VEDANATA (Upanishads/Advaitam)

 

 

ADVAITAM

 

Life is about duality.

We see another guided by our senses.

In almost everything there is duality.

We divide our responses between head and heart, thought and feeling, reason and emotion. We talk of matter and energy, body and spirit, animate and inanimate, moving and non-moving, sentient and insentient.

There is no accountancy without debit and credit, no banking without depositor and borrower. Chemical compounds are organic or inorganic. Numbers can be positive or negative, rational or irrational. Electron is balanced by proton, and can be a particle or a wave.

People may be good or bad.

 

Creation

Advaita

In Advaita, the very creation along with the cause behind creation (i.e. the law of causality) and the very process of creation i.e. the ‘how’ part, which is again within the causality framework (by suggesting what comes first and what proceeds by giving purva & para labels based on space-time / desa-kāla construct) is all within the adhyasa (superimposition) / Avidyā (ignorance) only. The point one must always note is that adhyasa/Avidyā exists only from the viewpoint of adhyasa/Avidyā only.

The snake in a rope exists (appears) only from the viewpoint of ignorance. And the vyavahara with such snake (i.e. staying away from it, getting frightened, etc.) are also valid only as long as the perception ‘as snake’ is valid.

Th*erefore to that which ultimately doesn’t exist, there is no need to establish a firm theory (strictly speaking it is not possible to establish a theory which is "ultimately correct"). If anyone attempts to give it a theory (be it other philosophers or scientists), because the very creation is not an absolute entity, such theory will also be valid only within adhyasa/Avidyā framework only.

Whenever upanishads talk about creation they talk with a single aim to show that world is not independent of Brahman. The purpose is to show that there isn’t anything independent of Brahman. But the aim is not to either prove the existence of world or the process of creation of world.

Since the sastra’s intended purpose is to teach to the seeker who is having the viewpoint of adhyasa, the teaching starts from the viewpoint of adhyasa. That much only. That is the only reason to touch upon topic of creation. It is a journey from that which is currently known to the seeker (i.e. world) to that which is currently unknown to the seeker (i.e. Brahman).

Māyā according to Bhagavatpāda is the avyakta namarupa (unmanifest name & form) and the process of creation is avyakta namarupa becoming vyakta namarupa (manifest name & form). It is only a stop gap explanation where the target is not to 'firmly establish' process of creation but the target is always to sublate the very notions of 'created world' and 'creation' into the source/substratum of such notions.

Ultimately there is no creation and none created. If people cannot comprehend this truth it is fine, I hope they will eventually grasp it through their sraddha on sastra and unbiased vichara (based on sruti aviruddha tarka) which is carried out with the right qualification (vairagya etc.).

Before that, there is no point in getting digressed and unnecessarily carried away by asking questions like "who is writing in facebook if there is no creation ?" etc. They serve no purpose as it will be nothing but sushka tarka which most of the times dvaitins take up. Creation need not be inferred (even as a temporary truth) based on a logic that somebody is posting a comment on facebook and therefore there is creation. That is a weak argument. Holding on to such weak arguments is demonstrating our love & attachment to law of causality. The sooner the seeker understands the mithyattvam of causality the better.

The teaching about creation has a place in Advaita Vedanta. No doubt. But it is not in a way to uphold creation (which by itself is only an ignorant notion, says sastra). The teaching about creation is instead a tool to test the very notion that we hold to (i.e. world is an independent reality) through upanishad based vichara and help ourselves to understand the mithyAttvam of such notion.

Brahman alone is real. All Reality is to Brahman alone. The aim of upanishad vichara is to intuitively grasp this truth.

Bhagavatpada says in Māṇḍūkya Karika bhashyam 1.7:

न तु परमार्थचिन्तकानां सृष्टौ आदरः

"" Those who think of the supreme Reality have no interest in questions regarding Creation ""

This is not to say ignore law of causality. Law of causality surely works within its intended domain and most importantly as long as the belief in causality is strong. No doubt. But for the matter of highest truth in Vedanta, the correct approach lies in thoroughly testing the law of causality. The more thorough and unbiased the vichara gets, the more firm becomes the conviction on the mithyattvam of causality.

 

Life is mystery

Life, rather than death, is the mystery. Man knows a lot about the lifeless(?) matter rather than about life. Life is ebbing and flowing. It is like the golden deer that cavorts a little afar enticing us, then goes into hiding, shows up hesitantly and grows in visibility to frustrate us again. We know of no time when life is totally absent, but in parts it comes and goes. Death is certain, but individual life is uncertain. How is that which is certain a mystery? Only that which sparkles for a while with no external force is a mystery. The day we understand it, we shall be immortal. The search and effort for immortality is not to conquer death, but understand life. The philosophic conclusions in such texts as Upanishads and Buddhism guide us to gain that understanding. That is vidya or gnanam of advaita.

 

Spirituality

The spirit cannot be found in dry and dreary discussion of philosophy. The spirit cannot be found in the relentless pursuit of fortune and fame in a bid to be one up on others. The spirit cannot be found in the information rushed at us by the media and the channels. The spirit cannot be found in the fossilised scripture. The spirit has to be found in life in us and all around us, including in the most insensate objects that lie next to us.

 

If Brahman is all-pervading, how can our Atman be different from Brahman? It can only be part of it. But, Brahman by definition is indestructible and indivisible. Therefore, the whole is in the part and the part is truly the whole. There can be no difference.

 

Spirituality is more immanent than transcendental. That is the essence of Upanishads. Spirituality is what pervades the universe. The speciality of the Upanishads is that 'brahman' is not something which is external to the immanent. 'That is this' or 'This is that' occurs as a refrain in Upanishads. In fact, god as adventitious is not the way our Rishis have intuited. A cow looking at a calf in tenderness and fondness, or a flower shining on a twig is also spiritual.

 

There have been sects in Hinduism that have claimed exclusivity in terms of the particular deity which alone will lead to salvation. Bigotry of one type or another has prevailed. But the general purport and the common belief of Hinduism is one of diversity at the empirical level and unity at the spiritual level. The preponderance of available literature and scripture and the conduct of people born to this faith point to one reality or truth that has no form or name. The various forms and names are a matter of workaday world convenience. 

 

Sage of Kanchi: “In the advaita shAstra that has been handed down to us by tradition through the efforts of great ‘anubhavis’ one has been asked to move on to advaita-sAdhanA only after one has reached a reasonable perfection in the discharge of his shAstraic duties.”

 

Sage of Kanchi

Merely to talk about non-dualistic liberation is nothing more than an intellectual exercise and will serve no purpose. The truth of such liberation must become an inward reality. In other words the quest must culminate in actual experience and it can be had only with the grace of Isvara. Great sages proclaim that it is only with the blessings of that Power which keeps us in a constant whirl of action that the whirl will stop and that we will have the Advaitic urge to seek the ground.

"Isvaranugrahadeva pumsam Advaitavasana.

 

“We have no quarrel. In order that we may realise non-duality, we should gain the grace of god. For gaining this, we must practise devotion. Devotion may be shown to any divine name or form. It is the same non-dual reality that is everywhere. And, with a view to gaining its grace, I have written works expounding the different schools.” Appayya Dikshithar.

(Sri Kanchi Acharya quoting in an article in Sankara’s Voice.)

 

(From Kanchi Acharya’s teachings)

Soul is a given for religion. It is axiomatic and admits of no proof. It is that which experiences everything and remains as the unchanging substratum while the body and mind change constantly. The individual soul is called Jivathma (soul in a living being, note, not just of humans) and God is Paramatma (the Supreme Soul). What is the relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma? There are variances in the opinions on this.

Dvaita: Jivatma will always be distinct and separate from the Paramatma. When the Jivatma attains moksha (which is the desideratum or the goal), it would enjoy infinite bliss by worshipping the Paramatma.

Vishishtadvaita: Even though the Jivatma will be a separate soul doing Bhakti toward Paramatma in moksha, it will have the feeling of the Paramatma immanent in it as its soul.

Saiva-siddhanta: When the Sun rises, the stars do not lose their existence; they just disappear from view, because of the luminosity of the Sun. So also in moksha, the Jivatma, though it does not lose its existence, will have its own little consciousness submerged in the Absolute Consciousness of the Paramatma.

Advaita: is different from all these. Moksha is not a place or a world. When the Atma is released from the bondage of the mind, it is moksha. It may be right here and now. One can be ‘released’ even when alive, not necessarily only after death.

 

Indian philosophers (advaita) have identified the following pramanas (parameters or sources) for knowledge (epistemology).

A.  प्रत्यक्ष Direct perception: basic to all pramanas and overrides others.

B.  अनुमान Inference

C.  अर्थापत्ति Circumstantial (an inference by which the quality of any object is attributed to another object because of their sharing some other quality in common)

D.  उपमानं Analogy

E.  अनुपलब्धि Non-cognition (trying to establish a fact (e.g. the reality and eternity of sound) from the impossibility of perceiving the non perception of it,

F.  शब्द (scripture)

           (i) लौकिकं Word of mouth from a reliable person (aapta-vaakya)

           (ii) वैदिकं Scripture (beyond proof, apoureshaya)

 

Swami Vireswarananda’s masterly introduction to Sankara Bhashya on Brahma Sutras

1.       Nasadiya sutras of Rig Veda are forerunners to Upanishads.

2.       There were 62 different schools of philosophy. Later the orthodox schools were telescoped into 6.

3.       Padma Purana defines a Sutra (pl. see in the text).

4.       Upanishads do not contain any ready-made, consistent system of thought. Prima facie, they bristle with contradictions.

5.       The Sutras, if Badarayana is not the same as Vyasa, must have had a hand of Vyasa in its present recension.

6.       Their brevity and question of order give rise to different interpretations. It is not only Sankara but all Acharyas who have given far-fetched interpretations to some of the Sutras. Sankara’s canvas has greater cohesion and has the largest following.

7.       All Acharyas are agreed that Brahman is the source of the universe and that Brahman can be known only through scripture, not reason. They differ on the nature of Brahman, causality, Jiva-Brahma relationship and nature of Jiva on emancipation.

 

Thirumoolar’s Advaitam

மரத்தை மறைத்தது மாமத யானை

மரத்தில் மறைந்தது மாமத யானை

பரத்தை மறைத்தது பார்முதல் பூதம்

பரத்தில் மறைந்தது பார்முதல் பூதமே.

(The greatly haughty elephant was hiding the wood. The greatly haughty elephant vanished in the wood.

The gross elements, earth and others, hid the Supreme. The gross elements, earth and others, vanished in the Supreme.)

We have the saying: நாயைக் கண்டால் கல்லைக் காணோம். கல்லைக் கண்டால் நாயைக் காணோம். (When the dog is in sight, the stone is missing, when the stone is available, the dog is not there.)

Superficially, it looks as though one refers to hitting the dog with a stone.

In both instances, the reference is to an image of the animal in wood or stone. The meaning is the same as in the clay-pot and gold-ornament examples. They explain the Advaita concept that the universe is nothing but Brahman and that it is in the paradigm of sensory experience that the truth is covered.

 

Tamizh poem - a clincher on Advaita:

கல்லாலின் புடையமர்ந்து நான்மறை ஆறு அங்கம் முதற் கற்ற கேள்வி

வல்லார்கள் நால்வருக்கும் வாக்கிறந்த பூரணமாய் மறைக்கு அப்பாலாய்

எல்லாமாய் அல்லதுமாய் இருந்தனை இருந்தபடி இருந்து காட்டிச்

 

சொல்லாமல் சொன்னவரை நினையாமல் நினைந்து பவத் தொடக்கை வெல்வாம்.

(திருவிளையாடற் புராணம் - பாடல் - 13)

Meaning:

The physical setting is the banyan tree and Siva is seated with the four disciples.

The disciples are past masters in four Vedas and their six angas (parts). Siva does not speak. He is Purnam – all in all. He imparts knowledge of Brahman as it is by his mudras (signs). Brahman is everything and nothing. It is beyond the Vedas. We can grasp it by meditating on it without thoughts and overcome the affliction of repetitive births.

The ideas that strike me here are:

1.    Reality is beyond sense perception and even scripture. Scripture is a guide to reality, not reality per se. (cf. The map is not the territory it describes: Will Durant). Obsession with scripture as god-given and venerable in itself may be a stumbling block to gnanam. Scripture, though part of mithya, is a valuable guide to Reality. That is its place.

2.    Reality is all-encompassing. It covers both ‘sat’ and ‘asat’. We concentrate on ‘sat’ (Atma as distinct from ‘anatma’ - the gross world and body-mind). But, finally, we realise that such a distinction is artificial. All that is is Brahman. ‘Asat’ (nothing, gross, illusion, in whatever term we anayse it) is also in Brahman. (Swami Paramarthananda said this in one discourse. I may be pardoned if I misquote him. If wrong, it may be taken as my idea.)

3.    The teaching is through silence. Language is deficient to communicate that which is beyond mind. Reality is subtle. Understanding is an internal process.

4.    The way to realization is meditation with the keenness to know. Thoughts distract and must be overcome.

5.    Liberation: My Thoughts

Is liberation escapist and selfish?

Is Advaita socially irresponsible?

Traditionally, two ideas go hand-in-hand with liberation. One is that life (संसारं) is a burden (दुःखं). The other is that we go through a cycle of births and deaths. Liberation is a release from the burden and meaningless cycle.

I find it difficult to accept that life is a burden. It is an opportunity and is more or less evenly packed with difficulties and pleasantness. The aim of a thinking individual is to find a lasting meaning in life that has appeared like a bolt from the blue and not to emancipate ourselves from it.

Rebirth is a matter of belief. Proof, a priori or empirical, is not rigorous. It should not matter. If it is there, our acquired consciousness is not directly aware of it and is not quite equipped to handle it. Nor can we do much about it.

The following karikas lend some support to my apostasy.

स्वप्नमाये यथा दृष्टे गन्धर्वनगरं यथा । तथा विश्वमिदं दृष्टं वेदान्तेषु विचक्षणैः ॥ 2.31 ॥

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थतr ॥ 2.32 ॥

जात्याभासं चलाभासं वस्त्वाभासं तथैव च। अजाचलमवस्तुत्वं विज्ञानं शान्तमद्वयम।। 4.45

I feel that liberation can make sense without having to subscribe to the ideas of life as a burden and rebirth as a maze in which we have been cast.

