having deliberated, Iswara created
the universe, taking into consideration the proper order, colour,
previous karma of all beings. Without avidya, desire cannot arise.
Brahman can be the cause of the universe only when Brahman is considered
as having the upaadhi of Ajnana (Avidya, Maya). Iswara’s creation
of the universe is all a display of Maya. Ajnana is the material
cause of the universe. From Maya, with Brahma caitanyam reflected
in it (maayaam- pratibimba- anusangatah) Mahat, time and jivas come
into being. Avidya with a semblance of Brahma caitanyam is the cause
of sthoola and sukshma sariras (caitanya-aabhaasasva-cittam sariradwaya-kaaranam).
Primary avidya (moola avidya) appears as the manifest and the unmanifest
. (BUBV, 5 -1.4.1, I – 1.2.27, 1- 1.2.26, TUBV II 373,377,
MII 56, , M II 32), Pranava-vartika 39 (Maya is designated as Pradhana,
Avyakta, Avidya ,Ajnana,Akshara, Avyakrtas, Prakriti and Tamas).
( MII 31).
8. The world which is composed of names and forms has no existence
of its own. Brahman is existence. The existence in all phenomenal
things proceed from the eternal Iswara Everything has its being
in the being of atma. The names and forms – ahamkaara and
other objkects – are superimposed on Brahman. The gross and
the subtle (vyaavahaarika satyam) and the illusory like the mirage
(pratibhaasika satyam) have sprung from avidya. (TUBV II 407, 408,
416,417,418, M III 2, 3, NS II 45). The world is uncategirsable
duality (anirvacaniiyasiddha dwaitavastu). It is a false appearance
with no reality of its own, is caused by Maya and defies understanding.
(NS II 44).
9. From the extracts given above, we can say that , according to
Sureswacarya, the cause of the universe is not niirguna Brahman
but Iswara, constituted by the semblance of Brahma caitanyam in
Maya which is mithya. The reality is Brahman as existence. The mithya
names and forms displayd by Maya are superimposed on Brahman, the
reality, the existence. Iswara who is omniscient and omnipotent
is the intelligent cause of creation.
Maya
10. Maya is a thing which defies understanding (avicaridasiddhah).
It cannot be said to be non-existent because it appears. It cannot
be said to be ewxistent because it is negated. We cannot say that
it is different from Brahman because, Brahman being non-dual, there
is no second entity. Nor can we say that it is non-different from
Brahmanm, because Brahman is its locus. It is mithya. It is beginningless
(anaadi in the sense that its beginning is not in time and it has
no cause.) ( NS Introduction to Chapter I, M VIII 13, 15, Pravana-vartika
39-43, BUBV).
Locus and content of Maya.
11. Any mithya has to have a real sub-stratum (adishtaanamam). Not
–Self ( anaatma) is mithya . And it is a product of Maya,
Cause is antecedent to effect..Therefore anatma cannot be the locus
of Maya. Apart from aanaatma, there is only Brahman and Brahman
is satyam and, being eternal, is not an effect. Therefore Brahman
alone is the locus of Maya. ( TUBV II 64, Introduction to NS Third
Chapter).
12. Anaatma cannot be the content of Maya because it is a product
of Maya and what is a product cannot be the content of its cause.
If anaatma was the content of ignorance, when ignorance is removed
by knowledge, knowledge would be tantamouunt to knowledge of anaatma
and not knowledge of atma. What is concealed from jiva is Brahman.
For these reasons, Brahman alone is the content of Maya.
(Introduction to NS Chapter III).
Debate in regard to the locus and content of Maya
13. Objection: Brahman cannot be the locus of maya (Avidya), because
(a) Brahman is of the nature of knowledge, whereas Avidya is of
the nature of ignorance and (b) Brahman is without a second.
Answer: When we talk of locus of Avidya, we are not referring to
knowledge as the opposite of ignorance (pramaanai jnaana) but to
consciousness which is Brahman’s nature (swaroopa jnaanam).
Swaroopa jnaaanam is the sub-stratum and hence is not opposed to
ignorance. It is pramaana jnaanam that is opposed to ignorance.
As for the second objection, Avidya is only a superimposition on
Brahman; it is not a real entity. So the question of non-duality
of Brahman being violated does not arise.
14. Objection: Brahman cannot be the content of Avidya, because
ignorance, like knowledge, is in someone and it is about something
else. So, locus and content have to be different. If Brahman is
the locus, the same Brahman cannot be the content. Since Brahman
is partless, you cannot even say that one part of Brahman is the
locus and another part is the content.
Answer: We do say “I know myself” , “I do not
know myself”. Thus the content and locus of knowledge and
ignorance are the same entity. When we come to atma, the existence
and consciousness aspects are known, as is evident from the fact
that no one denies that he exists and that he is conscious but the
ignorance of jivas consists in not being aware of the non-duality
and bliss aspects. So there is nothing wrong in the view that the
content as well as the locus of Avidya is Brahman.
