Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge-4

[Guest guest]

4. What you perceive is Brahman!

 

Six means of Knowledge: Advaita accepts six means of knowledge or pramaaNas.

They are 1)

direct perception (Pratyaksha), 2) Inference (anumaana), 3) comparison

(upamaana), 4)

verbal testimony (generally trust worthy word, but DP uses aagama meaning

scriptures, as

our interest is in spiritual knowledge), 5) presumption (arthaapatti) 6)

non-apprehension

(anupalabdhi). These will be described in turn.

 

Concerning the direct perceptual knowledge, DA says: ‘Pratyaksha pramaayaaH

karaNam

Pratyaksha pramaaNam’ - the instrument for knowing the objects directly is

direct

perception. Next, DA makes a revealing statement that baffles the intellect.

‘Pratyaksha

pramaa ca atra caitanyam eva’ – atra, meaning in the direct perceptual

knowledge, what is

really revealed as the knowledge is the pure consciousness itself (He used he

word ‘eva’,

meaning consciousness alone). We may need to meditate on the statement to

understand the

significance, but what the statement says is direct and immediate perceptual

knowledge is

the Brahman- no need to meditate since meditation is mediate and not immediate.

This is

a daring statement since Brahman cannot be perceived, yet he says what is

perceived is

Brahman. He provides the reference to Br. Up. III-4-1 that states that Brahman

is

directly and immediately revealed. Let us look at this little carefully. The

Upanishad

mantras contain the conversation between UShasta and Yajnavalkya. Their

conversation ends

with:

 

UShasta: ‘You are providing me some indirect descriptions of Brahman like cow is

such and

such, or horse is such and such, etc. Explain to me the Brahman that is

immediate and

direct not through indirect descriptions – Explain to me the Brahman, the self

that is

with in all’.

 

Yagnavalkya: ‘You can not witness that which is witnessing self, you cannot hear

that

which is hearer of hearing, you cannot think that which is thinker of thinking,

you

cannot know that which is knower of knowledge – that is yourself that is with in

all; and

everything else except this is perishable’ – with that answer, UShasta had no

further

questions.

 

Upanishad says that which is directly and immediately known without any medium

is

Brahman, that is your self, which is the pure consciousness because of which we

are

conscious of everything else. We cannot be conscious of consciousness since that

will

lead to infinite regress since we need to bring in series of consciousness(es)

to be

conscious of the preceding one. Other than the consciousness which is the

knower of all

knowledge, Upanishad says everything else is ultimately perishable, meaning

negatable.

Real is that which is not negatable and Upanishad declares that 1) consciousness

is never

negatable, 2) you are that consciousness and 3) you are that Brahman and 4) That

alone is

real. Pure advaitic truth. How is this related to perceptual knowledge?

 

Knowledge can be thought of as two types – (a) direct and immediate called in

Sanskrit

‘aparoksha jnaanam’ (Shankara wrote a book “aparokshaanubhuuti”) and (b) mediate

knowledge (paroksha jnaanam) which is not immediate. Pratyaska pramaaNa comes

under

direct and immediate knowledge because as soon as I open my eyes I cannot but

see the

object right in front of me. The knowledge of the object is not purusha tantra

that is to

see or not to see does not depend on my will to see. It is vastu tantra that is

it

depends on the nature of the object – it is assumed that my sense of sight is

functioning

properly and all other secondary causes (light etc) are operating properly.

Hence all

perceptual knowledge is direct and immediate – immediate in the sense that I do

not have

to do any analysis, thinking, meditation etc for me to grasp the knowledge of

the object

right in front of me. In contrast the knowledge gained by other pramaaNas such

as

anumaana etc is not direct. It is called mediate knowledge, since one has to

sort it out

the knowledge through vyaapti or cause-effect reasoning. Shabda pramANa is based

on

words. Words normally give only indirect knowledge, similar to learning about

how Indra

loka or Niagara Falls looks like by reading books. However, when it comes to

Vedanta,

the words CAN give immediate and direct knowledge if what is pointed out is

right there

directly and immediately, like the story of missing 10th man. You are that -Tat

tvam asi

– Yagnavalkya in his answer says the direct and immediate knowledge is yourself

since

that is the most direct and immediate. In Yagnavalkya’s answer, when he says you

cannot

witness that which is witness of everything or hear that which is hearer of

hearing – he

is implying that no Pratyaksha pramANa can reveal Brahman. In fact none of the

pramAnAs

can give the knowledge of Brahman or about of myself. Hence Brahman is called

aprameyam,

unknowable. Similar statements are made in Kenopanishad. Yet Yagnyavalkya says

Brahman is

yourself as the self in all and knowledge of that which is direct and immediate.

The

statement that Brahman is yourself that is the self in all – is shaastra pramANa

– this

we cannot know without the help of shaastra. Also the statement of both

Yagnavalkya and

UShasta is knowledge of that is direct and immediate; similar to perceptual

knowledge. To

understand this let us go back to our dark room.

 

When we gave an example of pitch dark room, not only I can perceive darkness in

the room,

I can perceive myself as existent and conscious entity. I do not need any means

for me

to know that I am there and I am conscious. In fact I have to be there even to

validate

any pramANa. Hence Yagnavalkya says what one knows directly and immediately

(here

without any pramANa) at any time is oneself. By equating that self that I am,

which is,

as we discussed before is pure knowledge that I am, which I am constantly aware

of as

myself as self-conscious entity, to Brahman, scripture says that Brahman is also

known

immediately and directly as pure knowledge that is present all the time.

Brahman being

infinite cannot be known by any pramANa; it can be known by itself as it has to

be

self-revealing or self-conscious entity. Hence Yangavalkya’s declaration that

it is your

own self which has to be direct and immediate. Hence the knowledge of myself

is same as

the knowledge of Brahman, which is direct and immediate. The immediate and

direct implies

that I do not have to think or meditate for hours to realize that I am existent

and

conscious entity. I am there before I can even think or sometimes without even

thinking.

According to Vedanta, Brahman is also defined as is pure consciousness –

prajnaanam

Brahman and hence is known directly and immediately. Yagnavalkya’s statement is

still a

pramANa since he is equating the two as mahaavakya – ‘I am’ is equated with

Brahman,

since both are directly and immediately know. To realize the scriptural

identity

declaration that I am = Brahman requires Vedantic inquiry involving what is

eternal and

what is ephemeral – nitya anitya vastu vicAra. This requires bhAgatyAga lakshaNa

discussed in advaita Vedanta texts.

 

However, DP is making another equation with his statement, giving Br. Up

reference that

does not fully justify his statement. He is equating the perceptual knowledge

gained by

pratyaksha pramANa which is direct and immediate is nothing but pure knowledge

that I am

which is also direct and immediate. Thus, the total equation combining the Br.

Up.

statement is:

 

Perceptual knowledge (of objects) = pure Knowledge that I am (consciousness that

I am) =

Brahman, which is pure consciousness.

 

The Br. Up quote only provides the justification of the second equation but not

for the

first. Justification for his first part of the equation is only the common

factor and

that is direct and immediate perceptibility of both the objects through

perception and

the conscious self that I am. Pure consciousness that I am, the self in all and

hence

Brahman, is known directly and immediately. Similarly the perceptual knowledge

is direct

and immediate. Prof. T.P. Mahadevan, a great advaitic scholar, makes the

following

statement in his introduction to Methods of Knowledge: “The knowledge of the

self that is

said to liberate the soul from bondage is direct knowledge which is unto

perceptual

knowledge. Only, even perceptual knowledge not so immediate as self-knowledge.

In

sense-perception there is the intervention of a sense-organ between subject and

object”.

In stating that knowledge that occurs in perception is direct and immediate and

Brahman

knowledge based on the Br. Up statement is also direct and immediate, and

equating both

on the basis of direct and immediate perceptibility of the two, DP makes the

statement

that perceptual knowledge is nothing but pure consciousness. How that equation

is

possible had to be resolved by proper inquiry. But if it is true, there is no

need to

seek Brahman – since whatever we see, hear, touch, taste, etc is ‘pure

consciousness’

only. The implication of the statement is very profound. We may have to

meditate and

unravel the statement to recognize that there is no reason to meditate or

unravel to see

Brahman, since Braham is directly and immediately visible! Personally, when I

read that

statement I was baffled and lost in the beauty of that statement, since it

actually

glorifies the scriptural statements – sarvam khalu idam brahma and neha

naanaasti kincana

– all that this (this corresponds to objects) is nothing but Brahman and there

is nothing

else other than Brahman, as well as Gita’s statement – brahmArpaNam brahma haviH

...

Everything is Brahman. Further justification of the DP statement will occur in

the

subsequent chapters. But for me that was a million dollar statement – what you

perceive

is nothing but Brahman – the more I see the truth of this statement the more I

see the

beauty or vibhUti of Brahman spread all over in whatever I perceive!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! all,

 

to me, sada-ji's analysis below describes the alpha and omega of

advaita vedanta. (note: the aspirant starts with pratyaksha, then

because the mind isn't capable of being satisfied with the simple,

pristine " suchness " of [its perceiving], it's consequently compelled

to proceed with a near-infinitude of complex intricasies of analysis

until it finally gives in from " overdrive " exhaustion, and winds up

precisely back where it started... with the difference being, this

time, that the *real* pratyaksha unfolds, manifesting as a *knowing*

and therefore living *experience* in his heart.)

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> 4. What you perceive is Brahman!

>

> Six means of Knowledge: Advaita accepts six means of knowledge or

pramaaNas. They are 1)

> direct perception (Pratyaksha),

>

> [...]

>

> ...there is no need to

> seek Brahman – since whatever we see, hear, touch, taste, etc

is `pure consciousness'

> only. The implication of the statement is very profound. We may

have to meditate and

> unravel the statement to recognize that there is no reason to

meditate or unravel to see

> Brahman, since Braham is directly and immediately visible!

Personally, when I read that

> statement I was baffled and lost in the beauty of that statement,

since it actually

> glorifies the scriptural statements – sarvam khalu idam brahma and

neha naanaasti kincana

> – all that this (this corresponds to objects) is nothing but

Brahman and there is nothing

> else other than Brahman, as well as Gita's statement – brahmArpaNam

brahma haviH ..

> Everything is Brahman. Further justification of the DP statement

will occur in the

> subsequent chapters. But for me that was a million dollar

statement – what you perceive

> is nothing but Brahman – the more I see the truth of this statement

the more I see the

> beauty or vibhUti of Brahman spread all over in whatever I

perceive!

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

Sir,

 

If my two cents is any worth, this is what I endeavoured to

articulate here long back. Kindly read me at:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/world_nair.htm

 

Thanks Dennisji for putting it up. I had feared that I was going

against tradition.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <...

 

..... DP makes the statement

> that perceptual knowledge is nothing but pure consciousness. How

that equation is

> possible had to be resolved by proper inquiry. But if it is true,

there is no need to

> seek Brahman – since whatever we see, hear, touch, taste, etc

is `pure consciousness'

> only. The implication of the statement is very profound. We may

have to meditate and

> unravel the statement to recognize that there is no reason to

meditate or unravel to see

> Brahman, since Braham is directly and immediately visible!

Personally, when I read that

> statement I was baffled and lost in the beauty of that statement,

since it actually

> glorifies the scriptural statements – sarvam khalu idam brahma and

neha naanaasti kincana

> – all that this (this corresponds to objects) is nothing but

Brahman and there is nothing

> else other than Brahman, as well as Gita's statement – brahmArpaNam

brahma haviH ..

> Everything is Brahman. Further justification of the DP statement

will occur in the

> subsequent chapters. But for me that was a million dollar

statement – what you perceive

> is nothing but Brahman – the more I see the truth of this statement

the more I see the

> beauty or vibhUti of Brahman spread all over in whatever I

perceive!