Weapon of Mass Destruction (REQUEST)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji!

 

I could really use your supreme scholarly knowledge of Advaita!

 

You once emphatically agreed with me regarding 'subjective idealism'

as I defined it, namely, everything is consciousness, or rather the

ONE Consciousness, so that matter does not exist. I can look that

message up if you wish.

 

Over at my list, I am in a debate trying to explain those troublesome

lines by 'Shankara' in the Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28), where he

seems to be explicitly denying the idea that material objects do not

exist. In other words, he seems to be taking a rather Dvaitin

position.

 

Now, you once said something about how a scholar friend of yours had

some doubts whether those lines were really Shankara (which is why I

put Shankara in quotes above). I could look that message up, but I

remember it as slightly unclear to me.

 

Could I please impose on you and ask you to post a fresh message on

your position on this. It doesn't have to be long. I will certainly

refer to both you and this list when I quote your answer over at my

site.

 

At any rate, I am quite certain that 'Brahman is Consciousness'

combined with 'Brahman is One without a second' implies the

nonexistence of the material world. To me, it is like 1 + 1 = 2.

 

By the way, did not Shankara refute the Shankyans? Doesn't that settle it?

 

As for the multiplicity of consciousnesses being really one... Well,

as I said before, that seems to be the *logical* deduction from the

nondual nature of Brahman. I only had trouble understanding it

*phenomenologically* (whereas I do not have trouble understanding the

nonexistence of matter phenomenologically). So I am working on that!

I have not reached any conclusions.

 

Please note that I am not burdening this list with that topic again.

You only need post your one answer (or send it by email), and I will

continue the discussion over there.

 

Thank you very much and Hari Om!

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste

> At any rate, I am quite certain that 'Brahman is Consciousness'

> combined with 'Brahman is One without a second' implies the

> nonexistence of the material world. To me, it is like 1 + 1 = 2.

 

This is probably answered by noting Gaudapada's comment that an

absolute non-existence like a barren woman's son cannot be created

even by mAyA. Note that in advaita there are three and not just two

levels of reality. They are - the ultimate, the conventional and the

apparent. The last two levels of reality must collapse into a zero

for a person to attain mukti. This does not mean that the last two

levels are always the same. They do have their own relevance and

certainly, the second level or the vyavaharik satya cannot be treated

as absolute non-existence.

> As for the multiplicity of consciousnesses being really one...

>Well, as I said before, that seems to be the *logical* deduction

>from the nondual nature of Brahman. I only had trouble

>understanding >it *phenomenologically* (whereas I do not have

>trouble understanding the

> nonexistence of matter phenomenologically). So I am working on

>that! > I have not reached any conclusions.

 

This analogy might help - The space is always one. But jars or pots

can appear to cause divisions in space. The space in the jars appears

to move when the jars are moved. But in reality, the space never

moves. Space is not affected by the imperfections of the jars.

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> Over at my list, I am in a debate trying to explain those troublesome

> lines by 'Shankara' in the Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28), where he

> seems to be explicitly denying the idea that material objects do not

> exist. In other words, he seems to be taking a rather Dvaitin

> position.

 

Benjamin - Sorry I missed your mail on Friday. Here is my understanding

of the suutra (II,2,28).

 

The conventional wisdom related to Ch.II in general is that this chapter

takes naastika philosophies, such as Buddhism and Jainism prevalent at

that time, as puurvapaksha and dismisses them. As is generally customary

in the tradition, they take only the arguments and criticize without

naming the darshaNa per se. For them names are not important; only the

arguments they condemn. As I pointed out earlier Shree Vishal Agarwal

presents a case that one need not assume that it is Buddhistic

philosophy that is refuted. This is not of any of love for Buddhism,

but helps to push the data of Brahmasuutra not to post-Buddhistic period

- attributing back to Vyaasa as believed by many Bhaashya kaara-s.

 

Now the suutra you asked - that particular suutra says:

 

naabhaavaH upalabdhe|

 

that is na abhaavaH - double negative here -meaning 'not nonexistence'

upalabdheH - as being experienced or on account of directly being

perceived.

 

By bringing the missing verbs the suutra means that - It is not

non-existence since it is perceived or experienced.

 

Obviously what is perceived is an object - and hence 'it' refers to all

'idams', that is, this entire universe.

 

Here we are discussing the position of Sage Baadaraayana and not that of

Shankara per se.

 

Here in this suutra - the author of the suutra dismisses any theory that

says the world 'is not' there - and the argument he presents is based on

logic and not scripture since the opponent does not believe in

scriptures (here Veda-s).