Harari is close to truth, as I view it, when he says:

“People are liberated rather when they understand the impermanent nature of all their feelings, and stop craving them. This is the aim of Buddhist meditation practice. .. The resulting serenity is so profound that those who spend their lives in the frenzied pursuit of pleasant feelings can hardly imagine it.

For many traditional philosophies and religions (Buddhism), the key to happiness is to know the truth about yourself.”

We are somewhat perplexed when it comes to service to others. If a gnani does not feel the presence of others, will he have any propensity to help?

How many such gnanis are there? The issue is therefore only for sterile debate.

All gnanis we have known, incl. Sankara, went about trying to help others for upliftment not minding the doctrinal incongruity. We can have no qualms.

We must also consider what help means. More often than not, it amounts to interference. We must make a sensible judgment whether our intervention is required and step in when we make a real contribution. It will be unobtrusive and egoless. Such intervention by a liberated soul will be far superior to the song and dance that goes about. A liberated person will be selfless in what he does.

Thus viewed, liberation is neither escapist nor selfish.

Adviata is socially responsible because it turns everyone to mind his welfare holistically and view life as a continuing reality beyond the tanatalsing sense experience.

Understanding must come through mind only, though mind is part of mithya. In a spiritual way, we may say that the purpose of mind is to know Reality and after that mind ceases.

6.    Overcoming births may be taken to mean quietening the inquisitive mind and living at one with what is.

7.    There is contradiction prima facie – how mithya can be the means to satyam. This can be resolved only personally. There is a Tamizh saying – முள்ளை முள்ளால் எடுக்க வேண்டும் (A thorn must be removed by a thorn).

 

Bhagavatam in four slokas (Srimadbhagavatam 2nd Canto)

अहमेवासमेवाग्रे नान्यद् यत् सदसत् परम्। पश्चादहं यदेतच्च योSवशिष्येत सोSस्म्यहम् ॥१॥

“Only I, the Supreme, existed in the beginning, nothing else, either cause or effect. Afterwards also, I am what is. What will remain in the end also is I only.”

ऋतेSर्थ यत् प्रतीयेत न प्रतीयेत चात्मनि। तद्विद्यात्मनो माया यथाSSभासो यथा तम: ॥ २॥

“Whatever appears to be of any value has no reality if it is not related to me. That is my illusory energy (maya) which appears like reflection in darkness.”

यथा महान्ति भूतानि भूतेषूच्चावचेष्वनु। प्रविष्टान्यप्रविष्टानि तथा तेषु न तेष्वहम् ॥ ३॥

“Just as the great elements have entered into the living beings and still are outside, I exist in the living beings and yet not in them.”

एतावदेव जिज्ञास्यं तत्त्वजिज्ञासुनाSSत्मन:। अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां यत्स्यात् सर्वत्र सर्वदा॥ ४॥

“A person seeking truth has to grasp this by anvaya (positive assertions in scripture) and vyatireka (that which is suggested otherwise) what it is that may be everywhere always.”

 

Ideas of Advaita from Daskninamurthi Stotram:

(i)       Brahman is the only reality. The world is an extension that is the work of maya (inexplicable). It is like a virtual image in a mirror. It is like a dream that appears real while it lasts, but is recognized as dream after waking up.

(ii)      The world is just manifestation of something that was there in a potential form (like a big tree is in a seed), in a variety of names and forms by combination of space and time.

(iii)      The ‘asat’ – the world – appears as ‘sat’ because it is illumined by Brahman, the real. We can get get gnana by the grace of Brahman (through a guru).

(iv)     Just as a lamp lit inside a pot with holes gleams though the holes, Brahman shines through our senses.

 

In Vishnusahasranamam (VS), It is significant that the first term is Viswam, not Vishnu. The first thing we become aware of is the world, where we live, with which we deal and of which we are a part. It is the worldly experience that leads us to Brahman. Viswam is also called jagat, something that consciousness makes us aware of, or lokam, understood through sensory experience (phenomenal world). It is by trying to understand how the world is in our experience, we get to the reality of Brahman. Sankara’s emphasis is that the Brahman and world are not separate. VS seems to favour that view.

Viswam is neutral like Brahman, but neutral is not to be identified with lacking consciousness. The next term removes any ambiguity. Vishnu stands for ‘person’ (not like human as many religions seem to suggest) with distinct consciousness.

 

 

Becoming is mortality.

Being is immortality.

Becoming is a feature of the physical – mythical.

Being is the characteristic of the spiritual – real.

Being is non-transformational.

Other doctrines believe in becoming; Advaita avers becoming as the feature of the unreal.

Vedanta is categorical that the soul is unborn, undying and unchanging.

 

ஒரு பைத்தியக்கார எண்ணம்:Advaitam – a few thoughts

Leibnitz: "1 represents unity, the absolute being and 0, null the transient human being. I am amazed how together these have created everything. 1 and 0 together have created the world." 

கிருஷ்ணன் மண் தின்றான் என்று மற்ற பாலகர்கள் யசோதையிடம் கூற அவனோ நான் தின்னவில்லை என்றான். பொய்யான இவ்வுலகில் சொல்லும் மெய்யும் பொய்யாகுமோ? [(-) x (+) = (-)]

பொய்யான இவ்வுலகம் பொய் என்பதும் மெய்யாகுமோ? [(-) x (-) = (+)]

வேதாந்தம் வேள்வி ஞானம் இவை எல்லோருக்கும் விதிக்கப்பட்டவை அல்ல.

கேட்டது:

இவ்வுலகம் பொய் என்பது அது இல்லை என்றாகாது. ஒரு ஞானிக்கும் இவ்வுலகம் உண்டு. ஆனால் அதனால் ஆகவேண்டியது ஒன்றும் அவனுக்கு இல்லை.

 

 

Advaita

Advaitha is a happy compromise between the concept of god as a determinate being and all negation of a subtle superbeing.

If plurality of souls has to be admitted as ultimate, polytheism has to be admitted as well.

There is no evidence that all life emanated from one source. There is no evidence either that there was consciousness before the first form of life came about.

We are in a state of flux. Nothing we know of was the same for the millions of years ‘behind’ us, nor will it retain its present identity in the future to come. There is a spatio-temporal evolution.

There is no evidence yet that life came from matter. If life was existent always, there is no denial of its future.

To believe that all the universe is anthropocentric is a crude creed. It is born out of ignorance.

If Brahman is all-pervading, how can our Atman be different from Brahman? It can only be part of it. but, Brahman by definition is indestructible and indivisible. Therefore, the whole is in the part and the part is truly the whole. There can be no difference.

There is a sea of difference between saying that the whole world is a manifestation of Brahman, with several distinguishing characteristics of its apparent constituents which are comprehensible by consciousness, and saying that the world is the be-all-and-end-all. The world as we see it is in a continuum of change in regard to the known magnitudes of space and time. It is not that the whole world is unreal, but that the particular view we have of it is highly tentative. We see that as we grow up our view of the world changes. The change has taken place in the consciousness as well as in the perceived. But the consciousness and the perceived world are not independent of each other. Do I see the world exclusive of me or inclusive of me? If I see the world other than me, where do I stand (not physically, but in the spatio-temporal terms)? If I see the world inclusive of me, how do I know one form the other? There is so much of intertwining that it is futile to answer the question.

If, therefore, there is change in the whole view, which is real? Not that the various views one had as one grew are unreal empirically speaking. It is as good trying to say that since these different states were experienced or views held, all these are ipso facto real. We are not contending whether the experiences and views were truthful. Our attempt is to identify a reality whose identity has definitive parameters. If the series of views we have of the world defy unity, then we call the experiences to be illusory and as not related to the ultimate Reality.

In short, Advaitha is a macro view. It is not correct to say that experiences by different individuals at different times are all per se unreal. A span of 100 years is a drop in an ocean compared to the magnitude of space-time continuum, but it is of immense significance when it lasts.

To quote an example, if the probability that a plane will crash is one in a million, it is a negligible risk in totality. When, however, that one chance does occur, the experience is of great consequence to the ill-fated passengers of the plane and their survivors.

If the Supreme Reality and the Atmans are really different from each other, and if there is ony one Supreme Reality, but an infinite number of Atmans, how are we to explain the different dreeds, the different religious practices and so on? No one religion, nay, nor the lack of it, has ever held sway over the entire humanity. How do we explain that there were glorious men born and gone, the traces of whose consciousness are not to revisit this earth? It stands to no reason that there should be a Kingdom of God and that there would be a Day of Judgement except to satisfy the ego. The Visishtadavaithin or Christian believes that there is ‘ego’ which seeks its preservation and since this desire is also the strongest, it becomes self-fulfilling. It is at once the height of attraction for these religions and the height of their ignorance.

A religion founded on morals or to promote virtuousness in peope is highly noble and nothing should be said or done to devalue it. but that is not its own justification.

The mind does not rest at the simple empirical enunciations set forth to preserve the fabric of society.we seek to evolve into a higher being in the very nature of things. A roused consciousness is in a mood to expand to become the all-knowing, but very often flounders. Upasana or bhakthi can try to limit the ambition of the consciousness. It is rather a process of blunting it or castrating it. that is why the Advaithin advocates true gnana.

Gnana does not mean you can become god ordering about the world. Such a concept of god is imaginary and illusory. There is a rhythm in all that we observe which owes its amazing regularity to the unknown cause.

When the man to be hanged is asked what his last wish is, he is precluded from asking to live. When you realize god in you and yourself in god, you do not seek to destroy the beautiful rhythm of the universe. On the other hand, so long as your desire is to rule others, not to compose, homogenise and integrate your consciousness, you are still full of ignorance and with such ignorance you cannot see the unity of Brahman and Atman. So long as you see the difference, you are in the whirlpool of samsara, tasting niceties and suffering cruelties. There is no emancipation from the tangle, from the birth-death-birth chain.    ADVAITAAdvaita negotiates skillfully between denying an underlying cause for the world and blind faith.Advaita talks of oneness in the absolute state (paramarthika), but the distinction of jiva, jagat and Iswara is valid in the workaday world (vyavaharika). All three are under equal spread of Maya, in a way that their relative reality and interaction remain valid. The validity vanishes when the Maya is pierced and the differences disappear with dawning of wisdom. Such a metamorphic shift of paradigm is total, atman alone exists conscious and content, without need of another.

Sankara has offered a total system with purpose, methodology and deliverance. That may not interest us. But, the significance of advaita is not to be denied even if we are not interested in the complete version of Sankara.

All faiths demand us to believe in an unseen personal god and an after-life in his benevolent reign, which is unverifiable. Much of atheism is directed against such faith.

The life that we lead is all that we are certain about. If it was god’s intention that it is one in a chain or the only one where our performance matters for infinity (which looks less plausible), he has not left any clue to an ordinary mind, or to an extraordinary mind such that it is able to communicate it authentically.

The advaitin believes that the substratum of Vedanta is: Brahman is satyam, gnanam, anantam, existence, knowledge and boundlessness. He also believes that it is possible to realise our being as authentic, knowledgeable and unbound, right here. That can be useful. It makes eminent sense that we have a life which is transient, but it is significant (not different from Brahman) and the way to live that identity lies in clearing the mind of its false affiliations. Advaita does not wish away the mind, but makes it the only medium by which we can identify the ‘I’ (Atma). What we need is not elimination of mind (which is impossible as body-mind-intellect is composite) but purification of it by action and meditation.

If we can stand on our own in simple awareness and virtual autonomy and deal with the world transactionally without a baggage before or after, that is the best we can attain. The event of death will become a non-event.

Advaita is not negation of the world, but of the world-view which is conditioned, varied and impermanent.

As Katopanishad says: Arise, awaken, take the help of the best and attain awareness.

 

 

 

Advaita tells us that we are the whole, not the parts. There is only one, The Whole, no parts. The Whole is non pareil and without a second – that rules out understanding by comparison and mere logic.

In a way, Advaita mediates between atheism and implicit faith.

Knowledge is not the statement – It is I.

As the Tamizh proverb goes: ஏட்டு சுரைக்காய் கறிக்கு உதவாது. You cannot make a dish out of the picture of a gourd in a book. Or, as Einstein says, “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”

It requires intelligent effort with conviction to bring it in Aparoksha – direct experience.

Scripture is the only and invaluable guide.

What am I going to realise? If we search for anything, we must know what we are searching for. Socrates’ puzzle: “How can we investigate something if we don’t know what it is?” There is another Tamizh saying about a vague description – மொட்டை தாத்தா குட்டையிலே விழுந்தான் (A bald oldie fell in a ditch). The scripture gives a detailed account of what is IT and what is IS and what is I. That is the GPS.

 

Dvaitam is pravrtti margam (engagaemnet with world); Advaitam is nivrtti margam (disengagement). Life is complete with both. Most of us are in Dvaitam while discussing Advaitam. That is clear from the diffreences and devotion to an external deity one wants to cling to.

One who has realized advaitam has no need to discuss. He becomes a guru and is available for imparting gnana without advertising. A few souls in this forum may be relaised ones.

Just as a big banyan tree has blown up from a tiny seed, the world has emerged from Brahman. The seed cannot grow unless a suitable environment is available. The environment for the world to emerge from Brahman is defined as Maya.

Advaitam is paramarthika satyam – supreme unchanging reality; Dvaitam is a changing and perishable phenomenon.

*

Advaita as Brahma-gnana is reality.

Advaita expressed in man-made language is mithya.

*

Advaita – a slightly deviant speculation

God is matter plus spirit (प्रकृतिः and पुरुषः). Neither matter can exist without spirit, not spirit without matter. The names appearing in Vishnusahasranamam next to each other strongly suggest this unity: विश्वम् विष्णुः; भोक्ता भोजनं; सत् असत्; कृशः स्थूलः.

The way I understand, Advaita is about the absoluteness and oneness of the perceiving self as the supreme reality. The Seer alone is true, the Seen is an illusion. The Seen is made possible by superimposition, say, owing to ignorance.

Reality is sacrosanct, not any interpretation of it. It is perhaps inimical to the spirit of Advaita to claim that Advaita is true and other interpretations are wrong. In a way, not insignificant, interpretations also have contamination of superimposition.

Reality may be composite, neither the Seer nor the Seen is the sole truth, but a composite of the two - the whole truth. It does not imply dvaita or visishtadvaita. It is not that the part is an inseparable piece of the whole. It does not challenge that there is only Whole (Purnam), never any part.

