Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 This is the talk I gave in 1999 at Chinmaya Mission, Madras on the day of Shankara Jayanti. It was posted before, but I thought it is important to recaptulate the doctrin of Adviata Vedanta propounded by Shankara Bhagavat paada. Hari Om! Sadananda -------------------------- Advaita Vedanta of Shankara Bhagavatpada shruti smRRiti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam | namAmi bhagavat pAdam sha~Nkaram loka sha~Nkaram.h || aShTavarShe chaturvedI dvAdaShe sarvashAstravit.h | ShoDaShe kRRitavAn bhAShyam dvAtRimShe munirabhyagAt.h || Bhagavan Shankara became an exponent of four Vedas by the time he was eight, by twelve he learned all the shAstras, by sixteen he wrote 'bhAShya'-s on 'prasthAnatraya' and by thirty-two he fulfilled his mission and left to his abode. Bhagavan Shankara was one of the greatest missionaries that India ever produced. The philosophy that he expounded is the Advaita. 'A-dvaita' is not monism, emphasizing the oneness itself, but more of negation of duality or plurality, as a reality. For, it is recognized, and supported by scriptures, that absolute oneness cannot be defined other than through the negation of all duality. Absoluteness can only be that which is free from negation - tri-kAla abAdhitam satyam, that which cannot be negated in three periods of time, alone is the truth. The negation of all duality leaves one who is the negator, who cannot be negated. Since negation process involves an agent who must be a conscious entity to carry out the negation process, what remains after the completion of all process of negation of duality can only be the conscious entity, the subject, itself. As we shall see later that there cannot be anything other than consciousness. The doctrine of Advaita that Bhagavan Shankara advocated is about the nature of the absolute truth, which can withstand the rigor of modern scientific analysis, yet it is above any analysis or logic. 'naiShA tarkeNa matirApaneya' says Kathopanishad that the truth cannot be deduced by logic, thus leaving the scripture as the only 'pramANa' or means of knowledge to know it. The recognition of oneness or definition of oneness is impossible, since the very process of definition involves intrinsic duality: the definer and the defined. In oneness, all one can be is just be - Existence - Consciousness - one without a second; and hence all communications stop, since there is no communicator and the communicated, leaving the eternal dynamic silence alone, which is the very substratum for all that has been negated. Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi puts this beautifully in the very first shloka of his 'Sat-darshana': satpratyayAH kiM nu vihAya santam hRRidyesha chintArahito hRRidAkhyaH | kathaM smarAmastamameyamekam tasya smRRitistatra dRRiDhaiva niShThA || " The principle of existence which is the very core of ones individuality that which is free from all thoughts, how can I think if 'it'. All I can dois just 'be' established firmly in it, as the very being " . This is a prayer of 'j~nAnI' who is firmly established in the Advaitic understanding of the nature of the reality. Hence the philosophy is rightly called Advaita, non-dualism. The 'non' aspect is emphasized throughout. The truth of Advaita is (a) the non-duality of the absolute, (b) non-reality of the world and © non-difference of the so-called individual soul from the absolute reality. Advaita is not a sectarian doctrine. It is the culmination of all doctrines, the crown of all views. Advaita is opposed to none, however much the other philosophies project it to be so. It emphasizes the Advaitic nature of the truth that is transcendental. Dr. T.M.P Mahadevan, a great exponent of Advaita writes: " Advaita is not an -ism. When we translate Advaita as non-dualism, the negation is signified by the prefix non – applies not only to duality but also to -ism. " In celebrating Bhagavan Shankara's Jayanti, it will be fitting for us to recapitulate the essence of Advaitic doctrine expounded by Bhagavan for the benefit of the entire humanity, and how it differs in its essence from that of 'Vishishta-advaita' and 'Dvaita' doctrines. Any philosophy must begin with the explanation of three essential aspects: Jiva - the individual, Jagat - the world, and Ishwara - the Lord or the Creator. The existence of the first two is obvious from one's own experience and does not require any further proof or 'pramANa'. The existence of the third, Ishwara, follows once we recognize that the world is a creation. Science has yet to provide a convincing explanation for the origin of the universe. It leaves us with the concept of a big bang, that requires (a) a highly centralized matter for the bang to occur, and (b) the pre-existence of physical laws that govern the bang. Presupposition of these two entities leaves the theory incomplete at best. In addition, it offers no explanation for the origin of the consciousness or life force, other than accounting it by yet another accident. In Vedanta, there are no accidents in life, There are only incidents, where each incident is an effect, and every effect must have at least a cause. Krishna makes a very profound statement in Ch.II of Bhagavad gItA. 'nAsato vidyAte bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyAte sataH |' - that which is non-existent can never come into existence and that which is existent can never cease to exist. This is essentially the law of conservation principle that a student of science learns as the first fundamental law of nature. Matter or energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Only one form of matter or energy can be converted to another. Creation therefore cannot be something out of nothing that makes existence out of non-existence. It can only be a transformation of one form of existence to another form; a change of name and a form ('nAma' and 'rUpa') with the associated qualities. Shankara says in 'Drig-Drishya Viveka': asti bhAti priyaM rUpaM nAmaM chetyaMsha pa~nchakam.h | AdyatrayaM brahmarUpaM jagadrUpaM tato dvayam.h || 'nAma' and 'rUpa' or name and form only belong to the Jagat, the world, but the essence that supports the very existence of the object with 'nAma' and 'rUpa' and hence the world, belongs to Brahman. How is that so? How does the doctrine of Advaita come to grips with the presence of two diagonally opposite to one another: the presence of a sentient or 'chaitanya vastu' and that of 'jaDa vastu' or the insentient or inert matter in the universe. Since according to Krishna nothing can be created nor destroyed, then how do we end up with non-duality from the seemingly real duality involving sentient and insentient 'vastu padArtha'? Other philosophies have no problem since they accept the duality, dvaita, as reality; jIva satyam, paramAtmA satyam and jagat satyam are the three axiomatic statements on which dvaita philosophies rest. Let us analyze briefly the scriptural support for the Advaita and see how it is consistent with scriptural declarations, while being logical and scientific. During our