A discussion on sAkshi-bhAsyatva of ajnAna and ajnAna-vyAvartaka-vishaya
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Hari Om,
A fascinating discussion based on VivaraNa, VivaraNa Prameya Sangrah, Tattva DIpana and BrihadAraNyaka BhAshya VArtika SAra is presented. It is absolutely conceptual, delightful and illuminating. Also, this understanding forms the backbone of correct understanding of VedAnta.
The reference of page number is from the following books:
VivaraNa - from the book PanchapAdikA published by Dakshinamurti Math
VPS - published by Achyuta Granthamala
BBVS - Authored by Harihar Kripalu Dwivedi ji from Sampoornanada Vishwavidyalaya
Objection: When I say that I am ignorant of pot, then pot appears as a vyAvartaka, a qualifier of ajnAna. You said that the vyAvartaka-vishaya of ajnAna is also sAkshI-bhAsya just as ajnAna is sAkshI-bhAsya. But this is impossible. Because any vishaya-siddhi is dependent on pramANa. Now pramANa is not present because ajnAna of pot is present. Hence, ajnAna-vyAvartaka-vishaya cannot be illuminated by sAkshI. (VivaraNa p.52, ननु अज्ञानस्य व्यावर्तको विषयः कथं साक्षिचैतन्येन अवभास्यते प्रमाणायत्तत्वात् विषयसिद्धेः इति.)
Answer: I will further explain your question. Let us analyse: whether sAkshI illumines pot-vishishTa-ajnAna or only-ajnAna! Now, only-ajnAna is never experienced by anyone. It is always vishaya-vyAvritta-ajnAna that is experienced. So, obviously, the second one ("only ajnAna") cannot be the case. That is to say, sAkshI-chaitanya cannot illuminate only-ajnAna under any circumstance. Further, if one says that sAkshI-chaitanya illuminates pot-vishishTa-ajnAna, then pot being visheshaNa of ajnAna, it must also be illuminated. However, pot-illumination is dependent on pramANa. Since pramANa is not present, pot-jnAna cannot be there. And in the absence of pot-jnAna, pot-vishishTa-ajnAna cannot be known either. Therefore, the first option is also impossible. Thus, sAkshI cannot illumine pot-vishishTa-ajnAna. And as said earlier, only-ajnAna is never experienced. (Tattva DIpana p.52 - किं सक्षिचैतन्यं घट-विशेषित-अज्ञानं भासयति? उत् केवलम् (अज्ञानम्)? न आद्यः, विषयस्य (घटस्य) प्रमाण-गम्यत्व-नियमात्, अन्यथा-प्रमाण-वैयर्थ्यात् [विषयस्य घटस्य प्रमाणाभावे अप्रकाशे घट-विशेषित-अज्ञानस्य साक्षिणा प्रकाशः अनुपपन्नः इति भावः]। न इतरः, अज्ञानम् इति अप्रतीतेः इति अर्थः [केवलस्य अज्ञानस्य कदाचिदपि प्रकाशः एव न भवति इति भावः]।)
This is the sum and substance of your objection. Also, another objection can be raised. That is the following: only-ajnAna is not sAkshI-bhAsya. So, how can pot-vishishTa-ajnAna be sAkshI-bhAsya!!
The answer is the following. There is no rule that if only-x is not sAkshI-bhAsya, then y-vishishTa-x cannot be sAkshI-bhAsya. Therefore, even if only-pot is not sAkshi-bhAsya or only-ajnAna is not sAkshi-bhAsya, still, pot-vishishTa-ajnAna can be sAkshi-bhAsya. The example is as under: though only-paramANu is not amenable to mAnasa-pratyaksha, as an adjective to jnAna in the form of “I do not know paramANu”, it is the vishaya of mAnasa-pratyaksha. Further, only Rahu is not a vishaya of pratyaksha, but qualified by moon, it is the vishaya of pratyaksha. Tattva-DIpana, p. 52 says - केवलस्य (अज्ञानस्य) साक्षिवेद्यत्व-अभावे अपि विशिष्टस्य (अज्ञानस्य) साक्षिवेद्यत्वात् अज्ञान-स्फोरकत्वं सिद्धम्। न च - केवलस्य साक्षिवेद्यत्व-अभावे विशिष्टस्य-अपि न साक्षिवेद्यत्वम् इति - वाच्यम्; केवल-परमाणोः मानस-प्रत्यक्ष-अभावे अपि “परमाणुमहं न जानामि” इति ज्ञान-विशेषण-तया प्रत्यक्ष-विषयत्व-उपगमात् इत्यर्थः।
Regarding the response to the objection of non-illumination of pot in the absence of pramANa, let us see the subsequent objection.
