Understanding Advaitism (Svetaashvatara Upanishad 1.6)

[Guest guest]

Raja_ram prabhu,

Belated Rama-navami! Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

Thanks for replying. I see you made 2 posts in separate threads. I'll

reply to both here, if that's ok. I'll try to lay out my current

understanding so that you can show me what I'm missing.

 

> Generally, qualification and mercy are required to understand an

> acharya. But in the case of Shankara even that is not required. He

> establishes tattva based on sastras and logic.

 

At the outset, this "unique" feature of Sankarite interpretation is

its fatal defect. The fact is that in the Vedas, there are many

degrees of "jnana", and the intuitive, qualitative jnana is considered

superior to the logical, quantitative jnana. For instance, in both,

the BG and SB, the development of saintly qualities is called "real"

knowledge, after the Sankhya-style logic was dwelt upon. "etaj jnanam

iti proktam \ ajnanam yad ato 'nyatha" (from BG 13:8-12).

 

The unidimensional logical approach of Sankarite commentary is

consequently subject to all the natural defects of *logic* itself.

Aravind Mohanram prabhu must be smiling along with me at this point,

because we were exchanging views on this point a little while ago in

an article. Here's an excerpt:

 

QUOTE: "Nor is the Hegelian and Sankarite notion of Absolute as `pure

(impersonal) Being' -- as opposed to a personal `notional Being' -- a

valid proposition... The idea of immediate (primary) knowledge as

undifferentiated self-conscious being, and a knowledge of the

predicates (qualities) being mediated (secondary) is not a defect of

the Absolute. *Rather, this is the limitation of conditioned logic or

thought itself.*

 

"The nature of knowledge is such that the immediacy of intuitive

cognition is always followed by mediated, conceptualized `knowledge'.

This is the limitation of intellect. We can only have mediated

knowledge after immediate knowledge. So when we try to approach the

Absolute only through quantitative intellect (a very one-dimensional

approach that ignores the harmony of all human faculties), our notion

of Absolute tends to be of an Impersonal Being preceding the knowledge

of Its predicates. But this is a *logical* priority, and not a *real*

priority at all. The Absolute is self-conscious being with all His

predicates from eternity, or logical beginning." UNQUOTE

 

Just think about the above carefully. Even in modern quantum physics,

it is understood that the orientation and *intention* of the

experimenter/observer is an ACTIVE player in the outcome of the

experiment. Howmuch more this must be true w.r.t. philosophy of the

Absolute and psycho-spiritual practice! In fact, the Vedic literature

explicitly says so. "Artha-vaada", or the commentator's statement of

his own intention, is an active factor in the result of logical argument.

 

That's also why the most modern scientists in physics, AI, psychology

and organismic systems have for quite a while been systematizing a

field of logic called "non-Aristotelian logic". If possible, pls

investigate this field, and then you may appreciate how the authentic

Vaishnava commentary is a deeper and more logical hermeneutic than the

surprisingly shallow approach that Advaitist commenntary takes for the

most part.

 

IMPORTANTLY, let us consider the serious implications of an

unbalanced, disharmonious approach in terms of our practical sadhana

as human beings. There is an epistemological idea that we can "know"

only what we can "be". So we can all agree that the composite human

personality is the highest expression of reality knowable to us living

entities in the human form of life. Therefore, in approaching the

transcendental Godhead, it only makes sense to conceive of Him in

personal terms. This proceeds from the intuitive assumption that human

life is innately and completely equipped for spiritual realization,

and that everything about it is capable of assisting in this.

 

The spiritual fruit of such a sambandha-jnana would correspondingly be

the most mature. OTOH, the Mayavadi conception negates most of this

composite human perception of reality, and its spiritual attainment

must be an incomplete product of an incomplete sambandha-jnana. In

short, the slightest trace of impersonalism in our psychological

gyroscope could cause our spiritual trajectory to miss the moon and

veer off into outer space, so to speak.

 

Keeping in mind this qualitative understanding of jnana, as well as

the above epistemological axiom, note this caveat about logical

argumentation in the sruti-sastra (quoted by Srila Baladeva in GB, I

think):

puurvaapara-virodhena

ko `artho `traabhimato bhavet

ity aadyam uhanam tarkaH

zuSka-tarkam vivarjayet

 

"zuSka-tarkam vivarjayet" is a warning against "dry logic, without

reference to scriptural revelation." The 3rd sutra of the

Vedanta-suutra is "zaastra-yonitvaat" – "(the Absolute) may be known

only through the revelation of the Vedic scriptures". In other words,

sastra should be the beginning of every argument.