prayers, we normally chant an invocation shloka from Upanishads: pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam pUrNAt purNam udachyate | pUrNasya pUrNam AdAya pUrNam eva avashiShyate || Completeness or fullness is that and completeness is this. From completeness, completeness is born, From completeness ( or to completeness), completeness is added (or subtracted) Completeness alone remains. This is interpreted in the dvaitic literature as the relation between the supreme Brahman, Narayana and his incarnations, Rama, Krishna, etc. adaH stands for the supreme Lord Narayana and idam stands for the 'avatArAs', which are also considered as 'pUrNam' in the sense that they are capable of granting mokSha to the devotees who surrender to them. From Narayana, 'pUrNAt', the avatarA-s, 'pUrNam', udachyate, are born. Fullness of Narayana is not compromised when avatArAs originate from Him. He remains full, pUrNam eva avashiShyate. We examine, now, the shloka from the point of Advaita doctrine. We use the word 'that', 'adaH' to point out something that is spatially remote from us, and 'this', 'idam', we use for that which is close by. Therefore, 'that' can stand for something remote in space. At times, we also use the word 'that' to denote something remote from time-wise, in terms of our past. When we say " do you remember that - what happened when we were children " - here 'that' is used to point out an incident remote in time. Thus, 'that' is used to denote something remote - spatially or temporally. 'This' we use to denote something that is close by. However, in Vedanta 'this' is used as technical word implying more than what is discussed. 'This' or 'idam' in Vedanta stands for the entire world of plurality that can be pointed as this, this and this. So 'this' according to Vedanta, stands for anything and Everything that one can point out as this - 'idam vastu'. 'This' therefore stands for the whole 'jagat' that can be pointed out as this and this. To emphasize this meaning, in 'IshAvAsya' Upanishad, in the very first shloka after above invocation shloka, it says, 'IshAvAsyam idam sarvam'. Thus 'idam' is used again pointing out that 'idam' here and in the invocation shloka means 'idam sarvam jagat' this entire universe, which is pervaded by Isha, the Lord. Hence the invocation shloka points out that idam stands for the entire Jagat or universe which is a creation and it has to be 'pUrNam' or complete or infinite. The statement is logical too. If it is finite, then the question arises as to what is there outside the finite creation. If there is 'some thing outside' the creation, then the next question is who created that outside. If so, it becomes inside the creation, since that outside is created. Hence, by sheer logic, we can deduce that creation has to be infinite or pUrNam. Hence, the second part of the first line - 'pUrNam idam' is correct by indicating that this 'jagat' is 'pUrNam' or infinite. Science has yet to find the boundaries for the universe. If everything is included in the 'idam', which is pUrNam, then how do we account for the first part of the line 'pUrNam adaH' - which says 'that is complete'. When we say something is infinite or complete, it cannot exclude anything. For, if it excludes, by that very exclusion, it becomes apUrNam or finite, and hence its pUrNatwam or infiniteness is violated. However, scriptural statement is emphatic in the assertion that ' that is also complete'. Then, there must be some 'adaH', 'that', which is remote and also is not included in the Jagat, 'idam pUrNam'. That 'adaH' must also be pUrNam on its own right, since scripture is making a separate statement towards that effect. In addition, since two separate statements have been made in terms of idam and adaH - they should be mutually exclusive. That is, idam should exclude adaH, and adaH should exclude idam. The problem that we run into now is by mutual exclusion neither idam nor adaH can be pUrNam, since pUrNam cannot admit any exclusion for a thing to be pUrNam. Since the scripture cannot be wrong, there must be something more to it than what meets our eye. Examining further, if 'idam' includes all that can be pointed out - that is the entire Jagat, then what is 'that', that is not included in 'this'. The only thing that is not included in 'idam' is 'I', aham, who is doing the pointing as this and this and this. 'I' being a subject cannot be pointed as 'this'. So only 'aham' is excluded in 'idam' jagat. If so, why Scripture has to use the word as 'adaH' indicating remoteness, when I am so close to myself. In using the word 'adaH' for aham, scripture is also indicating something else. It is not remote from space-wise or time-wise, but remote from understanding-wise. Scripture is indicating that I do not know who I am. I take myself to be what I am not. I take myself as 'this body' - 'idam sharIram' either at gross level or at subtle level that is mistaking myself to be my mind or my intellect etc. It is not obvious that with all my limitations - 'deha parichchhinno.aham, mano parichchhinno.aham', etc., I am limited by the size of my body, limited by the size of my mind, etc.- how I can be pUrNam, limitless? In fact, I feel apUrNam or limited all the time. All my struggles in life are only to solve this problem of my inadequacy or apUrNatwam or the feeling of limitedness. Scripture is pointing something different from my day-to-day experience of myself. Obviously, I don't need a scripture to tell me that I am apUrNam since that is my day-to-day experience. Scripture as a pramANa is trying to educate me about myself, which is beyond my day-to-day experience. It is pointing that I am not what I think I am, but I am that total - pUrNam - with no internal distinctions nor external relations. Even if I accept the scriptural statement on its face value, in spite of my day-to-day experience, there is still a problem in the scriptural statement. For, aham is excluded from idam and idam is excluded from aham. By mutual exclusion neither one can be purNam. Hence, there is a self-contradiction in the scriptural statement -' pUrNam adaH, pUrNam idam. To resolve this issue we need to examine the second line. ' pUrNAt pUrNam udachyate'- from pUrNam pUrNam came. Now the question arises from which pUrNam which pUrNam came, since we are left with two pUrNam-s in the first line. Recognizing the problems with 'idam' and 'adaH', scripture advises us to drop both idam and adaH, I and this world, but shift our attention to pUrNam. By the parAllel construction - pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam, pUrNAt pUrNam udachyate - it follows that from adaH pUrNam, idam pUrNam is projected. Since adaH stands for aham, I, the scripture is pointing out that this jagat, universe that I am seeing, experiencing, arose from aham, I. That is I am the cause for this entire creation, since it comes from me. This is a daring declaration. Not only I am pUrNam, I am the very source of the entire jagat. How can that be? We started our discussion with three - jIva, Jagat and Ishwara and the discussion is now reduced to two, I, the conscious