OM

Ajnanatimirintasyajnananjanasalakaya

Cakshurunmilitam yena tasmai 

srigurave namah

ADVAITA VEDANTA

D   Krishna Ayyar

APPENDIX 4
EXPLANATORY NOTES

Notes 12 - 19 

Note No. 12 – Karma not means of Moksha – Reasoning

In Advaita Vedanta, knowledge is the ultimate means of moksha; It is the discovery, with the aid of Sastra, of one’s identity with Brahman.

Some philosophers talk of karma or upasana as the immediate means of moksha. (Both karma and upasana are action involving motion. Karma is a movement of the body. Upasana is thought which is a movement of the mind). This is refuted by Sankaracarya.

Sankaracarya’s logic is as follows:-

Moksha is attaining Brahman ( i.e. identification with Brahman). The positive result of Karma is only of four types as shown in brackets. Brahman dos not fall in any of these four.

(a)        (Reaching a destination.) Brahman is all pervading (sarvagata) ; there is, therefore, no question of reaching Brahman.

(b)        (Production. E.g., Seed is sown; crop is produced.)  Brahman is ever one’s nature. Brahman is unborn and eternal (“aja” ,   “nitya”. The question of Brahman or Brahman-ness  (“Brahmatvam”) being produced does not arise.

(c)        (Modification.) Brahman and one’s own nature as Brahman are changeless (“nirvikara”); the question of modifying to become Brahman does not arise.

(d)        (Purification/refinement by removal of impurities or addition of properties.) Brahman and, as Brahman, one’s nature is ever pure (“nitya suddha”) and attributeless (“nirguna”); the question of becoming Brahman by removal of impurities or addition of attributes does not arise.

(e) Moreover, by using the present tense in the statement, “You are Brahman” (“Tattvamasi”) Upanishad makes it clear that there is no question of one becoming Brahman, as an event in time. One being Brahman is an ever existing fact.

(e) Further, if identity with Brahman is the result of karma or upasana, it means that prior to Karma or Upasana one had no Brahmatvam and Brahmatvam comes only after Karma or Upasana. But whatever comes will go away after some time or other. So Brahmatvam attained as a result of Karma or Upasana will be temporary.

Note No. 13 –  Logic of “Adhyasa” 

(1) The fundamental tenets of Advaita philosophy consist of

(i)        three orders of reality, with Brahman as the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity as the highest order of reality and the substratum, the world of names and forms appearing on that substratum as the next lower order of reality, the dream world and erroneously perceived things like snake on the rope, as the lowest order of reality – in Sanskrit, indicated by the technical terms, “paramartikam”, “vyavaharikam” and “praatibhaasikam”, respectively ( the latter two which have no independent existence being called “mithya”)

(ii))        identity of the consciousness of the jivatma and the all pervading consciousness, Brahman,

(iii)        Avidya (Maya)

(iv)        Iswara and

(v)        Adhyasa

(2) . By the avarana sakti of Avidya the awareness of the true nature of Jivatma as Brahman is covered (concealed from the Jivatma). The vikshepa sakti of Avidya misleads the jivatma into regarding the world as real and identifying himself with the body mind complex. This is called “adhyasa”. Adhyasa is defined as mistaking a thing to be other than what it really is.. In the process of adhyasa, jivatma, owing to self-ignorance, superimposes anatma (the body mind complex) and its properties on atma and say, “I am a father”, “I am a husband”, “ I am sad”  etc,  and is afflicted by the limitations and tribulations arising from this superimposition. The other way, when one says “I am a conscious being” it is superimposition of the consciousness belonging to atma on anatma. The example given in Sastra for adhyasa   is superimposition of snake on the rope.

(3) Opponents of Advaita Vedanta argue that adhyasa is not possible, because the requirements of adhyasa are not there for superimposition of anatma on Atma to take place. The requirements areas follows:-

(i)        The real object should be perceived in front.

(ii)        There must be ignorance of the identity of the real object.

 (iii)        There must be similarity in features between the real object and the  thing that is superimposed.

(iv)        The person who is superimposing a thing should have experienced a real member of the superimposed species previously so that the impression left by that experience (“samskara”) is there in the mind when he is superimposing.

