SrI: SrImathE satakOpAya nama: SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama: SrImadh varavaramunayE nama:
sUthram 5
ஆத்ம ஸ்வரூபம் தேஹாதி விலக்ஷணமானபடியென்? என்னில்
(Athma svarUpam dhEhAdhi vilakshaNamAna padiyen? ennil)
Meaning: If it is asked how the self is known to be different from the body and other entities, the answer is as follows.
Introduction
In the previous sUthram, the essential nature of the self was defined. The first characteristic mentioned was:
தேஹேந்த்ரிய மந:ப்ராணபுத்தி விலக்ஷணமாய்
(dhEhEndhriya mana: prANa budhdhi vilakshaNamAy)
“The self is distinct from the body, senses, mind, life-force, and intellect.”
The commentator now examines and establishes this statement in detail.
He notes that piLLai lOkAchAryar has already discussed this subject extensively elsewhere and therefore briefly summarises the reasoning here.
Why cannot the body be the self?
The body is made up of many parts.
தேஹம் அநேகாவயவஸங்காதாத்மகம்
(dhEham anEkAvayava sanghAthAthmakam) – [thathva SEkharam authored by piLLai lOkAchAryar]
The body is a collection of many limbs and components.
If consciousness belonged to every part of the body, several difficulties would arise.
Problem of multiple selves
If every part possessed consciousness, there would be many conscious selves within a single body.
The experience of a single unified “I” would become impossible.
Instead, there would be many independent experiencers.
Problem of mutual ownership
We would not be able to speak of one limb as belonging to another.
The notions:
- “my hand”
- “my foot”
- “my body”
would become impossible.
The relationships of ownership and possession that we naturally experience would have no basis.
Problem of memory
Suppose consciousness belonged only to one part of the body.
If that part were damaged or separated, another part would not be able to remember the experiences of the first.
Yet memory continues despite the body’s constant changes.
Therefore, consciousness cannot belong to any bodily part.
Problem of pleasure and pain
We experience pleasure and pain as belonging to a single self.
If consciousness belonged separately to different bodily parts, such unified experience would be impossible.
Therefore, the body cannot be the self.
Bodily changes do not affect the self
The commentator further points out:
बालदेहोऽहम् मन्दज्ञानः । युवदेहोऽहम् बहुज्ञानः
(bAla dhEhO’ham mandha gyAna: | yuva dhEhO’ham bahugyAna:)
A person passes through childhood, youth, and old age.
The body changes continuously.
Knowledge also changes.
Yet the individual recognises:
“I who saw yesterday is the same one who sees today.”
The awareness of personal identity remains unchanged.
Therefore, the self must be distinct from the changing body.
Why can’t the senses be the self?
The senses also cannot be the self.
One person experiences the objects perceived through all the senses.
The same individual says:
“I saw this.”
“I touched it.”
“I heard it.”
If the eye alone were the self, it could not remember what was heard by the ear.
If the ear alone were the self, it could not remember what was seen by the eye.
Yet such integrated experience occurs constantly.
Therefore, the senses are merely instruments and not the self.
Why cannot the mind be the self?
The internal organ (antha:karaNa) also cannot be the self.
The mind functions as an instrument for remembering, thinking, and knowing.
An instrument presupposes a user.
Memory and other mental activities require a conscious subject who employs the mind.
Therefore, the mind cannot itself be the self.
Why does prANa cannot be the self?
The life-forces (prANas) also cannot be the self.
Like the body, they consist of a collection of functions and activities.
The same objections raised against identifying the body with the self apply here as well.
Therefore, prANa cannot be the self.
Why cannot knowledge be the self?
Knowledge itself cannot be the self.
We commonly say:
“My knowledge arose.”
“My knowledge disappeared.”
Knowledge appears and disappears.
It increases and decreases.
Thus knowledge is experienced as a quality belonging to something else.
The self, however, persists through all these changes.
Therefore, knowledge cannot be identical with the self.
Rather, the self is the possessor of knowledge.
Establishing the existence of the self
The self is established through direct recognition.
A person naturally experiences:
“I who saw yesterday, am the same one who sees today.”
This recognition of continuity proves the existence of a permanent self underlying changing bodily states, mental states, and acts of knowledge.
Thus, there must exist an enduring self that is distinct from:
- the body,
- the senses,
- the mind,
- the life-force,
- and knowledge itself.
Conclusion
The self cannot be identified with any material or changing entity.
The body changes.
The senses function only within limited domains.
The mind acts as an instrument.
The life-force is merely a collection of functions.
Knowledge itself arises and disappears.
The self alone remains constant through all these changes.
Therefore, the self is distinct from the body and all its associated instruments.
adiyen vAsudhEva rAmAnuja dhAsan
archived in https://granthams.koyil.org
pramEyam (goal) – https://koyil.org
pramANam (scriptures) – https://granthams.koyil.org
pramAthA (preceptors) – https://acharyas.koyil.org
SrIvaishNava education/kids portal – https://pillai.koyil.org