or sentient entity and the jagat the insentient entity. In addition, scripture is also indicating that the whole universe comes from me, the conscious entity. How can an inert thing, jaDam, be originated from a conscious entity or 'chaitanya vastu'? Let us examine the shruti declarations related to the origin of the universe. One can see why scripture becomes a pramANa or means of knowledge for understanding this riddle. In Chandogya Upanishad, Uddalaka teaches his son, Shwetaketu, about the origin of the universe. He says: 'sadeva saumya idam agra AsIt, ekameva advitIyam' - 'Hey, good looking one, existence alone was there in the beginning, before the creation. It is one without a second'. Before the creation began, what was there? It is not matter or jaDam, or Vishnu or Krishna or father in heaven. Whatever was there before the creation Started is independent of name and form, nAma and rUpa. If there is a rUpa, a form, then one can give a name. On the other hand, if there is a rUpa or form then, it automatically defines a boundary of inside and outside with respect to that rUpa or form. If there is outside for the rUpa, then a question related to where and when did that outside came into existence - if that outside exists, then it is part of the existence and not different from the existence. If instead, the outside is created then it must be created from what was existing there before. In either case, it reduces to the fact that existence alone was there before the creation, and it is one without a second. If there is a second, in order to be different from the first, which is existence, the second can only be a non-existence, since non-existence alone can be different from the existence. However, how can one say that non-existence exists, since it is a contradiction in terms. Hence sat eva saumya idam agra AsIt - existence alone was there in the beginning. Uddalaka next refutes an alternate theory that non-existence alone was there in the beginning. ' tat ha eka AhuH | asat eva idam agra AsIt | tasmAt asataH sajjAyata ' - some say that non-existence alone was there in the beginning before creation and from the non-existence, existence is born. How can that be possible - 'kutastu khalu saumya evam syAditi hovAcha | katham asataH sajjAyeta - sat tu eva saumya idam agra AsIt, ekam eva advitIyam' - 'How can one say that? How is it possible for existence to come out of non-existence? Hence, hey, good looking one, existence alone was there in the beginning and it is one without a second'. This is consistent with Krishna's statement - 'na asato vidyAte bhAvo na abhAvo vidyAte sataH'| That which is non-existent can never come into existence and that which exists can never cease to exist, which we discussed as the law of conservation in absolute sense. Hence, creation can only start from that which exists. Hence, Uddalaka's statement is logically sound. In Panchadasi, commenting on 'existence' Shri VidyAranya says, " existence which is the essential nature of reality has neither external relations, nor internal differentiation. To limit it, is to finitize it. It is unrelated to any thing, for there is nothing else with which it can be related to. The real which is the most perfect being cannot be delineated by determinations and relations. " However, what kind of existence was there in the beginning that was one without a second. Uddalaka continues: 'tad aikShata, bahu syAm prajAyeyeti', 'it saw - it decided to become many, and it became many'. Since the scripture says - it saw - as Brahmasutra emphasizing this point says 'IkShaternAshabdam' because of the use of the word 'IkShata' - by the use of the word that 'it saw', scripture is pointing that the existence that was there before the creation of the Jagat is not of the type of inert existence - since it has the capacity 'to see'. Inert things cannot see. Hence by implication scripture indicates that, what was there before the creation was a 'chaitanya vastu' - a conscious entity and not an inert entity. Hence 'sat' that was there before creation is also 'chit'. Furthermore, when it says it saw, and since there is nothing else to see as it is 'ekamevA advitIyam', one without a second, scripture is also indicating that it is a self-conscious or self-effulgent entity. 'It decided to become many and became many' - further implying that it has the Potential to become many and therefore decided to become many - that is, the Decision is preconceived. Hence creation starts first with a conception - or idea or a thought - and the thought transforms into action i.e., manifestation into many. The thought arises in the primordial existence. Thought can arise only in the mind of a conscious entity. Since we have total existence which is one without a second, the origin of the mind and the thought are synonymous. The total consciousness-existence with the total mind is what Advaita calls as Ishwara. Identifying with that total mind Brahman thought - let me become many and he became many. One becoming many as the creation evolved is also emphasized in other Upanishads as well. Aitareya Upanishad says: ' AtmA vA idameka eva agra AsIt | na anyat ki~nchana miShat| sa aikShata lokAn nu sRRijA iti |' - 'Before the creation AtmA was alone there. There was nothing else that was there other than AtmA. He wanted to see the manifestation of the creation'. In this Upanishad, we note the primordial existence-consciousness that was identified in Ch. Up. is referred to here as AtmA as the Self and there is nothing else other than AtmA. Since there is nothing other than AtmA it is the supreme or paramAtmA too. Hence, any theories that claim that there is inert entity (jagat even in a subtle form) or plurality in AtmA are not compatible with the upanishadic statement. Furthermore, Taittiriya Upanishad says - 'tasmAt vA etasmAt AtmAna AkAshaH sambhUtaH | AkAshAt vAyuH | vAyoH agniH | agneH ApaH| adbhyaH pRRithivI | pRRithivyA oShadhayaH |..'Thus from this AtmA, space is born, from space, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; and from earth the medicines .. etc. Thus, creation started from the 'chaitanya vastu', AtmA, which is of the nature sat and chit, existence and consciousness, one without a second. Thus scriptures repeatedly declare that what was there before creation was only one, which is of the nature of consciousness and from that one came the manifested universe starting from space, air, fire, water and earth -'pa~ncha bhUtA'-s - subtler one giving rise to more and more grosser ones. Having established that consciousness alone was there before the creation, the question remains to be answered is how the 'chaitanya vastu' or conscious entity can give rise to 'achaitanya vastu' or 'jaDa padArtham', or inert matter. pUrNAt pUrNamudachyate- From 'aham pUrNam idam pUrNam' came is the statement. 