Comment on Mahavakyas

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

I have started studying the Brahma Sutras, including

Sadanandaji's notes. In the latter I read something that is most

encouraging to me:

>We should recognize at the outset that the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta

>does not depend on the validation of its concepts by Brahmasutra-s. It

>rests squarely on the mahaavaakya-s, the four aphoristic statements, one

>in each of the four Veda-s; praGYaanam brahma (consciousness is Brahman),

>tat tvam asi (that thou art), aham brahmaasmi ( I am Brahman) and ayam

>aatmaa brahma (this self is Brahman).

 

This is most encouraging, because I agree totally with these mighty

mahvakyas. If this is all it takes to be an Advaitin, then I can

call myself one with a clear conscience. This is important to me,

because the feedback from my previous discussion on Consciousness had

me a bit worried that perhaps I was mixing Buddhist and Advaitin

concepts in a way that is 'illegitimate'. (But then, who has the

right to call me illegitimate? Is there some Hindu pope who would

excommunicate me? Or some Muslim cleric to fatwa me to death for

apostasy? Thankfully, no.)

 

I believe this is the essential difference between Hinduism and

other mainstream religions. The other religions maintain some

difference between God and soul, whereas Hinduism unconditionally

proclaims the ultimate divinity of our consciousness. What a

marvelous idea!

 

Well, not unconditionally... I believe that, logically,

Visistadvaitan and Dvaitins must be considered to deviate slightly

from the Mahavakyas, in that they seem to believe in some

difference, however subtle, between Atman and Brahman. So in this

sense, I think that perhaps even most Hindus are not quite 'Vedic'

enough, from the Mahavakya point of view! I hope this doesn't make

Sri Jay irate!

 

Two other controversial points, not unrelated to this topic:

 

(1) I believe that the 'experience' or 'realization' or

'enlightenment' of Buddhism (especially Mahayana Buddhism) is

essentially the same as the spirit of the Mahavakyas. I don't simply

care about 'Astika' and 'Nastika'. I relish my freedom to blithely

discard these contentious and academic labels. If one realizes some

high state of 'Pure Consciousness', then one has attained THAT, no

matter what one calls it or how one describes it. For example, the

Mahayana concept of 'emptiness' simply means emptiness of dualistic

concepts, between subject and object, or between Atman and Brahman,

or between self and the Absolute. In this sense Emptiness is indeed

Self. Consciousness itself is simply undeniable; only the concepts

that contaminate and distort it must be eliminated.

 

(2) I also believe, stubbornly (if one remember previous

discussions), that the Mahavakyas are entirely consistent with the

idea that matter does not exist AT ALL. To say that there is no

object distinct from the subject is the same as saying that Atman is

Brahman or that consciousness and reality are the same. This

excludes any notion of a self-existing material substance, in my

opinion, because matter is *by definition* something insentient that

is distinct from consciousness. Likewise, Samkya is refuted, as the

Brahma Sutras say.

 

I was a bit chagrined to discover that this distinguished members of

this list did not wholeheartedly embrace this notion. It seemed like

such an Advaitin concept to me! I thought that Sri Sadananda had

agreed with this when I once spoke with him, but a more recent post

on this list (16816) denies this. Oh well!

 

Besides, there is a problematic passage in the Brahma Sutras where

the Buddhist Idealists (or Vijnanavadins) are rejected. I now feel

eager to examine this very carefully. That is why I am studying the

Brahma Sutras as a whole. One day I hope to post an essay on this

topic, since I care so much about it. I'm sorry if I seem a bit

stubborn, but for reasons I explained in great length before, the

denial of matter seems to me to have two wonderful features: (a) it

is clear and easy to understand, contrary to first impressions, and

(2) it provides a kind of 'magic key' that makes so much of the

nondualistic scriptures of Advaita and Mahayana accessible to the

intellect. Sweeping these exalted nondualistic ideas under the rug

by labelling them 'paramarthika' is not the whole story! I think

that we should be a bit more optimistic about the powers of

understanding, even if it is only a stepping-stone to realization.

 

I will not give up so easily!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> Two other controversial points, not unrelated to this topic:

>

> (1) I believe that the 'experience' or 'realization' or

> 'enlightenment' of Buddhism (especially Mahayana Buddhism) is

> essentially the same as the spirit of the Mahavakyas.

 

Benjamin - here is my understanding.

 

Experince is different from knowledge - experience has to be understood.

Knowledge resolves experiences - even if thery are apparently

contradictory.

