Advaita Manjari -3

[Guest guest]

------------------

Advaita Manjari-3

 

PramaaNa: Just a few comments on PramaaNa, but more elaborate discussion

will be presented when we examine the Knowledge and Knower and Knowing

process. Since one considers oneself ignorant of both the world and to

some extent about oneself too (the two essential things that one deals

with while living), the pursuit for knowledge is inborn to beings.

Knowledge becomes the basis of all transactions. Therefore, the means of

knowledge, pramaaNa, becomes a basis to separate valid vs. invalid

knowledge or mistaken knowledge. In the pursuit of knowledge, ‘one’ is

always a given – that is the knower himself - since without him present,

the discussion of knowledge has no meaning. Implication of the above

statement is that the knower has to be an existent one and also a

conscious one, for any knowledge to take place. That is one is sat and

chit – and these form a fundamental basis for any knowledge, as given

facts - and no means of knowledge (pramaaNa) is needed to prove to

himself that he is existent and he is an awareful being. It is not that

I have sat or I have chit – they are not qualities that I possess; they

are my very essential nature. If I have to posses something other than

myself – that possessing self has to be existent self to start with to

have a quality ‘existence’ for me to possess. If one pursues that kind

of logic, it will lead to ad-infinitum. If I have consciousness, then

that consciousness has to be existent one since we cannot talk about

non-existent consciousness. Furthermore, if that

consciousness-existence (chit-sat) is the quality that I have, and then

I should be conscious of that to make use of it – essentially such

arguments will lead to infinite regress. To over come such problems,

one has to postulate some other criterion – postulation of inherence or

some other relation less-relationship with visheshaNa and visheshya.

Implication is any other counter hypothesis is not free from some other

assumptions or additional implications. The fact of the matter is I know

I exist and I am conscious – and therefore I am self-existent and

self-conscious entity requiring no means of knowledge to know myself.

And that is my essential nature.

 

Therefore I do not need – perception (pratyaksha), logic (anumaana) and

including shabda (scriptures) to prove that I exist or I am conscious.

Because I exist only all means of knowledge or pramaaNa are validated

and no means is required to validate my own existence. Hence I am

beyond any pramaaNa-s. Furthermore, I am the knower and without me, the

known and the means of knowledge have no validity. Unlike I, the world

(assemblage of objects) is not self-conscious entity to know itself.

Conscious entity has to be preexistent for the world to be known.

Scripture is not a conscious entity and therefore it cannot prove either

its own existence or the existence of the world. I have to be present to

validate even the scriptures. One can believe that scriptures are

eternal – why the scripture says so. There is no problem in having

beliefs if that helps in the understanding the nature of the self and

the world. But I have to be there even to validate the eternity of the

scriptures. We will address this problem more when we discuss the

concept of time-space complex and the play of the mind.

 

Of the three PramaaNa-s, discussed above – pratyaksha, anumaana and

shabda (according to Advaita there are three additional ones),

pratyaksha is based on sense-input and anumaana or logic also indirectly

rests on pratyaksha, sense perceptions for proof. To know things that

are beyond the sense perceptions one has to go to shabda pramaaNa. For

Hindu’s shruti-s form the fundamental basis of the knowledge which is

beyond sense perceptions.

 

Vedas: For a Hindu, Vedas are considered as apaurusheyam, that is, not

authored by a human being. Shaastra is pramaaNa or means of knowledge

for that which cannot be known by any other means. These include dharma

and adharma (beyond the realm of ethics), swarga and moksha, as well as

means of attaining them. Any objective science is based on objective

analysis of the objective world (anaatma), and therefore it is not

applicable to subjective arena, ‘I’, i.e. aatma. Since Veda-s are

considered as apourusheya, they are considered as free from any defects

(such as inconsistency) that gets introduced when authored by a limited

human intellect. It follows, therefore, that if one sees

inconsistencies in Veda-s, it only implies a lack of correct

understanding of the import of the Veda-s, since the language is

necessarily mystical. Mystical language follows since the subject of

the discussion in Veda-s is the very core of ‘The Subject’, which cannot

be objectified. Hence Veda-s become the essential means of knowledge,

pramaaNa, for knowing ones own self, which cannot be known as ‘object’,

since subject cannot be objectified. Here one should be careful - We

already mentioned that one-self cannot be known by any pramaaNa, since

'I' is aprameyam - yet here we are say that Veda-s are pramaaNa for

knowing one-self. Hence it is only a removal of ignorance of what I

think I am versus what really I am. I know I am existent and

consciousness but what I am seeking through all my pursuits in life is

only one thing - that is happiness. Veda-s essentially point-out 'what I

am seeking for I am - tat tvam asi - you are that what you seeking.

