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.
Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 4
*** Go to Part 3 ***
Dennis: But surely adhyāsa is the result of lack of knowledge and there is no need to postulate an existent entity called ‘ignorance. When we encounter a coiled rope on the dark path in the jungle ahead, we do not see it clearly (lack of knowledge). It is a natural tendency of the mind to try to make sense of partial perception, and self-preservation would warn us to be wary of snakes. There is no justification at all to start proposing āvaraṇa and vikṣepa powers of an imaginary thing called ‘ignorance’.
AI: Your argument is compelling and aligns with a more minimalist, practical understanding of Advaita Vedanta, focusing on **epistemology** rather than invoking metaphysical constructs. Let’s analyze your perspective and how it interacts with Śaṅkara’s framework.
Continue readingIgnorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 3
*** Go to Part 2 ***
Dennis: You say that treating ignorance as a term of convenience for lack of knowledge “may not fully capture the nuances of traditional Advaita”. Did Śaṅkara make a clear distinction?
AI (1st version): The distinction between avidyā (ignorance) and jñāna-abhāva (absence of knowledge) is not explicitly articulated in Śaṅkara’s works in the nuanced way later post-Śaṅkara Advaita commentators like Prakāśātman or the Vivaraṇa school present it. Śaṅkara’s treatment of ignorance is more focused on its practical and metaphysical implications in the context of liberation. Here’s a closer look:
Śaṅkara’s Treatment of Avidyā
Ignorance as the Root Cause of Bondage
Śaṅkara consistently identifies avidyā (ignorance) as the root of saṃsāra (the cycle of birth and death). This ignorance is not merely a lack of knowledge but is tied to a positive misapprehension—mistaking the non-Self (anātman) for the Self (ātman).
For example, in his commentary on the Brahma Sūtra (1.1.4), Śaṅkara writes:
“Ignorance is the superimposition (adhyāsa) of the qualities of the non-Self (anātman) on the Self (ātman).”
Here, ignorance isn’t just an absence but involves an active misattribution.
Continue readingEight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part13
5 Preparation
5-7 TaittriyA Upanishad SikshA Valli
5-7-5 Anuvaka 9 The Order and Regularity of Life Knowledge alone gives the highest goal: liberation. It may follow that duties enjoined by the Vedas and Smritis are useless. It is not so. The responsibilities that contribute to attaining human goals are to be discharged. Physical action is possible without upAsanA, not vice versa. A grihastha leads a lifestyle where physical action is predominant. The Vedas advise that upAsanA must be gradually included in life. During the early part of life, there is an emphasis on physical action when the body is strong and shifts to upAsanA in later life when the body is weaker though the mind is still active. Vanaprastha ashrama is upAsanA -centric.
Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 2
*** Go to Part 1 ***
Dennis: I know that I cannot speak Mandarin. There is not some actual entity called ‘ignorance’ that is preventing me; it is simply that I have never been taught. And I do not experience an ‘ignorance of that language’. I would call it a simple ‘lack of knowledge’. It is epistemology, not ontology.
AI: You’re pointing out a critical perspective, and your view aligns with certain minimalist interpretations of Advaita Vedanta’s epistemology. Let’s break this down further:
—
1. **Epistemology vs. Ontology
– You are arguing that the **”ignorance of Mandarin”** is not an ontological entity; rather, it is the absence of knowledge due to not having been taught. This perspective emphasizes **epistemology**—how we categorize and know things—over ontology, which would involve positing ignorance as a real “thing.”
– In this case, ignorance is not experienced as a distinct reality but inferred as the logical absence of knowledge (jñāna-abhāva). Your stance aligns with this understanding.
Continue readingQuestion about the ocean-waves-water analogy
Greetings!
The Advaita take of the ocean-waves-water analogy is the waves are objects (nāma-rūpa), and the water is brahman. Assuming this is right, what is the ocean?
Merci. 🙂
Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge?
Part 1 – (This will be a multi-part post.)
This is a topic that I addressed extensively in the second ‘Confusions’ book – ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Ignorance and its Removal’ (due out by Summer 2025). But it has appeared in various guises over the past 2 or 3 months on the Advaitin List. One particular member – Sudhanshu Shekhar – has been particularly vociferous in espousing the view that they are not equivalent. He is extremely knowledgeable, especially regarding the text ‘Advaita Siddhi’, by the 16th-17th Century author Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, which strongly supports this idea. In ‘Confusions 2’, I strongly advise against looking at many of these post-Śaṅkara authors on the grounds that a) they are extremely difficult, often verging on incomprehensible; and b) their views, ostensibly to ‘clarify’ the views of Śaṅkara, mostly seem to do nothing of the kind, instead adding merely academic, intellectual arguments that confuse the issues.
Be that as it may, a recent post by Sudhanshu apparently stated the issues clearly so that the arguments could be examined. Unfortunately, the post contained lots of Sanskrit and was not immediately comprehensible to me, whose Sanskrit knowledge is largely limited to interpreting the Devanagari script (very slowly) and looking words up in the dictionary. Accordingly, I decided to put the text to AI (ChatGPT) for interpretation. A very interesting ‘discussion’ followed, which actually opened my mind to an aspect that had not previously occurred to me and that slightly mitigates my previous, hardline stance.
Continue readingEight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 12
5 Preparation
5-7 TaittiriyA Upanishad: SikshA Valli
5-7-1 Anuvaka 2 The Study of Pronunciation Chanting Veda mantras is a spiritual discipline. The science of phonetics defines the rules of pronunciation. If not properly learned, the mistakes will continue for future generations. One must memorize the mantras before chanting; reading from the book is not considered chanting. Learning is complete only when chanting is done from memory. Once memorized, fast chanting is practiced. In ancient times everyone thoroughly studied the Vedas (minimum of 8 years and maximum of 12)., they have various ways of chanting: word by word and words in different sequences: (1) 1-2, 2- 3, 3-4, (2) 1-2-2-1-1-2, (3) 1-2- 2-1-1-2-3-3-2-1-1-2-3-2-3-3-2-2-3-4-4-3-2-2-3-4, etc. While chanting in different permutations and combinations, rules of combination (Sandhi) are applied Thus, every Vedic student is thorough with every letter of the Vedas not just every word. In a ritual, chanting is at a medium pace to make every letter pronounced and heard clearly. While teaching, chanting is slow-paced, so the student correctly catches each letter. There are rules for combining and splitting the letters.
Is Reality Knowable?
The affirmation that reality is not knowable is itself an assertion of knowledge about reality. Does this not, though, amount to an example of the law of non-contradiction? To deny that it is so, involves the law of non-contradiction – so this proves that reality is knowable?
(X). The assertion “this sentence is false” is self-contradictory. From that contradiction, one cannot draw the conclusion that the sentence is in fact true. It is simply evidence of the fact that language can be used to construct self-contradictory statements.
(Martin) Rather than self-contradictory, isn’t the quoted statement in the original question a case of second-order language, that is, meta-language, as with so many paradoxes and apparent contradictions?
(X). Are you suggesting that, because it involves meta-language, it thereby avoids contradiction?
(Martin). Yes, but rather than meta-language (my mistake) the quoted passage is, seems to me, an elliptical statement. To complete it one should add: ‘by the conceptual mind’, i.e., ‘not knowable by the conceptual mind’. Real (ultimate) Reality, being non-dual, cannot be known (as you well know) as a conjugation or conjunction of a subject and an object. But it can be ‘Known’ through a unitary vision or intuition – the intuiting subject abating or subsiding as an individual by that very act. There is only one ‘Knower’ or Subject, and that is Reality Itself. ‘One without a second’. Does this prove that reality is knowable?” (under the text in bold letters). Yes, with that proviso.
(X) (Previously he had written: ‘I think one would have to insert ‘’by the conceptual mind’’ in two places to make it explicit that it is referring to conceptual knowledge, not non-conceptual non-dual knowledge. Or is your point that two different kinds of knowledge are involved in the original statement? In any case, I still don’t see how it constitutes a proof in the logical sense.’
(Martin) Correct, thank you. There is a tendency nowadays in Neo-advaita and other circles to put down the mind, let alone terms such as ‘intellectual’, ‘spiritual’, ‘metaphysical’ ‘mysticism’ (‘It’s just mind stuff’… only intellectual knowledge, or understanding’, etc.).
‘Experiential’, ‘experience’ alone are admitted in the vocabulary. I like, though, the expression ‘knowledge-experience’. All experience, and all understanding, reside in the mind (formerly, sometimes, ‘the Heart’), but the latter can be transcended.
(X) The irony is that putting down the thinking mind is itself a judgment of the thinking mind. One way to view it, which I find quite useful, is that the thinking mind can help reveal its own limits, and that can clear the way to insight that transcends the thinking mind. The classic metaphor is the wooden stick used to help burn the fire, and, at the end, the stick itself is thrown into the fire as well. The stick does not cause the burning, and it is ultimately itself burned, but that does not imply it is useless and should be tossed off into the bushes instead of skillfully used to facilitate the burning.
Bhagavad Gita – the meaning of sacrifice
In shloka 3.9, Krishna tells Arjuna,
Aside from action for the purpose of sacrifice, this world is bound by action. Perform action for the purpose of sacrifice, Arjuna, free from attachment.
In doing so, he instructs Arjuna that the only action he should perform should be “free from attachment.” This is known as ‘sacrifice’ because it is the act of renouncing or giving up attachments. Being free from attachment, one has knowledge of Brahman. As Krishna says in the fourth chapter (4.23),
The work of one who is free from attachment, who is liberated, whose thought is established in knowledge and is done only for sacrifice, one’s karma wholly melts away.
The concept of sacrifice comes from the Vedas, where recitation of a mantra was seen as the sacrifice. Continue reading