The ‘mixture of Atman and mind’
While the body-mind remains alive (i.e. continues to be animated by Consciousness), the person is a mixture, as it were, of both. If I am enlightened, I know that I am really the original Consciousness, Brahman, but I cannot escape the fact that I am also still a jIvAtman, with that same Consciousness reflecting in the intellect. If I am unenlightened, I either do not know about paramAtman or do not believe that this is who I really am. Instead, I identify with body, mind, attributes or functions. I mistakenly superimpose (adhyAsa) the properties of the mithyA body-mind onto the paramAtman.
The same applies even to ‘knowing’. When we say ‘I know’, whether or not we are enlightened, it has to be the reflected ‘I’ that is speaking. Shankara says in his bhAShya on Bhagavad Gita 2.21:
“ …the Self, though verily immutable, is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound etc. presented by the intellect etc.; in this very way, the Self, which in reality is immutable, is said to be the ‘knower’ because of Its association with the knowledge of the distinction between the Self and non-Self, which (knowledge) is a modification of the intellect and is unreal by nature.” (Ref. 6)
Thus, it can be seen, that this provides an explanation for the fact that I may be enlightened and yet the mind can still be affected by pratibandha-s. It there are none, because the mind was purified prior to enlightenment, then I am a jIvanmukta, enjoying all of the benefits of a mind unsullied by negative emotions. Otherwise, I must continue to perform those sAdhana-s that will eliminate such tendencies before I can reap the ‘fruits’ of enlightenment, j~nAna phalam. Whilst both are still inevitably a ‘mixture’, the one with pratibandha-s still says ‘I’ with a significant element of jIvAtman; the one who has purified the mind says ‘I’ with a predominant element of paramAtman.
The vivekachUDAmaNi (188) says:
“The reflection of the Atman is here [i.e. in the vij~nAnamaya kosha) more than anywhere else, because it is very near to the Atman. And it is the upAdhi [superimposed adjunct] of the Atman. In this sheath, the Atman manifests itself as the doer, though it is the anvil that gives shape to all, but takes no shape – being all the time the same.” (Ref. 62)
Someone might object here that, having said that vivekachUDAmaNi was not authored by Shankara and that one should authenticate teachings by seeing what Shankara said, I am now using vivekachUDAmaNi myself. Well, the same ideas are given by Shankara in his bhAShya on Bhagavad Gita 2.21. shloka-s 2.19 and 20 say that the Self does not kill, nor is killed; is not born and does not die; it is eternal and changeless.
Because the Self is changeless (nirvikAra), it cannot be a ‘doer’ (kartA). But, in 2.21, Shankara has a pUrvapakShin ask again for the explanation of this ‘actionless-ness’. He points out that 2.21 is not saying that Atman is a non-doer (akartA), it is saying that the knower of Atman is akartA (“he who knows of this One as indestructible etc; how and whom does that person kill?”). If knower and known are different, why should the knower be akartA as well as Atman? In fact, 2.20 has already pointed out that a knower has to be subject to change so it should follow that the knower of Atman cannot be changeless and therefore has to be a kartA.
(na, viduSha AtmatvAt |
na dehAdi-saMghAtasya vidvattA |
ataH pArisheShyAd asaMhata AtmA vidvAn avikriya iti, tasya viduShaH karmAsambhavAd, AkShepo
yuktaH – ‘kathaM sa puruShaH’ iti |)
Shankara responds (Sanskrit above) that we have to say that, in this particular case, the knower of Atman is also Atman. If we insist that knower and known are different, we would have to conclude that the knower was anAtman, i.e. inert (jaDa). Clearly an inert object cannot know anything. Therefore the knower has to be Atman also. How can this be reconciled with the fact that a knower must be subject to change (vikAra)?
The only explanation is that who-I-really-am, Atman, becomes associated with the inert intellect and the now-conscious buddhi is the one that becomes the knower. The knower is ‘I’, the real Consciousness, as if reflected in the intellect (chidAbhAsa). Or the knower is effectively a ‘mixture’ of Consciousness and intellect. I, the Atman, become a figurative knower by virtue of my association with the buddhi. It is in this sense that the ‘knower’ of Atman is none other than the Atman Itself.
It follows that the wise man having realized that he is really Atman, also knows that he is really akartA, abhoktA – neither a ‘doer’ nor an ‘enjoyer’. It is the ‘mixture’ of Atman and buddhi, the ‘reflected’ Consciousness and intellect that gives him the ability to be a knower that performs actions and enjoys the results.
So what distinguishes the j~nAnI in this context is that, when he or she says ‘I’, it is known that ‘I’ really refers to Atman but that the ability to think and say this is due to the ‘reflected’ mixture of Consciousness and buddhi. It is effectively the Atman that says ‘aham brahmAsmi’ but it is able to do so only because of its association with buddhi. Failure to acknowledge this means that you will be unable to justify the recognition of this mahAvAkya when we know that Atman cannot be a ‘knower’ (because it is changeless), yet buddhi cannot truthfully say ‘I am Brahman’.
There is an interesting clash of levels here. The pAramArthika truth is that Atman is not a knower. Owing to its vyAvahArika association with buddhi, it becomes an empirical knower of the fact that I am really Atman. Swami Paramarthananda puts it amusingly when he says: “This mithyA knowledge I gain with mithyA knower-hood; with the help of mithyA buddhi I get mithyA knowledge and, through that mithyA knowledge, I get mithyA liberation, which is more than enough to negate mithyA bondage.” (Ref. 191)
Shankara goes on to say that, because of false knowledge, the ignorant person thinks that it is the Atman that really knows, whereas the wise person realizes that the Atman is not really a knower.
(yathA buddhyAdyAhRRitasya shabdAdyarthasya avikriya eva san buddhivRRittyavivekavij~nAnena avidyayA upalabdhA AtmA kalpyate)
[Shankara’s principal objective in this dialog was to be able to show that there is no difference between Atman and the knower of Atman and that therefore the knower is ‘also’ not a doer. This will then lead on to his demonstration that mokSha is the result of knowledge alone and not a combination of knowledge and action. But that is the separate topic of samuchchaya vAda, which is the subject of Section 6, ‘Action and its relation to Knowledge’.]
As a final point, lest there should still be any doubt regarding this idea of ‘mixing up’ the real ‘I’ and the mind in the metaphorical ‘reflected I’ of the intellect, the topic also appears under another guise and has been written about extensively. Most importantly of all, it occurs as Shankara’s introduction to his bhAShya on the brahmasUtra – the notion is called adhyAsa.
No one is ever liberated
A consequence of this ‘mixture’ of Consciousness and intellect is that pedantically one has to say that no one is ever liberated. Clearly, the Atman cannot be liberated, being ever-free, never-bound or limited in any way. Equally clearly, the inert body-mind cannot be liberated. Both are effectively destroyed – by death and disintegration for the body; by the final exhaustion of karma for the mind. This leaves the metaphorical reflection of Consciousness in the intellect – the ego. Since the intellect is an intrinsic part of the mind, it too must continue to exist until the mind ceases to exist.
Accordingly, even when that intellect has realized the truth of all this – that ‘who-I-really-am’ is the Atman, it is still going to be this ‘mixture’ of inert, subtle elements and Consciousness; the ‘mixture’ of bimba and pratibimba. As such, it is going to remain inescapably influenced by its prArabdha karma until this is exhausted. Depending upon the nature of this karma, this influence will be minimal and transparent, or it will provide an obstacle to a greater or lesser extent, impacting upon the vyAvahArika degree of ‘happiness’, feeling of fulfilment etc. This brings us full circle to the logical acceptance of the concept of pratibandha.
