OM

Ajnanatimirintasyajnananjanasalakaya

Cakshurunmilitam yena tasmai 

srigurave namah

ADVAITA VEDANTA

D   Krishna Ayyar

APPENDIX 5
EXPLANATORY NOTES

Notes No.20 -  32

Note No.20 – Process of cognition

When I say, “I know this,” the “I”, the “know” and “this” are not simultaneously cognised. Each piece of knowledge requires a triputi – a pramata, pramanam and prameya (or, to put in another version, a karta, karanam and karma). E.g. “I know the tree”. Tree becomes the object of  knowledge. When tree is the object of knowledge neither ‘I” nor the act of knowing be can be the object of knowledge. . When “I” is the object of knowledge, neither “tree” nor the act of knowing can be the object of knowledge. When the act of knowing is the object of knowledge, neither “I” nor “tree” can be the object of knowledge. “I”, “know” and “tree” -  each requires, separately, a knower, knowing and known.. So the awareness of “I’, “know” and “tree” takes place successively, through  a separate triputi in each case – such as “I know the tree”,  “I know the act of knowing” and “ I know the I that knows the tree”,  but  so quickly that it appears to be simultaneous.  

Note No 21. – Samsara not for Atma

 If sorrow or samsara were really in Atma, since atma is changeless, the sorrow or samsara cannot be removed or overcome by knowledge. But the Upanishad says that the knower of   Atma overcomes sorrow “tarati sokam atmavid.”) So the sorrow or samsara  falsely attributed to Atma as in such notions as “ I am sad “ or “ I am mortal” is really not in Atma. Another argument. When ahamkara is functioning in jagrat avastha, pain is felt. In sushupti, when ahamkara is not functioning, pain is not felt. It is clear, therefore, that sorrow is an attribute of ahamkara. If sorrow were to be the attribute of Atma, we should be feeling sorrow in sushupti also, because Atma, the original consciousness continues to shine in sushupti also.

Note No. 22. – Negation of “anatma”

In pancakosa viveka, we negate, successively, “annamaya aham” (I identified with annamaya kosa), “pranamaya aham”, “manomaya aham’ “vijnanamaya aham” and “ anandamaya aham”. What is left is the  unnegatable eternal consciousness, and we recognise it as our real nature.

 In sarira traya viveka, by negating sthoola sarira aham (I identified with sthoola sarira), sukshma sarira aham and karana sarira aham, successively, we come to the unnegatable eternal conscioiusness and recognise it as our real nature.

Note No. 23 – Role of Mahavakyam

Mahavakyams do not reveal any new entity. The consciousness available in us, Atma, is self-evident – is recognised by us already. What mahavakyam does is to remove the wrong notion that it is limited. What is revealed by mahavakyams is the Bramatvam status of the already recognised entity. In the story of the tenth man, the passer-by is not bringing a tenth man; he is only revealing the tenth-man status to the tenth man. The consciousness in me I have already recognised. What I understand through mahavakyam is that it is infinite. You do not create space. When you are in a room, you may have a wrong notion that space is limited by the walls of the room. You demolish the walls; you recognise that what you thought was room-limited space is in fact the all pervading space.

Note No. 24 – Form is not substance

When the football hits you it is the substance that injures you, not the shape. If the substance is yourself, how can it hit you? If everything, as Existence, is yourself, how can you be hit by anything? This is another way of saying that since nama roopas have no substantiality, once you  understand their mithatvam, you won’t be affected by them on the emotional level.

Note No. 25 – Self-effulgence – meaning

It is said that atma is self-effulgent (Iswayam-prakaasa). “Self-effulgence”  means self evident consciousness - what does not require an objectifying instrument of knowledge to be known is being self-evident.

 Note No. 26 – All pervading attributeless existence is the real nature of jiva

Chandogya Upanishad presents sushupti for us to understand our true nature. In njagrat and swapna avasthas, our experience is that we are located – such as “I am here in my hose in Adyar at Chennai”. But in sushupti avasthas, we are not located. Though we are not located, we do not lose our existence. What comes and goes is not our nature. So, location is not our nature. What is always there is our nature. So, all pervading existence is our nature. Location is an adhyaasa in the mind. When the mind is dormant in sushupti, the adhyaasa is not there.  But existence is not a contribution of the mind. If existence were the contributionof the mind, when the mind Is absent in sushupti we shall cease to exist. Similarly, when the mind is active in jagrat and swapna avasthas, we are with attributes. But in sushupti, when the mind is dormant, we are without  attributes. So attributes are also a contribution of the mind. So our nature is attributeless existence.

