Anubhuthi as self proved
Advaitin say that anubhuthi is svayamprakasa, self-proved. The reason
given for this is that if anubhuthi is not self proved it has to
depend on another to prove its existence, like a pot. This means, as
perceptions reveal an object like pot it does not need any other
means to reveal itself. If it is not self-proved it ceases to be
perception.
Ramanuja disagrees with this argument saying that in that case past
perceptions known through memory and the perceptions of others known
through inference will not be termed as perceptions. Unless the
perception of others are admitted to be known the meaning of words
and their connections will not be perceived and one will not be able
to infer the knowledge of the acharya and approach him for learning.
'Anubhuthithvam nAma,' says Ramanuja ,'varthamAnadhasAyAm svasatthayA
Eva svAsrayam prathi prakAsamAnathvam,' perception is that which
illumines its object by its very existence when it is present. The
objects like pot lack this attribute hence they are not
perceptions.So to say that, if perception depends on another to prove
its existence, it will not be different from objects of perception
like pot, is not correct. Even if the perception needs no proof for
its existence its ceasing to be perception could result as in the
case of skyflower of which there is no perception, ananubhuthithva,
the nonexistence of it does not need any other proof. If it is said
that in the case of skyflower the ananubhuthithva, nonperception, is
due to its being 'asat', nonexistent, whereas in the case of pot the
nonperception is due to ajnAnaavirodhithvam,not inimical to
ignorance, which means that the lack of knowledge about the pot, is
the cause. But Ramanuja says that it is not agreeable to cite two
different causes for the two nonperceptions and the same reason
ajnAnaavirodhithva is the cause in both cases.
The view that anubhuti is eternal is criticised.
The argument of the advaitin that there is no prior nonexistence,
prAgabhAva of anubhuthi and hence it is anaAdhi, has no beginning, is
refuted by Ramanuja saying, 'yatthu svthassisddhAyAh samvidhah
prAgabhAvAdhyabhAvAth uthpatthih nirasyathE - thaddhandhasya
jAthyandhEnayashtih pradheeyathE,' it is like one blind man giving a
staff to one who is born-blind, that is blind leading the blind.Just
because there is no one to perceive the prior nonexistence it cannot
be negated. The prior nonexistence of anubhuthi is perceived by
anubhuthi itself because perception is not restricted to the present
but extends to the past and future, except when the perception is
caused by the contact of sense organs with the sense objects, that
is, when we see a pot, the perception of it is with reference to that
particular object at that particular time and place. In the case of
memory, inference, vedic and yogic perception, what belongs to the
times other than the present is perceived.
Advaitin says that prAgabhAva, prior nonexistence of anubhuthi cannot
be proved by any pramANa since it cannot be cognised by sense
perception being nonexistent, nor by inference because the hetu,
like the smoke which is the reason for the inference of fire, is
not there. And there is no vedic text can be quoted in this matter.
So on the basis of the absence of any pramANa the prior nonexistence
of perception cannot be proved.
Ramanuja says, 'YadhyEvam svathssiddhathva vibhavam parithyajya
pramANAbhAve avaroodascheth yOgyAnupalabdhyA Eva abhAvah samarTHithah
ithi upasAmyathu bhavAn.' If the advaitin strives to prove that
perception is eternal having recourse to the absence of pramAna
rather than on the ground that perception is self-proved, the reply
would be in reference to yOgyAnupalabDHi. That is, if a thing exists
it must be capable, yOgya, of cognition. So anubhuthi if ever existed
prior to its cognition it would have been cognised. Hence It did not
exist.
The perception of a pot for instance shows its existence only at the
time of perception and not always. So perception is limited by time.
If it is eternal the object of cognition will also become eternal.
which is not the case. Similar is the case of cognition through any
other means of knowledge like anumAna, inference.
Advaitin may argue that what is meant by perception being eternal
has no reference to that of objects but anubhuthi in
general,nirvishaya samvid.( samvid and anubhuthi are synonymous
here.)
Advaitin says that an objectless perception is found in deep sleep,
intoxication and swoon but this is refuted by Ramanuja on the basis
of yOgyAnupalabDHi. If there is such pereption it would have been
remembered when awakened from such states. Since it is not the case
there is no such thing as objectless perception, nirvishayasamvid.
It cannot be argued that just because it is not remembered you cannot
say that there was no perception because we do not remember
everything previously experienced even in the waking state. Ramanuja
replies that only when there is a strong reason like leaving this
body, all experience is forgotten. So when there was no remembrance
of any experience whatsoever denotes only the absence of it.
Advaitin might argue that the reason for the lapse of memory of the
experience of perception is sleep is due to the absence of objects
and the 'I' factor in sleep. Presence of objects and the notion
of 'I' is necessary for the remembrance and they are also necessary
for having an experience in the absence of which there can be no
perception. It will be explained later that even in the state of
sleep the 'I'continues to exist. But that experience is of the Self
which will be shown to be savisesha. Here the absolute perception
devoid of all objects is only refuted. If it is said that the
experience of the Self is the absolute perception it is not
acceptable because even that is an attribute of the Self as will be
shown later.
So the argument that since anubhuthi cannot prove its own prAgabhAva
it should be eternal is wrong.Moreover what is eternal must have no
end. Advaitin says that since anubhuthi is not originated it suffers
no change and hence it has no end. This is not tenable says Ramanuja,
because there is vyabhichAra in prior nonexistence, prAgabhAva, of
things produced, like pot, their prior non existence has no beginning
but it ends when the thing is produced.
To evade this difficulty advaitin may define the term change as being
that of a bhAvapadhArTha, a positive entity. That is , the changes
that occur in positive object like pot is denied to be present in
anubhuthi. The changes which result in the destruction or end of the
positive entity like pot is not present in prior nonexistence, which,
though having no beginning , has an end. Ramanuja overrules this by
saying that avidhya according to advita is a bhAva padharTHa which
has no origination being anAdhi but it ends when the knowledge of
Brahman arises.But to the argument that the changes in avidhya are
said to be mitThyAbhootha, unreal, Ramanuja says that even the
changes in objects like pot are unreal according to advaita.Hence
anubhuthi cannot be proved to be eternal.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |