Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
doi:10.1093/jhs/his032
Clouding Self-Identity
Prior to his possession of King Amaruka, Sankara soothes the doubts of his close
disciples. Padmap@da in particular does not approve of his teachers intended
action. Padmap@da describes the yogi Matsyendran@tha, who possessed a dead
king and subsequently forgot his true identity while absorbed in sensual pleasures.
Only through the intervention of his disciple, GorakXa, did he return to his senses.1
In response to Padmap@das foreshadowing concern, Sankara claims that he is
without any such failings because he has destroyed the root of sa:s@ra, is without
desire, and is completely established in the knowledge of absolute non-duality
(brahman).2 Sankara sees the world as an appearance. He believes he will remain
a disinterested witness while possessing the king to understand the manifestations
of love and finer points of the K@ma S@stra.3 However, Sankara does indeed fall into
the same trap as Matsyendran@tha. That Sankara manages to forget his identity, is
consumed by his erotic pleasures and royal responsibilities, and must be reminded
by his disciples are striking developments in the narrative. Why and how would a
liberated person forget his or her identity and require a reminder? Is it theoretically possible that sensual pleasures could overwhelm a liberated person such as
Sankara?
The Sankaradigvijaya does not clarify the exact nature of Sankaras forgetting,
and the authorial intention of this narrative twist is elusive.4 While John Llewellyn
points out some of the theological problems of the narrative in his essay, I attempt
to reconcile the question according to Advaita psychology and contemplative
theory. Sankaras identity confusion possibly alludes to a genuine anxiety regarding the difficulty of holding non-dual knowledge while living in the world. It also
points back towards a particular concern in Sankaras commentaries regarding
mental impressions, or samsk@ras, potentially clouding the Advaitins
self-knowledge. In this article I explore the nature of sa:sk@ras in Sankaras writing and their effects on identity and self-knowledge. I use this discussion as a
means to interpret the Amaruka episode from an Advaitin perspective. Despite his
strict emphasis on a non-relational and non-dual self (@tman), Sankaras theory of
sa:sk@ras allows for a complex and porous personal identity. This supports one of
Frederick Smiths conclusions in The Self Possessed, that brahmanical traditions
characterised personal identity as having permeable boundaries.5 However, it provides some nuances to Smiths suggestion that Advaita Ved@nta and its normative
identification of @tman and brahman has overshadowed broader notions of identity
in the Indian context.6
Actions, knowledge, and experiences, due to conditioned beliefs of oneself as
finite, limited, and intrinsically separated from the surrounding world may cause
habitual reflexive and reactive thought patterns. Sankara calls these habitual
thought patterns sa:sk@ras or v@san@s, and in other contexts uses terms such as
kasaya,7 viparatapratyaya,8 klesa,9 or kalmasa.10 They persist as traces, tendencies,
subconscious impressions, dispositions, and psychological seeds. And they function
as causal mechanisms for memory, action, habits, emotions, and dreams.
Neil Dalal
Sa:sk@ras provide the bridges or connections that bring past experiences into
present memory. A sa:sk@ra evokes memory when some perceived content combines with or triggers the sa:sk@ra to produce its respective kind of awareness.11
We may not be able to directly perceive our sa:sk@ras but we infer them. When I
perceive certain objects that draw emotions, desire, or prompt actions in me, I can
postulate some sa:sk@ra that links the object with prior events and experiences.
Sa:sk@ras trigger affective states and desires in the mind to seek certain outcomes
and further influence a person to continue performing such actions. Ones actions
determine the types of sa:sk@ras accrued. Saintly or meritorious actions breed
sa:sk@ras that lead the individual to more meritorious actions. Negative or harmful actions lead to painful sa:sk@ras, actions, and experiences.12 The process is a
cyclical one that fuels itself and deepens the sa:sk@ras through habitual
conditioning.
For Sankara, sa:sk@ras function in significant metaphysical ways beyond psychology and memory. Samsk@ras or v@san@s are also conceived as karmic residue
created by earlier actions. They form an essential component of the subtle body
(linga-sarara) transmigrating from death to birth.13 Sankara writes that the subtle
body consists of v@san@s, and results from the association of mind with formed and
formless v@san@s.14 Later in the same commentary, he states that v@san@s arise in
the mind in the presence of objects of enjoyment, such as women. The subtle body
of this person is attached or dyed with v@san@s like a cloth dyed with turmeric or
the grey color of sheeps wool. These v@san@s, or residue of karma, help determine
future actions or facilitate the manifestation of karmic potential and the corresponding experiences, not only in the present but in death and rebirth too. Just as
in the dream, which is determined by v@san@s while ones sense organs do not
function, so too in death the organs cease and the v@san@s determine the trajectory
of the subtle body, dictate the type of new body required in the next birth, and
forge a link to that body.
The BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 4.4.2 provides the following description of what
happens at death. The functions of the sense organs and the functions of the
organs of actions withdraw into the subtle body of the individual. Thus when
people see a person in the process of dying, they notice that he or she loses the
functions of the senses and action. According to the UpaniXad, the sense functions
are united in the intellect. At death, the subtle body leaves the physical body
through the top of the head or the eye or through some other body part. The
vital force along with the merged functions then moves to another body.15
Knowledge, work, and past experience also goes along with the departing self.16
According to Sankaras commentary on this passage, v@san@s form an essential
component of the transmigrating subtle body. Experiences are the impressions
from the results of past action. These v@san@s bring past actions into fruition and
initiate new actions. Without them karma cannot fructify and new actions will not
be done in the following birth.17
Clouding Self-Identity
Neil Dalal
without ignorance, but also why they should have any effect of destabilising
knowledge if one has already directly recognised brahman.25
Sankara is not exactly helpful here. When comparing his various works, he
demonstrates ambivalence to accepting sa:sk@ras as obstructions to
self-knowledge. In some situations he appears to refute the theory of sa:sk@ras
for one who is properly exposed to the UpaniXadic teachings. For example, in
chapter eighteen of the Upadesas@hasra, Sankara raises the theory of sa:sk@ra
and rejects it as part of an opponents position endorsing a form of repetitive
contemplative practice known as prasankhy@na.26 The prasankhy@na contemplation
and its corresponding theory of sa:sk@ra are also key aspects of Ma>nana Misras
understanding of contemplation in his Brahmasiddhi, a position criticised by
Sankaras disciple, Suresvara. Sankara often states that listening alone, or listening
and logical reflection is all that is required.27 If the mah@v@kya sentence meanings
are understood, then there should be direct knowledge of brahman without doubts.
No other practice is required and nothing should be able to disturb self-knowledge.
These ideas are in keeping with Sankaras critique of action as a means of knowledge and his insistence that the UpaniXads are the only means to liberating
knowledge. They also align with his crucial philosophical positions of intrinsic
veridicality of knowledge (svapr@m@>ya) and self-luminosity of consciousness
(svaprak@satva).
Nevertheless, in other contexts Sankara accepts a similar conception of
sa:sk@ras as obstacles to be neutralised with contemplation. This sets up a potential contradiction in Sankaras theory of liberation. Liberation is identified with the
removal of ignorance and one need not perform any further action. But occasionally he appears to accept some form of contemplation post liberating knowledge.28
Part of the confusion regarding this acceptance is that Sankara rarely makes a
distinction of knowledge types. He doesnt lend himself to distinctions of
non-propositional and propositional knowledge, direct and indirect knowledge,
or a chronology within a progress of study. And in fact, assuming such distinctions
may contradict or harm fundamental Advaita doctrines. Therefore, one cannot
easily clarify a relationship between the removal of sa:sk@ras and liberating knowledge of brahman, or if sa:sk@ras can cause problems before and after the destruction of ignorance.
Advaitins generally assume there is total stability and clarity in knowledge
(jn@naniXbh@) when one is liberated while living. This stock position denies that
the liberated individual with immediate knowledge of brahman is still subject to
sa:sk@ras in the form of contradictory dispositions that may override, disturb, or
confuse his or her knowledge. The liberated person who has total clarity should
never lose sight of the self as brahman, which is ever present and self-illuminating
in the midst of all experiences. With jn@naniXbh@ there is a natural, spontaneous
and continuous flow of ones understanding of @tman/brahman identity. Sankara
calls this flow or memory of self-knowledge, smPti santati, a probable synonym for
nididhy@sana.29 And he is quite adamant that it need not be enjoined as an action to
Clouding Self-Identity
Neil Dalal
Normally one would assume that Sankara, the hagiographical character, possesses total clarity and lacks any problematic sa:sk@ras. However, the Amaruka
episode presents a unique challenge to jn@na niXbh@. When Sankara projects his
subtle body into the king, he transfers his former sa:sk@ras with him. These
sa:sk@ras allow Sankara to maintain his identity, memories, and knowledge
even while in an alien body. Now, instead of two identities, he possesses three,
as brahman, Sankara, and Amaruka. By this I do not mean that the former
sa:sk@ras of the deceased King Amaruka are still connected to the body, for his
subtle body and sa:sk@ras have ostensibly transmigrated to another body.
Therefore, unlike some other forms of possession, there is no co-existence of
the former Amaruka individual with the newly imposed personality of Sankara.
However, the sa:sk@ras that Sankara accrues through actions in Amarukas possessed body create a new identity for him as the king.
While possessing Amarukas body, Sankara plays with fire by pursuing royal and
erotic experiences normally prohibited to a renunciate. The experiment leads to
entanglement with conflicting sa:sk@ras. It forges a sa:sk@ric link to the new body
and an absorption in that particular physical identity. New sa:sk@ras give rise to
competing identities of king and renunciate, and eventually the deep identity of
himself as Sankara loses its familiarity in the face of a new body. When the
Amaruka sa:sk@ras become ingrained and dominant they overwhelm sa:sk@ras
relating to his identity as Sankara. The new sa:sk@ras not only lead to forgetting,
but also ironically repossess him or counter possess him, in that they allow the
Amaruka identity to temporarily displace Sankara.