Jiva
15. Sureswacarya also uses all the three terms - ‘aabhasa’,
‘pratibimba’ and ‘conditioning of Brahma caitanyam’
- while defining jiva as, seen from the extracts given below
(1)Jiva is a semblance of Brahma caitanyam (cit-aabhaasa) in the
intellect. An aabhaasa is different from the original but is resembles
the original (cidvilakshanatve sati cidvat-bhaasamaanatvam ciodaabhaasatvam)
(BUBV)
(2) The non-dual Seer (atma) appears to be many in several bodies,
because of the presence of the internal organ (antahkarana) , just
as the sun appears to be many in different water vessels (NS II
47).
(3) As the space within a jar is marked off from the infinite space
by the upaadhi of the jar, so is the distinction between jivatma
and Paramatma caused by the upaadhi of the body. (M III 9).
(4) Like unto a clear mirror, the intellect, because of the predominance
of sattva in itand by virtue of the rflecxtion of atma in it receives
images of external objects ( M IV 5,-6).
(5) Manifesting Himself by way of reflection (pratibimbe sphuran)
in the kriya-sakti and jnaanasaktii, in the iantahkarana, ther Lord
(Iisah) is spoken of as the doer and knower. (M IV 7-8).
16. However, the extracts given below indicate that Sureswaracarya
is, like Sankaracarya, an advocate of aabhaasa vaada:-
(1_Just as in the case of fire and wood, the object and the burning
agent exist together in the same place, the antahkarana and atma
exist together,….The antahkarana which is a product of avidya,
undergoes modification due to its relation with external objects
and there arises the ‘I’ notion in it for delimiting
the modification as such and such. The antahkarana, being delimited
by the ‘I’ notion becomes an object directly to the
reflected consciousness ( cidaabhaasa) of which the immutable atma
is the cause. (NS III 60)
(3) The body, the senses, the mind and the determinative modes of
the intellect are rejected as not-Self, because they are perceived
and are subject to origination and cessation The internal organ
(antahkarana) which has the ‘I’ notion also is perceived
and appears and disappears; it is also, therefore , not-Self (anaatma).
(NS II 82).
(4) The intellect which contains the semblance of atma caitanyam
is the agent (karta); atma is not the agent, because it is immutable.
(NS II 63). If the ‘I’ notion was an attribute of the
atma, it would be eternal, like the atma; that is, it will continue
during sushupti and even in the state of liberation.
(5) Knowledge and ignorance which inhere in the mind are cognised.
Therefore neither is the attribute of the atma; they belong to the
sphere of name and form. (TUBV II 578).
(6) A radiant jewel remains changelessly the same, whether it is
illumining an object like the pot when it is its proximity or not
illumining it when it is not in is proximity. Like that, Paramatma,
remaining immutable in the presence as well as the absence of the
modifications of the intellect reveals ( illumines) the intellect.
(NS II 66). There is no activity of illumination whatsoever in the
atma. The activity is figuratively attributed to it in the presence
of an object which is illumined, (NS II 67).
Vidyaranya
Creation. Jiva
(The numbers in brackets are references to Vidyaranya’s
Pancadasi)
17. According to Vidyaranya, it is not the paaramaartika nirguna
Brahma (the absolute Brahman devoid of attributes) who is the creator
of the universe but it is a vyaavahaarika mithya saguna Iswara (an
empirical mithya entity, with attributes, called Iswara) who is
the creator. Citing Tu .1. and 1.4 ( satyam jnaanam anantam brahma
and yato vaco nivartante apraapya manasaa sahaa) to establish the
transcendental nature (asangatvam) of Brahman and another sruti
“ Controlling Maya, the master of Maya , creates the universe
through Maya “ (maayii srjati visvam as Mayii srjati visvam
sanniruddha tatra mayayaa…….tena iiswara srjet), he
says that if you analyse Sruti passages applying the six fold criteria
(shadlinga like upakrama and upasamhaara), you will come to know
that it is not the transcendental (asanga) Brahman but Maheswara,
the master of Maya ( Maayaavi Maheswarah) who creates the universe.
(6.195, 196,197).
18. He talks of Prakriti as an entity which has the three qualities
(gunas), satva (the quality of knowledge, purity and goodness),
rajas (the quality of activity and passion) and tamas (the quality
of darkness, ignorance, illusion and error) and which is equipped
with a reflection of Brahman. Prakriti has three varieties, one,
suddha satva (satva predominant variety) called mayaa (transliterated
as Maya), visuddhi satva guna or malina satva (rajas tamas predominant
variety) called Avidya (transliterated as Avidya) and three, tamas
predominant variety, called tamas (transliterated as Tamas) Maya
with the reflection of Brahman-Bliss-consciousness (cidaanandamayabrahma)
becomes the omniscient, blissful Iswara, the (sarvajna aanandamaya
iiswara). Maya is under Iswara’s control. The intellect, dominated
by Avidya, with the reflection of Brahman-consciousness (Brahma
caitanyam) becomes the jiva, the knower-consciousness (vijaanamaya
jiva). Owing to gradations of Avidya, jivas are of different species.