'chaitanyam' (sentient) and 'jaDam' (insentient) are two diametrically opposite entities and therefore that 'jaDam', which is of the nature of ignorance or darkness cannot result from that which is the light of all lights, jyotirjyotiH. Recognizing the problem, mother shruti comes to our rescue again in explaining the exact nature of the universe. To understand this problem of inert matter arising from a 'chaitanya vastu', we go to Mandukya Upanishad that analyzes the nature of reality in the three states of consciousness, waking, dream and deep sleep states. It is important to note that existence of the universe, jagat, which is jaDam, is confirmed not by itself but by an experiencer of the universe, who is 'chaitanya swarUpa'. Without the experiencer, there is no experienced. Whether jagat or world exists or not cannot be confirmed, since for confirmation, a chaitanya vastu must exist, and that chaitanya vastu should illumine the jaDa vastu for it to get established that it exists. In addition, jagat being jaDam, it cannot know by itself. In fact, one can define jaDam as 'anya adhIna prakAshatvam, tat jaDam' that is, whose existence is illuminated or known by another, which itself has to be self-existent or self-luminous. In Advaita Vedanta there are two explanations related to creation - dRRiShTi-sRRiShTi and sRRiShTi-dRRiShTi. ' I see it, therefore it is' and ' it is, therefore I see it'. In the first case, the universe exists because I see it. If I do not see it, then the universe cannot be independently (independent of a conscious entity) established, since it is inert. Hence, it is anya AdhIna prakAshatvam, that is, its existence depends some thing other than itself. In the second case, 'I see it, therefore it is' is a subjective projection of the objective universe, in contrast to 'it is, therefore I see it' which is the objective projection of the objective universe. To understand the distinction between the two clearly, let us take the famous example of a rope and the snake. 'I see a snake and therefore snake is there. This subjective projection involves a partial truth superimposed on which is a subjective notion. This is called error of superimposition or adhyAsa. I am aware of the existence of some object, which is long, and thin 'out there'. That is the truth part of it, that is, there is the awareness of an object that exists 'out there'. However, in addition to that, there is a superimposed notion, which is a subjective cognition or projection on the objective vision due to an incomplete inquiry, vichAra, or incomplete information due to the limitation of the illuminating equipments, such as defective eyesight or dim light on the object etc. We call it as notional or 'bhrama', since it is subject to negation, when full information becomes available about the object, either through the process of inquiry or clear vision. The complete process of perception by the human mind through the senses involves perception, volition, cognition and recognition. Cognition that there is an object - 'vastu j~nAnam' is there, even when there is an incomplete information through senses. However, in recognition, that involves comparison of what is perceived with what was known from one's memory bank, the object can be wrongly recognized as a snake instead of a rope, since vastu j~nAnam or sense information is incomplete. Hence, when there is an incomplete apprehension, then there is a possibility for an error, mistaking a rope as a snake. Snake is a notion in a seer's mind, since it is not really a snake but a rope; and therefore it is subject to negation when more complete information becomes available. Thus, it is a subjective projection of the objective world, which is rope. What is negated is not the substratum that supports the notion of the snake, that is the rope, but what is negated is only the subjective notion, that it is a snake, of the objective reality, which is a rope. When I recognize the object as a snake, it is not complete non-apprehension of the object. If so, then there is neither a rope nor a snake. For an error to exist, there is a partial or incomplete knowledge of the vastu, the object of perception. Thus in the dRishTi-sRishTi, the world exists because it is seen. Whether I see the rope as a snake or as a rope, the existence of the object is based on my perception. There is superimposed error involved if my perception, volition, cognition or recognition is singly, serially or collectively defective. Error can be negated, when the truth is correctly perceived. Here what is negated is the notion or rather my understanding or my misunderstanding of the universe. In this case, that it is the snake that is negated, when the truth of the rope is completely comprehended. The existence of the substratum, the rope, is never negated. Either rope is seen as a snake or rope is seen as a rope. From the rope point rope remains as a rope, all the time even when it is perceived as a snake. Rope has nothing to do with my snake vision. When the rope is seen as the rope, the snake vision disappears and along with it any associated fears and reactions, such as increased blood pressure and other body-reactions, which appear to be as real as the snake, as long as snake is perceived. In contrast, in sRRiShTi-dRRiShTi, 'it is there, therefore I see it', there is no subjective error involved but there can still be an objective error. Rope is there and therefore I see the rope - is an example here. Here the emphasis is the Ishwara who created the rope for me to see. Ishwara being sum total of all minds put together, the existence of rope is beyond the notions of the individual mind, by itself, since everybody (everybody's mind) sees as a rope. We call this as objective reality. But there is still error involved and the error becomes known only when one inquires further. Further analysis indicates that one can see only superimposed the nAma-rUpa, the object form, but not the substratum, its essential, the Brahman. This adhyAsa is objective error of superimposition in contrast to the subjective adhyAsa when we see a snake where there is a rope. In both cases the knowledge of the object is incomplete at best. This becomes evident if we try to inquire- what is a rope? Rope is only a temporal reality or 'vyAvahArika satyam' and not an absolute reality. Absolute reality involves non-negatability at any time. In the process of further inquiry of the nature of the rope, one can negate the rope in that it is no more there as a rope, when we pull the rope apart and discover that rope is nothing but a bundle of fibers, assembled together. Rope is nothing but assemblage of something else that exists. Rope exists 'out-there' since its constituents, such as fibers, exists 'out there'. Thus existence of rope is due to the existence of constituent fibers. Rope has no independent existence apart from the existence of the fibers. But fibers themselves are made of some other entities or assemblage of some other existent entities, such as, for example, molecular chains. In fact every created object is nothing but an assemblage of ingredients which themselves in turn are assemblages of some other finer ingredients. Hence rope is gone, and its place fibers are there. We can likewise negate the fibers in discovering that it is nothing but some assemblage of atoms, and negate the atoms in discovering that it