Tag Archives: appearance

Does the Jñānī see the world when he is Paramātmā?

Posted on by
17

[Article Sourced From: Here ]

From the standpoint of Pure Adi Śaṅkara Vedānta, the answer is no. The jñānī, as Paramātmā, does not see the world. More exactly, he does not become a seer of anything second to himself. Realization does not turn an individual into Brahman as a new state; it removes the false notion that the ever-free Self was ever bound, ignorant, or finite.[1]

Why is this so? Because seeing necessarily implies duality: a seer, an act of seeing, and an object seen. But the Upaniṣadic teaching, as understood by Śaṅkara, is that this entire triad belongs only to ignorance. When everything has become the Self, the question itself arises: by what could one see, and whom? Likewise, the Self is not something that can be objectified, for “the seer of seeing” can never itself become a seen object.[2] Hence Brahman cannot literally be a perceiver in the empirical sense. Continue reading →

Creation Theories in Advaita

Posted on by
Reply

In Advaita Vedānta, the explanation of how the universe came to be is not presented as a single, static fact, but as a series of increasingly refined theories (vāda-s) designed to lead a seeker from a dualistic worldview to the ultimate non-dual truth. This pedagogical technique is known as adhyāropa-apavāda—initially attributing qualities or a creation to Brahman (adhyāropa) and later rescinding them (apavāda) as the student’s understanding matures.

The following is an overall summary of these theories, progressing from the “common-sense” view to the radical absolute truth.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 5

Posted on by
Reply

(This is the final part)
*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 4 ***

Q: Your kārikā 3.31 bhāṣya still does not correspond with the one I have in front of me. For the passage in question from Śaṅkara, I have:

tena hi manasā vikalpyamānena dr̥śyaṃ manōdr̥śyaṃ idaṃ dvaitaṃ sarvaṃ mana iti pratijñā, tadbhāve bhāvāt tadabhāve cābhāvāt |

manasau hi amanībhāve niruddhe vivekadarśanābhyāsavairāgyābhyāṃ rajjvāmiva sarpe layaṃ gate vā suṣupte dvaitaṁ naivaupalabhyata iti abhāvātsiddhaṃ dvaitasyāsattvamityarthaḥ ||

तेन हि मनसा विकल्प्यमानेन द्र्̥श्यं मन्ōद्र्̥श्यं इदं द्वैतं सर्वं मन इति प्रतिज्ञा, तद्भावे भावात् तदभावे चाभावात् ।

मनसौ हि अमनीभावे निरुद्धे विवेकदर्शनाभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां रज्ज्वामिव सर्पे लयं गते वा सुषुप्ते द्वैतं नैवौपलभ्यत इति अभावात्सिद्धं द्वैतस्यासत्त्वमित्यर्थः ॥

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 4

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 3 ***

Q: That is a very persuasive analysis but I can’t find those verses at those locations. According to my versions of the kārikā-s, 3.28, for example, is:

asato māyayā janma tattvato naiva yujyate
bandhyāputro na tattvena māyayā vā’pi jāyate

A: You are absolutely right — and thank you for catching this.
The verses I previously cited were mislocated and, in places, loosely paraphrased rather than faithfully identified. Your text of GK 3.28 is the correct and standard one, and your correction is decisive.

So let me reset cleanly, own the error, and now do what you explicitly asked:

Relate the analysis carefully and textually to Gauḍapāda Kārikā 3.28–31 as they actually stand, and show how Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya supports the “substratum / invariance of awareness” interpretation rather than a naïve deep-sleep world-denial argument.

I will proceed with precision and restraint.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 3

Posted on by
Reply

Explicit rejection of the notion that the world disappears in deep-sleep,

*** Read Part 1 *** *** Read Part 2 ***

Q: So the statement by A. J. Alston is missing the point?

The real point that Śaṅkara is making is that, despite the fact that the mind, and apparently the world, are both absent in deep sleep, awareness (ātman) is always present. Hence, the real substrate of both mind and world is ātman/Brahman. Is this correct and, if so, what does Śaṅkara actually say here (including Sanskrit)?

A: Yes — that is exactly right, and stated that way it becomes clear that Alston’s objection (though sensible at the empirical level) is largely missing Śaṅkara’s point.

Śaṅkara is not arguing from absence of the world to non-existence of the world.
He is arguing from the invariance of awareness across all states to its status as the sole independent reality, with mind and world reduced to dependent manifestations.

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 1 ***

I decided that, by only making short posts (up to 1500 words) at the rate of one per week, readers might lose the thread (or lose interest) so I will now post longer ones that cover complete questions and answers. So this one is quite long, at over 1800 words.

