Q: Do the Vedas really contain any advanced knowledge as so many people claim they do?
A (Martin): I’d say the Vedas contain the most fundamental and ‘advanced’ knowledge there is, though usually portrayed in the form of paradox (analogy, metaphor, story, etc.), so that one has to crack the code in order to find the wealth hidden in them. That knowledge is not like empirical science, which is cumulative and provisional, and which could be said to be somehow contained in it, even if in embryonic or potential form.
The knowledge inherent in the Vedas is metaphysical rather than mystical. According to it there is one and only reality: consciousness (Brahman, or the Absolute), which pervades the whole universe; it is immanent in it as well as transcendent… “the smallest of the small, the largest of the large”. It cannot be measured or understood by the mind, for which it is ineffable, but it is that by which the mind comprehends… it cannot be expressed in words but by which the tongue speaks… it is eye of the eye, ear of the ear, mind of the mind, as expressed in the Upanishads.
Modern physics is having a hard time trying to explain away what consciousness is in terms of physical phenomena (neuronal activity in the brain), but consciousness is not an irreducible phenomenon or datum; it is reality itself or a name or symbol for reality – since the referent of the symbol is unfathomable – everything being comprehended in it (theories, doubts, projections, emotions, things, thoughts, intelligence, observer and observed, you and I). For the Vedas reality is one, and present physics is trying to find out in which way it is so (‘theory of everything’, ‘unifying theory…’). Not all physicists are reductionist, some of them having seemingly mutated into philosophers with an understanding of the core of Vedic teachings.
Hi Martin
I was pondering this morning, what does it mean “to know”. It is not a perception in the sense of sight, sound, taste. So, it is a thought presumably served up by memory.
So when we say we have metaphysical knowledge – jnana – are we simply saying it is a thought served up by memory; a sort of neuro-linguistic programming?
Best
venkat
Hi Venkat,
(Sorry to butt in!)
In order to be valid, knowledge has to come from an validly acknowledged pramAna. Memory is not a pramAna and so must be deemed invalid.
I believe Shankara only recognizes shabda, in particularly the scriptures, as a source of metaphysical knowledge.
(But all of that is from memory of course…)
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis
Sorry – I wasn’t clear – I meant once knowledge has arisen from scriptures.
That was the context for the question – once I know ’tat tvam asi’ from scriptures – what does it mean ‘to know’? Knowing something must involve a thought, which presumably is brought up from memory of the scripture.
Clearly I am talking in materialistic terms, so that in itself is an assumption. But given that your position is that the world and body-mind continues, then I assume you would hold that the jnani has a sort of NLP rewiring of how the brain works?
Best
venkat
Hi Venkat,
Interesting idea but I feel it is introducing unnecessary complication.
The aj~nAnI is already Brahman but his mithyA mind does not appreciate this. The j~nAnI is already Brahman and his mithyA mind, as a result of relevant mithyA pramAna, has acquired the mithyA knowledge that this is so.
The operation of the mithyA mind, whether involving something called ‘memory’ or not, is only a mithyA rationalisation for the interim condition of the aj~nAnI.
The j~nAnI himself is mithyA (as a jIva) so none of this really matters.
But, yes, I do maintain that the world and body-mind continue, but only from a vyAvahArika perspective. In reality, there has never been any creation.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Venkat,
You raised two Questions, as I make out from your Comment on Mar 06, 2024:
Q1: “What does it mean “to know”?”
Q2: “When we say we have metaphysical knowledge – jnana – are we simply saying it is a thought served up by memory?”
Don’t you think the following citations (which I am certain that you also know) help answer the two questions?
1. The intellect has no Consciousness and the Self has no action. The word ‘knows’ can, therefore, reasonably be applied to neither of them (18.54, US).
2. [When it is said,] brahman is jnAnam. jnAna means knowledge, consciousness. The word jnAna conveys the abstract notion of the verb (jna, to know); and being an attribute of brahman along with truth and infinitude, it does not indicate the agent of knowing. (Shankara bhAShya at 2.1.1, taittirIya).
3. [IOW], brahman has only the cognate sense (knowledge) of the verb (“to know”, and not the verbal sense of knowing),
4. Once it is “Known” that one is eternally existing Liberation, and still desires to perform actions (like knowing/seeing etc.) is a man of clouded intellect. It is against what the scriptures stand for (18.209, US).
5. No actions can be enjoined on one when one has known the meaning of the sentence (“You are That”). For, the two contradictory ideas, “I am brahman” and “I am an agent” cannot exist together (18.225, US).
regards,
Thanks Dennis, Ramesam.
I was trying to tease out how others understand knowledge and how it is operationally different for a jnani.
Dennis says a mithya jnani’s mithya mind understands that he and the world are mithya, and Brahman is all there is. Which means that mithya jnani’s mind that continues to have existence, has gone through some conditioning from scriptures in which he places faith, such that he is now firmly convinced (implied: through a thought) that he is mithya.
Ramesam says knowledge is another name for Consciousness / Brahman, and there can be no agent that knows. So rather than knowledge arising in an agent, the one who thought he was an agent no longer is, ie no such thought of being an agent arises.
Is that a fair recap of the positions?
Hi Venkat,
That is a reasonable paraphrase of my position, except that it must be emphasised that the “mithyA j~nAnI’s mind” doesn’t strictly speaking “continue to have existence” AS MIND. It has always had existence as a name and form of Brahman, and continues to do so. But it has never been a separately existing entity and still isn’t. (Just being pedantic for clarity!)
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
Being pedantic as well, does “It has always had existence as a name and form of Brahman” make sense – given that Brahman is said to be homogenous, without parts. Therefore the names and forms must just be an appearance?
Best
venkat
Thanks, Venkat.
Let me, first and foremost, quickly point out that what I presented are Shankara’s own views and words taken from his bhAShya-s and US as rendered into English by the well-known Swamis of the Advaita Ashrama. Therefore, I do not deserve any attribution or accreditation.
Besides, it is useful to keep in mind a couple of other points too. A question is raised about “Who actually listens to the message of Non-duality?” Shankara does not say it is the ‘mind.’ (18.112, US). Further, Shankara observes that Self-realization brings in a cessation of all ‘thoughts’ (cittavRitti) – 1.4.7, BUB.
Shankara tells us also that the “non-Self” exists only for those people who are undiscriminating; it does not exist at all for men of Knowledge (18.95, US). At 18.107, US, he clearly mentions that “Liberation, the result, is supposed to be in the conscious Self because the intellect etc. are non-conscious.”
In the light of those statements by Shankara, I am not sure that we can hold that “when we say we have metaphysical knowledge – jnana – we are simply saying it is a thought served up by memory …”
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
That is a really useful reference. But it also needs some detailed explanation, I think, since the idea of the Self gaining knowledge and becoming liberated does not really make any sense. I think the explanations come in the next two verses (18.108-9), where Shankara talks about chidAbhAsa. May be you could unpick these and explain? I suspect that my explanations of ‘Who am I?’, beginning at https://www.advaita-vision.org/pratibandha-s-part-5-of-7/ may tally, but it would be great if you could present your own interpretation.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thank you for your observations and the link to your article on “cidAbhAsa.” I read the article once again in the light of what you said above.
I can say without any doubt that your essay is very clear, cogent and well-presented. The objective of clarifying on the three avatars of “I,” particularly when “I” is used in the empirical world in communication, as agent of actions, reactions, interactions and relationships is nicely illustrated.
I could be wrong, but I felt that, when you formulated your write up, you did not have, on top, the same “objective” that Shankara kept before him in the Chapter 18 of the US. His aim is to establish the identity of “You” as the Inner Self and “That” as brahman, in the mahAvAkya, “You are That.”
Not only at the verses 18.108-109 that you make a mention of, but all through the Chapter 18 of the US, we notice Shankara’s goal reverberating absolutely clearly. I do not have to give any of my “interpretation,” as you suggest. Shankara’s words themselves are self-explanatory. So, I thought of copying them below for convenience, parenthetically adding a word or two to reduce any ambiguity. Anyone can read and be easily convinced, IMHO.
107: The intellect and its modifications having the reflection of the Self in them exist for It and are non-conscious (From the Footnote of Sw-J: Therefore, they cannot be connected with Liberation, the result of right Knowledge). Liberation is, therefore, is supposed to be in the Conscious Self.
108. As neither the intellect (with the reflection of the Self, i.e. cidAbhAsa) nor its modification in the form of the ego, is of the nature of the result (i.e. Liberation) or its (material) cause, the result is capable of being attributed to the Self, though immutable, like Victory to a King.
[The phrase “the result is capable of being attributed” is a bit of awkward English used by the Swami Ji. What it means to say is that “the result (phalam) can fittingly be (yogyam) attributed to … …”]
109. Just as the reflection of a face which makes a mirror appear like the face itself (i.e. not different from the face), so, the reflection of the Self in the mirror of the ego making it appear like the Self (is the Self – not different from the Self). So, the meaning of the sentence, “I am brahman” is reasonable.
