Intellectual Knowledge

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote

 

"The realization of identity with Brahman/Atman is not that which can

be gained by human effort. kaTha upanishad 1.2.23 says

 

nAyam AtmA pravacanena labhyo na medhayA, na bahunA shrutena

yamevaiSha vr^Nute, tena labhyas tasyaiSha AtmA vivr^Nute tanUm svAm

 

This SELF cannot be attained by instruction, nor by intellectual power,nor

even through much hearing. He is to be attained only by the one whom the

(SELF) chooses. To such a one the SELF reveals his own nature. i.e., this

knowledge of identity with Atman/Brahman dawns or arises from within in such

jeevAs where the SELF wishes to identify Itself with Itself."

 

Jai : To say that Self-Knowledge is not that which can be gained by human

effort is a wrong statement which Shankara himself won't support. Actually

this Katopanishad statement only stresses the importance of Isvara Anugraha

which the tradition accepts. We have a Smriti statement 'Isvara-Anugrahat

eva Pumsaam Advaita Vasana'. But that does'nt mean there is no human effort.

If there is no human effort how does Isvara's or self's Anugraha is given?

Is it as per Isvara's likes and dislikes or by drawing a lottery? we cant

accept both. Here Shankara gives the answer. I will give the translation of

the gist of Shankara's Bhasyam on this Upanishad Vakya (the translation is

mine and it is not word to word) which will make things clear.

 

This atma is not gained by Pravacana - Aneka Veda svikaranena - by studying

many Vedas, not by Medha - grantha Dharana shakthya - by the ability to

retain what is written in books, and also not by lot of listening only (

Here Anandagiri and Gopala Yatindra who have commented on shankara's Bhasyam

add that 'listening to all Shastras other than the Upanishads'). The one who

chooses (prays) to know the self as not different from himself, by him this

atma is gained by the grace of the atma, which reveals to him it's own real

nature.

 

Now here shankara in fact gives a different meaning than understood by Shri.

Murthy . That one has to choose to know this atma as oneself is very very

important. This choosing or desiring to know atma and the pursuit of

knowledge above all other pursuits is very very important. This is what is

called Vyavasaayaatmika Buddhi: or Purushartha-Viveka. One has to have the

Viveka that in Moksha one gains the limitless and it includes the gains of

all other pursuits. A person with such viveka will have the Anugraha of

Isvara to gain this knowledge. If a person does'nt choose to know, even

Isvara can't teach him.

We all know that Arjuna and Krishna were cousins and very close. They must

have spent lots of time together in their boyhood and when Arjuna was in

vanavasa. But Krishna never taught this brahmavidya to him during all those

times. why? Because Arjuna never chose to know the Atma. He never asked for

it. But when Arjuna asked for it in the battlefield, Krishna taught him

inspite of being in the battlefield.

 

So the above upanishad vakya only points out that, one may be very

accomplished intellectually but still one has to choose to know this atma

and by that choice one gains the anugraha of the same atma by which one

gains the knowledge of this atma. But that does'nt mean that the

self-knowledge does'nt involve the intellect. The same upanishad says

'Manasa Eva Avaptavyam' and 'Drshyate tu agryaya buddhya Sukshmyaa

Sukshmadarshibhi'. So one has to always understand the Upanishad Vakyas by

seeing what is said before and after (Purva-Apara) and not just by taking

the statements in isolation.

 

with love and prayers

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

This is pretty long everyone.

 

Jaishankar. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the analogies you use

in attempting to bring out how self-knowledge is activated.

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>Further this invariable consciouness is not opposses to ignorance. >Suppose

>I ask 'Do you know chinese?'. You say 'I dont know'. So an >ordinary

>individual can think 'I am ignorant' and may even have >complexes due to

>this. But How did he know that 'I dont know'. What >revealed to him that he

>does'nt know chinese? That consciouness >alone is always revealing all

>mental modifications. Whether it is >ignorance of an object or knowledge

>of an object. It is not opposed >to ignorance. Then what is opposed to

>ignorance? The mental >modification 'I know Chinese' alone is opposed to

>the ignorance

>of chinese. When this mental modification or vritti takes place then >we

>say there is no ignorance.

