Advaita Manjari -5

[Guest guest]

Advaita Manjari-5

 

 

This may be a little digression but may be still worth to note for clear

understanding of Advaita Vedanta. It was pointed out by our dvaitin

friend that what I wrote in the Manjari 4 was neither Science nor

Vedanta. Actually it is the other way around, it is both science and

Vedanta if one understands both correctly. If one reads without any

preconceived notions, there is beautiful samanvaya or self-consistency

in what I wrote and it will become more evident as one studies further,

whether one aggress with the theory or not. Dvaitins start with the

axiomatic statements that world is real, jiiva is real and Iswara is

real and discuss everything from that biased notions. With that

preconceived notions, they look for grammatical, contextual or other to

justify rest of their model or criticize Advaita.

 

For these specific reasons only I have no interest in indulging in any

item-by-item quibbles with Dvaitins, particularly when they fail to

recognize the fundamental problem. Secondly, of course, none of the

objections are really new and have been answered exhaustively by many

Advaitins in the past, and I have no interest in spending time to

reinvent the wheel, with semi-baked knowledge. I am not ignoring them

out of any disrespect; only I have realized it is fruitless for me to

discuss when they fail to understand the fundamental problem involved.

One can disagree with these statements too, so be it. One can ignore

these Advaita Manjari posts as well, like the multitude of dvaitin posts

flooded without clear understanding the fundamentals. I have no problem

with that either. These Advaita Manjari posts are intended only to

those who are really interested to learn Advaita Vedanta and obviously

based on my understanding of the siddhaanta. As stated before, I

started writing these in response to Krishna K’s questions. My thanks

to him for instigating it.

 

I have mentioned that these quibbles do not come under VAda, but mostly

Jalpa. In brief, discussions are classified under four major types;

samvaada, vaada, jalpa and vitanDa. Samvaada is discussion between a

teacher and the taught. This is flow of knowledge from higher to lower.

For the knowledge to take place student should have full faith in the

teacher and questioning by the student is only in terms of clarifying

his lack of understanding of the topic of discussion. Krishna does not

begin his teaching (samvaada) until he discovers the student in Arjuna.

 

Vaada is between two equals. The purpose of the discussion is to

establish the truth. In the traditional vaada, of course, there will

also be an impartial judge that both can agree upon, and pramaaNa’s that

both agree as valid for their discussions. Even though both come to the

table with pre-conceived notions, they are willing to discuss and

establish whose theory is more valid, again within the guidelines that

are pre-established and agreed upon. One who conceives the defeat

actually does so when he is convinced that the opponent theory is right.

If not the judge makes that conclusion based his understanding of the

issue or debate. The famous discussion between Shankara and Mandana

Misra supposed to have lasted for 18days and Mandana Mishra’s wife

Bharati, was the presiding judge of the debate. VAda is like our modern

proverb when we have disagreements –we all say - Let us sit down and

discuss this to seek solution to a problem at hand.

 

It is obvious that none of the discussions in this vAdAvali list are of

that type to claim that it is Vaada. I appreciate the moderators’

vision in naming this list as such, but one can see that it is

impossible to have that kind of discussions among the members. One can

always point a finger at others but the fact remains. From the

beginning, I stated that I have no interest in involving myself in any

vAda. First I am not qualified and second I find such discussions are

fruitless.

 

If I look at the discussions that went on so far between Advaitins and

Dvaitins (I do not see any vishishhTadvaitins in the list!), many

Advaitin gave up not that they are convinced of the opposite view but

for two prominent reasons: (obviously from my perspective) 1. Major

criticism of Advaita by Dwaitins is baseless due to not clearly

understanding the theory because again not having read in detail many of

Shankara Bhaashya-s. We are accused of having the audacity to point

this out to them, but surprisingly that seems to be the consistent

opinion of any Advaitin who reads the Dvaitin’s comment on Advaita. Does

it not make one wonder, why Advaitins say so? This came out clearly not

only in adviataL list, Advaitin list and now in vaadaavali list but even

before, when anyone reads the dvaitin books referring to Advaita. It is

interesting to note that if one makes the last comment I made, Dvaitins

will be jumping all over him saying – What Dvaitin books you have read

and How much have you studied etc. – but they seem to miss that these

are precisely the same questions they should ask themselves first before

they criticize the Advaita theory.- -whethere what they have studied

about Advaita and how much of the analysis presented is true

representation of Advaita, particularly when all Advaitins are pointing

that they are misinterpreting what Advaita theory. 2. Second, I find

the criticism of Advaita theory is mostly based on the contextual,

grammatical or some other sloka or mantra that they interpret in their

own way. This reduces to more packaging issue to suite a theory based on

original assumptions. One can get lost in these baseless arguments when

one has missed already the essential points of Advaita. My notes on

Advaita Manjari is only to bring these essential points. If you miss

these points any criticism of Advaita theory is baseless. Obviously I

have no interest to indulge in any jalpa. I am presenting only my

understanding of Advaita for those who are interested.