Hi Dennis
I don’t think this is quite right. The ‘knower of the Self’ is one who has negated all superimpositions, including the ego. It is in this sense, that the knower of the Self cannot be a do-er. Action is incompatible with Knowledge of non-duality – because there is no separate ego that can desire another thing. And that is why Sankara reckoned on a jnani living on what came to him by chance, ie sannyasa
As Sankara writes in 2.21:
The state of being a knower does not, of course, pertain to the conglomerate of the body, senses, etc. Therefore after their elimination, whatever remains is the knower, free from all actions. Thus actions being impossible for the knower it is appropriate to negate all of them in the words ‘How can a man who knows . . ‘
Best wishes,
venkat
The Tigers of India by William James
“THERE are two ways of knowing things, knowing them immediately or intuitively, and knowing them conceptually or representatively. Altho such things as the white paper before our eyes can be known intuitively, most of the things we know, the tigers now in India, for example, or the scholastic system of philosophy, are known only representatively or symbolically.”
Page 225, Pragmatism, and four essays from The meaning of truth.
William James
https://archive.org/details/pragmatismfoures00injame/page/n229/mode/2up
==========================
I have said before that James is my favourite philosopher and I agree with much of what he wrote but in the above paragraph he missed a third way of “knowing” things; in the words of Patanjali, samyama. (But he does discuss these matters in other places).
===========================
Which is why the following is somewhat off, IMHO.
============================
” While the body-mind remains alive (i.e. continues to be animated by Consciousness), the person is a mixture, as it were, of both. If I am enlightened, I know that I am really the original Consciousness, Brahman, but I cannot escape the fact that I am also still a jIvAtman, with that same Consciousness reflecting in the intellect. If I am unenlightened, I either do not know about paramAtman or do not believe that this is who I really am. Instead, I identify with body, mind, attributes or functions. I mistakenly superimpose (adhyAsa) the properties of the mithyA body-mind onto the paramAtman.
The same applies even to ‘knowing’. When we say ‘I know’, whether or not we are enlightened, it has to be the reflected ‘I’ that is speaking….
=======================
On a par with “I know the sun is not actually rising in the east but I stand on the surface of the earth which is rotating towards the sun.”
BUT, your final paragraph finally (!) veers towards what I think is the best “explanation”.
======================
“Accordingly, even when that intellect has realized the truth of all this – that ‘who-I-really-am’ is the Atman, it is still going to be this ‘mixture’ of inert, subtle elements and Consciousness; the ‘mixture’ of bimba and pratibimba. As such, it is going to remain inescapably influenced by its prArabdha karma until this is exhausted. Depending upon the nature of this karma, this influence will be minimal and transparent, or it will provide an obstacle to a greater or lesser extent, impacting upon the vyAvahArika degree of ‘happiness’, feeling of fulfilment etc. This brings us full circle to the logical acceptance of the concept of pratibandha.”
———————
Thanks,
Shishya
Hi Venkat,
You say: “The ‘knower of the Self’ is one who has negated all superimpositions, including the ego.”
Who exactly is this ‘one’? SInce it ‘negates’, it cannot be Brahman.
I’m not actually sure what you are saying. I used BG 2.21 in the text to show that the ‘I’ who knows and acts has to be a mixture of Atman and intellect (by virtue of chidAbhAsa). 2.19 says that the Self does not act; 2.20 says because it is changeless; 2.21 repeats 2.19 as the ‘conclusion’.
The ‘knower’ is Atman by virtue of the ‘instrument’ of buddhi. Neither on its own is able to know – Atman because it is nirvikAra, antaHkAraNa because it is jaDa. Since the ‘knower of brahman’ IS brahman, he/she is effectively changeless and actionless. But there is still no getting away from the fact that this knowledge is via the instrumental buddhi, ‘animated’ by brahman.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis
It is as Brhad Up says, there is no further particular consciousness for a jnani
Ramanamaharishi explains that looking introspectively for the ‘I’ causes it to dissolve, which is in consonance with the above. I interpret this to mean that the ego-ic thoughts are attenuated to such a degree that it barely functions to provide for the body’s most basic needs.
MK 3.46 bhasya:
When the mind becomes quiescent, like the flame of a light kept in a windless place; or when the mind does not appear in the form of an object – when the mind is endowed with these characteristics, it verily becomes one with Brahman.
MK2.37 talks about the body and atman as his support – the body for the purpose of eating, and therefore has some ego; the atman at other times.
I will aim to cover this when I pull something together on renunciation.
Best,
venkat
Saying that the mind ‘becomes’ Brahman is metaphorical. (It is always Brahman.) What it means is that the j~nAnI’s mind now always appreciates the fact that ‘sarvam khalvidam brahmA’. It is like saying that the snake ‘becomes’ a rope when the torch is shone on it.
You did not answer the question who is the ‘one’ who has “negated all superimpositions”. It cannot be brahman; it cannot be the inert body-mind. It has to be the mind ‘animated’ by Brahman – a ‘mixture’ of the two.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Shishya,
Pleased that you seem to be agreeing with me for a change 😉
Not sure what your initial almost-objection was about though. saMyama is the name given to the last three stages of rAja yoga – dhAraNA, dhyAna and samAdhi – and as such has nothing to do with advaita. And, since William James did not accept the existence of Consciousness, and thought that everything was ‘made up of’ experience, I don’t think we should pay too much attention to what he said!
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hello Dennis:
You said:
“Pleased that you seem to be agreeing with me for a change
Not sure what your initial almost-objection was about though.”
——–
Well, my almost-objection was about what you said in the first paragraph of the article:
“If I am enlightened, I know that I am really the original Consciousness, Brahman, but I cannot escape the fact that I am also still a jIvAtman, with that same Consciousness reflecting in the intellect. If I am unenlightened, I either do not know about paramAtman or do not believe that this is who I really am. Instead, I identify with body, mind, attributes or functions. I mistakenly superimpose (adhyAsa) the properties of the mithyA body-mind onto the paramAtman.”
————–
To me it sounds like this “knowledge” that one is enlightened is exactly like “knowing” about sunrise and the rotation of the earth, which is the example you once invoked, in response to a query of mine about the “truth” of Brahman. In my opinion, they are entirely (qualitatitively) different modes of knowing.
So I was being facetious, but no matter.
I think Venkat put his finger on it in one of his replies to you:
“You argue that the jnani’s mind has the knowledge that ‘all this is Brahman’. I believe that what is meant (is) that the jnani’s mind no longer has any separative thought – hence why silence is said to be the high upadesa.
——————————————
I am also convinced that prarabdha as pratibimba is the animating principle of the universe, hard determinism in a phrase. We each have our own pratibimba, so to speak.
Beyond this, when the talk turns to bimba, my mind goes blank, heh, heh.
Hi Shishya,
The sunrise metaphor is a good one. You seem to be implying that it isn’t?
Do you have direct experience of the earth rotating and going around the sun? Did you not initially just put your faith into the claims of science? Then, the more you investigated and thought about it, the more you were inclined to believe it. At some point, for those who are real scientific seekers, there is perhaps the genuine realization that it really is true. (Except that it isn’t – it is mithyA! But this is only a metaphor.)
OK, one or two people are able to go to the space station and actually see the earth rotating, but why should we believe them? Indeed, why should they believe their eyes? We have to directly intuit the explanation for ourselves in order to gain sunrise enlightenment.
Also, minds have thoughts – that is what they do!
Dennis
You and I are both trying to articulate a logical construct which cannot be defined by logic. Hence why words fall back. Your post contains the issues of what is “inert body-mind”; how is it separate from Brahman; and how is the mind a ‘mixture of the two’?
You argue that the jnani’s mind has the knowledge that ‘all this is Brahman’. I believe that what is meant that the jnani’s mind no longer has any separative thought – hence why silence is said to be the high upadesa.
In BSB4.1.4 Sankara has an opponent ask essentially your question:
Opp: Who is it that has this enlightenment?
Vedantin: It is you yourself who ask thus.
Opp: Is it not stated in the Upanishads that I am god?
Vedantin: If that is so, you are already an enlightened man, and so nobody has unenlightenment.
A similar but more elaborate argument is set out in BG13.2. Essentially he is saying that ignorance belongs to him by whom it is experienced. But for the enlightened man, there is no ignorance, and there is no one to experience the absence of ignorance. Because ignorance = superimposition = jiva.
Hence the only appropriate description of Brahman is silence.
Apols, typo – the BSB quote above should read:
Opp: Who is it that has this UNenlightenment?
Hi Venkat,
I don’t entirely disagree with you (!). But I maintain my position.
It is when/if we try to speak directly of Brahman that we have to resort to silence. We cannot say anything at all directly of Brahman. This is why shruti resorts to statements such as satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma (about which Shankara has to write many pages to explain how this works).
But when we want to speak of the j~nAnI, we are not speaking directly of Brahman. The j~nAnI knows that he essentially IS Brahman but the fact that he is still as if ‘occupying’ a body-mind is also a vyAvahArika fact.
One could say that the fact that there is still a body-mind means that there is still an element of ignorance, since the manifestation is the result of ignorance. If enlightenment ended ALL ignorance, the body-mind would drop immediately. (And there would never be any qualifed guru-s to teach.)
Your BSB quote incidentally is just saying that everyone is already free. All that happens on enlightenment is that the ignorance of this fact is destroyed.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Swami Sivananda on Prarabdha and Purushartha:
“Prarabdha, when it is functioning, can never be defied or destroyed, but it can be exhausted through experience and non-commission of further Kriyamana- Karmas. Even this cessation from doing Kriyamana-Karma has to be allowed by the Prarabdha itself; otherwise even such a cessation will not be possible. An evil Prarabdha will not allow the withdrawal from Kriyamana-Karmas and as long as it is not exhausted through experience, rebirth and pain cannot be stopped.”
http://www.dlshq.org/discourse/sep97.htm
Shankara on AgAmin saMskAra:
“For it is (not ignorance of the Self but) the unexpended portion of the past deeds that have already begun to fructify that keeps (the body and the mind of the man who has realized the Self) in being. The previous deeds through which the body in which the Self was realized was brought into being were caused by the defect of wrong knowledge, and can only bring their results in association with the same defect. It continues to occasion false notions and defects like attachment and so on until the fall of the body, these being included in the experience of their ‘fruit’. For the fructification of past acts that has brought this body into being is already under way and must pursue its course, like an arrow that has been loosed from the bow. Metaphysical knowledge has not the power to stop this, as it is not in contradiction with it. WHAT THEN DOES IT STOP? IT STOPS ANY NEW EFFECTS OF NESCIENCE, CONTRADICTORY TO ITSELF, PROCEEDING FROM THE EMPIRICAL PERSONALITY, OF WHICH IT IS THE SUBSTRATUM. FOR THESE BELONG TO THE FUTURE, WHEREAS THE ACTIONS BEING DISCUSSED BEFORE BELONG TO THE PAST.”
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya (1.4.10)
“NEW EFFECTS OF NESCIENCE” = Kriyamana Karmas. So Prarabdha finally decides exactly when you will exhaust your Prarabdha. The next step is videha mukti and that is the only kind of mukti that makes sense to me. As Bernard Shaw said: DEATH IS FOR MANY OF US THE GATE OF HELL; BUT WE ARE INSIDE ON THE WAY OUT, NOT OUTSIDE ON THE WAY IN.
Please re-read the quotation. It is ‘metphysical knowledge’ (enlightenment) that stops the AgAmi karma, NOT prArabdha.
Incidentally, I believe AgAmi is the correct term for that karma that will be gained from future action (by an aj~nAnI). I think that kriyamANa refers to that karma that is being gained by from actions being performed now (and is probably a Yoga term).
Hello Dennis,
I would be very careful to use the word ‘mixture’ when we talk of Atma. It kind of gives a sense that it is actually contacting objects. As we know Atma does not contact anything because it is the only reality. Mithya cannot contact Atma and Atma cannot contact Mithya as they are two different grades of reality. Just like water cannot wet space.
Superimposition is not a mixture or a contact. The snake does not contact the rope. So Atma can never be mixed with the knower. The knower is Mithya. The Jnani is Mithya as a knower. He is not Atman as a knower. The Witness is Arman. The knower does not exist in the sleep state but the Witness does.
I agree to your quote of Swami Parmarthananda totally. He has maintained the knower as Mithya and does not say that the knower is Atma.
Hi Anurag,
Very good point – thank you for that!
I have added the following note to Part 5:
“[Note that I am using the word ‘mixture’ in order to convey the idea. There cannot be a ‘mixture’, since ‘Consciousness’ is the term we are using to refer to the pAramArthika, non-dual reality and ‘intellect’ or ‘mind’ are terms firmly in the realm of vyavahAra. It is not possible for satyam and mithyA to ‘combine’ in any way. C.f. in the rope-snake metaphor, the mithyA snake is an erroneous superimposition on the satyam rope; there is no ‘mixture’ of rope and snake. This point must be borne in mind in the remainder of this section.]”
Hello Dennis,
Thank you for considering my observations and making the changes.
Best wishes,
Anurag
“If I am enlightened, I know that I am really the original Consciousness, Brahman, but I cannot escape the fact that I am also still a jIvAtman, with that same Consciousness reflecting in the intellect.”
If I am enlightened, then I precisely “know” that the “I” that can be enlightened, as you point out later, is precisely a non-existent entity. That I cannot also then be a jivAtman… the whole idea of Consciousness reflecting in the intellect is a product of avidya… it is merely said for the sake of the seeker; it’s not to be taken as truth.
These distinctions between jnana and jnana phalam are similarly from an avidya point of view…
From the “real” standpoint of jnana there cannot be said to be any perception of anything.
Ramana Maharshi gives a beautiful anecdote from the Yoga Vasistha:
“It is just because of such questions that Vasishta narrated the story of the ‘Sage and the Hunter’ to Rama to illustrate the fourth or turiya state. In a forest, once a great Muni sat in the lotus posture (padmasana) with his eyes open, but in deep trance. A hunter hit a deer with an arrow, but the deer escaped and ran in front of the Muni into the bush nearby and hid itself. The hunter came in hot pursuit of the deer and not seeing it asked the Muni where it had gone. ‘I do not know, my friend,’ said the Muni. The hunter said, ‘Sir, it ran right in front of you and you had your eyes wide open. How could you have not seen it?’ Finding that he would not leave him in peace unless a proper reply was given, the Muni said, ‘My dear man, we are submerged in the Self; we are always in the Fourth State. We do not have the waking or dream or deep sleep states. Everything is alike to us. These three states are the signs of the ego and we have no ego. Egoism is itself the mind and it is that which is responsible for all the deeds done in this world. That ego (ahankara) left us long ago. Hence it does not matter whether we keep our eyes closed or open; we are not conscious of what is happening around us. That being so, how can I tell you about your deer?”