 

Brahmasuutra-s are not considered as supreme authority - they are

develped to provided self-consistency in the suutra-s. Since there are

atleast 10 bhaashya-s (interpretations) on them, each claiming that

their interpretation is more consistent with vedanta, the utility of

Brahmasuutra-s themselves becomes questionable. Hence we have to go back

to Vedanta only for resolution for any controversies.

 

Irrespective of what Jay says it is only a belief that the sutra-s are

written by Vyaasa in the name of Badaraayana. Of couse tradition has

been established to take that as granted.

> I relish my freedom to blithely

> discard these contentious and academic labels. If one realizes some

> high state of 'Pure Consciousness', then one has attained THAT, no

> matter what one calls it or how one describes it.

True - no one denies that even Vedanta. That is precisely what Vedanta

says too. What is said is if your experinces is contradictory to what

vedanta says then your experince cannot be taken as validation of the

truth.

>For example, the

> Mahayana concept of 'emptiness' simply means emptiness of dualistic

> concepts, between subject and object, or between Atman and Brahman,

> or between self and the Absolute. In this sense Emptiness is indeed

> Self. Consciousness itself is simply undeniable; only the concepts

> that contaminate and distort it must be eliminated.

 

Here your interpretation of Budhhistic emptyness and advaitic

understanding are the same - for them the consciousness is flickering

type not continous and eternal (as I understand). At least that was the

prevailing belief of many acharya-s who criticised Budhhistic analysis

of the truth.

> (2) I also believe, stubbornly (if one remember previous

> discussions), that the Mahavakyas are entirely consistent with the

> idea that matter does not exist AT ALL.

 

Benjamin - That is precisely what Vedanta says as per advaita - your

belief is not different from the adviating nature of reality. Brahman is

one without a second - there is nothing or no thing other than Brahman

and the very first mahavaakaya says 'consciousness is Brahman'. Your

understanding is precisely that. You are astika whether you know ir or

not!The rest are all words.

 

To say that there is no

> object distinct from the subject is the same as saying that Atman is

> Brahman or that consciousness and reality are the same. This

> excludes any notion of a self-existing material substance, in my

> opinion, because matter is *by definition* something insentient that

> is distinct from consciousness. Likewise, Samkya is refuted, as the

> Brahma Sutras say.

 

Benjamin - you are absolutely right. What you wrote was a commentary on

advaita vedanta.

>

> I was a bit chagrined to discover that this distinguished members of

> this list did not wholeheartedly embrace this notion. It seemed like

> such an Advaitin concept to me! I thought that Sri Sadananda had

> agreed with this when I once spoke with him, but a more recent post

> on this list (16816) denies this. Oh well!

 

No sir, I never denided that - Please refer to my writings again. Do not

get confused between vyavahaara and paaramaarthika. All though all are

elctrons, protons and neutrons, garbage is different from food. That is

vyavahaara. That the substative of everything is Brahman which is

nothing but consciousness is the vedic statement. All that you see is

noting but Brahman From the abosute point there is nothing but

consciousness.

>

> Besides, there is a problematic passage in the Brahma Sutras where

> the Buddhist Idealists (or Vijnanavadins) are rejected. I now feel

> eager to examine this very carefully. That is why I am studying the

> Brahma Sutras as a whole.

 

Unfortunately I did not ccomplete the notes. By the by, you can look up

the web site of Vishal Agarwal who thinks that the suttra-s are not

necessorily addressing the Buddhism but only some of pre-historic

'naastika' theories. He has provided the explanations - but take that

with a grain of salt - he is vishishhTadvaitin - but great scholar. If

vyaasa is accepted as the author and if one again argues that he was

refuting Buddhism we have vyasa as post historic and he cannot be the

vedavyaasa who edited veda-s. That is why the equation of Badarayana and

vyasa is questionable.

>One day I hope to post an essay on this

> topic, since I care so much about it. I'm sorry if I seem a bit

> stubborn, but for reasons I explained in great length before, the

> denial of matter seems to me to have two wonderful features: (a) it

> is clear and easy to understand, contrary to first impressions, and

> (2) it provides a kind of 'magic key' that makes so much of the

> nondualistic scriptures of Advaita and Mahayana accessible to the

> intellect.

 

I am not an authority on Mahayana in spite of Nanda keeps pushing me to

read the books he sent me. But what you were stubburn about were the

same statements Vedanta is also declaring. I was on travel at that time

of your posts related to 'matter'.

 

Sweeping these exalted nondualistic ideas under the rug

> by labelling them 'paramarthika' is not the whole story! I think

> that we should be a bit more optimistic about the powers of

> understanding, even if it is only a stepping-stone to realization.

>

> I will not give up so easily!

 

Benjamin - that is the spirt. Do not give up - but giving up of all

wrong notions occurs only once and that is final.

 

Hari OM

Sada

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

>>>Benjamin - that is the spirt. Do not give up - but giving up of all

wrong notions occurs only once and that is final. <<<

 

Is it too glib to take this a step further and suggest

that giving up *all* notions occurs only once and that is final?

That notions, right and wrong, are egoic creations? That

notionizing is necessary to communicate to ego, but

completely falls away when ego falls away? At first in

my meditation I was trying to get my thoughts aligned

with correct notions, but more recently have understood

that even correct notions must go.

 

Keith

[Guest guest]

--- s~Z <keithsz wrote:

>

> Is it too glib to take this a step further and suggest

> that giving up *all* notions occurs only once and that is final?

> That notions, right and wrong, are egoic creations? That

> notionizing is necessary to communicate to ego, but

> completely falls away when ego falls away? At first in

> my meditation I was trying to get my thoughts aligned

> with correct notions, but more recently have understood

> that even correct notions must go.

>

> Keith

 

Keith - notion by definition is due to misunderstanding and all notions

evolve out of fundamental misunderstanding of ones own self. That notion

of about oneself goes away only one has realizaton of oneself and that

occurs only once - since once it occurs there is no return back says

scripturess. That is why I kept saying that giving up the notions,

surrendering one self, knowledge about one self all are the same thing

saying different ways and happens only once.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda!

 

I was away yesterday, when you gave the following response:

>> (2) I also believe, stubbornly (if one remember previous

>> discussions), that the Mahavakyas are entirely consistent with the

>> idea that matter does not exist AT ALL.

>

>Benjamin - That is precisely what Vedanta says as per advaita

 

I am very relieved to hear you say this, because I care about this

'anti-matter' theory quite a bit, perhaps more than is healthy. Let

me just give a few words of background.

 

It all started for me with some conversations I had with Nanda

Chandran over a year ago, in which he denied what he (and Western

philosophy) call 'subjective idealism', i.e. the view that

consciousness is everything and there is no material substance. I

realize that you had a long discussion with him on this list, and I

have located those files, which I will now study. Anyhow, he seemed

to think that my views were inconsistent with Advaita (or at least

Shankara). A more formidable scholar, namely Sarvepalli

Radhakrishnan, also seems to agree with Nanda, as I interpret the

relevant passages in his History of Indian Philosophy, Vol II. Also,

Western philosophers have almost unanimously denied the theory of

subjective idealism. Almost every philosopher I've ever read seems

to feel the need to retain some notion of 'object', even if

Consciousness is the ultimate reality controlling the object. That

is how I interpret Ramanuja and Samkhya, for example. And the

concept of 'object' seems to me very close if not identical to

'matter'.

 

There is one caveat. Nanda and others may be denying the view that

my (or your) *personal* consciousness is everything. This bring us

to the lengthy 'Unity of Consciousness' discussion on this List which

Sri Ram asked me to initiate about 2 months ago and which you

unfortunately missed. Anyhow, my point of view is a bit

inconsistent, which I acknowledged at the time. On the one hand, it

seems to me that there are many consciousnesses (or Jivas) [but no

such thing as matter], but on the other hand, I do accept that the

same Brahman is the substrate of all these personal consciousnesses.

Hence, my confusion, which prompted me to start that discussion to

see if anyone could clarify the situation for me. A lot of fine

things were said by the list members, but I cannot honestly say that

my confusion has been cured, so I must continue to think and meditate

on it. It is really a very subtle question, since your consciousness

and mine do seem to me to be quite distinct. This may be the hardest

nut to crack in Advaita, much harder even that the denial of material

substance (which already seems insane to most people).

 

I was particularly worried by the part in the Brahma Sutras Bashya

where Shankara himself seems to explicitly refute the Buddhist

'Idealists' who hold very similar views. I am glad to read what you

just said about this. I hope very much that Vishal Agarwal is

correct.

 

By the way, it seems funny to me that someone sympathetic to Buddhism

like Nanda would be arguing *against* subjective idealism, since the

Vijnanavadins (Yogacharas) explicitly held this doctrine, and the

Madhyamikas and their doctrine of Emptiness is closely related, in my

opinion. I have heard that Shankara was criticized as being

'crypto-Buddhist' because his views seemed suspiciously close to

subjective idealism. And to me it seems undeniable that Gaudapada

held this view, as I have read his Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad.