(1.15, 16,17,4.11, 6.157, 6.212). Vidyaranya compares, respectively,
the all pervading Brahman, Maya, Iswara, atma (called kootastha),
the all pervading consciousness available in the individual and
the jiva to the all pervading space, the cloud, the space reflected
in the water in the cloud, the space in the pot and the space reflected
in the water in the pot. Maya is compared to the cloud. (6-18).
19. Iswara visualises creation according to the requirement of the
karma of jivas, and, directed by Iswara, Tamas modifies from seed
form and produces names and forms (nama roopa) consisting of the
five elements , the subtle bodies of jivas (sukshma sarira) with
the five organs of knowledge (jnaanendriyas), the five organs of
action (karmendriyas), the fivefold vital airs (praana), and the
antahkarana comprising the manas and buddhi ( roughly, the deliberation
and decision aspects of the mind and intellect), the physical body
of jivas (sthoola sarira), the various worlds and objects of the
universe (jagat). This creation flowing from Iswara consists in
Maya unfolding the unmanifest nama roopa (avyaakrta nama roopa),
and superimposing the manifest nama roopa (vyaakrta nama roopa)
on Brahman the Existence , like a picture of variegated colours
being painted on a wall or like imagined things such as wondrous
cities (gandharvanagar), blueness and dome-like shape being superimposed
on space. Not only nama roopa like the five elements and their products,
but space and time are also superimposed by Maya. The folding and
unfolding of nama roopa by Maya, (aavirbhaavam, srshti) and the
alternating dissolution (viliinam, pralaya), controlled by Iswara,
is like a painter exposing the painting he has executed on a canvas
and then folding it up. ( 1.16 t0 26,2.59, 2. 60 et seq., 3.36,
4.6 to 8, 123 to 125, 6.131, 183).The non-dual Brahman (advaitam)
alone is real. The dwaitam (the nama roopa superimposed by Maya
on Brahman, the Existence) is unreal. (6.155, 156)... Similarly,
cidaabhaasa with the physical and subtle body is a superimposition
(adhyaasa) on kootastha, like the silver seen on shell. (6.33).
Negation (baadha) consists in the determination of the mithya nature
(mithyaatvam) of jagat and jiva (i.e. the antahkarana cidaabhaasa
mixture) and the reality (satyatvam) of Paramatma. (6.12, 13, 14).
20. Vidyaranya says that Maya’s nature is that it can do the
impossible; it makes the non-existent appear as existent. It makes
the changeless transcendental atma (kootastha asanga atma) (Brahman)
appear as Iswara jiva and jagat. The phenomenon is like the mithya
dream world appearing to be real to the one who dreams. The phenomenon
of the animate and the inanimate universe like Iswara, jiva etc.
appearing on the non-dual Brahman (advidiiya brahmatattve) Iswara,
jiva and jagat has no more reality than the mithya dream is to the
person who has woken up(2-70, 6-133, 134, 211,). Considering the
in determinability of Maya, learned people declare Maya to be just
magic. (6.143). Pursuing this line of thought, Vidyaranya says that
the aanandamaya Iswara and the vijaanamaya jiva are conjured up
(kalpitou) by Maya and, in turn, Iswara conjures up the creation,
visualising and entering it and jiva conjures up, until liberation,
samsaara in waking and dream states (6.112,113).