These requirements are not satisfied in the case of Atma anatma superimposition are not met, as shown below, unlike the case of  the superimposition of snake on rope,

(i)        Atma is not perceived as an object,

(ii)        Since atma is self-evident, the identity of atma is not unknown,

(iii)        There is no similarity between atma and anatma, and

(iv)        anatma is unreal; so, the question of anyone having experienced a real anatma previously does not arise and, therefore there can be no samskara of the experience of anaatma.

(4) These objections are countered by Sankaracarya in his adhyasa bhashyam which is an introductory portion of his commentary on Brahma Sutram as follows:-

(i) For adhyasa to take place, it is not essential that the object should be perceived . It is sufficient if the entity is known. Atma is known in the sense the atma is self-evident as the sakshi, (the constant conciousness available for recognition, particularly, in sushupti).

(2)  The condition required for adhyasa is not total ignorance of the identity but part ignorance. We all say ,“I am” ; that means the existence aspect  ( “sat  amsa”) and the consciousness aspect (“cit amsa”) of   atma are known to us. But there is one part that is not known to us; that “I am infinite” is not known to us ( the anantatva or ananda aspect of atma is not known). ( That there is a thing with a particular shape in front is known. But that the shape is that of the rope is not known. And it is mistaken to be that of a snake).

(3) Similarity is not an invariable requirement. There are cases where there is no similarity and still, there is adhyasa, e.g., space is not similar to anything but we do superimpose blueness and a dome like shape on it.

(4) No doubt samskara of a previous experience is necessary. But it need not be of the experience of a real entity. Even if the samskara is of the experience of a false entity, in the past, it is sufficient to produce the present adhyasa. (Suppose 

I am familiar with the baniyan tree and I have the habit of doing pradakshinam of the tree.  I go to a village in another region; there I see a tree with leaves similar to those of the banyan tree. I mistake it to be a banyan tree and do pradakshinam.  Later I go to another village where there is a tree of the same species. On the basis of the samsksra of the previous adhyaasa, I do prdaksinmam of this tree also). If it is asked how the first adhyasa arose, the answer is that avidya and anatma are beginningless (“anadi”).

(5) Sastra-based logic for postulating adhyasa is as follows:-

Upanishads say that atma is asangah, apanipadou, amanah. So atma is akarta and abhokta. But jivatmas identify themselves with the body mind complex and engage themselves in worldly and religious transactions.  This cannot happen, unless they are deluded into transferring the kartrutvam, bhoktrutvam etc. belonging to anatma to atma

(6) Sastra divides adhyasa into (1) “arthadhayasa” and (2) “jnanadhyasa”. The appearance of a false object on the substratum of a real object is arthadhyasa. The thought that mistakes the false object to be the real object is jnanadhyasa.  The phenomenon of mirage on sand is arthadhyasa. The thought in the mind of the traveller in the desert that it is an oasis is arthadhyasa.  In respect of the world, the ajnani has both arthadhyasa and arthadhyasa. The jnani ceases to have jnandhyasa and he has only arthadhyasa.  The ajnani takes the world to be real and, consequently, he has samsara. The jnani continues to perceive the world but he knows that it is false; therefore he is free of samsara.  

Note No.14– Ignorance and knowledge of identity with Brahman -  both operations of  the intellect

When Brahman is said to be “jnanam” in the mantra, “Satyam jnanam anantam Brahma” the word “jnanam” refers to the eternal consciousness which is Brahman’s nature. It is called “swaroopa jnanam”.  It is not swaroopa jnanam that destroys self ignorance. If that was the case, since swaroopa jnanam is eternal, nobody would ever be ignorant. In fact swaroopa jnanam illumines ignorance as well as knowledge, through cidabhasa.  What destroys self-ignorance is vritti jnanam, the vritti that I am Brahman. This vritti jnanam (knowledge) is gained by the ahamkara. The notion that I am a limited individual is destroyed by the vritti that I am the infinite Brahman.

