Guest guest Posted February 27, 2002 Report Share Posted February 27, 2002 Namaste, This post of mine is to quote references from the Shruti, Brahmasutra Bhashya of Shankara and the Upadeshasahasri, to show namely 1) that avidya is present in deep sleep & 2) that after the attainment of knowledge, ignorance still remains. This post is in response to Atmachaitanyaji's contention that 1) avidya is not present in deep sleep and 2) that after the dawn of knowledge Avidya can no longer exist. 1. Presence of Avidya in sleep Atmachaitanyaji maintains that there is no avidya in deep sleep and according to his statements, Shankara maintains the same position with regards to this point. However, Shankara has mentioned in his commentary on 2 verses of the Brahma Sutras and in the Upadeshasahasri that there is avidya in sleep. You will also find a verse from the Chandogya Upanishad to support this position. Here are the references: 'As in natural slumber and Samadhi, though there is a natural eradication of differences, still owing to the PERSISTENCE OF UNREAL NESCIENCE, differences occur over again when one wakes up, similarly it can also happen here. Bearing on this is the Upanishadic text, "All these beings, when they become one with Existence (during sleep), DO NOT KNOW, 'We have become one with Existence'(Chandogya Up. 6.9.3)............As during the state of the continuance of the world, it is seen that like dream, there are empirical differentiations under the influence of UNREAL IGNORANCE, despite the existence of the supreme Self as an undifferentiated entity.......' Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.1.9 'The Upanishad also shows that this waking from sleep is possible because of the EXISTENCE OF IGNORANCE IN A SEED FORM.......' Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.3.31 Again Shankara makes his position clear that Ignorance is in seed form in sleep in his commentary on verse 3.2.9 (I am not quoting as it is too long) 'What is called DEEP SLEEP, darkness or IGNORANCE is the SEED of the waking and dream states' Upadeshasahasri 17.26 2. After the attainment of knowledge, ignorance still remains Shankara mentions this point in his commentary on verse 4.1.15: 'As for the Knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any act, that destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance. This false ignorance, EVEN WHEN SUBLATED, CONTINUES FOR A WHILE owing to past tendencies..........' * Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya, translation by Swami Gambhirananda ** Upadeshasahasri, translation by Swami Jagadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2002 Report Share Posted February 27, 2002 kkathir wrote: First thanks for providing the quotations. I suggest that one has to be little careful in analyzing the deep sleep state. "Who slept well" - or who is the deep sleeper I - who has the ignorance in the deep sleep - these are questions that become problematic if one goes into deep analysis. The answers and contentions depend on the with what reference one is addressing these issues. I have to dig my files to trace the article I wrote couple of years ago on 'Who is the deep sleeper I' - Any way here is the gist and points out that one has to be very careful in analyzing this state. Theoretically "I' the conscious entity identifying with the kaarana Shariira or causal body is the sleeper I. Thus I am a waker- I am dreamer and I am a deep-sleeper - is the identification with the upaadhi-s. This is O.K at the superficial level. At this level - I the Ego - slept very well and I the ego has the one who has sleeping problem and complain that I did not get good sleep yesterday - etc. Hence from the transactional purposes - I the ego or jiiva is the one that sleeps and that is the one who has the ignorance - or avidya since I do not know who I am. - hence avidya is centered on 'ego' who is the jiiva. But if we examine closely, 'ego' or ahankaara is the notion in the mind - it is part of the antahkaraNa - mind, intellect, ego and chitta are based on the texture of the thoughts are part of thoughts. In deep sleep - the ego along with the mind and intellect is folded. Hence I am not aware that I am sleeping when I am sleeping. On the other hand, if I am aware - then I am not sleeping. Thus ego who has the ignorance is not there in deep sleep - Then who slept well? But let us look at the mechanics. When I make a statement " I slept well" and 'I had sound experience of sleep' - is it a statement born out of experience or is it a statement born out of inference. Mind and intellect which are not there in the deep sleep - (mind and intellect being the thought flow) are the ones who are recollecting the experience of the deep sleep from the memory bank and declare 'I slept well' - But they are not there to sleep well - Here is a peculiar dichotomy of sleep. Actually there is missing gap( like gap in the Nixon tapes!) in the mind since it is absent during that interval and missing gap is recognized in the waking and declare that I slept well. From the Ego point- it was not there to sleep well and from the consciousness point it is ever illuminating and there is no question of sleep or awake - akarthaaham abhokthaam aham eva avyayaH - neither I am doer nor an enjoyer. The question becomes an illegitamate question since supreme the consciousness does not ask that question and the ego's answer that I slept well is only an inferential answer since it was not there to sleep well. Now let us ask the next question - who has the ignorance in deep sleep - I the consciousness is ever efflugent and can not have ignorance at any time. Ego that has the ignorance is not there in deep sleep state - Hence if one deeply analyzes the problem - it becomes an illegitmate problem - and any answer will be illegitmate one only. Now let us raise another interesting question - does the j~naani sleep and has ignorance in the deep sleep - Sleeping and awakening is only at the level of the mind and intellect whether it is folded or open and I the consciousness illumines the mind and intellect in both states. Fundamentally if you ask a j~naani - the true answer should be ' I never slept any time in the past nor now and I never had ignorance any time to say that I slept now or I am ignorant or awakeful now". But the ego of the disciple can declare that my teacher has slept very well yesterday! Now who has the ignorance. Once one has realized that I am not this but consciousness - there is no more ignorance - that is fundamentally incorrect. Then realization itself becomes a notion not a fact. But one can sleep awake and dream - but that is the instrumental problem not the problem of the consciousness level. Hence Krishna says: prakR^iti eva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashhaH yaH pasyati tat aatmaanam akartaaram sa pastyati|| All actions are done by prakR^iti or at the level of prakR^iti - one who sees himself that he is non-doer all through the actions alone see the truth. Now is there avidya in deep sleep - obviously a deep-sleeper is not going to answer that question since he is sleeping - Waker answer depends on whether he has realized his own state or not. a Jiiva who is unrealized - obviously has ignorance until he realizes - does not matter what state one is. J`naana has realized and to say he has ignorance would mean that he has not realized who he is. Once one knows who one is - there is no question of becoming ignorant again - The whole concept of moksha becomes meaningless. Now is there a state in between - just as one experiences 'happy moments' - which is nothing but ones own illumination - one can have extended "experience' of that state in the seat of meditation. Underline I have used the word experience rather than knowledge. One can say because of the scriptural " I am that" but that knowledge is still vague since I have not fully convinced myself what I am and there is a notion ' I am ''that' - which is still a duality. Realization is full conviction that I am the totality - sarva bhutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani - one sees oneself in all and all in one self - that is what Bhagavaan Ramana calls as dR^iDaiva nishTa. If we have clear understanding of this there is no confusion. Confusion comes when each one responding from different references and try to argue or interpret what was intended. Anyway this is how I interpret and understand. HariOm! Sadanadna -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2002 Report Share Posted February 28, 2002 namaste shri Sadananda garu, I must say I have difficulty with the logic you have used and hence the conclusion you have arrived at. If I can paraphrase you: you are concluding there is no ignorance while in deep-sleep (you did not say categorically but that is the gist of your post.). You are arriving at this conclusion by saying: ego is the one with the ignorance and that ego is not there during deep-sleep, hence there cannot be ignorance during deep-sleep. You are also saying: manas (the mind) and buddhi (the intellect) are not there during deep-sleep, and hence during waking state, what they say does not apply to deep-sleep because it is not a direct experience by them (manas and buddhi). I cannot agree with that logic or at the conclusion