The knower is not ahamkara which is the product of ignorance.
Advaitin claims that anubhuthi is without a knower, asraya and the
known, vishaya. Due to illusion it appears as the knower as the
shell silver appears as silver. Anubhuthi is the adhishtAna or
substratum of illusion like the silver and hence real. Ramanuja says
that this is untenable. The perception is always is of the form 'I
perceive, ' and not as 'I am the perception.' Anubhuthi shows the
knower to be separate from the object of perception as when Devadatta
is seen having a staff, it is not the perception of the staff alone
but also the one who is holding the staff. So the experience 'I
perceive' shows the 'I' having the anubhuthi, and is not of anubhuthi
only.
Ramnuja refutes the view that the concept of knower is an
illusion,mithyA, as in the identification of AthmA with the body
saying 'I am stout'etc.If so, even the identification if anubhuthi
with the AtmA would be delusion because it is perceived by the one
under illusion. If it is argued that the knowledge of Brahman which
removes all illusion does not affect perception, anubhuthi ,(the
perception in the abstract meaning and not that of objects) and hence
it is not an illusion, then the same argument holds good for the
Self which is having the perception.and is hence the knower and
therefore cannot be mithyA.
` Advaitin contends that since the Self is devoid of changes it
cannot be the knower. Knowing involves changes as knowing is an
action and the AthmA is actionless. To be a knower requires an object
to be known and the action of knowing, all of which are the effects
of avidhya. So the knowership abides in ahamkara and not in the Self.
Otherwise the imperfections of the body will adhere to the Self.
Ramanuja refutes this. JnAthrthva, knowership does not belong to the
ahamkara which is jada, It is distinguished from the Self on the same
grounds that the body and other objects which are all dhrsyas,
objects of perception, are , being outward, being perceived. Ahamkara
is also perceived and hence not the perceiver.. It is also the
product of avidhya and therefore jada. Being not the perceiver the
ahamkara cannot be the knower.
The reason given to show that the knower is not the Self, namely,
that it is subject to change, is not correct, says Ramanuja, 'na cha
jnAthrthvam vikriyaAthmakam jnAthrthvam hi jnAnaguNAsrayathvam jnAnam
cha asya nithyasya svAbhAvika dharmathvEna nithyam; nithyam cha
Athmanah "nAthmA sruthEh" ithi vakshyathi.' The knower is not
subject to changes . JnAthrthvam, knowership, has jnAna as its
attribute and jnAna is the essential attribute of the Self which is
eternal and hence jnAna is also eternal. That the Self is eternal is
shown by the suthras ' nAthmA srutheh'(BS.2-3-18), jnO athaEva (2-3-
19 which means that the Self is not a product but is eternal and so
is the knowledge which is its attribute which is confirmed by the
sruti texts.
It could not be argued that if jnAna is eternal and the essential
characterestic of the Self, then one should be knowing all at all
times because the jnAna though unlimited by nature attains samkocha
vikAsa, contraction and expansion depending on the state of bondage
and that of release. The contraction of jnAna is not svAbhAvika,
natural but is due to the amount of karma at a particular time and
therefore it is karmakrtha, effect of karma. Thus the Self is
changeless in reality. So the jnAhrthva, knowership pertains only to
the Self and not to ahamkara, ego.
Advaitin comes up with an explanation that the ahamkara appears to
be the knower due to close proximity with the perception, anubhuthi
created by the falling of shadow upon one another. Ramanuja asks
him 'kA chitcchAyApatthih? kim ahmakAracchAyApatthih samvidhah
uthasamvicchAyApatthih ahamkaarasya? na thAvath samvidhah jnAthrthva
ANbhyupagamAth;nApyahamkArasya, ukthareethyA thasya jadasya
jnAthrthva ayOgAth.' It should be specified as to the shadow of which
falls on which. Either ahamkara casts its shadow on the samvid or
vice versa. Samvid is not accepted as the knower as shown already and
ahamkara is jada being the product of avidhya, and therefore cannot
be the knower.There is yet another valid reason for neither of them
to be the knower, says Ramanuja, 'dhvayOrapi achAkshushthvAccha,na hi
achAkshushANAm cchAyA dhrshtA,' both being not seen by the eye and a
thing not seen is not known to cast a shadow.
If it is said to be similar to the situation where a piece of iron
put into the fire attains the heat of the fire and thus the
knowership appears in ahamkAra with the contact of anubhuthi that
also fails to prove the point. Since anubhuthi itself is not a knower
it cannot impart the knowership to ahamkAra.
Advaitin tries to surmount this difficulty by saying that neither
ahamkAra nor anubhuthi is the knower. AhamkAra only reflects
anubhuthi like a mirror and gives an appearance of anubhuthi to be in
it.So ahamkAra seems to be the knower of anubhuthi. This argument is
forwarded on the basis that the concept of knower is not real
according to the theory of advaita.Even this cannot be accepted
because ahmkAra is incapable of manifesting anything being a jada
and anubhuthi is said to be self-proved and manifests everything else
including ahamkAra. Ramnuja quotes from 'Athmasiddhi' of Yamunacharya
to disprove this explanation. It says,'shAnthAngAra iva Adhithyam
ahamkArO jadAthmikA svayamjyothisham aAthmAnam vyanakthi ithi na
yukthimath,' AhamkAra being insentient cannot manifest the Athma,
which is self illumined as an extinguished fire cannot manifest the
Sun.
As anubhuthi is self-proved according to the advaitin it is
contradictory to ahamkAra which is jada and if anubhuthi is said to
be manifested by ahamkAra it ceases to be anubhuthi as per the
theory of advaita. To quote from Athmasiddhi
again, 'vyangthrvyangyathvamanyOnyam na cha syAt prAthikoolyathah
vyangyathvE ananubhuthithvam AthmanisyAth yathA ghatE.' The
relationship of the manifestor and manifested cannot happen between
two entities of conflicting nature.It cannot be said that like the
rays of the Sun enter through a hole are manifested on the hand
samvid is manifested in ahamkAra because the rays of the Sun are not
manifested by the palm which only obstructs them and they manifest
themselves.
.
Ramanuja asks, 'kimchAsyasmvitsvarupasya Athmanh ahamkAra nirvarthyA
abhivyakthih kim rupA?,' what is the nature of the manifestation of
samvid, which is Athman, for advaitins? It is not produced since
samvid or anubhuthi is said to be unoriginated. Nor does it appear,
as the anubnuthi is said to be not the object of another perception.
It cannot also be an indirect manifestation through another means
like the sense-contact with the object or by removing the obstruction
that prevents manifestation.The first kind is seen in the perception
of jati by seeing the vyakthi, the object that belongs to the jati
and the perception of the face in the mirror by the contact of the
eye with the image.The second is the removal of defect from the
perceiver which obstructs the perception, as the control of mind and
senses through samadhamadhi in order to help the comprehension of the
sasthras, which provide the knowledge of Brahman.Ramanuja dismisses
both kinds of manifestation of anubhuthi by ahamkara by quoting from
Athmasiddhih. "KaraNAnAm abhoomithvAth na thathsambandha hEthuthA;
ahamarThasyaboddhrthvAthna sa thenaiva soDhyathE." The first is not
possible since anubhuthi is not an object of sense perception and the
second also is impossible since ahamkara is the perceiver according
to advaitin and hence cannot remove its own defect.
Neither does Ahamkara help perception in the way that a lamp helps
the eye to perceive the object which was hitherto in darkness. There
can be no obstacle to be removed in the case of perception through
ahamkAra. AjnAna cannot reside in anubhuthi which is self -luminous
and ajnAna can only be removed by jnAna. Since samvid is said to be
of the nature of jnAna, being the same as Atman,ajAna cannot reside
in it as jnAna and ajnAna are mutually exclusive. AjnAna, ignorance
can reside only in the knower and not in the known, like ghata. Since
anubhuthi, identical with Athma for advaitin, is not the knower but
a mere perception and a witness ajnAna cannot reside in it.
Moreover if ajnana is said to be a bhava padhArtha, a positive entiy
it will be refuted later. If on the otherhand it is mere absence of
jnAna, it is not an obstacle and comes to an end as soon as the jnAna
arises. So by no reason whatsoever ahamkAra can manifest anubhuthi.
Also the contention that anubhuthi is manifested by ahamkAra as
abiding in it is not acceptable. The manifesting agents like a bright
light do not show the object they manifest, as abiding in them. Even
a mirror does not manifest the face but only the light does it which
when reflected inside the mirror shows the face as though it is
inside the mirror.Similarlt the jnAna is the manifestor and not the
ahamkAra. anubhuthi being self-proved is not perceived by the eye and
hence ahamkAra cannot show it as an erraneous perception appearing
itself as a knower. AhamkAra is therfore not the knower and thre real
knower is the Self and the anubhuthi is not the Self.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/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 |