Appearance and Existence don’t go together

Posted on by

Shri Prasanth Neti Ji writes in his comment on a post at FB-SAV:

Prasanth Neti: When bhAShya (i.e., Shankara’s Commentary) teaches “just like snake is a projection / appearance on rope, world is a projection / appearance in brahman”, the only intention of that teaching is to negate all [or any sort of] existence to snake and world.

It is unfortunate that Post-Sankara Vedantins teach or talk about projection / appearance as a positive phenomenon.
The sole purpose of teaching that ‘snake is only a projection’ is to negate any sort of existence to snake. But it is not at all intended to understand or talk about in the lines of “existence to appearance”!!
shAstra is apavAda-pradhAna (i.e., Vedanta is mainly based on “negation.”) Snake/World is a projection means, it does not exist. Period.
The implied negation is the heart of such teaching and there is no intention either to vouch for ‘appearance as a positively occurring phenomenon’ or to ‘vouch for existence of an appearance’.
Therefore, phrases such as ‘world, body, mind are not independently real but exist only as appearance’ is a misunderstanding of Vedānta – do not use the word existence along with appearance.
‘World, body and mind do not exist but brahman alone exists’ is the only intention when bhAShya teaches, ‘World is a Projection.”

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 16

Posted on by

Part 15

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-2 Aitareya Upanishad
6-2-1 Aitareya 1.3.13 and 1.3.14
Ai 1.3.12 in chapter 5 has described the entry of Brahman in the body of jivA. The embodied Brahman is jivAtmA. The sentient jivA is a combination of consciousness (AtmA) and mind-body. And AtmA is not different from Brahman. It is an Upanishadic Great Statement ( Mahavakya). A jivA however forgets this fact due to the veiling power of mAyA. It is Self-ignorance. Sometimes, a jivA because of his punyAs earned in previous lives and the current life can get a qualified teacher who out of compassion imparts Brahm-knowledge. The student realizes Brahman as ‘id’ meaning ‘this’, i.e., his Self. The Upanishad calls the knowledge Idandra. As an adorable entity is not called by its direct name, the Upanishad uses the name Indra (not the deity Indra). The message is that by performing virtuous deeds as per scriptural injunctions, a jivA will one day develop mental maturity to know the futility of worldly goals and turn to spirituality and get Self-knowledge with the blessing of a teacher.

Continue reading →

Any Questions?

Posted on by

At the time of writing, there are 556 questions that I, and other bloggers, have answered over the past 19 years. See https://www.advaita-vision.org/questions-and-answers/. Many topics have been covered and there is a good chance that, if you have a specific concern, then it will have been covered here. I also compiled the first 469 of these into a book – ‘Answers… to the Difficult Questions’ – see https://www.advaita-vision.org/answers/ – and added introductions and summaries to the overall topics. But I cannot believe that the visitors to this site no longer have any further questions! So please feel free to write to the ‘Contact-Us’ link at the bottom of the page if you have a particular problem (in Advaita!) that you would like answered.

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 7 (Final)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 6 ***

The following question is concerned with the notion that ‘absence of a thing’ is an existent entity (another strange notion of post-Śaṅkara texts). This also formed an aspect of the discussions on the Advaitin List. It begins with my asking ChatGPT to translate the Devanagari text that formed part of the post by Sudhanshu on 6th Dec. 2024.

Dennis: Could you translate this argument into understandable English, please:

चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

AI: Here’s a simplified translation of the argument in understandable English:

We are discussing four types of “absence” (*abhāva*), starting with **mutual absence** (*itaretara-abhāva*). For example, the absence of a pot (*ghata*) is not the same as the pot itself. The absence of a pot is something else entirely, like a cloth (*paṭa*) or another object. In other words, the absence of the pot is not the nature of the pot itself—it is identified with something else, like the presence of the cloth.

Continue reading →

Upadesha SahAsri Chapter 19 Conversation between AtmA and the mind (Part 1)

Posted on by

Introduction It is a ‘dialogue’ between AtmA and the mind. AtmA is free from action. As such the dialogue is figurative. Nevertheless, it is a unique method of nidhidhyAsanA which is the third phase of jnAna yoga after sravan and manan. The aspirant has clear knowledge of AtmA and he needs to assimilate it to make it a living knowledge. The aspirant knows that his essential nature is consciousness which is different from the mind. The locus of knowledge is the mind. It is a peculiar situation where the mind tells itself that the real nature of the aspirant is consciousness which is different from the mind. The mind has to further tell itself that consciousness is changeless and eternal whereas the mind is mithya. It is as though the mind splits in two parts, one part takes the role of AtmA, the subject and the other part is the mind, the object. AtmA uses the mind to talk to the mind and while talking, considers Itself different from the mind. There are Upanishad’s sayings that a knower of Brahman is Brahman and AtmA is Brahman. A Self-realized person and AtmA are used interchangeably. In some verses, there are repetitions of the same idea. Repetition is not a defect when the teachings are complex and are to be assimilated.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita 3.10 and symbolism of the cow

Posted on by

There are some translations of shloka 3.10 of the Bhagavad Gita which look something like,  

Prajapati, when creating beings and sacrifice, said, “By this, may you receive the bountiful cow whose milk satisfies all desires.”

As a result, the significance and meaning of the verse is not necessarily as clear.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 6

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 5 ***

Dennis: You said earlier that:

<< 3. **Your Example: Lack of Mandarin Knowledge

   – In your case, the **”lack of Mandarin knowledge”** is clearly **jñāna-abhāva**, a simple absence of knowledge, recognized epistemologically. 

   – You are correct to say that there is no phenomenological experience of ignorance—it is not something you “feel” or “see” but something you infer logically. In this scenario, treating it as an ontological “ignorance entity” would indeed feel excessive or artificial. >>

But, no – I do not ‘infer’ that I do not speak Mandarin. I know that I do not have knowledge of Mandarin – it is as simple as that.

AI: Thank you for clarifying! Let’s address this with precision.

You are absolutely right: in your case, **knowing that you do not speak Mandarin** is a direct cognition, not an inference. This does not involve any need to postulate a hidden ignorance or make an inferential leap. It is simply a recognition of the absence of knowledge—a direct awareness of what you lack.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 15

Posted on by

Part 14

 

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha

6-2 Aitareya Upanishad

6-2-1 Aitareya 1.3.13 and 1.3.14
1.3.12 in chapter 5 has described the entry of Brahman in the body of jivA. The embodied Brahman is jivAtmA. The sentient jivA is a combination of consciousness (Atma) and mind-body. And Atma is not different from Paramatma (God). It is an Upanishadic Great Statement ( mahAvAkya). A jivA however forgets this fact due to the veiling power of mAyA. It is Self-ignorance. Sometimes, because of his punyAs earned in previous lives and the current life, a jivA can get a qualified teacher who out of compassion imparts Brahm-knowledge. The student realizes Brahman as ‘id’ meaning ‘this’, i.e., his Self. The Upanishad calls the knowledge IdAndra. As an adorable entity is not called by its direct name, the Upanishad uses the name Indra (not the deity Indra). The message is that by performing virtuous deeds as per scriptural injunctions, a jivA will one day develop mental maturity to know the futility of worldly goals and turn to spirituality and get Self-knowledge with the blessing of a teacher.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 5

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 4 ***

Dennis: Does Śaṅkara actually state that adhyāsa is the effect of causal avidyā in his Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2? If so, what are his actual words and the translation?

AI: In his commentary (*Bhāṣya*) on Gauḍapāda’s *Māṇḍūkya Kārikā* 1.2, Śaṅkara indeed connects **adhyāsa** with **avidyā** as its cause. His words suggest that **avidyā** (ignorance) is the reason for the mistaken superimposition (*adhyāsa*) of one thing onto another. Let’s examine this carefully with the original text and its meaning.

—

### **Text from Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2**

The verse from Gauḍapāda’s *Kārikā* reads:

> **अद्वयम् अस्पृष्टं वचसामगोचरं। अज्ञानात् सर्वजीवेषु व्यापारोऽयम् अनादि:।** 

> (*Advayam aspṛṣṭaṁ vacasām agocaraṁ. Ajñānāt sarvajīveṣu vyāpāro ’yam anādiḥ.*) 

**Translation of the verse:** 

“The non-dual (Brahman) is untouched, beyond the reach of speech. Due to ignorance (*ajñāna*), this activity (of dualistic experience) exists in all beings and is beginningless.”

Continue reading →

Existence / Esse

Posted on by

 Esse – is an abstract term referring to a primal reality or metaphysical principle – the principle of being (a synonym of existence). As such, it cannot be defined, since it has no parts or relationships – it only has to be admitted as a ‘given’, an undeniable fact of experience. The more one thinks about it – existence in and by itself – the less you will be able to find a definition.

To add or apply ‘meaning’ to the word ‘existence’ implies purpose, which is an anthropomorphic derivation, such that empirical scientists will object to. However, as thinking and reflective beings, we can question everything and also have intuition – direct apprehension of the reality or essence of things behind their appearances.

Formerly this apprehension was called ‘truth, or truths, of the Heart’. Whether that truth or meaning is Love, Compassion, or Unity, it is up to one to consider and reflect upon – no one can do it for you.

… Can you define (or ‘explain’) what or who you are, making abstraction of your body and your mind?