Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad

[V Subrahmanian]

In this minor upanishad there is a conversation between Ribhu (Guru) and Nidagha (Disciple). Five kinds of errors are specified, that mark bondage and their respective correction that marks liberation: 

अन्नपूर्णोपनिषत्

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wr3

भ्रमः पञ्चविधो भाति तदेवेह समुच्यते ।
जीवेश्वरौ भिन्नरूपाविति प्राथमिको भ्रमः ॥ 12॥

आत्मनिष्ठं कर्तृगुणं वास्तवं वा द्वितीयकः ।
शरीरत्रयसंयुक्तजीवः सङ्गी तृतीयकः ॥ 13॥

जगत्कारणरूपस्य विकारित्वं चतुर्थकः ।
कारणाद्भिन्नजगतः सत्यत्वं पञ्चमो भ्रमः ।
पञ्चभ्रमनिवृत्तिश्च तदा स्फुरति चेतसि ॥ 15॥

https://www.vyasaonline.com/annapurna-upanishad/#:~:text=The%20Annapurna%20Upanishad%20asserts%2C%20in,person%2Dego)%20as%20Self.

—Annapurna Upanishad 1.37–38
Translated by AGK Warrier

Five delusions

The Annapurna Upanishad asserts, in verses 1.13 to 1.15, that delusions are of five kinds. 

The first is believing in the distinction between Jiva (living being) and god as if they have different forms.

The second delusion, asserts the text, is equating agency (actor-capacity, person-ego) as Self.

 Assuming Jiva as equivalent - and permanently attached - to body is the third delusion, states the text.

The fourth delusion is to assume the cause of the universe to be changing, and not constant. 

The fifth delusion, asserts the Upanishad, is to presume the unchanging Reality in the universe to be different from the cause of the universe. These five delusive premises, asserts the text, prevents the understanding of Self.

Their correction is as follows: 

1. बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बदर्शनेन भेदभ्रमो निवृत्तः ।

By recognizing the 'original' and the 'reflection' are really non-different, the error of 'difference' between Jiva and Ishwara is removed. 

2. स्फटिकलोहितदर्शनेन पारमार्थिककर्तृत्वभ्रमो निवृत्तः ।

The analogy of redness in crystal teaches that the doership/agency, katrutva, a person thinks is his true nature, is gone. The redness only appears in the crystal due to proximity of the red flower. So too the agency one experiences is actually in the body-mind complex, but wrongly perceived in the Atman, due to proximity.  

3. घटमठाकाशदर्शनेन सङ्गीतिभ्रमो निवृत्तः ।

By knowing that the pot-space and house-space are only conditionings of unconditioned space,  the delusion that one is indeed endowed with the three bodies/sharirams: kAraNa, sukshma and sthUla, is dispelled. The gross and subtle bodies are only upadhis created by avidya (kAraNa sharira). Once this is known the delusion of being a jiva is dispelled.

4. रज्जुसर्पदर्शनेन कारणाद्भिन्नजगतः सत्यत्वभ्रमो निवृत्तः ।

The cause-effect analysis teaches us that the effect does not have a separate existence apart from the cause: This aspect of x having no existence apart from its cause y, is analogous to the superimposed snake having no separate existence from the substratum rope. Similarly the world, the effect of, the superimposition on Brahman, has no separate existence from Brahman. This realization dispels the false idea that the world is real (just like the knowledge of the rope dispels the erroneous idea that the world is real.)  

Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy with the rope-snake analogy. 

5. कनकरुचकदर्शनेन विकारित्वभ्रमो निवृत्तः ।

The understanding that the ornament is non-different from gold dispels the error that the world is a transformation of Brahman. When understood and viewed from the teaching of the Chandogya Upanishad: वाचारम्भणम् विकारो नामधेयम्, मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्, the effect, ornament, is not really a transformation of gold.  

तदाप्रभृति मच्चित्तं ब्रह्माकारमभूत्स्वयम् ।
निदाघ त्वमपीत्थं हि तत्त्वज्ञानमवाप्नुहि ॥ 16॥

By contemplating on the above lines one would clearly realize he is Brahman and the appearance of the world is not real, and will get established in Brahman. The Guru Ribhu instructs and blesses his disciple Nidagha: You too thus contemplating attain the knowledge of the Self. 

This reminds us of the commentary of Shankara for the Bh.Gita 2.16: You too Arjuna, on the lines of the Jnanis,  viewing the transformations in life as mithya, practice forbearance. (Such a practice will result in the actualizing of the Jivan-mukta state). 

Om Tat Sat 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

Thank you for sharing this - it is so clear, there is no excuse really for misunderstanding.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2kBEVfD0uxoAXEt%3DVh%3DJ3%3DpJ0BH4oh0xHt_kMe4q%3D2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste

Reg  // Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy with the rope-snake analogy //,

Can you please give reference to where in the Bhashya this equation is stated.

Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 12:53 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

Reg  // Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy with the rope-snake analogy //,

Can you please give reference to where in the Bhashya this equation is stated.

In the Chandogya 6.2.2 bhashya:  The question is: How can the Sat, Brahman, that is devoid of parts be stated to 'become' the world which is full of parts? The reply is: Just like the rope-parts are the source for snake, etc. effects, that are imagined, so too from the sat-parts the vikara entities can be admitted. Shankara cites the vacharambhana shruti for this where the clay- clay products analogy is given and Shankara further connects this analogy to Sat alone is Satyam (and the effects, jagat, is not satyam):  

निरवयवस्य सतः कथं विकारसंस्थानमुपपद्यते ? नैष दोषः, रज्ज्वाद्यवयवेभ्यः सर्पादिसंस्थानवत् बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेभ्यः सदवयवेभ्यः विकारसंस्थानोपपत्तेः । ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४) एवं सदेव सत्यम् — इति श्रुतेः । एकमेवाद्वितीयं परमार्थतः इदम्बुद्धिकालेऽपि ॥ 

In the Chandogya 6.2.3 bhashya: How did Brahman resolve? 'I shall become many and be born excessively;.  Shankara explains this as 'just as clay taking the form pot, etc.. OR just as rope etc. taking the form of snake etc. being imagined:  

 तत्कथमैक्षतेति, आह — बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय, यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण यथा वा रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन । 

At this juncture Anandagiri comments:  परिणामविवर्तवादावाश्रित्योदाहरणद्वयम् ।  The two analogies given by Shankara - clay.. and rope.. are in accordance with parinama vaada and vivarta vaada respectively. 

Again Shankara....;

 Here again the rope-snake analogy is given alongside the clay - clay products analogy.  In both cases, Shankara says,. there is a bhrama: mrudo anyabuddhi: thinking that the clay products are different from clay.  This imagining is the same as taking the rope for the snake:  

सदेव तु सर्वमभिधानमभिधीयते च यदन्यबुद्ध्या, यथा रज्जुरेव सर्पबुद्ध्या सर्प इत्यभिधीयते, यथा वा पिण्डघटादि मृदोऽन्यबुद्ध्या पिण्डघटादिशब्देनाभिधीयते लोके । रज्जुविवेकदर्शिनां तु सर्पाभिधानबुद्धी निवर्तेते, यथा च मृद्विवेकदर्शिनां घटादिशब्दबुद्धी, तद्वत् सद्विवेकदर्शिनामन्यविकारशब्दबुद्धी निवर्तेते — ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते । अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १) इति, ‘अनिरुक्तेऽनिलयने’ (तै. उ. २ । ७ । १) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः । 

Here are some more results from Anandagiri's just Chandogya Bhashya teeka where the vivarta vaada is specified by him:

https://tinyurl.com/2typ7yw7

warm regards

subbu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

1. Snake rope analogy shows brahman is nimitta
2. Clay pot analogy shows brahman is upAdAna

 

So, brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  The unchanging cause in all clay articles is mrut sAmAnya which is vivartOpadAna.  Snake rope analogy is help us to understand imagination of parts in brahman.  Further it would help us to understand   without undergoing any changes brahman (rope) appears as jagat (snake).  But important observation by bhAshyakAra himself in this very chAndOgya bhAshya is jagat is NOT like snake on rope.  asadeva tarhi sarvaM yadgruhyate rajjuriva sarpAdyAkAreNa??  Is the doubt asked after seeing the analogies of both rajju-sarpa and mrud-ghata.  For that bhAshyakAra answers rather ‘clarifies’ : ‘ na, sat eva dvaitabhedena anyathAgruhyamANatvAt nAsatvaM kasyachit kvachit iti bhrUmaH.  Nothing here is non-existent at any time.  This is quite in accordance with the Atmaikatva darshana, Samyak darshana or sarvAtma darshana of paramArthajnAni. For him whatever IS there ‘brahman’ only and nothing ‘apart’ from brahman. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

Reg // The unchanging cause in all clay articles is mrut sAmAnya which is vivartOpadAna //,

Sri SSS himself explicitly states that transformation of gold into ring is pariNAma. Surely this would apply to Clay-Pot transformation as well. Please refer Bhashya on MAndUkya KArikA 3-7 copied below

// यस्मात्परमार्थाकाशस्य घटाकाशो न विकारः, यथा सुवर्णस्य रुचकादिः //

// yasmAtparamArthAkAshasya ghaTAkAsho na vikAraH, yathA suvarNasya ruchakAdiH //

Translation by Sri SSS (translation from kannada to English mine)

//  ghaTAkAsha is not a transformation (Foot Note 1) of real AkAsha. The way ring etc are of gold (vikAra) or the way foam,bubble etc are (transformations. Not transformations like these).

Foot note 1 ; Not kArya ; Not pariNAma. //

The above is literal translation of the kannada text.

Clearly Sri SSS has explicitly stated the Gold-Ring (Clay-Pot by extension) as pariNAQma and not vivarta.

If you were to accept this, then the statement in your post cited above

//  The unchanging cause in all clay articles is mrut sAmAnya which is vivartOpadAna //

would need revision. If revised, then the whole understanding of ** brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa ** needs to be revised. Not sure if you are in agreement with such a position. Please clarify.

Regards

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592C622FA857956E0DDF2888485A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:53 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote

// At this juncture Anandagiri comments:  परिणामविवर्तवादावाश्रित्योदाहरणद्वयम् ।  The two analogies given by Shankara - clay.. and rope.. are in accordance with parinama vaada and vivarta vaada respectively //,

My understanding is different. The transformation is of the combination of Brahman and avyAkruta. The Clay-Pot analogy is with reference to the transformation of avYakruta while the Rope-Snake analogy is with reference to the transfiguration (vivarta) of Brahman. In my understanding this is not the same as equating Clay-Pot and Rope-Snake analogies.

I will leave it at that.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0gbAKH5SRddHr4A6LciyT2uAzi0pD8v3G4Gz9o68a4Aw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Suresh Balaraman]

Suresh Balaraman

On Dec 5, 2023, at 7:26 AM, H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOypcNze4gvEQeyk5puh%2BWjrJCuVHhuj5AvsUmmbqWAcw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chandramouli prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Do you mean to say Sri SSS by referring to suvarNAbharaNa (mrudghata) as pariNAma and talking about brahman is getting transformed into jagat!!??  I don’t think so.  Anyway, I have written that in the light of both analogies which talks about brahman as nimitta (without undergoing any changes) in rope-snake and upAdAna (in respect of kArya-kAraNa ananyatvam as in gold-ornament).  But yes, there is a possibility that one can think about pariNAma and wrongly brahman is getting transformed into the jagat just like clay becoming pot.  From this example and with this wrong understanding one will not be able to understand the transactionless (vyavahArAteeta) brahman.  But subtility of this example also (like snake-rope) again conveying the transactionless brahman alone ( sarva vyavahArAteeta brahma pratipAdanArthaM and mruttiketyeva satyaM) because of the fact that we are talking about here mrut sAmAnya (not mrut pinda per se).  It is ONLY clay lump which undergoes transformation and becoming a clay-pot.  And in all these vyavahAra clay (sAmAnya) remains as clay only which does not undergo any changes.  In this sense mrut sAmAnya is already /always transactionless / changeless.  Just like through qualified jnana (upAdhi parichinna jnana) we see gold-ring, gold-bangle, gold-necklace etc. the gold always remains as gold only and nAma rUpa is entirely dependent on this gold-sAmAnya.  Here mrut sAmAnya is vivartOpadAna kAraNa for the mrut-pinda and mrudghata.  kArya-kAraNa prakriya never ever advocate pariNAma vAda OTOH it propagates brahmaikatvaM.  And all these vAda-s like bimba-pratibimba, avaccheda, vivarta-pariNAma, kArya-kAraNa, sAmAnya-vishesha etc. as you know, are just there within the master prakriya i.e. adhyArOpa-apavAda.