You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Jul 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00102 Jul 2006

 
Jul 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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' a work on 
advaia 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. 


















------------------------ 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/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list