Science and Vedanta (Part 3)

P1030147_hdr_OnonePart 3 of a 3-part essay by Dr. K. Sadananda, AchArya at Chinmaya Mission, Washington.

(read part 2)

What is Absolute Reality?

Vedanta defines the absolute reality as that which can never be negated at any time, trikAla abhAditam satyam. As an example, let us analyze a chair made of wood. Is that chair really real (satyasya satyam) or only transactionally real? When I dismantle the chair or break it into pieces, it is no more a chair. What was there before and what is there now is only wood. Hence wood is more real than chair. Chair is only a name for a form of wood arranged in some fashion to serve some purpose, and gets negated when the form is destroyed. I can do this without breaking the chair into pieces. I can cognitively say that there is really no chair there but what is there is only wood currently in the form of a chair. Chair is only transactionally real but not really real; and what is more real than chair is wood, the material cause for the chair. Continue reading

Review of article on Shankara – part 6, and final.

RB (Ramakrishna Balasubrahmanian) continues to take  SSS to task in the final two sections of his article: 5) ‘AVIDYA and MAYA’, and 6) ‘“COMPARATIVE BASHYA STUDIES” AND OTHER SUCH DISEASES’.

Under 5) RB sees an inconsistency in SSS, since the latter had previously stated that avidya and maya are not synonyms, while in another context he had stated that “To avoid confusion, we shall restrict the use of words avidy¯a and m¯ay¯a to denote ignorance and name and form respectively”. The author insists in the equivalence of both terms, as they occur in many texts: “… note that even in these passages avidy¯a is not a “subjective” ignorance, but something which transcends subjectiveness and objectiveness. Otherwise we will be placed in the absurd position of claiming that a subjective error, i.e., avidy¯a, is causing an objective reality, i.e., m¯ay¯a (name and form)”.

By ‘objective reality’ one understands, of course, phenomena, and this is nothing else than mithya, even though RB considers maya as both ontic and epistemic, unlike avidya. In this connection, SSS would agree with his statement: “While the terms are used to mean different things in some contexts, they can also mean the exactly same thing in some other contexts”. Continue reading

What is Brahman? (Part 1)

Enlightenment is the realization in the mind of a person that ‘I am Brahman’. So what is this ‘Brahman’ that I am supposed to realize? Knowing this must constitute a significant aspect of the Self-knowledge that I need to acquire in order to become enlightened.

(The following analysis is loosely based upon Swami Paramarthananda’s talks on Shankara’s bhAShya [analytical commentary] on the Brahma Sutra.)

Before we can investigate anything, two criteria must be satisfied:

1) We must know what it is we are investigating (a definition)

2) We must have an appropriate means of acquiring data (a pramANa). Continue reading

Knowledge and the Fruit of Knowledge

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAFollowing on from the l-o-n-g discussion we had on this topic under the thread ‘akhaNDAkAra vRRitti – The End of Suffering‘, I have written what was intended to be the commentary on kArikA 3.40 in my next book (OM: Waking Dreams… and Reality), which covers the essence of this discussion. I have decided that I will probably simplify this considerably for the book, because it is intended to be an accessible and readable book, rather than an academic one. But, because of its relevance, I am posting the entire section, as first written, below.

You now know all about adhyAropa and apavAda and acknowledge that all of the teaching is only interim, to be used to lead us to the final understanding and then discarded. The corollary to this is that, in principle at least, any teaching could be used for this purpose. If it works, it is valid. So it is hardly surprising that there are other methodologies altogether, which can have the same ultimate purport, e.g. Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Kabbalah etc. (I don’t have any personal knowledge of these other systems but understand that their essential teaching is non-dual.)

As far as Advaita Vedanta is concerned, the finer details of the teaching differed from one teacher or branch to another, both before and after Shankara. And some modern-day proponents tend to adhere to some elements and some to others that are apparently contradictory. None of this matters in the final analysis but does tend to lead to some quite heated discussions on the Internet! Continue reading

Revision of ‘Review of article on Shankara’ – part 4

Under the section ‘Tarka vs Sruti’ the more or less unconscious devise (upadhi) of removing the subject from the ‘picture’ aimed at understanding the world is broached, and the author (RB) quotes E. Schrödinger in that connection: “It became inherent in any attempt to form a picture of the objective world such as the Ionians made”. And so, “…the desire for understanding the world through our imperfect sensory knowledge invariably leads to certain, frequently overlooked, assumptions”.

It is curious that the first sleight of hand – by ‘primordial man’, the demiurge of mythology and Platonic philosophy – consisted in carrying out a scission within reality so that subject and object would emerge in opposition to each other: God and man (the Garden of Eden), the One and the many. A second scission was done by philosophical, or ‘thinking’, man, by removing the human subject altogether – provisionally, for the Ionian ‘physiologoi’ knew what they were doing, though, it is related, Thales of Miletus fell once into a ditch while absorbed looking at the firmament’s stars in utter wonder. Certainly, this device – or both combined – made possible all the empirical sciences, literature, art, and everything we know about the world. If there were no division or separation (no adhyasa and it’s attending ‘names and forms’), there would be no ‘world’. Allusion was made to this parallel mythological account previously, as well as to the kind of ignorance that became knowledge (with small case). Continue reading

Revision of ‘Review of article on Shankara’ – part 3

RB: “Now the error in calling avidy¯a as something epistemic should be obvious. The following extract, from [SSS], is clearly putting the philosophical cart before the horse:

‘Avidy¯a is subjective and has been explained by ´ Sa ˙ nkara as the natural tendency of the mind to superimpose the self and the not-self on each other.’