21. Vidyaranya talks of Maya as the power of Brahman (Brahma-sakti)
(2-47) and as resting on Brahman (brahma-aasraya) (2-59). However,
he clarifies that it is different from Brahman (which is the non-dual
existence), has no existence of its own (so said to be unreal
– nistattva). It derives existence only from its association
with Brahman. It cannot be said to be absolutely non-existent because
the nama roopa, the products from which it is inferred, are experienced
by us. (2.47 to 2.51). Thus, from the point of view of sruti) i.e.,
from the paaramaartika standpoint, Maya is non-existent. If you
go by reasoning, it is anirvacaniiya i.e. you can neither say that
it is existent nor can you say that it is non-existent. From the
vyaavahaarika point view it exists, since its products are perceived
(tucca anirvacaniiyaa ca vaastavii cet asou tridha; jneyaa maayaa
tribhirbodhaiih sroutayouktikaloukikaih) (6-130). Since Maya does
not have independent existence, like non-existence, it is not counted
as a second entity, apart from the non-dual Brahman (2.51)
22. Maya called Maheswari on account of its association with the
great God (Maheswara) has a two fold power¸ the power of projection
(nirmaana sakti, vikshepa sakti) and the power of veiling (moha
sakti, aavarana sakti). (4.12, 6-26). ). Jiva is a mixture of the
adhishtaanam, the Brahma caitanyam, the sukshma-sarira and the reflection
of consciousness in it (4-11). Deluded by the aavarana sakti of
Maya, jiva becomes ignorant of his true nature as Brahman (ignorant
of ‘aham brahma asmi’). By its vikshepa sakti, Maya
makes the jiva identify with his bodies, the physical and the subtle
(sthoola and sukshma), deprived of the awareness of the transcendental
asanga kootastha, pratyagaatma ( Jiva’s own consciousness,
which is the same as Brahman-consciousness, Brahma caitanyam) (like
the adhyaasa of taking the shell to be silver), react with external
objects and other jivas (paragdarsinah), regarding himself as different
from all and is involved in a chain of action, enjoyment and suffering
and transmigration (which is called samsaara) (1-25, 29,30; 6.23,
24,25, 26, 27, 6-33, 34 6,36, 6-134). Iswara’s creation is
related to the karma of all jivas taken together. Iswara-srshti,
the universe of objects created by Iswara is the same for all. But
jiva-srshti the mental reaction to them, likes and dislikes of and
the attitude to other beings and things and the consequent action,
enjoyment and suffering vary from individual to individual, based
on that Jiva’s past karma and upaasana and his vaasana, the
imprint of experience of past janmas and exercise of free will in
the current janma. It is not Iswara srshti but jiva srshti that
is the cause of man’s bondage. Vidyaranya cites Brhadaranyaka
Upanishad saptaanna braahmana - the past karma and upaasana is four-fold
sacrifices and offerings ( action and thought towards ancestors,
gods, other human beings and other jivas like plants, animals, insects
etc.;) this becomes the karma of jivas consisting of punyam or paapam
as, the case may be, depending on the good or bad action, thought
and attitude; the bhogyam of karmaphalam, the experience of happiness
and sorrow in return for the past karma, is through the particular
medium with which one is , in the form of the mind (manah), vital
force (praana) and speech (vaak), equipped with, in the current
janma. (4.13 to 35).
23. Dealing with the question as to how Avidya and its aavarana
sakti can appear on kootastha which is self-effulgent (swaprakaasa)
Vidyaranya says that Kootastha caitanyam is not inconsistent with
Avidya and its aavarana sakti. If caitanyam and Avidya were opposed,
who would be subject to the aavarana sakti (of Avidya)? As we see
in the jnaani, it is the discriminative knowledge (viveka), knowledge
of Brahman that is opposed to Avidya. (6.28,31,32.). [The idea is
that, without kootastha caitanyam which is only another name for
Brahma caitanyam which is the adhishtaanam( 6.237), the mithya Maya
and its aavarana sakti cannot exist. Without kootastha caitanyam,
there is no cidaabhaasa. Just as the aavarana sakti and vikshepa
sakti of Maya are responsible for Jiva’s ignorance of Brahmatvam
and his samsaara, it is Jiva’s antahkarana with cidaabhaasa
that is responsible for jiva coming to know (through Sastra) Maya
and its powers and negating Maya as mithya. In short, whereas kootastha
and Maya are not opposed, knowledge of kootastha and Maya are opposed.)
Dwaitam (which, as a technical term refers to the universe of nama
roopa) being the product of the mithya Maya is not opposed to advaitam
(Brahman) (6.245, 246), because dwaitam is unreal and advaitam is
real. Entities of different orders of reality can co-exist. A bachelor
can go to sleep and have a dream that he has a wife and has a number
of children and grandchildren.]
8. Iswara is the antaryaami (Inner Controller) in jivas. From this,
one may think that the actions and thoughts are controlled by Iswara,
(whose control is in accordance with the praarabdha of jivas) and
that jivas have no free will. Vidyaranya says that, by the grace
of Iswara, Jivas do have free will and it is by free will that they
gain the knowledge of their identity with atma and attain moksha.
(6.157, 171,177,178,179,183).
Vacaspati Misra - Avacceda vaada - Bhavati Tradition Bhamati Sampradaaya)
Creation
24. Following Sankaracarya and Sureswaracarya, Vacaspati Misra rules
out nirguna Brahman being the material cause actually transforming
as the universe, since Brahman , according to sruti, is non-dual
and immutable. He says that if the universe was an actual transformation
of Brahman, (Brahman being consciousness) all objects of the universe
-not merely jivas - would be sentient. So, Brahman is only an apparent
material cause (vivarta upaadhaana kaaranam). He makes a distinction
between unconditioned Brahman (nirupaadhika Brahman) and conditioned
Brahman (sopaadhika Brahman). Owing to the upaadhi of avidya (Maya),
Brahman acquires the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.