Veda-s 'aid' in the removing my misunderstanding about myself. Happiness

is limitlessness since any limitation causes unhappiness. Limitless ness

is infiniteness and that is Brahman - and Veda-s point out that you are

that - and ayam aatma Brahman - the self your are is limitless or

infiniteness or happiness that you are seeking. Hence it is not new

knowledge I gain but old misunderstanding is removed. The contradiction

is not in the analysis but in the very pursuit of happiness itself, when

I take myself as not myself. Even though I am know that happiness is not

an object or in any object, I still go after objects in pursuit of

happiness and there exist the very fundamental contradiction of life.

Veda-s tries to remove contradiction by stating you are what you are

seeking for - and that should lead to self-realization. It is

re-cognizing what oneself is. One cannot recognize by perception or by

anumaana since they deal with anaatma or non-self. Hence shabda becomes

the only source of information. The vision of scriptures is different

from my own notion of myself. The scripture works only if I can do the

introspective about myself. For that only I need a proper frame of mind

since I cannot objectify myself as 'this'. Scripture has to come to my

rescue with the teaching of 'na iti' not this - not this. By process of

elimination of my misunderstanding that involves 'I am this' I can 'see'

the vision of the scriptures - dhyaanena aatmani pasyanti kaschit

aatmaanam atmaanaa- By contemplation of oneself by oneself one can 'see'

oneself. For that my mind should be able to discard all the notions

which involves taking all that not-self as self.

 

A proper teacher is therefore needed to import the true meaning of Vedic

statements to a seeker, and to point out the samanvaya in the apparently

inconsistent statements due to its mystical language. Hence in the

above quoted Mundaka sloka (see part 1), the seeker is advised to

approach a teacher who has the knowledge of the shaastra-s and who

himself has ‘understood’ the nature of the reality that the Veda-s

reveal.

 

‘apourusheyatva’ (authorship by an non-human) of the Veda-s cannot be

easily appreciated by a rational intellect. But one can easily

rationalize this concept. Veda actually means knowledge and knowledge

is not purusha tantra, that is, it is not created by a human being. In

addition, knowledge has to be preexisting and cannot be willed by a

human being. When a human intellect intensely contemplates or

meditates on a subject of investigation, intuition develops, and

knowledge dawns on him. Intuition in Vedanta is called j~naana kshakshu

or ‘wisdom eye’. Spiritual masters call the knowledge gained as

‘revelation’, since it is revealed to them. On the other hand, an

objective scientist may call it as ‘break-through’. Hence Veda-s can be

considered as recordings of the revelations to the sages of the yore in

their seat of meditation. Since they are not the authors of the

knowledge (veda), Veda-s are considered apourusheya. In principle, all

knowledge comes under this category. As stated above, scriptural

knowledge has additional aspect associated with it, in the sense that it

deals not with ‘anaatma’ or objects but with oneself or the very subject

‘I’ or ‘aatma’.

 

Two aspects are revealing about the Veda-s. Veda-s themselves declare

that the nature of the reality is beyond human comprehension since (a)

what a human mind can comprehend is finite and only objectifiable

entities (yat vaachaa anabhyditam..., yan manasaa na manute...., yatho

vaacho nivartante apryaapya manasaa sah, etc. ) and (b) it is beyond

logic (naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya). This is not to say that Veda-s

are illogical. The second aspect is that Veda-s classify themselves as

part of the lower knowledge, since it is pramaaNa or a means of

knowledge to know that which cannot be known (aprameyam). Hence it uses

a mystical language to indicate (indicate may not be proper word either

since ‘indicate’ has a connotation of pointing that which, in fact,

cannot be pointed – perhaps ‘imply’ may be better) the essential truth,

provided the seeker’s mind is tuned to the teaching. Just as for higher

mathematics, the language of communication is reduced to some symbolic

elements involving alphabets and therefore ones mind has to be

appropriately trained in order to receive that knowledge. Similarly to

appreciate the import of Vedanta, one’s mind has to be adequately

prepared to receive that knowledge. Hence qualifications of the student

become an important consideration before teacher can import or the

student to grasp the correct understanding of the mystical language.

Unlike the objective sciences like mathematics, the Vedantic teacher

faces more difficult task, since the subject of the teaching is about

ones own self. Student comes to the teacher with so many preconceived

notions about oneself, about God and about the world and those notions

themselves become great obstacles for the knowledge. Hence the student

should have unconditional faith in the teacher and the teaching of the

scriptures for the teaching to be effective or productive. It is said

in VivekachuuDaamani that only due to grace of god one attains the human

birth, desire for liberation and an appropriate teacher. In Avadhuuta

Geeta, Shree Dattatreya says that it is only due to the grace of God

that one acquires Advaita vaasana-s.

