[Chaturamnaya] The Foundations of Adhyāsa - 2.1 (Pūrvapaksha: The Self is the Body) (Part I)

[S Jayanarayanan]

 (Continued from previous post.)
 
 
Among everything that an ordinary person associates with the Self, the foremost is the (Material or Physical) Body. In familiar
statements such as, “I am short/tall”, “I am fair/dark”, “I am thin/fat”, etc., the properties of the Body are tacitly assumed to
belong to the Self:
 
  I am = short/tall
  I am = fair/dark
  I am = thin/fat
  ...
 
The basis for all of the above is:
 
  Self = (The whole, or a part, or a set of attributes of the) Body
 
Other examples include: when one uses the hands to perform work, the legs to walk, or the mouth to chew food, one says,
“I picked up the pen”, “I ran to the store”, “I ate the fruit”, etc.
 
If it can be shown that the Self is not the Body, or that Consciousness cannot be derived from the Body, then all these common ideas
become false, implying that:
 
  The properties of the (unconscious) Body are Superimposed on the (conscious) Self.
 
This is called Adhyāsa, where certain attributes are Superimposed on an entity that does not possess the said attributes.
An example is: mistaking a shiny shell (nacre) to be an object made of metallic silver.
 
Therefore, the important aspect of Adhyāsa in the context of Advaita Vedānta is to prove that the Self is not the Body. If this can
be done, then the Body can be taken as a Superimposition on the Self. Sankara accomplishes precisely this in his great BSB.
 
The Brahma Sūtra first considers the Pūrvapaksha that the Self is non-different from the Body.
 
  Brahma Sūtra 3.3.53:
  
  Some maintain the non-existence of a separate Self, on account of its existence being dependent on a Body. 
  
  Sankara's Commentary:
 
  At present we will prove the existence of a Self different from the body in order to establish thereby the
  qualification (of the Self) for bondage and release. For if there were no Self different from the body,
  there would be no room for injunctions that have the other world for their result; nor could it be taught
  of anyone that Brahman is the Self.
 
  Opponent: But in the first pāda of the Pūrva Mīmāmsā Sūtras, there has been declared the existence of a Self
  which is different from the body and hence capable of enjoying the fruits taught by the Scripture.
  
  Vedāntin: True, it has been declared there by the author of that Bhāṣya, but there is in that place no Sūtra
  about the existence of the Self. Here, on the other hand, the Sūtrakāra himself establishes the existence
  of the Self after having disposed of a preliminary objection. A DISCUSSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF IS
  INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE WHOLE SCRIPTURE DEPENDS THEREON, AND THE EXISTENCE OF A SELF WHICH IS
  SEPARATE FROM THE BODY IS AFFIRMED.
 
Note just how critical it is for Sankara to establish the existence of the Self as disparate from the Body: the totality of
Scripture depends upon it! Without a Self being different from the Body, neither Mīmāmsā (which believes in another world
where Karma bears fruit) nor Vedānta (where the Ātman is held to be immutable) makes any sense, so the Vedāntin should be
all ready and prepared to defend this basic thesis!
 
 
(To be Continued)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/chaturamnaya/attachments/20180822/d95e745c/attachment.html>