(From the book: Brahmavid Aasirvada Paddhati by Swami Vidyaranya)
Salutations to Paramahamsa Parivrajaka Śrī Vidyāraṇya Muni.
This is the book on Sri Brahmavid-Aasirvada: composed by Srimat Paramahamsa Parivrajaka Sri Vidyaranya Swami. On this book of blessings, I am trying to write an essay, inspired by someone, according to the words, ‘I do as I am commanded by some Deva residing in my heart.’
Śrī Vidyāraṇya Muni had a deep and clear knowledge of all the scriptures. By studying his texts, it is noted that his understanding of the principle of Reality was as clear as the gooseberry on the palm of his hands. His texts are easily understood. Rarely one comes across this type of series of works. The following are his texts: on grammar, Mādhavīya-dhatu-vṛtti; Jaimini’s Nyayamala in Mimamsa; In the Smritis: in the Paraśara Samhita, there are two essays on Paraśaramadhava and Kālamādhava; A collection of all philosophies, Sarvadarshanasangraha, in philosophies; Among the poems, Shankara Digvijaya; in the Puranas – A detailed commentary on the Advaita Tattva Darshana of the Suta Samhita in the Skanda Purana. The works he wrote in Vedanta are Vivaranaprameyasangraha, Brihadaranyakavartikasara, Panchadashi, Jivanmuktiviveka, Anubhutiprakasha, Aparokshanubhutitika, Aitareya Upanishaddeepika and Chhandogya Upanishaddeepika.
In Vedanta, Panchadashi is well known. In fifteen chapters this book explains everything that is necessary for those seeking liberation. This is a book that should be studied continuously. There, in the first section on discrimination of Tatva, it is shown that Consciousness (Brahman) is eternal since it is one and pervasive, and there is no argument concerning its lack of pre-existence, nor on its destruction. Top of FormConsciousness is self-luminous because it is direct and independent of means. Atman is also self-illuminating and eternal, and as Consciousness and Atman have the same characteristic and there is no difference between the two, there is oneness between them. Though the pot and the cloth have the same characteristic of smell (arising from the same earth, whose characteristic is smell) they are different in view of obvious different characteristics. Here, however, since there is absence of different characteristics between Consciousness and Atman, their oneness is established.
Atman is of the form of Bliss in as much as ‘Sachchidananda is Brahman’ according to Vedas. Because Atman is the object of supreme love, it is also logically proved that it is the form of Bliss. There is also this fact that Atman is the form of supreme Bliss, as it is the object of love for others. This is unlike a pot.
From the Vedic statements ‘Ayamatma Brahma’ (This Atman is Brahman), ‘Tattvamasi’ (You are That), ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman) etc., the unity between Jiva and Brahman has been taught. Here some analysis is called for.
The experience of all people, the high and the low, is: ‘I am Jiva, I am happy, I am unhappy, I am the doer, I am the enjoyer, I am subject to death’. So how is the unity of the Jiva and Brahman as stated in the scriptures possible?
It is now stated. ‘Brahman is Sacchidananda, Iswara is the reflection of Brahman in Maya, and the reflection of the same Brahman in the process of working on Maya, in the inner equipment (mind) is Jiva. This sense of object-reflection is also observed in the Vedic statement, ‘Rupam Rupam Pratirupo Babhuva’. It is well known that some of the properties of an object are observed also in its reflected image. For example, the sun is luminous in its image in a reflecting medium. In the image, so many subjective characteristics also come into play, just as movement and so on as in the image in water. Similarly, even in the Jiva in the form of the Brahman-image, doership, enjoyership, Top of Formpleasure and pain, and similar experiences occur. The differences in the limiting adjuncts of Jivas also lead to differences in the reflected forms of Jivas. Everyone knows the unity of object and reflected image. Therefore, the unity of the Jiva in the form of an image of Brahman as object is not contrary to logic. However, after the cessation of beginningless Avidya (ignorance) causing the superimposition of Jiva’s attachment to the body and of each other’s characteristics, the true knowledge of one’s own reality is attained through absorption of Mahavakyas like ‘Tattvamasi, Aham Brahmasmi’ etc.
However, in this doctrine of reflected image, there are some who raise objections. In the world, the reflection of a formless, attributeless entity is not seen. In fact, reflection of an object possessing form and qualities is only seen. ‘Therefore, your idea of object and image in this case is against our experience’. The answer is that reflection is explained through the fact that the reflection of sky, which is formless, is practically seen. But there is no means of cessation of the superimposition caused by the beginningless Avidya, which gives rise to doubts based on superficial attractions of the world. Because it is beginningless and is incapable of removing the illusion, like the illusion of the moon being small and associated with a particular area, it is not removed even by Shastras. ‘I am happy, I am the doer, I am unhappy,’ is indeed the real nature of the Jiva. That is why no one seems to be supremely blissful by mere knowledge of statements like Mahavakyas. In the case of Jiva, there is no doubt that unlike what is physically observed, deep consideration of an uncertain subject will not give any fruit and hence the effort of teaching Jiva ‘Tattvamasi, Aham Brahmasmi’ will only be futile. Now the resolution of this.
Further, Veda declares: “Atman must be seen, heard, reflected upon, and meditated upon;” “Atman is perceived by seers of subtlety through intense and subtle intellect.” Realization is attained through a process of listening (śravaṇa), reflection (manana), and deep meditation (nididhyāsana). Thus the means of direct realization of the Atman are shown.
It is true that ordinary people experience “I am happy, I am unhappy, I perform action,” etc. If these were taken as ultimate truth, then the teachings of Vedas would become meaningless. However, the Vedas, not made by humans, clearly declare: “I am Brahman,” “This Atman is Brahman.” That is the intended conclusion of the Vedas; this is clear from analysis of Mimamsa (investigation). This is well established in the commentary (of Adi Shankara) on Brahma Sutra,’Tattu Samanvayat’ – That is from the connected sequences seen in Upanishads. Direct observation is sometimes authentic and sometimes inauthentic. Since the Vedas are infallible, the understanding arising from them is certainly authentic. Though, as evidence, direct observation is the most significant, it is not the best in terms of authoritative proof; in view of the possibility of defects. Hence the words of Vedas are stronger in comparison with direct observation. Even considering the relative strengths of proof, from the Vedic declarations ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ etc., the understanding of the sense of authority arises. However, the question remains as to why the worldly understanding of ‘I am happy, unhappy, doer’ does not cease in the enlightenment arising from the Vedic declaration even after hearing it a hundred times. Answer: This worldly illusion is direct experience. To avoid direct delusion, direct knowledge is required. There is no relief from such an illusion if we have mere verbal fault-ridden knowledge from the statement ‘I am Brahman’ etc. ‘That which is directly and indirectly Brahman’ means that Brahman is also indirect. The occasion for the scriptures mentioned above is the mention of indirect knowledge of Brahman. From the statements of injunction, ‘Atman is to be seen, heard, thought and meditated upon’, it appears that knowledge becomes the subject of injunction for action. Now whether knowledge is the subject of injunction for action or not is taken up for consideration.
Sound (of Vedas) first produces indirect knowledge. Later, for the purpose of realization, the phrases ‘Atma vare drashtavyaḥ’ etc. indicate the method of attaining the Brahman, according to a certain group. (Vaiyasikanyayamala). This is the resolution according to the opinion of Śrī Vidyārāṇya. Knowledge is not the subject of injunction for action, since it is not in the purview of injunction. Knowledge is of the nature of revealing an object. It does not act, nor is it something to be acted upon. It simply illumines. Therefore, knowledge arises through valid means of knowing (pramāṇa), especially the scriptures in the case of Brahman. Action comes under the purview of injunction and it is under the control of humans. Action is capable of being done by a man, not done, or done otherwise. Top of FormThe means of knowledge (pramāṇa) operates with regard to the object. Knowledge depends on the object, not the object on knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is said to be object-dependent. Knowledge rises only from evidence; it is dependent on evidence. For obtaining knowledge based on evidence, object is required. In the absence of object, the question of evidence does not arise; hence knowledge is dependent on both object and evidence (means of perceiving the object). Action depends on the person, as can be seen in the case of depositing materials in fire. There is no knowledge there, as in the case of knowledge arising merely on evidence like perception of a pot. In the process of rise of knowledge in a person, contact is present, that is only for presenting the object before him. In his mind, a certain mode (inclination) rises, that mode contacts the object and thence the knowledge; thus there is no cause for this knowledge, as in the case of action. Knowledge of an object is nothing but the reflected image of the sentience surrounding the object; then where is the human effort in obtaining this knowledge? Statements like ‘Atman is to be seen’ are not commands for obtaining knowledge, but they appear like commands. Prior to Self-realisation, they are meant to deflect the mind from sense objects and focus it on Atman. The reflected image in a mirror is not human effort, but it is the characteristic dependent on the object. There is no activity of the person in producing this image. There is only benefit he derives; by showing his face in the mirror, he sees the image. Just as there is no utility from the father of the potter in making of the pot, since he is of no direct benefit to the potter, he is not the cause of the pot. Similarly the mirror is not the cause of knowledge, but it is only a utility.
