Liberation and citta vRtti nirodha

[Anand Hudli]

Vidyasankar has kindly supplied me with some of the relevant text of
Shankara's bhAShya along with Anandagiri's TIkA, which I have made use
of in the translation.

tasmAt.h - therefore, anAtmaviGYAnasmR^itInAM - of the memories of
knowledge of the non-Self, AtmAvagateH - from the understanding of
the Self, abhAvaprAptiH - attainment of absence (ie. they cease to be)
parisheShyAt.h - due to being the remaining, Atmaikatva - the unity of
the Self (and everything else), viGYAnasmR^itisantateH - from the
continuous flow of memories of the knowledge, arthataH - towards
that end, eva - already, bhAvAt.h - due to arising, na vidheyatvaM -
is not to be enjoined, shoka-moha-bhaya-AyAsa-Adi-duHkha-doSha -
defects, that are pain, of sorrow, delusion, fear, effort, and so on,
nivartakatvAchcha - due to the removal also, tatsmR^iteH - from the
memory of that (the unity of the Self with everything),
viparItaGYAnaprabhavo - having the contrary knowledge as the source,
hi - exactly, shokamohAdidoShaH - defects such as sorrow, delusion,
tathA cha - accordingly, "tatra ko mohaH" - "what delusion is there
(in that case)?", "vidvAnna bibheti kutashchana" - "The one who knows
does not fear anything", "abhayaM vai janaka prApto .asi" - "O Janaka,
you have attained that which is without fear", "bhidyate hR^idaya-
granthiH", - "the heart's knot is broken", ityAdishrutayaH - thus
(say) such  shruti statements.

Therefore, the memories of non-Self (memories that are not about the
Self) cease to occur due to the understanding of the Self. The remembering
of the Self is not to be enjoined (please see below for further discussion
on this) because the continuous flow of memories of the unity of the Self
(with everything) readily arises, since such memories are the only ones
remaining (after the cessation of the others). Also, the defects, which
are only pain, of sorrow, delusion, fear, effort, and so on, are removed
by the memory of the Self. These defects arise exactly from the contrary
knowledge (about the Self). In this connection, there are
the shruti statements, "what delusion is there?", "The one who knows
does not fear anything", "O Janaka, you have attained that which is
without fear", "the heart's knot is broken", and so on.

nirodhaH - restraint (stilling) (of the mind), tarhi- in that case,
arthAntaraM - a different thing, iti chet.h - it may be thus,
athApi - moreover,syAt.h - (it) could be, chittavR^ittinirodhasya
- of the restraint of the mind, vedavAkyajanita- arising from the
statements of the Veda, AtmaviGYAnAt.h - from the knowledge of the Self,
arthAntaratvAt.h - being another thing, tantrAntareshhu -
in another discipline, ie. Yoga, cha- and
kartavyatayA- as something that is to be done, avagatatvAt.h - due to
being known, vidheyatvaM - is to be enjoined, iti chenna - if (it be
said) thus, (we say) no, moxasAdhanatvena - as a means to liberation,
anavagamAt.h - due to its not being known,  nahi- not at all, vedAnteshhu-
in the vedAnta, brahmAtmaviGYAnAt.h - apart from the knowledge of
the Brahman that is the Self, anyat.h - a different, paramapurushhArtha-
greatest aim of human life, sAdhanatvena - as a means, avagamyate - is
known, "AtmAnamevAvet.h (ahaM brahmAsmiti) tasmAt(tat)sarvamabhavat.h"
- "It knew just Itself, ("I am Brahman"), therefore It became everything"
"brahmavidApnoti param.h"- "the knower of Brahman attains the highest",
"sa yo ha vai tatparamaM brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" - "He who knows
the highest Brahman becomes Brahman Itself" ... ityevamAdishruti-
shatebhyaH- thus (say) hundreds of such shruti statements

It may be the case that restraint (stilling) of the mind is something
different (and this may be enjoined). Moreover, it could be so because
the restraint of the modifications of the mind is different from the
knowledge of the Self that arises from the statements of the Veda. And
it is to be enjoined because it is known as something that is to be
accomplished in another discipline, ie. Yoga. If this is (what you say,
we say) no. Because it (restraint of the mind) is not known to be a means
of liberation. In the VedAnta, apart from the knowledge of Brahman that
is the Self, nothing is known as the means to the highest aim of human
life. In support of this are hundreds of shruti statements such as
"It knew just Itself, ("I am Brahman"), therefore It became everything",
"the knower of Brahman attains the highest", "He who knows the highest
Brahman becomes Brahman Itself", and so on.

ananyasAdhanatvAchcha - and, due to there being no other means,
nirodhasya- of restraint, na hi - certainly not, AtmaviGYAnasmR^iti-
santAna- the continuous flow of memories of knowledge of the Self,
vyatirekeNa - different from, chittavR^ittinirodhasya - of the restraint
 of the modifications of the mind, sAdhanamasti - is there a means,
abhyupagamya- admitting, idaM - this, uktaM - has been stated, na tu -
certainly not, brahmaviGYAnavyatirekeNa - different from the knowledge
of Brahman, anyamoxasAdhanaM - another means to liberation, avagamyate
- is known.

