Questioning in Sadhana, etc. madathilnair

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Madathil,

 

I have been pondering over your accounts of Advaita logic and

vision.

 

In your posting 30159, you say:

 

"Even the advaitic conclusion that Consciousness is the common

denominator ... behind the differing appearances is an

objectification. Till one arrives at this conclusion, the process is

very logical. Advaitic shraddhA, which enquires into the truth of

shruti, is rooted on the steel framework foundation of this

conclusion.... this conclusion is the precious touchstone the

Advaitin carries in his pocket while traversing the ontological and

epistemological labyrinth of shruti and bhASyAs.... His vision is

clear and all that which do not conform to the logic represented by

the touchstone is discarded during enquiry.... Thus, enquiry doesn't

end with the still objective conclusion that Consciousness is the

common principle. This conclusion needs to be assimilated into one's

self as one's own being...."

 

Thank you for this description, which I find very helpful. In

particular, it raises a rather delicate and tricky question, about

the kind of logic that is used in Advaita reasoning. Is that logic

merely objective? We use it to examine objective appearances and to

conclude that they all express a common principle of consciousness.

And, as you so rightly say, this conclusion is still an

objectification. A sense of objectivity is still associated with it.

There is still a sense of duality between a universal consciousness

and a variety of appearances that express it.

 

But must Advaita logic come to an end with this seemingly final

conclusion, which is still contaminated with a last remaining sense

of dual and objective appearance?

 

Personally, I would answer here that no, Advaita logic cannot end

like this. We cannot rightly use the words 'advaita' or 'non-dual'

for a logic that remains in duality. If any logic is correctly

called 'advaitic' or 'non-dual', it must somehow go all the way

beyond duality, to a completely non-dual conclusion where no trace

remains of any known objectivity that is in the slightest sense

different from a knowing subject.

 

What would be your position here? How would you answer the question

of how logic can be called 'non-dual'?

 

Can any logic be completely 'non-dual', in the sense that it goes

all the way to advaita or non-duality? Or, when we speak of 'Advaita

logic', are we using the term rather loosely -- to indicate a logic

that is not fully and truly non-dual, but only a partial preparation

for some further search towards the true non-duality of Advaita? Or,

would you propose some further alternative or some other way of

answering the question?

 

In a subsequent posting (30169), you write:

 

"Accepted - none of us are enlightened sages. But, at least, most of

us have a logical and rational vision of Reality.... Our advaitic

explanations cannot be 'private opinions' if we are able to clarify

the rational and logical validity of the same.... This advaitic

vision concerns our true nature. Advaitic shraddha begins when this

vision is firmly accepted without doubt. The acceptance naturally

involves a lot of questioning, reasoning and clarifications....

Advaitic shraddhA is solely directed at realizing and living this

vision.... The vision of advaita is one and cannot be different from

one person to another although there may be differences in the

manner in which it is explained. For instance, the differences Shri

Shankaramanji apprehended between Bh. Ramana and Atmanandaji. We all

know that both the sages had the same vision despite the apprehended

difference in style."

 

Again, I am grateful for the helpful description, which clearly

brings out some delicate but crucial questions. You speak of "a

logical and rational vision of Reality", whose "advaitic

explanations cannot be 'private opinions' if we are able to clarify

the rational and logical validity of the same". You then say that

"Advaitic shraddhA is solely directed at realizing and living this

vision...." And thus you conclude that "The vision of advaita is one

and cannot be different from one person to another although there

may be differences in the manner in which it is explained."

 

In this description -- as its admirable flow of argument proceeds --

is there a subtle, but essential shift in what is meant by the word

'vision'? Does the description start with an intellectual and

therefore dual vision that is cultivated through analysis by

intellectuals like us, and does it then go on to describe a

conversion of this intellectual vision through shraddha, into the

non-dual vision of sages like Shri Shankara and Ramana Maharshi? If

so, it is clear that such an argument is violating an essential rule

of logical deduction. It is shifting the meaning and the definition

of its terms, as it proceeds. How then can such an argument be valid

or tenable?

 

I would answer this question by saying that the shifting of meaning

is invalid only in a deductive logic which is used to calculate

objective results. However, in Advaita, our use of logic is

essentially inductive. It does not go outward -- from assumed

beliefs and general principles, so as to deduce objective

calculations of observed phenomena and particular instances.

Instead, it enquires inward -- from meaningful descriptions and

particular observations, so as to clarify mistaken beliefs and thus

induce a better understanding of basic principle.

 

The logic of Advaita is thus educational. It works by clarifying

meaning -- as we observe and describe phenomena, and as we interpret

what they show. Here, a shift of meaning -- from confused to

clear -- is essential, as the logic of Advaita argument proceeds.

Far from making the argument invalid, that clarifying shift of

meaning is precisely what induces the logic to its true conclusion.

 

In Shri Shankara's "aparokShAnubhUti" (116), there is an interesting

description of non-dual realization -- as a clarifying shift of

meaning, which takes what we call 'vision' ("driShtim") and makes of

it pure knowledge ("jnyAna-mayIm"). Here is the text, with a very

free English rendering in brackets afterwards.

 

driShTim jnyAna-mayIm kritvA pashyan brahma-mayam jagat

 

[Converting sight of objects into

seeing that just knows, that very

seeing is none other than

the world's complete reality.]

 

But can this ultimately non-dual vision be attained through pure

logic alone? And what could that pure reason be? These are the kind

of questions that your postings raise for me.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Anandaji.

 

My answers to the very pertinent questions you have raised are in

.

______________

 

Anandaji:

 

In particular, it raises a rather delicate and tricky question, about

the kind of logic that is used in Advaita reasoning. Is that logic

merely objective? We use it to examine objective appearances and to

conclude that they all express a common principle of consciousness.

And, as you so rightly say, this conclusion is still an

objectification. A sense of objectivity is still associated with it.

There is still a sense of duality between a universal consciousness

and a variety of appearances that express it.

 

But must Advaita logic come to an end with this seemingly final

conclusion, which is still contaminated with a last remaining sense

of dual and objective appearance?

 

Personally, I would answer here that no, Advaita logic cannot end

like this. We cannot rightly use the words 'advaita' or 'non-dual'

for a logic that remains in duality. If any logic is correctly

called 'advaitic' or 'non-dual', it must somehow go all the way

beyond duality, to a completely non-dual conclusion where no trace

remains of any known objectivity that is in the slightest sense

different from a knowing subject.

 

What would be your position here? How would you answer the question

of how logic can be called 'non-dual'?

____

 

[by advaitic logic, I didn't mean that the logic itself is advaitic

or non-dual. All logic is in the non-dual realm. The adjective only

means the logic that is employed to arrive at an understanding that

Reality is truly non-dual.]

_____

 

Anandaji:

 

Can any logic be completely 'non-dual', in the sense that it goes

all the way to advaita or non-duality? Or, when we speak of 'Advaita

logic', are we using the term rather loosely -- to indicate a logic

that is not fully and truly non-dual, but only a partial preparation

for some further search towards the true non-duality of Advaita? Or,

would you propose some further alternative or some other way of

answering the question?

______

 

[i wouldn't call this understanding a partial preparation as it is

the very basic foundation on which the rest of the structure is

built. The way from this logical understanding is not a search but a

process of assimilation or rather of being the understanding itself.]

 

[For example, before one reached this understanding, one had heard

the mahAvAkyAs. Let us take `ahaM brahmAsmi' for instance. Isn't

there a qualitative transformation in the understanding of this truth

prior and post to the occurring of the logical understanding? I

would say, from my own experience, there is. Before the

understanding, it was just an equation comprising words. But,

afterwards, the very same words became a meaningful statement. Long

cogitation and contemplation on the mahAvakya post `understanding'

further reinforces its validity bringing in fresh advaitic insights.

This process is not restricted to one or more of the mahAvakyAs

alone. It applies to the whole of shruti pramAnA, which are burnt in

the crucible of contemplation to assimilate their essence into one's

being in a continuous reinforcement process. This reinforcement

doesn't effect any fundamental change in essence on the logical

vision. The vision is only honed to its true splendour. That is why

my preference for the word 'process'.]

 

[The benchmark for me is clearly outlined in Bhagwad GiTA verses

12:13 to 12:20 which define a jIvanmukta. The process of

assimilation and reinforcement therefore also implies my measuring up

to the definitions set in these verses. It is really a very tall

order involving arduous endeavour. But, an advaitin cannot sit tight

saying Brahman is nirguna, ineffable etc. He has to live his logical

understanding deliberately till such living becomes spontaneous,

totally in sync with the definitions. All these, come post

understanding and the attitude with which the goal is achieved is

advaitic shraddhA.]

_____

 

Anandaji:

 

You speak of "a logical and rational vision of Reality",

whose "advaitic explanations cannot be 'private opinions' if we are

able to clarify the rational and logical validity of the same". You

then say that "Advaitic shraddhA is solely directed at realizing and

living this vision...." And thus you conclude that "The vision of

advaita is one and cannot be different from one person to another

although there may be differences in the manner in which it is

explained."

 

In this description -- as its admirable flow of argument proceeds --

is there a subtle, but essential shift in what is meant by the word

'vision'? Does the description start with an intellectual and

therefore dual vision that is cultivated through analysis by

intellectuals like us, and does it then go on to describe a

conversion of this intellectual vision through shraddha, into the

non-dual vision of sages like Shri Shankara and Ramana Maharshi? If

so, it is clear that such an argument is violating an essential rule

of logical deduction. It is shifting the meaning and the definition

of its terms, as it proceeds. How then can such an argument be valid

or tenable?

__________________________

 

[if there is a logical shift between my understanding that I am a

billionaire and my actually living a billionaire's life, then of

course I should admit that there indeed is a logical shift between

advaitic understanding and advaitic living. However, the comparision

cannot be stretched too far. In the case of advaita, the logical

vision is sublated in the spontaneity of Realization or Knowledge.

The vision then is no more an understanding that is possessed. It is

the Advaitin himself. In that non-duality, the erstwhile logic is

also sublated. The Advaitin no more needs any external props,

whether of logic or reasoning, as he himself is Wholeness that

doesn't brook any externalities. As an aside, I have seen at least

one person living this advaitic spontaneity and that is encouragement

enough for me to continue my endeavours. I don't want to name that

person for fear of inviting controversies.]

 

[At my location from where I am writing this, the overcast skies are

weeping cats and dogs this morning. All of us, who just sport an

understanding of advaita and do nothing about it, are really the

weeping sky. The clouds are adhyAsa. The fleeting gaps in the

clouds are peepholes of our logic. We strain our eyes thorugh them to

capture the vision of the blue expanse which we really are. What a

tragedy! Only when the weeping sky realizes that it is the infinite

sky will the bother of the tears end. Then the sky is the sky in all

its spontaneous splendour despite the pouring clouds. It no more

needs any peepholes of logic to realize its self-evidence.]

 

_

 

Anandaji:

 

I would answer this question by saying that the shifting of meaning

is invalid only in a deductive logic which is used to calculate

objective results. However, in Advaita, our use of logic is

essentially inductive. It does not go outward -- from assumed

beliefs and general principles, so as to deduce objective

calculations of observed phenomena and particular instances.

Instead, it enquires inward -- from meaningful descriptions and

particular observations, so as to clarify mistaken beliefs and thus

induce a better understanding of basic principle.

___________________________

 

[i would rather that the logic in our enquiry is both deductive and

inductive – deductive because it takes the world outside us into

consideration and inductive because it enquires into the question of

my self-evidence through the question "Who am I?". The final

conclusion is therefore an amalgam of both deduction and induction.]

 

_________________________

 

Anandaji:

 

The logic of Advaita is thus educational. It works by clarifying

meaning -- as we observe and describe phenomena, and as we interpret

what they show. Here, a shift of meaning -- from confused to

clear -- is essential, as the logic of Advaita argument proceeds.

Far from making the argument invalid, that clarifying shift of

meaning is precisely what induces the logic to its true conclusion.

_______________

 

[i have already explained this apprehended shift above and, in the

light of what I have said, the ultimate result is not a `clarified

true conclusion' but a total sublation where logic is no more

necessary. If you used the word *conclusion* to mean an end, then of

course I would gladly go with you.]

______________________

 

Anandaji:

 

In Shri Shankara's "aparokShAnubhUti" (116), there is an interesting

description of non-dual realization -- as a clarifying shift of

meaning, which takes what we call 'vision' ("driShtim") and makes of

it pure knowledge ("jnyAna-mayIm"). Here is the text, with a very

free English rendering in brackets afterwards.

 

driShTim jnyAna-mayIm kritvA pashyan brahma-mayam jagat

 

[Converting sight of objects into

seeing that just knows, that very

seeing is none other than

the world's complete reality.]

 

But can this ultimately non-dual vision be attained through pure

logic alone? And what could that pure reason be? These are the kind

of questions that your postings raise for me.

 

_______________________________

 

[The sky in my above analogy visualized through logical peepholes is

the drishtaM. It is still separate and tragically overcast by clouds

and tears. "I-ness" is one of the clouds – a thundering cumulonimbus

at that! Being in the true nature of the sky is Knowledge in which

all the clouds, together with the erstwhile peepholes, dissolve and

sublate. Where is the question of logic and pure reason when the sky

has *become* the sky? The initial logic, resultant understanding and

its continuous honing have just helped. That is all.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Anandaji,

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

> But can this ultimately non-dual vision be attained through

> pure logic alone? And what could that pure reason be? These

> are the kind of questions that your postings raise for me.

 

In the Bhagavad Gita bhashya, Ch 18.50, Shankara says:

 

"Objection: Indeed, all cognition, whatever be its object, is of the

form of that object. And it has been said that the Self is formless.

If both the Self and the cognition thereof be formless, how is the

constant meditation of Self-Knowledge or consummation thereof to be

attained?"

 

"Answer: Do not think so: for it can be shown that the Self is

extremely pure, extremely clear, and extremely subtle. And buddhi

(reason) being as pure, etc., as the Self, it can put on the

semblance of that aspect of Self which is manifested as

consciousness."

 

 

Again in the bhashya to verse 18.51, Shankara says:

 

"But to those whose reason (buddhi) has turned away from external

phenomena, who have secured the Grace of the Guru and attained the

serenity of the self (manas), there is nothing else so blissful, so

well-known, so easily knowable, and quite so near as Brahman.

Accordingly the knowledge of Brahman is said to be immediately

comprehended and unopposed to dharma."

 

"Some conceited philosophers hold that reason (buddhi) cannot grasp

the Self, as He is formless, and that therefore the Devotion of Right

Knowledge is impossible of attainment."

 

"True it is unattainable to those who have not been properly

initiated into the traditional knowledge of the Gurus...."

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

> Again in the bhashya to verse 18.51, Shankara says:

>

> "But to those whose reason (buddhi) has turned away from external

> phenomena, who have secured the Grace of the Guru and attained the

> serenity of the self (manas), there is nothing else so blissful, so

> well-known, so easily knowable, and quite so near as Brahman.

> Accordingly the knowledge of Brahman is said to be immediately

> comprehended and unopposed to dharma."

>

> "Some conceited philosophers hold that reason (buddhi) cannot grasp

> the Self, as He is formless, and that therefore the Devotion of Right

> Knowledge is impossible of attainment."

>

> "True it is unattainable to those who have not been properly

> initiated into the traditional knowledge of the Gurus...."

 

Dear Chittaranjanji,

 

Well quoted. Sri Ramakrishna used to say pure mind/pure buddhi and the

self are one and the same. All we have to do is to get its prestine

purity back so that knowlege can flash there instanteneously.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.