PDA

View Full Version : How do we counter this argument?



Pages : [1] 2

saidevo
22 February 2010, 08:46 PM
namaste everyone.

In a discussion at the Tamil Brahmins forum, an agnostic professor who calls himself an atheist when it comes to worship of saguNa Brahman, has posed this question:

"The main issue is Vedic pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal."

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/42114-post110.html

In other words, according to the professor, there is no Veda pramANa for Shankara's terms vyAvahArika and pAramArthika satyam as well as the jagat being mithyA, because according to the Vedas and UpaniShads, Ishvara is both the nimitta as well as the upAdhAna kAraNa for this world.

I seek help from Yajvan, Atanu, Devotee and all other members to counter this argument effectively. Is it right to say that there is no Veda pramANa for Shankara's concepts, so they are not to be accepted? I have given the link to the professor's posting in question, to enable members to read what went before it in the thread.

yajvan
22 February 2010, 10:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namasté


namaste everyone.

In a discussion at the Tamil Brahmins forum, an agnostic professor who calls himself an atheist when it comes to worship of saguNa Brahman, has posed this question:

"The main issue is Vedic pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal."

In your opinion saidevo does the professor accept the knowledge of the upaniṣads and the brahma sutra-s both addressing saguṇa and nirguṇa ? Does he see these mentioned śāstra's as pramāṇa¹ ? I would think so, no?

Does he discount any/all of ādi śaṅkara-ji 's works? I have seen the debate between avidyā and māyā as root issues leading back to śaṅkara-ji . That is, mithyājñāna (false knowledge) = avidyā, yet for others avidyā is the cause of mithyājñāna. Hence the pickle of ādi śaṅkara-ji 's writings not being clearly understood. Also that of ānanada reluctantly refused ( or accepted) as a property of brahman, and associated with śaṅkara-ji's works.

praṇām

words

pramāṇa- means of valid knowledge; logical proof; right measure , standard , authority Advanced ideas on this matter of pramāṇa:
A means of acquiring pramā or certain knowledge. Some consider 6 in vedānta:



pratyakṣa or perception by the senses
anumāna or inference
upamāna or comparison
śabda or āpta-vacana , verbal authority or revelation
anupalabdhi or abhāva-pratyakṣa , non-perception or negative proof
arthāpatti or inference from circumstances Now nyāya considers the first 4 above and , excludes the last two ;
The sāṃkhya approach views only 3 from the above list - pratyakṣa , anumāna and śabda ;
Others get more robust and add 3 more ( for a total of 9) adding:

sambhava or equivalence
aitihya or tradition, some call fallible testimony
ceṣṭā - that of gestures

atanu
22 February 2010, 11:59 PM
Dear brother saidevo, greetings!

I also thought I was signing off, but you have come back with an exegesis of terms but leave the central question not satisfactorily answered. There is no intent to force an answer from you, but a reluctance to discuss is surprising.

The main issue is pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal.


Your citations from Vedas do not address any of the above:
Now, the Vedic pramANa for the concept 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' are:
• ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46



• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1


• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda


• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman. -- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda

None of these can mean jagath is mithya/unreal.
ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
"Ekam sat" simply means only one is unchanging, how can this mean jagat is mitya/unreal.


ekam evadvitiyam brahma

This is preceded by "agre", at that time, i.e. during pralayam before shrushti begins, there was only one, and no two. This is not to say the jagat created by Ishwara is mitya/unreal.
prajnanam brahma

This is not germane in this context.
sarvaM khalvidaM brahma
If anything this, statement only says everything is real, not mitya.

I may be living in the west, but in as much as my formative years were in India, I am also of the East. Rudyard Kipling not withstanding, if there is a desire the twain can meet.

Cheers!

Namaste saidevoji,

I have pasted the full post here for members to discuss. It is possible to go through every point and refute but for the time being i pick only one.




ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46


"Ekam sat" simply means only one is unchanging, how can this mean jagat is mitya/unreal.



If sat is ekam then how the jagat, which is purported as a second, be sat?



To paraphrase, is jagat a second sat?
Om Namah Shivaya

brahman
23 February 2010, 12:35 AM
namaste everyone.

In a discussion at the Tamil Brahmins forum, an agnostic professor who calls himself an atheist when it comes to worship of saguNa Brahman, has posed this question:

"The main issue is Vedic pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal."

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/42114-post110.html

In other words, according to the professor, there is no Veda pramANa for Shankara's terms vyAvahArika and pAramArthika satyam as well as the jagat being mithyA, because according to the Vedas and UpaniShads, Ishvara is both the nimitta as well as the upAdhAna kAraNa for this world.

I seek help from Yajvan, Atanu, Devotee and all other members to counter this argument effectively. Is it right to say that there is no Veda pramANa for Shankara's concepts, so they are not to be accepted? I have given the link to the professor's posting in question, to enable members to read what went before it in the thread.











Dear Saidevo,
As its evident in your post above (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/42074-post109.html), you have already encountered the professor on a concept like pAramArthika .

I realize within my limited experience, that someone can encounter either the concept of vyAvahArika or the concept of pAramArthika , but not the two together(may be its hard).

The Professor preaches ONE truth while he believes/experiences in two!

So, let the professor be happy with the rope and snake, pear and silver and the mirage and oasis.

Professor is visualizing the non existence according to Shri. Narayana Guru Devan.


The blue of the sky is neither "in us" nor “out there", but is a subjective awareness in a more accentuated sense than in the previous vision. The perceptual and the actual are here cancelled out in the Absolute, which can contain them both without contradiction. By the time we reach the last verse of this chapter, all duality between the universal and the specific will have been abolished in favour of a unitive view.


III. ASATYA-DARSANAM (VISION OF NON-EXISTENCE)

1. manomayamidam sarvam na manah kvapi vidyate
ato vyomniva niladi drsyate jagadatmani

All this (world) is of mind-stuff,
The mind, however, is not anywhere.
Therefore, like the blue and so on in the sky,
The world is seen in the Self.

2. manaso'nanyaya sarvam kalpyate'vidyaya jagat
vidyaya'sau layam yati tadalekhyamiva'khilam

By nescience, which is no other than the mind,
All this world is a presentiment of the will.
This (nescience) by knowledge gets reabsorbed,
Then the whole world (becomes) a mere configuration.

3. vijrmbhate yattamaso bhiroriha pisacavat
tadidam jagrati svapnalokavad drsyate budhaih

Here, what a coward finds through darkness
To be like a looming ghost,
The same is seen to be by the wise
Like a dream-world of a waking state.

4. sankalpakalpitam drsyam sankalpo yatra vidyate
drsyam tatra ca nanyatra kutracidrajjusarpavat.

This visible world results from a willing presentiment.
Where willing is present alone
Is this visible world seen, not anywhere else,
As a snake, too, when alone a rope is found.


5. sankalpamanasoh kascinnahi bhedo'sti yanmanah
tadavidyatmahprahkyam indrajalam ivadbhutam

Between the will and the mind,
There is no difference at all,
That which is mind and called nescience and darkness,
Like the magic of Indra, is a marvel.


6. maricikavatprajnasya jagadatmani bhasate
balasya satyamiti ca pratibimbamiva bhramat

Like a mirage, to a wise man,
The world looms in the Self,
Just as to an infant, by confusion,
A reflected image might real seem too.

7. atma na ksiravadyati rupantaramato'khilam
vivartamindrajalena vidyate nirmitam yatha

This Self, like milk (that turns),
Does not attain to another form.
Therefore, the whole (universe), as if created
By Indra's magic, exists as (an eidetic) presentiment.


8. mayaiva jagatamadikaranam nirmitam taya
sarvam hi mayino nanyadasatyam siddhijalavat

Maya itself is the prime (material) cause
Of the world, by that which is no other
Than the Maya-maker (Self) is all this
Created, as various magical effects.


9. vibhati visvam vrddhasya viyadvanamivatmani
asatyam putrika rupam balasyeva viparyayam

To the mature mind, this universe
Looms like a sky-forest in the Self -
Even as an unreal puppet-form
To a child (would seem) contrariwise.


10. ekam satyam na dvitiyam hyasatyam bhati satyavat
silaiva sivalingam na dvitiyam silpina krtam

One (alone) is real, not a second,
What is unreal, indeed, seems as being real.
The Siva Lingam is stone itself,
Not a second made by the mason.



Read full दर्शनमाला- Darsana Mala-Nārāyana Guru (नारायण गुरु) (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4782)

grames
23 February 2010, 01:13 AM
If sat is ekam then how the jagat, which is purported as a second, be sat? To paraphrase, is jagat a second sat?Om Namah Shivaya

Just curious...,

If Jagat is also Brahman, the original declaration still holds true that Brahman is Sat and 'Ekam' can also include Jagat isn't? So, the praamana that is required now is, how this Jagat is not real existence and the above statements alone seems not providing the evidence that jagat is Mitya, is what i believe the question to be answered..

saidevo
23 February 2010, 01:31 AM
namaste Yajvan, Atanu and Brahman.

I spent sometime and prepared an elaborate paraphrase covering all discussion between us in the TBF, but Atanu has made my job easier by quoting the professor's entire latest post, which I find is more than enough to discuss among ourselves and be convinced of Veda pramANa for Shankara's statement "brahma satyam jagat mithyA". So, please give us your valued opinion on the post Atanu has quoted in full.

Thank you Atanu, for making my job easier. You have a valid point about the sat being ekam, and the world which is changing cannot be a second sat, and so must be a superimposition over the only sat, and so it can only be of that sat by that sat even for that sat, and I am totally convinced about it,

but I would still ask you, from the POV of the professor, that why should the reality of the world, although it is mutable and changing, be considered an illusion and hence unreal, specially when except a tiny percentage of jnAnis (whose experience is not within the realm of common people) consider it real by common consent and experience?

In other words, is there any explicit statement in the Veda/UpaniShads or the prashnatraya (UpaniShads, BrahmasUtra, GItA) that the world is mithyA?

Brahman I shall go through your valuable post to learn its contents.

MahaHrada
23 February 2010, 02:55 AM
In other words, is there any explicit statement in the Veda/UpaniShads or the prashnatraya (UpaniShads, BrahmasUtra, GItA) that the world is mithyA?

Brahman I shall go through your valuable post to learn its contents.

That jagat is mithya is only accepted by Shankaras Kevala advaita, it has no definite proof in the shruti, thats why most if not all other hindu darshanas reject that statement. Since i also reject it, therefore of course in my opinion the statement of the professor cannot be refuted since it is true that there is no proof in Shruti for Kevala advaita, and as i said i think all other, or at least the majority of darshanas accept that the world is real, these darshanas are also more compatible with the results of modern western scientific research about the nature of the universe , which proves that matter does exist outside the mind and sense impressions are caused by objects and are not merely happening in conciousness, as some buddhist philosophers (like madhyamika) and Kevala advaita claims. Even Shakta advaita, which is very close to kevala advaita, does not accept the unreality of the world but also the causal doership, and therefore follow parinama vada (even when practised within shankaras sampradaya) Some shaktas within shankara sampradaya claim that secretly Shankara taught parinama vada and openly, only to refute budhhist philosophers, preached kevala advaita. Which of course does not really make sense.

When following advaita vedanta one should be aware of the fact that no other astika darshanas accept that jagat is mithya, or the Jnana less part of Brahman then is the Kriya, at least i do not know of any other, except the nastika Bauddha mata.

devotee
23 February 2010, 03:04 AM
Namaste Saidevoji, Atanu, Brahman and all,

The professor is not clear about the term, Satyam and Mithya, imho. "Ekam Sat", "ekam evadvitiyam brahma" etc. declare that Brahman alone is "Sat" ... whatever exists. When we say this, what happens to "jagat"/the World ? How can the existence of World be explained ? If the professor is seeing the world as Brahman then there is nothing like Mithya ! But has he attained that state ?

"Mithya" doesn't mean non-existent ... it means "appearing something different from the reality". The substratum of this world is One Brahman without a second. However, in VyAvhArika (in our worldly life, practically) we are unable to perceive the World as Brahman. Those who are seated in Turiya see this World as Brahman but not the others. A person who has the torchlight can see the rope as rope but those who don't have that torchlight perceive the rope as snake. Perceiving the Rope as rope is the ParmArthika Satyam as it removes our ignorance & all associated fears due to this wrong perception. However, the world must also be seen as world to be able to live in this world. Let's understand that life is important to tread the path of Dharma .... to attain the Absolute. So, this importance of the world as world brings in the term, "VyAvhArika Satyam".

Truth stated by the Shruti and Sankara are same .... Sankara has the task of explaining the difficult to understand Truth of the Shruti ... & for that he uses these terms. The use of different terms don't change the Truth being told. If anyone is able to understand the Truth stated in the Shruti without such an explanation ... there is nothing like it. But in that case, let him answer the basic question I asked above. Let him put forward a theory which can explain things as clearly without using the terms/metaphors Sankara used.

I don't understand the problem of the professor. The basic question is : The world is Brahman alone but why do we not see it as Brahman ? There is One alone but perceived in this world as Many .... how ?? Unless the Mithya theory is brought in here, how can this be answered ??

OM

harekrishna
23 February 2010, 04:27 AM
.... which proves that matter does exist outside the mind and sense impressions are caused by objects and are not merely happening in conciousness, as some buddhist philosophers (like madhyamika) and Kevala advaita claims....


MahaHrada Ji :
Is Shankara saying that the world does not exist? He is saying that the world does not exist the way we see it. And, finally when one does SEE, the realization dawns that what was being seen and understood was not the reality. That was unreal in that sense.
Most modern theories in physics actually support it. Before Einstein, people thought that since energy and matter are perceived differently, therefore, they are different. It turned out that one can be converted to another, but that is not our general perception. The recent discoveries in String Theory further show that at the smallest geometries, the dimensions of existence are more that four (three spatial and one time), and are curled up. Do we experience that with our common senses. What we experience is sometimes an approximate, and sometimes not correct form of real existence. Such examples are filled up in qauntam mechanics as well.

I have to add that I have not seen conclusive statements in Vedopanishad offering this viewpoint in clarity. Neither have I seen offering a conclusive statement opposing this viewpoint. But then, I am still learning :) . Any input on this is highly welcome.
HariH Om!
Hare Krishna

devotee
23 February 2010, 05:05 AM
Namaste Harekrishna,



Most modern theories in physics actually support it. Before Einstein, people thought that since energy and matter are perceived differently, therefore, they are different. It turned out that one can be converted to another, but that is not our general perception. The recent discoveries in String Theory further show that at the smallest geometries, the dimensions of existence are more that four (three spatial and one time), and are curled up. Do we experience that with our common senses. What we experience is sometimes an approximate, and sometimes not correct form of real existence. Such examples are filled up in qauntam mechanics as well.



Yes, modern science endorses Shankara's "Mithya" theory like nothing else. I have tried to touch this subject in post 17 of this link http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4824&page=2

OM

MahaHrada
23 February 2010, 07:46 AM
MahaHrada Ji :
Is Shankara saying that the world does not exist?

Yes he did say exactly that, the problem is only that modern and neo advaitans continously try to deny that and are not adhering to kevala advaita but accept rather the parinama vada.

The parAdvaita of the kaula sampradaya which accepts that both Prakriti and Purusha give rise to each other is compatible with Quantum mechanics, because it is accepted that Brahman is immanent in his creation and both conciousness ie the watcher and the wavicle (mass of Prakriti) must exist and together in union they give rise to particle (bindu) and wave (nada) duality. This act of creation is even namend splitting the parabindu (union of nada and bindu) in tantra shastra.

Both Madhyamika Philosophy and Kevala advaita accept only conciousness as the sole existing unit, which is not compatible to physics neither to that based on traditional measurement the newtonian, because we can measure waves by instruments only, that can not be perceived by the senses, nor to quantum mechanics because the watcher and the wavicle both must exist, it is not enough that only the one watcher (like in kevela advaita) exists to begin creation because the wavicle must also exist to be able to be split into wave and particle by cognition.

Many of todays followers of Advaita vedanta are mislead, they often think that kevala advaita accepts the immanence of brahman in the jagat, which is a wrong assumption because shankara subscribes to the Vivarta vada where brahman eternally remains without any change i.e. as conciousness only as one without a second (and the world is an illusion, so whatever we see it is only the illusion of cognition and a cogniser, but there is no object that is cognised), Shankara did not teach the Parinama vada, where the brahman becomes or creates the universe which is compatible with science. Since science has proven that cognition needs some sort of outer reality even if it is something we cannot logically fully grasp such as a junction of wave and particle, the wavicle, Advaita vedantas Vivarta vada and Madhyamika is quasi refuted by modern Quantum mechanics as well as by the traditional methods of measurement.

Please consult traditional scholars of shankaras sampradaya not Vivekananda and other modern vedantists and you will find out that i am correct.

Please understand that i will stop this discussion now, and leave it to your discretion to consult the sources, because i already know that i will immediately after this posting, be abused by our HDF "experts" on Advaita vedanta, i have experienced that countless times before.

satay
23 February 2010, 10:14 AM
namaskar,



Please understand that i will stop this discussion now, and leave it to your discretion to consult the sources, because i already know that i will immediately after this posting, be abused by our HDF "experts" on Advaita vedanta, i have experienced that countless times before.

Please 'report' any such 'abuse' to me immediately. All members must follow the forum rules and not make personal attacks on each other.

Thanks!

atanu
23 February 2010, 10:28 AM
namaste Yajvan, Atanu and Brahman.

Thank you Atanu, for making my job easier. You have a valid point about the sat being ekam, and the world which is changing cannot be a second sat, and so must be a superimposition over the only sat, and so it can only be of that sat by that sat even for that sat, and I am totally convinced about it,

but I would still ask you, from the POV of the professor, that why should the reality of the world, although it is mutable and changing, be considered an illusion and hence unreal, specially when except a tiny percentage of jnAnis (whose experience is not within the realm of common people) consider it real by common consent and experience?



Namaste Saidevoji,

This intellectual debate has no end. Though there are numerous mention of snare/illusion in Upanishads, they will never be accepted intellectually, untill the need for salvation becomes intense. First, I will cite a few pramanas that assert that the jagat is not what it appears to be; whatever word one may employ to denote this transitory but binding nature.



Isha U.
hiraNmayena paatreNa satyasyaapihitaM mukham.h . tattvaM puushhannapaavR^iNu satyadharmaaya dR^ishhTaye .. 15..

15. The face of the Truth is veiled by a bright vessel. Mayst thou unveil it, O Sun, so as to be perceived by me whose dharma is truth.


Mahanarayana U.
saptapa~nchaasho.anuvaakaH .

ye te sahasramayu paashaa mR^ityo martyaaya hantave . taan yaj~nasya maayayaa sarvaanavayajaamahe .. 1..

LVII-1: O Death, those thousand and ten thousand and ten thousand snares which thou hast laid for slaying man, all of them we remove by the power of our deeds of worship.

Svet. U.

maayaa.n tu prakR^iti.n vidyaanmaayina.n cha maheshvaram.h . tasyavayavabhuutaistu vyaapta.n sarvamida.n jagat.h .. 10..

IV-10: Know then that Nature is Maya, and that the great God is the Lord of Maya. The whole world is filled with beings who form His parts.

Katha U.
2-I-1. The self-existent damned the out-going senses. Therefore one sees externally and not the internal Self. Someone (who is) intelligent, with his eyes turned away, desirous of immortality, sees the inner Self.



Though above cited verses clearly mention that nature is mAyA/ snare that hides the TRUTH, it will not be accepted by the professor or anyone who is not serious about attaining the Truth and Salvation. What is the goal? Is the following the goal of our professor?

Katha U.
1-III-15. By knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so also tasteless, eternal, odourless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death.


If the above is truly the goal then the following is true:

Katha U.
2-I-2. The unintelligent go after outward pleasures; they fall into the meshes of wide-spread death. But the intelligent, having known immortality to be constant, never covet here objects that are inconstant.

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

Still doubts will not go since the source and nature of the questioning Mind itself is Prakriti - maayaa, made of sound, touch and form. But how will the following be experienced, on way to liberation?

Katha U.
1-III-15. By knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so also tasteless, eternal, odourless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
23 February 2010, 10:38 AM
namaste Devotee.



I don't understand the problem of the professor. The basic question is : The world is Brahman alone but why do we not see it as Brahman ? There is One alone but perceived in this world as Many .... how ?? Unless the Mithya theory is brought in here, how can this be answered ??


Prof.Nara's main issues are:

• 01. The One Reality, satyam, is only a theoretical possibility, as against the changing reality of the world which is readily and for ever perceptible. So we can't dismiss the reality of the world as mithyA--illusion/unreal.

• 02. How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)

• 03. Advaita is completely confusing, but Ramanuja darshan has some consistency.

Is there any consonance in the bheda, abheda, and ghaTaka shruti statements found in Vedas? As against this the everyday everyman's reality of the world is in more consonance to everyone. (post #26)

• 04. Terms such as 'absolute sat, absolute asat, vyAvahArika satyaM, prAtibhAsika satyaM, mithyA' do not make any sense in practical perspective. He asks, "But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?" (post #48)

• 05. The only reality in Advaita is the nirguNa brahman, since it is not easily reachable, concepts like the vyAvahArika satyaM are brought in, which have no support in the Vedas or other commonly accepted scriptures. (post #53)

• 06. When Advaita claims to have shruti basis, then there should be scriptural support for the statement that the jagat is mithyA. Is there any? (post #85)

• 07. His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post #90)

• 08. At some point of time, we need to grow out of our security blanket and face the reality. Just as Science constantly revalidates its knowledge, the recorded knowledge of the Rishis too must be scrutinized and revalidated, and this would not mean any disrespect to them, just as the scientific world still respects Newton, Darwin, and Einstein although their theories have undergone changes. (post #95)

"Leaving these differences between a theist like yourself and an atheist like myself aside, please cite evidence from the vedas that you hold as supreme for the notions like:
jagath is unreal

-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."

• 09. He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts

-- jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal

• 10. Shankara's concepts were not agreed to by RAmAnuja, and Madhva rejected them both. And then there are Jainas and Buddhas who dismiss even the Vedas as pramANa. Christianity and Islam reject rebirth. "With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?"

• 11. "Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience."

• 12. "Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic."

And then comes his last post quoted in full by Atanu.

**********

Although he is not accommodative to any other view than his own agnostic and materialistic views, he made my wonder: "About using what pramANas in the Vedas and UpaniShads did Shankara deduce his concepts, chiefly the most popular one, 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA'"?

Since I have not read Shankara's Brahma-sUtra bhAShya, or much of the Vedas and UpaniShads, I have started this thread for our own discussion, especially with regard to the points of contention that Prof.Nara has raised.

I am personally convinced as to Shankara's statement, whether there is shruti/prasthanatraya pramANa or not, but then I feel that there must be some missing link between the concepts of Shankara and those of the shruti/prasthanatraya. Since Shankara could have deduced his concepts only from the shruti/prasthanatraya, I feel we need to find out precisely how he derived them.

atanu
23 February 2010, 10:52 AM
Many of todays followers of Advaita vedanta are mislead, they often think that kevala advaita accepts the immanence of brahman in the jagat, which is a wrong assumption because shankara subscribes to the Vivarta vada where brahman eternally remains without any change ----


Namaste All,

Shankara teaches Brahman as the Instrumental and Material cause of the Universe (but without undergoing any change itself). So, the premise is wrong.

Only similarity is our dream, wherein cities and elephants are created without any change in the dreamer. A dreamer may cry in anguish about his bad karma or revel in some glorious enjoyment -- yet that karma and that enjoyment do not persist.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
23 February 2010, 10:57 AM
namaste,

According to S N Dasguptra volume 1, sankara teaches that Brhaman is the only reality.
The 'material' thing including ourselves that we see is not true.

devotee
23 February 2010, 11:01 AM
Namaste Saidevo ji,

He is mixing a lot of things & therefore confusing things. You should ask him to deal with issues only one a time. Once that is resolved, other issues can be taken up.

As he is an atheist, he must be strong believer in Scientific theories. You ask him : "There is a flower in front of me. It has certain colour, certain shape ... it is solid ... has certain type of fragrance. Now is the flower really what it appears ? I have written many times on this forum that the colour of the flower, its shape, its solid appearance & fragrance has no real existence. You can also ask him whether a solid wall is really solid ? A colorful cloth is really colorful etc. ?" This may show him that the reality of things is not what we perceive. And therefore the World is not really as we perceive it.

I may come up with point wise reply ... but it needs some time.

OM

atanu
23 February 2010, 11:15 AM
namaste,

According to S N Dasguptra volume 1, sankara teaches that Brhaman is the only reality.
The 'material' thing including ourselves that we see is not true.

Namaste satay,

Shankara retold the Upanishads out of graciousness.

Mandukya U.


1. All this is the akhshara Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.
2. All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four padas.
--------------------
Just one step of this Self is vaishvanaro - the man who is vishva.


Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
23 February 2010, 11:21 AM
namaste Devotee.



Prof.Nara's main issues are:

• The One Reality, satyam, is only a theoretical possibility, as against the changing reality of the world which is readily and for ever perceptible. So we can't dismiss the reality of the world as mithyA--illusion/unreal.

• How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)

• Advaita is completely confusing, but Ramanuja darshan has some consistency.

Is there any consonance in the bheda, abheda, and ghaTaka shruti statements found in Vedas? As against this the everyday everyman's reality of the world is in more consonance to everyone. (post #26)

• Terms such as 'absolute sat, absolute asat, vyAvahArika satyaM, prAtibhAsika satyaM, mithyA' do not make any sense in practical perspective. He asks, "But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?" (post #48)

• The only reality in Advaita is the nirguNa brahman, since it is not easily reachable, concepts like the vyAvahArika satyaM are brought in, which have no support in the Vedas or other commonly accepted scriptures. (post #53)

• When Advaita claims to have shruti basis, then there should be scriptural support for the statement that the jagat is mithyA. Is there any? (post #85)

• His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post #90)

• At some point of time, we need to grow out of our security blanket and face the reality. Just as Science constantly revalidates its knowledge, the recorded knowledge of the Rishis too must be scrutinized and revalidated, and this would not mean any disrespect to them, just as the scientific world still respects Newton, Darwin, and Einstein although their theories have undergone changes. (post #95)

"Leaving these differences between a theist like yourself and an atheist like myself aside, please cite evidence from the vedas that you hold as supreme for the notions like:
jagath is unreal

-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."

• He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts

-- jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal

Shankara's concepts were not agreed to by RAmAnuja, and Madhva rejected them both. And then there are Jainas and Buddhas who dismiss even the Vedas as pramANa. Christianity and Islam reject rebirth. "With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?"

"Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience."

"Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic."

And then comes his last post quoted in full by Atanu.

**********

Although he is not accommodative to any other view than his own agnostic and materialistic views, he made my wonder: "About using what pramANas in the Vedas and UpaniShads did Shankara deduce his concepts, chiefly the most popular one, 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA'"?

Since I have not read Shankara's Brahma-sUtra bhAShya, or much of the Vedas and UpaniShads, I have started this thread for our own discussion, especially with regard to the points of contention that Prof.Nara has raised.

I am personally convinced as to Shankara's statement, whether there is shruti/prasthanatraya pramANa or not, but then I feel that there must be some missing link between the concepts of Shankara and those of the shruti/prasthanatraya. Since Shankara could have deduced his concepts only from the shruti/prasthanatraya, I feel we need to find out precisely how he derived them.

You should really take into account, when answering, that shankara seems to be the first sage in the long history of astika darshanas that has come to the conclusions that are criticised above, all other darshanas reject his interpretations with exactly similar arguments as those the professor mentions. Not even his Guru Gaudapada gives exactly these interpretation to the shruti. We only find a similar rejection of the reality of the world in the earlier Bauddha darshana, thats why a lot of scholars assume that Shankara was influenced by Nagarjunas Madhyamika philosophy.

devotee
23 February 2010, 11:49 AM
Namaste saidevoji,

For scriptural support to Jagan Mithya :




Atma Upanishad - Atharva Veda

1. The good named the Atman is pure, one and non-dual always, in the form of Brahman. Brahman alone shines forth.
II-2. Even as the world with its distinctions like affirmation, negation, etc., Brahman alone shines forth.
II-3. With distinctions like teacher and disciples (also), Brahman alone appears. From the point of view of truth, pure Brahman alone is.
II-4. Neither knowledge nor ignorance, neither the world nor aught else (is there).
What sets empirical life afoot is the appearance of the world as real.
II-5(a). What winds up empirical life is (its) appearance as unreal.

----
I-28-29. Brahman suffers from no concealment whatsoever. It is uncovered, there being nothing other than It (to cover It). The ideas, ‘it is’ and ‘it is not’, as regards Reality, are only ideas in the intellect. They do not pertain to the eternal Reality. So bondage and liberation are set up by Maya and do not pertain to the Self.

I hope it helps.

OM

yajvan
23 February 2010, 11:54 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté harekrishna,



MahaHrada Ji :
Is Shankara saying that the world does not exist? He is saying that the world does not exist the way we see it. And, finally when one does SEE, the realization dawns that what was being seen and understood was not the reality. That was unreal in that sense.
Most modern theories in physics actually support it. Before HariH Om! Hare Krishna

I think you have done a fine job stating the position of 'illusion'. Many see this as a very popular position to consider the world as 'not real' . I am not a fan of these words as they do not suggest the full breath of the subject.

As I see it , study it, and have been taught ...
We have this part of a world of diversity in our vision every day - what is missing in our vision is the wholeness of Being, fullness ( bhūman) of brahman. When this is missing, we are considered ( by the wise) living in avidyā - ignorance. The ignorance of not knowing or seeing the total picture of the world and its structure. When one uses the word illusion for this , it is NOT suggesting the world and its view is unreal it is saying you are deluded by what you see, as if the only thing to see is diversity of creation. You are missing the wholeness ( pūrṇa or fullness) of creation as a total unitary environment. This is māyā called out in advaita vedānta.

That said, this truth, vision, of fullness is not a mental constuct or idea, concept or notion - it comes with the dawn of and being established in the SELF, which is none other then IT, brahman.

praṇām

satay
23 February 2010, 11:55 AM
Admin Note

namaskar,

I kindly request all NON-ADVAITINS to stop posting on this thread. Sai is asking for support on how to counter the argument not the other way around.


Thanks,

yajvan
23 February 2010, 12:05 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté atanu


Namaste Saidevoji,
This intellectual debate has no end. Though there are numerous mention of snare/illusion in Upanishads, they will never be accepted intellectually, untill the need for salvation becomes intense.

You have once again brought the practical side of the conversation into view...(thank you).
Many argue (jalpa) various points (a.k.a. the professor); they miss the focus of advaita vedānta - the experience of brahman all the time ( 7x24x365) and the appreciation of this experience via the knowledge offered in vedānta.

Net-net, advaita vedānta encompasses brahma-vāda , the discourse, understanding and experience of brahman i.e. direct personal experience of silence, of the Being within ( atman, Self, brahman).

praṇām

atanu
23 February 2010, 12:53 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté atanu

You have once again brought the practical side of the conversation into view...(thank you).
Many argue (jalpa) various points (a.k.a. the professor); they miss the focus of advaita vedānta - the experience of brahman all the time ( 7x24x365) and the appreciation of this experience via the knowledge offered in vedānta.

Net-net, advaita vedānta encompasses brahma-vāda , the discourse, understanding and experience of brahman i.e. direct personal experience of silence, of the Being within ( atman, Self, brahman).

praṇām

namaste yajvanji,

Thank you for noting the practical intent.

It is my understanding that Vedas provide pickle for all - bheda and abheda vakyas and various shades in between. Shankara's teaching may appear very impractical when the objective of the teaching: the Salvation from cycle of death and birth, is not held in firm view. Upanishads teach that Self/Brahman must be known, if the goal is freedom from snare of repeated Death and Birth. Then automatically one will discriminate what the following and other similar passages convey:

Katha U.
1-III-15. By knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so also tasteless, eternal, odourless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
23 February 2010, 07:54 PM
namaste Devotee, Atanu, Yajvan, Brahman, Harekrishna, Satay, and other Advaitins,

In Tamilnadu, a popular festive event that is often held and telecast is what is called the 'PaTTi manRam'. It is a debate about a topic between two sides with a judge to ascertain which team wins the debate. All sorts of topics are taken up for debate, but when it becomes literary or spiritual, it would be interesting, with such topics as "Whose bhakti is greater in RAmAyaNa, that of VibhIShaNa or HanumAn?". Highly accomplished scholars (usually Tamil pandits) debate taking sides irrespective of their personal affiliations to prove a point. The name 'PaTTi' is supposed to have originated from the name PaTTi, the chief Minister in King VikramAdiyta's cabinet, who had an arrangement with the king to rule the country for six months when the King spend his time in the forest and vice versa.

Since Prof.Nara and I have already signed off our debate at TBF, I have no intention of opening it up unless we have solid references and arguments that can be understood by common mind. I appreciate that intellectual debates have no end and have no value to a sAdhaka, but let us think for a moment what Shankara himself would have done if he was confronted with people like Prof.Nara. Further, if Shankara's Advaita is an integrated, all-inclusive concept, it means that there should be answers to the issues raised by Prof.Nara. I think therefore we need to debate the issues I have stated in post #14 and find out if there are any ultimate, intellectual answers for them.

Our task is two-folded:

1. to find the shruti/prasthanatraya references not only for the statement 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' but also for Shankara's three concepts: vivarta vAda, adhyAsa--superimposition, prAtibhAsika satyaM;

2. to find out answers which although spiritual/philosophical, can still be understood by the mind/intellect, say by suitable analogies and counter-arguments, to the issues I have quoted, and any issues raised by followers of Dvaita and VishiShtadvaita sampradAyas, with a spirit of reconciliation, by tracing the hierarchy where all concepts fit, with Advaita being at the peak as the ultimate unity. This would help us to learn our philosophy better.

I think the answers could be in Shankara's commentary on the UpaniShads and the Brahma sUtra, besides other works like PanchAdashi.

satay
23 February 2010, 10:35 PM
namaste sai,

Though I requested all non-advaitins (that includes me) to not post here, I will make a post because I am in support of your task.

I believe 100% that sankara would have torn the prof. in pieces (intellectually of course) and the prof. would have happily and with all humility become sri sankara's student.

I fully support your quest to find the intellectual and factual answers to the questions prof has raised. I think you are doing a great service with this and people like me who are awestruck by sankara and his style really appreciate it.

Thanks. I will bow out of this thread and just watch.


I appreciate that intellectual debates have no end and have no value to a sAdhaka, but let us think for a moment what Shankara himself would have done if he was confronted with people like Prof.Nara. Further, if Shankara's Advaita is an integrated, all-inclusive concept, it means that there should be answers to the issues raised by Prof.Nara. I think therefore we need to debate the issues I have stated in post #14 and find out if there are any ultimate, intellectual answers for them.

kd gupta
23 February 2010, 11:15 PM
Three good threads are being discussed here….
1.Almighty/.Brahma/jeeva satya [ true ] , prakrati/jagat mithya [ false ]
2.Austerity/tapa VS yoga , which is superior
3. Krsns opinion

In the childhood , mother shows the child pointing towards the moon , see an old woman is making cloth beneath the banyan tree , this proved wrong as there was no prakriti/jagat at moon but the man/jeeva was true there, similarly as mirage is not true but sun rays are true .

Definition of tapa is as follows..
Austerity is conducive
to joy and puts an end to sorrow and evils. By virtue of penance the Creator creats the
universe. By virtue of penance vishnu protects the whole world. By virtue of penance shambhu
brings about dissolution. In fact, the entire creation rests on penance.
Bearing this in mind, go and practise austerity .
Now Krsn tells about tapa and yoga…

Ye twaksharamanirdeshyamavyaktam paryupaasate;
Sarvatragamachintyam cha kootasthamachalam dhruvam.
Those who worship the imperishable, the indefinable, the unmanifested, the omnipresent,
the unthinkable, the eternal and the immovable,
Samniyamyendriyagraamam sarvatra samabuddhayah;
Te praapnuvanti maameva sarvabhootahite rataah.
Having restrained all the senses, even-minded everywhere, intent on the welfare of all
beings—verily they also come unto Me.
Klesho’dhikatarasteshaam avyaktaasaktachetasaam;
Avyaktaa hi gatirduhkham dehavadbhiravaapyate.
Greater is their trouble whose minds are set on the Unmanifested; for the goal—the
Unmanifested—is very difficult for the embodied to reach.
The embodied—those who identify themselves with their bodies. The
imperishable Self is very hard to reach for those who are attached to their bodies. Their restless
minds will not be able to get fixed on the attributeless Self.This is tapa and…..

Ye tu sarvaani karmaani mayi sannyasya matparaah;
Ananyenaiva yogena maam dhyaayanta upaasate.
But to those who worship Me, renouncing all actions in Me, regarding Me as the supreme
goal, meditating on Me with single-minded Yoga
This is yoga .So what is the realty…..

Shreyaan dravyamayaadyajnaaj jnaanayajnah parantapa;
Sarvam karmaakhilam paartha jnaane parisamaapyate.
Superior is wisdom-sacrifice to sacrifice with objects, O Parantapa! All actions in their
entirety, O Arjuna, culminate in knowledge!

Adhyeshyate cha ya imam dharmyam samvaadamaavayoh;
Jnaanayajnena tenaaham ishtah syaamiti me matih.
And he who will study this sacred dialogue of ours, by him I shall have been worshipped
by the sacrifice of wisdom; such is My conviction [ not opinion ]

Mayyaaveshya mano ye maam nityayuktaa upaasate;
Shraddhayaa parayopetaaste me yuktatamaa mataah.
The Blessed Lord said:
. Those who, fixing their minds on Me, worship Me, ever steadfast and endowed with
supreme faith, these are the best in Yoga in My opinion.

brahman
23 February 2010, 11:51 PM
But let us think for a moment what Shankara himself would have done if he was confronted with people like Prof.Nara. Further, if Shankara's Advaita is an integrated, all-inclusive concept, it means that there should be answers to the issues raised by Prof.Nara. I think therefore we need to debate the issues I have stated in post #14 and find out if there are any ultimate, intellectual answers for them.

Our task is two-folded:

1. to find the shruti/prasthanatraya references not only for the statement 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' but also for Shankara's three concepts: vivarta vAda, adhyAsa--superimposition, prAtibhAsika satyaM;

2. to find out answers which although spiritual/philosophical, can still be understood by the mind/intellect, say by suitable analogies and counter-arguments, to the issues I have quoted, and any issues raised by followers of Dvaita and VishiShtadvaita sampradAyas, with a spirit of reconciliation, by tracing the hierarchy where all concepts fit, with Advaita being at the peak as the ultimate unity. This would help us to learn our philosophy better.

I think the answers could be in Shankara's commentary on the UpaniShads and the Brahma sUtra, besides other works like PanchAdashi.







Prof.Nara's main issues are(Ref post# 14 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40150&postcount=14) and post#3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40110&postcount=3)

• 01. The One Reality, satyam, is only a theoretical possibility, as against the changing reality of the world which is readily and for ever perceptible. So we can't dismiss the reality of the world as mithyA--illusion/unreal.

• 02. How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)

• 03. Advaita is completely confusing, but Ramanuja darshan has some consistency.

Is there any consonance in the bheda, abheda, and ghaTaka shruti statements found in Vedas? As against this the everyday everyman's reality of the world is in more consonance to everyone. (post #26)

• 04. Terms such as 'absolute sat, absolute asat, vyAvahArika satyaM, prAtibhAsika satyaM, mithyA' do not make any sense in practical perspective. He asks, "But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?" (post #48)

• 05. The only reality in Advaita is the nirguNa brahman, since it is not easily reachable, concepts like the vyAvahArika satyaM are brought in, which have no support in the Vedas or other commonly accepted scriptures. (post #53)

• 06. When Advaita claims to have shruti basis, then there should be scriptural support for the statement that the jagat is mithyA. Is there any? (post #85)

• 07. His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post #90)

• 08. At some point of time, we need to grow out of our security blanket and face the reality. Just as Science constantly revalidates its knowledge, the recorded knowledge of the Rishis too must be scrutinized and revalidated, and this would not mean any disrespect to them, just as the scientific world still respects Newton, Darwin, and Einstein although their theories have undergone changes. (post #95)

"Leaving these differences between a theist like yourself and an atheist like myself aside, please cite evidence from the vedas that you hold as supreme for the notions like:
jagath is unreal

-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."

• 09. He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts

-- jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal

• 10. Shankara's concepts were not agreed to by RAmAnuja, and Madhva rejected them both. And then there are Jainas and Buddhas who dismiss even the Vedas as pramANa. Christianity and Islam reject rebirth. "With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?"

• 11. "Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience."

• 12. "Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic."


and The main issue is pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal.


Your citations from Vedas do not address any of the above:
Now, the Vedic pramANa for the concept 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' are:
• ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1
• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda
• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman. -- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda
None of these can mean jagath is mithya/unreal.
ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
"Ekam sat" simply means only one is unchanging, how can this mean jagat is mitya/unreal.
ekam evadvitiyam brahma
This is preceded by "agre", at that time, i.e. during pralayam before shrushti begins, there was only one, and no two. This is not to say the jagat created by Ishwara is mitya/unreal.
prajnanam brahma
This is not germane in this context.
sarvaM khalvidaM brahma
If anything this, statement only says everything is real, not mitya.




Finally, a thread is seeking TRUTH above its usual nature of Sthula, sukshma, and karana...Beautiful.


Now we will have to work on the impossibilities than the possibilities, it takes time.


Thanks a lot: Shri. Saidevo and Shri. Satay.


.

atanu
23 February 2010, 11:51 PM
namaste Devotee, Atanu, Yajvan, Brahman, Harekrishna, Satay, and other Advaitins,


Our task is two-folded:

1. to find the shruti/prasthanatraya references not only for the statement 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' but also for Shankara's three concepts: vivarta vAda, adhyAsa--superimposition, prAtibhAsika satyaM;

2. to find out answers which although spiritual/philosophical, can still be understood by the mind/intellect, say by suitable analogies and counter-arguments, to the issues I have quoted, and any issues raised by followers of Dvaita and VishiShtadvaita sampradAyas, with a spirit of reconciliation, by tracing the hierarchy where all concepts fit, with Advaita being at the peak as the ultimate unity. This would help us to learn our philosophy better.

I think the answers could be in Shankara's commentary on the UpaniShads and the Brahma sUtra, besides other works like PanchAdashi.

Namaste Saidevoji and all friends,

You have nicely bulleted the task as twofold. The first answer is there in all Shankara bhashyas -- although we must understand the meaning eventually and not stick with the words -- which we know are changeable through time. The problem with word is unsurmountable and thus it is said that the Truth is beyond the Word and the Mind. For example if I say that mouse is a rodent, a computer nerd may contradict saying "No mouse is an appliance". Both are correct. As Yajvanji says 'purna' is the truth.

At the outset I wish to say that it is not about winning debates. It is about gaining that happiness which we seem to have lost. The goal is to together attain that unbroken happiness. With this background, I will note down a few points.

Shri Nara has indicated that he has doubts that Veda speaks about the eternal truth. He gives credence to scientific enquiry more than the validity of scripture, yet he says VA is more logical. Actually, IMO, Dvaita is most logical for the waking world experience.

On this account, I would request Shri nara to consider a dead body and ask Shri Nara about the lost ability of the dead body to proclaim "I am this dead body". Does he know the life-intelligence that animates all bodies? Does Science know it? At this stage I would leave him to find his own answer rather than saying that it is our belief that scriptures deal with this unknown entity. Of what use is saying "I know this", when the "I" is not known?

Second. Rig Veda itself gives a hint of an illusion that Indra battles and wins:

Rig Veda

10.054.01 (I celebrate), Maghavat, the great glory (you have acquired) by your might; when heaven and earth alarmed called upon you, you did defend the gods, and destroy (their) adversary; (I celebrate your glory), Indra, in that you gave strength to one person (the worshipper).

10.054.02 When you proceed, Indra, increasing in form, and proclaiming your prowess among mankind, false is that your (wandering), false the combats which you have narrated; you (find) now no enemy (to attack), did you formerly find one?

10.054.03 Who among the r.s.is before us have obtained the limit of your entire greatness, since from your own person you have generated at once both mother and father (or earth and heaven)?

But as I pointed out earlier, words will always be interpreted based on one's experience. Science knows this as selective cognition. A different meaning can be ascribed to above verses by another reader. So we come to the third point which corresponds to your second bullet point -- that of finding spiritual philosophical answers that can be understood by mind. This is imporatant since, it is the mind that needs to be tamed with right understanding.

Scriptures teach that to gain unbroken freedom from fear (of death) and pain one must know the Atma-Brahman (that unknown entity which is the subject of Veda-Upanishad).

The implications of this requirement was placed in HDF and elsewhere and I have seen no refutation. At the best, I have seen devotees wriggling away by saying "Our goal is not to know Brahman-Atman".



Although, the following was posted several times, I will re-iterate for the sake of new readers. Also i will re-iterate the goal by citing from another Upanishad:
Maha Upanishad
tadbrahmaanandamadvandva.n nirguNa.n satyachidghanam.h . viditvaa svaatmano ruupa.n na bibheti kadaachana .. 70..
paraatpara.n yanmahato mahaantaM svaruupatejomayashaashvata.n shivam.h .kaviM puraaNaM purushha.n sanaatanaM sarveshvara.n sarvadevairupaasyam.h .. 71..
IV-70-72. One fears never (and from nothing) on knowing the nature of the self as Bliss unequalled, attributeless and one mass of truth and consciousness. That is beyond all that is beyond, greater than the greatest, lustrous and eternal in nature, wise, ancient Being, Sarvesvara.Similarly, as per the teaching of Mandukya Upanishad, one must know the advaita atman, which is defined as:

Mandukya Upanishad

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.The Upanishad teaches us that the Self that has been described has to be known. How do we know it? The following necessary implications emerge from the given shastra.
· It is unchanging and it is known as One, all phenomena come to cessation.


- It is the Self -- not another one. Self cannot be another one.
· It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out. In that case advaita will be broken
· It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out. Else, its composition will continuously change.
· It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
· It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible. It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
· It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.In summary, what exists as knowledge must also exist as gross reality and what exists as gross reality must have its spiritual reality. But all these categories are in Pragnya Ghana in potential form and expressed in Svapna and Jagrat. Advaita Atman, the revealer of homegeneous Pragnya, is however unchangeable eko. It is not possible to know advaita atman by remaining as a second being apart from advaita atman. In that case neither advaita (not two) is upheld, nor can another be atman. It is also not possible to hold the notion "I am doing". Thus Shri Krishna says that the truth is known in samadhi alone.

Advaita thus does not deny the reality of the phenomenal realms of Lord Sarvesvara, Taijjasso and Agnivaisvanaro, neither does it deny existence of potential forms and names in Shushupti in seed form. It however, gives a concrete outlook to fulfil the scripture's call "That is the Self, that is to be known".


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

With the premise, that it is not about winning a debate but that it is about something much more profound, I would leave professor with only questions. Gradually the Self in him will impel him to acknowledge a few things.

Om Namah Shivaya

PS: IMO, with proofs of Shankara Bhashya alone the task will not be accomplished, since the doubts are on those.

Jivattatva
24 February 2010, 12:36 AM
namaste,

According to S N Dasguptra volume 1, sankara teaches that Brhaman is the only reality.
The 'material' thing including ourselves that we see is not true.



This is how I understood Advaita Vedanta also.




As a GV, let me make some comments on this thread. Some of the questions of the prof. are the same questions we, of the bedha abedha group, are asking. And his questions strike at the heart of Advaita Vedanta and the questions are showing Advaita's fault lines

However, I like to take the prof to task about this. He said • 12. "Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency?

Actually with the discovery of dark matter (which is 90 % of the matter in our universe. The matter that we know of is only 10% of the total matter) and the growing understanding of quantum mechanics, the direction is actually pointing to something beyond this world, the world that we see.

I remember, reading a discussion between an Indian scientist hare Krishna disciple of S.P., T.D. Singh (Bhakti Swarup Damodar Goswami) and Roger Penrose, a world renown mathematician and scientist. They talked about quantum mechanics in its fundamental being deterministic, although the other part of it is probabilistic. And that maybe the non-determinism of quantum particles account for free will ; while the deterministic part of the equation account for why individual particles obey the rules.

Even Penrose thinks there are aspects of reality. That the mental world is different from the physical world and that mathematics which control the physical world belong to what he called the platonic world.

T D Singh notes that the development in science in the last 50 years point to the direction that there is something beyond this world.

proudhindu
24 February 2010, 01:07 AM
Namaste sai ji,

I have read most of the posts from page-3 of that tamilbrahmins like you gave.
The prof has put up a strong counter argument against the basic notion "Jagat Mithyam".I concur with post 28 above that more preparation is needed to counter his argument.

Wish you all the best.

atanu
24 February 2010, 01:17 AM
Finally, a thread is seeking TRUTH above its usual nature of Sthula, sukshma, and karana...Beautiful.

Nicely said. I see it as below:

Sthula: Jagrat Jagat Vaisvanaro
Sukshma: Taijjassa
Karana: Sarvesvara Shushupti Pragnya Ghana

And the Truth constant through these three.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 February 2010, 01:40 AM
Our task is two-folded:

1. to find the shruti/prasthanatraya references not only for the statement 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' but also for Shankara's three concepts: vivarta vAda, adhyAsa--superimposition, prAtibhAsika satyaM;

I think the answers could be in Shankara's commentary on the UpaniShads and the Brahma sUtra, besides other works like PanchAdashi.

Namaste saidevoji

I find it a bit odd that we have to find shruti proof for Guru's teachings. Did Shankara bluff? After all, the opposing (I see as complementing) darshanas rely on the same shrutis and provide us with an alternative possibilty. Has Madhava or Ramanuja ever questioned Shankara on Shruti proof? They have given alternative understanding of the same shruti. I at least do not have the courage to question the basis. I hope that the point will at least be considered. In HDF, I can show posts which proclaim with ultimate confidence that Shankara's teachings are not to be found in Vedanta. Do we have to give credence to such uninformed and reckless views.

Regarding interpretation of Shruti, however, we may try to catalyse some thoughts.



ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
"Ekam sat" simply means only one is unchanging, how can this mean jagat is mitya/unreal.

The Reality, the Truth has no Second. Jagat is not a Second Truth. If it cannot be a Second Truth then what it is?



ekam evadvitiyam brahmaThis is preceded by "agre", at that time, i.e. during pralayam before shrushti begins, there was only one, and no two. This is not to say the jagat created by Ishwara is mitya/unreal.

When we take 'agre', 'sarvaM khalvidaM brahma' and "Ekam sat" together, we see that at any moment Brahman is the sole Truth, since the Truth is also said to unchanging. The word 'Agre' is significant.



prajnanam brahma
This is not germane in this context.

Is it? We will see.



sarvaM khalvidaM brahma
If anything this, statement only says everything is real, not mitya.

That is correct. Everything is Real. But do we know that reality which is Ekam and Consciousness? Combine 'prajnanam brahma' and 'sarvaM khalvidaM brahma' and ask Shri nara, whether he knows everything as prajnanam, which as per the first Mahavakya has to be Ekam?

So, the Jagat is Real, when known as Brahman, as of Ekam Consciousness. This is purna and that is purna. But taking out purna from the purna does not deplete the PURNA. When one contemplates on all Mahavakyas together, the meaning becomes clear. Brahman is that Ekam Sat, which is known by Neti-Neti. Following with Neti-Neti, what remains as the Truth? Shankara's teaching is not assimilated at shravana stage. One has to go through shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana.

--------------
To complement above, I say that modern Physics has in fact approached nearer to what Vedanta teaches. Yet, the question "How the knower will be known" has not gained cognition among the majority.
Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
24 February 2010, 08:12 AM
namaste Atanu.

Since I have no intention to get back to Prof.Nara with our counter arguments and findings, I shall take up a dual role (mine as well as his), as in a Tamil PaTTi ManRam show. Since I am far from being an expert in Science as well as our shAstras, my part would essentially be that of a worldly layman in either of these roles: basically one who has more questions than answers.

Let us ask most--if not all--rationally possible questions to establish the 'neti-neti' ultimacy of the Absolute Truth, so that even the most rational person might know something about it intellectually, unless he/she indulges in vitaNDA vAda--captious argument (just for the sake of argument). The idea is to accommodate all kinds of views that are rational and logical, and try to point out any flaws in such views instead of shutting the door against any such argument.

I welcome all members who have scientific answers to discuss our counter arguments, although a member may or may not subscribe to Advaita. What we don't want at this time is for the followers of other sampradAyas to clutter the thread with counter siddhAntas, but even these members may post any scientific, atheistic, agnostic issues they might have. For the sake of conveience of discussion let us number our counter arguments serially from CA1001. Any fresh arguments added to Prof.Nara's list might have a serial number upto 1000, with no prefix.

As Brahman has very rightly pointed out in his post #28, and Proudhindu has echoed it his post #31,

• in our task of finding a Truth that anyone can willingly subscribe to using his/her mind and intellect and yet admit that there is something more to know it in full, "we will have to work on the impossibilities than the possibilities, it takes time."

Objection



CA1001. On this account, I would request Shri nara to consider a dead body and ask Shri Nara about the lost ability of the dead body to proclaim "I am this dead body". Does he know the life-intelligence that animates all bodies? Does Science know it? At this stage I would leave him to find his own answer rather than saying that it is our belief that scriptures deal with this unknown entity.

CA1002. Of what use is saying "I know this", when the "I" is not known? (post #29)


Ans-CA1001. Of course Science can't (has no intention as of now to) deny that a human body has a soul that animates it. But eventually, Science might find an answer to what is a soul. Such research is already going on in the name of Noetic Science.

• Until such time, I would rather take the agnostic view that the soul is unknowable within human faculties of body, mind and intellect.

• As such, Science--and an agnostic--only know--and care about--the realities that can be known by the human physical, mental and intellectual faculties. For him, a dead body is a physical reality and the reality of the soul cannot be ascertained.

• Perhaps the view of Bauddhas and ChArvAkas that there is no life after death and that a soul, if there is any, is lost in the infinite void is more meaningful than the concepts of reincarnation and liberation or eternal condemnation.

*****

Ans-CA1002. In the physical (as against any metaphysical) reality, the "I" is known as the product of body-mind-intellect.

• Most of the time in life, the "I" is associated with body, but then

• there are times it may associated with the mind, as in the statement, "I thought so", or when a person is dreaming,

• and with the intellect as in the example, "I am the author of that thesis", when I happen to be a scientist.

The point is that at no time in my worldly life, I ascribe the pronoun "I" to the soul in me, so the "I" is just a self-referential pronoun physically, mentally and intellectually. As such, the self/Self is identical with the "I".

*****

What answers do we have for such questions?

MahaHrada
24 February 2010, 08:24 AM
namaste Atanu.

Since I have no intention to get back to Prof.Nara with our counter arguments and findings, I shall take up a dual role (mine as well as his), as in a Tamil PaTTi ManRam show. Since I am far from being an expert in Science as well as our shAstras, my part would essentially be that of a worldly layman in either of these roles: basically one who has more questions than answers.

Let us ask most--if not all--rationally possible questions to establish the 'neti-neti' ultimacy of the Absolute Truth, so that even the most rational person might know something about it intellectually, unless he/she indulges in vitaNDA vAda--captious argument (just for the sake of argument). The idea is to accommodate all kinds of views that are rational and logical, and try to point out any flaws in such views instead of shutting the door against any such argument.

I welcome all members who have scientific answers to discuss our counter arguments, although a member may or may not subscribes to Advaita. What we don't want at this time is for the followers of other sampradAyas to clutter the thread with counter siddhAntas, but even these members may post any scientific, atheistic, agnostic issues they might have. For the sake of conveience of discussion let us number our counter arguments serially from CA1001. Any fresh arguments added to Prof.Nara's list might have a serial number upto 1000, with no prefix.

As Brahman has very rightly pointed out in his post #28, and Proudhindu has echoed it his post #31,

• in our task of finding a Truth that anyone can willingly subscribe to using his/her mind and intellect and yet admit that there is something more to know it in full, "we will have to work on the impossibilities than the possibilities, it takes time."

Objection



Ans-CA1001. Of course Science can't (has no intention as of now to) deny that a human body has a soul that animates it. But eventually, Science might find an answer to what is a soul. Such research is already going on in the name of Noetic Science.

• Until such time, I would rather take the agnostic view that the soul is unknowable within human faculties of body, mind and intellect.

• As such, Science--and an agnostic--only know--and care about--the realities that can be known by the human physical, mental and intellectual faculties. For him, a dead body is a physical reality and the reality of the soul cannot be ascertained.

• Perhaps the view of Bauddhas and ChArvAkas that there is no life after death and that a soul, if there is any, is lost in the infinite void is more meaningful than the concepts of reincarnation and liberation or eternal condemnation.

*****

Ans-CA1002. In the physical (as against any metaphysical) reality, the "I" is known as the product of body-mind-intellect.

• Most of the time in life, the "I" is associated with body, but then

• there are times it may associated with the mind, as in the statement, "I thought so", or when a person is dreaming,

• and with the intellect as in the example, "I am the author of that thesis", when I happen to be a scientist.

The point is that at no time in my worldly life, I associate the pronoun "I" to the soul in me, so the "I" is just a self-referential pronoun physically, mentally and intellectually. As such, the self/Self is identical with the "I".

*****

What answers do we have for such questions?

Like i said before the arguments mainly are directed against Vivartavada not Advaita as such , but there are also some works that are attributed to Shankaracharya that favour Parinamavada , like the bhasya to Brahma sutras or the Saundaryalahari.

This could be convienient since some arguments against vivartavada are hard to counter by shruti pramana, whereas Parinamvada holds ground.

I hope this helps.

smaranam
24 February 2010, 08:30 AM
Many praNAms to all of you on this thread

Please bear with me, I am in Kindergarten, trying to understand this....

So this is also a kindergarten viewpoint :

Amma said ShankarAcharya was a spiritual and intellectual prodigy. HE EXPERIENCED IT.
He was obviously not making up stuff. THIS itself was his divine revelation, just as Veda shruti was the ancient seers' divine revelation.
Well, He is Shiva after all.


Mithya :

* transient, not eternal.
* Antonym of Eternal [Existence] , Antonym of Sat.
* That which is of no consequence in the final equation.
* That which appears like ripples or waves that then appear to merge back into the still silence.

* As long as we ignorantly think we are the waves and ripples , that waves is IT, how can we know the Master stillness at deep down at the abyss ? That is ALL that exists, is Sat, not the waves we think [read hallucinate] we are.

* As long as we stay attached to the ornamental detail, how can we understand the Gold it is made of ? YOu think you are pretty bracelet ? You are hallucinating ! You are GOLD, wake up.

* What do dancing photons know about the plasma state at the core of the Sun ?

Its a philosophical wonder, whose purpose is to understand life and existence.

It is seeing Shruti from a helicoptor !

I know none of this helps to refute the arguments by Dvaita scholars. :)
Hope I am not disrupting the thread.

saidevo
24 February 2010, 09:03 AM
namaste Satay.

If you believe in nirguNa Brahman as the ultimate reality, and are prepared to worship all God-forms as Shankara has taught, then you too belong to the pUrNAvatAra sampradAya. You are known for your pithy remarks and pointed questions, so do shoot them as you feel appropriate, from the scientific and spiritual angle, instead of just remaining Bramanic (just a witness) to what goes on in the thread.



Though I requested all non-advaitins (that includes me) to not post here, I will make a post because I am in support of your task.

I believe 100% that sankara would have torn the prof. in pieces (intellectually of course) and the prof. would have happily and with all humility become sri sankara's student.

I fully support your quest to find the intellectual and factual answers to the questions prof has raised. I think you are doing a great service with this and people like me who are awestruck by sankara and his style really appreciate it.

Thanks. I will bow out of this thread and just watch.

saidevo
24 February 2010, 11:17 AM
namaste Atanu.



I find it a bit odd that we have to find shruti proof for Guru's teachings. Did Shankara bluff? After all, the opposing (I see as complementing) darshanas rely on the same shrutis and provide us with an alternative possibilty. Has Madhava or Ramanuja ever questioned Shankara on Shruti proof? They have given alternative understanding of the same shruti. I at least do not have the courage to question the basis. I hope that the point will at least be considered. In HDF, I can show posts which proclaim with ultimate confidence that Shankara's teachings are not to be found in Vedanta. Do we have to give credence to such uninformed and reckless views.


Please don't feel offended that I have initiated a debate to question the shruti/prasthanatraya (VP--for vedas/prasthAnatraya--henceforth) pramANa of Jagadguru Shankara's concepts in our proposed Task No.1. My only intention is to know the connection they have to the concepts and teachings of VP.

From the book Brahma-SUtra BhAShya of ShankarAchArya, translated by
SvAmi GambhIrAnanda, published by Advaita Ashrama:

(I bought this book of over 900 pages in 2003, but have started trying to read it only now; I find it very demanding to follow, but rewarding.)

Anyone who seeks to read and learn the concepts and teachings of VP should know that where they only mention the chief factors, the subsidiaries that go with it become implied pari passu. This procedure of 'inference from circumstances (disjunctive hypothetical syllogism)--MWD' is called arthApatti in Sanskrit.

For example, where the VP says, "There goes the king", it follows from that very statement that the king is going with his retinue. It would be foolish to argue that the VP did not say anything about the retinue, so its mention has no VP pramANa.

Similarly, when it is asked "What is Brahman, I wish to know It", the 'what' can only lead to a common-sense point of view gathered from the VP, which is only an unripe and indirect comprehension. Only if and when the 'wish' is ardent enough, the deliberation on Brahman can lead to the resulting realization of the form "I am Brahman", as the effect and direct knowledge of that deliberation.

What we seek here in this thread is the mediate knowledge so it can serve as the cause and motivation for further deliberation to bring in the immediate knowledge as its effect.

devotee
24 February 2010, 10:19 PM
Namaste Saidevoji,

It is a very interesting way to discuss things. I would love to participate but somehow I am too much bogged down these days with my day-to-day activities & you need comprehensive replies.

It is better if only those who have to contribute anything worthwhile should participate in this debate as giving only sweeping remarks doesn't help anyone or the issue at hand.

The questions you have posed are not difficult to answer ... as they are purely based on logic but ... I will like to address it in a more detail manner.

This will be a very valuable thread if we can take care not to allow this thread be derailed ... or shall we have a completely new thread ???

Regards,

OM


namaste Atanu.

Since I have no intention to get back to Prof.Nara with our counter arguments and findings, I shall take up a dual role (mine as well as his), as in a Tamil PaTTi ManRam show. Since I am far from being an expert in Science as well as our shAstras, my part would essentially be that of a worldly layman in either of these roles: basically one who has more questions than answers.

Let us ask most--if not all--rationally possible questions to establish the 'neti-neti' ultimacy of the Absolute Truth, so that even the most rational person might know something about it intellectually, unless he/she indulges in vitaNDA vAda--captious argument (just for the sake of argument). The idea is to accommodate all kinds of views that are rational and logical, and try to point out any flaws in such views instead of shutting the door against any such argument.

I welcome all members who have scientific answers to discuss our counter arguments, although a member may or may not subscribe to Advaita. What we don't want at this time is for the followers of other sampradAyas to clutter the thread with counter siddhAntas, but even these members may post any scientific, atheistic, agnostic issues they might have. For the sake of conveience of discussion let us number our counter arguments serially from CA1001. Any fresh arguments added to Prof.Nara's list might have a serial number upto 1000, with no prefix.

As Brahman has very rightly pointed out in his post #28, and Proudhindu has echoed it his post #31,

• in our task of finding a Truth that anyone can willingly subscribe to using his/her mind and intellect and yet admit that there is something more to know it in full, "we will have to work on the impossibilities than the possibilities, it takes time."

Objection



Ans-CA1001. Of course Science can't (has no intention as of now to) deny that a human body has a soul that animates it. But eventually, Science might find an answer to what is a soul. Such research is already going on in the name of Noetic Science.

• Until such time, I would rather take the agnostic view that the soul is unknowable within human faculties of body, mind and intellect.

• As such, Science--and an agnostic--only know--and care about--the realities that can be known by the human physical, mental and intellectual faculties. For him, a dead body is a physical reality and the reality of the soul cannot be ascertained.

• Perhaps the view of Bauddhas and ChArvAkas that there is no life after death and that a soul, if there is any, is lost in the infinite void is more meaningful than the concepts of reincarnation and liberation or eternal condemnation.

*****

Ans-CA1002. In the physical (as against any metaphysical) reality, the "I" is known as the product of body-mind-intellect.

• Most of the time in life, the "I" is associated with body, but then

• there are times it may associated with the mind, as in the statement, "I thought so", or when a person is dreaming,

• and with the intellect as in the example, "I am the author of that thesis", when I happen to be a scientist.

The point is that at no time in my worldly life, I ascribe the pronoun "I" to the soul in me, so the "I" is just a self-referential pronoun physically, mentally and intellectually. As such, the self/Self is identical with the "I".

*****

What answers do we have for such questions?

kd gupta
24 February 2010, 10:38 PM
Pranam Brahman
You quoted following as professors thought…..

n there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."

• 09. He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts
n
Ha…ha….if he tries to read Veda pramanas ,his head will get burst .
It means he does not believe the sagun in realty existence like he himself when born was 5 kg and now is 50 kg , but tries to believe in 5000 kg or 50000 kg amount of raw material , he has eaten which is totally non pramanic . Professors are guru but some are Mahaguru , I feel . Once some professors decided to take a joy ride in aeroplane and one of them called the M D of airlines , who was his old student . M D was very happy to address them and wished that this may not be professors last ride . In between the M D went bathroom and saw when returned to hall…Not a single professor was there .

atanu
25 February 2010, 12:48 AM
namaste Atanu.

Ans-CA1001. Of course Science can't (has no intention as of now to) deny that a human body has a soul that animates it. But eventually, Science might find an answer to what is a soul. Such research is already going on in the name of Noetic Science.

• Until such time, I would rather take the agnostic view that the soul is unknowable within human faculties of body, mind and intellect.

• As such, Science--and an agnostic--only know--and care about--the realities that can be known by the human physical, mental and intellectual faculties. For him, a dead body is a physical reality and the reality of the soul cannot be ascertained.

• Perhaps the view of Bauddhas and ChArvAkas that there is no life after death and that a soul, if there is any, is lost in the infinite void is more meaningful than the concepts of reincarnation and liberation or eternal condemnation.

*****

Ans-CA1002. In the physical (as against any metaphysical) reality, the "I" is known as the product of body-mind-intellect.

• Most of the time in life, the "I" is associated with body, but then

• there are times it may associated with the mind, as in the statement, "I thought so", or when a person is dreaming,

• and with the intellect as in the example, "I am the author of that thesis", when I happen to be a scientist.

The point is that at no time in my worldly life, I ascribe the pronoun "I" to the soul in me, so the "I" is just a self-referential pronoun physically, mentally and intellectually. As such, the self/Self is identical with the "I".

What answers do we have for such questions?

Namaste saidevoji,

You are the Master Organiser, as Sachin is Master Blaster. This, I hope, can be the thread that mimics the reality very well. As per Shri Ramana's teaching, there is truly no ego, but only an assumption of it being there. So, when two actors play, knowing that they are role playing, good can come out of it and also act as sanketa to many.

I will follow up slowly.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
25 February 2010, 07:29 AM
Namaste saidevoji,


Ans-CA1001. Of course Science can't (has no intention as of now to) deny that a human body has a soul that animates it. But eventually, Science might find an answer to what is a soul. Such research is already going on in the name of Noetic Science.

• Until such time, I would rather take the agnostic view that the soul is unknowable within human faculties of body, mind and intellect.

• As such, Science--and an agnostic--only know--and care about--the realities that can be known by the human physical, mental and intellectual faculties. For him, a dead body is a physical reality and the reality of the soul cannot be ascertained.

• Perhaps the view of Bauddhas and ChArvAkas that there is no life after death and that a soul, if there is any, is lost in the infinite void is more meaningful than the concepts of reincarnation and liberation or eternal condemnation.

Answer : CA1001.a :

First of all, the concept of a soul completely separate in essence than the body-mind-world doesn’t match Advaita philosophy. It is the same Consciousness in essence … only the states are different … ( I visualize it as a different vibration of the same Consciousness giving an illusion of a unique, separate body-mind entity). However, the concept of Soul is good enough for our discussion & for understanding within the context of this question.
Now, let’s assume that the soul doesn’t exist. There is just body and within body there is brain (mind and intellect are attributes of this combination). The doctors accept the brain-death as the final death clinically. Now, as there is no soul, the death must be something extremely wrong with the body. OK ? We can then consider the body as some intelligent machine. However, any machine can be repaired when it goes wrong, by correcting the fault. Can we do the same thing to body ? When a man dies … let’s preserve by some means all its organs in good condition for a year …. then we try to rectify all faults …. can the body be made alive again like this ? Say by changing its heart or brain with a healthy heart/brain after death ? There have been cases when clinically dead man has become alive again … how is that explained ? Can the body heal itself after death if nothing comes back to the body in such cases ??
Whatever we know till now, the above is impossible, so till anything contradictory is proved, it is logically better to accept that there is something which is beyond everything we know through science. What is the harm in calling that something “the soul” ? If they want, they may give another mumbo-jumbo name …. but it would remain the same nonetheless.

*****


Ans-CA1002. In the physical (as against any metaphysical) reality, the "I" is known as the product of body-mind-intellect.

• Most of the time in life, the "I" is associated with body, but then

• there are times it may associated with the mind, as in the statement, "I thought so", or when a person is dreaming,

• and with the intellect as in the example, "I am the author of that thesis", when I happen to be a scientist.

The point is that at no time in my worldly life, I ascribe the pronoun "I" to the soul in me, so the "I" is just a self-referential pronoun physically, mentally and intellectually. As such, the self/Self is identical with the "I".

Answer-CA1002-a :

Yes, “I” may be wrongly identified with many different entities within us. But, it must be the “owner” (of this "I") alone … all other identifications are wrong. Can the body own any claim (of "I") once dead ? No. So, it can’t be the body. Is it brain ? No, brain is a part of body & by the above logic it can't be the real owner of “I”. The soul once gone … there is nothing to claim ownership of this “I”. Intellect and mind are absent on death i.e. departure of soul. . So, these attributes have no separate existence but these are inherent attributes of the soul. So, it is the soul alone which claims this ownership of this ‘I”.

OM

atanu
25 February 2010, 08:49 AM
namaste Atanu.

Objection

Ans-CA1001. Of course Science can't (has no intention as of now to) deny that a human body has a soul that animates it. But eventually, Science might find an answer to what is a soul. Such research is already going on in the name of Noetic Science.

• Until such time, I would rather take the agnostic view that the soul is unknowable within human faculties of body, mind and intellect.

• As such, Science--and an agnostic--only know--and care about--the realities that can be known by the human physical, mental and intellectual faculties. For him, a dead body is a physical reality and the reality of the soul cannot be ascertained.

• Perhaps the view of Bauddhas and ChArvAkas that there is no life after death and that a soul, if there is any, is lost in the infinite void is more meaningful than the concepts of reincarnation and liberation or eternal condemnation.



Namaste saidevoji,

My answers may not be as organized as you may wish, owing to many factors. However there will be many answers and counter questions and we all expect that you will organize everything eventually. That i think is fair?
--------------
If purvapakshin has an agnostic view then he should have no problem with spiritual scriptures which deal with nature of soul with a goal to rid mind of unhappiness.

And if he says that science will eventually know about soul, then he should know about Uncertainty Principle, which in the larger context, states that truth can be known only in terms of probabilty. Vedanta states "How will the knower be known". Frontier scientists and philosophers have considered this and many of them have become followers of Vedanta.

Instead of me writing volumes, i cite the following. Let the professor study all these and references therein to learn how scientists at the frontiers of knowledge are drawn to Vedanta and especially to Vedanta taught by Shankara.

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_benes_vedanta_frameset.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Erwin-Schrodinger.htm
http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/meta_new_physics.html
http://www.here-now4u.de/ENG/science_and_vedanta.htm
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Vedanta.htm
http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/advaita-and-science-ix-schrodinger-and-vedanta/
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713735528&db=all
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16672821/PHYSICISTS-AND-VEDANTA
http://roland.pri.ee/roland/HTML/tekstid/advaita/introduction.php
http://www.binstitute.org/media/SSS_May_2007.pdf
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/science_and_spirituality_heise.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement


Ans-CA1002. In the physical (as against any metaphysical) reality, the "I" is known as the product of body-mind-intellect.

• Most of the time in life, the "I" is associated with body, but then

• there are times it may associated with the mind, as in the statement, "I thought so", or when a person is dreaming,

• and with the intellect as in the example, "I am the author of that thesis", when I happen to be a scientist.

The point is that at no time in my worldly life, I ascribe the pronoun "I" to the soul in me, so the "I" is just a self-referential pronoun physically, mentally and intellectually. As such, the self/Self is identical with the "I".

What answers do we have for such questions?

That is the main point.

By not knowing the "I" and thus failing to ascribe "I" to where it belongs -- to the primeval wisdom as one indivisible conscious entity, science does not help either the scientist or the world. Eventually, everyone fights for the wrong "I" and adds to the agony. Every one, though procaliming to work for science or for the mankind etc., actually works for the ego 'I'. Vedanta recognises this (in Brihadarayanaka U.) and teaches to find out what the true "I" is. So, spiritual scripture is not unscientific and it has a definite practical goal. Vedantic statements can be experientially proven as one goes through life. Truth and only the truth is the maxim, since nothing but the Truth can provide one with the ultimate unbroken happiness. Common scientist is not aware of the objective of his work, since in the first place, he does not know the "I", on account of whom all work goes on.

Vedanta has no opposition to science, since Vedanta is not opposed to enquiry. But it has the emphasis on the KNOWER rather than the things known, which can only exist if the KNOWER exists. The Goal of Vedanta is to unravel the truth and remove ignorance which is the cause of pain all around.

At this stage, the above is only a statement. But it will be established when we come to discuss Vedanta and especially advaita.

As for myself, I am amazed with wonderment when I compare the finding of physics that the whole mass of the Universe originates from Zero mass and how two quarks can emerge out of vacuum and create a world and then again unite into vacuum, with the shruti of Dhirgatma "Who knows how the boneless gives rise to the bony?" (RV Book 1: Asiya Vamiya).

I am also amazed when an uneducated Shri Ramana questions a physicist who was expounding findings of Relativity that the measurements by two observers will vary, depending on their framework in Cosmic scale. Shri Ramana asks the physicist to find out what was his frame of reference.

With "I" not centered correctly, the answer will be variable.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 February 2010, 09:19 AM
OMG

But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.

(Stephen Hawking, 1988)


And Upanishads simply called this maayaa -- trying to fit particulate experiences of senses that are discrete onto a continuum and then failing to see the continuum altogether, and Shankara called this adhayasa.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 February 2010, 10:10 AM
... even that of motion, which unites in itself both elements (Space and Time), presuppose something empirical. Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something movable. But space considered in itself contains nothing movable; consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience - in other words, is an empirical datum. (Kant, 1781)

Jagat is the movement and is empirical and not the apriori Truth. But Kant failed to say (as Vedanta says) that Chidakasha considered in itself indeed contains all wave motions.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
25 February 2010, 11:51 AM
OMG

But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.

(Stephen Hawking, 1988)


And Upanishads simply called this maayaa -- trying to fit particulate experiences of senses that are discrete onto a continuum and then failing to see the continuum altogether, and Shankara called this adhayasa.



Dear Atanu, that is a beautiful post. The more I analyse theories of Physics, Chemistry and other branches of Science ... the more I can see the illusion very clearly which is concealing the true essence.

OM

saidevo
25 February 2010, 12:26 PM
namaste Devotee.

Making endless objections from the POV of a rational layman is not my intention, so I would stop when we have enough reasonable objections and CA and answers to them.

Answer:CA1001a: post #42



First of all, the concept of a soul completely separate in essence than the body-mind-world doesn’t match Advaita philosophy. It is the same Consciousness in essence … only the states are different … (I visualize it as a different vibration of the same Consciousness giving an illusion of a unique, separate body-mind entity). However, the concept of Soul is good enough for our discussion & for understanding within the context of this question. (post #42)


You have offered an excellent point that it is the vibration of Consciousness at various levels that produces the notions of soul-intellect-mind-body. In the surface, the ocean is simmering and seething, but as we go down its deeper levels, the surface articulations are gradually softened and smoothened into silence and stillness.

Good enough, but one objection might be raised. I am not sure about the current consensus in Science on the nature of Consciousness, so my objection below is that of a laymen with just some knowledge of science.

Obj-Ans-CA1001a: Objection

Present day science has some good basis for a consensus about (the necessity of) a unfied theory, so it is in a position to admit that physical matter is nothing more than crystalized vibrational expressions of an absolute physical energy (APE!?), which (seem to) manifest as the fundamental particles and their aggregates at different, numerous levels.

But Science is undecided about Consciousness being the entity behind the vibrations of the APE that form the physical universe. This is because, at the human level, Science currently associates consciousness/awareness with the brain and the countless neuro-chemico-electrical activities it spawns to transform an input or an output--sensory, mental, intellectual or intutional. This means that all inputs and outputs at the physical-mental-intellectual-intutional levels may perhaps be resolved into the base of that APE.

If there is a driving force behind the brain, why can't that force come from the same source of APE--abosolute physical energy that is responsible for the creation of the universe? Why should it be a metaphysical entity called Consciousness?

*****

Anyone who offers an answer for this objection may please quote the id Obj-Ans-CA1001a, so we can later correlate the arguments (A), counter arguments (CA), Obj(ections), and Ans(wers).

namste Atanu

Being a scientist yourself, you are in an eminent position to clarify and integrate scientific views with the ultimate spiritual Truth, besides pointing out the flaws in the rational and scientific arguments and objections. You have given a treasure of links, going through which would require much time. If you prefer, have time, and feel it is relevant for us here at HDF, you might perhaps give their gist in a brief paragraph, but then the following quote from your post #43 is good enough (emphasis added).



And if he says that science will eventually know about soul, then he should know about Uncertainty Principle, which in the larger context, states that truth can be known only in terms of probabilty. Vedanta states "How will the knower be known". Frontier scientists and philosophers have considered this and many of them have become followers of Vedanta.


This can very well be the final answer to the rational view expressed in 'Ans-CA1001' in my post #34, subject only to the answer to the objection I have raised above and tagged it as Obj-Ans-CA1001a.

To state that objection differently, if the Knower is the Consciousness who is responsible for the manifestation of physical universe with its absolute physical energy (APE) which in turn is particulated to make the world, why can't that consciousness be that APE itself? Why do we need to go beyond it to the metaphysical level?

If the answer is that the orderly functioning of the universe is not possible without a chaitanya--knowing and immanent consciousness, then I can say that the order of life and things in the universe in the midst of all the suffering and sorrow and peace and power is only apparent.

As we go deeper physically, at the animate or inanimate level, it is all turbulence and chaos, because the APE is for ever in action, vibrating, and is never still. So, why can't all the matter-body-mind-intellect be just vibrational expressions of that APE, with no necessity of a metaphysical universal consciousness projecting itself as the infinite number of souls behind all animate life? (I hope I have made myself clear).

The surface physical reality of the universe of matter and life is like an inverted ocean. There is comparatively far more stillness at the surface than at the deeper levels.

With some convincing answer to this objection, we may close the case as regards Ans-CA1001.

We shall discuss the ubiquitous 'I' in my next post.

atanu
25 February 2010, 11:33 PM
namste Atanu

You might perhaps give their gist in a brief paragraph, but then the following quote from your post #43 is good enough (emphasis added).



To summarise the problem of science:

Looked from particle-wave duality, there is the Proababilty Theory, which is said to be not a Theory but the Nature of Things in Itself. That means that for Science, it is the Bible. I can understand that. I used to think that to know anything one spends energy and that itself destroys the 'As Is' ness. Now, I understand why Shri Krishna teaches the answer is in Samadhi and Guru Raman teaches "Be Still".

Einstein, Schrodinger, and Hawkins have posed similar questions about the final authority of the 'Uncertainty Principle'. To repeat Hawkins:

But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.

(Stephen Hawking, 1988)

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

An interlude: a sad story.

My brother is a theoretical nuclear physisict and he brushes aside my wild abstractions. Once we sat together in pensive mood just after my father's demise and I began needling him about where the life that was called my father had vanished etc. Then slowly, the discussion came around to the Uncertainty Principle, which my brother said was the Nature of the Universe itself. I asked him why scientists were bothered about measuring both position and velocity separately? Why a single parameter couldnot be used. Why, measurements needed to be done with Particle in mind?

My brother, who brushes me aside gave a pointed look and said "There is something in it, but top scientists have failed till now".

Now the sad part. I had been hoping that my brother would work out and earn a name and when he acknowledges my contribution I also will earn a name. But alas, I discover that Hawkins has already pointed it out. And further more, Shankara solved the case sometime in BC, helped by Veda.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 February 2010, 11:44 PM
This can very well be the final answer to the rational view expressed in 'Ans-CA1001' in my post #34, subject only to the answer to the objection I have raised above and tagged it as Obj-Ans-CA1001a.

To state that objection differently, if the Knower is the Consciousness who is responsible for the manifestation of physical universe with its absolute physical energy (APE) which in turn is particulated to make the world, why can't that consciousness be that APE itself? Why do we need to go beyond it to the metaphysical level?

APE is not animate and endowed with a will. Kena U. poses: Impelled by whom?
If APE is the will and the knower itself then APE cannot be known. -How the knower can be known?--------------------
Scientists also are of various level. Some thinkers do know that there is no objective proof of anything. I repeat an argument of old times:

Say, Saiji says "I see the Sun and so it exists". I ask him what is the control proof? Who else can vouch that the Sun exists? How do I know that Sai is not lying? Sai says: "Why, you can vouch for it". I then ask Sai to first prove my existence, for which again Sai alone is the witness.

One alone is the witness and there is no way to prove the existence of objects through a second witness. One alone is the witness of the witness. But there is no need to prove the Subject, who/which is self evident (but unknown to all and is the subject of the Vedas and Vedanta).


Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
26 February 2010, 12:42 AM
Namaste Saidevo ji,



Obj-Ans-CA1001a: Objection

Present day science has some good basis for a consensus about (the necessity of) a unfied theory, so it is in a position to admit that physical matter is nothing more than crystalized vibrational expressions of an absolute physical energy (APE!?), which (seem to) manifest as the fundamental particles and their aggregates at different, numerous levels.

Yes, the quantum mechanics, as it is today, more or less suggests something similar to it.


But Science is undecided about Consciousness being the entity behind the vibrations of the APE that form the physical universe. This is because, at the human level, Science currently associates consciousness/awareness with the brain and the countless neuro-chemico-electrical activities it spawns to transform an input or an output--sensory, mental, intellectual or intutional. This means that all inputs and outputs at the physical-mental-intellectual-intutional levels may perhaps be resolved into the base of that APE.

Officially, Scientific community has not accepted consciousness being in so-called non-living things. However, if we closely examine how the non-living things without a brain behave .... we have to accept that there is consciousness everywhere & that it is not only within the domain of brain. I will give some examples below :

a) What makes a piece of stone behave exactly as per the Newton's laws of gravity while falling from a height ? Who is aware of this universal law ... the stone or some other agency ? If everything is without consciousness, how the things obey the laws without fail ?
b) Which agency knows that distance has changed and who changes the force acting between the two masses : when distance between two masses is decreased by half & as a consequence the force is increased four times with exact mathematical accuracy ? Is it possible without any consciousness either in the stones or consciousness everywhere ?
c) How does Na knows that it has one electron extra than what is required for a stable configuration ? Not only this how does it identifies the chlorine atom & knows that it has 1 electron less than the stable configuration ? What impels them to join together to attain the stable configuration ? Is it all possible, if there is no consciousness outside brain ?
d) How do the electrons know that there is a lower potential around & they should flow towards that ?
e) How does heat know that a lower temperature is around & it should flow towards that ?


If there is a driving force behind the brain, why can't that force come from the same source of APE--abosolute physical energy that is responsible for the creation of the universe? Why should it be a metaphysical entity called Consciousness?


The more I think of the examples given above, the more I am forced to agree that the consciousness & matter/energy cannot be separated. In fact, all these puzzles can be solved if we agree that it is consciousness alone which is manifesting as matter/energy/space/mind/intellect .... only the states or the vibrations are different.

This vibration is very much visible & the various illusionary effects it produces at different levels of vibrations. The water molecules at different vibration levels produce illusions of different properties in the same material ..... & so are other substances. The OM is the vibration of the Consciousness heard by the seers. In its different vibratory modes this OM reflects the illusions of waking, dreaming and deep sleep states. When all vibrations become silent ... the silence of OM takes over ... the Turiya alone remains. This is what Vedanta says & this is what appears to be as we go deeper in quantum mechanics & analyse the scientific theories critically.

Regarding its inability to "find" & know the Consciousness completely through science ... perhaps, it won't ever be possible. Why ? The knower is trying to know itself ! The consciousness is looking for consciousness ! If we are able to know something which we would call as consciousness .... who would be the "we" then & who will "know" & will it really be different from the "known" ?

We must understand that all knowings/perceptions are only relative (within the mental realm ... cognised only as reported by our sense organs ... the things are not exactly as we perceive) unless we become that thing. If we accept this, we must drop science at a distance & follow Vedanta. There is no other way.

OM

brahman
26 February 2010, 04:02 AM
Intention of the thread once again, (philosophical)

Prof. Nara is not the first person to come up with a counter like this to an advaitha school of thought.

Prof Nara’s quotes can be briefly explained in a vaakya
“Brhama satyam, NA jagath mithya.

Many times, I have approached certain schools of thought with similar questions.

The first school, did not dismiss me, but offered me a trumpet and asked to charm the snake superimposed on the rope before the discussion.

The next school too did not reject me, instead offered me a special tool kit to separate the silver superimposed in a mother of pearl before the discussion.

The third school offered me a bucket and asked to get water from the mirage before the discussion.

No one likes the the belief(brahmasatyam, jagath mithya) to be questioned.


=brahman; Post #28

Finally, a thread is seeking TRUTH above its usual nature of Sthula, sukshma, and karana...Beautiful.


Now we will have to work on the impossibilities than the possibilities, it takes time.

Thanks a lot: Shri. Saidevo and Shri. Satay.

.


Then what makes this thread different(beautiful)?

This thread is trying to find the jagath superimposed on the Ultimate Truth.
Or trying to find the illusion superimposed on the reality, within the planes of advaitha (Still knowing the jagath as an illusion alone and Brahman is one without a second/ Brhama satyma Jagath mithya.)


Now, what is the confusion we are discussing at HDF Philosophy?

Brahmasatyam, NA jagath mithya

Brahman is truth, jagath is not illusion.

We have already found the kaarana of this ignorance from our sukhma observations; the kaarana is “vision of non existence”
Now we have come to a conclusion that, ‘vision of non-existance’ happens due to ignorance.
The real knowledge remains Truth. Now we have found the Truth as well.

That is the usual nature of a thread. The person (who starts the thread) is happy with the truth though the thread doesn’t acquire a reflection of the truth experienced by the person(who starts the thread), and the thread remains in sushupti.

Sushupti is prajna and knower of everything, but it has EGO. It is not the turya ‘the unique’ (mandukya)

In these kind of threads, TRUTH remains ‘a firm conviction of the mind’ of the ‘followers’ of advaitha alone, not in anyone else’s mind.

But here, Shri. Satay has offered an opportunity to everyone (followers) to explain this ‘firm conviction in your mind’ for others (because by seeing, everyone believes! Right?)

Possibility and impossibility

What is the possibility?
The possibility according to the follower of advaitha remains ‘jagath mithya’
That has already been studied or experienced, and as still working on it, it will take time.

What is the impossibility?
The impossibility according to the flowerer of advaitha is ‘Jagath is not illusion’


But how do we explain it to others (non followers) that jagath is an illusion alone when TRUTH is undefined, TRUTH is an experience, and TRUTH is beyond the senses to be explained!!!!

How do we present to someone ‘this’ is truth or ‘that’ is truth’?


It is not possible. Fine.

Even if we present it, is there someone to see it? Again because jagath is still mithya, nobody is there to watch it!

(That’s why prof. Nara asks “why should a jnani teach the disciple, if the disciple is mithya)

Now let us probe, how does one turn a disciple and the other a guru?

It is just like light and darkness. The light is guru and the darkness is disciple.
In the light of guru, the darkness in disciple diminishes.

Now I quote the very first manthra of paingalo panishad (calculate the time, disciple requires to prepare for attaining the mastery of oneness or Brahman from his guru).
paingalopanishad I-1. Then indeed Rishi Paingala approached Mahamuni Yajnavalkya as a disciple, and, having served him for twelve (12) years, said: Guro, Instruct me in regard to the supreme mystery of
Oneness. 1-1

I understand (from this and from the rest of the scriptures like this) that the light has been slowly poured (by guru) over the darkness (disciple), and the darkness gets diminished.

It’s not taught in a single meeting (single thread) or with a bundle of pramanas(found in libraries).

So, we conclude, it takes time to find the kaarana of ajnana, the ignorance.

It seems even difficult than finding the truth. Those who find the truth heads for the kaarana of ignorance, they are so called philosophers and not seekers.
I would say Shri. Satay is a philosopher than a seeker.

TRUTH has to reflect like a light on the thread, it slowly wipes out the darkness, though it takes time.

1) It reflects through intellectual posts!

2) I would not expect (FROM ANYONE) an immediate result in what we probe now. It may proceed for years and years, because we need to believe it as brahmavidhya being learned over internet.

3) Refutation of any kind will not help someone learning it, unless refuted and learned by the very wise (usually refutation takes place between two masters of thoughts-not disciples, I don’t think I am a master of any kind)

4) I would suggest ‘learning together’ (not teach nor being taught), a beautiful idea.

5) Also I do not recommend a new thread, because ‘better started is half done’ and this thread had an amazing start.


HDF can make it happen.

:)



Repeated reading of the post (or manana/ nidhidhyasana
of mandukya Upanishad helps) required in
comprehending the topic.



.

saidevo
26 February 2010, 08:26 AM
namaste Atanu.

Thanks for your summary of what goes by the name Probability Theory (post #48) and the explanation in post #49. So ultimately, it is the waves that everyone (including--or perhaps mainly--the scientists) misapprehend as creating matter and building this physical world.

Let me add my two cents of understanding it, as a layman VedAntin (my second role):

VedAntin:
• Stephen Hawking speaks about 'waves'--in plural, in the quote you have given, as the absolute form and existence of the universe. Obviously, he refers only to the waves of physical energy.

Perhaps, eventually, Science might conclude that there are not different kinds of waves but only One, that vibrates at different frequencies to create the world. Because, if there are many waves, Science would require to find the source of those waves; if it is One Wave, it would become its own source, because Science would then describe its nature as self-contained, self-sustained, self-acting wave of APE--absolute physical energy.

Still, the question would remain: what makes that One Wave of APE, vibrate at different frequencies, which cannot happen unless there is resistance. Then in that case, there would be two entities--wave and resistance, and again Science would require to find their sources!

• The One Wave that is known in samAdhi as taught by shrI KRShNa and guru RamaNa is the wave of universal consciousness, which is metaphysical in nature.

As with Science, there are two fundamental entities in the Hindu Philosophy too, described variously as Consciousness--Matter, chaitanya--jaDa, parabrahman--mUla prakriti, and puruSha(s)--prakriti (anything else?). Different schools teach the unity of these two entities in different ways to make the world. Even among the Advaita schools there are differences in approach, as MahaHrada has pointed out in his post #11.

Our discussion here is about Shankara Advaita, which uses the following three concepts to describe the union of these two entities:

• vivarta vAda--theory of illusion: Brahman appearing as jagat, and the illusion of jagat is perceived as the immediate reality.

• adhyAsa--superimposition: There is no original creation; it is not also evolution; nor is it the flow of falsity without any support of the satyam. This jagat is only the superimposition of mAyA on Brahman which is satyam, like the snake on the rope.--This is adhyAsa. The sphaTika--crystal, lingam (which in itself is colorless) appearing red because of a shoe-flower (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis), placed behind it, is adhyAsa--superimposition.

• prAtibhAsika satyaM--subjective/apparent reality, and its complement vyAvahArika satyaM--operational reality, and the combination of these two states of conditional reality is the full import of the word mithyA. From the viewpoint of the sat--pAramArthika satyaM of Brahman, which is also the state of one who is Self-Realized, the conditional reality of the world is only an illusion. The other extreme of the reality is the asat--unreality, which has no existence of its own.

*****

Thus, in the spirit of reconciliation and universal understanding, I think we need to state the LINK between the physical and metaphysical absolutes, that is, the APE--absolute physical energy, and the Universal Consciousness. This brings us to our final set of questions:

• What could be this LINK?

• Can Science establish it within its physical realms?

• If not, and if Science and the layman accept that the link can only be metaphysical, can it be known intellectually/intuitively--although not experienced, universally?

It seems to me that suShupti--deep sleep, which is a universal experience, is/has the link. Science is itself in suShupti, when it comes to the discussion of that everynight state of every human being, and VedAnta has a good knowledge about it. If we can explain that state in the languages of science and layman, perhaps at least by anumAna--inference, which is the most widely used method of pramANa--proof in Science, the link could be known universally.

*****

saidevo
26 February 2010, 08:44 AM
namaste MahaHrada.

With reference to your posts #7, #11 and #35, I would request you to give us a brief about the various Advaita schools and their essential concepts, possibly contrasting them with Shankara's three key concepts I have stated in post #52. This could help us in our discussion, specially with regard to Shankara's expression of the world as mithyA.

Thanks for the sort of 'calling attention motion' in your above posts.

saidevo
26 February 2010, 09:16 AM
namaste Devotee.

I understand and share your frustration about the obsession of Science with just the physical reality, and its attempts to resolve everything into concepts with mumbo jumbo names (as you have called it) within that realm.

Nice that you have reiterated that it is only Universal Consciousness that is behind all states of existence and levels of reality in the world:



This vibration is very much visible & the various illusionary effects it produces at different levels of vibrations. The water molecules at different vibration levels produce illusions of different properties in the same material ..... & so are other substances. The OM is the vibration of the Consciousness heard by the seers. In its different vibratory modes this OM reflects the illusions of waking, dreaming and deep sleep states. When all vibrations become silent ... the silence of OM takes over ... the Turiya alone remains. This is what Vedanta says & this is what appears to be as we go deeper in quantum mechanics & analyse the scientific theories critically.


Your ponts a) through e) made me smile. Let me add my pennies to it, in a lighter vein.

a) and b): I think Science speaks about two kinds of forces: stronger forces at the macrocosm and weaker forces at the microscopic levels. It seems ironical forces that hold massive astronomical bodies together are stronger and the forces that hold the constituents of an atom tied to it are weaker! Actually, the latter forces must be as strong as if not stronger than the former.

As you have implied, what keeps an atom, an atom? What keeps a cell, a cell? A stone, a stone? That is, preserve their structure without let it just dissipate? How is it that so much radioactive energy that can destroy the world is contained within the nucleus of an atom?

c) Again ironically, the chemical preferences of elements to combine is called 'affinity'--a word with predominantly non-scientific meanings. The Universal Consciousness that is behind all such affinities and forces, creating amity and harmony in preserving the physical structure of the universe cannot be resolved into anything in the physical realm.

Now that we have stated that the Universal Consciousness, which is metaphysical in nature, is distinct from the currently postulated absolute physical energy as the final form and existence of the universe, I would like your opinion as to any LINK that can connect these two concepts, specially in the context of suShupti--deep sleep, noting that you always look at reality in the four states of its existence.

Any member who can find/postulate such a link may also state their opinions.

*****

atanu
26 February 2010, 09:55 AM
namaste Atanu.

VedAntin:
• • The One Wave that is known in samAdhi as taught by shrI KRShNa and guru RamaNa is the wave of universal consciousness, which is metaphysical in nature.



Namaste saidevoji,

At this stage, I will like to point out a difference in understanding.

Existence of perturbation is the kArana for waves and waves/wave itself is not the ocean. In fact it is the waves that are causing the view of the ocean (Lord) and the water (the common factor) to be veiled. In samadhi, as in deep sleep, the conditions conducive to perturbations (the thoughts on account of kAma), are removed. In deep sleep the ignorance-avidya (the kArana), however, is not removed. So one sleeps yet comes back.

The three states, including the deep sleep state, are all being viewed by the self. The deep sleep state is viewed under the mode of ignorance as vacuum (sort of). This is the ignorance that Brihadaraynaka removes by stating that the view does not give rise to anything not because it is empty but because it is full and homogeneous.

In samadhi, the above ignorance is removed and the pragnya ghana is known as it is, and the Seer of it is known as oneself, without perturbations and without waves.

As stated many times, Gaudapada explained this theme with an example of view of 'Fire Brand as such' opposed to 'Fire Brand's appearance as a circle of fire, on being rotated'.

In Summary, the kArana must be known consciously. Brahman has given a hint on this and I request him to write on this.

What I wanted to say was that samadhi (Turya) is not the view of wavy consciousness (or aghana or broken consciousness on account thoughts/desires) but is the full knowledge of consciousness in its ghana form and its owner as oneself.

Mandukya U. states that AUM can be seen as consististing of steps or can be seen as one indivisible. Mandukya states the fruit of knowing the states of AUM but it directs us emphatically that the Turya must be Known, without giving indication of any finite fruit.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
26 February 2010, 10:17 AM
Thus, in the spirit of reconciliation and universal understanding, I think we need to state the LINK between the physical and metaphysical absolutes, that is, the APE--absolute physical energy, and the Universal Consciousness. This brings us to our final set of questions:

• What could be this LINK?

• Can Science establish it within its physical realms?

• If not, and if Science and the layman accept that the link can only be metaphysical, can it be known intellectually/intuitively--although not experienced, universally?

It seems to me that suShupti--deep sleep, which is a universal experience, is/has the link. Science is itself in suShupti, when it comes to the discussion of that everynight state of every human being, and VedAnta has a good knowledge about it. If we can explain that state in the languages of science and layman, perhaps at least by anumAna--inference, which is the most widely used method of pramANa--proof in Science, the link could be known universally.

*****

namaste saidevoji,

WRT Scientific/mental enquiry being able to unravel the Truth, the upanishads say the following:

Human intellect itself is a part of creation. It cannot therefore prove or disprove what is said in Vedanta. Cf. Kathopanishad I.ii.8 and I.ii.9 – “It (Brahman) is beyond argumentation.” “This wisdom…..is not to be attained through argumentation.” Kenopanishad I.3, I.4 and I.6 – “The eyes do not go there, nor speech nor mind. We do not know Brahman to be such and such.” “ That (Brahnan) is surely different from the known and again It is above the unknown.” “That which man does not comprehend with the mind”. Taittiriya Upanishad II.ix.1 – “That…Brahman, failing to reach which words turn back along with the mind”.

Yet it is Upanishads that give us the sanketa. Without those sanketa (being taught by Guru) the darkness (the term used by Brahman) will not be removed. IMO, you have correctly pointed out that understanding of shushupti (also emphasized by Brahman) is the key. Also, IMO, the whole of Mandukya U. may be the best catalyst.

Ultimately, it is upto Self as to whom the link will be opened and that again depends on Self desiring it. On this account I had mentioned whether a person (self) feels the need or not?

As a climax, at this stage, it can be said that upanishads leave a grand hint in the form of Neti-Neti, going through which all observable and experiencable objects have to be discarded but the one making this Vichara cannot be discarded. I think, this is the jewel of Upanishads.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
26 February 2010, 10:47 AM
namaste Atanu.

Your explanation of how the Consciousness--which is the Self--gets veiled by avidyA in the deep sleep state, which in turn is the factor for the jIva's return to the other two states, is valuable. Please also give the verse number of the BRuhadAranyaka UpaniShad for any later reference by us in our discussions.

Can we say then, that self-shining Consciousness

• is in its full shine in turIya--fourth state, obliterating the borders of knower-known-knowledge;

• has no shine at all in suShupti--deep sleep, being completely veiled by avidyA--ignorance, still obliterating the borders of knower-known-knowledge as well as destroying the antaH-karaNa;

• is distortedly reflected in svapna--dream state, on the flowing waves of pent-up vAsanas--impressions, that are given full play in dreams;

• and is concretely reflected in the matter and energy of the physical world in our jAgrat--waking state?

It is the distored and concrete reflections of the Consciousness that gives rise to the notions of knower, known and knowledge? Anything more to it?



What I wanted to say was that samadhi (Turya) is not the view of wavy consciousness (or aghana or broken consciousness on account thoughts/desires) but is the full knowledge of consciousness in its ghana form and its owner as oneself.

Mandukya U. states that AUM can be seen as consististing of steps or can be seen as one indivisible. Mandukya states the fruit of knowing the states of AUM but it directs us emphatically that the Turya must be Known, without giving indication of any finite fruit.


Kena UpaniShad has the following quotes about Brahman, which look like a puzzle. Please explain it layman's language.

Kena UpaniShad

II-1. If you think, ‘I know Brahman rightly’, you have known but little of Brahman’s (true) nature. What you know of His form and what form you know among the gods (too is but little). Therefore Brahman is still to be inquired into by you. I think Brahman is known to me.

II-2. I think not I know Brahman rightly, nor do I think It is unknown. I know (and I do not know also). He among us who knows that knows It (Brahman); not that It is not known nor that It is known.

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known does not know It. It is unknown to those who know, and known to those who know not.

II-4. When Brahman is known as the inner Self (of cognition) in every state of consciousness, It is known in reality, because one thus attains immortality. Through one’s own Self is attained strength and through knowledge is attained immortality.

II-5. Here if one has realised, then there is accomplishment. Here if one has not realised, then there is utter ruin. Having realised Brahman in all beings, and having withdrawn from this world, the wise become immortal.

Ekanta
26 February 2010, 11:11 AM
Namaste Saidevo.
I hope I'm not intruding, but I take the opportunity to post this as I have gone through Sathya Sai Baba's Upanishad Vahini (upanishad comments) and here is the part that relates to this:

"So, for those who claim that they have seen Brahmam, "It" is yet a subject for further investigation and inquiry. They have not reached the final stage. For, theirs is not authentic Jnana; theirs is but a delusion. The Atma of the person who knows, is itself the very Brahmam; that is the undoubted verdict of Vedantha, is it not? Fire cannot burn itself; how can Atma know Atma, how can the knower know Himself? Therefore, the statement, I have known Brahmam, is an indication of delusion, not of real knowledge."

saidevo
26 February 2010, 11:18 AM
namaste Ekanta.

You are always welcome to any of our discussions. Since you and I are both Sai devotees, and you have read his vAhinIs and speeches (which I have not yet), please post any of his teachings that are relevant to the points we have been discussing, specially those of the Rationalist, besides any points you might offer.

Please post Baba's teachings on suShupti--deep sleep, which perhaps holds the link we talked about in the immediately preceding posts.

MahaHrada
26 February 2010, 11:32 AM
namaste MahaHrada.

With reference to your posts #7, #11 and #35, I would request you to give us a brief about the various Advaita schools and their essential concepts, possibly contrasting them with Shankara's three key concepts I have stated in post #52. This could help us in our discussion, specially with regard to Shankara's expression of the world as mithyA.

Thanks for the sort of 'calling attention motion' in your above posts.


Important for us are only two branches of advaita vada, parinamavada and vivartavada because they belong to the satkaryavada not the arambhavada which belongs to the asatkaryavada

I have noticed that many advaitains fail to properly understand how shankara actually defines mithya or Avidya. If you want to defend his darshana against opponents first must come a "clinical" understanding of these key concepts.

Mithya is confused by some advaitans who think they are following shankaras kevalAdvaita, they deliberate avidya is only a cognitive error, this is almost always due to a misunderstanding of two examples: sarparajju nyAya and shuktirajata nyAya.

vivartavAda and pariNAmavAda can be described as two branches of satkAryavAda. Vivarta can be interpreted to mean change, transform, turn around, appear altered or illusion. The relation between an actual object and its reflection within a mirror is one of vivarta. A jignAsu describes vivarta as the false notion that is characterized by anyathAbhAva from tattva. In advaita vedAnta, vivarta is illustrated through two popular examples: sarparajju nyAya and shuktirajata nyAya. One can get the false impression of seeing a snake on seeing a rope or of seeing silver on seeing a shell. The adhyAsa (misconception or erroneous attribution) named jagat occurs on Brahman on account of avidyA (nescience).
Though the kAraNa named Brahman, due to vivarta, appears as the kArya named jagat, there is no separate kArya in reality. Thus, only the kAraNa or Brahman is satya and jagat is mithyA. Though one is initially confused by the
appearance of snake, he eventually realizes the true nature of that vastu as rajju. (quote: Harsha Ramamurthi shankara and pariNAmavAda)

This whole superimpostion happens only in the universal mind there is no duality of the outside world in kevaladvaita (and no limited cogniser), very important one has to be strict with this concept otherwise all the special distinguishing concepts of kevalAdvaita will tumble down and fall to pieces.

MAya or avidya does not mean that we are existing as jivas and have an erroneous perception of a real existing object, for instance that the wall appears solid but in reality there are only atoms, and upon attaining moksha we see the world as it really is. That is a complete misunderstanding of Adi Shankaras Vivartavada. What he means by "mithya" is that there is neither the limited cogniser nor an object that is cognised, these two the limited individual cogniser the jiva and the object the jagat are the illusion, it is only universal mind in its absolute and inactive state that is real.

That is the adhyAsa the superimpostion of the limited ego on the brahman and the illusion that there exist objects different from the self at all, not an erroneus conception about an existing object.

In parinamvada where brahman changes into an object that is as real as the absolute brahman on attaining moksha we overcome an erroneus conception and therefore his maya shakti is as real as the brahman and will exist also after attaining moksha. Not so in kevaladvaita.

The result for the jiva is, that after moksha following the parinamvada the world is still cognised just differently, while following vivartavada there is neither the cogniser nor the object of cognition anymore, both have given place to one brahman, any notion of all else is eradicated.

atanus statement: "So, the Jagat is Real, when known as Brahman" is correct according to Parinamavada but not so according to Vivartavada. The jagat was never real nor will she be ever real (in Kevaladvaita). It is the opposite: exactly this notion of any reality of jagat in any form is avidya.

It is important to understand that this universal mind, brahman n Kevaladvaita i.e. following the vivartavada does not cognise and the Jnani on attaining moksha will ultimately cease all individual activity also (after death). The impersonal Brahman simply exists. It is passive without any capability of action on its own.

Thats why philosophically Shankaracharya is encountering a big problem: if the brahman is inactive absolute and not cognising, how can it happen at all that creation sets in, or why does the illusion of a jagat begin to exist in the first place?

Thats where most of the other darshana find a means to refute kevaladvaita. This the most crucial point.

We cannot be shure whether Shankaracharya at all times adhered to kevalAdvaita or adopted also Parinamavada at times:

Brahma is the upAdana kAraNa for the sR^iShTi, sthiti and laya of the jagat. Due of the shakti present in kAraNa, the transformation of kAraNa into kArya gets materialized. In shrIvidyA tantra, kAraNa-brahma is referred to as shiva and the prapa~nchAbhivyakti hetu shakti as shrI lalitA. It is this shakti that is responsible for sR^iShTi, sthiti, laya and nAnAtva of the universe. When involved in sR^iShTi, shakti, in the uttarottara fashion, assumes states such as avyakta, mahat, aha~NkAra, manas, prANa, indriyas, viShayas of the indriyas, panchabhUtas etc. All these different avasthAs or transformations are called upAdhis. The entire goal of shrIvidyA tantra is the viloma krama of this evolution where the tirodhAna of the upAdhis is accomplished within the mUla kAraNa vastu, thus achieving mithuna of shakti with shiva, and remaining forever in the state of nirupAdhika samvit.saundaryalaharI being a work dealing with shrIvidyA tantra, though interpreted on the lines of kevelAdvaita by some, necessarily follows the school of pariNAmavAda for the most part. This is clearly indicated in the thirty-fifth verse: tvameva svAtmAnaM pariNamayituM vishvavapuShA. This shloka, when observed carefully, states parAmbA as the kAraNa and panchabhUtAdikas as the various pariNAmas of the kArya. While these pariNAmas are the various transformations of the prakR^iti, prakR^iti herself is an avasthA visheSha which is described through the words kAraNa and nirvikAra. When the panchabhUtAdikas attain laya within parAshakti, she remains in her form as kAraNa and this interpretation of the verse suits the theory of satkAryavAda.and:
cholars such as shrI sacchidAnandendra sarasvatI mahAsvAmigal (abhinava shankara of Holenarasipur) doubt the authorship of shankarAchArya based on the fact that AchArya propounded vivartavAda in his well-known works such as prasthAnatraya bhAshya. One can refer to his scholarly work named shrI sha~NkarabhagavatpAda vR^ittAntasarvasva in this regard. He accepts, based on this argument, only the prasthAnatraya bhAShya, some prakaraNa granthas and a few stotras as the actual works of AchArya bhagavatpAda. All these works follow and support the tenets of vivartavAda and do not quote tantra shAstra or its philosophy for either khaNDana or maNDana. While svAmigal has stated this, he also writes the following in the same work: “Whether AchArya has written works propounding shAkta mata is a riddle. Many believe that he established shAradA as brahmavidyA svarUpiNI on the left bank of river tu~NgA on shrIchakra, the most important symbol of shAkta mata. There is also a similar account of the establishment of shrIchakra before bhagavatI kAmAkShI at kAnchIpuram. AnandalaharI, saundaryalaharI etc. are shAkta works described as works of shankara. Even a quasi-divine authorship of saundaryalaharI is believed by some and held that AchArya brought the manuscript of the hymn from kailAsa. Every monastery following shAnkara mata today has the age-old tradition of worshipping shakti. Based on all these visible clues, there is a chance that Acharya did indeed author shAkta works”.
and:
While we can endlessly debate the authorship of saundaryalaharI never to reach a conclusion, one cannot deny the presence of the principles of both vivarta and pariNAmavAdas therein. Our next task would now be to fairly examine if a samanvaya between these two schools is possible at all, for samanvaya has been stated as the inherent nature of our shAstras by great yugadrSTas such as shrI mUrkhAraNya-ji Maharaj. If a samanvaya is possible, then who is the teaching of pariNAmavAda or shrIvidyA tantra directed at? In other words, who is the target audience for shrIvidyA/pariNAmavAda? Famous advaitin shrI appayya dIkShita writes thus in his work ratnatraya parIkShA: nirguNa brahma vastu, on account of its own mAyA shakti, becomes two: dharma and dharmi.
Dharma again splits into two: viShNu and devI. viShNu becomes the upAdAna kAraNa for jagat sR^iShTi and devI assumes the role of wife or shakti of the dharmi named paramashiva. These three together constitute the nirguNa brahma vastu. One can easily observe here a samanvaya of both aupaniShadika and tAntrika tattvas. shrI bhAratI tIrtha, a great Acharya of advaita and the pIThadhipati of Sringeri Mutt, states a supporting verse in his vAkyasudhA (dR^igdR^ishyaviveka): Five tattvas (sat, chit, Ananda, nAma and rUpa) are responsible for all viShayas of this universe. Of these, nAma and rUpa are responsible for bheda or duality. When these attain bAdhA, brahma-vastu alone remains. This idea is used by various shrIvidyAchAryas such as lakShmIdharAchArya, bhAskararAya, kaivalyAshrama, amR^itAnanda etc. to achieve the desired samanvaya with pariNAmavAda.
It is interesting to note that two sUtras of bAdarAyaNa deal with pariNAmavAda. The first of these is:
AtmakR^iteH pariNAmAt [1-4-26]. Here is what shrImadachArya writes in this context:
pUrvapakSha: kathaM punaH pUrvasiddhasya sataH kartR^itvena vyavasthitasya kriyamANatvaM shakyaM saMpAdayitum?
AchArya: pariNAmAditi brUmaH, pUrvasiddho.api hi san AtmA visheSheNa vikArAtmanA cha pariNAmo mR^idAdyAsu prakR^itiShu upalabdhaH |

The second sUtra is: tadananR^itvamAraMbhaNashabdAdibhyaH [2.1.14]. pariNAmavAdin, the pUrvapakShi here, states thus:
pUrvapakshi: nanu mR^idAdi dR^iShTAnta praNayanat pariNAmavat brahmashAstrasyAbhimatam iti gamyate |AchArya, quoting Ishvara gItA, gItA, bR^ihadAraNyakopaniShad and brahmasUtra (2,1,13), concludes that there is
no vyavahAra for Brahman in paramAvasthA. Having said so, he still does not completely negate pariNAma mata, which in this context appears to have the puShTi of sUtrakAra (bAdarAyaNa), of ChAndogya shruti (6,1,1) and he seems to do this more so for the sake of loka vyavahAra:
apratyAkhyAyaiva kAryaprapa~nchaM pariNAmaprakriyAM chAshrayati saguNeShu upAsaneShu upayokShyate iti |
(Harsha Ramamurthi shankara and pariNAmavAda)

If we assume that Shankaracharya at times taught both Parinamvada and Vivartavada for differntly qualified persons this may strengthen the position in debates whenever Vivartavada fails one can assume the position of Parinamavada ;) whether this is an acceptable way to debate is another question, ultimately in a fair debate one must decide which of the viewpoints is the ultimate.

Our acarya says: "There is neither arambha-vada nor parinama-vada here. It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of creation. For the potter who is the Paramatman there is no other entity other than himself called clay. So the arambha-vada is not right. To say that Paramatman transformed himself into the cosmos is like saying that the milk turns into curd. The curd is not the same as the milk. Would it not be wrong to state that the Paramatman became non-existent after becoming the cosmos? So the parinama-vada is also not valid. On the one hand, the Paramatman remains pure jnana, as nothing but awareness, and, on the other, he shows himself through the power of his Maya as all this universe with its living-beings and its inert objects. It is all the appearence of the same Reality, the Reality in various disguises. If a man dons a disguise he does not become another man. Similar is the case with all these disguises, all this jugglary of the universe. with all the apparent diversity, the one Reality remains unchanged. " This argument is known as "vivarta-vada".
There is vivarta in the phenomenon of a rope appearing to be a snake. The upadana-karana(material cause) that is the rope does not change into a snake by nimitta-karana(efficient cause). So the arambha-vada does not apply here. The rope does not transform itself into a snake; but on account of our nescience (avidya) it seems to us to be a snake. Similarly, on account of our ajnana or avidya the Brahman too seems to us as this world and such a vast plurality of entities.

(Cause of Creation Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji.)
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part13/chap7.htm

saidevo
26 February 2010, 11:36 AM
Here is what Science offers about deep sleep. Any clue here to the metaphysical connection of/to Consciousness?

Understanding Sleep
Deep Sleep, REM Sleep, Cycles, Stages, and Needs
http://www.helpguide.org/life/sleeping.htm

Sleep stages: the sleep cycle

Understanding sleep stages and the sleep cycle can help you get better sleep. Your sleep is regulated by an internal body clock, sensitive to light, time of day and other cues for sleep and awakening. When you fall asleep, your sleep goes in cycles throughout the night, moving back and forth between deep restorative sleep and more alert stages and dreaming. As the night progresses, you spend more time in dream sleep and lighter sleep.

There are two main types of sleep. REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep is when you do most active dreaming. Your eyes actually move back and forth during this stage, which is why it is called REM sleep. Non-REM (NREM) sleep consists of four stages of deeper and deeper sleep. Each sleep stage is important for overall quality sleep, but deep sleep and REM sleep are especially vital.

How we fall asleep

How do our bodies know when it is time to sleep? We all have an internal circadian clock that provides cues for when it is time to sleep and time to wake. This clock is sensitive to light and time of day, which is why having a good bedtime routine and a quiet dark place to sleep is so important. At the same time, a chemical messenger called adenosine builds up during the day as our bodies are busy using energy. The more adenosine builds up in the brain, the sleepier you will feel. Adenosine combined with the circadian clock sends a powerful message of sleepiness to your body.

• Stage 1 (Drowsiness) - Stage 1 lasts just five or ten minutes. Eyes move slowly under the eyelids, muscle activity slows down, and you are easily awakened.

• Stage 2 (Light Sleep) - Eye movements stop, heart rate slows, and body temperature decreases.

• Stages 3 & 4 (Deep Sleep) - You’re difficult to awaken, and if you are awakened, you do not adjust immediately and often feel groggy and disoriented for several minutes. Deep sleep allows the brain to go on a little vacation needed to restore the energy we expend during our waking hours. Blood flow decreases to the brain in this stage, and redirects itself towards the muscles, restoring physical energy. Research also shows that immune functions increase during deep sleep.

• REM sleep (Dream Sleep) – At about 70 to 90 minutes into your sleep cycle, you enter REM sleep. You usually have three to five REM episodes per night. This stage is associated with processing emotions, retaining memories and relieving stress. Breathing is rapid, irregular and shallow, the heart rate increases, blood pressure rises, males may have penile erections, and females may have clitoral enlargement.

Importance of deep sleep and REM sleep
Deep Sleep

Each stage of sleep offers benefits to the sleeper. However, deep sleep is perhaps the most vital stage. It is the first stage that the brain attempts to recover when sleep deprived, and the strongest effects of sleep deprivation are from inadequate deep sleep. What might disrupt deep sleep? If you are caring for someone around the clock, whether it is a small infant or an elderly relative with a serious illness, you might need to attend to them suddenly in the middle of the night. Loud noise outside or inside the home might wake you. If you work the night shift, sleeping during the day may be difficult, due to light and excess noise during the day. Substances like alcohol and nicotine also disrupt deep sleep.

Maximize your deep sleep. Make sure your sleep environment is as comfortable as possible and minimize outside noise. If you are being awakened as a caregiver, make sure that you get some time of uninterrupted sleep, especially if you have had some unusually disruptive nights. Don’t be afraid to ask for help.

REM sleep

REM sleep, or dream sleep, is essential to our minds for processing and consolidating emotions, memories and stress. It is also thought to be vital to learning, stimulating the brain regions used in learning and developing new skills. Most of dreaming occurs during REM sleep, although it can happen during other sleep stages as well. There are different theories as to why you dream. Freud thought that dreams were the processing of unconscious desires. Today, researchers wonder if it may be the brain’s way of processing random fragments of information received during the day. Much of dreaming is still a mystery. If REM sleep is disrupted one night, your body will go through more REM the next to catch up on this sleep stage.

*****

atanu
26 February 2010, 12:57 PM
A short interlude on pariNAma and vivarta

Upanishads clearly state that Brahman is unchangeable so pariNAma, which involves material transformation like milk changing into curd is ruled out in reference to shruti. vivarta view postulates the change as apparent. This is supported by shruti and smriti. Gita says though indivisible, the division of param atman within bodies is apparent. Chandogya Up. says: vAcArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam: all perceived change is only in the realm of name and form.

The reality of gold is quite independent of what shape it is in. The reality of a man is quite independent of what dream is being seen.

Though Shankara has used vivarta for philosophic enquiry (and parinama supposedly for devotional poems), but the satyam of his darshana is that the change itself is ignorance-avidya. We must not get into this verbal wrangle.

Brahaman has, in a masterly way spoken of:



The Professor preaches ONE truth while he believes/experiences in two!
Professor is visualizing the non existence


This is not the case with Prof. nara alone but all of us when we in our eagerness to understand and/or explain take the metaphors to be the reality-- and thereby creating another apparent reality of the metaphor itself. Metaphors and all other explanations have no second reality. Also, at the outset, Kena and other Upanishads teach that Brahman-Self is beyond Mind-Word. Was Shankara or Ramanuja unaware of this?

Ramana Maharshi teaches that ajAti vAda is the philosophy but for those seeking explanation and not practise, the explanations are given with metaphors by way of shrishti-drishti vada or drishti-shriti vAda.

When we say "the Jagat is Real, when known as Brahman", does not mean that jagat was a different thing to start with, since before that is said Ekam Sat and Brahman satyam. .

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
26 February 2010, 01:27 PM
namaste Atanu.

Kena UpaniShad has the following quotes about Brahman, which look like a puzzle. Please explain it layman's language.

Kena UpaniShad

II-1. If you think, ‘I know Brahman rightly’, you have known but little of Brahman’s (true) nature. What you know of His form and what form you know among the gods (too is but little). Therefore Brahman is still to be inquired into by you. I think Brahman is known to me.

II-2. I think not I know Brahman rightly, nor do I think It is unknown. I know (and I do not know also). He among us who knows that knows It (Brahman); not that It is not known nor that It is known.

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known does not know It. It is unknown to those who know, and known to those who know not.

II-4. When Brahman is known as the inner Self (of cognition) in every state of consciousness, It is known in reality, because one thus attains immortality. Through one’s own Self is attained strength and through knowledge is attained immortality.

II-5. Here if one has realised, then there is accomplishment. Here if one has not realised, then there is utter ruin. Having realised Brahman in all beings, and having withdrawn from this world, the wise become immortal.

Namaste saidevoji,

Ekanta has already given the following;

"So, for those who claim that they have seen Brahmam, "It" is yet a subject for further investigation and inquiry. They have not reached the final stage. For, theirs is not authentic Jnana; theirs is but a delusion. The Atma of the person who knows, is itself the very Brahmam; that is the undoubted verdict of Vedantha, is it not? Fire cannot burn itself; how can Atma know Atma, how can the knower know Himself? Therefore, the statement, I have known Brahmam, is an indication of delusion, not of real knowledge."

Additionally, IMO:

II-2. I think not I know Brahman rightly, nor do I think It is unknown. I know (and I do not know also). He among us who knows that knows It (Brahman); not that It is not known nor that It is known.

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known does not know It. It is unknown to those who know, and known to those who know not.

Brahman is not in the category of an object -- to be known or not to be known.

Brahman is beyond the Thinker- Knower (Mind). Brahman is known on mano nAsa - on death of the knower mind.

Brahman is known, when the Subject remains as the Subject.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ekanta
26 February 2010, 02:47 PM
Please post Baba's teachings on suShupti--deep sleep, which perhaps holds the link we talked about in the immediately preceding posts.

Its too much, but here's a handy tip:
You can use the "search site" function as shown below. Exchange the xxx to what you want to search.

"xxx site:www.sssbpt.info" (main site)
"xxx site:www.sathyasai.org" (newer discourses)

For example: sushupthi

"sushupthi site:www.sssbpt.info"

spelling might variate quite a lot...

brahman
26 February 2010, 11:01 PM
Intention of the thread once again, (philosophical)

Prof. Nara is not the first person to come up with a counter like this to an advaitha school of thought.

Prof Nara’s quotes can be briefly explained in a vaakya
“Brhama satyam, NA jagath mithya.

Many times, I have approached certain schools of thought with similar questions.

The first school, did not dismiss me, but offered me a trumpet and asked to charm the snake superimposed on the rope before the discussion.

The next school too did not reject me, instead offered me a special tool kit to separate the silver superimposed in a mother of pearl before the discussion.

The third school offered me a bucket and asked to get water from the mirage before the discussion.

No one likes the the belief(brahmasatyam, jagath mithya) to be questioned.




Then what makes this thread different(beautiful)?

This thread is trying to find the jagath superimposed on the Ultimate Truth.
Or trying to find the illusion superimposed on the reality, within the planes of advaitha (Still knowing the jagath as an illusion alone and Brahman is one without a second/ Brhama satyma Jagath mithya.)


Now, what is the confusion we are discussing at HDF Philosophy?

Brahmasatyam, NA jagath mithya

Brahman is truth, jagath is not illusion.

We have already found the kaarana of this ignorance from our sukhma observations; the kaarana is “vision of non existence”
Now we have come to a conclusion that, ‘vision of non-existance’ happens due to ignorance.
The real knowledge remains Truth. Now we have found the Truth as well.

That is the usual nature of a thread. The person (who starts the thread) is happy with the truth though the thread doesn’t acquire a reflection of the truth experienced by the person(who starts the thread), and the thread remains in sushupti.

Sushupti is prajna and knower of everything, but it has EGO. It is not the turya ‘the unique’ (mandukya)

In these kind of threads, TRUTH remains ‘a firm conviction of the mind’ of the ‘followers’ of advaitha alone, not in anyone else’s mind.

But here, Shri. Satay has offered an opportunity to everyone (followers) to explain this ‘firm conviction in your mind’ for others (because by seeing, everyone believes! Right?)

Possibility and impossibility

What is the possibility?
The possibility according to the follower of advaitha remains ‘jagath mithya’
That has already been studied or experienced, and as still working on it, it will take time.

What is the impossibility?
The impossibility according to the flowerer of advaitha is ‘Jagath is not illusion’


But how do we explain it to others (non followers) that jagath is an illusion alone when TRUTH is undefined, TRUTH is an experience, and TRUTH is beyond the senses to be explained!!!!

How do we present to someone ‘this’ is truth or ‘that’ is truth’?


It is not possible. Fine.

Even if we present it, is there someone to see it? Again because jagath is still mithya, nobody is there to watch it!

(That’s why prof. Nara asks “why should a jnani teach the disciple, if the disciple is mithya)

Now let us probe, how does one turn a disciple and the other a guru?

It is just like light and darkness. The light is guru and the darkness is disciple.
In the light of guru, the darkness in disciple diminishes.

Now I quote the very first manthra of paingalo panishad (calculate the time, disciple requires to prepare for attaining the mastery of oneness or Brahman from his guru).
paingalopanishad I-1. Then indeed Rishi Paingala approached Mahamuni Yajnavalkya as a disciple, and, having served him for twelve (12) years, said: Guro, Instruct me in regard to the supreme mystery of
Oneness. 1-1

I understand (from this and from the rest of the scriptures like this) that the light has been slowly poured (by guru) over the darkness (disciple), and the darkness gets diminished.

It’s not taught in a single meeting (single thread) or with a bundle of pramanas(found in libraries).

So, we conclude, it takes time to find the kaarana of ajnana, the ignorance.

It seems even difficult than finding the truth. Those who find the truth heads for the kaarana of ignorance, they are so called philosophers and not seekers.
I would say Shri. Satay is a philosopher than a seeker.

TRUTH has to reflect like a light on the thread, it slowly wipes out the darkness, though it takes time.

1) It reflects through intellectual posts!

2) I would not expect (FROM ANYONE) an immediate result in what we probe now. It may proceed for years and years, because we need to believe it as brahmavidhya being learned over internet.

3) Refutation of any kind will not help someone learning it, unless refuted and learned by the very wise (usually refutation takes place between two masters of thoughts-not disciples, I don’t think I am a master of any kind)

4) I would suggest ‘learning together’ (not teach nor being taught), a beautiful idea.

5) Also I do not recommend a new thread, because ‘better started is half done’ and this thread had an amazing start.


HDF can make it happen.

:)



Repeated reading of the post (or manana/ nidhidhyasana
of mandukya Upanishad helps) required in
comprehending the topic.



.


I mean Shri. Saidevo, not Shri. Satay.

saidevo
27 February 2010, 01:28 AM
namaste everyone.

We have had some long and deep discussion on the VedAntin's counter argument to the Rationalist expressed in CA1001 posed by Atanu (post 29,34), and arrived at the conclusion that the answer to the link between the absolutes of physical and metaphysical reality is most likely to be found in the deep sleep state.

While that discussion continues, let us now take up the discussion about the 'I', CA1002 posed by Atanu (post 29,34):

CA1002. Of what use is saying "I know this", when the "I" is not known? (post #29)

The Rationalist's views on the concept of 'I' are found in my post 34, and the first round of replies from Devotee and Atanu are found in posts 42 and 43. This post is in further discussion of the concept.

The ubiquitous 'I'

Devotee (post34) has hit the nail on the head by his statement that any identification of 'I' except with its 'owner' is wrong.

Atanu (post43) has beautifully explained, "With 'I' not centered correctly, the answer will be variable."

Let me add some points to their explanations.

VedAntin:

The 'I' and its counterpart 'self' are differently perceived in Science and VedAnta.

• In the Rationalistic objective worldview, 'I' and 'self' are nouns and pronouns that are separative/distinctive--rather than unifying in nature. While 'I' refers to the ego, 'self' refers to "the identity, character, or essential qualities of any person or thing, as distinct from all others". And the layman's definiton of 'ego' is 'I', 'self', 'the individual as self-aware' and 'individual personality'. Thus, anyway we look at it, except the word 'God', all other references such as 'I, self, soul, person' are all separative/distinctive in the layman's parlance.

• And yet, as shrI Chandrashekara BhArati SvAmigaL of Shringeri ShAradA PItham has pointed out, everyone has a subjective perception of himself/herself as only 'I'. The 'self' is expressed in plural as 'selves' but the plural of 'I' is always 'we, you, they' and not "I's". In this way, 'I' is even more ubiquitous than God, because even an atheist who does not believe in God, believes in the 'I' in him!

Human behaviour due to superimposition and lack of discrimination

To give an idea of the technical explanation of VedAnta of the mix-up between the aham--I and etad--this:

• aham is Self or Consciousness, and etad is Non-Self or matter. The attribute of aham--Self is Consciousness, of etad--Non-Self, is insentience. aham is the subject, and etad is the object.

• This means that aham and etad contradict each other, so their attributes cannot have any relation of identity or non-difference between themselves.

• Therefore, the superimposition of the insentient object and its attributes on the conscious subject should be impossible. To give an example, "Just because this table is near me, I cannot include it and collectively refer to 'the table and I' as 'we'."

In the same way, the superimposition of the conscious subject with the insentient object should also be impossible. It follows therefore: "Just because the Self (which is apprehended as the content of the concept 'I') is resident in this body, it cannot be associated with the body, or the mind, or the intellect or the jIva--reincarnating ego, which is the sum of all these karaNas--instruments".

• Nevertheless, owing to an absence of discrimination between these attributes and substances, which are absolutely disparate, there continues a natural human behaviour based on self-identification in the form "I am this" or "This is mine".

When I say, "I am this body", then the body as such is superimposed on the Self, conceived of as 'I'. When I say "This body is I", then a relationship with the Self is superimposed on the body. In either case the separateness of the body and Self is forgotten.

When I say, "This is my body", then the attributes of the body are superimposed on the Self, and the attributes of both get mixed up.

Such superimposition that seems/is natural in human behaviour has a chain reaction, from the physical body to the emotions, mind, intellect and ego. This behaviour has for its material cause an unreal nescience, and man resorts to it by mixing up reality with unreality as a result of superimposing the things themselves or their attributes on each other.

The irony of such association of aham with the etad is that, aham--Self, whose content is known by the concept 'I' that (subjectively) well known in the world to all people, learned and ignorant, and nobody has any doubt as to this;

whereas the etad--Non-Self we seek to associate with aham--Self, namely, the body, mind, intellect and ego, is not known or understood uniformly by everyone, and yet the natural human behaviour is to associate the 'I' with one or more of things that are Non-Self. Such is the power of avidyA--nescience, and mAyA--illusion arising out of adhyAsa--superimposition.

What this superimposition actually is, and what it constitutes will be explained in the next post.

(Source: the book Brahma-SUtra BhAShya of ShankarAchArya, translated by SvAmi GambhIrAnanda, in paraphraze with my own additions).

*****

atanu
27 February 2010, 08:13 AM
namaste Atanu.

Your explanation of how the Consciousness--which is the Self--gets veiled by avidyA in the deep sleep state, which in turn is the factor for the jIva's return to the other two states, is valuable. Please also give the verse number of the BRuhadAranyaka UpaniShad for any later reference by us in our discussions.

Can we say then, that self-shining Consciousness

• is in its full shine in turIya--fourth state, obliterating the borders of knower-known-knowledge;

• has no shine at all in suShupti--deep sleep, being completely veiled by avidyA--ignorance, still obliterating the borders of knower-known-knowledge as well as destroying the antaH-karaNa;

• is distortedly reflected in svapna--dream state, on the flowing waves of pent-up vAsanas--impressions, that are given full play in dreams;

• and is concretely reflected in the matter and energy of the physical world in our jAgrat--waking state?

It is the distored and concrete reflections of the Consciousness that gives rise to the notions of knower, known and knowledge? Anything more to it?


namaste saidevo ji,

The first observation (highlighted with blue fonts) that Self gets veiled, may require a bit more clarification and let me use Gaudapada karika for this:


I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?
I-10. Turiya, the Lord powerful to bring about the cessation of all sorrows, is imperishable, is regarded as the non-dual Lord of all entities, and is all-pervading.
I-11. Visva and Taijasa are regarded as conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause. But these two (viz cause and effect) do not exist in Turiya.
I-12. Prajna knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that Turiya is ever the all seer.
I-13. The non-cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. Prajna is possessed of sleep of the nature of cause, whereas that sleep does not exist in Turiya.
I-14. The first two (viz Visva and taijasa) are associated with dream and sleep, but Prajna (is associated) with sleep devoid of dream. The knowers of Brahman do not see either sleep or dream in Turiya.
I-15. Dream belongs to him who perceives wrongly and sleep to him who knows not Reality. When the false notion of these two comes to an end, the state of Turiya is attained.

The above may be seen in the light of the last verse of mandukya Upanishad itself:

Mandukya U.

12. That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
----------------------

The Upanishad certainly teaches that the states of visva, taijjassa, and shushupti are tinged with some ignorance whereas Turya is whole and without ignorance. So, the Self Turya is never veiled - it is as it is always. That same Turya visits the states --- and Gaudapada states that this is purely on accout of its very nature. Gaudapada does not attribute any motive to Self habitating the abodes of visva, taijjassa, and shushupti, since the Self is desireless. The visit of individual self (Jiva Atman) to various abodes and then joining the Self (Param Atman) in deep sleep is explained nicely in the Brihadaraynaka U, cited below:

IV-iii-6: When the sun and the moon have both set, the fire has gone out, and speech has stopped, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man ?’ ‘The self serves as his light. It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns.’ ‘It is just so, Yajnavalkya’.

IV-iii-7: ‘Which is the self ?’ ‘This infinite entity (Purusha) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the (self-effulgent) light within the heart (intellect). Assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves between the two worlds; it thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were. Being identified with dream, it transcends this world – the forms of death (ignorance etc.).’

IV-iii-8: That man, when he is born, or attains a body, is connected with evils (the body and organs); and when he dies, or leaves the body, he discards those evils.

IV-iii-9: That man only two abodes, this and the next world. The dream state, which is the third, is at the junction (of the two). Staying at that junction, he surveys the two abodes, this and the next world. Whatever outfit he may have for the next world, providing himself with that he sees both evils (sufferings) and joys. When he dreams, he takes away a little of (the impressions of) this all-embracing world (the waking state), himself puts the body aside and himself creates (a dream body in its place), revealing his own lustre by his own light – and dreams. In this state the man himself becomes the light.

IV-iii-10: There are no chariots, nor animals to be yoked to them, nor roads there, but he creates the chariots, the animals and the roads. There are no pleasures, joys, or delights there, but he creates the pleasures, joys and delights. There are no pools, tanks, or rivers there, but he creates the pools, tanks and rivers. For he is the agent.

IV-iii-11: Regarding this there are the following pithy verses: ‘The radiant infinite being (Purusha) who moves alone, puts the body aside in the dream state, and remaining awake himself and taking the shining functions of the organs with him, watches those that are asleep. Again he comes to the waking state.

IV-iii-12: ‘The radiant infinite being who is immortal and moves alone, preserves the unclean nest (the body) with the help of the vital force, and roams out of the nest. Himself immortal, he goes wherever he likes.

IV-iii-13: ‘In the dream world, the shining one, attaining higher and lower states, puts forth innumerable forms. He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women, or laughing, or even seeing frightful things.

IV-iii-14: ‘All see his sport, but none sees him’. They say, ‘Do not wake him up suddenly’. If he does not find the right organ, the body becomes difficult to doctor. Others, however, say that the dream state of a man is nothing but the waking state, because he sees in dream only those things that he sees in the waking state. (This is wrong) In the dream state the man himself becomes the light. ‘I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation’.

IV-iii-15: After enjoying himself and roaming, and merely seeing (the result of) good and evil (in dream), he (stays) in a state of profound sleep, and comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the dream state. He is untouched by whatever he sees in that state, for this infinite being is unattached. ‘It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself.’

IV-iii-16: After enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, and merely seeing (the results of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the waking state. He is untouched by whatever he sees in that state, for this infinite being is unattached. ‘It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself.’

IV-iii-17: After enjoying himself and roaming in the waking state, and merely seeing (the result of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the dream state (or that of profound sleep).

IV-iii-18: As a great fish swims alternately to both the banks (of a river), eastern and western, so does this infinite being move to both these states, the dream and waking states.

IV-iii-19: As a hawk or a falcon flying in the sky becomes tired, and stretching its wings, is bound for its nest, so does this infinite being run for this state, where, falling asleep, he craves no desire and sees no dream.

IV-iii-20: In him are those nerves called Hita, which are as fine as a hair split into a thousand parts, and filled with white, blue, brown, green and red (serums). (They are the seat of the subtle body, in which impressions are stored). Now when (he feels) as if he were being killed or overpowered, or being pursued by an elephant, or falling into a pit, (in short) conjures up at the time through ignorance whatever terrible things he has experienced in the waking state, (that is the dream state). And when (he becomes) a god, as it were, or a king, as it were, thinks, ‘This (universe) is myself, who am all’, that is his highest state.

IV-iii-21: That is his form – beyond desires, free from evils and fearless. As a man, fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know anything at all, either external or internal, so does this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form – in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desire and devoid of grief.

IV-iii-22: In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, a Chandala no Chandala, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect).

IV-iii-23: That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.

IV-iii-24: That it does not smell in that state is because, though smelling then, it does not smell; for the smeller’s function of smelling can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can smell.

IV-iii-25: That it does not taste in that state is because, though tasting then, it does not taste; for the taster’s function of tasting can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can taste.

IV-iii-26: That it does not speak in that state is because, though speaking then, it does not speak; for the speaker’s function of speaking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can speak.

IV-iii-27: That it does not hear in that state is because, though hearing then, it does not hear; for the listener’s function of hearing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can hear.

IV-iii-28: That it does not think in that state is because, though thinking then, it does not think; for the thinker’s function of thinking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can think.

IV-iii-29: That it does not touch in that state is because, though touching then, it does not touch; for the toucher’s function of touching can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can touch.

IV-iii-30: That it does not know in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not know; for the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can know.

IV-iii-31: When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell something, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something.

IV-iii-32: It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the sphere )(state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.
.

While the above describes how Jivatma, which is infinite, roams through states of Waking and Dreaming, creating objects where there is none such thing actually goes into its fullness (Paramatma) in deep sleep. When minds-egos assume ownership of "I", they fail to see that the Shsuhupti state of dark unknowing is due to the fullness and unbroken nature of Pragnya. Sage Yajnavalkya teaches why the state appears to be of IGNORANCE. Complementing the above, the following citation from Svet. U. describes how these Jivataman fellows came to be in the first place:

Svet U. Chapter V

2 He, the non—dual Brahman, who rules over every position; who controls all forms and all sources; who, in the beginning, filled with knowledge the omniscient Hiranyagarbha, His own creation, whom He beheld when He (Hiranyagarbha) was produced—He is other than both knowledge and ignorance.

3 At the time of the creation the Lord spreads out individual nets in various ways and then at the time of the cosmic dissolution withdraws them into the great prakriti. Again the all—pervading Deity creates the aggregates of body and senses, both individual and collective and their controllers also and thus exercises His overlordship.

4 As the sun shines, illumining all the quarters—above, below and across—so also God, self—resplendent, adorable and non—dual, controls all objects, which themselves possess the nature of a cause.

Sage Svetasvatara further in the same Upanishad prays to the Lord as below:


VI-10: May the Supreme Being, who spontaneously covers Himself with the products of Nature, just as a spider does with the threads drawn from its own navel, grant us absorption in Brahman !
-------------------------

There is an uninformed criticism of Advaita that it teaches that Self gets deluded. As per my understanding and Guru Ramana's teachings Turya is ever ignorance free. Guru Ramana further exhorts us to find out as to who is Ignorant? We have seen that Jivas that inhabit the waking and dreaming states, are not second entities from the non-dual Lord but are like threads drawn from Lord's navel, using products of its Nature (Pragnya).

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
27 February 2010, 08:24 AM
Namaste All,

So we have two types of so called creation:

1.
Creation of Jivas by the Supreme Being, by using its nature Pragnya as extension of itself, just as spider spreads its net and withdraws them.

2.
Creation of Chariots etc., where there is no such thing, by the resplendent Jivatman by its own light and kArana.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
27 February 2010, 08:45 AM
To complement the above two posts, now let us read what the Acharya taught, as explained by Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji (Courtesy Sh. MahaHrada).

Our acarya says: "There is neither arambha-vada nor parinama-vada here. It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of creation. For the potter who is the Paramatman there is no other entity other than himself called clay. So the arambha-vada is not right. To say that Paramatman transformed himself into the cosmos is like saying that the milk turns into curd. The curd is not the same as the milk. Would it not be wrong to state that the Paramatman became non-existent after becoming the cosmos? So the parinama-vada is also not valid. On the one hand, the Paramatman remains pure jnana, as nothing but awareness, and, on the other, he shows himself through the power of his Maya as all this universe with its living-beings and its inert objects. It is all the appearence of the same Reality, the Reality in various disguises. If a man dons a disguise he does not become another man. Similar is the case with all these disguises, all this jugglary of the universe. with all the apparent diversity, the one Reality remains unchanged. " This argument is known as "vivarta-vada".

There is vivarta in the phenomenon of a rope appearing to be a snake. The upadana-karana (material cause) that is the rope does not change into a snake by nimitta-karana(efficient cause). So the arambha-vada does not apply here. The rope does not transform itself into a snake; but on account of our nescience (avidya) it seems to us to be a snake. Similarly, on account of our ajnana or avidya the Brahman too seems to us as this world and such a vast plurality of entities.

(Cause of Creation Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji.)

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
27 February 2010, 09:11 AM
Namaste All,

So we have two types of so called creation:

1.
Creation of Jivas by the Supreme Being, by using its nature Pragnya as extension of itself, just as spider spreads its net and withdraws them.

2.
Creation of Chariots etc., where there is no such thing, by the resplendent Jivatman by its own light and kArana.

Om Namah Shivaya

The example of the spider and its net usually is made to refer to Parinamvada, rather than KevalAdvaita and Vivartavada where brahma (spider) does not assumes the form of the jagat (net) or is involved actively in creating something out of himself. It even rather supports dvaita than advaita.

In the six darsanas, Nyaya and Vaiseshika hold Arambha vada. Samkhya and Yoga hold Parinama Vada. Mimamsa, esp. Uttara Mimamsa is said to contain both Vivartavada and Parinamavada.

The dwaitic Vedanta Traditions(not Madhva though) also hold Parinamavada. According to them God becomes or creates the Universe just the way a spider creates its web from its body. In Vivartavada the Universe is not created or destroyed it only appears as if it is, by the play of Maya, so it needs a lot of hand waving to apply this quote to KevalAdvaita.

Realizing Brahman puts an end to the apparent universe. In Parinamvada when realsing the spider there is still the web, this example can therefore hardly refer to Adi Shankaracharyas KevalAdvaita.

saidevo
27 February 2010, 09:32 AM
What is superimposition--adhyAsa?

There are two interepretations about the related text in the Shankara-bhAShya of the BrahmasUtra.

• The interpretation from subjective point of view is that
It is an awareness, similar in nature to memory, that arises on a different (foreign) basis as a result of some past experience.

• and the interpretation from the objective point of view is that
It is somewhat like a recollected thing emerging from the impression of some past experience.

What does the superimposition consist of?

There are six well-known, alternative theories. Using the famous VedAnta example of the rajju-sarpa--rope-snake, and the nacre-silver (the first appearing as the second),

• Theory of anyathAkhyAti of the NyAya-VaisheShika school: Misapprehension; superimposition of attributes of silver in a remote shop in shell etc.in front.

We have at first a vague awareness of "this" about the rope in front of us. The mind is not satisfied with this alone, so it craves for a distinct perception. But some defect in the cognizer, his instruments of perception, or environment debars this, at the same time that the similarity of the rope and the snake calls up the memory of the latter. This memory in turn conjures up a visual perception of the snake, and so the "this" is apprehended as "This is a snake".

• Theory of AtmakhyAti of the Buddhists (Vijnanavadins, Vaibhashikas and Sautrantikas): superimposition of the attribute of silver internally on the external shell.

The "this" of the externally perceived rope is superimposed on the mentally present snake to form the erroneous judgment, "This is a snake". Their phychological explanation is this: It may so happen that owing to the past impression inhering in consciousness, there may be a simultaneous flow of the consciousness of the external "this" and the internal snake, in which case the two get mixed up.

• Theory of akhyAti of the PrAbhAkara-mImAMsakas: Non-apprehension; absence of illusions. Here the nacre (mother-of-pearl)--silver example is used.

There is no such thing as erroneous knowledge, for a contrary supposition will paralyse human action by raising doubt at every turn as to whether a particular cognition is valid or not. In a case of the so-called error, we do not really have a single cognition, but two, through which we err by failing to recognize the difference between the two.

On the one side we have the knowledge of the "this" in its absoluteness, occuring in the judgment "This is a nacre". The nacre fails to come within the range of cognition owing to some defect in the factors concerned and some similarity between nacre and silver, because of which latter fact, the contact between the eyes and the nacre calls up to memory the silver seen in a shop.

But the silver is remembered not in association with its time and locality, but simply as silver. So the two cognitions of "this" and silver synchronize, at the same time that the difference is not apprehended. This non-perception of difference prompts certain reactions in the perceiver.

• Theory of asatkhyAti of the MadhyAmika--Nihilist Buddhist: Apprehension of a non-existent thing; absolute absence like hare's horn.

This view holds that the non-existing silver appears as the non-existing nacre.

• Theory of anirvAchanIyakhyAti of the Advaitins: indeterminableness.

According to this view, the silver seen on the nacre cannot be categorized as either real or unreal. The person seeing it thinks that there is real silver before him and that is why he stretches out his hand to grab the silver.

Similarly, the universe which is an appearance on Brahman is neither real nor unreal. As in the case of silver, the universe is looked upon by all as real until Brahman is realized. As a result of this superimposition every one says "I am a man", etc., and "This is mine".

Thus the objects experienced are indeterminable, and that the object of erroneous cognition is neither real, nor unreal, nor real-unreal, i.e. it is sadasad-vilakShaNa.

• Theory of satkhyAti of RAmAnuja and his followers: No error, and what is experienced is real; objects exist independent of knowledge about them; by the process of quintuplication, every element contains parts of other elements, it is possible that anything can contain any other thing.

This view holds that the silver seen in a nacre is actually there in it. If an object appears yellow to a jaundiced eye, and this is not so to other eyes, the jaundiced eye is favourably conditioned to see the yellow color in that object which is present in every object to some degree (by the process of quintuplication--as to what this process is, check the ramanuja.org link given at the end). Hence the distinction which is ordinarily made between truth and error does not really exist.

But in order that truth may be practically useful in life, it should correspond not merely to some existent thing, in some degree, but to the element which is preponderating over others in that object which is perceived. Hence only those elements which, being commonly predominant in things, are equally perceived by all others also, can alone be really useful in life.

When something is perceived only by one individual, privately, and not by others, it becomes the so-called unreal or the illusory. But even the content of this private perception by an individual has existence, though it cannot be seen by others. What is called correction of error is not the negation of what is existent, but only the cessation of effort in regard to the non-predominant element in the object.

*****

From every point of view, however, there is no difference as regards the appearance of one thing as something else. In other words, all the six theories agree about the appearance of one thing as something else, although they differ in their explanations as to why this is so.

If all the six philosophical theories indeed speak of the common perception of appearances, why should and how can, the theory of anirvAchanIyakhyAti of the Advaitins refute the other views? To discuss this in the next post...

References:
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2005-July/036382.html
http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/mullaivasal/Adhyasabhashya_1.pdf
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/phil/phil_05c.html
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/may96/0112.html

*****

atanu
27 February 2010, 09:38 AM
For lovers of Gita, the following is cited:

13.17 Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

While, the ultimate truth is Advaita that the divisions are apparent and that Supreme Lord (Atman-Turya-Prabhu-Param Atman) alone is all, the knowledge of Dvaita is more imporatnt for Advaitins, as below:

13. 20 Prakritim purusham chaiva viddhyaanaadee ubhaavapi;
Vikaaraamshcha gunaamshchaiva viddhi prakritisambhavaan.

13.20. Know thou that Nature and Spirit are beginningless; and know also that all modifications and qualities are born of Nature.


And

13. 35 Kshetrakshetrajnayor evam antaram jnaanachakshushaa;
Bhootaprakritimoksham cha ye vidur yaanti te param.

13. 35. They who, through the eye of knowledge, perceive the distinction between the Field and its Knower, and also the liberation from the Nature of being, they go to the Supreme.

--------------------------
Purusha, the soul is brought into existence, out of Pragnya, by the Supreme Lord, the Atman. The Purusha, while dwelling in Prakriti, is not the fullness of Atman. Purusha, while devoid of kArana, is however indistinct from the Supreme Being. Purusha is distinct from Prakriti and its effects; and that must be known.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
27 February 2010, 10:01 AM
The example of the spider and its net usually is made to refer to Parinamvada, rather than KevalAdvaita and Vivartavada where brahma (spider) does not assumes the form of the jagat (net) or is involved actively in creating something out of himself. It even rather supports dvaita than advaita.




Namaste

What you say is correct only partially. For the Purusha as and in Turya, there is no creation and that is the ajAti state. But for Purusha interacting with Nature (wherein this discussion is taking place), the net of spider is only an extension of the spider, and not another second being. Ignorance is to consider these two Purushas as two different beings. Both states are of Brahman alone.

Probably, you have not read Swami Ji fully:

----It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of creation.----

(Cause of Creation Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji.)

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
27 February 2010, 10:23 AM
What is superimposition--adhyAsa?

From every point of view, however, there is no difference as regards the appearance of one thing as something else. In other words, all the six theories agree about the appearance of one thing as something else, although they differ in their explanations as to why this is so.

If all the six philosophical theories indeed speak of the common perception of appearances, why should and how can, the theory of anirvAchanIyakhyAti of the Advaitins refute the other views? To discuss this in the next post...



Namaste Saidevoji,


An exposition of khyatis will be invaluable enrichment. At this stage, however, please allow me to put in a reminder. The six Khyatis: Satkhyati, Akhyati, Anyathakhyati, Atmakhyati, Asatkhyati, and Anirvachaniyakhyati, are the theories of perception, which are not outside the realm of Prakriti.

For some, it will be directly beneficial to overcome the adhAsya effects of Prakriti, while for some, the theories will be helpful, as per vAsana.

Just as the following citation on the effect of Purusha Vidya shows:

III-xvii-6: Ghora Angirasa expounded this well-known doctrine to Devaki’s son Krishna and said, ‘Such a knower should, at the time of death, repeat this triad – "Thou art the imperishable, Thou art unchangeable, Thou art the subtle essence of Prana". (On hearing the above) he became thirstless.

In summary, the goal of every khyati and vAda is Brahman, that thirstless Being.

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

Personally, I have found every khyati leading to Anirvachaniyakhyati, which also cannot exist in Brahman.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
27 February 2010, 10:46 AM
Namaste

What you say is correct only partially. For the Purusha as and in Turya, there is no creation and that is the ajAti state. But for Purusha interacting with Nature (wherein this discussion is taking place), the net of spider is only an extension of the spider, and not another second being. Ignorance is to consider these two Purushas as two different beings. Both states are of Brahman alone.

Probably, you have not read Swami Ji fully:

----It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of creation.----

(Cause of Creation Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji.)

Om Namah Shivaya

I am not really partial to any darshana of course adhering to KevalAdvaita one would interpret every line of the shruti from that viewpoint.

I am only considering whether exactly this line would be one that is a good choice and well suited to defend VivartAvada in a debate, at that point i have my doubts since it is frequently used the other way around, when trying to refute VivartAvada and even Advaita as such. (since the web is something excreted from the spider and therefore not even a part of the spider any more)

atanu
27 February 2010, 10:59 AM
I am not really partial to any darshana of course adhering to KevalAdvaita one would interpret every line of the shruti from that viewpoint.

I am only considering whether exactly this line would be one that is a good choice and well suited to defend VivartAvada in a debate, at that point i have my doubts since it is frequently used the other way around, when trying to refute VivartAvada and even Advaita as such. (since the web is something excreted from the spider and therefore not even a part of the spider any more)

Namaste mahaHrada,

I agree. More appropriate are the metaphors of all Rivers joining the Ocean or Ocean with its many waves, as used in other Upanishads. This is so, because spider's net gives an image of the net being qualitatively different from the spider. However, we must accept that this metaphor exists and it does no harm to undrstanding of Advaita, if vivarta and the Eko Brahman is first kept in mind. vivarta is still true since the same Lord brings in the whole net back to its primal pralkriti state. No real transformation has taken place.

This creation is taking place at the stage after Rudra has given birth to the Hiraynagarbha through seeing.

Moreover, the above metaphor, on the other hand, is appropriate, to explain that Purusha immersed in Prakriti is not the full Brahman and the Purusha in attributeless Turya, is indistinct from Brahman. The metaphor helps to re-inforce the Transcendental nature of Turya as opposed to the networked world, however retaining the matter and the intelligence of the Universe with Brahman alone. And also that both these states of Purusha are of Brahman alone.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
27 February 2010, 11:27 AM
Namaste mahaHrada,

I However, we must accept that this metaphor exists and it does no harm to undrstanding of Advaita, if vivarta and the Eko Brahman is first kept in mind.

Om Namah Shivaya

Yes, but your opponents will not keep this first in mind :)

atanu
27 February 2010, 11:47 AM
Yes, but your opponents will not keep this first in mind :)

Namaste

But that question does not arise.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
27 February 2010, 12:11 PM
Namaste

But that question does not arise.

Om Namah Shivaya

But the thread title is How do we counter the argument?

atanu
27 February 2010, 12:22 PM
But the thread title is How do we counter the argument?

That is your view. I said 'let us learn together". Moreover, there is no point in argument for argument sake and especially when the full is not read and contemplated upon. It was already stated that Svet. U. teaches further:


VI-10: May the Supreme Being, who spontaneously covers Himself with the products of Nature, just as a spider does with the threads drawn from its own navel, grant us absorption in Brahman !


Svet. U. also teaches further that on removal of ignorance only the auspicious being remains.


No question of any doubt. Anyone interested and inclined will do sadhana. Those not inclined, will not.


Thanks for your inputs.


Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
27 February 2010, 12:41 PM
That is your view. I said 'let us learn together". Moreover, there is no point in argument for argument sake and especially when the full is not read and contemplated upon. It was already stated that Svet. U. teaches further:


VI-10: May the Supreme Being, who spontaneously covers Himself with the products of Nature, just as a spider does with the threads drawn from its own navel, grant us absorption in Brahman !


Svet. U. also teaches further that on removal of ignorance only the auspicious being remains.


No question of any doubt. Anyone interested and inclined will do sadhana. Those not inclined, will not.


Thanks for your inputs.


Om Namah Shivaya


But the whole Svetasvatara upanishad is not really a good example for VivartAvada, it is rather the basic upanishad that supports the agamic interpretation of the shruti, where Rudra is immanent in the jagat and clearly assumes the world as his body.

yo devo agnau yo apsu yo viśvaṃ bhuvanam āviveśa /ya oṣadhīṣu yo vanaspatīṣu tasmai devāya namo namaḥ
Svet. U 2. 17. The god who is in the fire, the god who is in the water, the god who has entered into the whole world, the god who is in plants, the god who is in trees, adoration be to that god, adoration!

It should be very clear and without much reason for doubt, looking at that quote, that Svetasvatara upanishad adheres to the Parinamavada, this upanishad is therefore not very useful for the task at hand, it even enumerates the various pariNAmas of the kArya.

atanu
27 February 2010, 01:47 PM
Namaste saidevo ji,

Those who are interested may read a detailed study of the concept of 'Error' as explained by Shankara in the Introduction to Brahmasutra, from the material present at:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/real/adhyasa.htm

Notes on Shankara's exmination of the nature of 'Error' in the introduction to the Brahmasutra.

A few points, i summarise below:

Analogy of the Rope and the Snake

This example originates from the commentaries of GauDapaada on the MaaNDuukya upanishhad. Seeing a rope in the dark, it is mistaken for a snake - an error or adhyaasa. We mistakenly superimpose the image of an illusory snake onto the real rope. In just such a way we superimpose the illusion of objects etc. upon the one aatman.--------

Shankara points out that the other aastika philosophies have already implicitly accepted the aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa. All of these systems talk about aatmaa and accept the Veda's assertion that it is eternal. They realise that it refers to 'aham' or 'I' and claim that this is immortal. And yet they are conscious of the their experience of 'I am a human being', 'I am a father' etc., which clearly refer to anaatmaa. Therefore, according to their systems, these statements must be erroneous. Statements such as 'I am the body' are examples of superimposition of the gross body onto the aatmaa; a form of adhyaasa. If they deny this, they will be reduced to the stance of materialism. Thus they cannot object to this special case of aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa. Therefore they must accept the more general case, even though they might not have realised it. -----

Shankara goes on to say that, although the example of the rope and snake is not based on shruti, we cannot legitimately object to that either because, like it or not, that is our experience. The objector can try to explain it but he cannot question it. The aatmaa-anaatmaa error, on the other hand, is based on shruti so that, again, we can try to explain but we cannot question it. The explanations given by the various philosophies may differ but the error cannot be denied.===========

Proofs for Adhyaasa

There are two shruti-based pramaaNa-s for adhyaasa, the first is 'postulated' and the second 'inferred'.

Postulated
The first takes an observed fact - for example I wake up one morning and find the road outside is flooded - and postulates an explanation for this - e.g. heavy rain occurred whilst I slept. Since I slept soundly, I have no direct knowledge of any rain but, without such a supposition, I have no reasonable way to explain the observed phenomenon. Other 'unreasonable' explanations may be put forward but the one suggested is the most plausible to the rational mind. In order to justify an improbable explanation, the more plausible must first be discredited. Since the observed fact can only be explained in this way, the explanation becomes a pramaaNa or valid means of knowledge. This pramaaNa is 'perception-based'. as opposed to 'shruti-based'. Shankara's concept of adhyaasa is in fact a shruti-based 'postulate' since there is no mention of the subject in the Vedas themselves and it is in this way that it becomes a valid knowledge in its own right.

Just as this principle can be used to explain the flooded streets, shruti-based postulates can be used to explain that the ideas that we are mortal, doers and enjoyers are all due to error. For example, the Kathopanishad II.19 says "If the slayer thinks that he slays or if the slain thinks that he is slain, both of these know not. For It (the Self) neither slays nor is It slain." Also the Giitaa V 8 tells us that one who knows the truth understands that we do not act. We are not 'doers' or 'killers' or 'killed'. Therefore, any statement such as 'I am a doer' or 'I am an enjoyer' must be an error, from shruti (and smR^iti) based postulate.

Similarly, the notion 'I am a knower' is an error. The MaaNDuukya Upanishad, for example, says that the aatmaa is not a knower in the waking state, the dream state or the deep sleep state but is pure consciousness. Thus shruti-based postulate shows that this idea, that 'I am a knower', is false. (Unlike the idea 'I am consciousness', which is not an error.)

Another statement in the shruti says that the aatman is changeless (indestructible and incombustible). To be a 'doer' would involve change since this is an experience. All experiences, enjoying, knowing etc., are processes involving a modification of ones state e.g. from ignorance to knowledge. In fact, the suffix -er after a verb implies this modification by indicating an action or process. Since the aatman cannot change, it follows that the aatman cannot be a doer, enjoyer or any oth-er. The concepts must be errors or adhyaasa.

A final argument is that, in order to be a 'doer' one would need an associated 'instrument'; for example, mind is an instrument of thought and sense organs are instruments of perception. A 'doer' would have to be associated with an instrument of 'doing' and an 'enjoyer' with an instrument of enjoyment. But the scriptures say that the aatmaa is not associated with anything and so cannot be a 'doer' etc.

Another adhyaasa is 'I am limited' e.g. ' I am here' (and not elsewhere). The kaThopanishad (I-3-15) for example says that the aatmaa is beyond the five sense perceptions, is eternal and unlimited, beginningless and limitless. Since it is unambiguously stated that we are limitless, the idea that I am limited must be an error, by shruti postulate. The notion 'I am an individual' is false; I am Brahman is the reality.

The last example here is the idea that there are many aatmaa-s. This, too, is an error. Many of the philosophies do claim multiplicity of aatmaa - saa~Nkhya, yoga, vaisheshhika, puurvamiimaa.nsaa and even vishishhTaadvaita and dvaita (which both recognise the importance of Vedanta. But Shankara cites the shvetaashvatara upanishad as clearly implying that aatmaa is one and the iishaa upanishad (V7) says "He who perceives all beings as the Self. for him how can there be delusion or sorrow, when he sees this oneness (everywhere) - all in all?"


Thus, shruti postulate has shown that the ideas that we are mortal, doers, enjoyers, knowers, limited and many are all false.

Inferred
Earlier, the process of inference was explained as involving four aspects - the 'locus' of the discussion, the 'conclusion' that will be reached, a 'basis' for the argument and an 'analogy'. The example used was ' whenever there is smoke, there is fire'. (The full form used for the analysis was '(we infer that) there is a fire on the mountain because we can see smoke, just as in a kitchen there is always fire when we see smoke'). Shankara's analysis of adhyaasa can be put into the first form by saying that 'wherever there is transaction, there is adhyaasa'.

He uses the example of using grass to catch a cow. The cow comes to the grass because, believing itself to be the body, it has notions such as 'I am hungry and the grass will remove the hunger, giving satisfaction'. It is the mistaken belief or adhyaasa 'I am the body' that causes the cow to come to the grass, 'going after things conducive to happiness'. Conversely, if instead of holding out grass, we take a stick to the cow, the cow senses danger and moves off, 'going away from things causing unhappiness'.

This is again caused by the mistaken idea 'I am the body'. In fact, in this latter case, it is thebelief that 'I am this physical body' (as opposed to the subtle body, which cannot be harmed by the stick).

This provides the 'analogy' for the inference. Man goes after things he likes and avoids those that he dislikes, just as the cow comes to the grass and runs away from the stick. The full form of the inference then becomes: '(We infer that) all human activities are based on error, because all activities can be considered as either coming towards or going away, just as in the example of the cow with the grass or stick'. "Human activity" is the 'locus'; "that it is based on adhyaasa" is the 'conclusion; "all activities are either coming towards or going away" is the 'basis'; the example of the cow, grass and stick is the 'analogy'.

Om Namah Shivaya


The full bhashya can be read at:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/index.htm

atanu
27 February 2010, 03:31 PM
But the whole Svetasvatara upanishad is not really a good example for VivartAvada, it is rather the basic upanishad that supports the agamic interpretation of the shruti, where Rudra is immanent in the jagat and clearly assumes the world as his body.


yo devo agnau yo apsu yo viśvaṃ bhuvanam āviveśa /ya oṣadhīṣu yo vanaspatīṣu tasmai devāya namo namaḥ
Svet. U 2. 17. The god who is in the fire, the god who is in the water, the god who has entered into the whole world, the god who is in plants, the god who is in trees, adoration be to that god, adoration!

It should be very clear and without much reason for doubt, looking at that quote, that Svetasvatara upanishad adheres to the Parinamavada, this upanishad is therefore not very useful for the task at hand, it even enumerates the various pariNAmas of the kArya.

namaste,

Which U. does not enumerate pariNAmas of the kArya that will always happen below kArana, where the pariNAmas are the various transformations of the prakRiti,? But where did you see parinamvada of alteration of Brahman? When gold is in form of a bangle, a ring and a chain, has parinAma taken place? immanence is there yet Gold has remained Gold. Rudra as adhistAna and Seer/Creator of Hiranyagarbha-brahmA (equivalent of taijjassa) is immanent in Visva but that does not convert Rudra to notRudra.


I-12: This is to be known as eternally existing in one’s own self. Indeed, there is nothing to be known beyond this. As a result of meditation the enjoyer, the enjoyed and the power which brings about the enjoyment – all are declared to be the three aspects of Brahman.


II-15: When the Yogin realizes the truth of Brahman, through the perception of the truth of Atman in this body as a self-luminous entity, then, knowing the Divinity as unborn, eternal and free from all the modifications of Prakriti, he is freed from all sins.


IV-18: When ignorance is dispelled, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Auspicious One who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom.


IV-20: His form does not stand within the range of the senses. No one perceives Him with the eye. Those who know Him through the faculty of intuition as thus seated in their heart, become immortal.


You are obviously wrong:


Though He has entered into Fire, Air, Water etc. as bhutama, yet His form does not stand within the range of the senses. He is untouched by Prakriti and when ignorance is dispelled there is none but that Auspicious Being. The enjoyer, the enjoyed and the process are all aspects of Brahman. Similarly, the jagat, Ishwara, and Jiva are all Brahman alone, yet Brahman is transcendental, unborn, eternal, immutable, unchangeable, akshara, and alone is known to exist on removal of IGNORANCE.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
27 February 2010, 04:54 PM
namaste,

Which U. does not enumerate pariNAmas of the kArya that will always happen below kArana, where the pariNAmas are the various transformations of the prakRiti,? But where did you see parinamvada of alteration of Brahman? When gold is in form of a bangle, a ring and a chain, has parinAma taken place? immanence is there yet Gold has remained Gold. Rudra as adhistAna and Seer/Creator of Hiranyagarbha-brahmA (equivalent of taijjassa) is immanent in Visva but that does not convert Rudra to notRudra.


I-12: This is to be known as eternally existing in one’s own self. Indeed, there is nothing to be known beyond this. As a result of meditation the enjoyer, the enjoyed and the power which brings about the enjoyment – all are declared to be the three aspects of Brahman.


II-15: When the Yogin realizes the truth of Brahman, through the perception of the truth of Atman in this body as a self-luminous entity, then, knowing the Divinity as unborn, eternal and free from all the modifications of Prakriti, he is freed from all sins.


IV-18: When ignorance is dispelled, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Auspicious One who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom.


IV-20: His form does not stand within the range of the senses. No one perceives Him with the eye. Those who know Him through the faculty of intuition as thus seated in their heart, become immortal.


You are obviously wrong:


Though He has entered into Fire, Air, Water etc. as bhutama, yet His form does not stand within the range of the senses. He is untouched by Prakriti and when ignorance is dispelled there is none but that Auspicious Being. The enjoyer, the enjoyed and the process are all aspects of Brahman. Similarly, the jagat, Ishwara, and Jiva are all Brahman alone, yet Brahman is transcendental, unborn, eternal, immutable, unchangeable, akshara, and alone is known to exist on removal of IGNORANCE.

Om Namah Shivaya

The relation between an actual object and its reflection within a mirror is one of vivarta, the mirror remains the same, it does not act in any way to create the image, the jagat therefore does appear caused by the activity of avidya or maya not by the activity of brahman. when sv.u says the god who has entered into the whole world this entering is an active involvement of rudra he is not merely the mirrorlike canvas but by his activity he manifests his presence in the jagat by the activity of entering into the world, therefore sv. up teaches Parinamavada. It is the active involvement of brahman , in parAdvaita his own power the Iccha or Nija shakti or his free will Svatrantrya that distinguishes the active brahman of the Parinamvada from the inactive mirrorlike brahman of the Vivartavada. There are many verses in sv up that show brahman or rudra full of activity, besides that the terms yoga and samkhya are mentioned in sv,up which are both darshanas that adhere to Parinamavada. Sv.UP is of all Upanishads the major shabda pramana for Parinamavada Darshanas i.e. Samkhya, Yoga and Agama/Tantra. Also the Yoga described is based on principles of these aforementioned darshanas and refers to the laya of the tattvas.

satay
27 February 2010, 06:21 PM
Admin Note

From the last few posts, I am afraid that this thread will derail into yet another useless match of ego between a couple of members.

I request to you all to please keep it on topic.

Sai, please let me know if posts are still answering your initial questions. If they are not, then I will have to put in some time to read every post and cut, edit, delete the irrelevant parts.

Thanks,

atanu
28 February 2010, 01:11 AM
The relation between an actual object and its reflection within a mirror is one of vivarta, the mirror remains the same, it does not act in any way to create the image, the jagat therefore does appear caused by the activity of avidya or maya not by the activity of brahman. when sv.u says the god who has entered into the whole world this entering is an active involvement of rudra he is not merely the mirrorlike canvas but by his activity he manifests his presence in the jagat by the activity of entering into the world, therefore sv. up teaches Parinamavada. It is the active involvement of brahman , in parAdvaita his own power the Iccha or Nija shakti or his free will Svatrantrya that distinguishes the active brahman of the Parinamvada from the inactive mirrorlike brahman of the Vivartavada. There are many verses in sv up that show brahman or rudra full of activity, besides that the terms yoga and samkhya are mentioned in sv,up which are both darshanas that adhere to Parinamavada. Sv.UP is of all Upanishads the major shabda pramana for Parinamavada Darshanas i.e. Samkhya, Yoga and Agama/Tantra. Also the Yoga described is based on principles of these aforementioned darshanas and refers to the laya of the tattvas.

namaste maha

I do not know which opponents you have talked of in your earlier posts.

Svet. U. says: Eko Rudra, dvittiya na tasthu. There is no Second to this Eko, who alone is Rudra. Then it goes on to say: Rudra saw Hiranyagarbha's, the world soul's (brahmA) birth and all beings are Him alone. He alone extends the net and withdraws it. Questions of vivarta and pariNAma will have relevance if Svet. taught of two truths: of milk and curd. It says emphatically that on removal of ignorance, nothing but the eternal auspicious being remains.

So, there is no question of many beings, as held by other darshanas. Svet. also emphatically talks of the ignorance hiding the fact that it is one Being, who is Isha, Jiva, and the World. Svet. U. emphatically asserts that the soul-purusha is nothing but Brahman alone.

There is no opposition. There is no adherance to the basic shruti by you and so no opposition can arise. If you have any question, I will request you to please put those in another thread.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
28 February 2010, 01:40 AM
Namaste Sai ji

There are two examples of basic types of adhAsya:

One view says that Satyam Ekam does not mean that Jagat is mithya. This amounts to agreeing to 'Satyam Ekam' yet seeing the Satyam and a Second (which is a perception of a non existent second thing). This leads to the stance "--- no but scripture teaches pariNAma". That again is forgetting the first dictum of Ekam Satyam. If there is change that can be apparent only.

The second view, which was postulated in a post that has probably been removed, stated that Brahman has to follow the predestined dimensions, which is ever the truth. This is probably like talking about two Brahmans. The thread is concerned with akshara Param Brahman but someone may read the posts of person called Brahman here and comment "Brahman knows only advaita". This is just a mistake about the subject.

Om namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
28 February 2010, 03:13 AM
I wanted to attract attention to the following:

Adi Shankaracharya apparently taught both Parinamavada and Vivartavada at least if we accept the Authority of most of todays Acharyas of his Sampradaya.

The Upanishads taught both an active Brahman that is engaged in his creation that corresponds with the doctrine of the Parinamvada and an absolute Brahman that is inactive that is not engaged in his creation which corresponds to the Vivartavada, both are accepted viepoints within Advaita.

If confrónted with an opponent in debate one can either ignore this and limit all the upanishads to contain only one singular doctrine or acknowldge that they contain multiple viewpoints and further more that some upanishads focus on the inactive absolute brahman and other on the active Brahman engaged in the world.

There is a general consensus amongst scholars of Indology east and west that the Upanishads contain multiple world views and even the Acharya apparently does not stick to one Viewpoint but probably adjusted his teachings to the audience he adresses.

Here is a simple summary of all the major Upanishads and the subject matter and also the favoured doctrines each contain, probably that is helpful:

http://hinduism.about.com/od/scripturesepics/a/main_upanishads.htm

atanu
28 February 2010, 06:24 AM
Adi Shankaracharya apparently taught both Parinamavada and Vivartavada at least if we accept the Authority of most of todays Acharyas of his Sampradaya.


Namaste maha (and Satay),

It is good that you have finally stated your postion. This position is however not in consonance with the citation of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati MahaSwamiji (by you originally):

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40414&postcount=69 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40414&postcount=69)

The salient point is reproduced below:

Our acarya says: "There is neither arambha-vada nor parinama-vada here. It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of creation. For the potter who is the Paramatman there is no other entity other than himself called clay. So the arambha-vada is not right. To say that Paramatman transformed himself into the cosmos is like saying that the milk turns into curd. The curd is not the same as the milk. Would it not be wrong to state that the Paramatman became non-existent after becoming the cosmos? So the parinama-vada is also not valid. On the one hand, the Paramatman remains pure jnana, as nothing but awareness, and, on the other, he shows himself through the power of his Maya as all this universe with its living-beings and its inert objects. It is all the appearence of the same Reality, the Reality in various disguises. If a man dons a disguise he does not become another man. Similar is the case with all these disguises, all this jugglary of the universe. with all the apparent diversity, the one Reality remains unchanged. " This argument is known as "vivarta-vada".

There is vivarta in the phenomenon of a rope appearing to be a snake. The upadana-karana (material cause) that is the rope does not change into a snake by nimitta-karana(efficient cause). So the arambha-vada does not apply here. The rope does not transform itself into a snake; but on account of our nescience (avidya) it seems to us to be a snake. Similarly, on account of our ajnana or avidya the Brahman too seems to us as this world and such a vast plurality of entities.

(Cause of Creation Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati MahaSwamiji.)
-----------------

The point discussed so far in this thread has been that how the knowledge of science that waves appear as localised particles (and how then the particles influence our measurement problems) has been documented and compared with Advaitic and Vedic knolwedge . It has also been documented that how the scientists at the frontier are influenced by the Shankara's exposition of the view of Truth.

In Advaita pariNAma aphorisms are attributed solely to mAyA, else the unchangeabilty of Brahman cannot be maintained.

Any further posts on this subject should be removed to another thread, as the view of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati MahaSwamiji should be taken as authority on the subject.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
28 February 2010, 06:59 AM
Namaste Satay,

As this is a valuable thread from Advaitic point of view, you may think of relocating some of the posts which are not related with the main topic under discussion.

I request everyone who posts in this thread to stick to main topic and refrain from making general sweeping remarks or posting anything which would divert the discussion away from the main topic.

OM

atanu
28 February 2010, 07:47 AM
Our acarya says: "There is neither arambha-vada nor parinama-vada here. It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of creation. For the potter who is the Paramatman there is no other entity other than himself called clay. So the arambha-vada is not right. To say that Paramatman transformed himself into the cosmos is like saying that the milk turns into curd. The curd is not the same as the milk. Would it not be wrong to state that the Paramatman became non-existent after becoming the cosmos? So the parinama-vada is also not valid. On the one hand, the Paramatman remains pure jnana, as nothing but awareness, and, on the other, he shows himself through the power of his Maya as all this universe with its living-beings and its inert objects. It is all the appearence of the same Reality, the Reality in various disguises. If a man dons a disguise he does not become another man. Similar is the case with all these disguises, all this jugglary of the universe. with all the apparent diversity, the one Reality remains unchanged. " This argument is known as "vivarta-vada".,

There is vivarta in the phenomenon of a rope appearing to be a snake. The upadana-karana (material cause) that is the rope does not change into a snake by nimitta-karana(efficient cause). So the arambha-vada does not apply here. The rope does not transform itself into a snake; but on account of our nescience (avidya) it seems to us to be a snake. Similarly, on account of our ajnana or avidya the Brahman too seems to us as this world and such a vast plurality of entities.

(Cause of Creation Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati MahaSwamiji.)
Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste friends

At this stage a few comments on the three main paths of Vedanta may be helpful for the initiates in philosophy.

Shankara unequivocally maintains vivarta (as when a stick is seen as a snake due to error of perception) in his philosophic expositions. He maintains that the change is only apparent.

The later Acharya, Shri Ramanuja, however, to emphasise bhakti probably, proposed a different view including pariNama (as when milk becomes curd). In essence, Shri Ramanuja suggested that the souls and the acit matter constitute the body of Brahman. That is Brahman is, as if, composed of parts, which are the souls and acit matter of this world. Apparently this is the view also propagated by some initiate advaitins -- who sense the truth of advaita in general, yet cannot fathom the transcendental nature of Brahman, untouched by Prakrikit artifacts.

For example, all Upanishads teach that Brahman's form is not at all amenable to senses. Shruti says that Brahman is partless and internally homogeneous, equally present as All Pervasive. It is also stated to be changeless. So, the changing nature of the Universe cannot be part or the body of Brahman in real sense. Though in sensual sense this can be true, as Shri Krishna teaches that Param Atman appears to be divided in bodies. The division is thus but only apparent.

Acharya Madhava highlighted the above points and brought back the attention to the Transcendental partless Brahman (Vishnu) as distinct from the souls and the Universe. He has not denied the Advaita nature of Prabhu as taught in Mandukya U. Neither has he denied the Mandukya teaching that the Advaita Prabhu must be known. But he emhasized the eternality of souls that are distinct from Brahman. When advaitins see the souls as eternal designs of Brahman that He adorns, remaining changeless Himself (just as gold bangles, rings, necklaces etc. or Just as clay pots, dishes, flower vasesv etc.) there is no conflict. On the other hand, since Upanishads teach emphatically that Purusha is ONE, this will create problem, if we take all souls as independently Cit (intelligent). However, Acharya Madhava has clearly stated the dependence of these souls on Lord and has linked Lord and the souls through the Sakshi aspect of Brahman (witness).

Though there are differences in the scope, framework, and TARGET of DEVOTION of the three darshanas, i through comparisons and contemplation, see the complementary nature of these.

After all, when Ishwara is Eko and immanent in Universe as the Universe Soul, the paths are all designed by Him for different grades of devotees for removal of sorrow. Who is higher and who is lower should not enter this discussion, since all steps in a staircase are equally important and dependent on each other. Finally the goal is removal of IGNORANCE and the knowledge of self/Self.

So let us strive together for that goal. Only on attaining the Transcendental Turya Prabhu, the Truth, which Veda states to be Ekam, can be internalised.

Om Namah Shivaya

brahman
01 March 2010, 12:23 AM
Namaste friends

At this stage a few comments on the three main paths of Vedanta may be helpful for the initiates in philosophy.

Shankara unequivocally maintains vivarta (as when a stick is seen as a snake due to error of perception) in his philosophic expositions. He maintains that the change is only apparent.

The later Acharya, Shri Ramanuja, however, to emphasise bhakti probably, proposed a different view including pariNama (as when milk becomes curd). In essence, Shri Ramanuja suggested that the souls and the acit matter constitute the body of Brahman. That is Brahman is, as if, composed of parts, which are the souls and acit matter of this world. Apparently this is the view also propagated by some initiate advaitins -- who sense the truth of advaita in general, yet cannot fathom the transcendental nature of Brahman, untouched by Prakrikit artifacts.

For example, all Upanishads teach that Brahman's form is not at all amenable to senses. Shruti says that Brahman is partless and internally homogeneous, equally present as All Pervasive. It is also stated to be changeless. So, the changing nature of the Universe cannot be part or the body of Brahman in real sense. Though in sensual sense this can be true, as Shri Krishna teaches that Param Atman appears to be divided in bodies. The division is thus but only apparent.

Acharya Madhava highlighted the above points and brought back the attention to the Transcendental partless Brahman (Vishnu) as distinct from the souls and the Universe. He has not denied the Advaita nature of Prabhu as taught in Mandukya U. Neither has he denied the Mandukya teaching that the Advaita Prabhu must be known. But he emhasized the eternality of souls that are distinct from Brahman. When advaitins see the souls as eternal designs of Brahman that He adorns, remaining changeless Himself (just as gold bangles, rings, necklaces etc. or Just as clay pots, dishes, flower vasesv etc.) there is no conflict. On the other hand, since Upanishads teach emphatically that Purusha is ONE, this will create problem, if we take all souls as independently Cit (intelligent). However, Acharya Madhava has clearly stated the dependence of these souls on Lord and has linked Lord and the souls through the Sakshi aspect of Brahman (witness).

Though there are differences in the scope, framework, and TARGET of DEVOTION of the three darshanas, i through comparisons and contemplation, see the complementary nature of these.

After all, when Ishwara is Eko and immanent in Universe as the Universe Soul, the paths are all designed by Him for different grades of devotees for removal of sorrow. Who is higher and who is lower should not enter this discussion, since all steps in a staircase are equally important and dependent on each other. Finally the goal is removal of IGNORANCE and the knowledge of self/Self.

So let us strive together for that goal. Only on attaining the Transcendental Turya Prabhu, the Truth, which Veda states to be Ekam, can be internalised.

Om Namah Shivaya


Shri Atanu wrote:
After all, when Ishwara is Eko and immanent in Universe as the Universe Soul, the paths are all designed by Him for different grades of devotees for removal of sorrow. Who is higher and who is lower should not enter this discussion, since all steps in a staircase are equally important and dependent on each other. Finally the goal is removal of IGNORANCE and the knowledge of self/Self.





Love to this great preparation for attainment of truth. Good luck

atanu
01 March 2010, 08:45 AM
Shri Atanu wrote
After all, when Ishwara is Eko and immanent in Universe as the Universe Soul, the paths are all designed by Him for different grades of devotees for removal of sorrow. Who is higher and who is lower should not enter this discussion, since all steps in a staircase are equally important and dependent on each other. Finally the goal is removal of IGNORANCE and the knowledge of self/Self.

Love to this great preparation for attainment of truth. Good luck

Namaste and Thanks Brahman,

Some more points are noted below to show that it is only the ignorance that is to be removed and nothing new is to be attained. The degrees of difference of Advaita darshana with other darshanas can be discussed further to comprehend how Advaita darshana satisfies concurrence with shruti fully.

Dvaita darshana asserts that the Souls are eternal and different/separate/distinct from Paramatman. Advaita does not object. But then Shruti says that the Truth is One -- so out of these, the Brahman and the souls, only one can be the Truth. So, about the truth there must be some ignorance.

Vishitaadvaita holds that Karma is eternal. However, Shri Krishna teaches "Arjuna, know that you are not the doer." So, even if karma is eternal, but there seems to ignorance, as to who is the karmi.

Buddha teaches "There is dukha but no dukhi". But the question arises because someone perceives the Dukkha. So, again there must be some ignorance.

The Abrahamic religions mainly teach that "Surrender" to either Allah or God's son is sufficient. Here the answer is delicate. Sanatana Dharma also prescribes "Surrender". But Advaita darshana additionally points out that our basic nature is surrender only -- as in deep sleep. Our true nature is of pragnya Ghana, born of Pragnya. But any one who analyses the Deep Sleep will know that it is the Ultimate Surrender. Yet no one attains salvation by mere sleeping. Here again Advaita Darshana emhasizes the knowledge aspect -- the importance of knowing one's true nature. So, again the ignorance has to be removed.

The ignorance, as per Advaita darshana is that though we by nature are the Truth alone, but the truth of the situation is covered over, rather than projected. That we 'are' (sat) and that we are 'conscious' (chit) is known to all. What is hidden in the particular part is that we are bliss (aananda) (or unlimited, complete, infinite etc.).

The aastika philosophies all agree that there is aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa; they just disagree about the extent to which this occurs. If the three statements: - I am mortal; I am a doer; I am an enjoyer; are considered, the Nyaaya and Vaisheshhika schools of philosophy claim that the first statement is an error but the second two are facts. SaaNkhya and Yoga schools, on the other hand, say the first two are errors and only the third is a fact. As Shri Krishna teaches in Gita "Arjuna know that you are not the doer". However, in the 13th Chapter, Shri Krishna further teaches, that seated in the Heart of all beings, Paramatman is BhoktA. That would seem to imply and indeed it is taken as if, Paramatman is eventually the bhoktA (enjoyer).

But according to an advaitin, all three are errors. There are other verses in Gita that indicates this but let us see how Advaita is in line with Shruti from Brihadarayanaka Upanishad. The Upanishad states the both aspects of Brahman: of an eater or the eaten in the created Universe and neither of these Transcendentally, as below:


Now, whatever there is moist, that he created from seed; this is Soma. So far verily is this universe either food or eater. Soma indeed is food, Agni eater. This is the highest creation of Brahman, when he created the gods from his better part, and when he, who was (then) mortal, created the immortals. Therefore it was the highest creation. And he who knows this, lives in this his highest creation.


But what Brahman is in reality, when known Transcendentaly, distinct from the creation? The answer is below from the same Upanishad.

III-viii-8: He said: O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman say, this Immutable (Brahman) is that. It is neither gross nor minute, neither short nor long, neither red colour nor oiliness, neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor ether, unattached, neither savour nor odour, without eyes or ears, without the vocal organ or mind, non-luminous, without the vital force or mouth, not a measure, and without interior or exterior. It does not eat anything, nor is It eaten by anybody.

Om Namah Shivaya

proudhindu
01 March 2010, 01:45 PM
13.17 Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

HE(the supreme) is distinct from Jivas.13:23 confirms this.


While, the ultimate truth is Advaita that the divisions are apparent and that Supreme Lord (Atman-Turya-Prabhu-Param Atman) alone is all, the knowledge of Dvaita is more imporatnt for Advaitins, as below:

13. 20 Prakritim purusham chaiva viddhyaanaadee ubhaavapi;

Sure, if you say so.You could have stated the ultimate truth in the beginning itself instead of asking us to read essentially the Dwaita aspect of the world.The purusha and prakriti being distinct and different.



13. 35 Kshetrakshetrajnayor evam antaram jnaanachakshushaa;
Bhootaprakritimoksham cha ye vidur yaanti te param.

13. 35. They who, through the eye of knowledge, perceive the distinction between the Field and its Knower, and also the liberation from the Nature of being, they go to the Supreme.

The verse in question is 13:34.verse 34 is the last verse of chapter 13.
The verse says there is a distinction Between filed and knower.Two seperate entities again.


--------------------------
Purusha, the soul is brought into existence, out of Pragnya, by the Supreme Lord, the Atman. The Purusha, while dwelling in Prakriti, is not the fullness of Atman. Purusha, while devoid of kArana, is however indistinct from the Supreme Being. Purusha is distinct from Prakriti and its effects; and that must be known.

Om Namah Shivaya

Are you agreeing with the professor???.

How this post could be of any use to saidevo?.

atanu
01 March 2010, 06:17 PM
Are you agreeing with the professor???.
How this post could be of any use to saidevo?.

Namaste Proudhindu,

Thank you for the question, since this alone is required.

You seem to agree to my statement that "Purusha is distinct from Prakriti and its effects; and that must be known". You therefore also agree that Purusha must be known. But do we know that Purusha, who is seated in the Heart as distinct from the phenomenom?

It will be something like this. A Man sleeping in his house dreams that he is trying to get back to his home but various factors are stopping him. He is extremely troubled, thirsty, fearful of animals and goons. He is hungry and as there is no food he is actually fearful of dying of hunger. The fear wakes him up. But on waking up, he finds himself drenched in sweat, sitting on his bed. He was unnecessarily troubled by the dream and the physical discomfort due to the dream was very real (example adapted from teaching of Shri Ramana).

Similarly the Mind in us has taken the Phenomenal cloth as the Purusha. The Purusha who is the Heart must be known by discrimination and sadhana. The real nature of Purusha/Atman can be known only on experiencing (in samadhi) but we can do some thinking on the implications that were already discussed (probably you have not read the full):
.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40195&postcount=29

We may discuss the implications in a separate thread if you wish.

Om Namah Shivaya

proudhindu
02 March 2010, 12:53 AM
Namaste Proudhindu,

Thank you for the question, since this alone is required.

You seem to agree to my statement that "Purusha is distinct from Prakriti and its effects; and that must be known". You therefore also agree that Purusha must be known. But do we know that Purusha, who is seated in the Heart as distinct from the phenomenom?

Distinct from the phenomena and distinct from me(the Jiva).


It will be something like this. A Man sleeping in his house dreams that he is trying to get back to his home but various factors are stopping him. He is extremely troubled, thirsty, fearful of animals and goons. He is hungry and as there is no food he is actually fearful of dying of hunger. The fear wakes him up. But on waking up, he finds himself drenched in sweat, sitting on his bed. He was unnecessarily troubled by the dream and the physical discomfort due to the dream was very real (example adapted from teaching of Shri Ramana).


necessarily or unnecessarily he is troubled by the dream.

But the thirst ; the side effect of that troubled dream can only be quenched by

real water.Not by learning Advaita vedanta.The professor blew holes in to the
very same argument in page-3 at

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3803-atman-its-adjectives-3.html.

After some 10 pages of posts nothing substantial to help saidevo.

atanu
02 March 2010, 01:31 AM
Distinct from the phenomena and distinct from me(the Jiva).

necessarily or unnecessarily he is troubled by the dream. But the thirst ; the side effect of that troubled dream can only be quenched by real water. Not by learning Advaita vedanta.The professor blew holes in to the
very same argument in page-3 at ---

Thank you Proundhindu

I get that you accept that a) the dream may or maynot be troublesome but you do not know and b) real water can only quench the thirst. I agree.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
02 March 2010, 02:54 AM
Namaste PH,

First : I think whether it helps Saidevo or not, should be decided by Saidevo & not anyone else. I mean, he doesn't need your help to say so, if he feels that way.

Second : I don't think we should discuss with a person who is not at all ready to see the reason. I don't think anyone here wants to "convert" anyone. If he is happy with illogical concepts ... why should we bother about him ?

OM

proudhindu
02 March 2010, 03:11 AM
(probably you have not read the full):
.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40195&postcount=29

We may discuss the implications in a separate thread if you wish.


I read it.


IV-70-72. One FEARS NEVER (and from nothing) on knowing the nature of the self as Bliss unequalled, attributeless and one mass of truth and consciousness. That is beyond all that is beyond, greater than the greatest, lustrous and eternal in nature, wise, ancient Being, Sarvesvara.

THERE IS A REALITY CHECK IN sveta 4:22 where the sveta rushi fears for his possessions( Cattle).

Obviously the bliss is not enough to overcome fear of losing his possessions(cattle), even for somebody as great as the Sveta rushi.

Welcome to real world.

proudhindu
02 March 2010, 03:28 AM
Pranaam devotee


Namaste PH,

First : I think whether it helps Saidevo or not, should be decided by Saidevo & not anyone else. I mean, he doesn't need your help to say so, if he feels that way.

That is right.I am yet to see sai ji posting anything in that thread to counter the professor regarding Sankara acharya ideas.


Second : I don't think we should discuss with a person who is not at all ready to see the reason. I don't think anyone here wants to "convert" anyone. If he is happy with illogical concepts ... why should we bother about him ?

OM

Of course no need to waste time discussing illogical ideas.

BUT, sai ji wants to counter his Logical assertions(some of them are logical, at least sai thinks so).

atanu
02 March 2010, 05:34 AM
I read it.
THERE IS A REALITY CHECK IN sveta 7: 4 where the sveta rushi fears for his possessions( Cattle).

Welcome to real world.

Thank you for the call for the real world. But i have not yet seen the Svet. U. 7.4 anywhere. May be there is a special version?

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
02 March 2010, 07:31 AM
namaste everyone.

Owing to a major disruption in the underground cable network of BSNL belonging to our and another Exchange, I couldn't access the Net since Sundary afternoon; the problem has since been rectified, after much groundwork I understand, and I could access the Net only from 16:30 hours today (Tuesday). Meantime, I have collected a lot of information, specially about the anirvAchanIya theory.

Much water has flown in this thread during these three days. I would need a day or two read the pending posts from no.72 onwards. Meantime I shall post my collections to further our discussions.

As stated in my post 25, we need to focus our discussions about the two tasks, of finding direct/derived Veda/prasthAnatrayI pramANa for the key concepts of Shankara Advaita (task 1) and explain how they, along with the other Advaitic approach of VedAnta, relate to the rational approaches, and if there is a gap, the what and why of that gap.

Satay, I find that the discussions between Atanu and MahaHrada do contribute to our arriving at the shRuti pramANa. Since the scope of this thread is large, they do not necessarily deviate from the main requirement. In general, however, members may please confine their arguments and discussions to the answers required for the two tasks mentioned above. Brahman and Atanu have suggested a valuable approach to the two tasks based on the revelations in the MANDukya UpaniShad and GauDapAdA's KArikA, which I have started reading.

I thank all the members who have contributed to the discussions.

saidevo
02 March 2010, 07:37 AM
This post is in cotinuation of my post 71, about the various approaches to explaining the adhyAsa--superimposition, and their refutation by the anirvAchanIyakyAti theory of the Advaitins. Since the material is from SvAmi KRShNAnanda, it can serve as a valuable piece of knowledge and reference to us.

How and why the anirvAchanIyakhyAti theory of Advaita refutes other theories

We shall use the famous nacre-silver and rajju-sarpa examples to highlight and refute the other points of view.

To recap, in the anirvAchanIyakhyAti theory of Advaita, the silver seen in the nacre cannot be categorized as real or unreal. Thus the objects experienced are indeterminable, and that the object of erroneous cognition is neither real, nor unreal, nor real-unreal, i.e., it is sadasad-vilakShaNa.

In the last post, I gave only a very brief statement of some theories, which are here expanded for our knowing them better.

01. satkhyAti of RAmAnuja
Theory:
By the process of quintuplication, silver can exist in nacre, and both objects are independent of knowledge about them. The eye that sees the silver in the nacre is favourably condition for that sight. However, only the majority sight of the preponderating nature of an object is taken as reality, and the minority which has a different, although real, perception should learn to overcome by cessation of the effort, rather than negation of the minor reality.

Refutation:
In quintuplication, the gross physical elements are not quintuplicated; only the subtle rudimentary principles of these elements are quintuplicated. Else, one would perceive silver in a pillar of stone. The constituents of nacre and silver are not mixed up in one object. If silver is really contained in nacre, the silver part of the nacre should melt when the nacre is thrown into fire. A snake is not present in the rope as one of the constituents of the latter.

*****

02. akhyAti of the PrAbhAkara-mImAMsakas
Theory:
In the nacre-silver error, there are two cognitions and the error is due to failure of perception of the difference between the two. Both the cognitions are real and they get mixed up in perception.

Refutation:
Perception of two cognitions (as two objects) implies the perception of the difference between them. If this is not so, a pot can be perceived as a cloth, and if the difference/distinction is not seen, then both the objects can't be perceived at all.

Distinction is the essential nature of every object. Without the perception of distinction, there is no perception at all. As knowledge is accepted to be self-luminous, the moment it is manifest it should reveal difference. And when any object is known, its distinction from other objects should also be known simultaneously. Thus, the possibility of the non-cognition of difference does not arise.

*****

03. anyathAkhyAti of the NyAya-VaisheShika school
Theory:
The silver in the nacre is perceived, not because of the character of either, but because of a relationship between them, which is the glitter of silver in the nacre, and this glitter is seen by the eye in error. If silver is unreal, it cannot be seen at all, so in the error correction what is negated is not silver itself, but the supposed relation between the 'thisness' and silver.

Refutation:
When silver is perceived in the 'thisness' of nacre, it is not a distant silver that is seen, but only an appearance of it, so it is unnecessary to bring in a real and distant silver. Further, when the error is corrected, one feels: 'This is not silver', and not 'there is no relation between the thisness of this nacre and the distant silver'. What is cancelled in error correction is the silver perceived there and not merely a relation of silver with 'thisness'. And a relation which is unreal cannot, according to the Anyathakhyati-vAdin himself, be negated; and if it is real, it cannot, again, be negated.

*****

04. AtmakhyAti of the Buddhists (Vijnanavadins, Vaibhashikas and Sautrantikas)
Theory:
• According to this theory, the silver perceived in nacre is not silver really existing somewhere outside. This silver is real as an object of internal cognition, but unreal as an object of external perception. It is not absolutely non-existent, for it is perceived. It has subjective existence and objective non-existence. This silver is an object of the mind and not of the senses. It is ideal and not real, psychological and not physical; and error is the projecting outward, as a material object, of the internal mental concept which is non-material. In error, the mental is mistaken for the material.

• In the correction of error, it is not the silver that is negated, but only its apparent externality of being. In correct perception (i.e. of nacre after the removal of error), the silver is recognised as an internal concept.

• The Vaibhashikas and the Sautrantikas accept that there is an externally real basis, the 'this,' the former holding that this basis is directly perceived, and the latter that it is only inferred. But both these admit that the silver perceived in nacre is projected from within on the external substratum, whether this substratum is perceived or inferred.

• The Vijnanavadins hold that there is nothing externally real, and that the cognised object is only cognition externalised by error. They hold that there is non-distinction, at the time of cognition, between cognition and the cognised, which proves that the cognised is cognition itself.

Refutation:
• That the cognised and cognition are non-distinct is not a fact. The cognition of the cognised and the existence of the cognised at the time of cognition naturally appear to be simultaneous; but simultaneity is not identity.

• The manifestation of light and the revelation of an object with its aid are simultaneous events; but light and the object are not identical with each other. The cognitive consciousness cannot be said to be the same as the cognised object.

• How can something appear outside when there is nothing outside? There cannot be an appearance without some reality underlying it. We can have changing cognitions of the same object, and also more than one object can be cognised by the same cognitive consciousness. This proves that objects outside are not mere internal cognitions. Objects exist prior to their perception; objects are in space outside, while the cognitive consciousness is within. There is thus a temporal and spatial distinction between cognition and its objects.

• Moreover, there would be no distinction between truth and error, if all objects were mental. Something independent of cognition has to be admitted if truth is to be distinguished from error. Without this independent existence, there cannot be common perception of things by all alike, and thus there would be no such thing as truth, other than private fancy. But common perception disproves the Vijnanavada position of the ideality of external things.

*****

05. asatkhyAti of the MadhyAmika--Nihilist Buddhist
Theory:
• This theory holds that what is cognised in erroneous cognition is absolutely non-existent. If the silver perceived in nacre were real, it could not be sublated afterwards on correct perception. As silver seen in erroneous perception is not seen in correct perception, it is clear that the silver of the erroneous perception does not really exist.

• Due to the power of avidyA or ignorance, cognition manifests a non-existent silver. The impression of the previous perception of silver becomes responsible for the perception of an appearance of silver in erroneous judgment. As correction of error reveals the non-existence of silver in nacre, we have to conclude that Sunya or the non-existent is the object of erroneous cognition.

Refutation:
• avidyA cannot create the non-existent silver, for the non-existent cannot be created at any time. If the unreal does not ever appear, it is not possible even to say that the unreal does not appear, as one cannot say: 'My mother is barren.'

• Further, cognition which is the substratum of avidyA cannot be caused by avidyA to manifest an unreal object. The cause cannot be directed or influenced by the effect. Hence, cognition possessing the power of avidyA cannot produce the non-existent silver in nacre.

• And, moreover, no kind of relation can be established between cognition and silver, for there can be no relation between the existent and the non-existent. Without a relation between the cognition and the object cognised, no cognition is possible.

• What is cognised in erroneous cognition is not the non-existent, and not also the truly existent, but only an appearance or prAtibhAsika-sattA which is devoid of vyAvahArika-sattA or practical reality and value. The illusion of vyAvahArikata in prAtibhAsikata is cancelled in correction of error, but it is not true that even prAtibhAsikata is absent in erroneous cognition.

• The prAtibhAsika-sattA appears as an external object, and not merely as a notion or an idea within. Objective reality is of two kinds: vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika. The latter is called the unreal in practical life. Mistaking this latter for the former is error. Error is corrected when the objective basis (vyAvahArika-sattA) of the appearance (prAtibhAsika-sattA) is discovered in one's cognitive consciousness.

Source:
The Philosophy of Life, by SvAmi KRShNAnanda, chapter 5

**********

More about the practical and unifying efficacy of the anirvAchanIyakhyAti, which is the basis of the three principles of Shankara Advaita--vivarta vAda, adhyAsa, prAtibhAsika/vyAvahArika/pAramArthika satyaM, in the next post.

saidevo
02 March 2010, 07:43 AM
What is the special and unique approach of the anirvAchanIyakhyAti of the Advaitins which are effective in refuting the other theories?

anirvAchanIyakhyAti of the Advaitins in more detail

The anirvAchanIyakhyAti, which is the theory of the Advaitin, is the logical conclusion arrived at through a criticism of the various other views on error.

• The silver seen in nacre is neither real, nor a memory, nor existent somewhere else, nor an internal idea, nor absolutely nonexistent like a human horn. This silver is not different from the real alone, not different from the unreal alone, and not different from both the real and the unreal alone. One cannot definitely describe the nature of the silver perceived in nacre. It is not real, for it is sublated. It is not unreal, for it is perceived. It is not both real and unreal, for this is self-contradictory. Hence the silver in nacre is anirvAchanIya, indeterminable.

• Objects which have prAtibhAsika-sattA have the characteristics of indeterminability mentioned above--they are anirvAchanIya. The indeterminability of appearances like this, which do not conform to the laws of empirical action, is of one kind, and can be said to constitute empirical error;

• and the indeterminability of the objects of correct perception in waking life is of a different kind altogether, and can be said to constitute transcendental error. This latter can be understood only through reason, scripture and direct realisation.

• The indeterminability of the nature of the world of waking life is explained by the admission in life of a distinction between empirical reality (vyAvahArika-sattA) and absolute Reality (pAramArthika-sattA).

With reference to vyAvahArika-sattA, prAtibhAsika-sattA is anirvAchanIya;
and with reference to pAramArthika-sattA, vyAvahArika-sattA is anirvAchanIya.

It is quite obvious that anything which cannot be called either real or unreal or real-unreal must be called indeterminable.

• The anirvAchanIya character of silver perceived in nacre can be established by the arthApatti mode of proof (postulation). The silver in question, as it has been shown above, is not real. It is not unreal. And it is not also real-unreal. So it ought to be indeterminable. This is the process of arthApatti.

• What other relation than anirvAchanIya can obtain between reality and appearance? Yet, this anirvAchanIya-sattA has an objective basis.

In the case of empirical erroneous cognition, e.g. the cognition of silver in nacre, this basis is nacre.

In transcendental erroneous cognition, i.e. the cognition of the universe in Brahman, the basis is Brahman.

The object in empirical error is cognised due to a psychological error; and the basis for this cognised object is a physical object which is empirically real.

The object in transcendental error is cognised due to a metaphysical error; and the basis for this cognised object is Brahman which is absolutely real.

• The unreality of silver in nacre is different from the unreality of such things as a man's horn. The latter cannot be perceived, for it is never manifest in experience, while the former is perceived, and it has some sort of objective existence. It has prAtibhAsika-sattA which a man's horn does not have. But this prAtibhAsika-sattA has no vyAvahArika-sattA, and so it is negatived in correct perception, i.e. in the perception of nacre as such. Silver in nacre is an anirvAchanIya-vastu.

• Even the nacre as such does not have pAramArthika-sattA, and so it, too, gets negatived in the knowledge of Brahman. Nacre as such, also, is an anirvAchanIya-vastu. The anirvAchanIya is not the absolutely non-existent, but the indefinable empirical and the apparent. The empirical belongs to Ishvara-sRShTi and is the product of MAyA, while the apparent belongs to JIva-sRShTi and is produced by avidyA.

dRShTi-sRShTi and sRShTi-dRShTi of the two sattAs

• The theories of dRShTi-sRShTi (creation on perceiving) and sRShTi-dRShTi (perception on creation) pertain to the prAtibhAsika and vyAvahArika objects, in two different levels of perception.

• The silver perceived in nacre is dRShTi-sRShTa (created on perception), for it exists only so long as it is seen, and it is created by perception caused by individual avidyA.

• But the nacre as such exists whether it is perceived by an individual or not. Hence it is independent of dRShTi-sRShTi. As its perception is posterior to its existence, it is a case of sRShTi-dRShTi.

• But this nacre is the product of the dRShTi or perception of Ishvara through the cosmic MAyA. And nacre cannot exist when Ishvara-dRShTi is withdrawn. It exists only so long as it is visualised by Ishvara. Thus the vyAvahArika-sattA is dRShTi-sRShTa from the standpoint of Ishvara, though it is the basis of sRShTi-dRShTi from the standpoint of the JIva.

Why the two sattAs to describe evanescent reality?

• The prAtibhAsika-sattA is purely dRShTi-sRShTa even from the point of view of the JIva. When nacre is seen, the silver in it vanishes. When Brahman is realised, the universe in it is sublated. When Reality is known, the appearances superimposed on it disappear.

• The fact that in the negation of error the silver perceived in nacre is found to be non-existent does not prove that the silver, at the time of its being perceived, was non-existent. As it has been already observed, the non-existent cannot manifest itself before the perceptive consciousness.

• The perceptions of dream are found to be non-existent during the waking state; but this does not prove that dream objects are absolutely non-existent, for they were experienced during dream. The VedAnta, therefore, makes a distinction between prAtibhAsika-sattA and vyAvahArika-sattA. Silver in nacre and dream objects belong to the former category; nacre and all other objects of the universe belong to the latter.

Thus it is established that the silver appearing in nacre is anirvAchanIya. Otherwise, the perception and sublation of one and the same thing cannot be explained. In the same way, it is to be understood that the universe superimposed on Brahman is anirvAchanIya. MAyA and avidyA are both anirvAchanIya; and what they manifest, also, should be regarded as anirvAchanIya (Essence of Vedanta: pp.213-229).

Source:
The Philosophy of Life, by SvAmi KRShNAnanda, chapter 5

**********

'There are two sides to a coin', as the saying goes. Advaita as the ultimate approach to the Absolute Reality, should take into account both the sides of the coin--the duality of the world--and give a logical, holistic explanation, which is the most perfect and conclusive among all the approaches to the Absolute Reality.

amith vikram
02 March 2010, 08:15 AM
namaste,
i am really amazed to see so much of arguments against advaita and how everyone quotes upanishads and geeta for that. i dont know why people overlook the deep sleep state,which is enough to ascertain advaita.moreover geeta is all about advaita.when arjuna says,i wont fight,krishna clearly tells him about the karma yoga,about how the ego is unreal.if not advaita,i wonder why people should do karma yoga.if this universe is percieved as truth,then why krishna asks arjuna to be nirdvandva,nirmoha etc...if the whole universe thing is percieved as the ultimate,then materialsts are the most logical human beings.

proudhindu
02 March 2010, 08:26 AM
Thank you for the call for the real world. But i have not yet seen the Svet. U. 7.4 anywhere. May be there is a special version?

Om Namah Shivaya

sorry, it is 4:22..some mix up there.

proudhindu
02 March 2010, 09:00 AM
namaste,
i am really amazed to see so much of arguments against advaita and how everyone quotes upanishads and geeta for that. i dont know why people overlook the deep sleep state,which is enough to ascertain advaita.moreover geeta is all about advaita.when arjuna says,i wont fight,krishna clearly tells him about the karma yoga,about how the ego is unreal.if not advaita,i wonder why people should do karma yoga.if this universe is percieved as truth,then why krishna asks arjuna to be nirdvandva,nirmoha etc...if the whole universe thing is percieved as the ultimate,then materialsts are the most logical human beings.

Amit,

It is kevala advaita we are discussing.Most vaishnava schools donut subscribe to kevala advaita.You may wish to read Bhagavad gita commentaries by various vaishnava sampradayas.

saidevo
02 March 2010, 10:15 PM
brahma satyaM jaganmithyA

The crux of this whole thread is the following famous quote from Shankara:

brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH
anena vedyam sacchAstram iti vedAntaDiNDimaH ||20||

20. Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct SAstra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.
--BrahmajnAnAvalImAlA, Tr.S.N.Sastri

*****

Many of us quote what they seek to quote, in isolation, without any reference or explanation of the context surrounding it.

"brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparah"
Is this really Shankara's own statement? If it is, why should he say in the following line "iti vedAntaDiNDimah"--"this is proclaimed loudly by the VedAnta, as if by sounding a drum"?

In his "BrahmajnAnAvalImAlA", Shankara describes in 21 verses (19 in some versions), the characteristics of the person who has realized that he is Brahman. The aspirant for liberation is advised to meditate on these verses in order to attain to the same state.

It is worth reading all the 21 verses, which echo the 'shivoham' realization of his other work 'Atma shataka (aka nirvANa ShTaka)'. Here is the translation from S.N.Sastri found at http://www.celextel.org/adisankara/brahmajnanavalimala.html

BrahmajnAnAvalImAlA by Adi Shankara BhagavadpAda
Translated by S.N.Sastri

sakRt SravaNamAtreNa brahmajnAnam yato bhavet
brahmajnAnAvalImAlA sarveshAm mokshasiddhaye--1

1. The work entitled Brahma Jnanavali Mala, by hearing which just once knowledge of Brahman is attained, enables all to attain liberation.

asango'ham asango'ham asango'ham punah punah
saccidAnandarUpo'ham ahamevAham avyayah--2

2. Unattached am I, unattached am I, ever free from attachment of any kind; I am of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. I am the very Self, indestructible and ever unchanging.

nityaSuddhavimukto'ham nirAkAro'ham avyayah
bhUmAnandasvarUpo'ham ahamevAham avyayah--3

3. I am eternal, I am pure (free from the control of mAyA). I am ever liberated. I am formless, indestructible and changeless. I am of the nature of infinite bliss. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

nityo'ham niravadyo'ham nirAkAro'ham acyutah
paramAnandarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--4

4. I am eternal, I am free from blemish, I am formless, I am indestructible and changeless. I am of the nature of supreme bliss. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

SuddhacaitanyarUpo'ham AtmArAmo'ham eva ca
akhaNDAnandarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--5

5. I am pure consciousness, I revel in my own Self. I am of the nature of indivisible (concentrated) bliss. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

pratyakcaitanyarUpo'ham Santo'ham prakRteh parah
SASvatAnandarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--6

6. I am the indwelling consciousness, I am calm (free from all agitation), I am beyond prakrti (mAyA), I am of the nature of eternal bliss, I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

tattvAtItah parAtmAham madhyAtItah parah Sivah
mAyAtItah paramjyotih ahamevAhamavyayah--7

7. I am the supreme Self, beyond all the categories (such as prakRti, mahat, ahankAra, etc.,), I am the supreme auspicious One, beyond all those in the middle. I am beyond mAyA. I am the supreme light. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

nAnArUpavyatIto'ham cidAkAro'ham acyutah
sukharUpasvarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--8

8. I am beyond all the different forms. I am of the nature of pure consciousness. I am never subject to decline. I am of the nature of bliss. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

mAyAtatkAryadehAdi mama nAstyeva sarvadA
svaprakASaikarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--9

9. There is neither mAyA nor its effects such as the body for me. I am of the same nature and self-luminous. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

guNatrayavyatIto'ham brahmAdInAm ca sAkshyaham
anantAnandarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--10

10. I am beyond the three gunas-sattva, rajas, and tamas. I am the witness of even Brahma and others. I am of the nature of infinite bliss. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

antaryAmisvarUpo'ham kUTasthah sarvago'smyaham
paramAtmasvarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--11

11. I am the inner controller, I am immutable, I am all-pervading. I am myself the supreme Self. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

nishkalo'ham nishkriyo'ham sarvAtmA Adyah sanAtanah
aparokshasvarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah-12

12. I am devoid of parts. I am actionless. I am the self of all. I am the primordial one. I am the ancient, eternal one. I am the directly intuited self. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

dvandvAdisAkshirUpo'ham acalo'ham sanAtanah
sarvasAkshisvarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--13

13. I am the witness of all pairs of opposites. I am immovable. I am eternal. I am the witness of everything. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

prajnAnaghana evAham vijnAnaghana eva ca
akartAham abhoktAham ahamevAhamavyayah--14

14. I am a mass of awareness and of consciousness. I am not a doer nor an experiencer. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

nirAdhArasvarUpo'ham sarvAdhAroham eva ca
AptakAmasvarUpo'ham ahamevAhamavyayah--15

15. I am without any support, and I am the support of all. I have no desires to be fulfilled. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

tApatrayavinirmukto dehatrayavilakshaNah
avasthAtrayasAkshyasmi cAhamevAhamavyayah--16

16. I am free from the three kinds of afflictions- those in the body, those from other beings and those caused by higher powers. I am different from the gross, subtle and causal bodies. I am the witness of the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. I am the very Self, indestructible and changeless.

dRg dRSyau dvau padArthau stah parasparavilakshaNau
dRg brahma dRSyam mAyeti sarvavedAntaDiNDimah--17

17. There are two things which are different from each other. They are the seer and the seen. The seer is Brahman and the seen is mAyA. This is what all Vedanta proclaims.

aham sAkshIti yo vidyAt vivicyaivam punah punah
sa eva muktah so vidvAn iti vedAntaDiNDimah-- 18

18. He who realizes after repeated contemplation that he is a mere witness, he alone is liberated. He is the enlightened one. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.

ghaTakuDyAdikam sarvam mRttikAmAtram eva ca
tadvad brahma jagat sarvam iti vedAntaDiNDimah--19

19. The pot, wall, etc., are all nothing but clay. Likewise, the entire universe is nothing but Brahman. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.

brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparah
anena vedyam sacchAstram iti vedAntaDiNDimah--20

20. Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct SAstra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.

antarjyotirbahirjyotih pratyakjyotih parAtparah
jyotirjyotih svayamjyotih Atmajyotih Sivo'smyaham--21

21. I am the auspicious one, the inner light and the outer light, the indwelling light, higher than the highest, the light of all lights, self-luminous, the light that is the Self.

**********

Let us note that after describing the characteristics of a Self-Realized person, Shankara states clearly in verses 17 to 20 that all that he has said in the text are what is "proclaimed by VedAnta".

Therefore, it is essentially the proclammation of VedAnta: "brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH". So, we only need to derive the meaning/import/purport of this statement of VedAnta (read Veda+anta=upaniShads) by arthApatti, which is the procedure of 'inference from circumstances (disjunctive hypothetical syllogism)--MWD'.

Almost everything that needs to be quoted from VedAnta for the depth and connotations of the meanings of the terms 'satyam, mithyA and brahman' have already been given in this thread by many members, chiefly Atanu. All of it needs to be organized into a summary, which I shall attempt in a following post.

Meantime, if members find in the prasthAnatrayI, the terms 'mithyA, vyavahArika, prAtibhAsika, pAramArthika, adhyAsa, anirvAchanIya, parimANa, Arambha--or any such related term' in the meanings we have attributed to them in this thread, such passages may please be posted here.

Once we arrive at a definite contextual derivation of the VedAnta declaration "brahma satyam jaganmithyA", it should be easy to find holistic answers for the Rationalist's other 'objections' collected in post no.14.

**********

atanu
02 March 2010, 11:51 PM
Namaste Saidevoji, PH and Maha

Let me make three points.

1. The stiching together of Brihadaraynaka and Svet. Upanishads (post 67), to which Shri Maha Hrada had some objection, was done to show conclusivey that the Jivatman who dreams and lives the waking life is none but Paramatman.

That is all. No further hair splitting should be done, rather the passages from Brihadaraynaka and Svet. may be read again.

2. It is true that it is very odd when one says that the house I live in is mAyA. But it is odd because we do not have the vision of Shankara. Just as the notion "I am this Body" leads us to all acts, "This is my house" leads us to do all acts. The basic mistake is "I am this Body". This all spiritual paths agree without argument.

3. After this however, there is difference (apparent) as to what is the extent of this mistake? For example, Shri Madhava said: Even if something is temporary does not necessarily mean that that something is mithya. All sane people will agree, because at any moment, in this life of Visva, that something is true to the consciousness and is also made of the consciousness.

Pranam to Shri Madhavacharya. However, how that temporary something influences our actions and minds is important.

Advaita thus goes a few steps more. Upanishad teaches: One who sees any difference here goes from death to death. Upanishad teaches: There is no joy in the limited. Upanishad teaches that Brahman is arrived at by Neti-Neti.

Many deduce anti bhakti stance of Advaita. Just the opposite. Till one dissolves the sense of separateness completely (kills the mind through Jnana) one cannot see that only the Eko exists and till then there is fear of death and no real joy.

Whatever other path bearers (students) may claim.

Best wishes and respect for all.

Om Namah Shivaya

amith vikram
03 March 2010, 12:12 AM
namaste PHji,
well,i havent read commentaries of geeta of any one.actually i have a small pocket book and i know the literal meanings of the verses.this apart,i have read some basics about advaita(shankara's),dvaita,VA.i was also amazed to find out that there are still plenty of paths like naths,GV,kashmir shaiva(i dont know a thing abt it),shakta.
and then,after going th' all these,i checked up with what geeta had 2 say.and geeta makes sense only if we agree with shankara's advaita.i dont know what your perspective is,how do you explain the karma yoga,bhakti,jnana and all those said about in geeta?
thanks

proudhindu
03 March 2010, 04:30 AM
Pranam Amith,


namaste PHji,
well,i havent read commentaries of geeta of any one.actually i have a small pocket book and i know the literal meanings of the verses.
As such i beleive you dont need any commentaries but it certainly helps to read commentaries who know the background of Gita revelation.


this apart,i have read some basics about advaita(shankara's),dvaita,VA.....
and then,after going th' all these,i checked up with what geeta had 2 say.and geeta makes sense only if we agree with shankara's advaita.

Actually nothing make sense if you go by the basic doctrine of keval advaita.

The professor asked in the link http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3803-atman-its-adjectives-2.html

"How did pure jnyana fall into ajnyana? who is the teacher and who is the taught? If the teacher is free of ajnyana, then should he not know the pupil is just an illusion? Why go on for 18 chapters at someone who is just unreal? If the teacher also is in ajnyana, how much of his teachings can we believe?"



i dont know what your perspective is,how do you explain the karma yoga,bhakti,jnana and all those said about in geeta?
thanks

My perspective is Bhakthi pure and simple.If there were no Analytic paralytics
there is no need for all this discussion.

Read the Gita thoroughly and pm me.Karma yoga and Jnana yoga explained in gita are lucid and clear.

Now, sankaracharya says

brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara

Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.

so;amit is brahman, ph is brahman, satay is brahman.

Brahman(Amit) is chatting with Brahman(PH i.e. me..lol) while Brahman(Satay) is paying hosting charges.
How does this sound.

If you and i are brahman(I.e. paramatma) what is Karma and who is taking rebirths?.

atanu
03 March 2010, 04:35 AM
Namaste saidevo ji,

Those who are interested may read a detailed study of the concept of 'Error' as explained by Shankara in the Introduction to Brahmasutra, from the material present at:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/real/adhyasa.htm

Notes on Shankara's exmination of the nature of 'Error' in the introduction to the Brahmasutra.

A few points, i summarise below:

Analogy of the Rope and the Snake

This example originates from the commentaries of GauDapaada on the MaaNDuukya upanishhad. Seeing a rope in the dark, it is mistaken for a snake - an error or adhyaasa. We mistakenly superimpose the image of an illusory snake onto the real rope. In just such a way we superimpose the illusion of objects etc. upon the one aatman.--------

Shankara points out that the other aastika philosophies have already implicitly accepted the aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa. All of these systems talk about aatmaa and accept the Veda's assertion that it is eternal. They realise that it refers to 'aham' or 'I' and claim that this is immortal. And yet they are conscious of the their experience of 'I am a human being', 'I am a father' etc., which clearly refer to anaatmaa. Therefore, according to their systems, these statements must be erroneous. Statements such as 'I am the body' are examples of superimposition of the gross body onto the aatmaa; a form of adhyaasa. If they deny this, they will be reduced to the stance of materialism. Thus they cannot object to this special case of aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa. Therefore they must accept the more general case, even though they might not have realised it. -----

Shankara goes on to say that, although the example of the rope and snake is not based on shruti, we cannot legitimately object to that either because, like it or not, that is our experience. The objector can try to explain it but he cannot question it. The aatmaa-anaatmaa error, on the other hand, is based on shruti so that, again, we can try to explain but we cannot question it. The explanations given by the various philosophies may differ but the error cannot be denied.===========

Proofs for Adhyaasa

There are two shruti-based pramaaNa-s for adhyaasa, the first is 'postulated' and the second 'inferred'.

Postulated
The first takes an observed fact - for example I wake up one morning and find the road outside is flooded - and postulates an explanation for this - e.g. heavy rain occurred whilst I slept. Since I slept soundly, I have no direct knowledge of any rain but, without such a supposition, I have no reasonable way to explain the observed phenomenon. Other 'unreasonable' explanations may be put forward but the one suggested is the most plausible to the rational mind. In order to justify an improbable explanation, the more plausible must first be discredited. Since the observed fact can only be explained in this way, the explanation becomes a pramaaNa or valid means of knowledge. This pramaaNa is 'perception-based'. as opposed to 'shruti-based'. Shankara's concept of adhyaasa is in fact a shruti-based 'postulate' since there is no mention of the subject in the Vedas themselves and it is in this way that it becomes a valid knowledge in its own right.

Just as this principle can be used to explain the flooded streets, shruti-based postulates can be used to explain that the ideas that we are mortal, doers and enjoyers are all due to error. For example, the Kathopanishad II.19 says "If the slayer thinks that he slays or if the slain thinks that he is slain, both of these know not. For It (the Self) neither slays nor is It slain." Also the Giitaa V 8 tells us that one who knows the truth understands that we do not act. We are not 'doers' or 'killers' or 'killed'. Therefore, any statement such as 'I am a doer' or 'I am an enjoyer' must be an error, from shruti (and smR^iti) based postulate.

Similarly, the notion 'I am a knower' is an error. The MaaNDuukya Upanishad, for example, says that the aatmaa is not a knower in the waking state, the dream state or the deep sleep state but is pure consciousness. Thus shruti-based postulate shows that this idea, that 'I am a knower', is false. (Unlike the idea 'I am consciousness', which is not an error.)

Another statement in the shruti says that the aatman is changeless (indestructible and incombustible). To be a 'doer' would involve change since this is an experience. All experiences, enjoying, knowing etc., are processes involving a modification of ones state e.g. from ignorance to knowledge. In fact, the suffix -er after a verb implies this modification by indicating an action or process. Since the aatman cannot change, it follows that the aatman cannot be a doer, enjoyer or any oth-er. The concepts must be errors or adhyaasa.

A final argument is that, in order to be a 'doer' one would need an associated 'instrument'; for example, mind is an instrument of thought and sense organs are instruments of perception. A 'doer' would have to be associated with an instrument of 'doing' and an 'enjoyer' with an instrument of enjoyment. But the scriptures say that the aatmaa is not associated with anything and so cannot be a 'doer' etc.

Another adhyaasa is 'I am limited' e.g. ' I am here' (and not elsewhere). The kaThopanishad (I-3-15) for example says that the aatmaa is beyond the five sense perceptions, is eternal and unlimited, beginningless and limitless. Since it is unambiguously stated that we are limitless, the idea that I am limited must be an error, by shruti postulate. The notion 'I am an individual' is false; I am Brahman is the reality.

The last example here is the idea that there are many aatmaa-s. This, too, is an error. Many of the philosophies do claim multiplicity of aatmaa - saa~Nkhya, yoga, vaisheshhika, puurvamiimaa.nsaa and even vishishhTaadvaita and dvaita (which both recognise the importance of Vedanta. But Shankara cites the shvetaashvatara upanishad as clearly implying that aatmaa is one and the iishaa upanishad (V7) says "He who perceives all beings as the Self. for him how can there be delusion or sorrow, when he sees this oneness (everywhere) - all in all?"


Thus, shruti postulate has shown that the ideas that we are mortal, doers, enjoyers, knowers, limited and many are all false.

Inferred
Earlier, the process of inference was explained as involving four aspects - the 'locus' of the discussion, the 'conclusion' that will be reached, a 'basis' for the argument and an 'analogy'. The example used was ' whenever there is smoke, there is fire'. (The full form used for the analysis was '(we infer that) there is a fire on the mountain because we can see smoke, just as in a kitchen there is always fire when we see smoke'). Shankara's analysis of adhyaasa can be put into the first form by saying that 'wherever there is transaction, there is adhyaasa'.

He uses the example of using grass to catch a cow. The cow comes to the grass because, believing itself to be the body, it has notions such as 'I am hungry and the grass will remove the hunger, giving satisfaction'. It is the mistaken belief or adhyaasa 'I am the body' that causes the cow to come to the grass, 'going after things conducive to happiness'. Conversely, if instead of holding out grass, we take a stick to the cow, the cow senses danger and moves off, 'going away from things causing unhappiness'.

This is again caused by the mistaken idea 'I am the body'. In fact, in this latter case, it is thebelief that 'I am this physical body' (as opposed to the subtle body, which cannot be harmed by the stick).

This provides the 'analogy' for the inference. Man goes after things he likes and avoids those that he dislikes, just as the cow comes to the grass and runs away from the stick. The full form of the inference then becomes: '(We infer that) all human activities are based on error, because all activities can be considered as either coming towards or going away, just as in the example of the cow with the grass or stick'. "Human activity" is the 'locus'; "that it is based on adhyaasa" is the 'conclusion; "all activities are either coming towards or going away" is the 'basis'; the example of the cow, grass and stick is the 'analogy'.

Om Namah Shivaya


The full bhashya can be read at:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/index.htm)


Namaste All,

Those who may be interested to read Shankara himself on the Nature of Error may read the following taken from the Introduction to his Bhasya of Vedanta Sutras.

SANKARA'S INTRODUCTION to VEDÂNTA-SÛTRAS (Translated by George Thibault)
FIRST ADHYÂYA.
FIRST PÂDA.
REVERENCE TO THE AUGUST VÂSUDEVA!

It is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and the subject, whose respective spheres are the notion of the 'Thou' (the Non-Ego) and the 'Ego,' and which are opposed to each other as much as darkness and light are, cannot be identified. All the less can their respective attributes be identified.

Hence it follows that it is wrong to superimpose upon the subject--whose Self is intelligence, and which has for its sphere the notion of the Ego--the object whose sphere is the notion of the Non-Ego, and the attributes of the object, and vice versâ to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the subject on the object. In spite of this it is on the part of man a natural procedure--which has its cause in wrong knowledge--not to distinguish the two entities (object and subject) and their respective attributes, although they are absolutely distinct, but to superimpose upon each the characteristic nature and the attributes of the other, and thus, coupling the Real and the Unreal, to make use of expressions such as 'That am I,' 'That is mine'--

But what have we to understand by the term 'superimposition?'--The apparent presentation, in the form of remembrance, to consciousness of something previously observed, in some other thing. Some indeed define the term 'superimposition' as the superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another thing. Others, again, define superimposition as the error founded on the non-apprehension of the difference of that which is superimposed from that on which it is superimposed. Others, again, define it as the fictitious assumption of attributes contrary to the nature of that thing on which something else is superimposed. But all these definitions agree in so far as they represent superimposition as the apparent presentation of the attributes of one thing in another thing. And therewith agrees also the popular view which is exemplified by expressions such as the following: 'Mother-of-pearl appears like silver,' 'The moon although one only appears as if she were double.'

Objection: But how is it possible that on the interior Self which itself is not an object there should be superimposed objects and their attributes? For every one superimposes an object only on such other objects as are placed before him (i.e. in contact with his sense-organs), and you have said before that the interior Self which is entirely disconnected from the idea of the Thou (the Non-Ego) is never an object.

Answer: It is not, we reply, non-object in the absolute sense. For it is the object of the notion of the Ego, and the interior Self is well known to exist on account of its immediate (intuitive) presentation. Nor is it an exceptionless rule that objects can be superimposed only on such other objects as are before us, i.e. in contact with our sense-organs; for non-discerning men superimpose on the ether, which is not the object of sensuous perception, dark-blue colour.

Hence it follows that the assumption of the Non-Self being superimposed on the interior Self is not unreasonable.

This superimposition thus defined, learned men consider to be Nescience (avidyâ), and the ascertainment of the true nature of that which is (the Self) by means of the discrimination of that (which is superimposed on the Self), they call knowledge (vidyâ). There being such knowledge (neither the Self nor the Non-Self) are affected in the least by any blemish or (good) quality produced by their mutual superimposition. The mutual superimposition of the Self and the Non-Self, which is termed Nescience, is the presupposition on which there base all the practical distinctions--those made in ordinary life as well as those laid down by the Veda--between means of knowledge, objects of knowledge (and knowing persons), and all scriptural texts, whether they are concerned with injunctions and prohibitions (of meritorious and non-meritorious actions), or with final release

Objection:--But how can the means of right knowledge such as perception, inference, &c., and scriptural texts have for their object that which is dependent on Nescience

Answer--Because, we reply, the means of right knowledge cannot operate unless there be a knowing personality, and because the existence of the latter depends on the erroneous notion that the body, the senses, and so on, are identical with, or belong to, the Self of the knowing person. For without the employment of the senses, perception and the other means of right knowledge cannot operate. And without a basis (i.e. the body) the senses cannot act. Nor does anybody act by means of a body on which the nature of the Self is not superimposed. Nor can, in the absence of all that, the Self which, in its own nature is free from all contact, become a knowing agent. And if there is no knowing agent, the means of right knowledge cannot operate (as said above).

Hence perception and the other means of right knowledge, and the Vedic texts have for their object that which is dependent on Nescience. (That human cognitional activity has for its presupposition the superimposition described above), follows also from the non-difference in that respect of men from animals. Animals, when sounds or other sensible qualities affect their sense of hearing or other senses, recede or advance according as the idea derived from the sensation is a comforting or disquieting one.

A cow, for instance, when she sees a man approaching with a raised stick in his hand, thinks that he wants to beat her, and therefore moves away; while she walks up to a man who advances with some fresh grass in his hand. Thus men also--who possess a higher intelligence--run away when they see strong fierce-looking fellows drawing near with shouts and brandishing swords; while they confidently approach persons of contrary appearance and behaviour. We thus see that men and animals follow the same course of procedure with reference to the means and objects of knowledge. Now it is well known that the procedure of animals bases on the non-distinction (of Self and Non-Self); we therefore conclude that, as they present the same appearances, men also--although distinguished by superior intelligence--proceed with regard to perception and so on, in the same way as animals do; as long, that is to say, as the mutual superimposition of Self and Non-Self lasts. With reference again to that kind of activity which is founded on the Veda (sacrifices and the like), it is true indeed that the reflecting man who is qualified to enter on it, does so not without knowing that the Self has a relation to another world; yet that qualification does not depend on the knowledge, derivable from the Vedânta-texts, of the true nature of the Self as free from all wants, raised above the distinctions of the Brâhmana and Kshattriya-classes and so on, transcending transmigratory existence.

For such knowledge is useless and even contradictory to the claim (on the part of sacrificers, &c. to perform certain actions and enjoy their fruits). And before such knowledge of the Self has arisen, the Vedic texts continue in their operation, to have for their object that which is dependent on Nescience. For such texts as the following, 'A Brâhmana is to sacrifice,' are operative only on the supposition that on the Self are superimposed particular conditions such as caste, stage of life, age, outward circumstances, and so on. That by superimposition we have to understand the notion of something in some other thing we have already explained. (The superimposition of the Non-Self will be understood more definitely from the following examples.) Extra-personal attributes are superimposed on the Self, if a man considers himself sound and entire, or the contrary, as long as his wife, children, and so on are sound and entire or not. Attributes of the body are superimposed on the Self, if a man thinks of himself (his Self) as stout, lean, fair, as standing, walking, or jumping. Attributes of the sense-organs, if he thinks 'I am mute, or deaf, or one-eyed, or blind.' Attributes of the internal organ when he considers himself subject to desire, intention, doubt, determination, and so on.

Thus the producer of the notion of the Ego (i.e. the internal organ) is superimposed on the interior Self, which, in reality, is the witness of all the modifications of the internal organ, and vice versâ the interior Self, which is the witness of everything, is superimposed on the internal organ, the senses, and so on. In this way there goes on this natural beginning--and endless superimposition, which appears in the form of wrong conception, is the cause of individual souls appearing as agents and enjoyers (of the results of their actions), and is observed by every one.

With a view to freeing one's self from that wrong notion which is the cause of all evil and attaining thereby the knowledge of the absolute unity of the Self the study of the Vedânta-texts is begun. That all the Vedânta-texts have the mentioned purport we shall show in this so-called Sârîraka-mîmâmsâ 1.

Of this Vedânta-mîmâmsâ about to be explained by us the first Sûtra is as follows.

1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 March 2010, 04:42 AM
Thus the producer of the notion of the Ego (i.e. the internal organ) is superimposed on the interior Self, which, in reality, is the witness of all the modifications of the internal organ, and vice versâ the interior Self, which is the witness of everything, is superimposed on the internal organ, the senses, and so on.

The above is the gist of the two way superimposition that is beginningless.

atanu
03 March 2010, 06:06 AM
Actually nothing make sense if you go by the basic doctrine of keval advaita.

The professor asked in the link http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3803-atman-its-adjectives-2.html

"How did pure jnyana fall into ajnyana? who is the teacher and who is the taught? If the teacher is free of ajnyana, then should he not know the pupil is just an illusion? Why go on for 18 chapters at someone who is just unreal? If the teacher also is in ajnyana, how much of his teachings can we believe?"

My perspective is Bhakthi pure and simple.If there were no Analytic paralytics
there is no need for all this discussion.

Read the Gita thoroughly and pm me.

Now, sankaracharya says

brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara

Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.

so;amit is brahman, ph is brahman, satay is brahman.

Brahman(Amit) is chatting with Brahman(PH i.e. me..lol) while Brahman(Satay) is paying hosting charges.
How does this sound.

If you and i are brahman(I.e. paramatma) what is Karma and who is taking rebirths?.

Namaste PH (and all friends),

Nothing that you say is wrong, yet i request you to please read the following with a sweet mind.

Shankara himself teaches beginningless absolute duality of two things: Atman (that which is before the Mind-mana) and the internal organ called the Mind (mana). The mana (and Man) exists only because of Atman.

It is easy to understand that all karma in this universe goes on because of the feeling "I am this"; "I will lose money if I do not do this work"; "I will gain if I do that work". Shankara shows that on this aspect, action-reaction of a cow and a man are similar.

Gita says "Arjuna you are not a doer". Gita says "Lord does not create the agency of work for anyone". Still we are working. These teachings of Gita can be understood, if we understand the duality between the Mind and the Atman - the source of the Minds. We are all Minds (as if) and are subject to the two fold adhAsya of Atman's intelligence on the material Mind in one direction, and the changefulness of the material Mind on the changeless Atman on the reverse direction.

This fine discrimination will allow one to separate the Atman (sat-chit-ananda) from the Thinker -- the Mind.

Veda and shastra teach us the proper conduct. We all work with the assumption of "I am this body and I require to do such and such things for the preservation of me". Here the 'me' is wrong and selfish acts lead to sorrow. 'Me' is not the property of jada mInd or the jada Body, but is property of intelligent Atman, which itself is changeless and deathless.

So, the shastra-s teach us to work in the mode of sacrifice -- for the fellow beings, for divinities, for the earth, for the Sun etc.. When a man (mind) works not for "I am this" but for 'All', the vrittis of the Mind become sattwik.

If you read Kausitaki U. you will find that even the act of breathing is an act of sacrifice. Act of talking is a sacrifice. We are engaged in sacrifice, but we do not know, till upanishads (and Gita) teach that explicitly to us.

So, Shankara does not teach that allocated work is to be abandoned. Shankara teaches what Veda teaches -- to do work with the knowledge "I am not the doer". But Shankara's teachings finally helps one to dis-entangle the Mind and the Atman and that alone leads to the ultimate freedom called Moksha.

Again I request you to kindly read with a sweet mind.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
03 March 2010, 08:52 AM
namaste atanu,

I haven't come across such a teaching of the acarya. Could you please point me to a reference where he mentions this? or Is it someone else's interpretation of acarya's thought?


Shankara himself teaches beginningless absolute duality of two things: Atman (that which is before the Mind-mana) and the internal organ called the Mind (mana). The mana (and Man) exists only because of Atman.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 March 2010, 09:14 AM
namaste atanu,

I haven't come across such a teaching of the acarya. Could you please point me to a reference where he mentions this? or Is it someone else's interpretation of acarya's thought?

Dear Satay

I am a bit surprised. But surely God wants emphasis and it happens through you:

I have already posted this:

Thus the producer of the notion of the Ego (i.e. the internal organ) is superimposed on the interior Self, which, in reality, is the witness of all the modifications of the internal organ, and vice versâ the interior Self, which is the witness of everything, is superimposed on the internal organ, the senses, and so on. In this way there goes on this natural beginning--and endless superimposition, which appears in the form of wrong conception, is the cause of individual souls appearing as agents and enjoyers (of the results of their actions), and is observed by every one.

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

The MIND is called the INTERNAL ORGAN.

Hope this satifies you. But more enquiries are welcome.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
03 March 2010, 09:16 AM
namaste Atanu and other friends.



If you read Kausitaki U. you will find that even the act of breathing is an act of sacrifice. Act of talking is a sacrifice. We are engaged in sacrifice, but we do not know, till upanishads (and Gita) teach that explicitly to us.


Is this because any action that involves agni--fire/heat/light, at a gross or subtle level can be construed as a sacrifice? The samidh--firewood, of the body burns constantly every moment by our intake of oxygen. But prANa, the subtle form of this oxygen, is not well regulated to burn away the samidh of the mind--our vAsanas--impressions,--which are deep-rooted and growing. But when the sun rays of the Atman inside are focussed well enough through the singular will of the lens, by a prayer to that very Atman, the yajna--sacrifice, happens quicker and the light of ego of the jIva gets absorbed gradually in the larger unifying light of the Atman.

*****

We have discussed so much about the anirvAchanIya--indeterminability theory and concluded that the reality of the jagat is anirvAchanIya. In the light of our discussions, let me focus a key question from the Rationalist, which is as below:

• 07. His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post 14)

This question can be rephrased and/or supplemented as: "If the jagat is anirvAchanIya, why not Brahman too be the same anirvAchanIya? Why should it/he alone be satyam and the reality of the jagat, which is also eternal, be anirvAchanIya? Can there be any rational/logical/intellectual explanation for this concept, other than that 'the shRuti says so'?"

atanu
03 March 2010, 09:33 AM
namaste Atanu and other friends.
Is this because any action that involves agni--fire/heat/light, at a gross or subtle level can be construed as a sacrifice? The samidh--firewood, of the body burns constantly every moment by our intake of oxygen. But prANa, the subtle form of this oxygen, is not well regulated to burn away the samidh of the mind--our vAsanas--impressions,--which are deep-rooted and growing. But when the sun rays of the Atman inside are focussed well enough through the singular will of the lens, by a prayer to that very Atman, the yajna--sacrifice, happens quicker and the light of ego of the jIva gets absorbed gradually in the larger unifying light of the Atman.


Namaste saidevoji,

Extremely well written. More on this later, if need arises.

*****


We have discussed so much about the anirvAchanIya--indeterminability theory and concluded that the reality of the jagat is anirvAchanIya. In the light of our discussions, let me focus a key question from the Rationalist, which is as below:

• 07. His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post 14)

This question can be rephrased and/or supplemented as: "If the jagat is anirvAchanIya, why not Brahman too be the same anirvAchanIya? Why should it/he alone be satyam and the reality of the jagat, which is also eternal, be anirvAchanIya? Can there be any rational/logical/intellectual explanation for this concept, other than that 'the shRuti says so'?"

But does the Professor say "I do not exist"? Who exists? Surely not the body, which does not say "I exist". Surely not the Mind, which though not capable of proclaiming "I exist" in sleep, yet the sleeper exists and comes back again and again?

Who Exists through waking, dreaming, and sleeping? That which exists, knows, and enjoys is Brahman.

Om Namah Shivaya

smaranam
03 March 2010, 09:49 AM
praNAms to all those members who have so selflessly and diligently taken up this task - the objective of this thread - and so much learning has occured.


* Radha gives a hint of Jagat MithyA
prem par dAro rang to jag ko (ye) deha dikhAyi re ~

Superimpose colours on LOVE (of whose personification I am) , and the world (embodied) will see my form. Without the superimposition, I cannot be seen or comprehended. AdhyAs ? Vivarta ? Jagat MithyA ?

* The Supreme Adi Purusha is playing an N player board game , not just His flute, from which too emanates anahat nAd .
Just as on a hot afternoon, a lone little child plays pretend - house, tea party and takes turns to be the host , guest1, guest2...
The Supreme finds His dearmost Prakrti playing this game , and conjouring up N (numerous) roles , she takes turns to roll the die of Karma-vAsanas and play. God does witness Himself playing dice in a way, but these are special, not random - they follow a system and rule. He pours over the game-board of Existence and smiles.

Relax, its just a board game ! Like scrabble, parchisi, chess, mancala or cranium ? Have fun, enjoy your Ras.

Or , how about "Relax! Its only a movie, don't get involved"
Perhaps Wald Disney Studios will understand the Advaitic Truth.

* The Purusha Sukta says it all.

* ITs so obvious - what VedAnta says , whether it says it or not, the beautiful enchanting Advaitic Universal Truth remains.
I want to selfishly enjoy this Silence and not attempt to contribute to this task - even if this mind had the ability to contribute, which it doesn't.


"I" LOVE YOU ADI PURUSHA ! Why are You so fond of driving "us" (Yourself ?) crazy ? Now stop grinning like that !

---------
P.S. : If that was surplus jalpa , then let us ask Satayji to please move it wherever appropriate.

atanu
03 March 2010, 09:52 AM
---------
P.S. : If that was surplus jalpa , then let us ask Satayji to please move it wherever appropriate.

:) Satay has delegated this task to saidevoji.

saidevo
03 March 2010, 11:28 AM
namaste Atanu and Smaranam.


:) Satay has delegated this task to saidevoji.

Ha ha, I don't want to make a mess of this thread! Even correlating the voluminous content of this thread to the questions of the Rationalist (in post 14), I find it extremely difficult! That said, IMHO, everything that relates to an explanation of Advaita is okay in this thread, although it may not have a direct bearing on the questions discussed here.

Like a fast moving motorboat churns the surface of water, we have churned and brought up so much to the surface. Although the nectar of Advaita has been sufficiently retrieved, I am still looking for the Shiva who could absorb the poison of material currents at the surface and show for the rationalist/layman in us a way to at least intellectually/intuitively--if not only experientially--grasp the Absolute Reality.

I find members like SmaraNam, and Brahman to be more inclined towards practical sAdhana than theoretical intellectual explanations. Atanu and Devotee see the worldly side of the problem too, but are rather aghast as to why the simplicity of the Truth is not understood. Yajvan is the silent witness. Some of the others who posted here are either not for Advaita or are skeptical about Shankara Advaita. (I might have missed some).

But what I am looking for is an intellectual/intuitive link to the 'I' that has such a sweeping personality in the four states of existence. We know that turIya is not a state by itself but one that permeates all the other states. Likewise, I think that we have moments of deep sleep in our waking life too, like for example, we totally forget our surroundings and self when we are seriously involved with a single thought. Even meditation, I think, has that strains of deep sleep to homogenize the mind. Thus, every person, novice or learned, is somewhat familiar with the third and fourth states. So, there must be an everyperson's link to know and grasp the real 'I' at least/best intuitively.

Ekanta
03 March 2010, 02:01 PM
But what I am looking for is an intellectual/intuitive link to the 'I' that has such a sweeping personality in the four states of existence. We know that turIya is not a state by itself but one that permeates all the other states. Likewise, I think that we have moments of deep sleep in our waking life too, like for example, we totally forget our surroundings and self when we are seriously involved with a single thought. Even meditation, I think, has that strains of deep sleep to homogenize the mind. Thus, every person, novice or learned, is somewhat familiar with the third and fourth states. So, there must be an everyperson's link to know and grasp the real 'I' at least/best intuitively.

Namaste Saidevo, you asked before about prajna [or sushupti/ 3rd pada] as the link and now about the "I"... here are some stuff I have collected over some time. Mostly form Sathya Sai Baba... and I ad a Bhagavad Gita quote at start. Warning for a long post:

upadraṣṭānumantā ca | bhartā bhoktā maheśvaraḥ |
paramātmeti cāpy ukto | dehe 'smin puruṣaḥ paraḥ || BG 13.23 ||
13.23. The Supreme Soul [puruṣaḥ-paraḥ] in this body is also called the spectator [upadraṣṭā], the permitter [anumantā], the supporter , the enjoyer [bhoktā], the great Lord [mahā-īśvaraḥ] and the Supreme Self [parama-ātmā].


[B]Consciousness, Conscience, Conscious
There are three terms to be discussed here. "Conscience" is one, the other is "conscious" and the third is "consciousness".
• Consciousness is the all encompassing Divinity. From this all-pervasive consciousness,
• Conscience enters the body.The Atmic principle in your body is conscience.
• Conscious is the awareness related to the body and the senses. (sss33-16)

Prajnanam Brahma
"This Prajnana pervades the mind, the intellect, the will, the Antahkarana and every part of the body. Hence, it has been declared: 'Prajnanam is Brahmam.'" (sss24-15)
"Prajnanam Brahma," declares the Upanishad. The integral awareness which is your real Self is the Universal Consciousness. Ruminate over this truth. Then you will realize your oneness with the Divine. (sss25-19)

Prajnana & Jnana
• Prajnana (Constant Integrated Awareness) subsumes Vijnana (Intuitive-knowledge) and embraces also Sujnana (Discriminative-knowledge). (sss20-20)
There are three kinds of knowledge in this world.
1. Jnana (Sense-knowledge): is knowledge got through the body. The knowledge got by perceiving objects is ordinary knowledge. It relates to the physical and is useful in daily life.
2. Sujnana (Discriminative-knowledge): is what is got through the mind. Sujnana relates to the mind. In doing any action, when one considers whether what he is doing is helpful to others, the knowledge on which such action is based is Sujnana.
3. Vijnana (Intuitive-knowledge): is the knowledge got from the heart. Actions which are in accord with the dictates of one's conscience and which are performed to propitiate God constitute actions based on Vijnana. If God is pleased with one's actions, the whole world will be pleased. No effort is needed to please others separately. (sss24-15)
It is not seclusion in a room or a cave or a forest that constitutes solitude. It is the one-pointed contemplation of God that is true meditation. It means merging the mind in thoughts of the Divine exclusively. The mind is a prey to continuous fickleness. The only way to achieve concentration is to merge the mind in the Prajna-Tattva, the integral awareness of the "I." The Prajna-principle is also described as Guhyam, that which is hidden or held in secret. Prajnana is also termed Brahma-Jnana or Advaita-Jnana (knowledge of the Absolute). It is also called Atma- Jnana. This knowledge is so precious that it has to be carefully safeguarded. But when its preciousness is not realized, it is treated lightly. (sss25-19)

Jnana & Chit/Vijnana
Chit in Sat-Chit-Ananda means Vijnana, the Super-knowledge that confers perfect equanimity and purity, in fact, the Atma-jnana which can be experienced by one and all. In common parlance Vijnana is used to indicate the sciences but really it means the Higher Wisdom. In that Swa-rupa, "Self-form", there is no room for "impressions from Karma" nor for wishes that prompt Karma. Wishes vitiate the mind. Wishes lead to action, action leaves a scar, a Vasana on the Mind. Be alone with yourself and, then the mind can be negated. It is for this reason that Yogis retire into caves. (SSB, Upanishad Vahini)

Prajna & Dharma
There are various kinds of Dharma in the world. All these Dharmas are related to the mind. Enquiry will show that these Dharmas are of minor importance. There is one Dharma which is greater than all these. That is the Dharma concerning the awareness of the “I”,Prajna-Dharma. It is the Dharma which pervades equally the body, the mind, the will and the Antha Karana (Inner instruments). It has been defined as "Constant Integrated Awareness." It expresses itself as "I" and shines forth in its fullness. It manifests itself throughout the world. (sss25-19)
One should be careful about conscience which will always spell the truth. It will never lead you on the wrong path. Vedas call this "Prajnanam Brahma." It is present equally in body, mind, intellect and Inner Instruments. This is Constant Integrated Awareness. No one is making efforts to realize the latent Divine Power in him. In the world today, people care only for material things. Selfishness is on the increase.
• “Right” is born out of selfishness and ends in conflict.
• Dharma is born from Prema (love) and merges in Atma (divinity).
Therefore one should discard “rights” and take up “responsibility” born out of love. Such an individual only will lead a true life. (sss26-03)

Prajna & Rita
How can you determine the existence of Truth? We can decide the presence of the Truth by the testimony of Conscience. This conscience has been described as the vibration of the vital Prana. Vak (speech) arises from this vibration. There is a marked difference between the speech born of mind, and the speech born of a state that transcends the mind. The supreme speech born beyond the region of the mind is termed as Vibration, Conscience and Bhur. The conscience pervades the body and originates from Suvah. This Suvah is nothing but Prajna. In Vedic parlance:
• Bhur stands for materialization (body),
• Bhuvah signifies Vibration (mind),
• Suvah signifies Radiation (conscience). (ss1993-9)
It is not enough only to propagate the theory. There are a large number of people who propagate and preach but those who practice are rare. Many speak one thing and act differently. There should be harmony in:
• Thought
• Word
• Deed
But, now-a-days people think in one way, speak in another and do yet another thing. This is why the:
• Adi Shakti (material force)
• Prana Shakti (vital force)
• Prajna Shakti (power of conscience),
are diverted in different directions. Matter, life force and conscience should be unified. (sss26-03)

Sathya (Truth) does not mean mere statement of facts as one sees them or hears about them. Truth in its real sense transcends the limitations of time, space and circumstance. It is difficult to practice this transcendental truth in ordinary life. Vedanta described it as Rita (principle of integrity). It is the basis of human existence. It is on this basis that all the facts of the phenomenal world should be properly understood. One should not act on the impulse of the moment immediately a thought occurs. The rights and wrongs of an idea should be examined and only when the heart approves of a certain course should action follow. This is the process of cultivating values.
1. What the mind (head) thinks,
2. should be examined critically by the heart and the
3. right decision should be carried out by the hand.
This should be the primary product of the educational process. (sss25-22)

Prajna & Human Values
Prajna has been described as Viveka (discrimination). These are not quite correct. Prajna really refers to the Brahman in man. It is this constant integrated awareness that is the source of all values in man.
• Prajna is permeated with love (Prema).
o Sathya (Truth) is the echo that resounds from the love-filled Prajna.
o Dharma (Right Conduct) is all actions that arise out of this love filled Prajna as reactions.
 Shanti (Peace) is a reflection of this Truth and Dharma.
Thus Truth, Right Conduct and Peace emanate from the Prajna that is charged with Love, as Resound, Reaction and Reflection.
• Ahimsa (non-violence) is the proper understanding of the source and nature of Truth, Right Conduct, Peace and Love.
Hence man should embark on any activity from Prajna. (sss25-22)

Current, Wire, Bulb & Light
The Veda teaches "Sathya vada, dharma chara” (speak truth, act righteously). If you study how these lights here are functioning, you will find that the current passes through the wire and illuminates the bulb.
1. Sathya (truth) is the current,
2. Dharma (righteousness) is the wire,
3. Shanti (peace) is the bulb;
4. Prema (love) is the light.
You will see that Sathya, Dharma, and Shanti together form the constituents for Prema. (sss31-15)

Prajna & “I”
The sun shines in all his glory, but his light is not felt inside a house because of the walls around and the ceiling above. In relation to man, what are these walls and this roof? The Vedas have declared: "The body is a divine temple and the indwelling spirit is the eternal Jiva."The body is like a temple. But, man has created the walls of
• Abhimana (attachment),
• Mamakara (possessiveness) around it and covered it with the ceiling of
• Ahamkara (egoism).
It is only when these walls and roof are removed that the divine "I" principle will be revealed in its true form as the effulgent Prajna.
When a man uses the "I" today, he identifies it with the body sense and not with an awareness of its Prajna nature. Hence there are two kinds of "I". One may be equated with the term "eye" and the other with the single letter "I."
• The "I" that corresponds to the "Eye" is related to the Body.
• The single letter "I" proclaims the power of the Prajna (Constant Integrated Awareness).
This "I" shines as an entity that is pure, unsullied and unselfish. In modern parlance this is called "Conscience." Whatever action one does, the Conscience declares whether it is right or wrong. Whatever one may say or do in worldly life, the Prajna Shakti (power of Conscience) proclaims what is true, what is permanent and what is unaffected by the past, the present or the future. This is the voice of the Prajna principle which is related to the Universal consciousness (Brahman).
(sss25-19)

Who understands Prajna?
"I am everything. There is nothing in the world apart from me." He believes that the world itself is unreal. He is one who comprehends the Prajna-principle relating to the "I." The Prajna is constant integrated awareness. If one seeks to integrate the body, the mind, the intellect and the Antha Karana to realize the transcendental goal, he has to go beyond the mind, the Buddhi and the Antha Karana and transcend the states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Only then can he comprehend the "I" principle of Prajna. The body, the mind, the intellect and the Antha Karana are related to the Prakriti (Nature). They are all functional variants of the mind. Divinity cannot be comprehended through the mind. Efforts should be made to bring the mind under control. (sss25-20)

Prajna & Conscience
The basic human nature is related to Divinity and not to the body and sensory organs. In this human nature, how does one comprehend the meaning of "I"? This "I" shines as an entity that is pure, unsullied and unselfish. In modern parlance this is called "Conscience." Whatever action one does, the Conscience declares whether it is fight or wrong. Whatever one may say or do in worldly life, the Prajna Shakti (the power of Conscience) proclaims what is true, what is permanent and what is unaffected by the past, the present or the future. This is the voice of the Prajna principle which is related to the Universal consciousness. (sss25-19)

Prajna & Yoga
To recognize this Prajna principle there is a certain kind of yoga (spiritual discipline). What is this yoga? Is it Kriya yoga, or Bhakti yoga or Jnana yoga or Karma yoga? There has been a great deal of misinterpretation of the term Yoga from very early times. Yoga means Ananda (Bliss). This is the correct meaning. When is this bliss experienced? When there is an awareness of the "I" principle, this bliss is secured. When life is enjoyed with the full awareness of the Prajna Shakti, bliss is experienced as a result of this yoga. Yoga is the unity of the individual with the Divine. Yoga means an end to dualism. Yoga teaches that the Jiva (individual) and the Brahman are not separate but one. This is the significance of the declaration in the Shruti "Ekam Sath: Vipraa bahudhaa vadhanthi" (Truth is one: the wise call it by many names). (sss25-19)

Prajna & Reflection
The Prajna principle explains the relationship between the object and the image. The Prajna Shakti teaches that when a person sees his reflection in a trough of water, the reflection resembles him, but he is not the reflection. Students today are not taking to the spiritual path because there are not qualified teachers to tell them the spiritual truths in the proper manner. The image is you, but you are not the image. Apart from Prajna, there are in man entities like the body, the mind, the intellect, the will and the ego. All these appear to be distinct and disparate. But essentially they are one. It is the functional differences of the mind which account for the different terms like intellect, will, etc. It is the same mind that assumes all the forms. Prajna (Constant Integrated Awareness) is present in all of them. (sss25-19)
What is realization? The moment you see your own beauty and are so filled with it that you forget all else, you are free from all bonds. The reflection of Shivam (auspiciousness) in the mirror of Prakriti (Nature) is Jiva (individual).
Look into the mirror and see your own image; you assert "That image within is mine; but, I am different." So too, the Jiva is Shiva but Shiva is not Jiva. The image of the Sun in the water shakes, though the Sun is steady, up above; that is the nature of water, not the Sun; so too Prakriti is changing, but Shiva is steady, unchanging, ever the same. You do not believe that dreams indicate reality, because the dream is negated on waking. When you get knowledge, the waking experiences will also be negated. Until then, you will take all this as real; after that, you will find that this has only relative value. (sss04-40)

Prajna & Sat-Chit-Ananda
Every man has intelligence. When you put it to skillful use it is serving well. But actually man is misusing knowledge. This is termed as technology which is in fact “Trick”nology. Because of this man is not having peace. An individual utters falsehood to please another person. He may think that he is deceiving the other. But he is deceiving himself. One should not act against the dictates of his conscience.
• Conscience is Chit,
• Awareness is Sat,
• Both combine and give Ananda.
They are like syrup got by mixing sugar (Sat) and water (Chit). The syrup is Ananda. I and you should combine to say “we”. Many don't understand this properly and say "I and you are one." This is not correct. "I and you are We" is the correct statement. "We and We are One." I am in you and you are in me and so we are one.
• This (Prajna Shakti) is a combination of Atma and Atma and not matter to matter.
• The bond between matter and matter is the life force (Prana Shakti). (sss26-03)
Here is an example. You have a block of ice. No one terms it as water. Nevertheless the ice block is full of water. Without water there can be no ice. This means that ice is one form of water and is entirely based on it. Likewise, for the body, the mind, etc., the basis is theChit-Shakti (spiritual element) known as "I." It is the Prajna-Shakti. (sss25-19)

Prajna & Love
Vices like envy, anger, ego and hatred are various kinds of diseases. These cannot be cured by ordinary medicines or by professional doctors, who can only deal with physical ailments. These maladies are related to the Antha Karana (inner instruments). There is a divine panacea for curing these diseases. That is Divine Love (Prema). Once that Divine Love is got, one can experience the "I" present in the Prajna-principle. Students should understand the difference between:
• Anuraga (worldly love): Worldly love knows only how to receive and not to give. It does not expect any return. In worldly love, there is no spirit of sacrifice.
• Prema (Divine Love): Divine Love gives and forgives and does not receive. The Shruti declares firmly that immortality can be attained only through sacrifice and by no other means. (sss25-19)

Prajna - Imagination & Creativity
We are discussing education in Human Values. What seems to be necessary is not EHV but 3HV: Head-Heart-Hand (values). The hand should carry out what the heart has approved of the ideas emanating from the head. This triune process has been described in Vedanta as Trikarana-suddhi, the purity and harmony of thought, speech and action. Activities arising from Trikarana-suddhi find expression in two ways, of the two, artistic creativity is supremely important:
1. Artistic creativity
o Prajna: the Divine source of all creative activity. Imagination and creative impulse have to be properly understood. Both of them are rooted in Prajna, the Divine source of all creative activity.
 Bhava (imagination): The aesthetic feeling is based on creative imagination. A sculptor who desires to carve an image out of a piece of rock has to have the figure he seeks to carve in his imagination. If the creative imagination is absent, no sculpture can come out of the rock.
 Icha Shakti (creative expression): This Bhava (imagination) finds Icha Shakti (creative expression) in the sculpture.
2. Scientific exploration - As against this aesthetic creativity, we have the urge for scientific enquiry. This is primarily concerned with objects in the external world. Experimental research has its vision turned outward. But even that has its basis in the Antar-drishti (Inward Vision). (sss20-20)

Human, Divine, Demon, Animal
There are four different qualities in man: humanness, animal nature, demonic nature, and divine nature.
• Divine: When he is following the Atma [prajna], he is manifesting his divinity.
• Demon: When he is subject to the vagaries of the mind, he becomes demonic.
• Animal: When man follows the dictates of the body, he is a prey to his animal nature.
• Human: When he is governed by all the three - the body, the mind and the Atma, he is human (SS 92)

satay
03 March 2010, 06:43 PM
namast atanu,




Hope this satifies you. But more enquiries are welcome.