you have arrived at. I will try to show in point-wise response below. On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, K. Sadananda wrote: > [...] > Theoretically "I' the conscious entity identifying with the kaarana > Shariira or causal body is the sleeper I. Thus I am a waker- I am > dreamer and I am a deep-sleeper - is the identification with the > upaadhi-s. This is O.K at the superficial level. At this level - I > the Ego - slept very well and I the ego has the one who has sleeping > problem and complain that I did not get good sleep yesterday - etc. > Hence from the transactional purposes - I the ego or jiiva is the one > that sleeps and that is the one who has the ignorance - or avidya > since I do not know who I am. - hence avidya is centered on 'ego' who > is the jiiva. > > But if we examine closely, 'ego' or ahankaara is the notion in the > mind - it is part of the antahkaraNa - mind, intellect, ego and > chitta are based on the texture of the thoughts are part of thoughts. > No. It cannot be. Mind is the notion in the ego. This is *my* mind, etc. > In deep sleep - the ego along with the mind and intellect is folded. > Hence I am not aware that I am sleeping when I am sleeping. On the > other hand, if I am aware - then I am not sleeping. > Thus ego who has the ignorance is not there in deep sleep - Then who > slept well? > I question the concept that ego has the ignorance. It is the other way round. Ignorance makes the ego. > But let us look at the mechanics. When I make a statement " I slept > well" and 'I had sound experience of sleep' - is it a statement born > out of experience or is it a statement born out of inference. > > Mind and intellect which are not there in the deep sleep - (mind and > intellect being the thought flow) are the ones who are recollecting > the experience of the deep sleep from the memory bank and declare 'I > slept well' - But they are not there to sleep well - Here is a > peculiar dichotomy of sleep. Actually there is missing gap( like gap > in the Nixon tapes!) in the mind since it is absent during that > interval and missing gap is recognized in the waking and declare that > I slept well. From the Ego point- it was not there to sleep well and > from the consciousness point it is ever illuminating and there is no > question of sleep or awake - akarthaaham abhokthaam aham eva avyayaH > - neither I am doer nor an enjoyer. > > The question becomes an illegitamate question since supreme the > consciousness does not ask that question and the ego's answer that I > slept well is only an inferential answer since it was not there to > sleep well. > You cannot separate the various functions of antahkaraNa as done above. It is tantamount to the hand saying that I did not eat which is the function of the stomach and so on. It is the jIvA that has the antahkaraNa and it is the jIvA that sleeps. It is the function of the mind to say that I have slept well and the I there refers to the jIvA. After all, the four functions of antahkaraNa, the five sense organs and other parts constitute the jIvA, the ignorant entity that is what we are referring to and it is the jIvA that is going through wake-up, dream and deep-sleep states. I think it is wrong, in my view, to claim that because ego is not there during deep-sleep, ignorance is not there during deep-sleep. > Now let us ask the next question - who has the ignorance in deep > sleep - I the consciousness is ever efflugent and can not have > ignorance at any time. Ego that has the ignorance is not there in > deep sleep state - Hence if one deeply analyzes the problem - it > becomes an illegitmate problem - and any answer will be illegitmate > one only. > May I point out another fallacy in the above argument. Just before the jIvA goes to sleep, there is avidyA, which individualizes that jIvA. avidyA can only be removed by jnAna. What sort of shravaNa, manana, nidhidhyAsana has the jIvA done *while asleep* for this avidyA to vanish during deep-sleep ? shri shankara has referred in many places that avidyA is in seed-form during deep sleep and I cannot see how that statement can be contradicted. Further, shri Sadananda garu, you yourself have argued earlier (I can dig them out in the archives) that avidyA is in seed-form during deep-sleep and your present statement completely contradicts that. I would await your comments. > [...] > > HariOm! > Sadanadna > Regards Gummuluru Murthy -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2002 Report Share Posted February 28, 2002 Hari Om !! advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste shri Sadananda garu, > > I must say I have difficulty with the logic you have used > and hence the conclusion you have arrived at. >or jiiva is the one > > that sleeps and that is the one who has the ignorance - or avidya > > since I do not know who I am. - hence avidya is centered on 'ego' who > > is the jiiva. > > > > But if we examine closely, 'ego' or ahankaara is the notion in the > > mind - it is part of the antahkaraNa - mind, intellect, ego and > > chitta are based on the texture of the thoughts are part of thoughts. > > > > No. It cannot be. Mind is the notion in the ego. This is *my* > mind, etc. > > > > In deep sleep - the ego along with the mind and intellect is folded. > > Hence I am not aware that I am sleeping when I am sleeping. On the > > other hand, if I am aware - then I am not sleeping. > > Thus ego who has the ignorance is not there in deep sleep - Then who > > slept well? > > > > I question the concept that ego has the ignorance. It is the > other way round. Ignorance makes the ego. > > > You cannot separate the various functions of antahkaraNa as > done above. It is tantamount to the hand saying that I did > not eat which is the function of the stomach and so on. > It is the jIvA that has the antahkaraNa and it is the jIvA > that sleeps. It is the function of the mind to say that I > have slept well and the I there refers to the jIvA. After all, > the four functions of antahkaraNa, the five sense organs and > other parts constitute the jIvA, the ignorant entity that is > what we are referring to and it is the jIvA that is going > through wake-up, dream and deep-sleep states. I think it is > wrong, in my view, to claim that because ego is not there > during deep-sleep, ignorance is not there during deep-sleep. > The problem has been rightly pointed out. I believe, the main flaw in the original argument is caused because EGO is equated to Jiva. I believe the conscious entity 'Jivatma' or the ('Pure Self' + Upadhi) is the Jiva. EGO is just a function of MIND or Prakriti or Ignorance. It is just a vritti which is a notion. If EGO were 'Jiva' there is no possibility of eradication or annihilation of EGO which is essential for Realisation. Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2002 Report Share Posted February 28, 2002 >namaste shri Sadananda garu, > >I must say I have difficulty with the logic you have used >and hence the conclusion you have arrived at. If I can >paraphrase you: you are concluding there is no ignorance >while in deep-sleep (you did not say categorically but that >is the gist of your post.). Murthy gaaru - you are absolutely right - I did not say categorically that there is or there is not ignorance in deep sleep state. If one thinks he is jiiva due to ignorance, he remains as such until he has realized irrespective of the nature of the state - this applies to all the three states. Again - If one has realized that he is the total consciousness - he remains as such in all the three states. The states does not matter. What I said further is the nature of the deep sleep state - One cannot describe that state of experience from the point of the waker in absolute terms other than absence of the mind and intellect. I call this inderminate problem too - if you recall our discussion in the past - Is there a world in the deep sleep state. I consider this is also a part of the indeterminate problem like Schrodinger's cat problem in Physics. > > > >> But if we examine closely, 'ego' or ahankaara is the notion in the >> mind - it is part of the antahkaraNa - mind, intellect, ego and >> chitta are based on the texture of the thoughts are part of thoughts. >> > >No. It cannot be. Mind is the notion in the ego. This is *my* >mind, etc. You are right and I am not wrong either! I bundled mind, intellect, ahankaara and chitta as part of the antaHkaraNa - The mind consists of thoughts - samshhaatmikam part is callled manas - nishchaatmikam part is intellect - ahankara part is ego and memory part is chitta - all are thoughts and are folded in the deep sleep state. Mind can be thought of 'idam vR^itti' - this thoughts and aham vR^itti - 'I and mine thoughts' - You are right if one calls the mind only the particular thoughts that consists of samshaatmikam part. I am also right if I am taking mind as whole anthakaraN or suuksham shariira. Truce! > > >I question the concept that ego has the ignorance. It is the >other way round. Ignorance makes the ego. This is precisely the problem in adviata - who has the ignorance - chicken -ego situation. It is not the problem with adviata because the whole jiiva- jagat concept with creation itself is not real and we are explaining that which is not there- egg is the seed for the chicken and chicken