Tag Archives: Knowledge

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 5)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 4 ***

Tamas

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

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

Darkness as Metaphor

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

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 3 ***

Observations triggered by Ghaṭa bhāṣya

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Q. 553 – Mind and Causality

Posted on by

Q: Does the mind play a causal role in enlightenment? If not, then it seems that no change can actually happen. But then we say that there is now Self-knowledge where before there was ignorance. If the mind is neither cause nor instrument, then surely there can be no Self-knowledge because no change can have occurred.

Furthermore, if the mind isn’t a factor, preparatory practices can be dispensed with and ultimately the understanding isn’t something which takes place in time. Is that what’s meant by the mind having no causal role? That realization isn’t something which happens in time? Am I missing something here please?

A: I think that your problem here is failing to differentiate absolute and empirical reality. The bottom line is that there is only Brahman or Consciousness. And you cannot say anything more. (Even that is too much.)

From the standpoint of empirical reality (vyavahāra), there certainly is causality. Enlightenment is the ‘event’ in the mind when the above is realized to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt. And there are certainly causes for this. The first of these is the preparation of the mind – sādhana catuṣṭaya sampatti. Then there is śravaṇa – listening to a qualified teacher or reading very good books; and manana – clarifying doubts by asking someone who knows the answers to your questions. These are all causes, hopefully leading to eventual enlightenment. Being enlightened is having knowledge of the Self. Not being enlightened is not having that knowledge. (Beware of thinking that there is a positive thing called ‘ignorance’ – I have just written a book about this.)

Continue reading →

Q.552 – Teaching and Seeking

Posted on by

Q: I’m currently reading ‘Back to the Truth’ and I can see you have presented a holistic view of Advaita. But I am curious. In your journey, having investigated all these schools, which do you prefer? Which teachers or schools do you think are best or have been most helpful to you? Or if you could choose just one school, book or guru to study, which would it be?  Also, what is your main spiritual practice? What aids have been most helpful to you?

Do you think that, reading books on Advaita becomes at a certain point not so helpful anymore; after you realize the only thing to truly do as ego is just self-enquiry and turning within?

A: I wrote ‘Back to the Truth’ nearly 20 years ago. I considered writing a second edition, in which quite a bit would change, but my publisher wasn’t interested. Instead, I began a series of books on ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta’. The scriptures (Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahmasutras) are the source of the teaching. Many modern ‘teachers’ are either unaware of this or simply do not bother to read them. Traditional teaching is the ONLY reliable, consistent, reasonable, proven method. This teaching was systematized by Adi Śaṅkara but, even here, many subsequent ‘traditional’ teachers have distorted, mistranslated or misrepresented him.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 2

Posted on by

Part 1

Chapter 1 General Introduction

1-2 PramAna  VedAnta accepts six sources of knowledge called PramAna. Direct perception: Sense organs directly perceive and give information. Inference: It is an indirect knowledge of something not in the range of direct perception. There is knowledge of fire when smoke is seen. Presumption: Knowledge about something in the past by directly perceiving something different in the present. On seeing a wet street in the morning, there is knowledge of rain in the night. Comparison: It is knowledge of something derived by comparison. There is knowledge of a wild buffalo in the forest because it resembles the buffalo seen in the village. Non-cognition: Knowledge of the absence of something by non-cognition. Seeing a chair in a room gives the knowledge of the absence of an elephant in the room. Testimony: It is knowledge derived from written or spoken words. I read a Physics book Physics to get the knowledge of laws of motion.

Continue reading →

‘nididhyAsana’ – as Shankara explains – 2/2

Posted on by

[Part – 1/2]

Putting together 4.1.2, BSB and 1.1.6, muNDaka bhAShya, we can draw five conclusions from bhagavatpada prasthānatraya bhAShya prakriyA as given below:

  1. It is possible to get the Knowledge of the Self in just one hearing of the Vedic statement ‘That thou art’. But, to achieve this it has to be a highly eligible seeker.
  2. Those who have but a vague idea of the meaning of a text on hearing it once do come to shed their various misconceptions and understand it rightly after repeated hearings.
  3. There are some for whom the meanings of words ‘that’ and ‘thou’ are obscured by ignorance, doubt and misunderstanding. In their case merely hearing the text ‘That thou art’ will not yield Knowledge of its True meaning. A seeker can only understand the meaning of the sentence after understanding the meaning of the words in it. In case of such people, repeated hearing followed by reasoning upon them is needed to first get the true meaning of words.
  4. The Knowledge gained by the most well-qualified in one hearing and that gained by another seeker over repeated hearings is not different; i.e. there isn’t anything more to be done by either of them. Because gaining the Knowledge itself is “gaining” the Self (unlike in karma kANDa where knowledge about a ritual which bestows heaven will not by itself take the seeker to heaven. After knowing, the seeker has to perform the ritual and body has to fall off in course of time. Only after that, s/he may be taken to heaven).
  5. For most highly qualified seekers all it takes is one hearing alone. For the remaining seekers (including Svetaketu Aruni) it needs repeated attempts. But in every attempt what is needed is shravaNa+manana+nididhyAsana combined together.

Continue reading →

‘nididhyAsana’ – as Shankara explains – 1/2

Posted on by

[“nididhyAsana” is a very important and popular term in Advaita Vedanta.  Every teacher tends to give his or her own interpretation of what it means as per his/her understanding and/or the philosophical school s/he belongs to. A sincere seeker in Shankara tradition, however, would like to know what “nididhyAsana” stands for according to Shankara.

To answer this, Shri Michael Ji kindly collected Shri Prasanth Neti Ji’s comments from several separate posts on the subject and turned them into a single post at the FB SAV Group. I feel it provides an authentic picture of how Shankara himself explicates the term. Both Shri Prasanth Ji and Michael Ji have been very generous in letting me post the Article here. I trust the Readers will find this post interesting and useful – ramesam.]

***

Maitreyi asks her husband, Sage Yajnavalkya:  Continue reading →

Q. 549 – Consciousness is all there is

Posted on by

Q: Advaita tells us that Consciousness is what we are and it is always the case. Why is ‘knowledge’ necessary? Knowledge is knowing about something. Simple pointing out of the fact of Consciousness seems to be the only thing necessary. This is simple and immediate. I am Consciousness right now and nothing needs to be thought or said about it.

Since there is only Consciousness, and as Consciousness, there is nothing else to think about or that can be thought about, there are no ‘levels’ for Consciousness. So therefore, there isn’t a second ‘transactional’ world to know or think about.

A: But it is not Consciousness that is thinking about these things, is it? You are confusing absolute reality (which is Consciousness right now and there is no second thing etc.) with the obvious (to perception) world and thoughts that are in front of you (the jīva) right now. It is the apparent dichotomy between these that has to be rationalized by the mind, with the help of Advaita. Again, the concept of cidābhāsa is helpful here.

Continue reading →

Q.547 – Māyā an attribute of Brahman?

Posted on by

Q: Can Advaitins explain how Maya can be an attribute of the supposedly attributeless Brahman? Why was the creation needed if Brahman alone existed? What is Ishwara?

A (Martin): Maya is not an attribute of Brahman. Maya is a diffuse, or polyvalent, concept which gives rise to much confusion, particularly by translating it as ‘illusion’ (see below). This concept can be viewed from the psychological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives.

Purely from the standpoint of Shankara’s  Advaita Vedanta, Maya is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidya), which is prior to it; that is, avidya is the necessary condition for Maya. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, Maya disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) points of view, Maya does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Shankara authors, with the exception of Sureshvara, who taught that Maya is a positive entity or force. If that were the case, how could a positive entity be removed by knowledge? Swami Satchidanandendra, practically alone in the 20th Cent. has defended the former, Shankarian position.

Continue reading →

‘Tipping Point’ in Advaita Vedanta

Posted on by
Question:  “I’m curious what is the ‘Tipping Point’ in the Advaita philosophy.”
Answer:
Just as it is easier to say what the Self is apophatically, perhaps, the “Tipping point in Advaita” too can be expressed only by stating what it cannot be!

4.4.5, BU clearly establishes how everything, including objects, actions, interactions, thoughts, emotions, feelings etc. etc., in short our entire ‘perceptual knowledgebase’ gleaned from the time-space-causational world we are familiar with and live in, is merely upahita caitanya (conditioned Consciousness). Continue reading →