Date of Yoga Vashishta (and a comment on BSB)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji and Venkat-M-ji,

 

Thank you for your scholarly comments. We are blessed to have some

real scholars on this list. Philosophers merely spin words, but

scholars actually know something! :-)

 

Unfortunately, there is a bit of inconsistency on the dates, but this

often happens in Indian studies, especially in universities rather

than monasteries (where tradition is sacred). I simply collect all

information and slowly try to form an opinion. I may even order Dr.

Atreya's thesis at our excellent local Indian bookstore, called

Nataraj Books. (Yes, even in America!)

 

I hope nobody is bothered that the Yoga Vasistha was appreciated even

by Ramana, despite having influences (according to Dr. Atreya) of

Madhyamika and Yogachara Buddhism. Without dwelling on this topic, I

would simply reiterate that the Buddhist 'emptiness' of the world is

very similar to the view of the Upanishads (where only consciousness

exists), while the 'nihilism' of Buddhism is a misinterpretation of

Western scholars that the authoritative Mahayana scriptures

themselves deny. It is not that there is absolutely nothing; it is

simply that the apparent objective world is illusion. This is of

course very Advaitin. It is the vision to which all nondual seekers

and meditators eventually arrive. These different spiritual paths

confirm and corroborate each other, with some difference in

terminology.

 

As for the Discussion of BSB II.2.28 (BSB = Brahma Sutra Bhashyas),

which has been going on for many months under Michaelji's lead, I

would like to state an opinion. When I read the translation by Swami

Gambhirananda posted on Michael's site, I do find it difficult to

deny that whoever wrote this was denying idealism (or 'consciousness

only') and was in fact affirming some kind of objective reality. I

know that Sadanandaji gave an excellent discussion of how to

interpret the double negative of the original cryptic Brahma Sutra

itself, but this avoided the commentary of 'Shankara' in the BSB.

Ananda dealt with this commentary more directly by challenging some

of Swami Gambhirananda's translation.

 

I do not know what the truth of all this is, but here is my opinion,

for what it is worth:

 

(1) The mahavakyas from the Upanishads which say that Brahman is the

sole reality and that Brahman is Consciousness MUST imply idealism as

I understand it. The only possible logical conclusion of these basic

principles is that Consciousness is everything and no objects

external to Consciousness can exist. The spiritual significance of

this was stated by the Yoga Vasistha, namely, that we remain in

bondage as long as we attribute any reality to the objects. This is

a profound spiritual truth known by the wise, which may seem

counterintuitive to 'common sense'. So what? Has common sense ever

liberated anyone?

 

The question then becomes whether these two mahavakyas are truly

fundamental. One can also find more dualistic language in the

Upanishads, which the Dvaitins and other dualists exploit. The

question then arises whether all of the Upanishads are truly

consistent and which are the most authentic ones. A western scholar

(or skeptical Indian scholar) can easily ask these questions, but it

must be often painful for a devoted traditional Advaitin.

 

(2) Based on stylistic reasons, I cannot believe that the author of

the BSB is the same 'Shankara' as the author of the Vivekachudamani.

Even taking into account that I am reading translations, the style is

so different that I cannot believe it is the same author (or

authors). The Vivekachudamani is elegant, refined and consistent and

the BSB seems clumsy, pedantic and inconsistent to me. Can anyone

deny the authenticity to Advaitins of the Vivekachudamani? And which

Advaitins really read the BSB (which is NOT the same as the 'sacred'

Brahma Sutras themselves), rather than just respectfully putting that

big book on the shelf? I think that texts such as the

Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha are the 'real' Shankara as far as I am

concerned; they give the real spirit of Advaita. This is what

Advaitins actually read. They are clearly idealistic, in my opinion,

and agree entirely with the two mahavakyas of (1). And they agree

with the Yoga Vasistha, as I detailed in a recent message. Please

remember what Sunderji said, that the Yoga Vasistha was much

appreciated by no less than Ramana.

 

Taking all this into account, I suggest that the Advaitin scholars on

this list may wish to consider that the BSB is not by the 'Shankara'

whom we know and love. Further evidence of this is 'unsaintly'

language when speaking to his Buddhist opponent, such as telling him

to 'curb his mouth', which can be read on Michaelji's site at

 

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~ombhurbhuva/vijnanavada1.htm

 

Michaelji, I'm sorry but I think you've been placing all your eggs in

an unreliable basket, namely, a few lines from a text which probably

does not reflect the true spirit of Advaita and is probably not from

the real Shankara. Just my opinion.

 

The bottom line is whether 'real' Advaitins must accept the two

mahavakyas stated in (1). If we do, then my 'idealistic' inference

that only consciousness exists (and objects do not) is an unavoidable

logical necessity.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> I do not know what the truth of all this is, but here is my opinion,

> for what it is worth:

>

> (1) The mahavakyas from the Upanishads which say that Brahman is the

> sole reality and that Brahman is Consciousness MUST imply idealism as

> I understand it. The only possible logical conclusion of these basic

> principles is that Consciousness is everything and no objects

> external to Consciousness can exist. The spiritual significance of

> this was stated by the Yoga Vasistha, namely, that we remain in

> bondage as long as we attribute any reality to the objects. This is

> a profound spiritual truth known by the wise, which may seem

> counterintuitive to 'common sense'. So what? Has common sense ever

> liberated anyone?

..........

>

> The bottom line is whether 'real' Advaitins must accept the two

> mahavakyas stated in (1). If we do, then my 'idealistic' inference

> that only consciousness exists (and objects do not) is an unavoidable

> logical necessity.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

 

Benjamin,

 

No Advaitin will deny the mahavaakyas. Advaita implies non-duality and

that existent non-dual has to be consciousness only by the very first

mahavaakya - praj~naanam brahman and that it is one without a second.

 

The denial of duality is denial - hence it is not non-existence of

duality; otherwise Advaita would have been called monism. There is no

need to deny when duality does not exist at all. Since what you called

commonsense which perceives duality and understood as duality in all

commonsense transactions, it is denying from the absolute point. Hence

Advaita siddhanta transcends both transactional reality (your

commonsense) and absolute realty - hence we have relative knowledge and

absolute knowledge. The double negative in the suutra serves this

essential purpose - denying the realty to duality since consciousness

cannot have the second. The subject-object both are in consciousness.

It is not denial of duality but understanding of oneness in the apparent

duality. It is nonduality inspite of duality.

 

I know you understand it but I do not know why you need to embark the

so-called idealism if that denies the transactional reality or so called

common sense. That is what we need right now to drive around safely in

these icy roads of Washington D.C. while Sadam Hussein skidded into a

mud-hole. If we loose commonsense, we will be skidding or kidding

ourselves into the mudholes - the idealists would not pull us out!

 

 

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.