Furthermore, there is no other means to even restrain the mind. There
is certainly no means to the restraint of the mind different from the
continuous flow of memories of knowledge of the Self. This has been
stated after admission: certainly there is no means to liberation
apart from the knowledge of Brahman.

...

yattUktaM - that which is said, viGYAya - knowing, praGYAM kurvIta -
should obtain knowledge, ityAdivachanAnAM - of statements such as
this, vAkyArthaviGYAna - knowledge of the meaning of the statement,
vyatirekeNa - apart from,  upAsanArthatvaM - meditation as an
objective, iti - thus, satyametat.h - this is true, kiMtu - but,
na - not, apUrva-vidhi-arthatA - the objective of an unpreceded
injunction, paxe prAptasya- of that which is known as an alternative,
niyamArthataiva -  the objective of only a restrictive injunction.

It is true that (shruti) statements such as "knowing only this one
should obtain knowledge", have an objective of upAsana (meditation)
apart from the knowledge of the meaning of the statement. But this
cannot be an unpreceded injunction (apUrva-vidhi). Since (such
meditation) is known as an alternative, it is only a restrictive
injunction (niyamavidhi).

apUrva-vidhi is an injunction that makes it possible for us to
attain something that is not known to us at all. As the mImAMsA
paribhAShA says: tatra yo vidhiratyanta-aprAptamarthaM prApayati
so.apUrvavidhiH, that which makes one obtain something that is
completely unknown (unavailable otherwise). yathA darshapUrNam-
AsaprakaraNe "vrIhIn.h proxati, as in the case of the injunction
in the context of the darsha-pUrNamAsa sacrifice "one should
sprinkle the rice grains." In the absence of this injunction one will
never know that such sprinkling should be done. yashcha paxe
prAptamarthaM niyamayati sa niyamavidhiH, yathA tatraiva "vrIhInavahanti",
that which is already known as an alternative and is enjoined is called a
niyama-vidhi, a restrictive injunction, as in the same context of
the darsha-pUrNamAsa, there is an injunction "one should thresh
the rice grains". In this case, threshing the rice grains may be
just one among several alternatives, such as splitting with finger
nails, and so on. Here, the injunction serves the purpose of
*restricting* the alternatives to one by saying that threshing of
rice grains should be done. Anandagiri has cited this example in
his Tiikaa. He states: yathA paxe prAptasya-avaghAtasya vrIhIn-
avahantIti niyamarUpo vidhiraN^gIkR^itastathA .AtmopAsanasyApi
paxe prAptasya tadeva kartavyaM na-anAtmopAsanamiti yo niyamas-
tadarthatA prkR^itavAkyasyeti na prakrama-virodho .astItyarthaH,
Just as in the case of the already known alternative of threshing
rice grains, the niyama-vidhi, "one should thresh the rice grains"
has been admitted, in the same way, in the already known alternative
of meditation on the Self, that alone (ie. upAsana of the Self)
should be done, but not the upAsana of the non-Self. A niyama
vidhi thus holds for the statement under consideration
("AtmetyevopAsIta") and there is no contradiction with the method
(of exegesis). This is what (Shankara) means.

The mImAMsA calls for interpreting a statement with a verb in an
optative ending (such as upAsIta in the present case) as an injunction.
A shAbdI-bhAvanA or "word-efficient force" is expressed by the
optativeness of the verb (liN^.h-tva). This shAbdI-bhAvanA impels
one to action, (ayaM mAM pravartayati). In the context of the statement
"AtmetyevopAsIta", the injunction for meditation is a niyama-vidhi.
For, once the knowledge of the unity of the Self has been known, there
are alternatives such as 1) one can do the upAsana of things other than
the Self - anAtmopAsana and 2) one can do the upAsana of the Self.
Therefore, the niyama-vidhi in this case serves to eliminate the first
alternative and enjoin the second. Such an injunction is necessary
because the past actions (prArabdha karma's) may have started to yield
results and these results might be stronger than the tendency to
remember the Self constantly. In such a case, one should take care to
be engaged in the upAsana of the Self through recourse to such qualities
as dispassion and renunciation.

Anand

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.