 

However, from time to time, we see His Holiness Sankaracarya saying

that some statement of the Vedas is "unacceptable", and then tries to

explain things "logically". He is not able to accept the

INCONCEIVABILITY of Parabrahman, and therefore logically "resolves"

the apparent contradictions by reducing several aspects of Brahman

(especially personality) to a material, "saguna" status.

 

An example of this is given in the Cc. Adi 5.41 purport by Srila

Prabhupada. Sripada Sankara is not able to understand how the 4 vyuha

expansions (Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha) can be

transcendental even while being emanations of one another. So he says

this cannot be the case, since "cause and effect" cannot operate in

the Absolute. Therefore, he concludes the 4 vyuhas must be saguna

expansions! This is directly in conflict with the scriptures. Srila

Prabhupada comments:

 

QUOTE: "That is completely ignorant, however, for there is no such

thing as cause and effect in Their expansions (nanyad yat

sad-asat-param – from SB 2.9.33). The Kurma Purana also confirms,

deha-dehi-vibhedo 'yam; nesvare vidyate kvacit: "There is no

difference between body and soul in the Supreme Personality of

Godhead." Cause and effect are material. For example, it is seen that

a father's body is the cause of a son's body, but the soul is neither

cause nor effect. On the spiritual platform there are none of the

differences we find in cause and effect. Since all the forms of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead are spiritually supreme, They are

equally controllers of material nature. Standing on the fourth

dimension, They are predominating figures on the transcendental

platform. There is no trace of material contamination in Their

expansions because material laws cannot influence Them. There is no

such rule as cause and effect outside of the material world. Therefore

the understanding of cause and effect cannot approach the full,

transcendental, complete expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

The Vedic literature proves this (inconceivable cause-effect

relationships in the transcendental realm):

om purnam adah purnam idam; purnat purnam udacyate

purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavasisyate..." UNQUOTE

 

The Sankarite understanding of "sad-asat" is flawed precisely because

of its narrow approach. It tries to apply the laws of material

cause-effect to the transcendental realm which is beyond Time. The

Vaishnava resolution is perfect – It maintains the personal conception

of Godhead, while speaking of His *inconceivable potencies*, which is

completely acceptable since He is infinite and supreme. It does not

detract or spoil the sadhaka's personal conception of the loving God,

while it only enhances His mystery and greatness. However, the

Mayavadi resolution makes a mess of things by trying to "logically"

explain the inconceivable mystery, while at the same time trying to

take shelter of the "indescribable, anirvacaniiya" mysterious nature

of Brahman at times when they cannot explain their position.

 

> 1) There are countless vedic statements that declare advaitam. …

Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad clearly says

> that thinking that the lord and the devotee are different is

> ignorance. (If you dont have reference to these texts, I will

> provide them).

 

Of course I have the references. I would like to invite you to

seriously try to understand how Vaishnavas understand the meaning of

"advaita". In fact, the philosophy of one of the Vaisnava sampradayas

is "shuddha-advaita". Didn't this arouse your curiosity?

 

It is always an identity of Will, and an identity of ontological

substance that is spoken of. Category and substance are the essence of

any ontology. The Vedic literature is ontological. Identity can also

be spoken of w.r.t. the immutability of relationships (I can give you

an analogy to illustrate this point if you like). So it is not some

numerical, physical identity that is being spoken of. You have not yet

clearly spelt out in what SENSE you use the word "identity".

 

> 2) The lord clearly declares that one should not think that this

> world is unreal. However, Chandogya Upanishad clearly declares that

> only existence is real and is One (mrtketyeva satyam). Only sad asad

> lakshana definition by Sankara fits sastras and logical inference.

> If the world with all variegatedness is real, why does it sublate on

> analysis? What is called a pot is on analysis only clay. What is

> clay is only shakti.

 

This is a perfect example of the lack of ontological clarity in

Advaitist thinking -- and how they superimpose their "flat" mindset

on the Vaishnava thought, thereby misunderstanding it also. The

Advaitist understanding is stuck in the mental duality of "real" and

"false", and the limitations of this approach become apparent to

themselves when Sankara is forced to give Maya an ambiguous

ontological status – it neither exists, nor does not exist!

(vivekacudamani) How "logical" is that, may I ask?

