Fundamentals of adviata Vedanta

[Guest guest]

I find Shree Nairji's posts, posts with further support coming from shree

Srinivas, a known dvaitin - trying to put concepts that are against fundamentals

advaita. Bhaskar point was somewhat different these two if I understand

correctly.

 

I would like to bring the attention to all - that the purpose of the discussion

is to exchange ideas and learn from each other based on advaita principles based

on Shankara advaita tradition.

 

Fundamental principle of advaita are:

 

First thing is Brahma satyam - satyam jnaanam anantam - ekam eva advitiiyam -

one - alone -without a second -  with Shankara elucidation for the three terms

as vijaati - sajaati and swagata bheda rahita- no differences of any kind - and

Brahman is partless and being infinite it is nirguNa no attributes -On that

basis all scriptural analysis follows.

 

There is no distinction of any kind - including jnaani, ajnaani, moksha, jiiva

etc. It is one homogenous mass of existence-consciousness-limitless.

That is what is implied in BHARAM SATYAM. Please do not part the partless.

 

That the world is mithyaa immediately follows since Brahman being infiniteness,

partless etc and if there is anything other than Brahman that cannot be real or

sat. Since the world IS - and keeps continously changing - jaayate gacchate iti

jagat - It cannot be asat either like vandhyaa putra or son of a barren woman -

hence advaita comes up with a third category - mithyaa as sat asat vilakshanam -

not sat like Brahman and not asat like son of barren woman but it appears to be

there but temporarily - hence it is called mithyaa.

 

Hence the second aspect of advaita is JAGAT MITHYAA - The world is apparently

real but not really real. Every mithyaa object must have a substantive which is

satyam - just as ring has substantive Gold, as scripture says. Hence the

substantive of the world is sat - which is Brahman. - comes from sat vidya of

Ch. Up.

 

Scripture provide the supportive statement by yatovo imaani bhuutani jaayanta ..

The world arise from Brahman, sustained by Brahman and go back into Brahman. But

Brahmman being Brahman(infinite) the arising, sustaining and going back are also

mithyaa only, looking from the point of the world. From the point of the world

we bring-in Iswara, defined as the creator of the world with the necessary

ingradients to create - has all the knowledge to create - sarvajna and all the

skills to create - sarva shaktimaan since material also comes from him, he is

both sarvavyaapakaH, all pervading etc. At the same time being Iswara with all

knowledge, he does not have any ignornace. Hence we call him as maayaavi or

weilder of maaya and prakRiti is the maaya which under the direction of Iswara

projects the multitude of names and forms.

 

World includes both chara and achara - movable and immovables - hence all jiivas

and the inert are part of the world which is mithyaa only. Mithyaa must have

satyaa part as substantive - for the inert world it is pure existence is the

substantive as Up. declares.

 

Jiiva involves a conscious entity embodied in a body made of the world or

bhoutika elements. Hence conscious-existent aspect comes from the substantive

Brahman and BMI part comes from the inert world.

Advaita usus bimba-pratibimba analysis to explain the notional jiiva.

Consciousness that is all pervading gets 'as though' reflected in the intellect

and the reflected consciousness is the enlivening factor contributing to the

life of BMI. Adviata explains that jiiva notion arises when the

conscious-existent entity identifies with the BMI as I am this - This is an

error since I am is conscious entity and this is an inert entity and this error

is called adhyaasa a superimposed error where 'this' is superimposed on I am.

Since this is error as we all commiting, Shankara explains like in all errors,

ignornace of myself is the cause of my taking something other than myself as

myself. Result of this error is samsaara since BMI are limited and the

limitations of BMI are taken to be my limitations. Trying to overcome these

limitations becomes the cause for samsaara.