. (Sat eva muktah sat eva kevalah; anaadi avidya-vasaa-tu bhrantyaa
tathaa avabhaasata iti arthah. Tat eva anoupaadhikam roopam darsayitva
avidya-upaadhikam roopam aaha – sarvajnam sarvasakti-samanvitam.
(B on BSB 1.1.1). This sopaadhika Brahman called Iswara is the material
and intelligent cause of the universe.. Maya is the upaadhi of Iswara
and the intellects are the upaadhis of jivas. . Maya is beginningless
and indefinable (anirvacaniiya).
25. Vacaspati Misra talks of the indeterminability of the universe
(anirvacaniiyatvam) giving the analogy of the mirage. Is the cognition
of water appearing in the rays of the sun reflected from the desert
sand real or not? If it was real , it would not be negated. But
we do negate it, when we reach the spot where we perceived it and
find that there is no water. At the same time we cannot absolutely
deny the existence of the water, because water was cognised . The
experience of the perception of water, qua experience, cannot be
negated. Thus, the mirage is neither existent nor non-existent nor
existent-cum-non-existent.. Similarly, the universe of objects,
bodies and organs are also, indescribable as existent or non-existent..
Brahman’s absoluteness (paaramaartika satyam) is proved by
scripture and reasoning. The objects, bodies, sense organs and intellects
(antahkarana) of the universe are superimposed on Brahman owing
to Avidya. The sub-stratum of this superimposed mithya world is
Brahman, just as the rope is the sub-stratum of the erroneously
perceived snake. . Avidya, in the form of superimposition, is indeterminable.
(Mithyaa-pratyaya-roopah mithyaa-pratyayaaanam roopam anirvacaniiyatvam;
tadyasya sa tadokthah anirvacaniiya ityarthah.)
Jivas
26. Jiva is not different from Atma (Brahman) or nor is jiva a modification
of Brahman. Jiva is Brahma caitanyam itself appearing to be limited
owing to the influence of avidya ( Na jiva aatmanah anyah. na api
tat vikaarah: kintu atma eva avidya upaadhaana kalpita avaccedah)
( B on BSB 1.4.22.) Avidya operates at the empirical (vyaavahaarika
plane), through its dual power of concealment (aavarana) and projection
(vikshepa). Jivas are at the mercy of the concealing and projecting
powers of Avidya. Iswara, being its Lord is not affected by avidya.
. The concealing power of avidya gives rise to the non-apprehension
of the identity of jivas with Brahman. The consciousness in the
body mind complex is wrongly apprehended as finite just as space
(apparently) enclosed in pots etc is apprehended as the limited
space. Brahman is homogenous, undifferentiated consciousness, but,
owing to the qualities superimposed by avidya, It appears as differentiated
objectifying intellects and as numerous limited individuals.
Avidya – Content and locus
27. Like other Advaita philosophers, Vacaspati Misra also says that
the content of avidya is Brahman It is due to the influence of avidya
that jivas, forgetting the identity of Brahma caitanyam and pratyagaatma,
regard the enclosed pratyagatma to be a limited individual knower-consciousness
and themselves to be limited individuals.
28 As regards locus of avidya Vacaspati Misra holds that Jiva is
the locus of moola avidya. His argument is that it is only the jiva
who is the agent (karta), the enjoyer (bhokta), the one who has
the notion of “I” (ahamkaara-aaspada), the transmigrator
(samsaari) and the victim of all suffering (sarva-anartha-bhaajanam).
Therefore jiva alone can be the locus of the avidya which is the
root cause of all these. On the other hand, Brahman is pure (suddha),
defect less (niranjana) and is of the nature of knowledge (vidyaatma).
Therefore it is illogical to speak of Brahman as the locus of avidya.
Further, it is the jiva, not Brahman, who requires the saving knowledge
for removing avidya. Logically, the destroyer, vidya and the destroyed
,avidya, must have the same locus.
29. According to Vacaspati Misra, avidya is not one.; there are
as many avidyas as there are jivas. If avidya was a single entity
, then when one jiva attains the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’
(aham brahmaasmi jnaanam), the single avidya will be removed and,
there being no avidya to delude other jivas, all jivas will be simultaneously
liberated, without any effort on their part. He explains the use
of “Maya” in singular in Su 4.10 by interpreting it
as the state of being deluded by avidya (avidyaatva).
30. The objection raised against this is “If avidya which
is the cause of jivas and is responsible for hiding their Brahmatvam
from jivas is located in the jivas, there arises the defect of mutual
dependence (anyonya asraya). What is a product of avidya cannot
be its locus. Vacaspati Misra’s answer is “there is
a succession of janmas; my present janma is due to the ignorance
located in me in my previous janma and the ignorance located in
me in the present janma will produce my next janma; thus, there
are two beginningless series, one of janmas and the other of ignorance.