 

A more subtly intelligent, intuitive approach says that this duality

is logically overcome by expanding the ontological context to move up

to *a higher order of reality*. To give a simple analogy, when Russel

and Whitehead wanted to resolve the famous "Russel's Paradox", they

simply said that it "resolves itself" if we expand the scope to

include a higher order of class-category.

 

Vaishnavas say that the world is "false" when it is considered

independent of the supreme Reference Point – Sri Krsna. However,

anything seen in reference to Krsna is real. Godhead is the only

Independent Reality. Everything else is a Dependent Reality. This is

one sense of speaking of "true and false". The other sense is of

temporality and eternality. Even Sankara gives this latter definition

in vivekacudamani ("nitya-anitya vastu-viveka", which is borrowed from

sruti-sastra.)

 

Regarding this *intermediate* logic of "sublation" (i.e., until the

Advaitin has to finally resort to making illogical statements about

Maya): The naama and ruupa of material things certainly sublate, and

they are temporary. However, as they say, "change is a constant", and

is eternal like Time. Similarly, each individual *instance* of a

person comes and returns to dust, but personality as a class remains.

So again, we are moving to a higher order -- of process in the first

case, and entity in the second. This order does not sublate, at least

not within the domain of perception and inference. Therefore, again

the Vaisnnava conception of the Supreme Person and His multi-potencies

is a sufficient and consistent conception.

 

> Advaitam is achieved through two types of processes - pravrtti and

> nivrtta. Out of these the practical process is bhakti.

 

As I pointed out, Bhakti cannot be undertaken with even the slightest

tinge of impersonal conception -- what to speak of beginning with the

assumption that it is merely a time-serving means to an end. So even

for the sake of argument, if I accept that Bhakti is just a process

which we ordinary mortals can understand (that will ultimately lead to

some state of identity which only mighty intellects can

grasp)...psychologically it does not figure. If Bhakti is the

effective process, then the Advaitins should keep this idea of "means

to an end" and "ultimate merging" a secret in order to facilitate true

Bhakti, rather than begin and end every sermon with a denial of Sri

Krsna and His pastimes. Don't you agree?

 

>Unity that is

> spoken of philosophically is nothing but union of highest order

> where one offers one's own self instead of engaging in service.

 

What is the meaning of offering one's "self"? Do you mean a surrender

of one's independent free will? That is perfectly acceptable, because

by nature that can be a *free*, *eternal* offering. There is a free

annihilation of the false-ego (egotism), but it simply makes no sense

to speak of an annihilation of identity and relationship. When the

false-ego is annihilated, then the living entity can truly perceive

God. This state of consciousness is Samadhi, and its definition is

consistent with the Yoga-suutra definition of Samadhi:

 

tad eva-atha-maatra-anirbhaasam-svaruupa-shuunyam iva samaadhih: "that

(consciousness, engaged in sustained focus upon a single object),

reflecting the object alone, as if empty of its own nature, is samadhi."

 

"Empty of its own nature" – this means self-forgetfulness. Therefore,

the annnhilation of ego is a SUBJECTIVE experience of the living

entity. It is not a noumenal fact.

 

This understanding of self-annihilation is also found in Sufi schools.

They call it Fanaa-fil-Allah, "perishing within Allah". They then

explain that it refers to a surrender of the individual Will to become

an instrument of God, and a channel of His Grace (Rizwaan/Ridhwaan).

In the human body, this state is called Fida'a, a word that we also

use in Hindi/Urdu to mean madly in love. Pakistani terrorists misuse

this word and call themselves fida'ayeen.

 

> I am not qualified to teach advaitam. It is a

> position beyond personalism and impersonalism, known and unknown.

 

Wait a second, prabhu. The subtle misconception conveyed by such

statements is that personalism is the equal and opposite conception of

impersonalism. I disagree with this. That the Supreme Brahman is

beyond all intellectual concepts is perfectly acceptable to Vaisnavas,

and is given in the Vedanta-suutra (bhava-abhava). Yet, the

Vedanta-sutra also says that He can be described (iksater na-asabdam).

At no point does the living entity fully comprehend Krsna. Yet, the

conception of Him as a person is possible and valid, and of a

completely higher order than the impersonal conception. I have stated

many reasons for this in the foregoing paras. Therefore, pls do not

try to typecast the Vaisnava position as the argumentative opposite to

the impersonalist position. The Vaisnava conception includes and

transcends the impersonalist conception.

 

> But if I refuse to take part in this debate, then it will be

> considered as the defeat of the position of the venerable acharya.

