Introductory Note
Śrī Śrī Svāmī Akṣarānandendra Sarasvatī Mahārāja (Śrī Aśvatthanārāyaṇā Avadhāni in pūrvāśrama), a revered saṃnyāsin, teacher and scholar, was born in 1951 at Mattūr village, near Śivamogga, Karnāṭaka. From a young age, he was initiated into the sacred tradition of the Veda, learning the Taittirīya Yajurveda Kramāṅta under the guidance of his father. He became a disciple of the great Śrī Śrī Svāmī Satcidānandendra Sarasvatī Brahmaniṣṭhajī, from whom he learned Vedānta, and he honed his knowledge of saṃskṛta grammar (vyākaraṇa) and literature (sāhitya) with paṇḍita Parakāje Subrahmaṇya Bhat. Svāmījī is not only an erudite scholar but also an expert in Jyotiṣa (astrology) and Dharmaśāstra. He has been teaching Vedānta for more than five decades, sharing his profound understanding with seekers of truth (mumukṣu). In 2020, he embraced the life of renunciation (saṃnyāsa) at Holenarasipura.
Svāmījī teaches almost exclusively through personal, oral instruction. Thus, the following article is a rare finding, and we are fortunate to have a glimpse of the highly intellectual teachings of Advaita Vedānta transmitted by him, grasping which requires proper qualification and a pure mind (śuddhadhī). Special thanks to Śrī Kumārjī and Smt. Manjushree Hegde for the proofreading, corrections and suggestions, and to Śrī Apanna Ravijī and Śrī Ananthajī for providing the necessary information that made the writing of this brief note possible.
A.M
Śrī Śrī Svāmī Akṣarānandendra Sarasvatī Mahārāja
(Śrī Aśvatthanārāyaṇā Avadhāni)
The Nature of Experience (anubhavasvarūpam)1
Edited by André Marques Santana Santos
“Jñānena hi pramāṇena avagantum iṣṭaṃ brahma”; “Knowledge thus constitutes the means by which the complete realization of Brahman is desired to be obtained.” (BSŚBh. 1.1.1)
What kind of knowledge (jñāna), [is] of the nature of direct experience (anubhava), [and] qualifies as a valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa)? What kind of realization (avagati), [is] of the nature of direct experience (anubhavātmikā), [and is] the fruit/result (phalabhūtā)?
It is explained thus, the knowledge (jñāna) that is the pramāṇa in this case is that which is produced by the statements of Vedanta (vedāntavākyajanyam). It is of the form of a cognition that appears as a direct perception (upalabdhyābhāsapratyaya). For example, in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, the statement “Ānando brahmeti vyajānāt” (He knew Bliss to be Brahman) and “sa yaścāyaṃ puruṣe yaścāsāvāditye sa ekaḥ” (He who is in the eye (puruṣa) and He who is in the sun, He is one) leads to the knowledge (jñāna) in the form of intellectual understanding (bauddhapratyaya) through contemplation of the meaning of these statements (vākyārthānusandhāna). This knowledge (jñāna), acting as a means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa), leads to the realization of “Ānandasvarūpanirupādhikabrahmaivāham” (I am Brahman, whose nature is Bliss and who is without attributes) and culminates in the state of abiding in Brahman-Ātman (Brahmātmani avasthānalakṣaṇavati). This is why knowledge (jñāna) is considered a pramāṇa.
Similarly, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the statement “aitadātmyamidaṃ sarvaṃ tatsatyaṃ sa ātmā tattvamasi” (All this is Brahman; That is the truth; Thou art That) leads to the knowledge (jñāna) in the form of intellectual understanding (bauddhapratyaya) through contemplation of the meaning of these statements (vākyārthānusandhāna). This knowledge (jñāna), acting as a means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa), leads to the realization (avagati) characterized by “Aham asmi sarvasyātmābhūtaṃ paramārthnityaṃ sad brahma” (I am Brahman, the eternal reality, the Self of all). Therefore, this knowledge (jñāna) is deemed a pramāṇa.
