Tag Archives: brihadaranyaka

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 5 ***

‘Existence’ of Ignorance

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

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

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

ajñānaṃ saṃśayajānaṃ miśyājānamiti trikam
ajñānaṃ kāraṇaṃ tatra kāryatvaṃ pariśiṣṭayoḥ

This is translated as:

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

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 3 ***

Observations triggered by Ghaṭa bhāṣya

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

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

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

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 3)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 2 ***

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.2.1

Absence

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 2)

Posted on by
2

*** Read Part 1 ***

Brahmasūtra 2.2.28

Darkness as a Physical Entity

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

tamaso darśanāt, prāgabhāva iva tamaso darśanaṁ dṛṣṭi-pratyakṣatvāt.

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

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

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 6.47.18

Posted on by

There is a verse in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which says, 

Indra, through Maya, appeared as many forms. [1]

It has been quoted by both Gaudapada and Shankara to illustrate how, through the illusion of Maya, Brahman appears as many. With knowledge of Advaita, this illusion is dispelled. 

The full verse says,

He shifted shape to match every shape, to manifest his shape. Indra, through Maya, appeared as many forms. his horses, hundreds and ten, are yoked.

Though quoted in Advaita literature, the verse is, itself, a quote — from the Rig Veda [2].

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 4.26.1

Posted on by

If we have read the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, we may have come across the mention of a rishi named Vamadeva, who is said, upon realising Brahman, to have “become Manu and Surya”. They feature in 1.4.10,

In the beginning, Brahman was this. It knew only itself: “I am Brahman.” Through that it became all. Whichever of the devas woke up to it became that; whichever of the rishis, likewise; whichever of human beings, likewise. Seeing that, the rishi Vamadeva realised:  “I have become Manu and Surya too.” 

Why was Vamadeva’s statement considered significant enough to include and explain in the Upanishad? How does saying he has “become Manu and Surya” signify realisation of Brahman?

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – meaning of samudra

Posted on by

We don’t have to dive deep into Advaita to come across the imagery of a drop of water and the ocean or many rivers flowing back to the sea. Whilst it is more prominent now, we find the same idea in classic literature,

Just as flowing rivers go down into the sea,
Leaving name and form behind,
The one who knows, freed from name and form,
Reaches the highest Supreme Self.
— Mundaka Upanishad [1]

The meaning is clear — the rivers are likened to name and form and the sea to the Supreme Self. When Advaita is realised, there is the vanishing of name and form, which is the rivers flowing back to the sea. This is very common imagery for illustrating the truth. What we may not know is that it also features in the Vedas. Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 1.164.39

Posted on by

One of the mantras which captures, not only the essence of Advaita, but also the Vedas themselves, is Rig Veda 1.164.39 —  

“To one who does not know the supreme syllable of the Rig Veda, in which, in heaven, all the devas have taken their seats, what use is the Rig Veda?” 

The mantra also appears in Shvetashvatara Upanishad [1]. The Rig Veda gets its name from the type of mantras it contains, known as a ‘ric‘, which literally means “praise”. These mantras focus on invoking and worshipping devas. “To one who does not know the supreme syllable of Rig Veda,” means not knowing what is being worshipped and invoked, the syllable pervading every word of every mantra. The devas take ‘their seats’ in this syllable because it is their source. Knowing this syllable is to know, not only the source of the devas, but also what the entire Rig Veda is in praise (ric) of. Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 10.125.8

Posted on by

Rig Veda 10.125.8 is unique as it is one of the rare occasions in the Vedas where a mantra is spoken in first-person. Such mantras are categorised as directly relating to the Self, where the worshipper is identical with the deity being worshipped and the illusion of separation is seen through.

In Rig Veda 10.125.8, it is declared that,

I breathe forth like the wind, giving form to all created worlds. Beyond the heaven, beyond this earth, so vast am I in greatness.

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 10.129.4

Posted on by

Alongside Purusha Sukta (10.90), the Nasadiya Sukta (10.129) is one of the most famous Suktas of the Vedas. Known as the Creation Hymn, its fourth mantra says,

In the beginning, there was the disturbance of desire, from which sprung the first seed, which was born of the mind. Sages, searching in their hearts, realised the wisdom of the connection between existence and non-existence.

The creation the Nasadiya Sukta discusses is often believed to be the origin of the universe. However, 10.129.4 does not refer to any ordinary creation but, rather, the illusion of duality. This is attributed to desire in the mind – the first ‘seed’ of ignorance which gives the impression that we are separate. Before this disturbance, there was nothing to realise and no one to know because there was no appearance which was taken to be real as separate from the Self or Brahman. Continue reading →