 

Hence Vedanta says which advaita subsribes to is to get rid of this error by

realizing my true nature which is I am - the existence-consciousnes which is

limitless. Hence this constitues the liberation or moksha. Hence the ultimate

truth is:

Jiiva is not different from Brahman - the Brahman that is substantive of

jiiva-jagat and Iswara. Scripture also says the world is also substantially

Brahman - sarvam khalu idam brahma and in reality there is nothing other than

Brahman - neha naanaasti kincana.

 

Realization is following Upanishad example, it is like Ring realizing I am none

other than Gold which is substantive of all the golden ornaments. Since the

universe is mithyaa and Iswara who created this mithyaa universe is all mithyaa

and jiivas which are also part of the universe is also mithyaa - There is only

one substantive for all the three - and that can only be one without a second -

the Brahman.

Hence Jiivo brahma eva na apara is the Final truth of advaita.

 

These are fundamental concepts.

 

Please do not violate these in the discussions. In Brahman as Shakara

catogarically says there are no sajaati, vijaati and swagata Bhedaas.

..

Hence PLEASE DO NOT PUT JNAANI AS PART OF BRAHMAN - BRAHMAN IS PARTLESS. You

can say jnaani is brahman - But Brahman is not jnaani -Jnaani is one who has the

knowledge. Brahman does not have knowledge - it is pure knowledge - which is not

knowledge of or conscious of - which is objective knowledge but pure knowledge

which is same as pure consciousness - which being infinite has no parts and no

qualities since qualities belong to finite objects. If one says Brahman is

jnaani, Brahman gets finitized and qualified; violation of advaita.

 

Jnaani idetifying with Brahman - can say I am Braham - that means I am limitless

- in that very statement he is identifying himself with his true nature -

sat-chit and anantam or infinite too. In that identification there are no

differences of any kind - no world - not jnaanis - no ajnaanis. Just Be. He

cannot say it other than for communicating to his students for purpose of

illustration. In that identification there is no teacher - student or teaching

of any kind, etc. Nothing can be said since there is no one even to say. That is

the absolute truth.

 

Can one say as Nairji and Bhaskarji arguing that from jnaani while identifying

as Brahman - 'can he say from his point there is no teaching' - He cannot say

that either since saying involves division that which is indisible. No further

communication from jnaani who has realized that I am Brahman. But he can say if

he can see the students and recognize that it is mityaa and from that references

he can say it that I am not doing anything, identifying himself with Brahman.

That statement is for the students to know as Brahman there is no teaching.

 

Can jnaani has duel role? When identified with Brahman - there is nothing other

than Brahman. In that case there is no teaching also since there are no students

to teach. If he can 'play' taking the role of a teacher without intensely

identifying the role as I am this then he has a visa - transacting in the world

at the same time recognising it is just a play of role in a dream where actor is

intensely playing the role while having a clear understanding in the background

that it is just a drama role that he is playing and the role is not him since he

is actor - an our case the role is a teacher - the actor is Brahman- recognition

of the role and play is what is implied in the understanding the second

postulate of Advaita - jagat mityaa. The whole of Gita echos this teaching.

 

 

If I donot know that I am the substantive of jiiva-jagat-Iswara - I take myself

as jiiva is real- jagat is real and Iswra is real. All three follow - Since I do

not know what I am, I am ajnaani. Vedanta advises me to go to a teacher to gain

the knowledge of the self that too advises me to go to: Shrotriyam and

BRHMANISHTAM - That is approach a teacher who is both studied the shaastra from

his teacher and firmly established in the knowledge of Brahman that is Brahma

jnaani.

 

If Brahma jnaani cannot teach since he is Brahman, then the scripture is wrong

to advise me to go to a teacher who is brahmajnaani. If I have project a teacher

who is Brahmanjnaani since I myself do not know what Brahma jnaani menas - it

will lead blind leading to blind - No teacher left to teach. Then scriptural

teaching has no basis.

 

Only possibility is to give visa to jnaani who knows at substantive level that

he is Brahman and at superficial level he can play the game of life as teacher

since he was once a student who learned from his teacher and hence has aachaarya

RiNa. Playing is not a problem for anyone if they know that the roles are only

roles and not real but mithya like in a drama. Hence he remains akartaa

superfically the teaching can go on.