 

Now about Jalpa. Jalpa is the discussion between two people who come to

the discussion table, each with preconceived notion that he is

absolutely right and the other fellow is absolutely wrong, and the

purpose of the discussion is only to try to convert the other fellow

into ones camp. But the fact of the matter is the other fellow also

comes with the same premise that he is right and the first fellow is

wrong. Neither one is interested in establishing the truth, therefore

only lot of noise results. Now how many Advaitins in this list got

convinced about the Dvaitins’ arguments and vice versa? I can

confidently say none what so ever. Of course, one who is already in

that camp,can learn more about their own accepted theory. In that

sense, I must say it has a valid role. Since this is internet list, the

arguments and counter arguments manifests in the forms of loads and

loads of mainly meaningless posts. Now you see why the discussions on

the list clearly fall under the category of jalpa and not vAda.

Sometimes the bystanders either learn something out of this jalpa or

just quit after completely confused. In the jalpa, the discussers

ultimately quit either because they get fed up (not that they got

convinced of the opponents view) or the discussion quibbles to

meaningless trivialities. It is mostly like unwritten Italian traffic

rules – the one who can shout louder (post more) or the one who has

bigger car or truck has the right of way! That is why I see no vaada

here but jalpa. We are not ready for any vaada.

 

For completeness we can say few words on the last type of discussions-

VitanDa. I should say none of the discussions in this list fall under

that category. One example of VitanDa is like – the statement is wrong,

because you said it. The same statement is right if I say it. This

type of arguments are used some times to disqualify the credibility of

the speaker and therefore whatever he speaks. It is like a notorious

liar taking a witness stand and stating that whatever he says is truth

and nothing but truth. He may in fact be telling the truth. But the

credibility becomes an issue than the statement per sec. This is only

one type but they are others types of vitanDa vaada too.

 

Now some emphasis of the fundamentals of Advaita Vedanta and why this is

so important to understand. The samanvaya or consistency that I

mentioned in my first Manjari also follows if one is willing to think

deeply the issues involved.

 

There are fundamentally two entities that everyone experiences as one

goes from cradle to grave. One self, projected as ‘I’ and the world in

front of me that I have to deal with; thus I and the world. The world

includes all the objects or more accurately all that I can objectify.

Hence that reduces to only two; I, the subject and the world the object

or assemblage of objects. I am including all the concepts, thoughts and

feeling (objects, emotions and thoughts, OET as part of the world).

These are given facts as we ‘experience the world’. Since I have a

notion that I am born and I die and the world is there, even before I

came into this world and world will be there even after I quit, I am

not the author of this world. Since this universe (idam) follows

thermodynamically a well-ordered system and well-behaved system with

identifiable cause-effect relations, and with Universal laws governing

the system, we cannot but agree that it is creation with order and laws.

Now we bring in this equation a third factor – a creator to create this

universe – Iswara, who has to be sarvaj~na (all knower) and

sarvashaktimaan (all powers). Anything inside the creation cannot be

cause of the entire creation since that cause is limited by the

creation. There cannot be anything outside the creation either since

outside has to be created first to have outside and then that outside

becomes part of the creation only. Hence if there is an intelligent

cause for creation he cannot be separated from the creation and

therefore (He) becomes sarvavyaapakaH or all pervading. He obviously

cannot be identified with any form or shape or locality since those

descriptions are self-limiting and cannot be applicable to one is

sarvavyaapakaH or all pervading. Hence Krishna clearly declares “mayaa

tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta muurthinaa” – I pervade this entire

universe in an unmanifested form, manifestation in any particular forms

gets special or temporal limitations by that very form. In the duality

of I and the world - any thing that is unconscious or inert entity comes

under the world. If we go further, any 'thing' that requires my presence

as pre-existent entity to establish its existence, comes under object or

the world. If we extend it futher, any thing that does come under the

category of 'idam' is the world. By default I am separate from idam -

na iti not this. Idam shariiram when we say, all shariira comes under

the category of the world only. aham or I am separate from idam - the

world. I am involves both self-existent and self-conscious entity that

is different from the world which is not self-existent and

self-conscious entity, since I have to be there to establish the

existence of the world of objects.