is seed for the ego - which makes what - Shree Ramanuja makes a big issue of this in his Shree bhaashya - what is the locus of avidya - jiiva or Brahman. Let us see what Shree Atmachitanyaji going to say- since he also disagreed with my anirvachaniiya aspect. Remember my discussions with Shree Nandaji - whether world exists if mind is not there! - Mathematically it is an indeterminate problem and Hence I call it anirvachaniiyam although the original scope of anirvachaniiyam as presented by Shankara is more limited. > >You cannot separate the various functions of antahkaraNa as >done above. It is tantamount to the hand saying that I did not eat which is the function of the stomach and so on. Yes -according to Krishna - all actions are done by prakR^iti. Antahkarana are separated into four parts by Shankara, not by me, if you can refer to tatvabodha, for example. >It is the jIvA that has the antahkaraNa and it is the jIvA >that sleeps. Again antahkarana includes ahankaara - the ego. Jiiva is a notion in the mind that comes by identification of the consciouness with the upaadhii-s. There is no jiiva notion in the deep sleep. We (wakers) formally can say that the sleeper is consciouness identifying with kaaraNa shariira - and that constitutes jiiva - but that statement is by waker not by deep sleeper! The same problem comes in answering - who realizes? my simple answer is one who is asking the question - but if one goes deeper the problem of realization itself is invalid since there is nothing to realize. > It is the function of the mind to say that I >have slept well and the I there refers to the jIvA. After all, >the four functions of antahkaraNa, the five sense organs and >other parts constitute the jIvA, the ignorant entity that is >what we are referring to and it is the jIvA that is going >through wake-up, dream and deep-sleep states. I think it is >wrong, in my view, to claim that because ego is not there >during deep-sleep, ignorance is not there during deep-sleep. My statement is not that - it is an indeterminate problem. A jaani also appears to sleep and ajnaania also sleeps - how can you tell that one has avidya and another has not. I maintain that states belong to prak^iti and having ignorance or not having ignorance - is whether one has realized that one is consciouness and not the prak^iti or not. That is all matters. Hence j^aanai 'sleeps' if I can use that word and also aj~naani also sleeps. In that sleep - as annamaacharya says - nidra okkaTe - My heart pumps and j~naani's heart also pumps - just as that. That is what it means by "prak^iti eva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashhaH' implies - all actions are done by prak^iti including the eating part you mentioned! > > >> Now let us ask the next question - who has the ignorance in deep >> sleep - I the consciousness is ever efflugent and can not have >> ignorance at any time. Ego that has the ignorance is not there in >> deep sleep state - Hence if one deeply analyzes the problem - it >> becomes an illegitmate problem - and any answer will be illegitmate >> one only. >> > >May I point out another fallacy in the above argument. >Just before the jIvA goes to sleep, there is avidyA, which >individualizes that jIvA. avidyA can only be removed by jnAna. >What sort of shravaNa, manana, nidhidhyAsana has the jIvA done >*while asleep* for this avidyA to vanish during deep-sleep ? Murthy gaaru - I am being misunderstood - please read my text again. J~naani remains as j~naani in all the three states and aj~naani remains as aj~naani in all the three states. My statement was one has to be very careful in the analysis of deep-sleep since there is an absence of mind in that state and any claims to the contradictory are statements of a waker. I prefer to take the shelter in the anirvachaniiyam or inderminateness of the problem. >shri shankara has referred in many places that avidyA is in >seed-form during deep sleep and I cannot see how that statement >can be contradicted. Further, shri Sadananda garu, you yourself >have argued earlier (I can dig them out in the archives) that >avidyA is in seed-form during deep-sleep and your present >statement completely contradicts that. Even now I am not contradicting that. Seed form for creation, yes - for j~naani as well as aj~naani - when j~naani manifests he knows that he is in all - while when aj~naani manifests he falls in to the notion that he is only a particular body mind and intellect - with limitations. That is all the difference. My ignorance or avidya is self-consistent! Hari Om! Sadananda > >I would await your comments. > > >> [...] > >> >> HariOm! >> Sadanadna >> > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >-- > > > > Sponsor > ><http://rd./M=217097.1902236.3397169.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\ HM/A=960173/R=0/*http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=29150849&siteid=3924\ 9818&bfpage=money4> > > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of >nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: ><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\ in/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: ><advaitin/messages>\ advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to the ><> -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2002 Report Share Posted February 28, 2002 > > >The problem has been rightly pointed out. > >I believe, the main flaw in the original argument is caused because >EGO is equated to Jiva. I believe the conscious entity 'Jivatma' or >the ('Pure Self' + Upadhi) is the Jiva. EGO is just a function of >MIND or Prakriti or Ignorance. It is just a vritti which is a notion. >If EGO were 'Jiva' there is no possibility of eradication or >annihilation of EGO which is essential for Realisation. > >Om Namo Narayanaya !! > >Srikrishna > Jai Shikrishna - you are right - please see my response to Murthygaaru. Identification with antaHkaraNa is the jiiva notion - you are right about that- when antaHkaraNa is folded then what happens - that is the question that is being address if I understand correctly. One can say that consciousness identifies with kaaraNa shariira - true - but that is the conclusion of the waker! Is there a kaaraNa shariira for a j~naani? Does he sleep or not - but from whose reference. Hence I was cautioning if you examine my notes that one has to be very careful in understanding the deep sleep state. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2002 Report Share Posted February 28, 2002 Dear Kathiji, Even though your questions here are adressed specifically to Atmachaitanyaji, maybe I might say a few words according to my understanding about the existence alternatively non-existence of ignorance (avidyA) in deep-sleep. As you pointed out and showed in you posting, there are some passages in the writings of Shankara where he talks about the presence of ignorance in deep-sleep. For instance, you refered to the following passage: "The Upanishad also shows that this waking from sleep is possible because of the EXISTENCE OF IGNORANCE IN A SEED FORM..." Brahma Sutra Bhashya (2.3.3) So, indeed Shankara actually says that ignorance exists in deep-sleep. However, the question is: What does he really mean by ignorance in this context? For a start, Shankara makes a important distinction between avidyA in vishwa (waking state) and taijasa (dream state) on one hand, and prAjna (deep-sleep) on the other. According to his Bhashya on Mandukya Karika (1-11) the waking state and the dream state are both conditioned with bIja (seed, cause) and phala (fruit, effect). But deep-sleep is conditioned by bIja only. So, what does this mean? Well, the absence of effect-ignorance explains why we don´t experience any kind of duality, time, space or plurality in deep-sleep, as we do in the waking and the dream states. The effect-ignorance is anyathAgrahaNa (misapprehension of reality). It makes us misapprehend reality in a way that makes us think we live in a world of plurality, matter, space, time etc., in other words the phenomenal world. But this effect-ignorance is totally abscent in deep-sleep. In deep-sleep the only form of ignorance is seed-ignorance (as stated in the BSB quote above). Seed-ignorance is of the type tattwAgrahaNa (non-grasping, non-comprehension of reality). The existence of seed-ignorance (as explained by Gaudapada and Shankara) in deep-sleep is fully accepted by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati. For instance, in his book "The Pristine Pure Advaita Philosphy of Adi Shankara" there is actually a chapter called "Which is that avidyA which Shri Shankara has accepted to exist in sushupti?" (pages 78-87). According to Satchidanandendra Swamiji this seed-ignorance is absense of knowledge only: Seed-ignorance should not be understood as an positive existing entity or as a material cause, as done by the proponents of mUlAvidyA (root-ignorance) among the post-Shankarites. Regarding the views on seed-ignorance in deep-sleep, this is what differs Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati from the very major part of the post-Shankara advaitins. Swami Satchidanandendra do not deny the existence of ignorance in deep-sleep per se. On the contrary, in accordance with Shankara he explains there is seed-ignorance. But he refutes