I don’t believe that I pointed out that “the ‘I’ that can be enlightened is precisely a non-existent entity”. Can you point me to the location please?
The ‘I’ that can be enlightened is the ‘mixture’ that the post is talking about. Of course this is all ultimately mithyA (not ‘non-existent’!), as is ANY statement, even by Shankara. The idea of ‘Consciousness reflected in the intellect’ is an adhyAropa teaching, as is ALL teaching. I suggest that it is far more helpful than saying that the jIvAtman is non-existent, since that is clearly refuted by our personal experience.
What, then, do you mean by ‘the real standpoint of j~nAna’?? Who has the knowledge? It is the jIva who has the knowledge, not Brahman!
I don’t find the Ramana story at all helpful, I’m afraid. And turIya is not a ‘state’!
‘I don’t believe that I pointed out that “the ‘I’ that can be enlightened is precisely a non-existent entity”. Can you point me to the location please?’
You didn’t say this verbatim — I took it as the natural implication of your header that ‘no never ever gets enlightened,’ but I suppose you understand that differently than I do.
“I suggest that it is far more helpful than saying that the jIvAtman is non-existent, since that is clearly refuted by our personal experience.”
Well, that’s why I gave the Ramana Maharshi story. It’s pointing at something… something very close to the non-existence of jivAtman, right in the teeth of its seeming refutation by personal experience.
To put it another way, it’s not quite refuted by our personal experience, since our personal experience is only our personal experience when thought — i.e. ego — steps in to say it’s so. And that thought is only validated by another to say IT is so… and so on. Thus the ‘anadi’ quality of ignorance. When the thoughts disappear en masse, there is no one to say that ‘personal experience is.’
While “jivAtman is non-existent” is a bit extreme, it is deliberately so, pointing through that extremity to something which is not fully captured by the concept of mithya… it is much closer, of course, to ajata, that is, that mithya is itself mithya.
‘What, then, do you mean by ‘the real standpoint of j~nAna’?? Who has the knowledge? It is the jIva who has the knowledge, not Brahman!’
Well again we’re touching on the unspeakable, but the kind of knowledge that jiva has cancels out the jiva. It does not merely destroy it; it shows it never to have been. But if it never was, then how could knowledge have shown it was so, and to whom? This is of course only a paradox for the mind. The actual knowledge is not a thing to be ‘had.’ It simply is — it is jnana, plain and simple, and it is Brahman. Not that Brahman has it; it is it.
‘And turIya is not a ‘state’!’
Yet again touching on unspeakability. Turiya is that which borders the concepts of state and non-state. It is the ‘pure state,’ or the ‘pure mind,’ which, when that state is, the concept of state/mind itself disappears.
Yes. I see where you are coming from. But, as you admit yourself, you are trying to ‘eff the ineffable’! SInce, ultimately, we can say nothing at all, we have to ‘remain silent’ as Wittgenstein suggested, or we use the concepts of Advaita to try to point the way. All that I am trying to do is clear a ‘reasonable’ path through the jungle of potentially confusing ideas. I guess that I err on the side of not contradicting (too much) the evidence of our own senses, whereas you err on the side of trying not to deviate too much from the ultimate truth!
“All that I am trying to do is clear a ‘reasonable’ path through the jungle of potentially confusing ideas.”
Yes, definitely, fair enough. 🙂 And certainly for most seekers I speak more in mithya than in ajata terms.
Solely on the jnana/phalam, jnani/jivanmukta point, though, while I’ve spoken in similar terms myself in the past, and while from one angle it’s not wrong, I find myself increasingly drawn to a more absolutist rhetoric. I think that’s because by separating the two, it becomes too easy to convert jnana into this gradualist thing. That gradualism can then become an attachment, postponing liberation indefinitely into the future. I feel like many of the Buddhists have fallen into the trap, where true liberation is trillions of lifetimes away, because the mind must be ‘perfected’ from the relative standpoint (impossible), rather than from the absolute standpoint (already accomplished).
Under that framework, it becomes easy to ask questions like “I am a jnani, but why am I not at peace?” The only real answer to that question is: your jnana is not in fact settled or clear yet… keep working. I’d prefer to call such a one not a jnani yet… to a jnani effortless peace is always already achieved, regardless of the state of the mind. And whatever happens to the mind “afterwards” (if we admit a mind) happens effortlessly through the automatic effects of jnana on the vasanas…
As long as one makes the context clear and defines the terms that are used, it doesn’t matter too much. I am trying to use Shankara as the baseline and refer confusing statements by other teachers back to what he said.
On this understanding, we are already free. It is not the gaining of knowledge but rather the removal of Self-ignorance that is required. Having done that, one is a ‘j~nAnI’.
If this is not ‘felt’ to be the case, the idea of pratibandha-s provides a pretty useful ‘explanation’ in my opinion. And, perhaps more to the point, an examination of the notion, with appropriate quotations, may just remove a bit more Self-ignorance!
Although my attitude towards Vidyaranya is not wholely positive, his idea that ‘liberation’ actually means liberation from FUTURE lives, is actually quite a useful one for getting round the ‘gradualist’ problem! (This will appear in Part 8 I think…)
“Although my attitude towards Vidyaranya is not wholely positive, his idea that ‘liberation’ actually means liberation from FUTURE lives, is actually quite a useful one for getting round the ‘gradualist’ problem! (This will appear in Part 8 I think…)”
If one is liberated from future lives, how can it be the case that one is not liberated from this life? Conversely, if one can “keep going” in this life due to prarabhda, why couldn’t one keep going into the future? The mortality of this body seems an arbitrary cut-off point.
What can be born can be reborn, of course. Jnana cannot be that “there was this birth but no future births,” but rather that there was not even this one. *That* is the liberation from birth-and-death… but if that is jnana, then to the jnani there can be no question of ‘it is not felt.’
The very thought ‘it is not felt’ is itself to be seen as a misconception resulting from identification… it is not the feeling that’s the problem, but the identification. But there is no identification, in fact, of course… and “dwelling on that,” paradoxically, is the practice.
The story of the deer, hunter and the muni seems to have inconsistencies. The muni could not perceive the deer but can perceive the hunter and have a conversation with him. Not only does he perceive the hunter biut his peace is also seemingly “disturbed” by the hunter. Very fragile state of peace 🙂 considering he does not perceive anything.
Turiya is not some special state. It is that which exists in all three states of waking, dream and sleep. That which is real, never ceases to exist, and is never created. One can never ‘not be Turiya’ because Turiya is all that exists.
Anurag, this is misunderstanding the point of the story. The point of the story is precisely that the one who says that the muni perceives and converses with the hunter and spots these kinds of inconsistencies is doing so from the ‘external viewpoint,’ that is, a viewpoint based on ego or ignorance. The internal viewpoint (i.e. the “muni’s own” viewpoint) has no such inconsistencies. From that viewpoint, the conversation with the hunter, the not seeing of the deer… all of that is on the same place of existence or non-existence. The Peace is unchanged regardless.
