The Theory of Evolution and the Vedic perspective of Creation

[Guest guest]

The question to ask is: in what form does it exist independent of my

mind? When it is cognized, I know what the desk is like because it is

experienced. However, it would be interesting to try to see how it

would be like when it is not cognized. We might try by the scientific

method, but we ecnounter some problems. The scientific method only

gives us information about the desk, when the desk is being observed

by the scientist. It might be observed directly through the senses or

we might be observing the output on an instrument which reacts to the

properties of the object in some consistent way (eg: an IR sensor or

thermometer perhaps). A direct perception would only still tell us how

it is like in perception. Percieving the output on an instrument which

reacts to properties of the object also does not work to give us the

object as it stands independent of perception. All it gives us is the

way the instrument reacts to the object. The linkage between the

instrument and the object (which permits us to say that when the

instrument reacts in such a way, the object is in such and such state)

is one created through our previous experiences so it just sets back

the problem. The gist of this is that we can only tell how the object

appears to us but not how it is in reality by empirical means.

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Risrajlam-ji,

If you are not sure about what something

may be like when you are not aware of it why hesitate to say that it may

not even exist at all as far as you know. Strictly you could not avoid

that conclusion. In fact this is the critique that was applied by the

philosopher George Berkeley to the theory of John Locke. His theory was

that the object is no more than the power of matter, organised in a way we

know not what, to excite in us sensations of colour, taste etc. Why not

drop that idea of matter said Berkeley thus giving rise to his philosophy

of Immaterialism.

 

The question I would ask is this: Does something cease to be an upadhi of

pure consciousness simply because no one is experiencing it? Put this

together with the dictum of Shankara that 'the organs are but modes of all

particular objects in order to perceive them' and you have the antidote to

the drifting apart of the subject and the object which happens when you

focus on the subjective side of the nondual equation.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Thank you for the reply. Please feel free to use the post in whatever

way you like.

 

Dear Subbuji,

 

Thank you so much for the article. Who is the Acharyal in the article,

Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha? Is the whole book you mention about Him? I

have always been interested to read about His teachings but

unfortunately have not found where to look.

 

Dear Michaelji,

 

"If you are not sure about what something

may be like when you are not aware of it why hesitate to say that it

may

not even exist at all as far as you know. Strictly you could not avoid

that conclusion."

 

I agree and the whole idea behind DSV is that the object doesn't as

such exist when it is not cognized.

 

However, my intention was to show that even if one temporarily assumes

it exists when it is not percieved and that Brahman is its material

cause, this still naturally leads to the DSV conclusion when analysed

more thoroughly.

 

"The question I would ask is this: Does something cease to be an

upadhi of

pure consciousness simply because no one is experiencing it?"

 

Brahman is the material cause of the upadhi - the upadhi is not

something different from Brahman. Since the material cause of the

upadhis is partless and has no internal differentiation, there can be

no upadhis "in" Brahman or "made out of" Brahman in reality. The

upadhis, thus, are superimposed upon Brahman. This superimposition can

only take place when the mind is there and thus the superimposed

objects are only present when the mind is present. In the absence of a

mind which carves various upadhis out of Brahman which is actually

homogenous, there are no such upadhis. That being the case, it is not

tenable that upadhis are present even when the mind is not. This is

the gist of my previous postcas well,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Once again a very scholarly discussion is going on 'DSV' and 'sdv'

and ajativada etc etc etc ....

 

but after reading all these posts , i just couldnot help remembering

the shata-sloki of Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada! Our beloved

Professorji had started writing on the verses Iin the SHATA SLOKI

and tgen took a long break and left for India - i do not know if he

completed all the 100 verses of it .

 

Meanwhile , today it is my pleasure to bnring verse 81 of the Shata

sloki in the context of DSV !

 

HERE IS AN EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE -

 

When the nacre in front is not known to be such, it is mistaken for

silver. The sun's rays falling on sand create the illusion of water.

