Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 @@@@ On the contrary, seeming contradictions are there for pedagogical reasons. They are there to help us to step by step getting closer to brahman. They are there because we h ###### That is why nya:ya:s also came in handy . For eample, arundhati: nya:yam which is used to show something abstract by taking you near the less abstract and easily identifiable object. They first show the bigger star and then point to the smaller star. Sri Stig Lundgrenji ,I enjoyed your explanation. On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 Stig Lundgren wrote : >Vaidyanath Iyer wrote: > >--sir, >i do agree with your views.what you are trying to say is all >the >acharyas had different way of looking at the philosophies they >believed is right. no doubt in that.but the interpretations of >certain words,or passages from the upanishads and sutras are >the >reasons for the different schools of thought. but can you tell >what >actually is the philosophy that is contained in the >upanishads. > >********************************************************** > >Dear Sri Vaidyanath Iyer, > >I will try to describe the philosophy of the Upanishads >according >to Advaita Vedanta (I assume you are an advaitin since being an >"Iyer" implies that you are a Tamil smartha). I will primarly >try >to describe how the seeming contradictions in the upanishads >are >explained from an advaitic perspective. > The differences between the different schools of Vedanta >depends on the different interpretations of primarly the >Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. When >interpretating these shastras in order to establish a vedantic >system, the main task for the acharyas was to make a >non-contradictory doctrine out of the different texts. At a >first >glance, this seems to be a problem, because different passages >in >for instance the Upanishads appear to contradict each other: >Central texts in the Upanishads describe the Absolute as >without >any differences, limitations, relations, attributes etc. - in >other words as non-dual. As an example, let us take the >following >text from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, frequently quoted by >Shankara: > >"When to this knower of Atman, everything has become Atman >alone, >then what could one see and with what, then what could one >smell >and with what, then what could one taste and with what, then >what >could one hear and with what, then what could one think and >with >what, then what could one touch and with what, then what could >one understand and with what?" (Br. 4-5-15) > > From this text we learn that atman/brahman has no attributes, >no >duality, no subject-object relation etc. However, other shruti >texts seem to imply something else, for example the first lines >of the Aitareya Upanishad: > >"The self, verily, was this, one only, in the beginning. >Nothing >else whatsoever winked. He thought, 'let me now create the >worlds.'" (Ait. 1-1-1) > >This text appear to tell us that the Absolute create things >considered by the Absolute itself as objects. Seemingly, the >Absolute has a will in about the same sense that human beings >have a will, and there is a subject-object relation between the >Absolute and its creations, implying plurality. > This description of the Absolute seems to contradict the >description of the Absolute in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. So >what to do? Well, we´ll get a glimpse into the way of >interpretating the shastras by studying the following lines > from >the Karikas of Gaudapada: "This doctrine of distinctions is >only >a device för the purpose of teaching, and when the Reality is >known, there is no duality whatever." (GK 1-18) We can throw >more >light upon the meaning of this quote by refering to what >Shankara >says in his commentary on Bhagavad Gita: "This is in accordance >with what those conversant with tradition say: 'By deliberate >superimposition and rescission, that which is devoid of >specific >features, is to be explained." (GBh. 13-13) > The meaning of this is: It is not possible to describe in >words that which is non-dual and totally devoid of any >attributes, limitations, features, plurality, relations etc. >The >purpose of (for example) the Upanishads is to teach us about >Brahman, the Absolute. On the other hand, the Upanishads >themselves are expressed in words, so it seems to be a problem >here: How can words describe that which is not possible to >describe by words? Well, the method of the Upanishads is to >teach >us by first ascribing some (graspable and comprehensible) >attribute to the Absolute, and when this has been understood, >thereafter refute this very same attribute. The next step is to >lead us a bit closer to the knowledge of the Absolute by >ascribing a more subtle and "higher" attribute. And when this >has >been understood, then again refuting this more subtle and >higher >attribute. The point is to make us getting closer to the >knowledge of Brahman step by step by negating the attributes >first ascribed to it. More and more subtle attributes are >introduced and thereafter negated. Finally, we realize that >there >could not be any kind of attributes - nor any differences, >plurality, limitations - in Brahman. All objects and anything >that could be described in words has been negated. The only >"thing" left is Brahman itself, and when we know Brahman we are >liberated from samsara. The method of the upanishads has been >summarized like this by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati: > >"The nature of non-dualistic Atman, therefore, has necessiated >a >particular device to make the Absolute thruth intelligible to >seekers. This device is to deliberately impute to Reality some >empirical characteristic, and when the truth has been brought >home, to rescind the imputed characteristic." (The Upanishadic >Approach to Reality s.46) > >This method is called adhyArOpa-apavAda (the method of >superimposition and recission). This is the fundamental device >for the advaitic understanding of the shastras. According to >the >Shankara-quote here above (GBh 13-13) this is the method of >"those conversant with tradition", in other words the method of >the traditional advaitins Shankara knew of and followed. The >quote from Gaudapada confirms this, since he says that >distinctions (objects, plurality, relations) are introduced >only >as a device to help the disciple to know the non-dual Absolute. > So when the shastras describes reality in therms of >objects, >duality etc., then this refers to our lower understanding of >reality. And when the shastras describes the absolute as the >negation of anything empirical, beyond words, totally non-dual >etc, this refers to reality as it really is. Within the advaita >tradition it is common to distinguish between the >vyavaharika-perspective (reality as seen from the standpoint of >ignorance (avidya), the empirical perspective) and the >paramartika-perspective (reality as "seen" from the standpoint >of >reality (Brahman) itself). When, for example, the upanishads >describes reality in terms of manifoldness, forms, colours, >sounds etc., this is reality as seen from the empirical >perspective (vyavaharika). And when reality is described as >non-dual, beyond any limitations, without taste, form, sight >etc., this is reality from the perspective of Brahman itself >(paramartika). > So, the apparent contradictions in the shastras are not >there >just in order to confuse us or make our lives miserable or >anything :-) On the contrary, seeming contradictions are there >for pedagogical reasons. They are there to help us to step by >step getting closer to brahman. They are there because we >humans >lives a everyday-life in the sphere of ignorance, where >everything is experienced in terms of manifoldness, sounds, >sight, duality and so on. The upanishads make use of this our >ignorance by introducing us to the road to Brahmavidya by first >describing reality in terms of empirical attributes etc, and >then - step by step - taking us closer to the Absolute. > > >Warm regards >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...
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.