Upadesha SAhasrI 18.43
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Namaste,
while reading the Anandagiri TIkA on Upadesha SAhasrI, I came across the insightful commentary by Anandagiri Swamiji on 18.43. Sharing a lucid explanation thereof in my own words. To read in PDF, click at https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/upadesha-sahasri-18.43.pdf.
In Upadesha SAhAsrI 18.43, AchArya says as under:
आत्माभासाश्रयाश्चैवं मुखाभासाश्रया यथा । गम्यन्ते शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यामाभासासत्त्वमेव च ॥४३॥
Just as mukha, mukha-AbhAsa and mukha-AbhAsa-Ashraya appear separate from each other, similarly AtmA, AtmA-AbhAsa and AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya appear separate from each other. This is proved by ShAstra as well as by logic. However, through ShAstra and logic, the AtmA-AbhAsa and AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya are also determined as non-existent.
The Anandagiri TIkA explains the shlOka as under:
दृष्टान्तनिविष्टमर्थं दार्ष्टान्तिके योजयति – आत्मा । यथा मुखं तदाभासस्तदाश्रयश्चेत्येते व्यवहारतो विभक्ता भासन्ते तथैवात्मा तदाभासः तदाश्रयश्चेत्येते मिथो विलक्षणा गम्यन्ते ।
AchArya begins this shlOka in order to utilize the drishTAnta of mukha, mukha-AbhAsa and mukha-AbhAsa-Ashraya (mirror) for the intended topic i.e. that of AtmA, AtmA-AbhAsa and AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya (ajnAna, ahamkAra etc). AchArya says that just as mukha, mukha-AbhAsa and mukha-AbhAsa-Ashraya appear transactionally divided, similarly AtmA, AtmA-AbhAsa and AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya appear mutually distinct.
This is evident from both ShAstra and logic.
ShAstra and logic as evidence in existence of AtmA
एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः इत्यादिशास्त्राद्बुद्ध्यादेर्विषयान्तरस्यागमापायिनो नित्य सिद्धसाक्ष्यात्मव्यतिरेकेण स्फुरणानुपपत्तेरिति युक्तेश्चात्मास्तित्वं सिद्धम् ।
The ShvetAshvatara Shruti 6.11 “एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा । कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च” is an evidence in the existence of Atman.
Buddhi etc and other objects are transient. And hence without ever-evident sAkshI-AtmA, the experience of transient entities is impossible.
Thus, the existence of AtmA is proved through Shruti and logic.
ShAstra and logic as evidence in acceptance of AtmA-AbhAsa
अग्निर्यथैको भुवनं प्रविष्ट इत्यादिशास्त्रात्कूटस्थासङ्गाद्वितीयात्मनोऽविद्यातत्कार्यसंस्पर्शानुपपत्तेः सुखदुःखाद्यनुभवासिद्धौ अज्ञानादावाभासाद्युपगमेन तदविवेकादज्ञान-तत्कार्यसंस्पर्शंभ्रमप्रसिद्ध्या सुखदुःखाद्यनुभवसिद्धिरित्येवमात्मकयुक्तेश्चात्माभासास्तित्वं सिद्धयति ।
KaTha Upanishad 2.5.9 stating “अग्निर्यथैको भुवनं प्रविष्टो रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव ।एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बहिश्च ॥” proves the acceptance of AtmA-AbhAsa.
The logic for acceptance of AtmA-AbhAsa is as follows. AtmA is asanga, immutable and non-dual. Such immutable AtmA cannot have contact with avidyA and avidyA-kArya. And hence there would arise the occasion of absence of experiences such as sukha and dukha (which are accepted in samsAra to be experienced by AtmA). However, the same can be established if one posits AtmA-AbhAsa in entities such as ajnAna (,ahamkAra) etc. And due to the non-discrimination of AtmA with such AtmA-AbhAsa, there can arise the experience of sukha, dukha etc (for AtmA) which can be postulated on account of contact of such AtmA-AbhAsa with avidyA and avidyA-kArya.
Thus, the acceptance of AtmA-AbhAsa is established through Shruti and logic.
ShAstra and logic as evidence in acceptance of AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya
‘अव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इत्यादिशास्त्रादसङ्गत्वादिलक्षणस्यात्मनः साक्षादाकाशादिरूपेण परिणामायोगादनाद्यनिर्वचनोयं किञ्चिदज्ञानं तदुपाधिभूतमभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति युक्तेश्चात्माभासाश्रयो निश्चीयते ।
KaTha Upanishad stating “अव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः” in 1.3.11 “महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः । पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥” and MunDaka Upanishad stating “अक्षरात्परतः परः” in 2.1.2 “दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रो ह्यक्षरात्परतः परः ॥” establish AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya (avidyA).
Further, AtmA which has lakshaNa such as asangatva cannot have direct pariNAma in the form of AkAsha etc. Hence, some anirvachanIya ajnAna acting as the upAdhi of such asanga AtmA needs to be accepted for logical validity. Thus, AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya (avidyA) is determined through logic.
Thus, the acceptance of AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya is established through Shruti and logic.
ShAstra and logic as evidence in non-existence of AtmA-AbhAsa
एतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुविनश्यतीति श्रुतेरागमापायित्वयुक्तेश्चात्माभासासत्त्वं प्रतिभाति ।
BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad 2.4.12 stating “एतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानु विनश्यति न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्तीत्यरे ब्रवीमीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः ॥” is an evidence in non-existence of AtmA-AbhAsa.
