[Chaturamnaya] Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada, Commentator Par Excellence (2)

[S Jayanarayanan]

(Continued from previous post)
 

Individual Soul and Brahman

The Bhagavatpada held that in reality the individual soul and the
universal Brahman are not different. Non-dualism was criticized by
some people relying on passages in the Brahma Sutras which
appeared to suggest duality as, for example,
Bedavyapadesacchanya, Adhikamtu bheda nirdesat,
Netaronupapatteh.

Here the Bhagavatpada said that the duality is fictitious. In his sutra
bhashya, he argued: "The supreme self (Brahman) conditioned by
the adjuncts, such as the body, sense organs, mind and intellect, is
viewed by the immature as an embodied soul."

When the oneness of Brahman is grasped, as the Mahavakya
Tatvamasi proclaims, the distinctions of the doer and the deed, as
commonly understood, is negated. Similarly, once the identity of
jiva and Brahman is experienced, liberation ensues putting an end to
all activities.

Bhagavan Badarayana upheld that the entire manifested world is
nothing but the Supreme Self (Brahman). This view is challenged
by many people who argue: "If Brahman is accepted as the sole
reality, all arguments or proofs leading to direct knowledge in the
world of duality are meaningless. Even the scriptures dealing with
do’s and don’ts become redundant. So too the Moksha Sastra.
Similarly, if everything other than Brahman is unreal, the Srutis are
unreal. Then how can one support the truth propounded by the
Srutis that Atman alone is real?".

The Bhagavatpada has fully answered these objections. All
empirical activities, the prescriptions and prohibitions of the
Upanishads to attain liberation are relevant only till the dawn of
non-dual experience. Is it not true that the experiences of the dream
state become illusory on waking?

In the same way, the experiences before illumination are true until
we attain oneness with the Brahman.

The argument that Srutis are illusory and therefore cannot lead one
to liberation is unfounded. In the pre-awakened state, the illusory
nature of the Srutis does not arise at all. They are real then, and
there is no incongruity in this.

If it is argued that the Vedas, in fact, are illusory, even then what
harm is there? Do we not come across deaths due to grief which is
nothing but illusion?

Similarly, does not one get the knowledge of having become rich
through a dream which is entirely an illusion?

In this context, there is a Sruti pramana which says that if, during
the performance of the rites for desired results, the agent sees a
woman in a dream, he should know that those rites will be fruitful
because of the vision.

The experience of the dreamer is real in that state, as even an
illusory means of knowledge can produce that experience. The state
of acquired wealth is an illusion brought by a dream which is also
an illusion. There is therefore nothing wrong in the exposition of
jiva-Brahman identity.
 

(To be Continued)