ThithikshAsthApini
Purport of profound acceptance with the analysis of distinction between dEhAtma with reference to gItAbAsya of Adi Sankara Ch2:V14
Dealing with the nature of distinction between the dEha and Atma, the anAtma vichAra becomes necessary. The focus on appropriating the functionalities will automatically judge the nature of distinction between the two. The appropriation must coherently imply the rehearsal of the heterogeneity and implication over the articles in the process of assorting the above mentioned functionalities. The comprehensibility of the objective functionality, the predicate would anticipate the uniqueness of the subject thus resolving conflict of claims and counters. The dialectical irreconcilability of the theories, to us supposes & pre-supposes, priori and post priori rudiments, ramifying the contention regarding the two. The contention that dEha is the self – anAtma and the confrontation of Atma to be distinct from the former, has the concordance among themselves in originating a common platform for reconciliation between their mutual opposition. The apposite of their opposition in such a platform adopts the objective concepts (jIva & jagath) themselves as the mode of judgment. Speaking about the same situation BG:2:7 mentions, Karpanya dOshOpahatha svabAvah – bewilderness due to vice nature of faint heartedness, one is prone to mismatch, about the real nature of the dEha and Atma. The answer to cure such bewilderment goes by saying that, if an attempt is made to judge and concise the conflicts, it would emerge more precise grounds, which questions the private validity of the premises themselves. Estimating the nature of dEha and Atma, it is necessary for our transcendental acceptance that supercedes the degree of dialectical invariance, projecting profound tolerance to the same. This profound acceptance is enacted only by overseeing the delusion – dhIras ca muhyati or the natural illusion regarding the distinction of functionalities. Distinction here does not hold its literal meaning but for the intrinsic purport. Prior to argument and judgment, it must be the antharaprAptir – visualization of the substratum of concept as the subject for the object which results in the formulations of anAtma which ridicules itself to derive the intrinsically indeterminable (Nirvikalpa) subject. Atman cannot be objective. It is nirvikAraha – devoid of faults and deformations during the process of its conceptualizations. The attempt to change of the arbitrary structure is considered impracticable and thus loses validity. This may be mere answer to an argumentative mood, but the solution is profound, none but the profound acceptance. The focus on the loci demands a tangible perseverance, calls for a radical alteration, which is nothing but the change in affirmative-injunctive attitude towards the mode of analysis. The fixation of attitude towards the arbitraries becomes the source of the issue or an issue by itself questioning its own validity. This acceptance is termed as thithiksa. Besides not being grumbling acceptance, it is immune to the bewilderment due to the attempt of changing the structure of didactic reality about the nature of arbitrary – Atman. Commenting upon the term mAtrAsparsha ( BG2:14) Adi shankara confirms the above stand, wherein he justifies the analogy involved in that verse. He goes this way to say mAtra is the sense organs. mA is to experience. ‘thra’ is the instrument of experience – jnAnEndriyam. The sparsa, shabdha, rUpa, rasa and gandha are the five fold instruments which in contact with the senses, aid to realize the process of interaction or contact between the both. Hence mAtrAsparsa is the sensory contact. This contact depends upon the temporal changes and the invariance which is stated to be the ‘sIdhOshNa’ (sItham – coldness; ushNam – heat) that results in the sensory acquaintance of sukha & dukkha ie., pleasure and pain. The analogy is between the pleasure and pain with that of the temporal invariance in the sensory objects which are instrumental. The instrumental relation with sensory ‘objects’ is the indriya sambanda for which the essential objectivity is the experience of sIdOshNa which is the vishaya. sItam or UsNam here does not denote the intrinsic source for sukha and dukha. Senses are just mediating or actualizing the effect of pleasure and pain. Empirics, at this juncture may find this inviting to claim their stand rejecting extra empirical pre-suppositions. But Adi shankara reminds them about their impermanence of sukha and dukkha ; that pleasure and pain are static and they are accidental by nature. Hence they cannot be normalized as empirical strata to limit the extra empirical notions. The substratum, Adi Sankara talks about is sukha dukha vailakshanyam. nithyatE rUpa – always static; na vyabitara – not variable ( emphatic) grhaNam – enumeration of such. Interestingly sItOshNa – is anithyata swarUpa , whereby AchArya regards it to be dynamically static. Since mere static terminology may question its actualization by the senses. This nature of sukha-dukha relation with sIthOsNa when attempted to be altered it is nothing but waste of time. Agama (setup) pAyinam (change) sIla: (useless) according to Adi Sankara. Thus the undermining purport of this verse is that the ‘loss of temperament is due to lack of TithikSa’
Purport of profound acceptance with the analysis of distinction between dEhAtma with reference to gItAbAsya of Adi Sankara Ch2:V14
Dealing with the nature of distinction between the dEha and Atma, the anAtma vichAra becomes necessary. The focus on appropriating the functionalities will automatically judge the nature of distinction between the two. The appropriation must coherently imply the rehearsal of the heterogeneity and implication over the articles in the process of assorting the above mentioned functionalities. The comprehensibility of the objective functionality, the predicate would anticipate the uniqueness of the subject thus resolving conflict of claims and counters. The dialectical irreconcilability of the theories, to us supposes & pre-supposes, priori and post priori rudiments, ramifying the contention regarding the two. The contention that dEha is the self – anAtma and the confrontation of Atma to be distinct from the former, has the concordance among themselves in originating a common platform for reconciliation between their mutual opposition. The apposite of their opposition in such a platform adopts the objective concepts (jIva & jagath) themselves as the mode of judgment. Speaking about the same situation BG:2:7 mentions, Karpanya dOshOpahatha svabAvah – bewilderness due to vice nature of faint heartedness, one is prone to mismatch, about the real nature of the dEha and Atma. The answer to cure such bewilderment goes by saying that, if an attempt is made to judge and concise the conflicts, it would emerge more precise grounds, which questions the private validity of the premises themselves. Estimating the nature of dEha and Atma, it is necessary for our transcendental acceptance that supercedes the degree of dialectical invariance, projecting profound tolerance to the same. This profound acceptance is enacted only by overseeing the delusion – dhIras ca muhyati or the natural illusion regarding the distinction of functionalities. Distinction here does not hold its literal meaning but for the intrinsic purport. Prior to argument and judgment, it must be the antharaprAptir – visualization of the substratum of concept as the subject for the object which results in the formulations of anAtma which ridicules itself to derive the intrinsically indeterminable (Nirvikalpa) subject. Atman cannot be objective. It is nirvikAraha – devoid of faults and deformations during the process of its conceptualizations. The attempt to change of the arbitrary structure is considered impracticable and thus loses validity. This may be mere answer to an argumentative mood, but the solution is profound, none but the profound acceptance. The focus on the loci demands a tangible perseverance, calls for a radical alteration, which is nothing but the change in affirmative-injunctive attitude towards the mode of analysis. The fixation of attitude towards the arbitraries becomes the source of the issue or an issue by itself questioning its own validity. This acceptance is termed as thithiksa. Besides not being grumbling acceptance, it is immune to the bewilderment due to the attempt of changing the structure of didactic reality about the nature of arbitrary – Atman. Commenting upon the term mAtrAsparsha ( BG2:14) Adi shankara confirms the above stand, wherein he justifies the analogy involved in that verse. He goes this way to say mAtra is the sense organs. mA is to experience. ‘thra’ is the instrument of experience – jnAnEndriyam. The sparsa, shabdha, rUpa, rasa and gandha are the five fold instruments which in contact with the senses, aid to realize the process of interaction or contact between the both. Hence mAtrAsparsa is the sensory contact. This contact depends upon the temporal changes and the invariance which is stated to be the ‘sIdhOshNa’ (sItham – coldness; ushNam – heat) that results in the sensory acquaintance of sukha & dukkha ie., pleasure and pain. The analogy is between the pleasure and pain with that of the temporal invariance in the sensory objects which are instrumental. The instrumental relation with sensory ‘objects’ is the indriya sambanda for which the essential objectivity is the experience of sIdOshNa which is the vishaya. sItam or UsNam here does not denote the intrinsic source for sukha and dukha. Senses are just mediating or actualizing the effect of pleasure and pain. Empirics, at this juncture may find this inviting to claim their stand rejecting extra empirical pre-suppositions. But Adi shankara reminds them about their impermanence of sukha and dukkha ; that pleasure and pain are static and they are accidental by nature. Hence they cannot be normalized as empirical strata to limit the extra empirical notions. The substratum, Adi Sankara talks about is sukha dukha vailakshanyam. nithyatE rUpa – always static; na vyabitara – not variable ( emphatic) grhaNam – enumeration of such. Interestingly sItOshNa – is anithyata swarUpa , whereby AchArya regards it to be dynamically static. Since mere static terminology may question its actualization by the senses. This nature of sukha-dukha relation with sIthOsNa when attempted to be altered it is nothing but waste of time. Agama (setup) pAyinam (change) sIla: (useless) according to Adi Sankara. Thus the undermining purport of this verse is that the ‘loss of temperament is due to lack of TithikSa’
posted by Antharyami at
10:31 AM
0 Comments