So there is no defect of anyonya asraya.”
Prakasatman – Pratibimbavaada – Vivarana Tradition Vivarana
Sampradaaya).
Creation . Jiva
31. Prakasatman cites Tu 31.1., 2.7.1 and Cu 6.2.3 which talk of
Brahman as the material and intelligent cause of the universe and
goes on to point out the difficulties in regarding nirupaadhiika
Brahman as the transformative material cause or the intelligent
cause. Brahman can be the material cause only if It undergoes modification
into the form of the world, leaving its earlier form. Even if it
is argued that, after undergoing modification into the form of the
world, Brahman would regain its earlier form, since it will retain
its susceptibility to modification, we have to face the unwelcome
prospect of liberated jivas returning to bondage again. But we have
the Upanishadic text, “ The atma (Brahman) is birthless, all
pervasive and immutable” (Bu 4.4.20). Immutability and modification
cannot be the nature of the same entity. It follows that nirupaadhika
Brahman cannot be the material cause of the universe.(V. p. 464).
As regards, Brahman being the intelligent cause, only an entity
with a thinking mind which can visualize and design the universe
can be the intelligent cause. But this process is not possible in
the case of Brahman which Sastra says is of the nature of consciousness
devoid of instruments of visualisation and action ( Bu 3.8.8. etc.).
Therefore nirupaadhika Brahman cannot be the intelligent cause of
the universe, either. Therefore, Prakasatman says that Sruti and
Smriti texts introduce the principle of Maya. He cites, inrter alia,
Su 4.10, “Know that Prakriti is Maya and the wielder of Maya
is the great Lord” and says that Brahman, the pure consciousness,
associated with Maya, should be regarded as the material cause of
the universe.
32. The pure consciousness is reflected in avidya and thus, jivs
are formed. As the prototype of the reflection (pratibimba), pure
consciousness acquires an adventitious status as its original (bimba)
This is called Iswara. Maya functions at the behest of Iswara. Iswara,
as bimba caitanyam, is omniscient. Thus Iswara and Maya taken together,
is the material and intelligent cause of the universe. Maya is the
transformative material cause (parinaami upaadhaana kaaranam), but
Brahman as existence, being the sub-stratum of Maya, is figuratively
said to be the material cause (is the vivarta upaadhaana kaaranam).
Maya is Iswara’s mind; thus pure consciousness associated
with Maya gets the empirical (vyaavahaarika) status of the omniscient
(sarvajna) Iswara with the knowledge and desire required for creation.
While the material of the world is transformed Maya, Iswara visualizes
and desgns the universe and guides Maya. The appearance of the word
upon Brahman is mithya. Prakasatman defines mithya as “the
state of being the counterpositive (pratiyogin) of the absence of
an entity at all three periods of time in a sub-stratum where it
is perceived to exist
Jivas
33. Avidya (Maya) is one, vide Swvesvatara Upanishad 4.10, “Know
Maya to be Prakriti (the material cause of the universe) and the
Lord (Maayii) to be its controller or possessor, where the word,
Maya, is used in the singular. Avidya (Maya) is a single entity,
but the reflection of consciousness in avidya results in a plurality
of jivas.; the main feature of jiva is the intellect; since the
intellects projected by avidya are many, jivas with intellects carrying
the apparent reflection of cxonsciousness are many. (The concept
of there being only one jiva as a vyaavahaarika phenomenon,–
since there is only one avidya to serve as the medium of reflection
of Brahma caitanyam to form the jiva - all other jivas being praatibhaasika,
like inert padaartha’s of the universe, and their existence
being confined to the time when the single vyaavahaarika jiva has
the vritti and perception thereof – what are called ekajiva
vaada and drshtisrshiti vaada – is a later development in
the Vivarana tradition.)
34. According to Prakasatman, the pratibimba caitanyam is identical
with Brahma caitanyam. If that were not so, the mahavakyas revealing
identity of jivatma and paramatma like “ Thou art That “
where the words are in aikyasamaanaadhikaranyam, will become meaningless.
Thouigh that is a fact, owing to the veiling power (aavarana sakfti)
of Maya (Avidya) jivas mistake the consciousness o be different
from Brahma caitanyam and, consequently regard themselves as limited
individuals and undergo samsaara.
35. Philosophers like Vacaspati Misra preclude the very possibility
of reflection. But this is refuted by citing the example of mahaakaasa
which does not have form being reflected in the water of a pond
and sound reflected as echo in the space in a cave, which does not
have as form.
