[Advaita-l] Avachheda Vaada

[H S Chandramouli]

Part 2 ( continuation of previous post )

<< nanUktaM shrutamayena j~nAnena jIvAtmanaH paramAtmabhAvaM gRRihItvA
yuktimayena cha vyavasthApyata iti |
tasmAnnirvichikatsashAbdaj~nAnasantatirUpopAsanA
karmasahakAriNyavidyAdvayochChedahetuH | na chAsAvanutpAditabrahmAnubhavA
taduchChedAya paryAptA | sAkShAtkArarUpo hi viparyAsaH sAkShAtkArarUpeNaiva
tattvaj~nAnenochChidyate, na tu parokShAvabhAsena,
di~NmohAlAtachakrachaladvRRikShamarumarIchisalilAdivibhrameShvaparokShAvabhAsiShu
aparokShAvabhAsibhireva digAditattvapratyayairnivRRittidarshanAt | no
khalvAptavachanali~NgAdinishchitadigAditattvAnAM di~NmohAdayo nivartante |
tasmAttvampadArthasya tatpadArthatvena sAkShAtkAra eShitavyaH | etAvatA hi
tvampadArthasya duHkhishokitvAdisAkShAtkAranivRRittiH, nAnyathA | na
chaiSha sAkShAtkAro mImAMsAsahitasyApi shabdapramANasya phalam , api tu
pratyakShasya, tasyaiva tatphalatvaniyamAt | anyathA kuTajabIjAdapi
vaTA~Nkurotpattiprasa~NgAt |
tasmAnnirvichikitsAvAkyArthabhAvanAparipAkasahitamantaHkaraNaM
tvampadArthasyAparokShasya tattadupAdhyAkAraniShedhena
tatpadArthatAmanubhAvayatIti yuktam | na chAyamanubhavo brahmasvabhAvo yena
na janyeta, api tu antaHkaraNasyaiva vRRittibhedo brahmaviShayaH | na
chaitAvatA brahmaNo nAparAdhInaprakAshatA | na hi shAbdaj~nAnaprakAshyaM
brahma svayaM prakAshaM na bhavati | sarvopAdhirahitaM hi svaya~njyotiriti
gIyate, na tUpahitamapi | yathAha sma bhagavAn bhAShyakAraH -
“nAyamekAntenAviShayaH” iti | na chAntaHkaraNavRRittAvapyasya sAkShAtkAre
sarvopAdhivinirmokaH, tasyaiva tadupAdhervinashyadavasthasya
svapararUpopAdhivirodhino vidyamAnatvAt | anyathA chaitanyachChAyApattiM
vinAntaHkaraNavRRitteH svayamachetanAyAH svaprakAshatvAnupapattau
sAkShAtkAratvAyogAt | >>

Translation ( Dr Kunhan Raja and Prof Suryanarayana Shastri )  << Now, it
has been said that the jiva’s true nature the supreme self having been
apprehended through  cognition of the nature of hearing, it is confirmed
(cognition) of the nature of reasoning. Hence, contemplation of the nature
of a succession of indubitable cognitions based on (valid) verbal testimony
is, as assisted by ritual, the cause of destruction of the two-fold
Nescience. Nor can this achieve that destruction without bringing about
experience of Brahman. Error, which is of the nature of immediate
experience, can be removed only by true knowledge of the nature of
immediate experience, not by mediate presentation; for, it is seen that
immediate presentations like confusion of direction, the circle of fire,
the moving trees (as seen when one is oneself moving), and the water in the
mirage are removed only by immediate presentation  in the nature of true
cognitions of the directions etc. Confusion of directions etc are not,
verily, removed by the ascertainment of the directions etc obtained through
verbal testimony, inference etc. Hence, what is to be desired is the
intuition of the denotation of the “thou” as of the nature of the
denotation of the “that”. Only thus and not otherwise can there be
cessation of the intuition of the denotation of the “thou” as subject to
suffering, grief etc. This intuition does not, verily, result from verbal
testimony even though accompanied by inquiry, but from perception, that
(intuition) being the invariable result of that (perception) alone, as
otherwise it would follow that a banyan shoot could grow even from a kutaja
seed. Hence, it stands to reason that the internal organ perfected by the
contemplation of the meaning of sentences of indubitable import, manifests,
of the immediately experienced denotation of the “thou”, its nature as the
denotation of “that”, through negating the various conditioned forms of the
former. Nor is the experience itself of the nature of Brahman, in which
case could not be generated ; rather, it is a particular psychosis (vritti)
of the internal organ itself, having Brahman for its content. Nor with this
does Brahman become other-illumined. Because Brahman is illumined by verbal
testimony, it does not, verily, become non-self-illumined. Indeed, that
which is free from all adjuncts is declared to be self-effulgence, not that
which is conditioned too. As the revered Commentator, verily, says : “ now,
this is not invariably a non-object”. Nor is  there  freedom from all
adjuncts in the intuition of Brahman, though a psychosis of the internal
organ, for, it (the intuition) is known to be an adjunct opposed both to
itself and to other adjuncts, being itself on the brink of destruction.
Otherwise (ie if it were not united to intelligence as an adjunct), of the
psychosis of the internal organ, itself non-intelligent, self-illumination
would be unintelligible, in the absence of the reflection of intelligence,
and hence it could not intuite. >>

Regards


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>