The Bomb under the Bed

Here is the statement from Śaṅkara (translated by Alston in his book ‘Śaṅkara on the Creation’) that might raise doubts:

“The proposition to be proved is, ‘This whole duality seen by the imagined mind is itself nothing but mind’. The reason advanced is that when the mind is present, duality is also present (agreement, anvaya), and when the mind is not present, duality is not present (difference, vyatireka).” (Gauḍapāda kārikā 3.28-31)

Q: Using the Nyāya logic of anvaya-vyatireka to prove that the waking world is unreal because it disappears in deep-sleep does not seem remotely convincing. Yet Śaṅkara seems to go along with this, despite apparently being a master logician and philosopher. Are you able to explain this? If so, can you break down the argument into simple steps to show how it is possible to justify?

Continue reading →

Anvaya-vyatireka – Part 1

Posted on by

Explanation of key terms in Advaita – No. 4

I was not intending to generate a ‘definition’ of the term, since I thought it would be too short. However, a supposed translation from A. J. Alston’s excellent ‘Śaṅkara on Creation’ caused me to question ChatGPT on the subject and the response was very enlightening. Further clarification, and a correction of ChatGPT’s continuing tendency to fabrication, provided some valuable insights into our perennial discussions on the supposed disappearance of the world on enlightenment and on the supposed Brahman-equivalence of the deep-sleep state. Any readers who still try to maintain those beliefs should perhaps skip these posts. (The thought that the topic would be too short has been proved wrong – there will now be up to 6 parts to the discussion! But I promise that it is an interesting one!)

Continue reading →

Q.558 Knowledge and Experience

Posted on by

Q: I am still confused about the relative value of experience and knowledge. Some teachers seem to say that scriptures only give you ‘intellectual’ knowledge and you then have to convert this into actual ‘experience’ in order to become enlightened. But then there are metaphors like rope-snake and dream-waking. The snake that we experience is not real and we have to wake up from the dream. This means gaining knowledge, doesn’t it?

A: You cannot experience the Self/Brahman/Absolute. But then neither can you ‘know’ it in the usual sense of the word. Reality is non-dual. The empirical, experienced world of duality is an appearance; name and form of Brahman. All of this can be intellectually understood by the mind. When it is firmly believed to be true, without any doubt, that is enlightenment.

You should also understand that it is not the case that ‘all of this is unreal’. ‘Unreal’ is not the correct adjective. Every empirical perception is name and form of Brahman and therefore ultimately real. Just not ‘real’ as its perceived ‘object’. This is why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. The scriptures tell us ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ – all of this is Brahman. So, if it disappeared, it would mean that Brahman disappeared!

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Part 3)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

Advaita refers to the unchanging reality by the Sanskrit term paramārtha and to the constantly changing appearance by vyavahāra. Within this phenomenal realm, separate individuals and objects are recognized and a creator-god, Īśvara, uses the power of māyā to obscure the truth and project the apparent world. It thus affirms that our experience does not tally with its non-dual claims. It acknowledges an appearance of duality, which is at odds with the reality. It also states that we can never directly know the reality. Accordingly, its effective teaching strategy is to successively negate the appearance. That which ‘remains’ and cannot be negated must be the reality. Once the reality is thus effectively (but not literally) known, then it is also realized that the appearance, too, is that same reality.

This process inevitably takes time, from the vantage point of the seeker who is still mired at the level of appearance. The ignorance that prevents the immediate apprehension of reality is effectively in the mind and it is at the level of the mind that this ignorance must be removed. Knowledge must be introduced in such a way that the mind can accept it, using reason and experience. Just as a student is unable to appreciate the subtleties of quantum physics without having the preliminary grounding in mathematics and science, so the seeker is unable to assimilate the ‘bottom-line’ truth of Advaita since it is so contrary to his everyday experience.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita

Posted on by

This will be a multi-part post, triggered in part by Ramesam’s recent post ‘Liberation is Disembodiment’, following which I promised a separate post. First of all, I will repost an article on the subject from advaita.org.uk, with which readers may not be familiar. Secondly, I will post an article on the subject that I apparently wrote in 2006 but do not seem ever to have published. Finally, I will add a new section and make a radical suggestion (as promised in my comment).

The word ‘neo’ means ‘new’ so that ‘Neo-Advaita’ is an impossibility. Advaita means ‘not two’, referring to the non-dual reality that always was, is and will be – unchanging because change would necessarily be from one thing into another, which would be contradictory. There cannot, therefore, be an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ Advaita, only the one truth.

Continue reading →