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.

Advaita from First Principles (III): The Vivekachudamani Question

“Vivekachudamani”, as we all know, is the important Advaita text written in lovely Sanskrit verses by Sri Sankaracarya. Sri Bhagavan Himself did a free rendering in prose of the work in Tamil. In fact, not only did Bhagavan translate the text, He also composed an introduction to the work and 2 sublime invocatory verses. [Herein the translations are from “Vivekachudamani of Sri Sankaracarya”, by Swami Madhavananda, RK Math].

The text is in the form of a dialogue between the Guru and disciple. Over the course of 580 verses, it covers every aspect of Advaita. We pick up from the point the Guru has been explaining the nature of Maya or Avidya (Ignorance, Nescience):

108. (The Guru says:) Avidya or Maya, called also the Undifferentiated, is the power of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three gunas and is superior to the effects (as their cause). She is to be inferred by one of clear intellect only from the effects She produces. It is She who brings forth this whole universe.

There are several verses on similar lines, elaborating on the characteristics of Avidya. One point emphasised particularly is – that Avidya is BEGINNINGLESS. This prompts the disciple to come up with this incredibly pertinent query:

192. (The disciple questioned:) Be it through delusion or otherwise that the Supreme Self has come to consider Itself as the Jiva, this superimposition is without beginning, and that which has no beginning cannot be supposed to have an end either.

193.   Therefore the Jivahood of the soul also must have no end, and its transmigration must continue for ever. How then can there be liberation for the soul? Kindly enlighten me on this point, O revered Master.

I call this the “Vivekachudamani” Question, and every believer in Advaita needs to understand the answer to this riddle. Because if a logically robust answer is not possible, then Liberation Itself becomes impossible in the Advaita system.

To all of us who have been reading spiritual texts for some time, the nature of Maya or Avidya described as "beginningless" is almost drilled into us. Every Guru and spiritual writer says the same thing, so much so, we accept it automatically now without a second thought. But we do not realize the enormous implications of the same: if Maya or Avidya is without any beginning, it logically should also be without any end, and thus there should be no scope of removing it ever; and as long as Maya is, It will veil the Self or Brahman; thus all sadhana is wasted, and no liberation is possible for the Jiva.   

I believe that Vivekachudamani is the only text which squarely addresses this seemingly vexed issue, though it is peripherally tackled in other works. Sri Sankara answers the query perfectly, in a few simple verses. But I must confess that for a long time I never really understood the answer, and the deep but simple logic that lay behind the seemingly innocuous explanation. Yes, beginningless Maya can have an end, and that logic can be derived in a simple manner from first principles. 

Advaita from First Principles

First let us examine the nature of Avidya described as being “beginningless”. How can something be without a “beginning”? After all, for every object that we see in the world, we can attribute a beginning for.

Actually, everything that there IS (or not), can only be beginningless. Startling as it may seem, the statement holds true logically, always. Let us examine how:

A thing may be “real”, or “not real”, or both real and unreal [not getting into unnecessary complexities by also taking the “neither” option here]. If something is “real” it would always be real and always existing, now, in the past, and forever. Its existence then would be beginningless. If something is “unreal” then it would never exist, neither now, nor in the past, nor in the future. Thus its non-existence is beginningless. And then either way too, if something is both real and unreal, it necessarily has to be beginningless as well, as each of the constituents are so.

Now something both real and unreal is what Avidya is. It is real because it is seen (the world is seen & experienced) and it is unreal because it disappears in deep sleep (is sublated, the world is not seen and experienced). Thus it is called indeterminable [though a lot of complex arguments also further go into “indeterminability”]. In any event, Avidya therefore is beginningless.

Also, if it were not beginningless it would have a beginning; thus it would then have a cause; so either then we have to say that Brahman is the cause, and thus pollute Brahman with causality; or we say that another entity was the cause of Avidya; then we have to find another entity to be the cause of this entity & we have infinite regress. So Avidya cannot have a cause.

[Why then are you, I, the table in front, or the earth below NOT beginningless? Because we, and all these, are subsumed within Avidya. All the objects/entities of the world are the “effects” of Avidya; these all have Avidya as their “cause”, and thus they necessarily have to have a beginning].

And then, because “beginningless” Avidya is “indeterminable”, it can have an end - because it is both real & unreal at the same time. Of course, if it were real only, then it would exist always, much like the Self. But, because it is also unreal at the same time, and is actually of the nature of an “illusion”, it can revert to its unreal nature, and be as if it never existed. So theoretically, the possibility of its destruction (or reversion to complete non-existence) is always there. And once it is destroyed, it is as if it were totally non-existent and never there, because there is no cause for it; and thus, nothing is there to make it arise again.

[As an aside: How did it first arise? We don’t know and can never know. We are just presented with it. The Scriptures say that when vasana seeds sprout, Avidya arises. But in terms of logic all that can be said is that - when I, as Jiva, have awareness, the world & Avidya is presented to me as an indeterminable & beginningless entity. I have to take it from there].

Hopefully, the foregoing gives a flavour of how simple logical reasoning stands behind the averments made in the great texts.

The Vivekachudamani text itself answers the question thus:

194.   (The Master replied:)  Thou hast rightly questioned, O learned man! Listen therefore attentively: The imagination which has been conjured up by delusion can never be accepted as a fact.

195.  But for delusion there can be no connection of the Self – which is unattached, beyond activity, and formless – with the objective world, as in the case of blueness etc. with reference to the sky.

196.   The Jivahood of the Atman, the Witness, which is beyond qualities and beyond activity, and which is realized within as knowledge and Bliss Absolute – has been superimposed by the delusion of the buddhi, and is not real. And because it is by nature an unreality, it ceases to exist when the delusion is gone.

197.   It exists only so long as the delusion lasts, being caused by indiscrimination due to an illusion. The rope is supposed to be the snake only so long as the mistake lasts, and there is no more a snake when the illusion has vanished. Similar is the case here.

198-199.   Avidya or Nescience and its effects are likewise considered as beginningless. Bit with the rise of Vidya or Realization, the entire effects of Avidya, even though beginningless, are destroyed together with their root – like dreams on waking up from sleep. It is clear that the phenomenal universe, even though without beginning is not eternal – like previous non-existence [“pragabhava”].