The Seer alone without the Seen (Advaita) or the Seen alone without the Seer (Atheism – as atheists deny the self) may both be erroneous takes. Just as there is an apparent churn or flux of the Seen, there is an apparent churn of the ‘individual’ (birth and death). There is no empirical proof for the ever-present self, but proof is not required for understanding and realization. A realized person is still bound in the mythical body and is not immune to its proclivities, nor does the world disappear at any conceivable time.

One became many, says Sruti. It seems logically neat, whether it is conceptually derivable or empirically verifiable or not. If we have to believe in Sruti, the One becoming many is not achieved by any external help, for such external help denies absoluteness of One (Brahman). (The assumption that Brahman is only nimitta karanam has this latent fallacy i.e. becoming requires something apart from Brahman). If One became many without anything outside it, the Seer and the Seen cannot be different. The Seen cannot be a nothing, being of the same source as the Seer. Neither can be real without the other. They are one and the same, looking different by the distortion of the (mis)informing senses, just as a prism diffracts composite light to its component colours, looking different in analytical terms which for analysis divides what is indivisible.

The Wholeness and Uniqueness of Reality is about the Total, neither the Seer nor the Seen alone, but the Seer-Seen like space-time. The convenient way of looking at it as ‘sat’ (existence) – ‘chit’ (consciousness) may be understood as different from the evolved consciousness of Homo sapiens, the evolution being superimposition, which is

‘factual’, but not intrinsic.

If and when we can shed the identity with the human form and rise above the present duality of Seer and Seen with either as abiding solely, we will be clear of conflicts and cease to want or lack anything.

Reality is supreme and attachment to anything (Advaita, Bhakti too) is a roadblock to realisation.

 

Advaita is not an answer to the knotty fundamental questions that have doggedly defied human attempts to find answer for.

Verbal answers are ambiguous and spawn further questions. It is an endless process like samsara. Advaita seeks to end such endless processes.

Advaita is a process of self-discovery. It does not tell us to shut the mind or stop the thoughts, but to declutter the mind and sharpen it, and refine the thoughts, to arrive at understanding (gnana).

Advaita, in sum, makes us realise our Being, not as part of or an inhabitant of, but as Total Being.

The state of gnana is not knowing answers but finding no questions.

Is it chimerical?

I have read how people like Paul Brunton and Arthur Osborne approached Sri Ramana wishing to ask such questions, but in his presence they did not feel the need to ask them. They describe their experience in a way that sounds authentic. That strengthens belief that Advaitic state is feasible and beneficial spiritually.

 

I heard in a discourse, and I believe, that advaita is appreciation of the ordinary state, not an excited or exalted state like samadhi. Existence-consciousness-infinity is the ordinary state and everything else is adhyasa, superimposition. The body-mind-intellect composite also is mithya like the jagat. Atma alone is real. Anything attained would be perishable. The imperishable atman is not attained, but realised by gnana, knowledge through enquiry. This position, highly theoretical, is not in conflict with any science unlike the other theories that require greater assumptions and can be negated. Reality is that which cannot be negated. The upanishads are at great pains to rule out various assumptions and fail to say anything positively.

Advaita believes that only through intellect we can winnow off the chaff (anatma) and obtain the grain (atma). Sankara ingeniously interprets medha as a retentive memory of the import of books.

While the message is pregnant we must perhaps attempt all these methods over a sustained period of time before we hit upon the spark or the spark hits upon us. The seer himself, there is ground to presume, came to this insight after trying these methods.

We must not read the last chapter of an absorbing novel. It means more fun reading the whole book.

I am reminded of a story. A man dropped a ring and was searching for it. A friend asked him what the matter was. He asked where he dropped the ring and the man said that he dropped it in a dark room nearby. The friend asked him why he is searching for it in a different place. The man said, 'There is light here.'

The search for atma in anatma is going on with some claims and questions on the claims.

Any amount of search for atma by science is like looking for the ring in a different place from where it was dropped. 

 

What Advaita means to me

We believe intensely that we live in the world. We consider that the world is apart from us. This is the duality, I and the World, leaving aside god, the unseen, who needlessly complicates the issue. This duality is denied by advaita. The world and I are composite, inseparable, just like the space-time continuum.

Does it deny god? If god is outside this composite World-I, Advaita denies such a god. God (Brahman) is the same as this indivisible World-I.

Advaita also denies the world as indicated by sensory identification, as the true nature of the world is beyond what the senses identify on the basis of limited life, its needs and needless desires. The reality of the world is affirmed as Brahman. The ‘I’ is consciousness of existence, which is essentially Brahman. The narrow identity of it in a limited life frame as separate is denied. That is the interpretation of aham brahmasmi or tatvamasi.

It is quite similar to Buddhism, but soul as ‘consciousness’ as a substratum of existence that is pervasive and beginningless and endless, is affirmed in Advaita based on scripture.

 

 

Advaitam in mundane examples

 

I was looking for Subbarama Chetty Street and enquired someone; he blinked. As I walked a few steps, I saw a board with address which had Subbarama Chetty Street written. That is the concept of advaitam. The person I asked and I were in that street, but did not know it. We are none other than Brahmam, but a veil conceals that identity.

 

Moksha

Paramacharya: “Moksa is release from all attachments. It is a state in which the Self remains ever in untrammeled freedom and blessedness. The chief purpose of religion is to teach us how this supreme state may be attained.”

 

Moksha is not a spatial destination nor a goal that has to be achieved in a given period. It is just waking up to the reality. It is explained by the simile of an object being invisible in darkness but seen as soon as light is turned on. The famous example is the rope seen as a snake in mistake. It was never a snake, so when we realise the mistake its rope-ness becomes clear.

 

 (22/9/2011)

Liberation, Moksha, is, to my mind, attaining autonomy; a point of self-control and self-sufficiency; a state when we remain unmoved by events around us in a selfish way, ‘what does it mean to me.’ It is not the end of a journey, not a goal to be reached. It is realizing our basic nature and living this life in accordance with that nature.

We are affected and constrained by one or the other of the following, separately or together:

- others’ opinions

- the past

- worries of the future

- the external conditions.

Liberation is freedom from such affectation and release from those constraints. I do not see it as a response to the ills of mundane life, as an escape from the toils and burden of our life and its responsibilities, or as a religious injunction, to disregard which is sinful. It is an eminently desirable stance to face life and its challenges nonchalantly, in a holistic manner, creatively, synergistically, efficiently, effectively, in a manner that no one involved in the process is a loser.

Am I ploughing a lonely furrow? No. Sankara’s answer to the question, ‘What is the seed for the tree of liberation’, I feel, gives me the direction: ‘Liberation is attained by acquiring true knowledge and living it.’ Having knowledge, as an intellectual accomplishment, cannot lead to liberation. Only by spanning it out into action, true liberation can emerge. Seed in a box will not grow into a tree. It has to be interred in the earth, watered before it can sprout and grow. Likewise, knowledge has to lead to action. But the action is not one where desire drives it. Action based on desire is from lack of knowledge.

We are born to engage with the world, not to escape from it. What is emancipation? Many beliefs are forced on us by family and society and we wrap ourselves in them in impressionable years. As we gain knowledge, we have to let our minds grasp the truth as it is without the layers that have been superimposed on us. We must develop an open mind to see what assumptions are made and how well it harmonises with observation and experience. That state of mind where there is no undue influence of unverifiable opinions is emancipation.

 

Jivan-mukti appeals to me. Videha-mukti is pleonasm. The soul is ever free, but appears trammelled in body. When the body drops off, the soul is in its natural unbounded state. No effort is needed for videha mukti. All our effort must be for living this life free at the level of soul, for which virtue is the pre-requisite and knowledge the requisite.

Jivanmukta is a useful idea. All of us will anyway become videhamukta. Attaining autonomy in this existence is attractive.

 

CONSCIOUSNESS

Much of what we think is from contrived consciousness. When I say ‘in my view,’ it is more of a formality than a matter of fact. The view is shaped by those of so many others imbedded in my consciousness willy-nilly – involuntarily and subliminally. The TV, newspaper, social media, friends and relatives constantly bombard us with the topic and content. It is a socially active process, a mental ……titution.

We do have a pure consciousness, but that lies deep within like the last blanket in a multilayer bed prepared for severe winter. Most of us may not get to it. Pure bliss is when we get to it, so say the seers. Though we do not easily get to it, when the seers say it, we get a sample of the bliss they are talking about. It is evanescent as the superimposed consciousness is quick to cover the pure consciousness like the monsoon clouds cover the clear sky.

There is so much comfort in the monsoon weather. Who would wish for the clear sky and possibly hot sun?

Let us enjoy all the fun.

 

 

Here is an interview of Dr. Susan Blackmore.

It is important, I believe, to know the ongoing thinking on consciousness to appreciate Advaita.

Excerpts:

•         Materialism is hopeless because as soon as it confronts the problem of consciousness it becomes dualist. Dualism is hopeless because it cannot explain the close relationship between matter and experience.

•         Panpsychism may, or may not, help but has certainly not proved itself yet.

•         You might, for example, imagine that you are some kind of inner self that has consciousness and free will, that “you” can direct your consciousness to some things and not others, that some processes in your head are conscious ones and others are unconscious, that you need consciousness to do some things and not others, that consciousness has powers and effects, and that it must have evolved for a purpose. There are excellent reasons for rejecting every one of these very natural assumptions. In other words, consciousness, as normally imagined, is an illusion.

•         Everything a human being does is caused by underlying processes we cannot see, and that the self that seems to be in charge is not.

•         Our amazing existence is not the result of chance—at least not just chance. .. Chance on its own obviously cannot produce our improbable existence; natural selection can and did.

•         (On effect of meditation) I think I am happier, less caught up in stupid thoughts and worries, more flexible about life and (maybe and most importantly) less troublesome to other people.

•         As far as I have learnt, enlightenment is not a “state of permanent mystical awareness”; it’s not a state at all. Rather it is a loss of, or seeing through, or letting go of, the delusions of self and agency, and the acceptance of impermanence, suffering and nonself.

•         Human nature makes us incapable of utopia.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-be-a-mystical-skeptic/?fbclid=IwAR2YBAju9UGSbnKIYyI4X3Jzfalv6sBaYsel8UKw4C4Mg_XVR9wPy2s_vEQ

 

Consciousness: this is the most fundamental to Advaita. But, do we mix it up with the visesha Chaitanya that gives rise to the manifestation of the ‘relative’ world? The subject of enquiry in science seems to be this special consciousness which may have something to do with brain and intellect – physical phenomena. Not only is the special consciousness evolving over eons, but even that of an individual evolves during one’s lifetime, judged from the things we understand anew from time to time. The Advaitic Chaitanya is samanya Chaitanya, the universal consciousness which is all-pervasive, indistinguishable between animate and inanimate, and so on. This ordinary consciousness is not under the lens of science and is a not an object that lends itself to prove. Whatever can be proved is an object. There is great difficulty in appreciating this basic consciousness. That may be the crux of gnana. ‘Chit’ is inseparable from ‘sat’ They are not qualities as argued by dvaitins. Brahman does not admit of qualities or multiplicity. In deep sleep we have no special consciousness which points to the world. It gets re-superimposed on waking up and the world which disappeared reappears. The idea that we are better off in the waking state as we are able to usefully relate with the world (as I read in a book) is true for the perishable life, but not for the essential life.

 

Duality in Advaita

Advaita has an inherent duality. It talks of Satya at two levels, Vyavaharika (transactional or phenomenal) and paramarthika (transcendental or absolute). Advaita is realized only when we slough off the vyavaharika satyam, a condition never achieved perhaps, but the ideal is enticing and its pursuit rewarding.

 

Advaitam is not complete without the duality of Nirguna Brahman as the absolute and Saguna Brahman as the transactional head. The two are not different, but such a distinction is necessary to understand the phenomenal world within Advaitam. Saguna Brahman is associated with maya, the cause of the world itself. Overcoming maya by proper knowledge is the way to realise our essential oneness with Brahman and transcend the world.

Advaitam accepts dvaitam though dvaitam does not accept Advaitam, just as Hinduism accepts all faiths though other faiths do not approve of any faith but theirs.

Dvaitam is ordinary sensory experience and basis of the life as we live. No scripture is required to teach it. Scripture is for taking us to spiritual plane and enlighten as on the intrinsic unity of life transcending the worldly experience of inconsistent duality.  

 

 

Advaita talks of oneness in the absolute state (paramarthika), but the distinction of jiva, jagat and Iswara is valid in the workaday world (vyavaharika). All three are under equal spread of Maya, in a way that their relative reality and interaction remain valid. The validity vanishes when the Maya is pierced and the differences disappear with dawning of wisdom. Such a metamorphic shift of paradigm is total, atman alone exists conscious and content, without need of another.

 

Advaita is alright, but how do we lead this life. We cannot live out ‘I am Brahman’.

Sankara’s attitude to the world was:

‘माता च पार्वती देवी पिता देवो महेश्वरः।

बान्धवाः शिवभक्ताश्च स्वदेशो भुवनत्रयम्‌॥

Mother is Parvati, father Siva, relatives all devotees and motherland the three worlds.’

Sankara was not sectarian. He did not say that worshipping any one deity was superior. He has composed hymns on all deities that people worshipped. He reduced 70-75 sects and introduced six to provide for variety people need. Worshipping any deity is good enough. Therefore the parents are the divine pair and all people (even those who may not worship are children of the same pair) are relatives. Vasudhaiva kutumbakam is the native spirit of our land.

How should one worship? This is a beautiful idea which even an atheist can accept:

‘आत्मा त्वं गिरिजा मतिः सहचरा प्राणाः शरीर गृहं

पूजा ते विषयोपभोगरचना निद्रा समाधिस्थितिः ।

सञ्चारः पदयो प्रदक्षिणविधिः स्तोत्राणि सर्वा गिरो

यद्यतकर्म करोमि तत्तदखिलं शम्भो तवाराधनम् ।।

Siva is the soul and Parvati is the mind. The fellow beings are the breaths and the body is the house. The gratification of the senses is the worship and sleep is the state of Samadhi (identification with the absolute). Travel around is the circumambulation and all speech the prayer. Whatever I do, O God, I dedicate to you.’

This life lived according to dharma is the only true worship of God.

But, why pray?

‘ज्ञान वैराग्य-शिद्ध्‌यर्थं भिक्षां देहिं च पार्वति॥

Please give me alms, O Mother, for my attaining gnana (wisdom) and vairagyam (detachment)’.

That is advaitam. We live this life virtuously as a penance in harmony with others and promoting universal harmony and seeking emancipation through knowledge.

 

“An inevitable dualism bisects nature, so that each thing is a half, and suggests another thing to make it whole; as, spirit, matter; man, woman; odd, even; subjective, objective; in, out; upper, under; motion, rest; yea, nay.

While the world is thus dual, so is every one of its parts. The entire system of things gets represented in every particle.

God reappears with all his parts in every moss and cobweb.” Ralph Waldo Emerson.

सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म sarvam khalvidam brahma, Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1, "All this is Brahman".

 

Duality that arises in our minds like subject-object, intellect-emotion, matter-energy, matter-mind, matter-spirit, gross-subtle, etc. is analytical, not intrinsic. There is a composite and integral reality difficult to comprehend by conditioned human thinking because of the intertwining of the human being with the reality it is trying to discover or define.

*

‘Ever since the Cognitive revolution, Sapiens have been living in a dual reality.’ Yuval Noah Harari

*

 

 

Nirguna Brahman

5.    Virtue cannot exist non-physically, nor can it exist without vice. It is vice that gives virtue its merit just as death gives meaning to life.

Religions that think of a god without form, but with good qualities ignore that qualities require a form. Qualities are abstractions from form.

A formless god has to be nirguna. Beauty (any quality for that matter) is integral to and inseparable from the thing of beauty. Nirguna god is devoid of such attributes. Nirguna god is not something separate, not a destination. It is ever present in all existence, and it is the mind, which is a conglomeration and association of ideas, that covers it with layers of objects and images of its desires. When we peel off the layers, the nirguna god can be felt. This is theory. It has to be seen by looking at great people with a dispassionate mind.

 

 

MAYA OR MITHYA

 

Maya

There is misconception about Maya.

Maya is about misconception.

 

Maya is perhaps a singular contribution by India in the march of ideas!

There is a lot of confusion (maya) in understanding Maya. Here is my contribution to the confusion (मया कल्पितं मायाव्याख्यानं).

I feel we live in a world of make-believe, reality we assume being layered by apparent logic over certain basic assumptions which are at best a matter of experience which may not be a reliable yardstick.

As I hinted above, ‘Maya’ is confusion in understanding. The examples given conventionally are mistaking a rope for a serpent, a sea-shell for silver or a mirage for water. These examples suggest that the confusion is not about hallucination. The mistake is not about something non-existing. It is different from solipsism also.

After laying down that Maya masks the reality, Sankara describes maya as anirvachaneeya (indefinable). It is as good as saying, ‘I do not know why there is this veil over reality’. Why then can we not reject Sankara’s philosophy as far-fetched? I feel that the world exists and its existence has a reality, which is not the various perceptions we derive based on collective convention and individual idiosyncracies. Sankara calls the underlying reality as Brahman and the varying perceptions as mere appearance. That appeals to me and satisfies my experience. So, we are left with the question what Maya is. The whole piece is irrelevant if one takes the observed world to be the only reality.

In other words, the basic question ‘why this world exists’, ‘why it was created’ cannot be answered by anything that we know by intelligence lit by feeding of sense experience.

Human intelligence is limited to what the senses can capture. It is superior to any other intelligence human intelligence can spot, but it is far from being the best that there can be. While reading a book about space, I read, ‘Sten Odenwald:..our eyes can only detect radiation within a narrow wavelength range of 0.4-0.6 microns. Some animals can do a bit better than this, for instance, bees can see into the UV range – between 0.3-0.4 microns, and some snakes can sense light just beyond 0.6 microns.’ The human perception is limited in range, but the superior intelligence has made it possible to detect what lies beyond the gaze of its naked senses. As we know, we are yet to understand the bottom of it all. The crux is that total knowledge is not within the reach of human intelligence. Not yet, at least. I venture to think that there will never come a state where the world and total human intelligence can exist together. Thus, the nature of the world is covered by a veil as it were. That veil is Maya.

It is the contention of Vedanta that it is possible to arrive at the basic truth (Brahman). The quarrels about what it is suggest that no one has found it incontrovertibly. But, the path of discovery has been fascinating and engages the speculative-minded.

Space may be finite. It may not be infinite space containing finite objects. There may be just enough (necessary and just sufficient) space to accommodate the objects providing for their non-colliding existence. That is, space has boundaries and to enquire into what lies outside the boundaries is impermissible. The problem to this thinking may arise from religions (which assume infinity to be god) and not from science as science likes finiteness and predictability. That may put a limit to knowledge as after knowing the unit as a whole, there will be nothing more to know. But, the road to that finite knowledge may be slippery and misleading and involving insoluble duality. In other words, we may be discovering the same knowledge expressed in different contexts and manifestations. This process may be unending. So, we will be left no better than when we imagined an infinity that is unfathomable. If this line of speculative thinking is on right lines, we have only one knowledge that is to be acquired i.e. about ourselves as whatever we observe outside is an unending wild goose chase resulting in the same basic dilemma; we are running but are on the same spot. We are however held back from this realisation that ends all uncertainty and frees us from the hassles of mundane existence. That is inexplicable. That is Maya.

When the Yaksha asked Yudhishtira what was the most surprising, he replied, ‘Everyday people see many dying, but they forget their own mortality.’ We live in a world of repetitiveness and recycling. We have no clue to why this goes on. Life is not any different today than when modern science was unborn. But, (rightly) we feel as though we are doing something new or that we are wiser. Each moribund generation considers the budding generation unprincipled, reckless, directionless, etc. The repetitive process is self-perpetuating and is a mixed bag. We are drawn to it in a binding way. An analysis of its rationale does not produce its justification. This is represented as samsara enveloping us in the darkness of ignorant infatuation and the possibility of emancipation by right knowledge. Lack of such knowledge or even a desire for it is termed Maya.

A magician does a trick. There is an observed act which is miraculous, but truth is plain. Something is hidden from the spectators. The spectators knowingly subject to the illusion for the fun that it produces. In dream, we see many things which appear to be real, but their ‘reality’ is nullified on waking up. A friend of mine mentioned how a young boy was eager for gifts from Santa Claus, but lost interest once he knew it was done after all by the elders of the house and there was no mysterious giver. All these point to how we are quite content with the world of charms and a man who has no interest in such charms (mumukshu) goes after what is the irreducible bottom line. After understanding it, he cannot relate it intelligibly in the language of worldly charms. There is an apparent disconnect between the truth perceived in realisation from the common experience, and this disconnect is given the name Maya. What it is cannot be described.

Ponniyin Selvan was a masterpiece of historical novel by Kalki. When it ended, one was eager to know further story about the main characters in it. Some wrote sequels, but it was far from satisfying. I realised that the characterisation and incidents in the novel are intelligent creation of Kalki’s imagination. But still, my mind cannot dissociate itself from the assumed reality of its characters (many were historical of course, but it is anyone’s guess what their real character was) and incidents (some were truly historic though the sequence and course were not). Our association with this world is of this nature, though we will vehemently deny it. This sort of association is referred to as Maya.

Maya is required for life as we live. It is also required for lotus eaters and metaphysical thinkers.

We are not prepared to get into Maya (try to know it), so the question of overcoming it does not arise for almost all of us. Attaining Brahmapadam as Samkara beckons us to aspire for is a call of horn to the deaf.

*

Maya

“You have understood Maya well when you understand that Maya is ununderstandable (anirvachaniya)”. (Swami Paramarthananda)

Cf. Niels Bohr: “If you’re not puzzled by quantum physics, you couldn’t possibly have understood it.”

मिथ्या माया मायामिदमखिलं हित्वा आत्मा ब्रह्मन् प्रमाणं आस्तिक नास्तिक चार्वाक आभास सत्

This is an elusive topic.

The word used by Sankara is mithya (मिथ्या) though in songs like Bhaja Govindam, ‘mayamayamidam akhilam hitva’ (मायामिदमखिलं हित्वा) ‘maya’ is found. Mithya is neither true nor untrue, a position not admissible in Greek logic, which goes by 'either or'. Sri Rajiv Malhotra dwells on this topic in 'Being Different.'

We are interested in Reality - Sat (सत्), not in mithya. We must therefore start with Reality. What is Reality? It is unknown as we deal with the world as interpreted by our senses and the impressions stored. We see that both the 'objective world' and the subject (consisting of senses, mind and intellect) keep evolving or shuffling.

I avoided using atma (आत्मा) for subject just as I have avoided god or Brahman for Reality (Sat).

If everything is changing, is there something not changing? The answer to this question does not come from our normal experience or even science. Scientists cede that we have no way of knowing what Reality is other than what our faculties powered by the senses tell us. I read in an article that evolution has honed our perception for survival not for comprehending Reality.

Now, we can take a safe position of 'I do not know' (agnosticism), or assume either that there is something that can be called Real, or dismiss it as vague speculation. For saying there is Reality what is the basis? Sankara asserts that scripture is the basis (प्रमाणं).

It is contentious. How can we accept scripture as pramanam? Basically, in Indian thinking, astikas (आस्तिक) are those who accept scripture as a pramanam and nastikas (नास्तिक) are those who deny it. Thus religions like Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic religions regardless of what they say about god. Charvakas (चार्वाक)  also do not accept scripture. Among asthikas there is difference of opinions, but they do not question the scripture.

After accepting Reality as fundamental and unchanging, we need to account for the world. Advaita advances the argument of ‘adhyasa’ (superimposition). The Reality is distorted, so to speak, by a veil, a creation of the mind. The view of the world undergoing incessant change is an appearance and not substantial. It is mithya or illusion. Ordinary dictionaries typically define “illusion” not as something that does not exist but as something that is not what it seems to be. Illusion is an exact equivalent of mithya.

What has happened is people have confused it with delusion and hallucination and attacked it. In terms of science also, the picture of what we perceive is an approximation based on previous experience and filling out for a total picture from only a few elements of 'reality' being picked up. We are aware of how an object looks variedly depending on distance, light, our bias, and so on. Mithya is thus mistaken perception (schizophrenia) confusing between appearance and existence (Reality). What exists ever without changes is Reality and what keeps changing is mithya. Consciousness is what reveals everything and it is Reality. This equivalence is by definition.

The final frontiers of man’s knowledge quest at the fundamental level may be about consciousness and information. That is perhaps what the Upanishads also targeted as explained in the framework of Advaita

I find that Bhagavatam talks of maya profusely. The chatusloki seems to reflect advaita closely by the ideas of there being nothing in the beginning or in the end but Brahman, and the in-between things being explained by aabhaasa, a metaphor that is used in advaita emphatically.

 

 

Mithya

We see the rainbow in the horizon for a while, but it disappears. The rainbow is not a snake in the rope or water in the mirage or silver in the seashell. It is in a manner of speaking ‘real’. The rainbow is like a bow, but not anybody’s bow as our ancestors thought. It has something to do with rain, but its nature has nothing to do with rain. It is the same light that we see everywhere, but dispersed by the refracting medium. In other words, the rainbow is nothing but light that appears differently but fleetingly.

The world is likewise a virtual reality appearing different from Brahman, but not any different; it is the distorting (refracting) medium of our outward-looking senses that presents the world as not Brahman.

Everyone knows the equation: E = mc^2. But, it requires technology and huge effort to convert matter to energy. We know superficially Aham Brahmasmi or Tatvamasi. But we require the technology of Vednata and arduous effort of sravanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam for realization.

 

December 31, 2016

Maya

Different ways to understand maya

Why should we understand maya?

The only thought I can share in response is why we want to know why of anything.

Am I trying to defend maya? Perhaps. I feel we live in a world of make-believe, reality we assume being layered by apparent logic over certain basic assumptions which are at best a matter of experience which may not be a reliable yardstick.

Maya is like ‘I do not know’. After laying down that maya masks the reality, Sankara describes maya as anirvachaneeya (indefinable). It is as good as saying, ‘I do not know why there is this veil over reality. Why then can we not reject Sankara’s philosophy as far-fetched? I feel that the world exists and its existence has a reality, which is not the various perceptions we derive based on collective convention and individual idiosyncracies. Sankara calls the underlying reality as Brahman and the varying perceptions as mere appearance. That appeals to me and satisfies my experience. So, we are left with the question what maya is.

 

Maya

Diary  19.9.99

I was talking to R who said that there is no Maya. ‘You are real, I am real,’

he said. I did not respond quite aptly then. In later recollection, I thought,

‘It is true- you are real, I am real. Since reality is one, you and I are one.

That we are, or appear to be, different is interpreted by the concept of Maya.

 

2014

This world is real, it exists, in other words, it has the property or quality of existence or reality (Sat in Samskritam). That is ‘Brahman’ (Cf. ‘Sat-eva idam agra aaseet’ Chandogya).

But, we see that everything in the world changes, i.e., it appears to us to have the quality of change, which is not a characteristic of reality. The appearance of the world is taken by us to be real and its ‘Sat bhava’ is not appreciated. This is the meaning of ‘maya’; maya makes non-existent (changing) to appear as existent (real) and existent as non-existent. In terms of advaita, the jagat (the moving or movable) is mythya (false) and Brahman is satyam (that which is Sat). Jagat refers to the phenomenal world, the world as it appears and keeps changing.

Now, the understanding of maya proceeds from the assumption of reality of the world. If we start with ‘the world is not real’, there is nothing further to argue. It is thus incorrect to attribute the notion that this world is not real, to advaita.

Is maya real or false? If maya were to be false, the mistake of taking the changing to be real cannot arise. Reality is universally assumed to be One. Hence maya, which has to be real, has to be in Sat. Reality in conjunction with maya, a duality that is presumptive, but not intrinsic, produces the phenomenal world. Whereas the nature of Brahman (the unique, indivisible, whole reality) is clear, that of maya defies understanding, but with right enlightenment we pierce the veil of maya, as it were, and regain our basic identity, which is Reality.

 

Jan, 2019

My musings on mithya:

To understand Sankara we must follow his methodology – scripture, logic and experience. For ‘worldly’ things, our senses are the source of knowledge and we must set aside scripture if it has a contrarian view. For matters of soul, scripture is the only authority. There is no way senses can find the soul. Even a gnani does not see the soul; he sees as the soul.

Whatever scripture says must be logically analysed and vetted by action and experience. This process will prepare our mind for understanding. Understanding has to come internally (idea of grace is relevant here). It cannot result from language and meaning of words. (“Meaning is a word that conceals vast depths of ignorance.” V.S.Ramachandran).

