[Advaita-l] Vichaara Saagara of Nishchaladasa - V

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 3 22:55:49 CST 2013

Part V
Yes, objector is right that for adhyaasa one should have partial knowledge or partial ignorance. Teaching is not possible for the one who has full ignorance, and teaching is not needed for the one who has full knowledge. Hence the teaching for the one who knows that he is existent (sat) and he is conscious (chit) but does not know that he is ananda swaruupa or limitless. Hence this knowledge is I am + a jiiva (or limited entity). The, I am, part is the saamaanya chaitanyam while the jiiva part is vishiShTa chaitanyam or localized entity. When we say the object is or the world is, even when we are ignorant of the absolute truth, we are aware that the object exist or the world exits. Hence existence (sat) part is universally accepted for oneself and for the world, although there is confusion that pure existence part is not recognized but existence in the name and form is only recognized. Hence sat part of Brahman (even though Brahman is part-less) appear
 to be saamaanya or pervasive part in all transactional reality. Both the subject (conscious entity) and the object (unconscious entity) exist for one to transact. Hence of the three sat, chit, ananda, the sat part is most pervasive as it lends existence to both the self and non-self.  The next in the order is chit. Even though from Brahman point sat and chit are one and the same, they appear to divide since in the creation we have both conscious beings as well as unconscious or inert world. Thus chit does not appear to be as pervasive as the Sat since it expresses or manifests only in entities that have subtle bodies. The last part Ananda is even less pervasive and that forms the basis for all jiivas look for ananda in all their pursuits. The very search for ananda implies that its presence is not recognized by beings even though it is swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman which is the substratum for everything. Thus ananda is least pervasive of the three.
 Hence adhyaasa that involves adhyaaropa apavaada teaching, where there is initial acceptance of the fact that sat chit and ananda are separate. This understanding is negated (apavaada) as the mind of the seeker becomes mature. Hence the current understanding that I am a jiiva that is I am existent and conscious entity as jiiva has to be dropped with the clear understanding that I am Brahman. Thus the saamaanya part, I am, part in both I am a jiiva and I am Brahman, remains while the vishiShTa part, jiiva, is dropped and replaced by Brahman. Thus partial ignorance required adhyaasa is fulfilled, and the objection is overruled. 
At this point we note that this aspect was discussed by Shree Vidyaranya in the Ch.1 or Pancadasi. He poses the objection in a different form. He first establishes the fact we love ourselves supreme -  parama premaaspadam. Then he says, we love anything only if it is a source of happiness. Since we love ourselves the most, we can conclude that we are sources of supreme happiness. The love for ourselves is expressed as 
ayam aatma parAnandaH, parama premaspadam yataH,
maana bhuuvamhi bhUyAsam iti premAtma nuchyate|
The self is of the supreme source of happiness and hence locus of supreme love. This love for oneself is expressed as let me not cease to be at any time, since that which is the sources of supreme happiness we want to preserve it all the time. 
Then the objection is raised. The objector says we cannot love an object if we do not know what it is. We cannot love gaagaabuubu since we do not know what gaagaabuubu is. If we say that we love ourselves, that too we have supreme love for ourselves, implies that we must have supreme knowledge about ourselves. Thus we already know ourselves, then the teaching to know ourselves is useless. If we do not know ourselves then we cannot say we love ourselves or we are sources of supreme happiness. Either way the advaita doctrine fails. 
Vidyaranya answers the objection with the statement that yes we know ourselves but partially and not completely. We know ourselves to the extent that we commit a mistake about ourselves. Thus partial knowledge we have for us to commit the mistake. We do not know that we are limitless and hence the search for infinite happiness in all our pursuits. Thus error or adhyaasa is possible because of partial knowledge or partial ignorance. We are as human beings are conscious that we exit and we are conscious but we are all the time looking for happiness without recognizing that the happiness that we get is only from ourselves and not from any external objects or situation. A mind that feels full or contended is the mind that is not longing for happiness. Any longing for happiness indicates that one does not know he is already complete by himself and therefore happiness is his very nature. Hence Krishna says a jnaani is one who revels in himself by himself and
 has no desire to gain happiness via external objects or situations-prajahaati yadaa kaamaan sarvan pArtha mano gatAn| AtmanyevAtmanA tushTaH, sthitaprajnasya dochyate||
With prostrations to Swami Paramarthanandaji for the teaching. 
Hari Om!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list