36. The thesis that reflection is identical with the original is
beset with problems. The example of mirror is taken. It is argued
that (a) one does not perceive one’s eyeballs in one’s
face on the neck but one perceives it in the reflection (b) the
location is different; one’s face is on one’s neck;
the reflection is in the mirror (c) the reflection appears in front
of the man facing the mirror and (d) a person standing by the side
of the man facing the mirror cognises the face of that man and the
reflection in the mirror as two different entities. This is refuted
by saying that when the sense of sight comes into contact with the
mirror, the rays of light proceeding from the face of the person
standing before the mirror are turned back by the mirror, then reach
the original face and comprehend all parts of it fully. On the original
face comprehended fully, the other characteristics mentioned by
the opponents constituting the state of reflection (pratibimbatva)
(namely presence of the reflected face inside the mirror, reflection
facing the original and the difference between the original and
the reflection) are superimposed. If there was no mirror, there
would be no such superimposition. That is to say, the appearance
of the one face being an original and a reflection (bimbatva and
pratibimbatva) is a false notion (adhyaasa. This amounts to saying
that when a person thinks that he is seeing a reflection of his
face in the mirror, what he is actually perceiving is the face on
his neck. (This also seems to accord with science. According to
science also, when the rays of light carrying the image of the face
of the person standing in front of the mirror falls on the surface
of the mirror, they do not enter the mirror; they are turned back
and fall on the eyes of the person standing in front of the mirror.
The perception of the face as being inside the mirror is an optical
illusion.) In the same way, caitanya pratibimbatva and caitanya
bimbatva are superimposed on Brahma caitanyam, due to avidya. These
two features are indeterminable as they are caused by avidya. But
Brahman per se, whether it be as the consciousness of Iswara or
the consciousness of jivas, is real and the same. The superimposition
of bimbatva leads to the false notion (adhyaasa) of jivas that they
are limited individuals. The adhyaasa which is caused by avidya
is removed by the knowledge of the identity of the jiva with Brahman..
37. If avidya is said to be one, one has to meet the objection that
when any one jiva overcomes the aavarana sakti of avidya by gaining
the knowledge, “ I am Brahman”, and gets liberation
avidya be destroyed altogether and all other jivas will get liberated,
simultaneously, without any effort on their part. (The distinction
between any one jiva getting liberated and other In Siddhanta-lesa-sangraha,
Appayya Dikshita explains that it is quite possible to account for
the distinction between the liberation of one jiva and the bondage
of others since we accept that Maya is an indeterminable (anirvacaniiya)
entity. An anirvacaniiya entity, single entity can have anirvacaniiya
parts. It is one anirvacaniiya part of avidya alone that gets removed
by one jiva attazining aham brahmaasmi knowledge; Other anirvacaniiya
parts continue to influence the minds of other jivas holding them
in bondage.)
Content and locus of avidya
38. Like all other Advaita philosophers, Prakasatman holds that
Brahman is the content (vishaya) of avidya
39. According to Prakasatman, Brahman is the locus of avidya. Jiva
cannot be said to be the locus of avidya. Jiva is dormant, in the
causal state (kaarana avastha). There is no Jiva to say “I
do not know anything.” Only consciousness and avidya are trhere,
It is true that jiva recollects, on waking, “I slept happily;
I did not know anything” but he also says “I was absent
in sushupti”. What he recollects is the bliss of pure consciousness
and the ignorance of avidya. Jiva’s intellect is a reflecting
medium. A reflecting medium appropriates the property of the original
as its own, just as the mirror appropriates the face.
40. Is avidya also the cause of the praatibhaasika adhyaasa perception
of silver in shell? If so, the adhyaasa will be removed only by
knowledge of Brahman.Prakasatman says that as derivatives of the
primal avidya (moola avidya), there are modal ignorances (toola
avidyas or avastha ajnaanams). While the content of moola avidya
is Brahman, the content of a toola avidya is the consciousness conditioned
by an object. Thus, perception of silver on shell is one of the
toola avidyas concealing the caitanyam conditioned by the shell.
When this toola avidya is removed, by the shell vritti, this toola
avidya is removed and perception of silver ceases.
Conclusion
45. From all this, we can arrive at the common ground in the teaching
of all the Advaita preceptors mentioned above.
(1) Brahman is not the actual material cause of creation. It is
the tranfigurative material cause (vivarta upaadhaana kaaranam).
It is the adhisthaanam (sub-stratum), as Existence-Consciousness–Existence
which is the essence of the objects of the world – the nama
roopas - and the source of the consciousness of living beings.
(2) Avidya (Maya) is the transformative material cause (parinaami
upaadhaana kaaranam). It superimposes the names and forms on the
adhisthaanam. Brahman associated with Avidya is the intelligent
cause of creation.
(3) The world of solid objects that we experience is mithya. It
is an appearance like the snake perceived on the rope.
(4) Brahman, Existence- Consciousness-Infinity which is non-dual,
formless and attributeless is the only reality.
(5) The notion of jivas that they are different from Brahman and
are doers (karta and bhokta) and knowers (pramaatas) I adhyasa,
an erroneous notion caused by avidya.