A rope is mistaken for a snake in dim light. These appearances last

only for a short time, till the substratum is known. The appearance

of silver causes joy and the appearance of the snake gives rise to

fear, but all these appearances are clearly false. The silver, water

and snake are created only when they are seen. Similarly, the

multifarious names and forms which we see appear only because the

substratum, the Self, is not known. They also cause such emotions as

joy, sorrow and fear. They are created only when they are perceived.

They have no real existence apart from the substratum, the Self.

 

The principle propounded in this verse is known as 'drishti-srishti-

vaada' according to which all things are, during the period they are

cognized by a person, created by him through his nescience. This is

also known as `ekajivavaada' the 'Theory of Single Jiva'. Sri

Madhusudana Sarasvati says in his work 'Siddhantabindu', which is a

commentary on Sri Sankara's 'Dasasloki', that this is the pre-

eminent Vedantic view. According to this view, the Jiva is the cause

of the world by the power of nescience. All objects of perception

last only as long as they are perceived. There is only one Jiva.

Only when this Jiva attains liberation all Jivas become liberated.

The statements about Suka and others having attained liberation is

only eulogy or 'Arthavada'.

 

In this context Sri Sankara's Bhashya on the following verses from

Mandukya Karika are relevant:-

II.6. The different things perceived in the waking state are unreal,

for the additional reason that they do not exist in the beginning

and at the end. A thing, such as a mirage, does not exist in the

beginning and at the end; that does not exist even in the middle.

 

IV. 65-66. The creatures visible to a waking man are non-different

from his consciousness, because they are perceived through his

consciousness, just like the creatures perceived by the

consciousness of a dreamer. And that consciousness, as engaged in

the perception of creatures, is non-different from the experiencer,

since it is perceived by the experiencer, like the consciousness in

the dream state.

 

IV. 71. It has been said that the birth, death, etc, of creatures

within the range of empirical existence are like those of the

creatures in dream and that the highest truth is that no creature

undergoes birth.

 

The allegation made by some, that Advaita is only Buddhism in

another garb, is refuted by Sri Gaudapada himself in Karika IV.99

where he says, "This view was not expressed by Buddha". This is

further explained by Sri Sankara thus-" That the nature of the

supreme Reality is free from the differences of knowledge, known and

knower and is without a second was not expressed by Buddha; though a

near-approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of external

objects and his imagination of everything as mere consciousness. But

this non-duality, the essence of the ultimate Reality, is to be

known only from the Upanishads".

 

http://www.celextel.org/adisankara/satasloki.html?page=7

 

Subbuji and others , please explain to a layman what does all

translate into !

 

thanx

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Rishi,

 

In message #34132 of Dec 2, you wrote:

 

"The final Vedantic position does not disagree with evolution given

the same assumptions, but disagrees because it subverts the

assumptions. I believe this is what Anandaji says as well."

 

Yes, this is correct in the sense that Darwinian evolution cannot

contradict an Advaita questioning, because what's thrown into

question is the Darwinian assumption that nature is no more than an

external world made up of objects and objective events.

 

But when you go on to say 'Our natural perspective is SDV ...', then

I must point out that this use of the word 'natural' is also up for

questioning. Advaita very definitely does not accept it as 'natural'

that srishti or creation should come before drishti or perceiving.

Instead, this assumption is questioned by pointing out that

perceiving actually comes before creation in our experience of the

world. So it is more natural to put perceiving first and creation

second.

 

When this is done, it turns out that creation is an artificially

made-up derivative of mixed-up perceiving. The artificiality is

introduced by mixing up true knowing with the creation of

appearances through our bodily and mental faculties. In order to be

truly natural, an unmixed knowing must be found completely detached

from our bodily and mental perceiving.

 

>From that unmixed knowing, all appearances arise quite naturally, as

its expressions in our personalities and in their seeming world. All

nature is the spontaneous expression of that pure knowing in itself.

It is the one reality that nature shows, and it is completely

uncreated. There, we come to a non-dual perspective, where a pure

knowing is non-dually at one with the reality that's known. That

perspective alone is truly natural.

