Adhyasa/Adhyaropa - response to bhaskarji

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

"the prakruti/mAya/universe is fictitiously imagined by avidyA as

though

they were identical with the omniscient lord"

 

I believe you have completely misunderstood Shankara here. You are

saying: the universe is imagined by avidya as thought it were

identical with Ishvara.

 

You emphasize that Shankara is referring to Ishvara, ie: Saguna

Brahman. Saguna Brahman is the omniscient, omnipotent, compassionate

entity that is responsible for the manifestation, preservation and

withdrawal of the universe.

 

According to you, the ignorant think that the world is this Ishvara,

ie: the world is omniscient, omnipotent, compassionate and reposible

for manifestation, preservation and withdrawal of the universe.

 

This is a most unusual position since there is no one who takes the

world to be omniscient, omnipotent, compassionate and responsible for

creation, etc... It is absolutely not our common experience to imagine

the universe to be identical to Ishvara. If this were ignorance, then

virtually no one would be ignorant because no one takes the world to

be Ishvara.

 

What Shankara says is that we superimpose Self on non-self and vice

versa. This simply means that instead of knowing the sakshi chaitanya

to be the true referrent of the "I", we think the body, mind,

intellect, etc... to be the referrent. Thus, we don't recognize our

true nature. He never says that the ignorant are those who mistake the

world for the omniscient, omnipotent, compassionate creator since this

would be an irrelevant charge.

 

The other question - in your system, how is Brahman the upadana karana

even from a conventional perspective?

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Rishi prabhuji:

 

"the prakruti/mAya/universe is fictitiously imagined by avidyA as

though they were identical with the omniscient lord"

 

I believe you have completely misunderstood Shankara here. You are

saying: the universe is imagined by avidya as thought it were

identical with Ishvara.

 

bhaskar :

 

You may be right prabhuji in saying that I've misunderstood the shankara

bhAshya..but let me give you the reference of the text from which I was

writing the above so that you can share your understadning of the same :

It is sUtra bhAshya on 2 chapter, 1 pAda, 6th adhikaraNa

(AraMbhaNAdhikaraNa) 14th sUtra (tadanyanyatvaM AraMbhaNAshabdhAdhibhyaH)

shankara writes an elaborated commentary on this sUtra since he deals with

cause and effect theories, efficient & material cause of universe etc. etc.

The relevant portion of my above quote in Sanskrit original goes like this

: *sarvajnasEshvarasya AtmabhUtO ivAvidyAkalpitE nAma rUpE

tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIyE saMsAraprapancha bIjabhutE,

sarvajnsEShvarasya mAyA, ShaktiH, prakrutiH - iti cha

ShrutismrutyOrbhilapyEte*..(kindly dont rely on my transliteration..better

check for the original text in sUtra bhAshya)..

 

Prabhuji, From the above it is evident that here mAyA described as the

figment of avidyA and identified with prakruti, the original avyAkruta

(bIja rUpa) state of the world before creation!! Further it is called mAyA

because it cannot be defined to be identical with Ishvara or quite distinct

from Ishwara. This is what shankara confirms by saying *tatvAnyatvAbhyAm

anirvachanIya*..This is what I understood from shankara bhAshya..

 

It is also to be noted, in this long running commentary we find multiple

variants for the same expression which I believe we can ill afford to

ignore..shankara uses terms such as *avidyApratyupasthApita (presented by

avidyA), avidyAkruta (made up of avidyA) and avidyAtmaka (nature of avidyA)

all which more of less mean the objective appearance due to avidyA. kindly

clarify why shankara saying here mAyA is avidyAkruta, avidyAkalpita etc.

here.

 

Rishi prabhuji :

 

The other question - in your system, how is Brahman the upadana karana

even from a conventional perspective?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, shankara himself answers this question too...As we know, shruti-s

speak of brahman both as the creator and the material cause of the

universe...how can this be?? as we have seen above shankara saying mAyA is

avidyA kalpita but here shruti saying material (upAdAna) cause is nothing

but brahman!! Here it is very important to know in what sense precisely

brahman is the *cause* of this universe?? Again, to get an answer for this

we have to first understand the nature of *effect* as we are *equating*

this effect with cause...Again, our bhagavadpAda beautifully explains this

in *janmAdyasya yathA* (1-1-2)..sUtra bhAshya (kindly check bhAshya starts

from *asya jagataH nAma rUpAbhyaM..anEka katrutva bhOktrutva saMyuktasya

etc. etc.): this universe wehich is differentiated by name and form,

consisting of many agents and experiencers of the fruits of action, times &

causes (dEsha kAla nimitta)..this comprehensive description including even

*time & space* in its scope forbids our mundane imagination of brahman as

the *cause* of this universe in ordinary sense. Now, with this description

can we think brahman as a *maker* of the world in the same sense that a

potter is the maker of pots!!since we have seen in the above bhAshya *all

the agents of action* are within the universe and Ishwara cannot be thought

of as an agent who forms an idea makes a plan of what he is to make and

then executes it!! Again, in what sense then is brahman the cause and the

world is effect?? shankara clarifies this again in the *ArambhaNAdhikaraNa*

bhAshya. He says " the effect is this manifold world consisting of ether

etc. and the cause is the highest brahman...*the non-existence of the

effect in reality apart from that cause is concluded...on what basis?? for

the reason that sruti declares that the effect is merely the play of words

(vAchAraMbhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyaM) and for other similar reasons

...therefore it must be concluded that just as jar space and pot space and

other apparent spaces are not other than the one ether space and just as

water in a mirage and other appearances are not other than the desert etc.

for those ethers and water etc. are of the nature of being perceived and

vanishing, undefinable in their apparent nature so also this world of the

experienced and experiences is not other than brahman in essence"

>From the above bhAshya it is evident that this apparent world as we are

aware of is only the effect of mAya and is essentially identical with and

has no independent existence apart from brahman..avasthAtraya prakriya (the

methodology adopted in three states) confirms this further how brahman is

devoid of this apparent *effect* in the form of nAma rUpa, dEsha kAla

upAdhi parichinna...

 

Finally, we know what is paramArtha in advaita, as gaudapAda says, no a

nirOdhO nachOtpattihi. na bhandha nakArakaH..etc.etc. kArya kAraNa

prakriya, attributing upAdAna & nimitta kAraNa to brahman is shAstra's

adhyArOpa to teach us the ultimate non-dual reality of parabrahman.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakarji,

 

Thank you for bringing up that Sutra. I will try to give a rough

summary of the whole commentary on this Sutra so that everyone knows

where we are at and because it is a very interesting read. Its a sutra

that everyone should study carefully no doubt. Please tell me if you

disagree with the summary.

 

Shankara first says that in the previous sutra the distinction between

the enjoyer and object of enjoyment was for practical, conventional

purposes only. In reality there is no such distinction because cause

and effect are non-different.

 

The modification of effects are names alone, and in reality no such

modification exists. In so far as the effects are name, they are

unreal - in so far as they are clay, they are true.

 

Shankara again emphasizes that the manifest world has no existence

apart from Brahman (note how he repeats "apart from Brahman" often).

 

Now, a bhedabheda purvapaksha speaks for a while. He says that in

Brahman there is both difference and non-difference, this is how there

can be enjoyer/object of enjoyment relationship and the oneness of the

Self at the same time. He says that liberation comes from seeing the

multitude in the world whereas the diversity can be useful for

karmakanda, etc...

 

Shankara says no; the scriptures say that the effects are unreal

(being just names), the cause alone is real. The effect being unreal

is not limited to one particular state, but applies to all of them.

Scripture holds that unity alone is true, and multiplicity arrises due

to ignorance. Furthermore, if multiplicity were also true, then

knowledge could not bring liberation since multiplicity is not false

knowledge.

 

The purvapaksha says if everything were the Self, then all scriptures,

injunctions, methods of attaining final liberation, etc... would be

meaningless. If there isn't a distinction between teacher and student,

how can knowledge even be imparted?

 

Shankara replies by saying that the world is taken to be real as long

as ignorance is not removed, so this is fairly irrelevant attack to

Advaita.

 

The purvapaksha restates the argument by saying that drinking or

bathing in a mirage or being bitten by a rope-snake does not kill a

person, similarly why should an unreal scripture grant liberation?

Shankara refutes this by saying that sometimes we observe that death

takes place from an imaginary bite (ie: in a dream).

 

Now the purvapaskah says that this effect itself is unreal! Shankara

says, yes the effect is unreal but NOT the conciousness the dreaming

person is having (amazingly important statement). Shankara says the

consciousness is a real result because it is not denied/sublated by

the waking consciousness. The man who wakes up from sleep considers

the dream events unreal but he does NOT consider the consciousness he

had unreal (he does not say "I never dreamt", he only says "The things

that happened in the dream were not real events).

 

Shankara while he's there uses this to refute the materialist doctrine

that the body is the Self. Then he talks a bit more about relationship

between unreal dreams and real waking world (so to speak). Then he

again repeats that the unreality of effect does not need any proof in

addition to the scriptural passages asserting unity of the Self (so he

is being generous here).

 

Then we get another nice objection (these are really intelligent

objections actually). The whole clay/pot discussions in scripture show

that Brahman is capable of undergoing modification (since base clay

can modify into pot). Shankara says no, because scripture also says

that Brahman is changeless - he then gives some quotations.

 

Shankara also refutes the position that Brahman is capable of

modification, and yet remains changeless. I do not think

Chittaranjan's spanda - motionless motion, would go down too well with

Shankara. The purvapaskha is suggesting something different here

though - he suggests that when the world is subsisting, then Brahman

undergoes change and during pralaya Brahman is changeless. But

Shankara points out that scripture describe Brahman as absolutely

changeless.

 

Shankara then says that the parts of scripture which talk about a

Brahman which undergoes modification are only there for the purpose of

supporting the other parts of the teaching. The reason given is that

after passages such as the "neti, neti" one, scripture says that

Janaka achieved liberation. This shows that this kind of knowledge

directly brings liberation, whereas liberation is not discussed as a

result of parinama knowledge, which shows the parinama passages are

supporting passages. So with this Shankara is especially refuting the

position that Brahman undergoes modification upon self-knowledge

(strange position this one!).

 

Now another objection is that the idea of a changeless Brahman goes

against the idea of Brahman as the creator, also since there can be do

distinction between the Lord and those ruled by the Lord.

 

Here Shankara says that attributes such as omniscience and so on are

relevant to Brahman only in relation with the world. However, Brahman

is truly divested of such characteristics and these attributes

dependent on nama-rupa and are based on ignorance. So the Lord depends

on the upadhis of name and form. In Vyavahara, the Lord is the ruler

of individuals, which are in reality one with him. Shankara uses the

example of jar space being the same as universal space. So the Lord is

a Lord and has qualities such as omniscience and so on, only because

of ignorance of the jivas. Shankara then gives some citations for this

from Sruti and Smriti. Thats the end of my summary.

 

Now, to use that as the basis of reply, there are several things to

consider here with regards to our discussion.

 

First, Shankara emphasizes that the conciousness of the dream is real,

but the dream itself is unreal. This should be taken as his position

on the world since this is where he is using the analogy. The

consciousness of things is real, but the things are something other

than conciousness are unreal. In the Upadesha Sahasri also, Shankara's

disciple, after attaining fearlessness says "The snake has no

existence APART from its knowledge". Shankara also says in the same

work that transitory knowledge is essentially the same as Eternal

Knowledge - its no the knowledge being denied, but the existence of

things other than knowledge.

 

Second, there is nothing about people mistaking the world for Ishvara

as you said in the other post. Also, consider the logical arguments I

gave there - I doubt you meant what you said since it would be a very

unusual position.