 

The scripture come to life in the presence of such a teacher who is well

established in Brahman yet can communicate that knowledge to the student just as

the upanishadic teachers did. It is true it is BMI of teacher teaching but to

whom to BMI of a student only. If one says there is no teacher then there is no

student either - that is paaramaarthikam

If one say there is student but teacher we have the case of blind leading the

blind - beside the fact that there is one leg in the paaramaarthika from the

teacher's point and one leg in vyaavahaarika - which is again violation.

 

Only way is the role playing. Becuase teacher is jnaani, he knows it is a role

only - and student since he is ajnaani - he takes the role he is plyaing like

all other roles that he is playing is real and not false or mithyaa. This way we

remove the problem of ajnaani projecting jnaani teaching and have the drama of

life beatifully.

 

Actually jnaani or ajnaani - the life is a beatiful game of life since all

actions are actually being done by prakriti only.

 

You may believe in this or not - My request is do not bring principles that

violate adviata in this list serve.

 

Srinivas please do not use your logic without understanding the fundamenal

principles of adviata. If you have any questions on advaita I am sure there are

many who can answer.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Respected Sri Sadananda,

 

Thank you for your lucid post. Your detailed write-up has clarified some of my doubts, but it would take still 5-6 readings of your post for me to have a mild grasp. Thank you.

 

Meanwhile, can you please elucidate further/more on the following points of your message? --- On Wed, 2/18/09, kuntimaddisada <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

"Brahman does not have knowledge - it is pure knowledge - which is not knowledge of or conscious of - which is objective knowledge but pure knowledge which is same as pure consciousness - which being infinite has no parts and no qualities since qualities belong to finite objects."

 

Can you please explain in a layman's language? Can you please give any example to make it easy for me to understand?

 

"If one say there is student but teacher we have the case of blind leading the blind - beside the fact that there is one leg in the paaramaarthika from the teacher's point and one leg in vyaavahaarika - which is again violation"

 

I suppose the first line should actually read as 'If one say there is student, but No teacher...' and it is a typo in omission of no.

 

Can you elaborate further on "one leg in the paaramaarthika from the teacher's point and one leg in vyaavahaarika "? I suppose the vyaavahaarika view is also from teacher's point of view only. If I am wrong, please correct.

 

With regards,

 

narayan

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , narayan iyer <z1e1b1r1a wrote:

>

> Respected Sri Sadananda,

>  

> Thank you for your lucid post.  Your detailed write-up has

clarified some of my doubts, but it would take still 5-6 readings of

your post for me to have a mild grasp.  Thank you.

>  

> Meanwhile, can you please  elucidate further/more on the following

points of your message?  

>

> --- On Wed, 2/18/09, kuntimaddisada <kuntimaddisada wrote:

>  

>   " Brahman does not have knowledge - it is pure knowledge - which is

not knowledge of or conscious of - which is objective knowledge but

pure knowledge which is same as pure consciousness - which being

infinite has no parts and no qualities since qualities belong to

finite objects. "

>  

> Can you please explain in a layman's language?  Can you please give

any example to make it easy for me to understand?

>  

Namaste,

 

I am sure Shri Sada-ji will answer all your queries. Just on the

above paragraph I have this point to tell you.

 

How do you recognize light? It falls on some object or particle and

the latter is lighted. And you recognize there is light. Now can you

think of light without any object to be lighted by it? I am sure you

can. That is exactly what Consciousness is. Consciousness can exist

without having any object to be conscious of.

 

Well, I think you will like to read the following 1008-piece

conversation on advaita, starting from scratch and going all the way

up:

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/advaitadialoguepage1.html

 

and the further pages following it.

 

PraNAms to all the advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 2/18/09, narayan iyer <z1e1b1r1a wrote:

 

..

 

Meanwhile, can you please  elucidate further/more on the following points of

your message?  

 

--- On Wed, 2/18/09, kuntimaddisada@ <kuntimaddisada@ >

wrote:

 

  " Brahman does not have knowledge - it is pure knowledge - which is not

knowledge of or conscious of - which is objective knowledge but pure knowledge

which is same as pure consciousness - which being infinite has no parts and no

qualities since qualities belong to finite objects. "

 

Can you please explain in a layman's language?  Can you please give any example

to make it easy for me to understand?

-------------

Shree Narayan Iyer - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your email and I will try if I can explain better.

 

Any knowledge involves three things - knower-known-knowing - called tripuTi.

Here knower is different from the known - there is a subject I and object this

for knowledge of I know this to happen.

 

When I say, I know chemistry or physics - or I am a knowledgeable person - it

means I know this - this being object of my knowledge - separate from me. A

knowledgeable persons is the one who has knowledge of lot of 'this, and this and

this'. This can be even a Vedanta - like a scholar in Vedanta who quote from one

scripture to the next.

 

Interesting thing is - in all these objective knowledge(s), the more one knows

the more ignorant one becomes - the reason is the more one knows, he will come

to know in any field, there is lot more to know that he did not know that it

even existed. Hence every research paper you read in the end there will be lot

more questions to be answered which were not there before. Hence one becomes

super specialist in narrower and narrower field - in Math this is called as

delta function - simply knowing everything about nothing.

 

Thus any knowledge we are familiar is always knowledge of .. involving some this

- or objective knowledge. Epistemological pure knowledge cannot be defined - any

definition is always with reference to objective knowledge.

 

In the knowledge series (see Dennis Waite website where he is editing and

posting under the title critical analysis of Vedanta Paribhaasha)a more detailed

account is given. Pure knowledge cannot be defined - and Vedanta says - that is

Brahman - satyam jnaanam anantam Brahma - jnaanam involves pure consciousness

which is infinite. It is not knowledge of .. or conscious of .. but a

unqualified knowledge which cannot be defined since any definition is

qualification. Any object is defined by its qualities - as we did in the

chemistry. Brahman being infinite cannot be defined since any definition is that

which makes one to distinguish one object from the other. Yet Scripture defines

in a such a way to take the mind beyond objectification - that is the glory of

the scriptures and comes to life in the hands of teacher who is firmly

established in Brahman and has studied the scriptures under a competent guru.

 

Hence the statement was Brahman does not have knowledge - like I have knowledge

of chemistry where knower-known distinctions are obvious - Brahman being one

without a second there cannot be any divisions in infinite. Hence we cannot say

Brahman is jnaani - we are qualifying that which cannot be qualified and we

dividing that which cannot be divided - as Brahman knows 'something' as the

statement Brahman is jnaani implies. The correct way of saying is - Brahman is

jnaanam itself - that is Brahman is consciousness itself not something conscious

of..

---------------------

Narayan:

" If one say there is student but teacher we have the case of blind leading the

blind - beside the fact that there is one leg in the paaramaarthika from the

teacher's point and one leg in vyaavahaarika - which is again violation "

 

I suppose the first line should actually read as 'If one say there is student,

but No teacher...' and it is a typo in omission of no.

 

KS: Yes, when I read what I type I cannot catch spelling mistakes or missing

things which sometime give entirely wrong meaning. My mind wants to read what it

wanted to say than what it has typed. Yes that is a typo - hopefully others will

catch it based on the context in the same way you did.

 

It is amazing - mind wants to read what it wants to read than what it is.

-----------------

Narayan:

 

Can you elaborate further on " one leg in the paaramaarthika from the teacher's

point and one leg in vyaavahaarika " ?  I suppose the vyaavahaarika view is also

from teacher's point of view only.  If I am wrong, please correct.

 

KS: Vyavahaara means transactional - When ever we transact - we are in

vyavahaara - that include all our day to day activities starting from seeing,

tasting, breathing etc. .Transactions involve I and the rest of the world

through my BMI.