In this way, in all Vedānta statements, at the culmination of inquiry (jijñāsā), the seeker (jijñāsu) comprehends Brahman-Ātman through knowledge (jñāna) in the form of intellectual understanding (bauddhapratyaya) generated by the respective Vedānta statements (vedāntavākyajanya). Since such knowledge acts as the instrument (karaṇatvāt) in each case, it is referred to as pramāṇa-jñāna (instrumental knowledge). The ultimate result (phalabhūtaṃ), however, is also a form of knowledge (jñānaṃ), the realization (avagatiḥ) attained at the end of this process.
Analysis of the statement “Śrutyanugrahīta eva atra tarkō anubhavāṅgatvena āśrīyate”: “Here, reasoning (tarka) is accepted as an auxiliary to experience (anubhava) only when it is supported by scripture (śruti)”:
“Just as statements about the creation of the universe (jagajjanmādivākyāni) are also accepted as auxiliaries to experience (anubhavāṅgatvena) when they are supported by scripture and reasoning (śrutyanugrahītatarkātmakāni), similarly, in scriptural statements like “satyam jñānam anantaṃ brahma” (Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite) and “Sadeva saumyedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyam” (In the beginning, my dear, this was Being alone, one only, without a second), which deal with the nature of Brahman, reasonings (tarkāḥ) of this kind, supported by scripture (śrutyanugrahītāḥ) and presented as auxiliaries to experience (anubhavāṅgatvena), are employed only as methods prescribed by the scriptures (āgamavidhayaḥ). The commentator (bhāṣyakāraḥ) will explain later: “Śrutyanugrahīta eva atra tarkō anubhavāṅgatvena āśrīyate – svapnāntabuddhāntayorubhayorit retaravyabhicārātmāno’nanvāgatatvam, saṃprasāde ca prapañcaparityāgena sadātmanā sampatterniṣprapañcasadātmatvam, prapañcasya brahmaprabhavatvāt, kāryakāraṇānanyatvanyāyena brahmāvyatirekaḥ ityevaṃjātiyakāḥ” (Here, reasoning is accepted as an auxiliary to experience only when it is supported by scripture – for example, since the states of sleep and wakefulness contradict each other, the Self is not identified with any of them; since the individual soul dissociates itself from the world in the state of deep sleep to become one with the Self which is Existence, it must be the same as the supreme Self; since creation has originated from Brahman, and since the law is that the cause and effect are non-different, creation must be non-different from Brahman; and so on. (BSŚBh 2.1.6).
In this context, the experience (anubhava) generated by such scriptural statements (etādṛśavākyaiḥ) is synonymous with knowledge (vijñānāparaparyāyaḥ) [this is parāpara knowledge, i.e. both supreme and non-supreme]. This experience, which is sought to be established by statements like “Satyam jñānam” (Brahman is truth and knowledge), “Sadeva saumya” (Brahman is Being), and “Tattvamasi” (Thou art That), is called “pramāṇam” (means of valid knowledge) in the commentary (bhāṣya). The realization (avagati) generated by these statements is considered the result (phalarūpā) as it is the culmination of experience (anubhavāvasānatvāt), as referred to by the term “anubhava” in the statement.
Other auxiliaries like “anubhavādayaśca” (and so on) include reasoning based on scripture (śrautatarka) that enhances knowledge derived from subsidiary statements (avāntaravākyajanyajñānopabṛṃhaka), reasoning based on worldly experience (laukikayukti) that aligns with it, and anything else that is not contradictory to it. These are also indirectly referred to as means of valid knowledge (pramāṇatvena) as they lead to the experience-like realization of Brahman-Ātman (brahmātmānubhavarūpām avagatiṃ prati) through a series of instrumental steps (paramparayā karaṇatvena) and auxiliary means (upa karaṇatvena).” (Sūtrabhāṣya-ārtha-tattva-vivecani-2, p.47)
Anubhava (Experience) literally means “that which follows after” (anusṛtya bhavati). It is of five kinds:
- Prayatnajanya anubhava: Experience that arises from effort (prayatna), such as driving a vehicle.