Reality has to be defined first. Sankara does in three levels as pointed out by Sri Shivshankar Rao. In my view, Sankara accepts all levels (adhikari bheda)

We have to be careful in understanding through simile. When Brahman is non pareil and indivisible one, no simile can capture it.

When we dismiss the world on the analogy with dream, we may be erring. The reality of the dream when it lasted is at a different level from reality of the world captured in our consciousness. We do not have hallucination, our mind does not produce strange combinations from an earlier experience as in a dream. There is something – only its nature is different, like there is the rope, but we superimpose the serpent on it. Brahman is the reality, but it appears as the world. In other words, the view of the world that we have commonly with the others are through the senses and the mind, which have evolved to facilitate life as we live. The commonality does not confirm a reality by itself as we share the faculties in common evolution. What it is without such faculties is unknown as Hawking affirms.

That we see only real or unreal in experience is because we are conditioned so by evolution and long usage of language. If world appears as real to us (it does), but in effect the nature of the world is different, there is ambiguity – no clear-cut real/unreal. That is mithya – neither real nor unreal. I do not know whether Sankara has used asatyam for the world. Mithya is neither satyam (paramarthic reality) nor asatyam (hallucination).

Sankara interprets Upanishads. The principal Upanishads that he relies on do not talk of mithya or adhyasa. The overwhelming message of the Upanishads is jiva-brahma aikya (inseparable unity of individual soul and universal soul, non-differentiation). It has to be harmonized with the experienced world. Sankara comes out with an ingenious framework. Our understanding has to align itself with the Upanishads and our own experience.

Even if Sankara dismisses the world as unreal (that is unfortunate if he does), his life does not reinforce that message. Advaita was there before him. Gowdapada was an earlier exponent. We know of Gowdapada because of Sankara. Sankara’s proactive steps in dealing with this world and establishing advaita as the route to moksha have survived to this day as a watershed. That does not give the impression that Sankara dismisses the reality of the world out of hand.

The attack on Sankara by Ramanuja and others is on that premise that the world is unreal. I am not convinced that Sankara would have been dismissive of the world altogether.

The whole is both the seen and the seer, inseparably and indistinguishably in union. Moksha is when we are freed of the dualistic bondage as though the world is outside us and we have to own and enjoy it.

I may be wrong. I have not gone through the Sankara bhashyam fully or in original, but I have to stick to my understanding. Even if I master the bhashyam, it will only be textual or verbal, not ‘own’.

I came across this recently long after I wrote the above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPixoNflpU

V.S.Ramachandran has covered three points here inter alia.

1.    No personal god supervising and judging. (That is his belief, belief of a perspicacious man).

Vedanta does not talk of a personal god.

It is my belief that we need a personal god to have a mooring in right and wrong, but as we gain insight, we should lay it aside.

2.    Religious states are relatable to parts of brain.

They are mental states around some emotional experience. Not unreal, but passing like any other sensory experience, in my view.

3.    Brahman as in Vedanta is not incompatible with a man of science.

Brahman is intrinsic to nature (world/cosmos/universe), not something extraneous to it, as I read it.

Brahman is the reality. The multiplicity (jiva, jagat, Iswara) is Brahman in association with maya (anirvachaneeya, neither real, nor unreal). When we overcome that perception (maya), we realise our Brahman-hood. That to me is advaita in a crude simplification.

 

There is neither independent space not independent time; we have a space-time continuum. Likewise, there is a continuum of the self and the world. The two are not separate, but a composite whole that is indivisible, but appears to be several. Even space-time continuum does not make physical sense to most of us. How can we appreciate the oneness of the self (the seer or subject) and the world (the seen or the object)? This lack of knowledge is explained by maya.

 

For all its versatility and the claim to be ‘well made’, Samskrtam has words that are ambiguous. Atma is one such. When we read atma rakhsyah sarvada, it does not refer to the non-corporeal soul, but the embodied one, the composite of body-mind-intellect animated by the spirit. There would be no case of protecting the atma that is indestructible. This ambiguity might be replete in all scripture. The question of immortality of the individual soul would not arise as the soul is everywhere (atma comes from the root which means to pervade) and is neither born nor dies. It is a matter of convention to think that a soul journeys from body to body taking an analogy from change of clothes for a person. It serves an ethical purpose and to explain why there are differences from person to person at birth. Scriptures say repeatedly that the soul is aja (unborn), nitya (ever present), sasvata (permanent), purana (primordial), and also that the soul is one without a second, indivisible. That rules out multiple souls and multiple births and deaths. There is a mystery why this repetitive, cyclical process goes on and on, and the mystery is called differently as mithya or maya.

 

Is the world real or not? It is mithya, neither real nor unreal, anirvachaneeya, ineffable.

Hindu way of thinking eschews ‘either or’ proposition. I cannot elaborate this. Rajiv Malhotra writes on it vehemently in ‘Being Different.’

We are in the world and the world persists. If it is unreal, it undermines our own position. But, it keeps changing. Reality is unchanging. Therefore, world is unreal. The reality of the world is because it is nothing other than Brahman, the reality. It is our minds that give it a transactional reality and the world is not the same to two individuals. The difference is in the view, not the ‘thing’. It is like in the story of elephant and blind men.

The words used for world in Samskrtam are viswam (all-pervading), lokam (the perceived thing) and jagat (that which our consciousness grasps). What Sankara denies is the world restricted by our senses and limited consciousness (jiva). The same world when experienced by freeing consciousness (atman in jiva) from the prison of the senses is Brahman, unlimited consciousness. Here is a play of words. When you free the jiva from limitation, it is unlimited, Brahman. There is no distinction. This does not happen, but is always so, only we were not aware. All that need to happen is not any change, but becoming aware. It looks elegant and neat to me and will hold true no matter what conclusions we may get down to through science about the ‘physical’ world. It cannot be challenged like theistic faiths that promise a reward elsewhere.

None of the advaitins refused to deal with the world. Whatever the theory, they did not act as if the world did not exist. If they did, we would not be remembering them. They would have died insane. We celebrate Nietzsche for the brilliant moments when he made Zarathustra speak, not for the madness he plunged in.

No advaitin pretends that the world has ceased after his realization. Why would Sankara establish mutts in the four corners in an unreal world?

Is it relevant to all? No. It is only for a jignasu, one who is stirred to know it. The rest are not condemned. They have no yearning to know and will go through life without the need for it. It is like the Brahmin in Voltaire’s story reproduced by Durant, who cannot settle for the peace of the illiterate lady to whom the pining for Vishnu fulfils life.

 

February 11, 2014

We say something is green, something is blue, and so on. Science tells us that a thing that appears green absorbs other colours of a composite white ray of light except green. That is, the colour green is the property of the ray of light and not that of the thing we call green.

In ordinary parlance, the above fact is not appreciated by us.

It is perhaps that the whole world as it appears to us and taken as real for all practical purposes is only a function of the Spirit without which nothing may exist.

Atma is described as self-effulgent (light) (swayam prakasah)

Also cf. tamaso ma jyotir gamaya.

 

Advaita is not solipsism.

Sankara says in as many words that this world is vyaavahaarika satyam, a virtual reality. It has reality because it has Brahman (reality) as its adhishtaanam, or because it is a pratibhaasika of Brahman.

The world is a projection of consciousness or manifestation of the unmnaifest, maya being confession of ignorance why it manifests. Consciousness (atma) is the ever-present unchanging reality, and the world is not. It has been disservice to Sankara to interpret that the world is a figment of imagination. The take that the world does not exist is not borne out by the belief in karma, rebirth and limited efficacy of rituals, which Sankara does not call in question.

The examples of rope-snake etc. do not suggest non-existence. Rope exists, but is mistaken.

The Upanishads, the major ones, do not talk of mithya or maya, or that the world does not exist.

Sankara was bold and did not accept anything on the authority of a person. He repudiated Sankhya even though it was propounded by Kapila, an incarnation. To follow Sankara is to follow his boldness, not necessarily his conclusions. Even if Sankara says that the world does not exist (there are stalwarts well-versed in the works of Sankara in this group and they would know better), we can question it as the scripture does not support it.

The emphasis of advaita is to understand our real nature and our identity with the whole, not lured by the traps of the world, and that the only way for liberation is through knowledge acquired systematically and under expert guidance. This is possible only in the world that exists.

 

Whether we dream or are awake, what we cognize is an image in the mind. In dream state, the image is called from random memory, in the wakeful state, we may be with an instant image, but not a faithful one, because our fixation on the object is discontinuous and survey of the object partial, and the mind intercepts and touches up the image. The nature of the object that we cognize is thus more or less of the same authenticity in either case. What we take as ‘real’ is hardly present to reverify over time. Scientifically, the reality is an event of space-time and past events are only ghosts.

 

Some semblance of the idea of Mithya from non-Advaitic contexts:

Yuval Noah Harai while commenting on Covid:

“We almost never experience the world as it is, we almost always have this something in front of our eyes a cover a curtain which is produced by own mind, it’s the stories that our own mind produces and believes and we go through life without really seeing the world just seeing this curtain and the projections of our own mind. It’s very important to give the mind a break every now and then and be able to detoxify.”

Heraclitus: “You never step into the same river twice.”

Linear extensions of Advaita will not lead to useful conclusions. Adviata has to go with pramana, reason and experience. That is Sankara's approach. One may apply this approach and find out for oneself. By linear extension, all others do not exist and so validation is not possible. But, accepting that we are still in mithya (an indeterminate state), we can discuss to find the truth in us. At the stage when we transcend mithya, it is true that nothing but TRUTH exists, but till then everything as we experience is real, Sankara and his teachings included. In Limit (calculus), you must know when you must apply delta x is zero, otherwise, you will not solve it.

 

Mithya

This perhaps is the most problematic part of Advaita.

The idea of mithya is defended at various levels.

First, we go by definition. Brahman as changelss existence is Reality. Anything which changes is not real. The world in perceptual terms undergoes constant change and hence it follows that it is not real in the sense in which we say Brahman is real.

Second, mithya is neither real (as it is changing) nor unreal (since it is perceived even if briefly, and is dependent on Brahman whih is real). It is anirvachaneeyam. The logic of the west does not accept such a grey option – it is either’ real ‘or’ unreal. This east-west conflict is fundamental. ‘Either or’ is the stuff of duality. Even the computer works on this principle. Thus, dvaita has no problem. But Advaitam does not accept duality beyond the sensory experience. It postulates a paramarthic reality which is basic. To expect that Advaita can be reconciled with ‘either or’ duality is a wrong handle to the problem.

What would science say? First, we must examine whether science is acceptable as a pramana because it is part of mithya knowledge. That argument will send us on a merry-go-round. All knowledge has to be acquired in mithya state by the mind which is part of mithya state. Further, science does not say anything precisely on such fundamental questions. But, we get some hints and pointers. We will take them up.

Mithya is another confused subject. It is not a-satyam. When B.U. talks of Atma as satyasya satyam, the first satyam is the world. Sankara says as much – he concedes vayvaharika and pratibhasika satyam of the world. To call the world as non-existent is not the lesson from Vedanta or Advaita. It is so strikingly different from calling the essence of Viswam as Sat (existence-Brahman). Other schools have held that view – Buddhists, solepsists, and some philosophers. Even in science which, post-QM and post-Heisenberg, treats ‘objective’ reality beyond human comprehension does not negate that there could be a reality different from our partial and angular perception though what it is is beyond even science. Advaita is about reality and the uniqueness (ekam advitiyam) of that apparent dual reality of the self and the world – and the god that has crept in with vivid imagination.

 

Maya is about variety which entices and bewilders.

Gnanam is about unity that directs self to self and absence of need for variety.

One without the felt need for gnanam will keep preferring and praising Maya. Withdrawl from the allurements that the senses and mind weave incessantly is a necessary precondition for gnanam. Discussing gnanam while being attached to the changing appearances, the vey change being attractive, is a sterile and vexatious exercise.

 

There is a sea of difference between saying that the whole world is a manifestation of Brahman, with several distinguishing characteristics of its apparent constituents which are comprehensible by consciousness, and saying that the world is the be-all-and-end-all. The world as we see it is in a continuum of change in regard to the known magnitudes of space and time. It is not that the whole world is unreal, but that the particular view we have of it is highly tentative. We see that as we grow up, our view of the world changes. The change has taken place in the consciousness as well as in the perceived. But the consciousness and the perceived world are not independent of each other.

If, therefore, there is change in the whole view, which is real? Not that the various views one had as one grew are unreal empirically speaking. It is as good trying to say that since these different states were experienced or views held, all these are ipso facto real. We are not contending whether the experiences and views were truthful. Our attempt is to identify a reality whose identity has definitive parameters. If the series of views we have of the world defy unity, then we call the experiences to be illusory and as not related to the ultimate Reality.

In short, Advaita is a macro view. It is not correct to say that experiences by different individuals at different times are all per se unreal. A span of 100 years is a drop in an ocean compared to the magnitude of space-time continuum, but it is of immense significance when it lasts.

There is a sea of difference between saying that the whole world is a manifestation of Brahman, with several distinguishing characteristics of its apparent constituents which are comprehensible by consciousness, and saying that the world is the be-all-and-end-all. The world as we see it is in a continuum of change in regard to the known magnitudes of space and time. It is not that the whole world is unreal, but that the particular view we have of it is highly tentative. We see that as we grow up, our view of the world changes. The change has taken place in the consciousness as well as in the perceived. But the consciousness and the perceived world are not independent of each other.

If, therefore, there is change in the whole view, which is real? Not that the various views one had as one grew are unreal empirically speaking. It is as good trying to say that since these different states were experienced or views held, all these are ipso facto real. We are not contending whether the experiences and views were truthful. Our attempt is to identify a reality whose identity has definitive parameters. If the series of views we have of the world defy unity, then we call the experiences to be illusory and as not related to the ultimate Reality.

In short, Advaita is a macro view. It is not correct to say that experiences by different individuals at different times are all per se unreal. A span of 100 years is a drop in an ocean compared to the magnitude of space-time continuum, but it is of immense significance when it lasts.

 

The relationship jiva-iswara-jagat is valid in the field of maya, which is binding and real. Its nature is anirvachaniya, ineffable.

Worship of god is optional, but subjection to dharma is obligatory. Punya and papa operate in the field of maya.

Maya does not mean hallucination, but misunderstanding.