 

Why should we care? Well, I do agree that a mere philosophical view

will neither enable nor prevent realization. But I still like

subjective idealism so much for the two reasons I cited already: (1)

It seems to me to be clear and easy to understand, at least

intellectually, as I discussed in great detail before and also on my

website, and (2) it 'explains' not only Advaita, but also much of

Mahayana Buddhism as well as all other 'nondual' spiritual

traditions. You may argue that the ultimate truth is beyond words,

but I would like to understand as much as possible with my intellect.

Subjective idealism seems to me like a wonderful conceptual tool to

take the intellect as deep into these issues as possible. Also, I

think that even intellectual understanding, if correct, can help

along the path to realization, like the pole-vault which is then

discarded. That is why I was so concerned when it seemed as though

perhaps it was irreconcilable with Advaita. I now have a lot

invested in Advaita, not the least of which are many nice friends!

So your message putting my fears to rest was a big comfort. Thank

you.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 03:28 PM 5/6/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

It all started for me with some conversations I had with Nanda

>Chandran over a year ago, in which he denied what he (and Western

>philosophy) call 'subjective idealism', i.e. the view that

>consciousness is everything and there is no material substance.....

 

Hey Benjamin,

 

We'll have a bang-up time come October when the discussion turns to the

existence of objects!

 

OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> I am very relieved to hear you say this, because I care about this

> 'anti-matter' theory quite a bit, perhaps more than is healthy. Let

> me just give a few words of background.

 

Benjamin - I hope you are not using 'antimatter' - in the sense that

physicists use as antiproton etc to balance this proton etc. Both are

matter only - Vedanta not just Advaita - says - what was there before

creation is existence-consciousness-infiniteness These are not

attributes as Jay claims in this recent mails. If you are using

'anti-matter' in the sense of non-inertness (ajadam), you are right.

> Anyhow, he seemed

> to think that my views were inconsistent with Advaita (or at least

> Shankara).

 

Nanda is confused about Advaita in this context while Jay refuses to

understand Advaita due to his dwaitic views. Both are scholars in their

own right. There is no point in arguing with them.

> Almost every philosopher I've ever read seems

> to feel the need to retain some notion of 'object', even if

> Consciousness is the ultimate reality controlling the object.

 

Not really. As I mentioned before there are extensive discussions of

epistemological issues involved since 'object' is associated with

perceptions and thus the mind - and need to correctly analyzed to

examine their ontological status. I have referred to you excellent book

'Vedanta Paribhaasha' by Dharmaraja Advariindra - these is classic book

on Advaita view of perceptions. There is more recent book in English by

Bina Gupta, on Perception in Advaita - She is professor some where in

US. It is a commentary on Vedanta Paribhaasha.

 

 

That

> is how I interpret Ramanuja and Samkhya, for example.

No Ramanuja's interpretation is different - for them matter is eternal

and true - jagat satyam. Creation is only grosification from subtle and

is done by Lord, Narayana who pervades this jadam as antaryaamin as

indweller.

 

And the

> concept of 'object' seems to me very close if not identical to

> 'matter'.

>

> There is one caveat. Nanda and others may be denying the view that

> my (or your) *personal* consciousness is everything.

 

There is no personal consciousness. One can be conscious of objects as a

person - that is not the same as personal or individual consciousness.

What is individual is only the upaadhi-s - like pot-space. From the

Space point, there is no pot-space different from total space. Pot may

think it has limited space. That is the notion of the pot.

>This bring us

> to the lengthy 'Unity of Consciousness' discussion on this List which

> Sri Ram asked me to initiate about 2 months ago and which you

> unfortunately missed. Anyhow, my point of view is a bit

> inconsistent, which I acknowledged at the time. On the one hand, it

> seems to me that there are many consciousness (or Jivas) [but no

> such thing as matter], but on the other hand, I do accept that the

> same Brahman is the substrate of all these personal consciousness.

> Hence, my confusion, which prompted me to start that discussion to

> see if anyone could clarify the situation for me. A lot of fine

> things were said by the list members, but I cannot honestly say that

> my confusion has been cured, so I must continue to think and meditate

> on it.

 

Good to hear that. That is the spirit. No need to accept until you are

convinced. But do not reject outright either. Here are some thoughts

for you to ponder about.

 

If consciousness is plural, then who is conscious of the existence of

that plurality in consciousness. - let us call that as supreme

consciousness for the sake of argument. Now we have two questions - is

that supreme consciousness single or plural - if it is plural then we

get into a situation what is called 'infinite regress'. If it is single,

then is this supreme consciousness different from the individual

consciousness or not? If it is same as the individual consciousness then

you are back to indivisible consciousness. If it is different from

individual consciousness then we have 1) violation of Advaitic State and

2) we have violation of the statement ' I am Brahman' since in Brahman

there are no divisions.

