Attributes and Substantive

March 24, 2006

Namaste to all Advaitins:

A recent post on Mandukya Upanishad Notes Introduction 2 from Sri Sadananda ji

(Ref. Msg. No. 30570 dt.Mar.15, 2006) and a response to it on the above subject

by our Sri Michael ji (Ref.Msg.No.30576 dt.Mar.16.2006) form the genesis for

this post of mine. This is a weighty topic in Advaita Vedanta and I thought it

would be worth discussing the topic in some detail. The objective is to evoke

considered responses from the honourable members of this List and to take the

discussion forward and arrive at and appreciate the final position as per our

system of Vedanta.

Here is my understanding of the topic. Brahman is the One Substance of

everything. It would not be wrong to call It 'The Substantive'. ( Sri

Sadanandaji explains this with the support of 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma'.) What

we call objects is the 'Nama and Rupa' superimposed on this One Substantive. It

would not be wrong to call this Nama-Rupa combine, the attribute. All

attributes that we perceive, coming from all the sensory activity can be

included in the one nomenclature called Nama-Rupa. We have thus the scheme

where 'the world is Brahman plus nama-rupa. Paramarthic Brahman is the world

minus nama-rupa.'

The Mandukya Upanishad provides an excellent model to understand the above.

Brahman, the Turiya, is the Original Consciousness (O.C.). The three paada-s

constitute the Reflected Consciousness (R.C.) thus:

First Pada: 1. Viraat the Cosmic Consciousness of the waking world. 2. Vishwa,

the individual consciousness of the waking world.

Second Pada: 1. Hiranyagarbha the Cosmic Consciousness of the Dream world and 2.

Taijasa the individual Consciousness of the dream world.

Third Pada: 1.Ishvara, the Cosmic Consciousness of the world in its resolved

state and 2. Praajna the individual consciousness obtaining in the deep sleep

state.

All the Six entities mentioned above are Turiya alone reflected in each of these

entities and thus called the Six R.Cs. Each of the Cosmic Consciousness above

denotes the entire world of objects animate and inanimate, involving all

vyavahara of the play of the seer, seeing and seen in the gross, subtle and

causal states. In the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad, the all the six

reflected consciousness(es) are shown to have no absolute reality; the Turiya

alone is the Absolute Reality.

The revered Swami Paramarthananda, to whose lucid exposition of the Mandukya

Upanishad (in a whopping eighty hours) to which the above presented scheme owes

its origin, elucidates the matter further by taking the example of the Gold and

the Bangle, Chain and Ring to signify the Turiya, and the three paadas. In each

of the bangle, chain and ring, upon investigation, it is concluded that apart

from the name and shape of these ornaments, nothing else obtains in them except

the Substance, Gold. In other words, the names and shapes of these ornaments

are insubstantial in themselves. These names and shapes, the nama-rupa combine

is what we called the attribute a little above. The Swami asks his students

humourously, "Would you all hand over to me the gold and walk away with your

bangles, chains and rings?"

The Panchadashi gives a beautiful verse:

Asti Bhati Priyam Rupam Nama chetyamsha-panchakam |

Aadya-trayam Brahmarupam Maya-rupam tato dvayam ||

In every object these five amshas, parts, as it were, are present: 1.Asti,

Existence (Sat),2. Bhati, Consciousness (Chit) 3.Priyam, Bliss (Ananda) 4.

Rupam, form and 5. Nama, name. Of these, the first three pertain to Brahman,

the Substantive and the latter two, the attributes, pertain to Maya.

Sri Vidyaranya in the Panchadashi gives the sadhana for realizing the Non-dual

Absolute, Brahman: He says one must constantly engage in 'dvaita-avajnaa', that

is, deliberate disregard of the objective duality. Essentially, this means:

reject the attributes and grasp the Substance.

All the exercises the Upanishads prescribe are this sadhana for example,

Yadaa pancha-avatishthante jnaanaani manasaa saha |

Buddhischa na vicheshtati taamaahuH Paramaam Gatim ||

Taam Yogamiti manyante sthiraam indriya-dhaaranaam |(Kathopanishad 2.3.10)

(The Seers call that the highest state, wherein the five senses of knowledge

rest together with the mind and the intellect too does not function. They

consider firm restraint of the senses as Yoga.)

and 'Paraanchi khaani vyatrnat svayambhooH, paraang pashyanti na antaraatman.

Kaschit dhiraH pratyagaatmaanam aikshat aavrtta-chakshur-amrtatvam

icchan.'(Katha. 2.1.1) (The Lord cursed the senses to be outward-turned. They,

by nature, are not turned towards the Atman, the Indweller. A rare,

mighty-willed, aspirant restrains his senses and succeeds in beholding the

Atman.)

In effect, from the sadhanas taught by the Scriptures, what we conclude is that

1. The senses grasp the attributes, nama-rupa, and become enamoured by them. 2.

Atman, in its purity, is not grasped by the senses.

Evidence from the Sruti, scripture, Yukti, reasoning and Anubhava, experience of

the Enlightened can be advanced in this regard:

Sruti:

There are direct Sruti vakyams to show that the Self is not grasped by the

senses, as for example, 'na tatra chakshur gacchati, na vaag gacchati, no

mano'(Kena.1.3)= the eyes do not grasp Brahman, not the words nor even the

mind..' We can take that the eyes represent the entire range of sense organs and

vaak, speech, represent the entire range of motor organs.

Vijnaataaram arey, kena vijaaniiyaat? (Brihadaranyaka)

By whom/by what indeed can that which knows be known?

Yukti:

The Self is the subject, the vishayi. It can never become the object, vishaya.

Vishayi cannot grasp the vishayi. There are examples like 'the knife cannot cut

itself', 'even an expert acrobat cannot stand on his own shoulders', etc.

The five senses, instruments, are designed to grasp sound, form(and colour),

smell, touch and taste. They can not grasp Atman/Brahman that has none of these,

sound, etc. 'Ashabdam asparsham..'(Kathopanishad).

Anubhava:

The unsublatable experience of the Enlightened gives us the faith in the

possibility of all that is learnt through the Sruti and deduced through

reasoning. Here is presented an account of the experience of an enlightened

Sage:

Acharyal: Yes. This is what I did on that day too. I, however, had no doubt

that the divine grace rather than My effort or competence was primarily

responsible for the conviction and all the samàdhi-s.

A few minutes after emerging from samàdhi, I thought as follows. With the aid

of a mental vrtti (modification of the mind) in the form of a desire to meditate

or a hue, I have earlier focused on the Supreme. I should be able to become

absorbed in the Supreme even by considering any external object. After all, the

Supreme is not merely the witness of mental states but is also the real

substratum of everything.

(Mahànàràyana Upanisad

XIII.5)

(Whatsoever there is in the entire world that is seen or heard of, all that is

pervaded by Nàràyana, within and without (like a bracelet and other golden

ornaments by gold, their material cause).)

An earthen pot has a rotund form, has the name, ‘pot’, and is made of mud. It

is apprehended as something that exists, as “is”; it is the object of the notion

of existence (sadbuddhi). What is responsible for the pot’s being or existence?

Decidedly, its name and form do not lend any being to it. Other than as clay,

its material cause, the pot has no existence; it has existence only as clay.

(A modification (of clay, such as a pot or jar,) has speech as its origin and

exists only in name; as clay alone, it is real.)

Can clay, per se, account for the being of the pot? No, for clay has no

existence apart from the particles of which it is made; the name and form of

clay do not make it existent. Nothing that is an effect has existence apart from

its material cause; only as the cause, does an effect exist. Thus, no

intermediary member of the causal chain headed by the pot, clay and particles

can account for the pot’s being. Only the ultimate cause, if it be intrinsically

existent, can adequately do so. The scripture teaches that Brahman is the

ultimate cause, the substratum of all, and that It is of the very nature of

absolute existence.

Thus, in the final analysis, a pot has existence only as Brahman; apart from

Brahman, it is simply non-existent. The name and form of the pot are but its

false or illusory aspects. Similarly, every object has existence only as

Brahman; the name and form of the object are its illusory aspects. Were such not

to be the case, the scripture would not have emphatically taught that on knowing

Brahman, everything becomes known, just as on knowing clay, all products of clay

become known.

In the past, whenever I have wanted to, I have been able to readily ignore the

name and form of an object, such as an earthen pot or a golden vessel, and to

apprehend the object as being just the substance of which it is made, such as

clay or gold. Now, I should go much further. I should thoroughly discriminate

the name and form of any selected object from its being, disregard them, and

understand that the object is actually just its ultimate basis, absolute

existence.

Having reflected in this manner, I started My meditation, taking the sun as

the object of relevance. I gazed at the sun, which was to set in about half an

hour and was pleasant to behold. With effort, I increasingly ignored everything

about the sun, such as its shape, size and brightness, and focused on just its

being. Soon, nothing mattered except the bare existence of the sun; indifference

to the illusory aspects became well established and effortless. I cannot say

whether thereafter My eyes were fully open, partially closed or fully closed.

Abruptly, I almost totally forgot Myself. Just unqualified being, unrelated to

space, time and objects, remained and that too not as an inert entity but as

objectless consciousness.

When My mind descended from this savikalpa-samàdhi, I found that the sun had

already set and that the place was illumined by the moon. I estimated that My

samàdhi would have lasted for nearly an hour. I then left for Narasimhavana.

The next morning, the external object I considered to facilitate My meditation

on the Supreme was the wall in front of Me. With hardly any effort, I was able

to disregard all illusory aspects and focus on just the being of the selected

object. I attained savikalpa- samàdhi in moments; the experience was the same as

what I had had on the previous occasion.

{Here, Acharyal instructed me, who was seated in front of Him, to move to His

side and face the same direction as Him. He then said, “In the evening, use the

sun as an object and focus on the Truth, the way I did. Right now, let us both

enter savikalpa- samàdhi for some time with the wall in front serving as the

object to initiate the meditation.” Such was the power of Acharyal’s presence

and grace that, even without any effort, I went into, experienced and emerged

from savikalpa-samàdhi in the same manner as and together with Acharyal.

Acharyal Himself confirmed that what I had experienced was similar to what He

Himself had experienced. Acharyal then said that He would continue His account

the next day.}

(Acharyal:) In the evening, I went to My usual place of meditation. After

taking My seat, I reflected, “Brahman is of the nature of absolute existence and

is the substratum on which this illusory world of names and forms is

superimposed. Even as I perceive what is external, I could, instead of

considering a specific external object, use words to this effect to direct My

attention fixedly to the Truth. This would be equivalent to My earlier using,

when inward-turned, words of the Brahmànucintana and the Pañcikarana to become

absorbed in the Supreme.”

Without shutting My eyes, I mentally said to Myself:

(I am Brahman of the nature of absolute existence, the substratum of

everything.)

I intensified the resulting notion by disregarding names and forms in general.

As I proceeded to do so, the diversity, rooted in names and forms, of the world

seemed more and more to be superficial and irrelevant. Everything appeared to

become stripped to bare being, without attributes. My sense of individuality

faded. An upsurge in the intensity of concentration resulted in savikalpa-

samàdhi that was akin to the preceding ones. About one and a half hours passed

before My mind descended from samàdhi.

I: Was Acharyal familiar at that time with the scriptural account of the two

drsyaanuviddha (associated with a perceptible object) and two sabdaanuviddha

(associated with a name) kinds of savikalpa-samàdhi-s?

Acharyal: No. I read the verses concerned of the Sarasvati-Rahasya Upanisad

and the Drg-Drsya-Viveka much later. Only when I did so did I come to know that

there were these varieties of savikalpa-samàdhi and that I had properly

practised all of them.

(Drg-Drsya-Viveka 3cd)

Savikalpa-samàdhi is of two kinds by virtue of its association with a

perceptible object or a name

(ibid. 24)

Desire and the like, which are located in the mind, are perceptible objects.

One should thoroughly concentrate on consciousness as their witness. This

constitutes savikalpa-samàdhi associated with a perceptible object.

(ibid. 25)

I am unattached, of the nature of absolute existence, pure consciousness and

ultimate bliss, self-luminous and free from duality. Meditating thus constitutes

savikalpa-samàdhi associated with words(scriptural declaration).

(ibid. 27)

Savikalpa-samàdhi associated with a perceptible object can occur with regard

to any external object just as it can with regard to what is in the mind. In

this, name and form are separated from pure being.

(ibid. 28)

There is just Brahman, the indivisible, homogeneous entity of the nature of

absolute existence, pure conscious and ultimate bliss. Such an uninterrupted

thought constitutes savikalpa-samàdhi associated with a word – scriptural

declaratioin.}

End of Quote from the book 'Yoga Enlightenment and Perfection'.

The above quoted experience brings out two levels involved here: 1. the

substantive gold, of the attributed ornaments and 2. The (Super) Substantive

Brahman, the substratum Being of even the gold and ultimately of the ornaments.

By bypassing the (gold)-substantive, one can arrive at the conclusion that

Brahman is the Substantive of all objects. I get the feeling that Sri Sadananda

ji actually meant this when he said that 'the senses do not grasp the

substantive'. It was these lines of his that reminded me of the Acharya's

experience that I have quoted above.

The Sruti, yukti and Vidvad-anubhava mentioned above prove that the senses

grasp the attributes and by restraining the senses and disregarding the

attributes one will be able to 'grasp' the One Substance, Brahman. I make it

clear that the Vedanta Paribhasha prakriya for perception and inference and the

Brahmasutra Bhashya portions quoted by Sri Michael ji do not stand invalidated

by what is said by me in the foregoing. In my perception, these are valid in the

level 1 that is mentioned in the above para. I am open to be corrected on this.

The Vedanta Paribhasha offers an excellent scheme to explain the sensory

perception and the inference that we have in our experience of the world. The

defect of 'subject knowing the subject' does not arise in the Paribhasha scheme

as Brahman is 'differentiated' by the application of upadhis and thus the triad

of the seer, seeing and seen is amply accounted for.

I would like to thank Sri Sadananda and Sri Michael for providing, although

unintended by them, the basic idea for this post. Members who are interested to

take this forward are welcome to do so. This forum is a school for all of us.

Here lies an opportunity to correct, strengthen and fine-tune our understanding.

I have stated all that I have understood of this topic.

Pranams to all here,

subbu

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

March 24, 2006

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> Namaste to all Advaitins:

>

> Attributes and Substantive

>

> A recent post on Mandukya Upanishad Notes Introduction 2 from Sri

Sadananda ji (Ref. Msg. No. 30570 dt.Mar.15, 2006) and a response to

it on the above subject by our Sri Michael ji (Ref.Msg.No.30576

dt.Mar.16.2006) form the genesis for this post of mine. This is a

weighty topic in Advaita Vedanta and I thought it would be worth

discussing the topic in some detail. The objective is to evoke

considered responses from the honourable members of this List and to

take the discussion forward and arrive at and appreciate the final

position as per our system of Vedanta.

Namaste VS-ji,

I feel that the dissitation is not as complete as Gaudapada's. It

doesn't really progress to the concept of Ajativada in any strong

way. It stops at giving some validity to 'creation' and appearance

and doesn't reject the illusion, outright.

I think that one should always remember that Sankara often used the

word 'means' when discussing any road to liberation. In dicating any

knowledge, path or giving validity was only in the end a

tool...ONS..Tony.

March 25, 2006

Subbu PraNAms.

That was an excellent post. Thanks for clarifying it to us the attributes

and substantives using several sources. In the third part that I just

posted, I used the similar sloka – asti bhAti .. , but if I remember it is

from dRik-dRisya viveka. Thanks for pointing to a similar sloka from

Pancadasi.

Senses can only grasp sense attributes. The relation between the

attributes and substantives are assumed in one form or the other by all

daarshanikas in establishing the reality of the world. Shree Vedanta

Deshika says that the reality of the world is confirmed by the sense of

touch. object seen through the eys ( the color and form) is further

confirmed by the sense of touch. Shree Vedanta Deshika gives importance to

the sense of touch in establishing an independent dravyam there, while

accepting that Brahman is the material cause. Dvaitins of course do not

accept Brahman as the material cause.

Once we accept the Vedic statement that Brahman is the material cause for

the world, it is easy to accept the fact that senses can only measure

attributes and cannot grasp the substantives. Otherwise, I am forced to make

relationless relation between attributes and substantives.

The fact that the attributes exists that do not belong to substantive

Brahman, but that which can be grasped by senses also indicates that object

is only an apparent just like ring and bangle out there, with there

attributes that differ from that of gold, the substantive. The bangle has

its own attributes while differ from those of the ring. Hence nAma-rUpa,

that rUpa should also include the other four sense attributes too. The

example comes from Ch. Up., where creation is discussed only as an apparent

creation. Brahman and the world of objects belong to two different orders

of reality, and there is where the confusion occurs – just as bangle and

gold. One is dependent and the other is independent. Hence attributes of

bangle and ring, do not affect the attributeless Brahman.

In the Vedanta ParibhASha, what is discussed is the substantive for all –

pramAta, pramANa and prameya are all nothing but consciousness alone. Shree

Anantakrishna sastry has written an extended commentary on the Vedanta

ParibhASha – do not remember the book’s name. One professor Bina Gupta (I

think she is somewhere in states) wrote a book with title “Perceptions in

Advaita Vedanta”. The emphasis is on the immediacy of the perceptions since

both perceiver and perceived (subject-object) are supported by the

consciousness that is indivisible. However, I did not found anything in

the Vedanta ParibhASha that disputes what I discussed.

Thanks for putting things in a clearer form. It is always good to see

issues from other’s perspective. That it supports what I wrote is always

pleasant to know.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

_______________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

March 25, 2006

Tonyji - I will discuss the KArika part after I finish the analysis of the

first chapter that deals mostly with AgAma prakaraNa. From Brahman's point

there is no creation and that is the essence of AjAta vAda since Brahman is

kArya-kAraNa vilaxanam - beyond the concept of cause-effect relation.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>"Tony OClery" <aoclery

>

>I feel that the dissitation is not as complete as Gaudapada's. It

>doesn't really progress to the concept of Ajativada in any strong

>way.

_______________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

March 25, 2006

post number 30637

sadaji comments

(Thanks for putting things in a clearer form.

i agree with you wholeheartedly - Subbuji is god's gift to this

forum and he always speaks from a platform of knowledge. Rather , his

posts reflect his guru's teachings which subbuji is sharing so

generously with us all .

you go on to write

(It is always good to see issues from other's perspective. That it

supports what I wrote is always pleasant to know.)

Yes ! What makes a group interesting is the presentation

of 'different ' views on the same subject - a case in point is the

recent debate on the 'varnashrama dharma' - there are four

different 'castes' but there were four hundred different views on how

each person viewed the varnashrama dharma . if everyone were to sing

the same tune it will be like a Chorus in choir music. Rather it was

like a 'ragamalika' - different ragas but one composition which made

it all so interesting and fascinating!

sadaji- let me ask you this ! should everyone support what each one

writes ? or should we support what is the 'Truth' ? for example, it

is well known that i have a lot of admiration for Chitta , his

writing style and his intelligent presentation of various subjects .

However , on the varanashrama dharma - we did not see 'eye to

eye' ...hOWEVER, we are still good friends who respect each other -

JUST HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT!

sometimes compliance and conformity IS NOT ALL THAT 'HEALTHY' !

smile!

In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question

mark on the things you have long taken for granted. SAYS ~Bertrand

Russell

LOVE AND REGARDS

ps in a week's time i will be flying to Bombay to attend my nepohew's

wedding and then spend sometime with my 85 year old mom. Benaras is

very much in my travel plans but my brothers are dissuading me from

going there because of the terrorist incident at the Sankata mochana

temple ! But any day , i would like to breathe my last on the holy

banks of the river ganges or die in kashi, the mokshapuri! i have no

control over where i die , how i die or when i die ? right ?

March 25, 2006

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> sadaji- let me ask you this ! should everyone support what each one

> writes ? or should we support what is the 'Truth' ? for example, it

> is well known that i have a lot of admiration for Chitta , his

> writing style and his intelligent presentation of various subjects .

> However , on the varanashrama dharma - we did not see 'eye to

> eye' ...hOWEVER, we are still good friends who respect each other -

> JUST HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT!

Dhyanasaraswatiji

PraNAms.

One has to be honest to oneself - That is what swadharma also means. I

am sure Shree Chittaranjanji and I do not agree on many issues too.

Seeing other's point of view helps to reevaluate your own understanding.

I learned a lot from his mails. As Gandhiji said - sometimes it is

better to agree to disagree, and leave it with that. However, whatever

you agree, you should get convinced about it. Otherwise, if you agree

to please other person, then you are compromising yourself and that is a

sin. Sin is a divergence between what your intellect or your own

conviction and the mind that drifts wherever the wind blows. I am Sure

Chittaranjanji or anyone will respect you more for what you stand than

when you join the bandwagon to please somebody.

Hope this helps.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

March 25, 2006