When the conception of j¯ıva itself is due to avidy¯a, how can avidy¯a be the ‘natural tendency of the mind to superimpose the self and not-self’?” (*) Continue reading

adhikArah – fitness

Verses 795 – 818, Chapter 39,  in sarva vedAnta siddhAnta sAra sangrahah (The Essence of Entire Vedanta Theory in Brief) of Shankaracharya deal with adhikArah of the spiritual aspirant.  Though the word “adhikArah”  has several meanings like authority, right, privilege, position, prerogative &c &c, it is taken in this context to denote fitness or eligibility of the seeker. IMHO, “acuity” of the intellect is more important. Selected verses quoted here:

अध्यारोपापवादक्रममनुसरता देशिकेनात्र वेत्रा वाक्यार्धे बोध्यमाने सति सपदि सतः  शुद्धबुद्धेरमुष्य ।

नित्यानन्दाद्वितीयं निरुपममलं यत्परं तत्वमेकम् तद् ब्रह्मैवाहमस्मीत्युदयति  परमाखण्डताकारवृत्तिः ॥   — 797

(Meaning:  No sooner the meaning of the mahAvAkya (‘That thou art’) is made known to the aspirant by the teacher, who follows the method of superimposition and of negation, than there arises in the man of pure intellect that supreme mental modification which  knows no change, and he realizes: “I am that Brahman who is of the nature of eternal Happiness, Non-dual, incomprehensible, untainted, the One Supreme Reality.”)
अखण्डाकारवृत्तिः सा चिदाभाससमन्विता ।
आत्माभिन्नं परं ब्रह्म विषयीकृत्य केवलम् ॥                   —  798
(Meaning:  The  indivisible pure Consciousness makes Itself manifest in all that It reflects upon. It permeates everything. Because brahman is not other than Atman, it follows that it is only by means of brahman that the veil of avidya is lifted.)
श्रुत्योदितस्ततो ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं बुद्धयैव सूक्ष्मया ।
प्रज्ञामान्द्यं भवेद्येषां तेषां  न श्रुतिमात्रत: ॥                  —  808
(Meaning: brahman should, therefore, be known by the acute intellect. But those persons, whose understanding is limited, cannot directly attain that mental attitude merely by listening to what the shruti says. Such persons should recollect in mind what the shruti says and meditate upon it.)
स्यादखण्डाकारवृत्तिर्विना तु मननादिना
श्रवणान्मननाद्ध्यानातात्पर्येण निरन्तरम् ॥                      — 809
(Meaning: It is only by constantly listening to and reflecting on as well as by meditating upon what the shruti says, that the intellect becomes endowed with the power of ascertaining that which is subtle. It is only then that the Reality is known.)
बुद्धे: सूक्ष्मत्वमायाति ततो वस्तूपलभ्यते ।
मन्दप्रज्ञावतां तस्मात्करणीयं पुनः पुनः ॥                         — 810

(Meaning: That supreme reality is attained only by means of the sharp intellect. Those who are lacking in intellectual sharpness should therefore repeatedly do (hear and meditate over what the shruti says in order to attain the True Knowledge.))

Revision of ‘Critical review of article on Shankara’ – part 2

‘A New Approach to Understanding Advaita as Taught by ´Sa ˙ nkara Bhagavadp¯ada’ – by Ramakrishnan Balasubrahmanian – 2

We saw in the 1st part of this Review the primary or prior, not to say exclusive, importance that the author, RB, gives to the superimposition of a subject, individual mind or jiva, on the self: “the superimposition of an observer is avidy¯a and is prior to the reverse superimposition” – not mentioning that Shankara does not talk of a ‘reverse process’, as if it was something happening through time, but of mutual superimposition of self and non-self. Period.

As we noted in the first part of this Review, RB ‘half’ concedes the point:  “It is not completely incorrect to say that avidy¯a is the mutual superimposition of the real and unreal. ´ San˙ kar¯ac¯arya and Sure´svar¯ac¯arya do mention this … the superimposition of an observer on the inner-self naturally leads to the reverse process of superimposing the inner-self on the inner organ”. His objective in maintaining this priority of the subject in this ‘act’ seems to be to show that SSS is guilty of circularity (petitio principi, in logic). Even so, and rather surprisingly, he claims that avidya is not something subjective (neither is it ontic nor epistemic – see below). Continue reading

Topic of the Month – adhikArI

adhikariThe topic for March is adhikArI – meaning a qualified seeker, i.e. someone who is mentally ready and has the desire to learn from a qualified teacher. (The ‘qualifications’ are those identified by Shankara as sAdhana chatuShTaya sampatti.)

Please submit your quotes, short extracts or personal blogs on this topic!

Review of article on Shankara by Ramakrisnan Balasubramanian

(This is a slightly modified article published here one year ago, which was improperly and incompletely posted. Ramesam had asked me to review the following article, with which I complied after much hesitation. The article is over 40 p. long and quite dense and complicated in parts – in other words, ‘academic’: for specialists only; one could add: cutting the slices so thin, that the substance is practically lost, or forgotten).

Review of ‘A New Approach to Understanding Advaita as Taught by ´Sa ˙ nkara Bhagavadp¯ada’ – by Ramakrishnan Balasubrahmanian. Continue reading