the view according to which this seed-ignorance is a positive existing entity. And according to Swami Satchidanandendra, the post-shankarites deviates from Adi Shankara by propagating this view. This is - I assume - the point made by Atmachaitanyaji in his postings. Swami Satchidanandendra´s arguments apparently sometimes gives rise to misunderstandings. For instance, his claims that there´s no positive existing avidyA in deep-sleep apparently leads PhD Michael Comans (in the book "The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta p.263) to the conclusion that Swami Satchidanandendra somehow equates deep-sleep with turIya! This is of course not the case. However, in spite of this, Comans book is very readable, and gives a good overview on the teachings of Gaudapada, Shankara, Sureshvara and Padmapada. Swami Satchidanandendra´s teachings are discussed on pages 246-267. I disagree with him on some points here, but I nevertheless warmly recommend his book to anyone interested in the history of Advaita Vedanta. Very best wishes Stig Lundgren - "K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir <advaitin> Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:12 PM Avidya > Namaste, > > This post of mine is to quote references from the Shruti, Brahmasutra > Bhashya of Shankara and the Upadeshasahasri, to show namely 1) that avidya > is present in deep sleep & 2) that after the attainment of knowledge, > ignorance still remains. This post is in response to Atmachaitanyaji's > contention that 1) avidya is not present in deep sleep and 2) that after the > dawn of knowledge Avidya can no longer exist. > > 1. Presence of Avidya in sleep > > Atmachaitanyaji maintains that there is no avidya in deep sleep and > according to his statements, Shankara maintains the same position with > regards to this point. However, Shankara has mentioned in his commentary on > 2 verses of the Brahma Sutras and in the Upadeshasahasri that there is > avidya in sleep. You will also find a verse from the Chandogya Upanishad to > support this position. Here are the references: > > 'As in natural slumber and Samadhi, though there is a natural eradication of > differences, still owing to the PERSISTENCE OF UNREAL NESCIENCE, differences > occur over again when one wakes up, similarly it can also happen here. > Bearing on this is the Upanishadic text, "All these beings, when they become > one with Existence (during sleep), DO NOT KNOW, 'We have become one with > Existence'(Chandogya Up. 6.9.3)............As during the state of the > continuance of the world, it is seen that like dream, there are empirical > differentiations under the influence of UNREAL IGNORANCE, despite the > existence of the supreme Self as an undifferentiated entity.......' Brahma > Sutra Bhashya 2.1.9 > > 'The Upanishad also shows that this waking from sleep is possible because of > the EXISTENCE OF IGNORANCE IN A SEED FORM.......' Brahma Sutra Bhashya > 2.3.31 > > Again Shankara makes his position clear that Ignorance is in seed form in > sleep in his commentary on verse 3.2.9 (I am not quoting as it is too long) > > 'What is called DEEP SLEEP, darkness or IGNORANCE is the SEED of the waking > and dream states' Upadeshasahasri 17.26 > > > 2. After the attainment of knowledge, ignorance still remains > > Shankara mentions this point in his commentary on verse 4.1.15: 'As for the > Knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any act, that destroys the > results of works by first sublating false ignorance. This false ignorance, > EVEN WHEN SUBLATED, CONTINUES FOR A WHILE owing to past > tendencies..........' > > * Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya, translation by Swami Gambhirananda > ** Upadeshasahasri, translation by Swami Jagadananda ------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Buy Stock for $4. > No Minimums. > FREE Money 2002. > http://us.click./BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM > ------------------------------ ------~-> > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2002 Report Share Posted February 28, 2002 Namaste Stigji Thanks for joining in the discussion. Nice to know that you have joined the list too. 1. If 'seed-ignorance' is nothing but the 'absence of knowledge', how would you reconcile this statement from shankara: 'As for the Knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any act, that destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance. This false ignorance, EVEN WHEN SUBLATED, CONTINUES FOR A WHILE owing to past tendencies..........' BrSutra Bhashya 4.1.15 Here it is explicitly stated that IGNORANCE CONTINUES. How can ignorance continue after the dawn of knowledge if ignorance is taken as the 'absence of knowledge'. Here Shankara's statement implies the EXISTENCE of ignorance not as 'absence of knowledge' but as a positive existent entity. Shankara also contends that anything Non-existent cannot give rise to existence. So how can we account for the 'absence of knowledge' or ignorance to be the cause of Samsara. 2. If the state of deep sleep is 'absence of ignorance', what is the difference between karana sharira and turiya? If there is no positive existent entity in deep sleep, that would equate it to turiya. But that is not the case as we do negate the karana sharira as well in the neti neti process. Stigji, please do respond to the 2 points mentioned above. Thank you. Shanti, Kathi > > Stig Lundgren [sMTP:slu] > Friday, March 01, 2002 10:05 AM > advaitin > Re: Avidya > > Dear Kathiji, > > Even though your questions here are adressed specifically to > Atmachaitanyaji, maybe I might say a few words according to my > understanding about the existence alternatively non-existence of > ignorance (avidyA) in deep-sleep. As you pointed out and showed > in you posting, there are some passages in the writings of > Shankara where he talks about the presence of ignorance in > deep-sleep. For instance, you refered to the following passage: > > "The Upanishad also shows that this waking from sleep is possible > because of the EXISTENCE OF IGNORANCE IN A SEED FORM..." Brahma > Sutra Bhashya (2.3.3) > > So, indeed Shankara actually says that ignorance exists in > deep-sleep. However, the question is: What does he really mean by > ignorance in this context? For a start, Shankara makes a > important distinction between avidyA in vishwa (waking state) and > taijasa (dream state) on one hand, and prAjna (deep-sleep) on the > other. According to his Bhashya on Mandukya Karika (1-11) the > waking state and the dream state are both conditioned with bIja > (seed, cause) and phala (fruit, effect). But deep-sleep is > conditioned by bIja only. So, what does this mean? Well, the > absence of effect-ignorance explains why we don´t experience any > kind of duality, time, space or plurality in deep-sleep, as we do > in the waking and the dream states. The effect-ignorance is > anyathAgrahaNa (misapprehension of reality). It makes us > misapprehend reality in a way that makes us think we live in a > world of plurality, matter, space, time etc., in other words the > phenomenal world. But this effect-ignorance is totally abscent in > deep-sleep. In deep-sleep the only form of ignorance is > seed-ignorance (as stated in the BSB quote above). Seed-ignorance > is of the type tattwAgrahaNa (non-grasping, non-comprehension of > reality). > The existence of seed-ignorance (as explained by Gaudapada and > Shankara) in deep-sleep is fully accepted by Swami > Satchidanandendra Saraswati. For instance, in his book "The > Pristine Pure Advaita Philosphy of Adi Shankara" there is > actually a chapter called "Which is that avidyA which Shri > Shankara has accepted to exist in sushupti?" (pages 78-87). > According to Satchidanandendra Swamiji this seed-ignorance is > absense of knowledge only: Seed-ignorance should not be > understood as an positive existing entity or as a material cause, > as done by the proponents of mUlAvidyA (root-ignorance) among the > post-Shankarites. Regarding the views on seed-ignorance in > deep-sleep, this is what differs Swami Satchidanandendra > Saraswati from the very major part of the post-Shankara > advaitins. Swami Satchidanandendra do not deny the existence of > ignorance in deep-sleep per se. On the contrary, in accordance > with Shankara he explains there is seed-ignorance. But he refutes > the view according to which this seed-ignorance is a positive > existing entity. And according to Swami Satchidanandendra, the > post-shankarites deviates from Adi Shankara by propagating this > view. This is - I assume - the point made by Atmachaitanyaji in > his postings. > Swami Satchidanandendra´s arguments apparently sometimes gives > rise to misunderstandings. For instance, his claims that there´s > no positive existing avidyA in deep-sleep apparently leads PhD > Michael Comans (in the book "The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta > p.263) to the conclusion that Swami Satchidanandendra somehow > equates deep-sleep with turIya! This is of course not the case. > However, in spite of this, Comans book is very readable, and > gives a good overview on the teachings of Gaudapada, Shankara, > Sureshvara and Padmapada. Swami Satchidanandendra´s teachings are > discussed on pages 246-267. I disagree with him on some points > here, but I nevertheless warmly recommend his book to anyone > interested in the history of Advaita Vedanta. > > Very best wishes > Stig Lundgren > > > > > > - > "K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir > <advaitin> > Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:12 PM > Avidya > > > > Namaste, > > > > This post of mine is to quote references from the Shruti, > Brahmasutra > > Bhashya of Shankara and the Upadeshasahasri, to show namely 1) > that avidya > > is present in deep sleep & 2) that after the attainment of > knowledge, > > ignorance still remains. This post is in response to > Atmachaitanyaji's > > contention that 1) avidya is not present in deep sleep and 2) > that after the > > dawn of knowledge Avidya can no longer exist. > > > > 1. Presence of Avidya in sleep > > > > Atmachaitanyaji maintains that there is no avidya in deep sleep > and > > according to his statements, Shankara maintains the same > position with > > regards to this point. However, Shankara has mentioned in his > commentary on > > 2 verses of the Brahma Sutras and in the Upadeshasahasri that > there is > > avidya in sleep. You will also find a verse from the Chandogya > Upanishad to > > support this position. Here are the references: > > > > 'As in natural slumber and Samadhi, though there is a natural > eradication of > > differences, still owing to the PERSISTENCE OF UNREAL > NESCIENCE, differences > > occur over again when one wakes up, similarly it can also > happen here. > > Bearing on this is the Upanishadic text, "All these beings, > when they become > > one with Existence (during sleep), DO NOT KNOW, 'We have become > one with > > Existence'(Chandogya Up. 6.9.3)............As during the state > of the > > continuance of the world, it is seen that like dream, there are > empirical > > differentiations under the influence of UNREAL IGNORANCE, > despite the > > existence of the supreme Self as an undifferentiated > entity.......' Brahma > > Sutra Bhashya 2.1.9 > > > > 'The Upanishad also shows that this waking from sleep is > possible because of > > the EXISTENCE OF IGNORANCE IN A SEED FORM.......' Brahma Sutra > Bhashya > > 2.3.31 > > > > Again Shankara makes his position clear that Ignorance is in > seed form in > > sleep in his commentary on verse 3.2.9 (I am not quoting as it > is too long) > > > > 'What is called DEEP SLEEP, darkness or IGNORANCE is the SEED > of the waking > > and dream states' Upadeshasahasri 17.26 > > > > > > 2. After the attainment of knowledge, ignorance still remains > > > > Shankara mentions this point in his commentary on verse 4.1.15: > 'As for the > > Knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any act, that > destroys the > > results of works by first sublating false ignorance. This false > ignorance, > > EVEN WHEN SUBLATED, CONTINUES FOR A WHILE owing to past > > tendencies..........' > > > > * Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya, translation by Swami > Gambhirananda > > ** Upadeshasahasri, translation by Swami Jagadananda > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ > Sponsor ---------------------~--> > > Buy Stock for $4. > > No Minimums. > > FREE Money 2002. > > http://us.click./BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM > > ------------------------------ > ------~-> > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of > nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > > Messages Archived at: > advaitin/messages > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote: > Namaste Stigji > > Thanks for joining in the discussion. Nice to know that you have joined the > list too. > > 1. If 'seed-ignorance' is nothing but the 'absence of knowledge', how would > you reconcile this statement from shankara: > > 'As for the Knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any act, that > destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance. This false > ignorance, EVEN WHEN SUBLATED, CONTINUES FOR A WHILE owing to past > tendencies..........' BrSutra Bhashya 4.1.15 > > Here it is explicitly stated that IGNORANCE CONTINUES. How can ignorance > continue after the dawn of knowledge if ignorance is taken as the 'absence > of knowledge'. Here Shankara's statement implies the EXISTENCE of ignorance > not as 'absence of knowledge' but as a positive existent entity. Shankara > also contends that anything Non-existent cannot give rise to existence. So > how can we account for the 'absence of knowledge' or ignorance to be the > cause of Samsara. Namaste, Avidya is to the Jiva as Maya is to the Universal, both non existant ultimately. When the sun shines where is the darkness, is there a little left-----No......ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 Dear Kathiji, Sorry for my late reply, which has been delayed due to illness. I´m feeling a little bit better now, so I will try to answer your questions. On March 1, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. If 'seed-ignorance' is nothing but the 'absence of knowledge', how would you reconcile this statement from shankara: 'As for the Knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any act, that destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance. This false ignorance, EVEN WHEN SUBLATED, CONTINUES FOR A WHILE owing to past tendencies..........' BrSutra Bhashya 4.1.15 Here it is explicitly stated that IGNORANCE CONTINUES. How can ignorance continue after the dawn of knowledge if ignorance is taken as the 'absence of knowledge'. Here Shankara's statement implies the EXISTENCE of ignorance not as 'absence of knowledge' but as a positive existent entity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Sutra Bhashya 4.1.15. is about what happens to the past virtues and vices after the rise of knowledge of Brahman. According to Shankara, those past virtues and vices are destroyed who have not yet begun to bear fruit when knowledge dawns "but not so are those destroyed whose results have already been partially enjoyed and by which has been begun this present life in which the knowledge of Brahman arises." But does this mean that even the person who has gained knowledge of Atman is still ignorant, and that he (or she) has to wait for death and the demise of the body before getting finally liberated from avidyA? Well, some post-Shankara Vedantins argue that liberation in life (jiivanmukti) is of secondary importance since the liberated person still has a body, due to remnants of avidyA. True mukti, they argue, is possible first after death and liberation without the body (videhamukti). But as a matter of fact, Shankara himself refutates this kind of view: "Perhaps you will say that disembodiment can only occur when the body falls at death, and not in the case of a living person. But this is not correct. For the notion that one has a body at all is prompted simply by wrong knowledge. One cannot suppose that the Self possesses a body except through erroneus knowledge, taking the form of identifying the Self with the body. For we have already explained how the bodilessness of the Self is eternal as it is not the result of any act." (SBh.1.1.4.) However, the one who realizes the knowledge of the absolute is not subject to avidyA, since avidyA exists only from the empirical (vyavahArika) standpoint. To someone who has realized knowledge of Atman, there is of no importance whatsoever if he (or she) still has a body from the empirical point of view. The one who has the metaphysical knowledge of the absolute is not affected by his body or the empirical world, since he knows that the body and the empirical world is really not existing at all. But why then is the enlightened person still aware of his body? As far as I understand, this has to do with what Shankara says in 4.1.15., namely results from earlier lives (or from the present life before the rise of knowledge) which has already begun to bear fruit in this present life. But the important point is that the enlightened person is in no way affected by his bodily life. Of course, he might get ill or bodily hurt like any other person. But he knows (not just theoretically, but really KNOWS) that this does not affect his true nature (Atman/Brahman) at all. The body is of no importance to him. He knows that from the standpoint of the absolute (pAramArtika) there is no death, birth, time, space, waking, dream, deep-sleep, illness, plurality or whatever. By the way, consider the following: If the jivanmukta still remained ignorant to some degree then he would not been able to teach us about the absolute reality since he didn´t knew it himself! In other words, we would never have the opportunity to know the truth even from the greatest of gurus. So when Shankara says in the quote above that false ignorance (or rather "wrong knowledge" [mithyAjnAna]) continues for a while due to past tendencies, he simply means that the body continues to exist due to impressions, experiences etc. in earlier lives. It could be compared to what happens when a potter rotates the wheel. When the potter stops the wheel, it continues to rotate for a while - in spite of being stopped - due to its own momentum. (SBh. 4.1.15.) Or when you see a snake in front of you laying on the ground: Suddenly you realise it is actually a rope, not a snake. But your heart continues to beat faster for a while, even though you are 100% perfectly sure it is a rope. In other words: The body does not continue to exist due to lack of knowledge of the Self. There´s no positive existing avidyA still remaining. There´s no root-ignorance that still has to be extinguished. There are no misconceptions or wrong identifications still to be dealt with. Shankaras´ disciple Sureshvara says in his Vartika: "Only a fool would claim that ignorance and knowledge could inhere in the same seat [the same individual conciousness], and that ignorance of a thing could remain on, uncancelled, after the thing had been rightly known" (Br.Bh.V.2.4.209.). And Shankara himself says the following in his Bhashya on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: "As for the assertion that cognitions contradictory to knowledge of the Self, and the effects of such cognitions, are observable in the case of the man who has realized the Self - we deny that this is true. For it is (not ignorance of the Self but) the unexpended portion of the past deeds that have already begun to fructify that keeps (the body and the mind of the man who has realized the Self) in being." (Br.Bh.1.4.10) At the dawn of jnAna, the seeker gets the conviction that avidyA never existed at all. The knower of Brahman does not wrongly indentify himself with the body. The Brihandaranyaka Upanishad says: "Just as the slough of a snake worn out and cast off, lies in an anthill, so does this body lie here, and AS FOR HIMSELF, he is verily bodiless, immortal, Life, Brahman indeed, Light itself." (Br.4.4.7.) Shankara´s commentary to this is as follows: "Now this other, the knowing one who is compared in the Shruti to the snake, has become free, identical with all. Like the snake in the illustration, he is verily bodiless. Although he continues to be there, he is no more an embodied being as before [...] he was embodied and mortal before this because of his pre-conceived identity with the body owing to desire and action. Now that he is free from either, he is bodiless, and hence immortal." (Br.Bh.4.4.7.). Kathiji also wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shankara also contends that anything Non-existent cannot give rise to existence. So how can we account for the 'absence of knowledge' or ignorance to be the cause of Samsara. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because absence of knowledge (avidyA) is not knowledge. And knowledge of the Self is the only way out of Samsara, while absence of knowledge keeps us in Samsara. There is no reason to postulate any positive existing root-ignorance (mUlAvidyA) in order to explain this. It is of course perfectly true that absence of knowledge cannot give rise to existence, since existence is Brahman itself. But absence of knowledge is capable of giving rise to Samsara because Samsara is not anything truly existing. In other words: Shankaras´ expression that anything non-existent cannot give rise to existence is not a proof for the existence of positive ignorance. While dealing with ignorance and Samsara, there is no existence to be explained: Both ignorance and Samsara are as a matter of fact illusory. Samsara is not truly existing or real in the same sense as Brahman. In fact, Samsara is not existing at all from the standpoint of the absolute (paramArtikha). So there is no absolute real relation of cause and effect at all between ignorance and the world of transmigration. No ignorance, nor any transmigration, exists from the standpoint of the absolute. The absolute (Brahman) is the only real and truly existing entity. And Brahman is the "substratum" upon which we superimpose the world of plurality and Samsara. Brahman is the existing "entity" that - from the empirical (vyAvahArika) standpoint - gives rise to the (from the absolute standpoint non-existing) world of plurality and Samsara. And there is nothing non-existent that is the cause for the existing Brahman. Kathiji also wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. If the state of deep sleep is 'absence of ignorance', what is the difference between karana sharira and turiya? If there is no positive existent entity in deep sleep, that would equate it to turiya. But that is not the case as we do negate the karana sharira as well in the neti neti process. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no total absence of ignorance in deep-sleep. There is seed-ignorance (biija), which means non-grasping or non-comprehension (tattwAgrahaNa). But this seed-ignorance should not be understood as a positive existing entity. It is absence of knowledge only. And absence of knowledge is not knowledge. If you have a dark room, the room is dark due to absence of light. The dark is not a positive existing entity, but the light is. To illustrate this: If you have a room where the light is shining, you can never make the room dark by letting darkness into the room. The room will still be bright even if you open the windows when there is night and darkness outside. On the other hand, if you have a dark room you could easily make the room bright just by simply lightning the lamp. However, just because darkness is mere absence of light, it doesn´t follow that everything in the world is light. Darkness is still possible of course, and you can experience darkness in any places where there is no light. My point is: There is no need in postulating ignorance as a positive existing entity in order to explain the fact that there is ignorance. Ignorance (the dark room) exists as absence of knowledge until the moment when knowledge (light) rise. And since no-one would equate a dark room to a room where the light is shining, there is no reason why we should equate turiiya to deep-sleep just because there is no ignorance in the form of a positive existing entity in deep-sleep. Regarding the concept of kArana shariira (causal body), it is mentioned - at least as far as I have learnt - only once in the writings actually authored by Adi Shankara. In his bhashya on Isa Upanishad 8, Shankara says while describing atman: "Shuddham, taintless, devoid of the dirt of ignorance; thereby is negated a causal body [kArana shariira]." While commenting upon the same Isa Upanishad verse in his Upadesha Sahasri (metrical part 15.10), Shankara does not mention any causal body at all. In spite of this, the concept of causal body became a part of the doctrine propagated by later advaitins. Dr A. J. Alston says the following: "Samkara [shankara] adhered to the Upanishadic teaching that the soul attained to pure Being in dreamless sleep [...] He does not refer to the doctrine of some of his later followers that in dreamless sleep the soul enters a "causal body". (A. J. Alston, Samkara on The Creation p.93 n.) [Alstons book forms the second volume of his "A Samkara Source-Book", vols. I-VI] Very best wishes Stig Lundgren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 What a lucid presentation, Stigji !. I particularly like and appreciate the following points of emphasis that you rightly made. And you brought in the exact points of argument to clarify Kathirji's questions. I am listing the points below, so that you may let me know whether I got the gist alright. Though this is a repetition only of your post, I feel that for the advaita point of view to go home, these deserve to be listed as a capsule for the majority of learners of advaita. 1. " ....For the notion that one has a body at all is prompted simply by wrong knowledge. One cannot suppose that the Self possesses a body except through erroneus knowledge, taking the form of identifying the Self with the body. For we have already explained how the bodilessness of the Self is eternal as it is not the result of any act." (SBh.1.1.4.) 2. To someone who has realized knowledge of Atman, it is of no importance whatsoever if he (or she) still has a body from the empirical point of view. 3. But why then is the enlightened person still aware of his body? As far as I understand, this has to do with what Shankara says in (4.1.15), namely results from earlier lives (or from the present life before the rise of knowledge) which has already begun to bear fruit in this present life. 4. But the important point is that the enlightened person is in no way affected by his bodily life. Of course, he might get ill or bodily hurt like any other person. But he knows (not just theoretically, but really KNOWS) that this does not affect his true nature (Atman/Brahman) at all. The body is of no importance to him. 5. So when Shankara says in the quote above that false ignorance (or rather "wrong knowledge" [mithyAjnAna]) continues for a while due to past tendencies, he simply means that the body continues to exist due to impressions, experiences etc. in earlier lives. It could be compared to what happens when a potter rotates the wheel. When the potter stops the wheel, it continues to rotate for a while - in spite of being stopped - due to its own momentum. (SBh. 4.1.15.) 6. The body does not continue to exist due to lack of knowledge of the Self. There´s no positive existing avidyA still remaining. There´s no root-ignorance that still has to be extinguished. There are no misconceptions or wrong identifications still to be dealt with. 7. And Shankara himself says the following in his Bhashya on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: "As for the assertion that cognitions contradictory to knowledge of the Self, and the effects of such cognitions, are observable in the case of the man who has realized the Self - we deny that this is true. For it is (not ignorance of the Self but) the unexpended portion of the past deeds that have already begun to fructify that keeps (the body and the mind of the man who has realized the Self) in being." (Br.Bh.1.4.10) 8. At the dawn of jnAna, the seeker gets the conviction that avidyA never existed at all. The knower of Brahman does not wrongly identify himself with the body. 9. Although he continues to be there, he is no more an embodied being as before he was embodied and mortal before this because of his pre-conceived identity with the body owing to desire and action. Now that he is free from either, he is bodiless, and hence immortal." (Br.Bh.4.4.7.). You can access my 'Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice' from my Science and Spirituality Website: www.geocities.com/profvk _______ Get your free @ address at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 Namaste Stigji, Hope you are feeling better now. Thanks for the reply with clarifications. Wishing you a speedy recovery. Regards. OM > > Stig Lundgren [sMTP:slu] > Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:05 AM > advaitin > Re: Avidya > > Dear Kathiji, > > Sorry for my late reply, which has been delayed due to illness. > I´m feeling a little bit better now, so I will try to answer your > questions. On March 1, you wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 1. If 'seed-ignorance' is nothing but the 'absence of knowledge', > how would > you reconcile this statement from shankara: > > 'As for the Knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any > act, that > destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance. > This false > ignorance, EVEN WHEN SUBLATED, CONTINUES FOR A WHILE owing to > past > tendencies..........' BrSutra Bhashya 4.1.15 > > Here it is explicitly stated that IGNORANCE CONTINUES. How can > ignorance > continue after the dawn of knowledge if ignorance is taken as the > 'absence > of knowledge'. Here Shankara's statement implies the EXISTENCE of > ignorance > not as 'absence of knowledge' but as a positive existent entity. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > The Sutra Bhashya 4.1.15. is about what happens to the > past virtues and vices after the rise of knowledge of Brahman. > According to Shankara, those past virtues and vices are destroyed > who have not yet begun to bear fruit when knowledge dawns "but > not so are those destroyed whose results have already been > partially enjoyed and by which has been begun this present life > in which the knowledge of Brahman arises." > But does this mean that even the person who has gained > knowledge of Atman is still ignorant, and that he (or she) has to > wait for death and the demise of the body before getting finally > liberated from avidyA? Well, some post-Shankara Vedantins argue > that liberation in life (jiivanmukti) is of secondary importance > since the liberated person still has a body, due to remnants of > avidyA. True mukti, they argue, is possible first after death and > liberation without the body (videhamukti). But as a matter of > fact, Shankara himself refutates this kind of view: "Perhaps you > will say that disembodiment can only occur when the body falls at > death, and not in the case of a living person. But this is not > correct. For the notion that one has a body at all is prompted > simply by wrong knowledge. One cannot suppose that the Self > possesses a body except through erroneus knowledge, taking the > form of identifying the Self with the body. For we have already > explained how the bodilessness of the Self is eternal as it is > not the result of any act." (SBh.1.1.4.) > However, the one who realizes the knowledge of the absolute is > not subject to avidyA, since avidyA exists only from the > empirical (vyavahArika) standpoint. To someone who has realized > knowledge of Atman, there is of no importance whatsoever if he > (or she) still has a body from the empirical point of view. The > one who has the metaphysical knowledge of the absolute is not > affected by his body or the empirical world, since he knows that > the body and the empirical world is really not existing at all. > But why then is the enlightened person still aware of his body? > As far as I understand, this has to do with what Shankara says in > 4.1.15., namely results from earlier lives (or from the present > life before the rise of knowledge) which has already begun to > bear fruit in this present life. But the important point is that > the enlightened person is in no way affected by his bodily life. > Of course, he might get ill or bodily hurt like any other person. > But he knows (not just theoretically, but really KNOWS) that this > does not affect his true nature (Atman/Brahman) at all. The body > is of no importance to him. He knows that from the standpoint of > the absolute (pAramArtika) there is no death, birth, time, space, > waking, > dream, deep-sleep, illness, plurality or whatever. By the way, > consider the following: If the jivanmukta still remained ignorant > to some degree then he would not been able to teach us about the > absolute reality since he didn´t knew it himself! In other words, > we would never have the opportunity to know the truth even from > the greatest of gurus. > So when Shankara says in the quote above that false ignorance > (or rather "wrong knowledge" [mithyAjnAna]) continues for a while > due to past tendencies, he simply means that the body continues > to exist due to impressions, experiences etc. in earlier lives. > It could be compared to what happens when a potter rotates the > wheel. When the potter stops the wheel, it continues to rotate > for a while - in spite of being stopped - due to its own > momentum. (SBh. 4.1.15.) Or when you see a snake in front of you > laying on the ground: Suddenly you realise it is actually a rope, > not a snake. But your heart continues to beat faster for a while, > even though you are 100% perfectly sure it is a rope. In other > words: The body does not continue to exist due to lack of > knowledge of the Self. There´s no positive existing avidyA still > remaining. There´s no root-ignorance that still has to be > extinguished. There are no misconceptions or wrong > identifications still to be dealt with. Shankaras´ disciple > Sureshvara says in his Vartika: "Only a fool would claim that > ignorance and knowledge could inhere in the same seat [the same > individual conciousness], and that ignorance of a thing could > remain on, uncancelled, after the thing had been rightly known" > (Br.Bh.V.2.4.209.). And Shankara himself says the following in > his Bhashya on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: "As for the assertion > that cognitions contradictory to knowledge of the Self, and the > effects of such cognitions, are observable in the case of the man > who has realized the Self - we deny that this is true. For it is > (not ignorance of the Self but) the unexpended portion of the > past deeds that have already begun to fructify that keeps (the > body and the mind of the man who has realized the Self) in > being." (Br.Bh.1.4.10) > At the dawn of jnAna, the seeker gets the conviction that > avidyA never existed at all. The knower of Brahman does not > wrongly indentify himself with the body. The Brihandaranyaka > Upanishad says: "Just as the slough of a snake worn out and cast > off, lies in an anthill, so does this body lie here, and AS FOR > HIMSELF, he is verily bodiless, immortal, Life, Brahman indeed, > Light itself." (Br.4.4.7.) Shankara´s commentary to this is as > follows: "Now this other, the knowing one who is compared in the > Shruti to the snake, has become free, identical with all. Like > the snake in the illustration, he is verily bodiless. Although he > continues to be there, he is no more an embodied being as before > [...] he was embodied and mortal before this because of his > pre-conceived identity with the body owing to desire and action. > Now that he is free from either, he is bodiless, and hence > immortal." (Br.Bh.4.4.7.). > > > > Kathiji also wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Shankara > also contends that anything Non-existent cannot give rise to > existence. So > how can we account for the 'absence of knowledge' or ignorance to > be the > cause of Samsara. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Because absence of knowledge (avidyA) is not knowledge. And > knowledge of the Self is the only way out of Samsara, while > absence of knowledge keeps us in Samsara. > There is no reason to postulate any positive existing > root-ignorance (mUlAvidyA) in order to explain this. It is of > course perfectly true that absence of knowledge cannot give rise > to existence, since existence is Brahman itself. But absence of > knowledge is capable of giving rise to Samsara because Samsara is > not anything truly existing. In other words: Shankaras´ > expression that anything non-existent cannot give rise to > existence is not a proof for the existence of positive ignorance. > While dealing with ignorance and Samsara, there is no existence > to be explained: Both ignorance and Samsara are as a matter of > fact illusory. > Samsara is not truly existing or real in the same sense as > Brahman. In fact, Samsara is not existing at all from the > standpoint of the absolute (paramArtikha). So there is no > absolute real relation of cause and effect at all between > ignorance and the world of transmigration. No ignorance, nor any > transmigration, exists from the standpoint of the absolute. The > absolute (Brahman) is the only real and truly existing entity. > And Brahman is the "substratum" upon which we superimpose the > world of plurality and Samsara. Brahman is the existing "entity" > that - from the empirical (vyAvahArika) standpoint - gives rise > to the (from the absolute standpoint non-existing) world of > plurality and Samsara. And there is nothing non-existent that is > the cause for the existing Brahman. > > > Kathiji also wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 2. If the state of deep sleep is 'absence of ignorance', what is > the > difference between karana sharira and turiya? If there is no > positive > existent entity in deep sleep, that would equate it to turiya. > But that is > not the case as we do negate the karana sharira as well in the > neti neti > process. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > There is no total absence of ignorance in deep-sleep. There is > seed-ignorance (biija), which means non-grasping or > non-comprehension (tattwAgrahaNa). But this seed-ignorance should > not be understood as a positive existing entity. It is absence of > knowledge only. And absence of knowledge is not knowledge. If you > have a dark room, the room is dark due to absence of light. The > dark is not a positive existing entity, but the light is. To > illustrate this: If you have a room where the light is shining, > you can never make the room dark by letting darkness into the > room. The room will still be bright even if you open the windows > when there is night and darkness outside. On the other hand, if > you have a dark room you could easily make the room bright just > by simply lightning the lamp. However, just because darkness is > mere absence of light, it doesn´t follow that everything in the > world is light. Darkness is still possible of course, and you can > experience darkness in any places where there is no light. > My point is: There is no need in postulating ignorance as a > positive existing entity in order to explain the fact that there > is ignorance. Ignorance (the dark room) exists as absence of > knowledge until the moment when knowledge (light) rise. And since > no-one would equate a dark room to a room where the light is > shining, there is no reason why we should equate turiiya to > deep-sleep just because there is no ignorance in the form of a > positive existing entity in deep-sleep. > Regarding the concept of kArana shariira (causal body), it is > mentioned - at least as far as I have learnt - only once in the > writings actually authored by Adi Shankara. In his bhashya on Isa > Upanishad 8, Shankara says while describing atman: "Shuddham, > taintless, devoid of the dirt of ignorance; thereby is negated a > causal body [kArana shariira]." While commenting upon the same > Isa Upanishad verse in his Upadesha Sahasri (metrical part > 15.10), Shankara does not mention any causal body at all. In > spite of this, the concept of causal body became a part of the > doctrine propagated by later advaitins. Dr A. J. Alston says the > following: "Samkara [shankara] adhered to the Upanishadic > teaching that the soul attained to pure Being in dreamless sleep > [...] He does not refer to the doctrine of some of his later > followers that in dreamless sleep the soul enters a "causal > body". (A. J. Alston, Samkara on The Creation p.93 n.) [Alstons > book forms the second volume of his "A Samkara Source-Book", > vols. I-VI] > > Very best wishes > Stig Lundgren > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2002 Report Share Posted March 13, 2002 Dear Stigji, You wrote "In other words: Shankaras´ expression that anything non-existent cannot give rise to existence is not a proof for the existence of positive ignorance. While dealing with ignorance and Samsara, there is no existence to be explained: Both ignorance and Samsara are as a matter of fact illusory." This is what all the acharyas who talk about Mulavidya also say - That ignorance and Samsara are equally unreal. Nobody is saying that ignorance is existing as a parallel reality to brahman. So you also have to accept the empirical existence of ignorance which becomes the cause of samsara. This empirical ignorance of self is Mulavidya, the destruction of which is leads to Moksha. Although you have a made a spirited attempt to defend the position that Avidya is absence of knowledge, I think that it is neither supported by Shankara's commentaries nor by logic. I think taking avidya as empirically existing is the best methodology to teach advaita and the other option leads to complications. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 I don't really want to engage in an etymological dispute about Sanskrit, 'cos I'd inevitably lose, but surely Avidya is a concept, describing a lack of something, and therefore non-existent by definition or only as an idea: Yoga Sutra 1.9 sabda jñânânupâtî vastu sûnyo vikalpah Conceptualisation flows from verbal notions and has no substance. vidya = knowledge (of something), avidya = non-knowledge (of something) The only way to dispel non-knowledge of something is by bringing awareness of that something to whoever is ignorant. Awareness of our true nature dispels ignorance of it. Brian | | Jaishankar Narayanan [srijai] | Thursday, 14 March 2002 04:00 | Advaitin | Re: Avidya | | | Dear Stigji, | | You wrote | "In other words: Shankaras´ | expression that anything non-existent cannot give rise to | existence is not a proof for the existence of positive ignorance. | While dealing with ignorance and Samsara, there is no existence | to be explained: Both ignorance and Samsara are as a matter of | fact illusory." | | This is what all the acharyas who talk about Mulavidya also | say - That | ignorance and Samsara are equally unreal. Nobody is saying | that ignorance is | existing as a parallel reality to brahman. So you also have | to accept the | empirical existence of ignorance which becomes the cause of | samsara. This | empirical ignorance of self is Mulavidya, the destruction of | which is leads | to Moksha. | | Although you have a made a spirited attempt to defend the | position that | Avidya is absence of knowledge, I think that it is neither | supported by | Shankara's commentaries nor by logic. I think taking avidya | as empirically | existing is the best methodology to teach advaita and the | other option leads | to complications. | | with love and prayers, | | Jaishankar | | | | | ------------------------ Sponsor | ---------------------~--> | Buy Stock for $4. | No Minimums. | FREE Money 2002. | http://us.click./BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM | ---------------------------- | --------~-> | | Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of | nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. | Advaitin List Archives available at: | http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ | To Post a message send an email to : advaitin | Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages | | | | Your use of is subject to | | | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 Thanks Ken, going to bed with a big grin! | | ken knight [hilken_98] | Thursday, 14 March 2002 22:53 | advaitin | RE: Re: Avidya | | | | --- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote: | >, 'cos I'd inevitably lose, | | Lose what? | | Ken | | | | Sports - live college hoops coverage | http://sports./ | | ------------------------ Sponsor | ---------------------~--> | FREE COLLEGE MONEY | CLICK HERE to search | 600,000 scholarships! | http://us.click./iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM | ---------------------------- | --------~-> | | Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of | nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. | Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 --- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote: >, 'cos I'd inevitably lose, Lose what? Ken Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 Dear professor Krishnamurthyji, Many thanks for your kind words! Yes, I think you have got the gist of my posting. I am very happy that you find it useful. Very best wishes Stig Lundgren > What a lucid presentation, Stigji !. I particularly like and appreciate the > following points of emphasis that you rightly made. And you brought in the > exact points of argument to clarify Kathirji's questions. I am listing the > points below, so that you may let me know whether I got the gist alright. > Though this is a repetition only of your post, I feel that for the advaita > point of view to go home, these deserve to be listed as a capsule for the > majority of learners of advaita. > > 1. " ....For the notion that one has a body at all is prompted > simply by wrong knowledge. One cannot suppose that the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.