Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-1 Introduction In verse 20 of Brahm-JnAna-valli-mAlA, Shankaracharya says that Brahman is reality, jagat is mithyA and jiva is not different from Brahman. It means the identity of Brahman and jiva. Brahman is vast; jiva is finite and small. How can they be the same? To establish their identity, Advaita delves into the essential nature of the two. There is an inquiry about the real nature of a human being, a jiva. Body-Mind System (BMS) is made of matter, is inert, and is different from consciousness. However, BMS is found to be sentient. Therefore, it is inferred that the consciousness enters BMS, like a reflection of the sun entering the water, and makes the BMS sentient. The sentient BMS is a Jiva. Sun is like the Original Consciousness (OC) and there is a Reflected Consciousness (RC) in BMS making BMS sentient.
The sentient BMS has an I-thought called ego. The source of I-thought is OC. OC is the original I. It is called Self or Atma. BMS is subject to change and so is RC. The sentient BMS transacts in the world. Self is transaction-free and unchanging. A human being has the option to identify himself with unchanging OC (Self) or the changing sentient BMS. As OC (Self) is unchanging, it is the real nature of a human being. When the intellect identifies a human being with Self, it is Self-knowledge. Identification with sentient BMS which transacts in the changing world is Samsara. Samsara is the life of pairs of opposites and is the cause of suffering. Conversely, Self-knowledge ensures a life free of suffering. As OC is unchanging, it is the same for all human beings. There is only one Self in all Jivas. It is non-dual.
There is a similar inquiry of the world. It is full of inert objects and living beings. Advaita holds that OC pervades not only living beings but also inert objects. It is manifested in living beings because they have, besides the gross body, the subtle body which is capable of reflecting OC. It is not manifested in inert objects because they lack a subtle body, the reflecting medium. Sunlight is reflected in clean water but not in stone.
Worldly objects change with time. Advaita makes a fundamental claim. A changing object is not truly existent and should have a substratum that provides existence to it. Advaita says that the substratum is existence. It is not a property or attribute. It is the very nature of every existing object. It is akin to the sweetness of sugar. It is pure existence, written as Existence. It is easy to see that Existence is a common factor across all objects of experience. It is formless and unchanging. Is there any non-existent thing? The horn of a rabbit is non-existent.
As Existence is the substratum of worldly objects, big or small, with and without form, it means that Existence is the substratum of the world. Worldly objects have Existence as a common factor plus varying names and forms. Thus, the real nature of the world is Existence called Sat in VedAntic terminology. Advaita calls it Brahman. Brahman means vast. It is also clear that Brahman is all-pervading and infinite (ananta). Brahman is Sat and Ananta. There are two statements of fact. The real nature of a jiva is Consciousness. The real nature of the world is Existence. Since a Jiva is part of the world, Consciousness, and Existence are two aspects of the same Reality. It is the third statement of fact. It can also be derived in another manner. A thing exists if it has been experienced and known by at least one person. Experience or knowledge is not possible without consciousness. An existent pot means pot-consciousness and pot-knowledge. The conclusion is that Existence, Consciousness, and knowledge principle are the same. The real nature (Brahman) of the world is not different from the real nature (Self) of a jiva.
A calm and quiet mind is happy and an agitated mind is not. It means that happiness is not the nature of the mind. RC is clear in a calm and quiet mind. RC generates happiness in the mind. As OC is the source of RC, OC is the source of happiness. It amounts to saying that OC is of the nature of bliss. The following is the equation.
Brahman= Self= Existence (Sat), Knowledge (JnaAna), Infinite (Ananta)= Sat-Chit-Ananda
The world is constituted of names and forms. Brahman pervades the names and forms. They do not independently exist as they borrow existence from Brahman and are of relative or lower-order reality. In this sense, they are said to be manifestations of Brahman. In a gold necklace, gold lends existence to the necklace which is name and form. Necklace is a manifestation of the gold, the substance. They are experienced but do not have an independent existence. The worldly objects and world are mithyA in Vedantic terminology. MithyA does not mean illusion. Brahman is the Absolute reality and the world is of the lower order of reality. Therefore, there is nothing other than Brahman. There is nothing other than gold in an ornament. Brahman, the reality is non-dual. As an ornament is a manifestation of gold, the world is a manifestation of Brahman. This theory of creation is called Vivartavad. It should be noted that Brahman does not transform or change into world. It appears as the world.
There are three orders of reality. Brahman is the Absolute (parmArthika). The empirical world is transactional (vyavhArika) and the dream is pratibhAsika.
A statement that is correct from the Absolute standpoint may not be so from the vyavahArika standpoint. That the world is mithya is from a transactional viewpoint because it is changing and borrows existence from the Absolute. The same world is non-existent from the Absolute ‘standpoint’. The Absolute is non-dual. There is no second other than the Absolute. This is why Gaudpadacharya says that there is no creation, no bondage, and no freedom. This theory is called ajAtivad.
Contd
Excellent summary of Advaita, Bimal – one of the clearest and simplest I have come across!
The only bit that jarred a little with me was “RC generates happiness in the mind. As OC is the source of RC, OC is the source of happiness. It amounts to saying that OC is of the nature of bliss. ”
Don’t we also have to say that RC generates misery in the mind? (There is nothing else.) What this boils down to is that translating ‘ananda’ as ‘bliss’ in this context is potentially confusing. Happiness is experiential and Brahman has nothing to do with experience. I prefer to equate it with pUrNam or ‘fullness’ or, easier, anantam – infinite.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
You are right about ‘potentially confusing’. To avoid the confusion, the words and phrases “RC generates happiness in the mind. As OC is the source of RC, OC is the source of happiness. It amounts to saying that OC is of the nature of bliss.” are replaced by “A calm mind is happy. RC is clear in a calm mind. Sun’s reflection in clear water is bright. Conversely, a disturbed mind is miserable because RC in a disturbed mind is unclear and hazy. As OC is the source of RC and a clear RC which approximates OC produces happiness, it is inferred that OC is of the nature of happiness. There is an important point. Misery is not produced by RC. It is produced by a disturbed mind that makes RC unclear and hazy. One may say that a person’s natural state is happiness and misery is lack of happiness.” It sounds like ‘ignorance is lack of knowledge’!
Best wishes,
Bimal
Dear Bimal,
It’s always dangerous when we are talking about the ‘interaction’ between paramārtha and vyavahāra. Happiness is an emotion that we feel when there is an absence of desires. Misery is an emotion that we feel when things are not going the way that we would like. All of this is firmly within vyavahāra.
In reality (paramārtha), ‘everything’ is Brahman. There is nothing else. Brahman is nirviśeṣa – attributeless, Accordingly, there is neither happiness not misery here.
The problem comes when we try to explain vyāvahārika aspects using pāramārthika concepts (which are still in vyavahāra, of course!). We usually resort to metaphor, and the cidābhāsa prakriyā is one of these. Whether we are using the idea of a mirror or that of a container of water, the idea is the same. And the concept of the reflection being muddied or distorted by the condition of the reflecting medium is very useful for explaining to us the need for sādhana catuṣṭaya sampatti to ‘purify’ the mind.
But we must be very wary of taking a metaphor used to explain a practical aspect of Advaita teaching and trying to make it tell us something about Consciousness, the non-dual reality. Knowing (as we do) that you cannot actually say anything at all about a non-dual reality, by definition, we should not ever even try!
Accordingly, looking at what you say here: Yes – dropping altogether the suggestion of OC ‘doing anything’ is good. If you just stick to the state of the mind, and what it thinks, in empirical reality, you are on safe ground. I would not even say that we can “infer that OC is of the nature of happiness”. We cannot say anything at all about Brahman! You say that “Misery is not produced by RC. It is produced by a disturbed mind that makes RC unclear and hazy.” Yes. Even so, a ‘happy mind’ and a ‘miserable mind’ are both only Brahman in reality!
Best wishes,
Dennis