-----------------

 

 

 

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

http://companion./

[Guest guest]

Moderator's Note: This post from Sri Jay Nelamangala is for Sri Sadananda, and

he would provide the answer and other members are requested to refrain

discussing unless Sadaji is willing to entertain. Sri Jay and other members are

requested to check with Sadaji before sending any mails to the list directly.

Thanks in advance for the cooperation.

 

>That is one is sat and chit - and these form a fundamental basis for any

knowledge, as given

>facts - and no means of knowledge (pramaaNa) is needed to prove to

>himself that he is existent and he is an awareful being. It is not that

>I have sat or I have chit - they are not qualities that I possess; they

>are my very essential nature. If I have to posses something other than

>myself - that possessing self has to be existent self to start with to

>have a quality 'existence' for me to possess. If one pursues that kind

>of logic, it will lead to ad-infinitum. If I have consciousness, then

 

is knowledge a property of 'I' ? or is it a power that 'I' has ?

what is the relationship between my 'knowledge' and my self ?

 

In the darshana sampradAya, several models have been put forward.

 

For chAruvAka, everything is materialistic including knowledge. Knowledge is

somekind of 'matter'

For shoonya vaadin of bouddha, everything including knowledge is void.

For the vijnAnavAdin, only knowledge exists but not its object

 

etc etc

 

Means of knowledge, or pramANa to know myself that I exist is "sAkshI

pratyaksha",

that knowledge is not produced afresh, ( the knowledge of smell of rose is

produced afresh )

but it is known directly by the operation of SAkshI.

[Guest guest]

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

> Moderator's Note: This post from Sri Jay Nelamangala is for Sri

> Sadananda, and he would provide the answer and other members are

> requested to refrain discussing unless Sadaji is willing to entertain.

> Sri Jay and other members are requested to check with Sadaji before

> sending any mails to the list directly. Thanks in advance for the

> cooperation.

-----------------------

> Means of knowledge, or pramANa to know myself that I exist is

> "sAkshI pratyaksha",

> that knowledge is not produced afresh, ( the knowledge of smell of

> rose is produced afresh )

> but it is known directly by the operation of SAkshI.

 

 

I refuse to discuss with Shree Jay N. since I failed miserably in the

past. I am not going to venture again. I wished him all the best in his

pursuits.

 

Since he posted this note to advaitin also, I am obliged to answer to

some extent. Jay gave an explanation of how shaakshi operates. All that

means is that dvaitins also have a theory! So also advaita and

vishishhTadvaita.

 

In my article Advaita Manjari, I have not gotten into any specifics of

the how objective knowledge takes place. When we come to that topic- I

will present my understanding of how that subject is treated according

to advaita.

 

What I have emphasized in the Manjari-3 is irrespective of the

mechanisms of knowing process at this stage, I, the knower, has be

existent and conscious for the knowledge to takes place. That is I am

sat and I am chit. Advaita does not consider that sat and chit are

properties of I, for obvious reasons as I have pointed out in the

Advaita Manjari-3.

 

What I have stated clearly and emphatically is, I have to be there to

have knowledge 'of' any object. tasya bhaasaa sarvam idam vibhaati-

Means of knowledge, pramaaNa, has to operate for me to know an object.

My presence is given. That is the fundamental and absolute. Since I am

not an object but a subject, the pramaaNa-s which involve

objectification such as pratyaksha, anumaana and shabda have no

relevance for subject ‘I’. Hence 'I' is generally described as

self-effulgent entity or jyotirjyotiH. How viJ~naanavaadins look at the

problem is impertinent to me. We will address the epistemological

issues later from the point of advaita.

 

The fact remains: World or objects cannot be established independent of

the knowing principle. That they exist is only assumption and even to

prove or disprove that assumption, a conscious entity has to come in.

Hence it is called as indeterminate problem. Of course those who know

some quantum mechanics can easily understand the indeterminate nature of

the problem.

 

Silly arguments were presented in Vaadaavali list that, world was there

before I was born -There is not a Vedantic thought - that 'I am mortal'

is the fundamental error due to adhyaasa. But besides vedanta - Where is

the past and where is future for me without the identification with the

mind. Besides, how do I know that world was there before I was born -

Some other conscious entity says so is only proving my statement that

consciousness has to be preexisting to establish the world. If I knew

before I was born, then I was there already to know. If came to know

that world was there, after my birth, even then I have to be there to

know that there was a past. Without me present, who is going to

establish that there is a past and there will be future. Past and futhre

are concepts of time. Even to know time I have to be there! To whom the

world exists has to be proved - proof is to conscious entity not to

unconscious entity. All these proofs and times etc. only establishes

my statement that without a conscious entity - space-time cannot be

established. I was accused of being unscientific? I wonder.

 

Fundamentally, if one thinks properly and deeply, even to deny the world

or prove or even to disprove the world is there or not, the conscious

entity I have to be there to start. No proof or disproof is possible

without a conscious entity present. Who is going to try? An unconscious

entity? This is so fundamental and absolute, I wonder why people miss

this simple concept. Otherwise it is an inderminate problem.

Anirvacahniiyam arises not out of blue but from this indeterminacy only–

not because Advaitins do not know how to explain!

 

Moderators of Advaitin List have requested not to prolong this

discussion with Jay N. in this list. I concur with them. If any body

wants to respond directly to Shree Jay N. they are welcome or

alternately respond to vaadaavali list - for that, one has to become a

member of that list.

 

I am posting this response to Vaadaavali since some may be interested in

knowing my response to questions raised – Jay N. will also have a chance

to refute my arguments for his satisfaction. I have stated the facts of

Advaita and not at all interested in indulging any further discussion

with dvaitins since I decided that it is just a waste of my time.

 

If you feel that what I have presented in the Advaita Manjari is not

correct Advaitic concepts, please feel free to express your views in

response to my posts and I am sure the Moderators of the list would not

mind since this is form to discuss the Advaitic concepts.

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.

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji.

 

You have hit the nail right on the head.

 

Part of your mail quoted below is the only 'given' from which any

logical discussion can sprout. Total acceptance of it is the

fundamental prerequisite to any meaningful enquiry, lest we would be

meandering in our quest as does science with all its great claims.

Disregard for this self-evidence certainly is impertinence from

advaitic point of view.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

What I have stated clearly and emphatically is, I have to be there to

have knowledge 'of' any object. tasya bhaasaa sarvam idam vibhaati-

Means of knowledge, pramaaNa, has to operate for me to know an

object. My presence is given. That is the fundamental and absolute.

Since I am not an object but a subject, the pramaaNa-s which involve

objectification such as pratyaksha, anumaana and shabda have no

relevance for subject `I'. Hence 'I' is generally described as

self-effulgent entity or jyotirjyotiH. How viJ~naanavaadins look at

the problem is impertinent to me.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Nairji. You are absolutely right. Our dvaitin friends ignore all

the nails since they have already concluded that advaita is wrong -

mostly based on their study of it from dvaita books. They criticise

advaita without having read many bhaashyaas of Shankara. I even had a

note from a dvaitin friend not to misinterpret advaita since it does not

match with what he has understood as advaita. That is why I concluded

my Advaita Manjari-3 with Avadhuuta Geeta's statement - only by grace of

God one acquires advaita vaasana-s.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

> Namaste Sadaji.

>

> You have hit the nail right on the head.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda:

 

It is not that they do not "KNOW" the "NAILS" and the "HAMMER".

 

They do recognize them as separate "davita"; what they miss is

their "utility".

 

What are these two objects use for?

 

Just think -

 

Their real utility or purpose is to "UNITE". To "HLOD" together. Two

entirely unrelated materials.

 

This keep on trying to preserve "WHAT" their teachers have told them,

however, forgetting the "SIGNIFICANCE" of their teaching. Not having

understood theses basis the fundamental "tattava" the realization at

individual or global level remains incomplete.

 

Ramaamadaas swami 17th century Maharashtrian Saint says -

 

tasmaata vicaara karaava |

deva koNa to voLakhaavaa |

aapalyaa aapaNa shodha ghyaavaa |

aapaNaci ||

 

Overall Meaning: Find out the "God (what matters? the puruShaa)"

principle, for yourself.

 

bhakta to vibhakta nahve |

vibhakta to bhakta navhe |

vicaareviNa kaahica navhe |

samaadhaana ||

 

Overall Meaning: Someone is not bhakta because he think himself as

being separate from the deity. Thus the most important thing is

to "THINK", without that there is no satisfaction.

 

Just my 1 and 1/4 Cents.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

PS: It is said if all you have is a "hammer" then you start looking

at the world as "Nails".

 

Just a little humor which I think is the shortest distance between

two people.

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Thanks Nairji. You are absolutely right. Our dvaitin friends

ignore all

> the nails since they have already concluded that advaita is wrong -

> mostly based on their study of it from dvaita books. They criticise

> advaita without having read many bhaashyaas of Shankara. I even

had a

> note from a dvaitin friend not to misinterpret advaita since it

does not

> match with what he has understood as advaita. That is why I

concluded

> my Advaita Manjari-3 with Avadhuuta Geeta's statement - only by

grace of

> God one acquires advaita vaasana-s.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

>

> --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair> wrote:

> > Namaste Sadaji.

> >

> > You have hit the nail right on the head.

>

> >

> > PraNAms.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

>

>

>

>

> =====

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

is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

>

>

>

> New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

>