VPS p.56 elaborates the same issue in another dimension and explains as under:
Objection: “I do not know the pot”, here ajnAna-vyAvartaka-vishaya is pot. However, this pot has no connection with sAkshI. And hence, it cannot be perceived by sAkshI. Because, the perception-of-pot is dependent on pramANa. Further, pot, in the instant case, cannot be perceived by pramANa either, because pramANa being present, the ignorance of pot can no longer appear. Hence, “I do not know pot” cannot be present if pramANa for pot is present. Thus, pot-without-a-sambandha-with-sAkshI cannot be perceived by sAkshI. And hence, pot-vishishTa-ajnAna cannot be illuminated by sAkshI either. (ननु अहं घटं न जानामि इत्यत्र अज्ञान-व्यावर्त्तको घटो न तावत् सम्बन्ध-रहितेन साक्षिणा प्रत्येतुं योग्य:, बाह्यविषय[प्रतिभास]सिद्धेः स्व-संबद्ध-प्रमाण-आयत्त-त्वात्। न अपि प्रमाणेन; प्रमाण-निवर्त्यत्वात्-अज्ञानस्य इति चेत्)
Answer: It is correct to hold that only pot cannot be perceived by sAkshI. However, there is nothing incongruous in accepting that pot qualified with ajnAtatva-dharma i.e. ajnAtatva-vishishTa-pot can be sAkshi-bhAsya on the analogy of paramANu and Rahu. This is so because ajnAtatva-vishishTa-pot gets a sambandha with sAkshI through ajnAna and hence can become sAkshi-bhAsya. केवलस्य-घटस्य साक्षिवेद्यत्व-अभावे-अपि अज्ञातत्व-धर्म-विशिष्टस्य (घटस्य) अज्ञान-द्वारा सम्बन्धवता-साक्षिणा प्रतीतिः उपपद्यते एव।
Objection: Well, if pot can be known by sAkshI by being qualified with ajnAtatva-dharma, then what exactly is the role of pramANa? It becomes useless then!
Answer: Well, just as ajnAna brings in ajnAtatva-dharma in its vishaya-pot and thereby ensures connection with sAkshI, similarly, pramANa brings in jnAtatva-dharma in its vishaya-pot and thereby ensures connection with sAkshI.
Thus, only-pot is not sAkshi-bhAsya, but ajnAtatva-vishishTa-pot (caused by ajnAna) and jnAtatva-vishishTa-pot (caused by pramANa) are sAkshi-bhAsya. Here, VivaraNa makes a path-breaking statement in p.52 - सर्वं वस्तु ज्ञाततया वा अज्ञाततया वा साक्षिचैतन्यस्य विषय एव।
Now, jnAtatayA-sAkshi-vedyatva requires the intervention of pramANa. तत्र ज्ञाततया विषयः प्रमाणव्यवधानमपेक्षते। However, ajnAtatayA-sAkshi-vedyatva does not require intervention of pramANa. It is beginningless. And it is always illuminated. Whether in sAmAnya-AkAra or vishesha-AkAra, all vishaya are always sAkshi-bhAsya. अन्यस्तु (अज्ञाततया विषयः तु) सामान्याकारेण विशेषाकारेण वा अज्ञानव्यावर्तकतया सदा भासते।
Reference from BirhadAraNyaka BhAshya VArtika SAraIt is important to understand that even a completely unknown object is also always illuminated by sAkshI. Even when I do not know that I do not know x, still, it is being illuminated by sAkshI as unknown. This becomes evident when someone asks me as to whether I know x. So, prior thereto, x was being illuminated by sAkshI as sAmAnya-AkAreNa-ajnAna-vyAvartakatayA whereas after becoming aware of my ignorance of x, it shines vishesha-AkAreNa-ajnAna-vyAvartakatayA. Here, some important shlOkAs from prameya-parIkshA of BrihadAraNyak BhAshya VArtika sAra are pertinent.
अविज्ञातः प्रमाणानां विषयो वादिनां मतः । सोऽज्ञातोऽर्थः प्रमाणात् किं सियेद्यद्वाऽनुभूतितः ॥ २ ॥
न तावन्मानतः सिद्धिर्मानेन तदपेक्षणात् । नाज्ञातमनुद्दिश्य क्वचिन्मानं प्रवर्तते ॥ ३ ॥
The vishaya of pramANa is always unknown. Through pramANa, we come to know an unknown object. Therefore, it is accepted by everyone that ajnAta-artha is the vishaya of pramANa. The question is -- how exactly is ajnAta-artha established as ajnAta-artha! Is it by pramANa or is it by anubhUti (sAkshI).
Certainly, ajnAta-artha cannot be established by pramANa, as it is required by pramANa beforehand. And the very operation of pramANa requires prior existence of ajnAta-artha. So, pramANa can never establish ajnAta-artha.
मानसिद्धं समुद्दिश्य यदि मानं प्रवर्तते । आत्माश्रयादिदोपः स्यान्नैष्फल्यं च मितेस्तथा ॥ ४ ॥
If one says that ajnAta-artha is not the vishaya of pramANa but pramANa-siddha-artha is the vishaya of pramANa, then obviously there would arise AtmAshraya-dOsha and also the uselessness of pramANa.
अज्ञातत्वं मेयगतं मानेनाऽतो निवर्त्यते । नाऽज्ञातत्वमतो मानात्सिद्ध्यतीति विनिश्चयः ॥ १० ॥
अज्ञातत्वमिदं मानादसिद्धं केन सिद्धयति । इति चेत्, नित्यचैतन्यानुभवेनाऽनुभूयते ॥ ११ ॥
The conclusion here is this - ajnAtatva belongs to the object, artha. That ajnAtatva is not established by pramANa. Rather, it is removed by pramANa. This ajnAtatva is established/experienced by nitya-chaitanya i.e. sAkshI.
नाऽज्ञासिषमिदं पूर्वमित्येवं प्रमिते पटे । पूर्वाज्ञातत्वविषयः परामर्शो ह्यतिस्फुटः ॥ १२ ॥
न तस्याऽननुभूतस्य परामर्शः कथञ्चन । अनुभूतिर्न प्रमाणाच्चैतन्यं तेन शिष्यते ॥ १३ ॥
If we analyse our experience, then we see that after knowing a hitherto unknown pot, we say - this very pot was so far unknown to me. Thus, we demonstrate the recollection of our earlier experienced ajnAtatva of this very pot. Now, recollection is not possible of something which has not been experienced earlier. Hence, it is clear that nitya-sAkshi-chaitanya alone illuminates the ajnAta-artha.
प्रवृत्तं विषये मानं बोधयेद्विषयाकृतिम् । ज्ञातताज्ञातते भातो न तेनाविऽषयत्वतः ॥ १४ ॥
pramANa for a particular vishaya illumines merely the vishaya-AkAra. jnAtatva and ajnAtatva, belonging to vishaya, are not known by pramANa, because they are not the vishaya of pramANa. They are illuminated/known by sAkshI.
घटोsपि तर्हि गृह्येत चितैव ज्ञाततादिवत् । इति चेदिष्टमेवैतद् गृह्येत च घटश्चिता ॥ १७ ॥
ज्ञातत्वेन घटो भाति सोऽज्ञातत्वेन भासते । इत्युक्ते घट एवाऽत्र चिता द्वेधाऽवभास्यते ॥ १८ ॥
न चैवं मानवैयर्थ्यं ज्ञातुत्वायोपयोगतः । अज्ञातत्वायोपयुक्तं तत्राऽज्ञानं यथा तथा ॥ १९ ॥
Objection: Sir. If jnAtatva and ajnAtatva are known by sAkshI, then let even the pot be illuminated by sAkshI.
Answer: Well. That is desirable. Just as the pot appears qualified with jnAtatva, similarly it appears qualified with ajnAtatva. Pot appears in two manners, qualified by jnAtatva and qualified by ajnAtatva, by sAkshi-chaitanya only. And, please! Don’t argue about the utility of pramANa. The role of pramANa is to bring about jnAtatva just as ajnAna is required to bring about ajnAtatva in the pot.