(6) Avidya has the power of concealing Jivas’ nature as Brahman
(caravan sakti) and not only projecting the world of nama roopas
but deluding jivas so that they identify themselves with their body
and knower-mind and undergo samsaara.
(7) Whether jivas are said to have a secondary, unreal consciousness,
in addition to a Brahma caitanyam )abhasa vaada) or the Brahma caitanyam
available in the intellect is itself mistaken to be a reflection
confined to the individual intellect (pratibimba vaada) or the consciousness
appearing to be enclosed in the intellect is mistaken to be a consciousness
confined to the intellect (avacceda vaada), in all the cases, there
is the false notion ( adhyaasa) on the part of jivas that they are
limited individuals different from Brahman.
8. As regards the ultimate means of liberation, the generally accepted
view in Advaita Vedanta is doubt-free and fully saturated jnanam
(aham brahmaasmi) arrived at by sravanam, mananam and nididhyasnam.
Vacaspati Misra , however talks of a fourth sadhana, what is generally
called “prasankhyana”, i.e., uninterrupted meditation
practised with devotion for a long time, to obtain an intuition
of Brahman (brahma-bhaava) by the antahkarana.. The intuition is
an act of immediate cognition. The term used by Vacaspati Misra
is “aanandaghana-brahmaaatmataa-saakshaatkaara-aavirbhaavah
jivasya). He compares this to the experience of the different notes
of music, like shadja etc., through the sense of hearing, which
is aided by the impressions brought about by repetition of the knowledge
gained from the science of music and to the lover’s perception
of the long-lost damsel whom he constantly contemplates. There is
no Sruti support for prasankhyana and we can take what Vacaspati
Misra to refer to as intense nidishyasana. Vidyaranya, in JIvanmuktivivieka,
talks of not only contemplation of the Truth ( i..e.,nidishyasana)
but also of making the mind coming to a standstill (atyunmaniibhaava)
for jivan mukti; at the same time, he says, “in the attainment
of videhammukti, the superiority of the knowledge of Reality which
is the direct means (for videhamukti) is established; the effacement
of vasanas (vasanaakshaya) and dissolution of the mind (manonaasa),
which are the means to knowledge, occupy the subordinate position”.
(There is a whole chapter on manonaasa as a means of jivanmukti
in which quotations from Yogavaaasisshta and Patanjali’s Yogasutras
abound). It is all quite confusing. But except for the word “amaniibhava”
in Mandukya Upanishad, there is no Sruti support for manonaasa.
“Amaniibhava” of Mandukya is interpreted by Advaitins
as falsification of the mind, regarding the mind as mithya. Since
the concept of manonaasa has no support, in the Upanishads, we have
to lay stress only on the importance of mind free of emotional disturbances
for saturating the mind with the knowledge of “aham brahmaasmi”.
In fat, if the mind is made non-functional, even the entertainment
of the thought “I am Brahman” is not possible.
Texts consulted and made use of
1) Advaita Ashrama (Kolkata) publications of Swami Gambhirananda’s
translations in English of Sankaracarya’s Bhashyas of Brahma
Sutra, the Eight Upanishads (2 volumes), Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
and Chandogya Upanishad.
2) Trichur Puranattukara Ramakrishna Mathom publication of translation
in Malayalam of Swetasvatara Upanishad.
3) Publications of Chinmaya Mission and Central Chinmaya Mission
Trust of
Translations in English by Swami Chinamayananda of Sankaracarya’s
Tattyvabodha, Atmabodha, nd of Kaivalya Upanishad.
4)Mylapore, Chennai, Ramakrishna Mutt publication of Translation
in English of Sankaracarya’s Upadesa Sahasri.
5) Chennai Samata Books publication of Translation in English by
Alladi Mahadeva Sastry of Sureswaracarya’s Manasollasa and
Pranava vartika.
G6) The following chapters in Madras University Philosophical Series
Volume II Part 2:- ( First Published in 2000 by Professor Bhuvan
Chandel, Member Secretary, Centre for Strides in Civilisation, Tughlakabad
Institutional Area, New Delhi)
Post-Sankara Advaita – the Vivarana tradition by
N. Veezhinathan
Post-Sankara Advaita – The Bhamati Tradition by N.Sankaranarayanan.
7) Madras University Philosophical Series
Translation in English by R. Balasubramanian
Of Sureswaracarya’s Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya vartrikam
and Naishykarmyasiddhi
8. Vivekacudamani with Siddinathananda Swami’s commentary,
in Malayalam, published by Sri Ramakrishna Asram, Puranaattukara,
Trichur.
9. Swetaswatara Upanishad with Mrdananda Swami’s commentary,
in Malayalam, published by
Sri Ramakrishna Asram, Puranattukara, Trichur.
…….
|