- Pramāṇajanya anubhava: Experience that arises from valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa), such as the [direct perception of] the sweetness of sugar.
- Vedanājanya anubhava: Experience that arises from emotions (vedanā), such as hunger or sadness.
- Yogajanya anubhava: Experience which arises by following the practice of yoga (yoga-sādhanam), including austerities (tapas) and the like, is the direct perception (yogi pratyakṣaḥ) of the yogi.
- Pūrvasiddha anubhava: Pre-established experience, the Witness-experience (Sākṣi anubhava), of the nature of observing the states [of consciousness].
Among these, prayatnajanya anubhava (experience arising from effort), although leading to great wealth and respect in worldly matters, is useless and even obstructive in understanding the meaning of the commentary (bhāṣyavākyārthavagati).
Pramāṇajanya anubhava and vedanājanya anubhava (experiences arising from valid means of knowledge, perceptions and emotions), although used as examples in the commentaries for the purpose of clarifying the meaning of scriptural statements (vākyārthaspaṣṭīkaraṇamātram prayojanam), are incapable of generating new knowledge (apūrvajñānajanane asamartha) as they merely point to commonly known experiences (lokprasiddhbodhakatvāt). Therefore, they are also useless in directly realizing the truth (samyagdṛśane) and contemplating the meaning of Vedānta statements (vedāntavākyārthavicāraṇe).
Yogajanya anubhava (experience arising from yogic practices), however divine or sublime, is useless and can even be misleading (durmārgakārī) in understanding the meaning of Vedānta statements (vedāntavākyārthāvagatī) due to its inherent subjective [particular] nature [as opposed to the non-particular, universal experience] and its occasional occurrence (kādācitkatvāt).
However, the preliminary experience (pūrvasiddha anubhava), of the nature of the avasthā-s Witness (avasthāsākṣirūpaḥ), though common to all beings and not applicable in empirical transactions (vyavahāra), serves as a basis for scrutinizing the meaning of the Vedānta statements and, thus, becomes a means for attaining the right knowledge of the identity of Brahman as Ātman. Based on this experience, reasoning that is consistent with it (upapannastarka) also becomes a means of valid knowledge in understanding the meaning of subsidiary statements (avāntaravākyārthāvagatī pramāṇam bhavati), as exemplified by statements like “svapnāntabuddhāntayorubhayoritare taravyabhicārāt […] niṣprapañcasadātmatvam” (since the states of sleep and wakefulness contradict each other, the Self is not identified with any of them). This same experience (anubhava) – which is referred to in all methods (prakriyā-s) such as cause and effect (kārya-kāraṇa prakriyā), etc., – serves to negate the elements of false attributions therein [in the context of avāntara-vākya-s/prakriyā-s] and brings about the realization of Brahman (brahmāvagatiṃ) through the great statements (mahāvākya) of Vedānta.
The entire section of the Adhyāsa Bhāṣya starting from “yuṣmadasmadpratyayagocarayoḥ” and ending with “sarvalokapratyakṣaḥ”, which deals with superimposition (adhyāsabhāṣyarūpaḥ), is presented solely based on the evidence of experience (anubhavapramāṇamātraṃ āśritya). Hence, statements like “naisargiko’yaṃ lokavyavahāraḥ” and “sarvalokapratyakṣaḥ” (This worldly transaction is natural & perceived by all people) demonstrate that experience (anubhava) is the sole means of valid knowledge (pramāṇam). In all the commentaries, the statements that serve as reasons (hetubhūtāni vākyāni) ending with the fifth case (pañcamīvibhakti) all point to the nature of experience (anubhavasvarūpameva). As it is said:
“The logicians bemuse each other with a web of wherefores and therefore, heavily afflicted with the fever of debate. But it is to this experience that they make their final appeal.” (Naiṣkarmya Siddhi 2.59)
In the context of examining the nature of experience (anubhavasvarūpavivecana), the meaning of words such as kalpanā (imagination), mamatā (ownership), saundarya (beauty), śraddhā (faith), etc. are to be ascertained through careful consideration.