 

How do we know that That Consciousness is not opposed to ignorance? Simply

saying that consciousness is not opposed to ignorance doesn't make it so or

prove it to the listener. And the analogy of knowing or not-knowing Chinese

doesn't illuminate the lack of opposition either.

 

"But How did he know that 'I dont know'. What revealed to him that he

does'nt know chinese? That consciouness alone is always revealing all mental

modifications."

 

Maybe his past experience revealed it to him. Or perhaps his memory. You

simply state your conclusion. There is no reason why I should accept your

terms.

 

[Note, I do not want to argue with you, Jaishankar. I want to know your

reasons (or the reasons Advaita gives) for saying that pure consciousness is

not opposed to ignorance.]

 

"Then what is opposed to ignorance? The mental modification 'I know Chinese'

alone is opposed to the ignorance of chinese."

 

Is it? If I say, 'I know Chinese,' does that really dispel my ignorance of

Chinese? I don't think so. It may mean that I know some Chinese; it doesn't

necessarily imply that I am a fluent speaker who knows all Chinese.

Likewise, simply saying that "I am Brahman" doesn't in fact bring one

realization of moksha. Many people know that the Atman is their true Self,

but have they been eternally liberated from the wheel of birth and death? To

say that the mental modification alone dispels ignorance appears a little

too simplistic to me. If that is the case, then Self-realiziation should be

a fairly simply matter. When someone says "I know Brahman', is it true that

there is no more ignorance? I wish it were true. But as Gummuluru Murthy

pointed out in one of his posts on this topic, some people who have an

intellectual understanding of the truths of Advaita Vedanta still continue

to live as though they were separate.

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>I will give the analogy of the Sun covered by a cloud here which is >given

>by Shankara in his work Atma Bodha. The Sun whose nature is to >be bright

>can be covered by a cloud and One might say the Sun is >covered by cloud.

>But even to know that the Sun is covered by the >Cloud, the Sun has to

>light up that Cloud. And that Sun is not >opposed to that cloud. It reveals

>it as it will reveal any other >object.

>So 'Atma Jnana' when used as revealing the nature of the atma >does'nt take

>place because it is always there. But when 'Atma jnana' >is used to signify

>the gaining of the knowledge 'I am that >invariable consciousness and I am

>not a Samsari' then it takes place >and it takes place only in the mind or

>intellect.

 

I think that this distinction between two types of Atma Jnana may be of

value in helping us to understand how Self-realization or self-knowledge

comes about. In the case of the Atma Jana which is always present, I think

it is this ever-present locus of consciousness that is accessed, or more

precisely, which the Self allows us to access. Through that access which is

afforded by the Atman itself, we are illuminated and *directly experience*

Reality as non-dual. In the midst of that direct experience of non-duality,

the intellect and all dualities to which it is normally bound, are

transcended. Many seers have spoken of this as an intutive realization of

non-dual Reality precisely because it is not a product of thinking or

conceptualization which brings about the experience. It just happens. We

wake up. And *see* things as they really are. It is not an intellectual

vision. It involves the intutive faculty of the mind. Not though the

intuitive sense that it's going to be a sunny day tomorrow, but an intutive

sense that is closer to the consciousness of Atman than the intellect. If

that is mystifying or mysterious so be it. We do not know the whole of our

minds. But somehow we just KNOW or SEE that Reality is in fact One. That's

why it's called an intuitive vision. We know this truth more than anything

else. It's a grace. That sense that we just KNOW is not engendered by the

intellect.

 

"But when 'Atma jnana' is used to signify the gaining of the knowledge 'I am

that invariable consciousness and I am not a Samsari' then it takes place

and it takes place only in the mind or intellect."

 

I believe that this happens after the above. In other words, the

intellectual knowledge of Atma Jnana is a secondary step in the process. It

is what predominantly remains from the direct experience. Is there

scriptural evidence for this understanding?

>Jai : Buddhi is always taken as intellect and I dont see any >indication in

>shankara's writings which suggest that I should give >it any other meaning.

 

Thank you for that clarification.

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>'This atma is seen by the intellect(Buddhya), which has been >conditioned

>by the words of the Veda and Guru (Agryaya), of the >SukshmaDarshin - the

>one who sees the subtle. Suksmya is also an >adjective of Buddhi. It

>conveys that the intellect of the person who >is receiving this knowledge

>is capable of understanding this atma as >not being a sense-object or the

>senses or the mind, or the intellect >or the unmanifest.'

 

"The one who sees the subtle", I believe, refers to the intuitive faculty.

As referred to here, perhaps the intuitive faculty can be taken to partake

of a direct relation with the intellect (buddhi). It may also be true that

in Sanskrit, the term 'buddhi' conveys more than the English term,

'intellect'. Also important, here, I would agree, is the sense that

preparation through Vedic instruction is significant in "seeing" the Atma.

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>6. The bhasyam to the Bhagavad Gita Verse

>'Antavanta Ime Dehaha Nityasyoktha Sharirinaha

>Anoshinaha Aprameyasya tasmat yudhyasva bharatha' (2nd chapter, verse

>around 18 ) where while explaining the word 'Aprameyasya' Shankara >says

>Atma Vidya takes place by hearing the words of the Guru and >Veda and it

>Destroys Ajnana.

 

This is very definitive in terms of Sankara's testimony. However, Sankara

says here that Atma Vidya destroys Ajanna, not the mental modification or

vritti. With regard to the taking place upon hearing the words of the Guru

and Veda, perhaps this is the key through which the Self chooses to be seen.

>The ignorance is destroyed by the mental modification or vritti born >out

>of the words of the Guru and the Vedas without need for any

> >objectification of the self because it is self-revealing. This is

> >para-vidya.

 

Is this really the way Advaita Vedanta envisions the destruction of

ignorance? I'm not challenging your understanding, Jaishankar. I just want

to know if it is the orthodox or traditional view. And, if possible, could

you give some scriptural reference for this, or reference to where exactly

it may be found?

 

with love and joy

 

Veronica (D. Hill)

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" Does Advaita Vedanta really say that knowledge and ignorance cannot

co-exist? I find that somewhat unfathomable. After all, Advaita is all about

non-duality. Knowledge and ignorance, like day and night, are a duality. One

pair of the opposition has no meaning without the other. Either part alone

cannot not exist independently. I would say, then, that knowledge and

ignorance, like day and night, can not exist without the other."

 

 

Jai : Advaita says that knowledge and Ignorance or light and darkness cannot

coexist in the same locus at the same time. Suppose I show you a rose flower

and you have the knowledge that the flower is red. Now can you say that you

are ignorant of the fact that the flower is red?. No. That means you can't

have knowledge and ignorance at the same time. But you might be ignorant of

the number of petals in the flower or why it smells so etc. ? But these are

different. What we say is Knowledge and ignorance of the same cognition

cannot be there.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

"This is one reason why I have been having a hard time comprehending

Shri.Jaishankar when he writes that only the self-knowledge engendered by

the Vedas can dissolve ignorance. From what I understand, you can't have one

without the other. To experience the non-dual Self, one has to get away from

notions of both knowledge and ignorance. In other words, transcend the

illusion of duality or two-ness."

 

Jai : You say 'experience the non-dual self'. Does that not mean that there

is an experiencing Self and an experienced Non-dual self?. Then it will

become duality. I think the confusion is due to the Sanskrit word 'Anubhava'

or 'Anubhuti' being translated as experience. I think the better transaltion

is 'Knowledge without Obstacles' (Like doubts, vagueness and prior

conditioning).

 

Anyway you have said 'transcend the illusion of duality or twoness' I ask

how do you transcend the illusion of duality? Keep meditating till all

thoughts are gone and your mind becomes empty. But what if the thoughts come

back? So the solution for wrong thinking is not non-thinking but it is right

thinking. If duality is Maya then know it as such. Then we have transcended

duality. It is very simple. All words like 'experience' or 'transcend' or

'beyond' have to be understood in terms of knowledge. Otherwise you will be

sitting all your life for a 'special non-dual experience' to happen, when

the fact is every experience points only to that non-dual reality. Thats why

Kenaupanishad says 'Prati Bodha viditam matam' - 'That which is known in

every cognition'. I would like to point out again that Advaita is not in the

absence of dvaita but it is inspite of dvaita because dvaita is mithya or

maya and all we have to do is understand that dvaita is mithya or maya. Now

this understanding comes from the teaching of the Guru and Shastras and it

takes place only in the mind like any other understanding.

 

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

"Jaishankar. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the analogies you use

in attempting to bring out how self-knowledge is activated.

 

How do we know that That Consciousness is not opposed to ignorance? Simply

saying that consciousness is not opposed to ignorance doesn't make it so or

prove it to the listener. And the analogy of knowing or not-knowing Chinese

doesn't illuminate the lack of opposition either.

 

You said "But How did he know that 'I dont know'. What revealed to him that

he does'nt know chinese? That consciouness alone is always revealing all

mental modifications."

 

Maybe his past experience revealed it to him. Or perhaps his memory. You

simply state your conclusion. There is no reason why I should accept your

terms."

 

[Note, I do not want to argue with you, Jaishankar. I want to know your

reasons (or the reasons Advaita gives) for saying that pure consciousness is

not opposed to ignorance.]"

 

Jai : My reasons are simple. If self-knowledge(Swarupa jnanam) was opposed

to ignorance then nobody will be a samsari and there wont be any necessary

for any teaching etc. and you wont be asking questions to me in this list.

But this is not so. So self-knowledge(Swarupa jnanam) is not opposed to

ignorance.

 

You have said that memory or past experience could have revealed the

ignorance. But how can there be any memory or past experience of an unknown

thing? Suppose I ask do you know 'GAGABUGAIN' ? You say 'No'. Now how did

you know this? That Self which reveals both 'I know so and so' and 'I don't

know so and so' is not opposed to anything.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

Jaishankar said "Then what is opposed to ignorance? The mental

modification 'I know Chinese' alone is opposed to the ignorance of chinese."

 

Is it? If I say, 'I know Chinese,' does that really dispel my ignorance of

Chinese? I don't think so. It may mean that I know some Chinese; it doesn't

necessarily imply that I am a fluent speaker who knows all Chinese. "

 

Jai : I am not talking about just saying 'I know chinese' or doing a japa of

' I know chinese'. I am talking about the knowledge of chinese ( more

correctly Removal of ignorance of chinese ) born out of the study of chinese

which leads to the cognition 'I know Chinese'.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" Likewise, simply saying that "I am Brahman" doesn't in fact bring one

realization of moksha. Many people know that the Atman is their true Self,

but have they been eternally liberated from the wheel of birth and death? "

 

Jai: If somebody has understood the equation 'I am brahman' and then says so

then indeed he is liberated.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" To say that the mental modification alone dispels ignorance appears a

little too simplistic to me. If that is the case, then Self-realiziation

should be a fairly simply matter."

When someone says "I know Brahman', is it true that there is no more

ignorance? I wish it were true. "

 

Jai : It is indeed a simple matter if one is qualified for it.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" But as Gummuluru Murthy pointed out in one of his posts on this topic,

some people who have an intellectual understanding of the truths of Advaita

Vedanta still continue to live as though they were separate."

 

Jai: Who are we to judge others? I think the only qualification for a jnani

is that one should have jnana. All other characteristics (lakshanas) of a

jnani are given so that the Mumukshus can aspire to gain those as a

qualification, for gaining the jnana. If you feel some one has a doubtless

knowledge that 'I am brahman' but still appears to suffer, then it must be

due to prior conditioning. let me give you an analogy (pardon me!)

 

I was living as a residential student in a Gurukulam. I was alloted a room.

Then after 2 years I was asked to shift to another room. So I shifted. After

I shifted my room did I have a clear and doubtless knowledge of my new room

or not? Yes. I did have a clear knowledge of my new room. But I kept on

going to my old room for a few days after the end of my daily classes. why?

Because of previous conditioning. But after a few days and few recollections

I stopped going to my old room and went to my new room.

 

Similarly after gaining doubtless knowledge that 'I am brahman' from Guru

and Shastras one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous

conditioning goes and it becomes effortless. Then one is called a

'Jivanmuktha' or 'liberated while living'. But the Shastras assure that even

though one might not be a 'jivan muktha' if one had known 'I am brahman'

clearly without doubt then that person attains 'VidehaMukthi' or 'liberation

on death of the body'. This recollection of the knowledge is called

Nidhidhyasanam. Sureshvaracharya says that repeatedly listening to the

Shastras from one's Guru itself is the best form of Nidhidhyasana.

 

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>I will give the analogy of the Sun covered by a cloud here which is >given

by Shankara in his work Atma Bodha. The Sun whose nature is to >be bright

can be covered by a cloud and One might say the Sun is >covered by cloud.But

even to know that the Sun is covered by the >Cloud, the Sun has to light up

that Cloud. And that Sun is not >opposed to that cloud. It reveals it as it

will reveal any other >object.

>So 'Atma Jnana' when used as revealing the nature of the atma >does'nt

takeplace because it is always there. But when 'Atma jnana' >is used to

signify the gaining of the knowledge 'I am that >invariable consciousness

and I am not a Samsari' then it takes place >and it takes place only in the

mind or intellect.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" I think that this distinction between two types of Atma Jnana may be of

value in helping us to understand how Self-realization or self-knowledge

comes about. In the case of the Atma Jana which is always present, I think

it is this ever-present locus of consciousness that is accessed, or more

precisely, which the Self allows us to access. Through that access which is

afforded by the Atman itself, we are illuminated and *directly experience*

Reality as non-dual."

 

Jai : How does the self allow access? According to its likes and dislikes or

by drawing a lottery? We can't accept both. So we have to say that the Self

is accessed ( in your terminology) by the removal of ignorance brought about

by the listening to the teachings of the Guru and Shastra.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" In the midst of that direct experience of non-duality,

the intellect and all dualities to which it is normally bound, are

transcended. Many seers have spoken of this as an intutive realization of

non-dual Reality precisely because it is not a product of thinking or

conceptualization which brings about the experience. "

 

Jai: We dont say that the non-dual reality is a product of thinking. But

the problem being one of wrong thinking ( 'That I am an individual seperate

from the world') the solution is right thinking. I want to add that thinking

by itself is not a problem if one knows that 'I am not the thinker'.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" It just happens. We wake up. And *see* things as they really are. "

 

Jai: If you want to wait for it to happen it is your choice.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" It is not an intellectual vision. It involves the intutive faculty of the

mind. Not though the intuitive sense that it's going to be a sunny day

tomorrow, but an intutive sense that is closer to the consciousness of Atman

than the intellect. If that is mystifying or mysterious so be it. We do not

know the whole of our

minds. But somehow we just KNOW or SEE that Reality is in fact One. "

 

Jai: You say 'somehow'. We say 'this is how' because we know the sampradaya

or the methodology to teach this knowledge. If one comes with an open mind

and a burning desire to find the truth, that person can be taught. But the

preference for mysticism over traditional vedanta is the individual's

choice.

 

 

Jaishankar wrote

"But when 'Atma jnana' is used to signify the gaining of the knowledge 'I am

that invariable consciousness and I am not a Samsari' then it takes place

and it takes place only in the mind or intellect."

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" I believe that this happens after the above. In other words, the

intellectual knowledge of Atma Jnana is a secondary step in the process. It

is what predominantly remains from the direct experience. Is there

scriptural evidence for this understanding?"

 

Jai : The scriptural evidence only points out that the so called *direct

experience* you are talking about is brought about by listening to the

words of the Guru and Shastras. Listening involves the mind, I suppose.

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>'This atma is seen by the intellect(Buddhya), which has been >conditioned

by the words of the Veda and Guru (Agryaya), of the >SukshmaDarshin - the

one who sees the subtle. Suksmya is also an >adjective of Buddhi. It conveys

that the intellect of the person who >is receiving this knowledge is capable

of understanding this atma as >not being a sense-object or the senses or the

mind, or the intellect >or the unmanifest.'

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

"The one who sees the subtle", I believe, refers to the intuitive faculty.

As referred to here, perhaps the intuitive faculty can be taken to partake

of a direct relation with the intellect (buddhi). It may also be true that

in Sanskrit, the term 'buddhi' conveys more than the English

term,'intellect'. Also important, here, I would agree, is the sense that

preparation through Vedic instruction is significant in "seeing" the Atma."

 

Jai: Traditionally Intuition is not accepted as valid means of knowledge. So

to bring in intuition here is not correct. 'Sukshmadarshin' means 'the one

who sees the subtle which is the atma'. Now we have to see why this atma is

being called as subtle. That is beacuse this atma cannot be known as an

object like all other things. In the case atma jnana only the ignorance is

removed without the objectification of the object of knowledge. Listening to

Vedic instruction is not a preparation. It is the direct means of knowing

this atma. In fact all other Yogas etc. are preparation for listening to the

Vedic instruction. In my translation of Shankara Bhasya I have inadvertently

said ''This atma is seen by the intellect(Buddhya), which has been

>conditioned by the words of the Veda and Guru (Agryaya), of the

>SukshmaDarshin - the one who sees the subtle. ' A better translation would

be

 

' This atma is seen by the one who sees the subtle by his intellect by

(listening to) the words of the Guru and Veda.'

 

 

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>6. The bhasyam to the Bhagavad Gita Verse

>'Antavanta Ime Dehaha Nityasyoktha Sharirinaha

>Anoshinaha Aprameyasya tasmat yudhyasva bharatha' (2nd chapter, verse

around 18 ) where while explaining the word 'Aprameyasya' Shankara says Atma

Vidya takes place by hearing the words of the Guru and Veda and it Destroys

Ajnana.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

This is very definitive in terms of Sankara's testimony. However, Sankara

says here that Atma Vidya destroys Ajanna, not the mental modification or

vritti. With regard to the taking place upon hearing the words of the Guru

and Veda, perhaps this is the key through which the Self chooses to be seen.

 

Jai : I wish to again correct my original post which is erroneos and which

Veronica is quoting. Actually Shankra says this in the Bhasyam of

'Veda-avinashinam nithyam ya yenam ajam avyayam .... ' ( Verse 21, Chap 2).

Now here by Atma Vidya shankara clearly means only Vritti jnanam becauses he

says it is born out of listening to the words of the Guru and Shastra.

 

Jaishankar wrote

>The ignorance is destroyed by the mental modification or vritti born out

of the words of the Guru and the Vedas without need for any

objectification of the self because it is self-revealing. This is

para-vidya.

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote

 

" Is this really the way Advaita Vedanta envisions the destruction of

ignorance? I'm not challenging your understanding, Jaishankar. I just want

to know if it is the orthodox or traditional view. And, if possible, could

you give some scriptural reference for this, or reference to where exactly

it may be found?"

 

Jai : Yes. This is how the acharyas in the tradition envision the

destruction of ignorance. I cannot immeadiately give quotes because I am

right now in the midst of an official tour. When I get back home I will give

lots of quotes to prove this if you feel what I have already given is not

enough.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar