Mayavada Darpanam

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 9

2007-04-11T20:04:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We have completed the analysis of Gita quoting of Madhva and the advaitin’s interpretation of the slokas with the previous mail. Now we will enter into the Katha Upanishad statement that Madhva quotes.

Any system or any theory that has to be proved has to be supported through sruthi, yukthi and anubhava. Sruthi means quotations which includes from the Vedas (of which Upanishads are a part), Smrithis (like Bhagavad Gita) and Brahma Sutra. Yukthi is proving through logical arguments. Anubhava is showing that the theory is not something that only selected individuals can experience but that which can be experienced by each one of us. Though Mayavada Khandanam is a logical work still Madhva after trying to prove that advaita is devoid of anubandha chathustayam entered into sruthi or quotations. Initially Madhva quoted from the Smrithi of Bhagavad Gita. Thus now he quotes from sruthi of Katha Upanishad and later will end the quotation with a sutra from Brahma Sutra.

Madhva continues thus:

“Indriyebhyah paraa hi arthaa arthebhyascha param manah
Manasasthu paraa buddhir budheraatmaa mahaan parah

Mahatah paramavyaktham avyakthaat purushah parah
Purushaat na param kinchit saa kaastaa saa paraa gatih ”

(Katha 1.3.10-11)

Greater than sense organs are the sense objects. Greater than sense objects is the mind. Greater than the mind is Buddhi. Greater than Buddhi is Atman (here as per Dvaita Mahaan and Atman are denoting the Self or individual Self or jeeva). Greater than Atman is Avyaktha or unmanifest. Greater than avyaktha or unmanifest is the Supreme Purusha. There is nothing greater than Purusha and he is to be aspired. Purusha alone is the final goal.

The main quotation of Madhva is to show that Purusha or Uttama Purusha or Vishnu is greater than Atman or individual Self. This clearly thus brings out the difference between individual Self or jeeva or akshara purusha and the Uttama Purusha of Vishnu. This thus justifies Madhva’s interpretation of the 15th chapter Gita verses which he quoted earlier. Both the Gita quotation and Katha quotation shows duality as existing which is against advaita’s stand of individual self being the same as Brahman.

Having seen Madhva’s quotation and his interpretation of the Katha statements, we will see the advaitin’s interpretation of the Katha Upanishad verses in the next mail.

PS: Pardon the long delay between mails on this thread. We are almost reaching the end of this particular thread. We will try to wind up this topic and have the summary of the same from anybody else in the forum so that “I” can ensure that at least one person has been following the threadJ.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 8

2007-03-22T20:19:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the last mail in the series, we saw the advaitin’s quoting of Sankara’s Vivekachoodamani. There can be an objection that Sankara was an advaitin and hence his quotation cannot be taken to be authoritative for other schools of philosophy. Hence the advaitin gives quoting from the Bhagavad Gita which is considered authoritative by all the sub-schools of Vedanta.

The advaitin continues:

Bhagavaanapi proktham
“Sarva dharmaan parityajya maamekam sharanam vraja”,
“manmanaa bhava madbhakthah madyaaji maam namaskuru”,
“jnaanam teham savijnaanam idam vakshyaami asheshatah
Yat jnaatvaa neha bhooyo anyat jnaatavyam avashishyathe”,
“idam tu te guhyathamam pravakshyaami anasooyave
Jnaanam vijnaanasahitham yatjnaatvaa mokshyase ashubhaat” ithi

The Lord also has proclaimed thus:
“Renounce all dharmas and take refuge in me alone”, “Fix your mind unto me, become my devotee, always seek me and prostrate me”, “I will explain knowledge and experience to you – after knowing which there will remain nothing more here to be known”, “I will explain to you the secretive knowledge and experience knowing which you will be liberated from the bondages in the world”

Vaarthikakaarih proktham

“Atmalaabhaat paro laabho naasthi ithi munayo viduh
Tat laabhaartham kavih stauthi svaatmaanam parameshwaram” ithi

Vartikakaara (sureshwaracharya) has proclaimed (in his work Manasollasam which is a commentary on Sankara’s dakshinamurthy astakam):

‘There is nothing greater than knowing the Self’ thus say munis – therefore in order to know the Self, the kavi (Sankara here) is praising one’s own Self which is Ishwara.

Explanation

The advaitin here is winding up the discussion about the ultimate goal of human life. The last sloka of 15th chapter of Gita mentioned about krithakrithyathaa or the state reaching where there remains nothing else to be done. This state is achieved only when the ultimate goal of human life is attained – that goal after attaining which there remains no more desire to be fulfilled, no more actions to be performed and no more ignorance about the reality of Brahman. In order to show that the analysis of this state which the advaitin made through his commentary is not his alone nor advaita acharyas but that of the scriptures as well, he quotes here the Lord’s statements in Gita. These statements clearly show that the ultimate goal of human life is renouncing everything apart from the non-dual reality of Brahman. And Brahman is that by knowing which everything else becomes known – thus there will remain nothing else to be known, nothing else to be sought and nothing else to be done.

After giving statements from the Gita, the advaitin concludes this discussion with a statement from the vartikakara’s (Sureshwaracharya) Manasollasa which is a metrical commentary on the Dakshinamurthy Astakam of Sankara.

The main focus of the sloka is that there is nothing greater than the Atman to be achieved in life – Atman or knowing the Atman is the ultimate and supreme goal of life. This atman is not known as different from Saguna Ishwara but it is known as the same as Nirguna Brahman. Atman or the Self is not different from Brahman because both are of the same nature of Sat, chit and ananda.

Advaita Makaranda thus summarizes this:

Aham asmi sadaa bhaami kadaachit naaham apriyah
Brahmaiva aham atah siddham satchidananda lakshanam

“I” (atman or individual Self) am always present, always illumining and never am I non-liked. Thus it is proved that I am Brahman of the nature of Sat, Chit and ananda.

Svayamprakaasha yathi in his commentary Rasaabhivyanjika to advaita makaranda gives this anumaana (inference) to prove that “I am Brahman”.

Aham Brahma asmi, satchidaanandatvaat, brahmavat.
I am Brahman, because of the nature of Sat chit ananda, like Brahman.

I am Brahman – prathijnaa or statement
Because of the nature of Sat chit ananda – hetu or reason
Like Brahman – udaaharana or example

Thus knowing Atman is knowing oneself as adviteeya nirguna akhanda brahman. This alone will lead a seeker to krithakrithyataa. This way of explanation is not against sruthi and yukthi as the dvaitin claims but this way alone is proper as the scriptures and logic. This has been proved by the advaitin through explanation of the 15th chapter slokas and quotations supporting the same.

Madhva had quoted the 15th chapter slokas to show that dvaita is real and advaita is faulty. But this was due to a wrong interpretation of Madhva. The interpretation which Advaita has to give for the slokas (dealing with the three purushas) is logical and as per scriptures – such an interpretation alone can stand scriptures analysis and support from other statements in Gita itself.

Thus it has been shown through Madhva’s quotation itself that advaita has sruthi support. There is a logic called kuvalayapeeda nyaaya which is explained as disproving the opponent through his own words – we can say that the advaitin has used this logic for the 15th chapter quotation of madhva.

Madhva after quoting the Gita (smrithi), uses quotation from the Katha Upanishad (sruthi) to prove his stand of disproving advaita. We will see this as well as the advaitin’s answer to the same in the next posting.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 7

2007-03-05T19:00:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the previous mail we saw the advaitin commenting on the last sloka of the purushottama yoga. The advaitin mentioned that through knowledge of the Self thereby being established in the Self alone is the goal of human life & it is only through this that the seeker gains the krithakrithya bhaava (having done whatever is to be done).

The advaitin now gives quotations to support his interpretation of the sloka.

He continues thus:

Etaduktham aacharyaih
“janthoonaam narajanma durlabhamatah pumstvam tatho viprathaa
Tasmaat vaidika dharma maarga parathaa vidvatvam asmaat param
Atmaanatma vivechanam sva anubhavo brahmanaa samsthithir
Mukthirno shata janma koti sukrithai punyair vinaa labhyathe” ithi

Thus has acharya (Sankaracharya) proclaimed:

Human birth is the rarest of all births; rare than that is manhood; still rarer is the desire to learn; more than that is leading a life as prescribed in the scriptures; being learned in the scriptures is still rarer than that; having learnt the scripture and being able to discriminate between the Atman and Anaatman is still rare; rarer than that is experiencing the Self as one’s nature; being established in Brahman is the rarest of all things; such a person is liberated – this is not achieved without the help of punyas gained in hundreds of crores of lives.

Explanation

The above is the 2nd sloka of Vivekachoodamani. This is a sloka very important for a seeker to judge himself as to where he stands in terms of spiritual progress. Thus ultimately a seeker is either realized or in ignorance, scriptures like yoga vasistha and others speak about different levels while progressing in the spiritual path.

The first and foremost thing for a seeker is being born as a human. We all know the story of Jada Bharatha where he was born as a deer but still remembering the Lord. But he couldn’t become a jeevan muktha with the deer-birth and hence had to take another human birth for the same. The human birth is superior to all other beings because of two-fold reason. One is that humans alone are gifted with the intellectual capability of discriminating between the real and unreal. This discrimination power is not merely knowing things but the real discrimination of knowing that Brahman alone is real and everything is unreal. Unless a seeker uses discrimination to contemplate on Brahman, he is not different from animals (Sankara boldly calls humans who are not in the spiritual path as pashus or animals in the adhyaasa bhashya). Second reason is that human beings alone can decide their fate and go against innate nature of attachment to particular activities or actions. A dog cannot do anything different from barking – nor can a cat do anything different from meowing. But humans can decide their actions. A human being can decide to stay with animal-like-activities of eating-drinking-mating-sleeping or decide to control his fate and realize the ultimate reality of Brahman. This feature of controlling one’s fate is what differentiates human births from other births. Though human beings by default are meant to be ignorant and immersed in the ocean of samsaara, they can by their free will control the fate and overcome the ocean of samsaara to realize their very nature of Brahman.

If a seeker has got human birth, then he needs to have gratitude to the Lord and his past for the same. The scriptures speak about crores of species and that human birth is achieved after passing through all those species. Thus if we have achieved this human birth, it is not as simple as getting a job or getting a partner in marriage – it is the toughest of things. Since human birth is rarest, therefore a seeker has to give importance to it and use it for what it is meant. Human birth is not meant to merely behave and live like animals – instead it is meant to be utilized for realization and to come out of the delusion of samsaara. For this, a seeker should not succumb to desires of sensual pleasures. He should be emotionally strong so that intellect is guided in the right direction towards the goal of realization. This is what Sankara calls as pumstvam or manhood. Manhood is not physical but it is mental and intellectual. Any being who is able to control his emotions and use it for progressing in the spiritual path is a man. Any being who is not able to withstand or control his emotions thereby succumbing to emotional feelings like passion, attachment, desires etc. is a woman.

This definition of man and woman is very important to understand the rest of Sankara’s sloka. The main reason for this definition is that a person will be able to progress in the spiritual path only if his intellect is sharp – the intellect will be sharp only if the mind doesn’t get distracted into passions and emotions. We generally see that women are more emotional than men (it is only general and please don’t mail me back arguing that “I am a woman but still not emotional”J). Hence manhood or being intellectually focused is important for a seeker.

Chinmaya thus beautifully says in his English translation of Vivekachoodamani that “there are women among bearded ones”!!!

Having manhood qualities but still not striving for spiritual goal is also bad. Thus we have great leaders like Indira Gandhi, Jaya lalitha and others who have manhood qualities but still don’t utilize it for realization. Thus viprathaa or the quality of striving for realization is very important once manhood qualities have been fully cultivated and developed in a seeker. Once striving for realization is there, the seeker will start following the spiritual path put forth by the scriptures – this is what Sankara says as vaidika dharma maarga parathaa. This doesn’t mean following the ritualistic actions of the Vedas like sandhya, agnihotra etc. as that will never lead to realization. This only means following the path put forth by the knowledge portion of the Vedas (Vedanta) which mainly is three fold of sravana (listening), manana (reflection) and nidhidhyaasaa (contemplation).

When a person follows the path put forth by the Vedas, he becomes learned in the Vedas (intellectual or paroksha jnaana). Such a person is called a vidvaan (vidvatvam or the quality of being learned in the scriptures is achieved by such a person). Once a person is learned in the scriptures, he is able to differentiate between the Atman (Self) and Anatman (not-Self) – this is what Sankara calls atma anaatma vivechanam. When a person is able to differentiate the atman and anatman, he identifies himself with the atman which is a mere saakshi to all activities. Thus svanubhavam or experience of the truth that I am Brahman ensues – this is aparoksha anubhava or intuitive Self-experience.

Aparoksha anubhava leads to a seeker being always established in the ultimate reality of Brahman or brahmaatmana samshithih. Being ever established in Brahman of the nature of Sat chit ananda is moksha or liberation.

All these steps might be very easy to list out or learn or preach but practicing and being in that state is very tough indeed. Thus births and births are required to achieve all these. The starting itself needs a human birth which itself is attained after crores of janmas. After getting a human birth, it might still take a seeker another lakhs of janmas to attain the final state of moksha.

It might take many janmas or one janma depending on the seeker. A seeker should never keep things for later – he should have such strong desire to get liberated in this birth itself so that he progresses in the spiritual path without any delay thereby realizing Brahman in this very birth itself.

Of course, birth and death are only for the body/jeeva and not for the Self. But to realize that birth and death is for the body and not for “me” is moksha or liberation. Mere intellectual knowledge of this itself will take years – and once intellect is convinced of it, nidhidhyaasana of many more years alone will make a seeker fully established in experience of Brahman.

Only once a person realizes Brahman through aparoksha anubhava, will he require no more actions to be performed. Thus the state of krithakrithyathaa will happen only after realization. Through this sloka of Sankara, the advaitin supports his explanation of the Gita sloka that krithakrithyathaa which is realization of the Self alone is the goal of human life (which is the main essence of Sankara’s Vivekachoodamani sloka quoted here).

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

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 6

2007-02-22T10:03:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

Let’s continue with the advaitin’s commentary on the last sloka of the 15th chapter of Gita. The last sloka of the 15th chapter of Gita is thus:

Ithi guhyathamam shaastram idam uktham mayaa anaghaa
Etad budhvaa buddhimaan syaat krithakrithyascha bhaaratha

Thus has been propounded the most secret of scriptures by me to you, O one who is devoid of ignorance (impurity). Knowing this, a person becomes intelligent thereby doing whatever is necessary to be done in the world, O Arjuna.

The advaitin explains this thus (as in the previous posting, the words in the sloka of Gita are being colored in black):

Ithi idam guhyathamam shaastram svasvaroopam prathipaadayathi ithi guhyathamam, mayaa aachaaryaroopena gururoopena uktham, he anagha ajnaana rahitha ithi bodhayithum anagha ithi sambhodana

Thus this secret scripture, secret because it propounds one’s own nature which is subtle, has been propounded by me, in the form of an acharya and Guru, to you O Anagha – the calling of Arjuna as Anagha is to denote the seeker as being devoid of ignorance (after learning this scripture).

Why Arjuna is being called Anagha here? The advaitin answers this thus:

Idam shaastram jnaatvaa ajnaana rahitha sadaa aatmaaramo bhavathi ithi anagha shabdena bhagavaan bhodayathi

After knowing this scripture, a person becomes devoid of ignorance and rejoices ever in the Atman – thus the Lord is using the sambhodana of Anagha.

Etad aatmano shaastram budhvaa aparokshatho jnaatva krithakrithyo yad kritham tad kritham syaat bhavathi he bhaaratha

This scripture of the Atman having known – known means knowing it intuitively as one’s own experience – a person becomes krithakrithya – having done whatever is to be done (nothing more remains to be done for such a person), O Arjuna.

Idam hi manushya janma lakshyam, svasvaroopam nirvishesha brahma ithi jnaayathe – yadasthi tad brahma ithi aparoksha jnaanodayam bhavathi ithi Etasmaadeva hi manushyah krithakrithyo bhavathi

This alone is the goal of human life – to know one’s own nature as nirvishesha Brahman and to gain the intuitive direct experience that whatever is there is Brahman alone. Through this alone a person becomes krithakrithyah (the state of being in which the person has done whatever is to be done – all actions end).

Explanation

Guhyatamam shaastram

This scripture that has been propounded by the Lord (the different types of purushas as kshara, aksahara and uttama) is most secretive in nature. It is most secretive in nature because it speaks about the innermost Self.

Anoraneeyaan mahatho maheeyaan – subtle than the subtlest & greater than the greatest – this is what Katha Upanishad speaks about the Self. The Self is subtle than the subtlest because it is the Subject that is beyond the intellect (which is the subtlest component of a being). The Self is greater than the greatest because the world itself has come out of the Self or Brahman. Since the great or huge world itself is an effect of the cause of Brahman, therefore Brahman has to be greater than the world (the greatest that the human intellect can apprehend).

The Self is also proclaimed in the Kena Upanishad as that which is the mind of the mind, the eye of the eyes etc. These are meant to show that the Self is the Subject of the antah karana (consisting of mind, intellect, ego and memory), the bahih karana (sense organs of perception and action) and the pancha pranas. Since the Self is the Subject of everything, it is the secret of all secrets – as it is tough to propound about the Subject. Anything that can be spoken of is an object of either the antah karana or the Self – but the Subject cannot be spoken about because it is the Subject of even speech!!! Thus the Subject can only be pointed out as the Subject of everything – such a scripture which speaks about the Subject of all objects is secretive.

Through the mentioning of this scripture as secretive, the Lord is also in a way trying to generate desire in the mind of the seeker to attain such a secretive knowledge and implement it in life.

It is not enough if something is proclaimed as secretive or tough to attain – this alone will not generate desire so strong in the seeker that he will seek this scripture with all fervor. It is required to speak about the result of learning and implementing such a scripture. This has been beautifully put forth by the Lord through the statement that “a person becomes krithakrithya” by implementing this scripture.

Krithyakrithya bhaavam

Actions are propelled by desires to become perfect. This circle of desire and action continues until the state wherein the seeker becomes satisfied through the knowledge that “I have done whatever is to be done”. This state is what the Lord defines as krithakrithya bhaava – having done whatever is to be done in life.

We would think that during old age and just before death, we would feel that we have done everything in life – but this is wrong. The Lord himself says that a person will be thinking at the death-time about that which he has been thinking his entire life. If entire life we have been thinking about desires and doing things, we will be thinking the same at the end of our life also. Thus another birth will have to be taken to fulfill those desires.

Then how can a person attain this bhaava?
Only through Self-knowledge. As we have seen in many places, knowledge burns actions into ashes. The Knowledge that there is only Brahman here & I am Brahman removes all actions. Actions as explained earlier are propelled by desires for perfection – once the seeker realizes that he is the perfect Brahman (poorna), then there remains no desire to be fulfilled. When there are no desires, there requires no particular action to be performed. Thus he remains satisfied and has the feeling of “doing whatever is to be done in life” (fulfillment of all desires and action).

Though such a jnaani will not have any desires, still he will be doing activities for the welfare of the world. Any person irrespective of whether he is a jnaani or ajnaani will have to do actions in the world because the world itself is a place of actions. Thus as long as we see people in the world, they will be doing activities. Jnaanis will be doing for the welfare of the world whereas ajnaanis will be doing for selfish desires.

To sum up, the fruit of learning this secret scripture is the fulfillment of all desires – through the knowledge that I am Brahman and experiencing it through seeing everything as an illusion of names and forms in Brahman.

The advaitin next gives a few quotations to support this commentary on the last sloka of Gita – we will see that in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 5

2007-02-15T19:15:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the previous few postings, we saw a detailed analysis of Jeeva, Kutastha and Nirguna Brahman.

Just to recap it (since it’s been a couple of weeks since the last posting): Jeeva is reflection of Consciousness in the intellect. Kutastha is saakshi or witness of all activities. Kutastha is the same as Nirguna Brahman except that Kutastha is the term given to Brahman which seems to be limited by adjuncts and when it becomes a saakshi. The difference between kutastha and Brahman is the same as the difference between ghata aakasha (pot-space) and maha aakasha (infinite-space).

Now there can be an objection that since saakshitva itself is only an illusion (saakshitaa api na taatvikee – sakshitva is also not real – this was the advaitin’s statement quoting Advaita Makaranda), kutastha itself is mithyaa or illusory which will lead to advaita falling to pieces as kutastha is what is considered as the Self of all beings. This is what the advaitin next raises as an objection and answers it.

The advaitin continues thus:

Nanu yadi kutasthah brahmano bhinnah, kutasthasya mithyaatvam syaat?

If Kutastha is different from Brahman (at the empirical level, kutastha is different from Brahman – this is what the advaitin had earlier explained), then kutastha will become illusory and unreal? (this is because in advaita, Brahman alone is real – thus if kutastha is different from Brahman, kutastha is unreal).

(If it is argued thus),

Tathoktham vidyaranyaih kutastha deepe

Anticipating such an argument only, Vidyaranya explains in Kutastha deepa (the 8th chapter of Panchadashi) thus:

“Kutasthe api athishankhaa syaadithi chet maa athishankyathaam
Kutastha maayikatve tu pramaanam na hi vidhyathe ithi ”

If it is over assumed and concluded that kutastha is also illusory, there need be no such assumption; because there is no pramaana (proof) for kutastha being illusory.

Sruthih Vadathi
“saakshi chetha kevalo nirgunascha” ithi

Scriptures mention (the svetaswatara Upanishad) about saakshi being real through statements that “the Self is witness, consciousness, absolute and without any qualities”.

Explanation

The advaitin is here explaining that though kutastha is different from Brahman at the empirical level, at the ultimate level both are the same only. Therefore it cannot be argued that kutastha is illusory because of being different from Brahman. Though pot-space is different from infinite-space, but still pot-space is not illusory – but it is the same as infinite space when the adjunctions are removed. When the adjuncts of pot is removed, pot-space doesn’t become illusory – instead pot-space is known as infinite-space.

Similarly when Brahman is realized and adjuncts are removed, kutastha doesn’t become mithyaa or illusory but kutastha is realized as one with Brahman.

The advaitin had earlier explained this through logic but here he quotes from Panchadashi which says that there is no proof (valid pramana) for kutastha being illusory (which means that kutastha is real and hence the objection raised is invalid).

The next sloka of 15th chapter (19th sloka) of Gita is:

Yo maam asammodah jaanaathi purushottamam
Sah sarvavid bhajathi maam sarvabhaavena bhaaratha

He who is without delusions and knows me as uttama purusha, he worships me in all ways being a knower of everything (knower of Brahman is knower of everything), O Arjuna!

The advaitin continues by way of explaining this sloka thus:

Yo asammodah ajnaana tatkaarya dvaita satyatva bhaava rahitha mumukshuh maam sarvabhoothasthitham adviteeya brahma uttama purusha ithi jaanaathi, svasvaroopameva aparokshatho jnaayathe sa jeevan mukthah maam adviteeya nirvishesha brahma uttama purusho sarvathaa sarvam brahma mayam ithyeva bhajathi atmani sthitvaa nischalo bhootva aatmaaraamo bhavathi he bhaaratha!

(For ease of understanding, the words of the original gita sloka which is present in the above explanation has been colored in black)

The easiest way of understanding bhashyas or commentaries like the above is by way of following the words in the original sloka. Those words which follow the words “yo asammodah” till “maam” are explanations of the word “asammodah” – similarly it has to be continued till the end.

The meaning of the above is thus:

That person who is without delusion, a mumukshu who is devoid of the thought that ajnaana along with its effect of duality are real, knows me as uttama purusha, the non-dual Brahman present in all beings; he, such a jeevan muktha, worships me the non-dual nirvishesha Brahman which is the same as uttama purusha all the while considering everything as filled with Brahman. Worshipping is being established in the Self & without any fluctuation in the mind & rejoicing in the Self.

(it is very tough indeed to translate such Sanskrit bhashyas as the above – do let me know if the above translation is meaningful or not)

Explanation

Asammodah and Bhajathi are two important words which have been explained aptly by the advaitin in his commentary above. Let us analyze these two important words.

Moham is delusion and sammoham is delusion at its maximum. Sammodah is one is under sammoham or delusion. Asammodah is a seeker who is not under delusion.

What is delusion?
Delusion is considering the dual world as real. Duality is only an illusion in the non-dual entity of Brahman. Considering the dual objects as real rather than illusion is delusion. Even as the duality created in the dream world is only an illusion in the dreamer, the duality seen in the waking world is also an illusion in the Self. Delusion in dream world is considering the dream world as real – similarly delusion in the waking world or at empirical level is considering the waking world (the dual world) as real.

Duality is created out of ignorance of the ultimate reality of Brahman. Thus the advaitin has explained that the effect of ajnaana is dvaita or duality. Vedanta speaks about two facets of ajnaana – the first is aavarana shakthi or veiling power and the second is vikshepa shakthi or projecting power. Projection of one as many is dvaita. Thus dvaita is an effect of ajnaana even as pot is an effect of the cause of mud.

A seeker who doesn’t consider the dual world which is caused out of ajnaana as real is a person who has overcome delusion.

A person who is not under delusion will do bhajanam or worship of Brahman. What is worship? Worship is not as we generally know as singing bhajans or going to temples etc. Worship is being established in one’s own Self (knowing that one’s inner Self is Brahman). Real worship is the seeker being established in the Self at all times and ever rejoicing in the Self (atmaaramo). This attitude of atmaaramah is what we have learnt for a real bhaktha in Narada Bhakthi Sutras.

We will continue with the advaitin’s commentary of the 20th (last) sloka of 15th chapter of Gita in the next posting.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 4

2007-01-31T18:58:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We discussed the advaitin’s words in the previous mail about the difference and similarity between Kutastha and Nirguna Para Brahman (Paramaatman). The advaitin explained that Kutastha is the same as Brahman but seemingly limited by the limitations of body-mind-intellect. As long as a seeker finds the limitations of the various adjuncts of the atman, he will find the Kutastha or Atman as being limited and hence different from Brahman; but once the seeker realizes that the adjuncts are mere illusions then he will realize that Kutastha is same as Brahman.

Thus the seeker has to always remember that he is the same as Brahman of the nature of Sat Chit Ananda and when the adjuncts seem to be present, he is the mere witness/substratum of the adjuncts. Remembering this, the seeker will be unaffected by the activities in the world & hence be ever blissful. Slowly the realization will dawn that there are no real adjuncts and whatever really exists is only the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman.

The advaitin continues the analysis of the Gita slokas thus:

Etasmaat bhagavaan urdhvam uktham “aksharaadapi chottamah” ithi

Therefore (since akshara and paramaatman are same but different because of the witness-hood of the illusory adjuncts in the case of akshara purusha) the Lord proclaims later that “I am greater than the uttama purusha”

(Now the advaitin is explaining the sloka:
Yasmaat ksharam ateethoham aksharaadapi cha uttamah
Atosmi loke vede cha prathithah purusha uttamah

As I am above (beyond) kshara purushas and greatest among akshara purusha, therefore I am known in the world and Vedas as uttama purusha)

Aksharaat kutasthaat uttamah srestah upaadhi-saakshitva abhaavaat

(I am) Greater, superior, than akshara which is kutastha because of the absence of the witness-hood of the adjuncts (in the case of kutastha).

Atah asmaat kaaranaat aham loke vede cha prathitah ukthah prasiddhah vaa uttama purushah aksharaat sresta bhinna eva asmi

Therefore, because of this reason (that I don’t have the witness-hood), I am called or famous in the Vedas and the world as uttama purusha who is superior and different surely from the kutastha.

Vyavahaare uttama purushah aksharaat bhinna eva upaadhivashaat

(How I am different and similar to Kutastha???)
In the vyavahaara dasha (empirical state when the seeker sees the adjuncts – similar to a person while dreaming), uttama purusha is different surely from akshara because akshara purusha has the various upaadhis or adjuncts (associated with the adjuncts not directly but as the witness or saakshi).

Kinthu paramaarthatho akshara purusha eva uttama purusha dvaita abhaavaat upaadhi mithyaatva bodhaat cha

But at the ultimate level, akshara purusha alone is uttama purusha because of the absence of duality and after realization that the upaadhis are mithya or unreal (Here the word mithya means unreal as the state is ultimate or after knowing the illusion in reality).

Explanation

Whatever the advaitin is explaining here, we have already dealt in the previous mail. But still as the Upanishads also explain things again and again in order to emphasize and to make the seekers focus on the same, we will also do the same.

Here the advaitin is explaining the 18th sloka where the Lord gives the reasons as to why Uttama Purusha is different from kshara and akshara purusha. As we already know, kshara purusha is the jeeva who is mutable or dies. Uttama Purusha is the eternal reality and hence kshara purusha is different from uttama purusha. The Lord thereby says that ksharam ateethah aham or I am beyond kshara purusha. Here “beyond” only means that I am superior in that kshara purusha has a birth-death whereas I am eternal. The Lord then says that I am supreme amongst akshara purushas. The supremacy is because of akshara purusha being a witness to illusory adjuncts whereas uttama purusha is non-dual eternal Brahman. The uttama purusha is beyond all distinctions and limitations – it never can even be subject to seeming limitations like the akshara purusha as it is Nirguna (without any qualities), nirapeksha (absolute) and nirupaadhi (without any upaadhis or adjuncts).

As long as the limitations of pot exists or is seen to exist, the pot-space is different from infinite-space though both are the same only. Similarly as long as the seeker sees the adjuncts of body-mind-intellect, there is difference between kutastha and Brahman though both are the same.