Note No.15  -Appreciation of the locationless consciousness

Whereas the changing I is one with attributes, the unchanging I is without attributes. One of the attributes of the changing I is location. Thus we recognise the unchanging I as one without location. During sushupti, you do not have a sense of location. You don’t have the sense that you are in New Delhi. Based on this fact, you can conclude that what is available in sushupti is the unlocated consciousness, the cit. The cit is present in jagrat and swapna avasthas also, but you don’t recognise it, because, at these times, what you experience is the mixture of cit and ahamkara (mind cum cidabhasa) and you are not able to separate the cit from cidabhasa, intellectually.   You cannot physically separate the cidabhasa. You can only recollect the state (of sushupti) in which cidabhasa was resolved and recognise the continued presence of consciousness as the cit.

Note No.15A – Brahman beyond time and space

We say that Brahman is all pervading and that Brahman is eternal. We have to note that this is only a manner of speaking. A correct formulation would be to say that Brahman is beyond time and space. Brahman is Infinity. The Infinite cannot be within time and space.. The world is within time and space. Therefore, the world has to be of a lower order of reality.

Note No.16 - Logic of postulating cidabhasa 

(1) Brahman is all pervading consciousness.  Antahkarna functions as a conscious entity but pot does not. You cannot explain this, unless you postulate that the texture of the antakarana nama roopa superimposed on Brahman is such that it can reflect the consciousness, whereas the pot does not have that capacity.  It is somewhat like the difference between a good conductor of electricity  and a bad conductor.

(2) This division of certain nama roopas like the mind being made sentient by consciousness being reflected in them and other nama roopas not having such capacity and hence remaining to be insentient is required for bhoktru bhogya (enjoyer-enjoyed) transaction. If such division was not there, before I begin to put food into my mouth, it will fly away.

(3) If the eternal, unchanging consciousness alone is there, there would be nobody who is bound and Sastra would not be taking the trouble of teaching the means to attain moksha.. A conscious entity that is susceptible to be affected by the avarana sakti of Maya has to be there to listen to sastra.

(4) The original consciousness, being changeless  (nirvikara)  and amanah  is not srotra (not a hearer)  or a pramata  (not a knower). Sastra cannot address it. Nor can it address a mere antahkarana which is inert. So a conscious entity that is not the original consciousness is required to listen to “tat tvam asi” and to say “aham brahma asmi”. This is the antahkarana which is enabled to be such an entity owing to the reflection of consciousness in it. (This logic is called “arthapatti’)

(5) As ahamkara, I listen to the mahavakyam, “tat tvam asi”. By bhagatyaga lakshana, I discard the limitedness indicated by the literal meaning of the word, “tvam” and the distance indicated by the literal meaning of the word,” tat” and retain the implied meaning of the two words, which is “caitanyam” and understand the jivabrahma aikyam. When I say “ aham brahma asmi”, though the thought is  in ahamkara, by “aham” I refer to atma.. Once I know “ aham brahmasmi” I discard ahamkara, i.e. I disidentify myself with ahamkara and abide as Brahman. 

(5) In Brhadaranyaka (III.iv.2 etc.), the Upanishad talks of atma as the seer of the seer (“drashterdrashta”), knower of the knower (“vijnatervijnata”) etc. From this it is clear that there is a knower-consciousness and another consciousness which is the substratum of that consciousness. This does not mean that atma perceives or knows ahamkara. To perceive anything or to know anything, the consciousness has to undergo modification. Atma being changeless cannot be seer or knower. The meaning is that, in the presence of atma, cidabhasa is formed in the antahkarana. This is also what is meant when it is said that atma, as Sakshi, illumines the antahkarana. It is like my standing in front of a mirror. I don’t do anything. By my mere presence, reflection is formed in the mirror.

(6) The eternal unchanging consciousness cannot be said to be the instrument of knowing specific separate objects, one after another. For having pot knowledge, tree knowledge, tiger knowledge, one after another, and each person having different cognitions, we need to have separate, changing consciousnesses in each person. Antahkarana with reflected consciousness is what meets this requirement.  If the knowing consciousness was not in the form of separate individual consciousnesses, and if there was only the original consciousness common to all as a pramata,  the objects of the world would all enter  the common consciousness, in one jumbled confusion – confusion, space-wise and time-wise. For example, you may see water in fire, cow in pot, the garbage in the food you are about to take. You may see a grandfather who died long ago holding the new-born grandson – and so on. We cannot even imagine the state of everybody perceiving everything together and, not only that, perceiving the past, present and future simultaneously.

At the same time, to be able to be aware that I am the same person in and through the changing conditions of the body and the mind, I hae to invoke an unchanging consciousness. Thus we have to postulate cidabhasa, the reflected consciousness in individual minds as well as the   unchanging, all pervading consciousness, the atma.

(7) In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, there is a statement, “na pretya samja asti”. One interpretation is that this refers to the disintegration of the karana sarira and sukshma sarira of a jnani at the time of videha mukti. How this is support for cidabhasa has been explained in the main text. Another interpretation is “In the body, after death, there is no consciousness”. When the Upanishad says that after the body dies, there is no consciousness in it, it cannot be referring to the eternal, all pervading consciousness; the all pervading, eternal consciousness is there  everywhere, in everything and at all times. It is there in the dead body also.  If the Upanishad cannot be referring to the eternal consciousness available in the individual, the atma, the sakshi caitanyam, what is it that it is referring to when it says that consciousness is not there in the body after death? It must be referring to a consciousness which is in the body when it is alive and which goes out when the body dies. What goes out when the body dies is the sukshma sarira including the mind with the reflected consciousness.

(8) The existence of a  changing consciousness  separately in each of us by which each of us separately cognises different objects one after another is a matter of  experience. But when we connect the pramata of a  cognition involved in a past experience and  the pramata of the cognition involved in a present experience, as the same entity, we are invoking an unchanging, constant, I, which was behind the pramata of the past experience and is now behind the pramata of the present experience .  What is present in the changing pramatas is cidabhasa and what is invoked as the changeless, constant I is the cit (atma)

Note No.17 – Iswara srshti and jiva srshti

Iswara srshti does not bind us. If it did, jnanis would also be bound because they also continue to live amidst jiva srshti. World is Iswara srshti. Our body and mind are also Iswara srshti. What binds is the reality (satyatvam) we attach to the world and our body and mind . Attaching reality to the world and our body and mind is jiva srshti, ( it is our own making). The cause is avidya.

Note No.18 – Samsara due to sense of limitation.

Being ignorant of our true nature as the infinite Brahman we identify ourselves with our body and mind and regard ourselves as limited individuals. In short, samsara is a problem located in the small “I”. Anybody’ samsara is expressed in the form, “I am unhappy”, or “my wife is sick” or ‘my house is leaking”. What is not connected to this I does not cause samsara. We read so many obituaries  in the newspapers but our peace of mind is not affected. But it happens to be the death of a close relative, we are sad. Once I understand that I am not this individual body and mind but I am the infinite Brahman, nothing in the vyavaharka world which includes the individual body and mind I am born with will affect me simce I have disidentified with them.

Note No. 19 -  Jnani’s moksha

Jnani’s moksha can be indicated in several ways – freedom from identification with the body mind complex (dehaabhimaana abhaava), freedom from sense of limitation, freedom from desire, freedom desire-born action, freedom from results of desire-born action. The accumulated results of past action (ssancita karma ) is a baggage of the triple forms of body – physical, subtle and causal – since all these  three forms will be dissolved at the end if this janma, the baggage is destroyed on the onset of knowledge of identity with Brahman (jnaanam). No result accrues (there is no agami karma) from any action subsequent to jnaanam, because no such action will be the with the sense of being the agent of action (kartrtvam) , the body mind complex involved in action having been disowned. Out of the quota of karma assigned for exhaustion in the present janma (prarbdha karma) what remains to be exhausted will cause biological pleasure and pain but the jnanis’s response will be indifference, a response free from sorrow, anxiety, frustration and disappointment, because he is neither identified with the body mind complex which is the recipient of the pleasure and pain nor with the objects causing them. Prarabdha is vyavarika satyam. Jnani is established in paramarthika satyam. With the sense of being parmarthika satyam, the infinitude, vyavaharika satyam, the finite can be gone through with fortitude. For Hanuman, the ocean was just a puddle caused by a cow’s footprint and the hydra-headed demon was just a mosquito.

 .

 THIS IS APPENDIX 4