Continuing the discussion chapter 18. I was tired last night and did not finish it.
The verse is
अन्तवन्त इमे देहा नित्यस्योक्ताः शरीरिणः।
अनाशिनोऽप्रमेयस्य तस्माद्युध्यस्व भारत।।2.18
A question arises that why did Lord Krishna use two words having the same meaning - nityasya and anaashinaH - both mean 'eternal'. Adi Shankaracharya comments
नित्यस्य अनाशिनः इति न पुनरुक्तम् नित्यत्वस्य द्विविधत्वात् लोके नाशस्य च। The two time repetition of the word 'eternal' is not a defect because there are two types or categories of eternity. 'Nityasya' refers to one category of permanence and 'anaashinaH' refers to the second category of permanence. There are two types of destruction or death seen in the world, and therefore there are two type of eternity.
यथा देहो भस्मीभूतः अदर्शनं गतो नष्ट उच्यते। Just as when the body dies and it is burnt - this is one type of death. It is visible death of the physical body. The body is burnt and adarshanam gatah - it is no more available for perception
विद्यमानोऽपि यथा अन्यथा परिणतो व्याध्यादियुक्तो जातो नष्ट उच्यते। The second type of death is the transformation that takes place in the body, in the form of changes in the cells where old cells die, new ones comes, or disease or old age takes place. All this happens even while living. In fact all cells get totally replecd in time. This is the invisible death.
तत्र नित्यस्य अनाशिनः इति द्विविधेनापि नाशेन असंबन्धः अस्येत्यर्थः। Since there are two types of death, Lord Krishna uses two words for eternal, negating both types of death for atma. You can say nityasya word is to negate the visible death and anaashinaH is used to negate the invisible death. Or you can take it the other way round.
अन्यथा पृथिव्यादिवदपि नित्यत्वं स्यात् आत्मनः तत् मा भूदिति नित्यस्य अनाशिनः इत्याह। If Lord Krishna had used only one word he would have negated only one type of death, which the visible death. In which case one could mistake that atma would be eternal in the sense that the earth etc. is changingly eternal. For example matter changes, yet it cannot be completely destroyed. So if Lord Krishna does not use two words here, we may imagine that atma is subject to change and yet it is eternal in the sense it cannot be destroyed completely. But Atma is unlike matter - it is the consciousness principle which is totally independent of matter and is therefore eternally unchanging. Consciousness is ever the same, whereas matter keeps changing. To negate that Consciousness is eternal like matter, two words are used. Consciousness is unchanging and eternal.
The next word that we look at in more detail is aprameyasya. Adi Shankaracharya comments अप्रमेयस्य न प्रमेयस्य प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणैः अपरिच्छेद्यस्येत्यर्थः।। Aparameyasya means not an object of knowledge (as we saw yesterday). Meaning that which cannot be known by the means of knowledge that we ordinarily use like perception, inference etc.
Now an important discussion is coming up. A person objects 'that ok atma is not known thru the means of knowledge at our disposal, however it is known through Shastra pramanam. That means atma is knowable. It can be objectified through the Shastras, through the Upanishads. Therefore atma is prameya - that which is known using a pramanam. How do you say atma is not prameya.?
Shankara replies न आत्मनः स्वतःसिद्धत्वात्। No. atma does not require to be known like an object, through any pramana because it is self-evident.
सिद्धे हि आत्मनि प्रमातरि प्रमित्सोः प्रमाणान्वेषणा भवति। For, (only) when the atma stands pre-exists as the knower, there is a search for a means of knowledge by the knower. I, the knower, the pramata, who desires to know different objects (pramitsuH), already exist, before I operate any pramana to know different objects. It is because I already exist that I can operate any means of knowledge, to know different objects. Without requiring any means of knowledge to know I exist, I exist and I know I exist, because I am self-evident. I am self-experienced and therefore I, atma am aprameyam - not known like an object using some means of knowledge. I don't need to use any pramanam to know that I exist. I am self-experienced without using any pramanam.
न हि पूर्वम् इत्थमहम् इति आत्मानमप्रमाय पश्चात् प्रमेयपरिच्छेदाय प्रवर्तते। It is only after first knowing oneself as I am so and so, and I want to know such and such, that then one does undertake to operate a pramanam to know something. Without knowing oneself first as 'I am such and such', I am a knower, one would not undertake to know different objects. In other words, one already knows of one's existence, before using any pramana. The knower is already known. The knower, the self is self-evident and so is aprameya. So the knower uses pramana not to know himself the subject, he uses pramana to know objects.
न हि आत्मा नाम कस्यचित् अप्रसिद्धो भवति। I am never unknown to myself! I know that I exist. I am never unknown. I am ever experienced as 'I am'.
शास्त्रं तु अन्त्यं प्रमाणम् अतद्धर्माध्यारोपणमात्रनिवर्तकत्वेन प्रमाणत्वम् आत्मनः प्रतिपद्यते न तु अज्ञातार्थज्ञापकत्वेन।
Shastra is the final pramanam, not to reveal a new atma. It is a pramanam only to negate the atad-dharma-adhyaropana, the attributing of qualities that do not belong to it, on it. Shastra is only a figurative pramanam. By negating the qualities of body-mind which have been superimposed on atma, and negating the nature of atma that has been superimposed on the body-mind, the already existing atma stands revealed as it is, free of all the false attributes superimposed on it. Here Shankara uses the word antyam pramanam very significantly, meaning that Shastra by negating the attributes of the body and mind, that do not belong to it, negates even the status of one's being a knower, a pramata. And thus atma is apramata - not even a knower. And once the knower status is removed, all pramanams lose their significance, because a pramanam is a pramanam only for a pramata. Therefore Shastra is the final pramanam. It is as though Shastra commits suicide! (if that sounds difficult to understand it is ok)
न तु अज्ञातार्थज्ञापकत्वेन Shastra does not reveal a new unknown thing.
तथा च श्रुतिः यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः इति।। Even Sruti says that Brahman is ever directly experienced as the Self, that is the in-dweller in all beings. Ever-experienced as 'I', 'I', 'I' without requiring an means of knowledge.
Thus Adi Shankaracharya concludes this most important discussion on the word aprameya. It is important because it reveals to us that atma is self-evident and ever-experienced as I, without requiring any pramana. So in meditation we need not look for a new experience.
Om Tat Sat
I will not be trying to get Google to translate to Hindi anymore.
