The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 6)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 5 ***

‘Existence’ of Ignorance

So, does ignorance actually exist; a concrete ‘object’ in space and time? There is the occasional reference in the scriptures (e.g. in the Ṛg Veda) but these speak of related gods, supernatural events and so on. Where such a concept is a part of the pseudo-mystical precursor of Advaita teaching proper, I personally cannot accept it as a valid reference. E.g. I suggest that ‘before light, there was darkness’ does not count as a proof that darkness is an ontologically existent entity!

There are also references in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya but, again, this being the oldest of the Upaniṣads, there is a lot of ‘mystical’ material much pre-dating Śaṅkara’s systematization of the philosophy.

One of the quotations sometimes given to support the contention that scriptures cite ignorance as a real entity is Sureśvara’s Vārttika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa (1368):

ajñānaṃ saṃśayajānaṃ miśyājānamiti trikam
ajñānaṃ kāraṇaṃ tatra kāryatvaṃ pariśiṣṭayoḥ

This is translated as:

Ignorance, doubt-born knowledge, and mixed knowledge are the triad. Ignorance (ajñāna) is the cause there, while the other two (doubt-born knowledge and mixed knowledge) are effects.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 9

Posted on by

Part 8

Part 10

Chapter 5 Preparation
5-5 Mundaka Upanishad
5-5-1 Mundaka 1.1.3 and 1.1.4
Saunaka, the disciple has appropriately approached the teacher Angi and asks him to teach Brahm-vidyA by knowing which everything is known. Saunaka is a householder. A householder is also entitled to receive Brahm-vidyA. In fact, in grihastha Ashrama one learns from life experiences, becomes mature, and then a seeker of Brahm-vidyA. Vedic tradition considers grihastha Ashrama important for the refinement and maturity of the mind especially for developing dispassion and discrimination. It contributes to spiritual growth under certain conditions. Besides fulfilling personal desires in a dharmic way, a person should contribute to society. Five great sacrifices are meant to contribute to society.

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – conclusion and anthology

Posted on by

This post marks the end of the ‘Advaita in the Vedas’ series. While the series could continue indefinitely and branch out to the other Vedas, as was initially intended, it would inevitably end up covering already explored ground rather than adding anything new in the context of Advaita.

The series was always meant to provide an overview of Advaita in the Vedas, rather than an in-depth examination. Also, there’s nothing in the Vedas which the Upanishads fail to make more succinct. This means, by finishing the series here, there’s nothing left out or which remains unsaid – it’s all in the Upanishads. Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 5)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 4 ***

Tamas

‘Darkness’ is also used in the sense of the ‘primordial condition’ of the universe prior to creation. In this sense, it is not metaphorical but part of the ancient Hindu cosmology. It appears, for example, in Ṛg Veda 10.129: “In the beginning, there was darkness (tamas) hidden in darkness. All this was one undifferentiated water.” And the stage of pralaya, when the universe returns to unmanifest form, is sometimes described as darkness. A number of Puranic references could be quoted, e.g. the Vishnu Purana (Book 1 Chapter 1): “At the end of the previous kalpa, there was only one vast ocean, enveloped in darkness (tamas). The universe was in total dissolution, and nothing but the incomprehensible God, Vishnu, existed.” The darkness also symbolized the formlessness prior to creation.

This usage as an existent entity is not really the same as the metaphorical usage in which it symbolizes ignorance or ‘absence of knowledge’.

Darkness as Metaphor

In the context of discussions on ignorance, then, darkness is not intended to be considered as a real entity but as a metaphor for ignorance. We can see how this is both useful and potentially misleading. If we think of the common ‘concealing’ usage of the word – e.g. we could not see the stalactite in the cave because it was ‘covered by’ darkness – then we are in trouble. If we simply rephrase this to say that, because there was no light in the cave, we could not see the stalactite, there is no problem.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 8

Posted on by

Part 7

Part 9

5 Preparation

5-3-1 Kaivalya 1 to 4

Sage Asvalanya is a qualified student and he approaches Brahmaji, a qualified teacher, to teach him Brahma-vidyA which is beyond mAyA. It is pursued by noble persons as it destroys all the evils. The Upanishadic message is that both the student and the teacher should be qualified. A student should have four-fold qualifications by practicing karma yoga and upasana yoga. The teacher should have not only knowledge of Brahman, he should be established in Brahman and should possess communication skills. Established in Brahman means his life should conform to Brahm-vidyA. Communication skills are important because Brahman is not an object of knowledge in any conventional sense and is non-communicable and it requires special skills to teach. He should belong to a lineage of teachers and teach what he has learned from his teacher. He is prohibited from imparting a new teaching.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 3 ***

Observations triggered by Ghaṭa bhāṣya

If X is ‘bhāvarūpa’ – really existing, that ought to mean that it exists ‘in all three periods of time’. I would have said that, by that definition, like every other worldly perception or conception, darkness is not real. Every perception or conception is ‘mithyā’, neither ‘real’ (sat), nor ‘unreal’ (asat).

When Śaṅkara talks about ‘pot-absence’, it is obvious that he doesn’t mean that it is a really existing thing, in the way that a chair in the room ‘really exists’. What he means is that, in a discussion in a particular context such as this, we can treat something as ‘effectively existing’ when we both know what we are talking about and there is no confusion.

Suppose that you and I are having an argument about the pot that we believe to be on the table in room X of the museum. Suppose a third person comes in and tells us he has seen this pot on the table in room Y. This being the case, if I go into room X, I could say that I become aware of the absence of the pot. In that sense, it has a sort of meaning to say that the pot-absence exists in room X. But why anyone would want to talk in this way eludes me. I would just say that the pot isn’t in room X so I am prepared to accept the third person’s claim that it is in room Y.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 3)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 ***

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.2.1

Absence

What is ‘absence’? It is simply a word we use to refer to the fact that something is not here. Suppose that the teacher realizes that little Johnny is not in the class again. He reports this to the head who says: “His absence has been noted”. What does this mean exactly?

Does it simply refer to whatever the headmaster has written in his little black book? Is it something belonging to Johnny that he ought to get rid of or leave at home when he comes into school? Presumably he cannot bring it with him to school because then he would no longer have it!

Obviously ‘absence’ in this context refers to Johnny himself. If Johnny’s absence is noted at the school, then clearly Johnny himself is not there. The two are mutually exclusive.

But all of this simply relates to the often baffling way in which language develops. All that we are talking about is whether or not Johnny is present at the school. When he isn’t there, we use this catch-all word to refer to the situation. The way in which we use it is as an adjective describing Johnny – ‘absent Johnny’ (again). We cannot use it as a non-qualified noun and say ‘there is absence’, because no one would know what we were talking about. It has to be connected to a noun and simply refers to the ‘non-presence’ of that noun.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 7

Posted on by

Part 6

Part 8

Chapter 4 Bandha

4-5 Mundaka Upanishad
4-5-1 Mundaka 1.2.1 to 1.2.10
In the first section of the first chapter, the Upanishad has introduced two types of knowledge, namely, lower knowledge and higher knowledge. The higher knowledge leads to freedom. We will see details in Chapter 5 on Preparation. The second section of the first chapter describes the general nature of rituals prescribed in karma-kAnda of Vedas. Agnihotra, the fire ritual was very popular in Vedic times. The Upanishad assures that the rituals are true in the sense that if performed as per scriptural injunctions, the desired results follow. However, the Upanishad wants the performers of rituals to know the associated limitations and pitfalls. They perpetuate bondage which is the other name of samsAra. Even the fulfillment of the desire of heaven is bondage, like a golden chain. Indiscriminate people are carried away by such material benefits. They are ignorant and fools. Here is how the Upanishad describes the state of affairs.

Continue reading →

New translation of Guru Vachaka Kovai (GVK)

Posted on by

GVK is a poetical rendering by Muruganar of the teachings he heard from Ramana Maharshi. It has been translated by David Godman et al, and by Sadhu Om and Michael James.

Sadhu Om was another disciple of Ramana Maharshi and close associate of Muruganar.

I was not aware that Sadhu Om had written a Tamil prose rendition of GVK, arguably making it easier to follow than the original. I stumbled across Robert Butler’s translation of this work, published in 2023. It reads very well, and at a few points, he has included Sadhu Om’s commentary and that of Muruganar – when they are needed to clarify the intent.

https://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-butler/guru-vachaka-kovai/paperback/product-wmdpzv.html?page=1&pageSize=4

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

Brahmasūtra 2.2.28

Darkness as a Physical Entity

It is true that it is possible to conclude that Śaṅkara regarded darkness as an actual entity. One of the passages in support of this is his bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.28. As already noted, he is arguing with the Buddhists and talking about ‘creation’ and the existence of the world. At one point he says:  

tamaso darśanāt, prāgabhāva iva tamaso darśanaṁ dṛṣṭi-pratyakṣatvāt.

Because of the perception of darkness, it is like the perception of prior non-existence, as darkness is perceived by the sense of sight.

Here, the ‘perception’ of darkness is not, in the empirical sense, like seeing a table in the room but in a metaphorical sense, as in the way the carpenter might visualize the table before setting about making it. Thus, just as we might say that ‘darkness prevents us from seeing the table in the room’ (after it has been made!), we say that ‘ignorance prevents us from realizing that we are Brahman’. But the truth of the situation is that there is no light in the room, and no one has put the knowledge into our mind.

Continue reading →