 

Jnaani knows that this is relative world - we call this as mithyaa - and it does

not have any substance - that is no substantiality of its own- like a ring which

has no ringly substance to support other than gold -Ring is as if borrowing the

substantiality from gold - similarly jnaani knows that world has no

substantiality of its own and it is supported by Brahman - this knowledge comes

from scriptures. But that Brahman is not separate from him - as the scripture

says - tat tvam asi. Hence in the knowledge of Brahman - the realization is I am

that Brahman - where the subject-object distinctions all sublimated in that

understanding - Hence scripture says - knower of Brahman becomes brahman - But

finite cannot become infinite - that is mathematically illogical. Hence if the

scripture says knower of Brahman becomes Brahman means it is realization that 'I

am' was, is and always Brahman and the distinction that 'I am' is separate

entity is only notional and

really real.

Hence Jnaani - REALIZES though is BMI that He is none other than Brahman- this

knowledge occurs in the mind - (Brahman that I am is partless)- In that

knowledge - even the BMI is only superficial entities but the substantive of the

BMI and also the rest of the world is Brahman that I am. Hence Jnaani is Brahman

but Brahman is not jnaani, because knowing Brahman is possible only through BMI.

Without BMI - there is no knowledge of Brahman. This should be clear also - in

one of my posts I discussed what is self-realization means in response to Raj's

question.In understanding that I am Brahman, there is simultaneous realization

is that jagat or the world that I am and I was transacting has no substantiality

since I am the substantiality of the world too. Then the world now reduces to

what it is - a relative reality not absolute reality that I thought it was

before - this realization is called jagat mityaa jnaanam. Hence in the

realization all the three

follow - Brahma satyam (jnaanam and anantam also follow), jagat mithyaa and I

am that Brahman.

 

Now you can have correct perspective of the discussion that is going on - where

people start switching reference states and confusing themselves and others in

the process.

 

But this confusion is also to some extent important in order to inquire and

resolve the confusions since ultimately it will lead to inquiry.

 

From the paaramaarthika point - that is 'sitting' as Brahman - there is only one

- no teacher - no student and no distinctions of any kind - since Brahman is

partless.

 

Hence all transactions can only takes place in vyavahaarika level. The confusion

comes if one says there is no teacher (from paaramarthika level) but there is a

student (jumping to vyaavahaarika level) - Hence if one says the student sees

the teacher but teacher does not see the student - there is a jump in the

reference states. From the paaramaarthika there is neither student nor a

teacher.

From the vyaavaharika there is both the teacher and the student.

But the teacher has already realized that I am Brahman which is partless.

Yes. that is jnaani but that jnaanamm takes place with BMI only not absence of

BMI. Hence the teacher knows three things - as per advaita. Just to reinforce -

Brahma satayam - the absolute reality.

Jagat mithya - understanding in clear terms that the world has only

transactional reality not absolute reality

and I am that Brahman which is substantive of the jiiva-jagat-Iswara.

That means the teacher knows that transactions can go on at relative level even

after knowing that this has no absolute reality. That is what mithyaatva jnaanam

of jagat means.

Student is also in vyavaharaa but his problem in comparison to his teacher who

is jnaani is he being ajnaani thinks that world is absolutely real since he does

not know any other reality.

paaramaarthika, vyaavahaarik and pratibhaasika are with reference to the states

or avasthaas - one turiiyam and the second the waking state and the third is

dream state.

Janaani is one who has understood the relative realities of the last two states

and the absolute reality of the paramaarthika and also understood he is that

Brahman the substantive of jiiva-jagat-iswara. Knowledge makes us reality the

realities of these three states - Understanding is not eliminating. That has to

be understood.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Respected Sri Sadanandaji and Sri Krishnamurthyji,

 

Thank you both for taking the pain and efforts to explain the matter to me.

 

With regards

 

narayan---