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

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00108 Jul 2006

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


.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. 
















































------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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