Mayavada Darpanam

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 3


Prostrations to all.

The advaitin continues thus:

Kutasthah saapekshah asthi tasya saakshitvamapi na paramaartham, jadasya saakshitvaat

Kutastha is relative. The saakshitva (being a saakshi) of kutastha is also not ultimate (absolute or real) because of being a witness to the jada vasthus (insentient entities of the world).

atah kutasthah advaita aatmanah bhinna asthi – kutasthah dvaita apekshaa karothi, brahma tu nirapekshah asthi

Therefore kutastha is different from advaita atman (Brahman which is termed by the Lord as paramaatman). The difference being that kutastha requires duality (so that it can witness something that is different from itself – witnessing requires something different from oneself or witnessing depends on duality) whereas Brahman is absolute (nirapeksha – doesn’t require or depend on anything).

Atah bhagavaan proktham “uttama purushah tu anyah paramaatmethi udaahritah” – parama padena nirapeksha darshanam

Therefore the Lord has said that “uttama purusha is surely different from kutastha and is called as paramaatman” (the word tu is meant to show the difference between kutastha and paramaatman which is that one is relative whereas the other is absolute).

Tathoktham lakshmidharaih

Thus has been proclaimed by Lakshmidhara (in advaita makaranda sloka 20):

Chetyoparaaga roopaa me saakshitaapi na taatvikee
Upalakshanam eva ayam nistaranga chidambudheh

My form which is mingled with thoughts and the saakshitvam is also not real (taatvikee means that which is not a tattvam or real). The saakshitvam is only a upalakshana of the waveless ocean of Consciousness (upalakshana is a means of relative definition – related to something that we know and experience generally).

Ithi (thus he has proclaimed)


The explanation of the advaitin is quite self-sufficient and doesn’t require any further explanation. It is enough if a person reads the above part again and again to make the concept clear. We will still try to explain this briefly to make sure that we don’t miss it. The advaitin in short is explaining that kutastha and Brahman are one and the same but kutastha is relative whereas Brahman is absolute. The definition of kutastha is valid only when there is something to be witnessed. Kutastha is saakshi – saakshi is there only when there is something other than the kutastha to witness. This in turn brings us to two entities of kutastha and something else to be witnessed. Thus kutastha requires dvaita for its existence. The definition of kutastha is valid only when there is duality or dvaita. But the ultimate reality of Brahman is adviteeya or non-dual. This is quite clear through the Upanishad’s words of “sarvam brahma mayam”, “sarvam khalu idam brahma”, “sadeva soumya idam agre aaseet” etc. Thus kutastha is different from Brahman in that the same Consciousness becomes kutastha when the duality seems to be existing. The duality just “seems to be existing” and doesn’t really exist because duality is something which cannot be really explained. Duality itself is relative and anything relative leads only to inter-dependency unless there is some absolute entity which is the substratum of this duality. The absolute entity which is the substratum of the duality is Brahman and it has to be non-dual to avoid further dependency faults.

Thus Brahman is non-dual and there is no duality really existing. Even though there is no duality in the dream world as the dream world itself is only an illusion in the dreamer but still while dreaming, the duality seems to be existing. Similarly so long as the seeker finds himself in the world, the duality seems to be existing. When the duality seems to be existing, the ultimate reality of Brahman itself becomes the kutastha or the saakshi – the witness which is non-changing, eternal (because it is one with the ultimate reality of Brahman) and blissful (as when a person realizes his nature of kutastha atman he gets bliss).

The difference between Brahman and Kutastha is that Brahman is absolute whereas the same Brahman when seen amidst the duality is the kutastha atman.

Even as pot-space is one with infinite-space but still different as pot-space requires “pot” for its temporary existence, similarly kutastha is one with Brahman but still different because it requires dvaita to witness.

It is keeping this difference in mind that the Lord mentions that uttama purusha or Brahman is different from kutastha. Therefore it is called PARAMA ATMAN. The word parama as per the advaitin is meant to show the nirapekshatva (absolute-ness). Parama is something which is ultimate and supreme – such a thing surely has to be absolute and therefore non-dual also. It is this PARAMA which differentiates Brahman from Kutastha atman. Thus both PARAMA ATMAN (Brahman) and KUTASTHA ATMAN are one and the same (similar to infinite-space and pot-space) but still different because of illusory adjuncts. As pot-space is never really different from infinite-space but just seems to be different, similarly kutastha is not different from Brahman but just seems to be different.

The scriptures in order to show that Brahman is in fact absolute whereas kutastha is just relative, differentiate between both. The stage through which a seeker realizes the ultimate reality of Brahman is through first differentiating himself from the kshara purusha of ahamkaara or ego & then identifying himself with kutastha atman. Once the seeker identifies himself with the kutastha atman, he enjoys the bliss in the Self – finally slowly the conviction gains and he realizes that there is no duality at all – thereby he realizes that he himself is the nirapeksha nirguna Brahman.

The progress of the seeker from kshara purusha to akshara purusha to uttama purusha has been beautifully explained through differentiation of each of these by the Lord in the purushottama yoga. It is but sad that this has been interpreted in different ways by the different schools of Vedanta – the explanation that advaita provides is of course faultless and any ardent seeker who follows this clearly will experience the same.

The main fault of advaita that the counter systems point out is that advaita is contrary to perception – even the reality of dream is contrary to perception. A person who has the conviction that there is no snake in the rope will boldly go towards the rope and find out that there is no snake – similarly the bold seeker will first take for granted the concept of Advaita, thereby proceed further & realize the ultimate reality of adviteeya Brahman. If a person doesn’t have faith in advaita and still tries to analyze it logically will never realize the truth – he will only directly find faults with the system. Such seekers will only be hidden from the eternal bliss which is one’s very nature & still seek bliss from the form Lord thinking that only if the grace of the Lord is there, will he get eternal bliss!!! There is nothing more pathetic than this that the seeker whose very nature is bliss thinks that he can get bliss only if some Lord grants him permission to the bliss – in modern scenario, the Lord becomes the administrator and the seeker asks for access to the computer’s admin though the seeker’s login is part of the administrator’s group!!!

Let us unlike the people who find faults in systems, analyze the system thoroughly for faults and then proceed thereby realizing the eternal bliss which is our very nature.

We will continue with the advaitin’s words in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

Let a moment not pass by without remembering God


Post a Comment

<< Home