All these explanations are to show that kutastha and Brahman are one and the same but seemingly different. We all are kutastha only because “I” am the witness to all activities. Thus we all are in fact Brahman only but seemingly different because of the adjuncts of body-mind. Thus the kutastha in hariram is different from the kutastha in Sankaracharya – but both are one and the same Brahman only. If hariram knows this, then he will not be affected by worldly activities but will be ever blissful as he knows that his nature is that of Brahman (satchidananda roopam).

The whole analysis of Vedanta or any seeking is eternal bliss – thus once we atleast remember that we are kutastha and not jeeva, that is more than enough. As time passes, we will ourselves come to realize that kutastha is none other than Brahman.

Let us all as the Lord mentions try to remember that we are kutastha atman which is ever blissful and a mere witness to all dual notions of happiness-sorrow, cold-heat etc.

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

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 3

2007-01-21T19:25:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

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)

Explanation

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.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 2

2007-01-16T05:25:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the last mail we saw in brief the dvaita interpretation of the slokas of the 15th chapter of Gita. We will start from this mail the advaitin’s interpretation of the slokas which more or less follows Sankara’s bhashya on the same.

The advaitin starts thus:

Bhagavaan praageva uktam vibhoothiyoge
“ahamaatma gudaakeshah sarvabhootashayasthithah
Ahamaadischa madhyam cha bhootaanaam antha eva cha”
Ithi.

The Lord has previously itself propounded in the vibhoothi yoga thus:

O Arjuna, I am the Self who is present in all beings. I am the starting, middle and end of all beings.

There is no better way to propound Advaita than this. We could guess that even during the Lord’s time, there would have been people who doubt the Advaitic reality which contradicts perceptual knowledge. Hence the Lord explains it quite clearly that I am the Self of all beings & all the beings are me alone.

Mundaka Upanishad proclaims about Brahman thus:

Brahmaivedam amritham purasthaath brahma paschaat
Brahma dakshinatascha uttaram
Adhascha urdhvam cha prasritham
Brahmaiva idam vishwam idam varistam

Brahma alone is present here as immortality. Brahman is present in front, in back, in right, in left, on top and on bottom – everything is filled with Brahman. The world is Brahman alone, Brahman alone is to be sought out as it is ultimate.

Could there possibly be any other way of clearing putting that Brahman alone is present??? Though the Upanishad very clearly explains that Brahman alone is present, still doubts persist & logical arguments are raised against Advaita by counter systems of Vedanta. What to speak about such arguments which are out of either arrogance or ignorance or non-desire to know such a adviteeya Brahman?

The advaitin here quotes from the Gita to show that the Lord has previously itself explained that everything is Atman or Brahman alone. Thus the adviteeya satya has been propounded by the Lord. The slokas of 15th chapter thus has to be properly interpreted keeping in mind this adviteeya satya that the Lord has propounded in the vibhoothi yoga.

The advaitin now enters into the explanation of the slokas of the 15th chapter.

Dvau purushau vyavahaarakaale asthi – ekah ksharah jeevah yah shareeraadi sambandhitah

Two purushas are there in the vyavahaara (empirical level) – one is jeeva who is identified and associated with the body etc.

Dviteeyasthu kutastha saakshi yah bandhamiva asthi paramaarthasthu mukthameva asthi, dvaita abhaavaat, bandhamukthi abhaavaat cha

Second is the kutastha witness who appears to be in bondage but is ever liberated, because there is no dvaita (only when dvaita is there bondage from something different from oneself can be there) and there is no bondage-liberation at all.

Explanation

The advaitin himself would be explaining a bit more on kutastha and jeeva. But before we enter into that part, a few words on this part will be important for seekers to keep in mind.

There is an important concept that Sankara gives in his katha Upanishad bhashya which is valid in analysis of the three purushas over here. Any experience that we have consists of the triputi of Subject, Object and the action itself. Each entity of triputi is related to each other. As we very well know, any relativity requires a substratum which is unrelated to the relation. The film that we watch on screen requires a witness of watcher. Similarly triputi also requires a witness in order to perceive it apart and separated from it. This witness shouldn’t have any relation with the triputi.

The worldly experiences have the triputi of worldly objects, the actions and the Subject. This Subject is related to the objects & is termed in Vedanta as Ego or jeeva or ahamkaara. Jeeva is thus attached and associated with the objects. This association of jeeva with objects is not possible unless it is through some karana or instruments. The instruments that connect the jeeva to objects are the three shareeras of sthoola, sookshma and kaarana. This is what the advaitin has put through the word “shareeraadi sambandhithah” – here in the word shareeradi, the aadi (etc.) means the sense organs, antah karana and avidya. Thus the karana through which the jeeva associates himself with objects is the three shareeras of gross, subtle and causal. The gross body or sthoola shareera consists of the body that we perceive (made up of the pancha bhootas in their gross form). The sookshma shareera or subtle body consists of the pancha karma indriyas (sense organs of action which are word, hands, feet, organ of excretion and procreation), pancha jnaana indriyas (sense organs of perception which are eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin), manas (mind or doubting faculty), buddhi (intellect or discriminating faculty), chitta (memory or storing faculty) and ahamkaara (ego or associating faculty). The kaarana shareera or causal body is avidya or ignorance.

Jeeva is defined as Consciousness reflected in intellect (or antah karana). Reflected Consciousness or Jeeva is thus associated with the three shareeras and through which he interacts with the objects of the world. This interaction of jeeva with the objects requires a witness or sakshi who is not part of the interaction. A sakshi is one who is not at all associated in any way with what is being witnessed but illumines the association or activity. Thus this sakshi of jeeva & its activities should be unaffected by the activity but still illuminating the activity. Since the sakshi is not affected by the activities, therefore he is without any change or immutable. This immutable sakshi is termed in Vedanta as Kutastha atman (original consciousness which is reflected in the intellect). Kutastha is the Atman which is a mere witness to the activities of the jeeva (reflected consciousness) with the worldly objects. Kutastha is unaffected and immutable – hence termed as akshara (kshara means that which undergoes decay).

The witness seems to be bonded because of the witness-hood which is valid only as long as the triputi of jeeva, karma and jagat is there. Kutastha is never bonded but only seems to be bonded. The association of kutastha atman with jeeva is what Vedanta terms as adhyaasa or superimposition of not-Self on the Self & the Self on the not-Self. Kutastha is the Self which is the substratum for this superimposition. This superimposition itself is because of avidya or ignorance of one’s nature of kutastha (which is not different from Nirguna Brahman). Kutastha atman seems to be related to the triputi but is in fact one with Nirguna Brahman which Lord Krishna defines here as Paramaatman. The difference between Paramaatman or Nirguna Brahman and Kutastha Atman is that Nirguna Brahman never even seems to be bonded whereas Kutastha seems to be bonded at the time of ignorance. Kutastha Atman is like pot-space which is the same as infinite-space but seemingly limited by the pot. As long as the adjunct or upaadhi of pot is there, the space in the pot seems to be limited by the pot. But in fact the pot-space is never limited by the pot because space can never be limited by anything. The pot-space is kutastha atman which seems to be limited/bonded when there are the adjuncts of shareera. But when the adjuncts are known to be unreal, kutastha atman is known as one with Nirguna Brahman (which is infinite-space in this case).

It is not necessary for a person to remove all adjuncts to get eternal bliss but it is enough to know oneself as the kutastha atman distinct from the jeeva and upaadhis. The upaadhis might seem to exist but the jnaani knows that they are not there. A person who knows that there is no water in desert might still see water but he will not run behind it – even if he runs behind it to show other ajnaanis that there is no water, he is not sad after not finding water because he knew that the water he is seeing is not real. Once a person knows himself to be the kutastha distinct from jeeva, that is the state of realization – he then might see the world and other objects even as we dream daily though knowing that there is no dream world. But at all times, he will know himself as the kutastha atman (indifferent from Nirguna Brahman) and thereby ever rejoices in eternal bliss.

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

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on anubandha chatushtayam of Advaita based on shruti - 1

2007-01-01T19:02:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

Madhva after logically trying to prove Advaita to be bereft of the anubandha chathustayam without which the system cannot be started, enters into quotations from sruthi, smrithi and the sutras. First Madhva quotes from the Bhagavad Gita to show that Vedanta speaks about Dvaita only and doesn’t support Advaita. The verses that Madhva are the famous last five slokas of the fifteen chapter (Purushottama Yoga) of the Bhagavad Gita. These five slokas are interpreted by each system of Vedanta as supporting their view but all the different views are feasible for the explanation of these. But if we really analyze the slokas, Advaitic interpretation alone is ultimate right as logic and experience support this interpretation. It cannot be argued that Advaita cannot stand logic because we have already seen that all the logical arguments of Madhva against Advaita are sufficiently answered and Advaitic concepts are fully logical.

We will first see Madhva’s or dvaitic interpretation of the slokas and then see the advaitin’s interpretation. Madhva doesn’t comment on these slokas but only quotes them (maybe because there was already his bhashya on the gita) whereas Jaya Teertha explains few words of the verses.

Dvaavimau purushau loke ksharascha akshara eva cha
Ksharah sarvaani bhootaani kutasthah akshara uchyathe

There are two purushas in the world one being kshara purusha and the other being akshara purusha. Kshara purusha is all the living beings whereas akshara purusha is kutastha or sakshi or witness (as per Madhva akshara is lakshmi devi who is above all purushas both muktha and amuktha whereas kshara purusha are the various jeevas).

Uttamah purushah tu anyah paramaatmethi udaahrithah
Yo loka trayam aavishya bhibharthi avyaya ishwarah

Uttama purusha or Ishwara or Vishnu is different from these two purushas (kshara and akshara) and is called as paramaatman (the word meaning supreme atman). Vishnu is also known as Ishwara (controller of all beings) who is all-pervasive and supports the world.

Yasmaat ksharam atheethoham aksharaat api cha uttamah
Ato asmi loke vede cha prathithah purusha uttamah

As “I” (Vishnu) am higher than kshara purushas and greatest among akshara purusha, therefore I am known in the world & Vedas (normal laukika usage and vedic usage as well) as uttama purusha.

Yo maamevam asammoodah jaanaathi purushottamam
Sah sarvavid bhajathi maam sarva bhaavena bhaaratha

He who is without delusion and thus knows me as the uttama purusha, he knowing everything worships me in all ways O Arjuna.

Ithi guhyathamam shaastram idam uktham maya anagha
Etat budhvaa buddhimaan syaat kritha krithyascha bhaaratha

Thus I have propounded to you the most secret scripture; having known this a person becomes intelligent and has done whatever is to be done, O Arjuna.

According to the Dvaita Vedanta, the jeeva is ever different from Vishnu. This is supported by the Lord himself as the jeevas are mentioned as kshara purushas and Vishnu is mentioned as Uttama purusha (distinct from kshara purushas). We will not enter into how dvaita defines various types of jeeva etc. but whoever interested can go through Madhva’s tattva sankhyaana or tattva viveka.

We will enter into the advaitin’s interpretation of the above slokas quoted by Madhva in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on adhikaari and sambandha of Advaita - 4

2006-12-04T19:23:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We will enter into the last part of the attack of Madhva on the anubandha chathustayam of Advaita. Since this portion is very short, we will see the advaitin’s reply as well to the same.

Madhvacharya after saying that vishaya and prayojana are not valid for advaita, states that adhikaari and sambandha also are not valid.

Vishayaprayojana abhaavaadeva adhikaari cha

Since vishaya and prayojana are not there, therefore adhikaari is also not there.

Tadabhaavaadeva sambandho api

Because adhikaari is also not there, sambandha is also not valid.

Explanation

We can have an adhikaari only if there is a vishaya to be sought and prayojana to be attained. Since prayojana and vishaya was refuted by Madhva, therefore adhikaari is also not valid.

As long as the goal of “reaching office” is there, there will be an adhikaari for the goal. But when there is no goal of “reaching office”, there cannot be any adhikaari at all.

The vishaya of advaita which is brahma atma aikya jnaana is not there. The prayojana of ajnaana nivritti is also not there because ajnaana itself is not possible (it cannot be proved through logic that ajnaana is present). Since vishaya and prayojana is not there, the adhikaari who seeks ajnaana nivritti is also not there. This is what Madhva is stating that since vishaya and prayojana is not valid for Advaita, adhikaari is also not valid.

We have learned that sambandha is relation between prayojana and vishaya. Since both are not there, sambandha is also not valid.

Madhva after pointing out that adhikaari is not there, is indirectly saying that since adhikaari is not there the system of Advaita itself cannot be started; any intelligent person will thus not follow the system of advaita.

Let’s now see the advaitin’s reply (as below) to the above statements of Madhva.

Vishaya prayojana sambhavaat adhikaari cha api asthi

Since vishaya and prayojana are possible and valid (as proved by the advaitin earlier in the work) therefore adhikaari is also present for advaita.

Adhikaari cha vakthavyam advaitaachaaryaih bahu krithyau

Adhikaari has been explained in many words by advaita acharyas in many works.

Bhaashyakaaraistu vakthavyam vistharena brahma sutra bhashyaih

Bhashyakaara (Sankara) has explained the adhikaari in depth in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya.

Tad idam samgrahena proktham aachaarya vachanaih –

We will explain it in brief with acharya’s own words -

Vivekino virakthasya shamaadiguna shaalinah
Mumukshoreva hi brahma jijnaasaa yogyathaa mathaa

Whoever is endowed with the saadhana chathustayam of viveka, vairagya, six qualities of the mind and mumukshutva – they are eligible for brahma jnaana (meaning that brahma jnaana will be fruitful for them). (This verse is from Vivekachoodamani of Sankara)

Idamartham asthi – yah samsaaradukhaih nivrittim kaankshathi tadeva moksha adhikaari asthi sah advaitaananda roopo mokshah kaankshathi

This is the essence of the words of acharya – he who desires removal of sorrow from the ocean of samsaara, he alone is the adhikaari for moksha or liberation. He desires moksha in the form of the Atman which is adviteeya and ananda roopa (one alone and blissful).

Atha yad proktham anandateerthaih “vishaya prayojana abhaavaat eva adhikaari cha” tadapi nirastham

Thus what has been mentioned by Madhvacharya (the sanyaasa name of Madhva is anandateertha) that adhikaari is not there as vishaya and prayojana are not there, this has also been refuted.

Atah sambandho api asthi na tad nirastham

Since vishaya, prayojana and adhikaari have been proved to be valid therefore sambandha is also there and not refuted (as Madhva claims).

Explanation

It is rather a sad fact that even though many advaita works clearly mentions the anubandha chathustayam, still the dvaitins claim that these are not valid for Advaita. The advaitin here quotes from Sankara’s Vivekachoodamani to mention that adhikaari is one who is endowed with saadhana chathustayam.

Saadhana chathustayam is:

Viveka – discrimination between real and unreal – that Brahman alone is real and everything else is only an illusion in Brahman
Vairagya –dispassion towards unreal things and passion towards the ultimate reality of Brahman
Shamaadi shatka sampatti – the six qualities of the mind which are shama (calmness of the mind), dama (control of the external sense organs), uparathi (withdrawal of the sense organs from their sense objects and fixing them unto the Self), titiksha (forbearance), sraddha (faith in the Guru’s words and the scriptures) and samaadhana (tranquility of the mind as it is ever fixed in Brahman)
Mumukshutva – burning desire for liberation – striving to get liberated from the ocean of samsaara characterized by sorrows and sufferings

We have dealt with the saadhana chathustayam in many other threads and hence we will not go into these. It is important to remember that though the direct meaning of the verse means that only a person endowed with saadhana chathustayam is eligible to know Brahman, it only means that one who is endowed alone can apprehend Brahman through realization. Any person who is not endowed will still be learning about Brahman but still be unable to get out of the ocean of samsaara. These are people like dvaitins and others who have learned things but still are not eligible to know Brahman.

The advaitin explains this sloka to put forth the two aspects of Moksha. One aspect is removal of sorrow and the other is enjoyment of bliss. Moksha is not mere removal of sorrow alone but it is enjoyment of bliss which is one’s nature. Thus moksha is characterized by dukha nivritti or removal of sorrow and sukha avaapthi or attainment of sukha. The analysis of both is controversial and has different aspects – hence we will not enter into an analysis but will conclude that moksha is dukha nivritti and sukha avaapthi.

Thus the advaitin has proved that adhikaari is valid for Advaita and thereby sambandha is also valid. Therefore anubandha chathustayam is valid for Advaita – hence advaita can be started or rather advaita should be started by all seekers of bliss.

After proving the anubandha chathustayam to be invalid through logic, Madhva next enters into quotations which we will see in the next mail in the series.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on prayojana of Advaita - 4

2006-11-28T18:42:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

As mentioned in the previous mail, we will try to see jaya teertha’s arguments in the light of the answering of the advaitin of the arguments against vishaya and ajnaana nivritti.

Jaya teertha mentioned that some people claim that “known atman alone is removal of ignorance and not atman”. He further argued that this is false because atman is not accepted as being attained through jnaana. So ‘known’ is not applicable to atman & hence ajnaana nivritti will never be possible.

This argument of jaya teertha is not valid in this case. As we have been explaining throughout, known atman is valid only as long as ajnaana is there. As per the vivarana school, the vritti ajnaana is removed by vritti jnaana which is “known atman” or atman subject to the vritti of knowledge. Hence the vritti jnaana can be attained through karma as here atman is not attained whereas vritti jnaana alone is attained. Thus the argument of jaya teertha is not valid.

Anticipating this particular answering, jaya teertha mentioned that “being subject to vritti is accepted” if thus the advaitin says, then it is as good as telling that the atman subject to vritti causes moksha. This means if vritti is removed, moksha is also removed. Thus moksha become non-eternal and temporary.

This argument of jaya teertha seems to be due to either incomplete knowledge of advaita or knowingly attacking advaita because the famous viewpoint of Gaudapada and Yoga Vasistha that there is neither bondage nor liberation for the ever-present atman clearly answers this objection. In Sanskrit and logical work terms, the answer to jaya teertha’s objection would be “ishtatvaat” or “as it is desired”.

What is desired???
It is desired to have moksha as temporary or non-eternal because bandha or bondage which is negated by moksha is also temporary. Advaita speaks about moksha from temporary bondage alone. Hence once moksha is achieved which is nothing but getting out of bondage or removal of bondage, moksha also becomes invalid. This is similar to the dream-lion (which is equivalent of moksha) causing the dreamer to wake up (from the bondage of dream) and then vanishes itself.

When jnaana vritti removes bandha, it is moksha which removes illusory ignorance. When ignorance is removed, the vritti which causes moksha also vanishes. This moksha is not the real moksha but only illusory moksha which removes illusory bondage. Moksha is atman alone which is ever present. Even the dvaitin accepts moksha as experience of bliss of oneself in order to not bring non-eternality to moksha.

Sankara gives the example of kaathaka powder cleansing the water & itself merging to show that when jnaana removes ajnaana, jnaana also vanishes & adviteeya atman alone exists. This is real moksha – that which is ever present.

Moksha as the ever-present Atman or realization of the ever-present Atman is eternal because it is ever present. Whereas moksha as removal of bandha or bondage is temporary as it is valid only as long as bandha is there. The dual notions of bandha and moksha are only valid at the empirical level so long as ajnaana seems to be experienced. This is what Sankara mentions in the nirvana shatkam as “na mukthir na bandhah – chidaananda roopah sivoham sivoham”.

The last argument that madhva and jaya teertha had raised was regarding the panchama prakaara ajnaana nivritti. We have to understand that this is just one particular way of explaining ajnaana nivritti without getting into any kind of logical issues. That was why Vimuktatman explained ajnaana nivritti in this particular way in Istasiddhi. The moment we accept moksha as atman alone, this question of whether to accept the fifth type of ajnaana nivritti or not doesn’t even come into picture. But for making the seeker understand it logically, we can say that ajnaana is anirvachaneeya and thereby the removal of ajnaana has to be different from anirvachaneeya – hence it has to be of the fifth type (different from the basic four types of sat, asat, sat asat, neither sat nor sat which is anirvachaneeya). This way of explanation can be meant to prove ajnaana nivritti at the empirical level. At the paaramarthika level, ajnaana nivritti is atman alone as at this level there is only the adviteeya atman – nothing else exists apart from the atman.

Hence the fifth type of reality status for ajnaana nivritti is only for easier understanding of the seeker. Madhva’s argument that since ajnaana itself is not proved, ajnaana nivritti of the fifth type is also not proved, is not right because ajnaana has been proved through sruthi, yukthi and anubhava by the advaitin. Hence the fifth type of ajnaana nivritti also is valid only.

With this we come to an end to the discussion of ajnaana nivritti as well as prayojana of Advaita. We will continue with Madhva’s work and the counter work in the next mail in the series.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on prayojana of Advaita - 3

2006-11-13T19:23:00.000-08:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We saw Madhvacharya’s arguments in the previous couple of mails directed against the prayojana of advaita. We will see in the current mail, the reply of the advaitin towards the arguments of the various dvaitins.

We will first see the advaitin’s statements about the prayojanam of advaita and then try to see it in the light of the arguments of the dvaitin.

The advaitin continues thus:

Ajnaana sambhave pramaana tarkam purvameva prathipaaditham

That ajnaana is possible has been proved through sruthi pramaana and logic previously itself.

Tathaapi ajnaana nivrittiroopa mokshasya sambhave prayojanam na nirastham

And thus, moksha of the nature of ajnaana nivritti (removal of ajnaana) is possible and hence prayojanam or fruit is not negated.

Advaite prayojanam idamasthi – ajnaanam naama kinchit na asthi, yadasthi tad brahma ithi aparoksha jnaanam

The prayojanam or fruit in advaita is this alone – there is nothing called ajnaana, the direct knowledge (experience) that whatever is there is Brahman alone.

Tadeva vedante mokshaakhyam

That alone (aparoksha jnaanam or anubhavam) is known in Vedanta as MOKSHA or liberation.

Explanation

Madhva had earlier mentioned that “ajnaana is impossible and hence all tenets of advaita have to be renounced”. Here the advaitin refutes that by saying ajnaana is very much possible and logical which has been shown previously by the advaitin through the words of Sankara and Sureshwara.

Moksha or liberation as per Advaita is not attaining the Self because the Self is ever present. Instead Advaita says that liberation or moksha is removal of ajnaana or ignorance. Sankara makes it clear that the Self is not something newly attained because that which is attained will also be lost. Thus if the Self is something newly attained, it will become non-eternal which would lead to anitya moksha. Therefore moksha is ajnaana nivritti or removal of ignorance which seems to veil the Self. Since ajnaana doesn’t really veil the Self but only seems to veil, therefore there is no fault of either veiling the Self or presenting (attaining) the ever-present Self. Ajnaana nivritti is there only when ajnaana is there. As long as ajnaana seems to be present, it has to be removed in order to realize the ever-present Self. The Self is but the witness of the seeming veiling of itself and removal of this veiling through knowledge. As ajnaana is there in the case of an ajnaani, therefore moksha in the form of removal of ajnaana is also there. As moksha is there, therefore prayojanam also is valid and not refuted as madhva claims.

The advaitin makes clear as to what is the prayojanam of advaita. The fruit is the aparoksha or intuitive knowledge that there is no ajnaana but Brahman alone, one without a second. The knowledge that a seeker gets from the Guru is paroksha jnaana or indirect knowledge. When the seeker does repeated sravana-manana-nidhidhyaasana, this paroksha jnaana becomes aparoksha and his very experience. This experience is not objective but it is the subjective experience of oneself as the non-dual reality of Brahman associated with knowledge of the illusory nature of the world. This experience or prayojanam is as well valid only from the empirical viewpoint or from the view of the ajnaani. The jnaani realizes and knows that there never was any ajnaana but the Self alone exists. This final result is the prayojanam of advaita which the advaitin is explaining clearly. Since the advaitin explains that ajnaana is not at all there, therefore ajnaana nivritti is also negated once realization happens. Thus ajnaana nivritti is also valid at the empirical level alone like ajnaana. This empirical removal is valid only as long as the seeker has ajnaana. One who doesn’t have ajnaana cannot have ajnaana nivritti as well. Ajnaana itself is inexplicable and only experienced by an ajnaani. Therefore ajnaana nivritti also is valid only for the ajnaani.

Even though ajnaana is inexplicable, ajnaana nivritti is nothing but the atman alone. Ajnaana nivritti is atman alone because when ajnaana is removed, what remains behind is the witness or negator of Atman or Self alone. The advaitin is explaining about this in the next few sentences.

Ajnaanadhvamso na asthi, paramaarthatho ajnaana abhaavaat

There is no destruction of ajnaana as ajnaana is not at all there at the ultimate level.

Ajnaana nivrittireva asthi

There is only negation or removal of ajnaana (sublation – that which really exists can only be destroyed – that which just seems to be present cannot be destroyed but only sublated or negated).

Ajnaana nivrittisthu aatmaa eva

Removal of ajnaana is atman alone.

Explanation

Ajnaana as is not real doesn’t have any destruction as destruction is possible only for that which really exists. Thus the advaitin here says that there is no destruction of ajnaana but only negation or sublation of ajnaana by jnaana. Nivritti is removal or negation which is only of an illusory entity. Ajnaana as is not present ultimately is an illusory entity. Therefore ajnaana has only removal or sublation or negation. This is very similar to removal of water seen in desert. There is no real water in desert and hence there cannot any destruction of water. There is thus only sublation of water when the reality of desert is known. Therefore ajnaana is removed or ajnaana vanishes when the reality of Atman or Self is known.

The advaitin gives the traditional view that ajnaana nivritti is atman alone. Ajnaana vanishes only through jnaana of the Self. Vivarana school explains this as vritti ajnaana being removed by vritti jnaana & the Self is the mere witness to both these. Atman as the object of the mind or vritti is the removal of ajnaana. Atman becomes a vritti not ultimately but only at the empirical level. This acceptance of atman as a vishaya or object of the mind is only as long as ajnaana is there.

A person forgets himself. When somebody else tells him as to who he is, the person himself becomes the object of the mind even though he is the subject of the mind. In similar way, when ajnaana is there atman becomes the remover of ajnaana through paroksha jnaana and aparoksha jnaana. Paroksha jnaana is knowledge of the atman from the words of the Guru and aparoksha jnaana is knowledge of the atman as one’s own nature – paroksha is indirect knowledge whereas aparoksha is direct knowledge or intuitive experience.

The advaitin goes on to explain as to what is nivritti a bit clearer than the brief explanation that ajnaana nivritti is atman alone.

Nivrittih tu idam jnaanam “ajnaano na asthi, adviteeya brahma eva asthi” ithi
Removal is the knowledge that “ajnaana is not there, non-dual Brahman alone exists”.

“aham aatma asmi” ithi saakshaatkaara eva prayojanam

Prayojanam of advaita is the realization that “I am Atman”.

Explanation

Nivritti or removal of ajnaana is the knowledge that ajnaana is not at all there & non-dual Brahman alone exists. This is the ultimate reality that there is no duality whatsoever here – whatever exists is Brahman alone. When ajnaana is removed, there will be no ignorance as well experienced but Brahman alone will be present. In order to experience the non-dual Brahman alone as present, we have to contemplate on the truth that there is only Brahman. This is what is termed as vritti jnaana or sravana-manana-nidhidhyaasana of Vedanta. This is what the advaitin is mentioning here that removal of ajnaana is through the knowledge or contemplation that there is no ajnaana but Brahman alone exists.

The prayojana or fruit of advaita is nothing but experience of oneself as the non-dual Self or Brahman. As long as ajnaana is present, one’s own nature of unlimited and infinite Brahman will not be experienced. Since one’s own nature of Brahman is not experienced, therefore prayojanam is still there as the intuitive experience of oneself as Brahman. It is thus wrong on the dvaitin’s part to say that there is no prayojanam of advaita. Prayojanam vanishes only after ajnaana is removed or experienced as non-existent.

This is what the advaitin is emphasizing in the next couple of sentences.

Yaavad avidhyaa asthi taavad prayojanam api asthi

As long as avidya exists, so long prayojanam also exists.

Kinthu yadaa aparoksha anubhavam bhavathi tadaa prayojanam api nirastham, dvaita abhaavaat, dvaitamithyaatvaat cha

But once aparoksha anubhava dawns, then prayojanam also is refuted or negated because dvaita is not there (in that state) and dvaita is known as an illusion.

Explanation

As long as ajnaana is there, ajnaana nivritti roopa moksha or atma saakshaatkara is present and not negated as the dvaitin claims. This is also emphasized in the scriptures through the statement of “vedaah avedaah” while explaining the state of sushupthi or deep sleep where even the Vedas are negated.

It has already been pointed out by the advaitin through Sankara’s adhyaasa bhashya statement that Vedas are there only till ajnaana is experienced. Once ajnaana vanishes, there is no Veda. When there is no Veda, there is no prayojanam as well. It is thus wrong to say that prayojanam is not there at the empirical level for an ajnaani. Prayojanam is there till ajnaana is there and vanishes only when jnaana dawns/self is experienced.

The advaitin gives an anumaana to show that after realization of the Self, there is no prayojanam as in that state there is no dvaita or duality. Only when duality is there, there can be the difference between the seeker and the fruit. Since after realization, the duality that was experienced earlier is known to be an illusion there is no difference between seeker and the fruit or prayojanam. Thus prayojanam is negated after realization but is valid at the empirical level as long as ajnaana is experienced.

We will try to analyze the arguments of Jaya Teertha (which we saw in the previous mail) taking into view advaita viewpoint on prayojanam discussed in this particular mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on prayojana of Advaita - 2

2006-10-25T20:06:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We saw in the last mail the arguments of Madhva and Jayateertha against the prayojana of advaita which was termed as ajnaana nivritti or removal of ignorance. Madhva argued that since atman is the very nature of a person, therefore moksha which is atman (ajnaana nivritti is mentioned as atman alone by advaitins) will become established even before it is attained. Thus moksha will be present always & there is no need to seek moksha or liberation as advaita claims. Moreover ajnaana itself being not established ajnaana nivritti is totally out of scope.

Madhva continues his attack on prayojana thus:
Ajnaana asambhavena chathurthaprakaara abhaavaat panchamaprakaarathaa api nirasthaa

Since ajnaana itself is not possible (established), therefore the fourth type (ontological status) for ajnaana is not possible – hence there is no question of a fifth type (ontological status) of ajnaana nivritti.

Explanation

It is very tough to translate Sanskrit words into English and that too when it is crisp like that of Madhva, it is very tough indeed. As we saw in the last mail in the series as to the usage of minimal words by Madhva which was explained in depth by Jaya Teertha, here too we find Madhva following the same pattern of usage of very few words.

Pardon the logical analysis going to follow.

There are four ontological statuses to which entities can cater to – these four are:
1. Sat – that which exists at all times (trikaala abhaadhitam sat – that which is not negated in three times of past, present and future is Sat). An example of Sat is the ultimate reality of Brahman accepted by all systems as ever existing beyond time.
2. Asat – that which doesn’t exist at all times. An example of this is the son of a barren woman, a cottage in space (gandharva nagaram), horns of a hare etc. These are entities which never exist in the past or present or future.
3. Sat and Asat – that which is both Sat as well as ASat. This is a kind of definition with respect to sat and asat – this type of definition is never valid as we cannot find sat and asat together in any entity as both are contradictory to each other.
4. Neither sat nor asat – that which is neither ever existent nor ever non-existent. This is what Advaita calls as anirvachaneeya or indescribable – that which can never be mentioned as either real or unreal.

Advaita says that illusions are anirvachaneeya or indescribable. An illusion like water seen in desert is not SAT because it ceases to exist once the substratum is known. It is not ASAT because it is currently perceived (at the time of illusion). It cannot be SAT-ASAT because such a combination is not at all possible even as darkness-light combination is not possible. Thus the illusion is mentioned as anirvachaneeya or “neither sat nor asat” – the word anirvachaneeya means that it can neither be mentioned as SAT nor as ASAT. An illusion is thus neither sat nor asat. Ajnaana or avidya is anirvachaneeya or neither sat nor asat – it is not sat because it vanishes after knowledge dawns (as proclaimed by Gita and the Upanishads). It is not asat because it is currently perceived or experienced directly as well as in the form of its effect of the world (asat is that which is not there in all the three times of past, present and future).

Thus ajnaana is mentioned in Advaita as of the fourth type or anirvachaneeya (which is the fourth type of ontological status).

This fourth type has been criticized by the dvaitins and vishista advaitins through the statement that an entity can be either sat or asat – there cannot be any fourth-type as such. The anirvachaneeya or mithyaa definition of various advaita acharyas was criticized by Vyaasa Teertha in Nyaayamritha and more than sufficiently answered by Madhusudana Saraswathi in Advaita Siddhi.

Madhva here mentions that since ajnaana itself is not possible, therefore the fourth-type status is also not possible or valid for ajnaana. Thus ajnaana itself being invalid, ajnaana nivritti is out of question. Therefore prayojanam of advaita as ajnaana nivritti is ruled out. Thus advaita is without any prayojanam and hence cannot be started (anaarambhaneeyam).

We till now discussed about ajnaana having the status of anirvachaneeya. There is yet another discussion on the status of ajnaana nivritti. Ajnaana nivritti has to be of a different status than that of ajnaana which is anirvachaneeya. Many advaitins accept that ajnaana nivritti is atman alone and hence need not be termed as anirvachaneeya or asat but as sat itself at the empirical level (this was criticized by Jaya Teertha through attack of different variations of the same definition of ajnaana nivritti as atman). But Vimuktatman who wrote the Istasiddhi opines that ajnaana nivritti cannot be anirvachaneeya as ajnaana is anirvachaneeya. Thus ajnaana nivritti is neither sat nor asat and not even anirvachaneeya. Instead ajnaana nivritti is of a fifth type which is different from the four types of sat, asat, sat-asat, neither sat nor asat. This view is commonly known as “panchamaprakaara” of ajnaana nivritti.

Madhva here says that since ajnaana itself is not valid and fourth-type of anirvachaneeya is neither valid nor logical, therefore there is no question of ajnaana nivritti being of a fifth type. Thus the explanation of advaitins that ajnaana nivritti is of a fifth type also has been refuted – thus says Madhva.

We will see the reply to the arguments raised by Madhva and Jayateertha against the prayojanam of advaita in the next mail through the advaitin’s reply on the same. If possible, we will also try to see the various views which Jayateertha and Madhva have refuted (for which there should be sufficient research required).

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on prayojana of Advaita - 1

2006-10-18T20:12:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We saw in the last mail the advaitin’s answer of madhva’s and jaya teertha’s argument regarding “difference of two entities becoming real if the unity is illusory”. The advaitin had pointed out through the example of rope-snake that difference of two entities would not become real if the unity is illusory. The unity of Brahman and Atman (jeeva here) is illusory only because there is no duality whatsoever & not because there are two entities of Brahman and Atman. The unity of Brahman-Atman is propounded by sruthi as the vishaya and is valid as long as ignorance is experienced. This unity becomes illusory only after realization of one’s own nature of Brahman through removal of ajnaana or ignorance. This removal of ajnaana is the prayojana or fruit of learning the scriptures and attaining of the vishaya of Brahman-atman.

Madhva after attacking the vishaya of advaita and ajnaana, enters into attack of prayojanam of advaita which is moksha or liberation.

Madhva continues thus:

Evameva prayojanamapi nirastham – svaroopatvaat mokshasya poorvameva siddhatvaat

Through this, prayojana or fruit is also negated – since moksha is the svaroopa, it is already established (hence prayojana is not possible).

Explanation

Prayojana or fruit is something which is newly achieved or newly attained. In the case of advaita, moksha is realization of one’s own nature or svaroopa. This svaroopa is already there. Since this moksha is nothing newly attained, therefore it ceases to be a prayojanam.

What madhva is pointing out here is that since the fruit of liberation as one’s own nature is already there, therefore there is no need of a new fruit through learning of scriptures. Learning of scriptures as well as the fruit of learning the scriptures is invalid because the fruit is already and always there. Thus advaita cannot claim any prayojana or fruit for scriptural study.

If advaita argues that prayojana of moksha is ajnaana nivritti or removal of ajnaana, then this is also not valid. Ajnaana nivritti roopa moksha is illogical because ajnaana itself is illogical.

Madhva had previously mentioned that ajnaana is not possible through sruthi or yukthi, therefore ajnaana nivritti is also not possible. Thus moksha characterized by ajnaana nivritti is also not possible. Since moksha is not possible, prayojanam is also not possible. Thus advaita cannot have any prayojanam at all. Any activity is not possible without prayojanam – thus study of scriptures is not possible as there is no prayojanam for study of scriptures in advaita.

To show the depth of jaya teertha’s commentary as well as to point out the depth of logical arguments used, we will see jaya teertha’s commentary on the same and a running translation of the same.

Ajnaananivrittilakshano hi mokshah parena aatmasvaroopatayaa istah

Moksha characterized by “removal of ignorance” and as the very nature of atman is what is accepted by advaitins.

Yathaah ‘atmaiva ajnaana haanih’ ithi

Thus has been said ‘atman alone is removal of ajnaana’.

Aatmasvaroopam cha praageva shaastrapravritteh siddhameva ithi katham tatprayojanam syaat? Na hi kaschitsiddhasya saadhanaaya yathathe naapi tat saadhana arham

Before study of scriptures & following of scriptural path itself, atma svaroopa (the Self in itself) is established & thus how can there be any proyojanam?

There never can be any sadhana done for that which is already established (meaning that there cannot be any study of scriptures for attaining atman which is already established).

Also such a prayojanam can never be capable of being achieved through sadhana (such moksha of atma svaroopa can never become the sadhya or fruit through any sadhana).

‘jnaatha aatmaiva ajnaanahanir na aatmamaatram’ ithi kaschit tadasat

Some people claim ‘known Self alone is the result of removal of ajnaana and this is not atman alone’, this is not true (here jaya teertha points out that some claim that atman is not the result of ajnaana nivritti but jnaatha atman or known self is the result of ajnaana nivritti).

Why is this not true (that known Self is the result of removal of ajnaana)???

Aatmano jnaanakarmathaa anangeekaaraath

Since atman is not accepted to have jnaanakarmathaa (attained through activities of jnaana – here jaya teertha means to show that atman is not accepted as an entity which is attained through sravana-manana-nidhidhyaasana which are the actions for jnaana – this is because advaita doesn’t accept attainment of atman but only realization). (Since atman or Self is not accepted as something to be attained therefore the quality of jnaata or known even if given to the Self will not make it something that is achieved through jnaana – thus there cannot be any prayojanam for atman of advaita).

‘vrittivishayathaa asthi’ ithi chet, tathaapi ‘vrittivishista aatma moksha’ ithyuktham syaat

If it is said that there is ‘vritti vishayathaa’ (the atman becoming a subject to vritti or modification of the mind), then it would lead to the statement that ‘moksha is atman qualified by vritti’ (that which is subject to vritti is qualified by the vritti – the pot which is subject to the vritti of a person is qualified by the vritti as the pot is limited by the vritti or modification of the mind).

What is the fault of accepting vritti vishayathaa???

Tathaa cha vritteh nivrittau mokshanivritti prasangah

In that case (if vritti vishayathaa is accepted), when vritti is removed or negated, removal or negation of moksha will also happen (since vritti vishista atman is moksha therefore when vritti is removed, the moksha characterized by vritti vishista atman will also be removed – in such a case, moksha would become anitya or non-eternal which is quite against the term of moksha itself).

‘vritti upalakshita aatma moksha’ ithi chet tathaapi jeevanmukthao prasanga ithyeshaa dik

If it is argued that ‘atman which has the upalakshana of vritti is moksha’, then it would lead to jeevanmukthi for all people (jeevan mukthi is the atman realized even though subject to various vrittis as the jeevanmuktha does all activities).

Jaya Teertha goes on to attack the topic of avidhya asthamaya or ajnaana nivritti & its ontology (existence status) which is explained in different ways by advaitin. It is the same thing that Madhva also attacks in the main work. We will see this in the next mail in the series.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Final attack on Advaita vishaya - 10

2006-10-16T03:17:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We saw in the last mail Madhva as well as Jaya Teertha attacking the view that brahma atma aikya is mithya and trying to prove the illogical or contrary conclusions arising out of such a proposition. We will see as to how the advaitin answers through his words in mayavada darpanam. We have already seen prior that brahma atma aikya is not yaathaarthyam (real) but as long as avidya is experienced, brahma atma aikya is real only. It is taking into consideration the bhedha or duality created by avidya (avidya kalpitha bhedha) that the shastra propounds the vishaya of brahma atma aikya through the various mahavakyas. Sankara quite clearly mentions this in his sutra bhashya as “avidya kalpitha bhedha nivrittitvaparatvaat shaastrasya – due to shastra leading to removal of duality which is created by avidya”.

Just to recap, the dvaitin had argued that if brahma atma aikya is mithyaa, shastra becomes invalid as well as this would lead to brahma atma bhedha becoming real – as the identity of Rama with Krishna is mithya would lead to the difference between Rama and Krishna becoming real. This would lead to the contrary conclusion of bhedha becoming real or dvaita or this would lead to advaita haani (that which madhva had mentioned in the starting itself).

Let us now enter into the words of the advaitin. Advaitin continues thus:

Yattu jayateerthena uktham ‘aikyasya mithyaatve bhedasya satyathaa cha syaat’ tad na satyam

What Jaya Teertha has mentioned as to the bheda becoming real if aikya is illusory (brahma atma aikya if illusory would lead to brahma atma bhedha becoming real), it is not true.

(Why isn’t this true?)
Rajju sarpa aikyasya mithyaatve sati tayoh bhedasya satyathaa na syaat, rajjudarshanaparaath aikyasya mithyaatva angeekaaraath

Even though Rajju sarpa aikya (identity of rope and snake) is mithya or illusory, the difference between rajju and sarpa is not real (in this case, rajju and sarpa being the same rajju alone) and once rope is known as such, the identity of rope-snake is accepted as illusory only.

Explanation

This part is a bit logical as was jaya teertha’s argument on the same. The advaitin says that what Jayateertha says as to the bhedha becoming real if aikya is unreal is not right. This logic what Jaya Teertha is mentioning is not valid in the case of the illusion of snake in rope.

The rope-snake logic to prove adhyaasa and the relation between the world and Brahman is quite often used in advaita. A person due to dim light sees a snake in the rope. There is no snake there but only rope but he sees a snake in the rope. This seeing of snake causes the person to fear the rope, runaway from it etc. But once a learned person takes him near to the rope & shows him that there is no snake but only rope, the person realizes that there is and there was only the rope. The snake is thus known as a mere illusion in the substratum of rope.

The rope-snake identity or aikyatva which makes the person realize that there is no snake but only rope is accepted as mithya. The identity of rope-snake is illusory because there is no snake at all in the rope. Only if there is a real snake in the rope, can we speak about the rope-snake identity. But since there is only the rope, therefore the aikya or identity is illusory or mithya. Even though rajju-sarpa aikya is illusory, their difference doesn’t become real. Why? Because there are no two entities of rope and snake. Thus even though the identity of rope-snake is illusory, the difference between rope-snake is not real. But this difference of rope-snake is also an illusion which depends on the identity not known as such or not knowing that there is only rope there.

Here it can be argued that the identity of rope and snake is accepted as real and hence this argument cannot be raised for jaya teertha’s statement. Anticipating this argument the advaitin says that the argument of advaitin is valid because we accept the identity of rope and snake as an illusion once the reality of rope is known.

Extending this rope-snake analogy to brahma-atma, even though brahma atma aikya is mithya, still this doesn’t make brahma atma bhedha as real because there are no two entities at all but there exists only one entity.

We have to remember here that jaya teertha’s argument is valid in case of empirically real analogies but in the case of illusions, the argument is invalid.

Here the dvaitin might argue that brahma-atma aikya is considered as an illusion and hence your argument is invalid (in dvaita brahma atma aikya is mithyaa because Brahman is different from the atman). To this argument, we ask thus: “Are you speaking about your system’s interpretation of brahma-atma or our system? If you speak about your system, then that is invalid here because here the subject-matter is advaita siddhantha and not dvaita siddhantha. If you say that dvaita siddhantha can be raised so long as it is valid, then there cannot be any vada at all as there is no common stand for the vada (a discussion requires common ground or commonly accepted rules). You cannot say here that shaastra is the common ground as shaastra is not discussed in depth here whereas yukthi is what is discussed by madhva. It can be and has been proved through yukthi that bhedha is untenable (in bhedha dhikkara among other works). Thus yukthi support is there for what we are preaching. If on the other hand (instead of speaking about your system’s interpretation), you are speaking of our interpretation then our interpretation accepts brahma atma aikya which is the vishaya of shastra as unreal at the paaramarthika level. This has been shown through sankara’s words itself. Moreover sruthi proclaims duality as illusory (whether it is of brahma-atma or brahma-jagat) through the statements of “neha nana asthi kinchana” (there is no duality whatsoever here), “sarvam khalu idam brahma” etc.”

Thus whatever way the dvaitin argues, it is but true that brahma atma aikya is an illusion only or mithyaa alone. Since brahma atma aikya is mithya, therefore the analogy used (rope-snake) is apt in this case. This analogy as we have already shown proves jaya teertha’s statement as wrong. Thus the objection of madhva as well as jaya teertha has been answered.

ADVAITA VIEWPOINT
It is essential over here to mention a few words about the analysis of brahma atma aikya. Brahma atma aikya as the rajju sarpa aikya is valid and real only until realization dawns. Once a person realizes the adviteeya atman, then there is no “other” entity to even compare. Thus during that state (we are considering it from vyaavaharika level) brahma atma aikya is mithyaa. Brahma atma aikya is mithyaa not because the bhedha of brahma atma is real but because there are no two entities of Brahman and atman. This dual perception of Brahman and atman as different is only due to avidya. This difference perception results in shastra’s propounding of aikya through which it will be realized that there is no dvaita but one alone exists.

For a person who doesn’t realize the reality of rope, he is mentioned that rajju and sarpa are one alone (rajju means rope and sarpa is snake). Through this aikyatva (which itself is mithyaa as there is ultimately only rope), he realizes that there is only rope. Thus this aikyatva doesn’t lead to bhedha satyatvam but leads to adviteeya rajju saakshaatkaara.

Thus has been mentioned in Advaita Pancharatnam (an English commentary has been written by me on the same and available at http://geocities.com/hariram1981/files.html):

Rajju ajnaanaath rajjau bhaathi yathaa ahih
Svaatma ajnaanath aatmani jeevo bhaavah
Aptha ukthyaa ahi bhraanthi naashe sah rajju
Jeevo naaham deshikokthyaa shivoham

As ignorance of rope causes a person to get deluded into seeing a snake, similarly atma ajnaana causes a person to think the atman as jeeva. As by the words of an elderly person there is realization that it is rope alone, similarly I am not the jeeva but the shiva propounded by the acharya.

In brahma atma aikya, atma word’s direct meaning is jeeva whereas the lakshya artha (implied meaning) is kutastha. Since sruthi is concerned with the jeeva (who thinks he is different from Brahman), therefore the atman (in brahma-atma wordings used in this mail) here denotes jeeva only. Thus the above sloka of advaita pancharatnam quite clearly explains this brahma atma analysis. More detailed analysis can be had from the English commentary on the same.

We will enter into the next argument of madhva in the next mail. Had mentioned in the previous mail about quoting from the vartika tika of anandagiri, would do the same over the weekend & hence the mail will be there only in the next week – sorry for the same.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Final attack on Advaita vishaya - 9

2006-10-05T20:25:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

With the last mail we completed the analysis on ajnaana of advaita by answering the arguments of madhva through the beautiful exposition of ajnaana by sureshwaracharya from the sambhandha bhashya vartika.

Even though there was the copy of the bhashya vartika with anandagiri’s commentary but that was in Chennai & hence didn’t have access to the same now. But of late, glanced upon an online version of the same scanned & hence have the bhashya vartika verses with anandagiri’s tika on the same – also found the brihadaranyaka vartikasaara of vidyaranya which is one of the base works of the vartika prasthaana. Will go through the same over the weekend & we will have a couple of mails next week on the same.

Continuing with the mayavada khandana of madhvacharya, madhva makes one final statement thereby closing the attack on the vishaya of advaita.

Mithyaatve chaikyasya aatatvavedakatvam aagamasya syaat – satyataa cha bhedasya

If Brahma-Atma aikya is mithyaa then sruthi would be propounding about something which is not real (as advaita accepts that sruthi propounds brahma atma aikya which in this case is mithyaa or not real).

Also in this case, as brahma atma aikya is mithyaa therefore bheda or difference between Brahman and atman becomes real which causes duality or dvaita.

Let us see Jaya teertha’s commentary on this part of the work as he explains this well:

Aikyam hi shaastrasya vishayathayaa parasya abhimatham

Aikya is accepted as the vishaya of the scriptures by others (here means advaitins).

Tatkimaatmasvaroopa athiriktham? utha tanmaatram?

Whether that aikya is different from the nature of atman or same as it?

Aadhye api satyam mithyaa vaa?

In the first case (if aikya is different from the nature of atman), is it real or illusory?

Na adhyah advaita haani prasangaath

It is not the first (aikya is not real and different from the nature of atman) as then it would lead against advaita or destruction of advaita.
Na dviteeyah

Nor even the second (aikya is not mithyaa and different from the nature of atman).

Aikyasya mithyaatve tat prathipaadakasya shaastrasya aatatvavevdakatvam syaat tathaa cha apasiddhanthah syaat

Aikya if it is mithya then shastra which propounds aikya will be propounding about unreal things – this will thus lead to apasiddhantha (deviation from one’s own theory – advaita propounds that shastra has the vishaya of brahma atma aikya and shastra is ultimate pramaana which will be wrong now as shastra will propound unreal things).

Jaya Teertha now explains about the words “satyataa cha bhedasya” thus:

Parasparavirudhayoh anyatharanishedasya anyatharavidhinaa vyaaptatvaad aikyasya mithyaatve bhedasya satyathaa cha syaat

Those which are mutually contradictory (brahma atma aikya and brahma atma bheda) & which is negated through a different way (brahma atma aikya is negated); its concomitance in a different way leads us to the fact that if aikya is mithya, then the bhedha (between Brahman and atman) becomes real.

Explanation

Please bear with the last sentence of Jaya Teertha which is a bit logical but will explain it a bit depth later in the mail.

Apasiddhanthah

The argument of brahma atma aikya being illusory and thereby sruthi propounding illusory brahma atma aikya has already been discussed previously and answered as well. Here just we need to understand that apasiddhantha happens when a person goes against his own definitions or his own theory. When “I” say that “vedanta is the final philosophy” and still follow the sankhya system (which believes in dvaita), it is apasiddhantha – as here I accept prakrithi (maya in Vedanta) as an illusory power of Brahman as per Vedanta but still hold the sankhya view that prakrithi and purusha are independent, eternal and separate. Hope the term apasiddhantha is clear now.

Jaya teertha tries to show that advaitins accept sruthi pramaana above all other pramaanas (even pratyaksha or anubhava which is considered as the strongest pramanaa but other systems). If they then accept brahma atma aikya as mithyaa, then sruthi would become invalid as it is propounding about an unreal thing or theory. Thus sruthi though is accepted as faultless and ultimate propounds faulty as well as illusory things.

This explains the first part of madhva’s argument which can be understood very well by jaya teertha’s tika on the same (which has been put above).

Bhedasya satyathaa – bheda becoming real

We will now try to see madhva’s argument of bheda becoming real if brahma atma aikya is mithyaa. We have here two entities of Brahman and atman. Brahman is the ultimate reality whereas atman is the seemingly limited kutastha (as per later advaita acharyas words). Brahman is pointed out through the word TAT whereas atman is pointed out through the word TVAM in the mahavakya TAT TVAM ASI.

Advaita propounds that the vishaya of scriptures is brahma atma aikya or oneness of Brahman and atman. If this brahma atma aikya is mithyaa, then automatically it gets proved that Brahman and atman are different.

Let’s consider this example:
A -> tree
B -> rock
A=B -> aikya

A=B is mithyaa, then A!=B.

If the oneness of A and B is mithyaa, then it means that A and B are different. Thus A-B aikya is mithyaa if A and B are different. If A and B are same, then the aikya cannot be mithyaa.

Extending this to Brahman as A and Atman as B:

A -> Brahman
B -> Atman

A=B -> Brahma Atma Aikya
A=B is mithyaa means A!=B or Brahman is not equal to Atman

A!=B means A and B are different
Brahman not equal to Atman means Brahman is different from Atman.
Brahman is different from Atman means “difference between Brahman and Atman is real”.

If the difference between Brahman and Atman is real, then this goes against advaita & hence Brahma-Atma aikya cannot be mithyaa. Brahma-Atma aikya cannot be real as well because it will lead to another entity of Brahma Atma Aikya as real other than Brahman (which will lead to two real entities). Thus advaita has to accept Brahma Atma aikya as svaroopa alone (brahma atma aikya as not svaroopa has been proved illogical even if brahma atma aikya is considered as real or unreal).

If Brahma Atma aikya is svaroopa, then the faults which madhva raised as to nirvisheshatva etc. will come & hence advaita cannot escape from this as well.

Thus the Brahma Atma Aikya vishaya of advaita is illogical.

The above argument of madhva and jaya teertha as the bheda being real if brahma atma aikya is mithyaa will be proved wrong through the advaitin’s reply to the same. We will see that in the next mail in the series.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Ajnaana of Advaita - 6

2006-09-28T20:34:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the last few mails of the series, we have been learning about avidya and the wonderful-flawless explanation of the same by Sureshwaracharya in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika (sambandha vartika to be precise).

Let us now briefly summarize what we have learnt about avidya – the riddle of avidya which is very tough indeed to speak about or understand that many doubts, confusions and objections arise out of the same.

1. Avidya is not at all there at the paaramarthika level but it is experienced at the empirical level.
2. Avidya is not real because it cannot withstand proof.
3. The very characteristic of avidya is Avidyaatva or “being avidya”.
4. The aasaadharana lakshanam (distinguishing nature) of avidya is that it cannot withstand proof.
5. Avidya even though cannot be explained or proved but is still an anubhava vishaya – it is experienced by the ignorant person.
6. Thus avidya as it is experienced, is valid at the empirical level though at the ultimate level it is not at all there.
7. If a person has to prove avidya, he will in turn prove that avidya is not there as there cannot be any proof for avidya which exists in the substratum of Brahman.
8. Avidya since it is an illusion in the substratum of Brahman merges or vanishes into Brahman when Brahman is realized through jnaana (paroksha and aparoksha).

Believe there need be no detailed explanation of the above – the seeker can go through the above points a couple or more times so that the concept of avidya becomes very clear.

The important thing which we have to understand and remember is that avidya is something which is experienced but cannot be proved. Thus if a seeker experiences avidya, he should seek vidya through vedantic sravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana so that avidya totally vanishes and the seeker realizes the ultimate reality of adviteeya atman.

Trying to find out the nature of avidya or trying to prove avidya is like trying to find out darkness. Darkness cannot be found out at all – once a seeker brings in light, darkness automatically vanishes. If a person tries to find out darkness, he will end up disproving darkness or proving that there is no darkness at all. Similarly avidya can never be proved as it is not something real but as long as avidya is experienced, a seeker should try to seek vidya which will in turn remove avidya.

The above logic is based on works of advaita acharyas. Hence the dvaitin can still raise the objection that “there is no sruthi proof for avidya” – the advaitin anticipates the same and quotes Lord Krishna from the Gita thus:

Bhagavaanapi uktham
“ajnaanena aavritham jnaanam tena muhyanthi janthavah” ithi

The Lord has also said thus “knowledge of the Self is veiled by ignorance and hence beings are deluded into the same”.

The above quotation is from the 5th chapter sloka 15.Here the Lord clearly mentions as to why everybody doesn’t realize the ultimate reality of Brahman. Jnaana of the Self is veiled by ajnaana and hence the various beings are deluded. Jnaana here means paramaatma jnaana or brahma jnaana. As Mundaka Upanishad proclaims that a knower of Brahman verily becomes Brahman, therefore brahma jnaana is knowledge of one’s own nature of Brahman. Ajnaana here means ignorance of one’s own nature of Brahman.

It is but contradictory that ajnaana veils jnaana. Can ajnaana ever veil jnaana? We have previously seen that ajnaana is totally inexplicable. It is not at all possible to “not know something” until that something is already known. Thus the ajnaana which the Lord mentions here is the same avidya of advaita. Ajnaana is not ignorance of the independent nature of the Lord and dependent nature of the jeeva because this is in fact a matter of experience for ignorant seekers. A jeeva already knows that he can’t do much & has to seek the sarvajna ishwara. Thus if the Lord mentions what is already known, it will lead to siddha saadhanathaa dosha or establishing what is already established.

Thus ajnaana here is ignorance of one’s own nature of para Brahman. This is also supported by the next sloka in the chapter wherein the Lord says that “that ajnaana which destroys the atman is removed by jnaana and then jnaana shines like the sun for darkness – and that is supreme knowledge”.

As explained earlier ajnaana can veil jnaana or the Self only if ajnaana is illusory. Real ajnaana can never veil jnaana as both are opposite in nature. Thus ajnaana is not real but only vyaavahaarikam. This vyaavahaarika ajnaana is removed through jnaana and thereby the Self shines like the Sun.

Thus avidya is not a concept coined by advaita but it is based on sruthi.

With this, we come to an end the defense of the concept of ajnaana from madhva’s arguments. We have just to provide an answer to one of the arguments of jaya teertha against brahma atma aikya as the vishaya of advaita. We will see as to what the argument of jaya teertha is and what is the response of the advaitin in the next mail in the series.

PS: Please let know if the concept of avidya is clear – if there is any doubt or questions regarding whatever we have learned in this thread till now, please get back & we will clear the same before proceeding.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Ajnaana of Advaita - 5

2006-09-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the last mail in the series we saw Sureshwaracharya defining avidya as that which is not a vasthu and hence cannot withstand proof.

There can be a doubt now as to if avidya is not a vasthu & hence cannot withstand proof, then how can it be proved as advaita claims. It has always been the arguments of opponent systems that avidya if not proved will reduce advaita to ZERO. Anticipating this objection, Sureshwara answers following Sankara that avidya is proved through the experience of one who is experiencing it. Thus avidya even though is not a vasthu, still is something which is experienced by an ajnaani (or one who is in ajnaana).

Urdhvam choktham
“Kalpyaa avidhyaiva matpakshe saa cha anubhavasamsrayaa”

Sureshwaracharya has explained further thus
“Even though avidya is something illusory, yet in our view (system) it is subject to experience”.

Explanation

As explained earlier, Sureshwara is here echoing the view of Sankara. And this statement of Sureshwara is to answer the objection that avidya cannot be proved thereby causing advaita to have logical issues.

We have to understand the word of “anubhava samsrayaa” properly – it only means that avidya is present for the ignorant. Since doubts/objections are obviously raised by ajnaanis & if a person enters into the study of the scriptures, that itself means that he is an ajnaani.

The advaitin continues with further quotation of Sureshwara (have split the words in the slokas so that it is easy to read and correlate with the translation)

“Yatho anubhavatho avidhyaa brahma asmi ithi anubhootivat
Atho maanotthavijnaanadvasthaa saa api ethi atha aatmathaam

Brahmani avidhithe abodhaat na avidhya ithi upapadhyathe
Nitharaam chaapi vijnaathe mrishaadheer na asthi abaadithaa

Avidhyavaan avidhyaam taam na niroopayithum kshamah
Vasthuvrittham atho apekshya na avidhya ithi niroopyathe”

Even though avidyaa is experienced by an ajnaani like the experience of a jnaani that “I am Brahman”, it is destroyed through proper knowledge of the Self and thereby merges into the Self (from where it seems to come & which is its substratum).

As long as Brahman is not known, avidya is not known or realized – thus it is proved or logically known that avidya is not there. And after realizing Brahman, it doesn’t exist at all like water seen in desert (mrisha or unreal) and therefore cannot be sublated (basically cannot be proved at all).

A person who is under avidya is thus not capable of proving avidya. And since to prove anything vasthu vritti is required, therefore he contrarily proves that “avidya is not there”.

Explanation

Sureshwara said that avidya is not a vasthu as it cannot withstand proof but still it is a matter of experience for the ajnaani. Thus anubhava proves avidya’s existence. Now there can be a doubt as to if avidya is experienced – then will it be sublated??? (pratyaksha or experiences are considered by many systems like dvaita as most prominent of the pramaanas and hence sublation is not possible). This objection or doubt is being answered by Sureshwara in the first sloka over here.

Avidya is experienced by an ajnaani like the experience “I am Brahman” of a jnaani. We see over here clearly that either one of these experiences will be there in a person. Both are contrary and hence cannot remain together. Either a person is an ajnaani or a jnaani – he cannot be a little of both. Here jnaani means a person of atma saakshaatkara (realized Brahman). Ajnaana can never affect a person who has realized the ultimate reality of Brahman. Similarly an ajnaani can never have the aparoksha anubhava that “I am Brahman” even though he experiences the Self of “I” at all times – this “I” for an ajnaani is mixed and associated with the body-mind-intellect complex.

Even though avidya is experienced by an ajnaani, still it vanishes through knowledge of the Self in the right way (through the right pramaaanas). When avidya vanishes, it merges into its source of Self. It is but logical that avidya which is illumined by the saakshi of Self merges into the Self itself. Avidya cannot merge into anything else as avidya is caused out of the Self. Thus Sureshwara here says that avidya even though is experienced but still it is sublated through knowledge of the Self – after sublation avidya merges into the Self (or becomes one with the Self). Here “merging” only means that it simply vanishes into its substratum even as the snake vanishes into the substratum of rope. Thus there is no question about whether avidya is sublated or not as it is experienced.

As Sankara points out in his bhashyas, pratyaksha is not always right. We see water in desert but it is not real. Thus experience or pratyaksha anubhava need not be right at all times. Also as sruthi points out the Self as that which is beyond mind and thoughts, therefore the Self cannot become an object of any pramaana but is just the Subject of all pramaanas.

Sureshwara with the next two slokas shows clearly that avidya can never be proved through any pramaana except that it is experienced by an ajnaani. As he explained, avidya is in present in its source of Self as the substratum (since Self is substratum therefore there is no question of the Self getting veiled or affected by ajnaana). Thus as long as Self or Brahman is not known, it is but tenable that avidya is not at all there. This means that so long as Brahman (the substratum) is not known, avidya cannot be proved. As long as the rope is not known, the snake cannot be proved. Rama sees snake in the rope – it is his anubhava and hence for him the snake exists. But if he calls Krishna and shows the snake in the rope, Krishna will not (might not) see it (as it is Rama’s perception only) and hence Rama will not be able to prove the snake so long as the rope is not known. If it is argued that Krishna also might see the snake, still there might be others who will not see the snake instead see a thief or a lover – thus it cannot be universally proved. Without knowledge of the rope, the snake cannot be proved in the rope.

“But once the rope is known, the snake can be known” – if this is said, Sureshwara says in such a case as well the snake cannot be proved. This is because once the rope is known; the snake totally vanishes and is known as “illusory or unreal perception of the intellect/mind”. In this case as well the snake cannot be proved.

Similarly as long as Brahman is not known, avidya cannot be proved. After knowing Brahman as well, avidya cannot be proved or sublated. Thus avidya can never be universally proved through any pramaana. As explained earlier, avidya’s very nature of not withstanding proof itself is a proof to its being illusory or unreal.

We have to remember and understand clearly that anubhava and pramaa (valid knowledge) are totally different. What I might be experiencing need not be valid knowledge or pramaa. Thus avidya cannot be pramaa but still is anubhava for the ajnaani.

After clearly showing that avidya cannot be proved (here proving doesn’t include anubhava), Sureshwara now shows that even if a person wants to prove avidya (an ajnaani who is experiencing avidya) he cannot do so.

If a person wants to prove avidya, he would require a real vasthu which alone can be proved through pramaanas. But since avidya is not a vasthu (as it cannot withstand pramaana), therefore the ajnaani who is trying to prove avidya will end up proving that avidya is not there. Thus the person started off wanting to prove avidya but proves that avidya is not at all there. This is also similar to a fault in anumaana called anyathaa siddha dosha wherein a person tries to prove A but instead proves B. Moreover here B is exactly the opposite of A.

The last verse also is meant to point out to the seeker as to how to overcome avidya. When avidya is sought out, it vanishes itself merging unto the Self. When a person tries to seek “ignorance of mathematics”, he in turn learns “mathematics” thereby sublating the ignorance. Thus a person who wants to overcome avidya (which he experiences) should seek avidya which is ignorance of the Self. Avidya can be sought only when the nature of the Self is studied through the scriptures. Thus the seeker learns about the Self and finally ending up that “avidya is not at all there”. This is how the obstacle of avidya vanishes when brahma jnaana dawns.

In the next mail in the series (we will have the mail after a couple of days as long gap between the mails would require people to go through the previous article to keep in touch), we will see a summary of Sureshwara’s wonderful unfoldment of the riddle of avidya thereby ending with the advaitins quoting of Gita to prove avidya.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Ajnaana of Advaita - 4

2006-09-17T20:16:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the last mail we saw quotation from Hastamalakeeya as well Gita bhashya of Sankara and through the advaitin’s summarization of the subject of avidya thus that:

Avidya doesn’t really exist at the ultimate level but since it exists at the empirical level, therefore avidya is valid for the ignorant person. That it cannot be proved itself shows that avidya is not a real entity but only empirically real.

Thus it is wrong to say that avidya cannot be proved at all – that it cannot be proved itself is proof that it is only an illusion and exists only for the ignorant person (exists means seems to exist). This existence of avidya is based on the experience of the ignorant person which is the highest pramaana of pratyaksha (anubhava) and hence really valid. And since Lord himself states about avidya in many places in Gita, therefore avidya is really valid through sruthi, yukthi and anubhava.

Let us now try to see the riddle of avidya through the vision of Sureshwaracharya. A few words about sureshwara would not be out of context over here. Sureshwara was one of the four main disciples of Sankara. Tradition has it that sureshwara was the famous mimaamsaka mandana mishra before getting defeated by sankara in debate.

Sureshwara is also known as the vartikakaara in advaita – this is because most of his works are vartikas on works of sankara. The following are the works of Sureshwara (all really huge mass of knowledge):

1. Naishkarmya Siddhi – an independent treatise on advaita Vedanta
2. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya vartika – a vartika on sankara’s brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya. This is a huge work encompassing 12000 verses in total. The initial chapter called as sambandha bhashya vartika (explanation of Sankara’s sambandha bhashya – which is nothing but an introduction into as to why the study of this Upanishad is taken etc.) itself contains almost more than 1000 slokas.
3. Taittiriya Upanishad bhashya vartika – vartika on Sankara’s taittiriya Upanishad bhashya.
4. Manasollasa – a vartika on Sankara’s Dakshinamurthy astakam.
5. Panchikarana vartika – vartika on Sankara’s Panchikaranam.

The most important of all the works of Sureshwara is the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika – as it is filled with immense knowledge.

We are going to see a few verses from the sambandha bhashya vartika (which is part of the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika) wherein Sureshwara beautifully explains the riddle of avidya. It is but sad that even though he has explained avidya quite beautifully and beyond doubts, but still objections are raised on the same.

After quoting Sankara’s Gita bhashya words, the advaitin now enters into Sureshwara’s words.

Uktam cha vaartikakaariah

“vasthuno anyatra maanaanaam vyaprithirna hi yujyathe
Avidyaa cha na vasthu istham maanaaghaata sahishnutvaat

Avidhyayaa avidhyaatva idameva tu lakshanam
Maanaaghaata sahishnutvam asaadhaaranam ishyathe”

Ithi

The vartikakaara has also said thus:

“pramaana or proof is not there apart from the vasthu or real entity (meaning that it is not logical to have proof for anything other vasthu or real entity). And it is not liked to have avidya as a vasthu as avidya cannot withstand proof (maana means pramaanam).

Avidya’s avidyaatva (the quality of being avidya) itself is its lakshana or characteristic. The asaadhaaranam lakshana (characteristic which is distinct from characteristics of other things) is that it cannot withstand proof.”

Explanation

As mentioned earlier, as a result of the vartika works, Sureshwaracharya is known as the vartikakaara in Advaita.

What is a vartika?
There are different types of commentaries that can be written on a particular work. They are:

1. Bhashya – bhashya is that work which explains each of the words other original work & gives the explanation of the main work.
2. Vyaakhya – vyaakhya is a detailed analysis or explanation of the work which might or might not explain each word of the original.
3. Vivarana – a quite detailed analysis of the original work explaining the various concepts in depth.
4. Tika – annotation which is not a detailed analysis of the original work but gives the gist or explanation in short of the original work. This might omit certain words or verses which doesn’t require much explanation.
5. Dipika – as the word denotes lamp illumining the original work going into subtle concepts and explaining most of the technical aspects of the work. The famous dipika that comes to mind is the Gudartha dipika of Madhusudana Saraswathi which is a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita as well as the bhaavartha dipika of Sridhara swamin on the Bhagavatham
6. Vartika – a critical analysis of the original work.

Vartika is oft-explained through the below sloka:

Ukta anuktha duruktaanaam chintha yatra pravarthathe
Tam grantham vaartikam praahurvaarthikajnaa maneeshinah

That work which contains ukta, anuktha and duruktha is called as vartika by people who know about vartikas.

Vartika is thus explained as that work which deals with UKTA, ANUKTA and DURUKTA – explaining the content of the original work, explaining those things which have been omitted from the original and correcting things that have been wrongly mentioned in the original work.

It is only a vartika which can go against the original work – all other commentaries cannot go against the original work. Thus we find Sureshwara differing from Sankara’s interpretation in certain places in Brihadaranyaka Bhashya.

It is interesting that instead of DURUKTA (wrongly mentioned things are corrected), anandagiri gives the word of SU UKTA for explanation of VARTIKA in his tika on the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika.

Let us now see the explanation of what Sureshwara is pointing out in the two verses.

Once again mentioning the difference between SAT and ASAT as well as their definitions, SAT is that which is devoid of non-existence (meaning it never ceases to exist or exists beyond the three times) whereas ASAT is that which never really exists.

VASTHU is something which is SAT. Vasthu is that which is ever proved and cannot be negated or proved to be non-existent.

Only that can be proved which really exists. We can never prove the existence of dream world or the existence of water in desert – as these are not VASTHU as they are not SAT. Proof or pramaana (valids means of knowledge) can be achieved through six ways (which Vedanta accepts – Dvaita accepts only three pramaanas). The six are:
1. Pratyaksha or perception through the sense organs
2. Anumaana or inference
3. Sruthi or scriptures or words of Mahatmas
4. Upamana or analogy
5. Arthaapatti or presumption
6. Anupalabdhi or non-perception

For now, the word meanings of above is enough as the pramaanas are very vast to be discussed here (detailed analysis of each of these pramaanas can be found in Vedanta Paribhaasha of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra – book with translation is available from Ramakrishna Mission).

The above six can be used to prove only valid or existing entities. That which doesn’t really exist cannot be proved. Thus Sureshwara says that proof goes hand in hand with VASTHU. VASTHU and MAANA (vasthu means entity and MAANA means proof) remain together only.

We can prove only that which exists & that which exists can alone withstand proof.

Avidya is not a VASTHU – because it cannot withstand proof. This is very much evident from the dvaitin’s or vishista advaitin’s arguments as they themselves agree that avidya cannot be proved. Avidya is not a vasthu because it doesn’t withstand maana. As maana and vasthu go hand in hand, therefor avidya which cannot withstand maana cannot be a vasthu. This is what sureshwaracharya explains in the second line of the first sloka that avidya is not a real entity as it cannot withstand proof. The first verse thus gives a clear definition of avidya.

Sureshwara goes on to explain as to why avidya cannot withstand proof and that it is not that avidya doesn’t exist because it cannot withstand proof but only that it doesn’t exist at the ultimate level – but it very well is proved for the ignorant because he experiences it.

The second sloka gives the definition of avidya. It cannot be objected that avidya cannot be explained as it is not VASTHU – this is wrong because even though avidya is not a VASTHU but still it experiences at the empirical level, definitions are valid at the empirical level and it is only at the ultimate level that there cannot be any explanations.

Explanations or definitions are not valid at the ultimate level because sruthi herself mentions that “yatho vaacho nivarthanthe apraapya manasaa sah” (there the mind and words cannot reach) meaning that at the ultimate level definitions are not valid (definitions require thought and words which are invalid at the ultimate level).

That explanations are valid at the empirical level so long as avidya is there and brahma jnaana has not dawn is shown through the Lord’s statement that “tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa upadeshyanthi te jnaanam jnaaninah tattva darshinah” – to know the reality seek the Guru, offer prostrations at his feet, offer your services & question him – he will then explain to you knowledge as he is a knower of the reality.

Thus avidya can very well be explained at the empirical level as that which cannot withstand logic. Sureshwara gives one of the most beautiful and logical definition of avidya as the very characteristics of being avidya. Avidya is that which possesses avidyatva or has avidya. This definition is not meant to show that avidya has avidyaatva – because then it would lead to infinite regress. But it just tells us that avidya is that which possesses the main characteristics of avidya – the main characteristic of avidya is mentioned in the second line of the second line as ASAADHAARANA LAKSHANA which is “not able to withstand proof”. Thus avidya is that which cannot withstand proof – since it cannot withstand proof, therefore it is not a vasthu.

As avidya cannot withstand proof therefore it cannot be logically proved & thus it is termed ANIRVACHANEEYA or indescribable. Even though it can be hinted at but still it is inexplicable as it cannot withstand any logic.

Thus with the two slokas, avidya is very clearly explained as
1. Cannot withstand proof
2. Hence is not a vasthu
3. This ability of not able to withstand proof alone is its characteristics

It is very important to remember the main two characteristics of avidya as “not being a vasthu” and “not able to withstand proof”.

Keeping this in mind, we will see as to how avidya cannot withstand proof, what will happen when avidya vanishes or totally ceases to exist & as to its proof (for the ignorant alone) at the empirical level with Sureshwara’s further quoting in the next mail in the series.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Ajnaana of Advaita - 3

2006-09-10T19:57:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

In the last mail in the series, we learnt that avidya is valid and possible as it is “experienced” and “tenable”.

The basic concept here is that avidya doesn’t really veil the ever-present Self but only seems to veil the Self. This seeming veiling of avidya is something which cannot really be explained & hence avidya is called anirvachaneeya or indescribable. We will see Sankara clearly mentioning about the same later. And since the scriptures as well as advaitins accept avidya to be destroyed or sublated (as is the term recommended by madhusudana saraswathi following the footsteps of sureshwaracharya), therefore avidya is not at all accepted as existent or prior-existent by advaitins.

Next the advaitin goes on to quote sruthi as well as various acharyas words which clearly explain the concept of avidya (that which can never be really explained through logic). This part of the work of Mayavada Darpanam is important because here we find that the concept of avidya has been explained very clearly by acharyas and hence the attack of other systems is unwanted or lack of proper knowledge. We cannot say that it is due to lack of proper knowledge that these opponent system acharyas attack avidya of advaita because BNK Sharma clearly shows that the dvaita acharyas knew the philosophy of advaita very clearly and have explained so as well --- so this boils down to unwanted attack through hair-splitting logics.

What a seeker has to remember is that there is only one entity here which is beyond logic and contradictions which is Consciousness. Madhva can refute anything and everything under the Sun but he cannot refute his own Consciousness. His very nature of Consciousness is the one which illumines all other things in the world. This Consciousness doesn’t require an external Ishwara for illumination – it is self evident and self luminous. Thus this Consciousness is the substratum for all existences – thus it is the only independent entity whereas other things are fully dependent on Consciousness. Thus Consciousness is the only reality whereas other dependent entities are mere illusions in the substratum of Consciousness.

Remembering this ultimate reality and that everything is Consciousness alone, let us now see the quotations of the advaitin in the work.

Uktam cha

“ghanachhanna dristhih ghanachhannam arkam
Yathaa nishprabham manyathe cha atimoodah
Tathaa bhaddhavat bhaathi yo mooda dristeh
Sa nitya upalabdhi svaroopoham aatma”

(Hastaamalakeeya 12)

As Sun is considered to be not shining or without shine by the ignorant who considers the Sun as veiled by clouds, similarly the Self which is ever-present nature of Consciousness is considered to be in bondage by the moodah or ignorant.

Explanation

This analogy of Sun being veiled by clouds as seen by the ignorant is an important one and which clearly explains the concept of avidya veiling and making the Self bonded.

We see that at times (before rain), clouds veil the Sun. For an ignorant, the Sun is totally veiled by the clouds & hence Sun has now lost its power of shining. But for a learned person, the Sun is never veiled but just seems to be veiled by the clouds. It is an illusion which seems to be happening but never is really happening. Similarly the Self is never in bondage and never thus requires liberation. But it seems to be in bondage for an ignorant person who considers himself as under avidya and therefore seeks liberation. The Self can never be veiled by avidya & thus bondage itself is not at all possible. But due to lack of proper knowledge, the ignorant sees himself as being veiled by avidya & therefore seeks to remove the veil. But the learned person understands that he just seems to be in bondage but never really in bondage.

Thus avidya seems to be veiling the Self but never really veils. This is not just a statement of the advaitin but can be inferred from sruthi vakyas. Sruthi and Lord says that removal avidya is moksha. Avidya can be removed only if it is not eternal or real. That which is real can never be removed or negated. Thus the very fact that avidya vanishes means that it is not real but only an illusion. He who is in bandha can never get moksha of eternal liberation because such a newly acquired moksha can again be lost.

Adi Sankara defines the Self in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya as Nitya shuddha Buddha muktha svabhaava – of the nature of ever-pure, ever-enlightened and ever-liberated. Gaudapada says that there is neither bandha nor moksha for the Self.

It is as a result of this that even the dvaitin defines moksha as “svaroopa avirbhaava eva moksha” (Jaya Teertha in his tika to tattva viveka of madhva).

The advaitin continues by summarizing about avidya and quoting Sankara thus:

Avidya yadhyapi paramaarthatho naasthi tathaapi saa anubhootitvaat asthi

Even though avidya doesn’t exist ultimately but still as it is experienced, therefore it exists at the empirical level (for the ignorant person).

Tathoktham aachaaryaih gitabhashyaih “atra aah saa avidhya kasya ithi yasya drishyathe tasya eva” ithi

Therefore (following this), Sankaracharya has explained in his Gita Bhashya thus:

Here we ask avidya is for whom??
(We answer) Avidya exists for that person who sees it (experiences it).

Explanation

The advaitin kind of summarizes about avidya by telling that avidya is not there ultimately but for the ignorant seeker, it is there at the empirical level as it is experienced. As far as even dvaita philosophy is considered, experience or anubhava or pratyaksha is a strong pramaana unlike advaita where sruthi is the final and pratyaksha is mainly refuted or negated.

Thus since avidya is experienced, therefore it has validity. As long as avidya is experienced by the ignorant seeker, it is valid. But once knowledge of the reality dawns, avidya automatically vanishes & hence ultimately, avidya is not at all real but only an illusion in the reality of Brahman.

In order to show that this is not his own view, the advaitin here quotes Sankaracharya’s Gita Bhashya. This bhashya quotation is from the 13th chapter 2nd sloka wherein Sankara raises a question from the purvapakshin or a shishya (preferably the later because purvapaksha statements generally start with “nanu”).

The question raised is as to who experiences avidya. Sankara replies that avidya exists for the person who experiences it. This explanation is so right and exact that it totally summarizes the philosophy of avidya and there remains nothing more to say on the topic.

Avidya exists only for the person who really experiences it. Another person will never be able to prove avidya through any pramaanas. It is this nature of avidya as to not able to withstand logic or pramaana which has been attacked thoroughly by madhva and ramanuja among others. If we only admit or accept that avidya exists for the person who experiences it & such an experience doesn’t require any other proof, these objections will become invalid.

Let’s now see a little logical analysis of avidya to show that it cannot be subject to logic or proof (we will deal with this later while quoting sureshwaracharya’s exhaustive analysis in his Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya Vartika).

Avidya is ignonrance of something. If I know that I am ignorant of something, then obviously I know about that which I am ignorant of. Doesn’t it seem contradictory??? J

Taking an example, avidya of mathematics. If I know that I am ignorant of mathematics (or I say that I am ignorant of mathematics), this means I know something about mathematics & hence can say that I don’t know it. Doesn’t it look contradictory that I know that I don’t know!!!

The above clearly shows that if we try to prove avidya through logic or analysis, it will just fail.

But then how can we say that avidya is there or exists??? Simply because I am ignorant of mathematics.

How am I ignorant of the Self???
Because I don’t know the Self nor its blissful nature which I am not experiencing. If I know the Self, then there will be no seeking & there will be eternal bliss & contentment which is lacking & thus infers that knowledge of Self is lacking.

Thus avidya being existent is just a matter of experience for the ignorant & this vanishes once the reality is known. And since avidya cannot be really explained through logic, therefore it is called anirvachaneeya and illusory. But as it is experienced, it cannot be said as untenable or impossible.

Vidyaranya in his Panchadashi Tattva Viveka Prakaranam overcomes the above “knowing that I don’t know” by telling that there are two types of knowledge – saamaanya jnaana or general knowledge and vishesha jnaana or specific knowledge. Even as the father of son recognizes his son’s voice in a group of people chanting but still can’t clearly characterize his son’s voice, similarly the Self is known by all as it is their very nature but is not known specifically as it is not experienced as bliss at all times. Thus there is paroksha jnaana of the Self as that which ever exists as bliss but aparoksha jnaana of always being blissful is not there (this analysis of Self as bliss is valid for all systems even bauddha and jaina systems as the final goal of all systems is bliss alone).

Thus avidya is valid only for the person who experiences it – experience of avidya of Self is non-experience of bliss or experience of sorrow or discontent or unsatisfied etc.

We will see the advaitin’s quotation of sureshwaracharya’s words in the next mail in the series. The next mail would be a bit logical and hence request everyone to go through this mail maybe 3-4 times as the basis for next mail’s explanation would be the content of this mail.

Sorry for being irregular in posting of this thread – the reason being lack of proper dedication to explain logical things in a way that everyone is able to understand and appreciate. Mayavada Khandanam itself being a highly logical work, the counter work has also to be that much logical & the content dealt is subtle that it would require lot of explanation from the writer as well as lot of mental reflection from the reader.

Going forward we will have a couple of mails in this thread every week. There is lot more content to be dealt from madhva’s work as well as the counter work & hence this thread would go on for many days. Hence kindly request everyone (Jwhoever is reading this thread regularly) to keep revisiting the entire content or at least the particular part being discussed from the blog so that continuity is maintained.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Ajnaana of Advaita - 2

2006-09-10T08:43:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We now enter into the analysis of Ajnaana from the words of acharyas of Advaita. Ajnaana is something which cannot be really explained and hence there has been lot of confusion created over the same. It is because of lack of proper knowledge of Advaita and lack of open-mindedness that many acharyas like Ramanuja, Madhva have attacked ajnaana like anything. Ramanuja has dedicated an entire portion of his Sri Bhashya called Saptha Vidha anupapatti (seven types of illogicalities of Ajnaana) to attack Ajnaana. Madhva has attacked Ajnaana like anything in Mayavada Khandana (as we are currently learning) and in many of his other works like Anu Vyaakhyaana etc.

The first and foremost thing a Guru wants from a disciple is open mind. It is tough for a Guru to teach a disciple who has some little knowledge on Vedanta. A real shishya is one who goes to a Guru with nothing in his mind. This is not the case with Vedanta alone but with any science. The more open-minded you are, the more you learn. When a person starts to learn seriously, he should make his mind blank on the topic. Once we make our mind blank on all the wrong concepts or little concepts on Ajnaana, we will see the mysterious ajnaana theory folding up beautifully in the ultimate reality of Brahman. As Lord Krishna propounds in Gita, such a person will see Jnaana rising against Ajnaana like Sun rising against darkness. This knowledge of Sun is such that once it rises, there is never any set possible for it.

Thus we have to now make our mind blank and open to all concepts before starting on the analysis of ajnaana. Let me once again offer my prostrations to the Guru Parampara and prayers to the ultimate reality of Brahman in the form of AMMA that we may be able to grasp this subtle truth about the most mysterious concept in Vedanta – Ajnaana.

We will deal this part of Mayavada Darpanam not in one mail but in a series of mail so that this concept becomes very clear to us.

As per Advaita, ajnaana veils the ever-present Self. Thus a person becomes bonded due to this veiling. It is knowledge that releases this bondage and thereby the person realizes the ever-present Self.

This concept has been attacked by Jaya Teertha in his tika by the statement that Ajnaana can never veil the Self because the Self is ever present and self-luminous as per Advaita. Such an ever-present Self and self-luminous Self can never be veiled by anything. Thus since ajnaana can never veil the Self, there cannot be any bandha or moksha as such in Advaita. Thus the system itself is futile as it can neither explain Ajnaana nor explain how ajnaana veils the Self.

This argument of Jaya Teertha is wrong. How it is wrong is being said by the advaitin thus:

Yattu jaya teerthena uktham ‘na aavaranam sambhavathi’ tat na sat

What Jaya teertha has said that ‘veiling is not possible’ is not correct.

Yadhyapi avidhyaa paramaarthatho aatmanaavaranasya kaaranam na bhavathi, tathaapi anubhootitvaat, upapattescha avidhyaa aatmanaavaranasya kaaranam bhavathi vyavahaare

Even though avidya never veils the Atman at the ultimate level but still avidya is the cause for veiling of the Self at the empirical level because it is experienced & logical enough.

Svaprakaashaatmanah ajnaana aavaranam vyavahaare sambhavathi, tat paramaarthathopi naasthi ithi na kaschit anupapattih

Veiling of the self-luminous Self by ajnaana or avidya is possible at the empirical level & since it is not there at the ultimate level, there is no illogicalities in the same.

Yathaa meghah sooryo aavarathi tathaa

As the clouds veil the Sun, similar is the case here.

Explanation

We have to understand that avidya is explained only at the empirical level and not at the ultimate level. This differentiation of ultimate level and empirical level is not that has been coined by Advaita but is based on sruthi as well as yukthi. At the ultimate level, there is nothing apart from Brahman as propounded by the sruthi vakya Sadeva soumya idam agre aseet ekameva aseet – O Dear! Existence alone existed prior to creation, one without a second. It is true that different systems interpret Ekam eva adviteeyam in different ways but it just is logical enough that the ultimate reality of Brahman alone existed before creation because before creation, there was Brahman alone & other ways was created from the thinking of Brahman as proclaimed in the Upanishads.

Thus since in the beginning, before creation, Brahman alone existed. From Brahman started creation and creation will surely have an end as it had a starting. Thus in the end also there will be Brahman alone.

Thus Gaudapada says following Yoga Vasistha that the world which doesn’t exist in the beginning and at the end has no existence at all. Thus it is only an illusion in the substratum of Brahman on which the world is superimposed. Thus we have at the ultimate level, Brahman alone exists. At the empirical level, we have the world existing. This world is existent at the empirical level as an illusion. World ceases to exist only when the ultimate level of Brahman is realized and a person is at the ultimate level. This is understood easily with the analogy of dream. Dream world exists at the time when a person is dreaming but vanishes to exist once the dreamer wakes up from the dream world.

Thus avidya is accepted at the empirical level so long as the seeker doesn’t realize his own very nature of Brahman. Avidya can never really exist because it cannot really veil the ever-present Self. Madhva’s argument that the avidya cannot veil the ever-present Self is valid enough at the ultimate level. We never accept avidya veiling Brahman at the ultimate level. At the ultimate level, we accept existence of non-dual Brahman alone. But at the empirical level, avidya can veil the Self. This veiling is not real veiling but only an illusory veiling.

The advaitin gives the example of clouds veiling the Sun for the same. Sun is self-effulgent and gives light to all other things in the world. Thus the Sun cannot be veiled by anything. But we do experience the veiling of Sun by clouds. This experience is valid so long as we experience the clouds as veiling the Sun. But ultimately, it is accepted by all that the clouds never veil the Sun but only seem to veil the Self.

Similarly, the Self is not at all veiled by avidya but only seems to be veiled by avidya at the empirical level.

How can we say that avidya veils the Self at the empirical level or seems to veil the Self????

The advaitin gives two reasons for the same.

1. Anobhootitvaat – as it is experienced by all.
2. Upapatteh – as it is logical.

It is logical that avidya can illusory veil the Self at the empirical level as the example of clouds veiling the Sun is possible when the person is experiencing the veiling. Thus empirically, it is very much possible that avidya seems to veil the Self. But once a person realizes his own very nature of Self, he realizes that he never was veiled by avidya – thus avidya is not at all accepted at the ultimate level. Thus this veiling at empirical level and non-acceptance of avidya at the ultimate level is logical.

The one answer to the riddle of avidya is ANOBOOTITVAAT – as it is experienced. Avidya exists only for that person who seems to experience it. Dreamer alone can prove the existence of dream world and that too because he experiences it. Similarly avidya exists only for that person who is in avidya – for such a person, there is no need of any proof because he experiences it. Since he experiences it, therefore avidya does exist. Since this avidya is not eternal, therefore it is given an empirical status and not ultimate status.

Dvaitins cannot argue here that advaitins don’t give much emphasis to pratyaksha or perception or experience because dvaitins themselves give emphasis on pratyaksha to show that the jeeva is different from Brahman and is limited as experienced.

Thus the dvaitin cannot attack the advaitin on the same front. As far as we are concerned, we accept pratyaksha and anubhava at the empirical level but just mentioning that these are not eternal as ultimately there is only one reality of non-dual Brahman.

To conclude on this part of the work, Madhva’s as well as Jaya Teertha’s argument that avidya cannot veil the Self is completely wrong. More than wrong, it is a wrong understanding of the concept of avidya of Advaita. Advaita doesn’t accept real veiling of the Self by avidya but only accepts veiling of the Self by avidya at the empirical level because it is experienced by the seeker himself. We will see in the coming mails in the series as to what Sankara among other advaitins have to say about this. When we learn those statements of acharyas, the concept of advaita will become very clear & we will also understand as to how wrongly the concept of avidya or ajnaana has been understood by rival schools.

We will continue with the analysis of ajnaana in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Ajnaana of Advaita - 1

2006-08-20T20:10:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We saw in the last mail in the series the defense of advaita against Madhva’s attacks on the vishaya of advaita. We have thus come to an end to the first part of the work which was Madhva’s attack on the vishaya of Advaita.

Next is the part where Madhva attacks Ajnaana. This is an important part as if Ajnaana is properly explained and understood then there remains nothing else to be explained. Ajnaana can be said to be one of the key component in the journey of a seeker from bandha to moksha. But it is a wrong argument and notion that once Ajnaana is attacked & proven to be illogical, Advaita falls to pieces. As acharyas have propounded clearly and as Sri Harsha proclaims at the end of Khandana Khanda Khaadhyam, even if a person refutes each and every thing in the world, still the refuter or the Subject of Atman or Brahman will ever remain the same as it is the Kutastha Chaitanya – a mere witness to all illusions which seem to be present in it.

Before entering into an analysis of Ajnaana from Advaita’s perspective, let us see what Madhva and his followers have to say on the same:

Madhva proclaims thus:

Ajnaana asambhavaadeva tanmatham akhilam apaakritham

As Ajnaana is not all possible (or cannot be proved), therefore all his theories are to be renounced.

Ajnaana of Advaita can never be really explained and hence the theory of Advaita which bases itself on Ajnaana has to be totally renounced. Thus Advaita is not worthy to be followed by a seeker to attain moksha.

Ajnaana has to veil the Self if it is to be really explained. But Advaita doesn’t accept the Self to be veiled as veiling means it is against the Self’s ever-established and self-luminous nature. Thus since the Self cannot be veiled, Ajnaana of the Self or for the Self is not at all possible. Thus Ajnaana is not at all possible for Advaita.

Let’s say Ajnaana is accepted, is Ajnaana real or unreal? Ajnaana cannot be real because in that case, it would affect the adviteeyatva of Atman. On the other hand, Ajnaana cannot be unreal because in that case, it would be like the son of a barren child & such an entity has no purpose in life.

If it is claimed that Ajnaana is anirvachaneeya or indescribable, what is this anirvachaneeyatva???? If Ajnaana is anirvachaneeya, then it cannot be experienced as well as that which can be described alone can be experienced. We never experience anything that is neither real nor unreal. Whatever is present or experienced is either real or unreal – it cannot be distinct from both.
Advaitins explain Ajnaana as the answer to all of the questions and doubts of the seeker but when it comes to explaining Ajnaana, they try to do so. But when they are trapped, they take the easier way out of saying that “Ajnaana is indescribable”. If Ajnaana is indescribable, why do we find the Lord mentioning about Ajnaana in Gita Chapter 5 where he proclaims that “the Self is veiled by Ajnaana”. This is totally against Advaita’s concept that Ajnaana cannot be described as well as that Ajnaana cannot veil the Self.

We also find Sankara, Sureshwara, Vimuktatman etc. going into depths to explain about Ajnaana, Ajnaana Nivritti etc. How can they enter into all these analysis if Ajnaana is anirvachaneeya?

If Ajnaana is anirvachaneeya like dream world, then it has to be totally renounced or ignored like dream. But we don’t find the same in works of Advaita where Ajnaana is given so much importance that the system itself goes by the name of Mayaavaada (wherein Maya is a synonym to Ajnaana).

Because of the aforesaid reasons, Ajnaana cannot be really explained in a logical way – thus the system of Advaita which bases itself on Ajnaana has to be totally renounced by a seeker desirous of moksha or liberation.

We will answer all the above objections through the reply of the Advaitin on Madhva’s attack on Ajnaana in the next mail in the series.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Advaita vishaya - 8

2006-08-09T20:04:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

Madhva had as the final argument attacked the vishaya of Advaita on that it is nirvishesha and hence cannot have any unknown quality. And thus ajnaana cannot veil the Self as the advaitin claims. When ajnaana or the veiling of the Self by ignorance or the state of bandha is negated totally or proved as illogical, advaita falls into pieces as avidya or maya is one of the basic concepts of advaita.

But we have to remember that advaita never says that avidya or ajnaana really veils the Self – advaita only says that avidya seems to veil the Self. Ultimately there is no avidya at all to even speak about – it is only when avidya seems to be present for the seeker that it seems to veil the Atman – thus starts thought of bandha and seeking moksha etc. The advaitin will be pointing out Sankara’s statement in the 13th chapter that avidya exists only for one who perceives it. The word meaning of avidya is “yaa na vidhyathe saa avidyaa – that which never exists is avidya”. Avidya only seems to be temporarily present for one who thinks it is present. Therefore moksha is there only for who is in bandha – if bandha is not there, then there is no moksha as well.

This is the reason why it is said that the Atman is Nitya shuddha Buddha muktha svabhaava --- of the nature of ever pure, ever enlightened and ever liberated. If we keep this in mind, then most of the arguments of Madhva are automatically refuted as it is a logical analysis whereas avidya can never be logically analyzed as it is there only for the person who perceives it. Thus traditional acharyas speak about maya as yukthiviheena prakaashasya samjnaa maayaa – that which is beyond logic is termed as maya.

When we analyze avidya with respect to illusory experiences in the world, it will become very clear. Let us take the example of water seen in desert. Water seen in desert is due to lack of proper knowledge of the desert or ignorance of the nature of desert. This experience of water in desert cannot be proved through logic because it is only for the person who experiences it. Thus the ignorance of desert is valid only for those who are experiencing it. Ultimately, there is neither ignorance nor knowledge of the water in desert because water in desert itself is unreal (non-existent). Similar is the case with avidya. Avidya seems to be present only for those who perceive/experience it. Ultimately, there is no avidya at all and hence there is neither bandha nor moksha.

Let us now see what the advaitin says about madhva’s argument:

Shaastrah avidhyavashaad vismritha atmanah svasvaroopameva prathipaadhayathi ‘tattvamasi’ ithyaadibhirdarshanaath

Scriptures proclaim about the atman as being “forgotten due to avidya” and mention the atman as one’s own very nature in the various statements like ‘Tat tvam asi’ (Chandogya Upanishad).

Svasvaroopam vishayee bhavathi Atah tat nirvishesham bhavathi

One’s own nature or svaroopa is always vishayee or Subject. And hence the atman is nirvishesha.

Tathaapi vismrithivashaat, svasvaroopatvaat cha, nirvishesha aatmanah anadhigatho bhavathi – etasmaat na visheshatvaangeekaaraat, vismrithavishayatvaat cha yathooktam ‘nirviseshatvaaccha aatmanah na anadhigatho visheshah’ tat asatyam tuccham cha

Still, as a result of “forgetting” and since it is one’s own very nature, nirvishesha atman is unknown.

And as there is no real vishesha accepted and since it is the object due to forgetfulness, what you have said that nirvishesha atman cannot have the quality of “unknown” is completely wrong and very mean.

Explanation

Chandogya Upanishad proclaims the statement of TAT TVAM ASI or THAT THOU ART 9 times in the sixth chapter or Svethakethu braahmana. This statement in turn implies that the Self is one’s own very nature and has been forgotten due to avidya or ignorance. Avidya is the name given to this ignorance of one’s own nature of Self. Avidya cannot really be explained which we will be seeing at a later time.

Krishna mentions in Gita in many places that the Lord resides in the heart of all beings and in the 5th chapter explains about ajnaana and it being removed by jnaana thus:

Jnaanena tu tad ajnaanam yeshaam naashitham aatmanah
Teshaam adityavad jnaanam prakaashayathi tat param

That ajnaana which destroys the Self is removed through knowledge and through this Jnaana or Consciousness, Self shines as the Sun and that is the ultimate state.

Atman or Self is one’s very nature and hence destruction of the same is not possible. Hence we have to imply from Krishna’s statements that the Atman is not really forgotten but seemingly forgotten as one’s own nature can never really be forgotten. But it is one’s experience of not knowing the blissful nature of the Atman. Thus it has been forgotten empirically but never really forgotten as such. But when this seemingly appearing ignorance is removed through knowledge of the Self, the Self shines as the Sun or ever-blissful self-conscious entity.

Thus scriptures do accept forgetfulness of the Self due to avidya and this is the vishaya of the scriptures as proved earlier. Since the scriptures proclaim the Self as one’s own very nature, it is nirvishesha or without any qualities.

Why is the Self without any qualities???
Svaroopa is always the Subject. Subject is the witness to all qualities and hence can never be with visheshanas or with qualities. If we accept the Self as not the Subject, then we will have to assume another Subject who is the base for the Self. And if we say that this Subject is the Lord or Vishnu, then this goes against one’s own experience in dream and deep sleep state. In deep sleep state, there is no ishwara experienced and in dream, it is one’s own creation and not creation of the Lord as per one’s samskaaras. Thus it is illogical to say that the Subject for the Self is Ishwara. Thus the Self is the Subject of all experiences as a person continuously experiences it.

This Subject is of the nature of Consciousness. Consciousness is without parts and any qualities as it cannot have any interaction directly with other things. It is only when there is the Reflected Consciousness or jeeva that interactions with things in the world and all activities have validity.

Thus the Subject is nirvishesha and as the Self is the Subject, it is nirvishesha.

This is the stand of advaita on the Atman or the nature of Atman.

But even though Atman is nirvishesha, it is as if forgotten as proved through the gita statement and chandogya statement. And since sruthi propounds the forgotten-atman, therefore the Atman can have and does have the quality of “unknown”.

This quality of “unknown” for the Atman is valid only as long as the Atman seems to be forgotten. For a person who has realized that there is neither bandha nor moksha or that there is never the forgotten Atman, there will be no such quality & he will realize that the Atman cannot have any quality whatsoever as such (because it is the Vishayee or Subject).

But the Self can have the quality of “unknown” as long as the seeker experiences avidya or ignorance. This is what the advaitin says thus:

The Nirvisehsha Atman seems to be forgotten, due to vismrithi and since it is svasvaroopa, it is only seemingly forgotten and not really.

But since there is no visheshatva accepted for the Atman (at the paaramarthika level or ultimate level) and since it is the vishaya of vismrithi at the empirical level, therefore what Madhva had said that “Nirvishesha atman cannot have the quality of unknown” is wrong.

The Atman is accepted to be forgotten only at the empirical level and only as long as avidya seems to exist. Ultimately, there is no quality accepted in the Atman and it is the svaroopa, therefore there is no fault on the nirvisheshatva of the Atman.

As the quality of unknown is only at the empirical level and not at the paaramarthika level, it is fully logical. Thus whatever the dvaitin had said and argued are completely wrong and mean.

It is only wrong knowledge or incomplete knowledge of the three levels of reality that causes all such arguments to be shaped and raised.

Here the dvaitin might argue that the three levels of reality is completely against sruthi and yukthi, we will try to see the same in a different thread and as a different topic. For now, it is sufficient for the seeker to know that there are three levels and the paaramarthika level alone is real and other levels are illusory. Dvaita is totally accepted at the other two levels of vyaavahaarika and praathibhaasika but ultimately dvaita is only an illusion. Some acharyas like chitsukha and sri harsha even attack dvaita and prove that dvaita is invalid and illogical even at the empirical level. But advaita does accept dvaita at the empirical level and just adds a clause to it that “it is only an illusion and not ultimately real”.

Madhva next argued that since the Self is ever-established and since it is devoid of visheshaas, ajnaana cannot veil the Self as the advaitin claims.

This argument of madhva is also wrong because the ever-established Self is never really veiled by ajnaana as per Advaita. Ajnaana only seems to veil the Self at the empirical level and since advaita never accepts the Self to be really veiled, there is no fault in the same. Vishesha of ajnaana aavarana (ignorance veiling) is accepted only at the empirical level and never at the ultimate level, thus this is neither illogical nor does it affect the ever-established Self. Veiling of the Atman by ajnaana is possible as this is only at the empirical level & since ajnaana is experienced by one who is ignorant, therefore there are no logical issues in the same.

Thus all the arguments of Madhva on the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya of advaita has been completely answered and refuted.

Next madhva makes a bold statement against ajnaana which we will see in the next mail and after that we will see the detailed explanation of the advaitin on the same.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on Advaita vishaya - 7

2006-07-28T08:38:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We saw in the last mail a quotation from the Adhyaasa Bhashya of Sankara as to the vishaya of advaita as Brahma Atma Aikya. We will continue with the very last argument of Madhva on the vishaya of advaita.

Madhva continues thus:

Nirvisheshatvaat aatmano na anadhigatho visheshah

Since the Atman of advaita is Nirvishesha (without any qualities), therefore it cannot have an “unknown” quality to it.

Explanation

Madhva here says that advaita says Atman to be without any qualities as all gunas and visheshas limit the limitless Atman. Therefore Atman is Nirguna and Nirvishesha. Such a nirvishesha atman thus cannot have any visheshaas. But any vishaya is something which is not known. This means that the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya or Atman is something which is not known. Anything that is known can never become a vishaya as vishaya is there only for something which is not known and desired to be known. The advaitin as well says in the Brahma Sutra that “let us desire to know Brahman” (Atha atho brahmajijnaasa). Thus Brahman is the vishaya as per advaita which means that it is unknown.

Any vishaya is only that which is not known – for a person who is well educated in mathematics, mathematics can never be an object or vishaya because he already knows it. Therefore the vishaya is something which is not known.

But advaita says that Brahman is the vishaya which means that Brahman is not known. Thus this “not known” attribute or quality is attributed to Brahman.

Thus we have Brahman of Advaita as something which is not known & Brahman as Nirvishesha. Thus on one side, advaita says that Brahman is without any qualities and on the other side says that Brahman has the quality of “not-known”. These both are contradictory.

Hence the vishaya is under scrutiny and hence the system of advaita is never to be started or learned (which was the argument with which Madhva started this work).

Siddhatvaat svaroopasya vishesha abhaavaat cha na ajnaanam kasyachidaavarakam
‘anadhigataarthagrantru pramaanam’ ithi tanmatham

Since the svaroopa of advaita is always established & since the vishaya is devoid of any qualities, AJNAANA or ignorance can never veil the vishaya of Brahman or Atman.

Advaita says that “the means to knowing what is not known is pramaanam”.

Explanation

Madhva had previously said that there will be siddhasaadhanathaa dosha for the scriptures. This can be overcome if the advaitin is able to show that ajnaana veils the Self. Since it veiling of the Self by ajnaana cannot be explained, therefore the fault does occur for scriptures (the main pramaana accepted by advaita).

If ajnaana veils the Self,
a. Does ajnaana veil the Self
b. Or does ajnaana veil the qualities of the Self

“A” is not possible as the Self is ever established and if ajnaana veils the Self, then the Self loses its status of nitya siddha which is one of the basic tenets of advaita (saying that everybody is the Self and the Self is self-luminous and ever established). If the Self is not always established, then the Self will be something which is newly established and hence will become temporary or illusory – thus moksha itself will become illusory (this argument is using advaita’s own way which is used in many places).

“B” is not possible because the Self is accepted by advaita as devoid of any qualities or vishesha (advaita accepts the Self as nirvishesha and nirguna).

Thus advaita cannot prove the veiling of the Self by ajnaana. Hence this leads to the previous argument that shaastras would incur the fault of siddha saadhanathaa dosha. This goes completely against advaita which says that the scriptures are faultless and the ultimate pramaana to knowing Brahman. Since the scriptures which is depended for knowing Brahman itself becomes faulty and invalid, thus the system of advaita is not worthy of learning or following.

As to the detailed analysis of ajnaana, Madhva will be dealing this later in the work.

As per advaita, moksha or vishaya is knowing that which is already not known. That is the pramaana or the means of knowing the unknown and realizing it. As shown above, Brahman is already established & hence shaastras propound that which is already known & hence shaastras become invalid or apraamaanyam.

Thus the system of advaita is full of faults when considering the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya of advaita. Therefore the system of advaita is not to be started and real seekers which good intellect and reasoning will not go after advaita.

We thus have come to the end of the arguments of Madhva against the vishaya of advaita. We will wind up the analysis of vishaya of advaita with the defense of advaita for madhva’s arguments in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Attack on vishaya of Advaita - 6

2006-07-20T05:58:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We saw in the last mail the advaitin’s answer to the criticisms of Madhva against the vishaya of Advaita and the advaitin clearly expounding the vishaya of Advaita.

Here we as seekers might have some doubt as to what is being explained by the Advaitin are his own personal opinion and not traditional or scriptural view point. We have the followers of Sacchidanandendra Saraswathi of Holenarsipur who claim that the later advaita acharyas after Sankara and Sureshwara differed from these two acharyas and tried to introduce new concepts into the philosophy of Advaita propounded by Sankara. In order to avoid any such future arguments or accusations, the Advaitin in this work now quotes from Sankara’s Adhyaasa Bhashyam.

Sankara wrote a bhashya to the Brahma Sutras which is the most famous of his bhashyas and there is a long list of sub-commentaries to this Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Sankara. Before entering into the Brahma Sutra, in order to answer the question as to why the study of Brahma Sutra is required, Sankara wrote an introductory commentary. This commentary dealt mainly with the concept of Adhyaasa or superimposition mentioning that adhyaasa is the main cause of all sorrows and sufferings (anartha hetu) and removal of this adhyaasa through adhyaaroopa is the main aim of the study of Brahma Sutra or in general the desire to know Brahman (which is the very first sutra of Brahma Sutras – atha atho brahmajijnaasa – let us now strive to know Brahman). Since this introductory commentary deals mainly with Adhyaasa, it is also known as Adhyaasa Bhashyam. This bhashyam is superb and highly intellectual. If a seeker learns the adhyaasa bhashyam, understanding it & trying to implement the solution for adhyaasa in life, he will realize his own very nature of Brahman very shortly itself.

The Advaitin in Mayavaada Darpanam quotes from the Adhyaasa Bhashyam to support the explanation of the vishaya of Advaita which he propounded earlier. Let us now see what the Advaitin says. Advaitin says thus:

Etaduktham bhaashyakaaraih “Tatraivam sati yatra yadadhyaasastatkrithena doshena gunena va anumaatrenaapi sa na sambhadhyathe, tametam avidhyaakhyam atma anaatmanoritara itara adhyaasam puraskritya sarve pramaana prameya vyavahaaraah laukikaah vaidikaascha pravrittaah sarvaani cha shaastraani vidhiprathishedha mokshaparaani” ithi

It has been said thus by bhaashyakaara (Sankara in adhyaasa bhashyam) – “thus taking into consideration, that place where adhyaasa happens and that which is superimposed, the original (the substratum) is not at all affected (not even little) by the qualities or impurities – that this is termed as avidyaa which is nothing but mutual-superimposition of the Self and not-Self & taking into consideration this superimposition alone, all pramaaanas (means of knowledge), prameya (the object of knowledge), all activities including worldly, vedic and all scriptures including injunctive (vidhi), forbidden (prathishedha) and moksha (liberation) are valid or present”.

Reading the above meaning or the original Sanskrit words clearly points out that Sankara is crystal clear that even the shastras, pramaaanas and prameya (object of knowledge or vishaya) is valid only at the plane of Avidya.

Avidya or ignorance causes superimposition – when a person doesn’t know his nature of Self or Brahman, he sees two entities the Self or Subject & the not-Self or the Objects. Thus is created superimposition of one on the other. Sankara says that this superimposition is mutual and not just of not-Self on the Self. Even though the substratum is one alone but when avidya is there, the Self is superimposed on the not-Self & the not-Self is superimposed on the Self.

When a person says that the body is the Self or “I am the body”, the not-Self is superimposed on the Self. When he says that the sense objects are real, he is superimposing the Self on the not-Self.

Thus there is always mutual superimposing between the Self and the not-Self. Since both Self and not-Self or the differences between both is only illusory and created out of avidya (as Sankara puts it), therefore the mutual superimposition itself is an illusion. Whenever there is some pramaana or means of knowledge, there is the difference between pramaatha or the knower & the prameya or the object of knowledge. This difference itself is caused out of superimposition & hence pramaanas are valid only at the plane of ignorance. Similarly the shastras whether they be injunctive like “do sandhya daily” or forbidden like “don’t drink” or moksha like “reflect on the reality at all times”, are all valid only at the plane of avidya as these suppose an object and a subject.

Thus Sankara gives two important points in the above quotation:
1. Vishaya and shastras are invalid at the paaramarthika level as there is no avidya at the paaramarthika level
2. Vishaya and shastras are valid as long as avidya is there because they operate at the empirical level.

This is exactly what the Advaitin had propounded in Mayavada Darpanam as to the vishaya being ultimately invalid and empirically valid. Since Shastras are valid at the empirical level, therefore we cannot say that they are invalid or faulty – as at the empirical level, the vishaya is fully valid. But once a person learns the scriptures, he realizes that there is no vishaya as well as avidya, this is the ultimate level wherein the vishaya completely vanishes leaving behind only the ultimate reality of Brahman.

There can be written an entire book on the concept of Adhyaasa as per Sankara’s Adhyaasa Bhashyam but since it is not the real topic of our discussion, we will not enter into that – maybe we can discuss Adhyaasa bhashyam alone as a different and separate topic (as a different thread).

We will continue with the work in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on vishaya of Advaita - 5

2006-07-09T20:15:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

First of all, sorry for the long gap between the previous mail in the series & this mail.

We learnt the answer of advaitin to Madhva’s argument on whether the vishaya of Brahma Atma aikya is real or unreal. After this Madhva had argued as to whether this vishaya is same as Brahman or different from Brahman. Madhva further argued that if the vishaya is different from Brahman, then it would lead to advaita haani or will cause dvaita & that if the vishaya is same as Brahman, it would lead to siddha saadhanathaa dosha as well as veiling of the self-luminous Brahman.

Let us see the answer of the advaitin on the above argument of Madhva. As explained in the previous mail on the series, this argument is already answered through the previous arguments of advaitin but still we will see as to what the advaitin has to speak specifically about the same.

The advaitin replies thus:

Avidyavashaad brahma atma aikyam brahmano bhinnam iva bhavathi

“Due to avidya or ignorance, Brahma Atma Aikyam (which is the vishaya) seems to be different from Brahman.”

Vidhyayaa brahma atma aikyam svaroopameva bhavathi

“When vidya or knowledge dawns, Brahma Atma Aikya is realized or known as “one’s own very nature” or svaroopa.”

Svaprakaashaatma avidhyaavashaad vismritham iva bhavathi

“The self-luminous Self as a result of avidya seems “as-if” forgotten (not really forgotten but “as-if” forgotten).”

Shaastrasya brahma atma aikya jnaanaad avidhya nivartaka paryantham vismritha aatmanah prathipaadhyatvaat na siddha saadhanathaa shankaa

“As shaastraas propound the forgotten Self through Brahma Atma Aikya Jnaanam and as long as avidhya exists, therefore there need be no doubt of siddha saadhanathaa dosha (fault of establishing what is already established).”

EXPLANATION

The Subject of Brahma Atma Aikyam is valid only in the state of ignorance. As long as ignorance seems to exist, there will always be a goal characterized by removal of ignorance or cessation of ignorance or rejoice of eternal bliss. Thus as long as avidya exists, vishaya is valid. When there is avidya, the seeker doesn’t know his own very nature of Brahman. Since the seeker doesn’t know Brahman during the state of avidya, therefore the vishaya which is Brahma Atma Aikyam is valid enough.

This vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikyam is as if different from Brahman – as there are two entities of Brahman and Atman coming into picture here. The vishaya is not really different from Brahman because there is nothing different from Brahman (reality is ONE alone) and this vishaya is nothing but one’s own nature or svaroopa itself. Thus the vishaya is not really different from Brahman but seems to be different from Brahman during the state of avidya.

We find in the Upanishads, the goal of Brahma Atma Aikyam being propounded by the Guru to the shishya through the various mahavakyas of Tat Tvam Asi, Sarvam Khalu idam Brahma, Brahmaivedam amritam purasthaat etc. This goal is propounded only when there is avidya. When there is no avidya, there is no goal at all and thus there is neither guru nor shishya nor any instruction of any sort. These are valid only in the state of avidya. The Gurus in the Upanishads proclaim boldly that a person who knows Brahman verily becomes Brahman. This “becoming” can be real only if the seeker is already Brahman but forgotten it & realizes what he has forgotten. If this is not the case, then the seeker becomes something which he already is not. Thus this becoming is something newly created – anything created or started will be destroyed or ended. Thus the becoming will be illusory or unreal.

Since realization or moksha as per all systems is real and eternal, therefore the only possible explanation is that the seeker is Brahman but forgotten his own nature and realizes it through the scriptural statements and by following the vedantic sadhana of sravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana.

Thus the seeker is Brahman but has forgotten it. In this state of avidya or forgetfulness, the goal is the identity of Brahman and Atman or knowing that the ultimate reality or TAT or THAT is the same as TVAM or THIS or Atman.

Brahman here denotes the ultimate reality whereas Atman denotes the inner Consciousness of the seeker. Thus Brahma Atma Aikyam denotes oneness of the individual Consciousness and the ultimate Consciousness. In fact, there is no two entities of Brahman and Atman but both are same only seemingly appearing different during the state of avidya or ignorance.

In avidya, the goal is valid but seems to be different from Brahman --- but it is never really different from Brahman & this non-difference is realized when knowledge dawns or the seeker gets knowledge (both direct and indirect) from the scriptures, Guru and experience.

Thus the advaitin here says that BRAHMA ATMA AIKYAM seems to be different from the ultimate non-dual reality of Brahman in the state of avidya. But when vidya dawns, the seeker realizes that the vishaya of BRAHMA ATMA AIKYAM is one’s own nature of svaroopa itself.

The next argument Madhva raised was as to the svapraakasha or self-luminous characteristic of the Self. The Self or Atman is svapraakasha as per Advaita. Svaprakaasha as per Advaita is that it is never objectified and thus is never veiled by anything. But advaita also says that the svaprakaasha atma is veiled by ignorance.

Here is where we need to understand the philosophy with an open mind instead of blindly attacking. Advaita never says that the Self is veiled by ignorance but only that it seems to be veiled by ignorance. Thus the advaitin here says that the self-luminous Self seems to be forgotten or as if forgotten but not really forgotten. The Self can never be forgotten because it is one’s own nature. Even though a person might forget anything and everything, he cannot forget himself. Hence the seeker never forgets “I” but just seems to forget that this “I” is in fact the non-dual reality of Brahman. This forgetfulness is what is termed as avidya in Vedanta.

The seeker thus seems to forget his own nature of Brahman even though he is Brahman. But the seeker never really forgets, just seems to forget even though he knows the inner “I”.

Since the Self is not really veiled by avidya but just seems to be veiled therefore there is no fault of veiling the ever-present Self. The ever-present Self can never be veiled but surely can seem to be veiled by ignorance even as Sun is never really veiled by clouds but seems to be veiled by clouds.

Thus the advaitin says that svaprakaasha atma seems to be “as if” forgotten as a result of avidya but is never really forgotten. Since it is never really forgotten, there is no fault of saying that ignorance veils the ever-present Self – as ultimately we don’t accept the Self to be veiled or forgotten. Anything can be forgotten except one’s own nature. A person can never forget his own nature – because his nature of Self is that which pulsates as “I-exist, I-exist” and thus if a person exists, then he knows his nature.

Vidyaranya explains this in Panchadashi:
If a person knows the Self, then he will not be craving for sensual pleasures. Thus since there is craving for sensual pleasures for a seeker, he doesn’t know the Self. But all people in the world are searching for eternal bliss – searching is not possible until there has been some kind of experience of the bliss. Thus each person knows the Self & hence strives to seek the Self in the form of eternal bliss.

This takes us to the conclusion that the Self is not known but still known. This statement might seem confusing but as we have already learnt in Panchadashi first chapter (taken by Rajesh Kumar), a seeker knows the Self generally but doesn’t know specifically & hence the search for truth or the spiritual goal of Brahman.

Thus it is wrong to say that the ever-present Self is really veiled and hence not known – thus we say that the Self seems to be veiled by ignorance & not really veiled. Thus Madhva’s argument that ever-present Self will be veiled through ignorance is not valid.

Madhva had then raised the argument that if the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya is same as Brahman, then it will cause siddha saadhanataa dosha of sruthi. But this is also not valid. The sruthis have validity only at the ignorance plane or empirical level. A realized saint doesn’t require sruthi at all because he knows the reality of Brahman propounded in the sruthi. Even if we accept the vishaya of sruthi as Savishesha Brahman or Vishnu as per the dvaita system, still once a person knows Brahman the sruthi loses its validity because once the vishaya of sruthi is known, sruthi’s role is over. Once a person learns C through dennis richie’s book, then the role of the book is over & the book is no longer valid. Similarly once a person realizes the reality of Brahman, then the sruthi becomes invalid. This is not a personal statement but what Upanishads and acharyas proclaim.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad speaks about the state of sushupthi and states that “Vedaah avedaah” meaning that the Vedas become non-Vedas or lose their validity in the state of deep sleep. Vedanta considers sushupthi state as similar to turiya avasthaa or realized state. Thus if in sushupthi itself Vedas lose their validity, then what to speak about the turiya avasthaa???

Sankara says in Vivekachoodamani thus:
Avijnaathe pare tattve shaastraadithisthu nishphalaah
Vijnaathe api pare tattve shaastraadhithisthu nishphalaah

Without knowing the ultimate reality of Brahman (meaning that as long as Brahman is not known), shaastras are of no use. After knowing the ultimate reality of Brahman also, the shaastras are of no use.

Thus it is beyond doubt that the shastras operate in the plane of ignorance. And in this state, the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya has to be vismritha atman alone as the vishaya is the Self which has been forgotten (seemingly forgotten). Since the shastras propound the forgotten Self, therefore it doesn’t really establish that which is already established. If the shastras were to proclaim the Self, then it would lead to establishing the already established Self. But the shastras cannot propound Brahman as Brahman is beyond words and thoughts. Thus shastras point to the Self as one’s own very nature which has been forgotten. Thus since the shastras propound the forgotten Self, the fault of siddha saadhanathaa is not at all there.

Rama forgets his own name and identity. At that time, his friend Krishna comes and reminds Rama as to his identity. Here that which Krishna is pointing out which is Rama’s nature (vishaya here) is not already established as Rama has forgotten his identity & this forgotten identity alone is being pointed out by Krishna. Thus even though Rama’s identity is always established but as he had forgotten it & this forgotten identity alone (and not real identity as real identity is ever there but forgotten identity alone is pointed out here) is pointed out by Krishna. Thus there is no fault of establishing the ever established identity of Rama in this case.

Similarly since sruthi propounds Brahman as one’s own nature which is possible only if one’s own nature has been forgotten (as proved earlier in this mail), therefore there is no fault of establishing already established Self.

It is very important to note here that sruthi is also valid only in the ignorance plane or as long as ignorance is there. Sruthi becomes invalid and is as illusory as the world and its objects – because Brahman alone is the non-dual reality – anything apart from Brahman is a mere illusion in Brahman.

Sruthi cannot really point out Brahman because Brahman is beyond words and thoughts – thus sruthi is just a mirror in showing a seeker his own very nature of Brahman. Sruthi just points out to the seeker & tells that “you are that Brahman which you are seeking”. Since the Subject of “YOU” or “I” is beyond objectification, therefore Brahman cannot become an object in any case. Thus sruthi just points out the Subject through the objects (indirectly points out) --- and sruthi propounds the forgotten Self for a seeker who has forgotten his own very nature of Self. If it is argued that how did the seeker forget his nature of Self, then there is no real answer for the same – we say that there is no real ignorance but it seems to be present as long as the seeker thinks that he is not the ultimate reality of Brahman & as long as he doesn’t realize his own nature of Brahman. We will be dealing with ignorance in detail later in the work while dealing with the arguments raised by Madhva and his followers on avidya.

There is one more argument that Madhva raises against the vishaya of Advaita. We will see the argument as well as the answer to the same in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on vishaya of Advaita - 4

2006-06-15T20:22:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We learnt in the previous mail as to the arguments Madhva raises against Advaita on the Vishaya of Brahma Atma aikya. Now, we will see the reply of the advaitin to madhva’s criticism.

The advaitin replies thus:

Brahma atma aikya jnaanam yathaarthyam na bhavathi

“The knowledge of oneness of Brahman-Atman is not eternally real.”

Vrittitvaat, mithyaatvaat, avidyaa kalpitha bhedha nivrittitvaat, bhedha angeekaaraat cha

“Due to being a vritti or modification of the mind, illusory or not eternally real, removes the duality caused illusorily due to avidya & as duality is accepted in that knowledge.”

Kinthu yaavad avidyaa asthi, taavad brahma atma aikya jnaanam yaathaarthyam bhavathi, kalpitha bhedha prathyakshatvaat, svapnavadeva

“But as long as avidya seems to exist or exists, so long brahma atma aikya jnaanam is real – as the illusory difference (which is caused by avidya) is experienced or perceived, like the dream state.”

Here the advaitin states his position about the reality status of the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya. Madhva had argued that Brahma Atma aikya cannot be unreal as in such a case it would lead to the vishaya itself being unreal thereby making the study of such a philosophy futile. Madhva further argued that Brahma Atma aikya cannot be real too because if it is real and different from the Self, then it would lead to two realities or dvaita. If Brahma Atma Aikya was same as the Self, then it would lead to siddha sadhanathaa dosha or establishing what is already established. Thus Madhva argued that whatever way we take, the vishaya of Advaita itself is illogical and thus advaita cannot be started.

The above argument of Madhva itself is incomplete because he only considers the options of Brahma Atma Aikya being unreal or real. Madhva is here forgetting that there is an intermediate status of illusory. It may be argued as Ramanuja does in his Sri Bhashya that there is nothing which is neither real nor unreal. That there are illusory things is proved through Lord’s own statement in Gita where he says that “the unreal has no existence at all and the real never ceases to exist”.

Let’s take the case of water seen in desert. Water seen in desert is not unreal as it is currently perceived (unreal is that which has no existence at all in the three times of past, present and future). Water is not real also because it vanishes once the reality is known that there is no water at all (and verified by going close to the perceived-water – real is that which never ceases to exist). Thus water seen in desert (mirage) is neither real nor unreal. Such an entity is called as illusory or anirvachaneeya or indescribable (cannot be really described as real or unreal).

Since Madhva’s argument doesn’t take into consideration such a reality status, therefore it is incomplete. Also since as per Advaita, anirvachaneeyatva is there for everything except Brahman or Self – therefore Madhva’s argument is completely wrong.

Advaita says that the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya is present as long as a person has ignorance and therefore seeks the Self or realization. But once a person realizes his own very nature of Brahman, and then he realizes that there never was any such vishaya at all. Thus vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya is present in ignorance state but vanishes after realization. This means that Brahma Atma Aikya is not unreal as it is currently experienced (when in the state of ignorance) and it is not real also as after realization it vanishes. It cannot be argued that ignorance is not there now as the question or objection itself shows that ignorance is there – if there was no ignorance, question wouldn’t have been raised. Thus when the reality status of the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya is restated as anirvachaneeya or illusory – then the objections raised by Madhva completely fall off. It is but incomplete analysis or judgement of this reality status of the vishaya which causes such objections to be raised.

Now let us see the answer of the advaitin in detail. The advaitin uses anumaana to show that Brahma Atma Aikya is not real. Brahma Atma Aikya jnaanam is a vritti jnaanam or modification of the mind because the svaroopa jnaanam or Consciousness is ever present. This svaroopa seems to be veiled by vritti ajnaana (modification of the mind) and this vritti ajnaana is removed through vritti jnaana which itself is not real but only a vritti. When vritti jnaana removes vritti ajnaana, what remains behind is svaroopa alone.

Brahma Atma Aikya jnaanam is not real because of the following reasons:

1. Vrittitvaat – as it is a vritti or modification alone. The vishaya of advaita is a modification of the mind as this vishaya is to be heard, reflected and contemplated upon.

2. Mithyaatvaat – as it is illusory – this vishaya is illusory because it is present now but will vanish after realization. After realization, there will be no vishaya to be really achieved and the seeker will realize that there never was any vishaya at all as in the case of dream (wherein the some dream object causes the dreamer to wake up but after waking up, the dreamer realizes that there never was such a vishaya or object which was helpful in waking up – he also realizes that there never was a dream world itself but it was only an illusion in him).

3. Avidyaa kalpitha bhedha nivrittitvaat – as it removes the bhedha or duality caused by avidya. Avidya itself is not ultimately real but only illusory. The vritti jnaana or vishaya helps in removing bhedha or duality. It is but dual perception that hinders the underlying non-dual reality to be realized or grasped. Thus when dual perception or bhedha is removed, the non-dual reality is realized or the seeker gets liberated. Thus the vishaya helps in removing dvaita or bhedha. But this bhedha itself is an effect of avidya. Avidya or ignorance causes the seeker to think that the different things which he perceives is real --- but once avidya vanishes, he realizes that there is nothing but non-dual Brahman alone. This avidya which causes bhedha is also unreal. Thus since vishaya helps in removing the bhedha caused by avidya, therefore it is not real (as bhedha as well as avidya are also not real, therefore the vishaya which removes such an illusory bhedha is also not real).

4. Bhedha angeekaaraat – when vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya is accepted, this means the duality is accepted as the two entities of Brahman and Atman are accepted – also the vishaya is accepted as different from the seeker. Thus vishaya in itself accepts bhedha. Since bhedha is not real, therefore the vishaya which depends on bhedha also has to be not real.

Because of the above mentioned four reasons, the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya is not real (ultimately real).

But as long as avidya or ignorance is accepted as existing, the vishaya has to be accepted as real. The above four reasons are invalid when avidya itself becomes invalid or unreal (not at all present) – but when avidya is accepted as currently present or existing, the vishaya is also valid or currently exists.

The following anumaana is used to prove that as long as avidya is accepted as real (empirically real), the vishaya also has to be accepted as real:

As long as avidya is there, vishaya is real
Because of perception of imagined duality (perceived duality)
As in the case of dream.

In dream, dream is valid or real as long as the person is dreamer. But only when the dreamer wakes up, the dream becomes unreal. Similarly as long as a person is dreaming in the long dream of avidya, the vishaya also is real. But the vishaya becomes unreal only after realization that there is no avidya at all. Thus since bhedha is perceived at the empirical level, therefore avidya which causes bhedha is also empirically real which makes the vishaya also empirically real.

Thus Brahma Atma Aikya even though eternally not real, but still empirically is real as long as avidya is there or as long as the seeker hasn’t realized his own very nature of Brahman.

This in no way affects advaita or adviteeya Brahman because even though a person might be in ignorance and thinking that he has to realize, still he is always the adviteeya Brahman only even as the dream world even while the person is dreaming is nothing but the non-dual dreamer alone.

Thus advaita’s stand point that Brahma Atma Aikya vishaya is not eternally real but empirically real as long as avidya is there has been emphasized – which in turn refutes madhva’s arguments defending advaita’s own stand. Thus the vishaya of Brahma Atma aikya is devoid of any logical faults instead is logical – thus advaita can be and should be started by any seeker seeking eternal bliss or seeking to know the ultimate reality behind the world and temporary existence.

We will see advaita’s answer to madhva’s argument of whether vishaya is same as self or different from self. Even though this argument is automatically refuted by the above statements of advaita but still it is good to clearly establish advaita’s stand point as to the nature of brahma atma aikya. In this mail, we have discussed advaita’s view point on the reality status of the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya whereas in the next mail we will discuss the nature of the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya (as to whether it is same as or different from Brahman or Atman).

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on vishaya of Advaita - 3

2006-06-06T19:59:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

Madhva initially put forth the argument that Advaita cannot be really started which was refuted through the three reasons that “Advaita is supported by sruthi”, “Brahman is accepted as a vishaya when ignorance is there” and “as it is logical enough”.

We will now continue with Madhva’s logical hair-splitting attack on the vishaya of Advaita.

Madhva continues thus:
Na hi brahma atma aikyasya yaathaarthyam tat pakshe
Advaita haaneh svaroopa athireka
Anathireke svaprakaashatvaad aatmanah siddha saadhanathaa

“Brahma Atma aikyam cannot be real in his (advaitin’s) view. If Brahma Atma aikya is different from the nature, then it will lead to fallacy or deviation from advaita (will lead to dvaita) – if it is not different from the nature or Self, then since Self is self-luminous, it will lead to the fault of establishing what is already established for the Self as well as the Sruthi”.

It is but a fact that Madhva in most of his works explains things in as few words as possible but making the seeker having to analyze in depth the few words which will make no sense at all without adding enough words and explanations to it. It is but fortunate enough that we have Jaya Teertha annotating on almost all of Madhva’s works even as Ananda Giri annotated on most of the works of Sankara.

The above words of Madhva as well as the translation in English (given in double quotes) is so crisp and short that it cannot be understood properly without the commentaries of Jaya Teertha and other acharyas. It also thus requires lot of explanations in order to understand those crisp words correctly.

Madhva initially argued that Advaita cannot be started. Now he progresses further. His words might be taken as such: “Let’s say that Advaita can be started, but still the vishaya will lead to illogical conclusions and hence we will come back to the same conclusion that Advaita cannot be started”. If it is questioned as to how, it goes like this:

Brahma Atma Aikya is the vishaya of Advaita. Now is this Brahma Atma Aikya ayaathaarthyam (unreal) or yaathaarthyam (real)???

Brahma Atma Aikya cannot be unreal as in that case the vishaya itself becomes unreal – and thus Advaita cannot be started in such a case. Thus the first alternative of Brahma Atma Aikya being unreal is ruled out.

Taking the second and only possible alternative of Brahma Atma Aikya being real, is this Brahma Atma Aikya (which is real) the same as the svaroopa (Self) or different from the svaroopa (Self)???
If Brahma Atma Aikya is different from the svaroopa, then this means that we have two real entities of svaroopa and Brahma Atma Aikya (as this particular alternative is that Brahma Atma Aikya is real). Thus this leads to loss of advaita or leads to dvaita. This is against Advaita and goes against the basic theory of the philosophy itself causing logical fallacies in the system which in turn makes a seeker not to start or learn Advaita.

If Brahma Atma Aikya is the same as the svaroopa, since Advaitic concept of Svaroopa or Self is that it is svaprakaasha or self-luminous, therefore the Self is ever present and cannot become the vishaya. If it is considered as a vishaya, it leads to the logical fault of siddha saadhanathaa dosha or establishing what is already established. Also since sruthi propounds that vishaya of Self (which is same as Brahma Atma Aikya and ever-present), therefore sruthi also incurs the fault of establishing the Self which is already established. Thus the system comes under the logical fault called as siddha saadhana dosha. Such an illogical system thereby shouldn’t be started.

Thus whatever way the vishaya of Brahma Atma aikya is taken, it leads to illogical conclusions alone. Thus Advaita which propounds an illogical vishaya cannot be started at all.

EXPLANATION

Madhva’s work requires lot of explanation as it is highly logical and tough to apprehend. The above was a mere translation of Madhva’s three sentences based on the sub commentaries and whatever Madhva is pointing out. We will now try to see in depth what Madhva is trying to point out so that we may understand it clearly beyond doubts.

Advaita speaks about the vishaya as Brahma Atma Aikya. There are few doubts and questions that can be raised as to the nature of this Brahma Atma Aikya. The hierarchies of questions are as depicted below:

Is Brahma Atma Aikya unreal or real????
- Unreal – in such a case, the vishaya is invalid and hence Advaita cannot be started.
- Real - is Brahma Atma aikya different from or same as svaroopa or Self???
Different from Self – this leads to two realities of Self and Brahma Atma Aikya (Which is real). Thus this leads to loss or deviation from advaita (or one reality alone).
Same as Self – If it is same as Self, since Self is ever-present, this leads to establishing the ever-present Self and sruthi too gets the fault of establishing what is already established or siddha saadhanathaa dosha.

Madhva is in fact using high-end logic to trap the advaitin beyond any escape. Madhva raises one simple question as to the very nature of Brahma Atma Aikya and shows that whatever way the question is answered, it leads to illogical conclusions thus making it clear that Advaita cannot be started (which was stated by him previously through an anumaana).

As per Advaita, Brahma Atma Aikya is not ultimately real because the Self is ever present and hence even the vishaya is but an illusion alone. But here, if the Advaitin answers that Brahma Atma Aikya is unreal, then the vishaya becomes unreal and hence illogicality arises. Thus Madhva forces the Advaitin to take the view that Brahma Atma Aikya is real only. The fault with Madhva’s objection here is that as proved earlier by the advaitin, the vishaya is real as long as avidya is there – only when avidya vanishes, the vishaya also becomes unreal. So long as a person is dreaming, the dream world is real and not unreal. The dream world becomes unreal only when the dreamer wakes up. Similarly so long as avidya is there, vishaya is real and not unreal. And shaastra study is undertaken only when avidya is there – thus vishaya is real. But since when vishaya sublates only realization happens, therefore vishaya is not eternally real also. Thus Vedanta says that avidya is neither real nor unreal but it is anirvachaneeya or indescribable. Since vishaya is present when avidya is there, thus vishaya also is anirvachaneeya with respect to its reality status – it is neither real nor unreal. The vishaya is real as long as avidya is there (empirically real) but it is unreal (ultimately unreal) when avidya vanishes.

Thus advaitin’s answer doesn’t come to any of the two alternatives given by Madhva for the very first question as to the reality status of Brahma Atma Aikya.

The only argument that opponent schools give for anirvachaneeyatva is that “there is no entity which is neither real nor unreal – an entity is either real or unreal” – this is what dvaitins argue as well as Ramanuja too gives in his most famous saptha vidha anupapatthi portion of sri bhashya (wherein he gives seven logical fallacies as to Avidya).

Anirvachaneeyatva can be very well explained in the case of all illusions like snake seen in rope and dream world. The snake seen in rope is not real because real is that which is ever present (as the snake vanishes once it is known that there is no snake but only rope is present). The snake is not unreal also as unreal is that which never exists but the snake is currently perceived. Thus it is illusory or anirvachaneeya or indescribable. Thus illusions are neither real nor unreal. This is the same case with the vishaya of Advaita and avidya.

Madhva thus not taking this view clearly, closes upon the advaitin by giving the advaitin only the second alternative as to the reality status of Brahma Atma aikya – the alternative being that it is real.

Now Madhva again raises another question considering that Brahma Atma Aikya is real – is Brahma Atma Aikya different from the Self or is it same???

If Brahma Atma Aikya is different from the Self which is real (self or Brahman can be taken here as the final reality of Advaita and which alone is real), then there ensues two real entities which is against advaita’s stand that there is only one real entity. Thus this alternative that Brahma Atma Aikya is different from the Self cannot be accepted by the Advaitin.

The only possible and left over alternative is that Brahma Atma Aikya is same as the Self. The Self as per Advaita is self-luminous and ever-shining & not being objectified by any light. Since Self is ever-present, thus if it becomes the vishaya of Brahma Atma Aikya, it would be like presenting the ever-present Self or establishing the already established Self. Thus this leads to the fault of establishing what is already established.

SIDDHA SAADHANAATHAA DOSHA – fault of establishing what is already established
What is already established need not be again established through logic or any other means because it is already known. Thus that which is established has to be something which is not already established.

Since sruthi propounds the vishaya which is already established, sruthi also establishes that which is already established. Thus sruthi, which is considered faultless, has the fault of establishing what is already established.

This is illogical and points out that sruthi upon which advaita depends is faulty – thus the system of advaita which depends on a faulty vishaya and faulty sruthi has to be faulty too. Since advaita is faulty, it cannot be started.

It is interesting to note here that it is Jaya Teertha who points out that siddha saadhanathaa dosha is incurred by sruthi as the original text of Madhva doesn’t directly point to sruthi incurring the fault – it should be said that such was the insight of Jaya Teertha that he could deduce things which were not directly mentioned by Madhva!!!

Madhva does one more attack on the vishaya of Advaita which we will learn after advaita’s answer to Madhva’s above attack. We will see the answer of advaitin in Mayavaada Darpanam in the next mail.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on vishaya of Advaita - 2

2006-06-03T06:56:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

To recap: The very first attack of Dvaitin was on the Vishaya of Advaita. The dvaitin gives three reasons for the objection that Advaita cannot be started – he hasn’t yet completed his attack on the Vishaya of Advaita. We are currently analyzing on the first part of Mayavada Khandana which is “Attack on vishaya of Advaita” among the six parts of the work mentioned in the posting #5 of this series.

The three reasons for not starting Advaita philosophy are as below:
1. As Advaita propounds something different from the vishaya of sruthi which is dvaita alone.
2. As Advaita’s subject-matter of Brahma Atma Aikya itself is sublated after realization
3. As Advaita’s subject-matter is contradicted and contrary to sruthi statements and sruthi’s import.

As a result of the above three, the Dvaitin concluded through anumaana or inference that Advaita cannot be started.

We will now see as to the response from Advaita on the same from the work of Mayavada Darpanam. The original text will be in green and the translation as well as explanation will be in normal font.

The text goes thus:
Vimatham aarambhaneeyam,
sruthyuktatvaat,
avidyayaa brahmano vishayatva angeekaaraat,
upapattescha,
yathaa vismritham.

The philosophy of Advaita (which is what is under discussion) has to be started (or can be started) because it is what sruthi propounds, as Brahman is considered and accepted as a vishaya or subject when in ignonrance and since it is logical – like the state of forgetfulness or forgotten state.

The above is an anumaana or inference used which provides three different reasons to prove that advaita can be started. The parts of the anumaana are as such:

Pratijnaa – (vimatham aarambhaneeyam) Advaita can be started
Hetu
1. (Sruthi uktatvaat) as sruthi propounds Advaita
2. (Avidyayaa Brahmano vishayatva angeekaaraath) – as a result of avidya or when avidya (ignorance) is there, Brahman is accepted as the vishaya or subject
3. (upapatteh) as it is logical
Udaaharana
Like the forgotten state

SRUTHI UKTATVAAT – As Sruthi propounds Advaita
There are innumerous sruthi statements which clearly propound Advaita. Some of the most famous are quoted below:

Sarvam khalu idam brahma – everything is verily Brahman (chandogya)
Sarvam brahma mayam – everything is Brahman alone (brihadaranyaka)
Tat tvam asi – THAT THOU ART (chandogya)
Sarvam hi etat brahma, ayam atma brahma – everything is Brahman alone, this atman is Brahman (Mandukya)
Brahmaiva idam amritam purasthaat brahma paschaat – everything is verily this eternal Brahman, left is Brahman, right is Brahman, top is Brahman, bottom is Brahman, front is Brahman, back is Brahman (Mundaka)
Mattah parataram na anyat kinchit asthi dhananjaya – there is nothing whatsoever different from me O Arjuna (Gita 7th chapter)
Brahma arpanam brahma havih – Brahman is the oblation and that which is poured into the homa kunda of activities (Gita 4th chapter)
Aham atma gudakesha sarva bhootaashaya sthithah – I alone am the Atman secretly placed in all beings (Gita 10th chapter)

The above statements beyond doubt propound Advaita and hence it is wrong to say that what Advaita propounds is different from sruthi. Thus through the counter hetu of sruthi uktatvaat, the Dvaitin’s first argument of “anyathaa prathipaadakatvaat” is refuted.

If it is questioned that if Advaita alone is real, then why does the sruthi propound duality in many places and explain about the creation process etc. which are illusions, then the answer for the same is thus: it is really tough for an initial seeker to directly contemplate on the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman which contradicts perception and experience in the external world. Instead of coming into Advaita, an initial seeker will blindly discard it if he is told that whatever seen is a mere illusion in the reality of Brahman. Thus the sruthi gradually takes the seeker from the external world to the creator or the substratum of Brahman and then negates the world as a mere illusion in Brahman. This approach is the famous Chandra Shaakha nyaaya – the logic of showing a small child the moon through a nearby branch. The child is incapable of directly seeing the moon as it will not get it clearly – thus the mother shows a nearby branch and through the branch points out the moon.

Similarly sruthi initially propounds creation process to distinguish the illusory creation from the eternal creator who is the substratum of the creation. This is the vyaavritta lakshana of Brahman – the characteristics that distinguishes or differentiates Brahman from other illusory and currently experienced entities. Thus even while propounding creation theories, sruthi clearly mentions the creator who is not created and who ever remains the same and from whom creation starts. Sruthi doesn’t just mention creation and the worldly objects but clearly points out that these entities are temporary as they are created and thus will die off one day. Thus through this temporary nature of the worldly objects, sruthi indirectly points out that the worldly objects are mere illusions in the substratum or creator of Brahman. Once a seeker progresses, sruthi points out that Brahman is ever unchanging substratum of the creation – pointing out the thatastha lakshana which is the kutastha bhaava or unchanging nature of Brahman amidst the changing entities of the world. Next, sruthi clearly points out the svaroopa lakshana of Brahman as kevala sat chit ananda or absolute Existence, Consciousness and Bliss absolute.

We can clearly find such a progressive explanation in the Mundaka Upanishad considered as an exhaustive and clear Upanishad by the Dvaitins. The Upanishad starts with the disciple asking the Guru as to what is that by knowing which everything is known. The Guru tells that there are two knowledge – one being para or ultimate knowledge which is knowing the akshara or immutable entity of Brahman, the second is aparaa knowledge which is worldly knowledge that includes even the Vedas, Vedangaas etc. Then the Guru tells about creation of the world from the ultimate reality of Brahman – the creation of different entities from Brahman is clearly and deeply explained. Then the Guru ends by telling that everything is Brahman. Next Guru gives the procedure of knowing Brahman and finally ends by giving the statement that “whoever knows Brahman verily becomes Brahman”. Thus we find the Guru proceeding from the world and then terminating in the adviteeya Brahman.

Thus it is only for the benefit of the initial seeker and to progressive lead the seeker to the ultimate reality of Brahman that sruthi propounds duality as well as creation in many places. These in no way affect the adviteeya statements as well as advaita being the main import of sruthi.

This particular argument also refutes the dvaitin’s third argument that sruthi itself contradicts advaita – instead it is proved now that sruthi not only propounds advaita but is fully advaitic in import even though propounding dvaita in many places.

AVIDYAYAA BRAHMANO VISHAYATVA ANGEEKAARAAT – as Brahman is acceped as a vishaya when avidya is there
The second argument of the Dvaitin was that advaita propounds the subject of Brahma-Atma aikya which is sublated or negated after realization. Thus the subject-matter of Advaita was said to be something which is unreal.

The argument of Dvaitin is right – the vishaya of advaita is valid only until avidya is there and realization hasn’t yet dawned. This statement itself is a bit wrong as realization is ever there but it is not known by the ignorant seeker. Thus it all depends on avidya – so long as avidya is there, Brahman has to be and can be accepted as a valid vishaya. The Advaitin gave the example of vismrithi or forgetfulness to support this. Rama has forgotten his identity. As long as he has forgotten his identity, the goal or subject of “his very nature of Rama” is valid and he has to work towards it. But once he realizes his own very nature of Rama, then there is no forgetfulness and there never was forgetfulness. Since after remembering his identity of Rama, forgetfulness itself is negated completely as an illusion (since a person can never forget his own very nature and this forgetfulness is also a mere illusion like the dream state), therefore there is no problem in accepting “himself” as the subject-matter so long as forgetfulness is there.

Similarly there is no problem of accepting Brahman as the vishaya so long as avidya is there – and since avidya is not at all accepted once realization dawns, therefore there is no contradiction and the dvaitin’s argument itself is negated or refuted. So long as avidya is there, Brahman has to be vishaya and advaita accepts Brahman as the vishaya so long as avidya is there. Since Brahman is not accepted as vishaya once realization happens and avidya itself is negated in three times of past-present-future, therefore there is no question of pointing out that vishaya is sublated. There is no question of sublation after realization as after realization the state of ignorance as well as ignorance itself is considered as unreal and never having existed.

Thus from paaramaarthika level, since there is no vishaya at all accepted & at the vyaavahaarika level when avidya is there, vishaya is accepted – there is no fault at all starting advaita so long as avidya is there. If there is no avidya, then there is no need for sruthi itself – if a seeker comes to sruthi, that itself shows that there is avidya & hence vishaya also automatically exists. This vishaya is not something positive but it is something which denotes negation or sublation of avidya through contemplation on Brahma-Atma aikya. Sureshwaracharya as well as Madhusudana Saraswathi point out clearly that there is “no destruction of avidya” but “only sublation” because avidya never really exists to be destroyed but it only “seems to exist” like water in desert or dream world.

Thus with the above two reasons, the dvaitin’s three reasons or arguments have been refuted and advaita’s viewpoint supported and defended.

Upapatteh – as it is logical
There is one more reason given which tells that Advaita’s standpoint is logical enough and hence Advaita can be started.

Thus here the Advaitin provides one extra reason than what Dvaitin gives – as well as this reason is strong enough to refute any other arguments. This reason translated simply means “as it is logical” but it has deeper imports to it.

The reason means that Advaita’s vishaya is very much logical and hence cannot be neglected or refuted based on some false or not much thought reasons. Advaita’s vishaya has been shown to be valid as long as avidya is there – and once avidya is not there or it is known to have not at all existed, the vishaya itself completely vanishes. Since these both are at different planes or levels of reality, therefore both cannot be compared as such. Since these levels of reality are logical enough, therefore the conclusion based on them for vishaya of advaita is also logical only.

Since advaita’s vishaya is logical enough from both empirical plane as well as ultimate plane, therefore there cannot be any particular reason to either neglect it or refute it by other reasons.
Let us briefly try to analyze the three levels of reality that Advaita propounds and whether it is logical enough or illogical as the dvaitins argue.

Advaita speaks about three levels of reality:
1. Praathibhaasika satyam or temporary reality as in dream state or in normal illusions of water in mirage etc. This has a very limited time duration only.
2. Vyaavahaarika satyam or empirical reality as in waking state – this seems to be of more longer duration than temporary reality and this seems to be having some purpose but really has no purpose at all.
3. Paaramarthika satyam or ultimate reality which is after realization – Vedanta clearly says that Brahman is ekam eva adviteeyam in Chandogya. Since mundaka says that one who knows Brahman verily becomes Brahman, a person after realization realizes non-duality alone which means that the world he currently perceives vanishes. Thus vyaavahaarika satyam vanishes after realization. Thus the world cannot be real as it vanishes after realization.

Thus it is very clear that there needs to be categorization of the three levels of reality. Since this is logical and supported by sruthi too, thus we have to accept that the vishaya of Advaita also is logical. Thus since vishaya of Advaita is logical, Advaita can very well and should be started by all seekers seeking eternal bliss.

Thus through three reasons it has been showed that Advaita can be started and dvaitins arguments for the statement that “advaita cannot be started” has been refuted thereby advaita’s stand being supported and defended beyond all criticisms and arguments.

We will continue with Madhva’s further arguments on vishaya of Advaita in the next post.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Attack on vishaya of Advaita - 1

2006-05-30T20:24:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

We will start with the starting statement of Madhvacharya's Mayavaada Khandanam and will deal with the reply given in Mayavaada Darpanam (the work written refuting or defending Advaita by me with the grace of AMMA) in the next mail.

Madhvacharya starts the work of Mayavada Khandanam with an anumaana or inference to prove that “Advaita is something that cannot be really started”.

Madhva says thus:
"Vimatham anaarambhaneeyam, anyathaaprathipaadakatvaat, yad ittham tat tathaa, yathaa samprathipannam"

Vimatham is the subject-matter which is being discussed. Here vimatham is “whether advaita can be started or not”. The subject-matter is anaarambhaneeyam or it cannot be started.
Why “advaita cannot be started”?
Anyathaa prathipaadakatvaat – as it propounds something different from the subject-matter of scriptures or advaita deviates from the sruthi.
And an example is also given by Madhva to prove this – as it is in the case of shoonyavaadins and jains who dont have any use out of their scriptures (which advaita also accepts) and they dont have any subject-matter at all.

Any anumaana or inference has three parts or components which are:
1. Prathijnaa – statement which is to be proved
2. Hetu – reason or proof for the statement
3. Udaaharana – example supporting the reason and statement to be proved

The very common inference taken is inferring from the smoke seen on the top of a hill that there is fire on top of the hill.

There is fine in the hill, (Pratijnaa)
Because there is smoke, (hetu)
As in chimney (udaaharana).

In Madhva’s anumaana the parts are thus:
1. Prathijnaa – advaita cannot be started
2. Hetu – since it propounds things different from sruthi
3. Udaaharana – as buddhist and jain systems propound different from sruthi & they are not to be started or followed, similar is the case with advaita also.

Jaya Teertha and other commentators give two additional hetu or reasons for the same. The reasons thus are:
1. Anyathaa prathipaadakatvaat – advaita says that it follows sruthi whereas the subject-matter of advaita deviates from sruthi as sruthi supports dvaita satyatva and the pancha bhedaas too.
2. Baadhitha vishayatvaat – due to the subject-matter being sublated or vanishing after some time. Advaita propounds that the subject-matter of Brahman also vanishes once realization dawns as then there the seeker realizes that there never was any vishaya at all but Brahman alone existed.
3. Vedaadeh tat paratva niraasaya prathijnaa saadhyathe – the statement is proved as vedas propound something contrary to what advaita propounds.

The difference between hetu 1 and hetu 3 is that 1 propounds that advaita deviates from sruthi whereas 3 states that sruthi proves things contrary and against advaita.

1. Anyathaa prathipaadakatvaat
Here the dvaitin points out that the various sruthi statements like “Dvavimau purushau loke” – there are two purushas which are the kshara or changing purusha and the immortal or akshara purusha. The uttama purusha or Bhagavan is different from both kshara and akshara as per Gita’s statement (15th chapter) and Katha Upanishad statement. Most of the sruthi statements propound the jeeva to be mortal, limited and dependent on the Lord whereas Ishara is immortal, unlimited and independent. There are more sruthi statements which point out that the world is real and that the pancha bhedhaas real than the advaitic sruthi which are very less. Even those few advaitic sruthi can be shown to point out bhedham only. For eg: the most famous sruthi statement of “Sa yo ha vai tat paramam brahma veda brahmaiva bhavathi” (Mundaka Upanishad) which means that “He who knows that ultimate Brahman verily becomes Brahman” can clearly be shown to point out dvaita through the word “Paramam” which means “Supreme”. This means that there is something which is inferior or not Supreme with respect to the Supreme Lord or Ishwara. Thus since most of the sruthi statements point out dvaita only and the advaitic sruthi also can be shown to point out dvaita, therefore what advaita points out as the import of sruthi is wrong. Thus advaitic vishaya is something different from that of the sruthi, sruthi being dvaitic in import.

2. Baadhitha vishayatvaat
The vishaya that advaita points out is something which is sublated after realization. Here sublation means that the vishaya itself becomes unreal or invalid after realization. Once realization dawns, there is nothing but Brahman alone – then the search which was done by the seeker also becomes invalid even like dream world experience and waking up from the dream world. Thus the vishaya of Brahma-atma aikya which advaita points out becomes unreal once a person realizes. Thus advaita’s vishaya is baadhitham or sublated or becomes unreal or vanishes after realization. Since advaita’s vishaya is unreal, therefore it is futile to go after such a philosophy whose vishaya or subject-matter itself is unreal.

3. Vedaadeh tat paratva niraasa
The vishaya of advaita itself is negated in sruthi statements where advaita is clearly negated through propounding dvaita and the pancha bhedaas. For eg: the 15th chapter of Gita which clearly propounds the three purushas of kshara (the worldly objects which are perishable), Akshara (which are the jeevas which are imperishable) and Uttama (which is the Supreme or the Lord alone) shows the bhedhaas are real which is against advaita and refuting advaita directly. Since sruthi itself clearly negates advaita or advaitic vishaya, therefore advaita is not to be started.

Here the dvaitin is trying to show that the vishaya of advaita is invalid and hence the system itself is not to be started through the above mentioned three reasons.

We will learn advaita’s response to the above three arguments or anumaanaas of dvaitin through study of Mayavaada Darpanam and its statements in the next mail.

PS: Dvaitin's statements are in brown with Madhwa's work in bold and mayavada darpanam text in bold green.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God

Introduction to Madhwacharya's work

2006-05-14T20:15:00.000-07:00

The counter work of Mayavada Khandana is titled Mayavada Darpanam meaning that which is the mirror reflecting Mayavada or the mirror that illumines the theories of Mayavada and shows that Mayavada is logical and beyond all logical fallacies.

We ended the last mail with the discussion of Anubandha Chathustayam and saying that Madhva in this work of Mayavaada Khandana attacks the Anubandha Chathustayam of Advaita showing that each of these is not possible for Advaita.

Thus we will have a very small introduction of Madhva's work in the current mail. Madhva's work can be split into different parts as such:

1. Attack on Vishaya of Advaita
2. Attack on Ajnaana
3. Attack on Prayojana or Phalam of Advaita
4. Attack on Adhikaari and Sambandha (there is no direct logic for the same given but indirect and inferred attack).
5. Sruthi, Smrithi and Purana quotings
6. Conclusive statement from Mahabharatha

1. Attack on Vishaya of Advaita
As we have already seen, the Vishaya or Subject-matter of Advaita is Brahma Atma Aikya or oneness of Brahman (the TAT or THAT in the Mahavakya Tat tvam asi) and Atman (the TVAM or THIS in the Mahavakya Tat tvam asi). Madhva starts by questioning whether this Brahma Atma Aikya is real or unreal. Madhva goes on to prove that both ways lead to illogical conclusions only. Similarly is the Brahma Atma Aikya different from one's own Self or same as one's own Self. Both ways it leads to logical errors only. Thus Brahma Atma Aikya itself cannot be really propounded and thus Vishaya itself is invalid in the case of Advaita.

We will learn each of these parts of Madhva's work in short as if we learn in depth, it will lead to confusions and will be like getting into the work in depth (which we will doing from the next mail in the series).

2. Attack on Ajnaana
Ajnaana is one keypoint in Advaita. Ajnaana is the cause for all sorrows and sufferings. Ajnaana is forgetfulness of one's own very nature of Self or Brahman. This Ajnaana is the reason or answer as to why the seeker who is Brahman doesn't realize his nature of Brahman or eternal bliss. Sankara and other Advaita acharyas have clearly propounded that Ajnaana is something inexplicable or anirvachaneeya - it cannot really be explained (we will see as to why this is the case later). The moment a person tries to explain Ajnaana, he is in Ajnaana and hence cannot come to a clear conclusion about it. A person cannot explain about a forest when he is inside the forest. Only when he comes out of the forest, he can explain in detail as to what it is, what it has etc. Similar is the case with a person who is immersed in the ocean of samsaara (caused out of Ajnaana) -- he cannot really speak about it until he comes out of the ocean. Once he comes out of the ocean, there is nothing to speak about as there is only Brahman, one without a second. Thus both ways, ajnaana can never be spoken clearly of -- even though acharyas give explanations about it for the benefit of the doubting and answer-requiring seekers.

This Ajnaana has come under severe attack starting from Ramanuja in his Sri Bhashya. This has been hit from all sides by Vishista advaita and Dvaita acharyas. Thus we find Ramanuja giving Sapthavidha anupapattih (seven types of logical problems for Ajnaana) in his Sri Bhashya. All these attacks arise because of lack of proper understanding and practice of the teachings of Upanishads and Advaita acharyas works. We find ajnaana being explained clearly and beyond doubt in Sankara's Gita Bhashya (13th chapter 2nd sloka -- here explanation is that it is inexplicable and beyond all logic). Sureshwaracharya has clearly spoken about Ajnaana in his Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika (Sambandha Bhashya Vartika) and Naishkarmya Siddhi. But even then, if people start attacking Ajnaana, it is nothing but foolishness alone.

Here we find Madhva attacking Ajnaana on a broader aspect unlike Ramanuja who thoroughly criticizes it. Madhva also criticizes that Ajnaana is not at all possible as the Self can never be veiled. The age long discussion of Ajnaana Nivritti or removal of Ajnaana is also scrutinized and criticized. The different opinions on the same from Advaita has been attacked Madhva as well as Jaya Teertha.

3. Attack on Prayojana or Phala
Prayojana of Advaita is moksha which is poorna dukha vimochana or complete cessation of sorrow. This is nothing but removal of ajnaana alone. Madhva attacks by telling that Ajnaana itself is inexplicable, so how is Ajnaana Nivritti define or explained? Thus he says that there is Ajnaana Nivritti possible -- so there is no moksha or prayojana for Advaita.

4. Attack on Sambandha and Adhikaari
Sambandha is relation between Prayojana and Vishaya. Since there is no prayojana and vishaya for advaita, it just follows that there is no Sambandha at all.

Since there is neither vishaya nor prayojana or sambandha, there is no adhikaari also. Dvaitin goes to the extent of saying that no wise person will follow Advaita.

5. Sruthi, smrithi and purana quotings
Madhva quotes the very famous 15th chapter statements of Gita where Lord Krishna explains the Kshara or perishable Purusha, Akshara or imperishable Purusha and Uttama Purusha (16th sloka to 20th sloka). It is but natural that different acharyas have different interpretations to these slokas even though Sankara beyond doubt shows how these point to Advaita. Madhva takes the other extreme viewpoint that Kshara is the perishable entities, Akshara is the individual Selfs and Uttama Purusha is Lord Vishnu alone. Ramanuja differs from Madhva in that he considers the kshara and akshara purushas as part of Vishnu whereas Madhva accepts complete or poorna bhedha (difference) between the three purushas (the system of Madhva accepts the pancha bhedhas which are 1. difference between Ishwara and Jeeva, 2. difference between Ishwara and jada or the world of insentient objects, 3. difference between one Jeeva and another Jeeva, 4. difference between Jeeva and Jada, 5. difference between one jada and another jada).

These statements of Lord Krishna are from the Katha Upanishad. Since Gita is a smrithi, we can find most of the statements either directly or indirectly in some or the other Upanishads.

Madhva also quotes the Brahma Sutras to support the Dvaita system.

6. Conclusion
Madhva concludes the work with a statement from Veda Vyaasa's Mahabharatha. Thus he gives quotings from Sruthi (Katha Upanishad), Smrithi (Bhagavad Gita), Sutras (Brahma Sutras) and Puranaas (Mahabharatha which is considered as the fifth Veda and a purana too).

Thus it is concluded that Advaita is full of logical errors and no wise person will follow it. Instead it is Dvaita which is propounded by the scriptures & hence any seeker should follow Dvaita alone.

We will start with the first part of Madhva dealing with attack on vishaya of Advaita and the counter argument of the Advaitin in Mayavada Darpanam.

Anubandha Chathustayam

2006-05-11T07:53:00.000-07:00

Before getting into the work of Madhvacharya, we need to have an introduction as to what is being mentioned by Madhva as well as splitting the work into smaller parts.

Any work or philosophy before it is started has four introductory parts or components that need to be addressed. These are called the Anubandha Chathustayam -- the four things are:
1. Vishaya or subject matter
2. Prayojanam or fruit
3. Sambandha or relation between vishaya and prayojanam
4. Adhikaari or eligible person

We shall see in brief the four parts so that it helps us in understanding Madhvacharya's work easily.

1. Vishaya or subject matter -- any work or philosophy when it is started should have a vishaya or the subject matter which it addresses. Advaita works have the vishaya or subject matter as Brahma Atma Aikya or Jeeva Brahma Aikya -- oneness of the seemingly individual Self and the ultimate reality of Brahman or Lord. Jeeva is nothing but seemingly appearing reflection of Brahman on the antah karana (to be specific - on the intellect or buddhi). There is no reflection apart from the original -- thus there is no jeeva apart from Brahman. Jeeva is just a seemingly appearing existence and it exists as long as the upadhi or adjunct of buddhi exists. Once buddhi vanishes when avidya or ignorance vanishes (buddhi is caused out of avidya or maya), there is nothing but the Self or Brahman alone. Thus we have OC or Original Consciousness of Brahman and RC or reflected Consciousness of Jeeva. Both are one and the same only because there is no RC without OC. OC seems to be reflected as RC because of ignorance. But when ignorance vanishes, OC is experienced as the adviteeya Brahman. When RC seems to be present, OC is the Kutastha or the unchanging witness of all activities. Thus as per Advaita, the main goal of human life is to realize the ultimate reality of Brahman as OC or Consciousness or Kutastha or witness which is one's own very nature of "I". If we take any work of Advaita, this is the subject matter of the work. As per Advaita, Vedanta or upanishads also have the same subject matter only.

2. Prayojanam -- any work will have a fruit which will be achieved by the seeker or the one who follows the sadhanas as per the work. This fruit as per Advaita is Moksha or liberation or realization. Moksha is nothing but poorna dukha mochanam or complete cessation of sorrow. Dukha mochanam is possible only when the ignorance about one's own very nature of eternal bliss is removed. Ignorance is removed only through the real knowledge that "I am the non-dual Brahman".

Thus Moksha -> poorna dukha mochanam -> ajnaana naasham (removal of ignorance) -> atma saakshaatkaaram

Thus everything is based on realizing one's own very nature of Brahman -- realizing this is Moksha as when a person realizes the Self, ignorance vanishes. When ignorance vanishes, sorrow vanishes completely as sorrow is just because of lack of one's own nature of eternal bliss. Thus Atma Saakshaatkaaram or realizing one's own Self is Moksha or liberation. Here the word realization is very important because there is nothing new gained or achieved or known. The very Self which was forgotten is again remembered or realized. Vedanta and Sankaracharya in his bhashyas mention the story of a lion cub for the same. The story goes thus:

Once a flock of sheep were passing by and a lioness saw them. The lioness pounced upon the sheep but the lioness was pregnant at that time. The lioness gave birth to a lion and died because of the jump. The lion fall amidst the sheep. It also started bleating and behaving like a sheep. It started living like a sheep. When it grew up, still it was thinking that it is a sheep. One day, a lion saw this young lion walking with sheep. The lion caught the young lion which started crying like a sheep. Then the big lion took the other lion to a river and showed that he was a lion and not a sheep.

This story shows that the lion was always a lion - it never was a sheep. It just had forgotten its own very nature of lion. When another lion revealed the same, the lion realized its nature of lion. Similarly we all are Brahman alone but we have forgotten our own very nature of Brahman. This forgetfulness is removed when the Guru comes to us and tells us that "you are that" or "TAT TVAM ASI" -- then the realization dawns that "I am Brahman". "I" never was different from Brahman but just realized what I had forgotten. Thus MOKSHA is not something gained or newly achieved but it is just realization of one's own very nature.

Vidyaranya mentions about the ten fools story in Panchadashi which also explains the same. If possible, we will try to analyze the story along with the verses of panchadashi in a different mail (hope everybody knows the story -- if someone doesn't know the story, it can be mentioned in the forum so that any person who knows the story can explain the same again in the forum).

There might be an objection here as to the forgetfulness -- what is the cause of forgetfulness? It is ignorance of one's own very nature of Brahman. What is this ignorance and wherefrom did it come???? Advaita answers to this telling that avidya is anirvachaneeya or inexplicable. Ignorance can never be explained as it is beyond any explanation. The main reason for the same is that there never is any ignorance at all -- because we all are always the Self and the Self can never be veiled by ignorance but it just seems to be veiled by ignorance like a person dreaming himself to be something different.

If it is again objected here that "it is a means of escapism when it is said that avidya is anirvachaneeya", then it is only logical to accept that avidya is anirvachaneeya. Let's say that "I am ignorant about maths". This statement itself is wrong because it means that I know something about maths as only then I can say that I am ignorant about a particular thing. If I know about maths, then I am not ignorant about maths. Thus ignorance of maths cannot really be explained at all. Similarly if I have to say when avidya started and where it started etc. these also are illogical. If I say that "yesterday ignorance started", it means that I was aware of the time when I became ignorant about maths. This itself means that I was aware of maths when ignorance started. Thus ignorance about a particular entity or thing cannot be explained. If this is the case with normal entities, it has to be the same with Atman too. Thus ignorance of Atman or Avidya cannot be really explained as it is illogical and that which is beyond explanation. Thus Sankara says that "Yukthi viheena prakaashasya samjnaa maayaa" - Maya is that which is beyond logic. We will discussing in detail about avidya while dealing with madhva's work.

Thus prayojanam of advaita or vedantic works in general is realization of one's own very nature of Self or Brahman.

3. Sambandha -- relation between prayojanam and vishaya is that when a person seeks out the vishaya of brahma atma aikyam, he realizes his own nature of atman or is liberation - thus he gets moksha (gets is a wrong word but still from the empirical viewpoint of ignorance, it is attaining or getting only).

4. Adhikaari -- the person eligible for learning Advaita is one who is endowed with the four-fold qualifications. The four-fold qualifications in short are
a) Viveka or discrimination between real and unreal - Real is Brahman alone and the world is unreal
b) Vairagya or dispassion -- dispassion towards the illusory world because of attachment to the real entity of Brahman
c) shamaadi shatka sampatti -- the six qualities of the mind which are sama or calmness of the mind, dama or control of external sense organs, uparathi or withdrawal of sense organs from their respective objects, titiksha or endurance or forbearance, sraddha or faith in the words of scriptures and guru and samaadhaana or tranquility of the mind as it is established in the Self.
d) Mumukshutva -- burning desire for liberation.

Even though the above four are exhaustive topics, am not dealing them in detail as that will go beyond one mail and since this will be covered in an english commentary on the Chatussutri portion of the Brahma Sutra (not complete yet).

Any person can learn Vedanta but only that person who is endowed with the four-fold qualifications also called saadhana chathustayam will be able to grasp the reality through the study of Vedanta. This particular point is important because else Vedanta can be learnt only by advanced seekers or realized saints who have the four-fold qualifications.

Madhvacharya in this particular work of Mayavaada khandanam attacks the anubandha chathustayam of Advaita trying to show that each of these are invalid for Advaita. He tries to point out through logic that there is neither Vishaya nor Prayojanam nor Sambandha nor adhikaari for Advaita as trying to show all these four for Advaita will lead only to illogical conclusions. This is achieved primarily through high-end logic. These logics are also based on wrong analysis and understanding of Advaita. Even though followers of Dvaita claim that they have clear knowledge about Advaita but still they forget basic things about Advaita. Also they forget the very basic fundamental of Advaita that Advaita is not just mere learning but it is aparoksha anubhava or direct experience of one's own very nature. For this, the sadhana propounded by Advaita has to be followed and a person who follows it will surely realize the adviteeya Brahman. Such a person will have no doubts or objects against Advaita because he himself will be in the advaitic state only. Instead of following the path and trying to find out whether the philosophy is right or wrong, if a person just uses logic to prove the system wrong -- it is very bad and such a seeker alone is loser. Sruthi clearly says that the Self cannot be realized through logic (Na esha tarkena matih aapaneya -- says Katha Upanishad) but still if high-end logic is resorted to and that too against a completely logical system, it is nothing but "utter ignorance and arrogance".

We are not here trying to attack the Dvaitins approach or to have anger towards them but just analyzing the objections which might very well be the doubts in the mind of one of us & trying to resolve it so that we can progress further in the spiritual path to the ultimate reality of Brahman.

Dhyaana sloka - 2

2006-05-11T07:47:00.000-07:00

Just to recap:

we are currently analyzing Madhvacharya's Mayavaada Khandanam wherein he criticizes Advaita -- and we are trying to analyze the work from the view point of Advaita & trying to refute the arguments of Madhva and his followers.

We have currently discussed the dhyaana sloka of Madhvacharya where he prostrates Narasimha for the destruction of all the tenets of Advaita.

As mentioned earlier, we will be learning Madhva's work along with refutation of Madhva's statements and defense of Advaita against Madhva's arguments -- this will be done with the help of the work which has been compiled by me by AMMA's grace. With the blessings of AMMA and Sankara, let us try to analyze the work thereby making clear our concepts about the ultimate reality of Brahman thus helping us in realizing the ultimate reality of Brahman.

The counter work is in sanskrit. There might be grammatical mistakes in the work. Hope people in the forum wouldn't mind it - will try my level best to correct most of the grammatical errors but if that is not possible, apologize for the same.

The work also starts with a similar dhyaana sloka as that of Madhva -- since it is a defense of Advaita against Mayavaada Khandanam so the pattern followed and word-pattern usage will be almost similar to that of Madhva. Have tried to make it elaborate in certain places where explanation is required so that the defense covers arguments of Jaya Teertha also. But in other places, the work will be short and crisp like Madhva's -- we will take up the work and its meaning in detail so that everybody understands the work clearly.

The dhyaana sloka is thus:

Narasimho akhila samsaara bhava baadavaagnih
satyam jnaanam anantham cha sarvopaadhi vivarjitham

Prostrations to Lord Narasimha who is like the fire called Baadavagnih to destroy the entire ocean of samsaara, who is of the nature of Sat Chit and Anantha (or infinite) and beyond all limitations.

The above verse is in anushtup chandhas (which Madhva's dhyaana sloka is also in) which is one of the most common chandhas or metre used in sanskrit (hope there is no fault in the chandhas).

Lord Narasimha's avatar is very important in Vedanta and the time when this occurred is very important. We find in Bhagavatham which is one of the best puranic work propounding the ultimate reality that Lord took the avatar of Narasimha to show one of the great Vedantins of Hiranyakashipu the reality that everything is Brahman only through the instrument of Prahlaada. There are many wrong concepts about Hiranyakashipu and other asura chakravarthis but these asura kings were great Vedantins. We find clearly in Bhagavatham in the story of Mahabali where Lord says to Gods that great is this king who has offered his own head to me -- he has attained a position which you all can't achieve. We find in very clear terms in Yoga Vasistha where it is said that Mahabali initially learnt the truth from his father Virochana and then confirmed this from his guru Shukracharya. When the Lord had killed Hiranyaaksha in the varaaha avatar, Hiranyakashipu's mother and relatives were very sad. He called them all & tells them a story about a king and his queen when the king died, queen were crying -- lord came in the form of a boy and told the queen and others that what is dead is just the form and not the real Self -- the real Self is ever present and it never dies-- therefore dont cry. Thus telling the story, Hiranyakashipu consoled his parents and others -- after this, he set out to find the real killer of Vishnu. He had learnt Vedanta but it became practical when he asked Prahlada as to where is God? Prahlada replied that Lord is everywhere -- then he asked "Is Lord there in this pillar?" and prahlaada replied "yes" -- and he started attacking the pillar & Lord came out. The Lord then killed the Ego of Hiranyakashipu and redeemed the eternal Self underlying the Ego of hiranyakashipu. Hiranya means gold and aksha means eyes -- so this is one who sees Gold and is attracted towards it. Similar is the meaning of Hiranyakashipu too -- who is hankering after sensual pleasures which are like gold attracting everyone. Thus Lord Narasimha is one who kills the Ego and redeems the ever-present eternal Self.

Thus it is mentioned in the dhyaana sloka that Lord is one who destroys the ocean of samsaara. Samsaara is best defined by Sankara as Avidya, kaama and karma -- these are what is there in samsaara. Samsaara is the cause of sorrow and suffering in the world. It makes a person seem to struggle in life even though he is ever the blissful Self. Thus Lord is one who destroys the samsaara through destruction of Ego which experiences the samsaara. Samsaara is an ocean -- comparison used in Vedanta. Ocean is vast, similar is the ocean of ignorance -- it makes a person dip and dip and dip -- the currents are so strong that it is tough to come out of ocean. Oceans have tides of various karmas and phalas. It also has the six crocodiles of kaama, krodha etc. (we are already aware of these).

Normally in many works, we find mentioning of the Lord or Guru as one who is the boat to cross over the ocean of samsaara but here the work mentions it a bit differently. Here reference is made to baadavagnih - a special type of fire. We all know that ocean suppresses fire but there is this particular fire called baadavaagni which drinks the ocean or destroys the ocean. Thus the Lord doesn't help us cross over the ocean but completely destroys the ocean with the fire called baadavagni. This fire is the fire of knowledge, fire of Advaita Jnaana through the scriptures and Guru.

Baadavagni is mentioned in the Guru paaduka stotra of Sri Sacchidaananda Sivabhinava Nrsimha Bharathi swamigal of Sringeri (who was succeeded by the great world acclaimed jeevan muktha of Swami Chandrasekhara Bharathi of Sringeri) thus:

Paapaandhakaara paramparaabhyaam
taapatrayaaheendra khageshwaraabhyaam
Jaadyaabdhi samshoshanabhaadavaabhyaam
namo namah sri gurupaadukaabhyaam

Prostrations to the foot wear of the Guru which is like a set of Sun(s) to destroy the darkness of sin (here indicates ignorance), removing the taapa traya (three types of sufferings of adhibhoota, adhyaatma and adhidaiva) like Garuda removing snakes and that which drinks or evaporates the ocean of jada samsaara like baadavagni.

This comparison is very rare and have found it only in the above verse so far. Prof. Balakrishnan Nair does mention about this fire in his Bhaagavatha Hridayam (an analysis into the spiritual import of stories in Srimad Bhagavatham).

Thus the Lord is not destroyer of any philosophies as Madhva says but he is the destroyer of the ocean of samsaara responsible for all troubles/sufferings in the illusory world (we will come as to how this world is illusion at a later time).

The Lord is explained in Upanishads and Puranaas as Sat Chit ananda and anantha. Sat is to indicate that the reality of Lord or Brahman is never sublated. Chit is to show that it is not insentient like a rock. ananda is to show unlimited happiness unlike sorrow present in objects in the world. Anantha means that the Lord is never limited by any upadhis. This definition of Sat Chit Ananda is for Para Brahman or Nirguna Brahman as per Vedanta. Hence the prostration is not to the form of Narasimha but it is indirectly pointing to the ultimate reality of Nirguna, Nirvishesha and Niraakaara Brahman.

"Satyam jnaana anantham brahma" occurs in Taittiriya Upanishad.

Many puranas have the following sloka:
Satchidaananda roopaaya vishwotpatyaadi hethave
Taapatraya vinaashaaya sri krishnaaya vayam namah

We prostrate Lord Krishna who is of the nature of Sat, Chit and ananda, who is the creator of the world and who is the destroyer of the three types of sufferings.

Thus the refuting work isn't just prostrating the form of Narasimha but also prostrating the underlying reality of Nirguna, Niraakara and Nirvishesha Brahman.

Since it is mentioned in the dhyaana sloka that the reality is of the nature of Sat, Chit, Ananda and Anantha there may be a doubt to the seeker. The doubt is this: Anantha means infinite - this might mean that Brahman is unlimited by the any of the limiting factors - this would mean that the limiting factors are there but Brahman is not limited by them (this is the explanation - similar explanation - which Dvaita system gives for anantha) thus deviating from the one-reality of Advaita. This has been answered by the words "Sarva upadhi vivarjitham" which means deviod or bereft of all adjuncts.

Vedanta broadly speaks about three adjuncts for any object in the world -- the three are Desha, Kaala and Vishaya. Desha means space, kaala means time and vishaya means objectification or causation. Brahman is beyond and bereft of all these adjuncts. Even though Brahman is infinite in time, but still it is not limited by time because it is devoid of time. Similarly Brahman is not just that entity which is present everywhere (which attributes to sarva vyaapitva meaning infinite in space) but it is devoid of space itself. Vishaya means causation. Any object we take in the world is subject to limitation by time, space and causation. But Brahman is beyond all these.

Sankara says thus in Vivekachoodaamani:
Jaathi neethi kula gotra duragam
Naama roopa guna dosha varjitam
desha kaala vishayati vartiyat
Brahma tattvamasi bhaavayaatmani

That which is beyond jaathi (caste), neethi (rule or law), kula (sect), gotra (internal category of caste), that which is bereft of the faults of naama, roopa and gunam, that which stays beyond time, space and causation -- that Brahman I am -- thus contemplate.

The above is from a set of 10 or more verses in Vivekachoodamani where Sankara is speaking about how to meditate on the reality that "I am Brahman" - anusandhaana prakriya.

Thus the counter work says that Narasimha is in fact none other than the ultimate reality of Nirguna Brahman only -- he is not the destroyer of philosophies of ajnaana but he is the remover of the entire ocean of ajnaana or samsaara. He is spoken of in the Upanishads as Sat, Chit, Ananda and Anantha. He is beyond all adjuncts and limitations. Our prostrations to such an ultimate reality in the form of Sadguru Mata Amritanandamayi.

At the outset of the work itself, I offer my prostrations to AMMA without whose grace and will the counter work would'nt have been completed & who has been instrumental in leading through the spiritual path.

We will continue with Madhva's work and the counter argument for the same in the next post. Hope everyone goes through the work properly and apprehend the meaning of Madhva's work as well as Advaita's counter argument for the same. As it is said "advaita na prashnam na api uttaram" - there is neither questiom nor answer in Advaita, but still it is for the progress of each one of us that we are pursuing this study of Madhva's work and as a continuation to the shoonyavaada-mayavaada analysis. Here our main aim is not refutation or attack of Madhva's philosophy but the defense of Advaita and to show that Advaita doesn't have logical issues which Madhva and his followers have tried to point out.

Once again prostrations to the lotus feet of AMMA.

Dhyaana sloka -1

2006-05-11T07:40:00.000-07:00

Madhvacharya starts the work in the traditional way by offering prostrations to Narasimha as well as explaining the purpose of the work too thus:

Narasimho akhila ajnaana matha dvaantha divaakarah
Jayathi amitha sat jnaana sukha shakthi payonidhih

That Narasimha (Lord Vishnu) who removes the philosophy which says that “everything apart from Chaitanya are creations of Avidya or ignorance only” even as Sun removes darkness and who is real, blissful, has power (which are unlimited like ocean) – let the Lord be happy by our prayers.

As per the Dvaita system, Vishnu is Brahman who is defined in two ways as “devoid of bad qualities” and “full of good qualities”. Vishnu is always different from the jeeva. Vishnu alone is independent and all other entities are dependent on Vishnu. A seeker can get realization only through the grace of Vishnu.

Jaya Teertha says that Purushaartha are of two types – one is Anishta nivritti or removal of that which is not liked (or inauspicious) and second is istha praapthi (attainment of liked). The above sthuthi is to remove the anishta of the theory that “everything apart from Brahman is created out of ignorance and is illusory”. This is anishta as this is wrong theory since everything is real and the jeeva can never be one with Brahman. Moreover the ajnaana which Advaitin speaks about can never be proved (this will be dealt later) and hence such systems are to be removed as they will lead to darkness only.

The above assumption of Jaya Teertha that AJNAANA as well Advaita theory is faulty is completely wrong. We will be seeing it in the coming parts but still we have to remember that it is Jaya Teertha’s as well as Madhva’s interpretation of Sruthi and usage of high-end logic which takes them to this wrong conclusion. Even without entering into Advaitin’s viewpoint, let us analyze on Anistha and Ishta.

Each and every person in the world has different likes and dislikes. What HARIRAM likes might not be what Bharadwaj likes. What Neelakantan likes might be something still different. Isha and Anistha are dependent on the seeker. Even though it can be argued that here ISHTA and ANISHTA are from the perspective of Sruthi, still when there are different interpretations itself for Sruthi & the approach towards Sruthi itself being “Subjective” ISHTA and ANISHTA are Subjective. We cannot just go ahead and conclude by saying that “ISHTA” and “ANISHTA” are so and so. Yes, we can very well come to a conclusion as to what is ISHTA and ANISHTA as per scriptures but when we analyze the scriptures, we will surely come to the conclusion that ISHTA is realization and ANISHTA is bondage. Liberation and bondage are very well defined in Sruthi very clearly as realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman (as one’s own nature) and not realizing one’s nature of Brahman respectively. This is very well proclaimed in the various sruthi statements like “Dviteeyaad vai bhayam bhavathi” (out of duality, fear arises – fear is anishta as nobody wants to have fear – this fear can be removed only by removing duality or dual perception which means realization of the non-dual reality of Brahman), “Brahmavid brahmaiva bhavathi” (one who knows Brahman becomes Brahman – Brahman is one alone as per all systems of Vedanta and hence if a seeker by knowing Brahman becomes Brahman, this means the reality is non-dual only), “Tarathi Shokam Aatma vid” (one who knows the Self overcomes sorrow) etc.

Thus as per sruthi, ISHTA is realization of one’s own very nature of non-dual Brahman & ANISTA is considering the dual world as real and considering oneself as different from the ultimate reality of Brahman.

Even Gita also puts forth the same thing as “Kshetrajnam cha api maam viddhi sarva kshetreshu bhaaratha” (know me to the indwelling Self in all bodies), “Madbhaktha etat vijnaaya madbhaavaaya upapadhyathe” (my devotee after knowing this reality about KSHETRA and KSHETRAJNA or body and Self attains my own very nature), “Mayi eva mana aadhatsva mayi buddhim niveshaya, nivasishyasi mayyeva atha urdhvam na samshayah” (Fix the mind unto me, contemplate through the intellect on Me & thereby you will merge into Me – there is no doubt in this), “Ye bhajanthi tu maam bhaktyaa mayi te teshu cha api aham” (He who is devoted to me, he is in Me and I am in him), “Sarvendriya gunaabhaasam sarvendriya vivarjitham, asaktham sarvabritchaiva nirgunam guna bhoktru cha” (All the indriyas and gunas are dependent on me even though I am devoid of all indriyaas or sense organs, I am unattached to things but still bear them – bearing them but still being unaffected by them is possible only when there is no real association and this is in the case of illusions and the substratum only – I am nirguna but still bear or support gunas as the substratum of illusory gunas) etc.

Thus sruthi and smrithi clearly say that ISHTA is realization of the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman and ANISHTA is forgetting this ultimate reality of Brahman as one’s own very nature.

Thus it is very well proved through scriptures that what Jaya Teertha puts forth as ISHTA and ANISHTA are completely wrong and against sruthi. It can be argued here that sruthi has to be supported or substantiated by yukthi & since yukthi against Advaita are strong therefore sruthi propounding Advaita have to be interpreted properly – but this is wrong as we will very well see later that Advaita is fully logical and it is the other systems which have logical faults in them and go against scriptures in many places.

Jaya Teertha above tells that the statement of Advaita that “everything apart from Brahman is nothing but illusory creations of AJNAANA only” is wrong. This is not wrong at all. The main fault that is pointed out is that AJNAANA itself is invalid and without any proof. We have already seen earlier that the very nature of AVIDYA to be without proof itself shows that it is an illusion and not real as Brahman. The illusory snake seen in rope can never be proved through logic because it is not at all present in the rope. Similarly AJNAANA itself is only an illusion in the reality of Brahman & hence it cannot be proved. That it cannot be proved is why it is termed as ANIRVACHANEEYA or indescribable. But even though AJNAANA is not proved but still it is experienced by the ignorant person. The snake never exists in the rope but still it is experienced – no person in the world can negate the experience of the snake in the rope by a person because it is HIS EXPERIENCE of an ILLUSION. Even though Madhvacharya or Sankaracharya say that it is not snake but rope, still as long as the person who perceives the snake doesn’t remove the ignorance of the rope & realizes that “there is no snake but rope alone”, there will be perception of the illusory snake in the rope. Similar is the case with AJNAANA too. That a seeker has AJNAANA is very well known through his experience of “limited happiness”. The ultimate goal of human life is nothing but eternal bliss only. What Vedanta calls as Brahman is nothing but “bliss”. If Brahman is not blissful, then not even a beggar would want such Brahman. Thus if a person is completely blissful, then he is realized. There is no other particular description for realization. This “eternal bliss” can be rejoiced only through realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman through scriptural truth from the Guru and sadhana. Thus scriptural study is also important even though it is as illusory as the ignorance which is experienced. Scripture is nothing but a mirror which shows or points out one’s own face of Brahman. Even as the dream-lion helps a person to wake up from dream, similarly scriptures help in waking the seeker from illusory ignorance (scriptures themselves are illusory because they also are valid at the empirical level only – this is accepted by sruthi as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says while explaining the deep sleep state that “vedaah avedaah” vedaas become non-vedas in deep sleep).

Thus realization is nothing but “being blissful” which is achieved or realized through realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman as one’s own very nature. Thus AJNAANA is proof or is valid for one who is ignorant & such a person will not be always happy.

If the Dvaitin says that “I am happy at all times”, then we have nothing against such statement because “happiness unlimited” is the goal of scriptural study or human life itself. But if the dvaitins like B N K Sharma cry out publicly through his books “demanding” various universities and people to give DUE CREDIT to DVAITA, it shows lack of happiness only. There never have been real advaitins who have cried out like this – not even when the Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins frequently attacked Advaita through all means. This is because Advaita alone can confer a person eternal bliss. Thus even though Vidyaranya was well equipped with all philosophies as seen from his Sarva Darshana Samgraha (where he deals with 16 systems including Dvaita and Vishistadvaita), he didn’t write even a single work against the rival systems. Instead he propounded the system of Advaita in his most famous works of Panchadashi and Jeevan Mukthi Viveka. If it is argued here that B N K Sharma is not a real dvaitin , then this goes against the awards, nominations and names given for his by various Dvaita Acharyas (he has also got the name of Madhva muni priya).

Dvaita tells that realization is realizing one’s own nature and this is different from Brahman. It also speaks about gradations in realization or the happiness in realization. This is completely absurd. BLISS or complete happiness is possible only when there is no distinction whatsoever. As long as there is something different from me, I will not be happy because I will try to want that particular entity or the happiness of the entity. If the entity is Brahman with eternal bliss, obviously I will “desire” to get the eternal bliss. This is seen very clearly in worldly life itself where a person is not satisfied with the money and position he has but tries to get still higher. Hence, so until a person gets unlimited bliss, he will not be satisfied. MOKSHA in which the seeker doesn’t get eternal, unlimited bliss is no MOKSHA at all.

It can be argued that SRUTHI explains it that way and hence Moksha is not realizing eternal bliss but one’s own bliss. But still it is wrong because SRUTHI should always be supported by YUKTHI and Sruthi when interpreted properly will surely be proved by yukthi and anubhava too. Yukthi very clearly shows that bliss or Moksha can never be limited but is unlimited alone as that alone can make a person perfect and complete. If sruthi speaks about limited bliss as Moksha, then sruthi also becomes faulty which can never be. Hence if Sruthi is accepted as true and yukthi has to be understood and accepted, then unlimited bliss alone is MOKSHA. Thus MOKSHA is not realization of one’s own bliss as different from Brahman but it is realization of one’s own very nature of non-dual Brahman. This is also supported by the experience in deep sleep state where the seeker gets eternal bliss and there is neither Ishwara nor the world in that state. If it is argued that the world is negated or is not there in deep sleep is against Sankara’s theory as explained by him in sutra bhashya, it is not so – this has very well been answered in the shoonyavaada series. Sankara only says that the world we currently perceive is not negated as such in any of the states because it continues from waking to waking (through deep sleep where it temporarily merges into the Self). That which temporarily merges has to be impermanent – the world is thus accepted in the three states as existent but it is negated in the fourth state of TURIYA which is not a state at all. Also this explanation that the world is present in all states is only stated in the waking state where there is ignorance. This is not accepted or experienced in deep sleep. It is only taken through assumptions that since after deep sleep & before deep sleep, world was there – therefore world is existent even in deep sleep state --- this assumption also is made in the waking state & never in the deep sleep where there is nothing but non-dual Brahman alone as the world of names and forms merges into the reality of Brahman in deep sleep & this merged world comes back due to ignorance in the waking state. Thus there is no fault whatsoever in the explanations or analysis of deep sleep as per Gaudapada acharya and Sankaracharya.

Thus it is very well proved that MOKSHA is not realization of one’s own nature as different from Brahman but it is realization of one’s own very nature of Brahman itself. This is the real ISHTA and not what the Dvaitin claims as ISHTA. The ANISHTA of considering everything apart from Brahman as unreal is also not at all ANISHTA because it is the reality. Reality never can become ANISHTA as everybody wants to know the reality & hence reality is ISHTA alone.

That Brahman alone exists is very well proved through the logic of anvaya vyatireka. Anvaya says that “if Brahman exists, then the world exists”. Vyatireka says that “if Brahman doesn’t exist, then the world doesn’t exist”. This clearly shows that Brahman is independent whereas the world is dependent. Any dependent entity is unreal and an illusion in the independent entity as a variable is nothing but an illusion in the constant (there is nothing called variable as there is only constant at any point of time). The world is just names and forms of the reality. Names and forms are mere illusions. World is also an illusion because it was not there in the beginning (before creation) and it will not be there in the end (after destruction) – that which Is not present in the beginning and end, never exists in the middle too. Thus the world is only an illusion in the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman like the dream world. The duality perceived is only an illusion caused due to ignorance or ajnaana of the ultimate reality of Brahman. This ajnaana itself is not real but only an illusion. This ajnaana causes a person to think that the duality perceived is real. There is no cause for ajnaana as it is nothing but only an illusion. This illusion of ajnaana has the substratum of Brahman. When a person through the vritti jnaana (thought-knowledge) that “I am Brahman” contemplates on the reality, then ajnaana vanishes & the ever-existing Consciousness exists without any veiling of ignorance or maya. This is realization. It is futile to enquire about ajnaana as nobody wants to know “why I am ignorant” but want to get knowledge --- ajnaana as it is an illusion cannot have any cause but only a substratum. Thus it is very well proved that there is only non-dual Brahman and it is AJNAANA which causes duality – thus this is a fact. FACT or reality is never ANISHTA but ISHTA alone…… Thus what Jaya Teertha says is completely wrong. Moreover it has already been proved that the dvaitin’s ISHTA of Saguna, Savishesha Brahman (with many gunaas) is ANISHTA as it is unreal and not correct at all as per Sruthi, Yukthi and Anubhava.

Preface

2006-05-11T07:26:00.000-07:00

We have learned the shoonyavada and mayavaada similarities and have defended the reality that both are not the same but different from one another – unlike the arguments of rival schools that Brahman of Advaita is same as shoonya of madhyamaka school. As the analysis were too logical (as the arguments themselves were logical most of time), hence many would have found it tough to apprehend or understand clearly. It was mentioned in the last mail of the series that we will be analyzing on the Mayavaada Khandanam of Madhvacharya.

The analysis will help to improve and make clear our knowledge about Advaita. Moreover since in Mayavaada Khandanam, the basic philosophy of Advaita is attacked – therefore we will have many things to learn from that. This is unlike in Shoonyavaada series where only the argument that shoonyavaada and mayavaada are same was present.

Adi Sankaracharya is dated around the 9th century A.D. It is agreed by many scholars that at the time of Sankara, there was only Advaita system of Vedanta. But many acharyas claim that their system was there prior to Sankara also. For eg:- Ramanuja claims to have based his Sri Bhashya on the Brahma Sutras on the mutilated copy of the commentary of one Bodhayana on the Brahma Sutras. Ramanuja claims that Bodhayana’s vritti is based on the vishista advaita philosophy only. Sankara does refer to more than one vrittikaaras in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. He refers to a vrittikaara named Upavarsha in the Anandamayaadhikarana. It doesn’t really matter who all Sankara refers but it matters what were their philosophies. Sankara does criticize many of such vrittikaaras whose work is unfortunately not available now. The oldest extant commentary on Brahma Sutra is Sankara’s commentary. Even though Ramanuja refers to Bodhayana’s vritti, Ramanuja himself gives very few references and quotes from the vritti in his Sri Bhashya. Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswathi in his Vedanta Prakriya Pratyabhijnaa (swamiji was the founder of Adhyatma Prakaashana Karyalaya in Holenarsipur) shows without any doubt that all the vrittikaaras whom Sankara refers and criticizes are all Advaitins only. Then why does Sankara criticize them? Sankara criticizes the approach or sadhana which they follow to Brahma Sakshaatkaara. Thus even though there were many prakriyaa bhedhas, all these acharyas agreed on the ultimate reality of adviteeya Brahman. If possible at the end of the analysis of Mayavaada Khandanam or as a separate thread, we will try to see how Sacchidanandendra Saraswathi shows that all these acharyas are advaitins even though Ramanuja and others claim that they are vishista advaitins only.

Thus as per the analysis of Sacchidanandendra Saraswathi (SS in short), there were only Advaita Vedantins at the time of Sankara. SS also shows clearly from a particular bhashya of Sankara that “the system of considering Brahman as just the efficient or nimitta kaarana is “VEDA BAAHYA” or outside Vedas” which very clearly is applicable for the dvaita Vedanta system.

Adi Sankara was followed by some of the great Advaita acharyas like Vachaspathi Mishra, Ishta Siddhi Vimuktaatman, Sri Harsha, Chitsukha, Anubhootisvaroopa, Amalananda, Anandagiri etc. not to mention Padmapada (who wrote the panchapaadika commentary on Sankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya) and Sureshwaracharya (who has written many vartikas on Sankara’s works – most prominent being the Brihadaranyaka Vartika on Sankara’s Brihadaranyaka Bhashya).

At the start of 12th century and 13th century, Ramanuja and Madhva were present. Ramanuja followed the footsteps of his guru’s guru Yamunacharya bringing forth the system of vishista advaita (taking many concepts out of the Vaishnava systems). Madhvacharya propounded the system of Dvaita Vedanta claiming that Hanuman taught this system as per the Ramayana. When Ramanuja and Madhva arrived, Advaita Vedanta was in a very strong state with many people following them. The Nyaaya system had started attacking Advaita Vedanta through Udayanacharya and others. But these naiyyayikas were strongly attacked by Sri Harsha, Ananda Bodha and Chitsukha. Thus around the 13th century, Advaita Vedanta was one of the most prominent darshanas available at that time. Thus Ramanuja and Madhva, if they had to establish their system, had to pierce through the strong foundation of Sankara. This was necessary in order to make people come to their system from the strongly established Advaita Vedanta.

The Nyaya system which was strongly attacked and its vulnerabilities exposed took refuge at the hands of Gangesha Upadhyaaya (Naiyyayikas like Dvaitins are thorough dualist). Gangesha wrote the great Tattva Chintamani basing on the prachina nyaaya but concentrating more on pramaanaas than prameyaas. This was further strengthened by great Naiyyayikas like Raghunaatha Shiromani (in the Didhithi commentary on Tattva Chintamani) and Gadhaadhara Bhatta. The new nyaaya system was being called Navya Nyaaya (new system of logic).

Since Navya Nyaaya was in place by the time Ramanuja and Madhva arrived (I don’t know exactly whether Gangesha came before Madhva and Ramanuja or after), they took resort to strong logic to attack Advaita. Thus the later dvaitins like Vyaasa teertha and Raghavendra started using Navya Nyaaya. In order to defend the system of Advaita, Advaitins like Madhusudana Saraswathi and Nrsimha ashrama also started using Navya Nyaaya.

Many of madhva’s arguments against Advaita are purely based on logic – substantiating the logic with sruthi statements. Thus those sruthi statements which speak about Advaita are given more importance and those which speak about advaita are interpreted in a different way based on logic (which refutes Advaita). Thus most of the works of Madhva or Dvaita Vedanta concentrate mainly on refutation of Advaita. It is but the same way in Sri Bhashya of Ramanuja too where he spends lot of effort criticizing Advaita.

Thus we have to remember clearly that the attack on Advaita is primarily based on logic and not purely based on sruthi or anubhava. Dvaita does take resort to anubhava in the form of Pratyaksha to show that duality is real while substantiating this with strong and hair-splitting logic. Thus when we are analyzing such a logical work of Madhva, we have to remember that too much logic can never lead to the reality as reality is beyond logic. This doesn’t mean that Advaita doesn’t have proper answer in logic to the criticisms of Dvaita, but just that logic alone can never lead to the reality.

The most important argument against Advaita is Pratyaksha Virodha – contrary to perception. We perceive duality and hence non-duality is completely against perception. We see and experience different entities and hence how can non-dual reality be real?? This perception is also agreed by sruthi and yukthi. Thus Advaita is faulty that it contradicts perception or experience.

The above argument is not really valid because various acharyas from Gaudapada and others have clearly shown that “what we perceive need not be real”. A person does see water in desert but there is no water at all. Similarly a person sees dream but it is not real. Thus “what is perceived is real” is a wrong statement as such a statement is deviated or proved wrong in the case of illusions or bhramaas.
Also another wrong concept which is attacked by Dvaita is that “Advaita doesn’t give any reality status to the world”. This is wrong because Advaita accepts the dual world but only that it says such a perception is not “ultimately real”. Thus the world is given a vyaavahaarika satta or empirical reality as opposed to the paaramarthika satta of adviteeya Brahman. As long as the world is seen or perceived, it is real (apparently or seemingly). The world is not unreal like the son of a barren woman or horns of a hare. But the world is not real also as real is that which exists beyond time & never ceases to exist. Thus the world is neither real nor unreal – such an entity is called Mithya or anirvachaneeya. Mithya is that which seems to exist when it is perceived & when the substratum or reality is known, it becomes unreal. The water seen in desert is real as long as the reality that there is only desert is realized. Thus water in desert is real as long as the seeker sees the water. But once the seeker realizes that there is no water, then he also realizes that “there never was any water at all”. It is only at the ultimate level that world is completely negated. Thus the world does exist empirically but ultimate doesn’t exist at all. Without understanding this, if it is argued that Advaita doesn’t accept the world which is currently perceived is completely wrong. Also this reality of Brahman underlying the empirical existence of world (which is names and forms) is never against perception. Perception just shows Brahman along with names and forms. This perception is completely valid at the empirical level. But when a stronger pramana like Sruthi negates Pratyaksha, then pratyaksha becomes invalid (only when sruthi overrules it and experience also proves it). Thus there is no real contradiction between what is perceived empirically and what is not present ultimately.

Even the trai satta vibhaaga is also criticized as illogical and bereft of sruthi support – whereas this “three reality” is very well supported by sruthi and logic too. We will see later how this is logically correct and sruthi too supports it. Thus, without understanding this difference, attacking Advaita by saying that world is seen and hence real – Brahman can never be the sakshi as Brahman is nirvikalpa and cannot become the object of enquiry etc. is wrong because Nirvikalpa Brahman is only at the ultimate level & it is the sakshi which is present at the empirical level (the same Brahman is present as Sakshi at the empirical level). Moreover Brahman when unknown due to illusory ignorance is very well logical to accept it as the object of enquiry or Vishaya – even though ultimately even such enquiry is invalid as there is nothing but Brahman alone. That Brahman alone exists is very well proved in Satya Darshanam (interested people can refer to it for detailed analysis on the same).

To sum up in general, it is but wrong knowledge or “knowingly” attacking attitude which causes rival systems to attack Advaita using hair-spitting logic. Even though Adviteeya Brahman is never affected by such arguments & Advaita requires no need to answer those criticisms as it is proved through sruthi, yukthi and anubhava, but still it can very well be shown that there is an answer to whatever argument the rival schools raise. We have to remember as Sri Harsha says in Khandana Khanda Khadhyam --- he says “The arguments which has been presented against Nyaaya system can be used against any system – so these arguments can also be used to prove the illogical state of Advaita too but even in such a case, the Nirvishesha Brahman would still remain without any fault as the SAKSHI of the act of arguing (it will still remain as pure and eternal Consciousness).”

Mayavada Khandanam has mainly three commentaries on it (the pdf available at the dvaita site gives three commentaries to it). The three commentaries are by Padmanaabha Teertha, Jaya Teertha and Pandurangi keshavaacharya. The commentary by Jaya Teertha is very deep and covers different aspects of the work very clearly. It is unfortunate that neither Vyaasa Teertha nor Raghavendra have commented on this. This must be because they didn’t have anything much to add to what Jaya Teertha has explained (as the tikakaara has explained the work very clearly and in depth).

We will mostly be analyzing the work based on Jaya Teertha’s commentary but will take points from the other two commentaries too.

Let us start by prostrating to the Dakshinamurthy that this analysis should lead to proper fruits of clearing all doubts/wrong notions about the ultimate reality of Brahman.

I offer this analysis at the lotus feet of AMMA and pray to her that this work might lead us to liberation in this very birth itself.

The pdf file can be found on www.dvaita.net. The PDF has the original work with the above mentioned commentaries.

The wordings in italics and brown are the dvaitins statement with Madhwas work in Bold and the advaitin’s reply to it will be in normal font and the Mayavada Darpanam text will be in bold and green.

Introduction to Mayavada Darpanam

2006-05-11T07:24:00.000-07:00

HARI AUM

Prostrations to all.

Vedanta is the science of knowing that having known which everything becomes known. Vedanta particularly deals with the reality called or termed as Brahman of the nature of Sat, Chit Ananda (Existence, Consciousness and Bliss absolute). Vedanta is the Upanishads present in the different shaakhaas or recensions of the four Vedas of Rig, Yajur, Saama and Atharva. The main Upanishads are the dasha upanishads commented by Adi Sankaracharya and similarly commented upon by other acharyas.
During time after Sankaracharya, different interpretations started creeping in for the Upanishads. Thus different systems of Vedanta each claiming to be the true interpretation of the Upanishads came into existence. Each of these systems had an acharya being the main person propagating the theory – each such acharya had a claim to show that his interpretation is traditional as well as old too even though it seemed illogical enough for the same.

Thus there are currently as many as ten different interpretations of the Upanishads. Out of these, the three important systems which have major following are the Advaita being clearly propounded by Sankaracharya, Vishista advaita of Ramanujacharya and Dvaita of Madhvacharya.

Each of the successive acharyas of Sankara tried to prove their system right through first breaking through the philosophy of Sankara. Thus we find Ramanuja criticizing Advaita in his Sri Bhashya and Madhva writing many works against Advaita trying to prove that Advaita is illogical.

Both Ramanuja and Madhva, even though taking resort to sruthi while refuting Sankara, take resort to too much hair-splitting logic. Thus these two systems are also called Prachhanna taarkikaas or veiled logicians. Most of the objections these acharyas raise against Advaita is basically due to not understanding Advaita properly or not wanting to understand Advaita properly.

The basic and fundamental theory of Traisatta vibhaaga or the three-fold reality status as the praathibhaasika satyam or temporary reality which is experienced during dream, vyaavahaarika satyam or empirical reality as in the case of the waking world perceived & paaramaarthika satyam or ultimate reality which is nothing but adviteeya Brahman alone is not clearly understood by these later acharyas. Instead of properly understanding this, criticism of Advaita by taking resort to high-end logic follows.

Even though the logical issues raised by Madhva and his followers has more than satisfactorily answered by Madhusudana Saraswathi in Advaita Siddhi and Gauda Brahmananda in Gauda Brahmaanandi or Laghu Chandrika, but still it helps to understand Advaita better by analyzing the criticism of Madhva and answering them from the perspective of Advaita.

Madhva has written three khandanam works (Khandanam means refutation) against Advaita which are: Mayavaada Khandanam, Anumaana Khandanam and Upaadhi Khandanam.
Here we are trying to analyze first Mayavaada Khandanama of Madhva and answering the criticisms of Madhva as per Advaita acharyas and sruthi quotations as well as logic. Thus by the grace of AMMA (Sadguru Mata Amritanandamayi Devi), a work titled Mayavaada Darpanam which elucidates Advaita clearly by answering the criticisms of Mayavaada Khandanam has been written. This work will be studied along with Mayavaada Khandanam to get a deeper grasp of the subtle concepts of Advaita as well as to get rid of the doubts and logical issues raised by Madhva and his followers in Mayavaada Khandanam and its various sub-commentaries.

Let us all offer our prostrations at the lotus feet of AMMA so that she may bless us all to remove the darkness of ignorance and all doubts to make us realize our own very nature of eternal bliss.

Prostrations to all.

HARI AUM

Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God