Sankaras knowledge of brahman and awareness of himself as a disinterested
witness may or may not be masked by the new sa:sk@ras. And even if that is the
case, that does not mean he regains ignorance. According to most Advaitins,
ignorance is a positive entity, not the absence of knowledge. Once destroyed it
cannot be created again. Perhaps he could still be clearly aware that his true
nature is non-dual even though his body-mind identity is disoriented. However,
if the story parallels that of Matsyendran@tha, then Sankara forgets his sam@dhi
and becomes like an ordinary person.32
Despite his supposed omniscience, Sankara appears unaware of his other physical identity, his original mission, and the immanent danger that his former body
is about to be placed on a pyre. Fortunately his desperate disciples, cleverly
disguised as musicians, gain entry to the court. They recapitulate the essential
teachings of Advaita in the form of a song and remind him of his identity. To his
credit, Sankara requires only a brief reminder to counter the sa:sk@ras clouding
his true identity. He regains his understanding (sa:jn@), awakening to what he
already knows.33 This reminder is analogous to listening and contemplation, which
bring his mind back to an appreciation of non-duality.
This discussion of sa:sk@ras in the context of Sankaras writing and the
Amaruka possession lead to some interesting questions and conclusions. One tangential question, is whether Sankara is in keeping with dharma or transgressing his
Clouding Self-Identity
References
Adhvarindra, D., 1993. Ved@nta Paribh@X@. Swami Madhavananda, (trans). Calcutta: Advaita
Ashrama.
Bader, J., 2000. Conquest of the Four Quarters: Traditional Accounts of the Life of Sankara. New
Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
Madhava-Vidyaranya, 1996. Sankara Digvijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracharya.
Swami Tapsyananda, (trans). Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
Potter, K. H., 1981. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol 3: Advaita Ved@nta up to Sa:kara
and His Pupils. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Neil Dalal
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
10
Clouding Self-Identity
20 KaX@ya is a specific type of negative sa:sk@ra that creates mental affliction. KaX@yas
are attested in Gaunap@da K@rika 3.44 where Gaudap@da writes, one should know
(the mind) with kaX@yas (sakaX@ya: vij@nay@t). KaX@ya also occurs in Ch@ndogya
UpaniXad 7.26.2, where Sankara defines them as impurities such as desire (r@ga)
and aversion (dvesa), which are like tree sap that must be washed off by the repetition of knowledge and detachment. Also see their mention in Gaunap@da K@rika
4.90, which defines kasaya as attraction, repulsion, or delusion. The term kaX@ya
generally refers to negative impressions, whereas sa:sk@ras and v@san@s represent
both positive and negative impressions.
21 This may be an indirect reference to Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 6.14 where a blindfolded
man needs directions to find his way back to the land of Gandh@ra.
22 BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad Bh@Xya 1.4.10 (Madhavananda 1993, p. 116). Also see Sankara
on Bhagavadgat@ 4.18 and Brahmas+tra 3.4.47.
23 See Brahmas+tra Bh@Xya 4.1.15.
24 See Sankara on Bhagavadgat@ 2.5472, 3.4, 3.17, 5.17, 5.20, 18.55; Brahmas+tra 3.4.20;
and Mu>naka UpaniXad 1.2.12, 3.256.
25 In addition, Sankara does not clarify the identity or difference of these sa:sk@ras
with those that make up the subtle body.
26 Upadesas@hasra 18.13, 18.1034.
27 Brahmas+tra Bh@Xya 2.1.3 and Ch@ndogya UpaniXad Bh@Xya 8.1.1.
28 There are a few textual passages that lend themselves to an interpretation that
contemplation is still possible, perhaps even necessary, after direct brahmavidy@
takes place due to residual disturbances from problematic dispositions. See
Sankara on BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7, 1.4.10; Bhagavadgat@ 4.18; Brahmas+tra
3.2.51.
29 See Sankara on BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7, 1.4.10; Bhagavadgat@ 12.3, 13.24, 18.50,
18.55; Prasna UpaniXad 5.1; Brahmas+tra 4.1.8.
30 BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7.
31 BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.7.
32 Sankaradigvijaya 9.83. The meaning of sam@dhi in this verse is unclear. While generally understood as a concentrated mind or in the Yogic sense of suppressing the
fluctuations of the mind, Sankara will sometimes use it synonymously with
self-knowledge or nididhy@sana. For example, see his commentary on Brahmas+tra
2.3.39 and Gaunap@da K@rika 3.37. Tapasyananda (p. 113) leaves the term untranslated. Padmanaban (p. 61) translates it as tapas.
33 Sankaradigvijaya 10.57; Tapasyananda, pp.1223.
34 Ibid, 9.93, 9.96100; Tapasyananda, pp.1145.
35 Ibid, 16.86; Tapasyananda, pp.1923.