ignorance is not natural characteristic of the Self

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Quite often when we want to recover the original from a

contaminated product, we try various means. However, the

original is often altered and impossible to recover in

its pristine condition.

 

In my professional life, my research work deals with recovering

ancient magnetization of the rocks (representative of Earth's

magnetic field a few billion years ago) contaminated by later

overprints. The overprints are usually carefully erased and

the original is tried to be recovered. The overprints are

intermixed with the primary. The rocks themselves suffer

alteration and we can say only with some probability that

the recovered magnetization is representative of the original

magnetic field of the Earth.

 

In dealing with the SELF, there are no such probems. The SELF

is untainted, unaltered in spite of the various superimpositions.

Once all the superimpositions are gradually removed, layer by

layer, the SELF shines in all its glory.

 

Now, ignorance (avidyA) is a superimposition on the SELF and

is foreign to the SELF. If avidyA (ignorance) is a natural

characteristic of the SELF, it can never be eliminated. However,

shri shankara argues that ignorance is not a naural characteristic

of the SELF. Hence, He shows that liberation from ignorance is

indeed possible. This argument was presented in Br^ihadAraNyaka

upanishadbhAShya iv.3.20 and I am paraphrasing it here to the

best of my understanding. Any clearer expression and further

insights are very much appreciated.

 

Where does this ignorance reside? Br. u. iv.3.20 says:

In a jIvA, there are these nerves called hitA which are very

fine. These are filled with white, blue, brown, green and red

serums. The subtle body with its seventeen constituents (the

five elements, the ten organs, vital force and manas) has its

seat in these nerves (hitA) which are spread all over the body.

Impressions are stored in this subtle body. The subtle body is

transparent like a crystal because of its fineness. But owing to

its contact with foreign matter (serums in the nerves), it

undergoes modifications under the influence of past merit and

demerit and manifests itself in the form of impressions (like

fear, anger, rAga, dveSha, etc) which are bye-products of this

ignorance.

 

When a human has this false notion called ignorance, these

impressions come out as for example being pursued by elephants

or falling in pits, or in the form of robbers coming to kill

him, etc. No body is going to kill him or trample on him, the

notion being simply a mistake due to past impressions created

by ignorance. That is, in a dream, where there are no elephants,

no robbers etc, he conjures up these impressions created by

ignorance.

 

When ignorance decreases and knowledge increases: In the waking

state, meditation regarding gods prevails, and as a result of

impressions generated by these meditations, the human considers

himself a god or a king, as it were. Having the impression of

a god or a king in the waking state, he thinks in his dreams

also that he is king or god. That is, when in the waking state,

his ignorance is almost completely erased, the same impressions

are carried into the dream state also. "This universe is myself,

who am all" is the highest and natural state of the jIvA. Prior

to this realization, even if there is a hair's breadth of thinking

"this is not myself", that is the state of ignorance. Whatever the

state of knowledge in the wake-up state is likely carried on as

impressions into the dream-state.

 

When ignorance increases and knowledge vanishes: the results of

ignorance are directly perceived in the dream. The result of

knowledge is identity with all and the result of ignorance is

identity with finite things. When identifying with finite things,

he is separated with something else. He is in conflict with that

from which he is separated and the feeling of being trampled by

elephants, etc is generated (in the dreams). This is the result

of ignorance. So, the nature of ignorance is to represent which

is infinite as finite and makes the Self appear as limited. From

that arises the desire for that from which he is separated;

desire prompts action which produces results.

 

Thus, ignorance is not the natural characteristic of the Self,

since it automatically decreases as knowledge increases. When

knowledge is at its highest (with the self realizing its identity),

ignorance vanishes altogether. Therefore ignorance is not a natural

characteristic of the self, for that which is natural to a thing

can never be eliminated, as the heat and light of the sun. Therefore,

liberation from ignorance is possible.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Murthy gaaru - just some comments from my understanding.

 

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>Now, ignorance (avidyA) is a superimposition on the SELF and

>is foreign to the SELF. If avidyA (ignorance) is a natural

>characteristic of the SELF, it can never be eliminated. However,

>shri shankara argues that ignorance is not a naural characteristic

>of the SELF. Hence, He shows that liberation from ignorance is

>indeed possible. This argument was presented in Br^ihadAraNyaka

>upanishadbhAShya iv.3.20 and I am paraphrasing it here to the

>best of my understanding. Any clearer expression and further

>insights are very much appreciated.

 

I would just add "ignorance is 'as though' a superimposition on the self"

since nothing actually can superimpose on the self. It is brought in to

explain the why Brahman has the notion that he is jiiva and suffering as a

conseqence of that notion.

>Where does this ignorance reside? Br. u. iv.3.20 says:

>In a jIvA, there are these nerves called hitA which are very

>fine.

 

Can you provide the exact statement of the Upanishad?

 

There are two thoughts in Advaita - one says the Brahman is the locus of

ignorance - at that stage it is called Maya

the other says jiiiva is the locus of ignornace - at that stage it is called

simply ignorance or avidya.

 

Both are notions to explain the unexplainable!

 

Ramanuja questions both these ascertions. - If Brahman is the locus he

cannot be brahman - if jiiva is the locus it implies that he is there before

ignorance in order to have ignorance. Hence he is not the product of

ignorance and therefore elimination of ignorance cannot eliminate jiiva!

Either way we run into problems.

 

Ignorance is there only for those who think they are ignorant! and think

that they are something other than themselves, and want to learn now that

they are themselves and not otherthan themselves!

 

Ignorance is not really positive to have and not to have but only lack of

knowledge. But to explain the unexplainable the notion of ignorance is

brought in as though it is positive but the whole concept itself is disoved

in the awening of knowledge that I am all the time myself - even when I

thought I was not myself! -

 

In the realization of truth - ignorance I never had, I lost!- please read

the discussion of Shankara in the last notes where he responds to

vR^ittikaara. - If one is not gaining any knowlege then by that same token

one is not loosing any ignorance either.

 

Hence trying to understand ignorance is itslef a pursuit in ignorance! -

 

These are filled with white, blue, brown, green and red

>serums. The subtle body with its seventeen constituents (the

>five elements, the ten organs, vital force and manas) has its

>seat in these nerves (hitA) which are spread all over the body.

>Impressions are stored in this subtle body. The subtle body is

>transparent like a crystal because of its fineness. But owing to

>its contact with foreign matter (serums in the nerves), it

>undergoes modifications under the influence of past merit and

>demerit and manifests itself in the form of impressions (like

>fear, anger, rAga, dveSha, etc) which are bye-products of this

>ignorance.

>

>When a human has this false notion called ignorance, these

>impressions come out as for example being pursued by elephants

>or falling in pits, or in the form of robbers coming to kill

>him, etc. No body is going to kill him or trample on him, the

>notion being simply a mistake due to past impressions created

>by ignorance. That is, in a dream, where there are no elephants,

>no robbers etc, he conjures up these impressions created by

>ignorance.

>

>When ignorance decreases and knowledge increases: In the waking

>state, meditation regarding gods prevails, and as a result of

>impressions generated by these meditations, the human considers

>himself a god or a king, as it were. Having the impression of

>a god or a king in the waking state, he thinks in his dreams

>also that he is king or god. That is, when in the waking state,

>his ignorance is almost completely erased, the same impressions

>are carried into the dream state also. "This universe is myself,

>who am all" is the highest and natural state of the jIvA. Prior

>to this realization, even if there is a hair's breadth of thinking

>"this is not myself", that is the state of ignorance. Whatever the

>state of knowledge in the wake-up state is likely carried on as

>impressions into the dream-state.

>

>When ignorance increases and knowledge vanishes: the results of

>ignorance are directly perceived in the dream. The result of

>knowledge is identity with all and the result of ignorance is

>identity with finite things. When identifying with finite things,

>he is separated with something else. He is in conflict with that

>from which he is separated and the feeling of being trampled by

>elephants, etc is generated (in the dreams). This is the result

>of ignorance. So, the nature of ignorance is to represent which

>is infinite as finite and makes the Self appear as limited. From

>that arises the desire for that from which he is separated;

>desire prompts action which produces results.

>

>Thus, ignorance is not the natural characteristic of the Self,

>since it automatically decreases as knowledge increases. When

>knowledge is at its highest (with the self realizing its identity),

>ignorance vanishes altogether. Therefore ignorance is not a natural

>characteristic of the self, for that which is natural to a thing

>can never be eliminated, as the heat and light of the sun. Therefore,

>liberation from ignorance is possible.

>

 

First Question should be - is ignorance a character at all before we ask a

question whether is it or is it not a natural character of the self?

Presence or absence of knowledge can be a character but that cannot be

directly traslated (although it implies) as presence or absence of

ignorance, since ignorance is not tangible to be characterized by its

presence or absence. But one can use that as explanation for why one makes

errors or adyaasa.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

namaste shri Sadananda garu and the list-members,

 

I am slightly late in responding as I was away from station for the

past two weeks. I will try to address the points that were raised.

 

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

> Murthy gaaru - just some comments from my understanding.

>

>

> >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> >Now, ignorance (avidyA) is a superimposition on the SELF and

> >is foreign to the SELF. If avidyA (ignorance) is a natural

> >characteristic of the SELF, it can never be eliminated. However,

> >shri shankara argues that ignorance is not a naural characteristic

> >of the SELF. Hence, He shows that liberation from ignorance is

> >indeed possible. This argument was presented in Br^ihadAraNyaka

> >upanishadbhAShya iv.3.20 and I am paraphrasing it here to the

> >best of my understanding. Any clearer expression and further

> >insights are very much appreciated.

>

> I would just add "ignorance is 'as though' a superimposition on the self"

> since nothing actually can superimpose on the self.

 

That is true. Although I think it is a semantics question, I like to

expand on this a bit further. Let us compare the following three

statements in two scenarios.

 

(i) Ignorance is a characteristic of the SELF.

Sun rises in the east every day.

(ii) Ignorance is as though a superimposition on the SELF.

It appears as though the Sun rises

in the east, but the reality is not that.

(iii) Ignorance is a superimposition on the SELF.

Sun does not rise (or set). It is Earth

that rotates west to east making it appear

that Sun rises in the east.

> It is brought in to

> explain the why Brahman has the notion that he is jiiva and suffering as a

> conseqence of that notion.

>

 

By saying this, you are saying that avidyA is never present, except

as a *model* only to *explain* brahman's notion of a jIvA. By saying

that, we are relegating avidyA to a frame-work (model) created by the

intellect. Is it not avidyA more than that? It is slippery, elusive

and ungraspable but yet it is more than a model of understanding

(I think). I elaborate on this further below.

> >Where does this ignorance reside? Br. u. iv.3.20 says:

> >In a jIvA, there are these nerves called hitA which are very

> >fine.

>

> Can you provide the exact statement of the Upanishad?

>

 

I am quoting from Br^ihadAraNyaka upanishad iv.3.20. [for e.g.

from S. Radhakrishnan's The principal upanishads]

 

tA vA asyaitA hitA nAma nADyaH, yathA keshaH shasradhA bhinnaH,

tAvatANimnA tiShTanti, shuklasya, nIlasya, piNgalasya, haritasya,

lohitasya pUrNAH; atha yatrainaM ghnatIva, jinantIva, hastIva

vicchAyayati, gartam iva patati, yad eva jAgrad bhayaM pashyati,

tad atrAvidyayA manyate, atha yatra deva iva rAjeva; aham evedam,

sarvo'smIti manyate; so'asyaparamo lokaH

 

In him, verily, are those channels called hitA, which are as

fine as a hair divided a thousandfold and filled with white,

blue, yellow, green and red (fluids). Now when (he feels) as

if he were being killed, as if he were being overpowered,

as if he were pursued by an elephant, as if he were falling

into a well, he thinks (imagines) through ignorance whatever

fear he has seen (experienced) in the waking state. But when

he thinks that he is a god, as it were, that he is a king,

as it were, that I am all this, that is his highest world.

 

hitA: see also Br. u. ii.1.19, iv.2.3. The subtle body is

said to be in these channels.

 

The place where the two selves unite is the heart. They have

a path in common. The vein suShumnA leads upwards from the

heart to the top of the skull. See Chandogya u. viii.6.6.

When their union takes place, self-consciousness disappears

as well as the distinction between the outer and the inner

world. The highest reality, the all-consciousness, free from

fear and grief is reached.

 

Dream states are traced to impressions of waking experiences.

Ignorance avidyA is not natural to the Self; if so, it cannot

be removed even as heat and light cannot be removed from the

Sun: na Atma-dharmo'vidyA na hi svAbhAvikasyocchittiH kadAcid

apy upapadyate savitur ivauShNya-prakAshayoH [shri shankara].

 

Please see also Br^ihadAraNyaka upanishad with shankara's

commentary by swami Madhavananda.

 

> There are two thoughts in Advaita - one says the Brahman is the locus of

> ignorance - at that stage it is called Maya

> the other says jiiiva is the locus of ignornace - at that stage it is called

> simply ignorance or avidya.

>

> Both are notions to explain the unexplainable!

>

 

What is the seat of avidyA? and who has this avidyA? This was

touched by shri shankara in B.S.B. 1.1.4 as you know very well.

In answer to the question who has this avidyA?, shri shankara

says it is the person who asks that question.

 

What is this ignorance? I give below Swami Satchidanandendra's

description based on shri shankara's BrahmasUtrAbhAShya.

 

When it is clear that the object and the subject, which pertain to

the notion 'you' and 'I' respectively (and which are contradictory

in nature like darkness and light), cannot each be of the nature

of the other, it is evidently even more incorrect to identify

their attributes. From which it follows that the superimposition

of the object and its attributes, pertaining to the notion 'you',

onto the subject, which pertains to the notion 'I' must be

erroneous. And the opposite superimposition of the subject and

its attributes onto the object must be erroneous too. And yet,

though these two principles are utterly distinct in nature, there

is a failure to distinguish one from the other, and each, together

with its attributes, is superimposed on and identified with the other.

And from that results this natural worldly ecperience, based on wrong

knowledge and involves a synthesis of the real with the false. This

very superimposition, thus defined, the wise call ignorance.

 

> Ramanuja questions both these ascertions. - If Brahman is the locus he

> cannot be brahman - if jiiva is the locus it implies that he is there before

> ignorance in order to have ignorance. Hence he is not the product of

> ignorance and therefore elimination of ignorance cannot eliminate jiiva!

> Either way we run into problems.

>

I do not know shri ramanuja's question on this. I *purposely*

did not study Ramanuja because I find very satisfactory answers

in shri shankara's logic.

 

If shri ramanuja said what you quoted in that paragraph above,

I wonder if the fundamental premis there is correct.

 

My understanding on this is the following: Brahman and jIvA are

not different. They are one and the same. However, the individuality

feeling of the jIvA is the product of ignorance. The ahaMbhAva of

the jIvA is the product of ignorance, not the jIvA itself. Elimination

of ignorance eliminates the individuality feeling of the jIvA but not

the jIvA itself. The jIvA is eternal. Thus, I do not see a problem.

> Ignorance is there only for those who think they are ignorant! and think

> that they are something other than themselves, and want to learn now that

> they are themselves and not otherthan themselves!

>

 

Yes, indeed.

 

> Ignorance is not really positive to have and not to have but only lack of

> knowledge. But to explain the unexplainable the notion of ignorance is

> brought in as though it is positive but the whole concept itself is disoved

> in the awening of knowledge that I am all the time myself - even when I

> thought I was not myself! -

>

 

While agreeing with you, I do not see it as a notion *brought-in*.

A *brought-in* implies a model to explain something. While we have this

ignorance, it is real for us. While or when we are out of this ignorance,

it is no longer there and much more important, we also see it was *never*

present (like the extra elephant conjured up to divide the property of

seventeen elephants into three portions of half, one-third and one-ninth).

> In the realization of truth - ignorance I never had, I lost!- please read

> the discussion of Shankara in the last notes where he responds to

> vR^ittikaara. - If one is not gaining any knowlege then by that same token

> one is not loosing any ignorance either.

>

 

I am trying to understand the last sentence above. Are you saying "One is

not gaining any knowledge and by the same token, one is not loosing any

ignorance either" (?). Is my expansion below consistent with the above?

 

That is, the Self does not gain anything (knowledge) and does not loose

anything (ignorance). That is, the Self does not have any ignorance. So,

who has the ignorance? jIvA does not have it, because jIvA and brahman

are one and the same. So, the only conclusion we can come to is: ignorance

is never present.

> Hence trying to understand ignorance is itslef a pursuit in ignorance! -

>

 

However, would it not make sense to pursue ignorance to its ultimate end

and see that it disappears or vanishes completely. Is it not also what is

implied in shri ramaNa's who am I quest. If we keep on analyzing who am I,

we would see that the instrument of analysis breaks down.

> First Question should be - is ignorance a character at all before we ask a

> question whether is it or is it not a natural character of the self?

> Presence or absence of knowledge can be a character but that cannot be

> directly traslated (although it implies) as presence or absence of

> ignorance, since ignorance is not tangible to be characterized by its

> presence or absence. But one can use that as explanation for why one makes

> errors or adyaasa.

>

 

may be, you are right. The way I started looking at it is the following

sequence:

 

(i) It is ignorance (avidyA) that makes us behave as something that we

are not. -->

(ii) If (i) is right, then where does this ignorance come from; is it

natural or foreign to us? -->

(iii) to show that ignorance is not natural to us, but is a real disease

that we are afflicted with. -->

(iv) If (iii) is correct, then how do we be cured of this disease? If we

pursue what we think is this real disease, we will find that the

disease is never there, and we are never afflicted with it. The

real Self is ever in its pristine condition.

 

I will be most obliged for any further comments.

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------