Sources: Article: A Vedanta Toolkit Part 1 and Article: A vedanta toolkit part 2
Author: Subhanu Saxena; profile
At long last, things have quietened down in Russia for me to post the
first of 3 articles I had discussed in my new member introduction,
namely "A Vedanta Toolkit". The subsequent articles "Shankara's AdhyAsa
bhAshyam-a guided tour" and "A Shankara reader-key passages from
Shankara's bhAshya's that encapsulate his teaching" will follow over the
next few months.
A Vedanta Toolkit: Introduction
This genus of this article is a series of talks I had given in London to
students who were about to embark on a study of Shankara's BhAshyas,
GauDApAda's kArikas, and Sureshwara's writings. Many found it extremely
helpful to have understood the following basic concepts before delving
into the texts themselves. I shall try and be as succint as possible,
as my intent is to raise awareness/curiosity in readers so they feel
compelled to study the texts for themselves to confirm/deny what comes
below. It is evident from recent postings that there are a number of
members already familiar with these concepts. To them I look forward to
their own insights. To those approaching the concepts for the first
time, I hope the below proves useful.
I will cover the 4 concepts of "sarvArtrika anubhava", "adhyAsa",
"vyavahAra and paramArtha drishti" and "adhyAropa-apavAda prakriyA". A
number of others also add "vastutantram jnAnam" and "sAkhsi anubhava".
I will treat the second as part of the discussion on anubhava, and leave
vastutantram jnAnam as a natural by-product of a correct understanding
of adhyAsa.
- SarvAtrika anubhava
Translated as universal experience or intuition, this sets vedanta apart
from other systems. Vedanta is not a speculative system relying upon
pure reasoning or faith, but is based on a universal experience that has
been and always will be available to us all. Using modern scientific
terminology, Vedanta affirms a repeatable verifyable experiment rooted
in actual experience vs belief in something outside of us. This is why
the Upanishads do not attempt to prove/disprove the existence of Atman,
as it is our very self that cannot be denied. All that is required is
to remove our misconceptions, so Atman can rest in Atman free from
distinctions (see later). Hence vedanta does not teach it as "something
to be attained", or some magical transformation of reality. It is ever
present as an experience.
Shankara also appeals to this unversal experience as he guides us to the
truth. Examples of this are:
- We all have the experience of mistaking one thing for another
- We all have the experience of a state where distinctions of knower,
known, means of knowledge do not exist, ie deep sleep
- We all have the experience of understanding the true nature of
something when our misconceptions are removed.
Post Shankara commentators have often ignored this basic tenet in
interpreting Shankara, and indulge in dialectics that stretch Shankara's
true interpretation.
So, concept number 1 allows us to stay on the straight and narrow and
allows us to tolerate other beliefs and points of view, because the
ultimate arbiter of who is right comes from the experience itself, not
the word.
- AdhyAsa
If you want a thorough understanding of the message of the Upanishads,
and the purpose of the shAstra, then you need a true understanding of
adhyAsa. The text "par excellence" is Shankara's introduction to the
Brahma Sutra BhAshyam, often called the adhyAsa bhAshyam. Since it will
be the topic of a separate article, all I will say now is that it never
ceases to amaze me how little known this astonishing text is amongst
non-vedantins and the general public. It a short encompass, Shankara
lays the ground work for all we need to know when approaching vedAnta.
Having committed the text to memory, I often found myself reciting it
(much to the annoyance of my children: "oh no, there goes Daddy with
that Shankara thing again") as it helps keep me focussed on the key
issues. Anyway, enough of a digression. More in my second article.
Shankara crisply summarises the concept at the beginning of adhyAsa
bhAshyam as "MithyAjnAnanimittaha satyAnrte mithunee kritya, ahamedam,
mamedam iti naisargiko'yam lokavyavahAraha" "Based on a false
conception, the mixing of the real with the not real such as 'I am this'
and 'this is mine' is a natural innate phenomenon in the world". Simply
put adhYasa, meaning superimposition, is confusing the self with the not
self, and mistaking something for something else. The result of this
superimposition has many manifestations,
- The distinction of subject and object, and the mixing up of the 2
- The distinctions of a knower (PramAtr), the known (Prameya), and the
means of knowledge (PramAna). For those interested, I can post the
sanskrit definitions of these from nyAya darshana in a separate posting
if they so request.