an assemblage of some fundamental particles, consisting of electrons, protons and neutrons; and thus the process can continue indefinitely; and science has yet to find the final truth about the rope! But what Vedanta declares, which science echoes, is that which exists can never cease to exist. That is the law of conservation. Whether in the form of rope, or in the form of fibers, atoms or fundamental particles, existence is never dismissed - what is dismissed in each step is only name and a form or nAma and rUpa, and not its essential substratum which exists. Interestingly, while inquiring into what is a rope, the 'dRRishyam', there is another factor, which persists all through the inquiry. That is the existence of a 'draShTA' or the existence of an inquirer, who has to be there all through the inquiry of the rope, not only as an existent entity but also as a conscious entity, since unconscious entity cannot inquire. It is now increasingly recognized by particle physicists that while the inquirer, draShTA, remains independent of the system being investigated, the system being investigated dRRishyam and the results that one obtains are not independent of the inquirer. As Vedanta emphasizes that 'chaitanya vastu' or an inquirer remains independent while the 'jaDa vastu', inert entity, remains as dependent and therefore has only a dependent-existence. Whether the individual mind sees the rope as a rope or as a snake, the fact remains that existence of rope is not independent of the individual perception and its limitations. Here the error is more subtle in the sense that not only I see the rope but others also see the rope. Hence, the rope has an objective reality, as real as the others who are seeing it. However, upon further inquiry, the existence of even the rope is not confirmed unless a seer is there to see it. Object may be there but unless I cognize it, its existence, at best is conditional, depending on the validity of the pramANa or means of knowledge that is confirming the existence of the rope. In one way or the other, either through my mind or some other's mind, the perception, volition, cognition and recognition has to take place before the existence of the rope can be established. A conscious entity or self-existent entity has to be there to provide the support for the existence of the dRRishyam or jaDam or inert object. Thus, we are back to the existence of draShTA, seer to establish the existence of the dRRishyam, the object of awareness. Hence whether the judgments about the nature of jagat are notional (taking a rope as a snake) or relatively real (rope, fibers, atoms, electrons, protons, etc.), what is absolutely real in the whole process is only the one who is making the judgment call about the, jagat. Without the seer, draShTA present, the dRRiShTi, perception cannot occur. The drashTA, the seer is only one that is absolutely real or non-negatable in the seer-seen duality. In dRRiShTi-sRRiShTi, as well as in sRRiShTi- dRRiShTi, the confirmation of the presence of universe rests squarely on the individual seer, draShTA. Without the analysis of the seer, the analysis of the jagat, seen, has only relative reality or transactional reality or vyAvahArika satyam. In analyzing the seer-seen relation, that is, the individual and the jagat and their relation, the analysis must include, therefore, a total system (seer and the seen) since seen, the jagat, cannot be independently established without the seer present. Whereas, the seer can exist without the jagat, the seen. Mandukya Upanishad, like a true scientific treatise, recognizes that analysis of the waking state only to establish the validity of jagat can lead to an erroneous conclusion, since it constitutes only one third of the human experience, and thus ignores the other two states of experiences, dream and deep sleep states. For a waker, dream is not real, and only the waking state is real. But that is the conclusion of the waker, and not the dreamer about a state of consciousness that is different from the waking state. Just as for a waker the waking state is real and not the dream state, for a dreamer the dream state is equally real. Shankara says in AtmAbodha 'sakAle satyavad bhAti prabodhe satyasad bhavet' - as long as one is dreaming the dream state is real. Only when awakened to the higher state, the dream appears to be unreal. The unreality of the dream world can be established not in the dream, but by awakening to the higher state of consciousness. Actually the use of the words higher and lower is only with reference to each states but in reality that which is independent of all the states alone is real, and the highest. For convenience, this state is referred to in Mandukya as the fourth state, 'turya' state, just to differentiate it from the other three states, although it is there in all the three states as the very substratum. Just as gold is there as the very substratum of the bangle, ring or necklace. In principle gold is different from bangle, ring or necklace, even as we transform the bangle into a ring and then into a necklace. Gold remains as gold in all the three states yet it is different from each state in the sense that gold is not a bangle or a ring or a necklace. The latter are only the names and forms for the substratum that does not undergo any modification during the changing names and forms. Names and forms are superficial projection of the substratum, gold, which itself never undergoes any modification during transformation or 'vikAra' of the changing names and forms. In the same way, the universe is a superficial projection of the names and forms on the substratum, which itself does not undergo any modifications during the changing names and forms. Taittiriya Upanishad says: 'yato vA imAni bhUtani jAyante, yena jAtAni jIvanti, yat prayantyabhisaMvisanti | tat vij~nAsaswa | tad brahmeti | ' - 'That from which the whole universe arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back, know that, that is Brahman'. From which the whole gold ornaments arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back is the material cause, upAdAna kAraNa for the universe of gold ornaments. In the case of gold ornaments, the ornament maker, goldsmith, who is the nimitta kAraNa, is different from the upAdAna kAraNa, gold. But for the creation of the entire universe, the Taittiriya establishes by the above statement that the Brahman is the upAdana kAraNa, since it is sustained by Him and goes back into Him. However, since Brahman being 'ekameva advitIyam', one without a second, and a conscious entity, he has to be both upAdAna kAraNa and nimitta kAraNa. Is that possible? How can both the nimitta kAraNa and upAdana kAraNa can be one and the same? This is exactly what is learned from the analysis of the dream state of experience. If I am dreaming a blazing fire of a big high rise building, I am a fireman who is trying to put out the fire using a fire hose and a water jet, and there are many spectators watching the burning of the building, then my dream world consists of both conscious entities like myself and the spectators, as