 

What is perceived is direct and immediate. The proof of its existence

is perception itself and not logic. As soon as I open my eyes I cannot

but see the object right in front of me (as long as I have my mind

behind my eyes and both are functional).

 

Hence Baadaraayana says since it is perceived or experienced, that which

is perceived or experienced is not non-existent entity.

 

Shankara in his commentary brings out the fact that what is experienced

has be an existent entity - I cannot experience horns of a hare or son

of barren woman, or my famous 'gaagaabuubu', since there is no locus for

that descriptions. Hence the world is not non-real (notice the double

negative).

 

Here Advaita insists that, real is not opposite of non-real. What is

real is clearly defined - that which is not sublated - trikaala

abhaadhitam satyam. That which remains the same in three periods of

time is real. Non-real is that which has no locus for its existence.

 

Since the world is perceived or experienced you cannot dismiss as

non-real. The suutra does not say that world is real. That is

conclusion one arrives at only if we take that what ever is non-real is

real. But in Advaita Vedanta what is real is well defined - like the

gold is real and it does not undergo any mutation when it becomes a ring

or bangle or bracelet. But bangle ring etc do not come under non-real

either since we perceive bangle is different from a ring or bracelet

etc.

Hence ring, bangle etc are neither non-real nor real but comes under

category of mithya or apparently real.

 

Hence suutra only dismisses that the name and forms, which is the world,

is not non-real since it is experienced. For everything that is

experienced there has to be real entity just as the gold is real entity

for ring, bangle etc. The order of reality of ring, bangle is obviously

different from gold. Dvaitins may put all in one basket; but gold is

the substantive of ring and comes under different order of realty since

it does not under go any mutations. Now take all gold objects on once

side, all iron objects on one side, and wooden objects etc on the other,

etc - gold, iron and wood have different degrees of realities compare to

their objects. If one takes what is that which gold, wood, iron

themselves are made up of, one has to go to more fundamental particles

and they are more real than the their assemblages like gold, iron etc.

Likewise if we take that one factor that is common to all objects in

this universe (that made or nature or yet to be found or made etc) that

does not change when all the objects change, that factor has to be more

real than all others. That never changes in all changes (any change

designate a time factor) hence that which is beyond time factor (now you

can see the definition of what is sat - that which is not sublated in

all three periods of time) That alone is real. Since the world is

experienced, it is not non-real but at the same time it is not real

either since it undergoes mutation. The common factor of the whole

world that which undergo any mutation in all these mutations is 'sat'

aspect and hence Upanishad declare that Brahman alone is the substantive

for all these changing world of objects. Baadaraayana goes into the

analysis of dream objects in the next sutra.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Now, you once said something about how a scholar friend of yours had

> some doubts whether those lines were really Shankara (which is why I

> put Shankara in quotes above). I could look that message up, but I

> remember it as slightly unclear to me.

>

> Could I please impose on you and ask you to post a fresh message on

> your position on this. It doesn't have to be long. I will certainly

> refer to both you and this list when I quote your answer over at my

> site.

>

> At any rate, I am quite certain that 'Brahman is Consciousness'

> combined with 'Brahman is One without a second' implies the

> nonexistence of the material world. To me, it is like 1 + 1 = 2.

>

> By the way, did not Shankara refute the Shankyans? Doesn't that

> settle it?

>

> As for the multiplicity of consciousnesses being really one... Well,

> as I said before, that seems to be the *logical* deduction from the

> nondual nature of Brahman. I only had trouble understanding it

> *phenomenologically* (whereas I do not have trouble understanding the

> nonexistence of matter phenomenologically). So I am working on that!

> I have not reached any conclusions.

>

> Please note that I am not burdening this list with that topic again.

> You only need post your one answer (or send it by email), and I will

> continue the discussion over there.

>

> Thank you very much and Hari 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.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri Benjamin prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Just to add my humble observation in addition to excellent comments from

Sri Sadananda prabhuji on brahma sUtra, shankara in his prasthAna trayi

bhAshya, while explaining the creation, has invariably denotes it

(creation) with mAya. We can find plenty of verses in shruti that

clearly refer creation like "this was indeed Atman alone in the beginning &

nothing else, he thought (??) let me create the worlds, he created these

worlds & he created life, from life faith, ether, air light etc. from food

vigour, taps mantras, religious works, worlds & in the worlds name (karma

lOkA lOkEShu cha nAma cha). Further if you see taitirIya upanishad, it

says he wished may I become plenteous, may I be born as the manifold , he

thought it over, having thought it over, he created all this & he entered

the very same creation (in mantras such as sOkAmayata, bahusyAm

prajAyeyEti, sa tatOtapyata, sa tapastaptva etc.) All these clearly shows

that supreme purusha created prANa (life) etc. but at the same time

question comes to our mind out of what substance he created them. though

in the above verse it is clear that all this universe was Atman alone

before creation (AtmA va idamEka Evam) Shankara says this is only a method

adopted by vedAnta to teach the ultimate nature of non-duality of Atman.