 

People love, even venerate Maya. Maya is personified as goddess and equated with Sakti - energy. People name their children Maya. Maya is attractive.

In contrast, Advaita is unattractive since it refutes variety, the spice of life, and worldly experience, which is rich and rewarding, not miserable. Should one go after gnana if one is happy with the world and sees no need to break away from it?

 

Before phrasing the above heresy, I had this strand of thought:

When I wake up from a dream, the dream-aroused feelings take time to go away to me, an adult past seventy, having no known mental illness. If dream experience is itself insistent, it is natural that people in general refuse to accept the ‘real’ experience as an illusion.

I am drawn to Advaita for its thoroughness and closeness to truth, its solidity and ability to skirt the raw emotion and sterile reason, to look at what IS rather than what can be or what we wish to be. To be beside truth is a great strength even to live this life of ephemeral fulfilments, not necessarily to escape from it. I am not convinced of moksha as a worthy aim as it looks defeatist and unrealistic. But moksha in the sense of freedom, ability to see things clearly and in the light of well assimilated knowledge can be a worthy aim. I take that as the pay-off.

But, more fundamentally, I am tempted to challenge the idea of utility itself. We can try to understand truth without looking for a reward beyond it. That knowledge is futile if it is not used to do something or does not lead to a fulfilment, I do not believe in.

Knowledge – TRUTH – is not a means but the thing. It is Ananda by itself. It is precious and its value is not widely appreciated. But to one who is after it, its popularity is not a concern.

 

Dream state example explained by Swami Paramarthananda

Transcript by Mr A Venkatesan

(Condensed)

Three cardinal teachings:

1. Brahman is real

2. The world is miyhya

3. Jiva is none other than Brahman

The middle one is the one, to which people wrongly respond. When people listen to this for the first time certainly it gives a shock to their mind. How can we accept tangible, sensorily perceptible world as unreal?

The example given is that the whole world is unreal like the dream. This example makes it worse. Previously it was emotionally disturbing. Now it is intellectually disturbing. How can you compare this real world with an unreal dream?

I will make a study, of this dream example.

Whenever an example is given, the speaker wants to compare certain similarities which are existing in the ideas or topics and the example. The speaker is aware of dissimilarities also. What the speaker expects is that the listeners should focus on the similarity, and not on the dissimilarity.

Everybody understands that the dream is unreal. When I wake up it disappears. But this is not enough. The dream example will work only when another feature of dream is understood, assimilated and registered. We are able to say dream is unreal because we are all awake now. We are all awake now. Therefore, we say dream is unreal. But what was the status of dream of dream world before waking up? What was the dreamer’s take of the dream world? The dreamer was ignorant of 3 important facts.

First, dreamer was ignorant of the fact that the dream world is unreal.

Second, dreamer was ignorant of the fact that it is the waker who has projected the unreal dream word.

Third and the most important, dreamer was ignorant of the fact that the dreamer himself is really the waker.

The dream world is unreal. It is projected by the waker I the dreamer myself am waker which I can easily discover on waking up.

So the dream world is unreal after waking up and appears real and is treated as real in dream.

Similarly, the word is सत्यत्व बाधी in the state of ignorance and in the state of gnana असत्ये अवगम्यत, not असत्यत्व बाधी. It is understood as unreal. This has got a very important message to all the spiritual seekers who approach Vedanta. What is the private message given to spiritual seeker? Vedanta says, ‘O seeker, you are also in ignorance, exactly as the dreamer. If you have got faith in Vedanta, you will listen with an open mind though shocked. You are ignorant of 3 facts exactly as a dreamer.

One, you are ignorant of the fact that this world is unreal.

Two, you are ignorant of the fact that there is a super waker, Brahman, which has projected this unreal world.

Three, you are ignorant of the fact that you are that Brahman, which is discoverable if you choose to wake up. Wake up means, go from अज्ञान अवस्था to ज्ञान अवस्था.

Vedanta says, as long as your goals are dharma, artha, kama, you need not bother. You can preserve the अज्ञान अवस्था. You can treat the world as real. You can continue your efforts. It is perfectly alright. It is compatible with your ignorance. But if you are interested in moksha, gnana is necessary because the very definition of moksha is freedom from अज्ञान अवस्था.

When both these features are equally understand (apparent reality in agnana avastha and unreality in gnana avastha), the world deserves the title mithya. As far as an agnani is concerned, we can never apply the word. Never tell ‘the world is mithya’ in common parlance. It should be brought in only when a person comes to Vedanta. When you become a gnani, you will never argue. You will be convinced that world has got a second status. 

We discussed similarities. To be sure, there are dissimilarities too.

1.     A dreamer wakes up without doing any special sadhanas. The switch from ignorance to knowledge happens naturally without effort. But spiritual awakening will never be automatic because of karma. It requires effort, long effort.

2.     When a dreamer wakes up, the dream world would have disappeared. In spiritual awakening, the world would not disappear. It is not a disadvantage. It is an advantage because only because of that gnanis are able to continue in the world and teach others.

3.     To know ‘I am the waker’, the dreamer has to change from the dream state to the waking state. But in spiritual awakening, no change of state is involved. Many have come to a wrong conclusion, by wrongly extending dream example, that some other higher state is required for self-knowledge. In the waking state itself, in fact only in the waking state, we can know ‘I am the super waker - Brahman’. Self knowledge like any other knowledge requires an active functioning mind which is possible only in the waking state. That is the reason Vedanta talks about several qualifications like vairagya, which are applicable to the mind.

In our tradition, full moon is given lot of importance as also new moon. Every full moon we have got some thing or other because there is a similarity between full moon and Vedantic teaching. Experientially we all see moon waxing and waning every month. On enquiry with the help of modern science, we know that the moon appears to wax and wane, but is full throughout. In the same way, universal experience is that I am a waxing-waning जीवात्मा. Vedanta says ‘You are not waxing-waning जीवात्मा. You are ever full परमात्मा. You are poornam.’

 

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ||

 

 

Varadaraja V. Raman:

“I would interpret maya, not as a negative view of perceived reality, but rather as a recognition of its intrinsic nature: namely, that notwithstanding its appearance of being real and the ultimate, it is not so in fact. This is not unlike what modern science has revealed: Whether it is the sun's motion across the heavens, the colorful arc that spans the sky, or the solid matter we touch and feel, these are not quite what they seem to be. Their ultimate nature is different from the impression they create. The important thing to remember, and one that is ignored all to often, is that it does not follow that anything that is illusory is necessarily trivial, uninteresting, or useless.

Quite the contrary. Indeed, it turns out that not only are illusions inevitable in the context of everyday living, practically every significant element of culture and civilization rests on grand illusions. Upon scrutiny, they turn out to be not quite true.

In other words, maya is not necessarily evil and hurtful, or unworthy of attention. Rather, it can be often be enlightening and revelatory. Upon careful reflection, we find that maya serves us very well in the course of our lives, and that it is at the root of many of our enjoyments, institutions, intellectual exercises, and societal interactions. Certain aspects of maya have even helped us gain a deeper understanding (or visions of higher categories) of reality.” 

 

 

 

Advaita is to metaphysics what theory of relativity is to physics.

Neither makes the world disappear, but calls for refinement in our appreciation of what is real.

 

Similes for Advaita

“Water is what sea is made of. Water is what is there. There is no sea separate from water. Similarly waves are insubstantial, it is water in movement. Water is Brahmam. Sea and waves are like god and the living beings. God and living beings are in Brahmam, like sea and waves are one in water.” Swami Omkarananda.

 

 

Advaita and Buddhism

“Advaita Vedanta is the philosophy which represents the dominant philosophic outlook of Hinduism today.”

“Some of Sankara’s Brahmin opponents called him a disguised Buddhist. It is true that Buddhism influenced him considerably.”

(Jawaharlal Nehru)

What Buddha said has been covered in pre-Buddhist Upanishads and Sankara followed the Upanishads and it is a moot point how much he took Buddhist viewpoint in the interpretation. In any case, Sankara followed rigorous logic and if Buddhist logic and his coincided, the matter lies with that logic.

 

Advaitam: Soul is real, the world is unreal (mithya).

Buddhism: Neither the soul nor the world is real.

Charvakas (atheists); Soul is unreal, the world is real.

All three may be right depending on how we define reality.

If intuition is is the guide and sensory perception illusory, Advaita comes to the fore.

If both intuition and sensory perception are discredited, Buddhism suggests itself.

If intuition is denied and pratyaksha (direct perception) is accorded supremacy, atheism thumps its fist on the desk.

As we are discussing, videhamukti is achieved and others carry on the debate.

 

Many questions seem to mix up vyavaharika satyam and paramarthika satyam. The very nomenclature ‘vyavaharika satyam’ indicates that Advaita does not dismiss the phenomenal world out of hand. The facts, rules and events in vayavaharika world are not denied; their logical progression, whether we understand the logic or not, is not denied. Dharma is relevant in the phenomenal world and Sankara has not dumped dharma.

 

SUNDRY

God is in what is.

*

A gnani becomes effulgent Dakshinamurthy radiating gnanam through penetrating and enlightening glance and pregnant and eloquent silence.

*

We are always in god. It is our ego which makes us feel that we are separate.

*

I am on the 'mystical' side where totality matters, not individuality; understanding matters not reason; silence matters not language; humans matter no more or no less than anything else that is a composite of life.

 

From the discourse of Swami Paramarthananda on Upanishads

(I have picked and grouped them.)

आत्मा

1.     Whatever can drop is not your original nature. Original nature cannot be dropped.

2.     Atma is self-evident, self-effulgent.

3.     'I am' is a statement of knowledge; anything predicative after 'I am' is false.

4.     We are not searchig for Atma. It can never be found by search either outside or inside as it is neither outside nor inside. Atma is me. Either i understand or I do not.

5.     Atma is not located, but obtains, in the heart. अन्तःकरणे सर्वसाक्षिरूपेण उपलभ्यते.

ब्रह्म

1.     ‘neti, neti’: Twice to indicate all. Why negation? Brahman is not available for positive definition.

2.     Unknown Brahman is bhaya karanam. Known Brahman is abhaya karanam.

 

प्रमाण

1.     90% of our knowledge comes through our eyes.

2.     Anubhava is powerful and is superior to anumana.

3.     Pratyaksha reveals the world, but not whether it is real or mithya. (Pratyaksha says star is small!) Vedanta does not negate Pratyksha, but our false conclusion of Satya.

4.     A pramana is a pramana if it produces new knowledge which cannot be negated. So Upanishad is pramana.

शास्त्र

5.     Vedanta talks of present samsara and present Moksha, not life after death.

6.     Sastras never believe that birth is accidental.

7.     Upanishads do not want to criticise karma and upasana totally as it will lead to dereliction which will prove disastrous as they are required for gnana yogyata. Vedanta will be academic. Scholar of Vedanta without character will be the result. Balanced vision is knowing both their relevance and limitations.

8.     Karma, devata, kala, svabhava are the four factors that influence life, but Karma is the basis and determines the other three.

ज्ञान मार्ग

1.     Sastra sravanam plus independent thinking lead to gnanam.

2.     Study of scriptures is not to know Atma, but to remove the superimposed duality in the ever evident Atma.

3.     Sravanam is grasping the central teaching of Vedanta through systematic analysis under a competent teacher.Mananam is confirmation of what has been learned in Sravanam.Nidhidhyasanam is dwelling upon the subject after removing all doubts.Sravanam removes agnana.Mananam removes intellectual obstacles.Nidhidhyasanam removes emotional obstacles.

4.     The efficacy of Upasana is directly proportional to the character of Upasaka.

5.     Upanishads or Karma Kanda do not teach dvaitam anywhere.

गुरु

1.     If a person does not teach from Sastram, he does not deserve to be a guru. He may be great, venerable, etc., but he is not qualified to guide. No seeker should ever follow somebody else's personal sadhana as persons differ. Sastram is more powerful than any Acharya. Sastram produces Acharya not vice versa.

 

मिथ्या

1.     Whatever is interconnected is mithya because interconnected implies interdependent, not independent. In other words, the conditional is mithya and the unconditional is satyam.

2.     Bhagawan has not created the world, but Jiva; so the world is ceaseless.

3.     The whole world is nothing but sound, form and function. Acc. to science. the universe is energy in movement.

4.     Maya is neither part of, nor different from, Brahman.

ज्ञानं

1.  ज्ञानात् न, ज्ञानं तु मोक्षः

2.  Vaikuntam is that from which kuntam (body) is gone

3.  ज्ञानं is intellectual knowledge. विज्ञानं is experiential knowledge.Words can give only intellectual knowledge, not experience.

ज्ञानि

1.     A Vedantin should not say, 'Nothing is in our hands.' (Sankara).

2.     Brahmavit from any Jati is superior to Jati Brahmana.

3.     Every sanyasi need not be a gnani. A gnanai need not be a sanyasi

4.  Gnani can never be equal to Iswara, only to Brahman.

 

‘Aham brahmasmi’

The cosmos is in each one of us.

The state of art theory says that the universe is expanding at a tearing speed. It creates new entities and also the old ones are collapsing. It all started from nothing or near nothing. That is precisely what happens in us. Our mind is expanding furiously all the time. The more it expands the more it seeks and it looks infinite and endless. 

It is now a matter of science that whatever we know, we know through the mind and we know nothing outside the mind. A truism, but not many get its import. Quantum mechanics threw a bombshell when it said that there is no objective reality unless someone has observed it. Not that it exists unobserved, it just does not exist. That is, I create the reality I observe. That reality is inextricable from me.  

 

 

Hinduism is for living this life, not really for securing an unknown life. Advaita clears us of the futility of seeking svarga and such transient or chimerical fruits.

Brahma satyam jaganmithya:  Looking at it differently, Brahman is defined as satyam. Jagat is what is perceived or observed. What we perceive is mithya, appearance. Its reality is not evident to the senses. But, there is a reality, which is Brahman.  

 

Maunam is the realised state of an individual consciousness when it has transcended all duality as i understand. I do not dispute, I strongly feel an affinity for, things like guru katAkaham, which is a powerful method of instruction, though it is far from any personal experience of mine. All I write is from a state of ignorance. But, I do have an idle yearning for truth.

Truth is in what we 'see'; if not, we can never know it. It is not in reason, a tool of the mind, but in our core being. I am attracted in what Katopanishad and another upanishad declare 'nAyamatma pravachnena labhyo, na medhayA, na bhunAsrutena.'

