----- Original Message -----
From: sarojram18
To: Oppiliappan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 10:48 PM
Subject: [Oppiliappan] Sribhashya-the knower is present in sleep and release
.Presence of'I' in deepsleep and release.
The advaitin says that the knowership belongs to the ego and not
the self and this is proved by the fact that in deep sleep and in
realisation the ahamkAra, ego, is absent. But Ramanuja refutes this
view and says that 'thamO guna abhibhavAthparAgarTHa anubhava
abhAvAccha ahamarTHasya vivikthasphutaprathibhAsa abhAvE api
AprabhOdhAth ahamithyEkAkArENA Athmanh sphuraNAth sushupthou api
nAhambhAvigamah.' In sleep one is pervaded by thamas in the form of
ignorance and hence there is no distinct experience of anything
because there is no external manifestation to the ego . But when
awakened one remembers his identity and therefore the concept of 'I'
must have been present in sleep. On rising from sleep one does not
remember having been only a witness of a perception with no
experience but always recollects that he has slept well. So there has
been a knower who experienced the sukha of deep sleep. Also because
one has a recollection of his actions done before he went to sleep.
To the objection that when awakened from sleep one also has the
feeling 'I did not know anything during the time of sleep,' Ramanuja
replies that it is not a denial of all experiences as otherwise even
the anubhuthi will be denied in sleep. The words 'I did not know'
proves the existence of 'I ' who did not know by which the perception
alone was denied. Sensible persons will not accept that the 'I' also
was absent at the time of sleep. Even the expression 'I' did not know
myself implies only the absence of the awareness of the identity of
oneself as so and so as in wakeful state but does not denote the
absence of 'I' itself.
Moreover the advatin proclaims that the Self continues to exist as a
sAkshi, the witness consciousness. SAkshitva is not possible without
being a knower. It cannot be pure consciousness. One who knows can
only be a sAkshi according to the great grammarian PANini who
defines the word sAkshi as 'sAkshAth dhrashtari samjnAyAm,' the one
who sees, that is, one who knows, is the sAkshi. The Self by its very
existence shines for itself and as the'I.'Hence the Atma that shines
even in deep sleep does so as the real 'I.'
Similarly it can be shown that the 'I' shines even in release.
Otherwise it will result in AthmanAsa, says Ramanuja. It cannot be
said that ahamarThah, the concept of 'I' is only an attribute wrongly
superimposed on the athman which alone disappears in release while
the athman remains. On the contrary the ahamarTha is not a mere
attribute but the very substance of the Self. Only the jnana is the
attribute of the Self. One aspires for moksha, relief, in order to
get rid of the thapathraya, the three kinds of suffering due to
samsara, which are AdhyAthmika, caused by one's own body and mind,
Adhidhaivika, due to destiny and Adhibhouthika caused by other by the
elements of nature, respectively. If there is the destruction of
the 'I,' the experiencer in release no one will strive for it. Hence
the 'I' which shines as a knower, is the inner self, prathyagathma.
This can be proved through inference also.The syllologism is stated
thus: ' Sa cha prathyagAthma mukthou api ahamithyeva prakAsathE
svasmai prakasamanathvath;yo yah svasmai prakasathE sah sarvo aham
ithyeva prakasathe; yaTHA thaTHA avabhasathvena ubhayavAdhi
sammathah samsaryAthma.' The Self shines only as the real 'I' even
in release because it shines for its own benefit. Whatever shines for
its own benefit shines as the 'I' as the samsAryAthma, the
transmigratory self. "Yah punah ahamithi na chakAsthi, nAsou svasmai
prakAsathE yaTHA ghatAdhih,' that which is not shining as aham,'I,'
does not shines for itself but requires another to manifest it, like
the pot.
Advaitin objects to this saying that if the Self shines as 'I' in
mukthi it will not be different from the ego which is the product of
ignorance. Ramanuja replies that ignorance could be of three kinds.
It could be svrupaajnana, ignorance of the real nature, or
anyaTHAjnAna, misapprehension or viprithajnAna, wrong apprehension.
To understand the real nature of Athma as the real 'I' is not
ignorance.
Next Ramanuja proves his point by citing the example of seers like
Vamadeva who have had the brahmasAkshAthkAra, by removal of avidhya ,
perceived themselves as 'I' only, and not as pure
consciousness. 'Thdvaithathpasyan rshirvAmabEvah prathipEdhe aham
manurabhavam suryascha ithi.'(Brhd.3-4-10). The seer VAmadEva seeing
that( Brahman) observed 'I was Manu and the Sun. 'Ahmekah praTHamam
Asam varthAmi cha bhavishyAmicha.' "I alone existed, exist and will
exist."
Such is the mode of expression even about Brahman, 'hanthAham imAh
thisrAh devathah' (Chan.6-3-2), 'I will enter these three
devathas,' 'bahusyAm prajAyEya,' 'I will become many' 'sa eekshatha
lokAnnusrjA ithi,' ' He willed; I will create the worlds.' In
bhagavatgita the lOrd says,iam the Self of all ,' and several similar
expressions are found in Gita.The svarupa of the Self is the only
real 'I' and the ahamkAra normally understood as'aham' is only a
product of matter as mentioned by the Lord
Himself 'mahAbhoothAnyahamkArO buddhiravyakthamEvacha,' the elements,
buddhi and ahamkAra are the products of the unmanifest prakrthi. The
word ahamkAra means that it makes one regard as 'I' that which is
not 'I'. The word is used in gita to denote pride; 'ahamkAram balam
dharpam'(BG18-53) and hence ahamkAra is only the product of
ignorance, which gives the impression of 'aham' in body, mind and
intellect. ParAsara has mentioned this in vishnupurana 'srooyathAm
chApyavidhyAyAh svarupam kulanandana; anAthmani AthmabuddhiryA' (VP.6-
7-10) "Hear the nature of avidhyA;it is the notion of athma in
anAthma."`
Ramanuja says 'yadhi jnapthimAthramEva AthmA thadhAanAthmani
AthmAbhimAne jnapthimAthraprathibhAsah syAth; na
jnAthrthvaprathibhasah.' If anubhuthi is the self then in the
perception of 'I' in the body etc. will be mere anubhuthi and not as
a knower.Therefore 'I', the knower alone is Athma. To quote
YAmunAchArya 'athah prathyaksha siddhathvAthukthanyAyAgamAnvayAth
avidhyA yogathaschAthmA jnAthAham ithi bhAsathE.(Athmasiddhi) The
Athma, knower, shines as 'I' and this is proved by perception
inference and sruthi and the effect of ignorance as pointed
out.'Dehendhriya manafprAnadheebhyOanyOanayasAdhanah nithyO vyApee
prathikshethramAthmA bhinnah svathah sukhee.'(Athmasiddhi) The Athma
is other than body,senses, mind, prAna and intellect and is self-
proved, eternal all pervading,separate in each body and happy by
nature.Here vyApee means the most subtle nature capable of entering
into all beings.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/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 |