>It is really a very subtle question, since your consciousness

> and mine do seem to me to be quite distinct. This may be the hardest

> nut to crack in Advaita, much harder even that the denial of material

> substance (which already seems insane to most people).

 

Benjamin it is not hardest nut to crack in Advaita - Advaita does not

crack - by definition! Since there nothing else to crack it!. You mean

to say it is hardest truth for YOU to swallow. There is no problem in

that. That is the purpose of 'mananam' or reflection. Once you realize

that Advaita is the ultimate truth, other things should get resolved

in that truth of Advaita. Ask yourself - The Seeming differences in

'consciousness' - are they due to differences in consciousness or

differences in the objects of consciousness -Let us take the first

alternative - if it is due to differences in consciousness - then what

are those differences and how do I, the consciousness entity, perceive

those differences in these consciousness- Pretty soon you the

consciousness entity objectifying the consciouenss-es in order to

distinguish the differences in the consciousness-es? (it is hard to make

it as plural!)- if the consciousness becomes object for perception then

it is no more consciousness but jadam or inert - which violates your one

assumption that you are seeing the differences in consciousness-es.

 

Anyway think about it.

> I was particularly worried by the part in the Brahma Sutras Bashya

> where Shankara himself seems to explicitly refute the Buddhist

> 'Idealists' who hold very similar views.

 

Sorry - As for I know there is no statement in B.Suutra-s that

identifies the puurvapaksha as Buddhistic statement - but prevailing

arguments from most of the achaarya-s are that suutra-s argue against

the buddhistic and jain philosophical positions. If that is true we have

pur suutra-s somewhere in the 3rd Century AD and therefore deny that

Badarayana is not the same as vyasa. Vishal presents his view that

Sutra-s are post buddha hence Badarayana need not be the same as vyasa,

and even then the criticism may not be against Buddhism but against a

philosophy which is naastika. Jainism is considered as prehistoric.

>I am glad to read what you

> just said about this. I hope very much that Vishal Agarwal is

> correct.

 

Actually there were many Brahmasuutra-s that got overshadowed by the

currently accepted one which evolved out of them and the prior one got

lost in history.

> And to me it seems undeniable that Gaudapada

> held this view, as I have read his Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad.

 

Vidyashankar provides some notes in his website on the Gowapada's ajaata

vaada. Personally I am not sure ajatavaada is different from

conventional understanding of the unvierse in Advaita.

>

> Why should we care? Well, I do agree that a mere philosophical view

> will neither enable nor prevent realization. But I still like

> subjective idealism so much for the two reasons I cited already: (1)

> It seems to me to be clear and easy to understand, at least

> intellectually, as I discussed in great detail before and also on my

> website, and (2) it 'explains' not only Advaita, but also much of

> Mahayana Buddhism as well as all other 'nondual' spiritual

> traditions. You may argue that the ultimate truth is beyond words,

> but I would like to understand as much as possible with my intellect.

 

No. I would not argue that the ultimate truth is beyond words. Ultimate

truth should include not exclude anything. Ramana Maharshi has discussed

beautifully this aspect in his Upadesha saara and I will be taking that

text during the coming memorial weekend spiritual camp. If anyone is

interested I can send the info about the camp.

> Subjective idealism seems to me like a wonderful conceptual tool to

> take the intellect as deep into these issues as possible.

 

'subjective Idealism' is the coined word in the west. Advaita is the

truth where subject-object is resolved into one truth - that I am - the

existent and consciousness entity. Giving a new name for the same thing

with confused explanation does not make it new.

> Also, I

> think that even intellectual understanding, if correct, can help

> along the path to realization, like the pole-vault which is then

> discarded. That is why I was so concerned when it seemed as though

> perhaps it was irreconcilable with Advaita.

 

Benjamin - there is nothing that is irreconcilable concept in Advaita -

all concepts have to resolve into Advaita - if Advaita stands for what

it is. Hence Advaita - non-dualism - that ‘non’ stands not only duality

but to ism too.

 

>I now have a lot

> invested in Advaita, not the least of which are many nice friends!

> So your message putting my fears to rest was a big comfort. Thank

> you.

 

There no need to fear either. One need to resolve in ones mind if

Advaita is the truth as it should be then how to resolves the

contradictory experiences - that is the knowledge since correct

knowledge should resolve contradictions in experiences.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.