Sometimes people mistake their own imagination (svakalpanā) as experience (anubhava), like when seeing a moving vehicle, they think the motion itself is perceived by the eyes – but this is not actual experience (anubhava).
Similarly, people imagine that qualities like sound, touch, sight, taste, and smell (śabdasparśarūparasagandhāḥ), which are perceived by different senses (pṛthagindriyagrāhyāḥ), are all combined in one object (ekasmin padārthe saṃhatāni). This is also just imagination (kalpanā), not experience (anubhava).
Likewise, people think that these experiences are anubhava: (1) the transactions in the form of attachment (mamatārūpo vyavahāraḥ) like “my father”, “my mother”, and (2) the qualities of fatherhood etc. felt towards cherished individuals like “brother”, “sister”, etc. – but these are not actual experiences (anubhava).
Similarly, in statements like “this is beautiful,” “this is appropriate,” “this is favorable,” or “this is unfavorable,” people assume that beauty (saundarya) and qualities like favorableness, unfavorableness, or equality (ānukūlyapratikūlyasamtvādīni) are inherent in the object (vastuniṣṭha), even though they are not experiences (anubhavarūpatve’pi).
In the same way, when a result is obtained from an action performed with faith (śraddhāyukte karmaṇi), people believe that “the result of this action has been seen by me through my experience” (asya karmaṇaḥ phalaṃ mayā anubhavena dṛṣṭam). This is not experience (anubhava).
In all these cases, imagination (kalpanāḥ), ownership (mamatā), beauty (saundarya), and faith (śraddhā) vary from person to person and change with time and place. Therefore, they are not universal (asārvtrikaḥ), not common to all people (na sarvajanasādhāraṇaḥ), and not eternal (na sārvakālikaḥ).
Experience (anubhava) is that which is common to all people, eternal, open to examination by all, and uniform (ekarūpaḥ), just as the inherent nature of fire is to be hot and the sun to be luminous. This experience itself forms the foundation of all means of valid knowledge (pramāṇa-s).
Lastly, it should be firmly understood that in the inquiry into Brahman (brahma-jijñāsā), experience (anubhava) is the means of knowledge (pramāṇa). This statement (“anubhavaḥ pramāṇam”) superimposes the attribute of being a means of valid knowledge (pramāṇatvam) upon experience (anubhava) to refute the validity of all other means of knowledge (pramāṇa-s), such as perception (pratyakṣa), etc., in this context.
Moreover, unlike the inquiry into Dharma (dharma-jijñāsā), the unity of Brahman and Ātman (brahmātmaikyatvam) should not be accepted merely on the basis of scriptural statements (śāstra-vākya) or faith (śraddhā) alone. Rather, because knowledge (jñāna) and Brahman [being non-different] are intrinsically real (vastu-tantra), constituting the very nature of reality (bhūta-vastu) and self-evident (svayaṃ-siddha), they are understood to be independent of all means of valid knowledge (sarva-pramāṇa).
The two phrases “brahma anubhavātmakam” (Brahman is of the nature of experience) and “parinṣṭhitavasturūpam” (Brahman is the ultimate reality) convey that we do not acknowledge the existence of Brahman merely based on the authority of statements or faith. Instead, since Brahman is the Self of all (sarvasya ātmābhūtatvāt), its reality can be known through our own experience (svānubhavena yāthātmyaṃ jñātuṃ śakyate).
Oṃ Tat Sat
- Dakṣiṇa Bhārata-ŚāṅkaraVedānta-Vidvad Goṣṭhi (Commemoration Volume), Holenarasipura, Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, 2011, pp. 21-24.[↩]