mayAntu prakrutim vidyAnmAyinantu mahEshvaram. here mAyin is applied to

Ishvara & mAya as the material out of which he creates the world. Shankara

quite explicit in explaining this shruti vAkya, says there is only one

principle essentially of the nature of changeless consciousness & that is

brahman or the supreme lord, & that He is regarded to be many through

avidyA, just as a magician on account of his mAyA is looked upon to be

many, while there is really no sentient entity other than brahman or the

lord.

 

In the above it is evident that mAyA (figment of avidyA) as defined by

shankara is avidyAtmika (of the nature of avidyA) fictitiously imagined

which is the cause of this manifold world of mundane life, are called in

the shruti & the smruti texts as creation. The following extracts from

sUtra bhAshya would throw us more light on shankara's stand on creation :

 

//quote//

Therefore it must be concluded that just a jar-space and pot-space and

other apparent spaces are not other than the one ethereal space, and just

as water in a mirage and other appearances are not other than the desert

etc. for those ethers & water etc. are of the nature of being perceived &

vanishing, undefinable in their apparent nature, so also this manifold

world of the experienced & experiences is not other than brahman in

essence.

//unquote//

 

The above extract is, in my humble opinion, places beyond any doubt that

shankara describes creation nothing but an appearance, & consequently the

*cause* (jagat kAraNatva) for him stands for the substrate on which

appearances are superimposed.

 

Just to substantiate this shankara makes it clear in the very next sUtra

bhAshya (II-2-29) after na abhAva upalabdhe, that the thing seen in the

dream as we know, will be sublated for the person who is awakened thus I

falsely seemed to meet a great crowd of people, there was no actual meeting

for me of the crowd of people; but my mind was overpowered by sleep and

hence there was this delusion. There is similar sublation in the cases of

magic and other states as appropriate to each of them.

 

I humbly request Sri Sadananda prabhuji to correct me if my understanding

is wrong.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

> Just to substantiate this shankara makes it clear in the very next

> sUtra

> bhAshya (II-2-29) after na abhAva upalabdhe, that the thing seen in

> the

> dream as we know, will be sublated for the person who is awakened thus

> I

> falsely seemed to meet a great crowd of people, there was no actual

> meeting

> for me of the crowd of people; but my mind was overpowered by sleep

> and

> hence there was this delusion. There is similar sublation in the

> cases of

> magic and other states as appropriate to each of them.

>

> I humbly request Sri Sadananda prabhuji to correct me if my

> understanding

> is wrong.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

Bhaskar - I missed the post - thanks for sending it to me again. I

agree with what you worte. In discussing the dream state - we also need

to recognize that Shankara's statement in Atma bodha- 'sakaale satyavat

bhaati prabhote satyasat bhavet' - as long as dream is going on it is

felt by the dreamer that the dream world is real - only upon awakening

from that state one realizes that the dream world is nothing but the

projection of ones mind. Hence the appearence of the world is real as

long as one is not awakened. Only in the state of jiivan mukta - the

apparent world becomes apparent and not real. This is exactly what was

emphasized in the previous suutra that Benjamin wanted to discuss. That

is why we need to separate the vyavahaarika vs paaramaarthika states

clearly and not make a blanket statement it nothing but consciousness.

It is -only from the paaramaarthika state. Till then it may be like Mr

Jones saying that 'I know I am a man and not a rat, but how can I be

sure that the cat on the street knows that I am a man and not a rat;

hence I am afraid of the cats'.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is exactly what was

emphasized in the previous suutra that Benjamin wanted to discuss. That

is why we need to separate the vyavahaarika vs paaramaarthika states

clearly and not make a blanket statement it nothing but consciousness.

It is -only from the paaramaarthika state.

> praNAm Sri Sadanand prabhuji,

> Hare Krishna

> Thanks a lot for your kind clarification prabhuji. Yes, it is

indispensable for a advaita aspirant to discriminate empirical &

transcedental views. It is in vyavahAra we say creation is creating or

inventing something or such & such thing created but in pAramArthika

creation is nothing but projection of an appearance or the world

superimposed (adhyArOpita) on brahman. If we can extend this to our

ultimate goal, it can be said only in vyavahAra we can talk about setting

ourselves free, deliverance from cycle of birth & death etc. but from the

paramArthika point of view its nothing but getting rid of avidyA.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar