advaita manjari - 5

[Guest guest]

I am taking the liberty to post this in adviatin list since Michael is

also a list member and others in that list can discuss the contents.

without transgressing the lists.

 

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

>Moreover I do not agree

> that

> they represent the Advaita of Sankara but are an exotic novelty

> brought in

> via 18th.Century British Empiricism of Locke, Berkeley and Hume. It

>

> doesn't matter if one doesn't know of these thinkers if the

> authorities that

>

> Sankara does not take this approach. In the preamble to the

> Br.Su.Bh. he

> takes the subject/object dyad as a given and asks how I come to be

> conscious

> of that out there 'in front'. In another place he says

> B.S.B.II.ii.28 'an

> object and its knowledge diffe. Essentially as you will be aware

> the real

> difference of subject and object in perception is underpinned by

> unity in

> the substratum i.e. consciousness/Brahman. The self knows the self

> no

> matter in what guise it is. Brh.Up. II.iv.6 Sankara's comm. on

> "This

> Brahmana, this Ksatriya, these worlds, these gods, these being and

> all this

> are this Self. (Comm. Because everything springs from the Self, is

> dissolved

> in It, and remains imbued with It during continuance, for it cannot

> be

ÿ perceived apart from the Self. Therefore everything is the Self.)

 

Michael – I have no disagreements in terms of the essence of your mail –

If I paraphrase the essence of your statements - Everything is self and

I am that self and ‘everything’ springs from that self that I am. But

the fact of the matter is everything that springs forth from that self

is not different from the self too – as you have stated categorically

that consciousness is the substratum of all. Now is the world separate

from the consciousness is the question that comes down to in

establishing the independent world. A dependent world on consciousness

is what I am emphasizing too, since independent of me the world cannot

be established as real or unreal.

 

You brought the issue of what is true advaitic position – I will discuss

that in the end of this mail. Self-consciousness entity alone is

self-existing entity is accepted. The rest is dependent entity, and

cannot be independently established. I can repeat that many times but

that alone is the truth. Logically I cannot establish the world nor

dismiss the world also – hence I take the shelter that it is

indeterminate problem if I exclude myself from the world as separate

entity to analyze. That I believe is also true advaitic position too

unless you show me where I am wrong.

>

> Yet again in Sankara's refutation of Buddhist Vijnanavada he rejects

> the

> notion of logical possibility or impossibility as being relevant to

> the

> existence of something. (B.S.B. II.ii.28 again!) The Buddhist idea

> is that

> everything is a presentation to consciousness so our idea of

> 'outside'(the

ÿ individual consciousness) must be an inference

 

I am presenting my understanding of the sutra-s too in the following. I

could not find what I wrote on that sutra since new computer that was

installed in my office failed to relocate that article. If I find it I

will post for the vAdAvali list since a reference was made.

> Running the risk of wearying you with over-interpretation it is clear

> that

> Sankara holds that logical possibility or impossibility cannot be the

> basis

> of empirical enquiry. Real possibility or impossibility is discovered

> on

> that basis. I would add to that my own intuition that these logical

ÿ conundrums are generated by self-referring paradoxes.

 

Frankly I don’t see how your position differs from mine. The

self-paradoxes and the logical conundrums that you refer to are inherent

in the ‘indeterminacy of the problem I mentioned. I only see you are

using different terminology in terms off absurdities and paradoxes.

There is no need for a paradox or logical absurdities if the world is

real and existent or unreal and non-existent. I have to assume that it

is real or not real. Experience is the only basis of reality and only

thing in the experience, experiencer and experienced, that which is real

and absolute is the conscious entity that I am. The rest is dependent

entity only at least in the validation of that experience. You can

never get out of this problem other than by an axiomatic statement - the

world is real or the world is unreal. Without the conscious entity -

the independent existence of inert becomes an indeterminate problem.

 

Only problem that I keep repeating is that independent of what you call

substratum consciousness, I, the problem to define the world independent

of conscious entity that I am, is illogical problem. – Obviously when I

say the self-existent and self-conscious entity, I am not referring to

jiiva as in the jiiva notion there is already identification with

upaadhi-s due to ignorance of oneself.

>

> Another point which may be made for those who place great stress on

> Scriptural authority. If scripture is of non-human origin, however

> you

> understand that, then clearly its existence is not dependent on human

>

ÿ awareness of it. It is an object absolute and distinct.

 

 

True. First it is eternal and therefore real is only a belief. There

is no problem in that belief as I stated originally – and no further

discussion is required on beliefs.

 

Vedas classify themselves as lower knowledge along with the list of all

other sciences. Veda-s being themselves inert – self-existent entity

has to validate even Veda-s. Knowledge is eternal and that is also

advaitic positon but what is that knowledge is undefinable since a

definition is interms of something which reduces back to objective

knowledge as knowledge of ’ ’- We are back to paradox and

illogicality of any arguments sans consciousness. The abosolute

knowledge - knowing which 'everything' is known is again back to the

substantive for both jiiva and jagat.- that is the self that I am.

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

 

Now the discussion of the particular references you have mentioned

above:

 

Upadesha sahashrii

 

Prose section - Paragraphs 109 and 110.

 

There are several references within the text – But I am going to take

one where at the end of teaching the student’s understanding is

emphasized, for several reasons – since it also answers our dvaitin

friends who mistakenly think Shankara gives only rope-snake example

where there is no more snake when one sees rope.

 

Now the text:

 

Context – final declaration at the end of the teaching by the student

who understood the teaching and seeking confirmation of his

understanding from his teacher:

 

Shishhya-

yadyevam bhagavan kuutasthanityaavagatiH aatmajyotiH svaruupaiva svaayam

sidddhaa, aatmaani pramaaNanirapexatvaat, tato ananyaat acetanam

sahatyakaaritvaat paraartham| yena ca

sukhaduHkhamohapratyayaavagatiruupeNa paaraarthyam, tenaiva svaruupeNa

anaatmanaH asthitvam, naanyena ruupantareNa, ato naastitvameva

paramaarthaH| yathaa hi loke rajjusarpamariicyudakaadiinaam

tadavagativyatirekeNa abhaavo drishhTaH, evam

jaagratsvapraddhaitabhaavasyaapi tadavagativyatirekeNa abhaavo yuktaH|

evameva paramaaarthataH bhagavan avagateH aatmajyotishhaH

nairantaryabhaavaat kuuTasthanityataa, advaitabhaavascha,

sarvapratyayabhedeshuu avyabhicaaraat| pratyabhedaastu avagatim

vyabhicaaranti| yathaa svapne niilapiitaadhyaakaarabhedaruupaaH

pratyayaaH tadavagatim vyabhicaarantaH paramaarthato na santiityunte,

evam jaagratyapi niilapiitaadipratyayabhedaaH taamevaavagatim

vyabhicarantaH asatyaruupaa bhavitumarhanti| tasyaashchaavagateH anyaH

avagantaa naastiiti nasvena svaruupena svayam upaadaatum haatum vaa

shakyate, anyasya ca abhaavaat|

 

Traslation provided by Swami Jagadaananda of Ramakrishna Mutt: (foot

notes are mostly from the text itself)

 

Disciple: “Sir, if this is so, independent of evidences regarding

Itself, eternal and changeless knowledge, which is the Consciousness of

the self, is surely self-evident, and all the things different from it,

and therefore non-conscious, have an existence only for the sake of the

self as they combine to act for one another (in order that the events of

the universe may continue uninterruptedly). It is only as the knowledge

(Foot note: substratum of the mental modifications by which they are

known or illumined) of the mental modifications giving rise to pleasure,

pain and delusion that the non-self serves the purpose of another. And

it is the same knowledge and nothing else that has an existence. Just

as a rope-snake, the water in a mirage and such other things are found

to be non-existent except only the knowledge by which they are known; so

the duality experienced during waking and dream has reasonably no

existence except the knowledge by which it is known. So having a

continuous existence, {Foot note: The non-self has no existence

independent of knowledge unlike that of Prakriti ,as the material cause

of the universe, spoken of in the Sankhya philosophy} Pure

Consciousness, the self, is eternal and immutable, and never ceasing

(Foot note: In all experiences such as ‘jar consciousness , ‘cloth

consciousness’ etc, consciousness persists and is therefore real while

jar, cloth etc do no persist and so are unreal.) to exist in any mental

modification. It is one without a second. The modifications themselves

cease to exist, the self continuing to do so. Just as in a dream the

mental modifications appearing to be blue, yellow, etc. are said to be

really non-existent as they cease to exist while the knowledge by which

they are known has an uninterrupted continuous existence; so, in the

waking state also they are reasonably really non-existent, as they cease

to exist while the vary same knowledge continues to do so. As that

knowledge (the Self) has no other knower, it cannot be accepted or

rejected by itself. As there is nothing else (except Myself, the aim of

my life is fulfilled by your grace).”

 

Guru:

tathaiveti| eshaa avidyaa, yannimittaH samsaaro jaagratsvapalaxanaH|

tasyaa avidyaayaaH vidyaanivarthikaa| ityevam tvam abhayam praapnoshi|

naataHparam jaagratsvapraduHkhamanubhavishhyasi,

samsaaradhuHkhaanmukto2siiti||

 

Teacher: “It is exactly so. It is ignorance due to which the

transmigratory existence consisting of waking and dream is experienced.

It is knowledge that brings this ignorance to an end. You have thus

attained Fearlessness. You will never feel pain in waking or in the

dream. You are liberated from the misery of this transmigratory

existence.

Shishhya: “asmoti”

Disciple: “ Yes sir”

End of quotation

-----------

Now my notes:

Points to ponder:

1. “tenaiva svaruupeNa anaatmanaH astitvam” non-self or other than the

Self is has no existence by itself – existence is only through the

knowledge of them (which are mental modifications). Just as the objects

in dream, so are the objects in the waking state. The degree of

realities of the dream objects and waking objects are different – But

yet, the unreality is common from the absolute consciousness that I am.

 

2. As I have stated before, Shankara gives several example besides

snake-rope as stated in the text for adhyaaropa.

 

“rajjusarpamariicyudakaadiinaam tadavagativyatirekeNa abhaavo drishhTaH’

 

– snake-rope, mirage water etc. Example of the mirage water is to show

that even after knowing that it is false, one can see the appearance of

water but one who knows, knows that is only appearance and that

appearance is not real. Thus for jiivanmukta plurality can exist but no

more delusion that the plurality is reality. The fact of the matter is

even after realization, the student-teacher conversation continues with

confirmation of the knowledge. The duality is there within the

vyavahaara but not in the realization of the paramaarthika. This is

exactly in the same vein as Krishna’s conversation with Arjuna stating

catogorically that He pervades the entire universe in an unmanifested

form, yet teaching with teacher-taught can go on at vyavahaara level.

The teacher as no misunderstanding that yvavahaara is real but the

student has that notion due to his ignorance and hence the teaching.

 

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

 

Now I quote from Swami Satchidaanandendra Swaraswati (SSS)“The Method of

the Vedanta”– who has done exhaustive research on Shankara’s teachings

to differentiate from the teachings of post Shankara’s advaitins:

Preamble – ...But this existence is only accepted from the stand point

of practically worldly experience. All creation is admitted to enjoy

its illusory existence before the illusory play of name and form set up

by ignorance (avidyaa) has been cancelled. Then he proceeds to give

Shankara’s commentary relevant to the topic. Commenting on the

Goudapaada Kaarika – IV-42 and IV-44 and IV 58– Shankara states:

.. And those other souls and other entities that appear to come in to

being – they are also imagined. That is in the same way as at Kaarika

4-57 called ‘concealment’. The entities that come into being only

through ‘concealment’ do not come into being at all from the stand point

of highest truth. If the entities come into being, as described,

through ‘concealment’ they do so through illusory appearance (maaya) and

should be seen to be like a hypontist’s magic display. Is the

hypnotist’s magic display a reality? No. ‘That magic display is itself a

thing that does not exist’. The idea is that the term ‘maayaa’ is a

name for something that does not exist.

 

SSS now adds to this – And the author of the Suutra-s, too, speaking

from the point of highest truth, said ‘non-different from that’ (i.e.

the world as effect is non-different from the absolute as cause).

Speaking from the stand point of empirical experience, however, he says,

‘let it be, as in the world’, (B.S. II.i.13), and describe how the

Absolute can be represented as a great ocean (with waves and foam

raising in the ocean, sustained by the ocean and going back into the

ocean – as the material cause yet with name and forms like waves in the

ocean that appear to be different from the ocean). ... Because the world

of name and form, being no more than an apprehension, is only a piece of

false imagination. ..

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

Micheal you also referred to Shankara’s Br. Up. Bh.