Shankara writes, making it abundantly clear a little later, “The Knowledge of the Innermost Self, according to us, becomes possible when the ‘ego’ vanishes” (18.203, US).
Therefore, intellect or its modifications, ego, cidAbhAsa etc. are not where the Self-knowledge takes place.
Yes, as you say, “it does not really make any sense”; but is in perfect alignment with the final teaching of Advaita., as taught by the scriptures: prAptasya prAptiH (प्राप्तस्य प्राप्ति:). Or, as kaTha says at 2.5.1, विमुक्तश्च विमुच्यते (i.e. becoming freed, one becomes emancipated. Or as brihadAraNyaka expresses at 4.4.6, ( ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति ) “Having been brahman, he attains brahman.”
If there is still a doubt, please see what Shankara says at 18.120, US: “The ‘ego’ which is pervaded by the reflection of the Consciousness (what you call cidAbhAsa) is called the knower or the agent of the action of knowing. One who knows Oneself (The Witness) to be distinct from all these three (pramAtr; prameya; pramANa) is the (real) Knower of the Self.
regards,
Dear Ramesam
I agree with Dennis – a useful post.
I could not find the “cessation of all thoughts in BUB 1.4.7. It is quite long, so if you could give me an indication of whereabouts it is. I did note though – and perhaps this is what you meant:
“When this false notion about the Self is gone, memories due to that, which are natural to man and concern the multitude of things other than the Self, cannot last”
He also later writes:
“Besides there is no other means for the control of mental states except the knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it”.
Sankara here seems to contradict US 18.112, that the mind cannot be the hearer of the message at is has no consciousness – perhaps he is being pedantically technical here! As Dennis notes, Sankara’s ‘get out’ is to explain that it is the reflected consciousness.
So, can one say that knowledge of the Self, may initially be based on memory of the teaching (by the reflected consciousness in the mind), but it only actually becomes Knowledge = Liberation, when the false intrinsic thought of ‘I am the ego’ or ‘this is my body / mind” no longer arises?
(I appreciate that this is different from Dennis’ position noted earlier).
Best
venkat
Dear Venkat,
You write, “Therefore the names and forms must just be an appearance?”
To be pedantic, even the word “appearance” is neither very precise nor fully satisfactory, I think. It leaves open the questions, “Appearance to whom? and How did it come about?”
Perhaps, “projection” is a more suitable word?
Because, Shankara himself says in his short prakaraNa grantha, “AtmajnAnopadeshavidhi” that it is the ‘intellect’ which projects the “forms” (objects) and it is itself the one which ‘sees’ them.
For your consideration.
regaards,
Dear Ramesam
Ramana in Ulladu Narpadu v.7 writes:
Although the world which is seen and the mind which sees it, rise and subside simultaneously, the world exists and shine only because of the mind. That which is Whole and which shines without appearing and disappearing, as the base for the appearance and disappearance of the world and mind, alone is the Reality.
best
venkat
Useful discussion! I actually think we are all in agreement – is it a first? 😉
Dennis
Many thanks Dennis and Venkat for the comments and observations.
@ Venkat, I have just noticed that you asked for a few clarifications in your post of Mar 8, 2024, at 18:46 above. I shall try below to respond to the best of my ability.
V: “I could not find the “cessation of all thoughts in BUB 1.4.7. It is quite long, so if you could give me an indication of whereabouts it is.”
RV: अनन्यसाधनत्वाच्च निरोधस्य — न ह्यात्मविज्ञानतत्स्मृतिसन्तानव्यतिरेकेण चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधस्य साधनमस्ति । — 1.4.7, BUB.
Meaning: Besides there is no other means for the control of mental states (cittavRttinirodha) except the Knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it.
[This comes at pdf p: 161 in the version of Sw-M’s translation I have.]
V: “Sankara here seems to contradict US 18.112, that the mind cannot be the hearer of the message at is has no consciousness – perhaps he is being pedantically technical here! As Dennis notes, Sankara’s ‘get out’ is to explain that it is the reflected consciousness.”
RV: No, Shankara does NOT contradict himself. Please see the verse # 120.
To my understanding, the “reflected consciousness” (‘rc’) has no ‘role.’
‘rc’ is UNREAL like the snake — please see 18.114, US.; it cannot “understand” anything!
Besides, if you think that it initially ‘understands,’ it amounts to say that it has ‘Sentience.’ You cannot have two Sentient entities — Original Consciousness and Its reflection.
V; “So, can one say that knowledge of the Self, may initially be based on memory of the teaching (by the reflected consciousness in the mind), but it only actually becomes Knowledge = Liberation, when the false intrinsic thought of ‘I am the ego’ or ‘this is my body / mind” no longer arises?”
RV: Absolutely not.
Shankara repeats over half a dozen times that the “Understanding” happens like listening to the statement, “You are the tenth,” right at the time of “listening.” The “Listener” has got to be the Inner Self (pratyagAtmA) directly with no intermediary conduits.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
Maybe there is something we disagree on after all. 😉
You say: “To my understanding, the “reflected consciousness” (‘rc’) has no ‘role.’
‘rc’ is UNREAL like the snake — please see 18.114, US.; it cannot “understand” anything!
“Besides, if you think that it initially ‘understands,’ it amounts to say that it has ‘Sentience.’ You cannot have two Sentient entities — Original Consciousness and Its reflection. ”
The use of the concept of chidAbhAsa is precisely to explain this. In ‘Confusions’ (I think), I use Swami Paramarthananda’s metaphor of looking into a dark room through a partially-open door by holding up a mirror to reflect the sunlight into the room. The mirror itself has no light but effectively has by virtue of reflecting the sun. Similarly, the inert mind effectively has consciousness (and ability to ‘understand’) by virtue of reflecting the ‘light’ of Consciousness.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
In the “metaphor of looking into a dark room through a partially-open door by holding up a mirror to reflect the sunlight into the room, the mirror itself has no light but effectively has by virtue of reflecting the sun. Similarly, the inert mind effectively has consciousness (and ability to ‘understand’) by virtue of reflecting the ‘light’ of Consciousness.”
Wow, That’s a tough one to counter! 🙁
I have to do some research to gather an appropriate bhAShya reference/quote.
My hunch is that the mirror metaphor breaks at this point — it cannot reflect “Sentience” Itself. Much like water may absorb and transmit ‘warmth’ of the flame but not the light of the flame.
The example of cidAbhAsa may not apply because, the fallacious-self (cidAbhAsa) appropriates to itself the Sentience through superimposition (satyAnRte mithunIkRtya – सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य).
The modus operandi, IMHO, is (as Shankara explains at, I think, 2.1.1, taitt) that the intellect ‘assumes’ the form of the object which is then ‘illuminated’ by Consciousness Itself. Unlike the intellect, the ‘mirror’ cannot reach the object and take its form.
Anyway, a good point and makes me work more.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
The water (in a puddle for example) in fact transmits (reflects) light (of the sun for example – a BIG flame) much better than it transmits heat…
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Ramesam
You wrote:
“The “Listener” has got to be the Inner Self (pratyagAtmA) directly with no intermediary conduits.”
But as you know the Self cannot be said to know anything, as it is actionless and changeless. It also cannot have ignorance, to be removed by listening. Therefore surely it is the reflected consciousness in the insentient body-mind, and that is affected by the ego-notion, that has its avidya removed by listening? The removal of avidya being the removal of the ego-notion / body-mind identification, and consequently no longer seeing differences.
Best
venkat
Dear Venkat,
What has to happen is, as you rightly say, “The removal of avidya being the removal of the ego-notion / body-mind identification, and consequently no longer seeing differences.” [Please see: https://www.advaita-vision.org/supreme-consummation-of-self-knowledge-in-summary/ ]
Towards that end, the teaching “model” does assume that the upahita Caitanya (Inner Self) can listen to the message. As you know, we have such sentences in the Upanishads where it is said that the Self can move without legs; can hear without ears etc.
regards,
Dear Ramesam
That dodges the question on who is the listener. 🙂
Though Sankara’s reflected consciousness model begs further questions, and is not satisfactory either.
Best
venkat!
Dear Dennis and Venkat,
As the subject matter we are discussing here went beyond my competency, I collated the Comments of three experts whom I regard to be very knowledgeable Advaita Vedantins. Two of them had their initial training with the teachers of the Arsha vidyA group (and perhaps continue with them) and the third is a well-respected popular speaker on Advaita Vedanta.
I presented their input as a separate post because of the length of the comments (almost 2500 words). Further, I felt that the references and bhAShya vAkya-s cited by them deserve to appear as a thread by itself, rather than as a comment.
The Link to the post is:
https://www.advaita-vision.org/who-listens-to-the-vedanta-vakya-tattvamasi/
regards,