Pratyabhijna and Shankara’s Advaita (comparative study)
by Ranjni M. | 2013 | 54,094 words
This page relates ‘Individual Self and Worldly Experiences� of study dealing with Pratyabhijna and Shankara’s Advaita. This thesis presents a comparative analysis of two non-dualistic philosophies, Pratyabhijna from Kashmir and Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta from Kerala, highlighting their socio-cultural backgrounds and philosophical similarities..
Go directly to: Footnotes.
5.4. Individual Self and Worldly Experiences
According to ʰٲⲹñ, the individuality of the self is a creation of and is a phenomenon in the realm of impure creation. obscures and limits the experiencer both in regard to what is experienced and the experiencing subject. It is like the experience of falling asleep. When the subject falls asleep, he is overtaken by the power of . There takes place a limitation in the nature of subject and object of experience. There occurs a change in the relationship between the experiencer and its universal experience. In the place of eternity (Nityatva) there arises time (), universality is replaced by order or regulation (Niyati), in place of all-interestedness there arises limited interest (岵), which causes disappointment, omniscience appears as limited consciousness (վ), omnipotence is replaced by the finite power of action.[1] Thus when the self becomes manifested as limited, its experience also becomes limited. The experience is then put to sleep by and he, forgetting his own divinity and glory, and being wrapped up by the five limitations, becomes manifest as a limited individual. The five wraps with are called the six sheaths or cloths (ñܰ첹) covering the individual.[2] In state of experience the experiencer is called ʳܰṣa, the limited individual self. Each of these numberless ʳܰṣas becomes Aṇu, a non-special point, because of obscuration, limitation, differentiation and multiplication by .[3] The power of free will of ʲś and the three impurities are the causes for becoming different experiences.
The seven experiencers are:
첹 has explained this concept very clearly in his 첹ī commentary.[5] In ṅk’s Advaita also the limitedness of the individual self is the same, though there is some difference in the technical terms and in some minute details.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[2]:
[4]:
[5]:
āṇavamāyīyābhyā�, āṇavakārmābhyā�, māyīyakārmābhyā� ityeva� dvayatrikeṇeti 屹 | tathā ekena tribhedena ekībhūtena malatrayarūpeṇa ekena trikeṇetyartha� | tatra kevalena āṇavamalena śivatattvamuttiṣṭhati, śakterbhinnatayā gaṇanayā āpātata� tadrahitatayā sphuraṇāt tasyeva ca svātantryahānitvāt | yadyapyāṇavamaladvitīyabhedena svātantryabodhatārūpeṇa śaktitattvasyotthāna; tathāhi tadiha na gaṇitam, aprakṛtattvāt | śaktimatā� nirṇayasyaiva prakṛtattvāt | śivādbhedena ṇi śaktirabodhakalpatvamaśrayatyeva | saiva svātantryasyāpyabodhatā | kevalena āṇavena śivotthānam, kevalena māyīyamalena mantramaheśvarotthānam, kevalena kārmamalena mantrotthānam, āṇavamāyīyābhyā� mantrākhya� vidyeśotthānam, āṇavakārmābhyā� vijñānākalotthānam, māyīyakārmabhyā� pralayākalotthānam, āṇavāditrikeṇa sakalotthānamiti � | Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vimarśini, 첹ī, Part II, p. 255.