 

Now the comments on the Br. Up. Bh. in the preamble – the discussion

starts on the head of the sacrificial horse – A symbolic ritual for the

purpose of meditation and therefore centered on the student who is

engulfed in the rituals and saadhana; and therefore addressed to the

saadhak who is embodied. The teaching starts from the point of the

student who takes the experience of plurality as a reality. All

advaitic masters have emphasized all along that Advaita Vedanta examines

the bheda aspects only as adhyaaropa apavaada – from the saadhana point

- since any sadhana that involves dvaita – experiential duality. There

is nothing in the Shankara Bhaashya that endorses the reality to any

plurality – taking the experience as reality is only notions in the mind

of the jiiva due to ignorance. Starting from the experiential plurality

one has to transcend to the reality of Advaita – as I have discussed

exhaustively in the puurnamadaH sloka. The Second section of Ch.I of

Br. Up. goes into the discussion of what was there before creation –

naiveha kinchannaagre aasiit, ... tanmano(a)kuruha, aatmanvii syaamiti|

....If you examine it starts saying there was ‘no thing’ before .. He

created the mind, thinking ‘let me have a mind’.

With that objectification starts.

 

Again in the fourth section – the creation aspect is reemphasized for

the meditator –

 

aatmaivedamagra aasiit - parushhavidhaH| saH anuviixya

naanyadaatmano(a)pashyat, so(a)hamiityagre

vyaaharattato(a)hamnaamaabhavat|

tasmaadapyetarhyamantito(a)hamayatyevaagra uktvaa athaanyannaama

prabruute yadasya bhavati na yatpuurvo(a)smaatsarvasmaatsarvaa npaapmana

oushhataastmaatpurushha oshhati ha vai na tam

yo(a)smaatpuurvobubhuushhayati ya yvam veda|

 

Shankara bhaashya analysis of this mantra -as a meditative process.

 

Interestingly the mantra itself starts with the statement that – in the

beginning of this (universe), was the self in the form of purushha – he

reflected and found nothing else but himself. He first uttered ‘ I am

he’. Therefore he is called aham (I). Hence to this day when a person

is responds he starts- It is I (it is me– in Hindi mai hu – or nene or

nandaa) and then says the other name that he may have etc. ...

 

Creation comes starting with the mind. I see Shakara bhaashya only

emphasizes this only through out his commentaries as emphasized in the

Upadesha sahashrii. The world of plurality is only notions in the mind

as superimposition on consciousness that I am – naandaa!

 

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

Now on B.S. Bhaashya for suutra 2-2-28.

 

Here is my understanding for whatever it is worth:

‘naabhaava upalabdeH’ – na abhaavaH, upalabdeH – not non-existent,

(since)experienced.

 

Notice the double negative in the suutra. The suutrakaara could have

mimimized the suutra by just stating - bhaavaH upalabdeH - since it is

experienced therefore it is existent. But that is not what the suutra

says.

 

I will discuss this from two aspects -one the direct meaning of the

sutra and the two Bhagavatpaada Shankara’s commentary on it. ( I am

taking the rain check to post my understanding of the suutra since I

could not find that file right now where I have presented that analysis)

 

First on Shankara's Commentary – it is context oriented. The discussion

from sutra 2-2-18 onwards starts taking the Buddhistic three schools of

thought as puurvapaksha- a) the realists- who accept both outside and

inside world; b) the idealists, who maintain that thought alone is real

and c) Nihilists who maintain that everything is void and unreal (the

modern Buddhists may interpret this void and nihilism in a different

way)

 

Fundamentally all of them emphasize the momentary-ness of the knowledge.

 

 

Suutras 18-27 refute the realists views. Where the emphasis of the

realists as interpreted as the existence of two independent aggregates –

the external world and the internal world – constituting the total

universe; philosophically to me is more close to dvaitic sense of

reality- of course doctrinally not. Without going into details,

according to them (realists): The external world is made up of aggregate

of atoms. There are four kinds of atoms; somewhat more parallel to

pancha bhuuta-s – only space is omitted which constitutes the third

world! In the internal world – they have five groups (skhanda-s) as the

cause of the internal world – producing together the mental world.

 

The puurvapaksha is dismissed through several sutra-s first by raising

the question in terms of the cause for both worlds – Since the atoms by

themselves are non-intelligent, how can they organize themselves

intelligently. If a stationary cause is assumed then momentary ness is

violated. If the cause is momentary – the continuity is violated.

Subsequent sutra-s and the commentary essentially zeros on the

cause-effect relationships to dismiss the realists position of two

independent worlds.

 

Bottom line from my perspective: The problem in the realists view as

presented is the independency of the two worlds – internal and external.

One is actually dependent (the external world) and the other is

independent – not necessarily in the context of their definition of

skhanda-s but the underlying self-consciousness, self-existent entity

that I am. This is in tune with the Upadesha sahashrii teaching.

 

Now the discussion of the referenced sutra (2-2-28) in the context.

 

Shankara’s commentary: This sutra and perhaps next sutra primarily

addressed against idealists view that even the external world is only

idea in the mind of the perceiver. Hence the external world has no

existence. Second aspect of course involves the momentary aspect of the

consciousness. Since the world is experienced, the world is not real is

also dismissed. One cannot experience that which is not there. Just as

one cannot experience the horns of hare or son of a barren women.

Shankara goes into exhaustive details in refuting ‘the idea’ or

‘thought’ itself constitutes the external world. In the next sutra the

unreality of the dream world cannot be used to dismiss reality of the

waking world since they belong to different degrees of reality.

 

Bottom line from my perspective: If we combine the arguments against the

realists and against the idealists – we arrive at true advaitic

position.

What is there is only one – Brahman – and that is advitiiyam –one

without a second. If we see two then the substantive of both should only

be Brahman. Hence two entities that we have – ‘I am there’ and ‘the

world is there’ (the third entity Iswara we brought in to account for

the intelligent cause for the universe) – If I separate myself from the

world, then examine the world as if it is real and independent of me,

Shankara’s commentary on sutra-s 2-2-18 to 2-2-27 essentially refutes

the independent reality of the external world. If I take myself as the

mind and the thoughts and take the world as the aggregate of the

thoughts, that is also dismissed. Either way one is examining the system

as incomplete.

 

But if I shift my attention not to the thoughts – but consciousness that

I am which is self-existent and self-conscious entity, the analysis

takes a different approach – Then I am that consciousness and

consciousness is Brahman – therefore form the substratum for both jiiva

and Brahman- and Shankara’s statement –Brahmasatyam jagat mithyaa jiivo

brahma eva na aparaH| follows correctly. Mithyatvam involves

essentially the indeterminacy that I have been pointing out. I cannot

say it is real – as per sutras 2- 18to 27 or cannot say unreal- as per

sutra-s 28 and on. Both are notions in the mind. Hence it is

indeterminate. maayaa is ya maa saa maayaa – that appears to be there

but not there is maaya. You cannot say it is there and you cannot say it

is not there – as sloka in VivekachuuDamani emphasizes:

Sannaapyasanna ubhayaatmikaano

Bhinnapya bhinna ubhayaatmikaano

Sangaapya sangha ubhayaatmikaano

mahatbhuuta anirvachaniiya ruupa

one cannot say it is there, you cannot say it is not there nor both

one cannot say it is different or not different (from Brahman) or both

one cannot say it has parts or no parts or both

it is wonder indeed – it is of the nature of ‘anirvachaniiyam’.

 

In that spirit I examined the sutra 2-2-28 at the request of Shree

Benjamin and I will post that later since I cannot find that file.

 

Hence the world is projection on substantive which is Brahman –

constituting the naama and ruupa – just as the gold is substantive on

which forms and names – ring, bangle and bracelet etc are superimposed.

Sajaati, vijaati, and swagata bheda-s are only in the superimpositions

but not in the substantives. To arrive as the substantive that is not

different from the subject ‘I’ – adyaaropa apavaada is practiced at the

seat of meditation as Br. Up. Emphasizes. In the negation of the world

or objects as ‘neti – neti’ I am negating everything that is

objectifyable as ‘iti’ as ‘this’. In the process one realizes the jiivo

brahma na aparaH|

 

If one studies the manjaries upto 5, I have not violated any advaitic

position. If you say I have absorbed indirectly even without my

knowledge the idealistic philosophy of the western world, which I have

no knowledge of ( I see lot of indeterminacy in the statement itself)

there is nothing much I can do about it. If you have noticed I keep

emphasizing the vyavahaarika satyam too to Benjamin who likes idealism.

Transactional reality is not reality in the absolute. Neither it is

non-real since Brahman is the substratum but in the knowledge of ahma

brahmaasmi – I become substratum too. So apart from me there is no real

world either! As long as we do not mix up the reference states, there

should not be a problem in the understanding the advaitic position.

 

Only thing is being with a scientific background (since Navy thinks I am

one and paying heavily for that mistake!) my presentation may be

different from that of classical advaita. I guess I have to live with

it.

 

Now I prefer to go back to my series ignoring all other comments

assuming that they will be answered to my satisfaction!

 

Best wishes to you too.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

>

 

 

=====

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.