Note No. 27– Appreciation of  pure existence – Illustration

Pure existence is not available for perception. When you ask for water to drink, it has to be brought to you in a container, say, a paper cup. Pure existence has to be conveyed to our intellect through nama roopa. Just as you drink the water and discard the paper cup, when existence with nama roopa is revealed, you have to discard the nama roopa and understand the reality, the pure existence. Another example. I cannot show to you light directly. Pure light is invisible. So, I introduce my hand in the field of the all pervading invisible light and I tell you that there is a principle called light because of which alone the hand is visible. Then, I withdraw my hand and ask you to understand the existence of the light, even though it is not visible without the medium of the hand. Similarly, when Sastra talks of an existent world, it is doing so, wanting to reveal the substance called existence. World is an attribute; the substance is existence, just as bangle is a name and form given to the substance which is gold. Existence is not in water. Water is in existence. Pure existence bereft of the incidental attributes like sound, colour, smell etc. is not available for objectification. If pure existence cannot be objectified, what is it then ? There is only one possibility. It is that which enables everything else to be objectified but which itself cannot be objectified. To recognise it, you drop, intellectually, everything that you know. What remains is pure existence which is the same as pure consciousness. If all objects are negated, one may be inclined to think that there is nothing. In fact, one of the branches of Buddhism says that nothingness is the reality. But to say or think that nothingness is the reality – that itself requires consciousness.

Note No.28 – Punya papa not one’s nature

Existence is my nature, because I enjoy existence in all three avasthas. Consciousness is my nature because I enjoy consciousness in all three avasthas. Punya papa and punya papa phalam are not my nature because I don’t have them in all avasthas. There is no punya papa or punya papa phalam in sushupti. What is coming and going is not nature.  I, the atma am akarta, abhokta - “ asango hi ayam atma”

Note No.29 –Consciousness has no origin or end

The non-dual, eternal consciousness – Brahman-Atman – is without a beginning and end. We can apply logic for this. To know that consciousness had a beginning at a point of time, the absence of consciousness prior to that point of time has to be known. But, can we talk of prior non-existence (pragabhava), in the case of consciousness? The crucial question is what was it that knew the prior non-existence of consciousness?  Is it consciousness itself or is it something other than consciousness? The latter alternative has to be ruled out, because everything other than consciousness is insentient and what is insentient can never be credited with the knowledge function. The former alternative is also untenable. If consciousness exists at the time of apprehending the prior non-existence of consciousness, ex hypothesi, consciousness is not non-existent then. To say that something which exists apprehends its own non-existence at that time is absurd. Similarly, to know that consiousness ended at a point of time, the absence of consciousness posterior to that point of time (pradhwamsaabhaava) has to be known. For any such knowledge itself, consciousness is required. Therefore, consciousness is eternal.

 Note No. 30 – Existence has no origin or end

Existence also, has, logically, to be eternal. To know that existence originated at a particular point of time, a conscious entity has to exist prior to that point of time to be aware of the origin. So existence can have no beginning. To know that existence ended at a particular point of time, a conscious entity has to exist posterior to that point of time to be aware of the end. So existence has no end.

Note No. 31. Meaning of “sakshi-bhasyam”

 In Sastra, we come across statements that our thoughts are saakshi-bhaasyam (illumined by sakshi) .So also, the dream world is said to be sakshi-bhasyam. What is meant by illumination by sakshi is that sakshi provides cidabhasa to the vrittis of the mind and the vrittis that constitute the dream world.

Note No. 32. Suspension of prarabdha.

 Normally, praabdha quota of the sancita which is next in the queue determines the next birth’ But in the case of those who have performed religious sacrifices (yagnas0 or done upasana of deities, that prarabha is postponed until they have enjoyed the result for that yagna or upaasana in the appropriate world.

 THIS IS APPENDIX 5