I feel that the one who has realised will not talk as he does not see another. It is dry theory to which my mind adheres.

I feel that we have to discard religion to pursue truth. Religion produces an attachment, which is a hindrance to truth.

 

November 24, 2014 ·

Buddhism is pure science.

Advaita is science plus faith.

Dwaita (or any shade of it) is pure faith.

 

October 7, 2014

No one can see the soul. Even a gnani does not see the soul, but sees as the soul.

 

I read a comment that advaita is transcendental. That is not true.

Advaita can be summed up as: ‘Whatever is’ is ‘IS’. Truth (Brahman) is not beyond the world, but is in fact in the world. You are not different from Brahman, but Brahman itself. How can this siddhanta be transcendental? It is other siddhantas which advocate transcendentalism. 

 

“Fix your gaze upon the light." Advaitam rejects religion in a sense. Religion – at least some of it – considers knowledge an impediment to understand God and demands blind faith. Advaita says categorically that only knowledge can free us.

 

"Soul is one, but appear as many. Multiplicity appears at the phenomenal level, but intrinsically, it is one and one only.” That is theory. It has no dialectical proof. The world and life are the only indicators. No other theory has any proof either. All belief is valid, but tentative and incumbent on faith. This theory is valid and universal.

 

If the Supreme Reality and the Atmans are really different from each other, and if there is only one Supreme Reality, but an infinite number of Atmans, how are we to explain the different creeds, the different religious practices and so on? No one religion, nay, nor the lack of it, has ever held sway over the entire humanity. How do we explain that there were glorious men born and gone, the traces of whose consciousness are not to revisit this earth? It stands to no reason that there should be a Kingdom of God and that there would be a Day of Judgement except to satisfy the ego. A religion founded on morals or to promote virtuousness in people is highly noble and nothing should be said or done to devalue it. But that is not its own justification.

 

A buffalo enjoys covering itself with mud. It is its nature and they say it allows it to manage the body temperature. No one can make it to change its ways, have a bath and remain clean.

 

We are part of nature carrying out its will in total agreement. The nature of truth as seen by the seers cannot make us abandon that nature and cease worldly action.

 

Some people criticize Advaitam arguing whether a gnani will acquire the powers of Iswara, like creation, destruction, etc. That does not arise. When you realize god in you and yourself in god, you do not seek to destroy the beautiful rhythm of the universe. On the other hand, so long as your desire is to rule others, not to compose, homogenise and integrate your consciousness, you are still full of ignorance and with such ignorance you cannot see the unity of Brahman and Atman. So long as you see the difference, you are in the whirlpool of samsara, tasting niceties and suffering cruelties. There is no emancipation from the tangle, from the birth-death-birth chain. 

 

Advaitam is the closest you get to on the basis of scripture, logic and experience, but it is not a theory of everything. If Brahman is indivisible and unique whole, why is there an observed world of variety? Maya is not an answer. Maya at best means ‘We are not permitted to know’ or “God only knows.’

 

The wiser we get, the more inscrutable god becomes.

 

All I know of the others is through me. It cannot be understood any better than my ability and quality would allow. If I improve my understanding, I will get to know better.

         

At the end of gnana, there must be enlightenment, not surrender.

 

Our knowledge is valid in the state we are in. As we pass into another state, the previous knowledge is modified appropriately, even replaced. It does not mean that our previous knowledge was wrong. The present knowledge also will change likewise. In this procession of states, progress is a deceptive word for it, Advaita is the ultimate. But, Advaita is also perfectible. To transcend purely logic-based knowledge we need 'grace' that does not mean a revelation or dispensation from some dogmatic assumption we have made, but a possible connection with what is the secret of existence.

Advaita too makes an assumption of Brahman that is the secret. Being in perfect knowledge, Brahman cannot be subject to a procession of states and different levels of knowledge. As the changing states cannot be outside or separate from Brahman, it beats understanding why this dichotomy.  Belief with reason would land us in realisation of Brahman when we shall be freed from all duality. That is the message in advaita.

 

A thorough analysis of evidence and scripture by itself does not lead to Brahman. Some other thing is required. We do not quite know what it is, but going through life as we find, while being intensely curious to find the identity is the way.

 

God is different from the forms and ideas in which we conceive him. The world is different from our world-view. The two – god and world – are not different.

*

Different concepts of soul as enumerated by Adi Sankara (He will refute each in its turn in his bhashya on Brahma Sutra, his magnum opus, that has earned critical acclaim universally.)

"The mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self;The organs endowed with intelligence are the Self;The internal organ is the Self;The Self is a mere momentary idea (Yogacara Buddhists);It is the Void (Madhyamika Buddhists).There is a transmigrating being different from the body, which is both agent and enjoyer;Being is enjoying only, not acting;In addition to the individual souls, there is an all-knowing, all-powerful Lord;The Lord is the Self of the enjoyer." (from Friends of Sankara group post)

 

Samadhi

29.3.99

Samadhi is different from santhosha. Any association is anathema to samadhi-it is a pure state of consciousness without ‘I’. Santhosha can come only in the differentiated state. This world is driven by emotions. The good and bad, the right and wrong, virtue and vice stand in balance. All the time we are aiming at tilting the balance in the way of good, right or virtue. A state of one-sided world where there will be only good, right or virtue is self-contradictory. Heaven or hell is thus not possible. Any enjoyment or suffering will be in this   world.

*

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1.23; O.T.)

This world is प्रातिभासिकसत्यं reflected reality i.e. reflection of Brahman – Advaita.

*

Belief must be compatible with knowledge. If not, it is superstition.

Belief is not a substitute for gaps in knowledge.

*

To those who argue for dualism under scripture, Sankara raises a pertinent issue: “If scripture reveals what is available in ordinary experience, what is the use of scripture?” That question answers why scripture reveals Advaita only and that only through scripture, we can realise it.

What about so and so who did not get realization through scripture? That is not in our direct experience. It may be explained by vasanas from previous birth by some. Tagore hated the regimentation of a school and discontinued it, but blossomed into a literary genius and a Nobel Laureate. That does not mean that all schools must be closed. To wait for realisation to happen by itself is fatalistic and is not a preferred route. Nothing happens by itself as bolt from the blue. Even Einstein’s insights came on the back of knowledge that was available in his time. The idea of soul has been around and we picked up from the generally available belief or knowledge, not intuitively in a vacuum.

I read an anecdote. Kanchi Acharya was confronted by an atheist. Acharya asked him what he wanted to say. He ridiculed his teaching and said that there was no basis for it. The Acharya heard him patiently and asked him, ‘You are going in this road. Where does this go?’ He said, ‘It goes to Viluppuram and up to Kanyakumari.’ Acharya asked him, ‘Have you gone that way?’ He replied, ‘No, but those who have gone that way have said.’ Acharya said, ‘That is what I am also doing. Those who have gone in this spiritual route have said it and I am following what they have said.’

Scripture is the documented wisdom of the realized souls and the guide to Advaita and realisation.

“The principal means to self-knowledge is the study of Scripture to which reflection and meditation are auxiliaries, and calmness, restraint, etc. serve as the modus operandi.” (Dr T M P Mahadevan quoting Vivarana-Prameya-Sangraha)

 

 

Is Sankara supreme or knowledge supreme?

I think that Sankara would have answered ‘Knowledge.’

In trying to understand, if we have to go beyond Sankara, we have to. That is hypothetical. That is only to make the point that there is only one way to follow Sankara – the way of knowledge. We cannot say, ‘Sankara said so’, as some people would say, ‘Krishna said so.’ Whoever said, it must be based on knowledge. Across systems, testimonial knowledge is admissible, but it should not contradict direct knowledge.

It helps if we can approach the subject from different viewpoints and vindicate our conclusion instead of only turning to Sruti, bhashyas, karikas, etc.

 

Existence is the only cause for existence.

 

तुरीयं = सामान्य-चैतन्यं = आत्मा = ब्रह्म = अहम्

I read in a novel, "By experience, we find out a short way by long wandering."

Perhaps Vedanta does it.

The quest in Vedanta is to find what abides among an overwhelming scene of constantly changing appearances.

A thought experiment into the three states of wakefulness, dream and deep sleep leads the seeker to identify a substratum of consciousness which prevails in all states (turiyam); if not, the integrity and continuity of an individual is untenable.* Experience necessitates assuming continuity. The search for the identity of an individual yields a basic consciousness common to all existence, not to be mixed up with the acquired consciousness like human consciousness, which is developed by superimpositions. In deep sleep, all that is revealed in the other two states is absent because the superimpositions are dormant. I slept like a log of wood, we say. Our consciousness collapses to the basic state, common with that of the wood, a difficult proposition to understand from our 'advanced' consciousness. Thus we have the idea of Atma as pure consciousness.

What is God? Steering clear of belief systems, God is reality - and reality is existence. 'Sat' is the word which means real and that which IS. Samaya-chaitanyam (chit) is the nature of Sat. We call it Brahman.

Then comes the lesson that 'I' (aham) is Atma and not different from Brahman. That is the long equation in the beginning. And Vedanta deals with it in different ways.

 

November 30, 2018 ·

The search for a unified theory of everything is perhaps adumbrated here:

(Mundakopanishad): Saunaka, a good householder, asks Angirasa, “कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति।। Sir, what is that which, if it is known, everything else becomes known?”

It is not the point that the Upanishadic quest and the modern scientific thought have had the same build-up, but that in the belief and longing to know a unity that will explain every observed fact there is semblance. I feel that human minds have an uncanny kinship across distance and time.

A friend sent this link which is interesting:

HINDUISM.CO.ZA

http://www.hinduism.co.za/hinduism.htm?fbclid=IwAR1WATS5lN490YipX50J18T5vPj0h6er0d6d1JKAI87y4urCpsPTVcwLX5w

 

April 12, 2016 ·

One more controversial post:

I view ithihasa and purana as stories to inculcate values and devotion, as exhaustive and wonderful parables. That way, I resolve the inconsistencies and ethical issues that arise in the error-prone mind while reading them. I am no one to say about their ‘reality.’

Upanishads do not talk of any personal god (Paramacharya has pointed out two instances where they do, Katopanishad and Swetaswatara Upanishad, and they are not central to the ideas advanced).

Even Upanishads throw light on the path to Truth (Brahman), not on Brahman which cannot be illuminated by anything else. It will be like holding candle to the sun.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ‘येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्?’ ‘Through what should one know That because of which all this is known?’

 

January 28, 2015 ·

Siddhartha and The Razor’s Edge are two novels written with Buddhism and Vedanta as inspiration. The two protaganists in the novels make it appear that it is in order to indulge in sense experience for a liberated person. That is far from the idea of liberation. Spirituality looks beyond what senses can appreciate or enjoy and neither Buddhism nor Vedanta suggest that even unattached indulgence (as if such an oxymoron were a reality) is part of the delivered state. They do not look down upon sensory pursuits, but away from them. The mindset of liberation is alien to the Westerners.

 

Bhakti is emotional engagement; Gnanam is emotional disengagement. One may choose as one wishes. Advaitam is about Gnanam – bhakti is integral to dvaitam and incidental in Advaitam. 

 

Advaita does not offer any help in understanding the phenomenal world. That knowledge comes under apara vidya and Advaita (Upanishads) is about para vidya. Sankara says in so many words that Upanishads are not the pramana for apara vidya. Vedanta is relevant for "aspirants for release who are free from passion for objects seen or heard of (= of this or the other world)".

 

The phenomenal world is conditional reality – recent science describes it as a post-singularity evolution. Science also speculates that there could be worlds with different conditions. Vedanta vichara is about unconditional reality, which Sankara sets forth with the aid of scripture, logic and experience (intuition).

 

When we examine and reject many adjuncts and attributes of the worldly life as not of the essence of the self (Atma), what remains is pure self, naked as it were. It is the pure self which is the only reality and there is neither Sankara nor Upanishads then, neither you, nor I (identified with body-mind-intellect) nor the world (the world cannot be there as the means of perception have been dropped). This textual declaration is not gnanam per se. How one wishes it were so making each one of us a gnani!

 

Both Gita and a sloka ascribed to Sankara reckon with the fact that few are inclined to gnanam.

^ मनुष्याणां सहस्रेषु कश्चिद्यतति सिद्धये | यततामपि सिद्धानां कश्चिन्मां वेत्ति तत्त्वत: || 7.3||

manuṣhyāṇāṁ sahasreṣhu kaśhchid yatati siddhaye

yatatām api siddhānāṁ kaśhchin māṁ vetti tattvataḥ

Among thousands of persons, someone tries for siddhi; and among those who try for siddhi, one knows me really.

^ pare brahmani kopi na saktah

No one is interested in the Para Brahman.

 

Salvation is perhaps the goal of dvaita systems which are numerous. Attainment is deprecated in Advaita. There is nothing new to attain, but need to clear the cobwebs (selfish pursuits of objects) and realise the state of oneness, ‘no-other’ness. That looks very dry and pointless to minds that seek variety and fulfilment. Advaita has no answers to those who want to succeed in mundane life, nor does it promise a reward like a hunky dory life here or hereafter. It simply offers knowledge (gnana) as a desirable state. That is appealing in a very worldly sense, but knowledge here is not like, say, what science aims at. It is knowledge away from the glare and glory of physical life.

 

The postulate that there is Atman and Brahman, which are one and the same, comes from scripture, and I do not think that it would dawn on someone isolated from all suggestion of it. But, that accepted, Advaita wants one to use yukti (reason) and anubhava (experience) to vet it.

 

I was reading Adhyasa explained by Swami Sachidananda Sarswathi, in question/answer fashion, the questions being very pointed and what would occur to any ‘rational’ person. I must confess that I did not grasp all the answers, but in the end Swami says that intuition is the sustaining force for the reality of Atman/Brahman (somewhat Kantian, as Will Durant says in his tribute to Sankara).

 

It is my belief that Advaita cannot be derived from only rational considerations if by rational we mean just reason as applied to objective knowledge. These things cannot be sorted out by mere textual learning and logical precision. It must come from within and I feel sure, I cannot explain why, that it will come to an ardent seeker.

 

1st Feb. 2010

There is only one choice: Be happy as you are.

There is only one choice: Do whatever you are capable of.

There is only one choice: Do not expect anything.

There is only one choice: Be a witness whatever happens, pleasant or unpleasant.

This is the wisdom of Vedanta.

 

 

THEY SAID SO

 

“The Upanishads do not teach any particular doctrine. They teach various doctrines suited to different people at different stages of spiritual evolution. They are not contradictory, but based on the principle of individual fitness for receiving a truth (adhikaribheda). The aspirants are taken step by step to the ultimate truth, from dualism to qualified monism and finally to monism. ‘That thou art’ is the last word of the Upanishads in religion.” Swami Vireswarananda.

 

“This perfect state must be one without desire, because desire implies a lack: whatever action the jlvan mukta or spiritual freeman performs must therefore be of the nature of manifestation, and will be without purpose or intention.

The Mahabharata says, 'He who considers himself a doer of good and evil knows not the truth.'

It is not by non-participation but by non-attachment that we live the spiritual life.

The world itself is manifestation and not the handiwork of the Absolute.

The virtue of the action of those who are free beings lies in the complete coordination of their being—body, soul and spirit, the inner and outer man at one.

The most perfect love seeks nothing for itself, requiring nothing, and offers nothing to the beloved, realizing her infinite perfection which cannot be added to.”

Ananda Coomaraswamy

 

“Shankara and Ramanuja are the two great thinkers of the Vedanta, and the best qualities of each were the defects of the other. Shankara’s apparently arid logic made his system unattractive religiously. Ramanuja’s beautiful stories of the other world, which he narrates with the confidence of one who has personally assisted at the origination of the other world, carry no conviction. Shankara’s devastating dialectic, which traces all- God, man and the world- to one ultimate consciousness causes not a little curling of the lips in the followers of Ramanuja.” Dr. S Radhakrishnan

 

भक्त्यर्थं कल्पितं द्वैतं अद्वैतादपि सुन्दरं I Madhusudana Saraswathi.

Dvaita is not real, but enables bhakthi, which is blissful. (Swami Paramarthananda).

 

"Viveka Choodamani says, ‘Absolutely poor, but full of happiness; no army behind but infinitely strong; no experience of sense satisfaction, but always happy; none equal to him, but feels all to be his equals.’ Ramana Maharishi fits in this description.” Swami Ranganathananda.

*

The nobel laureate answers "If the universe is fleeting, how is all of the stuff that we do worth doing?"

That’s a huge thing that I’ve wrestled with in the course of writing this book, and I don’t think I came to a solid conclusion. It’s different from a personal death, because people think about their own death and they think, well, I’ll live on in some way through my children or my great works, or just the impact I had on the people around me. There will be some legacy to my existence in some way. But if it’s the whole cosmos that’s ending, that is no longer true. I think there’s a point at which you did not matter. And I don’t think we have the emotional or philosophical tools to wrestle with that.

 

Niggling reservations about Advaita

The world is illusion. It is mostly space (nothing), and the characters and incidents are impermanent. A little thinking makes us appreciate this fact. But, our life, however short, meaningless or illusory it may be, is in this illusory world. We have to cope with it. Advaita is a good stance from which we can manage it better, but we have to manage it. We cannot treat it as trash.

Our relationships are incidental and evanescent. But, they matter so long as they last. We have to care for it. We cannot be aloof. We must partake in joys and sorrows with maturity.

The body is significant and must be taken care of. The soul has to be realized, it does not require to be taken care of. We must do all that it takes to tend the body and keep it fit.

Sankara advocates fiercely sanyasa for liberation. That is understandable. Liberation by definition calls for snapping ties with what is insubstantial. But, the division of life into learning, earning, withdrawing and giving up totally makes better sense than jumping to giving up after learning.

Sankara stresses knowledge of scripture outside in (sravanam, mananam, nidhidhyasanam of BU) as vital for gnanam. Does it mean that one cannot get it from his inner self, which is nothing but Brahman? Will it not weaken the case of Brahman?

Does he possibly address the multitude which left to itself will move in the rut of samsara and not turn to the inward eye?

 

Is Advaita a philosophy born of despair?

 

February 14, 2014

'I am Brahman'

If 'I am Brahman', then why do I not realise it? Is it perhaps like even though all atoms have enormous power, for a nuclear device we have to use U232 or plutonium? (That is, only a person who has attained a critical level of enlightenment can realise it.)

*

Can animals attain Mukti? Mukti is relevant to a Mumukshu. Without Mumukshutvam, Mukti is not possible. Can an animal be a Mumukshu? I do not know. A gnani may know.

But, gnana is that state where no distinctions are possible. So, a gnani talking of Mukti to an animal may not bother about such intellectual excess.

*

A kutarka vada (perverse argument)

If the Soul Supreme (pure consciousness without attachment to physical and mental states and deeds and rewards) sheds light to enable the active soul (jiva) to do what it does, and remains as passive witness, is IT not an abettor and an accomplice?

Advaita does well to discredit the idea of creation by god, and explain creation as an inexpressible and evanescent appearance of no place in paramarthic sense. But in being the source of the apparent worldly strife (for nothing can be outside IT), how can IT avoid being tainted?

*

In a way, we start with scripture (a pramana many may not accept) and end in intuition (which seems to leave us where we started).

*

Advaita 

Sankara

Sankara bids us to seek the truth. The path to truth is knowledge. The sources for knowledge are saying of the wise, reason and experience. Truth is bliss and freedom.

That is the essence of Sankara. The more I read him through his authentic works explained by parmagataas, the more does it fill my mind with clarity and awe about his candour and perspicacity. 

We have many works attributed to him and many myths. Each latches on to one or invents a new one.

Sankara's method was at a time when science as we know now was non-existent. Einstein at the start of the last century propounded his theory on top of an explosive scientific knowledge by thought experiments and mathematics and his views border on the metaphysical and mirror the Upanishads.

The truth of Einstein's theory is not vitiated by his personal life or actions incongruous with his theory. 

You have to size up a man as to harmony in thought, word and action when you have a worldly dealing with him. If you want to examine his views, you must adopt Sankara's methodology - What have the wise to say? Does it stand up to reason? Is it felt by me in some way? It may fail any one of these and you may give up. But, not based on some apocryphal, even if adopted to drive home a point, story. In this story, the point the writer conveys is not valid.

*

Swami Sarvapriyananda said this in a talk. His guru asked him to read Sankara Bhashya. He expressed his apprehension that it would be difficult to follow Sankara. The guru told him that of all bhashyakaras (exegesists), Sankara was the easiest to follow.

Swami Paramarthananda said in a disourse, ‘Sankara does not say so elaborately as I do. He is very precise and crisp.’

*

Is Sankara supreme or knowledge supreme? 

I think that Sankara would have answered ‘Knowledge.’

In trying to understand, if we have to go beyond Sankara, we have to. That is hypothetical. That is only to make the point that there is only one way to follow Sankara – the way of knowledge. We cannot say, ‘Sankara said so’, as some people would say, ‘Krishna said so.’ Whoever said, it must be based on knowledge. Across systems, testimonial knowledge is admissible, but it should not contradict direct knowledge. 

It helps if we can approach the subject from different viewpoints and vindicate our conclusion instead of only turning to Sruti, bhashyas, karikas, etc.

*

Maya

We see the rainbow in the horizon for a while, but it disappears. The rainbow is not a snake in the rope or water in the mirage or silver in the seashell. It is in a manner of speaking ‘real’. The rainbow is like a bow, but not anybody’s bow as our ancestors thought. It has something to do with rain, but its nature has nothing to do with rain. It is the same light that we see everywhere, but dispersed by the refracting medium. In other words, the rainbow is nothing but light that appears differently but fleetingly.

The world is likewise a virtual reality appearing different from Brahman, but not any different; it is the distorting (refracting) medium of our outward-looking senses that presents the world as not Brahman.

*

Everyone knows the equation: E = mc^2. But, it requires technology and huge effort to convert matter to energy. We know superficially Aham Brahmasmi or Tatvamasi. But we require the technology of Vedanta and arduous effort of sravanam, mananam and nidhidhyasanam for realization.

*

Reality is ineffable.

When I read this, I was reminded of the relevance of scripture to realisation. Scripture is useless after realisation when words fail. 

Wittgenstein’s famous last words in the Tractatus:

“My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

*

न तत्र चक्षुर् गच्छति न वाग् गच्छति नॊ मनः ।

Immanuel Kant: Language is an insufficient medium for capturing the ‘manifoldness, order, purposiveness, and beauty’ of the world; the only appropriate response to these wonders is ‘a speechless, but nonetheless eloquent, astonishment’.

Søren Kierkegaard: Humans are trapped in the ‘ultimate paradox of thought’, wanting to discover things ‘that thought itself cannot think’.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Truth is akin to an army of metaphors on the march – a host of powerful illusions, which we humans have forgotten are illusions.

Schrodinger: The difficulties of language are not negligible.

*

My take away from Advaita

1. World is in a state of constant flux and it appears real because it is based on reality or is a reflection of reality.

2. Differences and opposites mark the virtual world which is perishable, but at the spiritual level there is absence of such distinctions. We are essentially equal with one another and the apparent differences are non-essential.

3. There can be no proof for soul through the senses and direct perception. It has to be gained by testimonial evidence obtained through a knowledge person (guru who is a realised soul.)

4. It is possible for us to realise that spiritual oneness (ONE-ness).

5. Knowledge is the only way to empowerment and enlightenment.

6. Our liberation is not a geographic, temporal or material achievement, but attainment of knowledge proper.

7. This life is useful and complete and looking for completion outside it is vain.

8. It is an individual effort and the attainment is personal. In other words, it does not transform the world that goes on as mithya, not a substantial reality. The mithya world remains after an individual has attained gnana.

9. Adi Sankara is a huge inspiration. His works give clarity and direction. He is remarkable for insight, depth of learning, lucidity and crispness of expression vibrancy of action and relentlessness in pursuit of truth based not only on scripture but in conjunction with reason and experience. He demystifies religion from miracles and mythology, and makes spirituality secular in the path of the Upanishads.

10. There is Ananda in the very participation in groups like Friends of Advaita, but real gnana is not textual, but experiential.

*

 ‘I am all that is there.’

‘I am nothing before all that is there.’

Keep these two ideas in mind while being sane and stable. That is enlightenment.

*

Advaita Aphorisms!

Gnanam is for jignasu and moksham for mumukshu.

Gnanam is internalised knowedge of Atma (para vidya), unconcerned with solving the riddles of the world of perception (apara vidya).

Gnanam is not coexistent with worldly desires.

Gnanam = Moksham.

Mithya is anirvachaneeyam; neither real nor unreal; in sense perception and passing.

The world does not disappear at any stage to anyone, but fails to excite a realized person.

Advaita is not about a special state, but about the ordinary state.

The Advaitic consciousness is universal consciousness, not the evolved human consciousness (superimpositions).

Whatever is born or attained will be perishable.

Realisation is an individual attempt, not a social or macro objective.

There is no immortality of an individual viewed as ego. The identity of an ego-individual is mithya.

 

 

 

 

I picked this up from the post of MCC on Adhyasa for manana.

“Like memory it is just an appearance (āvabhāsaḥ) elsewhere of something seen earlier (smṛtirūpaḥ paratra pūrva dṛṣṭa-āvabhāsaḥ).”

Mithya has been controversial.

It is interesting that Sankara equates it with memory.

How good is memory?

Memory is carry over of an impression. Memory cannot be any truer than the impression gathered.

How good is the impression?

I read in books about brain, sight, etc. that our senses pick up some, not all, details of a ‘fact’ or ‘incident’, and make up by comparing with the previous impressions and give a picture. The complexity of simple vision is amazing. We are familiar with a picture which can be viewed as that of a young lady or an old woman. We have also come across passages which we can read easily with several letters missing. I have also read in an article how our brain is wired from a particular pwspective (to fend for food, fight adversity and procreate). In other words, the ‘perception’ is an approximation, not a replica; it is biased, not neutral. Therefore, the impression is not even a virtual image of an exact ‘fact’.

I read that what we experience and what we remember are not identical, that there is an experiencing brain and a narrating brain. This implies that memory is not of something that was experienced, but of some interpretation that remained.

Our knowledge of the ‘world’ is a summation of such memories. Its reality is at least inexact.

‘Mithya’ is an interplay of the sense and the sense objects, both of which are changing and perishable. The continuity and persistence of the experience is a trick of made up memory, not a feature of the experiencing self.

This is just a thought, not an upshot.

Language and logic are useful in defining what to look for. They are essentially tools of dualism and structured to relate and differentiate. We need to know what is real and appreciate that the changing views produce by the senses are unreal. Language and logic take us to that point. After that, we need grace, not something outside us, but something which is in us – which is us.

Language is a self-perpetuating and endless maze like an irrational number with endless decimals. Logic fails when there is nothing to compare.

I get this bent of mind from the experience of Vivekananda who went on asking questions until he came to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. He perhaps gor no answer, but got enlightenment. Such experience is seen with Brunton and others who went to Ramana and the need to ask the questions did not arise.

Sruti is incontrovertible because the Seers got that insight directly and therefore Sruti Vakyas guide us authentically to that Reality which is in us and not outside.  

Mar 15, 2006

Chaya and Maya

Shadow and illusion.

Shadow has a reality behind. Illusion is imaginary totally. Is maya real or imaginary?

We are part of a whole. Since the whole is indivisible, the appearance of our being part is postulated as maya.

 

 

6.1.82

 

ADVAITHA is assertion that eternal truth is an indivisible and integral whole which transcends human comprehension.

It is possible to strive slowly to get a glimpse of the eternal truth and from there ascend the commanding heights of objective perception to feel the essence of the Mahat, and the inseparable unity of the spirit, without you, I and he, she or it. This demands rigorous training and right initiation - renunciation of all that flesh is heir to.

The spirit is more of the character of consciousness. An inanimate thing is inferior to the animate only in its lack of consciousness. Even though animate, plants are inferior to animals because they are insentient almost. Human beings rank above animals only so far as they exhibit consciousness in a higher degree. The more mature the consciosness, the more developed is the human being. The spirit of man, the soul, is not an entity in the same sense the body is one. It is a concept, and philosophy is at pains to delineate its attributes.

 

 

*****

Advaitha is an ideal. It is a theory perhaps comparable to Einstein's theory of relativity in physics. But it is abstract. It does not matter to us that the spitit is in an illusoty tangle of multiplicity. The consciousness appears varied and experience suggests duality during the only existence we are sure of. Life as it appears, even if it is a maya, demands that this distinction be realised while one is engaged in pursuit of progress.

*****