मानाज्ञानविहीनस्य कालस्याऽसत्त्वतो घटः । ज्ञाताज्ञातत्वनिर्मुक्तः केवलो भाति न क्वचित् ॥ २० ॥
सर्वथापि चिता भास्यमज्ञातत्वं घटादिषु । प्रमाणनैरपेक्ष्येण तत्सिद्धेः सर्वसम्मतेः ॥ २१ ॥
स्वतोऽनुभवतः सिद्धां बालोऽप्यज्ञाततां हठात् । न किञ्चिज्जातमित्येवं वक्ति पृष्टः प्रमां विना ॥ २२ ॥
अथाऽनुभूतपूर्वत्वाद् घटादौ शङ्कते प्रमा । अत्यन्ताननुभूतोऽर्थं उदाहार्यस्तथा सति ॥ २३ ॥
There just exists no such time when only-pot shines without jnAtatva or ajnAtatva. This is because there exists no such time when either pramANa or ajnAna is not operating. In every manner, the ajnAtatva in pot etc is illuminated by sAkshI. That is independent of pramANa. Further, this ajnAtatva is not born. It is beginningless. Even a child knows his ajnAtatva by his own anubhava. Without any pramA, he confirms his ajnAtatva.
Well, one can have some confusion about the knower of ajnAtatva, in the case of a pot which was earlier known by pramANa and is now unknown. But in case of an atyanta-ananubhUta-vastu, there is just no room for confusion.
अत्यन्ताननुभूतेषु हिमवत्पृष्टवस्तुषु । अज्ञातत्वमशङ्कः सन् परामृशति मानवः ॥ २४ ॥
न चात्राऽनुभवो लुप्तो न जानामीति तत्स्मृतेः । अदृष्टमपि तद् दृष्ट्वा स्मरेन्नाऽज्ञासिषं त्विति ॥ २५ ॥
In case of atyanta-ananubhUta-vastu, absolutely-non-experienced-object such as objects atop some mountain, one doubtlessly and confidently recalls his ajnAtatva. Since one has clear recollection in the form of “I don’t know and I have not been knowing it so far”, there is no absence of anubhava.
अथेन्द्रियाणां सत्त्वेन कथञ्चिच्छक्यते प्रमा । तर्हि लुप्तेन्द्रियावस्था स्यात्सुषुप्तिरुदाहृतिः ॥ २६ ॥
निःशेषकरणग्रामलयेऽप्यनुभवः स्वतः । अलुप्तदृक् सुपुप्तेऽस्ति जाग्रद्बोधाविशेषतः ॥ २७ ॥
If on account of existence of senses, in some manner one avers the possibility of pramANa for knowing ajnAtatva, then that stands negated on account of similar anubhava in case of sushupti when senses are merged (in ignorance). Despite the merger of entirety of senses, the ceaseless-seer, the sAkshi-chaitanya, experiences in sushupti. And this experience of ajnAtatva in jAgrat is non-different from that of sushupti.
The sum and substance of vArtika-sAra is this:
pramANa makes an unknown-object known. It does not ensure knowing of unknown-object as unknown. Nor does it ensure knowing the known-object as known. These two functions are carried out by sAkshI. Thus, ajnAta-artha-siddhi is by sAkshI and not by pramAtA. Only-object is never known by sAkshI. But is known by sAkshI as either qualified with ajnAtatva or jnAtatva. The role of pramANa is to bring about jnAtatva in place of ajnAtatva. This ajnAtatva is beginningless and is illuminated always by the sAkshI, even when one is ignorant of the very ignorance of the object, such as in the case of atyanta-ananubhUta-vastu. That is evident from the recollection of past ignorance. Such anubhava is not at all different from that in sushupti. Also, ajnAna is never experienced without the vyAvartaka-vishaya. Thus, it is clear that “अहम् अज्ञः” has bhAvarUpa-ajnAna as the vishaya.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
H S Chandramouli
--
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%2BBAS8zeD7NFm4y_Q2NX-%2BGJSCckmhH7Hnz0qgT7z2FUqgg%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I confess I have not gone through the posts in any depth. However on a first reading, prima facie it appeared to me that while different anubhavas are explained based on the admittance of ajnAna as a bhAvarUpa entity, they do not cover the question as to why ajnAna should be admitted as such, a bhAvarUpa entity, in the first place. Here I would like to point out that many of these questions have been raised and answered by postulating that, for anAdi entities, ajnatatva (leading to ignorance) can also be anAdi and it is not necessary to postulate a cause for such ignorance (ajnAtatva).
I also want to clarify that I am not in a position to enter into a debate by providing supporting evidence to justify the alternate position. But I wanted to know if I have missedout in the posts the part which justifies the admittance of such a bhAvarUpa ajnAna.