 

Similarly, as you go on to use the words 'subjective' and

'objective', this usage too is up for a further questioning. In

particular you say that a 'table is a physical object in that it is

wood, but the form of the table is something we see in the wood

according to our subjective cognitive habits.... The wood is

objectively there but the table depends on some subjective element.'

 

Here, Advaita does not accept that either our cognitive habits or

any element can rightly be described as 'subjective'. Yes, we

habitually assume that our subjective knowing is driven by personal

habits of perception and conception in our bodies and our minds. But

this habitual assumption is thrown into question by pointing out

that our personalities are a confused mixture of subjective knowing

and objective habit. Accordingly, what we perceive and conceive is

confused, by the superimposition of objective habit on subjective

knowing.

 

To clear the confusion, we have to detach our subjective knowing

from personal habits that are driven by partial objects, so that we

may stand impartially in that which knows. Then, we stand in an

impersonal knowing which alone is rightly subjective. That

impersonal knowing is no partial element which goes into the make-up

of personality. Instead, it is the impartial ground of all

personality and world.

 

For knowing to be truly objective, it must be grounded thus

impersonally, in a purely subjective ground. There, knowing and

reality turn out to be at once subjective and objective. These two

words, 'subjective' and 'objective', do not rightly describe two

elements that must be mixed, in our personal experience of a

physical and mental world. Instead, in an Advaita enquiry, they

indicate two different approaches that need to be distinguished

carefully, so as to clarify our knowing of a non-dual reality.

 

By these observations, I do not mean to invalidate your

well-reasoned argument. Just to point out that Advaita makes use of

such reasoning to throw its concepts and assumptions into question,

in search of a truth where no conceiving nor assuming nor reasoning

remains.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

> Dear Subbuji,

>

> Thank you so much for the article. Who is the Acharyal in the

article,

> Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha? Is the whole book you mention about

Him? I

> have always been interested to read about His teachings but

> unfortunately have not found where to look.

 

 

Dear Rishi ji,

 

Yes. The whole book 'Yoga, Enlightenment and Perfection' is a

unique, authentic record of Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamiji's

sadhana. Here is an excerpt from the material that appears on the

back cover of this book:

 

//...With the direct guidance of God and His Guru, he intensely

engaged in spiritual practices right from the day of His samnyasa

(age 14 years) and these culminated in enlightenment and

establishment in the Supreme Brahman on December 17, 1935 (age 18

years). Acharyal kept the details to Himself till decades later,

when, in His infinite kindness, He made an exception and divulged

them to the author, His disciple.

 

The book starts with short accounts about Acharyal and His Guru in

the words of the reigning pontiff, His Holiness Jagadguru Sri

Bharati Teertha Mahaswamigal, and Acharyal respectively. Then,

after some relevant information relating to Acharyal's pre-sannyasa

days, commences a detailed account of His practice of Hatha-yoga,

devotion, karma-yoga, kundalini-yoga, nAda-anusandhAnam,

contemplation on the Atman, meditation and samadhi on divine forms,

scripture-based reflection on the Truth and savikalpa samadhi and

nirvikalpa samadhi (the acme of yoga) on the Absolute; and of His

thorough elimination of notions of the non-Atman, His enlightenement

and jivanmukti. Citations from the scriptures and other

authoritative texts as also extracts from the discources and

dialogues of His Holiness have been included to provide

clarifications and additional information. The book is thus even an

exposition of yoga and Vedanta. //

 

There are other excellent publications containing the teachings of

Acharyal : 'Exalting Elucidations', 'Divine

Discources', 'Enlightening Expositions', etc. All these are

published by Sri Vidyateertha Foundation, Chennai and are priced

very low.

 

In case you are residing in India, i can arrange to courier them to

you easily. If you are living outside India, some other arrangement

has to be made to reach the books to you. I have sent some of these

books to friends in the US through some others visiting India. In

case of need you may mail to me privately.

 

With warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat