WhenceAdhyasa PDF

Whence Adhyasa?
A Discussion from the Advaitin List

compiled by S. Venkatraman
July 2003
Message 146
From: S Venkatraman
Date: Tue Jul 22, 2003 1:15 pm
Subject: Re: Non-Dualism vs. Qualified Non-Dualism
(Atmachaitanya108 discussion)
Namaste Ranjeet,
RANJEET
I had send an off-the-list mail to Shri Sadanadaji and this was his
reply... "There is an excellent book by John Grimes which is entitled
'The Seven Untenables'. Each one requires an exhaustive analysis.
Professor Grimes gives an excellent analysis. "
If any of the list members have this book, please shed some light...
VENKAT - M
I have the book. In fact its title is 'The Seven Great Untenables'. It
is published by Motilal Banarsidas in India. Unfortunately I still
have to read it. Soon after I bought the book, there was an excellent
exchange of messages on the Advaitin list sparked off by a simple
question which Dennis asked about the locus of Avidya. What followed
was an excellent analysis of the Advaita Vishishtadvaita polemics
(the subject matter of Grime's book) by Atmachaitanya108. I have
copied them all into a word file which I will forward to you and
Benjamin tomorrow. (It's on the hard disk of my laptop.) I would
request Benjamin to obtain the necessary permissions from the
moderators of Advaitin, convert the file into PDF format and upload it
on our files section. One day I will surely return to the book; but
for now at least I am quite satisfied with the rebuttal presented in
these messages by Atmachaitanya108. (For a long time it was big
mystery on the Advaitin list as to who Atmachaitanya108 was
till one day he told us all that he is an American who left America
in the Sixties as a seventeen year old with nothing but Ramana's book
'Who Am I?'. After two years at Ramanashram, he became the disciple of
Swami Dayananda Saraswathi. A few years thereafter he became the
disciple of Swami Satchidanendra Saraswathi who wrote the magnum opus
'The Method of Vedanta'. He remained his disciple till the Swamiji
passed away and now spends his time teaching Vedanta in India - 'Where
in India?, nobody knows. Just as he mysteriously appeared on the
Advaitin list apparently from no where, one day he disappeared. The
reason for this rather long note on him is because in my opinion if
any one can definitively answer Benjamin's questions on Advaita, he is
most likely to be that person.)
Regards,
Venkat - M
From: "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...>
Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 3:09 pm
Subject: Whence adhyAsa?
Apologies if this question has been covered before. I know we have discussed
the topic - at length during Sadananda's excellent posts on the
BrahmasUtra - and I summarised the notes relating to adhyAsa specifically
but I cannot immediately find any answer.
I am currently (re-)reading Douglas Fox's Dispelling Illusion, whose subject
is the alAtashAnti of gauDapAda (the 4th prakaraNa of the mANDUkya
upanishad). Referring to MU 2.12, he points out gauDapAda's claim that the
'self-luminous Atma, by means of its own mAyA, imagines within itself all
objects and experiences'. He goes on to say that shaMkara rejected this
because it meant that Brahman either actively created everything or was
itself a victim, neither of which would be acceptable, knowing Brahman to be
perfect and unchanging etc. ShaMkara therefore (says Fox) proposed his
adhyAsa theory but is this any more acceptable?
As Fox says, it seems then that one of the following must be true:
a) Brahman does the superimposing.
b) adhyAsa is an 'independent' process outside of Brahman.
c) we ourselves do it.
Since 'we' are ourselves a superimposition, if the third option is the case,
it would be a superimposition superimposing. Who would produce the first
superimposition? Since Brahman is infinite, how could something exist
independently outside it? Thus the second option does not seem viable. If
the first were the case, it would mean that Brahman were creating and
therefore active, which means change. So that cannot be the case either.
Is there another accepted answer?
Or is this one of those questions to which the answer is anirvachanIya (not
to be mentioned - i.e. inexplicable)?
sukhaM chara,
Dennis
From: "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...>
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:01 am
Subject: Re: Whence adhyAsa?
Dear Dennis,
Your question on Adhyasa is a very important one, and demands a
satisfactory answer. You are absolutely correct that neither of the
misguided attempts by Warwick or Madathil Nair have adequately
answered your question. Nor can you possibly feel content with your
own proposed solution: that perhaps "this is one of those questions
to which the answer is anirvachiniya (not to be mentioned-i.e.
inexplicable)." For if that were case our Advaitic position would be
reduced to merely an article of blind faith, and would be no better
than any other theological dogma.
You go on to say that according to Douglas Fox, "Shankara rejected
Gaudapadas claim that "the Self -Luminous Self. Imagines within
itself all objects and experiences."(MU2-12), and proposed his own
Adhyasa theory. But is that any more acceptable?" This leads us to
the further issue of having to decide if Shankara was a true follower
of Guadapada, or did he deviate from the 5th century sage, and head
out on a new path of his own having recognized the defects in
Gualdapadas teachings?
To restate the problem as formulated by Fox:
A) Brahman does the superimposing (Gaudapadas position)
The problem: Brahman becomes active and changeable.
B) Adhyasa is an independent' process outside Brahman.
The problem: Brahman is no longer One without a second.
C) We ourselves do it. (Shankaras position)
The problem: Who would produce the first superimposition?
(I.e. the defect of an infinite regress and if Adhyasa is defined
as MUTUAL SUPERIMPOSITION it would lead to nihilism-see below).
In addition if we accept C) (Shankaras position) then we have an
another problem that must be addressed concerning Adhyasa; A problem
similar to Fox's 3 alternatives, and that has been clearly articulated
by the great Japanese scholar Mayeda in his introduction to his book , 'A
Thousand Teachings by Shankara". He writes,
"3A; A Theoretical defect in Avidya (Adhyasa)
"Certainly the most crucial problem which Shankara left for his
followers is that of Avidya. If the concept of Avidya is logically
analyzed, it would lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism (Fox's
point B) or nihilism (Fox's point C) and uproot its fundamental
position. As we have seen Avidya is the mutual superimposition of the Atman
and non-Atman. If so, Avidya would come to be logically untenable.
Shankara himself is aware of this fact and points it out in the
pupil's question to his teacher: 'Is it not experienced that the
thing which is superimposed upon something else, through Avidya does
not exist in the later-for example, silver does not exist in the
mother-of-pearl nor a snake in a rope, Likewise if the body and Atman
are always mutually superimposed.. then they cannot exist in each
other at any time.this being the case it would follow as a result
that neither the body nor Atman exist. And this is not acceptable as
this is the theory of the nihilists. For this reason the body and
Atman are not mutually superimposed. (Upadeshasahasri 2-2-555)"
Mayeda continues "Thus the teacher does not give any definite
answer to the point raised by his pupilAs far as I know, Shankara's
own pupils did not take up this problem; It was Sarvajnamuni who
first tried to treat it. In his Samksepasariraka he has further
developed the concept of avidya on the basis of the ideas of his
teacher and Padmapada and tried to solve the problem left unsolved by
Shankara.
The 'Whence (cause) of Adhyasa' According to Post
Shankara Vedantins
In Sarvajnaatman's opinion Avidya is beginingless (anadi SS1-454)
it is not simply a negative entity like the absence of knowledge (or
wrong knowledge-Adhyasa) but a positive entity (bhavarupa, SS
1-320-322) He identifies it with Maya(SS 2-190) ..and it is the cause
of Adhyasa."
This, Dennis, has been the solution of every Vedantin from the time
of Padmapada to the present day. It is called 'Mula Avidya' (the
same as Maya, Shakti. Prakriti, Made up of three Gunas) and is said to be
the "Whence - the cause - of Adhyasa.. When I asked Swami Dayananda
Sarasvati why we wake up from deep sleep, because in that state there
is no Adhyasa, no misconceptions?, his reply was that because the Mula
Avidya exists in that state, and if it didn't, we would never wake up!
But that is no solution at all and it opens Advaitins to Fox's second
charge that, if Avidya is a beginingless positive entity, that exists
in all states including deep sleep, then Brahman can't be one without
a second.
The post-Shankara Vedantins were well aware of this great challenge
to and seeming defect of Advaita Vedanta. Many books were written to
defend this untenable theory of Mula Avidya (i.e Vimuktatmas'. Ista
Siddhhi , Sri Harsha's Khandana Khandana etc.etc.). But it is in fact
undefendable. And all the Vaishnava Acharyas knew it, and used this
Mula Avidya doctrine to defeat the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta.
I submit for your review the Vaishnava critic of Mula Avidya as
used by Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallahaba, and other 'Qualified
Non-Dualists' and 'Dualists' after the time of Shankara. I do this
because it is important to see that the post Shankara Vedantins
attempted answers to your very pertinent question 'Whence Adhyasa'
utterly fails, and that if no answer is possible, then Advaita Vedanta
should be rejected as an indefensible, irrational and dogmatic
outlook on life.
The Vaisnava Vedanta Critique Of the
Advaita Vedantin's theory of Avidya/Maya
The Problem: All schools of Vedanta agree that there is One Supreme
Reality. Universal experience testifies to the existence of a world.
The question then arises, how did this world come about? It is the
answer to this question that differentiates the Vaisnava Vedantins
from Advaita Vedantins in a very fundamental way.
The difficulty the Advaitin has is that he holds the Absolute Reality
to be ever free from all qualities (Nirguna) and Non Dual. How could
the world arise from such an entity? The Advaita Vedantins answer to
this problem is as follows. He posits a principle which he
indiscriminately refers to as AVIDYA (IGNORANCE), MULA AVIDYA (ROOT
IGNORANCE), MAYA (ILLUSION), PRAKRITI (NATURE), SHAKTI (POWER),
AVYAKTA (UNMANIFEST). This principle is a "Bava Rupa" it actually
exists in a very peculiar way. It is Tri Guna Atmaka (MADE UP OF
THREE GUNAS). This Avidya is ANADI ANNANTAM (BEGININGLESS AND
ENLESS).
This Avidya has two powers: AVARANA SHAKTI (THE POWER TO
COMPLETELY COVER THE ABSOLUTE REALITY) and VIKSHEPA SHAKTI (THE
POWER TO PROJECT THE UNREAL WORLD). It is this Ignorance that is said to
be the cause of the dualistic world as well as transmigratory existence
(Samsara) as well as Adhyasa-the misconceptiontion of superimposing the
Self and the Non-Self. This Ignorance is neither describable as existent nor
as non-existent (sat-asat anirvachiniya) nor can it said to be either the
same as the Absolute nor different from the Absolute. This Mula
Ignorance exists in all the common states of experience, including
deep sleep. If it did not exist in deep sleep, the Advaitin argues
there would be no cause to account for waking up! It is only by
accepting this principle of Avidya that we can account for the
appearance of the world from the Non Dual Quality less Absolute.
This Ignorance can only be destroyed by the attainment of the
Knowledge of the Absolute, this destroys both Ignorance and its
effects--Adhyasa and the world and Samsara.
---------------------------------
(((That the above depiction of the Advaita Vedantins
'theory'of Ignorance/Maya is not merely a straw dog set up by the
latter Vedantic Achhaaryas, (Baskara, Ramanuga, Madhva, Nibarka,
Chaitanya and Vallahbha) so as to make it easy prey for criticism, can be
seen by an appeal to the writings of the great Advaitic Acharyas.
Shakaracharya describes this doctrine of Mula Avidya and its identity
with Maya and Prikriti in the most famous independent work ascribed to
him, Viveka Chudamani. His direct disciple Padmapada elaborates on the
doctrine of his teacher in his Panchapadika, ie his commentary on
Shankaras commentary on the first four Sutras of the Brahma Sutra
Bhashya . The two later branches of Advaita ,the Vivarana and the
Bhamati schools, (who by this time had to respond to the criticisms of
the Vedantic Acharyas against this Avidya Maya Vada (The Theory Of
Indeterminable Illusory Ignorance))had all accepted the truth of this
Mula Avidya. In fact Vimuktatmas' 'Ista Siddhi' is a sustained
refutation of the criticisms of the 'Maya Ignorance' theory. And one
can easily conclude that by the time Vacaspati Mishra composed the
'Bhamati, Baskaras Beda Abeda school had acquired wide currency at
the expense of the Advaita philosophy. For we see in the Bhamati
great efforts being made on the part of Vacaspati to answer the
objections of Baskara against this Root Ignorance Theory.
Sarvajamuni, Vidyaranya (pancadasi). Sri Harsha, and every famous
Vedantic writer has held this exact view. Not only is this true of
the past, but every modern day Advaita Vedantin (in the orthodox sense
- Swami Dayananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Vivekananda, Swami
Shivananda) has accepted and propounded this doctrine of
'Indescribable Ignorance' in one form or another. In 1984 the Sringeri
Shankara Mutt, one of the highest authorities on the doctrinal issues
concerning Advaita Vedanta, issued a book dedicated solely to
upholding the truth that Ignorance in Vedanta does not mean merely
'not knowing, 'doubting', or 'misconceiving' as it is commonly
understood in the world but rather a unique type of Indeterminable
Ignorance ( which, it appears, only the Advaitins know about, in as
much as no other system of thought Eastern or Western have
acknowledged such a principel). It is this SAME Avidya , this
doctrine of Maya, that is the target of refutation by the Vaisnava
Acharyas, and not a doctrine which they themselves have imagined!)))
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The response of the Vaisnava Vedantins to the above
theory of "Mula Avidya Maya" is that it is 1) opposed to reason (yukti
viruddha), 2) opposed to universal experience (sarva luakika anubava
viruddha) and 3) opposed to the scriptures (shastra viruddha) and
therefore should not be accepted by those who are striving for the
highest goal attainable (parama purusharta). The following is an
elucidation of these three criticisms:
1) Opposed to reason:
a) We would like to ask the Advaitin exactly where does this positive
principle of Ignorance reside? It either exists outside of the
Absolute or within the Absolute, as there are no other alternatives.
If the Advaitin takes the first option then he must abandon the idea
that the Absolute is Non Dual. If he takes the second option then he
must abandon the idea that the absolute is without qualities (And if
this Mula Avidya were to reside in the Absolute, since this is the
greatest Ignorance of all- as compared with the ignorance of any
particular individual (Tula Avidya)-it would result in making the
Absolute the biggest ignoramus of all!).
b) To say that there is an entity whose nature is neither existent
nor non-existent is contradictory. As these are mutually opposed
qualities. The existence of one attribute necessarily implies the
absence of its opposite. Just as motion and being stationary are
not attributes that can be ascribed to a single object
simultaneously, so too it is not possible to conceive of a positive
entity called Avidya, which is neither existent nor non-existent.
c) How exactly this positive entity, Avidya, can have the capacity to
cover the Absolute which is infinite is not something the mind can
conceive, and therefore, this Avidya/Maya is nothing more than an
article of faith, an unreasonable dogma that the Advaitin asks us to
accept, even in face of the fact that it cannot be rationally
demonstrated.
d) This Avidya is claimed to be beginingless and endless. It is not
reasonable to suppose that a beginingless entity could ever come to an
end. That which has a beginning will certainly have an end, that which
has no beginning can never have an end!
e) Ignoring the above criticism, the Advaitin nevertheless claims
that this Beginingless Avidya/Maya and its effects can be destroyed by
Knowledge of the Absolute.(Brahmavid Brahma bhavati). Yet this too
(just like his imagination of Mula Avidya) is no more than a dogmatic
article of faith. How so? In the world it is NEVER seen that knowledge
ever creates or destroys any positive existing thing. In fact, all
that knowledge ever does and all that it can do is to reveal the
object of knowledge as it is. When we get the correct knowledge of a
pot, for example, that knowledge neither creates nor destroys the
pot. It merely reveals it as it is. (To quote a nyaya- Vidya
jnapakum na karakum- knowledge reveals the object it does not create
anything) To say that Knowledge has the capacity to destroy a positive
entity, Avidya, that is made up of the three qunas is not reasonable,.
At best, knowledge could possibly reveal this Ignorance as it is ,
but it could never destroy it. Therefore since the Advaitin stakes his
all on the necessity of Knowledge to the exclusion of every other
means for the removal of this Ignorance. And since it has be
demonstrated that Knowledge never destroys anything positive including
Avidya, (Nor Maya, Nor Prakriti, Nor Avyakta etc-for these are no more
than synonyms for Avidya according to the Advaitin.)!! It follows
from this that even if one were to hypothetically accept the truth of
the Advaitins' Mula Avidya, which is claimed to be the root cause of
samsara, there is no way that anyone could destroy it -including the
Advaitin -whether by knowledge or by any other means,(bhakti, karma
yoga, meditation, etc) . And therefore the Advaitin has infact
disqualified himself for the attainment of the Highest Goal by
accepting this Maya doctrine.
f) The Advaitin might retort that the knowledge that he is talking
about is not any worldly knowledge, which he grants does not destroy
anything, but a special type of knowledge that is gained in
Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and it is this knowledge which has the capacity
to destroy the beginingless Mula Avidya. This reply has several
defects. Since this Nirvikalpa state is not a universal one, those
who have not yet attained that state will have to take it as an
article of faith that by attaining a particular state, at a particular
time, at a particular place, that has a beginning and an end this will
produce a knowledge which has the capacity to destroy, forever, this infinite
Power/Shakti - Ignorance that has covered the Absolute from beginingless
time. So there is no rational support for one who has not yet achieved it.
The next defect arises when the Advaitin claims that the truth of Mula
Avidya and its nature and its effects, as well as the fact that it is
destroyed by the knowedge obtained in the Nirvikalpa state is 'proved'
by those who have actually experienced that state. In other words, he
claims that we know all this on the basis of the testimony of those
who have experienced that state This reply can never be convincing for
the very reason that if in fact a person attained this 'special'
Knowledge in the Nirvikupa state and thereby destroyed this Mula
Avidya. There would then be no person left to give testimony to Mula
Avidya nor any world left to hear that testimony! This follows
rigorously from the logic that the sole cause for the whole universe
as well as the individuals suffering in it, is nothing but the effect
of Mula Avidya and this is said to have been destroyed.
The defect of invoking some private mystical state as well
as the testimony of those who are supposed to have experienced those
states, so as to substantiate the truth of something that can not be
rationally defended, is that ANYTHING can be held to be proved by an
appeal to that state. It is a passing strange that the state appealed
to by the Advaitin, to defend the dogma that Mula Avidya can be
destroyed by the Knowledge attained in Nirvikalpa Samadhi, is the very
same state that Patanjali invokes to proclaim the truth of Duality.
And even though Patanjali may be supposed to have attained this
mystical private state (considering the fact that he wrote the
definitive book on the subject-the Yoga Sutras), he never conceived
of, nor even hinted at this dogma of Mula Avidya. For Patanjali the
only ignorance was subjective ignorance and when an individual removed
his subjective ignorance, then he alone would attain Kaivalyam. But
the world would not be destroyed nor become unreal thereby, nor would
the subjective ignorance of all the other real individuals be
destroyed. Thus by appealing to the same mystical state (and there can
be no distinctions, by definition, with regard to the actual state of
Nirvikalpa) we have two different reports about the nature of reality
as well as the nature of ignorance (either a Cosmic Principle which
accounts of the appearance of the world -Advaita Darshana-or a
subjective misconception which merely accounts for only one
individuals suffering and on the destruction of which there is an end
of suffering for that individual alone-Yoga Darshana)! This should
serve as a warning for those who would like to establish their views
on the basis of an individual mystical state!
g) There is no empirical means by which this Mula Avidya can be
demonstrated in as much as the senses cannot objectify this Mula
Avidya, nor can it be inferred in as much as there is no previous
cognition of it as associated with something else, so that it could
now be inferred.
h) Because Ignorance is opposed to Knowledge and since the Advaitin
claims that the nature of the absolute is Knowledge, how can Ignorance
reside in the Absolute?
i) When the Advaitin says that this Mula Avidya must necessarily
be inferred because without that inference we could never explain the
appearance of duality, what he is really saying is that in order to
uphold his cherished theory that Reality is Non-Dual and
Qualitiless,he is going to assume, to hypothesize this Mula Avidya,
even though it is not rationally sustainable and , in the face of the
above, an irrational doctrine.
2) Opposed to Universal Experience:
When the Advaitin claims that the world is the effect of this
hypothetical principle of Ignorance and is therefore unreal he
contradicts the experience of all individuals. That the world is real
is proved by every sense organ. We see the world, we hear the world,
we touch the world, this is the proof that the world exists. As
opposed to this evidence which is universal, if one were to assert
that that the world is unreal" because it is the effect of this
hypothetical Ignorance", it would be like someone claiming that fire
is cold, and that this is so is because. and then he gives you the
reasoning to substantiate his claim. Would this reasoning be
acceptable or convincing? When the fact that fire is hot is a
universally accepted experiential fact, testified to by the senses
directly ,to say that it is cold and to give the reasons for it being
so, is no more than sophistry and can never lead to conviction.
Nor can the Advaita Vedantin fall back on the support of the Holy
Scriptures to support his view, for even if a hundred Srutis were to
proclaim that fire is cold, that statement can never be taken in its
literal sense and must be understood either metaphorically or as a
viddhi/command of the scripture to superimpose the idea of cold on the
fire and never that fire is in fact cold. This is so because all
Vedantins accept that the Scriptures are a 'means of knowledge' and
one 'means of knowledge' is never seen to contradict another 'means of
knowledge' The eyes never contradict the ears, and the scriptures
never contradict the sense organs. They each have there own sphere of
operation and the scriptures only reveal what is not accessible to the
sense organs. Only if both the sense organs and the scriptures were
thought to both reveal the same object could it then be said that
there is a possibility of contradiction, but this is not the case.
It is for this very same reason the Advaitin cannot offer as evidence
the mystical state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi to confirm his view that 'the
world is unreal, it being the outcome of Ignorance'. For what exactly
is this state of Nirvikalpa? It is a state in which one is no longer
aware of any distinctions, no objects and no subject aware of any
objects. When a person then comes out of this state and is once again
aware of the world and of himself as a subject cognizing that world,
how can he claim that the world that he is now perceiving is unreal
on the basis of that Nirvikalpa experience? In fact we all have the
experience of not being aware of the subject or object in deep sleep,
but no one coming out of that state believes that the world is unreal
or that an indescribable Avidya causes it. How can the absence of the
experience of the world prove its unreality when the senses, (even of
the one who had Nirvikalpa or sleep), prove the worlds existence now,
and allow us to correctly infer its existence even during the time
someone was in Nirvikalpa Samadhi or sleep?
