The "Non-Existence of Non-Existence"

Had been checking out some verses in “Aparoksanubhuti” of Sri Sankaracarya, and that gave cause, again, to marvel at the title and the use of the lovely double-negative “Aparoksa” by the great Acarya.

Well, this post is a bit on double-negatives as used in spiritual texts, and is prompted by my coincidently reading a marvellous book brought out by Sri Ramanasramam last year called, “Upadesa Saram: The Complete Version in Four Languages Composed by Sri Bhagavan”. As the name implies, the book contains the original Tamil Upadesa Undiyar along with the versions in Sanskrit, Telugu and Malayalam, thus providing a unique perspective on the great work. Most importantly, it is apparent that in this publication the English translations are redone with considerable care, and that brings out some subtle but great nuances that Bhagavan had injected into this important text; like the use of the double-negative in verse 21.

But let me revert to Aparoksanubhuti for a bit. Aparoksanubhuti is usually translated as “direct cognition of the Self” or thereabouts. The word “cognition” is brought in because “anubhuti” is technically defined as legitimate perception; i.e. knowledge gained by means of the Pramanas (from epistemology), the legitimate means of acquiring knowledge, which are 6 in number in Advaita Vedanta. However such usage ignores the root meanings of “anu” & “bhuti”. “Anu” is a prefix which means “with”, a sort of “continuance of the characteristic following”; “bhu” means “to be”, and “bhuti” is thus very simply, “being” or “being-ness”, “anubhuti” thus becomes – “continuing or unbroken being-ness”.

“Paroksa” is usually translated as “indirect”, “unknown”, “invisible”, “absent”. Thus “aparoksa” will be translated by most as “not-indirect”. But we may give heed to the great commentators of yore who used to say that it is impossible to really understand Sri Sankara’s texts until the Astadhyayi is mastered first. And indeed the great Acarya Panini had something to say about “paroksa”. Astadhyayi (III, 2, 115) is, “parokse liT …”, and though is concerned with the affix “liT”, it also, happily, gives a meaning for “paroksa” as “unperceived” – in the sense of the absence of the perceiving agent itself! The vritti to the text clarifies this further as, “… but if by reason of some distracted, unconscious or absent state of mind, it is possible for the agent to speak of the action as one of which he was not a conscious witness [thus defining "parokse"], the perfect ["liT"] may even be used in the first person. Thus, M. Monier-Williams too gives a meaning for “paroksa” as, “ones self not being present”.

Now, if we consider this sense in which Acarya Panini used “paroksa”, “aparoksa” then means “not non-existent”; that - “I am” continues when “I” (the limited self) is absent. And "aparoksa anubhuti" would mean, “not non-existent, unbroken being-ness”.

Cut to Sri Bhagavan’s Upadesa Undiyar, verse 21, as given in the new book brought out by Sri Ramanasramam: 

Verse 21: That [one infinite whole that shines thus as ‘I am I’] is at all times [in the past, present and future, and in all eternity] the [true] import of the word named ‘I’, because of the absence of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of [our finite] ‘I’ [our mind or ego].

The explanatory note accompanying says: “… Though we experience this mind in waking and dream, it disappears in deep sleep. However, though this mind or individual ‘I’ is absent in deep sleep, we do not feel that we cease to exist. Therefore in the second half of this verse Sri Ramana says, “… because of the removal [separation or absence] of our non-existence even in sleep, which is devoid of ‘I’”.

I must confess to having a thrill run through me when I read this translation of verse 21, because this is the first time Bhagavan’s usage of the double-negative in relation to the Self is brought out. As per my remembrance, all previous translations of Upadesa Undiyar conveniently mention just the single-positive instead, missing out on a subtle but important nuance.

The Malayalam version is even more brilliant: 

Verse 21:   This [infinite self, which thus appears spontaneously as ‘I am I’] is always the [true] meaning of the word ‘I’, because in sleep, when the ‘I’ [the mind or ego] has disappeared, one’s experience is not that ‘I am not’ but [rather always] ‘I am’.

And remarkably, what Bhagavan says in verse 21 is exactly the sense that the great Acarya of yore conveys with “Aparoksanubhuti” !  

Thought to write a bit more on the use of the double-negative in spiritual texts. On this, in the explanatory text to the Tamil verse, the Upadesa Saram book goes on to say:

“Here the words ‘because of the removal [separation or absence] of our non-existence’ are a poetic way of saying ‘because we are not non-existent’. This implied double negative is an emphatic way of saying we do exist in sleep.”

Hmmm. The double-negative as being a “poetic” or more “emphatic” way of saying the single-positive is more an understanding out of modern western linguistics rather than anything else. When it comes to Indian spiritual texts, the use of double-negatives has not-undeliberate and not-unintended (!) connotations of deeper meaning.

Primarily, the double-negative comes into play when the underlying concept, or entity, is beyond the power of structured language to convey. The great Acarya constructed the word “Aparoksanubhuti”, or Bhagavan employed “non-existence of our non-existence”, for the sense of continued and unbroken consciousness, awareness, being-ness, deliberately and with a specific purpose; to convey that mere ‘positive’ words, which immediately pin down the meaning in an exact sense, words such as continued-unbroken-consciousness-awareness-beingness, fall short of conveying what is sought to be conveyed. The double-negative however leaves the field open, so to speak, for an additional depth of meaning that is beyond the power of words to convey. Like what I mentioned in my comment on the earlier post “The Vivekachudamani Question”, for Avidya, that it is technically defined as “neither sat nor asat”, to show that It cannot be pinned down as either sat or asat, but is both, and more.

Lastly, coming back to Aparoksanubhuti and the verses that I went back to read, it may be worthwhile to reproduce them here; as much like the title, they could have been written by Bhagavan Himself! : 

11.   Knowledge is not brought about by any other means than Vichara, just as an object is nowhere perceived without the help of light.

12.    Who am I? How is this world created? Who is its creator? Of what material is this world made? This is the way of that Vichara.

13.   I am neither the body, a combination of the (five) elements (of matter), nor am I an aggregate of the senses; I am something different from these. This is the way of that Vichara.

14.   Everything is produced by Ajnana, and dissolves in the wake of Jnana. The various Sankalpas must be the creator. Such is this Vichara.

15.   The material (cause) of these two (Ajana and Sankalpa) is the One, subtle (not apprehended by the senses) and unchanging Sat (Existence), just as the earth is the material (cause) of the pot and the like. This is the way of that Vichara.

16.   As I am also the One, the Subtle, the knower, the Witness, the Ever-Existent, and the Unchanging, so there is no doubt that I am ‘That’. Such is this Vichara.

 

----------------------

References:

1.   Upadesa Saram: The Complete Version in Four Languages Composed by Sri Bhagavan; Sri Ramanasramam, 2011.

2.   Aparoksanubhuti or Self-realization of Sri Sankaracarya; Translated by Sw. Vimuktananda; Advaita Ashrama, 1973.

3.   The Astadhyayi of Panini in 8 Volumes; Translated by Srisa Chandra Vasu; Indian Press, Allahabad, 1891.

4.   Sanskrit-English Dictionary by M. Monier Williams; Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1994.