- The presupposition that one is an agent/a seeker/a doer etc distinct
from the Eternal Witness or sAkshi.
This adhyAsa is the precise definition that Shankara gives to avidya.
Wherever there is this distinction of pramAta, prameya, pramAna, or
Veditr, vedya, vedanA there is avidya. The correct ascertation of
things as they are (vastutantram jnAnam as opposed to kartrtantram
jnAnam, or knowledge dependent on the subject) is called vidyA. The
duality of name and form thus fashioned by avidya is defined as mAyA.
It is important here to be clear what Shankara does NOT say avidya is,
but has been presumed to say by later commentators:
Shankara does not imply the existence of an unreal undefinable avidyA
shakti or mulAvidya as followers of the panchapAdika and vivarana
commentaries claim. The source of the confusion is a difference in
interpretation of the word "mithyAjnAna" in the above phrase. Shankara
means "mithyA" + "jnAna", or false knowledge in the sense of
misconception. In the panchapAdika this word is broken as
"mithyA"+"ajnAna", or unreal ignorance. This is postulated by followers
of this school as the material cause of the universe that clings to
everything and is this mysterious "mAyA" that becomes the catch-all for
everything we cannot explain. This interpretation is in direct contrast
to repeated statements by Shankara in many other places in his Bhashyas
that make it crystal clear that that is not what he meant. As but one
example, Shankara frequently uses the word "mithyApratyaya" as a synonym
for "mithyAjnAna". It is impossible under the rules of Sanksrit to
decompose this word into anything other than "MithyA"+"pratyaya", or a
false conception. Shankara is therefore not referring to some
inscrutable power that is veiling the world. For him that would be
contrary to concept 1, that of sarvArtrika anubhava.
Shankara never equates avidya and mAyA, unlike later commentators. I
will give the full quote in my 3rd article, but the reference here is to
an unambiguous statement at Brahma Sutra BhAshya 2-1-14 "sarvajnasya
Ishwarasya ...."
Correct understanding of the above makes it clear why Shankara and
Sureshwara never trouble themselves with questions pertaing to the cause
of avidyA, or to whom does avidyA belong. For anyone under the clutches
of avidyA does not know that they are , and once knowledge has arisen,
there is no more avidyA! Shankara has a curt response to the question
"to whom is avidyA" at B S Bh 4-1-3, where heaffirms the above. Avidya
belongs to whom it appears to belong.
A correct understanding of Shankara's position on Avidya makes it all
the more obvious why he regards all vidhi's, secular activities
including Vedic, and treatises on liberation as in the clutches of
avidyA, as they all uniformly presuppose the concept of an agent, a
doer, or a seeker which, as we have seen above, is avidyA. The full
quote on this comes from B S Bh Introduction: "tametam avidyAkhyam
AtmanAtmanoho itareta adhyAsam puraskrtya, sarve praMana-premeya
vyavhahArAha laukikA vaidikAscha pravrttAha. sarvAni cha shAstrAni
vidhipratishedha-mokshyaparAni". As such Shankara sees the function of
shastra as simply removing avidya in the form of misconceptions of the
notions of agency and knowership rather than pointing out some external
reality. Hence he calls the shAstra antyam pramAnam, or final pramAna.
Once knowledge dawns, what possible use could there be for further
pramAna's.
- VyavahAra and paramArtha drshti
Having laid the groundwork of AdhyAsa, we can turn our attention to the
two standpoints adopted in the shAstra, and the writings of Shankara,
GaudapAda and Sureshwara: The arguments found in these sources of
literature can be dividied into a standpoint where the existence of a
distinct knower and something to be known by some means of knoweldge
exists, and where such a distinction does not exist. Shankara uses the
terms "(loka)vyavahAra" and "paramArtha" respectively. These are
commonly translated as the empirical and transcendental standpoints
respectively. I often hesitate at using the word "transcendental" as it
has a certain flaky imagery in modern English. I tend to prefer
describing them as the empirical, where there is apparent reality of the
existence of cause and effect, and the "really real" where such
distinctions do not exist.