3) Opposed to the Scriptures:
The Advaitin admits that in the Upanishads, (scriptures
which he himself considers to be of the highest authority), one does
find two types of texts-those that describe the Absolute
as free from qualities and Non Dual and those that describe the
Absolute with qualities. But the Advaitin argues that only the first
of the above mentioned texts describes the true nature of the
Absolute, and are therefore of primary and final import, whereas the
other set of texts are merely of secondary and interpretable import
It is based on this arbitrary distinction ,(in as much as this
distinction is not to be found in the Upanishads themselves), that the
Advaitin claims that the secondary description of Absolute(Brahman)
with qualities is the out come of Mula Avidya or Maya, The only
problem is he has not yet demonstrated the truth of this Mula Avidya,
the existence of which is necessary if his arguments about the
secondary import of those texts which describe the Absolute with
qualities are to be considered valid.. Actually this type of argument
against the Advaita Vedantin, while correct , is not even
necessary,.for the truth of the matter is as follows;
If one were to go through all the Upanishads very
carefully and then proceed to meticulously analyze the 700 slokas of
the Bhagavad Gita and then to carefully analyse the 555 sutras of the
Brahma Sutras (ie: the Prastana Traya- the three canonical works on which
all Advaitins must base their viewpoint) one would not find one
mention, one hint, one allusion to this purely scholastic doctrine of
an 'Indiscernible power which cannot be said to be existent or non
existent and which covers the Absolute and projects an unreal world'!
In fact it is much more likely that this doctrine of Avidya Maya,
rather than being a teaching that is faithful to the Upanishads, is a
teaching borrowed from the Buddhists who are well known for
proclaiming the illusory nature of the world. Furthermore we have not
only this negative evidence to disprove the scriptural validity of the
doctrine of Mula Avidya as the cause of the world, we also have the
positive evidence to demonstrate that Mula Avidya is not the cause of
any world real or unreal. The Sruti says "In the Beginning there was
the Absolute alone, it desired;let me be many' and it created the
world." Here we are given in the clearest of terms that the cause of
the world is the desire of the Absolute and not any inferred
indiscernible cosmic force called Ignorance.
In summary, since all the Advaitic arguments for the existence of
Mula Avidya Maya have been demonstrated to be opposed to reason,
experience and scripture, unless these criticisms can be shown to be false, all
those who are true seekers of truth, who desire liberation from all suffering
and yearn to attain the highest bliss, should reject the Advaita system
completely for like a stack of cards, without the acceptance of Mula Avidya
the whole edifice of Advaita falls to the ground.
So, Dennis, in summary, I conclude that if you are really a
jijnasu, you must get a satisfactory answer to this question. Perhaps
some of the other members of this list will make an attempt. I plan to
address your question ((and yes there is an answer) in the course of
my attempt to show, from a different angle, how SHASTRA IS THE ONLY
PRAMANA FOR ATMAVIDYA.
Hari Om
Atmachaitanya
From: K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 12:49 pm
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Re: Whence adhyAsa?
Namaste Atmachaitanyaji
I would also like to bring to your attention that the existent Advaita
Vedanta tradition doesn't accept the views of yours (and your teacher
Swamiji Satchitanandendra Saraswati's) with regards to avidya or
mulaavidya.
This particular point and many other views of Swamiji Satchitanandendra
Saraswati are refuted in an unpublished work by Martha Doherty (a disciple
of Swamiji Dayananda Saraswati) using the works of Shankara, Gaudapada &
Sureswara (the same teachers whom Swamiji Satchitanandendra Saraswati
considers to be the only authentic teachers of Vedanta). I beg you to
purchase a copy of this brilliant 324 page Phd dissertation written by her
(read more about her at this site:
http://www.integralphilosophy.org/doherty.htm & the link is also available
there to purchase the dissertation). Her dissertation covers the views of
traditional scholars and modern alike.
Thank you.
From: "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...>
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Whence adhyAsa?
Dear Sri Atmachaitanya
But let's look at some of the arguments you put forth.
You claim that the Maya, or Mula Avidya, is an indefensible theory, and that
all the Vaishnava Acharyas knew it and used this doctrine to defeat the
doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. So let's go through it, point by point.
A) We would like to ask the Advaitin exactly where does this positive
principle of Ignorance reside?
Where does Maya reside? It arises in Consciousness. It is analogous to the
arising of dreams in the night. Where do those dreams come from? They
come from the mind. While they are happening they have a form of reality.
When awakening happens they are seen to be only relatively real. Something
that is, as Francis Lucille puts it, subject to such a radical discontinuity,
cannot be real. Not absolutely real. And what we call everyday life is also
seen to be a dream, or Maya, when it is seen who "I" really is. Even if it is
seen only as a glimpse, it cannot be doubted that what "I" is, is that in which
the appearances arise. But it is known then that the absolute "I" has no
attributes of its own - it is the background against which everything that is in
time and space happens, but it is not itself in time and space. It is like the
silence within which sounds arise, sounds that do not destroy but only add
depth to the silence. From the viewpoint of the imagined "person" it might
appear that the Absolute is, to use your words, "the biggest ignoramus of
them all" for wanting to entertain this Maya. But if you can remember how it
was when you were a child, when you delighted in games of make-believe,
you might be able to see that "playful" is a much better word to use than
"ignoramus".
B) To say that there is an entity whose nature is neither existent
nor non-existent is contradictory. ..
Oh dear! You really chose a bad metaphor this time! Being in motion and
being stationary are qualities that are attributed to the one object all the
time. Sir Isaac Newton believed, for a time, that there was such a thing as
absolute motion. But since the time of Einstein nobody does. Motion is
always relative. In relation to the earth in which it stands a post might be
considered to be stationary. But in relation to the centre of the earth it is
considered to be circling around it at tremendous speed. And in relation to
the sun it is moving at even greater speed. And dreams also can be
considered to be both existent and non-existent.
C) How exactly this positive entity, Avidya, can have the capacity to
cover the Absolute which is infinite is not something the mind can
conceive, and therefore, this Avidya/Maya is nothing more than an
article of faith, an unreasonable dogma that the Advaitin asks us to
accept, even in face of the fact that it can not be rationally
demonstrated.
Again, Sri Atmachaitanya, it is usually the case that the character who I think
I am in a night-dream has no idea that he is, in form and in every other
attribute, a figment of the imagination, as are also all the other characters
in the dream. Sometimes there are lucid dreams, where the dream continues
but it is understood that it is a dream. This is a good pointer, by way of
metaphor, to what is the case. But you are right to state that it is something
that the mind cannot conceive. The conceptual function of the mind is to
make images and representations of things, and there is only so far that it
can go. The mind exists within consciousness, and while consciousness can
perceive the mind, the mind cannot conceive consciousness.
You make a mistake, dear Atmachaitanya, to imagine that the point of the
teachings is just to give an intellectual grasp of reality; the point of the
teachings is to take the mind, the diligent mind, to the limit of the mind's
capacity, after which, by Her grace, a jump can be taken, out of what you
think you are into what you have always been.
D) This Avidya is claimed to be beginingless and endless
From the point of view of the separate entity, it has a beginning, at birth,
and an end, at death or at awakening. From the point of view of the Absolute
it could well be beginningless and endless.
E) Ignoring the above criticism, the Advaitin nevertheless claims
that this Beginingless Avidya/Maya and its effects can be destroyed by
Knowledge of the Absolute.Yet this too is no more than a dogmatic
article of faith. How so? In the world it is NEVER seen that knowledge
ever creates or destroys any positive existing thing. In fact, all
that knowledge ever does and all that it can do is to reveal the
object of knowledge as it is.
Here again you are a bit out of date. In the world of quantum physics is has
been established for a very long time that reality is dependent on the
observer. Also, you seem to think that the world consists of material things
that exist independently of consciousness. But no one has ever known
anything independently of consciousness. Consciousness is the sine qua non
of everything. When this is truly understood it is readily experienced that
knowledge certainly does destroy the idea that there are "things" which exist
independently of consciousness. And there is another aspect, too. Thoughts,
ideas, hopes and fears, pains even, are nothing more than appearances in
consciousness. And I can tell you from my own authority that it often
happens that when those thoughts, pains etc are closely observed, or
"surrendered to", they dissolve into formless being.
And now, to tell you the truth, I am tired of this conversation. The basic
point is that all the arguments that you put forward leave consciousness out
of the picture, or at least give it a peripheral role. In the computer world they
have a phrase for it; "garbage in - garbage out." But in order to arrive at a
clearer understanding of consciousness, by means of logic, consciousness has
to be at the centre of every proposition with which you start.
And I have here in front of me the words of Sri Krishna Menon:
"Often we hear people discussing spiritual truth from the objective
standpoint, and resting content with theoretical knowledge. This is the result
of pursuing dry and fruitless lines of thinking. An aspirant has nothing to gain
from mere appreciatory or deprecatory discussion of the truths set forth in
philosophical works. The idea of the Acharya was only that each should follow
some line of spiritual thought which would help him to attain realization."
For me, Sri Atmachaitanya, Advaita, and especially the idea of Maya, or
Avidya, does the job very nicely. For you perhaps it doesn't. Maybe, for you,
some other line of thought does it. In which case, go for it, and good luck.
Cheers
Warwick
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:48 am
Dear K Kathirasan,
You say that the 'existent Advaita Vedanta tradition doesn't
accept my views ' about 'Mula Avidya'. Absolutely correct. So what?
Are we going to determine truth by consensus of opinion? Perhaps we
should take a vote, and if 50 Swamis say there is Mula Avidya, and
only 2 say there is no Mula Avidya, shall we go with the majority?
The problem is so simple that it defies my imagination how anyone who
has even the slightest capacity to think for themselves could possibly
be seduced into thinking that :
Mula Avidya is an existing thing (Bhava Rupa),( i.e. It actually has
an ontological status) but it can be destroyed by knowledge!
You don't need to be a great scholar, you don't need to wear orange
robes, nor have a PhD in Sanskrit to acknowledge the indisputable fact
that the only 'things' that knowledge can destroy are the 3-fold
epistemological categories of: A) not knowing a thing (Avidya). B)
Doubts about a thing (Samshaya) c) misconceptions about a thing
(adhyasa).
If I am wrong, and you or anyone else, can cite just one example. one
illustration, one conceivable instance whereby knowledge destroys,
removes, alters, purifies or modifies, any 'actually existing thing',
I would love to hear about it,
If you can't, then disregard any Swami who dogmatically claims that it
can. (Especially a Swami unfamiliar with Heisenbergs' Uncertainty
Principle)
If your confidence will be increased about the veracity of my claims
by an appeal to an authority, then I put before you the great Shankara
himself.
Please read Shankaras' introduction to his Brahma Sutras (Adhyasa
Bashya). This is his most complete examination of the cause, nature,
and effect of Avidya. Nowhere else in whole of his extensive writings
has he examined this subject more completely. You will not find one
allusion, one hint, that points us to the idea that Ignorance is a"
begingless and endless existent 'thing' that is made up of three gunas
and has the twofold power of covering the Absolute and projecting the
world and has to be 'destroyed' by Knowledge.
In fact the sum and substance of his famous introduction to his Sutra
Bhashya is this:
Atman, the real 'I' of each one of us, is the Witnessing
Consciousness. That alone is really real according to Vedanta, since
it is absolutely undeniable. The non-Self which is made up of the
body, the senses and the mind is an unreal appearance, set up by
ignorance or privation of knowledge. Now the human intellect has an
innate natural tendency to project the non-real not-Self (Un-Atman)
and confound the identity of the real and unreal whenever it
functions. This mixing up of the real and the unreal and the delusion,
which prompts the mind to submit itself to a mistaken transference of
the mutual properties of the Self and the Non-Self, is what is called
Avidya. This tendency is so natural to all mankind that no one
suspects that he is under the influence of this primary ignorance, due
to want of discrimination, when he talks of me and mine. It follows
that this Avidya or Ignorance is finally wiped off as soon as one
discriminates the real and the unreal and determines their true
nature. This discrimination and determination of the true nature of
these, is what is termed Vidya or knowledge.
"It is on the presupposition of this mutual superimposition of the Self and the
non-self, called Avidya that all conventions of the means and objects of right
knowledge-whether secular or sacred- proceed, as also all the shastras
dealing with injunctions, prohibitions or final release" (Intro. SBh.)
This clarification of the concept of Avidya then, is a special
contribution of Shankara to Vedanta. Nowhere else, in the whole range
of Vedantic literature do we find this precision of thought which
distinguishes this basic Ignorance, which is responsible for the whole
process of human knowledge and activity---from the individual
instances of the ignorance of objects in ordinary life. And let me
once again add that there is not the slightest mention of the Mula
Avidya here, which was concocted by the post Shankara tarkikas, and so
easily refuted by the Vaishnava Acharyas.
Hari Om
Atmachaitanya
P.S. And yes, I have ordered Dr. M. Doherty's dissertation. It should
arrive in a few days. Thank you.
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:33 am
Here is my reply with all due respects to you:
The traditional Advaita Vedanta tradition accepts that Vedantic teaching is
something that is passed down from a teacher to a student forming an
unbroken lineage. If that is so, then Swami Satchitanandendra's (henceforth
I will refer to him as SS) views are nothing but a break in tradition, hence
an asampradayavit. Of course, I am here specifically referring to his view
that avidya is not present in sleep. And may I know sir, who is Swami
Satchitanandendra's teacher? Is he a sampradayavit? As far as I know, SS
didn't even agree with his own teacher with regards to his views on avidya
and also with the other major views of the Vedanta tradition.
I don't find the need to discuss any further on this matter as it is my
'opinion' that the views of SS are entirely his and not belonging to the
Vedanta tradition. And this conviction arises after analaysing the defects
of his argument from the source I have stated previously (although I am yet
to finish studying the dissertation). It is good that you have ordered the
dissertation. Please study it to look at the various areas where SS may have
overlooked.
I would also highly recommend this dissertation to all mumukshus.
Thank you, sir.
Kathi
From: Gregory Goode <goode@D...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:42 pm
Dear Atmachaitanya,
Before anyone can take up your invitation, you'd have to actually find one
thing, whether a teacup, a schoolbus, a thought, or adhyAsa, that actually
exists. Not even Knowledge exists. Rather, it is Existence itself. In
trying to establish any "actually existing thing," one must show how it stands
on its own. To do this, one must show how the thing is independent of
awareness of the thing. Since the demonstration itself would happen in
awareness, the demonstration cannot establish the existence of anything
beyond awareness. So why believe that stuff exists in such a way??
Regards,--Greg
From: "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 12:52 am
Subject: [advaitin] Re: Whence adhyAsa?
Shree atmachaitanya wrote:
>
>The problem is so simple that it defies my imagination how anyone who
>has even the slightest capacity to think for themselves could possibly
>be seduced into thinking that :
>
>Mula Avidya is an existing thing (Bhava Rupa),( i.e. It actually has
>an ontological status) but it can be destroyed by knowledge!
Fantastic!
There is a conceptual problem in thinking ignorance as bhavaruupa
type as Shree atmachaitanyaji rightly pointed out. Personally I have
been struggling with this problem and unable to reconcile it. I am
not sure at what stage of the adviata doctrine development the
bhavaruupa aspect of the avidya has been introduced. In
Vivekachuudamani - there are two slokas that define maya -
avyaktanaamnii parameshha shaktii
anaadyavidyaa triguNaatmikaa para
kaaryaanumeya sudhiyaiva maaya
yayaa gatsarvamidam prasuuyate||
sannapya sanna ubhayaatmikaano
bhinnaapyabhinna ubhayaatmikaano
saangaapyasangaa ubhayaatmikaano
mahat bhuuta anirvachaniiya ruupa||
(typos could be there since typed from memory)
where anaadi avidya is qualified by three guNa-s and identified with maaya.
There is of course a consideration that VivekachuuDamaNi is not of
Shankara. I am not sure if there are equivalent slokas in Upadesha sahashri.
The triguNa aspect of maya comes from Sw. Up. statement -of
identification of maaya with prakRîti which is triguNaatmikam -
maayantu prakRitim vidyaat -
atmachaitanyaji is right - Ramanuja takes this bhaavaruupa aspect of
avidya as puurvapaksha as in his maahaa puurvapaksha in his
shreebhaashya.
I would appreciate if Shree Atmachaitanyaji provides a chronological analysis
of how this concept of bhaavaruupa avidya came about if it is from post
Shankara scholars.
Hari Om!, Sadananda
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 7:43 am
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Whence adhyAsa?
Namaste Nairji
You need not study that dissertation if you don't feel the need to, sir.
However, I discovered that some of the views represented by
Atmachaitanyaji
do not belong to the existing Advaita Vedanta tradition. And the one point
that the whole Vedantic tradition can disagree with is the 'non-existence of
avidya in deep sleep'. I managed to find 2 verses in the Brahma Sutra
Shankara Bhashya that suggests the existence of avidya in a seed-form
during
sleep. And another verse in Chandogya Upanishad also suggests the same.
Therefore, to say otherwise would mean to deviate from the tradition of
Vedanta.
I must confess that I have learnt alot from Atmachaitanyaji's posts and I
found his arguments really well supported by the many references he has
provided. For that I am indebted to him. However, on the point of 'avidya
being non-existent in deep sleep' is a deviation from the teachings if
Vedanta. Since you have quoted the Tattva Bodha, it is also worthy to note
that the presence of avidya is also mentioned in the Tattva Bodha in the
chapters that discuss the 3 bodies and the five sheaths, specifically the
karana sharira and anandamaya kosha.
Just a little history:
Supposedly there was a formal debate held in Karnataka organised by the
Sringeri mutt to ascertain if Shankara suggested the absence of avidya in
deep sleep in his various bhashyas on the prasthana traya. The debate was
between the Advaitins, who subscribed to the view that avidya was indeed
present in deep sleep, and the disciples of Swami Satchitanandendra who
believed otherwise. This debate was also presided over by the pontiff of the
Sringeri mutt as well. In the end, the position of the traditional advaitins
(the ones who subcribed to the view that avidya indeed present in deep
sleep) was found tenable.
This subject may not be of interest to many and to them I apologise. And I
also apologise to Venkatji for making him wait longer for the responses from
Atmachaitanyaji.
Kathi
Date: Mon Feb 25, 2002 8:19 am
Dear K. Sadananda,
Let me begin by congratulating you for your courage to
articulate your doubts about Mula Avidya, your recognition of the
'conceptual problem that it entails, and your admitted inability to
reconcile it, as well as your willingness to doubt the authenticity of
the claim that the Vivekachudamani is from the pen of Adi
Shankaracharya. (In fact Vivekachudamani is a 16th century work that
is filled with doctrines that are completely opposed to Shankaras
Siddhanata, including the Identification of Avidya and Maya and that
Avidya is Tri-Guna Atmika, as well as the erroneous doctrine that even
after the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self, the sadhaka has to
repeat this knowledge over and over again to make it 'STRONG'
(Prasankyanavada-A pet view of Swami Dayananda, who holds that;: 'Just
like a born beggar who has just won the lottery and is now a
millionaire, but still his hand goes out automatically when someone is
offering free food due to his old habits. So also for the one who has
got the 'knowledge of the Self', the old vasanas keep coming back and
in order to make his 'knowledge' firm, that knowledge should be
repeated till it becomes natural'. His student,. Jaishankar writes;
"Similarly after gaining doubtless Knowldege that 'I am Brahman' from
Guru and Shastra one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous
conditioning goes"(Post Sat. Nov. 27 1999) and again Sri Madathilnair
writes to Orbitsville;: "Once we have the basic Advaitic vision, what
is needed is contemplation on it"(Sun Feb 3). And this view has been
shared by every other Post Shankara Vedantin till this day! A view
that is extensively and completely refuted by Shankara in his Upadesha
Sahasri, - Mundaka Up.Bh 1-1-6, - Isha. Up. Bh 18, - Bri Bh,1-4-10
etc.etc.).
You are absolutely correct in stating the in the Upanishads it is
only Maya(Prakriti) that is described as tri-guna-atmika (made up of
three gunas), and the same is the case with Shankara, in that you will
not be able to find one instance of him describing Avidya in such a
manner. For Shankara, Maya, Prakriti, The Three Gunas, Shakti ,
Avyakta, Nama Rupa, are all the effect of Avidya (Avidya Kalpita
-Imagined by ignorance: Avidya Krita-created by ignorance: Avidya
Pratusapita-projected by ignorance etc.,etc. In other words Avidya is
the cause and Maya is the effect. Our ignorance of the rope is the
cause-and the effect of that ignorance is the snake. Our ignorance of
Brahman is the cause; the dualistic Universe (Maya) is the effect of
that ignorance.
You are also correct that Ramanuja has totally demolished this
dogmatic and indefensible theory of Mula Avidya in his Shri Bashya,
but so has Bashkaracharya Madva, and it has been done with even
greater force by Vallahba and his followers.
And lastly, you ask me to provide a chronological analysis of how
this concept of Bhavarupa Avidya came about if it is from the Post
Shankara scholars. While a complete answer would require an elaborate
paper, here follows the short version:
History of Mula Avidya
The first hint that we have that there was a school of Advaita
Vedantins who were upholding some form of the theory that there was a
'Mula Avidya' that served as the 'material cause' of the Universe is
to be found in a casual allusion found in Madana Mishras'( A
contempory of Shankara) Brahma Siddhi, for he writes : "Thata cha
uktum avidya upadana bheda vadhibihi-'anadi aprathjanaa cha Avidya"
("The supporters of the theory that Avidya is the material cause of
the manifold, aver the Avidya is beginningless a serves no
teleological purpose.") However it is clear that these thinkers,
whoever they were, did not claim to be in Shankaras Sampradaya for the
simple reason that they came before him. So the first 'Post Shankara
Vedantin who claimed allegiance to Shankaras tradition and upheld this
erroneous doctrine of Mula Avidya has to be ascribed to Padmapada, the
author of the Pancapadika, and whose work includes an examintion and
commentary on Shankaras Adhyasa Bhasya. As I have stated before,
ignorance for Shankara is only the mutual superimposition of the Self
and the non-self, superimposition being understood to mean no more
than mistaking one thing for another (atasmin tat budhi) As for
instance taking nacre for silver. This ignorance of course need not be
proved, for it is recognized to be such as soon as it is pointed out,
being within the experience of all of us ("sarva loka pratyakshaha").
For the author of the Panchapadica, however, Avidya is an indefinable
inert power (anirvachaniya jada atmka avidya shakti) which clings to
the very being of both the Self and the external things, and is
capable of transforming itself into an illusory object. This Avidya,
he further surmises, must be presumed to cling to everything, self and
external objects, for otherwise we cannot account for the origin of
'illusory objects'. And in the case of the Jiva, we have to postulate
this Avidya on the strength of the Srutis which declare the identity
of the Jiva with Brahman; for, how else could we explain the absence
of the knowledge of this identity except by supposing that Avidya
envelops the Brahmic effulgent nature (Brahma svarupa prakasha
chadikaa) of the individual self?
It is obvious that Shankara,s is a rational system based on
universal experience, and Vidya and Avidya in his scheme of arguments
are quite intelligible to all who are familiar with the antipathy
between knowledge and error in everyday life. The system offered by
the writer of the Panchapadika on the other hand, speculates on the
basis of a hypothetical Mula Avidya presumed to exist just to account
for the appearance of illusory phenomena by a series of controvertible
and easily refuted arguments with a view to justify the theological
dogma that the knowledge of Brahman destroys the world of duality of
which the postulated and unsubstantiated Mula Avidya is the material
cause. I will give two specific instances were he totally distorts
Shankaras Adhayasa Bhashya so as to insert his false ideas:
Shankara states, "Although the subject and the object are of
completely different natures, 'DUE TO FALSE KNOWLEDGE' (MITHYAJNANA
NIMITAHA) having mixed up the real self and the unreal non-self, this
natural worldly dealing of 'I am this' and 'this is mine' comes about"
(Adhyasa Bashya)
Padmapada takes this word Mithya Jnana (false knowledge) and breaks
it up into Mithya (false) and Ajnana (ignorance)= and reads false
ignorance (which no one has ever heard of, as it become then a
tautology) instead of Shankaras clear and uncontroversial reading that
we are all familiar with i.e." 'false knowledge', and remarks as
follows:
"The commentary says ' Mithyaajnana nimttah'. 'Mithyaajnana'
means 1) that which is false (mithya) and 2) that which is ignorance
(ajnana)' By 'false' is ment 'indeterminability'. And 'Ignorance'
means the inert power of ignorance'. 'Tat nimitaha' (that cause),
means, having that (Adhyasa) for its MATERIAL cause." (Panchapadika pg
26 Madras ed.1938)
Note: Here it is claimed that the "power of Ignorance" is the
material cause for Adhyasa (superimposition). The doctrine that
Adhyasa requires a 'material' cause, the doctrine that ignorance is an
'inert power', and the doctrine that the word 'mithya (false) means
'indeterminable'- It is to be noted that none of these doctrines are
found or even implied in Shankaras commentary.
And again: Padmapada writes-
"This begingingless Ignorance is referred to in the Vedas,
Smrits, Epics and Puranas as Name and Form, the Unmanifest
(avyayakta), Ignorance, Maya, Prakriti, Darkness, Power (Shakti), The
Great Sleep, The Indestructible. In different places it is spoken of
in many different ways. It is spoken of as preventing the
manifestation of Consciousness (Avarana Shakti) in its true form as
the Absolute, and the producing the appearance (Vikshepa Shakti) of
the individual soul." (Panchpadika pg.98. Madras ed. 1938)
Note" Here, perhaps for the first time in Vedantic literature,
Ignorance is specifically presented as having the same meaning as
Maya, Shakti, Avyakrita (Unmanifest), etc., As well as having the
power to cover the absolute, and project the world. The author regards
Ignorance in the form of Adhyasa (superimposition), which was the form
that it was explained by Shankaara in his introduction to his Brahma
Sutra Commentary, as an effect, and he clings to the idea that the
'power of Ignorance' is its material cause (A Bhava Rupa).
Prakashatman Yati, who wrote a commentary on the
Panchapadika, and founded the Vivarana school of Aadvaita Vedanta,
followed in his teachers footsteps in upholding the doctrine of Mula
Aavidya, and Vachaspati Mishra, the author of the Bhamati, and founder
of the 'Bhamati' school, adopted this very same point of view. Since
then every Advaita Vedantin, while paying lip service to the Great
Shankaracharya, and claiming to belong to his Sampradaya , has tried
to uphold this false and irrational doctrine of Mula Avidya. Thus
Advaita Vedanta has been degraded into a dogmatic and speculative
system, divorced from universal experience and merely a system which
demands unquestioning and uncritical faith. And even if we grant the
existence of this hypothetical Avidya, there is no way that either
Knowledge, or any other conceivable means could ever destroy it!.
Hari Om
Atmachaitanya
P.S. And yes, I am aware of the fact that I have not yet answered
Dennis's question 'Whence Adhyasa', nor 'How the Shastra is the only
pramana for Atmavidya'..
From: Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Whence adhyAsa
namaste.
I was thinking whether I should stand on the sidelines along
with shri Harsha, shri Warwick and shri madathilnair or jump
into the ring. I decided, at least for the moment, to jump in
and express my views on the content of this thread.
Shri Dennis asks whence adhyAsa and whose is the first adhyAsa?
I understand the question as when did ignorance begin? We have
discussed this many times. My understanding is: adhyAsa is from
ignorance, and ignorance is anAdi, without beginning. Hence,
when did ignorance begin cannot be answered. I have posted two
or three articles on this quoting shri shankara's explanation
of this from His shrilalitA trishatI bhAShya. I do not see any
reason to question that explanation.
Some one said in this discussion that avidyA is without end
either. My understanding is: it is not so. Ignorance vanishes
on the dawning of knowledge. Thus, although avidyA is without
beginning, it has an end.
We can consider the following analogy: Even with aparavidyA,
sometimes we encounter confusion in understanding the subject.
Later, after we understand the subject, what happened to the
confusion? Confusion simply vanished. Sometimes we cannot even
reconstruct this confusion after we understand the subject.
Further, we cannot say when this confusion started.
I am afraid I do not see Fox's points a, b, c as stated by shri
Dennis in his original post and the comments on the three points
also posted there. I do not see shri Atmacaitanyaji's expansion
of these points either in his first post in this thread starting
with the section (in his post) "opposed to reason' etc. I have
difficulty understanding this "mUla avidyA". What is it? What
way is it different from avidyA? If mUla avidyA means the
beginning of avidyA, then I think that chasing mUla avidyA will
be the most fruitless exercise. You *cannot* reach the origin
of avidyA. It has no beginning. Please refer to "mAyA pa~ncakam"
by shri shankara where each verse ends with catchy "tva ghaTita
ghaTanA paTIyasI mAyA". I posted a rough translation of these
five verses sometime ago.
Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
Subject: [advaitin] Re: Whence adhyAsa?
Shree Atmachaitanyaji,
Thanks for taking time for detailed response. It will take some time
for me to digest before I continue the discussion on the topic. If
you have patience with me I will get back to you as soon as I can
resolve my thoughts.
Thanks again for the wonderful discussion.
Hari OM!
Sadananda
--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623
From: "Jaishankar Narayanan" <srijai@e...>
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:10 pm
Dear Friends,
Atma Chaitanya wrote:
"(In fact Vivekachudamani is a 16th century work that
is filled with doctrines that are completely opposed to Shankaras
Siddhanata, including the Identification of Avidya and Maya and that
Avidya is Tri-Guna Atmika, as well as the erroneous doctrine that even
after the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self, the sadhaka has to
repeat this knowledge over and over again to make it 'STRONG'
(Prasankyanavada-A pet view of Swami Dayananda, who holds that;: 'Just
like a born beggar who has just won the lottery and is now a
millionaire, but still his hand goes out automatically when someone is
offering free food due to his old habits. So also for the one who has
got the 'knowledge of the Self', the old vasanas keep coming back and
in order to make his 'knowledge' firm, that knowledge should be
repeated till it becomes natural'. His student,. Jaishankar writes;
"Similarly after gaining doubtless Knowldege that 'I am Brahman' from
Guru and Shastra one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous
conditioning goes"(Post Sat. Nov. 27 1999) and again Sri Madathilnair
writes to Orbitsville;: "Once we have the basic Advaitic vision, what
is needed is contemplation on it"(Sun Feb 3). And this view has been
shared by every other Post Shankara Vedantin till this day! A view
that is extensively and completely refuted by Shankara in his Upadesha
Sahasri, - Mundaka Up.Bh 1-1-6, - Isha. Up. Bh 18, - Bri Bh,1-4-10
etc.etc.)."
I want to clarify that Swami Dayananda does'nt support Prasankyanavada.
Those who hold on to Prasankyanavada say that Sabda Pramana does'nt give
aparoksha jnana (direct or immediate knowledge). They talk about
converting indirect knowledge (parokshajnana) gained from sruti to direct
knowledge (aparoksha jnana) by doing Meditation ( similar to Modern
Vedanta). Swami Dayananda does'nt accept this view. He has rejected
Prasankyanavada many times in the classes that I have attended. When we
say that the knowledge has to be recollected (Nidhidhyasana) it is part of the
Pramana vyapara which leads to a knowledge without any obstacles
(apratibandhakajnanam). Depending on the qualifications of the seeker
(mumukshu) there can be many different kinds of obstacles like doubts,
vagueness and prior conditioning. All these obstacles have to be overcome to
attain clear knowledge of the self as revealed by the sruti. A uttamaadhikari (
a fully qualified person) may not need any recollection (Nidhidhyasana). For
such a person only sravanam may be enough, but such persons are very
rare. If Atma chaitanya rejects recollection of knowledge for everyone, how
does he explain Nidhidhyasana? He cannot reject Nidhidhyasana as
something introduced by the later acharyas !
Regarding Mulavidya and whether Avidya is a Bhavapadartha I have to say
from my reading of Bhagavad Gita,Upanishad and Brahma Sutra Bhasyas
that Shankara takes Avidya as jnanavirodhi (opposed to knowledge) rather
than jnanaabhAva (absence of knowledge). If Atmachaitanya disagrees with
this then he has to give alternate explanations to Gita verses like
"ajnAnena Avrtam jnAnam tena muhyanti jantava:"
"jnAnena tu tadajnAnam yeshAm nAshitamAtmana:
teshAm adityavad jnAnam prakashayati tatparam" etc.
" The beings are deluded by ignorance which covers jnAnam. For whom
thisignorance is destroyed by knowledge the consciousness shines forth like
the Sun."
The other problem if ajnanam is taken as jnanaabhAva is that in sleep
therecannot be any jivabija or karanasarira (causal state). This is the position
which Atmachaitanya takes which leads to lot of illogical implications. If
ignorance is not there in sleep then all you have to do to be liberated is
sleep. But thats not the case in this world. Further this position is
contradicted by shankara's bhasyam on Mandukya Karika's
Agamaprakaranam and chandogya upanishad's 6th chapter. I can send a
seperate post on that as I dont carry the texts with me now.
Finally I want to state that all these things are only prakriyAbheda
(differences in the methodology of teaching) as we all agree on what is to be
taught which is 'tat tvam asi'. That being the case, to claim that all others
after Shankara and Sureshvara in the guruparampara are wrong or ajnanis,
is adhikaprasanga or sheer arrogance. For different people different
methodologies work but one cannot dismiss the parampara which has been
coming for more than thousand years and has produced so many enlightened
people as wrong, with flimsy reasoning.
with love and prayers,
Jaishankar
From: "Harsha" <harsha@c...>
Namaste Sri Jaishankarji
What you say makes sense to me. Sleep does not bring upon liberation. The
phrase Sat-Chit-Ananda contains the clue. Chit refers to consciousness. The
nature of consciousness is to be Awake. Pure Consciousness is Always Self-
Awake. The ancient sages did not say the nature of Self is Sat-Nidra-Ananda
(Existence - Sleep - Bliss). They say it is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence,
Consciousness, Bliss).
Love to all
Harsha
From: Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>
namaste shri Atmachaitanya-ji,
I went through your respose to shri Dennis Waite and particularly
the objections you raised to what is adhyAsa, particularly in
points labelled A, B, C....H. You have presented them as objections
raised by vaishnava AcAryA-s. But the force with which you presented
them lead me to believe that you yourself subscribe to that thinking.
I would like to categorically know whether you yourself accept that
line of thinking (as presented in points A, B...H of your post).
I find the points made there without basis and, in my view, a
complete misrepresentation of what is advaita. And I am surprised
that a learned person like you, a disciple of swami satchidanendra
saraswati, subscribe to that misrepresentation. I like to present
here my understanding on these points. For brevity, I will not
reproduce your post but will label my points the same as yours,
viz. A, B...etc.
A. The locus of ignorance is in the feeling of individuality
(ahaMkAra) of the jIvA. In answer to question whose is avidyA,
shri shankara says it is in the person who is asking the question.
There is no outside to the Absolute. Absolute, Itself, is without
qualities, yet because of avidyA, the jIvA concept is born.
B. I suggested in my earlier post the analogy of confusion (about
any subject even in aparavidyA). When we do not know the subject,
confusion really exists for us in that state of mind. However,
when we have full knowledge (of the subject), confusion is
no longer there. Is the confusion existent or non-existent?
It is existent in one state of mind and non-existent in another
state of mind. Similarly, avidyA has real existence in our
state of ignorance, but once knowledge dawns, avidyA is no
longer there. I will refer to this again in a later point
where you raised whether knowledge ever destroyed ignorance.
C. The mind, engulfed by avidyA and created by avidyA, makes the
jIvA not see the infiniteness of the Atman. I do not see why
it is such an impossible thing to understand. Surely, the
existence of avidyA (in our ignorant state) and the destruction
of it as knowledge dawns is fully demonstated. Take any of the
standard examples in advaita. I cannot presume I can teach you
here, but I am utterly dismayed by your seeming acceptance of
what you called the vaishnava AcAryas' objections.
D avidyA is anAdi but is not endless. avidyA is anAdi is shown
by shri shankara in His shri lalitA trishatIbhAShya (name:
havirbhoktrI). avidyA has an end at knowing what we are.
JIvA feeling has no beginning but ends when ahaMkAra does
not rise its ugly head anymore. The statements which you
presented in D do not make any sense to me.
E. Knowledge destroys confusion in aparavidyA and the Knowledge
of the Absolute destoys ignorance. Whether you take ignorance
as an existing thing is up to you. You cited the example of
knowledge of the pot. The Absolute knowledge makes us see the
pot what it is, just clay. That does not mean Knowledge destroys
the pot. It destroys the ignorance of what the pot really is.
Similarly, the Absolute Knowledge does not destroy the world,
but it makes one to see what the jagat really is.
F. You brought in nirvikalpa samAdhi into discussion. Bringing
in that is a bogey. The discussion here is of adhyAsa and let
us concentrate on that rather than introducing various other
things into discussion.
G, H and I are repetitions.
Finally, shri Atmachaitanya-ji, I bow to your scholarship. I cannot
presume I can get into debate with you on intellectual expression
and exposition of matters spiritual, but I must say: If you subscribe
to the points made in A to H of your post (I still like to think
that you are only paraphrasing vaishnava AcAryAs' objections to
advaita), you seem to have wrong understanding of advaita. My
apologies if I have expressed my points a bit too forcefully.
Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:11 pm
Here is my understanding on the topic of the discussion:
Shree aatmachaitanyaji has provided information related to
chronological development(?) of the avidya concept in Advaita
Doctrine . First I want to thank him for the wonderful discussion he
has provided. I would like to present my understanding of the
concept more as a clarification as well as discussion from the point
of my understanding. Before I do that I would like to mention the
following in response to Shree Warwick post related to the pertinence
of the current discussion versus 'who am I inquiry?' - True- in the
final analysis that is the bottom line - but we should recognize
that 'Who am I' is an inquiry -and not a japa - and inquiry
involves intellectual investigation of the nature of who I am? - or
nature of myself? -One can keep questioning -who am I and who am I
until the heaven freezes but nothing will happen since question
requires an answer and who is going to provide the answer and how do
I know that the answer that the intellect acquires during that
inquiry is the right answer. Hence Scripture is only pramaaNa to
confirm that what I have learned out of that inquiry is the right
answer. - One can end the inquiry of 'who am I' with one sentence
answer "tat tvam asi' ' you are that'? But that only leads to more
questions in the intellect and answer will only be incomplete unless
the inquiry is done appropriately. The fundamental question that
needs to be resolved in the inquiry is - How is that which is one
without a second ended up as many (jiiva-s) and multiplicity of the
world? How is that one which is conscious entity ended up with
unconscious entities involving the world of plurality? Unless that
is resolved, any inquiry will be incomplete or involves blind
acceptance - hence does not resolve into knowledge. Bottom line that
I would like to stress is that 'who am I inquiry cannot be separated
out from What is the world? And what is my relation with the world?
If I am that how come I do not recognize I am that or what prevents
me from that understanding? - These are inter related and buried in
the 'who am I' inquiry - Hence scripture has recognized that inquiry
of oneself is not different from inquiry of the Brahman - and Brahman
who or which is defined as 'jagat kaaraNam Brahman' - who is the
cause of the world? - then back to the question - how is that which
is of the nature of existence-consciousness- bliss - satyam j~naanam
anantam brahma - that one without a second becomes manifold universe
consisting of chara and achara - movable and immovable - jiiva-s and
jadam-s. Brahman implies the totality - 'I am' implies a singularity
- how is that singularity can be equated to the totality - That is
what is involved ultimately. Hence statements like "what is involved
is only ' who am I inquiry' and what is the use of all this
intellectual debate" involve non-recognition of the fundamental
problem - how is that I who is satyam j~naanam anantam - one without
a second - ended up as many involving multitude of conscious
entities and unconscious entities. - in the who am I enquiry - I
have to resolve I am that eternal unlimited, anantam or Brahman,
entity - otherwise I have not understood who am I. Hence all
aachaarya-s addressed these questions and tried to answer these
taking scripture as pramaaNa.
Inquiry is intellectual - and since it involves a subjective inquiry
or inquiry of the very nature of the subject who is doing the inquiry
-the solution resolves into the true understanding or understanding
of the truth of the subject-object distinctions as apparent and not
real. Thus one goes beyond the very intellect that is instrumental in
the inquiry - like pole vault. Until that happens one cannot forsake
the pole since that is all one has, to go beyond! Hence one should
not think that intellectual inquiry is contradictory to the spiritual
saadhana. - Of course I do recognize that it can make one as
egotistical if one does not watch out - hence scripture says - it is
like a razor path - one can fall down any time - kshurasya dhaara
duratyayaa durgam pathanaat kavayo vadanti - this is true in any path
one can become arrogant or fanatic even in Bhakti sadhana - ego is
very subtle and it has a way of rising up unnoticed.
Now back to the intended discussion.
Concept of adhyaasa is essentially Advaitic doctrine's explanation of
how one appears as many - That is what ultimately is involved in the
inquiry - adhyaasa means an error of judgement by the one who is
committing the error. Root cause for an error is the ignorance of
the truth. error analysis - khyati vaada- involves recognition of
the truth as truth and false as false (each involves the other) along
with the understanding of why false appears as truth and truth
appears as false - or cause for the error. When the truth is
recognized as truth - the cause of the original error -ignorance
obviously eradicated.
Let us be clear about the facts - from the point of truth or Brahman
there is no error. Brahman is one without a second and there is
nothing other than Brahman - that is from the Advaita doctrine based
on the Scriptural statement - All Advaitic masters endorse that
-sadeva soumya idam agra asiit _. etc. Existence alone was there
alone in the beginning and that is one without a second - That
eliminates all duality involving three types of differentiation -
sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas - difference of the same
species, differences of different species and internal differences
- One mass of homogeneous existent consciousness - praj~naana ghana -
Hence existence of error is only from the point of the one who is
committing the error - that is jiiva's point alone and not from the
point of Brahman. This implies jiiva to be there to commit the
error - and there rises a fundamental problem in Advaita - How to
account the existence of jiiva who himself is a product of error for
jiiva to be a locus of the error.
This is an unresolved problem since there is an inherent
interdependence - to get around this problem one can say that Brahman
is the locus of avidya or ignorance but that does not also make sense
either when Brahman is one without a second. The other way is to
accept the interdependence as unresolvable problem as a part of
anirvachaniiyam - in explainable. It is not completely illogical
and also experiential (since logic or anumaana rests on pratyaksha or
direct perceptual experience as the basis for cause-effect relations
which are vyaapti j~naanam or concomitant relations required for
logic to operate) - The familiar example is the chicken-egg situation
- it is anirvachaniiyam . The second way of accounting the
inexplicable nature of the avidya that the problem that is being
addressed is not a real problem for a real solution to exist. The
apparent problem can only have apparent solution, which cannot be
logical, since the problem is not real. Ultimate solution to the
problem is to recognize that the whole problem is only apparent and
not real and there cannot be any logical answer to this non-existent
problem. Intrinsic in the analysis of this problem is the very
limitation of the logic and intellectual inquiry to resolve the
problem with an intellect which itself is a product of the avidya.
I am beginning to think that Shankara recognized the intrinsic nature
of the problem and rightfully left without emphasizing who or what is
the locus of avidya - as part of the anirvachaniiyam - I will come
back to this aspect of anirvachaniiyam or inexplicability aspect
again.
Anaadi aspect of the ignorance: Any ignorance has to be anaadi or
beginningless and all aacharya-s (at least I know Ramanuja does) have
accepted that for if it has a beginning then before ignorance started
I must have been not having ignorance that is I must have been
knowledgeable. If one ask me - do you know chemistry - and If I am
ignorant of chemistry - now the next question is whey did my
ignorance of chemistry started. Ignorance of chemistry cannot start
- it has to be beginningless - but it can end when I learn chemistry.
Any ignorance is abaavaruupa only - Ignorance is the absence of
knowledge and in the above example it is the absence of chemistry
knowledge. Chemistry knowledge is opposite to chemistry ignorance.
Ignorance of chemistry cannot project some other false knowledge.
This is what Shree Atmachaitanyaji is addressing. I do not think he
is questioning the anaadi aspect of it but its projecting power.
Ignorance cannot project anything it is just the absence of knowledge
or negative quantity. Somewhere in the line of thinking Advaita, the
concept got mixed-up with the projecting power attributing it to
avidya or ignorance.
Let us address the problem correctly - When I do not know that the
object that I am seeing is a rope (ignorance of the object as a rope
not complete ignorance of the object )- I project that it is a snake.
Where did the projection of the snake or how did the projection of
the snake arise. Can I say ignorance projected the snake - which
does not make any sense. But yet ignorance of the rope is in a way
inherent cause for the projection of the snake in the sense that If I
had known that it is rope, there is no need for me to project the
snake in the place of the rope. If you look at the sentence,
ignorance is a cause but it is neither the material cause nor the
intelligent cause nor the instrumental cause - it is a root cause for
the subsequent projection. But the projecting power should rest with
I the conscious entity - Hence although ignorance is the root cause
or muula - it is neither the material cause nor the efficient cause.
That is one of the reasons why one can get rid of it. The material
and instrumental cause must rest with conscious entity alone.
Ignorance of the truth is the cause for projection of the false as
the truth - that aspect is indisputable. When ignorance is removed
by knowledge, which is antidote for ignorance, then the root cause is
removed and the projection of the false falls down since it is false
in the awakening of the true knowledge.
Now projection of the snake involves some other aspects too - why
snake if one asks - there are similarities in terms of some
attributes that are recognized and dissimilarities in terms of some
attributes that are not recognized in the perception of the object
(here it is rope). Ignorance of the rope covered the (knowledge of
the) rope is a statement does not make full sense other than it is
just the absence of the knowledge of the rope which is called
ignorance due to non-comprehension of full attributes of the rope.
Now for the projection of the snake where the rope is, I, the
conscious entity, should have the knowledge of the attributes that
are similar to both rope and snake and lack of knowledge of any
attributes that differentiates the rope and the snake in the object
that I am perceiving. This implies that I should have the prior
samskaara or knowledge of the snake - at least a false snake if not
a real snake for me to project the snake where rope is. Here where
the problem comes in accounting the jagat and jiiva aspect - since
for me to project all that on Brahman, I should have prior knowledge
of the jagat and jiiva just as the I should have knowledge of a snake
to project on the object where the rope is. One can escape the
answer by saying that prior samskaara comes from prior life and for
the prior life projection the previous to the prior life provides the
samskaara and this can go on - and when forced to answer when did the
first projection or how did the first projection started we can say -
the ignorance is anaadi and the projection is also anaadi. or
beginningless. We are back to chicken-egg situation and we can say
it is just anirvachaniiyam - because there is actually no real
projection or real ignorance either for anybody to account.
The fundamental problem arises because an illegitimate guy is asking
an illegitimate question and any answer will be illegitimate only
since in reality there is no problem to solve. Only solution to the
illegitimate problem is to recognition of the illegitimacy of the
problem - it is not ignoring the problem but understanding the
problem from correct perspective. This aspect all Advaitic masters
emphasize.
Looking from the total perspective - avidya is just ignorance or lack
of knowledge of the truth and projecting power rests with the
chaitanya vastu - you can say Iswara in terms of the total universe
(macrocosm) or jiiva in the microcosm. 'Covering aspect' that
Jaishankar brought to our attention is not real covering either but 'as
though covering' since these are explanations within the realm of
anirvachaniiyam aspect. The locus of avidya should rest with the
jiiva since he is the one who is asking the question and trying to
find who am I? - How did jiiva who is the product of avidya be locus
of avidya - true if one puts it that way - but the fact of the matter
is both jiiva and avidya are anaadi - which one started first is the
chicken-egg situation and we are back to anirvachaniiyam. Thanks to
aatmachaitanyaji I am beginning to appreciate more Why Sankara left
it as such without giving unnecessary explanations that which cannot
be explained logically since it is an indeterminate problem.
Coming back to deep sleep - there is avidya alone without the
projecting power and since the instruments of projection - mind and
intellect are also folded during the deep sleep. What is there at
the time - but before we answer that question - let us look at first
who is asking that question? - Deep sleeper cannot ask the question
since he is comfortably sleeping and waker has no passport to go and
find out the fact of the deep sleep state. 'I slept well' is only a
inferential statement of the waker - I would resort back to
indeterminate problem within the realm of anirvachaniiyam since mind
and intellect supported by the chaitanyavastu is required for the
projection. Ignorance was there in deep sleep since I did not know
I slept well when I am sleeping well. - Experience of the sleep was
there in terms of the absence of the mind and intellect and that will
be left as the memory to recall that experience of its absence during
deep sleep state. Even though ignorance was there, there is no
projecting power and hence it is incorrect to say ignorance is of
bhavaaruupa - it is just the absence of knowledge of - of everything.
- hence even if I recall that experience - it is just I did not know
anything is only the knowledge of that experience.
Without the mind and intellect active - is there a world out there -
refer back to my extensive discussion with Nanda few months ago -
this is again indeterminate problem - the subject - object
distinctions are superficial and raise in the mind and intellect -
how that occurs one can say - I have the power to project and also
power to split into the subject and object - What remains in deeper
analysis is consciousness alone - idam thoughts and aham thoughts
both are pervaded by consciousness that I am. Projection itself is
not problem that is my power to project. But if that projection is
backed by the ignorance - then I can mistake it as real and forget I
am the substratum for both seer and the seen. But if the projection
is backed by knowledge since I can still project since I have the
mind and intellect - since that power rests with me and not with
ignorance - then I can see the plurality but not mistake the seen
plurality is real since I have knowledge that seer and seen are one
and the same. Hence plurality is not the problem per say - but
taking the plurality as reality is the problem and that is called
moha or delusion - Illusion is the projection and delusion is taking
the illusion as real.
I presented my understanding of the problem and of course open for
discussion as always.
Hari Om!
Sadananda
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2002 10:00 am
Dear Brian,
When you write: " He also, I believe, is taking value from his
participation by testing his mettle in various aspects of his
sadhanaso that he can be a worthy carrier of the "true" message of
Shankara.", you have hit the nail on the head. Please allow me a quote
from Suresvaracharyas' opening verses to his NaishkarmyaSiddhi:
"On the philosophy of the Veda, presented by my preceptor, I
can say nothing because of my incompetence. What can a glow worm do
towards illumining what has already been flooded by the light of the
thousand-rayed sun?"
" It may appear then, as the preceptor himself has composed
the exposition of the import of the Vedas, the work on hand proceeds
from invalidating motives like love of fame. Such a supposition is
ruled out in what follows."
"This work in not composed by me for the sake of fame, gain
or reverential consideration: It is for the purposes of purifying my
own understanding by the testimony of those who know Brahman." (Nais.
5 - 6)
(He then goes on to refute the false doctrines of other Advaitins,
all of whom believed in the truth of the sentence 'Tat Tvam Asi', but
who, according to his understanding, had deviated from the true
methodology, as presented by his Guru, Shankaracharya.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Warwick,
You may not believe me, but when you write:
"Are there Any members of this list who long to
receive a real, non-conceptual answer to this question "Who am I?" It
might take the form of a longing to disappear in God, it might take
the form of great longing to know, "What is really true, of what can I
be so certain that, for the sake of it, I would surrender my position
in society, the affection of all my friends, the respect of the world,
all my possessions and also my life?
Is there a truth that is known with one's totality, not just one's
mind?" Is there any one like that?"
I agree with you 100%. Vedanta is not about
intellectual questions and answers. The problem is not an intellectual
one, but a spiritual one. It can't be solved by the 'intellectual
faculty' of the mind. It has to be solved by the 'spiritual faculty'
of the mind; i.e: The minds' capacity to turn inwards and directly
intuit the Self as it is (which is beyond the mind). It's not about
refuting the Buddhists, the Prasankyanavadins or the Mula Avidya
theorists. Vedanta is about purifying the mind, turning inwards and
taking a stand in your True Self. As I said in a previous post:
"There are only two kinds of 'Real Vedantins': 1) Those
who have taken a stand in the True Self. 2) Those who are trying to
take a stand in their True Self.
For those Vedantins of the second category, the qualities which you
mention in your above quoted passage, and which can be described as
intense 'Mumuksutva', are the most important and indispensable
qualifications for a Vedantin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Gummuluru Murthy,
You ask: "If you subscribe to the points made in A to H of
your post (I still like to think that you are only paraphrasing
Vaisnava Acharyas objections to Advaita) you seem to have a wrong
understanding of Advaita."
I am sorry to say that you seem to have missed the whole point of my
post. What I was paraphrasing was the Vaisnava critique of Bhavarupa
Mula Avidya. A critique which is absolutely valid, because once you
accept Mula Avidya as an actually existing 'thing' that is the
'material cause' of the universe, you have abandoned Advaita. My main
point is that Shankara never in his wildest dreams ever propounded
such a fallacious theory. And if in fact there was such a 'thing' as
Mula Avidya, that is made up of three gunas, knowledge could never
destroy it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jaishankar,
Please allow me to address your comments on Prasankyana Vada. Your
other points about Mula Avidya, and Avidya in deep sleep, as well as
your 'notions' about Prakriya Bedas will have to be dealt with at a
future date.
You say that:
"Swami Dayananda doesn't support Prasankyanavada . Those who
hold onto Prasankyanavada say that Sabda Pramana doesn't give
aparoksha Jnana (direct or immediate knowledge). They talk about
converting indirect knowledge (paroksha Jnana) gained from the sruti
to direct knowledge (Aparoksha Jnana) by doing meditation (similar of
modern Vedanta). Swami Dayananda doesn't accept this view. He has
rejected Prasankyanavada many times in the classes that I have
attended. When we say the 'KNOWLEDGE' has to be recollected
(Nidhidyasana) it is part of the pramana vyapara which leads to a
knowledge without any obstacles (apratibandikajnana)."
Now I would like to ask you: Is this " knowledge that has to be
recollected " indirect knowledge, or direct knowledge? It can't be
indirect knowledge, because no amount of recollecting indirect
knowledge will convert it into direct knowledge as Swami Dayananda
himself admits.. The only other alternative is that it is the 'direct
knowledge' (aparoksha Jnana) that has to be repeatedly recollected to
remove the remaining obstacles, AFTER the direct knowledge has been
attained from the shabda Pramana. But this is exactly the false
doctrine that Shankara has over and over again refuted throughout his
Prastana Traya Bhashyas, and in his Upadesha Sahasri. Shankaras
position is that after the attainment of Apararoksha Jnana, there is
absolutely nothing left to do, no obstacles left that have to be
destroyed, and no individual left to do any recollecting. Let me cite
a few examples:
To begin, lets see what Suresvara has to say about this recollecting
of knowledge (which by the way you wrongly identify with nididhyasana,
but that is another story): so as to remove the 'obstacles that remain
after direct knowledge has been attained:
"At this conclusion, some supported by their own tradition, aver
that this knowledge of the form 'I am Brahman' arising out of the
hearing of the Vedantic text, does not at all remove ignorance at its
very inception; but by this same knowledge being repeated day by day
for a long time, is wiped off all ignorance without a residue." "What
follows is in refutation"
"The understanding of the Scripture at once, without repetition,
destroys the ignorance that bears the forms of action and the factors
involved in action" (Nias. 1-67)
And Shankara writes:
" Just as in a sentence which stipulates an injunction Karma,
even after the meaning of the sentence is understood, the activities
which are to be performed by gathering many instruments of action
remains,-- the deliberation on the Vedanta Vakya which teaches the
Knowledge of the Supreme Self is not like that at all; at the very
instant of our understanding the meaning to the Vedantic sentence, the
whole process gets completed." (Mun. Bha>1-1-6)
Note: Here it has been clearly stated that after understanding the
meaning of the Vedanta Vakya there does not remain any thing
whatsoever to be done, including the repeated recollection of the
meaning to destroy the remaining obstacles. It amounts to saying that
the teaching of Sri Vachaspati Mishra ( Bhamatikara) and Swami
Dayananda, who opine that Some such practice as the Jnana abhyasa
should be performed, is opposed to the Sampradaya of Shankara.
And again:
"Because of the reason that after Knowledge accrues Ignorance has
disappearedthis Avidya can no longer exist. Just as, even after the
knowledge that fire is hot and it illumines - to that person who has that
knowledge- to such a person the false knowledge (Mithyajnana) to the effect
that fire is cold or that it does not illumine- can never occur; further, either
Samshaya (doubt), about it or its non-knowledge (ajana) can NEVER exist."
(Isa Bbha 18)
Note: Here, not only are the 3 types of ignorance recognized by
Shankara enumerated 1) not knowing 2) doubt 3) misconception. (There
is no Mula Avidya ever mentioned by him anywhere in his writings), but
also the fact that after apraroksha Jnana there is no possibility of
any "doubts or vagueness" as Jaisankaar would have it.
While I could go on and on with quotes which demonstrate that for
Shankara, after Aparoksha Jnana, there is nothing more to do, no more
doer, no one to recollect anything, and that All Pramana Prameya
Vyvahara completely ceases, but. I will spare you all, and end these
quotes with a final clincher, and then quote the BrahmaSiddhi to
demonstrate that Swami Dayananda and Jaisankar both belong to a
different Sampradaya than Shankara.
"The repetition of concepts may be of use in the case of results to be
achieved by meditation, in as much as it is possible that some intensity is
effected in them by repeated practice. But in the case of the knowledge of
the higher Brahman, which reveals Brahman that is the very self of the
seeker, eternally pure, conscious and free, what purpose would be served by
its repletion?"
" If it be said that the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and atman is not
born by listening to the text merely once, and hence its repetition is held to
be necessary, we reply that this can not be so: for, the result is not
conceivable even in the case of repetition. (To explain): If hearing the
Vedantic text once, does not produce the knowledge of the identity of
Brahman and Atman, Where is the hope that the same repeatedly heard, (or
recollected) would produce that knowledge?" (SBh.4-1-2)
(Swami Dayananda, it would seem, belongs to Mandana's Sampradaya
not Shankaras)
Mandana writes:
" Even when the knowledge of the truth has dawned, but a
sufficiently strong impression of it has not been stored up, while the
impressions born of false knowledge are stronger, even correct notions
may present false objects, as for example in the case of one who is
confounded with regard to the cardinal directions, but does not keep
up the memory of the testimony of a friend; for, he is found to
proceed in the wrong direction even then as before. This is the case
also with regard to a rope ascertained to be such, which is found to
give rise to fear through a misconception that it is a snake, in case
one does not keep up the memory (keep recollecting) of his correct
knowledge..Therefore even after True Knowledge has dawned by the
help of the right means of knowledge, the repeated maintenance of
correct knowledge, is deemed to be necessary for the purpose of
overcoming or destroying the stronger impression that has arisen out
of continued repetition of false perception" (Brahama Siddhi pg. 35)
Both Madana, Padmapada and Swami Dayananda, think that even
after the dawn of knowledge of Atman there is a possibility of its
being obstructed by some external factor (pratibandikas)-Impressions
of wrong knowledge in the case of Madana, and suspicion that it is not
probable in the case of Padmapada (And probably a combination of both
in the case of Swami Dayananda). It is clear that this fear, while
applicable to empirical knowledge, can have no place in the case of the
Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, since there is no scope for any ' external
obstructive cause' in the state of this Knowledge. Witness the Sruti quoted so
often by Shankara;("Where to this enlightened one everything has become
the Self alone, there one could see whom and with what?.there one could
know whom and with what?") which emphatically denies the distinction
of the knower, knowledge and the knowable in that state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear K Sadananda
I hope to address some of your points when I deal with the the
outstanding questions; "Whence Adhyasa" and "How the Shastra is the
only Pramana for Atmavidya. Let me just remark that I don't think that
the answers are as "Anirvachaniya" (inexplicable) as you make them out
to be. Lets hope not. Please be patient for my next post , I am sure
you all need a break from my verbosity.
.
Hari Om
Atmachaitanya
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2002 10:56 am
Namaste Atmachaitanyaji,
May I know what does 'intuiting the self' mean in this context? I would be
grateful if you could clarify this.
With regards to 'ignorance' being 'bhavarupa' & existing in a seed form in
sleep, I will post 2 references from the brahmasutra shankarabhashya
tomorrow. The two verses seem to support the idea that ignorance does exist
in a seed form in sleep. If you do know the verses I am referring to, could
you please quote them and explain how you would reconcile them with your
claim that ignorance is non-existent in deep sleep.
Pls, could you also address Jaishankarji's line of reasoning mentioned
below, taken from his last post:
'The other problem if ajnanam is taken as jnanaabhAva is that in sleep there
cannot be any jivabija or karanasarira (causal state). This is the position
which Atmachaitanya takes which leads to lot of illogical implications. If
ignorance is not there in sleep then all you have to do to be liberated is
sleep. But thats not the case in this world.'
Thank you.
From: "Jaishankar Narayanan" <srijai@e...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:04 pm
Dear Friends,
Atmachaitanya wrote
"Now I would like to ask you: Is this " knowledge that has to be
recollected " indirect knowledge, or direct knowledge? It can't be
indirect knowledge, because no amount of recollecting indirect
knowledge will convert it into direct knowledge as Swami Dayananda
himself admits.. The only other alternative is that it is the 'direct
knowledge' (aparoksha Jnana) that has to be repeatedly recollected to
remove the remaining obstacles, AFTER the direct knowledge has been
attained from the shabda Pramana. But this is exactly the false
doctrine that Shankara has over and over again refuted throughout his
Prastana Traya Bhashyas, and in his Upadesha Sahasri. Shankaras
position is that after the attainment of Apararoksha Jnana, there is
absolutely nothing left to do, no obstacles left that have to be
destroyed, and no individual left to do any recollecting. Let me cite
a few examples: ....."
We dont claim that one has to do nidhiddhyasana (recollection) after one
attains aparokshajnAna. What is to be understood is that manana and
nidhidhyAsana are really angas (part) of sravana. Infact sureshvara in
naishkarmyasiddhi even states that repeated sravanam itself is
nidhiddhyAsana. So both recollection of what is heard already and repeated
listening to the sastra are nidhiddhyAsana. All three (sravana, manana and
nidhiddhyAsana) are for gaining this aparokshajnAna only. What is
recollected is neither direct nor indirect knowledge but it is the words of the
sruti and guru which leads to the destruction of ajnAna. Even in the case of
objective knowledge an insight has to be repeated for it to be truly effective.
This does not contradict what shankara says in all his bhasyas. What
shankara actually rejects is the jnAnakarmasamucchayavAdi who says that
one has to do a mental karma like meditation (upAsana) after gaining
knowledge from the sastras (similar to modern vedantins). nidhiddhyAsana is
not a mental karma to produce an adrstaphala but part of the
pramanavyApAra to gain knowledge by destroying ignorance. You are
actually putting up a straw man (prasankhyAnavAdi) and beating it. Try to
understand what the other person says.
In brhadAranyaka bhAsya sankara says nischayena dhyAtavyam (should be
meditated upon) explaining the sentence AtmA vAre.. nidhidhyAsitavya:.
How do you explain this?
Further sankara while commenting on BG 7.2 'jnAnam teham savijnAnam
idam vaksyAmi...." explains savijnAnam as svAnubhavayuktham (along with
one's own anubhava). How do you explain jnAnam and vijnAnam here?
with love and prayers,
Jaishankar
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2002 11:54 pm
Dear Jaisankar,
Please accept my apologies for not having understood your position
properly. But when I read your post which clearly stated "After
gaining 'doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman" from Guru and Shastra,
one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous conditioning
goes." I naturally took your words literally. And when you further
clarified your position by later posting that what you actually ment
was that: "When we say that knowledge has to be recollected it is part
of the Pramana Vyapara which leads to a knowledge without any
obstacles." I naturally interpreted this to mean that the knowledge
that you were referring to was the knowledge that was obtained from
the Guru and the shastra and that this knowledge had to be either
'indirect knowledge' with obstacles, or 'direct knowledge' with
obstacles. But now I am clear that what you meant by the expression
'doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman ', doesn't refer to knowledge
at all, and what the sadhaka has to 'recollect' is neither indirect
knowledge nor direct knowledge, but rather, what he has to recollect
is the words of the guru and the shastra so that he can gain the
'direct knowledge' i.e.: 'The doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman,
without any obstacles at all. For certainly no one would want to
maintain a view where by a wise man, who had Aparoksha Jnana, still
had obstacles (A Jnani with Pratibandhikas!). You have rectified my
misconception when you explicitly state in your last post:
" All three (Sravana , Manana, Nididhyasana) are for gaining this
Aparokshajnana only" And in this I am in perfect agreement with you.
To quote Shankara:
" Repetition will be unnecessary for one who can realize
the Self as Brahman after hearing "That Thou Art" only once. But for
one who cannot do so, repetition is a necessity. Thus it is noticed
in the Chandogya Upanishad that Uddalaka teaches his son, "That Thou
Art, O Svetaketu"(Chan. 4-8-7-), and then being requested by his son
again and again, "Oh revered sir, explain to me again", he removes the
respective causes of his (Svetaketu's) misconceptions, and teaches
that very same fact "That Thou Art" repeatedly. That process is
referred to by citing the text "It is to be heard of (Sravana), reflected on
(Manana), to be contemplated upon (Nididhyasana)." Sutra
Bh.4-1-2
So once again my apologies, I honestly had no intention of putting up
a strawdog and then beating it.
Hari Om
Atmachaitanya
From: sophia & ira schepetin <stadri@a...>
Date: Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:14 am
Subject: Whence Adhyasa
Dear Dennis, and all others interested in this subject, namaste,
When you originally asked the question, Whence Adhyasas you did
so in the context of a seeming problem that was raised by Douglas Foxs
assertion that the cause of Adhyasa could not be answered by three
possible alternatives 1) That Brahman is the cause 2) That something
independent of Brahman was the cause 3) That we ourselves are the
cause. I would like to attempt an answer to your question Whence
Adhyasa by advocating the third choice, that I am the cause, in the
sense that: I dont know the Self, I havent been able to discriminate
the true nature of the Self, and due to this , I may be considered the
cause of superimposition, and to show how this in fact is Shankaras
position, (as opposed to the Mula Avidya Vadins who opted for the second
alternative, and by so doing in fact abandoned Non Duality) and to
demonstrate that by taking such a position, it does not result in the
unacceptable consequences that Fox seems to think it does. I would like
to further add that this subject is not of merely academic interest, nor
is it only a matter of semantics with no real practical outcomes, for
the subjects of Ignorance and Misconception are the very cornerstone of
Shankaras Advaita: a topic which he describes as the anartha hetu the
source of all evil- and that the primary purpose of all the Vedantic
teaching is solely to remove this primary Misconception and nothing
else.
However, before beginning, I think a few preliminary comments are in
order. I would like to emphasize the fact that, with regard to the
contents of this post as well as all my previous posts, I make no claim
to any originality in thinking at all. Everything that I put forth is
either from the writings of Sri Shankaracharaya, Guadapada, and
Suresvaracharya, whom I take to be the true representatives of the
Advaitic Tradition as I understand it, as well as the voluminous
writings of Swami Satchidanandendra, the works of Swami Jnanandendra
(The former Vidya Guru of the Maharaja of Mysore), and extensive
conversations with Swami Atmanandendra, and other direct disciples of
Swami Satchidanandendra. I have made free use of these last mentioned
sources either by paraphrasing their positions on various topics, or by
reproducing their exact words without mentioning the specific texts and
verses from which they are derived. The same will be the case in this
post.
Whence Adhyasa?
All Indian thinkers who put forth the view that there is only one
Absolute Reality have had to grapple with the question: If there is only
the Absolute Reality, then how is it that the dualistic world of
multiplicity makes its appearance? The answer to this question has
basically been dealt with by positing some power, force, energy,
desire or primal stuff, that inheres in the very fabric of the
Absolute. Thus the Shaivites postulated a Shakti that is inseparable
from Shiva, and which allows Shiva to perform his dance of creation.
The Kashmiri Shavaites called it Tuiti (The primordial seed), or
Iccha(the desire of Shiva). The Dzog Chen Buddhists called it
Stahal( The inexhaustible inherent energy of the Absolute). Ramanuja
held that the Absolute associated with Chit(consciousness) and Achit
(insentient) is the cause of the world. Vallabhas Shudda-Advaita held
that the inner power of the Absolute called Maya, was the cause for
the world. It should be noted that all these thinkers accepted the
reality of the world, and therefore it was really created, and therefore
there must be a cause for it and that cause must in some way inhere in
the very nature of the Absolute.
This very same pathetically realistic type of Absolutism was
mimicked by the post Shankara Advaita Vedantins who, like their
dualistic brethren, postulated an actually existing Mula Avidya(Root
Ignorance) that inhered in the very nature of the Absolute from
beginingless time so as to account for the world of duality. In
addition, this ontological principle (Bhava-rupa, tri-guna atmika,
vastu) was hypothesized to be not only the cause for creation but also
the ultimate cause (The Whence of Adhyasa) for all the individuals who
each had their own personal misconceptions (Adhyasas) about the nature
of the Absolute! That this explanation of the Whence of Adhyasa is
false, completely opposed to reason, experience and to Shankaras
radical Non-Dualism (Na sajati bedha, Na vijati bedha, Na svagati bedha)
as well as what is the correct explanation, according to Shankara, for
the cause of Adhyasa(superimposition) will be unfolded in what follows.
In order to understand the Whence of Adhyasa, at least according to
Shankaracharya, the first important issue that must be appreciated is
the distinction between the Absolute point of view(Paramarthika Drishti)
and the Worldly or empirical point of view (Loukika-vyavharika Dristi).
From the Absolute perspective, the perspective of truth, there was never
anyone who had ignorance, no one had to get any sort of knowledge to
remove that ignorance, and there never was a Guru who had to teach the
meaning of the Upanishads to a seeker so that he could be released from his
bondage caused by that ignorance. This is the final position of Advaita
Vedanta, and not that in fact a really existing Ignorance that someone
actually had was at some particular point in time removed by the Shastra
Pramana, and in so doing the seeker really became liberated. (It should be
noted that if in fact this were the case then liberation would be an event in
time, and thus it would have a beginning and would therefore necessarily
have an end. It could not be eternal.) For the final realization is merely
recognizing the fact that I am the Absolute Reality, and in me there never
was, is, or will be any ignorance and therefore no need for the removal of
that ignorance at all. (Of course, the same can be said for the concepts of
Karma, Rebirth, Qualifications for the attainment of Knowledge, Creator and
his creation, or that there are three states and we are passing through those
states, etc. etc.).This distinction between the Absolute Reality and the
Empirical viewpoint should be unfailingly borne in mind in order to reconcile
the several seeming self-contradictory statements in Shankaras
commentaries.
In the light of the above it becomes easy to understand that all talk of
someone having ignorance, the cause of his ignorance (The Whence of
Adhyaasa), the object of his ignorance, his need to remove that ignorance,
the means by which that ignorance is removed, are all from the worldly or
empirical point of view, the point of view of duality, in fact, the point of view
of ignorance.
To illustrate that this distinction of the Absolute and the Empirical viewpoints
in relation to the topic of Ignorance is utilized by Shankara, the following
quotes should suffice:
If it should be asked And to whom does this Ignorance belong? We answer,
To you who are asking this question! (Objection) But I have been declared
to be the Isvara Himself by the Scriptures! ( Reply) If you are thus
awakened, then there never was any Ignorance that ever belonged to
anyone. (Sutra Bhasya 4-1-3)
(Note: It is obvious that according to this view, any question about
Ignorance can arise only at the level of empirical life, where there is
duality. One who raises the question, is himself ignorant of the truth,
and so, it must be admitted that at that stage the questioner himself is
ignorant. But when it is known that Brahman or Isvara is the only
Reality, there can be neither any question nor reply concerning
ignorance or anything whatsoever. Accordingly, Shankara anticipates
another objection, i.e.: that if there really is Ignorance then the Self
would have at least one thing second to it and thus Non-Duality would be
abandoned. Shankara shows the futility of this objection thus:)
And this defect that is attributed to the system by some,
may also be deemed to have been warded off by our reply to the question
raised above. For they are supposed to hold that if such were the case,
then the Self would have a second beside him in the shape of
Ignorance!(SBh 4-1-3-)
(Shankara means to say that it may be granted that duality or the
empirical view is possible only so long as the unity of the Self is not
yet known, but at the transcendental level of Absolute Reality, there is
no duality or ignorance that ever existed at all, and therefore Non
Duality stands unimpeded.)
So it is from this empirical perspective alone that Shankara begins
his teachings about Ignorance or misconception. And from this
perspective Ignorance is not a theory that Shankara concocted so as to
be able to explain the appearance of the world of duality, nor is it
some inexplicable (anirvachiniya) phenomena that cant be said to be
existent or non-existent nor is it a dogmatic postulate that is to be
blindly accepted on the strength of the scriptural statements, but
rather it is a universal fact of human experience, regardless of age,
culture, race or sex. In the whole of Shankaras introduction to his
Sutra Bhasya, he does not quote even one scripture, or one traditional
guru as an authority, nor does he rely on any questionable logical
devices to substantiate his teaching that all worldly-empirical life is
based on a fundamental misconception.
What he does say, however, is that this fundamental misconception
(Adhyasa), the misconception of mixing up the Self and the Non-Self, the
subject and the object, the knower and the known, (even though it is
admittedly opposed to all reason) is a FACT of universal experience
(sarva loka pratikshaha). What he intends to indicate by this is
that although the Self is the subject and conscious, and the Not-Self is
the object and of a completely opposed nature to the subject, just like
darkness and light (tamasah prakashavad) and it is therefore reasonable
that they should not be mixed up, nevertheless, all people without
exception and regardless of their intellectual capacities, have
naturally and uncritically mixed these two completely different and
mutually opposed entities, and in so doing are carrying out their
worldly lives in the form of I am this and this is mine. To
clarify: You, the reader, are now presumably convinced that you are
sitting in front of your computer screens, reading this post, and
evaluating the veracity of the assertions that are being made. But for
you to be sitting, it is necessary that you have accepted the idea that
you are either the body or at least the idea that you have a body. For
you to be reading this post, the minimum requirement would be to accept
the fact that you have the sense of sight, and for you to evaluate the
correctness or falsity of my assertions, it is absolutely necessary that
you have a mind. Yet the idea that you have a body, senses or mind can
only come about as a result of not discriminating the Subject from the
object, the knower and the known, the Self and the not-Self, and it is
the misconception (Adhyasa) or mixing up of these two categories into
one identified entity that is the root cause for all of Samsara. It
alone is the knot that binds, the Himalayan blunder that serves as the
cause for birth and death, for hunger and thirst, for old age and
disease, for confusion and doubt, or as Shankara calls it: the source
of all evil. This and only this is the principle meaning of Ignorance
according to Shankara,: i.e Adhyasa is the mutual superimposition of the
Self and the Not-Self along with the mixing of their distinct qualities
on each other.
Now, Dennis, we can begin to tackle the question Whence Adhyasa.
It is a question that can be interpreted as: O.K let us grant that
Adyhasa is the mutual superimposition of the Self and Non-Self, and let
us also grant that because of this Adhyasa all worldly life is
proceeding, and not only that, let us also grant that due to Adhyasa all
spiritual life (Vaidika Vyvahara) is proceeding, such as the teachings
concerning injunctions (Vidhis) and prohibitions (pratishedas), Karmas
and meditations as well as the principal Upanishadic teaching concerning
the knowledge of the Self, and how this relates to bondage and release
(Bandha Moksha Vyvahara), but the question now is: What is the cause
for this misconception itself? Why do we superimpose the Self and the
Not-Self? What is the reason for this Adhyasa to come about in the first
place?
Shankaracharya never explicitly poses the question What is the
cause for misconception? Nevertheless he leaves no doubt in the mind of his
readers how exactly this question of the Whence of Adhyasa is to be
dealt with. For, to the questions Why do the common people commit or
entertain Adhyasa? Why do they wrongly reckon the Self and the Not-Self
each for the other? The answers are to be found in the following
quotations:
1) Even though it is not reasonable that people should misconceive
the Self for the Not- Self, the worldly people BY NATURE (Naisargika) do
have a misconception with regard to the Self and the Not-Self by
misconceiving one in the other mutually as also misconceiving the
qualities (Dharmas) of each in the other; BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT
THEY HAVE NOT DISCRIMINATED (AVIVEKENA) their qualities which are
extremely different, as also those entities (Dharmis) which have those
qualities, one from the other.-They have mixed up the Real and the
Unreal and are carrying on their workaday transactions NATURALLY due to
wrong knowledge(Mithyaajnana nimitaha) in the forms of I am this and
This is mine.. (Sutra Bha. Adh.Bha. 1. Intro to Brahma Sutra
Commentary 2nd paragraph)
Here it is evident that Shankara wants to say that this misconception
is natural. In other words, he is saying that it is the very nature of
the human mind to confound the Self for the Not-Self whenever it
functions. It is just like saying it is the nature of water to flow
down hill why? What is the cause for its tendency to flow down a
hill? Let us say that it does this nuturally. Because that is what
water always does. Though waters tendency to flow down a hill can be
said to be its nature, this should not be interpreted as indicating
that this is the intrinsic, inalienable nature of water, for water can,
under some peculiar circumstances, flow up a hill. And it is in this
sense alone that Shankara says that this misconception is natural to
the human mind, and not that it can never get rid of this tendency to
have a misonception regarding the Self and the Not Self.
Now, if further pursued, we ask the question what is the cause
for this natural tendency of the human mind to misconceive the Subject
and the Object, the Real and the Unreal, Shankara replies: It is due to
the fact that we havent discriminated (Avivekena) between the two.
Because we have not clearly and distinctively determined what exactly is
the Real Self, and what exactly is the Unreal Not-Self, because of this,
because of not knowing that the Self is the only Reality and because of
not knowing that the Not Self is completely Unreal and therefore never
existed as a second thing besides the Self, due to this CAUSE of not
knowing (Jnana Abava, Agrahana ), due to the reason of not having the
Knowledge of the Self, we are all misconceiving it. In other words, it
amounts to his saying that the inability to distinguish between the
Atman and Anatman, Self and Not-Self is the primary ignorance. Because
of this primary ignorance, of not knowing (Agrahana) or absence of
correct knowledge (Jnana Abava), this primary Ignorance itself is
responsible for the wrong knowledge (Mithya Jnana), the misconception
(Adhyasa) about the Self.
One could object to this explanation on the grounds that if
misconception is an effect that really exists, then its cause must be
something that really exists. Its cause cant be something that is
a mere absence, a nonexistent cause such as not-knowing (Agrahana) or
absence of knowledge (Jnana Abava). For everyone adheres to the rule
that from nonexistence, existence can never come, without an existing
cause there can never be an existing effect, and therefore the cause
must be an existent, a material something, a positive entity. But this
objection is the outcome of a confusion about ontological causality and
epistemological causality. And while it is true that for every
material effect, a material cause is necessitated (a pot needs its clay
and a tree needs its seed), in the case of epistemological causality
the cause of not knowing is quite sufficient to account for the effect
of misconceiving. Let us examine a common example: When one mistakes a
rope for a snake, if one were to enquire as to the cause of that
mistake, it would be quite reasonable to reply that Due to the cause of
not knowing that it is a rope, the effect of mistaking it for a snake
has taken place. In the same exact way it is perfectly intelligible to
assert that due to the cause of not knowing the Self , you have
mistaken it for the Not-Self.
And again:
The Field (Kshetra) and the Field Knower (Kshetrajna) means the
Not-Self which is the object (vishaya) , and the Self, which is the
Subject (vishayi) respectively; although both of these are of different
essential natures, having misconceived (Adhyasa) each for the other, and
their respective qualities (Dharmas) mutually in each other, is itself
their union, their association, their contact (Samyoga). For this
association, the absence or lack of not distinguishing (Viveka Abava)
between the essential nature of the Not- Self (Kshetra Svarupa) and the
essential nature of the Self (Keshtrajna Svarupa) IS ITELF THE CAUSE.
Just like the contact of a snake or silver etc., in the
rope, shell, etc;-- a contact of the nature of a misconception, owing
to want of discrimination between the two. (Gita Bha. 13-26)
In this quotation (which is basically a re-echo of his Adhyasa
Bhashaya) Shankara makes it even clearer, if that is possible, that the
only reason, or cause for our misconceiving the Self is merely because
we no not know the Self. If we in fact knew the Self, it would not be
possible to misconceive it as anything else. Just as in the case of the
mistaken knowledge about the misconceived snake. That misconception
could never arise without there being an absence of knowledge with
regard to the fact that all that is there, all that was there, all that
will be there, is the rope alone. The snake was no doubt an effect
and the absence of knowledge with regard to the rope can be considered
to be the cause of the snake, but this cause is not a positively
existing material thing some ontological entity needed to account for
the effect called a misconceived snake. An important corollary of
this illustration of the rope-snake is that once we do get the true
knowledge of the rope, the objective effect of the absence of
knowledge ie the externally existing snake, as well as the
subjective misconception that the rope is a snake, are immediately
removed. In the same way, once we get the true knowledge of the Self,
the objective effect i.e.: the world of duality, the world of time
space and causality, the world of many agents, enjoyers and knowers, as
well as the the subjective misconception that what is really the Self
alone, is the world of duality, are both immediately removed. Only the
Non-Dual Self remains.
However, there is also a significant distinction that should be
noted between this worldly illustration about misconception and the
correct knowledge regarding the rope-snake, as opposed to that which is
being illustrated about the misconception (Avidya) and correct knowledge
(Vidya) regarding the Self. Before we misconceived the rope as a snake,
we were knowers, and after we determine the true nature of the rope and
get its correct knowledge, we still remain as knowers, and there is
still the possibility that we could have misconceptions in the future
with regard to a number of things, including another rope. But in the
case of the knowledge of the Self, once we have determined the true Non
Dual nature of the Self, all of duality is removed for good, so that the
duality of a knower, his means of knowledge, as well as the objects of
knowledge no longer remains, and thus there is no possibility that any
future misconceptions could arise with regard to the Self, or anything
else that was previously misconceived to be existing as a second
something in relation to the Self. Knowership is the outcome of
superimposing (adhyasa) the Self and the mind. All talk of means of
knowledge and objects of knowledge are dependent on a knowership. And
knowereship itself depends on Adhyasa, so once this misconception is
sublated by the knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, all the empirical
dealings of knower, means of knowledge, and known;(Pramatru,
pramana, premeya vyavahara) ceases to be.
There is also another question that makes its appearance when one takes
the position that absence of knowledge of the Self is the cause for
misconceiving the Self (The Whence Of Adhyasa): To have an absence of
knowledge with regard to some object of knowledge, and to misconceive an
object of knowledge as something else, requires either the existence of
a mind, or to put it in Foxs term, it requires some one who is doing
the misconceiving. It would then mean that that which is superimposed,
either the mind, or the individual, both of which are already
superimposed on the Self, would be the entities that are doing the
superimposition. The superimposed is doing the superimposing? This is
the objection: and while at first glance this objection seems valid,
because it exposes the defect of an apparent mutual dependency that is
being relied upon. The supposed defect of saying that you need a mind to
do any type of superimposing, and at the same time asserting that the
mind itself is a superimposed thing. But let us examine the rope snake
example once again. It is not the case that we first have a
misconception that there is a snake, and then after that misconception
the snake appears. For the appearance of the snake and the misconception
are simultaneous. There is no appearance of a snake without the
misconception, and there is no misconception without the appearance of
the snake. In the same way there is no Adhyasa without the appearance of
the mind, and there is no appearance of the mind without Adhyasa. When
Adhyasa is removed the mind is removed, and when there is no mind there is
no adhyasa. The same can be said with equal validity regarding the
individual; There is no individual without adhyasa and there is no
adhyasa without the individual And this in fact is our experience.
Whenever the mind makes its appearance it does so with the conviction
that Duality is real. With the conviction that it is a knower and there
is an independent world which can be known. But when the mind makes its
disappearance, as in the state of deep sleep, faint, coma or nirvikalpa
samadhi, there is no more any Adhyasa or misconceptions, and also no
dualistic dealing of a knower knowing something, no mind and no
individuality.
And while this answer of Shankaras to the question What is the cause
for Adhyasa is both simple and elegant and in perfect agreement with
universal experience, as well as the intelligibility of his claim that
this Adhyasa can be totally removed by correct knowledge, this teaching
may not feel satisfying to those who have a propensity towards realism
and to convoluted hypotheses and unsubstantiated postulates, and would
prefer to see the profound teachings of Advaita Vedanta degraded to the
level of a speculative theological system that requires of its adherents
both blind belief and unquestioning submission to the authority of the
Scripture and the Guru. They may instead prefer to dogmatically assert
(while no other system of philosophy, darshana, or religion, has ever
thought it necessary to put forth such a view) that instead of not
knowing being the cause for Adhyasa, there is an indescribable,
inconceivable beginingless and endless power, that has the capacity to
cover the Absolute and project the world, an ontological entity (not
something totally false or unreal), made up of three gunas, and which
cannot be described as existent nor non-existent, and which is a Shakti
that inheres in the very nature of the Absolute! An unbelievable view
that Shankara never even hinted at in all of his writings! So be it.
But I must end this post by asking them to sincerely enquire, in their
own hearts as seekers of truth, what is the answer to just one question?
Forget about what Shankara may or may not have said on the subject, put
aside what any tradition or Swami may have declared, and ask
yourself: How would it be possible for Knowledge to remove such an
entity?? Can knowledge really get rid of some material (Upadana Karana)
thing (Bhava Rupa) that actually exists from beginingless time?? Just
answer that. If there is a reasonable answer to this question, I eagerly
wait to hear about it.
Om Tat Sat
Atmachaitanya
P.S. How the Shastra is the only means of knowledge for the Self is
coming
From: "Stig Lundgren" <slu@C...>
Date: Mon Mar 25, 2002 7:15 am
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Whence Adhyasa
Dear Atmachaitanyaji, namaskaram
Many thanks for your truly excellent posting on the origins of
Adhyasa!
Adi Shankaras "adhyasa bhashyam" (the introduction to the
Brahma Sutra Bhashya) no doubt offers the key to the
understanding of Advaita Vedanta as propagated by Shankara.
Anyone interested to know about genuine Shankara vedanta would
benefit from studying "adhyasa bhashyam". Therefore, I would like
to recommend the members of this list to read the following
article:
Quote
adhyAsa Bhashyam
shankaram shankarAchAryam keshavam bAdarAyaNam
SUtrabASykrtau vande bhagavantau punah punaha
SrutismrtipurANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
NamAmi bhagavdpAdam shankaram lokashankaram
SUtrabhASyapraNetArau vedAntAbjaprabhAkaru
Vande parasparAtmAnau bAdarAyaNashankaru
Introduction
In the canon of vedanta litarature, the Brahma Sutram occupies a unique
position as the oldest systematic commentary on the Upanishads. Of
commentaries on the Brahma Sutram, Shankara's commentary stands
preeminent
in elaborating advaita vedanta according to his tradition, or
sampradaya. Whilst there is doubt regarding authorship of some of the works
attributed to shankara, there is universal agreement in the tradition that the
bhAsyam on brahma sUtram was compsed by Adi Shankaracharya. This is
evidenced by the fact that the genesis of post shankara schools arises from
sub-commentaries on primarily his brahma sutra bhASyam. In these
subcommentaries
(of which the so-called bhAmati and vivaraNa schools are
most recognised), the authors profess to be elaborating on shankara's
system of advaita, and clearly identify shankara as the author of the
bhASyam.
His astonishing introduction to his Brahma Sutra Bhashyam (BSB), often
called the adhyAsa bhASyam, is, in my view, one of the greatest texts
written on vedanta, and holds the status for me of a Sruti. For in it, we find
no quotation from other shastra in this introduction to support his
statements. They are simply outpourings from anubhava, or experience, of
an enlightened sage, and which appeal to that sArvatrika-anubhava, or
universal experience, that belongs to each and every one of us.
Shankara's adhyAsa bhASyam fully serves the purpose of an introduction. He
succintly manages to summarise all the key points that will unfold in his
Brahma Sutra Bhashyam, and connects them to the central underlying
theme. The them of is work is: " My commentary will explain how the
brahma sutram identifies the fundamental obstacle to knowledge, and how
the it explains the method used in the Sruti to remove this obstacle, so that
ultimate knowledge (which will be defined), is acquired". At one stroke he
covers the aim of the work, its purpose, and what the answer is to the basic
question above.
In summary, Shankara clarifies for us that the obstacle to enlightenment is a
misconception on our part, which superimposes (mixes up) up the real and
non-real, which drives an empirical view of the world as an apparent duality
of subjects, objects, and means of knowing these objects. The misconception
is innate to us, and tradition gives the technical name adhyAsa to this
superimposition. Shankara further defines the avidyA in the Sruti as this
adhyAsa. Once this avidyA is removed, what is left is vidyA or knowledge
that is the experience of Brahman, the Ultimate Reality. Therefore, shankara
says, the purpose of the shastra is to reveal Brahman by identifying and
removing avidyA or misconceptions, so that Brahman can shine of its own
accord.
In so doing, in his adhyAsa bhASyam, shankara sows the seed for all the
important aspects of his tradition of advaita:
1) What knowledge gives us knowledge of Ultimate Reality?
2)What is the obstacle to knowledge?
3) What is the nature of this obstacle?
4) How is knowledge of Brahman attained? What are the means of
knowledge, and why is Sruti the ultimate means of knowledge?
5) What is the role and purpose of shastra in revealing this knowledge?
6) What is the method used by the shastra to reveal Brahman?
If one had the time, one could take each statement in the adhyAsa bhASyam
and unravel it to reveal all of shankara's tradition of advaita. In this article I
will simply give a guided tour of the contents of the adhyAsa bhASyam line
by line, and highlight the key messages. My rendering of the bhASyam will
be as literal and transparent as possible, so the readers scan judge
themselves the true meaning for them.
adhyAsa bhASyam is a short text, and one can read it in about 10 minutes or
so. I have found it invaluable committing it to memory, so it constantly flows
through all my thoughts. I hope by the end of the article the reader has the
same feeling about this text as I.
I have referred in brief to the portions of the bhASya discussed at the start of
each section. I have followed the bhASyam in the order it was written.
2) The nature of confusion
yuSmadasmat pratyaya.adhyAso mithyeti bhavitum yuktam
In a manner that is classic of shankara's style, the author of the bhASyam
begins with an objection. The objection runs as follows: Atman is real, and is
the eternal subject I . Everything else is not real, and is perceived as a
separate object you (yuSmat). How is it possible to confuse or
superimpose(adhyAsa) the distinct concepts (pratyaya) of subject and object
(the "I" and the "you"), and related attributes (dharma's), as they are by
nature as different as night and day (tamah prakAshavat)? Such confusion
should be impossible (mithyeti bhavitum yuktam). Shankara's objection
simply states that, in theory, it should be crystal clear to all what reality is,
since it is so different from the unreal, so what is all the fuss about, and what
is the need to write a whole book about reality and how to perceive it?
Shankara's reply runs as follows:
TathA'pi anyonyasmin,naisargiko'yam loka vyavahAraha
It is, however, a matter of common experience (loka vyavahAraha), that,
through lack of discrimination (avivekena), we superimpose concepts on each
other (anyonyasmin, anyonyAtmakatAm) and their attributes
(anyonyadharmAn cha adhyasa), even though they and their attributes are
utterly distinct in nature (atyanta viviktayoh dharma-dharmiNoh), impelled
by false knowledge (mithyAjnAna-nimittaha), it is an innate human error
(naisargikah) to confuse the real and the non, real or the "I" and "mine"
(satyAnrte mithunIkrtya, aham idam mamedam iti).
In other words, shankara tells us " but common experience shows us that we
do it all the time! We see duality where in reality there is none, we mistake
one thing for another every day". That we do this is not through any mystery
but is innate. The mixing up is adhyAsa. Shankara will later go on to say that
this adhyAsa has always been there, and is therefore beginingless. It is
important to make an important clarification here. Shankara proceeds on the
same basis as the Sruti, which takes it as axiomatic that Brahman is the
ultimate reality. We find very few instances where discussions occur to
"prove" that the correct view of the world is that there is an Ultimate Reality
called Brahman. For shankara and the Sruti this was self evident that Atman
is self -established (swayam prasiddhatwaat). Viewed from this
transcendental viewpoint of reality it is clear why shankara views this mixing
of the real and the non real as an error. This is fundamental to understanding
shankara's tradition of advaita. All that is required for knowledge is to
remove this error to reveal Brahman, and the universe will naturally be seen
in its true light
NB: A side note for the specialists. If you want to stick to the essence of the
meaning, skip the next paragraph
In this passage we find the first divergence of opinion amongst post shankara
commentators. In the panchapAdikA sub-commentary, attributed to
padmapAda, the word mithyAjnAna is explained as "mithyA cha tat ajnAnam
cha", meaning an unreal ignorance. The other way to decompose this word is
as "mithyA cha tat jnAnam cha", meaning a misconception, or false
knowledge. Using the former definition , the sub-commentator has explained
that the cause of this adhyAsa or avidyA is some other material caus(
upAdAna kAraNa) that he defines as a mysterious avidyA shakti, that is
indescribable (anirvachaneeya), and inert (jaDAtmikA). The later writers
have used the term mulAvidyA, or Root Ignorance, for this material cause,
and equate it with the term mAyA. This gives a different flavour to the nature
of avidyA than a literal reading of mithyAjnAna. The question as to whether
shankara really meant just false knowledge or something more mysterious is
the subject of great debate. This is not the place to go in to this in detail. I
will be explaining the adyAsa bhASyam using the literal meaning of simply
false knowledge.
3) How is adhyAsa defined?
"Aha ko'yam adhyAso nameti""ekah chandraha sat dwitIyavat iti"
Shankara now proceeds to give various definitions accepted by the tradition
as follows, and tries to identify the underlying theme:
In response to the question, "so, what is adhyAsa (ko'yam adhyAso nAmeti),
shankara replies that it is the nature of something remembered (smrti
rUpah), or the impression of something seen in the past (paratra
pUrvadrSTAvabhAsah). By this he wishes to confirm that it is a mental
notion. He further goes on to give 3 definitions from tradition:
i) Some say it is simply the superimposing the qualities of one thing
(anyadharmAdhyAsah) on another (anyatra)
ii) Others say it is a a confusion of our faculty to discriminate (tat
vivekAgraha-nibandhano bhrama iti)
iii) Others further says it is the superimposing 2 things and their attributes
that are of opposite nature (tasyaiva vipareeta dharmatwa-kalpanAm
Achakshate iti)
Shankara then explains that the common thread running through all
definitions is that of confusing one thing and its attributes with another
(anyasya anydharmAvabhAsatAm na vyabhicharati). For, it is a matter of
common experience (tathA cha loke anubhavah), where we all have confused
one thing for another. Two examples are given: confusing silver for nacre
(shuktikA hi rajatavat avabhAsate, and when, due to a trick of the light, one
moon is seen as two (ekah chandra sad-dwiteeyavat iti)
Put simply, our ignorance is confusing one thing for another, which in the
context of vedanta, is confusing the world of duality for the real world,
whereas the real world is one where no duality exists. This confusion is an
experience, and therefore its existence does not need to be proved or
disproved. Sureswara says this in his vArtikA:
Atah pramANato'shakyA'vidyA'syeti vIxitum
KIdrshI vA kuto vAsAvanubhUtyekarUpatah
Sambandha Vartika 184
In fact, one can never know ignorance as belonging to any one, neither
determine its nature nor conceive how it can possibly be at all, for it is
essentially the nature of experience itself
(by the way, this affirms that, in shankara's tradition of advaita, it is futile
trying to establish the cause of avidyA, as, once it is recognised and removed
, it is seen to never have existed at all! This is why shankara never taxes
himself with detailed discussions concerning where does this avidyA come
from, and to whom does it belong, as these matters become totally irrelevant
once atman is known. Later followers of shankara chose not to let the matter
rest, hence the elaborate theories regarding the root cause of avidyA, and
various discussions of the locus of avidyA. One imagines that, should these
discussions have happened in front of shankara, he would have given them
short shrift by saying something like "its about Brahman, not avidyA! Don't
get distracted!")
4) Further clarification that adhyAsa is possible
katham punah pratyagAtmanyaviSayeevam aviruddhah pratyagAnmanyapi
anAtmAdhyAsah
To further clarify Shankara's statement that adhyAsa is a matter of common
experience, he next raises an objection, which is then answered. The
objection runs as follows:
We can accept the superimposition of two objects in front of us (sarvo hi
puro'vasthhite viSaye, viSayAntaram adhyasyati). But, how can the atman
that you claim is ever the subject (aviSayatwam bravIshi) be confused with
something that is the not Atman, expressed as "you"!
Shankara has essentially restated the original objection in a different way.
His reply is as follows:
It is not unusual at all that such superimposition occurs regarding atman (na
tAvat ayam ekAntena aviSayah), for in empirical life the atman is referred as
the object of the "me" notion (asmatpratyayaviSayatwAt aparoxatwAt cha).
Secondly, there is no rule that says only two perceived objects in front of one
can be confused (na chAyam asti niyamah puro'vasthite eva viSaye
viSayAntaram adhyasitavyam iti). For, the sky is imperceptible, yet children
confuse dirt in the sky as having made the sky dirty (apratyakhse'api
hyAkAshe bAlAh talamalinatAt adhyasysanti). Therefore, it is not
unreasonable to expect that the imperceptible atman that is the eternal
subject, can be confused with objective phenomena around us. (evam
aviruddhah pratyagAtmanyapi anAtmAdhyAsah)
5) Adhyasa is avidyA
tamatem evam laxanam adyAsam paNDitA avidyeti manyante, tadvivekena
cha vastuswarUpAvadhAraNam vidyAm Ahuh. Tatraivam sati yatra
yadadhyAsah tatkrtena doSeNa guNena vA aNumAtreNApi sa na
sambadhyate.
Now we come to an important part of the bhashya. Shankara here explicitly
defines that confusing of the real and the non real, that is adhyAsa (tametam
evam laxaNam adyAsam), that results in the apparently real world of duality
of subjects, objects and means of knowledge , as being called avidyA in the
shAstras by the learned (paNDItA aviyeti manyante). In contrast,
ascertaining the true nature of things though discrimination is called vidyA
(tadvivekena cha vastuswarUpAvadhAraNam vidyAm Ahuh). In addition, to
clarify, where avidyA operates, it does not in any way affect the substrate at
all as a result of the perceived acts, defects, qualities etc that avidyA may
imply as being atman (Tatraivam sati yatra yadadhyAsah tatkrtena doSeNa
guNena vA aNumAtreNApi sa na sambadhyate).
Atman is never tainted by the effects of Ignorance
We find in the vArtikAs and kArikAs numerous statements that describe
avidyA as that which results in a confusion of the real and non real. There
are also descriptions of subtle shades of this false knowledge (mithyAjnAna)
that is avidyA (nature of samshaya, of "I do not know") etc, but the core
definition of avidyA is that given by shankara here in the bhASyam. In
upedasha sAhasrI he beautifully elaborates his definition, to directly link
adhyAsa with the world of samsAra and duality:
"Twam paramAtmAnam santam asamsAriNam samsAryaham asmIti
viparItam pratipadyase, akartAram santam karteti, abhoktAram santam
bhokteti, vidyamAnam cha avidyamAnamiti, iyam avidyA" (US II 50)
"You are the non-transmigratory self, but you wrongly think that you are
liable to transmigration. In the same way, not being a doer/agent, an
experiencer, a knower, you mistake yourself to be these. This is avidyA"
Sureshwara also beautifully summarises shankara's bhASya so far, in an
unrelated verse:
AntaryAmI tathA sAkshI sarvagyashchetyavidyayA
MiththyAdhyAsaishcha tat karyaihi aprameyam prameeyate
BBV 2.3.10
"That Innner Dweller, The Witness, all knowing and un objectifiable, appears
to become a separate object through the false superimposition that is
aviydA"
Anywhere the notion of "I am an agent, doer, thinker," arises, then avidyA is
there, as it implies a distinct separate doer/agent/knower, and an object that
is to be done/achieved/known. This leads perfectly to the next astonishing
segment of the adhyAsa bhASyam:
6) All secular activities that presuppose a separate doer etc are in
the field of avidyA, even the veda's!
tametam avidyAkhyam AtmAnAtmanoh iteretarAdhyAsam puraskrtya sarve
pramANa-prameya vyavahArAH, laukikAh vaidikAh cha pravrttAh sarvANI
cha shAstrANi vidhi-pratiSedha-moxaparANi
This statement can be a bombshell for those not acquainted with the subtler
meaning of vedanta . And was certainly an epiphany for me in my early
vedanta studies. For, shankara declares without hesitation that all empirical
activities where separate subjects and objects are perceived, (sarve
pramANa-prameya vyavahArAH), both day to day and vedic (laukikAh
vaidikAh cha) operate in the field of avidyA (tametam avidyAkhyam
AtmAnAtmanoh iteretaram adhyAsam puraskrtya). So do all shastras
(sarvANI cha shAstrANi) that pertain to injunctions, prohibitions and
discussions of liberation (vidhi-pratiSedha-moxaparANi). In other words, all
discussions of injunctions , vedic ritual including pooja havan, meditation etc,
even talk of liberation itself are in the field of ignorance. Why is this so?
shankara anticipates that this would be a question, and raises it himself next
as an objection, followed by the answer. The objection runs as follows:
Katham punaha avidyAvatviSayAni pratyakshAdini pramANAni shAstrAni cha
iti?
How can all means of knowledge (pramANani) and the shAstra's have
ignorance as their locus?
The response is as follows:
Uchyate dehendriyAdiSu.pramANAni shAstrANi cha
Since a man without self identification with the body, mind and senses etc
cannot become a knower, and as such,the means of knowledge cannot
function for him, (dehendriyAdiSu ahammamAbhimAnarahitasya
pramAtrwAnupapattu pramANapravrttyanupapatteh). Since perception and
other activities (of such a cogniser) are not possible without accepting the
senses etc as belonging to him (na hIndriyANyanupAdAya
pratyakshAdivyavahArah sambhavati). Since the senses cannot function
without the body as a substrate (na cha adhiSTHAnamantareNa indriyANam
vyavahArah sambhavati). And, since nobody engages in any activity with a
body that has not the idea of the self superimposed on it (na cha anadhyasta
AtmabhAvena dehena kashchit vyApriyate), even though the self it is
unattached and cannot become a knower unless there are all of these above
notions(na cha etasmin sarvasmin asati asangasyAtmanah pramAtrtwam
upapadyate). And since the means of knowledge cannot function without a
"knower" (na cha pramAtrtwam antareNa, pramANa-pravrittirasti), it
therefore follows that all means of knowledge, such as direct perception as
well as the shastras are in the field of avidyA, as they are based on the basic
adhyAsa that one is a distinct knower (tasmAt avidyAvadviSayAnyeva
pratyakshAdIni pramANAni shAstrANi cha)
Put simply, for the means of knowledge to operate, it requres the notion of a
doer, and the notion of a doer is the result of superimposition on the
unattached Atman. In other words, as soon as one falsely identifies the self
as a pramAtr, ie an agent, or doer, then all fields that operate are in the field
of avidyA. ShAstra, means of knowledge etc, since they require a distinct
doer, are therefore bound in the field of avidyA.
Side note:
For those not familiar, the concepts of prAmtr prameya etc are defined in the
nyAya shAstra as follows:
Yasya prepsAjihAsAprayuktasya pravrttih sa pramAtA
One who is urged to get or avoid something and therefore engages in
enquiry (because he wants to know things correctly) is pramAtr
YenArtham pramiNoti tat pramANam
That by means of which he ascertains his object is prameya
Yo'rthah pratIyate tat prameyam
The object ascertainable is prameya
YadarthavijnAnam sA pramitih
The correct ascertainment of the object is pramiti
These concepts are fundamental to enquiry of reality in the Indian systems of
philosophy. We are a sea of pramAtr's in a world full of objects to be known,
known as pramANa-prameya vyavahAra. It is advaita, particularly as
expressed in Shankara's school, where it is declared that such distinction of
the world into a duality of distinct subjects and objects is an illusion, driven
by the innate trait of superimposing on the atman the concept of
pramAtrhood.
Gaudapada declares elsewhere , "mAyAmAtram idam dvaitam,
advaitam paramArthatah", this world of duality is false, the supreme reality
is advaita. This process of confusing the atman as distinct pramAtr is the
subject of adhyAsa bhASyam.
7) In the matter of empirical life, human procedure is identical to all
animals
pashwAdibhishcha avisheSAt.tat kAlah samAnah iti nischIyate
The world as perceived when the notions of pramAtr, prameya and pramANa
are assumed to exist is called the empirical standpoint in the shankara's
bhashyas (vyavahAra drSTI). When these notions have been abandoned, the
world is in its true light from the standpoint of supreme reality (paramArtha
drSTI). It is vital always to understand in shankara's bhashyas which
standpoint is being adopted for an argument, otherwise it can lead to
massive confusion. In the next section of adyAsa bhASyam, shankara
amplifies the point that the empirical world conjured through this avidyA is a
matter of common experience that we share with all living beings.
For animals, when they hear a sound they believe is dangerous, they turn
away, and move towards that which seems safe (YathA hi pashwAdayah
shabdAdibhih shrotrAdInAm sambandhe sati shabdAdivijnAne pratikUle jAte
tato navartante, anukUle cha pravartante), and they turn towards someone
holding green grass, and shie away from one holding a stick, thinking that
they will be beaten (yathA daNdodyakaram puruSam abhimukham
upalabhya, mAm hantum ayam icchhatIti palAyitum Arabhante, harita-
trNapUrNa-
pANim upalabhya tam pratyabhimukhI bhavanti). In the same way
wise humans are repelled by strong, riotous people with menacing looks and
swords drawn, but drawn to those opposite in nature (evam puruSa api
vyutpannachittAh krUradrSTIn Akroshatah kaDgodyatakarAn balavata
upalabhya tato nivartante, tatviparItAn prati pravartante). In this way, the
behaviour of humans and animals in the empirical sphere of subjects and
objects is identical (atah samAnah pashwAdibhih puruSANAm
pramANaprameya-
vyavahArah)
To further clarify, shankara goes on to say that it is of course well known
that animals use their means of perception without the benefit of
discrimination etc (pashwAdInAm cha prasiddho'vivekapurassarah
pratyakshAdivyavahArah). From this we can conclude that from the empirical
standpoint, the means of perception employed by the wise and animals are
identical (tat samAnyadarshanAt vyutpattimatAm api puruSANAm
pratyakshAdivyavahArah tatkAlah samAnah iti nischIyate)
So, what is the point of the above? Simply to say that the instinctive
behaviour of humans in the empirical field is due to a series of
misconceptions due to a non-discrimination between the Atman and the non-
Atman, and that humans share this behaviour with the rest of the animal
kingdom. Now humans, apart from their faculty of discrimination, must be
different somehow, and therefore not subject to avidyA? Shankara deals with
this objection in the next section.
8) The shastra's are ever bound in the field of avidyA as they must
presuppose a distinct agent
shAstriye tu .Ashritya pravartante
Shankara says that it is indeed true, that one must have some notion of self
as distinct from this life and the hereafter to perform karma's (shAtriye tu
vyavahAre yadyapi buddhipUrvakArI nAviditwA Atmanah
paralokasambandham adhikriyate). However, such a person has not cognized
the true self which, according to vedanta, is beyond hunger and thirst,
beyond the distinctions of caste, and beyond the notions of rebirth from one
life to the next (tathApi na vedAntavedyam, ashanAyAdyatItam,
apetabrahmakshatrAdibhedam, asamsAryAtmatattwam adhikAre
apekshyate). In fact, the ultimate knowledge that Atman as a non-agent is
not only a useless notion for one engaged in acts to be performed, but is in
fact diammetrically opposite to it! (anupayogAt, adhikAravirodhAt cha).
So, all human behaviour, whether secular, vedic or employing means of valid
knowledge are in the realm of avidyA. Now, it is clarified that even the
shAstra laying out injunctions also operate in the field of ignorance. Shankara
says that:
For, before the dawn of real knowledge, all shAstra's can never transcend the
field of avidyA (prAk cha tathA bhUtAtmavijnAnAt pravartamAnam shAstram
avidyAvadviSayatwam nAtivartate). For, in the example injunction "a
brahmin should offer sacrifice", the notion of caste, being an agent, being at
a certain stage in life, etc have first to be superimposed on the changeless,
eternal Atman before such a sentence can make any sense! (tathA hi
Brahmano yajeta ityAdIni shAstrANi Atmani
varNAshramayo'vasthhAdivisheSAdhyAsam
Ashritya pravartante)
This section can be distressing to those who have, all their life, depending on
performing japa, pooja, homa, or following injunctions as a means to secure
revelation. In contrast, such activities must presuppose a distinct notion "I
am doing such and such", which puts them in the field of ignorance.
Shankara elsewhere explains that, when such acts are performed without
desire for fruit, by recognising the there is no "doer", then they inculcate the
desire for brahmavidya, which takes the aspirant closer to realising the
message of vedanta.
9) Various examples of adhyAsa elaborated
adhyAso nAma adhyasyati.
Shankara now gives various examples of this adhyAsa, which he defines
again as the cognition of one thing as something else (adhyAso nAma
atasminstadbuddhih ityavochAma). The first example is one where, when
family members are sick or well, we feel sick or well too, because of the
attachment (tadyathA putrabhAryAdiSu vikaleSu sakaleSu vA, aham eva
vikalah sakalo vA iti bahyadharmAn atmanyadhyasyati). The next example
relates to attributes of the body (tathA dehadharmAn), where we say "I am
fat", or "I am thin", or "I am fair"; "I stand, I go, I limp" etc (sthhUlo'ham,
krsho'ham, gauro'ham; tiSThAmi, gachhAmi, langhayAmi cha iti). The next
examples relate to the senses and organs (tathA indriyadharmAn), such as "I
am dumb, I am one-eyed, I am a eunuch, I am deaf, or I am blind (mUkah,
kANah, klIbah, badhirah, andho'ham iti). Finally, the attributes of the internal
organ , when one superimposes the notions of will, doubt, perseverance etc
(tathA antahkaraNadharmAn: kAma-sankalpa.vichikitsAdyavasAyAdIn).
In this way , one firstly superimposes the internal organ possesed of the ego
notion, on the innermost Atman which is the eternal Witness (evam
ahampratyayinam asheSaswaprachArasAkshiNI pratyagAtmanyadhyasa), and
then in the opposite direction, one superimposes on the internal organ that
Atman which opposed to non-Atman, and is the witness of everything (tam
cha pratyagAtmAnam sarvasAkhiNam tadviparyayeNa
antahkaraNAdishwadhyasyati).
Here, shankara comes full circle, and reiterates the opening section of
adhyAsa bhASyam, showing how the Atman, the Witness that is ever
unattached, can be confused to be the notion "me", and be confused with the
non-Atman expressed as objects, or the notion "you". The inner organ
referred to by shankara is none other than the manas, or mind (see
shankara's commentary on BSB 2-3-32). It is possible that shankara had in
mind the famous verse in Swetaswatara Upanishad, which describes atman
as sAkhI or witness:
Eko devah sarvabhUteSu gUDHah sarvavyApI sarvabhUtantarAtma
KarmAdhyakshah sarvabhUtAdhivAsah, sAkshI chetA kevalo nirguNashcha
(Swe 1-6)
That one Shining One is hidden in all beings, is all pervasive and the
innermost Atman of all
It is the overseer of all actions, the indweller in all beings, the Witness, Pure
Consciousness, that which is all that is left (when avidyA removed), and is
beyond all qualities.
These examples only are given to show it is a matter of common experience
that we mistake one thing for another. Elsewhere, the example of the rope
and snake is given. In particular, we confuse the Atman with that which is
non-Atman. Until this basic confusion is removed, enlightenment is not
possible. This is how shankara wraps up his adhyAsa bhASyam and sets up
his commentary on the brahma sutram:
10) The purposed of the brahma sutram and shankara's commentary
is to expose the fundamental flaw that is avidyA, and remove it
evam ayam.pradarshayiSyAmah
In wrapping up, shankara re-iterates all the main elements of adhyAsa, and
the results, saying:
Thus occurs this superimposition , or adhyAsa, which is beginningless and
endless (anAdiranantah), which is innate (naisargikah adhyAsah), which is of
the nature of a false notion or knowledge (mithhyApratyayarUpah), is the
basis for all notions of agentship and enjoyership (kartrtwa-
bhoktrtwapravartakah),
and is a matter of common knowledge to all of us (sarva-lokapratyakshah).