well as jaDa vastu, the building, fire, the hose, the water etc. But the whole dream world of chara and acara, movable and immovable or chaitanya and achaitanya vastu, conscious and unconscious entities all arose from me, the waking mind, sustained by my mind and it goes back into my mind. My waking mind is the upAdana kAraNa as well as the nimitta kAraNa. Thus dream analysis points out to the fact that it is not difficult to conceive both causes, the nimitta and upAdAna kAraNa can be one and the same. For me to create a dream world, I should have the knowledge of the creation. I cannot dream 'gAgAbUbu' because I do not know what 'gAgAbUbu' is. I am the 'sarvaj~na' of my dream as well as the 'sarva shaktimAn', since I can create as well as annihilate it. But most important thing is that in the creation process of the dream jagat, both unconscious entities or jaDa vastu as well as conscious entities such as myself, the firefighter and the surrounding spectators, etc., all are emanating from me, who was a waker as well as the dreamer. Unconscious entity cannot dream. Are the objects in my dream such as building and the fire etc., real? They appear to be real as long as the dream lasts but when I am awaken, they are resolved into me, the material cause. Are they not real? As a firefighter in the dream, never for a moment I will doubt that the building under fire is not real or the water that is putting the fire is not real. Yet when I awaken, there are no ashes anywhere nor the bed is wet with the dream water. All are resolved into me, the waking mind that was projecting the world of plurality. They arise in me, are sustained by me and go back into me. Hence I am the upAdAna kAraNa or material cause for my dream. In the case of the bangle, it is real only with respect to the name and form and utility. Use of bangle is different from the use of a ring and so on. Yet from the point of gold all the ornaments have only a temporal reality or vyAvahArika satyam. All the differences, 'sajAti, vijAti and swagata bhedA'-s, internal differences and external relations, belong to the nAma and rUpa only but not to the essential substratum that sustains all these nAma and rUpa. What is real is defined in Vedanta from pAramArthika level as that which remains the same in all three periods of time, 'trikAla abAdhitam satyam'. What is unreal, asatyam or tuchchham, is that which never existed with any locus. nAma and rUpa such as bangle or ring or necklace, cannot be taken as real since they do not fall under the category of 'trikAla abAdhitam', nor they are non-existent since bangle exists that is different from ring etc. Hence, they are neither real nor unreal, and Advaita Vedanta calls this as 'mithyA' or apparently real, since upon inquiry each resolves into its substratum, which is real. Gold plus many varieties of ornaments is not plurality nor duality, but Advaita only from the point of Gold. It is just one gold into many ornaments. They appear to be many but they all resolve into one upon appropriate inquiry. In order to see the oneness of the gold in all golden ornaments it is not necessary to melt all the ornaments. By proper discriminative intellect, one can see the gold, in spite of the existence of plurality of the golden ornaments. In the dream world there is a plurality that appears to be true, but since they are negated by waking, they are not real since they do not fulfill the definition of 'trikAla abAdhitam'. They are not unreal either, since they do exist in the dream. Hence they are apparently real or mithyA supported by that, which is real, the waking mind. Extending this analogy further, even the waking word is not real since it is negated by the dreamer and deep sleeper, and hence does not fulfill the definition of 'trikAla abAdhitam'. But what is real that is not negated in the three states of consciousness, Mandukya Upanishad declares, is the consciousness, I, the substratum for all the three states and independent of the three states. Just as gold does not depend on bangle or ring for it to be gold, whereas bangle and ring depend on gold for them to be a bangle or a ring; I, the consciousness does not depend on the waking state, dream state or deep sleep state to be myself, but all the three states depend on me, the consciousness. The three worlds, waking or dream or deep sleep, do not establish my existence, whereas I establish the existence of the three worlds. They depend on me whereas I do not depend on them. Krishna says in Ch.9 of B.G., " mayA tatam idam sarvam jagad avyakta mUrtinA | matsthAni sarva bhUtAni na cha aham teShu avasthitaH | " - I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all beings are in me but I am not in them, meaning they depend on me but I don't depend on them'. All are names and forms on the substratum, which is me. My existence is independent of them while their existence depends on my existence. Thus without me, the seer, the world is not seen. Now, examining back our original question 'how can we account for that which is one without a second, which is a conscious-existent entity giving rise to unconscious or inert jagat, we have resolved this with the help of the scriptures, using the analogy of the dream world. Thus, the jaDam that we see is only apparent and not real. Hence there is no real jaDam that emanated from the chaitanya vastu. The apparent becomes apparent, when we recognize the substratum behind the apparent. The apparent can appear to be real, if we do not realize the nature of the truth that is eternal. When the appearance is resolved then there is only the consciousness that is real which is the substratum. Hence what is there before creation - sad eva saumya idam agra AsIt - existence alone was there in the beginning before the creation. That existence was not an inert existence since scripture says - tad aikShata - it saw - Hence it is conscious-existence. That existence-consciousness which is Brahman remains the essential substratum from which the whole world arises, sustains and goes back. Creation is just the projection of the plurality in terms of nAma and rUpa. But in and through the nAma and rUpa, the essence - 'sat chit Ananda' aspect remains unaltered, just as gold remains as gold in the changing names and forms. Hence advaita remains advaita, in spite of the apparent dvaita. It is non-duality in spite of duality. Dvaita is not contradictory to Advaita when one inquires into the nature of the reality of the plurality. Dvaita exists at vyAvahArika level or relative plane and at pAramArthika level or absolute plane it resolves into Advaita. Hence, Krishna declares in Gita - 'avyakAdIni bhUtani vyakta madhyAni bhArata | avyakta nidhanAnyeva .' Before the creation it is unmanifested (existence) and with creation it is manifested (with names and forms) and in the dissolution it goes back to unmanifested (existence). Hence, creation is only an apparent transformation of what was there before creation - existence-conscious principle, which is infinite or unlimited. It is easy to see in the case of the dream world that the waking mind is the substratum from which the whole dream world arises, is sustained and goes back into it and hence is the upAdAna kAraNa for the dream. How can we establish that the waking world is the projection of one's consciousness, which is one without a second. Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi discusses this beautifully in his Upadesha Sara. dRRishya vAritam chittamAtmAnaH | chittwadarshanam tattvadarshanam || If one removes from his mind that objects that are seen, that is, removes all the names and the forms associated with the object thoughts, what remains is the essence of the mind, cittwam, and the vision of the essence of the mind or substratum of the mind is the vision of the reality. Locus of every thought is nothing but an object outside. When I see a chair, I have a chair-thought in my mind. The locus of the chair-thought is the object, chair, outside. But even though the chair is outside, the 'chair-thought' is inside my mind. There is what is known as 'avinAbhAva sambadha' - 'a relationless relationship' between the object chair outside and the chair-thought inside the mind. Without the chair-thought in the mind, the object chair is not perceived. 'Out of mind is out of sight' is a valid statement based on our experience, because of this relationless relationship. Thus every object outside reduces to an object thought inside the mind. Without the object thought inside the mind, the object outside is not recognized. Thus locus of every thought is an object, either existing outside but seen via the senses by the mind, or it could be a recollection of an object by the mind from my memory bank. However, when I say that I have seen the chair, what is seen is the thought in my mind. The thought in the mind is seen or recognized only when I am aware of the thought. That is the awareness has to illumine the chair-thought in my mind, then only I can say 'this is a chair'. If the thought is away from my awareness, I cannot say ' this is a chair' since I am not aware of the chair or the chair-thought. Thus every part of the chair thought is immersed in my awareness, then only I am aware of the thought. Thus the object-thought cannot be away from my awareness. Actually the thought arises in my awareness, sustained by my awareness and goes back into my awareness. Although we are using the word - my awareness - awareness is not an object that I possess, since it is not another thought. It is because of which the thought is seen. " yan manasA na manute yena AhuH mano matam " - " that which the mind cannot think (it is not an object to think), but because of which the mind has the capacity to think " is the awareness, says Kenopanishad. Hence awareness is not some kind of quality that I possess The word 'my awareness' is like 'my happiness' - It is not a thing that I possess - It is about myself or my own nature - I am that happiness or I am that awareness and not ' I have happiness nor I have awareness'. This is important to recognize this since some Acharyas have misinterpreted that 'awareness' is a quality or attribute that I possess. In fact thought-wave is nothing but a perturbation in my awareness just as the wave is a perturbation in the ocean. Wave is engulfed by water; it arises from water, is sustained by water and goes back into water - every part of the wave is nothing but water and water alone. Wave is nothing but the name and a form, for, it is just a perturbation of water. If I suppress the wave, what is left is only the water that supports the wave. I do not have to suppress the wave to see that wave is nothing but water. I have to see in and through the wave discarding its superfluous form and the name associated with it- then I see the substratum that supports the wave. Just the same way, every thought wave that is illumined by my mind is nothing but awareness alone. Thus we have come to conclusion that every object outside is nothing but the thought inside the mind, and every thought in the mind is nothing but a perturbation in the awareness itself. It cannot be away from my awareness since I am aware of the thought. Hence, thought is nothing but what is known as adhyAsa, a superimposition of a name and form on the awareness - a form and thus a name is given for the perturbation. It is not a 'permanent transformation' or 'pariNAma' of awareness, since when I see a chair, I have a chair thought and then when I turn my head and see a table, the chair thought is instantaneously replaced by a table thought. Where did the chair thought go? It went back where it came from, into myself. Thus all thoughts arise in my awareness, are sustained by my awareness and go back into my awareness - thus awareness is the upAdana kAraNa for all the thoughts. Hence Bhagavan Ramana says in the above shloka that if we discard the names and forms from all objective thoughts, what remains in all the thoughts is nothing but the essence of the mind, which is nothing but 'tattvam' the essential truth - the awareness. Thus world is nothing but 'idam vastu', this and this and this - a sum total of all objects are nothing but thoughts in my mind and each thought is nothing but a perturbation in my consciousness. Just as each gold ornament is nothing but perturbation of gold into a form with a name. Gold does not transform into bangle or ring or necklace. Gold remains as gold in and through the transformation of names and forms. Similarly, the awareness Is the very substratum of the universe, and the jagat is the projection of the names and forms in awareness. Thus awareness alone is there from the beginning, and it is one without a second. Just as gold plus varieties of ornaments is just one gold, awareness plus the jagat is nothing but just one awareness alone. Just as gold does not become ornaments; gold remains as gold existing as ornaments. Similarly, existence-awareness, remains as such while existing as jagat. Thus, jagat is only a superfluous transformation of Brahman, what is known as adhyAsa. Hence jaDam or insentient is not created out of a chaitanya vastu, it is only an appearance or vikAra. Thus dvaita is only apparent but the truth is Advaita, one without a second. This is beautifully illustrated by Uddalaka in Chandogya Upanishad using three examples. " yathA saumya, ekena lohamaNinA sarvam lohamayam vij~nAtam syAt vAchArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam lohamityeva satyam | " " yathA saumya, ekena mRRitpiNDena sarvam mRRiNmayam vij~nAtam syAt vAchArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam mRRittiketyeva satyam | " " yathA saumya ekena nakha nikRRintanena sarvam kArShNAyasam vij~nAtam syAt vAchArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam kRRiShNAyasam ityeva satyam evam saumya sa Adesho bhavatIti | " 'just as by examining one gold ornament, the nature of the entire gold is known. Gold ornament is nothing but gold with the name and form starting from the conception of the thought to creation of the name and form - a mere superimposed transformation for the gold - gold alone is real'. ' just as by examining a mud pot the nature of the entire mud pots