Further, since AtmA-AbhAsa is transient, hence logically, it has to be non-existent. [आत्माभासस्य असत्त्वम्, आगमापायित्वात्, रज्जुसर्पवत्]
ShAstra and logic as evidence in non-existence of AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya
‘ब्रह्म वेद’ इति शास्त्रात् जडत्वादियुक्तेश्चाज्ञानादेराश्रयस्याप्यसत्त्वं निश्चितमिति चशब्दार्थः ।
MunDaka Upanishad 3.2.9 stating “ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति” is an evidence in non-existence of AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya such as ajnAna (,ahamkAra) etc.
Further, on account of AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya having attributes such as jaDatva (,drishyatva) etc, logically, their non-existence is proved. [आत्माभासाश्रयस्य असत्त्वम्, जडत्वात्, रज्जुसर्पवत्]
एवमात्मा तदाभासस्तदाश्रयश्चेति त्रितयमुक्तलक्षणात्सिद्धमित्यर्थः ॥ ४३ ॥
Thus, all three namely AtmA, AtmA-AbhAsa and AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya are established.
Michael Chandra Cohen
It has been shown in so many vakya-s that avidya cannot be determined logically! It is not anumana siddha but anubhava siddha - undeniably evident by experience. The question to resolve is the nature of this experience and not to prove the existence of the snake. We only have to prove there is no snake.
AvidyA which appears to be well-established in our experience is not really established by any pramAna.
seyam bhAntir nirAlambA sarva-nyAya-virodhInI
shate na vicAram sA tamo ya-vad divAkaram
This ignorance is without a cause and violates all rules and reasons. It no more brooks investigation than darkness brooks the light of the sun.
Adhyasa Bhasya, "...and the superimposition (adhyāsa) ... shall equally be illogical (mithyeti bhavitum yuktam).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCB1VZa7ZNmynObcYdv3wD4HriYuxb2swzYRjzC_NwGXw%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Your whole effort here is to prove that avidya is "determined through logic" thus objectifying an avidya implying a positive something other than AtmA, in this case the AbhAsa. This is determining the undeterminable by the same undeterminable logic - clearly circular and a contradiction.
It has been shown in so many vakya-s that avidya cannot be determined logically! It is not anumana siddha but anubhava siddha - undeniably evident by experience. The question to resolve is the nature of this experience and not to prove the existence of the snake. We only have to prove there is no snake.
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAzwrHh9AmzPB53EpyW%2B-f3gjLo7urgPDCBTM0rOVgDBg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
Whereas ajnAna per se is sAkshi-bhAsya
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Is this sAkshi for which ajnAna / avidyA is Vishaya something different from avidyAkruta sAkshi??
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Is this sAkshi for which ajnAna / avidyA is Vishaya something different from avidyAkruta sAkshi??
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
avidyA, which is AtmA-AbhAsa-Ashraya, is not determined through logic.
- What is AtmA AbhAsa here?? Is it jeeva?? You said avidyA per se cannot be determined by logic. What exactly is this avidyA per se?? apart from pramANita bhAvarUpa ( or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa which you are insisting whenever it is said bhAvarUpa), anirvachaneeyatvaM, jnAna nivartakatvaM??
It is sAkshi-bhAsya.
- Again is this sAkshi which is avidyA upahita Chaitanya =jeeva for which avidyA is bhAsya??
However, the anAdi-tva, anirvachanIya-tva, bhAvarUpa-tva, jnAna-nivartya-tva etc, which are the attributes of avidyA, are proved by pramANa.
- What is avidyA svarUpa here apart from above visheshaNa-s??
They are not sAkshi-bhAsya.
- Very interesting, avidyA per se is sAkshi-bhAsya but avidyA visheshaNa-s are NOT sAkshi bhAsya but can be proved as existent through pramANa!!??
So, here also, ajnAna per se is sAkshi-bhAsya, but bhAvarUpa-anirvachanIya-tva-vishishTa-ajnAna which is nothing but visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna is pramANa-janya. BTW who is using these pramANa-s to prove the existence of attributes of avidyA ?? Is it Atma or Atma abhAsa??
- I am losing track of your / vyAkhyAnakAra-s observation, please explain me in simple layman terms.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
SAkshI is not avidyA-krita. SAkshi-tva is avidyA-krita.
- I asked this query to Sri Raghav prabhuji also, what is sAkshitva without sAkshi or in other words what is sAkshi without sAkshitva?? This would help me to draw the line between sAkshi and sAkshitva.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
- What is AtmA AbhAsa here?? Is it jeeva?? You said avidyA per se cannot be determined by logic. What exactly is this avidyA per se?? apart from pramANita bhAvarUpa ( or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa which you are insisting whenever it is said bhAvarUpa), anirvachaneeyatvaM, jnAna nivartakatvaM??
- Again is this sAkshi which is avidyA upahita Chaitanya =jeeva for which avidyA is bhAsya??
- What is avidyA svarUpa here apart from above visheshaNa-s??
- Very interesting, avidyA per se is sAkshi-bhAsya but avidyA visheshaNa-s are NOT sAkshi bhAsya but can be proved as existent through pramANa!!??
- I asked this query to Sri Raghav prabhuji also, what is sAkshitva without sAkshi or in other words what is sAkshi without sAkshitva?? This would help me to draw the line between sAkshi and sAkshitva.