A number a discussions/commentaries on the Upanishads and Shankara fail
to recognise from which standpoint a discussion is being advanced, and
they will frequently try and justify a viewpoint expressed from an
empirical standpoint as pertaining to some ultimate truth. As an
example, we have questions such as "is there conscioussness in deep
sleep?", or "is there any avidyA in deep sleep?" when the the avasthA
traya discussion is simply a concession to the empirical standpoint,
whose teaching is ultimately rescinded (see concept 4). An interesting
corollary of the above is that Shankara would have no problems with our
modern understanding of the laws of Physics. For him the empirical
standpoint is a standpoint where the laws of cause and effect must
operate, so there must be a set of physical laws that govern there.
Equally, from the transcendental standpoint, if there really is a
unified field, then the effect can be no difference than the cause, as
there is no real duality of physical laws, only apparent duality.
I refer readers to an extremely helpful table in"Shankara's
clarification of Vedantic Concepts" by Holenarsipur Swami Sri Sri Swami
Satchidanandendra Saraswati that compares and contrasts the concepts of
Atman, avidyA, moskhA etc from both the empirical and transcendental
viewpoints.
- adhyAropa-apavAda prakriyA
The previous 3 concepts allow us to really understand the underlying
method in all the Upanishads, namely that of adhyAropa-apavAda, or the
method of deliberate superimpostion and recission. It helps us get past
the questions of "how do objectify the unobjectifiable" and "how can you
describe the indescribable".
The method is directly quoted by Shankara in his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya
13-13/14 referring to the Slokas "sarvataha pANipAdam tat...." and
"sarvendriya guNAbhAsam....". Here Krishna describes the absolute as
both having arms and feet everywhere, and also as having no
distiguishing features whatsoever. Lest we scratch our heads
indefinitely over this, Shankara calms us down by stating that this is
nothing other than the application of the basic method adopted in the
shAstra, and he says, quoting a half verse from the ancient tradition:
"tathA hi sampradAyavidAm vachanam 'adhyAropa-apavAdAbhyAm,
nishprapancham prapanchyate' ", translated into English as "so say the
followers of the tradition 'that which is beyond all manifestations is
made manifest by the method of deliberate superimposition and recission'
". The term adhyAropa apavAda is none-other than the technical term
given to the method "neti neti" or "not this not this" adopted in the
Upanishads. GaudapAda refers to the method in his own words in the
kArikA's:
Sa ya esha neti netIti vyakhyAtam nihnute yataha
sarvam agrAhyabhAvena hetunAjam prakshyate.
"Through this method of neti neti, where what has been said is
subsequently removed, the unborn beyond conception shines forth of its
own"
In the BrihadArnyaka bhAshya vArtika, it is clear that sureshwAra was
also intimately familiar with the method. Witness BBV 2-3-171, 199, and
many others.
Briefly, the method deliberately superimposes some characteristic (such
as "satyam, jnAnam anantam brahma" in Taittiriya Up), to remove some
misconception, only to deliberately rescind the teaching when it has
served its purpose (eg "ashabdam asparsham.."). For example the quote
from Taittiriya above is adyAropa to remove the misconception that Atman
is limited in scope. The teaching is rescinded at the end of the pancha
kosha discussion in that Upanisad, when all that is left when
distinctions are removed is Ananda, or pure bliss. Similarly, the
concept of an individual self is superimposed to remove the
misconception that the body is the real self. This teaching is
ultimately rescinded, lest the seeker actually think he is an individual
soul undergoing rebirth, as in the kArikA "marane sambhave chaive,
gatyAgamanayor api. Sthhitau sarva shareereshu AkAshenAvilakshaNaha".
Those familiar with modern science will also be aware of the method.
When students learn about the structure of the atom, they start with a
description of a "planet(nucleus)" and a "moon(electron". Later this
teaching is replaced by a teaching of a wave around the nucleus,
followed by a wave particle, in defined energy states etc etc. Each
stage of the teaching replaces a previous superimposition with a more
refined view. This is not dissimilar to the method of adhyAropa-apAda,
which essentially vectors the seeker in the direction of the truth.
Once all misconceptions have been removed, there is no need for a final
"there it is", as the truth will manifest itself of its own accord.
