Tat tvam asi?(PART1)

[Guest guest]

Namste Nanda,

I have answered your questions(1-3 in this post) and 4-8 in the

next post

> We'd like to raise the following questions to question the "I"ness

of

> the Atman :

>

> 1. The classical Advaita path of self-introspection, the neti,

> neti or the subject versus the object approach, where we

discriminate

> and reject all that is not us also implies the "I"ness of the

Atman.

> If such a path is to be true then the path to liberation is very

> clear and self-effort by itself should fetch liberation ie after

> rejecting everything that's not ourselves we should remain in the

end

> as the pure Atman. If that's so then why does Shankara still

assert

> that in the ultimate moment liberation is only possible due to

divine

> grace?

 

The basic ignorance(Avidya) is "I am limited". "I am" is

"Self evidence of consciousness", known to even an ignorant

person. "I am so and so" is the conclusion born out of i)

not knowing the totality nature of Iness(i.e, Brahmatvam of

Atma) and ii) Because of what is seen, objectifiable, body

mind complex(drishyam) I and body are taken

together-superimposition.

 

So "Samanya jnanam" that "I exist" (Sat & Chit) is a fact to

everyone(self evident). This is the basis for any

superimposition regarding "vishesha jnanam" that I am so &

so, a kartha(doer), suki(happy), dukki(unhappy), samsari,

etc etc., So life becomes an attempt at making limited to

limitless.

 

By Neti-neti negation of what is superimposed I remain "I am

---"like in sleep. " I am whole, limitless" is a knowledge.

Any means which creates right knowledge is called

"Pramanam". Shastra is a shabda pramanam which creates this

knowledge(prama) by discovery of true nature. "You are

already that which you are trying to become" - is a pramana

vakya - No where Shankara mentions that divine grace is the

direct means for ultimate liberation. Please give Shankara's

quotation on Grace as direct means. Grace is necessary to

come to the right pramanam, to right unfoldment of vakya by

a teacher. But then pramanam alone is the direct means.

Although Atma(or Brahman) is eternal, self evident and

limitless. The knowledge(prama) of it has to arise in the

mind by discovery through pramanam.

 

 

> 2. A thing in itself by logic should be true to its own nature

> and it cannot have a nature in opposition to its own true nature

ie

> light cannot entertain darkness within itself nor vice versa. Even

as

> Gaudapaada says : "By the word nature is to be understood that

which

> is permanently acquired, or is intrinsic, instinctive,

non-produced,

> or unchanging in its character". So if we are the Atman whose

nature

> is existence, knowledge and bliss (sat-chit-aananda), ignorance

> cannot be an integral part of us – if that is so why are we not

then

> aware of our true nature?

 

"Why we have ignorance?" is not a right question because

none of us even ask this question why we are ignorant of

chemistry or physics etc., before going to a teacher. "Jiva

or individual is born" because of ignorance and therefore

ignorance is non-different from me.

 

Atleast everyone knows he is ignorant about the world, but

it needs grace to know that I am also equally ignorant of

myself. We all have the experience of ignorance as that "I

don't know x,y or z" therefore right question should be how

to eliminate it- is there a way?

 

When there is cloud, sun appears to the viewer to be dim but

is sun really dim? or the vision is dimmed by cloud?

Similarly Atman inherently can never have ignorance because

it is of the nature of knowledge(Swarupa jnanam). But when

this is not known i.e in the absence of true nature of I I

or atma, there is total identity of I with the mind.

Presence of vrutti jnanam - knowledge and absence is a mode

of intellect and not Atman, I am ignorant is a conclusion

born out of ignorance "I" can never have ignorance because

ignorance is known by I in the intellect. "Knowledge of

ignorance" is because of whom, can never be ignorant.

 

> 3. If ignorance is something apart from us and we are the

> consciousness-in-itself, as is the import of the superimposition

> theory which advocates that we as the consciousness superimpose on

> ourselves the qualities of the objects that we experience, then we

> should be fully aware of ourselves as the consciousness in itself

> apart from the mind, body and senses – in short then we being the

> pure consciousness should already be liberated and there should be

no

> question of seeking salvation. But not only are we not liberated

but

> also being consciousness itself is not common experience as nobody

is

> aware of consciousness in itself. All consciousness that we know

is

> only by its manifestations through the senses, mind and body. So

how

> can it be said that we are the consciousness who superimpose on

> ourselves the qualities of all the objects that we perceive?

 

Atman is said to be satyam or the only independent

reality which is defined as "That which is not negatable in

all three periods of time or state" where as everything else

- including ignorance is the realm of mithya or dependent

reality, is called Anirvachaniya, can neither be classified

as sat or asat. 'Sat' is that which is never subjected to

negation & 'Asat' is that which never appears. What appears

& but is negatable by knowledge. So one cannot categorise

and say it is there or not there, belongs to I or apart from

it.

 

Intellect is an instrument which can only categorise and

resolve a problem. But intellect itself belongs to that

which cannot be categorised then what to talk of things

grasped by intellect.

 

It is clearly discussed in Adhyasa bhashya of Shankara, this

problem of "whether we know ourselves and superimpose or we

do not know ourselves and superimpose".

 

Every superimposition presupposes that we should have some

knowledge of the object(samanya jnanam) and lack the

complete knowledge(Vishesha jnanam). Here we all are aware

of oneself but lack the knowledge about awareness as a

whole. Hence the superimposition. We defenately are not

aware fully about our nature and hence the mistake follows.

 

So consciousness even though is experienced with body mind

complex, the experience as sat and chit - samanyamsha is

known. This is enough to superimpose like in semi darkness-

I see that there is something and becuse "something" is

seen, I superimpose a snake and say "This is a snake". "This

is" is common to rope- the original and snake the

superimposed. In total darkness neither I see "something",

so I donot superimpose. Similarly whenever mind is awake,

superimposition is spontaneous. When mind is resolved like

in sleep, neither there is self awareness nor mistake added

to it. Hence there is no suffering. Suffering is not because

of ignorance but because of superimposition, but solution is

in eliminating ignorance and not just avoiding to

superimpose.

 

Other questions are answered in the PART2

 

Dr Rama Phaniraj