To eradicate this fundamental source of destruction of true
knowledge (asyAnarthahetoh prahANAya), and establish the unity of Atman
(atmaikatwavidyA pratipataye), all the vedanta's are begun (sarve vedAntA
Arabhyante). That this is the purport of all the vedanta texts, we shall begin
this work on the shArIrika mImAmsa, known as the brahma sUtram (yathA
chAyam arthah sarveSAm vedAntAnAm, tathA vayam asyAm
shArIrikamImAmsAyAm
pradarshayiSyAmah).
In summarising, shankara, restates the basic nature of adhyAsa, and, more
importantly that this avidyA is the only obstacle to true knowledge.
Therefore, hew declares, the purpose of all the vedanta texts is simply to
remove this avidyA, and establish Atman or Brahman as the only reality. As
such the shAstra's are called the Ultimate Pramana (antyam pramANam),
because they remove misconceptions that come from Ignorance. For, once
these misconceptions are remeoved, Atman will shine of its accord, and there
will be nothing more to be done
Conclusion
In his brief introduction, shankara tells us the reason we cannot attain
enlightenment. It is because it is in our nature to mix up the real and not
real, and therefore perceive a world of duality with multiple
knowers/doers/subjects and things to be known/done/objects. In particular,
we falsely confuse the eternal Atman, that is our innermost self and is The
Witness with no role in empirical life, to be acting as an agent . This
confusion is innate to us, and is a matter of common experience requiring no
proof. It is is beginningless and endless in the sphere of the empirical
universe. This confusion, or superimposition is the basic ignorance that
results in this world of duality. The world of duality fashioned by avidyA is
termed to be mAyA, or illusion, as it can only be perceived once this basic
superimposition has occurred., and all activities including the secular and
vedic fall into the field of ignorance as they must presuppose a distinct doer.
The purpose of the vedanta texts is to point out this ignorance as essentially
the nature of a false mental notion, and remove all misconceptions, to reveal
the nature of Atman. A thorough understanding of adhyAsa bhASyam,
therefore, is vital to understanding the texts of vedanta and shankara's
bhASyas in particular. It is for this reason that this text is held in such high
regard, and deserves to be studied by all serious students of vedanta
Harih Om
Sri krSNArpaNamastu
Unquote
This article was written by Sri Subhanu Saxena, a disciple of
Sri Aswattha Narayana Avadhani, who in his turn is a disciple of
Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati. In other words, Swami
Satchidanandendra is the paramaguru of Sri Subhanu Saxena.
Very best wishes
Stig Lundgren
From: "satyan_c" <satyan_c@y...>
Date: Mon Mar 25, 2002 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Whence Adhyasa
Dear Sri Atmachaitanyaji,
As usual, I immensely enjoyed reading your post. I was reminded of
Swami Chinmayananda's oft quoted statement: "The non apprehension of
reality leads to the mis-apprehension of reality" in various parts of
your writing.
However, a few doubts still linger especially with the chicken and egg
problem you have raised towards the end:
Non discrimination presupposes an individual with a non discriminating
mind and it also presupposes entities real and unreal (ie duality) to
be discriminated between. However, aren't we trying to analyse what is
even causal to the individual and the mind and the first appearance of
duality? ie what is it that brought about the individual/mind/duality
to begin with.
Vedanta puts forth the causal body model to explain (on the empirical
level for the ignorant but seeking intellect) the cause for the
individual mind and intellect. However, then, Trigunatmika Maya (and
Avidya) are also necessarily brought in, the need for which is what
you precisely are questioning.
Hence, there is still a gap in my understanding as to why there is a
need to question the Maya/Avidya "theory" which conveniently and
provisionally explains (to the ignorant but seeking mind!) how the
individual/mind/duality arose. Given that Maya (Avidya) does not
really exist, only seems to, settles the ignorant questioning
intellect while it lasts(!), and also disappears on
enquiry/realization, I don't see the major objection accommodating it.
regards,
--Satyan
From: "Stig Lundgren" <slu@C...>
Date: Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Whence Adhyasa
Sri Satyanji wrote,
> Vedanta puts forth the causal body model to explain (on the empirical
> level for the ignorant but seeking intellect) the cause for the
> individual mind and intellect. However, then, Trigunatmika Maya (and
> Avidya) are also necessarily brought in, the need for which is what
> you precisely are questioning.
Why do you think "the causal body model" and trigunatmika maya
are necessarliy brought in in order to explain the cause of the
individual mind and intellect? Adi Shankara certainly didnt
think so. The trigunaatmika maya theory was formulated by
vedantins in the post-Shankara era. The same is true also
regarding the causal body (kArana Shariira) model. The causal
body is mentioned only once in the whole bulk of Shankaras
writings, namely in his bhashya on Isa Upanishad. The
post-Shankarites, however, formulated a theory according to which
the soul enters a causal body in deep-sleep. And this is not at
all what Shankara says regarding the causal body.
The post-Shankara vedantins holds the view that the causal
body and the trigunaatmika maya are due to the existence of the
indivdual (and ignorant) mind. And hence the chicken and egg
problem is deluding us again: If the individual mind is due to
the causal body etc., then how can the causal body etc. exist due
to the individual mind? Personally, I cant see how adhyasa and
avidya could be satisfyingly explained by bringing the
post-Shankara theories into the picture. If mUlAvidyA is
considered as necessary in order to explain adhyasa, then why
dont we have to explain the cause and existence of mUlAvidyA?
And if we somehow tries to explain the cause of mUlAvidyA, then
we have to explain the cause and existence of this cause etc. in
infinitum. This way of reasoning apparently leads to an infinite
regress.
> Hence, there is still a gap in my understanding as to why there
> is aneed to question the Maya/Avidya "theory" which conveniently
> and provisionally explains (to the ignorant but seeking mind!) how
> the individual/mind/duality arose. Given that Maya (Avidya) does
> notreally exist, only seems to, settles the ignorant questioning
> intellect while it lasts(!), and also disappears on enquiry/realization,
> I don't see the major objectionaccommodating it.
Well, the post-Shankara theories leads to a number of logical
problems, already pointed out by Ramanuja in his 1100th century
critique of the Advaita school as he knew it (that is, the
post-Shankara Advaita school). The critique of Ramanuja only
applies to the standpoints of the post-Shankarites, and could
have been avoided if the post-Shankarites had remained faithful
to the teachings of Adi Shankara himself. And this critique makes
way for the rise of the dualist schools. So at least to some
degree, the post-Shankara theories where responsible for the
forming of rival vedantic schools.
However, a bigger problem is the confusion caused by the
post-Shankara advaitins among the students and sincere followers
of Advaita Vedanta. For instance, when I started out studying
vedanta, I was confused by the fact that already a couple of
generations after Adi Shankara, subtraditions emerged under the
names of Vivarana and Bhamati. I was confused regarding which one
of these subtraditions represented the genuine philosophy of Adi
Shankara. Did Vivarana or Bhamati follow the tradition of
Shankara? A friend of mine (an extremely learned advaitin) had
already guided me through the "adhyasa bhashyam" (the
introduction to Shankaras Brahma Sutra Bhashya), and I couldnt
figure out in what way the Vivarana and Bhamati theories
corresponded to what Shankara said in "adhyasa bhashyam". I guess
that other seekers and students of Advaita Vedanta have faced
problems and questions similar to mine.
Very best wishes
Stig Lundgren
From: "madathilnair" <madathilnair@y...>
Date: Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:55 pm
Namaste!
I read Shri Atmachaitanyaji's long post several times. Then I went
over Shri Dennis Waite's original post (12349 of 18th February 2002)
and the several responses it subsequently elicited including mine. I
would like to respectfully present the following humble thoughts. I
may kindly be forgiven for any ignorance:
1. Neither Shri Waite nor those who initially responded to his post
mentioned anything about a moola-avidya with bhava roopa. It was
first brought into the discussion by Shri Atmachaitanyaji himself in
his post 12380 dated 20th February 2002 in order to validate Douglas
Fox's thought that adhyasa cannot be an independent process outside
of Brahman.
2. Sizeable portions of Shri Atmachaitanyaji's latest post and
previous posts in this chain are devoted to refute this moola-avidya
with bhava roopa, which he himself introduced into the discussion,
and the post-Sankara advaitins who advocate(d) it, whoever they are.
4. I believe the explanation that he has offered to the conundrum of
adhyasa could have stood on its own without all such lengthy
refutation. This is not to say that we have not learnt anything from
his fantastic expositions.
5. No doubt, Shri Atmachaitanyaji has drawn from several sources and
built a brilliant case for his contention that we ourselves are the
cause for adhyasa. Reading his post was a real, big, enlightening
experience.
6. But after everything, the big question that lingers in mind is if
we are not back at square one. Let us look at Shri Atmachaitanyaji's
conclusion: "in the sense that: "I don't know the Self, I haven't
been able to discriminate the true nature of the Self, and due to
this, I may (sic) be considered the `cause' (sic) of
superimposition". Don't the words "may" and apostrophized `cause'
point at some doubt and uncertainty?
7. By "I" , I am sure he does not mean the Self. This "I" is in the
realm of the Unreal Not-Self (to quote his own terminology), because
with regard to the Self there is no adhyasa at all. The "I"
certainly is the "some òne'" referred to by Shri Atmachaitanyaji
towards the end of his post who appears simultaneously with adhyasa.
Can this "I" which itself is born within and at the same time as
adhyasa probe into the origin of adhyasa and get a satisfactory
answer, i.e. can these two èntities" have distinct separate
existence (as is our experience) so that at least one of them can
enquire into the cause of the other and ultimately conclude that
the ènquirer' himself is the cause? To make it short, can two
entities originate at the same point in time from the same primal
cause? Doesn't it sound like two events at the same point in space
and time? Please correct me if I am wrong.
8. How can adhyasa without bhava roopa give rise to an Unreal Not-
Self of beings with bhava roopa? How can the bhavaatheetha
(beyond bhava), through the agency of something without bhava roopa,
give rise to something with bhaava roopa? How can a misconception
(immaterial cause) result in a material universe? An epistemological
causality with ontological possibilities? These are of course
questions which Shri Atmachaitanyaji himself had introduced before to
this discussion and still valid.
9. Sankara, as quoted by Shri Atmachaitanyaji, has stated that the
misconception with regard to the Self and Non-Self is naisargika (by
nature). Isn't this another way of saying that avidya is anaadi?
Sankara has said that right in Thathwabodha". Naturally, therefore,
we cannot fix the birth date of this natural misconception!
10. Shri Atmachaitanyaji had promised to go through the Martha
Doherty's dissertation (recommended by Shri Kathirasanji). He has
not mentioned anything in that regard..
11. Ultimately, I am left with a feeling that Shri Atmachaitanyaji
has not taken us any farther than where we had reached under the
guidance of our teachers and those who wrote before in this forum
other than throwing fresh insights into the rope-snake analogy and
postulating the simultaneous origin of "I" and adhyasa to
accommodate and affirm Douglas Fox's thought (c). In fact, the gamut
of his conclusion rests purely on the latter.
12. To quote Shri Atmachaitanyaji again:
"But for you to be sitting, it is necessary that you have accepted
the idea that you are either the body or at least the idea that you
have a body. For you to be reading this post, the minimum requirement
would be to accept the fact that you have the `sense of sight', and
for you to evaluate the correctness or falsity of my assertions, it
is absolutely necessary that you have a mind. Yet the idea that you
have a body, senses or mind can only come about as a result of not
discriminating the Subject from the object, the knower and the
known, the Self and the not-Self, and it is the misconception
(Adhyasa) or mixing up of these two categories into one identified
entity that is the root cause for all of Samsara."
The sense of body, sight, mind etc. does not occur when an experience
goes on. When the experience occurs, there is only the lighting up
of the "experiencing". Even the experiencer and the object
experienced vanish. I am listening to Jesudas. When "laya" takes
place, there is no Jesudas, there is no song, there is no me (i.e. "Ithe
listener-self-awareness"), there remains only the lighting up of
enjoyment. The body, mind, eyes, sense of sight etc. come into the
picture only when they are thought of. Then again, in ultimate
analysis, there is only their being lighted up as respective
objects/thoughts awareness. When such lighting up takes place, at
that moment, there is no "I-the-seer-self-awareness". If this
analysis is further extended, then the thought that all this duality
is a misconception is also a lighting up of awareness when it
occurs. The common denominator in all this is the "lighting up" and
that exactly is what we are all after. So, endeavour to see the
one "lighting up" in all the "lighting-ups" the misconception
vanishes leaving only "LIGHTING UP".
13. Shri Atmachaitanyaji said:
"This and only this is the principle meaning of Ignorance according
to Shankara,: i.e. Adhyasa is the mutual superimposition of the Self
and the Not-Self along with the mixing of their distinct qualities on
each other."
There cannot be any superimposition due to mixing up of the distinct
qualities of each other. We already agreed that no qualities exist
in the Absolute and from the Absolute perspective. To put it
crudely, the Self does not have any qualities at all. The Unreal Not-
Self has to be created first of all and then endowed with qualities
for its qualitieis to be subjected to " superimposition".
14. The whole argument of the post is built mainly on the rope-snake
example, which has its own limitations. The seer of the snake on the
rope has definitely had a previous snake experience. Otherwise, the
snake qualities will no be "superimposed" on the rope reality.
However, in the Self-Not Self confusion, there is no memory or
recollection involved. Here, the Self is "manifesting" as the Not
Self due to misconception. Does it really matter if this
misconception is named avidya, adhyasa or maaya as long as we all,
from Shankara down, are prepared to admit that there is a
misconception. And whatever this "manifestation" is due to, it is
our daily experience that it is "thrigunathmika" with bhava roopa.
Then, why take cudgels with the post-Sankara vedantins?
Shri Atmachaitanyaji wrote: "This distinction between the Absolute
Reality and the "Empirical" viewpoint should be unfailingly borne in
mind in order to reconcile the several seeming (sic) selfcontradictory
statements in Shankara's commentaries."
This actually is the crux of the problem. No amount of explanation
can completely answer the adhyasa conundrum. Perhaps, mostly it is
best understood in a very simple manner by those who intuit on the
lines mentioned in (12) above.
Shankara is quoted by Shri Atmachaitanyaji as below:
"If it should be asked Ànd to whom does this ignorance belong?" We
answer, `To you who are asking this question!' (Objection) `But I
have been declared to be the Isvara Himself by the Scriptures!
(Reply) If you are thus awakened, then there never was any Ignorance
that ever belonged to anyone'." (Sutra Bhasya 4-1-3).".
I wish Shankara had added: "Till you are awakened, you will keep
asking this question "Whence Ignorance?" and not find any
satisfactory answer to it.".
May I conclude by quoting the very realisitc Shri Jaishankarji (from
Message 12461):
"Finally, I want to state that all these things are only
prakriyaabhedas (differences in the methodology and teaching) as we
all agree on what is to be taught which is `tat tvam asi'".
All of you Advaitin brothers and sisters please forgive me if I
have erred anywhere. I am neither trained nor well-read in vedantic
logic. I mostly rely on commonsense, which may not be sharp enough
and foolproof.
Pranams.
Madathil Nair
--- In advaitin@y..., sophia & ira schepetin <stadri@a...>(Shri
Atmachaitanyaji) wrote:
> Dear Dennis, and all others interested in this subject, (the rest
deleted in order not to choke the "electronic super-highway" as Shri
Ram Chandranji calls it.)
Date: Wed Mar 27, 2002 5:28 am
Dear Sri Madathilnair,
Please allow me to respond to some of the points that you raise
regarding my answer to the question: Whence Adhyasa?
With reference to points 1,2 and 4, in which you indicate that it was
I, who introduced this subject of "Bhava Rupa Mula Avidya", I concede
the observation. And the reason I did so was that everyone at this
Advaitin web site presumably has an interest in Shankaras' Advaita
Vedanta. And anyone who is familiar with the literature associated
with this tradition has come across this "Root Ignorance" theory. It
is to be found not only in works falsely ascribed to Shankara, such as
Vivekachudamani, and many other popular 'Prakarana Granthas', but it
is a theory which has been developed and expounded upon in many
important independent works such as Vidyarayanas' Panchadasi,
Prakashatma Yatis' Vivarana, Sri Harshas' Khandana, Citsukas' Tatva
Pradipika, and Sarvajnatmans' Sankshepa Sariraka, to mention only a
few. But let it not be assumed that this theory of Root Ignorance is
merely a historical artifact, and not relevant to the current, modern
day Advaita Vedantins, for this very same theory is being propagated,
in the name of Shankara, by all the current 'Shankaracharyas' at the
main Mutts, as well as the most prominent and popular Swamis now
'representing' the tradition of Shankaras' Advaita. It is because I
am convinced that their answer to the question Whence Adhyasa?, is
false, opposed to reason and experience, contradicts Shankaras own
position on the subject, and degrades the sublime Absolutist teachings
of Vedanta to the level of dry dialectics, 'realism', theological
dogmatism, the abandonment of Non Duality and finally (and most
importantly) the impossibility of putting an end to Samsara once the
theory of 'Root Ignorance' is accepted, because Knowledge could never
destroy it, that I went to such lengths to refute it..
With reference to the issues you raise in point 8 in which you ask:
"How can Adhyasa, without Bhava Rupa, give rise to an Unreal Not-Self
of beings with Bhava Rupa?" and again, "How can a misconception
(immaterial cause) result in a material Universe?" Let me respond by
stating that the 'beings' that appear due to Adhyasa are not existent
(Bhava Rupa) at any time, either before their manifestation, during
their manifestation, or after their disappearance. The Universe that
appears due to misconception is not 'material' but merely an illusion,
and its true nature was, is and forever will be, always Atman alone.
It is true that there have been a number of 'Advaita Vedantins' who
advocated the actual birth of 'illusory objects' and attributed a
certain kind of 'existence to them (pratibasika satta), but this is
totally foreign to Shankaras declarations and to common sense. When we
mistake a rope for a snake, that snake never had any existence of its
own. And after we correct this misconception by getting the correct
knowledge of the rope, no actually existing snake of any kind was ever
destroyed. We all take the position that there never was a snake in
all the three periods of time, past present and future. It should be
clearly remembered that according to Shankara,''an appearance is
something which seems to exist, but which in truth never existed at
all'. In addition, Shankara points out the indisputable fact that no
appearance could ever manifest without there being an actually
existent substratum or basis for that appearance. The snake could not
appear without the existence of a rope, and the appearance of the
universe could not manifest without there being the Self as its
underlying reality (adhistana).
The point that you make in number13, is the outcome of a total
confusion regarding Shankaras position about Adhyasa. You state" There
cannot be any superimposition due to mixing up of the distinct
qualities of each other. We already agreed that no qualities exist in
the Absolute, and from the Absolute perspective. To put it crudely,
the Self does not have any qualities at all." Dear Madatilnair, what
I 'agreed' to was that in the Absolute or from the Absolute
perspective there never was, is or will be any Ignorance or
Superimposition, nor its removal. However for the sake of
discriminating between the Self and the Not-Self, Shankara is not at
all reluctant to say that the 'qualities' of Consciousness and Being
belong to the Self alone and never to the Not-Self. In his Adhyasa
Bhasya he describes the true 'I', the Subject (vishayi) as Chitatmika
(Of the nature of Consciousness). To say Consciousness and Existence
are qualities of the Self is like saying that heat and light are the
'qualities of fire. It is their very nature (Svarupa). So in this
context, the word 'quality' does not refer to some attribute that
belongs to something of which it could dispense with and still remain
that thing. It refers to the very nature of the Self, in the same way
that it is the very nature of fire to have heat and light. Unlike the
'qualities' of beauty and ugliness or intelligence, with reference to
a person who could continue to be that very same person even if those
attributes were to change. It is the 'qualities' of Consciousness and
Existence that are falsely attributed (Adhyasa) to the Non-Self that
makes everyone think that their bodies, senses and mind are conscious
and that they exist.
You state in 14,that "The whole argument of the post is built mainly
on the rope-snake example, which has its own limitations". But this is
not my example, it is Shankaras. He uses this example throughout his
commentaries repeatedly, and he does so because it suits his purpose
quite well. It is an illustration from worldly life that we are all
familiar with and which demonstrates that people do mistake one thing
for another, that the mistaken 'thing' never existed where it was
thought to have existed and that after the correct knowledge of the
thing the appearance is sublated . As to the limitation of this
illustration, in that it does not match up exactly with what is being
illustrated, Shankara admits to the defect, but points out that if the
illustration was exactly the same as what was being illustrated, it
would merely be a tautology, and would no longer serve as a teaching
device.
And in conclusion, I would like to respond to your final summation,
which accurately portrays an opinion that is shared by most Indian
pundits and Western Indologists. You state: "May I conclude by quoting
the very realistic Shri Jaishankarji" Finally I want to state that
all these things are only prakriyaabedhas (Differences in the
methodology and teaching) as we all agree on what is to be taught
which is 'tat tvam asi'."
I can only say that I take this position be a great disservice to the
contributions that was made by Shankara regarding the clarification of
important Vedantic concepts, in clarifying, for the first time in
Vedantic literature, what exactly is the nature of Ignorance, and
indicating exactly what were the defects in the other Advaitic
schools, (despite the fact that they all taught 'tat tvam asi', and
that were prevalent during his times and before him), so that the
sincere seekers of truth would not be lead astray.
Why does Shankara refute the Karmajnana Samuchya vadins (the theory
that by a combination of actions and knowledge one attained moksha)?
They were Advaitins who taught 'tat tvam asi'. And why did he refute
the prasankyana vadins (those who held that after the attainment of
knowledge, that knowledge had to be repeated to make it strong enough
to ward off the old vasanas. They were Advaitins who taught 'tat tvam
asi' And why did Shankara refute the notion that Nirvikalpa Samadhi
was the means to the knowledge of the Self, even though many modern
day and ancient Vedantins hold such a view and all teach 'tat tvam
asi'? Who were the "Vritikaras' (previous commentators) that Shankara
examines in his Gita commentary and refutes mercilessly calling them
"idiots"(Murkaha), despite the fact that they were Advaitins all
teaching 'tat tvam asi'. And how is it that Suresvaracharya could
compose 14000 verses for his Brihidaranyaka Vartica, the bulk of which
contains an examination and ruthless refutation of other Advaitins (at
least nine schools have been identified by Mahadeven in his English
translation of the Sambanda Vartica, all of whom adopted different
'methodologies and teachings' (Prakriya bhedas) from those of Shankara
and Suresvara) even though they all taught 'tat tvam asi'?
Shanakra in his Gita commentary, chap 13.says there is only one method
of teaching. He calls it Adhyapropa Apavada (The Method of
Deliberate Superimposition and Rescission), He quotes ancient
Vedantins as being knowers of this methodology, and concludes by
stating that "though a man be learned in all the scriptures, should he
be bereft of this traditional method of teaching (Adhyaropa Apavada)
HE SHOULD BE DISREGARDED LIKE A FOOL.LIKE THE BLIND LEADING THE
BLIND"
Hari Om
Atmachaitanya
--- In advaitin@y..., "madathilnair" <madathilnair@y...> wrote:
> Namaste!
>
> > Dear Dennis, and all others interested in this subject, (the rest
> deleted in order not to choke the "electronic super-highway" as Shri
> Ram Chandranji calls it.)
From: "srikrishna_ghadiyaram" <srikrishna_ghadiyaram@y...>
Hari Om !!
Sri Atmachaitanya, would you please clarify the following:
1. Is it your position that Avidya is Adhyasa and, Avidya is not
Maya; or is it more than that ?
2. After accepting that Avidya does not mean or equate to Maya, do
you still disagree with the definition of Trigunatmika Maya for the
cause of the creation of the Universe. Here I simply mean the
evolution of elements and the universe of objects and the three Gunas
etc. Is there any problem in this regard, based on original Sankara's
teachings about what Maya is ?
3. How this controversy should effect a Sadhak in his/her sadhana and
hence realisation?
Kindly clarify.
Om Namo Narayanaya !!
Srikrishna
Is it only "Avidya" that is mis-interpreted by the later day
Advaitins or even the definition of Maya as Trigunatimika as the
cause of
--- In advaitin@y..., "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:
> Dear Sri Madathilnair,
>
> Please allow me to respond to some of the points that you raise
> regarding my answer to the question: Whence Adhyasa?
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Re: Whence Adhyasa
You mentioned: "It is because I am convinced that their answer to the
question Whence Adhyasa?, is
false, opposed to reason and experience, contradicts Shankaras own
position on the subject, and degrades the sublime Absolutist teachings
of Vedanta to the level of dry dialectics, 'realism', theological
dogmatism, the abandonment of Non Duality and finally (and most
importantly) the impossibility of putting an end to Samsara once the
theory of 'Root Ignorance' is accepted, because Knowledge could never
destroy it, that I went to such lengths to refute it."
K: None of the present traditional teachers have abandoned non-duality by
postulating a mula avidya. At least I am yet to know of one. Although they
might disagree on matters concerning Nirvikalpa Samadhi or even shastra
pramana but everyone accepts that there is One unchanging, eternal
Consciousness. I am also not convinced with your explanation that the
acceptance of mulavidya can't put an end to samsara. When Atma alone is
given the status of Satyam and when everything else is given the status of
Mithya (including mula avidya), what problem will there be for you with
regards removal of Samsara. I think you are unnecassarily confusing yourself
by accepting mula avidya to be Satyam..sort of a parallel reality to Atma.
Although it may exist in the waking, dreaming and the deep sleep state, but
it is NOT invariable (or changeless) . Ignorance varies with the three states
therefore making it also mithya. So what's the problem?
When asked by Nairji, "How can Adhyasa, without Bhava Rupa, give rise to
an Unreal Not-Self of beings with Bhava Rupa?" & "How can a misconception
(immaterial cause) result in a material Universe?", you (atmachaitanya) have
conveniently answered the question by shifting the standpoint of vyvaharika
to paramarthika. As anyone would know, that everything can be resolved at
the paramarthika level (in fact there is nothing to be resolved) BUT the
question asked by Nairji is from the standpoint of vyavaharika alone. So is
this an attempt to evade the question?
You have mentioned that Shankara has explicitly claimed that no one will be
able to know the teachings or the method without knowing the tradition.
Therefore, we know that this methodology is passed down from time
immemorial. But I am particularly interested and curious to know who is the
link to this ancient sampradaya before your own Guru? Who is the teacher of
your Guru who forms a part of this teaching tradition? Then only can I accept
the teachings of yours as authentic.
With luv,
Kathi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: atmachaitanya108 [SMTP:stadri@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 7:59 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [advaitin] Re: Whence Adhyasa
>
>
From: Madathilnair
Date: Wed Mar 27, 2002
Dear Shri Atmachaitanyaji,
I am indeed very grateful to you for your clarifications.
At the outset, permit me to make the following clear:
1.I am a grihastha who dabble in Vedanta off and on. My arguments
may, therefore, have pitfalls and lack continuity of thought and the
exact logic pertinent to the points under discussion.
2. However, I would like to learn and that is exactly why I am making
impatient attempts to present my points of view.
3. Even amidst my responsibilities as a householder, I do contemplate
over vedantic issues and teachings most of the time. This practice
has produced some insights (on vedantic teachings) of an experiential
nature. Mostly, I base my points of view on such insights, which
practice, I admit, has its own benefits, as well as dangers due to
being subjective.
4. Before I began writing through this Advaitin forum in January this
year, I had never expressed myself in print at any time, although
talking Vedanta ad infinitum to my bored family and friends has quite
some time been my intense passion. I am, therefore, a simple
freshman.
Kindly, therefore, grant me the benefit of your understanding.
Let us now get down to the business in hand.
(a) I have nothing to say about your raison d'etre for refuting the
Moola Avidya vadins. I don't think I am competent enough, at the
moment, to defend either point of view except that I can only
acknowledge the existence of ignorance in the form of
misconception.
(b) Thanks for elaborating on Sankara's position about adhyasa. I
admit my misunderstanding and would like to confess that I have not
studied or even read adhyasa bhasya or an authentic interpretation of
it excepting that I have heard passing references to adhyasa in
discourses given by different teachers.
(c) Your explanation has triggered new insights in this regard and,
in this context, I am rather disappointed that you did not dwell on
my point No. 12. Your reason may possibly be that it was slightly
outside the main track. To recapitulate, was it not the chitatmika
nature of the Self that I (unknowingly) endeavoured to articulate in
point No. 12? If yes, you have granted Sankara's authority to my
thoughts. In fact, I would now like to expand my point of view.
(d) I said before that the one and only "LIGHTING UP" could be
appreciated by recognizing that It is the common denominator of
all "lighting ups". To look at it another way, each
individual "lighting up" of awareness can be endlessly reduced
(theoretically at least) to its `very basics'. Fundamentally, the
big LIGHTING UP can be seen to remain at the bottom of everything as
the essential Substratum, which is nothing but the chitatmika
Consciousness. With such reduction to fundamental levels,
a `tending' towards qualitylessness and formlessness can also be seen
to occur. This is applicable to everything perceived - objects,
thoughts, ideas, concepts, experiences, etc. etc. pointing to the
fact that fundamentally all things seen differently in our ordinary
vyavahara (prathibhasathmika also included) are just the 'Same'.
(d) In this analysis and in point (12) of my previous message, is it
not important to note that the principle of Unity has been recognized
and appreciated without bringing entities like mind, intellect etc.
etc., which shine after chitatmika Consciousness? I admit that it is
very necessary to talk about mind, intellect etc. to elucidate
vedantic principles or, as I would like to put it, to
systematize "Ignorance" . Beyond that, do we have to permit them to
cloud, confound and impede our vision of the Absolute which can be
demonstrated to exist even without their assistance as explained
above?
(e) Besides, if the Truth is appreciated and the misconception about
it is realized on the above lines, then is there a need to look where
that misconception is occurring? It can't be occurring anywhere
other than to the "enquirer" himself/herself as you have concluded or
as Sankara answered: "To you who are asking this question".
(f) Disappointingly again, you seem to have overlooked my point
No.7. That is the heart of the matter your ultimate logic for the
above conclusion. To rephrase my question more clearly, how can the
cause or origin or whence of "something" come into being at the same
instant as that "something"? In the rope-snake example the
misconception is the snake itself, i.e. the misconception is not
the "whence" of the snake or vice versa. But, in individual (mind)
adhyasa issue there are two distinct entities which are essentially
not the same.
(g) Till this question is convincingly answered, I, with my limited
intellectual resources, have no other alternative but to move with
the crowd, which may or may not include some Moola Avidya vadins too.
And that cannot be a disservice to Shankara! As I mentioned above, I
acknowledge the existence of a misconception, I know I am
the ìgnorant' one and Sankara is my authority thereto. I hope my
situation will be appreciated.
Best regards,
Madathil Nair
--- In advaitin@y..., "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:
>
>
From: Dennis Waite
Many thanks to Sri Atmachaitanya for the brilliantly lucid exposition on
this topic. I may have waited several weeks for a satisfactory explanation
to this apparently insoluble problem but it was worth it! I certainly feel
happy with this way of looking at things and it leaves one's faith in the
philosophy (as propounded by Shankara) unshaken. I am indebted.
Dennis
From: atmachaitanya108
Date: Wed Mar 28 2002
Dear K Kathirasan NCS,
If you really take the position that Mula Avidya (Root Ignorance- An Avidya
that is completely different from the three well known categories of merely
'Not Knowing' 'Doubting' and 'Misconceiving') is Mithya (false) then we have
no fundamental disagreement Beause if it is false then it can be said to be
removed by knowledge.. But please take note, that if it is false, then it too
must be the result of a Misconception (Adhyasa). The 'false snake' cannot
appear without the misconception.. It must be Avidya Kalpita, Imagined by
Ignorance. We all see a world. We all feel that it must exist in some manner,
we therefore imagine a cause for that world, a cause that actually
exists, or exists in a peculiar way, such as 'neither existent nor non-existent',
and that must somehow cover Brahman and result in the world that we see.
But the world and its inferred cause are both superimpositions on the Self.
Just like the misconceived snake and its 'cause', 'the inferred mother of that
snake. When we realize there never was a 'snake' what happens to the
'inferred mother', which was the 'cause' of that snake? When we realize that
there never was any duality, or world, what will happen to that imagined
'cause' for the supposed Duality or world? They were both just
Misconceptions. Superimposition (Adhyasa) has to be in full play to even see
a world or imagine its cause. Cause and Effect only arise with the appearance
of Duality and Time (In Duality the cause must come first, the effect after).
Duality is a Superimposition on the Self, a 'wrong' knowledge regarding the
Self, a 'misconception' about the Self. It is knowledge of the Self that can
destroy this 'Misconception' (Adhyasa) about the Non-Dual Self . Knowledge
can do nothing more, and nothing more need be done. (This is the view of
deliberate Superimposition, Adhyaropa, the Empirical View). When it is
understood that there is only the One Self Without a Second, then we realize
that no one ever had any
misconception, and no knowledge was ever needed to remove that
misconception. All of this Avidya and Vidya has also been the outcome of a
misconception. There has always been only the Self (This is the Apavada in
the methodology of Vedanta, even the teachings of Vidya and Avidya are
rescinded in the end, Not This, Not This). As Advaitins,
we certainly both agree that Ultimately there never was any Ignorance at all.
Not that Ignorance really existed from beginingless time and really inhered in
the Absolute.And that we, somehow, have to really remove it to get free.
If you try to clarify your position by stating that even in your theory Root
Ignorance is also false from the Absolute view point, and that it is only from
the empirical view that we put forth this teaching. . Then I reply that our
disagreement is, of course, only from the empirical point of view. I am not
shifting viewpoints and then merely dismissing Madatilnairs' objections from
the absolute point of view. It is from the empirical view point that I
answered the objections. It is from the Empirical view point that we disagree
about the nature of Ignorance as well as it cause. I hold that from the
empirical point of view, to teach that: 'Due to 'not knowing the Self' we have
misconceived it as the false Not-Self', is a teaching that points out a
universal fact that is verifiable by all in there own experience. We have all
mixed the Witness with the Witnessed; even this Vedantic teaching is
proceeding due to this most basic misconception (Adhyasa) of taking the
Witness for the Witnessed. For without misconceiving that we are the body,
senses and mind (which experience can we verify as a misconception, for in
experience, the body, senses and mind are forever the "Witnessed" and
never the Witness), we can't be 'knowers', we can't be ignorant of anything,
including the the Self Evident, Self Manifest, Self, we cant seek out a Guru
who is different from us and who will teach us the correct knowledge of the
Self. All this proceeds on this fundamental Misconception (this I take to be
Shankaras teaching from the empirical point of view, the Adhyaropa,
'Deliberate Superimposition' point of view). As opposed to the 'empirical
point of view' in which a theory is put forth, (totally divorced from any
common experience that could be relied upon to confirm it) in which we
postulate a begingingless positive cause (not merely imagined, but an
existing Indescribable, Anirvachiniya, ' empirical thing' that is the 'cause' for
both the appearance of duality and the imagination, misconception
(Adhyasa) about it - for
MulaAvidya Vadins misconception is caused, it is the effect of this inert
twofold power to it cover Reality (avarana Shakti) and project the world
(vikhepa Shakti), a power that projects not only the world but all the
individuals in the world, who each have their own personal misconceptions,
and it is not merely 'not knowing' that makes misconceptions appear). A
Bhava Rupa 'power'. that we have to somehow 'destroy' or remove by
knowledge. How exactly Knowledge accomplishes this 'empirical' feat is never
made clear. And if knowledge could ever get rid of this Anadi Tri Guna
Atmika Prikriti (the beginingless primal nature which is made up of three
Gunas and which is a synonym for Mula Avidya), then liberation would be
both an effect and an event in time, and thus non-eternal.
Hari Om
Atmachaitanya
P.S. I would like to extend my thanks to all the participants in this discussion
about the 'Whence of Adhayasa'. To Stig Lundgren for making available that
fantastic article on Adhyasa Bhasya, (it should
be made mandatory reading for all those who are serious about trying to get
to the heart of Shankaras Advaita), and especially to those who have
objected and will continue to object to the views I have presented, as well as
to those who moderate and maintain this Advaitin web site. It has allowed
me the opportunity to articulate and ponder and be challenged over this
profound and subtle subject of Adhyasa and its 'cause'. Where else could one
find a forum whose stated intent is to discuss primarily Shanakras' Advaita
Vedanta Philosophy and Practice, and its related issues. I hope that the
pedantic and aggressive style of my posts haven't overly offended those who
are also analyzing and trying to understand these very same issues. Each
inquirer will ultimately decide for himself on the "Whence of Adhyasa" one
way or the other, or suspend judgment or decide that it really isn't that
important and move on to other things, perhaps thanking the Supreme for
their remaining Avidyalesha, so they can enjoy the Lila.
From: K. Kathirasan NCS
Thanks for this clarification. I find myself more in agreement with you now
than ever. Of course, I still maintain that an acceptance of a Bhavarupa
avidya poses no problem to the removal samsara as long as I know that it is
mithya too. With regards to avidya being anadi, i think the word anadi should
be interpreted as not 'begininglessness' but rather 'untraceable beginning'.
pls comment.
I have one more question for you, that is if you don't mind. Now that I know
that I am the absolute Brahman why is it that I still have the fear of duality?
Shastra declares that 'the one who knows this Truth crosses fear'. But why is
it that despite discussing and being convinced 'intellectually' (is this the right
word? nevermind) that Brahman alone IS, why do I still feel that I am
'ignorant', 'a seeker', 'a doer' etc.....Or what can I do to overcome this? Pls
advise.
Anyway, Atmachaitanyaji I enjoyed studying all your posts and have learnt a
lot from it. I thank you for that and would like to let you know that I wasn't
offended by any of your posts although i could have offended you with my
replies. I am sorry for that.
Kathi
From: madathilnair
Dear Shri Atmachaitanyaji,
Reading your brilliant post was indeed an electrifying experience. Thanks to
you for the explanation and to Shri Kathirasanji for the incisive prodding.
From the P.S. to your post, I am afraid you are closing shop and calling it a
day. Not yet please, Shri Atmachaitanyaji.
We, those who have not delved into Adhyasa Bhashya, will certainly read the
recommended article. In the meanwhile, as I indicated in my last post, I am
still not sure if I can accept the logic that you employed to clinch your
conclusion that the limited "I", the enquirer who is affected by the
misconception, is himself/herself the "whence" of the misconception
(adhyasa).
Like the appearance of the snake and the appearance of the
misconception are simultaneous, you have pointed out that the appearance
of the mind (the "I" who asks "Whence Adhyasa?") and misconception
(Adhyasa itself) are simultaneous. I have almost continuously been
ruminating over your argument and still find it very unconvincing due to the
reasons already mentioned in my previous posts and also due to the fact that
the answer to the question in
this particular case does not substatianate or validate the very question
itself. What I mean is that since the "whence" of something is looked for,
logically that "whence" should, if it exists, precede the something. The
rope-snake example is not just adequate as I explained before because the
snake itself is the misconception there.
Sorry to bother you with all this. There is yet another doubt. In your last
post of 26th March, you very kindly cleared my misunderstanding about
Shankara's viewpoint of Adhyasa. You then pointed out: "For the sake of
discriminating between the Self and the Not-Self, Shankara is not at all
reluctant to say that the `qualities' of Consciousness and Being belong to the
Self alone and never to the Not-Self". If this is accepted and since Adhyasa
is
something that is cognized and existing in our awareness (because we are
asking the question "Whence Adhyasa?") like the chithathmika universe, then
why did Shankara have to reject Gaudapada's position that Brahman does
the superimposing (Thought (a) of Douglas Fox). If the `qualities' could be
accepted as belonging to Consciousness, then "adhyasa" could also be
included under the scope of `qualities". Brahman can thus be the "whence"
of adhyasa and still be considered as not becoming active and changeable. I
would love to have your views.
Best regards.
Madathil Nair
From: Gummuluru Murthy
namaste.
I am sorry for my late entry into this discussion again.
I tend to agree slightly with shri Madathil Nair's first
post in the recent rejuvenation of the thread. While shri
Atmachaitanyaji's posts are very lucid expositions, they
are overpowering against mUla-avidyA. I do not think anyone
here has argued *for* mUla-avidyA. The untenability of
mUla-avidyA (here I understand mUla-avidyA as that having
its own independent existence parallel to Atman) is obvious. The bogey of
mUla-avidyA is brought into the discussion by shri Atmachaitanyaji himself
and is flogged to death by shri Atmachaitanyaji himself. Shri
Atmachaitanyaji's presentation on adhyAsabhAShya can stand tall by itself
without condemning the straw-man of mUla-avidyA. Yet, the discussions on
'whence adhyAsa?' are very useful in re-visiting shri shankara's points on this
matter.
In this context, I request a few clarifications.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, sophia & ira schepetin wrote:
> [...]
>
> All Indian thinkers who put forth the view that there is only one > Absolute
Reality have had to grapple with the question: If there is only > the Absolute
Reality, then how is it that the dualistic world of > multiplicity makes its
appearance?
Why do people say the *dualistic* world makes its appearance? Is it not in
our thinking whether it is dualistic or not? It is our ignorance which makes
the world *dualistic*. Is it not the defect in our perception that makes it
dualistic? Let us look at fingers of the hand. We do not see any duality there.
If we keep extrapolating this, we can conclude that while the world
*appears* dualistic, it has for its basis only the non-dual Consciousness. It
only *appears* dualistic.
> In order to understand the Whence of Adhyasa, at least > according to
Shankaracharya, the first important issue > that must be appreciated is the
distinction between the > Absolute point of view(Paramarthika Drishti) and
the > Worldly or empirical point of view (Loukika- > vyavharika
Dristi). From the Absolute perspective, the > perspective of truth, there
was never anyone who had > ignorance, no one had to get any sort of
knowledge to > remove that ignorance, and there never was a Guru who
had > to teach the meaning of the Upanishads to a seeker so > that he
could be released from his bondage caused by that > ignorance. This is the
final position of Advaita Vedanta, > and not that in fact a really existing
Ignorance that > someone actually had was at some particular point in
time > removed by the Shastra Pramana, and in so doing the > seeker
really became liberated.
I am wondering who in advaita has postulated a *really existing ignorance* ?
May be we are fighting imagined enemies here.
> (It should be noted that if in fact this were the case > then liberation
would be an event in time, and thus it > would have a beginning and would
therefore necessarily > have an end. It could not be eternal.)
From the paramArtha, there is no beginning or end for moksha. Moksha
itself will not have a meaning, just like ignorance does not have a meaning.
Yet from the perspective of the ignorant people around, there is a beginning
time for moksha, when they see that a person amongst themselves, with
Knowledge, sees the jagat as it is, Brahman. They (in the vyavahArika)
perceive a beginning time for moksha. That is a vyavahAric concept, which
cannot be denied in vyavahArika.
Further, I notice shri Atmachaitanyaji saying "If anything has a beginning, it
has to have an end....". I will give two examples, both vyavahArika concepts
which contradict this. Ignorance: it has no beginning, it has an end. Moksha:
it has a beginning, but it has no end. I would like to emphasize again: these
are vyavahArika concepts which can be defended. The paramArtha
perspective of GauDapAda in the kArika: "Adau anta ca yAn nAsti
vartamAnepi tat tathA" [ that which is not there at the beginning and which
is not there at the end may just as well be considered not there at the
present] is the Truth.
> Now, Dennis, we can begin to tackle the question
> Whence Adhyasa. It is a question that can be interpreted
> as: O.K let us grant that Adyhasa is the mutual
> superimposition of the Self and Non-Self, and let us also
> grant that because of this Adhyasa all worldly life is
> proceeding, and not only that, let us also grant that due
> to Adhyasa all spiritual life (Vaidika Vyvahara) is
> proceeding, such as the teachings concerning injunctions
> (Vidhis) and prohibitions (pratishedas), Karmas and
> meditations as well as the principle Upanishadic teaching
> concerning the knowledge of the Self, and how this
> relates to bondage and release (Bandha Moksha Vyvahara),
> but the question now is: What is the causefor this
> misconception itself? Why do we superimpose the Self and
> the Not-Self? What is the reason for this Adhyasa to come
> about in the first place?
"What is the cause for adhyAsa?" is, in my view, an absurd question (with all
respect to shri Dennis). This question does not have an answer. The intellect,
which asks this question is itself a product of adhyAsa, hence cannot grasp
any answer to it (even if there is an answer). The intellect and the question
get melted away as what may be called an answer to this appears.
Finally, in his most recent post, shri Atmachaitanyaji seems to be putting a
farewell post. I hope he will continue to post on the list on these topics which
are dearest to all. His posts are very lucid expositions.
Regards
Gummuluru Murthy

WhenceAdhyasa PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WhenceAdhyasa PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WhenceAdhyasa PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Whence Adhyasa?

A Discussion from the Advaitin List

You might also like