Shankara gives an example in his Brihad BhAshya from ancient times,
whereby priests show to married couples the Arundhati star in the night
sky. The approach he describes is that first the priest points to the
sky in the region of Arundhati and designates a bright star as
Arundhati. He then will say "no, that's not it" and point to another
less bright star, and so on, until he finally reaches Arundhati.
Examples of the method are many in the Upanishads:
The doctrine of panchakosha, or 5 sheaths. The teaching is not that
there is literally layer upon layer shrouding the inner Atman but, as a
device to lead the seeker, koshas are superimposed and then rescinded
until what is left is Ananda, the anubhava or adviteeya Atman.
-Examination of the 3 states of conscioussness. The teaching appears to
analyse each state of conscioussness as some manifestation of reality,
leading a seeker to the state of non-duality where no distinctions are
left. The final teaching of "Turiya" is not an independent 4th state,
but a rescission of the previous 3 states as having only been
superimposed on the Atman temporarily for the teaching, and a device
that finally is discarded. Failure to appreciate this in the method is
probably the key cause of misinterpretations by later commentators.
Teaching on creation. Again the superimposition is that Brahman is
the cause of the universe, which is done to remove the misconception of
the independent existence of the universe. This teaching is then
rescinded by stating from the paramArtha standpoint the effect is non
different from the cause, and all there is is Brahman. So, we have the
kAraka "mrlloha visphulingAdyaihi, strshtir yA choditAnyathA. upAyaha
so'avatArAya nAsti bhedaha kathanchana" "By illustrations like those of
clay, gold and sparks etc, creation is variously described by the Sruti.
This is just a device to take the mind to the truth. There is no
distinction (in Brahman) whatsoever."
Distinction of teacher and taught. Again, this is a device for
instruction, for on the dawn of knowledge this distinction is seen to be
only apparent. There is the famous kArakA: "vilkapo vinivarteta kalpito
yadi kena chit. upadeshAdyam vAdaha, gyate dwaitam na vidyate" "should
anyone fashion the construct (of teacher and taught) then it would have
to be removed. This is only for the purpose of teaching, when knowledge
dawns, there is no duality"
-Avidya itself. Again, it should not be assumed that the Sruti actually
teaches there is some manifoldness that has to be removed. For, from
the paramArtha standpoint, there is only Brahman. Again, GauDApA says
"prapancho yadi vidyeta, nivarteta na samshayaha. mAyAmAtram idam
dwaitam adwaitam paramArthataha" "If there really was a manifoldness in
reality, then without a doubt it would have to be removed . But this
duality is a false appearance, non-duality is the supreme truth".
Again, many post-Shankara commentators have taken a discussion that is
really adhyAropa, and tried to fashion a more fundamental truth out of
it, when the ultimate instruction is to rescind the teaching in hand. I
am sure that other members will have their own personal favorite
examples out there (eg the distinction of higher and lower Brahman etc
etc), but the examples above should give people a feel what to look for
as they read, and give them some perspective.
Conclusion
The above should give anybody wishing to delve deeper into Shankara's
bhAshyas, gauDApAda or Sureshwara's vARtikA's and his naishkarmya siddhi
a good grounding in the basic concepts around which the teachings are
given. When I read a passage in the Upanishads, Gita, Brahma Sutra or
the Bhashyas etc, I tend to automatically go through the following
mental checklist to try and understand the message:
- Is the empirical or transcendental viewpoint being adopted?
- Is this adhyAropa, or apavAda of a previous argument?
- If it is something written by a post Shankara commentator, have they
captured the essence of Shankara's teaching on avidyA?
- How does the line of reasoning accord with universal experience?
Well. that's all for now. Hopefully the above will prove useful to those
who have not come across the concepts before. For those who have, it
would be interesting to hear your insights/elaborations. A true
understanding of the 4 concepts should help guide you through such
questions as:
- What is the purpose of shAstra?
- Is punarjanma real, or only a device for instruction?
- What does Shankara really think of injunctions, meditation etc?
- Is moksha something to be attained by me? Is it now or after a die?
I leave you with the thought that I have written too much. As rshi
Badhwa (quoted by Shankara) explains to BAshkali when he asks the
question 2-3 times "what is Atman?" and Badhwa gives no response, he
finally says in accordance with principle 1 (sarvArtrika anubhava) "you
ask but you do not understand the instruction-this Atman is utter
silence"
Harihi Om