 

Going back one step to understand this clearly – I am there and the

world is there – as these are given on the basis of experience (we have

not examined the validity of this experience itself – we will come to

that). Given that experience of duality, I have brought a third factor

to explain the cause for the world – and this third factor is Iswara,

the Lord or the creator. This third factor ‘creator’ is brought in,

since I ‘see’ or experience the creation. We assumed that creation is

real since we experience it, and we brought in to explain the cause for

this creation, the Iswara as third entity into the equation. Obviously

the reality of third entity does not arise if the reality of second

itself is questionable. The fundamental problem that arise now is – is

the world real? Dvaita and VishishhTaadvaita start with the premise

that the world is real and therefore the third factor is real. Whether

they agree or not, this is the assumption based on the experience not

that the world proves itself independent of the conscious entity to

validate its existence. Before we go further that assumption itself need

to be validated.

 

The world is real because ‘we experience it’. Here lies the fundamental

problem to start with. Unless this is clearly understood, one cannot get

to the next step. Experience itself is not knowledge; one has to

understand the knowledge behind the experience. Before even we go to

that level of analysis we need to understand what is involved in any

experience. What I am discussing now is the very basis of Advaita

Vedanta. As I have mentioned categorically that only given factor in the

triad – experiencer, experience and experiencing, the experiencer,

myself - the “I”, is self-existent and self-conscious entity. That is

the only ‘thing’ that need not depend on any proof since all proves are

based on its existence only. As agreed upon, a conscious entity ‘I’ has

to be there to establish that world exist, for pratyaksha pramaaNa to

operate. And I do not need any pramaaNa to establish my own existence

and my own consciousness. Now of the two entities that we started with,

I and the world, I am self-existent and self-conscious entity where as

the world is not. It has to depend on me to prove its existence. There

is no independent proof that the world exists without a conscious entity

establishing its existence. One cannot say it is there or it is not

there – to say either one has to be conscious. This is precisely the

reason why it comes under anirvachaniiyam. Any arguments to the

contrary is what I said about the man shouting at the top of his voice

that he is dumb and cannot talk. One can of course assume stating that

the world exists and real, there is no problem in that, as long as one

recognizes that it is an assumption since its independent existence

cannot be established.

 

Even the scriptures fall under the same category of insentient and

cannot be validated independent existence of the conscious entity. Even

to provide the validity of the statement ‘yathaartham pramaaNam’, I or

conscious entity has to be there to validate the yatha artham. Only that

is yathaa artham and no need of any pramaaNa is that I am –

self-existent and self-conscious entity. The rest is indeterminate

problem since independent existence of an object or the world or its

yathaartham cannot be established. Ultimately even at the quantum

mechanical universe, the observed gets affected by the observation but

observer is independent of the observed. If this is not science, I do

not know what else is science.

 

As Krishna K. pointed enough is said about the world and I.

 

Now there was a comment that as what I wrote is not Vedantic. Yes, it

is not if you start with the assumption is the world is real and define

reality to suite that assumption. Before the analysis of three examples

from Ch. Up – yathaa soumya … Uddaalaka starts with the statement – 1.

sadeva soumya idam agra asiit. 2. ekam eva advitiiyam. And later he

says 3. tad aikshataa. 1. Existence alone was there before creation and

2. it is one without a second and 3. it saw. 1. Existence is

self-existent entity and 2. It is infinite entity since existence cannot

have any boundaries since both boundaries and beyond the boundaries have

to exist and therefore part of existence. 3. It is conscious entity –

that which exists before the creation is self-existent and

self-conscious entity since there is nothing else for it to ‘see’. It

is sat chit ananda and also explained as satyam j~naanam anantam – hence

anantam is anandam – infiniteness which is limitless or unlimited is

happiness. If you study Manjari 5 this is exactly what I tried to

establish both as Brahman as well as what moksha involves. There is a

self consistency in every statement I have made in the Manjari – in

terms of aham brahmaasmi, brahmavit braham eva bhavati and ayam aatma

brahman, tat tvam asi. If this is not Vedanta, if there is no samanvaya

in my statements, I do not know what else is Vedanta.

 

Yes Krishna enough is said.

 

I will continue with the topic where I left it last time.

 

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.