As far as Turiya, it is and is not a state. Yes, it is all that exists. But from the seeker’s standpoint, it is associated with the pure mind, with sattva… it is ‘apprehended’ through a kind of stateless state. Even the thought ‘it is all that exists’ is part of an action that brings one that that stateless state, a state that then goes backward and dissolves all states, including the very one that seemed to be that special state.
Hello Akhilesh,
I went through your website, hence got your name 🙂
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your ‘interpretation’ to an extent. So the first point, which I wanted to intentionally draw out, was that the story requires an interpretation.
Secondly, even from the viewpoint of an enlightened soul, the external viewpoint/ vyavahrika satya is not considered ‘unreal’. The vyavaharika satya is ‘mithya’, which exactly does not mean ‘unreal’. It means that it is ‘seemingly real’. I am not going into a detailed explanation of the difference between satya, mithya and asatya. I am assuming you already know it. Yes, the vyavaharika satya is called unreal in a hasty way. Here also it should be understood that the vyavahrika satya is unreal only in relation to the absolute or paramarthic satya. But we need to understand that the vyavahrika satya has a validilty in the empirical realm. We can’t be talking, discussing or teaching without the vyavahrika satya. The paramarthic satya is pure silence.
The story that you shared shows a confusion of these levels which would probably have bewildered the hunter more than anything (how can he see me but not the deer?) Perhaps the muni was attempting just this 🙂
Regarding Turiya, one does not need to apprehend it through a “stateless state”. I really do not know what you meant by “stateless state”. Did you mean Nirvikalpa Samadhi? If so, then no, one does not need a Nirvikapla Samadhi to apprehend Turiya. All states are actually always in the three states of waking, dreaming or sleeping. The only stateless state is Turiya. Since Turiya exists in all these three states, one needs to apprehend Turiya in the waking state through insight or intuition or direct knowledge (whatever name you wish to give it)
Best wishes,
Anurag
Anurag, I understand your point about mithya, but what is not commonly understood is that mithya is itself mithya, i.e. illusory. This is not something that can be fully understood just by the intellect. Even the belief that mithya exists is also mithya… mithya is a self-referential chain of thoughts. When the chain is removed there is no one there to say that the world exists in any sense. There’s no way I’m going to be able to persuade you of this, but this is the core of Gaudapada’s ajata doctrine. Anyhow, all doctrines are merely doctrines; the Truth is beyond those.
It is not the case that paramarthika = silence and vyavaharika = valid in the empirical realm. This is ITSELF a vyavaharika view. But again, there’s no way to understand this without the relevant reference, so there’s no point debating it.
As far as Turiya being apprehended through a stateless state, I’m not referring to nirvikalpa samadhi — well, perhaps to sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. The mind must be pure to grasp what Turiya means. When it is pure, it stops. Thus there is a seeming contradiction that cannot be grasped in language. The mind must be pure. The pure mind is a stopped mind. The stopped mind is a mind that doesn’t exist. The mind that doesn’t exist cannot be pure, since what does not exist cannot have qualities. Again, this is not something that can be understood purely with the intellect.
Akhilesh,
I remember back in the days of the Advaita email list (over 20 years ago!) that there was one contributor who would habitually post messages contradicting this or that statement on the grounds that there was no world, no jIva-s; that the final truth was ajAtivAda and so on. These remarks were never helpful to the discussion and frustrated me no end!
Of course, the essence of what he said could not be refuted but did it help anyone to move forward in their understanding? I doubt it.
Of course ‘mithyA is mithyA’ etc. Even advaita is mithyA. But seekers have to start from where they seem to be and move forward one step at a time. We only throw the ladder away when we have reached the top and stepped off.
Best wishes,
Dennis
“Of course ‘mithyA is mithyA’ etc. Even advaita is mithyA. But seekers have to start from where they seem to be and move forward one step at a time. We only throw the ladder away when we have reached the top and stepped off.”
Well, I’m not suggesting throwing away the ladder for the seeker. I’m all for practice, actually. I’m suggesting that the very means of climbing the ladder is ultimately grasping something which is *pointed to* by phrases like “mithya is mithya.” The contemplation of the notion that practice is impotent is itself that very practice by which one climbs the ladder.
And in a sense, ajata and its associated doctrines is in fact the only logically satisfying answer to certain questions that otherwise disturb seekers’ minds. You get these unanswerable questions like the question of the locus and reason for ignorance, the reason God created so much suffering, how the enlightened person ‘does things’ and on and on. You also get notions of continuous and endless ‘integration’ “post”-enlightenment.
It is an antidote to those kinds of issues that the absolute “horns of a hare” non-existence of the world is brought in.
Hello Akhilesh,
I get where you are coming from. This is not the Advaita of Shankaracharya – Gaudapada. Could you please quote where Gaudapada ever mentions about a thoughtless mind state or no mind state?
I know what you mean by Sahaja Samadhi as a state or the thoughtless mind state. Vivekachudamani and Vidyaranya Swami have talked of these things. Even Krishnamurti talks about this. And I guess your reference point is Ramana. But this is not Sankara or Gaudapasa’s Advaita. As such there is no harm in ascribing to a different view. It just helps to know which is which and not mix the two.
By silence of the Paramarthika I was not talking of physical silence. I was talking about a silence which is beyond the absence or presence of sound. The Witness is Paramarthika as it is present through all three states. The Witness is present when the mind is present as in dreams and waking, and the Witness is present when the mind is absent as in sleep, or, in your case Sahaja Samadhi. Even a man in Sahaja Samadhi state goes to sleep ! One does not have to stop the mind to apprehend the Witness. One needs a sattvic mind for this, yes !
I don’t agree that Truth is beyond doctrines. Truth is dependent on the doctrine one follows. Shankara or Gaudapada did not speak Buddhism and neither did Buddha speak about the Upanishads or Vedanta.
I have read several accounts of people claiming the state of ending of mind and yet each one unpacks the experience according to a particular tradition and very doggedly defending their path and tradition.
Warm wishes,
Anurag
“I get where you are coming from. This is not the Advaita of Shankaracharya – Gaudapada. Could you please quote where Gaudapada ever mentions about a thoughtless mind state or no mind state?”
Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika quotes:
I:25: “One should know Om, quarter by quarter… Having known Om, quarter by quarter, one should not think of anything whatsoever.”
III:32: “When following the instruction of scriptures and the teacher, the mind ceases to think as a consequence of the realization of the Truth that is the Self, then the mind attains the state of not being the mind; in the absence of things to be perceived, it becomes a non-perceiver.”
III:38: “There can be no acceptance or rejection where all mentation stops. Then knowledge is established in the Self and is unborn, and it becomes homogenous.”
III:45: “When the mind does not become lost nor is scattered, when it is motionless and does not appear in the form of objects, then it becomes Brahman.”
And then Sankara:
Gita bhashya 6:25 (“One should gradually withdraw with the intellect endowed with steadiness. Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever.”) (note the similarity to the first Karika verse above) — of this verse Sankara says “This is the highest instruction about Yoga.”
“But this is not Sankara or Gaudapasa’s Advaita.”
The advaita of Ramana is the advaita of Sankara.
“I don’t agree that Truth is beyond doctrines. Truth is dependent on the doctrine one follows. Shankara or Gaudapada did not speak Buddhism and neither did Buddha speak about the Upanishads or Vedanta.”
Doctrines merely point to Truth and are not to be confused with it. Talking about Truth is not the Truth. Gaudapada warns against getting attached to doctrine (Karika IV:83-84):
“By asserting that the Self ‘exists’, ‘does not exist,’ ‘exists and does not exist,’ or again, ‘does not exist, does not exist,’ the non-discriminating man does certainly cover It up through ideas of changeability, unchangeability, both changeability and unchangeability, and non-existence.’ These are the four alternative theories, through a passion for which the Lord remains ever hidden. He who sees the Lord as untouched by these is omniscient.”
Akhilesh,
The last two verses you have quoted are actually Nagarjuna’s Chatuskoti and yet Nagrajuna argues for emptiness and no-Self, while Gaudapada argues for Self.
The quote from Shankara was an injunction for meditation and purification of mind. It does not talk of ending of mind.
At this point I cannot comment on the verses 32, 38 and 45 as I have not read Sankara’s bhasya on the same. You may be aware that each school of Vedanta and even different schools in Advaita interpret Gaudapada differently.
Best wishes,
Anurag
“The last two verses you have quoted are actually Nagarjuna’s Chatuskoti and yet Nagrajuna argues for emptiness and no-Self, while Gaudapada argues for Self.”
It goes to show that views are not the point. Views are merely pointing to something which is beyond views. And that is also a view… which points to something. Of course one can have differences over which view is more or less logical or whatever… but the end result is to get beyond views, i.e. beyond thought.
“The quote from Shankara was an injunction for meditation and purification of mind. It does not talk of ending of mind.”
The mind is not really ended so much as that it is realized it does not exist. Purification of mind leads to that realization. The existence of mind is the misconception at the heart of avidya.
See also Sankara’s comment on Gita 2:69 (“The self-restrained man keeps awake during that which is night for all creatures. That during which creatures keep awake, it is night to the seeing sage.”): “That night of ignorance, characterized by the distinctions of subjects and objects…” If there are no distinctions of subjects and objects, there is no mind.
If the views do not matter why did Nagarjuna and Shankara and Gaudapada take pains to defend the views of their schools?
By the way Nagarjuna did not talk of going beyond thought. There was no ‘beyond’ for him. No essence beyond thought. For Gaudapada there was an essence beyond thought.
The mind exists in Mithya. What is having this discussion right now? One does not have discussions while sleeping.
There are no distinctions of subject and object during sleep also, which I also a state of no-mind. Does this no-mind state cure ignorance ?
Here is a quote from Krishnamurti, I posted in another discussion with Venkat. He is talking about his no-mind realization of the Source and he clearly denies it to be Brahman of Advaita.
“The following was dictated by Krishnamurti on February 21, 1980. Here, as he frequently did, he refers to himself in the third person (as K.)”
“K went from Brockwood to India on November 1, 1979 (actually October 31). He went after a few days in Madras staright to Rishi Valley. For a long time he has been awakening in the middle of the night with that peculiar meditation which as been pursuing him for very many years. This has been a normal thing in his life. It is not a conscious, deliberate pursuit of mediation or an unconscious desire to achieve something. It is very clearly uninvited and unsought. He has been adroitly watchful of though making a memory of these meditations. And so each meditation has a quality of something new and fresh in it. There is a sense of accumulating drive, unsought and uninvited. Sometimes it is so intense that there is pain in the head, sometimes a sense of vast emptiness with fathomless energy. Sometimes he wakes up with laughter and measureless joy. These peculiar mediations, which naturally were unpremediated, grew with intensity. Only on the days he travelled or arrived late of an evening would they stop; or when he had to wake early and travel.
With the arrival in Rishi Valley in the middle of November 1979 the momentum increased and one night in the strange stillness of that part of the world, with the silence undisturbed by the hoot of owls, he woke up to find something totally different and new. The movement had reached the source of all energy. This must in no way be confused with, or even thought of, as god or the highest principle, the Brahman, which are projections of the human mind out of fear and longing, the unyielding desire for total security. It is none of those things. Desire cannot possibly reach it, words cannot fathom it nor can the string of thought wind itself around it. One may ask with what assurance do you state that it is the source of all energy? One can only reply with complete humility that it is so.
All the time that K was in India until the end of January 1980 every night he would wake up with this sense of the absolute. It is not a state, a thing that is static, fixed, immovable. The whole universe is in it, measureless to man. When he returned to Ojai in February 1980, after the body had somewhat rested, there was the perception that there was nothing beyond this. This is the ultimate, the beginning and the ending and the absolute. There is only a sense of incredible vastness and immense beauty.”
Source: Lutyens, Mary. Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment, (New York.: Avon Books, 1983) pp. 237-238.
I have also read the no-mind experience of Bernadette Roberts where she brings it about totally in terms of a Christian experience, very pointedly denying the Sat-Chit-Ananda experience of Advaita.
Krishnamurti spent his life speaking against all traditions and paths and gurus.
“If the views do not matter why did Nagarjuna and Shankara and Gaudapada take pains to defend the views of their schools?”
I didn’t say views don’t matter, I said that they shouldn’t be confused with the Truth, that they are merely pointing to it. Obviously people from each of the schools were being authentic to their own sense of what would best point.
“By the way Nagarjuna did not talk of going beyond thought. There was no ‘beyond’ for him. No essence beyond thought. For Gaudapada there was an essence beyond thought.”
Not quite. They may have phrased things somewhat differently, but the core points to the same thing.
In his Mulamadhyakarika verse 18:7, Nagarjuna writes:
“What language expresses is nonexistent.
The sphere of thought is nonexistent.
Un-arisen and un-ceased, like nirvana
Is the nature of things.”
The sphere of thought is nonexistent. That suggests that there is something beyond thought… only he wouldn’t call it a Self or Brahman. But “Self” and “Brahman” are only labels, anyway, for what is beyond thought… that which by definition cannot be described.
Interesting Krishnamurti quote. I have no idea whether he was “realized” or not, but he certainly does not seem to have understood Vedanta.
“This must in no way be confused with, or even thought of, as god or the highest principle, the Brahman, which are projections of the human mind out of fear and longing, the unyielding desire for total security. It is none of those things. Desire cannot possibly reach it, words cannot fathom it nor can the string of thought wind itself around it. One may ask with what assurance do you state that it is the source of all energy? One can only reply with complete humility that it is so.”
He mixes up God, Brahman, and ‘projections of the human mind.’ As if they were all the same, and as if that’s what Brahman is.
And then he says “Desire cannot possibly reach it, words cannot fathom it, etc.” But of course that is much closer to the definition of Brahman.
“The mind exists in Mithya. What is having this discussion right now? One does not have discussions while sleeping.”
Who says this discussion is being had right now? Look deeply into that and perhaps the question will be seen to have been misconceived.
“There are no distinctions of subject and object during sleep also, which I also a state of no-mind. Does this no-mind state cure ignorance ?”
No. It is not sufficient for the mind to be stopped, but it is a requirement, or rather it is already a truth that must be recognized. The very idea that the mind is ‘only’ stopped in deep sleep is part of avidya.
Are you trying to say that Buddhism and Vedanta have been saying the same things? Buddhism has not been talking about Brahman at all.
He mixes up God, Brahman, and ‘projections of the human mind.’ As if they were all the same, and as if that’s what Brahman is.
And then he says “Desire cannot possibly reach it, words cannot fathom it, etc.” But of course that is much closer to the definition of Brahman.
So there is an ‘it’. Krishnamurti says it is not Brahman and you say he did not know Brahman. So there is a Brahman which all should know……including Buddhists and Christians and Jains 🙂
In which case, there should not have been the rise of any other religion. Buddhists and Jains denying the Vedas was just a farce. Shankara insisting on Vedas was just a casual insistence. His arguing with even Mimansa folks was just a passtime?
“Are you trying to say that Buddhism and Vedanta have been saying the same things? Buddhism has not been talking about Brahman at all.”
Yes, *properly understood*, they are saying the same “thing,” which is not a thing at all. They may differ at the level of logic, but not at the deeper level. Which is not to say that Buddhism is always properly understood.
“Buddhists and Jains denying the Vedas was just a farce.”
They may deny the Vedas as a source of knowledge, but what the Vedas — or rather, the Upanishads, to be precise — point to isn’t, strictly speaking, denied. They merely talk about it differently. Well, at least the ones who had true spiritual knowledge.
“Shankara insisting on Vedas was just a casual insistence. His arguing with even Mimansa folks was just a passtime?”
He made the case for his point of view, and in doing so, helped illuminate the spiritual truth. But part of his point of view — if it is properly understood — is that “points of view” themselves are not the Point.
Again and again you are caught up in a black and white way of thinking…this or that, right or wrong. The point of Sankara’s thought is to lift you up and out of that.
Well, well Akhilesh ! Here are Shankara’s criticisms of Buddha and Buddhism. Got it from kamakotimandal.com in the section Shankaracharya and Buddhism. And with this I rest my case.
Also, in explaining why there is plurality of Buddhist positions, Shankara points out the difference in disciples’ innate ability of understanding (pratipattibheda) and says as follows:
“the doctrine of the reality of the external world (bAhyArthavAda) was indeed propounded by the Buddha conforming himself to the mental state of some of his disciples whom he perceived to be attached to external things; but it does not represent his own true view (saugatAbhiprAya) according to which consciousness alone is real (vijnAnaikaskandha)”.
For Shankara, even that Buddhist theory which asserts that consciousness alone is real is nihilistic without a morsel of rationality. Shankara adds that it is not possible to lead one’s ordinary life on the basis of such a nihilistic view.
And finally he concludes his criticism against the Buddha and Buddhism with the following words:
“No further special discussion is in fact required. Form whatever new points of view the Bauddha system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walks of a well dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon, and hence the attempts to use it as a practical guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of external world, the reality of consciousness alone and total nihilism, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused. Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness”.
As I have already mentioned, there appeared many critics against Shankara and his followers. It is very probable that those critics appeared not only after his death but also during his lifetime. In fact, Shankara himself explicitly admits in his mANDUkyopaniShad kArikAbhAShya that Buddhism is said to be in close similarity to the Advaita of his paramaguru gauDapAda:
“This knowledge regarding the Ultimate Reality, non-dual and characterized by the absence of the difference of knowledge, object of knowledge and knower, is not the same as that declared by the Buddha. The view of the Buddha which rejects the existence of external objects and asserts the existence of consciousness alone, is said to be similar to or very near the truth of non-dual Atman. But this knowledge of the non-dual which is the Ultimate Reality can be attained through vedAnta alone”.
“For Shankara, even that Buddhist theory which asserts that consciousness alone is real is nihilistic without a morsel of rationality.”
But that’s not the Buddha’s true view. The Buddha’s real view, like Gaudapada’s view, is that all views are ultimately wrong:
“one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self… or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self… or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self… or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.” (Sabbasava Sutta)
Or as Ramana Maharshi said:
“D.: Buddha, when asked if there is the ego, was silent; when asked if there is no ego, he was silent; asked if there is God, he was silent; asked if there is no God, he was silent. Silence was his answer for all these. Mahayana and Hinayana schools have both misinterpreted his silence because they say that he was an atheist. If he was an atheist, why should he have spoken of nirvana, of births and deaths, of karma, reincarnations and dharma? His interpreters are wrong. Is it not so?
M.: You are right.”
So Sankara was arguing against a particular misinterpretation of the Buddha.
So you depose Shankara too !
Which is why I said you are not talking Shankara- Gaudapada.
Ok. Here is the Buddhist critique of Sankara
Nagarjuna refutes any view of eternalism or absolutism in his philosophy. Eternalism and absolutism has no place in Nagarjuna’s philosophy of Sunyavada. He advocates the ‘Middle Way’ between externalism and nihilism. According to Nagarjuna, says Harvey, “The nature of dharma (phenomenon) lies between absolute, non-existence, and substantial existence. This is what Nagarjuna means by the Middle Way” (98). Nagarjuna perceives that all dharma (phenomenon) lack the quality of inherent existence. Anything that appears to exist inherently or independently, according to Nagarjuna, is imputed by one’s ignorance. In reality, all are empty of any inherent existence, including emptiness as well. Thus, all share the same nature, ‘emptiness’. The Heart Sutra says,
Body is nothing more than emptiness; emptiness is nothing more than body. The body is exactly empty, and emptiness is exactly body.
The other four aspects of human existence – feeling, thought, will, and consciousness – are likewise nothing more than emptiness, and emptiness nothing more than they.
Nagarjuna equates this emptiness with the principle of “dependent arising.” He says that things exist only in a relative way and not in an absolute way. For instance, if one posits something as being absolutely long or short, it would have to be long or short by its own nature. Obviously, this is not the case because the description “short” is relative to “long” and vice versa. These are relational statements; each depends on the other for its existence. Nagarjuna argues that all phenomena are devoid of independent, inherent, or ultimate existence. Their existence in relationship to and in reliance upon other phenomena is never refuted. Since all phenomena, in Nagarjuna’s perspective, are empty, some wonder if he is suggesting that emptiness is eternal and independent. Nagarjuna’s response is that even the ultimate reality, emptiness, exists in dependence on other phenomena and not as an ultimate basis for other phenomena to arise. Hence, Harvey says, “Emptiness is not some ultimate basis and substance of the world, like the Brahman of the Upanishads” (99). In other words, reference to emptiness is always made in relation to object’s ultimate nature, devoid of any inherent existence
By contrast, Shankara sees Brahman as a separate entity with essence. According to Shankara, the manifold world is an illusory world. It is superimposed upon Brahman by the power of maya and avidya (ignorance). Thus Shankara says, “This universe is an effect of Brahman. Apart from Brahman, it does not exist. But this universe which is superimposed upon Brahman is nothing but a name” (70). Jay Garfield (1994) compares this view with the notion of emptiness and says that if emptiness is perceived in that fashion, the notion of deep unity between the conventional and ultimate truth is not understood. He says that to see emptiness in this way “is to see the conventional as illusory and emptiness as the reality standing behind it” (2). Moreover, he says, “To adopt this view of emptiness is indeed to deny the reality of the entire phenomenal, conventional world” (9). Therefore, Garfield refutes emptiness as a self-existent entity, “existence that stands behind the veil of illusion represented by conventional reality” (2). Last but not least, there are other fundamental concepts that separate Mahayana’s notion of sunyata and Shankara’s notion of Brahman. For example, in Mahayana Buddhism sunyata is not an end, but is a means to achieve the Buddhahood, the perfect enlightenment. Mahayana believes that the comprehension of sunyata, emptiness, directs one’s compassionate action appropriately and effectively, thus leading one to the attainment of Buddhahood. Harvey says, “Wisdom itself aids compassion in a number of ways. Ultimately, it leads to becoming an omniscient Buddha, who can teach and aid beings in countless ways” (121). On the other hand, Shankara asserts that Brahman is not a means, but is an end in itself. According to Shankara, realizing Brahman is man’s ultimate goal, the final liberation. He says, “Realize Brahman, and there will be no more returning to this world–the home of all sorrows” (69).
“So you depose Shankara too !”
No, I merely disagreed with your understanding of him.
“By contrast, Shankara sees Brahman as a separate entity with essence.”
He does not. This merely a simplification for seekers.
By the way Akhilesh, there are different schools of Buddhism holding very different views. Shankara himself is talking of three different schools of Buddhism. There is no one school of Buddhism. The school you are referring to, is Madhyamika of Nagarjuna and the comment above shows how Nagarjuna is very different from Vedanta. In fact Nagarjuna was also critical of some Buddhist schools too.
At any rate you have now got a very clear idea that Shankara had very definite views. He was not free from all views. Gaudapada too had an Ajativada view. The very meaning of the word vada means viewpoint. And you must be aware that there are many Dwaita schools which hold very different views from Advaita schools. And there are also Vishishtadvaita schools who have their own critique of Advaita.
All in all, everyone had a view and there is no one view which is agreed by all .
And I did not state any understanding of Shankara. I have just been quoting him. And Shankara positively sees essence.
Shankara, citing Katha Upanishad, asserted ( in his introduction to Brihadranyaka Upanishad) that the Hindu Upanishad starts with stating its objective as
… this is the investigation whether after the death of man the soul exists; some assert the soul exists; the soul does not exist, assert others.” At the end, states Shankara, the same Upanishad concludes with the words, “it exists.”
Congratulations, gentlemen on beating the world record for the greatest number of posts in one day, by a substantial margin!
Not wanting to discourage you but I did post a request to someone a week or two ago not to discuss teachings other than Advaita (the particular example was J. Krishnamurthi) and I gave the reasons for this. If you do want to go into this level of detail, can I ask that you please take the discussion offline.
Also, could I ask Akhilesh whose translation you were quoting from for the Gaudapada kArikA? I have virtually every English translation available and was unable to track it down. I have to say I was not impressed based upon the first ‘translation’ (1.25)!
Thanks Dennis. I’m content to leave the discussion of non-advaita schools as it is… I’ve said my piece :).
My translation of the kArikA is Gambhirananda’s…
‘… this is the investigation whether after the death of man the soul exists; some assert the soul exists; the soul does not exist, assert others.” At the end, states Shankara, the same Upanishad concludes with the words, “it exists.”’
That passage refers to the kind of self that is born and reborn. He writes “For we see one of the Upanisads starts with the words, ‘There is a doubt among men regarding the life after death, some saying that the self exists, and others that
it does not ‘ (Ka. I. 20), and concludes, ‘ It is to be realised as existing indeed ‘ (Ka. VI. 13), and so on.”
That’s not Brahman. Brahman is defined as neti, neti, which means it is ultimately beyond all description, beyond even being and non-being. It is certainly not a thing with an essence… “Thing” and “essence” are concepts, but Brahman is precisely beyond all such concepts.
Neti, neti applies to the fact that all objects have to be negated. One cannot know Brahman because one ( the subject= witness) is Brahman. Neti, neti does not negate the Subject/ Witness which is Atman which is Brahman.
Neti neti, meaning, “Not this, not this”, is the method of Vedic analysis of negation. It is a keynote of Vedic inquiry. With its aid the Jnani negates identification with all things of this world which is not the Atman, in this way he negates the Anatman. Through this gradual process he negates the mind and transcends all worldly experiences that are negated till nothing remains but the Self. He attains union with the Absolute by denying the body, name, form, intellect, senses and all limiting adjuncts and discovers what remains, the true “I” alone.[1] L.C.Beckett in his book, Neti Neti, explains that this expression is an expression of something inexpressible, it expresses the ‘suchness’ (the essence) of that which it refers to when ‘no other definition applies to it’.[2] Neti neti negates all descriptions about the Ultimate Reality but not the Reality itself. Intuitive interpretation of uncertainty principle can be expressed by “Neti neti”[3] that annihilates ego and the world as non-self (Anatman), it annihilates our sense of self altogether.[4]
Adi Shankara was one of the foremost Advaita philosophers who advocated the neti-neti approach. In his commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika, he explains that Brahman is free from adjuncts and the function of neti neti is to remove the obstructions produced by ignorance. His disciple, Sureshvara, further explains that the negation, neti neti, does not have negation as its purpose, it purports identity.[5] The sage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II iii 1-6, beginning with there are two forms of Brahman, the material and the immaterial, the solid and the fluid, the Sat ‘being’ and tya, ‘that’ of Satya – which means true, denies the existence of everything other than Brahman. And therefore, there exists no separate entity like Jiva which Shankara states is the reflection of Brahman in Avidya (ignorance).[6]
From Wikipedia – on ‘Neti-Neti”
Mandukya Verse 3.31 according to Swami Nikhilananda with Shankara Bhasya and Anandgiri’s commentary
31. All these dual objects, comprising everything that is movable and immovable, perceived by the mind (are mind alone). For, duality is never experienced when the mind ceases to act.
Shankara Bhashya (commentary)
It has been said that it is the mind alone which appears as dual (objects) like the appearance of the snake in the rope. But what is its proof? Our answer is this: We make the statement on the strength of an inference following the method of agreement and difference. The proposition is that all this duality perceived as such by the imagination of the mind is, in reality, nothing but the mind. The reason for such inference is that duality is perceived when the mind acts and it vanishes when the mind ceases to act; that is to say, when the (activity, i.e., the Vṛttis of the) mind is withdrawn1 unto itself by the knowledge got through discrimination, repeated practice and renunciation,—like the disappearance of the snake in the rope—or during deep sleep.2 Hence on account of the disappearance of duality it is established that duality is unreal or illusory. That the perception of duality is due to the action of the mind is further proved in this Kārikā.
Anandagiri Tika (glossary)
1 Withdrawn, etc.—This may be called Samādhi. But Vedānta does not prescribe any mechanical method for the attainment of this state. The Vedāntic method for the control of the mind is the discrimination between the real and the unreal (repeated discrimination), all based upon reasoning.
2 Deep sleep—Although there is a difference, Suṣupti has often been pointed out by the Vedāntic Seers as similar to the state of Nirvikalpa Samādhi. Suṣupti is the state when the mind ceases to act. Consequently in it duality is not perceived
Akhilesh wrote:
..Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika quotes:
I:25: “One should know Om, quarter by quarter… Having known Om, quarter by quarter, one should not think of anything whatsoever.”..
and I commented:
..Also, could I ask Akhilesh whose translation you were quoting from for the Gaudapada kArikA? I have virtually every English translation available and was unable to track it down. I have to say I was not impressed based upon the first ‘translation’ (1.25)!..
Having established that it is the Gambhirananda translation, I now take back my comment. The reason I had queried the translation is because the quotation is actually from K1.24, not 1.25!
Dennis, whoops, sorry about that, you are right, it’s 1.24 :).
Anurag, I think this conversation has come to its natural conclusion. Thanks for the conversation.
Thanks for the conversation Akhilesh !