 

Prabhu, I definitely do not want to put you in such a position. I have

had a similar feeling with argumentative neo-Advaitin types. It takes

a lot of energy to explain a deep concept, and it is discouraging when

one feels that the other party is not really open-minded. So I want

you to know that I am very open and looking for a better

understanding. I have derived a lot of benefit from comparative study.

Still, if you feel the environment on achintya.org puts undue pressure

on you, please feel free to continue exchanging ideas with me through

private email.

 

> sarvajIvE sarva samsthEbahuntE asminn hamsO bhrAmyatE bhrahma cakrE

> prthagAthmAnam prErithAram ca matva jushtastathasthEnAmrutatvamEti

> (Sv.Up. 1.6)

>

> The individual selves wander in the great wheel of brahman, the seat

> of all life and death, also considering themselves as distinct

> entitities from the Controller. (bhramyatE ca matva) When identified

> with Him (tatha jushtah tena), immortality is attained.

>

> The word ca links the first and the second part of the verse. The

> word tena meaning "with Him" indicates identity. So Shankara's view

> that this verse talks about non-duality is correct not other views

> which posit dualistic interpretation by not considering the meaning

> of all the words in the verse.

 

First, I don't know what you mean by "dualistic interpretation".

Again, it is typecasting the Vaisnava position as an equal and

opposite of the "numerical oneness" position of the Advaitist. Being

on achintya, you surely know better.

 

Second, the operative word is "juSTah". It does not mean "identity"

(which you have not qualified). Here is the meaning of juSTah in the

Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary:

 

QUOTE: juSTa mfn. (%{-STa4} RV. ix , 42 , 2 AV. and in later language

Pa1n2. 6-1 , 209f.) pleased , propitious RV. ix , 42 , 2 ; liked ,

wished , loved , welcome , agreeable , usual (cf. Pa1n2. 3-2 , 188

Ka1r. ; with dat. or gen. , rarely instr.) RV. AV. S3Br. &c. ;

frequented , visited , inhabited MBh. R. BhP. ; swept over (by the

wind) Hariv. 6984 ; afflicted by (instr. or in comp.) Sus3r. ; served

, obliged , worshipped W. ; practised W. ; furnished with , possessed

of (instr. or in comp.) R. iii BhP. ; n. the remnants of a meal L. ;

cf. %{a4-}. UNQUOTE

 

It is clearly a word in the sense of worship, propitiating,

identifying with in terms of Will - not "merging into" in the

material physical sense.

 

So then, modifying your translation, we get something that is

perfectly acceptable to Vaisnavas: "The individual selves wander in

the great wheel of brahman, the seat of all life and death, also

considering themselves as distinct (INDEPENDENT) entitities from the

Controller. (bhramyatE ca matva) When they identified with Him in

loving worship (tatha jushtah tena), immortality is attained."

Therefore, "prthak" as in your translation would refer to the

false-egoic sense of independence.

 

> In the second meaning, all the devotees are adored along with the

> lord.

 

The 2nd meaning you provided is basically what I transformed your 1st

meaning into by looking up the correct and direct meaning of juSTah,

with the added inclusion of loving His creatures along with Him.

 

The real opposite of monism is a dualism wherein the people feel that

God is a completely separate entity from Universe and themselves. So

the above translation of the verse is warning against such a dualistic

conception. This is obviously not the Vaishnav/Vedic position. God is

the continent (within which everything is contained), the immanent

(present within everything as the Supersoul), and the transcendent

personality -- while still being different from everything. This,

again, is inconceivable, but that's what the BG says in 9:4-6. So your

re-translation of the verse in no way refutes the Vaisnava position in

favour of monism. There is nothing monistic in it.

 

> Both are admissible to an advaitin.

 

It is "admissable" to the Advaitist, but only when he says that this

(worship) is merely a means to an end. As I pointed out earlier, there

is a practical psychological self-contradiction lurking beneath this

feigned catholicity. Please address this when you can.

 

Lastly, let me just say that the translation I provided is not wrong

at all. The word "ca" linking one verse to another does not in any way

preclude the meaning I suggested. The 2 verses could then be: "The

individual selves wander in the Wheel of Brahman, etc. And one who

does not understand the sense of difference between souls -- in order

to engage in Pure Worship -- cannot reach liberation". Obviously the

translation here is with the express intent of emphasizing difference.

Getting multiple instructions from Vedic verses is not a problem (you

yourself gave 2 meanings). The touchstone is consistency and

completeness, and this is where I think Vaisnava commentary is better.

If you can help me understand Advaitism in this light, then I will be

very grateful.

 

Your servant,

Carl.