Om Namah Shivaya

Thanks for pointing that out.

satay
03 March 2010, 06:53 PM
namaste,


:) Satay has delegated this task to saidevoji.

That is correct. However, I wanted to add a bit of context.

I asked saidevo to be the judge of some of the posts that were going on between some members. This is because I support fully what sai is trying to do with this thread and didn't want the thread to derail because of ego or personal agendas of some members. Because I am not following or reading each and every post and each and every word of this thread but I am hoping that sai is. In that light, I didn't want to edit, cut, delete some members' posts in a haste and then field complaints. That wastes everyone's time.

Thanks!

smaranam
04 March 2010, 07:42 AM
Prof.Nara's main issues are:

.....
• 02. How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)



Namaste

I am sure this has been addressed already, also by Devoteeji's quotes from AtmA Upanishad (page 1/2 itself).

Will this anology help the professor ?

The fingers are bleeding, the toes are sprained, the bones are fractured, kind Guru is the heart - rightly so, since he represents Ishvar/Brahman. Who heals the fractured bones, cut fingers , etc. and this we call preaching or teaching between Guru and disciple , or removal of ignorance.

But there is more ... even while the bones are fractured, the Adi Purusha functions, walks , talks, life goes on.

Shruti Support : Purusha Sukta - Verse 1 and 2

This explains Raman Maharshi for instance - "There is no such thing as [bad] karma. There is nothing to be done. When you wake up you will laugh at all your struggles"
We notice he says "When you wake up" implying "when the injuries are healed" i.e. "when the ignorance is removed" (By the heart-like-Guru-Dev.

Brahman instructs Brahman, Brahman listens to Brahman ?

saidevo
04 March 2010, 10:25 AM
namaste Devotee and others.

Devotee's quote from the Atma UpaniShad in post 20, teaches Shankara's "brahma satyam" statement in essence. Can Devotee or anyone give us the Sanskrit/transliterated text of the verses quoted in translation, so we may check if any of Shankara's terms are used therein?

namaste Smaranam.

Your explanation of the PS verses 1 and 2 by analogy and the quote from RamaNa Maharshi are nice answers to the Rationalist's question you have quoted. And as you said it ultimately amounts to "Brahman instructs Brahman, Brahman listens to Brahman", which is not meaningless in fact.

KAnchi ParamAchArya in his 'shrI Shankara Charitam' has explained the connection between Shankara and Kumarila BhaTTa thus (paraphrased in my words):

God SubrahmaNya instructed his father Shiva in a bygone eon of time on the praNava mantra. Now when Shiva took avatAra as Shankara, SubramaNya promptly came as Kumarila BhaTTa and received instructions from his father in turn.

saidevo
04 March 2010, 12:31 PM
'brahma satyam jagan mithyA' again!

brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH
anena vedyam sacchAstram iti vedAntaDiNDimaH ||20||

Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct SAstra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.
--BrahmajnAnAvalImAlA, Tr.S.N.Sastri

Brahman is Truth, the world of objects and beings is false, and the egocentric sense of separativeness (jeeva) is itself in fact nothing other than Brahman. That by which this Truth is known, is the truest science, the Science of sciences, thus roars Vedanta.
--BrahmajnAnAvalImAlA, Tr.at svbf.org

*****

In the above two translations of the same text we find:

• The term 'mithyA' in the first translation is that which "cannot be categorized as either real or unreal". In the second it is simply "false." As against these two meanings of the term, there is a third, popular meaning of mithyA as 'illusion'. A fourth meaning given is 'unreal', which although is the opposite of 'real', is based on the term 'illusion'.

• What about the 'jagat' that Shankara talks about here? Is it just the jaDa-prapancha--insentient universe, or jIva-prapancha--sentient universe, or both?

‣ The first translation is silent about this; perhaps it implies both. The second is explicit about the jagat being "objects and beings". What about the popular notion of the jagat as illusion? Obviously it is about the world of objects, but does it include the beings too? Going by the universal 'I' principle in all humans, I would rather say that the popular emphasis is on the world of objects as illusion, and that the notion of jIvas being distinct from Brahman is only secondary.

But then, the jIvas are much more important than the objects, because the jaDa-prapancha in its manifestation is only prakriti--Nature, which Science also knows to be insentient. Science would also readily admit that the surface reality of the world of objects is only an illusion (so unreal), as it is conditioned by the human senses of perception and knowledge.

So we can say that Shankara's emphasis on the jagat being mithyA is more on the jIva-prapancha, because there is ample evidence in the Vedas and the prasthAnatrayI for the prakriti being an aspect of Ishvara.

That brings us to the discussion about the jIvas being stated as mithyA--is there any text that uses the term mithyA as such?

I could find one reference in the
SarvasAra UpaniShad of KRShNa Yajur Veda:

11. Of how many kinds are substances?

There are three kinds, Sat (Be-ness), Asat (not-Be-ness) and MithyA (Illusion).

Sat alone is Brahman. Asat is that which is not. MithyA is the illusory ascription to Brahman of the universe that is not.

What is fit to be known is Brahman, the AtmA alone.

Brahma-JnAna is the rooting out of all-bodies and such like-that are not Self, and the merging in Brahman, the Sat. The universe of Akash and others including JIva is not-AtmA.

*****

Devotee has given (post 20) another reference from the
Atma UpaniShad of the Atharva Veda:

II-1. The good named the Atman is pure, one and non-dual always, in the form of Brahman. Brahman alone shines forth.
II-2. Even as the world with its distinctions like affirmation, negation, etc., Brahman alone shines forth.
II-3. With distinctions like teacher and disciples (also), Brahman alone appears. From the point of view of truth, pure Brahman alone is.
II-4. Neither knowledge nor ignorance, neither the world nor aught else (is there).
What sets empirical life afoot is the appearance of the world as real.
II-5(a). What winds up empirical life is (its) appearance as unreal.

II-28-29. Brahman suffers from no concealment whatsoever. It is uncovered, there being nothing other than It (to cover It). The ideas, ‘it is’ and ‘it is not’, as regards Reality, are only ideas in the intellect. They do not pertain to the eternal Reality. So bondage and liberation are set up by Maya and do not pertain to the Self.

*****

But then Shankara did not comment about the so-called minor upaniShads. And as far as we can trace, we have not found direct Veda/prasthAnatraya references of the terms Shankara has used: mithyA, vyavahArika, prAtibhAsika, pAramArthika, adhyAsa, anirvAchanIya, parimANa, Arambha.

This means that Shankara must have derived his philosophy from some key concepts of the shRuti, specially the UpaniShads, which form the JnAna KANDa/VedAnta part of the Vedas. As regards the "brahma satyam" quote in question, we may say that Shankara's emphasis in this quote is more on the jIva-brahma-aikyam--unity of JIva and Brahman. In other words, the emphasis is actually on the second part of the quote: jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH. If we look at this angle, we can find the link in and the derivation from the UpaniShads.

In fact it seems that someone has already found the links. The following is a discussion about it, of which I have given the extract of the first part. For the rest, check the link given at the end.

A focussed study of the 'antaryAmin' of the BRihadAraNyaka UpaniShad

The following study is taken up in the form of addressing some questions/remarks contained in a blog authored by my friend Sri Mohan Suswaram titled: 'The curious case of pratyagAtman; a death blow to Advaita?' at

http://suswaram.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/03/the-curious-case-of-pratyagatman-a-death-blow.htm

Dvatin's Objection

There is an interesting pronouncement of Yajnavalkya in the Brhdaranyaka Upanishad, the very Upanishad in which 'aham brahmasmi' occurs, which advaitin grossly mistook for the identity of self with God.

The verse is:
"ya atmani tisthan atmano antaro yamayati esa te atma antaryami amrtah". (BrUp 3.7.13)

This verse basically talks about the indwelling principle in Jivas. Interestingly, the first usage of Atma is in the locative case (tisthan) and hence should indubitably stand for the Jivatman. The second usage of the word Atma is in the nominative case (esa te Atma) and that obviously refers to the God who indwells in the Jivas for their being and functioning.

If the two Atmans were one and the same, then it would be ridiculous to speak of the same Atman being its own indweller as well as the indwelt. Shankara had cleverly introduced his two-level truth theory here (vyavaharika satya and paramarthika satya) and said that this difference (of indweller and indwelt) is something borne out of ignorance in the vyavaharika state. But that theory itself has no proof so far and is not worthy of acceptance.

Advaitin's Response

The above portion appears in the Brahmasutra bhashya of Shankara (I.2.20). The Bhashya reads: //This mention of the distinction between the embodied soul (jivatman) and the internal Ruler (paramatman) is based on the limiting adjunct of body and senses, conjured up by ignorance but this is not so in the absolute sense. For the indwelling Self can be but one, and not two. The same one, however, is mentioned as two owing to conditioning factors, as for instance it is said, 'the pot-space' and 'the cosmic-space' (with reference to one indivisible space alone).//

• Thus, here Shankara gives the reasoning that there cannot be two selves indwelling in a person. In view of this one has to conclude, per force, that one self that is spoken of as the indwelt is the avidya-conditioned one and the other the Indweller, the unconditioned one.

• Shankara, in the above Sutrabhashya, goes on to substantiate his stand and reasoning by citing two sets of Shruti passages, both from the Brihadaranyaka itself:

Br.Up.II.4.14:
yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraM pashyati, ityavidyAviShaye
sarvaM vyavahAraM darshayati |
yatra tvasya sarvamAtvaivAbhUt tatkena kaM pashyet itividyAviShaye
sarva vyahAraM vArayati |

[Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something (other than himself) (Br.Up. II.4.14), shows that all dealings, vyavahAra, are possible within the range of ignorance; and the text 'But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see through what?' (ibid.), precludes all dealings within the sphere of illumination.]

• From this standpoint, the Vedic texts about the difference between the knower and things known, the means of valid knowledge like perception, the experience of transmigration, and scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions – all become justifiable.

Dvatin's Objection

Moreover, the reading into Yajnavalkya's statement of antaryami or indweller would carry no weight if the world were mithya or unreal. If there is no real world of matter and souls, then into what should Atman enter and become an indweller?

Reducing Yajnavalkya's statement, at times to ignorance of vyavaharika state and at other times as referring to a Paramarthika truth is nothing but an act of convenience of Shankara to advance his theory unimpeded as and when he encounters a contradictory difficulty.

Advaitin's Response

This is no difficulty. Any teacher who aims at removing a person's ignorance has before him a task that has two aspects:

1. He has to first impress upon the person that he is ignorant. And show him how he acts in the wake of ignorance. When this is mirrored to him, the fact of his being in ignorance is accepted.

2. The scenario that is free from ignorance also should be communicated to him so that he grasps it and sees the contrast and strives to come out of ignorance.

• The Shruti in general and Yajnavalkya in particular are exactly doing this. The above two passages are proof for the Shruti resorting to show the avidya avasthaa where in seeming duality one sees everything else as other than him. In contrast, the Shruti subsequently shows the vidyaa avasthaa where in the absence of ignorance/duality, the differentiated vision is no longer there.

• In fact this itself is a proof of the Shruti teaching the vyavaharika-paramarthika levels which Shankara has only formalized and explicitly mentioned. So, going by the first quoted passage, the Shruti talks of

"ya Atmani tiShThan ... eSha te AtmA antaryAmyamRtaH" (BrUp 3.7.13)

wherein the first word Atmani in the locative means the conditioned self--the jivAtma--and the second word Atma in the nominative refers to the unconditioned ParamAtma.

• There is nothing odd here as throughout the scripture whenever 'AtmA' is spoken of as kartA, bhoktA, transmigrating from body to body, etc., it is this ignorance-induced-conditioned self alone.

• And whenever identity is taught as for example in 'Tat tvam asi', the tvam-Atma is the Self that is freed of the ignorance-born-conditioning upadhis of body-mind.

This is the manner of the Upanishad. There is no resorting to 'an act of convenience' by Shankara; it is the natural way of the Shruti.

Shankara bases his view of the ‘antaryami’ mantra on the premise that the two atman-s in the mantra have to be seen as a portrayal of the vyavaharic position and not the paramarthik. This premise is developed and established on the strength of two important pramanas:

1. The Reason, yukti: For the indwelling Self can be but one, and not two and

2. The two Br.Up. passages teaching the avidya-based vyavaharik duality and the correcting vidya-based paramarthik unity of Atman.

*****

Scriptural support for Shankara’s premise

Now, let us see the scriptural support for Shankara’s premise and the reasoning he advances for the establishing of the premise:

All over the Upanishadic literature, Moksha, liberation, is taught to be the result of realizing (the true nature of) the Atman. And everywhere the teaching is about the Knowable One Atman and nowhere is the knowledge of two Atman-s prescribed as leading to liberation. For example:

1. The Kathopanishad (1.iii.10,11) teaches:

indriyebhyaH parA hyarthA arthebhyashcha paraM manaH |
manasastu parA buddhirbuddherAtmA mahAnparaH || 10 ||

mahataH paramavyaktaM avyaktAtpuruShaH paraH |
puruShAnna paraM kiMchit sA kAShThA sA parA gatiH || 11 ||

[The sense-objects are higher than the senses, and the mind is higher than the sense-objects; but the intellect is higher than the mind, and the Great Soul is higher than the intellect. The Unmanifested is higher than Mahat; the Purusha is higher than the Unmanifested. There is nothing higher than the Purusha. He is the culmination. He is the highest goal.]

This pair of mantras shows that starting from the outward world of objects when one takes a stock of members, one is lead to the PuruSha, as the Inmost Self, the pratyagAtman. Nowhere in this list is 'another Atman' that could be specified as the jIva. The Unmanifested and Mahat are decidedly part of the created world and therefore anAtma. By the words 'He is the highest goal' the Upanishad is instructing that the knowledge of this One Purusha is what is required for liberation. There is no exhortation to know any other 'jIvAtman' other than this PuruSha for liberation.

**********

2. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also teaches the same through the mantra which is in the form of a dialogue:

katama AtmA iti, yo&yaM vijnAnamayaH prANeShu hRdyantajyotiH puruShaH
atrAyaM puruShaH svyaMjyotirbhavati | (4.3.7-9)

[Which is the Atman? This infinite entity (PuruSha) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the self-effulgent light within the heart (intellect). Assuming the likeness of the intellect, it moves between the two worlds, it thinks, as it were, and digresses, as it were. …In this state of dream, this PuruSha becomes his own light.]

The above dialogue is a part of the teaching session that Sage Yajnavalkya has with the aspirant King Janaka. Janaka questions: "Yajnavalkya, what serves as the light for a man?"

It is in a detailed elucidation in reply to this question that the mantra quoted above occurs. Therein, 'location' of the Atman is specified in order to realize it. Atman is shown as residing amidst the intellect, etc. It is the knowledge of this Light that is the Atman that leads to liberation. It is with a view to know this that Janaka questions Yajnavalkya.

Interestingly this dialogue proceeds in such a way that the jIvAtma is also spoken of as the very ParamAtma who has identified Itself with the intellect, etc. and experiencing the triad of states, the samsAra. Here too, as in the Kathopanishad mantra, we are taught about Only One Atman that is beyond all the anAtman.

**********

3. In the BhagavadgItA 13.12, the Knowable, Jneyam, is presented thus:

GYeyaM yattatpravakShyAmi yajGYaatvAmR^itamashnute |
anAdi matparaM brahma na sattannAsaduchyate || 13.13 ||

[That which is to be known, I shall describe, knowing which one attains the Immortal. Beginningless is the Supreme Brahman, It is not said to be 'sat' or 'asat'.]

And where is that Brahman to be realized?

jyotiShAmapi tajjyotiH tamasaH paramuchyate |
GYAnaM GYeyaM GYAnagamyaM hR^idi sarvasya viShThitam || 13.18 ||

[The Light even of lights, That is said to be beyond darkness. Knowledge, the Knowable, the Goal of knowledge, It is implanted in the heart of every one.]

So, in the Bhagavadgita too we are taught that there is Only One Atman/Brahman that is to be realized for Moksha. The verse 13.24 uses the word Atman to denote the word Brahman:

dhyAnenAtmani pashyanti kechidAtmAnamAtmanA |

[By meditation some behold the Self in the mind by the sharpened, purified intellect….] This 'beholding' of the Atman/Brahman is what is sine qua non for MokSha.

The GItA specifically teaches the knowledge of One Atman as saattvic jnAnam:

sarvabhUteShu yena ekaM bhAvam avyayamIkShate |
avibhaktaM vibhakteShu tajGYAnaM viddhi sAttvikam || 18.20 ||

[That by which a man sees the One Indestructible Reality in all beings, inseparate in the separated, that knowledge know thou as SAttvic.]

Lord Krishna contrasts the above by specifying the rAjasik jnAnam:

pR^ithaktvena tu yajGYAnaM nAnAbhAvAnpR^ithagvidhAn.h |
vetti sarveShu bhUteShu tajGYAnaM viddhi rAjasam || 18.21 ||

[But that knowledge which by differentiation, sees in all creatures various entities of distinct kinds, that knowledge know thou as RAjasic.]

These two GItA verses seem to be the exact re-phrasing of the two Brihadaranyaka Mantras that we saw earlier - one for the ignorant-vision and the other for the vision of the wise, quoted by Shankara in the antaryAmi context.

Thus, in the Gita too we are not taught of any 'other jIvAtman' whose knowledge is mandatory for MokSha.

From all these passages we conclude that

• the Scripture recognizes only One Atman as the True Atman which is the pratyagAtman that indwells every being.

• It would be now clear that Shankara in that mantra on 'antaryAmi' has this position of the Scripture in mind while commenting that 'the two-Atmans is not the ultimate position of the Scripture and that it is unreasonable to admit two pratyagaatmans in a being'.

• Also, his assertion that the 'other Atman' is only the avidyA-caused conditioned Atman can be appreciated by us, especially in the light of the GItA verses we saw above.

• Further, it is only a conditioned Atman that can be said to be controlled by the unconditioned Atman.

Again, when the jivAtman is admitted to be all-pervading (by Advaitins and Dvaitins), it would be illogical to say that the All-pervading ParamAtman dwells in the all-pervading jivAtman.

Considering all these, it is only Shankara’s position that is admissible. If the 'other Atman' is admitted to be conditioned by the association of mind, intellect, etc. due to avidyA, then one can accept the possibility of the ParmAtman to indwell in it and control it.

...and the discussion continues 'The case of ‘dvaa suparnaa’ of the Mundaka Up.(3.i.1)'
...on to 'How is the Atman separated from the ‘jivAtman’?'
...and 'A key point to be noted in Vedanta'

Source:
A Focused Study Of The 'antaryaami' Of The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
by an Anonymous author
download at: http://www.advaitin.net/Subrahmanian/'AntaryAmi'%20in%20Brihadar.pdf

PS: Please don't add to my rep points for what I have done in this post. It is just mailman's work. Since this article has given me some peace of mind, and as I can't do it any better, I have reproduced the first part of the article here.--sd

**********

devotee
04 March 2010, 10:16 PM
Namaste Saidevo ji,

Thanks for your beautiful and well reasoned post above. I don't think I am going to say something anew but I think truth should be stated again and again & so this post :

The objections and refutations


• 01. The One Reality, satyam, is only a theoretical possibility, as against the changing reality of the world which is readily and for ever perceptible. So we can't dismiss the reality of the world as mithyA--illusion/unreal.

Answer : First of all, let us be sure what Shankara meant by “Brahma satyam jagan mithya”. I have seen people catching one word and going wild about their (mis)understanding even claiming as if the Shankara was either a fool or an imposter and they understood the essence of Vedanta better than Shankara ! In this thread itself I found some people claiming without proof that Shankara’s this statement has no support in Shruti ! How can people claim something like this when they have not read the scriptures and also have not understood Shankara’s words ?

Let’s see what Shankara says :

“Rajjwa jnanath kshanenaiva yadwad drajjurhi sarpini,
Bhathi thadwachithi sakshad viswakarena kevala. 44” (Aparokshanubhuti)

In some moments the rope appears as a snake, due to the ignorance of its real nature, and without the rope changing its nature, similarly pure consciousness also appears, to be the whole universe at such times.

So, Shankara has in his mind the example of Snake seen superimposed on a rope. So, in his words, rope is real but snake is unreal. But in this example it is very clear that rope as snake is unreal but is real when seen as rope. It is also very clear that there are no two things i.e. one real and another unreal. The real itself is seen as unreal. Similarly, the World as World is unreal but world as Brahman is real … is what Shankara says. He doesn’t say that world doesn’t exist … he says that seeing world as world is illusion & the cause of bondage.

Again let’s see this verse :

“Bramaiva sarva namani roopani vividhani cha,
Karmanyapi samagrani vibharthathi sruthir jagai.” 50 (Aparokshanubhuti)

All those having differing names, or different shapes are only Brahman, and the Vedas tell that it alone is the base, of all the actions that we see.

So, Shankara makes it clear that the essence that it is Brahman which is perceived with different forms and names (as the world).

Suvarnath jaya manasya suvarnathwam cha saswatham,
Brahmano jayamanasya brahmathwam cha thadha bhaveth. 51 (Aparokshanubhuti)

Like gold is the permanent thing, in things made of gold, because all things were born out of Brahman, Brahman is the nature of everything.

Here Shankra likens the relationship between World and Brahman with Gold and the ornaments made of gold. Seeing ornament different from gold is the illusion but seeing ornament as gold is reality …. As gold is reality, the essence on which the form of the ornament is superimposed.

Yadha mrudhi ghato nama kanake kundalibhidha,
Sukthou hi rajata kyathir jeeva sabdha sthadha pare. 60

Like one calls the clay as a pot, the gold as the ear stud, and the shell as silver, we call the Brahman as the individual soul.

Yadyaiva vyomni neelathwam yadha neeram marusthale,
Purushathwam yadha sthanou, thdwad viswam chidathmani. 61

Like one sees blue colour in the sky, sees water in the distant mirage, and sees in dark,a man in a pillar, one imagines that he is seeing, the unreal universe in the real Brahman.

=> The pot & the clay example, gold and the ear stud example and shell and the silver example etc. make it very clear what Shankara meant by the word mithya. The pot is actually clay but we see the pot and not the clay … if we strip the pot from its superimposed name and form … what is the essence which is seen ? Where are the pot superimposed on clay, the silver in the shell and the ear stud in the gold ? They are indeed in our mind … they have no real existence outside mind …. the things are as they are … the essence is the same.

The problem starts when people start taking the meanings of words as suits them & not as what the speaker meant. The problem starts when we take half verse from somewhere and quote as it suits them.

If one reality is only theoretically possible then the scientific theories which tell us that the essence of everything are the same fundamental particles and that matter and energy are the same is also only theoretically possible ! Then the gold, the iron & stone & heat and electricity must be essentially different from each other ! If someone doesn’t want to understand the higher physics then let him be happy with differences that he is perceiving but he must agree that he doesn’t know the reality. The person who stubbornly believes that the iron wall in front of him is 100 % solid without any space within the wall is not fit to be taught that study of the Atomic Structure has proved without doubt that the whole of the iron wall is almost 99.99 % space. How can you make a person understand that when he touches something there is no “touching” in true sense as no two atoms can come closer than a certain distance ? How do you make a person understand that a red flower is actually not red … it only appears so when seen through mind as it is only game of difference in wavelengths of the light played with our mind & nothing else. If someone wants to stay in his make-believe world and doesn’t want to see reality … who can help him ?

Because of these difficulties, imho, it is futile to discuss these things with a person who is not ready to understand. That is why this Jnana is forbidden to be expounded to all & sundry.


OM

devotee
04 March 2010, 10:28 PM
Continued from the last post ...

• 02. How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)

Answer : This question, to me, seems like this … dig a hole first and then fall into it and then blame the path. Who told that JnAna fell into ajnAna ? Did Shankara say that at first there was no ajnana to begin with and then the jnAna fell into some non-existent ajnana at some specific time and space ? Do the Vedas say so ? This Jnana & Ajnana are inherent nature of the Brhaman in different states. Manukya Upanishad describes the first two states when the reality is perceived wrongly …. i.e. in the waking and the dreaming states. Does it say that some outsides existing ajnana falls into Turiya from nowhere & leads to waking and dreaming states ? It doesn’t say so. It says that there are four states of Brahman. It is the same Brahman in all states as Brahman alone is there & there is nothing else. So, there is nothing can be added from outside to make it jnana or ajnana … the same Brhaman appears as bound in the first two states & the same Brahman is the untainted, unbound in the fourth state.

Again this question : If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all?

Now, clearly the questioner has assumed that illusion means absence of even the essence which is not the case here. The teacher and the disciple are both Brahman but they are in different states. The disciple is ice & teacher is water … there is essentially no difference between the two but the teacher can supply its heat of Jnana to melt the ice form of the disciple to help him attain his true nature i.e. water. As long as disciple is in a different state than that of the teacher he suffers within bondage of form and name. He must become water to be free from the bondage ... otherwise if he is happy with his state ... then there is no need to get Jnana from the teacher.

Yoga Tattva Upanishad :

9. How did that which is the seat of Paramatman, is eternal and above the state of all existing things and is of the form of wisdom and without stains attain the state of Jiva ?
10. A bubble arose in it as in water and in this (bubble) arose Ahankara. To it arose a ball (of body) made of the five (elements) and bound by Dhatus.
11. Know that to be Jiva which is associated with happiness and misery and hence is the term Jiva applied to Paramatman which is pure.
12-13. That Jiva is considered to be the Kevala (alone) which is freed from the stains of passion, anger, fear, delusion, greed, pride, lust, birth, death, miserliness, swoon, giddiness, hunger, thirst, ambition, shame, fright, heart-burning, grief and gladness.


• 03. Advaita is completely confusing, but Ramanuja darshan has some consistency.

Is there any consonance in the bheda, abheda, and ghaTaka shruti statements found in Vedas? As against this the everyday everyman's reality of the world is in more consonance to everyone. (post #26)

Answer : Yes, Advaita IS confusing to less intelligent minds. So, it must be understood carefully. That is why this philosophy is not for everyone.

Regarding “consonance in the bheda …” etc., as we are discussing Advaita here, mixing of various philosophies together without having agreement on one issue is not desirable for a fruitful discussion. So, let’s concentrate all our energy to discussion on Advaita alone.

• 04. Terms such as 'absolute sat, absolute asat, vyAvahArika satyaM, prAtibhAsika satyaM, mithyA' do not make any sense in practical perspective. He asks, "But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?" (post #48)


Anaswer :

OK. Let's see these Pramanas :

Pramanas :

a) Sarvam khalvidam Brahma – All this is Brahman --- If all is Brahman then the world that we perceive also must be Brahman & therefore the appearance of world as world is not the reality but a false perception. So, how is it not perfect pramana for “Brahma Satyam Jagan mithya” ? How can it be interpreted in any other manner ?
b) Ekam evadwitiyam Brahma – Brahman is one, without a second - --- This & the earlier statement of the Vedanta are not different except the words used are different. If there is Brahman alone & there is no second then it boils down to the first statement itself.
c) From Maha Upanishad :

V-44-49. The visible cosmos of un-moving and moving things melts away like dream in a (dreamless) sleep. The wise people have attributed, for empirical purposes, names for the supreme Being, such as, Rita Atma, Para Brahma, Truth etc. Just as armlets etc., are only words and meanings, not different from gold, so also is the magical illusion of the cosmos extended by the supreme being.

The perceived being inside the visible world is called bondage, in the absence (dissolution) of the visible, he is realized. What is called the visible is the projection like, ‘The universe is you, and I’. The illusion of the world is spread only by the mind – as long as it happens, this is no liberation.


Is it different from “Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya” ??

d) From NirvANa Upanishad :

53. When the reality of Brahman shines in the self there is the annihilation of the phenomenal world which is enveloped by the power of Shiva (Maya); similarly the burning of the existence or non-existence of the aggregate of the causal, subtle and gross bodies.

Any more pramana is needed for Jagan Mithya ?


• 05. The only reality in Advaita is the nirguNa brahman, since it is not easily reachable, concepts like the vyAvahArika satyaM are brought in, which have no support in the Vedas or other commonly accepted scriptures. (post #53)

Answer ;The questioner can’t be honest while asking this question ! He himself is emphasizing again and again the reality of the phenomenal world over everything written in Vedanta & now is asking this question ! The questioner must take a complete picture of what the Shruti say & not pick up half truths as per his convenience. If VyAvhArika satyam is without any support then the whole of Bhagwad Gita & many Upanishads prescribing various yoga methods to attain the absolute are useless ! How can this questioner be serious while asking this question ??


• 06. When Advaita claims to have shruti basis, then there should be scriptural support for the statement that the jagat is mithyA. Is there any? (post #85)

Answer : Please look for the pramanas given above.

• 07. His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post #90)

Answer : First of all, Brahman is just one of the names given to the reality. It is also called as Self at many places in the Shruti. For Pramana see above.

• 08. At some point of time, we need to grow out of our security blanket and face the reality. Just as Science constantly revalidates its knowledge, the recorded knowledge of the Rishis too must be scrutinized and revalidated, and this would not mean any disrespect to them, just as the scientific world still respects Newton, Darwin, and Einstein although their theories have undergone changes. (post #95)

Answer : Correct ! The Science has almost endorsed today what the Rishis revealed thousands of years ago ! I have already given example of illusions of solid wall, colours, sense of touch etc. So, scientifically it is clear that things as we see in this world are not really same as we see them.

Why does the Vedantic theory (Truth) doesn’t any validation ? The validation is required until you don’t experience the reality yourself. Once the reality is experienced and it can be experienced again and again by others too, then there is no need of any validation. The theory that the “Earth is round” need not be validated again as it is not based on any theory today … it is not a drawn up conclusion alone … man has gone to space &b seen himself from there that the “Earth is round”. The Advaitins believe in experiencing the Truth and not just talking and hearing it.



"Leaving these differences between a theist like yourself and an atheist like myself aside, please cite evidence from the vedas that you hold as supreme for the notions like:
jagath is unreal

-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."

• 09. He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts

-- jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal

• 10. Shankara's concepts were not agreed to by RAmAnuja, and Madhva rejected them both. And then there are Jainas and Buddhas who dismiss even the Vedas as pramANa. Christianity and Islam reject rebirth. "With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?"

• 11. "Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience."

• 12. "Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic."


and The main issue is pramana for some central concepts like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika; nirguna and saguna; or jagat is mitya/unreal because it is created. With Ishwara being not just nimitta karana, but upAdhaana karana as well, how can jagath be interpreted to mean mithya/unreal.


Your citations from Vedas do not address any of the above:
Now, the Vedic pramANa for the concept 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' are:
• ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1
• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda
• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman. -- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda
None of these can mean jagath is mithya/unreal.
ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46
"Ekam sat" simply means only one is unchanging, how can this mean jagat is mitya/unreal.
ekam evadvitiyam brahma
This is preceded by "agre", at that time, i.e. during pralayam before shrushti begins, there was only one, and no two. This is not to say the jagat created by Ishwara is mitya/unreal.
prajnanam brahma
This is not germane in this context.



These questions are just repetitions of the earlier questions in different forms except this one :


sarvaM khalvidaM brahma anything this, statement only says everything is real, not mitya.

Of Course ! Everything is certainly real when perceived as Brahman ! They are false only when seen as worldly things as perceived by our senses.


OM

devotee
04 March 2010, 10:46 PM
Regarding use of "Agre" in Chandogya Upanishad's Mahavakya : Let's read the whole passage :

6.2.1. "In the beginning, dear boy, this world was Being--One only, without a second. To be sure, some say that in the beginning this world was only non-Being, one only without a second, and that from that non-Being Being was born.

2. "But, dear boy, how could this be?" he said, "how could Being be produced from non-Being? In the beginning there was Being alone, one only, without a second.

[After this preliminary discourse on the nature of Brahman as that which is the source of all other things, we come back in the ninth chapter of book six, where Svetaketu's father talks of the relationship between Brahman and the individual human being.]

1. "As bees, dear boy, produce honey by gathering together the nectars from the flowering trees in every direction, those nectars become one single honey.

2. And just as those nectars do not get the idea `I am the nectar of this tree, I am the nectar of that tree,' indeed in the very same way, dear boy, all these beings, having sprung from Being, do not know `We have sprung from Being.'

3. Whatever they are in this world--tiger, lion, wolf, bear, worm, flying insect, biting insect, or mosquito--that they become.

4. That which is the finest essence, the whole universe has That as its soul. That is Reality, That is the Self, and That is you, Svetaketu!"

What does it say ? Which is the reality ? Svetketu (as a boy) or the Self that Svetketu is ?

So, does Shankara say something different ? When Svetketu's realty is as Self alone and not as Svetketu then what exactly Svetketu is ? Is it not mithya ?

OM

saidevo
05 March 2010, 01:30 PM
Exploring the connections between avidyA, mAyA, mithyA, jIva and Brahman

• 02. How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna?

To know the answer to this question, we need to understand the connection between avidyA, mAyA and mithyA. Essentially, all these three forms of non-Self are one and the same.

Here is a paraphrase with my logical inferences, from the book Studies in VedAnta by M.R.Jayakar

vidyA vs avidyA

• In the parlance of VedAnta, vidyA is the knowledge of 'tattvamasi'--'That thou art'. Only the knowledge of Self as Brahman is called vidyA.

• vidyA is also known by such terms as parAvidya, adhyAtmavidyA, brahmavidyA, AtmavidyA and so on.

• The empirical/phenomenal knowledge about the world is not vidyA, only avidyA. The lower levels of worldly knowledge are called aparAvidyA. All aparAvidya is avidyA. The common English translation of the term avidyA is 'nescience, ignorance'.

• avidyA is both subjective and objective. In the subjective sense, it creates a veil between the Self--Atman, and the ego--jIva, which is impenetrable except by proper inquiry about Brahman. When the vidyA--knowledge of Self==Atman as Brahman, dawns, subjective avidyA is annihilated.

• In the objective sense, avidyA is the cause of creation of the world. Since Brahman is described as the material and efficient cause of the world in Advaita, it follows that he is also the cause of avidyA, as otherwise, advidyA will become another Absolute Reality, limiting Brahman.

• Since there cannot be two Absolute Realities, and since shRuti speaks of Brahman as the only Absolute Reality, this means that avidyA must be unreal. But then what is unreal cannot exist, but avidyA does exist! This is the reason avidyA is termed anirvAchanIya--inexplicable: neither sat nor asat--not sat, because it is not eternal, and not asat, because it has a temporary existence, and is annihilated by the knowledge of Self as Brahman.

• It is in this temporary existence that Brahman uses avidyA as his power of mAyA to manifest the universe as an adhyAsa--superimposition, on itself and make it appear as mithyA--perceptional error of emperical reality as absolute reality.

Thus, the objective advidyA, as the illusory power of mAyA is used by Brahman to create his appearance as this world of multiple forms of jaDa--insentient, and chaitanya--sentient, and such illusory appearance of the world which is conditioned by its temporal and spatial existence is termed mithyA--perceptional error of empirical reality as absolute reality. This objective advidyA which is also mAyA, is annihilated only at the time of praLaya.

Subjective avidyA

• Shankara in the introduction to his Brahma SUtra BhAShya has precisely explained the nature of subjective avidyA. Atanu has given an extract of this introduction as translated by George Thibault in post no.112. Here is a brief:

• In the duality of the world, there is always a subject and an object, with their own distinctive attributes, which cannot--and should not--be mixed up in perception. This means that 'I' as the Self in us, is the subject, and everything else that are upAdhis--limiting adjunctions, of the Self, are only objects.

• The 'I' as Self has the attributes sat--eternal existence, chit--true knowledge (vidyA), and Ananda--bliss. The Not-Self--anAtman, which is anitya--transient, and jaDa--insentient, in its various forms have their own temporal and spatial attributes. Objects of the non-Self are for the bhoga--enjoyment, of the jIva--ego.

• Self is essentially Consciousness, and Not-Self is Matter. Self is self-effulgent; Not-Self receives its luminance only by the reflection and superimposition of the Self over it. Because this superimposition is two-way, the Not-Self effectively veils the Self. But then Not-Self is transient and constantly changing, so the light of Self--Atman, shines translucently through Not-Self, and when the jIva--ego, properly tunes its mind to the rays of wisdom--buddhi, it perceives the light of Atman, albeit only momentarily.

• In the embodied and bonded life of jIva, the Not-Self of the world is readily seen and perceived through the senses, whereas the immanent Atman, which is only experienced in deep sleep, is never perceived. This is the reason that it is the natural behaviour of humans to mix up the attributes of the Atman and anAtman and say that 'I am the body', 'This body is I', 'This body is mine', 'I think so', etc.--essentially ascribing the unseen Self with the readily seen Not-Self. This error in perception is the subjective avidyA, and the only way to rectify it is to do the sAdhana for Self-Realization, as prescribed in the shRuti.

Objective avidyA

From here it is almost a verbatim extract from the book Studies in VedAnta by M.R.Jayakar
http://ia300239.us.archive.org/0/items/StudiesInVedanta/StudiesInVedanta.djvu

• Philosophically, avidyA is unreal. The process of ratiocination Advaita adopts for annihilation of vidyA is technically known as adhyAropa-apavAda--deliberate superimposition and negation. This is explained as follows:

‣ The MarAtha saint RAmdAs aptly describes this process of adhyAropa-apavAda, in his 'DAsa bodha' (7.3.4) in the following terms:

"First raise an unreality, then, knowing, give it up; thus, Truth, in its essence, is realized."

This process we commonly employ in finding out the value of an unknown quantity in an algebraical equation, thus:

x^2 + 2x = 24
add 1 to both sides
so, x^2 + 2x + 1 = 24 + 1 = 25
so, (x+1)^2 = 5^2
so, x + 1 = 5
Therefore, x = 5 - 1 = 4.

‣ The world is so impressive on us that man cannot avoid giving an explanation of it, even with his limited faculties. By the duality of the world and the laws of our thought, a positive implies a negative, Being implies Not-Being, Atman implies anAtman, Spirit implies Nature, Mind implies Matter, but then both these pairs of opposites can't be considered as two co-existing eternal principles, as they would limit each other and thereby destroy the infinitude of both.

‣ If both of them are really existing entities, one of them must be subordinate to the other, as being derived from it or as being dependent on it.

‣ Strictly speaking if One is real, the Many as its antithesis, must be unreal; if Being is real, Not-Being must be unreal; if Brahman is real, the sensible universe must be unreal. These are conclusions forced by logical necessity.

‣ But with the mental equipment and the Categories of Causation, Time, Space, etc., to which his understanding is subject, man views the world and everything in it as happening in Time, as having a Cause, as being in Space, and as having thus a differentiated and independent existence.

‣ This Empirical Knowledge--apara vidyA, which has, no doubt, its value for its limited aims and ends. For, generally speaking, it is by means of what is called Matter, that the Mind becomes revealed; by means of Nature, Spirit is apprehended; by means of anAtman, Atman is Self-realized.

‣ And the moment such revelation, apprehension or Self-realization becomes an accomplished fact in its fullness, the true nature of what is hitherto called Matter, Nature or anAtman becomes revealed as being identical with its opposite. At this state the unreality of Matter as Matter, Nature as Nature and anAtman as anAtman, becomes self-evident, for the man who has reached this stage has already transcended the sphere of empiricism and entered into the Spiritual region, where all differentiations, due to the categories of human understanding, have lost their significance.

avidyA as the power of mAyA

• As an objective power, avidyA has two properties: AvaraNa--concealing, and vikShepa--projection. The AvaraNa conceals the Self--Atman as Brahman, and the vikShepa gives rise to the conceit of egoity or conscious individuality, that is jIva, and also projects the phantasmagoria of a world, which the individual regards as external to himself.

• avidyA is the power of the Atman (Brahman) to which all the manifold of phenomenal existence is due. (MANDukya Up.3.10)

• It is by avidyA that the 'only One existent' (sadekameva), is differentiated as so many things undergoing production, destruction and the like-changes, like an actor on the stage. (Shankara BhaShya--SB, on GItA 18.48)

• Shankara calls avidyA the primeval natural nescience, which has its use for our limited aims and ends in practical life. (SB Brahma SUtra III.2.15)

• Consisting in the notion of variety involving actions, means and ends, it is always present in the Self--Atman in the following form: "Mine is action. I, the agent will do such an action, for such and such a result." This avidyA has been active since time immemorial. (SB GItA 18.66)

• The unmanisfested Brahman is assumed to contain avidyA within its as its limiting adjunct, giving rise to the notion of mAyA, of a Personal God, and of samsAra as a result of their joint activity. (SB BS I.2.22)

• It is obvious that avidyA, in the above passages, is likened to mAyA. All objects in the creation are projected by the power of illusion in the Atman. This power of Atman is called avidyA; all objects are evolved from it and are, therefore, from a philosophic point of view, unreal (SB MANDukya Up.3.10)

• As in the case of mAyA, so here questions are asked whether this avidyA (nescience) is a product and if so how is it caused? Certainly not the absolute Brahman itself, because it is actionless and changeless. If not a product, it is another entity self-caused like Brahman itself?

The answer given is that it is inscrutable and inexplicable--anirvAchanIya. It is neither sat nor asat--not sat, because it is not eternal, and not asat, in the sense of precluding all possibility of existence in one's experience, like the 'horns of a hare' or 'the son of a barren woman'. It is something which presents us with the spectacle of an external world in which we experience pleasure and pain, and appears also in our consciousness and entangles us in the principle of Individualism. It is thus more than nothing but less than real.

• On a general review of the UpaniShads, of the VedAnta Sutras (Brahma SUtra), of Bhagavad GItA, and of Shankara's commentaries thereon, it would seem that the word avidyA is variously used to denote:

01. Nature or Creation;
02. The Mystery underlying Nature;
03. MAyA, the postulated cause of Nature;

04. The innate forms of human intellect, viz. Time, Space, Causality, etc., which stand, so to speak, between us and Brahman;

05. Limitations of human understanding or incapacity to understand the mystery underlying Nature;

06. The Principle of Invididuation and our entanglement in it;

07. Our identification with our body, organs of sense, which are themselves the products of Nature--Prakriti;

08. The errorneous concept of mixing attributes of the Self and Not-Self such as 'I am fat', 'I am lean', 'my body feels', 'my mind tells me so', etc.;

09. Our attachment to worldly things;
10. Empirical knowledge generally.

Because of the compulsive, impressional and sensible reality of the world as perceived in the waking state of existence of the jIva, Shankara has given a concession in his famous mahAvAkya "Brahma satyam jagan mithyA"--as the mithyA which is philosophically unreal as it is caused by avidyA, but practically and conditionally real as the vyavahArika satyam. This practical reality, however, only temporary, so he says in his BS BhAShya II.1.14:

"The entire complex of phenomenal existence is considered as true so long as the knowledge of Brahman and the Self of all has not arisen, just as the phantoms of a dream are considered to l)e true until the sleeper wakes."

Until the knowledge of Self as Brahman is had in experience through the proper channels of the shRuti under the guidance of a guru, avidyA, in fact, is considered as a bliss (as the Englisy saying 'blissful ignorance' goes). Chapter 11 of the GItA gives an excellent illustration of this fact.

**********

saidevo
07 March 2010, 12:41 AM
namaste everyone.

Perhaps the semblance of pyrotechnics have restarted. Check for further discussions with/from Prof.Nara here from post no.116:

Atman and its adjectives
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3803-atman-its-adjectives-12.html

I wonder if we can invite Prof. Nara to HDF and have a firsthand discussions with him!

devotee
07 March 2010, 01:34 AM
Namaste Saidevo ji,

It is better if you invite him here & let's have a full discussion with him. :)

Regarding his insistence on clarification for "How Brahman fell into Ajnana ?" .... it clearly shows that he has no understanding of Brahman. The Maandukya Upanishad is enough to answer his query.

You may ask him to to explain : How does sparkling diamond changes into black unattractive powder of graphite or coal or vice versa ? Why is he not surprised to see that ? Where was the sparkle of the diamond when it was coal or where was the ugliness of coal in diamond ? How the sparkle of diamond fell into the ugliness of coal to make it sparkling or how the ugliness of coal fell into sparkling diamond to create ugly piece of coal ?? Where do all these attributes go once diamond or coal are converted to CO2 after interaction with Oxygen. Why CO2 shows neither the attributes of Coal/diamond or that of Oxygen ? Where was the attributes of CO2 hidden before its coming into being ?

I think you must explain him that Brahman or Self or Reality, "Which alone Is" ... has four states of existence & it has different characteristics in its each state just like coal has completely different characteristics than diamond or graphite though all of them are forms are same element Carbon. Guru needs to teach the disciple because both are not in the same state. One is diamond and the other is coal though both are carbon alone.

If he refuses to see reason in spite of these explanations and reasoning ... dear Saidevo ji, my advice is that you better bow out of this meaningless dialogue. If someone is not knowing & he wants to know, we can make him understand but you cannot make a person understand if he has decided not to understand & he is proud of his ignorance. You must have seen this on this forum too.

We can bring the horse to the pond ... but we can't force him to drink water.

atanu
07 March 2010, 03:02 AM
I wonder if we can invite Prof. Nara to HDF and have a firsthand discussions with him!

Namaste saidevo ji,

I think that would be best since we can then directly answer him. And editing job on that thread can still be reserved for you.

The following is to complement the many good posts that have been created during the last two days. I feel that anyone can, through sharvana and manana, reach at appropriate time, the comprehension that there is an unbroken Truth, which minds and senses may or may not perceive, just as in darkness we do not know a room and its furniture.

The avidyavidya (or vidyavidya) is a continuum and on that continuum where one is situated makes the difference. 'One' mentioned here is not the indivisible 'One Being' but 'one' here must be understood as one of the many thinkers that sprout. A thinker is different from the sat-chit-ananda in that a thinker is the product. At the avidya end, one is the body-mind and separate from everything else. This is the farthest situation from the natural existence to exist as pure unlimited Pragnya as in waking sleep. One usually begins to question this state on being subjected to intense agony in the form of death of a loved one. At such times questions arise as to what is the life and intelligence in a dead body. Questions arise as to whether a piece of inanimate matter can ever attain intelligence and life, as is held by the Materialists.

On the Advaita end, is the following kind of teaching:



Chandogya U
III-xvii-6: Ghora Angirasa expounded this well-known doctrine to Devaki’s son Krishna and said, ‘Such a knower should, at the time of death, repeat this triad – "Thou art the imperishable, Thou art unchangeable, Thou art the subtle essence of Prana". (On hearing the above) he became thirstless. There are these two Rik stanzas in regard to this.

III-xvii-7: (Those knowers of Brahman who have purified their mind through the withdrawal of the senses and other means like Brahmacharya) see everywhere (the day – like the supreme light) of the ancient One who is the seed of the universe, (the light that shines in the Effulgent Brahman). May we, too having perceived the highest light which dispels darkness, reach it. Having perceived the highest light in our own heart we have reached that highest light, which is the dispeller (of water, rays of light and the Pranas), shining in all gods – yea, we have reached that highest light.

I am not a knower of Brahman. But the verse III-xvii-6 teaches that at the time of death the triad "Thou art the imperishable, Thou art unchangeable, Thou art the subtle essence of Prana", should be remembered. This verse is sufficient to quench the thirst for more and more knowledge. Whoever this 'Thou' is, it is within the Prana and it is the imperishable and unchangeable.

The next verse teaches that this is known on purifying the Mind. But, I understand, that this cannot be remembered at the time of death, unless this is remembered at every stage of living; while being abused or being praised or while enjoying pain or enjoying pleasure.

Further, from the same Upanishad, there is the grand teaching of Skanda (Sanatkumara) imparted to Narada Muni. Skanda takes Narada muni through the learning curve. He identifies successively the higher object of learning and worship. He teaches of Vak, Prana, Will, Mind etc. etc., and finally teaches that one works to gain happiness alone, which he teaches must thus be known. Happiness is not an attribute of the limited and thus the unlimited must be known. Sanatkumara teaches as below:




VII-xxi-1: ‘When one acts, then alone does one become steadfast. Without acting, one does not become steadfast. Only on acting does one become steadfast. But one must desire to understand activity’. ‘Revered sir, I desire to understand activity’.[/

VII-xxii-1: ‘When one obtains happiness’, then alone does one act. Without obtaining happiness one does not act. Only on obtaining happiness does one act. But one must desire to understand happiness’. ‘Revered sir, I desire to understand happiness’.

VII-xxiii-1: That which is infinite, is alone happiness. There is no happiness in anything finite. The infinite alone is happiness. But one must desire to understand the infinite’. ‘Revered sir, I desire to understand the infinite’.

VII-xxiv-1: ‘In which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is infinite. But that in which one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, is the finite. That which is infinite, is alone immortal, and that which is finite, is mortal’. ‘Revered sir, in what is that infinite established ?’ ‘On its own greatness or not even on its own greatness’.

VII-xxiv-2: ‘Here in this world people call cows and horses, elephants and gold, servants and wives, fields and houses, "greatness". I do not speak thus (of greatness), for in that case one thing would be established in another. What I do say is thus:

VII-xxv-1: ‘That infinite alone is below. That is above. That is behind. That is in front. That is to the south. That is to the north. That alone is all this. So next is the teaching in regard to the self-sense. I alone am below. I am above. I am behind. I am in front. I am to the south. I am to the north. I alone am all this.



As the crown of the vidya, Prajapati teaches Indra:




VIII-xii-4: Now, where the sight merges in Akasa (inside the eye, i.e., the black pupil of the eye), (there exists) that which is the person in the eye; and the eye is only for (his) seeing. And he who knows ‘I smell this’, is the Atman; the nose is for smelling. And he who knows ‘I speak this’, is the Atman, the organ of speech is for speaking. And he who knows ‘I hear this’, is the Atman; the ear is for hearing.

VIII-xii-5: And he who knows ‘I think this’, is the Atman, the mind is his divine eye. Through this divine eye of the mind he verily sees these desired objects which are in the Brahman-world, and rejoices.

VIII-xii-6: ‘Verily, this is the Atman whom the gods worship. Therefore all the worlds and all the desired objects are held by them. He obtains all the worlds all the desired objects, who having known that Atman (from the teacher and the scriptures) understands it.’ Thus spoke Prajapati – yea, thus spoke Prajapati.


At the vidya end of vidyaavidya continuum, Advaita is known as the Ekam. That of course is the highest state of Vishnu, who alone can say "I am alone all this". I think, a true knower of Brahman can only teach this without creating any confusion. We can however put the questions and benefit ourselves as well as any other reader. I agree that "we can bring the horse to the pond ... but we can't force him to drink water." In fact I am yet to drink water myself.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
07 March 2010, 10:04 AM
Saidevoji

X , has negative value also….
[ X+1 ]^2 =25 = [ -5 ]^2
so x +1 = -5
X = -1-5 = -6

saidevo
07 March 2010, 12:13 PM
namaste Devotee, Atanu and others.

I have an issue to sort out about inviting Prof.Nara here. Please bear with me for the following extractions from the TBF thread:

From HDF:
sd: (post 132)
I wonder if we can invite Prof. Nara to HDF and have a firsthand discussions with him!

Devotee: (post 133)
It is better if you invite him here & let's have a full discussion with him.

If he refuses to see reason in spite of these explanations and reasoning my advice is that you better bow out of this meaningless dialogue.

Atanu: (post 134)
I think that would be best since we can then directly answer him.

*****

Prof. Nara is a learned gentleman who would respect views that counter his own. The only problem I find with him is the extremity of his agnostic/atheistic rationality, which he will never allow to cross the borders of the physical reality. And yet he wants us to prove the Vedic origins of Shankara's concepts to him, although he said he was 'confused' by Advaita; knowledge of the Vedas need to revalidated; and that he is opposed to SaguNa Brahman in the form of a personal god, which has no support in the UpaniShads.

Here is a sample of his latest pronouncement, my reply to it, and his counter reply. I have given them here because his approach to Reality is different from that of a hardcore atheist, who has no base for his knowledge so gets satisfaction only by reviling and ridiculing theistic views.

From TBF:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3803-atman-its-adjectives-13.html

PN: (post 122)
Whether my world view is right or wrong is a legitimate question. I am ready and eager to discuss that. But, whatever the truth may be, if there are inconsistencies within the confines of your own premise, resolving that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of any other position.

No my dear brother Saidevo, I don't revile nor do I ridicule the scriptures and principles of a theist, of any kind, Hindu, or Islam, or Christianity, or Voodoo for that matter. I just don't believe in them, that is all.

The only thing that matters to me is whether it is reasonable to give an a priori consent or not. I have not seen any evidence so far that permits me to give that consent yet. I am open to any new evidence you or others may provide.

All I am saying is that you have an obligation to be consistent within your own stated premises. If all your thesis is based on Vedas, then I ask you to show me the proof from what you believe in. Why is that a preposterous requirement. I am not asking for a proof outside the realm of your own faith. Why is this unreasonable?

Dear brother, keep an open mind and let "Noble Thoughts come to us from all sides". Look to new and exciting discoveries and you will find that there is nothing other than brain tissue. It is like a magician cutting a lady into half. It all looks real, until you find out it was just a trick. The so called self is nothing but the amygdala making sense of the the inputs the brain receives from the sense organs.

Dear Saidevo, please do not mistake me to be an irreverent trouble maker. However, I want to respectfully disagree with you and ask you to be consistent within your own stated premises.

*****

sd: (post 123)
Now that you have reiterated your position, let me state that I don't consider you to be a trouble maker at all; I respect your views just as you respect mine, although I am a bit concerned that you are not prepared to look into the subjective world at all, just as you are concerned that I am not prepared to think that only this objective world--which is repeatedly rediscovered by Science in different theories and postulations--is all there to Reality.

This is the 'East is East and the West is West' position I spoke of many posts back. The East and West are more in our minds, rather than in our heritage.

To put it in a nutshell,

• in your view "the so called self is nothing but the amygdala making sense...";

• In my view, the so called amygdala is jaDa--insentient/inert--whatever the glories Science seeks to amass on it--unless it is activated by the immanent Self, which is the Universal Consciousness; and, receving this activation of the Self, instead of being grateful about it, the naughty amygdala appropriates it as its personal self, and that is the crux of its inability to think beyond itself. And mind you, this monkey is completely sedated of its naughty, wayward and worldy thoughts in deep sleep by the immanent Self! And there is the final state of turIya from where the pranks of this monkey can be blissfully witnessed!

There are other, far better ways to make sense of the Reality of the World and the Reality behind it.

Just as a scientist has no obligation to make himself intelligible beyond his own group of scientists, I have no obligations beyond my group of Advaitins. All the discussions we hold and their logical derivations and conclusions we come to appreciate, are for our own clarity and convictions of the knowledge of Advaita. We have no obligations towards anyone who does not believe in Advaita to prove that the derivations of our knowledge are from nowhere else than the Vedas and are consistent in its own domain.

Unless you believe in the efficacy of Advaita, and have the willingness and empathy to consider the subjective views of Advaita which alone are relevant in its domain, you have no locus standi to ask us of these aspects of our Advaitic knowledge.

Queries from non-Advaitins (such as you) are of course useful to us, are welcome, and we seek and provide answers for them, but it's only for our own conviction and betterment of knowledge, rather than to prove anything about the Vedic origin and consistency of Advaita to non-Advaitins who in our opinion might lack the willingness and maturity to appreciate them.

*****

PN: (post 126)
Originally Posted by saidevo
...unless it is activated by the immanent Self, which is the Universal Consciousness; and, receving this activation of the Self,

Here I would like to invoke the principle of logic called Occam's razor. When we are faced with insufficient knowledge about a question, then an answer that requires fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. So, an answer that requires a non-physical entity cannot be logically accepted unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Until such time it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is illogical to just assume it anyway.

I agree that there is no obligation, nobody can be forced to have a dialog. But the scholars of yore never took this stand. They debated with anyone who showed up and challenged them.

For a reasonable debate to occur all we need to do is define the boundaries, not restrict it to the extent that a debate cannot occur. In our exchanges here, the boundary is the Vedas. In as much as you claim to derive your position on the authority of the Vedas this boundary must be acceptable to you. My locus standi comes from the fact I am ready to accept any evidence you provide from the Vedas, the source material from which Advaitam is derived.

If Advaitam will be debated only within the Advaitees, then what would be the point, it would just be like mutual admiration society having a group meeting.

Of course there is no obligation, but the questions remain, where is the Vedic authority for Vyavaharika satyam, for Nirguna/Saguna Brahman, why would all knowing unitary brahman take the trouble of teaching himself what he already should know, and so on.

*****

I am yet to reply to the above message from him. Of course, I have not gone back to him with the quotes and connections we discovered in the shRuti for the key concepts of Advaita and Shankara, because I felt it would be fruitless to discuss them in that forum, which he will only decline with one reason or another.

Do you still think that we may invite him to discuss with us here at HDF, so we may learn something from his extreme logic, even he is not prepared to go beyond the physical?

saidevo
07 March 2010, 12:25 PM
namaste Guptaji.

adhyAropa-apavAda is just technique of deliberate superimposition and negation. used to discover an unknown value, which can be positive or negative. So in the equation you have given, x having a negative value is also found by this technique. Perhaps you thought since x can have a negative value which Brahman cannot have, the adhyAropa-apavAda technique can't be used to postulate it.

It is not so IMHO. adhyAropa-apavAda is just a technique, that's all. Advaita uses it postulate Brahman as a positive (that is real--sat) entity.


Saidevoji

X , has negative value also….
[ X+1 ]^2 =25 = [ -5 ]^2
so x +1 = -5
X = -1-5 = -6

smaranam
07 March 2010, 02:44 PM
QUOTE Prof Nara :
PN: (post 122)
....
No my dear brother Saidevo, I don't revile nor do I ridicule the scriptures and principles of a theist, of any kind, Hindu, or Islam, or Christianity, or Voodoo for that matter. I just don't believe in them, that is all.

All I am saying is that you have an obligation to be consistent within your own stated premises. If all your thesis is based on Vedas, then I ask you to show me the proof from what you believe in. Why is that a preposterous requirement. I am not asking for a proof outside the realm of your own faith. Why is this unreasonable?

........
If Advaitam will be debated only within the Advaitees, then what would be the point, it would just be like mutual admiration society having a group meeting.

........._________________________________

SaiDevo Ji:
Do you still think that we may invite him to discuss with us here at HDF, so we may learn something from his extreme logic, even he is not prepared to go beyond the physical?

praNAm SaiDevoji

I have a question, for all of you in fact. What does dharma say one should do in such a situation ?

Does BG 18.67 apply at all ?

BG 18.67
idaḿ te nātapaskāya
nābhaktāya kadācana
na cāśuśrūṣave vācyaḿ
na ca māḿ yo 'bhyasūyati

18.67. This is never to be spoken by thee to one who is devoid of austerities, to one who is not devoted, nor to one who does not render service, nor who does not desire to listen, nor to one who cavils at Me.

I do not know , so I am asking what is to be done in such a case.
Not suggesting anything. If it were a DvaitaVAdi that's different. They believe in Vedas, BhagavAn, everything. Also, someone from another faith at least believes in God. Just have a different perspective.

However, here, it begins with basic hypothetical belief in the scriptures, theism and God.

So ? Any opinions ?

Thank You.

devotee
07 March 2010, 08:32 PM
Namaste Saidevo ji,

With the description you have given, I think Dr Nara is a reasonable person who believes in reasoned logical explanations. And he is not stubbornly sticking to his own views alone.

If that is the case, I would be delighted to have discussion with him. I have full confidence that Advaita has proof not in scriptures alone .... it can be proved even without scriptures. If that was not the case, I, myself, would not have accepted this philosophy. I read the scriptures after I was convinced with the logical side of Advaita & found that the scriptures make it much more clear.

OM

atanu
07 March 2010, 10:34 PM
namaste Devotee, Atanu and others.

PN: (post 122)
----
Dear brother, keep an open mind and let "Noble Thoughts come to us from all sides". Look to new and exciting discoveries and you will find that there is nothing other than brain tissue. It is like a magician cutting a lady into half. It all looks real, until you find out it was just a trick. The so called self is nothing but the amygdala making sense of the the inputs the brain receives from the sense organs.



namaste Friends and saidevoji,

But this is interesting. I think Prof. Nara is talking Advaita or outright Buddhism and he is actually in teaching mode (I feel so). But before we can be sure of, can you, saidevoji, kindly ask him why the tissue called brain in the dead body does not reflect anything? If there is nothing other than brain tissue, then why it is inert (and withers) at some time and it is living at other times? And who is the magician (as a second factor) in the example he gives?

The logic of Occan's Razor does not ask anyone to throw away facts to arrive at a minimalistic answer. After we get his response to the above question (in blue), we may be in a better state to judge his position (which may after all be same as held by some of us). I hope he is not talking of the 'one truth existing in the guise of brain tissue, which is creating an illusion of an individual self' (he does talk about magic etc.)?

I think, we should confirm.

Dear smaranam

BG 18.67
idaḿ te nātapaskāya
nābhaktāya kadācana
na cāśuśrūṣave vācyaḿ
na ca māḿ yo 'bhyasūyati

IMO, this is specifically wrt to the preceeding verses dealing with surrender. There may not be much problem in discussing general concepts.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
07 March 2010, 11:30 PM
OK Saidevoji and my praise to Atanuji’s post of not to surrender , tell professor to tell that this is Brahman and not the other who drives the realty to reality…
One my question,
Distance travelled by a wheel is 2x3.14xR, where R is outer radius of tyre.
Tell me , how the spoke covers the same distance while its radius is very small compared to radius of the tyre?
This is the example of superimposition and negation other than Advaita .

atanu
08 March 2010, 12:23 AM
OK Saidevoji and my praise to Atanuji’s post of not to surrender , tell professor to tell that this is Brahman and not the other who drives the realty to reality…
One my question,
Distance travelled by a wheel is 2x3.14xR, where R is outer radius of tyre.
Tell me , how the spoke covers the same distance while its radius is very small compared to radius of the tyre?
This is the example of superimposition and negation other than Advaita .



Namaste

wow

RV 1.164.02 They yoke the seven (horses) to the one-wheeled car; one horse, named seven, bears it along; the three-axled wheel is undecaying, never loosened, and in it all these regions of the universe abide.


Svet. U. I-6: In this infinite wheel of Brahman, in which everything lives and rests, the pilgrim soul is whirled about. Knowing the soul, hitherto regarded as separate, to be itself the Moving Force, and blessed by Him, it attains immortality.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
08 March 2010, 12:47 AM
Thanks , Atanuji
You , win .

saidevo
08 March 2010, 01:08 AM
namaste everyone.

Atanu, thanks for your clarification to Guptaji.

Eureka at last (I think)! Here are a couple of useful links where the shRuti basis of Shankara's concepts are traced successfully:

Paramarthika & Vyavaharika Satyam (thanks to shrI nachi naga of TBF)
http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/

The Status and Role of Scripture in Advaita
http://www.advaitin.net/Subrahmanian/StatusRoleofScriptureAdvaita.pdf

A Vichara on 'Swatantra and Paratantra' (Independent and dependent Realities)
http://atma.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/a-vichara-on-swatantra-and-paratantra-independent.htm

saidevo
08 March 2010, 10:32 PM
namaste everyone.

In the light of his latest post at TBF here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/42918-post129.html

I have sent Prof.Nara, a PM telling him about this thread and inviting him to HDF. Let us wait and see if he accepts the invitation. If he does and participates in the discussion here, perhaps his rationalist views could help us clear any possibly worldly doubts in our own minds, whether or not we our answers convince him.

atanu
08 March 2010, 11:12 PM
Dear brother, my world-view is not germane to whether the claims of Advaitam are consistent with the Vedas. Vedic support for the questions I raised either exists, or does not exist, irrespective of whether I believe in the Vedas or not. Is Advaitam truly vedic? The prima facie answer is, it is not.

Namaste All,

The above is the ultimatum (almost) of the Professor.

I do not think that any Hindu except a few will hold such a view. VA and Dvaita proponents conceptualise their world view using the same Veda as Shankara does. No one claims that the other is unvedic.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 March 2010, 11:52 PM
Just explain to me in a paragraph or two, why would a brahman full of complete vidya, and devoid of attributes of any kind from which one could possibly infer a second, fall into avidya and become embroiled in maya, when maya should not exist as that would negate advaita?

The above is Professor's most potent question. Shri Ramana used to resolve the doubt with a counter question: Has Brahman said that it has fallen into Ajnana and that mAyA exists? Who is asking this question? Find him.
----------------------

Both these are a-priori suppositions of the questioner and not of Brahman. Brahman never falls into avidya (except apparently as perceived by the unclean minds and the senses). And mAyA is mAyA -- a magical power, that is not a second being. The questioner, assumes mAyA as a second being, and then asks whether Advaita is still valid or not?

Why a man dreams and fears or loses semen or cries, without any actual happening? Let Prof. remind himself of the unscrutable power of the Mind and Consciousness.

(Actually such self decievers are the best examples of Advaita Darshana).

Thus, let the questioner find out and tell us about his own nature. Whether he is the body or the mind or he is something else that he yet does not know?

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
09 March 2010, 12:14 AM
Namaste All,

VA and Dvaita proponents conceptualize their world view using the same Veda as Shankara does. No one claims that the other is unvedic.
Om Namah Shivaya

This is too much of a generalization and the idea and meaning of "refutation" is to prove that, Advaita is not the experience and/or Tattva that Veda is conveying. Most of the Advaitin are not aware that, GV accepts the TattvaVada of SriMadcharya as its foundation. But, interestingly, these refutations and then the right path is not for all and that is the very reason why Advaita has still so much followers.

atanu
09 March 2010, 12:37 AM
This is too much of a generalization and the idea and meaning of "refutation" is to prove that, Advaita is not the experience and/or Tattva that Veda is conveying. Most of the Advaitin are not aware that, GV accepts the TattvaVada of SriMadcharya as its foundation. But, interestingly, these refutations and then the right path is not for all and that is the very reason why Advaita has still so much followers.

Dear grames,

What you say applies the other way round also, yet Advaitins do not say the Dvaita or VA are unvedic. But the one point remains: Does one know the doubter?

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
09 March 2010, 12:58 AM
Dear grames,

What you say applies the other way round also, yet Advaitins do not say the Dvaita or VA are unvedic. But the one point remains: Does one know the doubter?

Om Namah Shivaya

Exactly my dear Atanu! So until we are in the real estate of seeking it is highly likely that we have to go with what our Atman allow us! :). My two cents here is, the entire content of this thread assumes that the 'other' view are not right isin't? So, now we are taking trouble of defining what is "higher" truth etc. Let me pass a phrase that i love...

If you are that Love, the Love is with in You, Around You and also Away from You!

So my answer to your question is, Nope! If they know, they won't be talking here and that includes all the participants (including myself).

atanu
09 March 2010, 01:21 AM
Exactly my dear Atanu! So until we are in the real estate of seeking it is highly likely that we have to go with what our Atman allow us! :). My two cents here is, the entire content of this thread assumes that the 'other' view are not right isin't? So, now we are taking trouble of defining what is "higher" truth etc. Let me pass a phrase that i love...

If you are that Love, the Love is with in You, Around You and also Away from You!

So my answer to your question is, Nope! If they know, they won't be talking here and that includes all the participants (including myself).

Namaste Grames,

I agree to the whole post above, except one point, painted red above. I will not dwell on that but remind you that if the Love was outside as an object, then surely it will be stolen by another man. While agreeing to everything else, why cannot we see one step ahead: the discussion itself, in this thread and outside, is what Atman has allowed? That itself establishes that there is avidya which needs clearing. Further, for me and advaitins, there is little scope for holding a notion that the other 'view' is not correct, since all views are of the viewer, who is True. (Advaita is of course more -- but I think, let us reserve this discussion thread specifically for Prof. Nara).

Om Namah Shivaya

smaranam
09 March 2010, 05:35 AM
Dear smaranam

BG 18.67
idaḿ te nātapaskāya
nābhaktāya kadācana
na cāśuśrūṣave vācyaḿ
na ca māḿ yo 'bhyasūyati

IMO, this is specifically wrt to the preceeding verses dealing with surrender. There may not be much problem in discussing general concepts.

Om Namah Shivaya

OK , I get it. Thanks.

Nara
09 March 2010, 06:34 PM
Dear sisters and brothers,

Greetings!

First and foremost, I wish to state that I appreciate your generosity of inviting me to have a conversation with you. While I may disagree with a lot of what you may say, I will value the exchanges we are going to have and the friendships I will develop.

First off, let me say that I only have huge respect for all the great scholars who have come before us, whether it is Buddha, or Jain Tirthankara, or one of the Vaideeka proponents like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa. While it takes an Einstein to come with the Theory of Relativity it may only take a graduate student to find a small kink here or there. I view myself as an undergraduate student with lots of questions.

One more clarification, when I said, " Is Advaitam truly vedic? The prima facie answer is, it is not." I did not realize how dramatic it sounded. I apologize for it. I should have said Advaitam does not do justice to all of Vedas, but I don't know whether this sounds any better :)

I browsed through this thread and I have a decent idea where things stand. I still think my basic questions have not been adequately answered. There is no shruti pramana for Nirguna and Saguna Brahman. There is not shruti pramana for vyavahaika satyam that is actual not satyam, and why would an all knowing brahman bother to teach himself of something he already knows.

Let the games begin.....

devotee
09 March 2010, 08:27 PM
Namaste Nara,

Welcome to this forum ! :) I was interested to talk to you. Saidevo ji has given us your preliminary introduction and that gives me assurance that we will have a fruitful discussion & we shall all benefit.


I should have said Advaitam does not do justice to all of Vedas, but I don't know whether this sounds any better :)

First of all, we must understand that Vedas must be viewed as speaking the same truth ... though in different words and language because of how an individual Rishi found it better to express. We must understand that Vedas are for various stages of human life and it is also for all people who are at various spiritual stages. So, there may be seemingly contradictory understanding of the whole message emanating from the Vedas ... that can be understood well when we keep in mind that the "highest Truth is One but there is various levels of understanding possible for people depending upon their spiritual advancement and logical understanding".

Please rest assured, Advaita is fully in line with the Vedas.


I browsed through this thread and I have a decent idea where things stand. I still think my basic questions have not been adequately answered. There is no shruti pramana for Nirguna and Saguna Brahman.

Let's not stick to the words but to the teachings. Let's analyse what we understand by Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. Can you tell me your idea of what is Nirguna and Saguna Brahman ?


There is not shruti pramana for vyavahaika satyam that is actual not satyam, and why would an all knowing brahman bother to teach himself of something he already knows.


My suggestion is that let's take only one issue at a time & once we are able to resolve that we shall take up other issue. I hope you would agree.

So, let's first explore whether Saguna and Nirguna Brahman concepts have Shruti support or not. Please let me know your idea of those terms and then I shall respond.

OM

Nara
09 March 2010, 09:09 PM
Hello devotee, thank you for welcoming me.


My suggestion is that let's take only one issue at a time & once we are able to resolve that we shall take up other issue. I hope you would agree.

So, let's first explore whether Saguna and Nirguna Brahman concepts have Shruti support or not. Please let me know your idea of those terms and then I shall respond.
I have no problem taking one issue at a time.

My position is that there is no Vedic pramana for a Nirguna brahman as the only reality with saguna brahman being just mythya or unreal or illusion, choose your terminology. If you disagree, please cite the relevant Vedic pramana.

I must also tell you that I do not hold Vedas to be inerrant and the ultimate truth. Irrespective of my own personal position, I think Advaitam has an obligation to show that it is consistent with the entirety of the Vedas. It is not enough to just simply assert that it is.

Cheers!

devotee
09 March 2010, 09:43 PM
Namaste Nara,


H
My position is that there is no Vedic pramana for a Nirguna brahman as the only reality with saguna brahman being just mythya or unreal or illusion, choose your terminology. If you disagree, please cite the relevant Vedic pramana.


You didn't answer my question. It is very important to know what you understand by the terms, "Saguna Brahman" and "Nirguna Brahman" before attempting to answer your question.

Please explain what you understand by those terms.

OM

saidevo
09 March 2010, 11:51 PM
namaste Nara.

First you said:
"There is no shruti pramana for Nirguna and Saguna Brahman." (post 153)

Then you said:
"My position is that there is no Vedic pramana for a Nirguna brahman as the only reality with saguna brahman being just mythya or unreal or illusion, choose your terminology. If you disagree, please cite the relevant Vedic pramana." (post 155)

And you also said:
I must also tell you that I do not hold Vedas to be inerrant and the ultimate truth. Irrespective of my own personal position, I think Advaitam has an obligation to show that it is consistent with the entirety of the Vedas. It is not enough to just simply assert that it is. (post 155)

Devotee's insistence on your idea of NirguNa and SaguNa Brahman is due to the mutual contradiction among all these three statements of yours.

Thus, if you think
"Advaitam has an obligation to show that it is consistent with the entirety of the Vedas",

you would agree that
you also have an equal obligation to intellectually and philosophically (try to) understand any shRuti-based connections and derivations we have alread established here/and would seek to establish further, for your above three self-contradicting views,

irrespective of your personal position of disbelief in the Vedas as the finality of all knowledge and

even if it is just for the sake of curiosity on your part (or maybe to change your ambivalence and go down or up in the scale you have stated in your introduction) that you want to know what you seek to know.

In fact, almost all your queries have been addressed with much effort by us within the first 150 posts in this thread--you can't just brush them aside as mere assertions--and thus the onus is now on your part to explain how the answers we have given are not want you wanted, at least in a brief manner, preferably with the post numbers you disagree, so we may be able to cover some meaningful ground.

As Devotee has implied in post 154, if our goal is seeking knowledge and mutual learning, then there must be mutual accommodation between us. Please understand that this is not a debate of just verbal dual, and it is not that you are one and we are the many against your views.

In fact, I have raised a number of queries from your POV and got them all answered. If you read a few posts from post 52 on, you would find that we have actually arrived at the absolute physical and metaphysical levels of reality, and postulated that the connection between the two is most probably in the deep sleep state. So, please take your time, go through the points we have given, and then state your specific objections to the points we have already given.

If the big picture is not readily understood, then we surely need to discuss the details vis-à-vis and not en bloc.

atanu
10 March 2010, 08:28 AM
I have no problem taking one issue at a time.
My position is that there is no Vedic pramana for a Nirguna brahman as the only reality with saguna brahman being just mythya or unreal or illusion, choose your terminology. If you disagree, please cite the relevant Vedic pramana.
I must also tell you that I do not hold Vedas to be inerrant and the ultimate truth. Irrespective of my own personal position, I think Advaitam has an obligation to show that it is consistent with the entirety of the Vedas. It is not enough to just simply assert that it is.
Cheers!


Namaste Nara

I, like other friends, welcome you to the forum and to this thread. Devotee and Saidevo have already outlined the problem with your 'layered stand'; not believing Veda, yet seeking proof from it etc. etc. From the previous discussion, I came to know that you have the following observations:

Saguna-Nirguna knowledge is unvedic and a creation of Shankaracharya
The classification of the Truth (Satyam) in three layers is unvedic and a creation of Shankaracharya.Also you have clarified your stand as shown above with blue fonts. Like devotee and Saidevo, I also seek from you the exact definitions of the terms. But to reduce the time and possibly remove any bias from further discussion, I thought I will place the evidences from Shruti for the two bulleted points above.

Before, I start, I will request you to please consider the fact that when a teacher teaches a student of Newton's law, he need not use the exact words used by Newton. If he uses some other words to explain that does not make his explanation un-Newtonic. I also request you to remember that Shankara does not teach that the Saguna and the Nirguna are two different entitities. He teaches that the Nirgunam, through use of its Inner Instrument (Mind) appears as the Multiform.

Proof for two aspects of Brahman

Brihad U.

II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms – gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

II-iii-2: The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.

II-iii-3: Now the subtle – it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

II-iii-4: Now with reference to the body: the gross form is but this – what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.

II-iii-5: Now the subtle – it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.

II-iii-6: The form of that ‘being’ is as follows: like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman): ‘Not this, not this’. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this’. Now Its name: ‘The Truth of truth’. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

Kindly note the Two aspects of Brahman and their essences. And also kindly note that there is 'Satyam' and there is 'Satyam of Satyam' -- the Truth (Life Force) and The Truth of the Truth (Self). We will see further.

Proof for the Nirgunam Brahman, which must be known

Gita
13 th Chapter
Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;
Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.
14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.

Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.
15. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer,

Bahirantashcha bhootaanaam acharam charameva cha;
Sookshmatwaat tadavijneyam doorastham chaantike cha tat.
16. Without and within (all) beings, the unmoving and also the moving; because of His subtlety, unknowable; and near and far away is That.

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Maha U.
3. 70 tadbrahmaanandamadvandva.n nirguNa.n satyachidghanam.h . viditvaa svaatmano ruupa.n na bibheti kadaachana .. 70..

3.71 paraatpara.n yanmahato mahaantaM svaruupatejomayashaashvata.n shivam.h . kaviM puraaNaM purushha.n sanaatanaM sarveshvara.n sarvadevairupaasyam.h .. 71..


Maitrei U.
2.4 maanaavamaanahiino.asmi nirguNo.asmi shivo.asmyaham.h . dvaitaadvaitavihiino.asmi dvandvahiino.asmi so.asmyaham.h .. 4..

Svet. U.
4.19. He cannot be seen, neither above, nor across, nor in the middle. He is beyond grasp. There is no image that is true to His from. His name is glory itself.

[The senses cannot perceive Him. The mind cannot comprehend Him. No symbol can truly represent him. He has no name but only fame. ]

4.20. His form is not visible. The eyes cannot see Him. But those who know Him as abiding in the heart through their hearts and minds become immortal.

6.11 eko devaH sarvabhuuteshhu guuDhaH sarvavyaapii sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa. karmaadhyaxaH sarvabhuutaadhivaasaH saaxii chetaa kevalo nirguNashcha .. 11..
6.11: God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures. He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness free from the three Gunas of Nature.

6.19 nishhkala.n nishhkriya.n shaanta.n niravadya.n niraJNjanam.h . amR^itasya para.n setu.n dagdhendanamivaanalam.h .. 19..
6.19. Without parts, without activity, peaceful, without sound, without impurities, the supreme bridge to immortality, like a fire that burns without fuel, is He.

The above verses are self explanatory and they do teach us that the Nirgunam must be Known, although, the same Nirgunam exists as Heads, Hands, and all else in the Universe. The two layered Brahman is also evident in verses below:

Taittiriya Upanishad
I-i-1
: May Mitra be blissful to us. May Varuna be blissful to us. May Aryaman be blissful to us. May Indra and Brihaspati be blissful to us. May Vishnu, of long strides, be blissful to us. Salutation to Brahman. Salutation to you, O Vayu. You, indeed, are the immediate Brahman. You alone I shall call the direct Brahman. I shall call you righteousness. I shall call you truth. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. Om, peace, peace, peace !
II-vi-1:
------He (the Self) wished, "Let me be many, let me be born. He undertook a deliberation. Having deliberated, he created all this that exists. That (Brahman), having created (that), entered into that very thing. And having entered there, It became the formed and the formless, the defined and the undefined, the sustaining and the non-sustaining, the sentient and the insentient, the true and the untrue. Truth became all this that there is. They call that Brahman Truth. Pertaining to this, there occurs this verse:
II-vii-1: In the beginning all this was but the Unmanifested (Brahman). From that emerged the manifested. That Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore It is called the self-creator.
-----
II-viii-1-4: Out of His fear the Wind blows. Out of fear the Sun rises. Out of His fear runs Fire, as also Indra, and Death, the fifth.

------------
You will note that though the Vayu is nothing but Pratyaksha Brahman, yet under fear (of being separate from the Truth- the unborn Self) it blows (performs karma).

Proof of Three Levels of Truth

Please refer to the Brihadaraynaka verses cited in the beginning on 'The Truth' and 'The Truth of the Truth'. I will further show another layer, which is the layer of our immediate mind-sense perception (and which is not correct at all).

Brihad. U.

I-vi-1: This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and action. Of those names, speech (sound in general) is the Uktha (source), for all names spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all names. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all names.

I-vi-2: Now of forms the eye (anything visible) is the Uktha (source), for all forms spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all forms. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all forms.

I-vi-3: And of actions the body (activity) is the Uktha (source), for all actions spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all actions. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all actions. These three together are one – this body; and the body, although one, is these three. This immortal entity is covered by truth (the five elements): The vital force is the immortal entity, and name and form and truth; (so) this vital force is covered by them.

II-i-20: As a spider moves along the thread (it produces), and as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from this Self emanate all organs, all worlds, all gods and all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is ‘the Truth of Truth’. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

VIII-iii-3: This Atman verily is in the heart. Its etymological explanation is this. This (Atman) is in the heart, hence it is the heart. He who knows thus(indeed goes daily into the heavenly world.

VIII-iii-4: Now that serene and happy being, rising out of this body and reaching the highest light, appears in his own true form. This is the Atman, said the teacher. This is the immortal, the fearless. This is Brahman. Verily, the name of this Brahman is the True.

VIII-iii-5: These are indeed the three syllables, ‘sa’, ‘ti’, ‘yam’. What is ‘sa’, that is the immortal, and what is ‘ti’, that is the mortal, and what is ‘yam’, with it one holds the two together. Because with it one holds the two together, therefore it is ‘yam’. Verily, he who knows thus goes to the heavenly world.’

Though the verses are self explanatory, I will summarise what I wish you to consider: The Universe is Name, Form, and Karma, each of these have their saman (general common aspect), namely Speech for Name, Eye for Form, and Body for Karma. But where is the Being? The Life Force, called the True is the being that we do not know. However, the word Satya (true) representing the Life Force is not truly true. Sa is True. Yam is True. However 'Ti' is mortal. Chandogya U. says that the 'Ti' is untrue.


Therefore what is absolutely True (called Sat) is the Truth of the Truth -- the Self, which is ungraspable, unseeable, unthinkable, actionless and NIRGUNAM. The main thurst is that the Nirguman that is the Heart must be known to alleviate all misery that dog us. I hope you will consider the above evidences with fair view. Below, I cite the Nasadiya Suktam of Rig Veda to show that the Vedic Seers have indeed discriminated between two aspects of Truth -- not to prove that the two aspects are Two different entities but in order to know the SUBSTRATUM.

NASADIYA SUKTA - RigVeda
At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.

What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable deep?

There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.

The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.


Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate, Then
that which was hidden by Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.
In the beginning Love arose,
which was primal germ cell of mind.

The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.

A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?

Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above.

Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?

Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?

That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not,

He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows - or maybe He does not!

-Translation by Prof. Raimundo Panikkar (Ref. 3, pp 58)
Prof. Raimundo Panikkar, "The Vedic Experience- Mantra-manjari" Pub. by Motilal Banarasidas

Nasadiya means that which is not untrue. So, here the Seer has cut away with True and True of the True but says 'THAT WHICH IS NOT UNTRUE.

The vision of the transcendent by the relative is the theme of this famous hymn. Though the Absolute is the Being above all being, existence beyond all possible concepts about it, it becomes an intriguing something, about which nothing definite can be said and of which no definition can be given, when it is envisaged by the individual. Reality is here depicted as not capable of being designated either as existence or non-existence, for there was none to perceive it then, before the manifestation of the heaven and the earth. There was, as if, only an indescribable stillness, deep in its content and defying all approach to it by anyone. There was neither death nor immortality, for there was no differentiatedness whatsoever. Naturally, there was neither day nor night. There was only That One Presence, throbbing in all splendour and glory but appearing as darkness to the eye that would like to behold it. There was nothing second to it; it alone was. From it this creation arose. But how it all happened no one can say, for everyone came after creation.

The Truth of the Truth can only be experienced in Samadhi and not by words or by mind. Just as the taste of Mango cannot be explained or imagined. I hope you will give time to read the above verses and treat the citations with fairness and open mind.

Best Wishes, Happy Reading, and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
10 March 2010, 08:37 AM
Friends
Professor Nara is an atheist and as usual as are many , believing Vedas to be inerrant .
Don’t expect a proper response from him .
Good Luck .

atanu
10 March 2010, 09:07 AM
Namaste Nara

I, like other friends, welcome you to the forum and to this thread. Devotee and Saidevo have already outlined the problem with your 'layered stand'; not believing Veda, yet seeking proof from it etc. etc. From the previous discussion, I came to know that you have the following observations:

Saguna-Nirguna knowledge is unvedic and a creation of Shankaracharya
The classification of the Truth (Satyam) in three layers is unvedic and a creation of Shankaracharya.Also you have clarified your stand as shown above with blue fonts. Like devotee and Saidevo, I also seek from you the exact definitions of the terms. But to reduce the time and possibly remove any bias from further discussion, I thought I will place the evidences from Shruti for the two bulleted points above.

Before, I start, I will request you to please consider the fact that when a teacher teaches a student of Newton's law, he need not use the exact words used by Newton. If he uses some other words to explain that does not make his explanation un-Newtonic. I also request you to remember that Shankara does not teach that the Saguna and the Nirguna are two different entitities. He teaches that the Nirgunam, through use of its Inner Instrument (Mind) appears as the Multiform.

Proof for two aspects of Brahman

Brihad U.

II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms – gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

II-iii-2: The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.

II-iii-3: Now the subtle – it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

II-iii-4: Now with reference to the body: the gross form is but this – what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.

II-iii-5: Now the subtle – it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.

II-iii-6: The form of that ‘being’ is as follows: like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman): ‘Not this, not this’. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this’. Now Its name: ‘The Truth of truth’. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

Kindly note the Two aspects of Brahman and their essences. And also kindly note that there is 'Satyam' and there is 'Satyam of Satyam' -- the Truth (Life Force) and The Truth of the Truth (Self). We will see further.

Proof for the Nirgunam Brahman, which must be known

Gita
13 th Chapter
Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;
Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.
14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.

Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.
15. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer,

Bahirantashcha bhootaanaam acharam charameva cha;
Sookshmatwaat tadavijneyam doorastham chaantike cha tat.
16. Without and within (all) beings, the unmoving and also the moving; because of His subtlety, unknowable; and near and far away is That.

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Maha U.
3. 70 tadbrahmaanandamadvandva.n nirguNa.n satyachidghanam.h . viditvaa svaatmano ruupa.n na bibheti kadaachana .. 70..

3.71 paraatpara.n yanmahato mahaantaM svaruupatejomayashaashvata.n shivam.h . kaviM puraaNaM purushha.n sanaatanaM sarveshvara.n sarvadevairupaasyam.h .. 71..


Maitrei U.
2.4 maanaavamaanahiino.asmi nirguNo.asmi shivo.asmyaham.h . dvaitaadvaitavihiino.asmi dvandvahiino.asmi so.asmyaham.h .. 4..

Svet. U.
4.19. He cannot be seen, neither above, nor across, nor in the middle. He is beyond grasp. There is no image that is true to His from. His name is glory itself.

[The senses cannot perceive Him. The mind cannot comprehend Him. No symbol can truly represent him. He has no name but only fame. ]

4.20. His form is not visible. The eyes cannot see Him. But those who know Him as abiding in the heart through their hearts and minds become immortal.

6.11 eko devaH sarvabhuuteshhu guuDhaH sarvavyaapii sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa. karmaadhyaxaH sarvabhuutaadhivaasaH saaxii chetaa kevalo nirguNashcha .. 11..
6.11: God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures. He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness free from the three Gunas of Nature.

6.19 nishhkala.n nishhkriya.n shaanta.n niravadya.n niraJNjanam.h . amR^itasya para.n setu.n dagdhendanamivaanalam.h .. 19..
6.19. Without parts, without activity, peaceful, without sound, without impurities, the supreme bridge to immortality, like a fire that burns without fuel, is He.

The above verses are self explanatory and they do teach us that the Nirgunam must be Known, although, the same Nirgunam exists as Heads, Hands, and all else in the Universe. The two layered Brahman is also evident in verses below:

Taittiriya Upanishad
I-i-1
: May Mitra be blissful to us. May Varuna be blissful to us. May Aryaman be blissful to us. May Indra and Brihaspati be blissful to us. May Vishnu, of long strides, be blissful to us. Salutation to Brahman. Salutation to you, O Vayu. You, indeed, are the immediate Brahman. You alone I shall call the direct Brahman. I shall call you righteousness. I shall call you truth. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. Om, peace, peace, peace !
II-vi-1:
------He (the Self) wished, "Let me be many, let me be born. He undertook a deliberation. Having deliberated, he created all this that exists. That (Brahman), having created (that), entered into that very thing. And having entered there, It became the formed and the formless, the defined and the undefined, the sustaining and the non-sustaining, the sentient and the insentient, the true and the untrue. Truth became all this that there is. They call that Brahman Truth. Pertaining to this, there occurs this verse:
II-vii-1: In the beginning all this was but the Unmanifested (Brahman). From that emerged the manifested. That Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore It is called the self-creator.
-----
II-viii-1-4: Out of His fear the Wind blows. Out of fear the Sun rises. Out of His fear runs Fire, as also Indra, and Death, the fifth.

------------
You will note that though the Vayu is nothing but Pratyaksha Brahman, yet under fear (of being separate from the Truth- the unborn Self) it blows (performs karma).

Proof of Three Levels of Truth

Please refer to the Brihadaraynaka verses cited in the beginning on 'The Truth' and 'The Truth of the Truth'. I will further show another layer, which is the layer of our immediate mind-sense perception (and which is not correct at all).

Brihad. U.

I-vi-1: This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and action. Of those names, speech (sound in general) is the Uktha (source), for all names spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all names. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all names.

I-vi-2: Now of forms the eye (anything visible) is the Uktha (source), for all forms spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all forms. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all forms.

I-vi-3: And of actions the body (activity) is the Uktha (source), for all actions spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all actions. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all actions. These three together are one – this body; and the body, although one, is these three. This immortal entity is covered by truth (the five elements): The vital force is the immortal entity, and name and form and truth; (so) this vital force is covered by them.

II-i-20: As a spider moves along the thread (it produces), and as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from this Self emanate all organs, all worlds, all gods and all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is ‘the Truth of Truth’. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

VIII-iii-3: This Atman verily is in the heart. Its etymological explanation is this. This (Atman) is in the heart, hence it is the heart. He who knows thus(indeed goes daily into the heavenly world.

VIII-iii-4: Now that serene and happy being, rising out of this body and reaching the highest light, appears in his own true form. This is the Atman, said the teacher. This is the immortal, the fearless. This is Brahman. Verily, the name of this Brahman is the True.

VIII-iii-5: These are indeed the three syllables, ‘sa’, ‘ti’, ‘yam’. What is ‘sa’, that is the immortal, and what is ‘ti’, that is the mortal, and what is ‘yam’, with it one holds the two together. Because with it one holds the two together, therefore it is ‘yam’. Verily, he who knows thus goes to the heavenly world.’

Though the verses are self explanatory, I will summarise what I wish you to consider: The Universe is Name, Form, and Karma, each of these have their saman (general common aspect), namely Speech for Name, Eye for Form, and Body for Karma. But where is the Being? The Life Force, called the True is the being that we do not know. However, the word Satya (true) representing the Life Force is not truly true. Sa is True. Yam is True. However 'Ti' is mortal. Chandogya U. says that the 'Ti' is untrue.


Therefore what is absolutely True (called Sat) is the Truth of the Truth -- the Self, which is ungraspable, unseeable, unthinkable, actionless and NIRGUNAM. The main thurst is that the Nirguman that is the Heart must be known to alleviate all misery that dog us. I hope you will consider the above evidences with fair view. Below, I cite the Nasadiya Suktam of Rig Veda to show that the Vedic Seers have indeed discriminated between two aspects of Truth -- not to prove that the two aspects are Two different entities but in order to know the SUBSTRATUM.

NASADIYA SUKTA - RigVeda
At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.

What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable deep?

There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.

The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.


Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate, Then
that which was hidden by Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.
In the beginning Love arose,
which was primal germ cell of mind.

The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.

A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?

Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above.

Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?

Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?

That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not,

He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows - or maybe He does not!

-Translation by Prof. Raimundo Panikkar (Ref. 3, pp 58)
Prof. Raimundo Panikkar, "The Vedic Experience- Mantra-manjari" Pub. by Motilal Banarasidas

Nasadiya means that which is not untrue. So, here the Seer has cut away with True and True of the True but says 'THAT WHICH IS NOT UNTRUE.

The vision of the transcendent by the relative is the theme of this famous hymn. Though the Absolute is the Being above all being, existence beyond all possible concepts about it, it becomes an intriguing something, about which nothing definite can be said and of which no definition can be given, when it is envisaged by the individual. Reality is here depicted as not capable of being designated either as existence or non-existence, for there was none to perceive it then, before the manifestation of the heaven and the earth. There was, as if, only an indescribable stillness, deep in its content and defying all approach to it by anyone. There was neither death nor immortality, for there was no differentiatedness whatsoever. Naturally, there was neither day nor night. There was only That One Presence, throbbing in all splendour and glory but appearing as darkness to the eye that would like to behold it. There was nothing second to it; it alone was. From it this creation arose. But how it all happened no one can say, for everyone came after creation.

The Truth of the Truth can only be experienced in Samadhi and not by words or by mind. Just as the taste of Mango cannot be explained or imagined. I hope you will give time to read the above verses and treat the citations with fairness and open mind.

Best Wishes, Happy Reading, and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste All,

I will summarise the above.

The Universe that wee see made of bodies - animate and inanimate (the first perception of truth) is actually made of Name, Form, and Karma -- impelled by the Truth (satya) called The Vital Life Force or Prana. 'Sa', 'ti', and 'yam' indicate that even this impeller 'Satyam' is not the absolute Truth. The absolute Truth (sat) is the Self, seated in the Hearts of All. The Sat is Nirgunam and ungraspable. It is, to the senses and the mind, a mere dark mass (called ignorance).

We meet Him everynight in deep sleep yet miss Him. The truth of the truth, the Self is Nirgunam, yet it has a defined aspect that is not however immortal.

Om Namah Shivaya

Nara
10 March 2010, 09:45 AM
Dear brother Saidevo, Greetings!



.....In fact, almost all your queries have been addressed with much effort by us within the first 150 posts in this thread--you can't just brush them aside as mere assertions--and thus the onus is now on your part to explain


This is the problem, there has been long discussions covering 150 posts. I did go through them to get a gist of them, but the points made are spread over several posts interspersed with other discussions as well. Therefore, I would appreciate it if someone could summarize the answers briefly so that I can study it and respond. Or even if relevant portions can be cut and pasted with link back to the original, into a new post that will do too. I hope this is not too much of a burden.

Dear Devotee,
I am not trying to duck the question, but Saguna and Nirguna brahman are terminologies coined by Advaitees. These terminologies are unique to Advaitam and it is only proper for them to define these terms, isn't.

Nevertheless, I am providing below a definition I found in the web here (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/VedantaSchools/id/23127).

Nirguna Brahman
Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.Saguna Brahman
The impersonal Nirguna Brahman of Sankara becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.

Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika).
Please let me know whether the above definitions are acceptable. If so, I ask you to provide Shruthi pramana for this. Let us start in particular with two aspects,
Nirguna and nirvisesha of Nirguna Brahman, and
Nirguna brahman is the higher brahman and Saguna Brahman is the lower brahman.Thanks and regards....

Nara
10 March 2010, 09:59 AM
Hi folks,

I just saw atanu's post. Please give some time to study it and respond.

kd_gupta, don't give up on me so soon. I am not a kd you know, just kidding, don't take it seriously :) :)

Cheers!

saidevo
10 March 2010, 10:15 AM
namaste Atanu.

Great work, your post no.158! I think it can serve as our frame of reference, with the only requirement that you might need to add the four levels of existence--jAgrat, svapna, etc. given in the MANDukya UpaniShad. Prof.Nara may very well take this post as our summary to respond with his views.

LALKAR
10 March 2010, 10:18 AM
Namaste All,

Let me say something

Its true that teaching of Shankrachary and Vedas are different
but according to Vedic Scholar Maharshi Dayanand (founder of Arya Samaj) Shankrachary was not totally wrong

Vedas tells Om Soul and Nature all are different, while Shankrachary told that God is everything and all is mithya- it is different, but Shankrachary used this tip to counter Jainism and Buddhism who were spreading against Dharm

Using any tip to protect Dharm is like taking Nectar through Poison

satay
10 March 2010, 02:00 PM
Admin Note

namaskar,

I don't think you should be making personal statements like the one below. That doesn't add any value to the discussion. If you have anything of value to add, please continue posting on this thread.

On the matter of 'atheism', Prof. nara said in his introduction that he is an agnostic. Regardless if he is agnostic or atheist, please focus on the topic of the thread.

Thanks,


Friends
Professor Nara is an atheist and as usual as are many , believing Vedas to be inerrant .
Don’t expect a proper response from him .
Good Luck .

Nara
10 March 2010, 05:49 PM
Dear brothers and sisters, Greetings!


Nara’s statement highlighted by Atanu:
“My position is that there is no Vedic pramana for a Nirguna brahman as the only reality with saguna brahman being just mythya or unreal or illusion,”

This is a good starting point. In this post I shall restrict myself to just this one issue.

Proof for two aspects of Brahman
I don’t think the above is at issue. The moorta-amoortha brahmanna of Br. U. simply states two characteristics of Brahman. The na iti, na iti (not this, not this) only denies the limits placed on Brahman by the characteristics of the two aspects described, not the reality of the either of the aspects themselves. If you think one of the two aspects is denied, the choice of which one is denied becomes arbitrary. Why deny sagnuna and accept nirguna, why not the other way around? Further, if you take na iti here to mean denying saguna, it would contradict other shruti vakhyas that describe saguna without the na iti like the ones in Tait. U. (See below)

Proof for the Nirgunam Brahman, which must be known
Gita
You have cited verse 13.14. This shloka ends with

निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च (nirguNam guNabhoktru ca)
That is, beyond gunas yet enjoying the effects of gunas. If this refers to Nriguna Brahman, then you have the problem of explaining why such a Brahman will be a गुणभोक्ता (guNabhokta). On the other hand, given the preceding verses starting from #7 onwards, you see that Sri Krishna is talking about the jeeva. Such a jeeva, in its essence, is beyond the three gunas, yet enjoying the effects of the three gunas. Now, there is no difficulty in proper interpretation. Thus, this is not a reference to Nirguna Brahman. See post # 159 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=41122&postcount=161) for how we have defined a Nirguna Brahman.

The next BG verse you have highlighted in blue, #16, the अविभक्तं (avibhaktam), whether interpreted as non-different like the Advaitees do, or as of the same kind as others do, does not matter, it does not talk to nirguna aspect of Brahman.

Svet. U.
The verses from chapter 4 you have cited refer to Brahman being beyond senses, not that Brahman is devoid of gunas and attributes.

Next, you have highlighted verse 6.11 from Svet.U. The relevant phrase is:
सर्व भूत अन्तरआत्मा .... सर्व भूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणाश्च
(sarva bhUta antaratmA .. sarva bhUtAdhivAsa sAxI chEtA kEvalo nirguNascha)

Here, the phrase सर्व भूत अन्तरआत्मा .. सर्व भूताधिवासः साक्षी (sarva bhUta antaratmA ... sarva bhUtAdhivAsa sAxI) is important. Brahman pervades all life forms and is a witness, but not affected by gunas. Even the commentary by Anna of Sri Ramakrishna Matam interprets this verse in this way. Here is what Anna says,

எல்லா உயிர்களுக்கும் அந்தராத்மா; எல்லா செயல்களையும் மேல் பார்ப்ப்வனாயும் ....அவன் ஸாக்ஷீ ... குணங்களால் பற்றப்படாதவன்

(he is antaratma for all life... he oversees all action... he is a witness, he is not affected by the gunas)
This verse does not say Brahman is devoid of attributes.

Same is the case with Svet.U. 6.19. This verse shows that Brahman is devoid of blemishes like nishkalam, etc., and pervaded by auspicious qualities. This is especially so when you see गुणी सर्वविद्यः and पतिः गुणेशः (guNI sarva vith and pathir guNEsa) in verse #6.16 . The entire verse #16 is very instructive.
स विश्वकृद् विश्वविदात्मयोनि-र्ज्ञः कालकालो गुणी सर्वविद्यः ।
प्रधान क्षेत्रअ-पति-र्गुणेशः संसार मोक्षस्थिति-बन्धहेतुः ॥

(He is the creator of the universe, he is the knower of the universe, he himself is the cause, he is sentient, he controls time, the abode of auspicious qualities, he is the body, he is the soul, he is the master of the three gunas, he is the mokshopaya from samsara, he is the one who binds jivas in samsara)
Whatever interpretation one provides for any other shruti vakya must do so without harm to this verse.

Maha U.
I am unable to locate the verses cited. I checked both Maha Upanishad and Maha Narayana Upanishad. Sorry, if I am overlooking something, please help me out.

Maitrei U.
The verse 2.4 you have cited is translated as follows:
He should imbibe the nectar, Brahman, go about for alms to preserve the body, and becoming devoted to the one (Brahman) live in the solitary place of oneness free from duality. Thus should a wise man spend his life; he alone will attain liberation.
This is about what a mumukshu is supposed to do, stay in a place alone, without the presence of another. Am I missing something?

Taittiriya Upanishad
The verses you cite do not talk to the ultimate unreality of Saguna Brahman anywhere. If anything they only describe saguna Brahman in detail.

The opening verse 1.1.1 only says Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman are ensouled by Brahman, or they are verily Brahman.

Verse 2.6.1 explains this concept even further, Brahman being not just nimitta karana, but upadhana karana as well, Brahman is both sentient and insentient – that Brahman is truth.

Verse 2.8.1 is about the Brahman controlling everything.

There is nothing here that supports Nirguna and Saguna Brahman as defined, and there is nothing here for me to comment on. If I am missing anything please let me know.

Thank you and best regards...

devotee
10 March 2010, 08:21 PM
Namaste Nara,

I always believe that we must be on the same plane of understanding for a fruitful discussion. If I claim that "Avogadro's hypothesis is against the Law of Conservation of Mass" then I must be clear what those theories are & I also must have reasons to show the discrepancies between the two theories. This is the reason I asked you to explain what your understanding of the terms used in your question is.

You said :


My position is that there is no Vedic pramana for a Nirguna brahman as the only reality with saguna brahman being just mythya or unreal or illusion

Then I asked you to explain your understanding of Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. You replied :


Nirguna Brahman

Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.

Saguna Brahman

The impersonal Nirguna Brahman of Sankara becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.

Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika).


Please let me know whether the above definitions are acceptable. If so, I ask you to provide Shruthi pramana for this. Let us start in particular with two aspects,

1. Nirguna and nirvisesha of Nirguna Brahman, and
2. Nirguna brahman is the higher brahman and Saguna Brahman is the lower brahman.

If you read your quoted explanation, you will see that Saguna Brahman is not denied as mithya or illusion .... but the Nirguna Brahman is perceived as Saguna Brahman when seen through mind within Maya. The Nirguna Brahman cannot be perceived at all within mental realm.

So, your question itself is not correct. Do you agree ? Let's first agree on this (i.e. the first question was wrong to begin with) & then we shall proceed ahead.

In your answer you have posed new questions. However, it is not clear what your new questions are. I think you need to rephrase them properly. Do you want to know answers to these questions :

1. Nirguna and nirvisesha of Nirguna Brahman ===> Do you like to know where in the Shruti Brahman is described as Nirguna and Nirvishesha ?

2. Nirguna brahman is the higher brahman and Saguna Brahman is the lower brahman ===> Do you like to know why and where it is stated in Shruti that Nirguna Brahman is higer and Saguna Brahman is lower ?

OM

Nara
10 March 2010, 08:31 PM
Dear Devotee,

If your point is limited to Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for jagat, then we probably do not have an argument.

But that is not the position of a typical advaitee. Saguna Bramnan is a lesser one compared to Nirguna one, and the saguna one, in the ultimate, is unreal, and so is jagat. This is where the problem is. I think there is no shruti pramana for this position.

Cheers!

devotee
10 March 2010, 08:46 PM
Namaste Nara,



If your point is limited to Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for jagat, then we probably do not have an argument.

But that is what you posted in your explanation. Please read your quote on Nirguna and Saguna Brahman carefully.


But that is not the position of a typical advaitee. Saguna Bramnan is a lesser one compared to Nirguna one, and the saguna one, in the ultimate, is unreal, and so is jagat. This is where the problem is. I think there is no shruti pramana for this position.

Did Shankara say, "Saguna Brahman is Mithya" ? I would like to have the source from where this question is coming from. Please quote Shankara where he said this.

OM

atanu
10 March 2010, 11:23 PM
Namaste nara,

At the end of your post, you have enquired “If I am missing anything please let me know”. I feel that you are very sure that you are not missing anything. All your posts indicate your reluctance to step beyond this belief of yours. As Saidevoji said “It is also your obligation to be open”. Moreover, from this side, I feel that I truly do not know Brahman. So, the purpose is towards that. According to me, you have missed the essence of the goal.


Proof for two aspects of Brahman
I don’t think the above is at issue. The moorta-amoortha brahmanna of Br. U. simply states two characteristics of Brahman. The na iti, na iti (not this, not this) only denies the limits placed on Brahman by the characteristics of the two aspects described, not the reality of the either of the aspects themselves. If you think one of the two aspects is denied, the choice of which one is denied becomes arbitrary. Why deny sagnuna and accept nirguna, why not the other way around? Further, if you take na iti here to mean denying saguna, it would contradict other shruti vakhyas that describe saguna without the na iti like the ones in Tait. U. (See below)
You are correct that moorta-amoorta is not the issue. The issue is knowing the essences of the moorta-amoorta. I repeat the posting related to Brihad. U. verse again, higlighting the relevant portion in a different shade of blue. The defined is Mortal. Its essence is Sun. The Undefined is immortal and its essence is the Being. We are not denying the Mortal but we are placing Immortal as the Goal. Do you have any objection?

Moreover, we have already shown the relation between Satya and the Satya of the Satya. You have not considered the full post as directed towards seeking of the Being that is the essence of the Undefined immortal. (I do not think that you will yet see what you are missing because you did not even care to discriminate Mortality and Immoratlity).



Brihad U
II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms – gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined
II-iii-2: The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined
II-iii-3: Now the subtle – it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods
II-iii-4: Now with reference to the body: the gross form is but this – what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined
II-iii-5: Now the subtle – it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye for this is the essence of the undefined
II-iii-6: The form of that ‘being’ is as follows: like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman): ‘Not this, not this’. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this’. Now Its name: ‘The Truth of truth’. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

Kindly note the Two aspects of Brahman and their essences.

The goal is the essence of that which is undefined and which is immortal. The Essence is the BEING in the Sun and in the Heart. It is not known and being undefined and unlimited cannot be known as “It is This”. Thus ‘Neti-Neti’ is to discard all defined and gain that which is undefined and immortal.

You totally disregard the factor of Mortality-Immortality and also by-pass the essence of the undefined which alone is the goal of Net-Neti. And that surely is nirgunam, beyond the capacity of any Guna description, which originate from Mind.

One can discard the Sun and the body and all that there is in this Universe by Neti-Neti. But How can one discard the Being, which is essence of the undefined immortal, by Neti-Neti? Then who will do the Neti-Neti?:D

You must be joking?



Proof for the Nirgunam Brahman, which must be known
Gita
(nirguNam guNabhoktru ca)
That is, beyond gunas yet enjoying the effects of gunas. If this refers to Nriguna Brahman, then you have the problem of explaining why such a Brahman will be a (guNabhokta).

That is the whole darshana. How the Paramatma who is indivisible appears divided in bodies? How the Akarta, immutable, changeless is still the material and efficient cause?



The next BG verse you have highlighted in blue, #16, the
(avibhaktam), whether interpreted as non-different like the Advaitees do, or as of the same kind as others do, does not matter, it does not talk to nirguna aspect of Brahman.

We will not head any where with this type of logic. Where you wish, you ask us to consider all verses together and where you wish you isolate the verse that says that the Akshara Param Brahman who resides in Heart is Nirgunam. Ha.

We will talk about this later. But at this stage do we agree that "He though indivisible appears divided in bodies?" Kindly just say Yes or No.



Svet. U.
The verses from chapter 4 you have cited refer to Brahman being beyond senses, not that Brahman is devoid of gunas and attributes.
Next, you have highlighted verse 6.11 from Svet.U. The relevant phrase is:
(sarva bhUta antaratmA .. sarva bhUtAdhivAsa sAxI chEtA kEvalo nirguNascha)
Here, the phrase sarva bhUta antaratmA ... sarva bhUtAdhivAsa sAxI is important. Brahman pervades all life forms and is a witness, but not affected by gunas. Even the commentary by Anna of Sri Ramakrishna Matam interprets this verse in this way. Here is what Anna says,
(he is antaratma for all life... he oversees all action... he is a witness, he is not affected by the gunas)
This verse does not say Brahman is devoid of attributes.

It is devastating really. Kevala cheta nirgunascha is translated merely as "he is not affected by the gunas"? Is it a direct translation of nirgunascha or is it an interpretation? Yet I am happy you do accept that he is antaratma for all life. So, my point is made. There is life, which is Satya. And there is antaratma of Life which Satya of the Satya.

Morever the verse 6.19 clearly says:
6.19 nishhkala.n nishhkriya.n shaanta.n niravadya.n niraJNjanam.h . amR^itasya para.n setu.n dagdhendanamivaanalam.h
6.19. Without parts, without activity, peaceful, without sound, without impurities, the supreme bridge to immortality, like a fire that burns without fuel, is He.

This is the description of what Brahman is, whereas the verse 6.16 desribes that which are its products and their attributes. How though being nishhkriya, he is also the Gopa and the Creator, is explained in Gita and Svet. U. clearly -- i.e.by association of Purusha with its own mAyA.



Maha U.
I am unable to locate the verses cited. I checked both Maha Upanishad and Maha Narayana Upanishad. Sorry, if I am overlooking something, please help me out.
Sorry. There was a mistake. The verses are posted again with corrected numbers and translation:

Maha U.
4. 70 tadbrahmaanandamadvandva.n nirguNa.n satyachidghanam.h . viditvaa svaatmano ruupa.n na bibheti kadaachana .. 70..

4.71 paraatpara.n yanmahato mahaantaM svaruupatejomayashaashvata.n shivam.h . kaviM puraaNaM purushha.n sanaatanaM sarveshvara.n sarvadevairupaasyam.h .. 71..

IV-70-71. One fears never (and from nothing) on knowing the nature of the self as Bliss unequalled, attributeless and one mass of truth and consciousness. That is beyond all that is beyond, greater than the greatest, lustrous and eternal in nature, wise, ancient .




Maitrei U.
The verse 2.4 you have cited is translated as follows:
He should imbibe the nectar, Brahman, go about for alms to preserve the body, and becoming devoted to the one (Brahman) live in the solitary place of oneness free from duality. Thus should a wise man spend his life; he alone will attain liberation.

2.4 maanaavamaanahiino.asmi nirguNo.asmi shivo.asmyaham.h . dvaitaadvaitavihiino.asmi dvandvahiino.asmi so.asmyaham.h .. 4

You are correct that the mumukshu by abiding in Truth can only the reach the goal that you have stated unwittingly (which I have highlighted with red fonts. Mumukshu has to meditate on what “I am” actually is.


This is about what a mumukshu is supposed to do, stay in a place alone, without the presence of another. Am I missing something?
Yes. You are missing the essence and the goal.



Taittiriya Upanishad
The verses you cite do not talk to the ultimate unreality of Saguna Brahman anywhere. If anything they only describe saguna Brahman in detail.

That is correct, since the essence of the immortal undefined, the Nirgunanam, the being in the Sun and in the Heart, cannot be described, except by Net-Neti.


Verse 2.6.1 explains this concept even further, Brahman being not just nimitta karana, but upadhana karana as well, Brahman is both sentient and insentient – that Brahman is truth.
That is the whole point. The Param Atman is indivisible, unchangeable, and immutable. Yet it is the material and efficient cause of everything that is defined, and it is the akshara (immortal) essence of the undefined.

You have also not touched the Three levels of Perception-Truth:

The perceptible Names, Forms, and Karma Universe
The Satya of the above
The Satya of the Satya.Frankly, I think that this discussion will not go anywhere, except for those who have their goal fixed as the Immortal.

Om Namah Shivaya

Note for Sh. Nara: As I will be interested to know from you, kindly answer the questions put to you in red fonts in my replies. I will only read those answers.

atanu
11 March 2010, 01:27 AM
Namaste All,

I posted the shruti verses to show that Shankara's darshana is not unvedic (as asserted by Nara without any proof), thinking that it may save us time. But alas.

Shri Nara has not agreed to the very basic premise that Neti-Neti is to attain the essence of the undefined immortal. His logic is that by Neti Neti both the defined and the undefined must be discarded.

He has forgotten to see that it is not the Defined and the Undefined that are the goals. He has forgotten to see that the Undefined is the Immortal as opposed to mortality of the defined. He has forgotten that it is the Being in the Sun and Being in the Heart that is the essence of the immortal unformed that is the goal.

I asked him:

One can discard the Sun and the body and all that there is in this Universe by Neti-Neti. But How can one discard the Being, which is essence of the undefined immortal, by Neti-Neti? Then who will do the Neti-Neti?:D

I also asked him:

How the Paramatma who is indivisible appears divided in bodies? How the Akarta, immutable, changeless is still the material and efficient cause?

Let Shri Nara answer only that much.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
11 March 2010, 03:33 AM
Proof for the Nirgunam Brahman, which must be known
Gita
You have cited verse 13.14. This shloka ends with


निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च (nirguNam guNabhoktru ca)
That is, beyond gunas yet enjoying the effects of gunas. If this refers to Nriguna Brahman, then you have the problem of explaining why such a Brahman will be a गुणभोक्ता (guNabhokta). On the other hand, given the preceding verses starting from #7 onwards, you see that Sri Krishna is talking about the jeeva. Such a jeeva, in its essence, is beyond the three gunas, yet enjoying the effects of the three gunas. Now, there is no difficulty in proper interpretation. Thus, this is not a reference to Nirguna Brahman. See post # 159 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=41122&postcount=161) for how we have defined a Nirguna Brahman.The next BG verse you have highlighted in blue, #16, the अविभक्तं (avibhaktam), whether interpreted as non-different like the Advaitees do, or as of the same kind as others do, does not matter, it does not talk to nirguna aspect of Brahman.


Namaste Nara

No. There will actually be no such problem to explain why the Nirvikar alone is the enjoyer. There is no second in fact. The Eko appears as Ishwara, Jagat, and Jeeva. That is the whole darshana.

On the other hand, you have to explain. From the verse 13.12 onwards down to 13.18, I can see only the Param Atman (seated in the Hridaya) and who is knowledge and goal of Knowledge. Can any one see the transition from Jiva Atman to Param Atman in the following verses, except by distorting the translation of 13.13? Even if that be so, it will not matter, since it is Param Atman, seated in Hridaya, who is the Goal of Knowledge as is reiterated in 13.18.

And it makes me happy. If Jeeva that is being desribed is truly that which has hands and legs everywhere, which is within and without all bhutas, which envelops all, then where is the problem? We have already accepted that the Jeeva is Vishnu (It is altogether another matter that Advaita believes that is so).

Gita Chapter 13

Adhyaatma jnaana nityatwam tattwa jnaanaartha darshanam;
Etajjnaanamiti proktam ajnaanam yadato’nyathaa.
12. Constancy in Self-knowledge, perception of the end of true knowledge—this is declared to be knowledge, and what is opposed to it is ignorance.

Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;
Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.
14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.

Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.
15. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer,

Bahirantashcha bhootaanaam acharam charameva cha;
Sookshmatwaat tadavijneyam doorastham chaantike cha tat.
16. Without and within (all) beings, the unmoving and also the moving; because of His subtlety, unknowable; and near and far away is That.

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate;
Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.
18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.
--------------

Beginning from 13.13 wherein a declaration is made about the goal of knowledge as anadimat parambrahma to the verse13.18, wherein the Knowledge and the Goal of the Knowledge is said to be the paramuchyate,seated equally in all Hearts, nowhere a mention of a Jiva Atman is made.

I think it is clear to me wherefrom Shri Nara is interpreting a Jivatma. It is, I think, due to a special interpretation of 'matparam' as 'subordinate to me'.

Further,

Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.
32. Being without beginning and devoid of (guna) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

The above verse says: Beginningless, imperishable, nirgunam Param Atman is in Hridaya. Here na lipyate and na karoti are separated out from nirgunatwaat and hence the nirgunatwaat cannot be translated as 'Not touched by Gunas, since that is separately spoken. To paraphrase: if nirgunatwaat meant "untouched by Guna", then Lord would not have spoken separately 'na karote' and 'na lipyate'.

That is all. Nirgunam is proven.

The above is not required for refutation of shri nara, since already we have seen that the essence of the unformed/unlimited is to be known (from Brihadaraynaka U. discussed above) but is placed here for record.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
11 March 2010, 06:05 AM
Namaste Nara
Proof for two aspects of Brahman
Brihad U.
II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms – gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

II-iii-2: The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.

II-iii-3: Now the subtle – it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

II-iii-4: Now with reference to the body: the gross form is but this – what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.

II-iii-5: Now the subtle – it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.

II-iii-6: The form of that ‘being’ is as follows: like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman): ‘Not this, not this’. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this’. Now Its name: ‘The Truth of truth’. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

Kindly note the Two aspects of Brahman and their essences. And also kindly note that there is 'Satyam' and there is 'Satyam of Satyam' -- the Truth (Life Force) and The Truth of the Truth (Self). We will see further.
----
Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste All,

I feel that the above must be complemented by the following, before the complete picture can be obtained. It is needless to say that without contemplation and answering questions for oneself, the citations may not be of any use.

More on Two Aspects of Eko Brahman and that which must be known

The understanding of God/Brahman as Supremely Willful is good. But this view is not yet complete since Brahman is also described as AptakAmamAtmakAmamakAmaM (whose desire is all fulfilled, who is desireless, whose desire pertains to Self only. With only willfullness of God in mind we cannot explain the apparent negativities of this world. Why an Omnipotent and Omniscient Lord create a universe full of vice?

We saw from the Brihad U. that the essence of the immortal undefined/unformed is the Being in the Sun and in the Heart here. Let us see what is the Heart of the Sun and how the Saguna and Nirguna aspects are not Shakaracharya's inventions. Brahman has two aspects: kAla and aKala. As kAla, Brahman is Death and is the Agni/Sun. From Sun begins the Time. Without Sun the Time will be understood as an artifice. Beyond Sun, or within the Heart of the Sun, is the immortal -- which is akAla -- the time is from That.

Satapatha Brahmana
10:4:3:1. The Year, doubtless, is the same as Death; for he it is who, by means of day and night, destroys the life of mortal beings, and then they die: therefore the Year is the same as Death; and whosoever knows this Year (to be) Death, his life that (year) does not destroy, by day and night, before old age, and he attains his full (extent of) life.

10:5:2:3. And that man in yonder (sun's) orb is no other than Death; and that glowing light is that immortal element: therefore Death does not die, for he is within the immortal; and therefore he is not seen, for he is within the immortal.

10:5:1:4. Now, this speech is yonder sun, and this (Agni, the Fire-altar) is Death: hence whatsoever is on this side of the sun all that is filled by Death; and he who builds it (the Fire-altar) on this side thereof, builds it as one held by Death, and he surrenders his own self unto Death; but he who builds it thereabove, conquers recurring Death, for by his knowledge that (altar) of his is built thereabove.
-----------------------
10:5:4:16. Regarding this there is this verse--'By knowledge they ascend that (state) where desires have vanished: sacrificial gifts go not thither, nor the fervid practisers of rites without knowledge;'--for, indeed, he who does not know this does not attain to that world either by sacrificial gifts or by devout practices, but only to those who know does that world belong.

In man, the bank that separates the kAla from the akAla aspects of the Eko Brahman Turyam, is the Shushupti. In Shushupti, the Mind and associated Gunas are lost. The Jivatman unites with Paramatman and knows nothing because of lack of a Second. Crossing this Bank of Shushupti is the Turyam, which is indescribable and thus Nirgunam.

The kAla form can be worshipped and thus is Saguna. The akAla cannot be worshipped, because it is Advaita and beyond senses. We all agreed that the link is deep sleep for the kAla on this side (waking world) and the Turyam (the witness of the states of Shushupti, Taijjassa, and Vaisvanaro). Without any doubt, the Satapatha teaches that the knowledge of the akAla must be gained. The flow of time in the states of waking and dreaming is witnessed by the Turyam, which also witnesses the Shushupti (deep sleep) where no one knows Time to exist. Thus, the boundary between the kAla and akAla is the Shushupti, which is Tamas to non-yogi but which is day for the Yogi.

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
11 March 2010, 06:48 AM
Just one Q!

You painstakingly wrote so many here explaining that Brahman is verily One. Now on what account you are trying to explain two aspects of Brahman? Doesn't negate the 'Eko' Brahman? Or is it just my misreading or misunderstanding that "aspect" introduces the idea of 'parts' to Brahman? If you are going to hold a view that it is the "essence" which alone is Real and that alone is the 'Eko' Brahman, i think this discussion will be more interesting.

atanu
11 March 2010, 08:06 AM
Just one Q!
You painstakingly wrote so many here explaining that Brahman is verily One. Now on what account you are trying to explain two aspects of Brahman? Doesn't negate the 'Eko' Brahman? Or is it just my misreading or misunderstanding that "aspect" introduces the idea of 'parts' to Brahman? If you are going to hold a view that it is the "essence" which alone is Real and that alone is the 'Eko' Brahman, i think this discussion will be more interesting.

Secondly, are you aware of this mathematical paradox.? N*0 = X*0 or anything * 0 . Also are you aware that this is what is the mathematical equivalent of Sunya Vada? Do you think you can avoid establishing the Nirgunatva as not a Paradox?
namaste grames,



Thank you for the post. For me, only two questions are important:
One can discard the Sun and the body and all that there is in this Universe by Neti-Neti. But How can one discard the Being, which is essence of the undefined immortal, by Neti-Neti? Then who will do the Neti-Neti?
How the Paramatma who is indivisible appears divided in bodies? How the Akarta, immutable, changeless is still the material and efficient cause?But when an assertion is made that what Shankara teaches is unvedic, one needs to know what the scriptures say. I understand as you also understand that the non-discrimination of effect from the essence will lead to a view of Brahman which is made of parts. That cannot be so.

On the other hand, it is also true Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the Universe. Upanishads clearly state this as 'atman alone is all this' as 'Brahman alone is all this' as 'Vasudeva alone is all this'. Here you will differ since you come from the Dvaita school but this probably is acceptable to Shri Nara.

The conundrum will only be solved if we heed to the following and similar teaching and then act upon it:

Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

and

Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate;
Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.
13.18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.

You may kindly note and compare the red font part above (in 13.18 of Gita) and Satapatha Brahmana shown below:

10:5:2:3. And that man in yonder (sun's) orb is no other than Death; and that glowing light is that immortal element: therefore Death does not die, for he is within the immortal; and therefore he is not seen, for he is within the immortal.

I do not agree that Nirgunatva leads to any paradox, since it is clear that Neti-Neti will not lead to discarding of the Being; who however, is Ghana always (whom people call ghanashyam but do not know). The one who says kalosmi, is the unborn Self also (or rather the other way around). They are not two. Thus it is important to know the kAla and the akAla. You did a mistake by putting a 0 in your equation, N*0. The Being who is the essence cannot be 0.

Discriminating kAla and akAla is important. In other words, this discrimination is known as discrimination of atma and anatma. In the realm of kAla, all categories of Prakriti are eternally present. But as Satapatha teaches that remaining bound to the realm of kAla does not enable sadhaka to get freed of Death. On the other hand, in realm of akAla, which is known as Advaita Atma there is none other.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
11 March 2010, 08:45 AM
namaste Nara.

You are again contradicting yourself.
You say (post 166, emphasis added):
...verse 6.11 from Svet.U. The relevant phrase is:
sarva bhUta antaratmA .. sarva bhUtAdhivAsa sAxI chEtA kEvalo nirguNascha

Here, the phrase 'sarva bhUta antaratmA ... sarva bhUtAdhivAsa sAxI' is important. Brahman pervades all life forms and is a witness, but not affected by gunas. Even the commentary by Anna of Sri Ramakrishna Matam interprets this verse in this way. Here is what Anna says, "he is antaratma for all life... he oversees all action... he is a witness, he is not affected by the gunas".

This verse does not say Brahman is devoid of attributes.

My reply:
When Brahman is "not affected by gunas", how could it be that the verse "does not say Brahman is devoid of attributes"? What 'attributes' are you talking about? When Brahman is unaffected by guNas possessed by jIvas, although he resides as their antarAtman, what sort of guNa should he/it have to be of this nature? Purely sattvic? Or a balanced existence of all guNas where each nullify the other?

Notice that Svet.Up.6.16 talks of:
• Brahman as guNa-Isha--Lord of guNas, and not guNa-kShetra--abode of guNas (you have added the 'auspicious' which is not there).

• Should a Lord of guNas possess all guNas balanced in him? What guNas does a SaguNa Brahman possess? If the Lord of guNas should have those guNas, why should shrI KRShNa exhort Arjuna thus, in GItA 2.45?

"The Vedas’ concern is with the three gunas. Be without the three gunas, O Arjuna, freed from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self."

When shrI KRShNa exhorts a jIvAtman like Arjuna to be free of the three guNas and become possessed of the Self, the Self--KRShNa in him, should be with guNas and be SaguNa?

• Notice that the entire Chapter VI of the Svet.Up. only describes the NirguNa Brahman in his nature as such and his role as his counterpart, SaguNa Brahman asking us to meditate on that ultimate Brahman. In other words, NirguNa Brahman 'acts' as a SaguNa Brahman in the drama of life. Who is greater--the actor or the person behind the actor?

Some samples:

‣ 'devasaiSha mahimA'--'greatness of the self-luminous Lord'--6.01
‣ 'nityam...sarvaM...sarva-vid'--'eternal...everything...all-knowing'--6.02

‣ 'AdiH--the beginning; saMyoga-nimitta-hetuH--cause that unites the jIvAtma with its body; para-trikAla--beyond three kinds of time; akala--without parts; '--6.05

‣ 'sa vRikSakAlAkRitibhiH paroanyo yasmAt prapanchaH'--'He from whom this universe proceeds is higher and other than all forms of the Tree of the World and of time.'--6.06

‣ This is beautiful: reminds of Shiva in the shrIRudram.

'tam IshvarANAM paraM maheshvaraM, taM devatAnAm paraM cha daivatam |
patiM patInAM parastAd vidAma devaM bhuvaneshmIDyam ||'--6.07

We know Him who is the Supreme Lord of lords, the Supreme Deity of deities, the Ruler of rulers; who is higher than the imperishable prakriti and is the selfluminous, adorable Lord of the world.

‣ 'parAsya shaktirvividhaiva shrUyate svAbhAvikI jnAnabalakriyA cha ||'--6.08

The Vedas speak of His exalted power, which is innate and capable of producing diverse effects and also of His omniscience and might.

‣ And here is Atanu's favourite:

'yastantunAbha iva tantubhiH pradhAnajaiH svabhAvataH |
deva ekaH svamAvRiNoti sa no dadhAtu brahmApyayam ||'--6.10

May the non-dual Lord, who, by the power of His maya, covered Himself, like a spider, with threads drawn from primal matter, merge us in Brahman!

and so on.

And all these descriptions culminate in the NirguNa Brahman again in verse 6.19:

'niShkalaM nishhkriyaM shAntaM niravadyaM niranjanam |
amRitasya paraM setuM dagdhendanamivAnalam ||'--6.19

Without parts, without activity, peaceful, without sound, without impurities, the supreme bridge to immortality, like a fire that burns without fuel, is He.

Nara
11 March 2010, 11:03 AM
Dear Devotee, my understanding of Advaita is only Brahman is satyam, everything else is mityam. Sankara's exegesis of the Ubhayalinga adhikarana of Brhmma Sutra clealry rejects savishesha linga. He points to the untenable position of Brahman having two opposite modes, one nirvikalpa nirvishesha, and the other savishesha. Sankara comes down on the side of nirvikalpa, nirvishesha.

समस्त वेशेष रहितम निर्विकल्पम एव ब्र्ह्म ....
(samasta visesha rahitam nirvikalpakam eva brahma....)

For him, the savisesha brahman does not exit in reality, it is just an appearance colored by maya. It is this part that is an overreach.

Thank you...

atanu
11 March 2010, 11:37 AM
समस्त वेशेष रहितम निर्विकल्पम एव ब्र्ह्म ....
(samasta visesha rahitam nirvikalpakam eva brahma....)

For him, the savisesha brahman does not exit in reality, it is just an appearance colored by maya. It is this part that is an overreach.

Thank you...

Namaste nara,

Surely Devotee will answer. I will just point out again that your conclusion that Shankara 'over-reached' is your overreach. Cannot imagine that you will ever say Einstein overreached etc.

Ultimately what science will know about wave particle duality is beyond guessing. But it is known that there are already questions that by imposing the particle nature of perception on the nature, science could be reaching a unsolvable situation. The following was posted earlier:

But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.

(Stephen Hawking, 1988).

Hawking here is commenting on the Uncertainty principle. Similarly, Veda asks the following profound question:

RV 1.164.04 Who has seen the primeval (being) at the time of his being born; what is that endowed with substance which the unsubstantial sustains; from earth are the breath and blood; but where is the soul; who may repair to the sage to ask this?

And further on, the same sage offers an answer:

1.164.35 This altar is the uttermost end of the earth; this sacrifice is the navel of the world; this Soma is the fecundating power of the rain-shedding steed; this Brahma_ is the supreme heaven of (holy) speech.

This self, which is an altar of sacrifice, is the navel of the world.

What is unsubstantial and indivisible gives rise to an appearance of particulate bodies. And based on the perceptual sensual experience of these discrete bodies, we cannot even imagine what Shankara is saying. When you postulate a Lord Brahman with His servants you are actually breaking up that which is indivisible. In the beginning was the Atman, which is said to be uncuttable. Thus discrete Ishwara and discrete servants is not tenable scientifically). Emotionally it goes very well though. Your position that Truth is one does not mean that the parts are unreal, is untenable because Shruti says Brahman is partless and is consciousness. It is not anything material in the sensual sense. To help you I will cite another passage from Satapatha Brahamana.

Satapatha THIRD BRÂHMANA.

10:5:3:1. Verily, in the beginning this (universe) was, as it were, neither non-existent nor existent; in the beginning this (universe), indeed, as it were, existed and did not exist: there was then only that Mind.

10:5:3:2. Wherefore it has been said by the Rishi (Rig-veda X, 129, 1), 'There was then neither the non-existent nor the existent;' for Mind was, as it were, neither existent nor non-existent.

10:5:3:3. This Mind, when created, wished to become manifest,--more defined, more substantial: it sought after a self (body) It practised austerity, it acquired consistency. It then beheld thirty-six thousand Arka-fires of its own self, composed of mind, built up of mind: mentally alone they were established (on sacrificial hearths) and mentally built up; mentally the cups (of Soma) were drawn thereat mentally they chanted, and mentally they recited on (near) them,--whatever rite is performed at the sacrifice, whatever sacrificial rite there is, that was performed mentally only, as a mental performance, on those (fires or fire-altars) composed of mind, and built up of mind. And whatever it is that (living) beings here conceive in their mind that was done regarding those (mental Agnis):--they establish them (on the hearths) and build them up (as fire-altars); they draw the cups for them; they chant on (near) them and recite hymns on them,--of that extent was the development of Mind, of that extent its creation,--so great is Mind: thirty-six thousand Arka-fires; and each of these as great as that former (fire-altar) was.

10:5:3:4. That Mind created Speech. This Speech, when created, wished to become manifest,--more defined, more substantial: it sought after a self. It practised austerity: it acquired consistency. It beheld thirty-six thousand Arka-fires of its own self, --------

And so it goes. The Speech, Vision, and Karma is what this world is. All of this, beginning with the Mind (Internal Organ of the Atman) is unsubstantial yet we see only the substantial. To understand Shankara's vision, the overlain effect of this solidification must be stripped, and it indeed is unimaginable usually.

More later

Regards and Best Wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

Nara
11 March 2010, 02:48 PM
Dear antanu, greetings!

In a serious discussion like this one, I try to communicate as plainly as possible. So, when I enquired, “If I am missing anything please let me know” I meant it. Also, I think the obligation to be open is equal to all, not just me. My understanding of the goal of this particular discussion is Vedic Pramana for Shankara’s Advaitiam. The first question we have taken up for discussion is captured by the following sentence of mine you quoted.
“My position is that there is no Vedic pramana for a Nirguna brahman as the only reality with saguna brahman being just mythya or unreal or illusion,”
At least in this thread and at the present time, I think it will be beneficial to restrict our scope to just this.


...
“It is This”. Thus ‘Neti-Neti’ is to discard all defined and gain that which is undefined and immortal.


The discussion of the moorta-amoortha brahmanna of Br. U. does not say anything about Nirguna Brahman and discard everything else. If that was the intent, shruti could have just said that, why go to the trouble of describing everything and then denying their reality.

This brahamna describes two phases of Brahman, one gross, mortal, non-pervasive, and visible, and the second is, subtle, non-mortal, pervasive, and non-visible. The earth, water and fire are the gross, mortal, non-pervasive, and visible; air and space (akasa) are subtle, non-mortal, pervasive and non-visible. Finally, the brahmana declares,

Now therefore, the teaching, ‘not this not this’; there is nothing other than this, and different from this (Brahman), described as ‘not this’. Then its name, as the reality of the reals (satyasa satyam); real is prana, and this (Brahman) is the real of the pranas.
So, in summary, this brahmana says there are two forms that encompasses everything. Neti, neti says Brahman is not limited to just one of the two forms. If both are denied, the next phrase न ह्येतस्माद इति (na heytasmad iti) = “there is nothing other than this” will have no meaning. There is nothing other than these two forms of Brahman, one gross and one subtle, one changing the other not, one limited and one not, one visible and one not. This Brahman is सत्यस्य सत्यम (satyasya satyam) = reality among realities.


Deriving nriguna Brahman is the only reality from this goes not only beyond the direct meaning of this verse, but it does gross violation to all the other shruti vakhyas that glorify Brahman with all kinds of auspicious glories.




One can discard the Sun and the body and all that there is in this Universe by Neti-Neti. But How can one discard the Being, which is essence of the undefined immortal, by Neti-Neti? Then who will do the Neti-Neti?
I have already answered this. If neti neti denies only one form and not the other, why choose the moortha/mortal/limited/visible form to deny, why not deny the amoortha/immortal/limitless/visible form, or both (see below). Therefore, neti neti is only about limiting its definition to just one of the two forms alone.

BTW, Sankara says both forms are erroneously superimposed on Brahman, the first neti denies the moortha form and the second neti denies the amoortha form. Look it up, Sankara Bashyam III.2.22.



That is the whole darshana. How the Paramatma who is indivisible appears divided in bodies? How the Akarta, immutable, changeless is still the material and efficient cause?
Gunabhokrutvam = enjoying the effects of gunas, only the three gunas satvam, rajas, tamas give effects and that too only to those who are bound by it, namely jeevas. Only the jeevas can be gunabhoktrutva.

Our scope is nirguna and saguna brahman, other issues will have to wait.


...We will not head any where with this type of logic. Where you wish, you ask us to consider all verses together and where you wish you isolate the verse that says that the Akshara Param Brahman who resides in Heart is Nirgunam. Ha.
Please, I am not doing anything like this. All I want to do is take one question at a time, otherwise it becomes unmanageable to me. The verse says nirgunam as well as gunabhokta. To understand this verse in a consistent manner, the nirgunam has to refer to the the gunas from which effects arise in samsara.



We will talk about this later. But at this stage do we agree that "He though indivisible appears divided in bodies?" Kindly just say Yes or No.
No, according to Vedas the full force of Brahman is present in jagat, both in jadam and ajadam. But then again, this issue will have to wait, let us first handle Nirguna and Saguna brahman.

I have nothing new to add with respect to Svet.U. Svet.U. does not give any support to the Nirguna Brahman, one defined as devoid of attributes and gunas. 6.19 describes a whole of gunas and attributes to Brahman. Nowhere does it say this is saguna brahman, not really true.



Maha U.
4.70, 71:
One fears never (and from nothing) on knowing the nature of the self as Bliss unequalled, attributeless and one mass of truth and consciousness. That is beyond all that is beyond, greater than the greatest, lustrous and eternal in nature, wise, ancient Being, worshipped by all gods. As a rule ‘I (am) Brahman’ these two words are for the liberation of the great. Whereas ‘Not Mine’ and ‘Mine’ give liberation and bondage (respectively).
Since this U not one of the primary 12, I do not have source materials handy, I have to study this more carefully. I can make two quick comments right off the bat though.
I think the later part of the verse gives away the store. The whole thing is described in comparative terms all indicating duality, like beyond the beyond, worshiped by all gods, and,
a literal interpretation for "attributeless" here will throw all the verses that showers the brahman with attributes and qualities into the dust bin. So, the trick is to interpret this verse in consonance with those other verses.But, I need to research this further.



You have also not touched the Three levels of Perception-Truth:

Yes, I can only deal with bite-size portions at a time :)

Thanks...

Nara
11 March 2010, 03:17 PM
Dear atanu, you are smothering me with cut and pasted material, there is no way I can give a response that does justice. You know atanu, Devotee asked me:

Did Shankara say, "Saguna Brahman is Mithya" ? I would like to have the source from where this question is coming from. Please quote Shankara where he said this.
Please read my post in this context.

As I said at the very start, it takes an Einstein to come up Theory of relativity and a Darwin to propose theory of evolution, but to find a kink here or a crack there, you don't have to be a genius.

The greatness of Sankara's exegies is not in question here at all. All I am doing is highlighting some of the problems other great scholars have found in Sankara's Advaitam. I don't see this as an exercise in diminishing Sankara's greatness, and even if did, which I don't, I know I am incapable of going very far in that endeavor.

To me personally, it does not matter one way or another. I came into this discussion only by accident with trying to understand

brahma satyam jagan mithya, jivo brahmaiva napara
One thing led to another, and here we are talking about stuff that is interesting, but of not of any great benefit to a lot of people. But rest assured, I have no intention of putting down anybody or anything. If I am wrong I will be ready to admit it at any time. I try my best not to have an ego about these matters, I learned this dealing with my children as they were growing up :).

Cheers!

vivendi
11 March 2010, 09:08 PM
Pranams Nara,

I have gone through some of the posts exchanged so far in this thread. I find your depth of knowledge very interesting and hope to learn from you. Please allow me to ask some dumb questions here and there in the course of the discussion.


As I said at the very start, it takes an Einstein to come up Theory of relativity and a Darwin to propose theory of evolution, but to find a kink here or a crack there, you don't have to be a genius.
Sankara's theory was scrutinized by a number of great philosophers. Only a handful have managed to undertake the task of refuting a doctrine so difficult to refute, and they were all geniuses in their own right. Assuming someone who was not a genius has criticized his doctrine, who was this layman and what were the errors pointed out?

atanu
11 March 2010, 10:25 PM
Dear atanu, you are smothering me with cut and pasted material, there is no way I can give a response that does justice. As I said at the very start, it takes an Einstein to come up Theory of relativity and a Darwin to propose theory of evolution, but to find a kink here or a crack there, you don't have to be a genius.
---- I don't see this as an exercise in diminishing Sankara's greatness, and even if did, which I don't, I know I am incapable of going very far in that endeavor.

Cheers!

namaste nara

I am sorry that i have smothered you with the cut and paste material. My intention is not that because i have used the glue myself. The intention is to provide the background material (as much as together) so that a holistic understanding emerges. Instead of being feeling smothered you can take your own time. That is in your hand. But are you typing the verses in sanskrit in your posts or you are pasting? If you are typing then special regards.

I disagree with you that anyone can find a kink in Einstein's teaching. For wise criticism, a full understanding of Einstein's genius will be required. Else the kink finding is just that -- a kinky exercise. You yourself say: I know I am incapable of going very far in that endeavor, yet you are ready to assert that Shankara over-reached. :)

I am not the only one who finds kink in your contradictory assertions.

Regarding Nirgunam:

13.32 Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.

13. 32. Being without beginning and devoid of (guna) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

Brahman-Paramatman cannot be Nirgunam only while seated in Heart and full of Prakritic Guna elsewhere. That is unthinkable and ridiculous.

Ourselves being tied to prakritic guna and also made of the same, possibly it is unimaginable that Brahman itself can be devoid of Prakritic Guna that impel action and bind. Prakritic Guna is attribute of the inner intstrument (Mind). Without a Mind, there is no thinker, there is no ego, and no impeller. A gunateeta sage and the anadimat nirgunam brahman are different. A gunateeta sage is the jiva who has crossed over the bondage of mind and united in Brahman. Brahman, on the hand, is unchangeable and without beginning free of Guna bondage.

This topic is finished here. Whether you agree or not. We will move on.
----------------------------------------

I see that you have not offered your vision of what remains after Neti-Neti. You have not answered why an indivisible Param Atman appears divided in bodies. You have also not answered as to why when in the beginning only an indivisible Atman existed, who as per your understand cannot be the enjoyer, then how the world arose?

In short i wish to understand your world view.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
12 March 2010, 12:56 AM
namaste Nara.

You are wrong in your interpretation of 'neti neti'!
I wonder where you get your interpretations from.

First let us have the verse in question:

tasyaha etasya puruShasya rUpam |
yathA mAhArajanaM vAsaH,
yathA pANDvAvikam,
yathendragopaH,
yathA agnyarchaH,
yathA puNDarIkaN,
yathA sakR^idvidyuttaM;
sakR^idvidyutteva ha vA asya shrIrbhavati ya evaM vedAH;
athAtat AdeshH--neti, neti,
na hy etasmAd iti na iti ayanyat param asti;
atha nAmadheyaM--satyasya satyamiti;
prANA vai satyam,
teShAmeSha satyam || 6 ||
iti tR^itiiyaM brAhmaNaM ||
--Br.Up.2.3.6

Here is the meaning of this verse from the Ramakrishna Matham publication:

"The form of that princple (the subtle body 1*) is as follows: As is a cloth dyted with turmeric, or grey sheep's wool, or the (deep red) insect called Indragopa, or a tongue of fire, or a white lotus (2*), or a flash of lightning (3*). He who knows thus (4*) verily attains fame like a flash of lightning. Now (5*), therefore, the specification about Brahman: 'Not this, Not this' (6*). For there is no other or better specification than this. Now its sacred name--'the Truth of truth'. The vital force is truth, and IT is the Truth of that."

Notes:
1. The typical forms described here, consisting of the impressions of gross and subtle objects, belong only to the subtle body, and not the self.

2. The colouring of impressions is due either to the objects presented to the mind or to its own tendencies.

3. This refers to the subtle body of HiraNyagarbha. As lightning suddenly illumines all around, so does HiraNyagarbha, as he emerges from the Unmanifested, bring to light all things.

4. Knows the above form of HiraNyagarbha's subtle body.

5. After the nature of truth has been ascertained.

6. These two negative particles eliminate not only the two limiting adjuncts--the gross and the subtle forms--but also all possible specifications about Brahman, which, having no distinguishing mark whatsoever, is free from all differentiations due to limiting adjuncts.

*****

Now, if we examine your statement in post 179,
in the light of the above translation:

You said:
01. So, in summary, this brahmana says there are two forms that encompasses everything.

Reply:
01. Right, this brAhmaNa speaks about Brahman's two forms: mUrta-amUrta--formed-formless or gross-subtle, martyam-mRtam--mortal-immortal, sthita-yat--limited-unlimited, and sat-tyat--perceptible-imperceptible.

You said:
02. Neti, neti says Brahman is not limited to just one of the two forms.
03. If both are denied, the next phrase na heytasmad iti = "there is nothing other than this" will have no meaning.

Reply:
Wrong, check the right interpretation in the Note 6 given above.


You said:
BTW, Sankara says both forms are erroneously superimposed on Brahman, the first neti denies the moortha form and the second neti denies the amoortha form. Look it up, Sankara Bashyam III.2.22.

Reply:
Shankara says much more than this. Here is what he says in his Brahma SUtra BhAShyam (svAmi SivAnanda's translation):

The Neti-Neti text explained

prakritaitAvattvaM hi pratiShedhati tato bravIti cha bhUyaH
--B.S.3.2.22

What has been mentioned up to this is denied (by the words "not this, not this" and the Shruti) says something more than that (afterwards).

Shankara says:

• After describing the two forms of Brahman, the gross consisting of earth, water and fire, and the subtle, consisting of air and ether, the Shruti declares finally "Now, therefore, the description of Brahman--not this, not this." (Bri.Up.2.3.6).

• Does the 'neti-neti' negates both Brahman and the world or only one of them? According to the PUrvapakShin, both are negated, so Brahman and the world are false, and Brahman can't be the substratum for a false universe.

Shankara says:

• Negating both leads to shUnyavAda...(which is not the intention of Shruti--sd)

• The Sruti affirms Brahman. What is the good of teaching Brahman and saying that it is non-existent? Why smear yourself with mud and then wash it? So Brahman is beyond speech and mind and is eternal, pure and free. It is a mass of consciousness. Therefore the Shruti denies that Brahman has form but not Brahman itself.

• What has been described till now, viz., the two forms of Brahman: gross and subtle, is denied by the words, "not this, not this".

• Brahman cannot be denied, because that would contradict the introductory phrase of the Chapter. "Shall I tell you Brah man?" (Bri.Up.2.1.1), would show disregard of the threat conveyed in Tait.Up.2.6. "He who knows the Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing," would be opposed to definite assertions such as "He is" "He is to be apprehended" (Katha Up.2.6.13); and would certainly involve a stultification of the whole VedAnta.

• "Not so, not so" negatives the entire aggregate of effects superimposed on Brahman, but not Brahman which is the basis for all fictitious superimpositions. It denies of Brahman the limited form, material as well as immaterial which in the preceding part of the chapter is described with reference to the gods as well as the body, and also the second form which is produced by the first, is characterised by mental impressions, forms the essence of that which is immaterial, is denoted by the term PuruSha.

• The double repetition of the negation may

‣ either serve the purpose of furnishing special denial of the material as well as the immaterial form of Brahman;

‣ or the first 'not so' may negative the aggregate of material elements, while the second denies the aggregate of mental impressions.

‣ Or else the repetition may be an emphatic one, intimating that whatever can be thought is not Brahman.

• The Shruti denies that Brahman has form but not Brahman itself.

‣ It interdicts by two negations the gross and the subtle bodies.

‣ Or it interdicts BhUtas (elements) and VAsanas.

‣ Or the repetition is for stating the denial of all similar assumptions.

So the denial denies the world, as superimposed on Brahman, and does not deny Brahman itself.

Also note that, the term 'neti' means 'na iti'--'not this', and the iti--this in it refers to the currently described concept and not to tat--That, which is Brahman. After all such denials of which is not Brahman, Brahman is brought into picture with the words "atha nAmadheyaM--satyasya satyamiti"--the iti--this, here refers to Brahman, of course--sd.


You said:
04. There is nothing other than these two forms of Brahman, one gross and one subtle, one changing the other not, one limited and one not, one visible and one not. This Brahman is satyasya satyam = reality among realities.

Reply from Shankara:

After the negation of Neti Neti, the Shruti goes on to describe in positive terms the further attributes of this Brahman-—His name being the True of the true (Satyasya Satyam). Moreover, after making such a denial, it affirms the existence of something higher-—Anyat Paramasti; Satyasya Satyam-—The Truth of Truth. This intimates that Brahman alone is the one reality that exists and is the substratum of the world which is illusory.

Brahma satyam jagan mithyA

In the light of the Shankara BhAShya given above, it is clear that Shankara approves of Brahman as 'satyasya satyam', which is the Shruti term for Advaita VedAnta's 'pAramArthika satyaM'. Since there are thus two satyams in Brahman's nAmadheyam--name/title/appellation, the second satyam--whatever it refers to: the world, Devas, SaguNa Brahman--is only a secondary truth, which is a formed manifestation/personification/appearance of NirguNa Brahman.

This is why Shankara says 'Brahma satyam jagan mithyA', the word mithyA--just as the world it describes--comprising all the three aspects of Brahman's manifestion, namely, formed, personified and appearing. Now this can be viewed from three angles:

• From NirguNa Brahman's angle, the world is mithyA--mAyA, illusion.

• From the Advaita Yogin's angle, the world is 'vyAvahArika satyaM' and our existence in the dream state 'prAtibhAsika satyaM'. In his state of turIya, he sees the relative realities of all the first three states, and remains as the satyasta satyam--absolute reality of Brahman.

• From jIva's angle, the world is just satyam--real, until the mAyA of avidyA goes. The moment the avidyA leaves, the jIva gets the realization in a flash of lightning, which is 'Brahma satyam jagan mithyA', which is also the purport of the Rig Veda mantra 'ekam sat'.

**********

atanu
12 March 2010, 02:03 AM
-----
This brahamna describes two phases of Brahman, one gross, mortal, non-pervasive, and visible, and the second is, subtle, non-mortal, pervasive, and non-visible. The earth, water and fire are the gross, mortal, non-pervasive, and visible; air and space (akasa) are subtle, non-mortal, pervasive and non-visible. Finally, the brahmana declares,


Now therefore, the teaching, ‘not this not this’; there is nothing other than this, and different from this (Brahman), described as ‘not this’. Then its name, as the reality of the reals (satyasa satyam); real is prana, and this (Brahman) is the real of the pranas.So, in summary, this brahmana says there are two forms that encompasses everything. Neti, neti says Brahman is not limited to just one of the two forms. If both are denied, the next phrase न ह्येतस्माद इति (na heytasmad iti) = “there is nothing other than this” will have no meaning. There is nothing other than these two forms of Brahman, one gross and one subtle, one changing the other not, one limited and one not, one visible and one not. This Brahman is सत्यस्य सत्यम (satyasya satyam) = reality among realities.

Thanks...

Namaste nara and Saidevo

Thank you saidevo for the post showing what actually Shankara says. Great.

In lay man's language:

Shri Nara's statement that "--- says there are two forms that encompasses everything" is simply ignoring the essence behind the two forms, about which the verses speak.

The limited Mortal form has Sun as the essence, which is defined very well. The unlimited, undefined, immortal form has for its essence the Being in the Sun and in the eye.

Neti-Neti removes all forms but cannot remove the enquirer, wherein the essence is. The goal is the Being divested of all aspects. Then the Being in the Sun and Being in the Eye are not separated by any intervening objects or spaces. The Being alone remains, which is the fullness (ghana of sat-chit-ananda), wherein the enquiry stops since the Sat cannot remove Sat, but Sat is not shunya. Those who say that Neti-Neti leads to ShunyavAda are actually assuming that they themselves do not exist.

Satyasa satyam refers to the being -- the residual of Neti-Neti. Whereas Satya refers to the life force. Satya is not the absolute truth but relative truth as the both Chandogya and Brihadarayanaka state.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
12 March 2010, 02:16 AM
Dear atanu, you are smothering me with cut and pasted material, there is no way I can give a response that does justice. You know atanu, Devotee asked me:
Did Shankara say, "Saguna Brahman is Mithya" ? I would like to have the source from where this question is coming from. Please quote Shankara where he said this.
Please read my post in this context.

Dear nara

I read and replied in context. Your citation was enough. But your view that Shankara over-reached was out of context.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
12 March 2010, 03:09 AM
Namaste Nara,



समस्त वेशेष रहितम निर्विकल्पम एव ब्र्ह्म ....
(samasta visesha rahitam nirvikalpakam eva brahma....)
For him, the savisesha brahman does not exit in reality, it is just an appearance colored by maya. It is this part that is an overreach.


Please read the sentence above carefully. It doesn't say anything about Savishesha Brahman. It never says that Savishesha Brahman does not exist. You are extrapolating & taking out your own meaning from that above sentence. The non-existence of Saguna Brahman will deny the existence of the essence of Saguna Brahman i.e. Nirguna Brahman too. So, your understanding is not correct. If Nara wears a mask & comes to party with a a pseudonym and mithya face ... shall anyone say that Nara doesn't exist ? The perception of Nara with the mask and pseudonym is not what Nara actually is but that doesn't mean that Nara ceases to exist. We will say that the perception of that Nara is mithya ... Nara without mask and without a pseudonym is the real Nara. AND that is what Shankara says.

Let's see the word-by-word translation :

Samasta = All
vishesha = qualities
rahitam = without or devoid of
nirvikalpam = nirvikalp, choiceless
eva = indeed
brahma = brahman

So, it says, "That which is devoid of all qualities & is nirvikalp that alone is Brahman". If you remember : Savishesha Brahman or the Saguna Brahman is the Nirguna Brahman itself when seen through Maya within mental realm. So, what is the essence of Saguna Brahman ? It is Nirguna Brahman alone. So, how do you find that Shankara says anything different than the above truth ?

He simply says that there is actually Nirguna Brahman alone & that when seen through Maya is perceived as Saguna Brahman. The mithya word is correctly used for the form and names of Saguna Brahman as the same Saguna Brahman is worshiped as Vishnu, Shiva, Mother Goddess, Allah, YHWH, Jesus ... so these names and forms and related characteristics associated with these names and forms of God are superimposed on the the essence of essence i.e. Nirguna Brahman is mithya ... but the essence is never mithya.

This mithya word also need to be understood very carefully. Mithya can mean :

a) perception of something which doesn't exist at all.
b) Wrong perception of reality i.e. seeing snake seen in rope.

Mithya word has been used by Shankara with second meaning in mind. Mithya simply means wrong perception of reality. Please keep this meaning in mind while analysing what Shankara says.

What is this Saguna and Nirguna Brahman ? :

Please refer to Maandukya Upanishad which describes 4 states of existence of the Reality/Self. This Self alone is described as Brahman and whatever there is. However, when we say Brahman we don't refer to the first two states (waking state and dream state). The third and the fourth states are only referred to as Brahman. The third state of the Reality is God which is also named as Saguna Brahman & the fourth state has no name as it cannot be described & has been referred to as just "the fourth" or "Turiya" (in Sanskrit) ... this is Nirguna Brahman. Let's see the verses below :

"Yatra supto na kanchan kaamam kaamayate,
Na kanchan svapnam pashyati tatsushuptam,
Sushuptasthaan ekibhootah prajnaanghan evaanandmayo,
hyanandbhuk chetomukhah praajnastritiya paadah" |5|


Meaning : Where one being in deep sleep does not desire any desire whatsoever and does not see any dream whatsoever that is deep sleep. The third quarter is prajna, whose sphere is the state of deep sleep, who has become one, who is verily a mass of Consciousness, who is full of bliss and who experiences bliss, whose mouth is consciousness (or which is the door way to consciousness for cognizing the first two states).


Esha sarveshwara esha sarvajnya esha antaryaami esha
Yonih sarvasya prabhava api ayau hi bhootaanaam || 6||


Meaning : He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of all. He is the inner controller. He is the source of all; for from Him all beings originate and in Him they finally disappear.

=> The above two verses describe the third state of Reality which is known as God & that is also referred to as Saguna Brahman and is worshipped by various names and forms in this world.

Let’s see how the Fourth is described :

Naantah prajanam na bahishprajnam na ubhayatah prajnam,
Na prajnaanghanam na prajnam na aprajnam ||7||
Adrashtam avyavhaaryam agraahyam alakshNam achintyam
avyapdeshyam ekaatma apratyayasaaram prapanchoshamam
shaantam shivam advaitam chaturtham
manyante sa atma sa vijneyeyah ||8||


That which is neither conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self (in the three states), It (Turiya) is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss, and non-dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman (Self), and this has to be realised.


Amaatrah chaturtho avyavhaaryah prapancho upshamah shivah advaita |
Evam omkaar aatmaiva samvishtyaatmanaatmaanam ya evam veda ya evam veda ||12||

The Fourth (Turiya) is without parts and without relationship; It is the cessation of phenomena; it is auspicious and non-dual. This AUM is verily Atman. He who knows this merges his self in Atman- yea, he who knows this.


==> What do these verses say ? The Prajna is the God state which is the source and end of all beings. What is Prajna … it is mass of consciousness … so, this mass of consciousness is the essence of everything (in this manifested world) … what is the essence of consciousness … it is Turiya i.e. the fourth. The verses also say that this fourth has to be known and he who knows it becomes it by merging into it.

So, the verses make the goal very clear for all of us. This fourth (Turiya) is to be known (verse 8) & by knowing it one becomes Self by merging into it (verse 12).

This is what Shankara says that it is the parmaartha for us because Shruti says that it is to be known and by knowing it one becomes one with Self. So, this fourth, the Turiya, the Nirguna Brahman is to be known.

How to know it ? For knowing this one has to go beyond Maya & have direct perception … as it is not perceivable within mental realm. Once one has to go beyond Maya … he must discard all names & forms … then the Maya which shows Nirguna Brahman as Saguna Brahman is no more there & what remains is the essence of essence i.e. Nirguna Brahmna alone. Let's not forget that the third state of Reality is God ... i.e. Saguna Brahman. So, how can one say that it doesn't exist ? Yes, this is not the essence of essence ... the truth of truth ... it is not the final substratum of the Reality.

So, where does Shankara say something which is not in Shruti ? Shankara explains in his own way ... he uses his own words ... but that doesn't mean that he is saying something different.

"the savisesha brahman does not exit in reality, it is just an appearance colored by maya"[/COLOR] ... this is not the correct sentence. The correct sentence should be : The appearance of Nirguna Brahman as Saguna Brahman (with name, form and characteristics) is due to Maya (i.e. within mental realm) ... the essence of Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahman alone.

OM

smaranam
12 March 2010, 06:53 AM
Namaste


The correct sentence should be : The appearance of Nirguna Brahman as Saguna Brahman (with name, form and characteristics) is due to Maya (i.e. within mental realm) ... the essence of Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahman alone.

OM

Very well put, Devoteeji.


May I say something please ?

If Saguna were not a projection of the Nirguna for us , earthlings, if Saguna Brahman was IT, I wonder how the extra-terrestrial beings on other planets , in other galaxies would react and relate to BhagavAn in a personal way ?

OR, conversely, how does Brahman project Himself for the sake of those extra-terrestrials ?
With Shankha Chakra GadA Padma ?
Yellow PitAmbar ? Yellow of Hari's pitAmbar symbolizes the silicon-dioxide which mostly represents earth , acc. to Swami ChinmayAnanda in "Glories of Krishna"
Lotus eyes are the best , I can understand those could be "universal" :)

Vayjayanti Haar ?? I did not know there were flowers in other galaxies, also
real Lotuses. Or peacocks for that matter. Where would the Lord get those feathers from ? And the bamboo for the flute, can it grow on Pozidon ?


Please don't get me wrong. I love Hari the way He presents Himself to us,earthlings.

How can we assume He is only made for humans ? Do we have proof that there is no Jiva-jad prakruti, manifest life anywhere else except on earth ?

Are we claiming that earthlings are the only ones around ?


Shri Krshna Govind Hare MurAre
He NAth NArAyana VAsudeva

Nara
12 March 2010, 08:13 AM
Dear Devotee, Greetings!

I have no argument to offer if you think Sankara's Advaitam holds Saguna Brahman to be as real as Nirguna brahman. But your own arguments belie this. You say Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brhman because of maya. Then Saguna Brahman is just erroneous perception, isn't?

But more serious than this is, who is perceiving this Nirguna Brahman through maya as a Saguna Brahman? If there is only Brahman and no other, who is mistaking Nirguna Brahman to be Saguna Brahman?

Cheers!

devotee
12 March 2010, 09:05 AM
Namaste Nara,



I have no argument to offer if you think Sankara's Advaitam holds Saguna Brahman to be as real as Nirguna brahman.

But your own arguments belie this. You say Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brhman because of maya. Then Saguna Brahman is just erroneous perception, isn't?

I don't only think ... I have given you the proof & that is what you posted while explaining your understanding of Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. What do you mean by " as real as" or "erroneous" ? It is "as real as" .... because the essence is the same. Yes, the perception is erroneous as the reality of the Real is seen through Maya. Only the Direct Perception is the perception of the Reality as It is. All other perceptions within mental realm are conditioned and relative.

As I told you, there is only Nirguna Brahman as the essence of essence. But when seen within mental realm through Maya, it is perceived as Saguna Brahman. This is what Shruti says and that is what Shankara says.

So, whatever Shankara says is what Shruti says ... there is no difference. That is what was to be proved as far as your first objection was concerned. The logical aspect was not to be proved & that is why I didn't talk about it.


But more serious than this is, who is perceiving this Nirguna Brahman through maya as a Saguna Brahman? If there is only Brahman and no other, who is mistaking Nirguna Brahman to be Saguna Brahman?


Now you don't find it logical to accept. Let's see.

Maandukya Upanishad says that the first state of Self/Brahman is waking state which is this manifested world. Let's remember that Brahman is like nothing what we know or what we can know. It has a peculiar property that it can appear as many while it is only one. You may find it completely illogical as you are trying to see it through your conditioned mind. I will give you one example by contemplating on that you will agree that One (Consciousness) can appear as many & it is not so illogical as it seems :

"Suppose you are dreaming. You see yourself in the dream. You also see your wife and children and your friend & you are all in a garden. Suddenly a snake appears from somewhere & bites your friend. He cries in pain help. You want to kill that snake but it has disappeared from the scene."

===> Now let's analyse the above scenario. You are the dreamer. You are at the same time participating in the dream as an actor of the dream story. Your wife is actually not there, your children are also not there but you see "them" there. Your friend is also actually not there ... but you see him too. You see a snake which actually doesn't exist but it is seen there and it plays its role.

Now, can you tell me :

Who are these characters ? Your wife, your children, your friend, you in the dream as actor & the snake ? You may say that these characters are created by your mind including the story. If you are the creator of the characters & also the writer of the dream story ...

a) Why don't you know the story in advance ?
b) Why do you not know how the characters are going to behave the next moment ?
c) Why you couldn't stop entry of the snake in the dream & how could it act against your wishes ... like biting your friend ?

If you take into account of the complete picture : there is no one there on the scene i.e. no wife, no children, no friend and no snake ... but the dreamer. There can't be two or many separate consciousnesses involved here. There is without any doubt that there is only one consciousness i.e. of the dreamer. It is the dreamer's consciousness which is watching this dream. It is the dreamer's consciousness which is projecting apparently the multiple consciousnesses of himself as the actor in the dream, wife's, the children's, the friend's and the snake's. Though all these apparently different consciousnesses are projected from the Only One consciousness i.e. the dreamer's ... they all behave differently as if there are multiple individual entities. The original consciousness which is the material and the efficient cause of all these different consciousnesses .... doesn't even know which character is going to behave in what manner ! How is this possible ?

The reason is ... it is the peculiar characteristic of the Consciousness ... the mass of consciousness, the Prajnaghana ... from which all beings originate and into which all disappear.

If that is clear to you, you will understand the cause behind all dilemma that bothers you in this context ... you will also find the answer to the questions that you asked in this post and also in the post in your reply to Atanu.

OM

Nara
12 March 2010, 09:11 AM
Dear Antanu, Greetings!


... But are you typing the verses in sanskrit in your posts or you are pasting?

Yes, I am, I don't have access to the original sanskrit texts in unicode that I can just cut and paste.

When copious material is presented it is hard to go through all of it and present a reply that covers all the points. A summary of points will be efficient. We also need to keep "bite-sized" scope, otherwise it becomes too time consuming.

My last word on Br. U., it does not make any sense to elaborate in great detail two aspects, and give many examples, all to just say, sorry, just kidding, all of that is false, only Brahman is satyam.

What follows the description of moortha and amoortha forms is satyasya satyam. Which means, the truth of all these truths, i.e. the essence of all these is Brahman. So, interpreting neti, neti as denial of the two aspects and what follows as affirmation of only Brahman as satyam is indeed an overreach, with due respects to Sankara. I am not the one saying this, Bhagavat Ramanuja says this and that seems more consistent with the Veda vakhyams to me. Satyasa satyam, is the satyam of these satyams is Brahman. So net, neti is not denying the reality of the ubhayalingam, but only denies the limiting of Brahman to one or the other.



Brahman, on the hand, is unchangeable and without beginning free of Guna bondage. Brahman being free of guna bondage is accepted by all vaideekas. There is no difference of opinion here.

However, it is interesting that Advaitins quote BG as a pramana. Who is Krishna teaching BG to? If it is to Arjuna, then, if advaitam is true, Krishna must be deluded, as otherwise Krishna should know Arjuna is just a mirage, just an unreal appearance. How can the pronouncements of one who is deluded be taken seriously as pramana?




This topic is finished here. Whether you agree or not. We will move on.
----------------------------------------

I see that you have not offered your vision of what remains after Neti-Neti. You have not answered why an indivisible Param Atman appears divided in bodies. You have also not answered as to why when in the beginning only an indivisible Atman existed, who as per your understand cannot be the enjoyer, then how the world arose?Well, this is actually something the Advaitins need to answer.

If there is only Brahman and nothing else, why even appear divided in bodies?

Vedas explain creation in great detail, it is advaitins who have the problem of explaining this, why a brahman in a state of complete bliss bother to create the world, which BTW, is not actually real, only an illusion? But then illusion to whom? There is only Brahman, no second, so who it is that the unreal jagat that is being created appearing as real? Quickly we get into knots on top of knots.

Other schools such as Visihtadvaitam, the one I am more familiar with, have explanations that are straight forward and perfectly consistent with the vedas without just rejecting any inconvenient passages wholesale.

The Brahman is not an enjoyer of the effects of three gunas. The effect of the three gunas is always mixed with dhukka, never pure bliss -- this is what Brahman is not afflicted with. Visishtadvaitins believe Brahman enjoys two types of joy, leela rasam and Bhogya rasam, the former with jeevas in bondage, and the later with jeevas in Sri vaikuntam. The whole things is leela for Brahman, so they say.

Do Advaitees believe Brahman is an enjoyer? An enjoyer of what? Would that ten mean there a second and therefore no more Advaitam?

For my own personal world-view please go through my postings in the "Introductions" section. All I am doing here is whether the interpretations offered by Advaitins are reasonable compared to other explanations such as the one offered by Vishistadaitins. I am neither, I am a whatchamacallit, free thinker.

Cheers!

Nara
12 March 2010, 10:02 AM
.... The reason is ... it is the peculiar characteristic of the Consciousness ... the mass of consciousness, the Prajnaghana ... from which all beings originate and into which all disappear.

If that is clear to you, you will understand the cause behind all dilemma that bothers you in this context.


Dear Devotee:

Who is the dreamer here? If the dreamer is brahman, then he is undergoing lots of changes right, jagarada, moorcha, swapana, and shushupti avasthai. This negates Brahman is satyam.

The rope/snake example makes sense only if we accept three entities. For a rope to be mistaken as snake, the knowledge of rope and snake as two real entities must be present, and then there must be the third entity who is looking at the rope and misconstruing it to be snake.

For him to mistake a rope as snake he must have a priori knowledge about snake. Then, with more light when he realizes that it is just rope, that too is predicated on his a priori knowledge of what a rope is. Well, so much for rope/snake analogy.

In any case, dhrushtantam is not pramana.

Cheers!

devotee
12 March 2010, 10:54 AM
Namaste Nara,



Who is the dreamer here? If the dreamer is brahman, then he is undergoing lots of changes right, jagarada, moorcha, swapana, and shushupti avasthai. This negates Brahman is satyam.

The rope/snake example makes sense only if we accept three entities. For a rope to be mistaken as snake, the knowledge of rope and snake as two real entities must be present, and then there must be the third entity who is looking at the rope and misconstruing it to be snake.

For him to mistake a rope as snake he must have a priori knowledge about snake. Then, with more light when he realizes that it is just rope, that too is predicated on his a priori knowledge of what a rope is. Well, so much for rope/snake analogy.

In any case, dhrushtantam is not pramana.


It appears to me that you have decided not to understand & if that is the case I am going to quit. You asked me to show the logical side of the theory we discussed.

Forget about Brahman, forget about Shruti and forget about Pramaana & all. I didn't talk about these at all, in the post which you have answered. It is a daily life example which can show you (if you so desire) that the Consciousness has a unique characteristic of manifesting and behaving as many though essentially being One alone.

If you have any questions to ask on this issue then I would respond ... otherwise please be happy in what you understand correct.

Best wishes & love ...

OM

Nara
12 March 2010, 11:39 AM
....Sankara's theory was scrutinized by a number of great philosophers. Only a handful have managed to undertake the task of refuting a doctrine so difficult to refute, and they were all geniuses in their own right. Assuming someone who was not a genius has criticized his doctrine, who was this layman and what were the errors pointed out?

Dear vivendi,

I am not venturing to criticize Sankara relying just on my intellectual prowess, as large as I may imagine it to be, and as small as it really is and evidently so to many. I am basing my arguments on what little I have read of the Visihtadvaita Siddantam. While the differences are very subtle, these two philosophies give widely different word-views. We can talk about this more if there is interest and patience.

Cheers!

Nara
12 March 2010, 11:54 AM
Dear brother saidevo, greetings!

I have given my responses with regard to Br.U. and neti, neti in my reply to atanu. Hope that would be sufficient.



This is why Shankara says 'Brahma satyam jagan mithyA', the word mithyA--just as the world it describes--comprising all the three aspects of Brahman's manifestion, namely, formed, personified and appearing. Now this can be viewed from three angles:

• From NirguNa Brahman's angle, the world is mithyA--mAyA, illusion.

• From the Advaita Yogin's angle, the world is 'vyAvahArika satyaM' and our existence in the dream state 'prAtibhAsika satyaM'. In his state of turIya, he sees the relative realities of all the first three states, and remains as the satyasta satyam--absolute reality of Brahman.

• From jIva's angle, the world is just satyam--real, until the mAyA of avidyA goes. The moment the avidyA leaves, the jIva gets the realization in a flash of lightning, which is 'Brahma satyam jagan mithyA', which is also the purport of the Rig Veda mantra 'ekam sat'.This is the troublesome part. This is not even consistent with the explanation of neti, neti given. If neti, neti, denies everything except Brahman, where are all these angles coming from?

If jagat is mithya, i.e. unreal, to whom is it showing up as real in an illusory and deceptive way? With neti, neti, to whom is the Shruti saying the two aspects of brahman are unreal?

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. This is the objection non-advaitins raise, for which there is no satisfactory answer from the advaitins.

Cheers!

vivendi
12 March 2010, 12:37 PM
Dear vivendi,

I am not venturing to criticize Sankara relying just on my intellectual prowess, as large as I may imagine it to be, and as small as it really is and evidently so to many. I am basing my arguments on what little I have read of the Visihtadvaita Siddantam. While the differences are very subtle, these two philosophies give widely different word-views. We can talk about this more if there is interest and patience.

Cheers!

Dear Nara, I am interested to study Visishtadvaita's critical analysis. Can you please provide references to the the authors and names of the Visishtadvaita texts from where you are basing your arguments from? Henceforth I would kindly suggest the posters to provide references to the author and work from where they derive their arguments/verses from. This way it will help me study them. thanks.

atanu
13 March 2010, 05:00 AM
Dear Devotee:

Who is the dreamer here? If the dreamer is brahman, then he is undergoing lots of changes right, jagarada, moorcha, swapana, and shushupti avasthai. This negates Brahman is satyam.Cheers!

namaste nara

When you dream do you change? Probably you do. And probably you eat real bread etc. in dream. Many Cheers for your dream breads.

Oh no. Brahman is not the deluded dreamer as you or me are. Brahman is not affected by its states, even if it dwells therein as Jiva. Ice may think that it is different from steam or liquid water. But that which is 'truly the water' knows its three states of Ice, Liquid, Steam and is not deluded. And though habitating in three states, the 'true water (the essence that is water)' does not become ice or steam etc. Neti-Neti is about this discrimination of the everchanging form from the unchangeable partless essence.

During the continuation of dream, the dream objects are very real for you and you cannot ever know in a dream that the horror you are going through or the the girl that you are frolicking with, is just a play of light and shadow. You are simply superimposing your own deficiencies on Brahman. This alone is the ignorance. But Turya-Self, the witness of itself and its three states has no such ignorance. You are imposing your ignorance on Turya.

Kindly read the verses related to how Param Atman roams in three states as the Jiva :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40411&postcount=67

Please do not assume that I have any illusion that you are sincere to accept that your understanding may have kinks. But surely some others may read the thread and the effort is for those sincere readers and seekers (including me) and not for you. I am frank about this.

Brahman is changeless as well as Partless, so internal differences are not allowed, except in the dream Mahat (Mind). Kindly read Shankara's Introduction to Brahma Sutra, posted earlier in this thread. The Brahman and the Internal Organ --the Mind are not same.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40675&postcount=112

Below is the explanation that how the intelligence that is Brahman's is thought to be of Mind; and Mind's worrisome thinking and variabilty are taken as to be of Brahman. I have not seen such clarity of thought and such clear explanation anywhere. Namah.


Thus the producer of the notion of the Ego (i.e. the internal organ) is superimposed on the interior Self, which, in reality, is the witness of all the modifications of the internal organ, and vice versâ the interior Self, which is the witness of everything, is superimposed on the internal organ, the senses, and so on. In this way there goes on this natural beginning--and endless superimposition, which appears in the form of wrong conception, is the cause of individual souls appearing as agents and enjoyers (of the results of their actions), and is observed by every one.

Kindly read the above post, if you are sincerely interested to understand Shankara (of which I have dim hope). But this thread will be useful for others.

Vishistaadvaita comes up with an implication that Brahman has souls and acit matter as body. Souls have karma load and Acit matter is non-intelligent. Where does the karma come from in Brahman? And Brahman by definition is Partless and samAn.

For now, this is a short reply:) , as I am busy for two days. I have not even seen what you have replied to me. But let's hear about your idea of Vishitaadvaita that i feel again will be full of contradictions.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 March 2010, 05:32 AM
Dear Antanu, Greetings!

Yes, I am, I don't have access to the original sanskrit texts in unicode that I can just cut and paste.

Namaste nara

Well that is a poor explanation. Especially when a person cannot properly spell a sanskrit name. But my regards.


My last word on Br. U., it does not make any sense to elaborate in great detail two aspects, and give many examples, all to just say, sorry, just kidding, all of that is false, only Brahman is satyam.

On the contrary, if the aspects are not explained first, then people like you will cling to the aspects, saying "Well, the Upanshad does not teach that the aspects are to be transcended with Neti-Neti".

My last word: Either you think that we are fools or you are really not reading. Who said that Brahman was merely Satyam. Does the Upanishad say so?

Please go back. Brahman-the Atman is described as Satyasa Satyam, whereas the manifestation of life-force (which is called Satyam) of Brahman is the Universe of Name-Form-Karma. Satyam has the 'ti', which is mortal. One must uncover the Satyasa Satyam. It is not a mere intellectual exercise but a path shown to absolute freedom.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 March 2010, 05:52 AM
Dear Devotee:

For him to mistake a rope as snake he must have a priori knowledge about snake. Then, with more light when he realizes that it is just rope, that too is predicated on his a priori knowledge of what a rope is. Well, so much for rope/snake analogy.

In any case, dhrushtantam is not pramana.

Cheers!

But you are taking it as pramana.

Moreover, this objection has already been answered by Shri Shankara in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, which is included in this thread. Kindly read that. Unfortunately, you only know the objection, which are recycled again and again in internet. You have not even read the Bhasya cited in this thread to see that the objection is answered by Shankara.

If you had read the bhasya introduction then these superficial questions would not arise. I am including an additional link again.

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/real/adhyasa.htm


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 March 2010, 06:08 AM
Dear brother saidevo, greetings!

This is the troublesome part. This is not even consistent with the explanation of neti, neti given. If neti, neti, denies everything except Brahman, where are all these angles coming from?

Cheers!

There is a saying that some ask "Whose father is Sita?", after the whole Ramayana is told to them.

Where do the dream cities, horses come in dream when only the dreamer is real?

Om Namah Shivaya

Nara
13 March 2010, 09:05 AM
......Can you please provide references to the the authors and names of the Visishtadvaita texts from where you are basing your arguments from?....

Dear vivendi, there is no single source from which I am basing my arguments. But there are two sources I am primarily relying on here, one for Br. U and one for Srimat BG.

SMS Chari has written several books, one of which is "The Philosophy of the Vedantasutra" published by Munishiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1998. This book deals with the interpretations to Brahmma Sutra by the three major commentators, Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhwa. ISBN 81-215-0809-6.

The second is a three volume commentary of Srimat BG by Thirukkallam Narasimharaghavachar published by a private trust in 1984. This book is in Tamil and covers all three commentaries to BG, by sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhwa. But the primarily focus is Ramanuja Bhashyam. This book is out of print now, but I believe there is an English version of it and may be available at the Sri Nrsimha Priya office located at Desika Bhanavam, Venkatesa Agraharam near Theppakulam of Kapaleeswarar temple in Mylapore, Chennai.

Cheers!

satay
13 March 2010, 09:08 AM
Admin Note

namaste atanu,


(of which I have dim hope). But let's hear about your idea of Vishitaadvaita that i feel again will be full of contradictions.

Om Namah Shivaya

Thanks for the large posts. But is it really necessary to put it in print your internal thoughts about the other member? How does that help the conversation? I haven't seen Nara attacking anyone personally but just focusing on some doubts. I think that we are capable of doing the same in return i.e. focus on the topic instead of the poster.

Please take care of not making personal attacks on the other member just because he doesn't understand your posts or hasn't read all your lengthy posts yet.

Thanks,

Nara
13 March 2010, 10:18 AM
Hello atanu, greetings!

I apologize for misspelling your moniker. Your criticism of my Sanskrit is indeed valid, it is self-taught and therefore quite limited. This is why typing in the verses is all the more laborious for me. I try to do it to be precise in citations, and also it gives me chance to practice :).

atanu, I try to be as sincere as possible to understand advaitam, but, whenever I try to understand how a unitary all knowing Brahman without form, qualities, or attributes of any kind and without a second of any kind, gets into the states you describe and creates a world that is unreal and reflects himself as jivas who in-turn superimpose the unreal world on the brahman -- it all gets knotted up in self contradictions. The task of appreciating Advaitam gets even harder for me when I am presented an alternative explanation to the Veda Vakhyas that is straight forward, and free of internal contradictions. Not that I accept this alternative vision, but at least I can understand it.

My inability to understand Advaitam is not due to lack of trying. You might say I am not bright enough to understand Advaitam, and I will be the first one admit it. However, I rest in the comforting fact that men of much greater intellect have also found themselves in the same predicament.


Now, on to some quick clarifications and comments.


When you dream do you change? Probably you do. And probably you eat real bread etc. in dream. Many Cheers for your dream breads.

:) You know atanu, I have strange dreams, like I am back in India and did not return to my job in time and I got fired. I get this dream a lot and I used to think the next time I dream this way, I will try to remind myself that it is just a dream. So, these days, when I get this same dream, I remind myself, in my dream, that it is only a dream, but the dreaming me thinks, just pinch yourself, if you are dreaming you should wake up, and I pinch myself in my dream and I am still having the dream and so panic, this time the dream is really true. It is so weird.

But, you see atanu, the dream was still real, I had a real dream, not a fake or unreal dream. Also, I dreampt of things different from me, here is where Advaitam falls to pieces. According to Advaitam, Brahman Satyam, Jagat mithyam, here mityam is not just temporary or changing, but unreal, non-existent. So, if Brahman was having a dream, he is having a dream about something, and that something is a second, no more advaitam!!

Finally, when we dream, we do undergo change, the change happens in the brain, our consciousness goes into various stages of cognition, with just no cognition at all during the deep sleep stage. So, Nirguna Brahman having a dream by itself make him asatyam, so contrary to the Vedas.



During the continuation of dream, the dream objects are very real for you and you cannot ever know in a dream....I know, just see above. But that is precisely why Advaitam cannot be supported. You cannot deny that the dream itself is false. The dream is true, I did have those dreams, and underwent all those changes in brain activities, having had a dream is very real.



Kindly read the verses related to how Param Atman roams in three states as the Jiva :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40411&postcount=67

Please do not assume that I have any illusion that you are sincere to accept that your understanding may have kinks. But surely some others may read the thread and the effort is for those sincere readers and seekers (including me) and not for you. I am frank about this.:) atanu, I read through these posts when Saidevo invited me here. I find no answers to the very basic of questions -- why is the pure, blissful, and advaitic Brahman, having these different states.

atanu, I am not sure what your position is. From your citations of Sankara Bhashyam I assumed you subscribe to Advaitam as propounded by Sankara, but your arguments have a large dose of inseparable duality of Visihtadvaitam.



Vishistaadvaita comes up with an implication that Brahman has souls and acit matter as body. Souls have karma load and Acit matter is non-intelligent. Where does the karma come from in Brahman? And Brahman by definition is Partless and samAn.I see a separate section for Visihtadvaitam. Perhaps we can discuss it there. You can pose some questions and I can give answers based on my understanding.


... But let's hear about your idea of Vishitaadvaita that i feel again will be full of contradictions.:) if this is so you will get an opportunity to expose me, won't you? :)

best regards atanu, I will wait for your response.

Nara
13 March 2010, 10:39 AM
Dear atanu,

My question about rope/snake analogy is as follows:

For one to mistake a rope as snake there must be three entities, (i) rope, (ii) snake, and (iii) an entity with ability to perceive (i) and (ii) and the intellect to distinguish between a rope and a snake, rightly or wrongly. For this analogy to work we need three things, each with its own characteristics to be able to distinguish. There goes advaitam in all counts.

When this entity, who is in possession of the attribute with which he can perceive and discriminate, looks at a rope, erroneously perceives it as snake. This requires the perceiving entity to have a priori knowledge about the characteristics and attributes of a snake, and the characteristics and attributes of a rope. Without this knowledge, there is no way the perceiving entity can come to any conclusion, right or wrong.

So, how can the purport of this analogy be that only rope is real and the snake and the entity perceiving the rope as snake are unreal? Or, how can the purport be that the entity is real, but both rope and snake are unreal?

If your argument is that Brahman is getting projected as all three, then how come an all knowing Brahman unable to realize that and mistakes an unreal rope to be an unreal snake?
atanu, may I request you to answer this question directly in your own words, perhaps paraphrasing some source materials, without directing me to volumes and volumes of other material? I promise you, I will sincerely give it a shot to understand :)

Cheers!

Nara
13 March 2010, 11:38 AM
Dear atanu,


....On the contrary, if the aspects are not explained first, then people like you will cling to the aspects, saying "Well, the Upanshad does not teach that the aspects are to be transcended with Neti-Neti".



To me, this is self contradictory. You said neti neti denies the very reality of the aforementioned uphyalingathvam. So why elaborate them just for the sake of overcoming something that is unreal in the first place. Veda purusha might as well have said the only satyam is Brahman. Why give long and varied descriptions, give many examples, and then say they all are unreal, but you must still overcome them to see the only satyam, that is just you yourself.

If on the other hand these aforementioned are real obstacles to be overcome, then neti neti is not denying their very reality.



My last word: Either you think that we are fools or you are really not reading.Dear atanu, you are now putting thoughts into my mind :), please don't get exasperated with me, I am just posing some questions for I am unable to find satisfactory answers. Perhaps I am a dunce, but leave me aside, many with great intellectual capabilities have also found the explanations wanting.



Who said that Brahman was merely Satyam. Does the Upanishad say so?

Please go back. Brahman-the Atman is described as Satyasa Satyam, whereas the manifestation of life-force (which is called Satyam) of Brahman is the Universe of Name-Form-Karma.
Then do you agree jagat is also satyam, and Brahman is satyasa satyam? If so, you are not an advaitin and we do not have any arguments.

Cheers!

vivendi
13 March 2010, 07:29 PM
Dear vivendi, there is no single source from which I am basing my arguments. But there are two sources I am primarily relying on here, one for Br. U and one for Srimat BG.
Dear Nara, everyone refer to the source texts such as Br. U and one for Srimat BG. But you said you were not venturing to criticize Sankara relying just on your reading of these texts, but basing your arguments on what you read of the Visihtadvaita Siddantam. It is easy for anyone to google stuff and pose arguments without references. I am not saying you are doing that. I only want to refer the same as you do and get some insight.

Unless I am mistaken, some of the arguments you posed so far are seldom coming from Visishtadvaita siddhantam. For e.g. the rope-snake analogy. Ramanuja and his commentators have not dealt it with this detail. All Ramanuja says is that the result of the illusion is due to a dosha. We imagine a snake. In the same way we imagine this world. He says the illusion is also real unlike Advaita. That apart, he has not dissected the analogy like you did. I will be glad if you correct me with proper references.


SMS Chari has written several books, one of which is "The Philosophy of the Vedantasutra".... You listed all the books. But that is not what I requested of you. Fine, please denote SMS Chari or Thirukallam Narasimharaghavachar's book when you borrow an argument from their works.

kd gupta
13 March 2010, 11:15 PM
Dear Nara
You are again confusing yourself .You quoted…..
Then do you agree jagat is also satyam, and Brahman is satyasa satyam? If so, you are not an advaitin and we do not have any arguments.
Do you know what is satyasa satyam ? It means , that Satya which is satya of satya , So it clearly means the Jagat as not the absolute satya and only the Brahman as absolute Satya , hence Advaita .
Thanks

devotee
14 March 2010, 06:48 AM
Namaste Nara,


I try to be as sincere as possible to understand advaitam, but, whenever I try to understand how a unitary all knowing Brahman without form, qualities, or attributes of any kind and without a second of any kind, gets into the states you describe and creates a world that is unreal and reflects himself as jivas who in-turn superimpose the unreal world on the brahman -- it all gets knotted up in self contradictions. The task of appreciating Advaitam gets even harder for me when I am presented an alternative explanation to the Veda Vakhyas that is straight forward, and free of internal contradictions. Not that I accept this alternative vision, but at least I can understand it.

The problem with you, unfortunately, is two fold :

a) You don't understand Advaita
b) You don't want to understand Advaita

Am I biased when I say that ? Please rest assured, I am not. I say this with full love an compassion for you. You claim that you understand Sanskrit (Self Taught) & yet by reading Upanishads you don't find Advaita's support in them ! Shankara or otherwise ... Advaita echoes aloud without any ambiguity from the Upanishads. There are many Upanishads ... but even if you read only Maandukya Upanishad ... it can clarify all your doubts. Even if you read Bhagwad Gita, you will find that this Truth alone can explain the whole of Bhagwad Gita & none else (Important chapters are : 2 & 13). There are many verses given in this thread here itself ... but did you care to read and understand them ? No. Why Prof Nara ?

Dear Prof Nara, Adavaita was never easy to understand. More than 90 % Hindus don't understand Advaita. So, there is no surprise if you don't understand. Some don't understand because they lack in required intelligence to understand. However, by reading your posts, I am sure, you have required intelligence to understand it ... but perhaps, no desire. I am sorry to say that it appears to me that you are like a cup which is already full of your own ideas ... there is no scope for anything extra to be poured in.

I will tell you some examples from the discussion going on here ... may be it can tell you where the problem lies :

i) You asserted that Shankara said, "Saguna Brahman doesn't exist". You quoted a verse to support your idea which doesn't say it at all ! You didn't come back to support this claim with some more proof .... but still you say that Shankara said it ! Why ?

ii) When I tried to explain it to you what Shankara meant by mithya & how mithya doesn't mean "non-existent" ... and that Shankara's assertion that the Nirguna Brahman alone is the Truth of Truth and that alone is to be known .... it is supported by Maandukya Upanishad .... even then you didn't accept that. Can you tell me one thing ? The whole of Maandukya Upanishad deals with what Self/Brahman/Reality is. It says that the Reality existence is in four different states. However while describing the first three states it never says two things :

a) that it is Self (though in the begining itself it deaclres that there just Self/Brahman alone)
b) that it has to be known

But it specifically says so while describing the fourth. Why ? What was the need to especially say that "It is Self & it is to be known" for the fourth (Nirguna Brahman) when the first three states too are Self alone ... why this Upanishad doesn't say this same thing while describing the Saguna Brahman i.e. the third state of Self ? Why this special treatment to the fourth when all whatever is, was & will be is Brahman/Self alone ?

iii) In my post, I was adequately able to show you the support for Shankara's assertion that "Nirguna Brahman alone is the Truth of Truth ... the essence of essence" ... but you still didn't agree. You are saying that it is self contradictory. Why is it self contradictory ? Why don't you explain ? Then you say that it is not logical ! First you say that there is no Shruti support ... & when Shruti spport is given , you say that it is not logical ! If you were really honest .. you would have at least recognised first that your assertion that Advaita has no Shruti support was wrong & then raised your next objection that it was not logical. But you didn't do that. Why ? Are you really trying to understand ?

iv) To explain the logical side of the philosophy, I gave you an example of a dreaming person. I just asked you to analyse that scenario. I didn't say that the Brahman was dreaming etc.. Then where from you got this idea that I was trying to say in that particular example, "Brahman was dreaming" ?, if you are really reading the posts carefully ??

Again, how did you assert that "Drishtantam is not accepted as Pramaana" ? Is it applicable in all types of Drishtaantams ? This statement would have been valid if I would have given you an example of Snake & Rope illusion or Brahman's dreaming example or sea-wave example etc. which are hypothetical examples to explain the reality ... then you could have said that Drishtantam is not acceptable because though it is happening in one case it is not necessary that it will happen in other case too .... like if I say that in Atanu's case it like that & so it will apply to you also ... this is certainly not acceptable. But my example of the dream is not like this. It is the example of how consciousness behaves. How can the example of behaviour of consciousness won't apply to consciousness itself ? This is Prataykhsa Pramaana & you dismissed it as Drishtantam & not applicable ? Why Prof Nara ??

I can assure you Prof Nara that I can give all answers to you whatever you have raised so far in this forum & in Tamilbrahmin's forum. But for that you will have to be ready to receive new ideas ... there is more to the Truth than what you know .... Advaita can be proved even without scriptural support, if you simply carefully observe this creation.

Tell me, Prof Nara, who can believe when you say that "you are trying to understand" ? You didn't even devote 5 minutes to that post !

But perhaps, you will never like to contemplate all this. Because this is a new idea for you & there is no space in the cup to accommodate this idea.


My inability to understand Advaitam is not due to lack of trying. You might say I am not bright enough to understand Advaitam, and I will be the first one admit it. However, I rest in the comforting fact that men of much greater intellect have also found themselves in the same predicament.

Sorry, I don't agree, Prof Nara. Anyone after reading your posts can say that you are intelligent. It would be wrong to say that you are trying to understand Advaita ... actually, you are trying hard not to understand Advaita. This philosophy is otherwise too difficult to understand & if one doesn't want to understand ... it certainly becomes an impossible task.


But, you see atanu, the dream was still real, I had a real dream, not a fake or unreal dream. Also, I dreampt of things different from me, here is where Advaitam falls to pieces. According to Advaitam, Brahman Satyam, Jagat mithyam, here mityam is not just temporary or changing, but unreal, non-existent. So, if Brahman was having a dream, he is having a dream about something, and that something is a second, no more advaitam!!

Here you are taking out a meaning of Mithya which is not intended by Advaita. Please read Shankara's examples given by him in "Aparokshanubhuti". Mithya and unreal don't mean non-existent in Advaita's context. Jagat is mithya & I can prove even without scriptures ... if only you are ready to listen to me.


Nirguna Brahman having a dream by itself make him asatyam, so contrary to the Vedas.

Weird logic ! How did you arrive at this conclusion ? What are dreaming state and waking state ... described in Maandukya Upanishad ? Can you explain ?? What does "dream" mean when this term is used to explain this philosophy ? Dream is a state when the reality is wrongly perceived.


But that is precisely why Advaitam cannot be supported. You cannot deny that the dream itself is false. The dream is true, I did have those dreams, and underwent all those changes in brain activities, having had a dream is very real.

Did you contemplate on what Atanu told you ? My dear friend, dream is false ... this statement can be given only from waking state & not from dreaming state. Do you assert in a dream that the dream is false ? If you take waking state as real ... dream is false ... but is dream false within dreaming state ? i.e. can you satisfy your dream hunger by eating real food ?


atanu, I read through these posts when Saidevo invited me here. I find no answers to the very basic of questions -- why is the pure, blissful, and advaitic Brahman, having these different states.

As I told you, I can give answers to all your questions but you should first be ready to listen to that. Just to give you a hint ... is it necessary that every phenomena must have a answer to "why" ? Why are there colours in white light ?

You can find great satisfaction feeling that you proved yourself a person who made all Advaitins on this forum fail to convince you on Advaita ..... but you are missing something much bigger. I am saying this with all compassion and love (& I mean it) ... believe me ... because I am sure you can understand it if you try to.

Please don't take this post otherwise. Believe me, I just wanted to tell the Truth to you ... it may not be palatable to you ... but I do this hateful task ... as someone must tell you the truth without any distortion. Please consider me your friend ... as I consider you.

Best wishes and love ...

OM

MahaHrada
14 March 2010, 07:05 AM
Namaste Nara,



The problem with you, unfortunately, is two fold :

a) You don't understand Advaita



It seems to me the oppositte is true, it is atanu and you that fail to properly understand even the basic premises of Kevaladvaita especially the implications of vivartavada against those of parinamavada. You are mixing up all kind of different vedantic approaches that are alien to Shankara Sampradaya with maxims of Kevaladvaita so each of you are defending your own modern brand of advaita that has very little in common with Shankaracharyas ideas.
Thats why a serious discussion is not possible unless the defenders of advaita try to get a grasp of the differences between Parinamavada and Vivartavada as i wrote already many times.
In Kevaladvaita ultimately there is no limited individual cogniser nor an object of cognition that is real, so there cannot be any erroneous cognition, both cognition and cogniser and their means of cognition itself are the Illusion that is to be overcome.
This is a proposition that leads to many logical flaws as Nara has already pointed out before, but unless atanu and you understand kevaladvaitas viewpoint on reality versus illusion properly, against the viewpoints of other vedantic darshanas , any discussion is futile.

MahaHrada
14 March 2010, 07:45 AM
Dear Mahahrada,

Just by using terms as "this vaad" and "that vaad" and some sanskrit terms ... the post doesn't become valuable. You should quote scriptures, Shankara and give your opinion ... this discussion expects it and not just generalised unfounded statements.

What you say is all too much of generalised statements without any proof.

OM

The differences of your and atanus approach to that of Kevaladvaita has already been ponted out by me in several postings and diverse threads and also by Nara. Please simply reflect on what was already posted. The jiva, the limited knower as well as the objects of knowledge and the means of knowing are illusive in Kevaladvaita, this alone is incompatible with several of your ideas referring to cognitive errors. Maya is not a cognitive error in Kevaladvaita. Nirguna Brahman cannot be cognised.
All this has been already written several times by me as well as Nara, if you do not grasp this what can we do? Adding large chunks of quotes has been so far only a digression from the simple question whether there is a definite shastra pramana for the viewpoint of Shankaracharyas Sampradaya that jagat is mithya and only Nirguna Brahman ultimately real.

Which is a minority view by the way, all other Siddhantas disagree with Kevaladvaita, and all these thousands of other sadhus, sages, yogis and rishis certainly have their valid reason why they disagree so please be more respectful towards other opinions.

Nara
14 March 2010, 09:22 AM
... It means , that Satya which is satya of satya , So it clearly means the Jagat as not the absolute satya and only the Brahman as absolute Satya , hence Advaita .

Dear kd_gupta, this is an interesting way to defend advaitam, you state the perfect argument against advaitam, and just declare, "hence advaitam", very interesting indeed.

I am slowly beginning to understand that each defender of advaitam here has his/her own vision of what it is, and harbors absolute confidence that, that vision is Sankara's advaitam.

Alright, have it your way dear kd_gupta, best wishes....

saidevo
14 March 2010, 09:44 AM
namaste Nara.

You said (post 188):
I have no argument to offer if you think Sankara's Advaitam holds Saguna Brahman to be as real as Nirguna brahman. But your own arguments belie this. You say Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brhman because of maya. Then Saguna Brahman is just erroneous perception, isn't?

But more serious than this is, who is perceiving this Nirguna Brahman through maya as a Saguna Brahman? If there is only Brahman and no other, who is mistaking Nirguna Brahman to be Saguna Brahman

*****

Earlier you said (post 177):
01. Dear Devotee, my understanding of Advaita is only Brahman is satyam, everything else is mityam. Sankara's exegesis of the Ubhayalinga adhikarana of Brhmma Sutra clealry rejects savishesha linga. He points to the untenable position of Brahman having two opposite modes, one nirvikalpa nirvishesha, and the other savishesha. Sankara comes down on the side of nirvikalpa, nirvishesha.

(samasta visesha rahitam nirvikalpakam eva brahma....)

For him, the savisesha brahman does not exit in reality, it is just an appearance colored by maya. It is this part that is an overreach.

*****

My reply:

Brahma SUtra 3.2.11 says:
na sthAnato api parasya ubhalingaM sarvatra hi |

Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere (scripture teaches It to be without any difference).--SvAmi SivAnanda

The main assertions by Shankara in his bhAShya for this verse are (Translation from SivAnanda, George Thibaut):

01. In the scriptures we find two kinds of description about Brahman. Some texts de scribe it as qualified, i.e., with at tributes and some as unqualified (without attributes). "From whom all activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed" (Chh.Up.III.14.2). This text speaks of attributes.

02. Again, "It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither redness nor viscid" etc. (Bri.Up.III.8.8). This text speaks of Brahman without attributes.

03. Are we to assume that both are true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with limiting adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as true and the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?

04. The pUrvapakshin maintains that, in conformity with the scriptural passages which indicate a double nature, a double nature is to be ascribed to Brahman.

To this we reply as follows.--At any rate the highest Brahman cannot, by itself, possess double characteristics; for on account of the contradiction implied therein, it is impossible to admit that one and the same thing should by itself possess certain qualities, such as colour, &c.. and should not possess them.--Nor is it possible that Brahman should possess double characteristics 'on account of place,' i.e. on account of its conjunction with its limiting adjuncts, such as earth, &c.

For the connexion with limiting adjuncts is unavailing to impart to a thing of a certain nature an altogether different nature. ... eg crystal appearing colored by a red flower placed near it. In the case of Brahman the limiting adjuncts are, moreover, presented by Nescience merely.

05. Hence (as the upAdhis are the product of Nescience) if we embrace either of the two alternatives, we must decide in favour of that according to which Brahman is absolutely devoid of all difference, not in favour of the opposite one. For all passages whose aim it is to represent the nature of Brahman (such as, 'It is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay,' Ka. Up. I, 3, 15) teach that it is free from all difference.

06. Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature.

*****

My question is:
If it can be said as per assertion 04 and 05 above, that Shankara recognizes only one Brahman and rejects the other as simply the coloring of mAyA,

why should Shankara say what he does in his assertion 06 above, "upAsta samasta visheShameva brahma upAdhishyate"--"Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship"?

The only impartial conclusion we may reach from this and other interpretations of the nature of Brahma in the Shruti is that:

• There is no doubt that Shruti says that there is only one Brahman which is nirguNa.

• Shruti also speaks about a formed version of the one and only nirguNa brahman, but wherever it does so, it also asserts of Brahman's ekam sat nature in the same book.

• Shankara only tries to reconcile these two views of the One NirguNa Brahman by presenting a picture of only virtual reality for the SaguNa Brahman and the jagat--world, as they appear to the jIvas of the world, because it is a mithyA--error, illusion on their part, which is caused by avidhyA, which in turn is only due to the influence of mAyA.

I wonder in what way this view of Shankara is contrary to the concept of kevala advaita: it is the Shruti that says that Brahman is One, and its nature is NirguNa comprised of sat-chit-Ananda. When the same Shruti also speaks of a SaguNa Brahman as a form of this NirguNa Brahman, and exhort the jIvas to do upAsana--worship of, and dhyAna--meditation on, this SaguNa Brahman in order to ultimately realize the NirguNa Brahman as the Atman--Self in them, why should such questions as posed by Nara in post 188 arise only with reference to Shankara?

"But more serious than this is, who is perceiving this Nirguna Brahman through maya as a Saguna Brahman? If there is only Brahman and no other, who is mistaking Nirguna Brahman to be Saguna Brahman?"

If this question arises with reference to Shankara's Kevala Advaita, which is actually PUrNa Advaita (as KAnchi ParamAchArya has pointed out in his exposition on Shankara's life), why should not Nara ask this question with reference to the Shruti also? If he does, then it would mean that he disapproves Shruti too on account of this ambiguity. And in that case, there would arise the biggest question as to what does Nara seek to learn from the Shruti's concepts of Brahman and Jagat as interpreted by Hindu AchAryas, when he is not prepared to go beyond the physical reality of Science.

That said, Nara's question as to 'who is perceiving the One Brahman as many and why, if there is only one Brahman', is a valid question that every sAdhaka must seek answer to. But then that answer can be possible to Science only when it establishes the unity of the Many in the diverse universe with the One (rather than Zero) as its origin, and establish the nature of this One.

Some interesting links about researches this field:

Holistic Quantum Relativity Project
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/03/holistic_quantu_5.html

HQR: The E8 String Theory and SahasrAra chakra
http://groups.google.com/group/holistic-quantum-relativity-hqr/web/hqr-30-e8-string-theory-sahasrara-spirituality?hl=en&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/holistic-quantum-relativity-hqr/web/holistic-quantum-relativity-06?hl=en
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week95.html

Quantum entanglement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

and the several links this search text brings up in google search.

Nara
14 March 2010, 10:54 AM
Dear devotee, Greetings!

It seems you want me to accept whatever answer you present, or else, I don't want to understand, I have no desire to understand, I don't care to read, I am a cup already full, I don't devote sufficient time, etc., etc.

First, ad hominems are not valid arguments. Let me also assure you that in the last few days I have spent enormous amount of time researching and presenting arguments in as cogent a fashion as I can. I fail to understand why people are getting exasperated. Do you just want me to accept something just because you found it reasonable? Disagreements are not ipso facto disagreeable. We can still have a lively argument and be better off for it.

I would like to gently suggest this to you and MahaHrada, let us have fun arguing, we don't have to prove we are right and the other side is wrong. When we come to an impasse, let us just say, we agree to disagree and move on, all smiles please http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon10.gif (too cheesy? :))

Alright, now to some serious points....





i) You asserted that Shankara said, "Saguna Brahman doesn't exist".

Here is a site http://www.advaita.info/ that summarizes the tenets of Sankara's advaitam succinctly. The summary starts with:
Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.
As the site proceeds with further points of summary, contradictions are piled on top of contradictions that I have been presenting here. Be that as it may, if you think Advaitam does not hold Saguna Brahman and Jagat to be unreal, then you are talking about apradak siddi of Visishtadvaitam, you are no longer an advaitin.



... I tried to explain it to you what Shankara meant by mithya & how mithya doesn't mean "non-existent" Alright, I accept that to you, Sankara's mithya is not "non-existent", then we have no argument. But unfortunately, it is the traditional/orthodox Advaitins who will disagree with you.

Yes, Mandukya U talks about four states, but it can't be about a Brahman who is satyasya satyam who is entering these four states. If so, Brahman cannot be satyam (immutable), let alone satyasya satyam.

ayam atma brahma describes the inseparable duality of jiva and Brahman who totally pervades, supports, and the master of the Jiva and everything else as well, so sarvam khalvidam brahma. Then, there is no contradiction. The jiva goes through these four states and brahman is only a witness.

You know dear devotee, lot of people want to tell me the truth and demand that I accept it. My wife is one, she seems to have the truth on her side all the time :), and I accept that with pleasure even though she does not demand it.

Cheers!

devotee
14 March 2010, 11:25 AM
Namaste Nara,

If you re-read my post, you would perhaps notice that I don't want you to accept whatever I say & I am not here for winning or losing. You are our guest & you have come here for a discussion on an important subject ... but I must point out the vital points which can save this thread from going directionless.

I asked you to show any one sentence, any one verse where Shankara said that, "Saguna Brahman doesn't exist". Why are you not able to show ? If Shankara really believed that Saguna Brahman didn't exist then :

a) He must have said it somewhere without mincing words.
b) He would not have worshiped Saguna Brahman and written Bhaj Govindam and a number of such bhajans.

But you know that neither of the above is true. Why neither of the above is true, if what you say is correct ? Still you want to insist that what you say is right ?


OM

harekrishna
14 March 2010, 11:41 AM
Alright, I accept that to you, Sankara's mithya is not "non-existent", then we have no argument. But unfortunately, it is the traditional/orthodox Advaitins who will disagree with you.



Dear Nara,
I have not had time to watch this whole post, however just want to make this comment here. Over the years, I have learnt that it is better to just read the original instead of relying on interpreted information. So, in my free time, I am just pursuing some studies of Viveka-Chudamani. Overall, there are approximately 76 chapters on it, the great Shankara spends more than 50 chapters on Jagat and its various forms. If it were non-existent, how can you describe it ;) Martian animals are non-existent, so i can imagine it but cant describe it. Shankara spends a lot of energy describing this world, its inner workings, its relationships, the various levels of existence. How could he if it did not exist. I hope it is not one of his imaginations. Here is a rough translation of one of the verses -
By knowing the real knowledge of snake as a rope, and hence, generated ingnorance etc from there vanishes away.
I believe that many Sanskrit words when translated into English, lose their original meanings. Many times, they convey a wrong image. He does say, world is mithya, meaning false (not non-existent).

Other problem that seems to causing a lot of confusion is the "frame of reference". From the frame of reference an ordinary layman - this world is all there exists, and that is fine. That person is advised to improve on that aspect of duality, which decreases mental disturbances (Klesha). A more spiritually evolved person (who is beyond the effects of duality) there still exists a notion of latent impressions in the mind. There is still duality. It is only a few such as Shankara who are able to go beyond it, and see that even this existence is "Mithya". Actually, it is Brahma alone that exists (Or does not exist!). Because, actually this cannot be explained.

Well, this is my current view.. I am a mundane guy just making a living for now.

HariH Om!
Hare Krishna

Nara
14 March 2010, 12:26 PM
Dear devotee:



.... show any one sentence, any one verse where Shankara said that, "Saguna Brahman doesn't exist".


I have always taken the word of the orthodox advaitns, you know the ones who are keepers of Sankara tradition like Sankara Matam in either Sringeri or Kanchi. They are the ones who claim saguna brahman is just a reflection caused by avidya. You have to really ask this question to those orthodox advaitins. If you think Sankara says Saguna Brahman real, and that is advaitam, then all I can say is you have a serious argument with the orthodox advaitins.

Anyway, let me cite just one sentence that SMS Chari cites in his book "The Philosophy of the Vedantasutra", from Sankara Bashaya of Brahma Sutra, verse III.2.22, in which Sankara says, everything other than Brahman, is kalpitam.
तत्र कल्पित रूप प्रत्याक्यानेन ब्र्ह्मणः स्वरूप अवेदनं इदमति निर्णियते ।
तदास्पदं हि इदं समस्तं कर्यं नेति नेति परतिसिद्धम् ॥

tatra kalpita roopa pratyaakyaanena brahmanah svaroopa avedanam idamiti nirNiyate|
tadaaspadam hi idam samastam karyam neti neti paratisiddham||


Why are you not able to show ? If Shankara really believed that Saguna Brahman didn't exist then :

a) He must have said it somewhere without mincing words.
b) He would not have worshiped Saguna Brahman and written Bhaj Govindam and a number of such bhajans.Good questions, but it is not for me to answer them, you need to take this up with "orthodox" advaitins.


Still you want to insist that what you say is right ?I am not insisting I am right, just that there are unexplained inconsistencies in advaitam.

Cheers!

Nara
14 March 2010, 01:57 PM
Dear Saidevo, greetings,


06. Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature.


Good summary of Sankara's interpretation of Moortha-Amoortha Brahmana of Br. U. Dear devotee, note this, Sankara says Brahman with attributes is not its real nature.

Saidevo, this is what I have been saying. Sankara says the real purport of this Brahmana, that goes at length to describe the two aspects, is finally to deny them both, and atanu says the reason the two aspects are described is for the jivs, who are in reality supposed to be non-different from Brahman for adviatam, to transcend them. This, I submit, lacks cogency.

A better and more direct interpretation is given by Ramanuja who says neti neti only denies limits on Brahman that seem to be placed by the preceding parts of brahmana. This is further emphasized with the phrase, "satyasa satyam" reality of realities.


Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship"?Which sankara says is kalpita roopam...., not really real,


.....The only impartial conclusion...:) nicely done .... your conclusion is impartial!!!


... Shankara only tries to reconcile these two views of the One NirguNa Brahman by presenting a picture of only virtual reality for the SaguNa Brahman and the jagat--world, as they appear to the jIvas of the world, because it is a mithyA--error, illusion on their part, which is caused by avidhyA, which in turn is only due to the influence of mAyA.I don't know what your personal view of Jiva is, but what I hear from Advaitins is that jIvas of the word are in fact not a plural, a singular, and is non-different from Brahman.

Then, you also say, Saguna brahman is an error, an illusion caused by avidya that results from maya. Well then, who makes this error, Brahman? What? Brahman makes an error? See we get all knotted up. This is what I said in post #188, for which nobody has any answer so far.

So, Sankara's way of reconciling leads into internal contradictions like the above. He may have had important reasons for doing this, some suggest his main objective was to woo soonyavadi Buddists and for that he accommodate part of their illusion doctrine and asserted unreality of jagat, but at the same time retained a Saguna Brahman to not lose the essence of Vedas altogether. I am not saying this is the case, as this may be offensive to some. All I can say is, I don't know what the motivation of Sankara was.

There are other views than that of Sankara, which may not appear to be impartial to you, but are more direct and free of internal contradictions like the jIva you refer to above.


If this question arises with reference to Shankara's Kevala Advaita, which is actually PUrNa Advaita (as KAnchi ParamAchArya has pointed out in his exposition on Shankara's life), why should not Nara ask this question with reference to the Shruti also? If he does, then it would mean that he disapproves Shruti too on account of this ambiguity. And in that case, there would arise the biggest question as to what does Nara seek to learn from the Shruti's concepts of Brahman and Jagat as interpreted by Hindu AchAryas, when he is not prepared to go beyond the physical reality of Science.The question is not whether I agree, the question is whether Shruti agrees with Advaitic interpretation. If we accept Advaitic interpretation, we end up with the awkward situation you have cited, "why should not Nara ask this question with reference to the Shruti also?".

Ramanuja offers an alternative vision that does not negate Saguna Brahman, or the individuality of jeeva, or the acetana. In this vision, there are no internal contradictions. At the very least, Ramanuja's vision avoids the untenable situation of having to deny even the very reality of Vedas, that Advaitam does not.

It is not what I think that matters, what matters is what Shruti thinks of Advaitam. From all we have discussed so far, if Advaitam is the true interpretation of the Vedas, then Vedas are a result of erroneous perception caused by avidya resulting from maya.


Some interesting links about researches this field:Ha! now you want to cite scientific pramana :).

But science is about jagat, which, according to Advaitam is mitya, an erroneous perception caused by avidya resulting from maya. Then, how can knowledge about this erroneous perception lead to true knowledge?

Sorry Saidevo, advaitam will tie you up in knots over knots....

cheers!

Ekanta
14 March 2010, 06:28 PM
Hello... Have you guys thought about this:

Sat: is Nirguna Brahman
Mithya: is sat + asat (permanent + changing) = Saguna Brahman
Asat: Asat alone can not exist, just like pictures without a screen can not exist.

So in any situation there is always sat/nirguna.
Without sat/nirguna there is no saguna/mithya.
And in NO SITUATION is there asat only.

devotee
14 March 2010, 07:14 PM
Namaste Nara,



I have always taken the word of the orthodox advaitns, you know the ones who are keepers of Sankara tradition like Sankara Matam in either Sringeri or Kanchi. They are the ones who claim saguna brahman is just a reflection caused by avidya. You have to re initially ask this question to those orthodox advaitins. If you think Sankara says Saguna Brhahman real, and that is advaitam, then all I can say is you have a serious argument with the orthodox advaitins.

If you are thinking that whatever I am writing s not from so-called orthodox Advaitins, you are seriously mistaken. Whatever I have written here is based on teachings of well known Teachers of Advaita from Giri and Puri orders of Shankara. My Guru is from Giri order of Shankara.

Moreover, words used by one scholar may differ from other to explain things. We are discussing Shankara here. So, why not limit ourselves to Shankara alone ? BTW, now that you have failed to produce even a shred of evidence to support your assertion, it would be interesting to learn from you if you can quote so-called orthodox Advaitins who said that Saguna Brahman is non-existent. Please quote them with their credentials.


Anyway, let me cite just one sentence that SMS Chari cites in his book "The Philosophy of the Vedantasutra", from Sankara Bashaya of Brahma Sutra, verse III.2.22, in which Sankara says, everything other than Brahman, is kalpitam.[INDENT] [COLOR=Blue][I]तत्र कल्पित रूप प्रत्याक्यानेन ब्र्ह्मणः स्वरूप अवेदनं इदमति निर्णियते ।
तदास्पदं हि इदं समस्तं कर्यं नेति नेति परतिसिद्धम् ॥
tatra kalpita roopa pratyaakyaanena brahmanah svaroopa avedanam idamiti nirNiyate|
tadaaspadam hi idam samastam karyam neti neti paratisiddham||

Can you show me where it says that Saguna Brahman is non-existent ? What is the meaning of Kalpitam ? Kalpit is not a word for non-existent in Sanskrit. It has its root in kalpana means creation but mostly used for mental creations.

Kalpit = creation (in mind) … this word has been used many times in Vivekachudamani too, to show superimposition of forms and names on the reality I.e. Brahman. But it doesn’t deny the existence of even the substratum ! The name & form of the Saguna Brahman is Kalpita on the Nirguna Brahman within mental realm … that is what I am saying again and again.

What new thing did you add by quoting the above verse from Shankara ? It doesn’t support your non-existent theory.


Good questions, but it is not for me to answer them, you need to take this up with "orthodox" advaitins.
I am discussing Shankara’s philosophy with you here & you asking me to seek answers from some one else ? Why are you not able to answer these questions ? If the questions are good and valid … why you have no answer to those questions ?


I am not insisting I am right, just that there are unexplained inconsistencies in advaitam.

That is what you think but that is not true. It is not necessary that whatever you think should be the Truth. I have asked you two questions & if you are able to answer those questions, I would agree that there are inconsistencies in Adavaita theory propounded by Shankara. Please concentrate on answering those two questions.

OM

devotee
14 March 2010, 07:20 PM
Hello... Have you guys thought about this:

Sat: is Nirguna Brahman
Mithya: is sat + asat (permanent + changing) = Saguna Brahman
Asat: Asat alone can not exist, just like pictures without a screen can not exist.

So in any situation there is always sat/nirguna.
Without sat/nirguna there is no saguna/mithya.
And in NO SITUATION is there asat only.

Yes, but Prof Nara insists that Saguna Brahman doesn't exist ! If there is nothing existing under Saguna Brahman on what are names and forms superimposed ? In the snake and rope analogy ... how can the illusion of snake be superimposed without existence of the rope which is the reality ?

Let's see this equation :

Nirguna Brahman = Reality
Form = Kalpitam on Reality due to Maya
Name = Kalpitam on Reality due to Maya
Qualities = Kalpitam on reality due to Maya

So, Saguna Brahman = Nirguna Brahman + form + name + qualities
= Reality + something kalpitam

Even if we assume that on right hand side in the above equation, "something kalpitam" is non-existent (which is not the case here), will it make Reality also non-existent ... otherwise how can the left side become non-existent ??

OM

saidevo
14 March 2010, 11:02 PM
namaste Nara.

As part of this discussion, tell us, if the Shruti speaks of both NirguNa and SaguNa Brahman as independent, co-existing realities, with the additional, empirical, and dependent three kinds of realities for the jIva--nityas, muktas and baddhas that RAmAnuja speaks of--what is the meaning/purport of the following Shruti vAkyas:

• ekam sat--Reality/existence is One.--RV 1.164.46
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.--Ch.Up.6.2.1
• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.--A.Up.3.3
• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman.--Ch.Up.3.14.1
• ayam Atma brahma -- This Self is Brahman.--Man.Up.1.2
• tat tvam asi -- Thou art that.--Ch.Up.6.8.7
• aham brahmAsmi -- I am Brahman.--MN Up.1.4.10

Obviously, Advaita holds only those Shruti statements such as the above, that speak of the NirguNa Brahman as the only reality and with that as the frame of reference, the realities of SaguNa Brahman and jIva can only be limited, dependent and ultimately illusionary to the jIvas that are nityas and muktas.

When the non-Advaitins say that Shruti also speaks of an eternal and parallel reality for the SaguNa Brahman and jIvas, how can there be two realities that are both eternal and infinite without the one limiting the other?

atanu
15 March 2010, 01:35 AM
Dear atanu,

Then do you agree jagat is also satyam, and Brahman is satyasa satyam? If so, you are not an advaitin and we do not have any arguments.

Cheers!

Namaste nara

I knew you have not the full comprehension of Advaita and also your summarisation misses out points. Jagat is 'name-form-karma'. Satya of that is the Life Force- prAna. And Satya of the Satya is the immutable, which must be known (this, we saw, is not contradictory to Shankara's teachings).

Satya is only real (absolutely real) when the 'ti' is discarded. The goal is to know the satasya satyam but for that 'sa' must be known apart from the 'ti'. The teaching of Shankara is to discriminate the Atma from the Anatma, in order to remove the artificial effects that the 'ti' has on bodies-minds. Moreover, Advaita does talk of three levels of understanding the Sat. Does not it? That was, I think, one of your objection. hehe.:)

Once the discrimination is done and when the Universe, including one's own body, is known as CONSCIOUSNESS, then the Universe and Brahman has no difference. But before that, you cannot discard the scripture that Brahman is consciousness. You cannot say that achit matter that you see is Brahman. If you stick to Vishistaadvaita, you cannot explain how a rape or a murder will not taint the Atma?


Further, I do not agree with your assessment of the dream situation at all. You are wrong by logic and by scripture.

Jiva creates the dream objects using its own light called Pragnya. Shruti says: There is no chariot but he creates that etc. etc. Do you create an elephant inside you in dream? How does a city fit inside you?
The Atma is unchangeable and does not take up any taint
But the Internal Organ and the Physical Body may suffer badly
It for the mitigation of this pain that we must know the dream as dream.-------------------------------

The implications for the VA are antagonistic to scriptures. Brahman is Partless and Chit. Achit matter and the parts cannot ever be in the Immutable.

Dvaita Darshana corrects this by teaching absolute distinction of Brahman-Self-Prabhu on one hand and Souls-Jivas on the other hand. Yet there must be a linkage between the Souls and the Self, else these two will not know each other. This is the linkage of the witness.

All scripture say that the Immutable must be known. There are implications of that which I have posted several times here. I will repeat the link. Despite Moderator's warnings, I will repeat that the debate here may not be for you, since most Professors are not willing students, though a true Professor, IMO, is one who is a lifelong student. Nevertheless, you may check up the implications:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...5&postcount=29 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...5&postcount=29)

We may discuss the implications if you wish.

Before knowing Brahman as Chit and Partless -- all other Darshanas, except Advaita, have huge chinks and do not match with Abheda vakyas of Upanishads, at all. On knowing (experiencing) the Brahman as All, as Consciousness (Chit) and Partless, one can follow any Darshana -- since the Sataysa Satyam is then known. The need to know the Advaita Atman (Upanishds) or the indivisble Param Atman (Gita) has only one implication. First know everything as Consciousness.

Regards (for your unbending style). :) Now we may agree to disagree and leave the matter to be resolved by time. However, I rquest you to examine the link:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...5&postcount=29 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...5&postcount=29)

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
15 March 2010, 01:35 AM
namaste Nara.

You said (post 220):
Then, you also say, Saguna brahman is an error, an illusion caused by avidya that results from maya. Well then, who makes this error, Brahman? What? Brahman makes an error? See we get all knotted up. This is what I said in post #188, for which nobody has any answer so far.

Earlier you said (post 188):
But more serious than this is, who is perceiving this Nirguna Brahman through maya as a Saguna Brahman? If there is only Brahman and no other, who is mistaking Nirguna Brahman to be Saguna Brahman?

The way I would understand this conundrum by an everyday analogy is:

• My ultimate, real self is the understanding I have of my real nature. Let us say this is my only self that stays always behind and permeates to a larger or smaller extent, my all other selves.

• Besides this only self of mine, I have auxiliary selves as a husband, parent, son, employee, teacher, citizen, relative, friend and so on, depending on the necessities devolved by my worldly life.

• Now, if we look at myself vis-a-vis my auxiliary selves:

‣ All these auxiliary selves are dependent and derived in essence from my real self and are conditioned by the scopes of their roles.

‣ They are always co-existent as apparent and limiting adjuncts to my real self but they can never sublate my real self.

‣ They have no independent existence outside my real self. That is, each of my many selves has a conditional existence limited by space and time, whereas my real self pervades all those spaces and times of my other selves and extends beyond them.

‣ Some of my many selves constantly vanish in their existence and take on new forms (like newly acquired bodies of jIvas) in their roles. For example, my friendship with someone vanishes when he dies or has moved out of my circle of acquaitances, but I in my friendly self take on new friends. In other words, my many selves as a friend, relative (even husband/wife in the Western society) take on new forms with or without the earlier one ceasing to exist.

‣ When I am my real self alone, in those exclusively private moments, all the auxiliary selves stand sublated and merged in my real self, and I enjoy the full bliss of my life, free from all encumbrances.

‣ On the other hand, when I am in the role of an auxiliary self, I am constrained to play it by the book, with or without the benefit of the light of knowledge and wisdom from my real self.

‣ When I was born, as a child, I was my pure, real self, living my life in the bliss of childhood. As I grew up, on my real self the roles of my worldly life got projected, or to be more precise, I have got them projected on me due to my vAsanas carried from earlier births.

‣ In the normal daily life, my selves in my different roles match with my real self in varying degrees. Where they match completely, that particular self of mine has been liberated; where they match partially, that self has been clouded by its avidyA of confusion of a role-self with real self.

• Thus, my real self knows that all my other selves and the insentient world they play their roles is mAyA, mithyA--error and illusion. My auxiliary selves, which are just sentient reflections of my real self, have their own faculties of intellect and mind, in which they may relate to my real self in advaita--in complete non-dually, dvaita--dually or vishiShtAdvaita--non-dually with qualifications.

• Whatever the philosophy they use to relate to my real self, whichever self that gains the relevation of its unity with my real self, attains the liberation of unity, there and then.

This analogy assumes that my real self is of eternal sat-chit-Ananda. Like all analogies it has a value and can't be stretched too far.

Evidences of the great Truths are strewn all around us. In things and events that pass by our everyday life. If only we care to look around and think over...

atanu
15 March 2010, 02:14 AM
Dear Saidevo, greetings,

Saidevo, this is what I have been saying. Sankara says the real purport of this Brahmana, that goes at length to describe the two aspects, is finally to deny them both, and atanu says the reason the two aspects are described is for the jivs, who are in reality supposed to be non-different from Brahman for adviatam, to transcend them. This, I submit, lacks cogency.


Namaste

Well. Well. :) I see the problem. I must have used exactly the words that Shankara used.



I don't know what your personal view of Jiva is, but what I hear from Advaitins is that jIvas of the word are in fact not a plural, a singular, and is non-different from Brahman.

The concept of many Jivas that are all independently chit, does not go along with scriptures at all. It has been shown how it is Brahman who appears as the triad of Universe, Jiva, and Ishwara. Moreover, those who have incomplete knowledge of VA and Dvaita insist on many independent Jiva-s. If karma laden Jiva-s, are all parts of Brahman, then the karma of Rape and Murder attaches to Brahman and also, it breaks the partless nature of Brahman. Achit cannot be part of Brahman, since by definition Brahman is Chit. On the other hand, the distinctly separate Brahman and many Jiva-s, as apparently held by Dvaita, will contradict the Abheda vakyas.



So, Sankara's way of reconciling leads into internal contradictions like the above.

Far from it. The Abheda vakyas cannot be thrown away. On the other hand, the Bheda vakyas are assimilated very well in the realms of Satya, which is not the absolute Truth, as per shruti. Advaita does not deny the reality of Veda at this realm. From common sense also, the written addresses and the explanation of the direction is not the destination.

Gita reiterates that Vedas deal with triguna vishaya, whereas the Self is the reality.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
15 March 2010, 02:46 AM
Hello atanu, greetings!

:) if this is so you will get an opportunity to expose me, won't you? :)

best regards atanu, I will wait for your response.

Namaste nara,

:) There is no motivation for that. When the post started we had discussed this. You may please read that.

Only intention is to emphasise again and again (for myself and for readers) that the goal of scripture is not the arguments and the debates, but the Self, the Truth of the Truth that must be known, if one has to be happy.

Skanda teaches Narada :The Happiness must be understood. The Atman must be known.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
15 March 2010, 03:55 AM
Hello atanu, greetings!

atanu, I try to be as sincere as possible to understand advaitam, but, whenever I try to understand how a unitary all knowing Brahman without form, qualities, or attributes of any kind and without a second of any kind, gets into the states you describe and creates a world that is unreal and reflects himself as jivas who in-turn superimpose the unreal world on the brahman -- it all gets knotted up in self contradictions.

Namaste Nara,

It is a good imagination. Do you (or any one of us) know as to who is trying to understand and getting up tied in knots? Shankara has not said that there is not a natural instrument that is creator of the sense of ego. Is it the body or is it the mind? Or is it someone/something that is yet not known that is getting tied up in knots? I can only see that you are getting tied up in knots. As an intellectual clue (which will always be deficient), i understand that the Sat-Chit-Ananda is not the Thinker.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
15 March 2010, 04:18 AM
Dear devotee:

I have always taken the word of the orthodox advaitns, you know the ones who are keepers of Sankara tradition like Sankara Matam in either Sringeri or Kanchi. They are the ones who claim saguna brahman is just a reflection caused by avidya.
Cheers!

Namaste Nara

Like a respected poster said: Shri Nara is imagining the non-existent. Let us enquire, Reflection of what in what?

There is, in this thread, the authoritative position of Kanchi matha that does not agree with what you say about its so-called orthodox position as claimed by you (and also another poster). To explain the world, Vivarta (apparent change) is accepted by the Kanchi Saint, who categorically denies any scope of pariNAma (real change). When there is no real change, there is no need to imagine the changed second one. But it is natural thing that is happening from without beginning.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
15 March 2010, 05:01 AM
Namaste Nara,



Here is a site http://www.advaita.info/ that summarizes the tenets of Sankara's advaitam succinctly. The summary starts with:
Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.
As the site proceeds with further points of summary, contradictions are piled on top of contradictions that I have been presenting here. Be that as it may, if you think Advaitam does not hold Saguna Brahman and Jagat to be unreal, then you are talking about apradak siddi of Visishtadvaitam, you are no longer an advaitin.


At first I was reluctant to visit the site you referred to but then I thought it would be really interesting to see if there is some group of Advaitins proclaiming to be Shankara's followers & say that, "Saguna Brahman doesn't exist" ! I visited that site and by reading the material there I was disappointed to realise that you didn't read even the material posted on this website before referring the website to me. I will tell you what this site says :

The World

The world is not an illusion according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world because of a superimposition of non-Self (objects) on Self (subject - Brahman). This is called Avidya.


===> This website says that world is not an illusion but relatively real, whereas according to your repeated assertions this website should have declared that, "The World doesn't exist !" ... as you have asserted so long that Shankara said, "Saguna Brahman doesn't exist". Why this difference ?

Was it not expected from you that you should have read the material posted on this website before referring this site as a support to your ideas ??

Saguna and Nirguna Brahman

The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.

Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view.

===> Can you tell me why this excerpt from your referred website doesn't support your version of Shankara's Advaita ??

Boss, you really need some some serious reading before claiming so much. :)

OM

atanu
15 March 2010, 05:39 AM
It seems to me the oppositte is true, it is atanu and you that fail to properly understand even the basic premises of Kevaladvaita especially the implications of vivartavada against those of parinamavada. ------

Namaste Maha

I must thank you for remembering me so often.

It was shown to you, from your citation, that pariNAmvada is not Advaita. Only you are imposing it and trying to see differences.


In Kevaladvaita ultimately there is no limited individual cogniser nor an object of cognition that is real, so there cannot be any erroneous cognition, both cognition and cogniser and their means of cognition itself are the Illusion that is to be overcome.


That does not stop the one indivisible seer to see and cognise many. And it is also not unnatural for the many of these knowers-cognisers to come to believe that they are individuals because.

Purusha is one mass of Existence-Intelligence-Bliss.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 06:30 AM
Namaste Maha

I must thank you for remembering me so often.

It was shown to you, from your citation, that pariNAmvada is not Advaita. Only you are imposing it and trying to see differences.



If there is no object of cognition and everything only an imposition or reflection projected on nirguna brahman, and if the limited cogniser , the jiva is also not ultimately real, how can a Kevaladvaitan claim that Maya or Avidya is an erroneous cognition of the one jiva, or the even of multiple jiva(s), concerning the jagat, if the Jiva himself is not even ultimately real? Only the ultimate real the nirguna Brahman can cognise the real, but since a cogniser and something that is cognised are already two Nirguna Brahman cannot be cognised unless we acccepte that there are two ultimate Brahmans who cognise each other.
If you closely look at the postings of Saidveo Atanu and Devotee you will find in all of these postings, cropping up again and again the idea that Avidya is an erroneous cognition concerning the jagat by the jiva (s), this is not the viewpoint of Kevaladvaita, here all three are errors superimposed on brahman, the jiva, the means of knowledge and the object.

Again how can a jiva who is illusive by using means of knowledge that are illusive, while cognising a world that is illusive escape that state by correcting only one error, that of false cognition?

A change in the state of the cogniser by correcting his wrong cognition is only possible in Parinamavada where the object of cognition is considered real and can be perceived as brahman, because it is the brahman transformed into a real object of cognition.

So whenever one of the defenders speak about an immanent Saguna Brahman, and a jiva that once having overcome an error of cognition, realises brahman he must be a follower of Parinamvada because unless there is a real existing saguna Brahman as an object that can be cognised, wiping out of an error of cognition cannot be the cause for jivanmukti.

In Kevaladvaita the limited cogniser and his means of knowledge itself is an error. One cannot interpret the snake and rope analogy literally, without unknowingly stepping into the viewpoint of Parinamavada, it is an analogy only its meaning is not related to actual sense functions,
But then again how can Brahman be described as one or unity when diversity is ultimately unreal? What i mean is that the mental concept of unity can only arise in the presence of a concept of diversity. If you wipe out diversity what meaning has the word unity? Therefore if the diversity is not ultimately real how can there be an ultimately real unity? Both depend on each other.
Kevaladvaita by wipoing out the ultimate reality of the diversity destroys the unity at the same time, and is left wth nothing.
And yes of course Parinamavada is part of some advaita darshanas, like Pratyabhijna, it is just not part of Kevaladvaita. Ananadalahari and Saundaryalahari subscribe to Parinamavada and are even said to be authored by Shankaracharya according to the tradition of the Sampradaya.


That does not stop the one indivisible knower to exist since beginning of time as many knowers and cognisers. And it is also not unnatural for the many of these knowers-cognisers to come to believe that they are individuals.

Purusha is one mass of Existence-Intelligence-Bliss.

Om Namah Shivaya
Nobody is denying the presence of an ultimate knower, the topic is whether there is a definite shastra pramana for the assumption that the world is illusive, But i have not found it yet and there is no reason for me to assume it exists, otherwise i would have to reject the vedas as incompatible with reason and science.

atanu
15 March 2010, 06:39 AM
If there is no object of cognition and everything only an imposition or reflection projected on nirguna brahman, and if the limited cogniser , the jiva is also not ultimately real, how can a Kevaladvaitan claim that Maya or Avidya is an erroneous cognition of the jiva, or the even the jivas, concerning the jagat, if the Jiva himself is not even ultimately real?

Namaste MahaHrada,

This was answered already to Shri Nara:


Namaste Nara,

It is a good imagination. Do you (or any one of us) know as to who is trying to understand and getting up tied in knots? Shankara has not said that there is not a natural instrument that is creator of the sense of ego. Is it the body or is it the mind? Or is it someone/something that is yet not known that is getting tied up in knots? I can only see that you are getting tied up in knots. As an intellectual clue (which will always be deficient), i understand that the Sat-Chit-Ananda is not the Thinker.

Om Namah Shivaya

Can you kindly tell me who is trying to prove existence of the individual many jiva-s? Can you point him out to me?


Kevaladvaita by wipoing out the ultimate reality of the diversity destroys the unity at the same time, and is left wth nothing.

Diversity is ultimate reality? Or, the Self which cognises the diversity is the ultimate reality? Get your understanding correct. Brihadaraynaka says: Brahman-Self is Sataysa Satya. Chandogya Upanishad says: The one who knows "I know this" is the ultimate reality.

While denying the ultimate reality of the Self, you are only acknowledging it. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 06:49 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,

This was answered already to Shri Nara:



Can you kindly tell me who is trying to prove existence of the individual many jiva-s? Can you point him out to me?

Om Namah Shivaya

Saidevo:

Shankara only tries to reconcile these two views of the One NirguNa Brahman by presenting a picture of only virtual reality for the SaguNa Brahman and the jagat--world, as they appear to the jIvas of the world, because it is a mithyA--error, illusion on their part, which is caused by avidhyA, which in turn is only due to the influence of mAyA.

especially this part:
because it is a mithyA--error, illusion on their part

The virtual reality is an illusion on their part, what does that mean?

Avidya is the illusive cognition of illusive Jivas? If it is gone then only the illusive Jiva remains? That is knowledge of Brahman ;) That is kevaladvaita? No ! The jiva as well as the jagat as well as the (or any) means of knowledge is (due to) the avidya.

atanu
15 March 2010, 07:24 AM
Saidevo:

Namaste

Saidevo ji is seeing many jiva-s? No. You only cognise saidevo as an individual and interpret what is being said.


Avidya is the illusive cognition of illusive Jivas? If it is gone then only the illusive Jiva remains? That is knowledge of Brahman ;) That is kevaladvaita? No ! The jiva as well as the jagat as well as the (or any) means of knowledge is the avidya.

Good but incomplete. The discriminative exercise to attain knowledge as to whose is the avidya is recommendeed by Shankara for removal of the beginningless natural avidya, to be precise. (Avidya is the couterpart of Vidya just as cold is counterpart of Heat. Further Avidya is nothing substantial).

At one end is the screen which merely supports the play, created naturally on account of seeing. On the screen is the movie wherein many are crying, and some are laughing, and a fire is raging. A flood devastates everything.

All this does nothing to the screen. But seer can be the Seer, who knows the screen or the seer can be a deluded seer who does not see the Screen at all. I understand, being a seer as of now, that there is the Master Seer who determines the destiny of seeing process of the many seers that He assumes the role of. This I believe since the Scripture teaches that there is but one knower-Seer only, who must be known. The scripture further teaches that All is known by knowing the Atman-Brahman. Thus, I also ask you to kindly analyse (or really act on the teaching and experience) the following:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...5&postcount=29 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...5&postcount=29)

Why would scripture give a call that the SELF MUST BE KNOWN, if it is not covered up or if it is already known correctly? As per you the perceived diversity is the ultimate and thus there should not be any need at all to know the Atman? The call is for the seer who sees only the movie.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 07:31 AM
Diversity is ultimate reality? Or, the Self which cognises the diversity is the ultimate reality? Get your understanding correct. Brihadaraynaka says: Brahman-Self is Sataysa Satya. Chandogya Upanishad says: The one who knows "I know this" is the ultimate reality.

While denying the ultimate reality of the Self, you are only acknowledging it. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it.

Om Namah Shivaya

If there is a distinction between ultimate reality of Nirguna Brahman which denies the immanence of some form of the ultimate Reality in the world of diversity the concept of one brahman, the idea of unity ceases to exist at the same time because of a lack of comparison.

If there is no ultimate reality present in the world of diversity it is also not present in the human being because he is part of the world of diversity.
If there is no presence of the absolute, immanent in everyone of us, how can we ever hope to realise it?

Unity needs Diversity as much as a cogniser needs an object of cognition, you take away one than the other will collapse also into nothing.

atanu
15 March 2010, 07:34 AM
If there is a distinction between ultimate reality of Nirguna Brahman which denies the immanence of some form of the ultimate Reality in the world of diversity the concept of one brahman, the idea of unity ceases to exist at the same time because of a lack of comparison.



Please attain the ultimate state of Sat-Chit-Ananda and then try to pose questions from that stand point. Your thinker is not sat-chit-ananda. Before that please see the previous post first.

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 07:47 AM
. Your thinker is not sat-chit-ananda. .

That would disqualify all the postings, unless your thinker is different from that of all others.

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 08:05 AM
Of course, only nirguna brahman is ultimately real, the individual cogniser , the jivas existance is illusive it is caused only by the influence of Avidya or Maya. When that avidya is removed, notion of a jiva as well as of a jagat ceases and only brahman remains. That is the teaching of Kevaladvaita.

So avidya has nothing really to do with the erroneous cognition of an erroneus jiva about an erroneous jagat but the error i.e Avidya or Maya is causal for the illusive jiva to begin to apparently exist.


---------

due to moderation /deletion of the original remark of Devotee this response makes little sense out of context, i apologize for that :)

Nara
15 March 2010, 08:27 AM
...... I was disappointed to realise that you didn't read even the material posted on this website..

The very first tenet of Advaita Vedanta they cite is:
Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman
When I referred this site, here is something I said as well, "As the site proceeds with further points of summary, contradictions are piled on top of contradictions ..."

One such contradiction is what you cite,
"The world is not an illusion according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world because of a superimposition of non-Self (objects) on Self (subject - Brahman). This is called Avidya."
The first statement says, "world is unreal" and the statement you cite says "world is relatively real"!!! My point was Advaitam leads to contradictions and this web site a proof positive.

I suppose it feels good to make personal comments like, "you didn't read", but do you really think that comment added value? I don't mind a dig here and there, but please keep it in check.

Cheers!

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 08:50 AM
Why would scripture give a call that the SELF MUST BE KNOWN, if it is not covered up or if it is already known correctly? As per you the perceived diversity is the ultimate and thus there should not be any need at all to know the Atman? The call is for the seer who sees only the movie.

Om Namah Shivaya

I think we should stick to the topic of the thread and not introduce Tantra shastra or Pratyabhijna doctrine into this debate, but let me say so much that here due to malas and kanchukas, that limit the absolute into the jiva it has a limited perception of the nature of diversity, as well as a limited perception of the singular brahman and is also unaware about their interaction or dynamics. It is not only Jnana but also Kriya that is needed to remove these limitations completly. So i do not subscribe to any static state of ultimate release, knowledge of nirguna brahman is one extreme state of self while being entangled in diversity is the other extreme state of self while in creation, both are incomplete without the other and one alone does not reflect the whole cycle of reality, so moksha means being a concious witness of a dynamic pulsing of one substance assuming different forms through a cycle of transformations. The nirguna Brahman being just one extremity phase of a process of transformation while the fully expanded universe is the other extremity. To ascribe reality to the one because it is unchanging and therefore eternal and unreality to the other because it undergoes changes is a simplistic absolutism, because also in the world of diversity nothing is really destroyed it only changes into something else and therefore the jagat is as eternal as the nirguna brahman.

atanu
15 March 2010, 08:59 AM
That would disqualify all the postings, unless your thinker is different from that of all others.

Namaste

Again wrong. It does not disqualify Shankara to teach me. Did I not say that one Seer assumes the role of many seers, just as a spider spreads its net? Further, is not A Purusha of Thousand heads the Divine Universe? These heads have different functions. Moreover, in my case, the thinker is dead as an individual.

I see that you answer by raising many questions but do not ever answer the questions raised by us. Why?

You say the Ultimate Truth is the Diversity. This statement in isolation goes against the shruti from the beginning and has a devastaing implication. As per shruti already cited, the diverse world is: NAMES, FORMS, and KARMA. These three have their Brahman (Satya) in the Life Force, which has its Satya in the Self, which is Satyasa Satya.

So, you are ignoring the Satyasa Satya.

Second, it has such implication that this ignorance should not be held on to. If, Diversity is the Ultimate Truth called Brahman-Self-Ishawra, then Ishwara is tainted by the acts of diverse types of crimes: the rapes, the killings, the cheatings etc. etc. It is unthinkable.

Then finally, who do you think you are, if the Ultimate Truth is the Diversity? Because scripture asks to know the self.


Whereas, here, we say that the Self, who is the substratum of the Life Force - the Seer, the Knower, the Hearer, which sees the diverse Universe is the Satayasa Satya -- the immutable ultimate Truth, which must be known. This is fully supported by Shruti.

That the Self must be known call in Upanishads and Gita, implies that it may or may not be known to the particular seer. That suggests ignorance of oneself. I have asked you a few times but have not received answer from you as to the implications of knowing the Self. So, I will repeat it here and request you and Shri nara to vet the implications.









As per the teaching of Mandukya Upanishad, one must know the advaita atman, which is defined as:

Mandukya Upanishad

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.The Upanishad teaches us that the Self that has been described has to be known. How do we know it? The following necessary implications emerge from the given shastra.
· It is unchanging and it is known as One, all phenomena come to cessation.
- It is the Self -- not another one. Self cannot be another one.
· It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out. In that case advaita will be broken
· It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out. Else, its composition will continuously change.
· It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
· It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible. It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
· It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.

Let us kindly settle this before you raise other questions.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
15 March 2010, 09:02 AM
namaste MahaHrada and others.

This post is in reply to your post no.236.

Let us not try to confuse the issue of this thread which is Shruti pramANa for Shankara Advaita by attributing an individual's statements as those of Shankara.

Here is what I said in my post 215:
• There is no doubt that Shruti says that there is only one Brahman which is nirguNa.

• Shruti also speaks about a formed version of the one and only nirguNa brahman, but whereever it does so, it also asserts of Brahman's ekam sat nature in the same book.

• Shankara only tries to reconcile these two views of the One NirguNa Brahman by presenting a picture of only virtual reality for the SaguNa Brahman as it appears to the jIvas of the world, because it is a mithyA--error, illusion on their part, which is caused by avidhyA, which in turn is only due to the influence of mAyA.

*****

It is only my statement--not Shankara's--that "SaguNa Brahman as it appears to the jIvas of the world", where I have used jIvas in the plural to indicate the practical reality of the world, which Shankara approved.

I have been reiterating that Shankara Advaita is pUrNa advaita, not just kevala advaita, as taught by KAnchi ParamAchArya (for details, my thread on Shankara Charitam). In pUrNa advaita, Shankara can definitely state the different levels of reality, the distinction between NirguNa and SaguNa Brahman, jIvas and the jagat and establish the nivRtti mArga for a jIva to Self-Realization.

When Shankara debated with the pandits of other sampradAyas--traditions, did he deny their individual existence, or only their separatist concepts of Reality? If Shankara denied the existence of jIvas, why would he admit a large number of disciples to accompany him whereever he wandered? Does this mean that Shankara admitted separate and independent reality of the jIvas of the people he met? Or would it mean that he accommodated their levels of reality within the satyasya satyam--pAramArthika satyaM of Brahman?

Let us not try to indulge in arguments for arguments sake, like Nara's questions on the supposed incongruities in Advaita in general and Shankara advaita in particular. Such questions are like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", which is nothing but a loaded question with a logical fallacy that does not allow the opponent to say yes or no.

*****

Here is what I understand of Shankara's pUrNAdvaita:

There are three entities involved in brahma-Atma-aikyam--union of Atman with Brahman: Brahman, Atman--Self--jIva, and jagat--world. These three entities correspond respectively to knowledge, knower and objects. Although the jIva is nothing but Brahman, it will be known only if the jIva attempts to know its own Atman--Self; instead, in the vyavahArika satyaM of his waking and the prAtibhAsika satyaM of his dreaming states, the jIva only attempts to know the objective world, considering the other jIvas to be separate entities. Until the jIva attempts to know its own Self, any supposed knowledge it obtains from the objective world is only avidyA; that the jIva looks outside instead of inside for knowledge is due to mAyA.

Thus, the ultimate object of knowledge is Self which is Brahman. When this knowledge is obtained, the jIva will find two things to happen: one, the limiting adjuncts of its self with other selves and the world which hitherto appeared to be the reality was only appearances/illusions because now those adjuncts are totally gone. Two, in this state of Self-Realization, the knower and the known are all merged in Brahman only which is the real knowledge.

Until this Self-Realization is obtained, Shankara does not deny the separate existence of individual jIvas, in their own domain of conditioned reality, although the jIva is nothing other than Brahman. This position of Shankara does not mean that he is trying to prove the independent existence of many individual jIvas.

Although Shankara firmly taught that 'jIvo brahmaiva na para' and said that One Brahman appears as the many jIvas and the jagat due to mAyA, did he deny the multiplicity or individual existence of the jIvas in their own domain of realities (vyavahArika and pratibhAsika)? Or did he only deny an independent reality for the jIvas?

Let us check some quotes of Shankara on this subject and decide. I have underlined the terms where Shankara refers to the practical reality of the world in his teaching:

• brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH

Does Shankara say that there is only one jIva in this statement, denying explicitly the practical existence of all other jIvas and the world? Or does he only say that the jIva is nothing other than Brahma?

• satyAnRte mithunIkRtya 'ahamidam', 'mamedam', iti naisargiko&yaM lokavyavahAraH |
--BSB 1.1.1

Mixing up the real with unreal, the inherent vyavahara is "I am this and this is mine".
Does Shankara talk about only one jIva here?

• apratyakShe&pi hyAkAsho bAlAH talamalinatAdi adhyyasyanti |
--BSB 1.1.1

Though space is not an object, still children superimpose on it ideas like surface and dirt.

• tametamevaM lakShaNa madhyAsaM paNDitA avidyeti manyante |
--BSB 1.1.1

Learned men consider thissuperimposition as avidya.

• sarvo hyAtmAstitvaM pratyeti, na 'nAhamasmi' iti |
--BSB 1.1.1

Everyone cognises "the existence of Atman" and not "I don't exist".

• anubhavA vasAnatvAd bhUtavastu viShayatvAchcha brahmajnAnasya |
--BSB 1.1.1

Knowledge of Brahman is the culmination of [u]personal experience]/u] and also the of an object -entity which already exists.

*****

Here is proof of Shankara's recognition of SaguNa Brahman as a form of NirguNa Brahman:

• dvirUpaM hi brahmAvagamyate -- nAmarUpa vikAramedopAdhivishiShTaM, tad viparItaM cha sarvopAdhi vivarjitam |
--BSB 1.1.11

Brahman is known in two aspects--one possessed of the limiting adjuncts of diversities because of modification, name and form and the other devoid of all adjuncts.

• yosau nArAyaNaH ... tadapi na pratiShidhyate |

We do not refute the view stated therein (Bhagavata) that Narayana, who is superior to Nature and is well known to be the Supreme Self and the Self of all, has divided Himself by Himself into many forms. It is not also refuted that which is intended for his propitiation, like visitng His temple, etc. with exclusive devotion.
--BSB 2.2.42

devotee
15 March 2010, 09:09 AM
Namaste Nara,


The very first tenet of Advaita Vedanta they cite is:
Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman
When I referred this site, here is something I said as well, "As the site proceeds with further points of summary, contradictions are piled on top of contradictions ..."

One such contradiction is what you cite,
"The world is not an illusion according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world because of a superimposition of non-Self (objects) on Self (subject - Brahman). This is called Avidya."
The first statement says, "world is unreal" and the statement you cite says "world is relatively real"!!! My point was Advaitam leads to contradictions and this web site a proof positive.

I suppose it feels good to make personal comments like, "you didn't read", but do you really think that comment added value? I don't mind a dig here and there, but please keep it in check.


Contradictions ? Were we talking of contradictions or you were supposed to tell me where Shankara said, "Saguna Brahman doesn't exist". Sorry, if I hurt you but how can I assume that you shifted your direction from "what Shankara said" to "the contradictions in Advaita Vedanta" ? That was not what we were discussing. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

BTW, if you are really interested in contradictions, please read Isha Upanishad which is full of such apparent contradictory meaning verses. But they are not wrong, let me assure you. That is how the reality is. But anyway that is not at all the matter of discussion now.

The questions were :
a) Where did Shankara say, "The Saguna Brahman doesn't exist".
b) If Shankara believed that Saguna Brahman doesn't exist, why did he wrote songs and strotras in praise of various deities ?

OM

devotee
15 March 2010, 09:14 AM
Of course, only nirguna brahman is ultimately real, the individual cogniser , the jivas existance is illusive it is caused only by the influence of Avidya or Maya. When that avidya is removed, notion of a jiva as well as of a jagat ceases and only brahman remains. That is the teaching of Kevaladvaita.

So avidya has nothing really to do with the erroneous cognition of an erroneus jiva about an erroneous jagat but the error i.e Avidya or Maya is causal for the illusive jiva to begin to apparently exist.

Wait. wait, wait ... you said something different. You said this :


The jiva as well as the jagat as well as the (or any) means of knowledge is the avidya.

Now you have changed your statement. Can you see the difference ?

And I don't know what you want to say by this sentence : "So avidya has nothing really to do with the erroneous cognition of an erroneus jiva about an erroneous jagat but the error" ?

a) Avidya has nothing to do with erroneous cognition of erroneous jiva ===> what is erroneous jiva ?
b) about an erroneous jagat but the error ===> This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain ??


OM

atanu
15 March 2010, 09:14 AM
------here due to malas and kanchukas, that limit the absolute into the jiva it has a limited perception of the nature of diversity, as well as a limited perception of the singular brahman and is also unaware about their interaction or dynamics. ------

Namaste Maha

Now you bring in the topic of limited perception. But you raised questions and you said the Diversity is the Ultimate Truth. Let us see for whom it is the ultimate truth? You should thus answer the post :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=41382&postcount=246

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 09:16 AM
namaste MahaHrada and others.

This post is in reply to your post no.236.

Let us not try to confuse the issue of this thread which is Shruti pramANa for Shankara Advaita by attributing an individual's statements as those of Shankara.



No i did not mean do that, on the contrary what i wanted to contribute was that this was your understanding and that in my opinion it does not reflect the Kevaladvaita viewpoint correctly.

My main intention is to point out that first one has to grasp that the rope snake example is an analogy and has nothing to do with the actual cognition of jivas, who themselves are a product of Avidya and Maya, it only uses cognition as an example and only after understanding vivartavada,which implies that the individualised jiva itself is illusive a superimposition on brahman, and only brahman is real one can begin to contrast it with other darshanas.

Nara
15 March 2010, 09:21 AM
...
Unless I am mistaken, some of the arguments you posed so far are seldom coming from Visishtadvaita siddhantam. For e.g. the rope-snake analogy. Ramanuja and his commentators have not dealt it with this detail.


Sorry vivendi, I missed this post. I have attended a lot of kalakshepams and some of these are picked up form those. Ramanuja declares everything to be real, including dreams. But, we are not talking about that, we are talking about contradictions in Advaitam.

Cheers!

atanu
15 March 2010, 09:32 AM
----- But, we are not talking about that, we are talking about contradictions in Advaitam.

Cheers!

We are talking about contradictions in advaita darshana, as apparent to shri nara, to be more precise. Everyone has perceptions. That points to the chit aspect of all perceptions. That points to the existence aspect of all perceivers. It is however not clear as to why all this effort? Can we bring in the happiness factor? This indeed is important, since Self is Ananda also -- are we all searching that?


Om Namah Shivaya

satay
15 March 2010, 09:33 AM
Admin Note

namaskar Intellectuals!

Please keep it on the topic. Please do not make personal attacks on other members. Please keep the poster(s) separate from the topic itself and not attack the poster(s).

You can access the forum rules by clicking on the FAQ section. Please PM me if you have any questions regarding the rules.

If you can't follow the simple rules of the forum, then I will sadly have to close the thread or take action against the members that are not following the rules. I rather not take dramatic actions as mainly senior members are involved in this thread. But if you continue to break forum rules, you will leave me with no choice.

I request you to keep the personal attacks out of this thread!

Thank you!

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 09:35 AM
Wait. wait, wait ... you said something different. You said this :



Now you have changed your statement. Can you see the difference ?

And I don't know what you want to say by this sentence : "So avidya has nothing really to do with the erroneous cognition of an erroneus jiva about an erroneous jagat but the error" ?

a) Avidya has nothing to do with erroneous cognition of erroneous jiva ===> what is erroneous jiva ?
b) about an erroneous jagat but the error ===> This doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain ??


OM

Yes i should have better said due to avidya. When the jivas existance is due to avidya, his perception is illusive or erroneous and also due to avidya, and the jagat is illusive and also due to avidya, and only superimposed on brahman therefore Avidya includes more than just the erroneous perception of the jiva.
Thats why the analogy of the snake and rope also contains more and does not apply to our i.e the jivas cognition but is an example only, and the illusive nature applies also to the individual cogniser, the separete jiva, as well as the objects of the world, which only exist apparently, due to superimposition, not due to transformation, as in Parinamavada.
So when in Kevaladvaita avidya is removed it does not only mean removal of an error in cognition and leaves the jiva and the world as it is, but also the notion of an individual cogniser and objective world is removed only nirguna brahman remains, Looking at the postings this principle is not followed diligently by the defenders of advaita as it should have been done, That is why i say to take care to properly always apply the Vivartavada otherwise the debate could become futile and confusing.

devotee
15 March 2010, 09:48 AM
Yes i should have better said due to avidya. When the jivas existance is due to avidya, his perception is illusive or erroneous and also due to avidya, and the jagat is illusive and also due to avidya, and only superimposed on brahman therefore Avidya includes more than just the erroneous perception of the jiva.

That is a better understanding. Thanks.
OM

MahaHrada
15 March 2010, 09:49 AM
Namaste Maha

Now you bring in the topic of limited perception. But you raised questions and you said the Diversity is the Ultimate Truth. Let us see for whom it is the ultimate truth? You should thus answer the post :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=41382&postcount=246

Om Namah Shivaya

I don´t think this will lead us anywhere, let me just explain my my statement, i meant to say that if the ultimate truth is ascribed only to Nirguna brahman defined as the sole unity without a second , we must also ascribe the ultimate truth to diversity, if we say diversity is illusive, that will instantly cause unity to be illusive also. This must be so since the concept of a unity is dependent on the concept of a diversity. When the diversity is illusive also the concept of unity or "one" vanishes into thin air.