[Article Sourced From: Here ]
From the standpoint of Pure Adi Śaṅkara Vedānta, the answer is no. The jñānī, as Paramātmā, does not see the world. More exactly, he does not become a seer of anything second to himself. Realization does not turn an individual into Brahman as a new state; it removes the false notion that the ever-free Self was ever bound, ignorant, or finite.[1]
Why is this so? Because seeing necessarily implies duality: a seer, an act of seeing, and an object seen. But the Upaniṣadic teaching, as understood by Śaṅkara, is that this entire triad belongs only to ignorance. When everything has become the Self, the question itself arises: by what could one see, and whom? Likewise, the Self is not something that can be objectified, for “the seer of seeing” can never itself become a seen object.[2] Hence Brahman cannot literally be a perceiver in the empirical sense.
This also explains why even the term “seer” must be used with caution. In Vedānta the Self is sometimes called the Seer or Witness, but only provisionally, for the sake of instruction. The purpose of this language is to separate the Self from body, senses, and mind, not to establish Brahman as a cosmic observer confronting a world. Satchidanandendra, following Śaṅkara, emphasizes that worldly seeing is only a modification of the mind falsely attributed to the Self. The Self is called “the Seer” only because it illumines these mental modes; in itself it does not perform an act of seeing.[3]
At this point one may object: if the jñānī does not see the world, why do texts and teachers sometimes say that the sage still sees plurality? Pure Śaṅkara Vedānta answers this by distinguishing the knower’s own standpoint from the worldly standpoint. From the knower’s standpoint there is no vision of duality at all. From the worldly standpoint, however, body, senses, and mental functioning may continue to appear, and thus onlookers still describe the sage in empirical language. Śaṅkara’s illustration is the appearance of two moons: even after the error is corrected, a sublated appearance may momentarily persist due to prior impressions. But this does not mean that real ignorance remains in the jñānī.[4]
This point is reinforced by Śaṅkara’s statement, cited by Satchidanandendra, that after realization there can be no continuing transaction of means of knowledge, knower, and object of knowledge. The final means of knowledge, the śruti itself, removes the very status of the Self as a knower in the empirical sense; after accomplishing this, it ceases to function as a pramāṇa, just as dream-pramāṇas lapse upon waking.[5] Therefore the jñānī cannot be described, in the strict sense, as one who knows or sees objects over against himself.
This is precisely where later Advaita formulations often become less exact than Śaṅkara. Some later theories speak as though a residue of avidyā remains in the liberated person in order to explain continuing empirical perception. But Satchidanandendra repeatedly rejects this as a post-Śaṅkara development. Knowledge destroys ignorance as ignorance. What may continue is only a powerless, already-sublated appearance, not a real remnant of bondage.[6]
The conclusion is therefore straightforward. The jñānī does not see the world as jñānī. Brahman cannot be a seer confronting an object, since that would reintroduce duality into the non-dual. At most, others may speak as though the sage sees, hears, or acts, but this is only empirical language applied to a sublated appearance. From the highest standpoint, there is no seer-seen relation at all. There is only Brahman.
Notes
1. On the point that realization does not newly produce Brahmanhood but reveals the ever-free Self, see Satchidanandendra’s statement that from the enlightened person’s own standpoint the Self “is, ever was, and ever will be free from Ignorance, desire and action.”
2. For the decisive Upaniṣadic basis, see Bṛhadāraṇyaka 4.5.15 (“when everything has become the Self, what can one see and with what?”) and Bṛhadāraṇyaka 3.4.2 (“you cannot see the seer of seeing”), as discussed in Satchidanandendra’s expositions.
3. On the distinction between worldly vision as mind-modification and the Self as only provisionally called “the Seer,” see The Method of the Vedanta, discussion of Bṛhadāraṇyaka 4.5.15 and 3.4.2.
4. On the continued empirical appearance of duality after knowledge, and Śaṅkara’s analogy of the two moons from Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya 4.1.15, see Satchidanandendra’s discussions in Viśuddhavedāntasāraḥ, Sugamā, and Articles and Thoughts on Vedanta.
5. On the cessation of pramāṇa–prameya transaction after realization, see the citation of Gītā Bhāṣya 2.69 in How to Recognize the Method of Vedānta and Dakṣiṇa BharataŚaṅkara Vedānta-Vidvadgoṣṭhi.
6. On the rejection of any real residual avidyā after knowledge, see Sugamā and Satchidanandendra’s critique of avidyā-leśa in Articles and Thoughts on Vedanta.
[The author of the Article, Shri Thomas John aka Hishi Ryo is an AI Expert and created a custom GPT, Shankara Vedanta. It is now publicly available. It was created especially with the FB group Shankara Advaita in mind.
The URL is: Click here ]
Under Point # 3, the article, says:
“From the worldly standpoint, however, body, senses, and mental functioning may continue to appear, and thus onlookers still describe the sage in empirical language.”
What the onlookers actually perceive is the gross physical body (made up of the five elements) which is perishable, inert and does not ever get liberated. But the onlookers call that body as the jnAni in common parlance for communication purposes. This mis-nomenclature may lead some to suppose that the jnAni in his body is performing all worldly actions, interactions and transactions.
Thus what the onlookers actually “see” is only the physical food-body (which is a part of the world) and misconstrue it to be the jnAni!
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
Thank you for the link here – potentially really useful. N.B. I simplified the URL since it was extending beyond the boundaries of the page.
When you say “The author of the Article, Shri Thomas John…”, I presume you mean that you asked his ChatGPT model the question, not that he himself answered it. Assuming that to be the case, my first comment is that if the question asked was that which you have made the title of the post, then that was not a good question to ask of ChatGPT. The phrasing of the question impacts significantly on the nature of the response that you will get. Accordingly, my view is that you preordained what would turn out to be a misleading response.
So my main comments are ones I have made before:
. the jñānī is ALREADY Brahman, because there is only Brahman. (paramārtha)
. Brahman does not DO anything, whether this is creating a world or perceiving it subsequently. (paramārtha)
. Enlightenment is in the mind of the jīva, who continues to live in the world until death of the body-mind. (vyavahāra)
That being the case, when you ask about the jñānī when he is paramātman, you are certain to get the answers that you in fact got! The jñānī, as Paramātmā, does NOT see the world. Because Brahman does not do anything.
But, if it were as simple as that, you would not be able to account for Śaṅkara’s statements regarding the prārabdha karma of the jñānī. You have to acknowledge that there are two aspects to the status of the jñānī. There is his status as (having now realized that he is) Brahman. Perhaps you can think of this as his ‘as if’ pāramārthika status. And there is his status as still being still associated with a body-mind which has remaining karma to work through. You can think of this as his ahaṃkāra status or vyāvahārika status.
The author of Vivekacūḍāmaṇi (who was probably not Śaṅkara) writes quite a bit about this around verse 450 – 60 ish I think.
When you are making what are claimed to be definitive statements about this sort of thing, you therefore need to be extremely careful. Your conclusion states that: “The jñānī does not see the world as jñānī.” On its own, this statement would be unintelligible but the explanatory text that follows makes it clear that it is referring to the ‘sākṣi jñānī’, if you like – the notional one who sees the world but knows that it is only name and form of Brahman. The metaphor of the mirage is appropriate.
But the conclusion does not mention the ahaṃkāra jñānī who still has to locate his next meal and move out of the way of the charging elephant.
Perhaps you could ask your Śaṅkara-GPT model a follow-up question of how, given what it has just said, it explains Śaṅkara’s statements regarding a jñānī’s prārabdha.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thank you for your Comment.
Thanks also for simplifying the URL.
Neither the Question nor the pdf Article (for which I have given the link in the post) was by me. The article (including its “title”) was by Thomas John only.
As your presumption based on which you designed and constructed your response is not factually correct, I am not reacting any further to your remarks.
Let me, however, say here that Thomas knows about your interest in using the AI tools and looks forward to interacting with you on using the one created by him.
regards,
Dear Dennis,
Admittedly I am not as computer savvy as you are.
But to my surprise, I find that the simplified URL given by you for the custom built Shankara Vedanta Web page seems to give answers differently for the same exact query when posed at the link given by Thomas.
Could it be possible that the link given by you takes one to the general Open AI ChatGPT?
So, I changed the URL back to that given by Thomas, but simplified it as a Hyperlink.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
My apologies but I did not understand your comment. What did I say that was incorrect and prompted you not to respond to my comments? I prepared them in good faith (and took a couple of hours doing so!).
One additional point occurred to me afterwards, namely that you could use exactly the same argument to say that the aj~nAnI does not see the world either, since he is also Brahman who does not act or perceive anything.
The only difference of course is that he does not yet realize this.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
I am writing just to clarify and not with any intention of a prolonged debate.
In the second para of your Comment this morning (@ 10.48 AM, Apr 10), you recalled a series of “assumptions” you made linking me to the pdf Article and the Question posed to the custom AI tool. I wanted to make it clear that all of those assumptions (presumptions) were not correct. I had no connection at all with that query or pdf article. Both were Tom’s only.
Secondly, in a general way, let me point out that Shankara does not give a blank clearance to declare that every one is Brahman. He categorically and very clearly stipulates a caveat. Every one is a Brahman contingent upon Its realization by him; not until then, not otherwise! He makes this point at brihat, taittirIya, kaTha and other places.
I am tempted to make one more point.
Perhaps, an analogy helps better what I want to say.
Let’s take a bright sunny day. There is the Sun disc, sunlight in the open, under shade, in the front yard, backyard, in the house etc. as well as the same undivided and indivisible Sunlight in all houses, in the neighborhood and so on. The Sunlight is like Brahman. The combo of an independent house with a limited form, dimension, measures, boundaries (my house comparable to my body) + the sunlight within it (comparable to Atman) together make up the “individual.” This model is useful to appreciate better the Advaitic concept of liberation, who gets liberated and all the related issues, IMHO.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
I also do not want a prolonged debate! But, to clarify, the ‘assumptions’ I made were simply observations about how ChatGPT provides an answer that is very much dependent upon how you phrase the question. Whether it was actually yourself or Tom who phrased it is not relevant.
The other point is that Shankara does not have to ‘give a blank clearance’. Everyone is Brahman, irrespective of whether or not they have realized it. This fact is intrinsic to Advaita and does not need to be debated. Sarvam khalvidam brahma.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
I agree with you that the “slant” in the Prompt can influence the answer by the AI systems. I have no idea about how Tom structured his queries etc. Maybe this is a good reason that you may like to take up the matter with Tom, especially because he hopes to interact with you.
I see a crucial difference between the two statements given below and that is the point I wanted to highlight:
Usually Neo-Advaita group, Some of the Western and Westernized-Indian Advaita teachers and Neo-Vedantins who say: “Everyone is Brahman, irrespective of whether or not they have realized it.”
Shankara in his commentaries: “One has to realize that the omnipresent brahman is none other than one’s own Self.”
“The individual ‘self,’ though intrinsically none other than the Self, still identifies itself with and becomes attached to the external layers.”
***
Re: sarvam … of 3.14.1, chAn is mainly for “meditational purposes” as Shankara clarifies in later mantras (3.14.2 ff).
Further, he also makes it clear at 1.3.1, BSB that “It is meant for the elimination of the universe, and not for proving heterogeneity (in brahman).”
Things will be easier to understand if we keep the above in mind, IMHO.
Anyway, that’s what my understanding is.
regards,
Sorry, Ramesam – I wasn’t even thinking about how Advaita is taught. I was simply being pedantic – since reality is non-dual, and there has never been any creation, everything is necessarily Brahman, whether one knows it or not. Simple as that!
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
|——————————————————-|
|Roadside Warning: A Pleasant Digression|
|_____________:) 🙂 :)_______________|
Your comment spurred me to explore a bit on “Pedantry” because a pedantic approach sounds to a human mind logical and “simple as that,” as you put it; but invariably fails in its application to Advaita Vedanta. I got curious why it is so.
AI (Gemini) says: “Pedantry” is considered a character of the human mind, acting as a behavioral trait or a particular habit of mind. … …”
The AI also quotes Merriam Webster to write: “While it can have positive implications in fields requiring extreme accuracy (like scientific research or coding), in general human interaction, it is typically viewed as an annoying, fussy, or pretentious habit of mind.”
So, while ‘pedantry’ is totally within the ‘time-pace-causation’ realm of the mind, Advaita shines and reveals itself only when the cittaspandana (the vibrations of the mind — GK) cease. That’s why, no wonder, even Shankara insists on “shruti anugrahIta tarka” (logic sanctioned by scripture) and not of the human mind variety.
Surely, “everything is necessarily Brahman, whether one knows it or not,” but prior to creation (I.e. in the beginning as chAn U. and aitareya U. say it). Creation (kalpana) which is not-Self (mere cittaspandana) messes up everything!
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
Always happy to consider language usage – so important!
What you say here sounds a bit like claiming that, before numbers were ‘invented’, 1 + 1 might not have equalled 2.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Ha Ha Ha
You are absolutely right, Dennis!
It’s all the mAyA of the ‘+’
Actually 1 and 1 never mix giving birth to ‘2.’
It’s all a play of the mind!!!
My Mentor Shri K.V. Krishna Murty Ji explains this well – I have a Post on this right at AV:
“For example, let us say that there is one banana. I place another banana next to it. Then we can express it in the form:
1 + 1
This formulation introducing ‘+’ has not brought to bear any change upon the first banana or the second banana.
Next we write the equation:
1 + 1 = 2
How could we formulate the above equation balancing the left hand and right hand sides?
Wherefrom did the numeral ‘2’ get generated?
The two ‘1’s representing the first banana and the second banana on which ‘+’ has no effect, obviously, could not have generated ‘2’.
So the numeral ‘2’ must have got generated by the sign ‘+’.
But ‘+’ by itself all alone cannot generate ‘2’. It can generate ‘2’ only when it comes in-between two 1s.
It happens so because, though the ‘+’ sign has no effect on any of the 1s (called the operands), it has an effect on the ‘mind’ of the person doing the calculation.
The symbol ‘+’ produces the image of the numeral ‘2’ in the mind of the person carrying out the calculation.
‘2’ appears clearly as a numeral. How can we say that ‘2’ is imagined in the mind?
If ‘2’ is really an entity and not an imagination, it should relate to something or the other. But in the equation we have written, ‘2’ is related to neither the first nor the second operand.”
Read more:
https://www.advaita-vision.org/traditional-teaching-and-deep-sleep-iii-maya-creation/
regards,
Greetings!
So I submitted the following to the Shankara-GPT model:
Is the following question valid as stated, in terms of Advaita as understood here?
“Does the Jñānī see the world when he is Paramātmā?”
Response by Shankara-GPT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m checking how the core texts here handle three separate terms in your sentence: “Jñānī,” “see the world,” and “when he is Paramātmā,” because in Pure Śaṅkara these are not casually interchangeable.
The first pass turned up mostly irrelevant files plus one useful doctrinal hit. I’m narrowing it to the core Śaṅkara/Suresvara material and the Satchidanandendra texts on witness, waking, and the status of the world.
Thought for 28s
Not quite. In Pure Adi Śaṅkara Vedānta, that question mixes levels and therefore needs correction.
Why it is not valid as stated
A Jñānī is a term used from the empirical teaching standpoint, where we still speak of a knower, body, mind, and world. But Paramātmā is not a state that the Jñānī “enters” while remaining a subject who then either sees or does not see an object called “the world.” The Witness-Self is ever the same, non-dual, relationless, and not really modified into a knower who later becomes something else. The corpus here repeatedly stresses that the Self does not truly pass through waking, dream, and sleep; those states are only taught and then sublated for instruction. The Witness is untouched by what it witnesses, and from the final standpoint waking, dream, and dreamless sleep do not belong to the relationless Self.
Further, the world is not said to exist in the Self as a second thing. The texts here say that though waking and dream with their attendant worlds are imagined by the deluded to be in the Self, they do not in fact exist in the Self, and the notion that the Self “has a universe” is contradicted and cancelled.
Also, a useful passage in this corpus says that by realizing oneself as “I am He,” the Witness of both waking and dream, identical with the Supreme Self, one no longer grieves. That is not the language of a Jñānī becoming Paramātmā and then checking whether he sees a world. It is the removal of the false identification with the states and their worlds.
Pure Śaṅkara view
From the standpoint of paramārtha, the question “Does Paramātmā see the world?” is malformed. Paramātmā is not a seer over against a seen world.
From the standpoint of vyavahāra, one may still speak of the Jñānī as apparently perceiving the world, just as waking continues to appear for others and for transactional purposes. But the Jñānī no longer takes that world as ultimately real or as truly related to the Self. The world is mithyā, not a second reality. The Self is not transformed into a world-seer.
Where later confusion enters
Later Advaita and modern popular formulations often ask, “After realization, does the enlightened one still see the world?” That can be a tolerable pedagogical question if kept strictly at the empirical level. But once one says “when he is Paramātmā,” one has already shifted to the absolute standpoint, where the dual structure “he sees the world” is no longer admissible.
A better formulation
Use one of these instead:
From the empirical standpoint, does the Jñānī continue to perceive the world?
From the absolute standpoint, can Paramātmā be said to be a seer of the world at all?
How does Pure Śaṅkara Vedānta reconcile the Jñānī’s apparent perception of the world with the non-duality of the Self?
Conclusion
So, as stated, the question is not valid in a strict Pure Śaṅkara sense. It conflates the empirical Jñānī with the absolute Paramātmā, and it treats Paramātmā as though It were a stateful perceiver. The corrected answer would be:
Empirically: the Jñānī may be said to appear to perceive the world.
Absolutely: Paramātmā does not “see the world” as a subject sees an object, because no real duality is admitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Best Wishes,
Charles
Hi Charles,
Nice to hear from you.
I shall let know Tom about your query.
regards,
Hi Charles,
Many thanks for that! Look forward with interest to any response from Tom.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Ramesam,
I read your 1 + 1 analysis with amusement, as presumably intended. But I couldn’t help thinking afterwards that: if you cannot provide an answer, trying to ridicule the question is a good diversionary tactic…
But to try to be serious for a minute, you presumably know that you cannot do this. Words, and even more so numbers, are defined axiomatically so that people can communicate. Without this, humanity would be no better than a tribe of monkeys. (Although sometimes, with what is going on in the world, it seems that this is indeed the case…)
Best wishes,
Dennis
Namaste!
I am glad to read more about the activities surrounding the Shankara Vedanta Tool. I’m currently working on a significant upgrade to increase scriptural efficiency. As for the post by the revered Ramesam ji, while the project does have certain constraints, it still looks promising.
Best regards,
Tom