 

Now the third thing is with regards to the nature of the Ishvara. I

will try to explain my understanding of this. When we assume a

seperation between jiva, world and Brahman, then we look at how

Brahman effects the world and the jiva. From this we conclude that

Brahman is omniscient, omnipotent, etc... All these are attributes

which deal with Brahman in relation to something else. If there is

nothing to excercise power over, there cannot be omnipotence. If there

is nothing to know, there cannot be omniscience. While there are

things to know and excercise power over, Brahman is omnipotent and

omniscient. However, in reality the jiva, world and Brahman are one,

so there is no relationship of Brahman with something else. Divested

of relations, Brahman is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc... Saguna

Brahman is a way of looking at Nirguna Brahman, and this way of

looking depends on some assumptions (especially seperation). Since,

these assumptions are not true, the view turns out to be wrong. In

that sense Saguna Brahman is created by avidya, but it doesn't mean

that the entity which we mistake for our concept of Saguna Brahman is

not true - how can that be? The entity we mistake as Saguna Brahman is

Nirguna Brahman,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakarji,

 

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

prabhuji, you know something, I badly need letter *s* in my name.....I

donot want to be M-TV bhakar or bhakra prabhuji:-))

if you are intentionally calling my name like that...no probs...but pls.

inform me in advance...so that I am not scared :-))

just on the humorous note :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Rishi prabhuji:

 

Thats the end of my summary.

 

bhaskar :

 

that's simply fabulous!!!your articulation of your thoughts outstanding

prabhuji...I can say, you are as fluent as our Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

when it comes to voicing your thoughts are concerned...My humble praNAms

to you prabhuji.

 

Rishi prabhuji:

 

Now, to use that as the basis of reply, there are several things to

consider here with regards to our discussion.

 

First, Shankara emphasizes that the conciousness of the dream is real,

but the dream itself is unreal.

 

bhaskar :

 

Likewise, prabhuji dont you think that the consciousness of the waking is

real but the waking itself is unreal?? because in all the three states of

ours the ONLY reality is consciousness and nothing else...ItarEya shruti

says *tasya traya avasthA trayI svapnAH* The consciousness cannot see any

*avasthA-s* since it is yEkamEvAdvitIya. Indeed what can one see and

through what asks bruhadAraNyaka shruti...

 

Rishi prabhuji:

 

This should be taken as his position on the world since this is where he is

using the analogy. The consciousness of things is real, but the things are

something other

than conciousness are unreal. In the Upadesha Sahasri also, Shankara's

disciple, after attaining fearlessness says "The snake has no existence

APART from its knowledge". Shankara also says in the same work that

transitory knowledge is essentially the same as Eternal Knowledge - its no

the knowledge being denied, but the existence of

things other than knowledge.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji the knowledge i.e. consciousness of the dream here called jnAnA

vrutti..and this type of knowledge concerns to the sAkshyanubhava that

which is objectifying both knowledge of dream is true and things in dream

are false/unreal...the witnessing consciousness illumines the

jnAnAvrutti...this is the vrutti arisen in the mind and the true nature of

the self which illumines all the vrutti-s..When it illumines at that time

the intuitional experience in antaHkaraNa such as I dreamt, I misunderstood

etc. this type of knowledge is directly reflected in our mind without

intervening means of any instruments of knowledge...thus that which has

been illumined is false and the nature of the self as pure consciousness

which illumines the vrutti-s is true...

 

Rishi prabhuji:

 

Second, there is nothing about people mistaking the world for Ishvara

as you said in the other post. Also, consider the logical arguments I

gave there - I doubt you meant what you said since it would be a very

unusual position.

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont know whether I've understood bhAshya vAkya correctly...but I've

provided the original text...kindly let me know how you are going to

interpret it...

 

Rishi prabhuji:

 

In that sense Saguna Brahman is created by avidya, but it doesn't mean

that the entity which we mistake for our concept of Saguna Brahman is

not true - how can that be? The entity we mistake as Saguna Brahman is

Nirguna Brahman,

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont think there is any problem in this approach *as long as* you know

attributes meant to saguNa brahman holds good only in vyavahAra & upAsana &

ultimate reality of parabrahman is devoid of all these qualities...

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : Kindly pardon me moderators, today I've sent 4 mails already...using

my tomorrow's quota also...coz. from tomorrow onwards most probably my

colleague will come & occupy his PC & work station...I may not be able to

participate in the on going discussion...