Contradictions in Advaita?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

Sadanandaji said:

 

"Statements have been made by some our friends that there are

contradictions in Advaita ? I am going to post my understanding just

to provide some clarifications ... "

 

I wrote an article on this topic; it is message 14 on my list at

 

clearvoid/

 

While hardly as authoritative as Sadanandaji's post, it may

nevertheless be of some interest. Criticisms are of course welcome...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

 

_________

 

 

THE PRIMORDIAL ADVAITIC INCONSISTENCY - OR SO IT SEEMS

 

One should not always expect scientific clarity when reading the

spiritual literature of the world. Science deals with geometric

descriptions and quantifiable facts, and spirituality deals with the

Infinite and Transcendent. These are two different realms, though

the former is contained in the latter. Rather, when reading

spiritual literature, especially of the 'mystical' kind, one must use

wisdom and intuition to interpret the spirit behind the words, which

may sometimes appear not only obscure but even inconsistent and

self-contradictory.

 

As a prime example, let us consider some of the essential pillars of Advaita:

 

(1) The first pillar is that the only real 'being' is Brahman, which

is 'one without a second' (Advaita) and hence without multiplicity or

parts. It is frequently repeated that the essence of Brahman is Sat

(Being), Chit (Consciousness) and Ananda (Bliss).

 

(2) The second pillar is that our Self or Atman (the true self

beneath the illusion of the egoistic self) is identical with Brahman.

Hence the mighty Mahavakyas (great sayings):

 

1. Prajnanam Brahma - Consciousness is Brahman.

2. Aham Brahmasmi - I am Brahman.

3. Tat Tvam Asi - That Thou Art.

4. Ayam Atma Brahma - This Self is Brahman.

 

(3) Finally, a third pillar of Advaita is the 'Neti, neti' (not

this, not that), as stated by the sage Yajnavalkya to his wife

Maitreyi in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [see below]. This is the

insistence that Brahman should not be identified with any particular

object, nor should we identify with any object, such as body, mind,

family, property, etc. Moksha (liberation) cannot be obtained as

long as such identification persists.

 

Now (1) and (2) seem logically consistent, but (3) seems to clash

with (1) and (2). If 'everything' is Brahman, then does this not

include our body, mind, etc.?

 

One common answer is that we should not identify with any

*particular* thing. By implication, we may identify with

*everything*, and indeed this would be consistent with (1).

 

In my opinion, a deeper though related explanation is as follows.

First, it is essential to distinguish between a true nondualistic

level of consciousness and an illusory dualistic level of

consciousness. These are also called 'paramarthika' (or absolutely

real) and 'vyavaharika' (or relatively real), respectively. We are

in either one or the other. Note that the vyavaharika is not

considered entirely false like the 'horns of a hare'. It has a

certain degree of reality but is not the supreme truth that provides

liberation.

 

Now the key point I wish to make is that it is only when we are in a

dualistic state of consciousness that we can even discriminate

objects such as body, mind, etc. The dualistic state of

consciousness is the state in which the conceptual mind superposes

'subject' and 'object' upon the Infinite Consciousness, which is the

substratum of both ourselves and the apparent world, as described in

the Introduction (first message of the archive). This dualistic mind

must be transcended in order to reach the nondual state of

enlightenment and liberation. This is the principal theme of all

nondual paths. It is simply the common experience of countless sages

of all times and ages.

 

Therefore, there is no contradiction between (3), on the one hand,

and (1) and (2) on the other. The assertions of (1) and (2) are made

from the nondualistic state of consciousness, and (3) is made from

the dualistic state of consciousness. When we are 'trapped' in the

ordinary dualistic state and see a plethora of objects, some of which

we identify with, and some of which we have an aversion to, then the

only way out is to untangle the knot of illusion by methodically

rejecting the various identifications which are caused by the

dualistic view and which in turn feed it with powerful psychic energy

(by developing the ego sense). That is what (3) is telling us. Once

we have achieved the purgation of dualistic distinctions and

identifications through 'Neti, neti', then the truth of (1) and (2)

will shine forth of its own light.

 

Finally, one can hardly overemphasize that this 'annihilation of

objects' does not mean that the world disappears into a black hole so

that nothing remains. No valid spiritual path teaches this kind of

insanity, though it may sometimes appear that way if we fail to read

between the lines. The enlightened sages see the same sky, trees,

flowers and people that we do, but their attitude is profoundly

different. They see none of this as *different* from themselves, nor

do they see God or you as different from themselves. It is in *that*

sense that objects 'disappear'. Without the distinction and

difference, one can no longer speak of the subject/object dichotomy.

All of reality melts, as it were, into one vast unified

Consciousness.

 

Of course, I am merely repeating the fundamental wisdom of the

nondual tradition. My own experience is vastly more limited, though

I think I may have had a few flashes of insight from time to time.

And so have you.

 

Keeping this discussion in mind will help with many of the apparent

inconsistencies and paradoxes found throughout the mystical (and

particularly nondual) literature.

 

To conclude, here is a relevant excerpt from the Brihadaranyaka

mentioned above. The sage Yajnavalkya is speaking to his wife

Maitreyi. The translation is by Swami Nikhilananda and can be found

at

 

http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/brihadaranyaka.htm

 

Take care

Benjamin

 

 

 

BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD

 

Part Four, Chapter V, Section 15

 

For when there is duality, as it were, then one sees another, one

smells another, one tastes another, one speaks to another, one hears

another, one thinks of another, one touches another, one knows

another.

 

But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self,

then what should he see and through what, what should he smell and

through what, what should he taste and through what, what should he

speak and through what, what should he hear and through what, what

should he think and through what, what should he touch and through

what, what should he know and through what? Through what should one

know That Owing to which all this is known?

 

This Self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this.'

It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It

never decays; unattached, for It never attaches Itself; unfettered,

for It never feels pain and never suffers injury. Through what, O

Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?

 

Thus you have the instruction given to you. This much, indeed, is the

means to Immortality.