In Panchadashi, it is stated: ‘The Mahavakya (like You are That), when free from hindering doubts, first gives rise to indirect knowledge, the intellectual understanding that Brahman exists. Later, through deep reflection and meditation, this same knowledge ripens into direct experience. The realisation of Atman becomes as clear and immediate as holding a gooseberry in the palm of one’s hand’. In the Vaiyasika Nyayamala, ‘ in the first stanza, in the third chapter, it is clear from the passage starting from the statement ‘I ask that Purusha of the Upanishads,’ that knowledge of the Jiva-Brahman-oneness is born only from the scriptural phrases, ‘Tattvamasi’, ‘Ayamatma Brahma’ etc. That is of the nature of direct perception, since it eliminates the illusion caused by mistaken direct perception. Now let us consider if indirect knowledge is caused by words or not. Why the need for knowledge? The need for knowledge is for destroying ignorance. Knowledge of a particular subject destroys ignorance of that subject only. If the illusion based on ignorance is indirect, then indirect knowledge is required to destroy it. The illusion ‘I am the doer, the enjoyer, I am happy, I am unhappy’ appears direct. The knowledge that prevents it is required to be direct. Otherwise, indirect knowledge that the Moon is massive will dispel the illusion that the Moon is small and local; and it is not dispelled, as is the experience of all. Knowledge of direct proof that I am neither the doer nor the enjoyer but the form of Sacchidananda is necessary. The directness of Brahman is stated in the scriptures, such as ‘that which is directly, not indirectly Brahman’. Therefore, there is scope for consideration. It is stated in the Vedas that Brahman is without attributes and mutation. It is not possible, however, for it to be a direct object perceived by the senses. But knowledge does accrue from the word by the doctrine that ‘the word does produce knowledge even if it were extremely untrue’, just as the phrase ‘then your mother is barren’ does give knowledge, because the man who hears the phrase becomes angry. Hence, in comparison with other proofs, word is special. Even there, the irritating knowledge derived from the phrase ‘your mother is barren’ mentioned above is illusory. However, is it a direct illusion or a verbal illusion? This is similar to the knowledge that when it is stated that the lake is on fire, everyone knows that there cannot be any fire in the lake. The followers of Nyaya (logicians) believe that as such words do not produce proper knowledge, such words cannot be termed suitable for generating right knowledge. On this basis, the Nyaya school postulates that direct perception (through sense organs) should only be treated as right knowledge. According to Vedanta, however, the word includes the possibility of absence of corresponding object indicated by the word. Moreover, from the phrase ‘you are the tenth’1 arises direct knowledge, as it dispels the illusion caused by direct knowledge. But the mind is not seen to be independently the cause of knowledge, since it is the source of knowledge only with the cooperation of the other senses. The great phrases ‘I am Brahman’, etc., which are the direct source of happiness and the direct experience, produce only direct knowledge. By this one attains freedom from the direct illusion that ‘I am the doer’ and the root cause of worldly suffering and the attainment of supreme bliss. By this is rejected the possibility of direct knowledge from word including inference as in the words ‘Moon is huge’. As given in texts like Advaitasiddhi, Chitsukhi etc., direct experience is impossible by simple repetition of phrases like ‘I am Brahman’. An inference becomes invalid and cannot produce certain knowledge because of the fault of deviation, i.e. absence of uniform occurrence of a result when the cause is present.
Now, from the statement ‘I am Brahman’, etc., the removal of ignorance and the attainment of supreme bliss occur. For whom? Is it for Jiva, who is Consciousness, distinct from the inner senses (mind etc.), or for the Witness, who is integral with mind etc.? That is now stated. First, the analysis of the forms of Jiva and Witness is taken up. Where Jiva is said to be Consciousness distinct from mind, mind becomes the qualifier. A qualifier is connected with action. In the statement ‘I see the pot’, in the action of seeing, the term ‘I’ denotes Jiva distinct from the mind. For acquiring all knowledge, Jiva, distinct from mind, is there; then, why another entity called Witness? That is now stated. As the proof of Jiva, distinct from mind, is to be distinct from inertness (this is because Jiva is seen to acquire knowledge of inert objects), it has no ability to illumine itself, like an inert object. Thus, a witness is necessary for the explanation of the triplet (one who acts, object acted upon and the action) or for the knowledge of the proof. Even there, the Jiva is superimposed on the witness. This superimposition is of the nature of identity. In practice, it is seen that I am going myself. There, ‘myself’ is the foundation, on which is superimposed ‘I’. For example, in ‘this is silver’, ‘this’ is the foundation, on which is superimposed ‘silver’. ‘This’ is the general part and ‘silver’ is the special part. Similarly, here too, the general part is self. From the experience of the world, he goes himself, you go yourself, I go myself.
The cause of this superimposition is ignorance. Jiva (Consciousness, distinct from mind), superimposed on Witness, is construed as experiencer of happiness and sorrow and the one who departs to the other world on death. More on this can be seen in the texts like Panchadashi.
The biography of Sri Vidyaranya Muni is written in the latter part of the book, Brahmavid Aashirvada, and hence there is no need to write it here.
In this essay, I conclude by saying to the scholars that the doctrine of ‘water and milk’ be followed. Bottom of Form
Ref.1. ‘You are the tenth’ is a classical pedagogical analogy in Advaita Vedanta used to illustrate how ‘Avidya’ (ignorance) causes us to overlook our true nature, though it is ever present. The analogy follows ten friends who cross a river. After reaching the shore, they wish to count the total number of persons present in order to ensure that everyone has reached safely. Each counts, but excludes himself in the count and hence concludes that there are only nine. They all feel miserable as one is missing. A passing wise traveller listens to their story and says, ‘You are the tenth’. Similarly Advaita teaches that you are already Brahman, but you suffer because you are looking everywhere except at your own essential nature.Bottom of Form
(Translated from the Samskrit: P. R. Kannan)