is known. Mud pot is nothing but mud with the name and form starting from the conception of the thought to creation of the name and form – a mere-superimposed transformation of mud - mud alone is real'. ' just as by examining a nail-cutter the nature of the entire black(wrought) iron is known. Nail- cutter is nothing but wrought-iron with a name and form starting from the conception of the thought to the creation of the name and form - a mere superimposed transformation of wrought- iron - iron alone is real'. Thus in each example, Uddalaka emphasizes the transformed product is nothing but the upAdAna kAraNa, the material cause from which it is formed, sustained and goes back into. The material cause alone is the satyam or real, and is the 'sat padArtham'. Furthermore, creation involves a superfluous transformation (vikAra) of the upAdana kAraNa. The transformation starts with an idea or thought - vAchArambhaNam, obviously, an idea by an intelligent entity or chaitanya vastu. Hence what is real is the sat and chit alone in all creations. Thus existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning, as one without a second, before creation, and it decided to become many and became many. Thus pUrNAt pUrNam udachyate - from 'adaH pUrNam which is nothing but 'aham pUrNam' this idam pUrNam or jagat arose. Since the jaDam cannot come out of conscious entity, the creation is only an apparent transformation or the plurality is only apparent just as one mind projecting many varieties of things and being in the dream world. Since created is not different from the creator (upAdAna kAraNa), the one plus many created beings is just onepUrNam. ' pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNameva avashiShyate', when pUrNam is added or subtracted from pUrNam, pUrNam alone remains. Mathematically, infinity plus minus infinity is infinity only. From aham who is pUrNam, when the universe, jagat which is projected, my pUrNatvam or my completeness is not invalidated. Hence Krishna declares in Ch.6 B.G: sarvabhUtasthamAtmAnam sarvabhUtani cAtmAni | IkShate yogayuktAtmA sarvatra samadarshanaH || 'One who through yoga has realized, he sees himself in all beings and sees all beings in him and hence he has the equanimity everywhere'. From the point of bhakti, Krishna emphasizes the same thing in a different form. yo mAm pashyati sarvatra sarvaM ca mayi pashyati | tasyAham na praNashyAmi sa ca me na praNashyati|| 'Whoever sees me everywhere and everything in me, he is never away from me and I am never away from him'. Thus Bhagavatpada Shankara uses the scriptural pramANa, yukti, logic and anubhava, experience, to emphasize the Advaitic nature of the truth. It is ekameva advitIyam - one without a second, since existence of any second limits the existent first, and neither can be pUrNam. Hence aham brahmaasmi is the declaration of the Vedas that can be consistent with the Advaitic nature of the reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > This is the talk I gave in 1999 at Chinmaya Mission, > Madras on the day of Shankara Jayanti. It was posted > before, but I thought it is important to recaptulate > the doctrin of Adviata Vedanta propounded by Shankara > Bhagavat paada. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > -------------------------- Thus existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning, as one without a second, before creation, and it decided to become many and became many. Thus pUrNAt pUrNam udachyate - from 'adaH pUrNam which is nothing but 'aham pUrNam' this idam pUrNam or jagat arose. Since the jaDam cannot come out of conscious entity, the creation is only an apparent transformation or the plurality is only apparent just as one mind projecting many varieties of things and being in the dream world. Since created is not different from the creator (upAdAna kAraNa), the one plus many created beings is just onepUrNam. ' pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNameva avashiShyate', when pUrNam is added or subtracted from pUrNam, pUrNam alone remains. Mathematically, infinity plus minus infinity is infinity only. From aham who is pUrNam, when the universe, jagat which is projected, my pUrNatvam or my completeness is not invalidated. Hence Krishna declares in Ch.6 B.G: Namaste KSji, The 'existence consciousness' became many. The nearest I can get to accepting that; is saying that Saguna was existing in potentiality during mahapralaya. For attributing to Nir Guna existence and consciousness is actually creating the concept Saguna.Other than that it is hanging on to the corner of the envelope again, due to belief systems, superstitions or even fear of extinction. Ramana says Saguna eventually merges with Nir Guna indicating that it never happened at all really...........I feel it is necessary in the end to strip all religious ideas as being of the mind only. The very idea or attributing godlike qualities to Devas and subtle being as real as we are or are'nt is dualistic..........Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > This is the talk I gave in 1999 at Chinmaya Mission, > Madras on the day of Shankara Jayanti. It was posted > before, but I thought it is important to recaptulate > the doctrin of Adviata Vedanta propounded by Shankara > Bhagavat paada. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > -------------------------- Thus existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning, as one without a second, before creation, and it decided to become many and became many. Thus pUrNAt pUrNam udachyate - from 'adaH pUrNam which is nothing but 'aham pUrNam' this idam pUrNam or jagat arose. Since the jaDam cannot come out of conscious entity, the creation is only an apparent transformation or the plurality is only apparent just as one mind projecting many varieties of things and being in the dream world. Since created is not different from the creator (upAdAna kAraNa), the one plus many created beings is just onepUrNam. ' pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNameva avashiShyate', when pUrNam is added or subtracted from pUrNam, pUrNam alone remains. Mathematically, infinity plus minus infinity is infinity only. From aham who is pUrNam, when the universe, jagat which is projected, my pUrNatvam or my completeness is not invalidated. Hence Krishna declares in Ch.6 B.G: Namaste KSji, The 'existence consciousness' became many. The nearest I can get to accepting that; is saying that Saguna was existing in potentiality during mahapralaya. For attributing to Nir Guna existence and consciousness is actually creating the concept Saguna.Other than that it is hanging on to the corner of the envelope again, due to belief systems, superstitions or even fear of extinction. Ramana says Saguna eventually merges with Nir Guna indicating that it never happened at all really...........I feel it is necessary in the end to strip all religious ideas as being of the mind only. The very idea or attributing godlike qualities to Devas and subtle being as real as we are or are'nt is dualistic..........Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.