Tag Archives: vyavahara

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 →

Adhyāropa-apavāda

Posted on by
Reply

Explanation of key terms in Advaita

Since I have still had no questions from readers, I can only conclude that there are none (questions or readers)! Accordingly, I am beginning here a new, regular(-ish) posting to explain key terms used in the teaching of Advaita. These will be AI-generated but based solely upon all my books and other writing. I begin with what is possibly the most important concept in the entire philosophy, as might have been realized from the paper by Manjushree Hegde, beginning https://www.advaita-vision.org/adhyaropa-apavada/.

Adhyāropa-Apavāda: The Art of the Leading Error in Advaita Vedānta

In the pursuit of spiritual truth, a fundamental paradox confronts every seeker: if the ultimate reality is non-dual and indescribable, how can it ever be taught? Traditional Advaita Vedānta addresses this dilemma through a sophisticated and time-proven methodology known as adhyāropa-apavāda. This pedagogical strategy, often translated as “false attribution followed by subsequent rescission”, serves as the primary engine for guiding a mind steeped in duality toward the recognition of its own non-dual nature.

Continue reading →

World disappearing and mithyā

Posted on by

Not a lot of discussion on the site recently. I thought maybe the time was ripe for a little controversy again. Recently I queried ChatGPT for Shankara references on this topic. I also encountered just a few days ago, a devastatingly logical argument against this idea, but I will save that for a later post. Here is the (single post) AI contribution. Of course, you may argue, AI is presenting its position so as to support my own view – a recognized problem with AI at present). Perhaps, then, Ramesam or Venkat could tackle AI with essentially the same query to elicit a response in keeping with their belief? That would be interesting!

Q: Where does Shankara define what he means by the word मिथ्या and what does he say?

A (ChatGPT): Adi Shankaracharya, the great Advaita Vedanta philosopher, defines the concept of mithyā in several of his works, particularly in his commentaries on key Vedantic texts. The term “mithyā” generally refers to the idea of falsity or illusoriness. It’s crucial in Advaita Vedanta because it relates to the nature of the phenomenal world and how it is perceived in relation to the ultimate reality, Brahman.

One of the most explicit definitions of mithyā is found in Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra (Brahmasutra Bhashya) in the section known as the Adhyasa Bhashya. Here, he describes mithyā as something that is neither completely real (like Brahman) nor completely unreal (like the horns of a hare), but rather something that appears real under certain conditions but is revealed as unreal upon closer examination or when true knowledge is attained.

Continue reading →

Q.560 The 3 Levels of Reality

Posted on by

Q: It seems to me that so many questions on Advaita Vedanta are explained with reference to the 3 levels of reality: pratibhasa, vyavahara and paramartha – why then do we not see more reference to these levels in books about Advaita? I have found in my reading very few that mention them up front, or as a matter of great importance. And, of course, hardly ever mentioned, if at all, in Neo-Advaita tomes. 

A: That’s a good question.

The ‘bottom line’ of Advaita is that there is only Consciousness (sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this is Brahman). So the ‘teaching’ of the neo-Advaitin – ‘this is it’ and similar pronouncements – is not, strictly speaking, wrong. The problem with it is that it is not very helpful!

The point is that, as soon as we separate out a form in perception and give it a name, we are apparently in the realm of duality. And it is difficult to move from that position to one of accepting the truth of non-duality. So traditional Advaita takes things very slowly. For the new seeker, it begins from our present experience and understanding and moves one step at a time, as it were, supplanting the initial teaching with something more refined and nearer to the truth.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Conclusion)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 3 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

The term ‘neo-Vedanta’ is used these days to describe the teaching of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda followers. It is characterized by ideas such as the need to ‘experience’ Brahman through samādhi, since Self-knowledge is only an ‘intellectual’ understanding. Up until the late 20th C, it was also sometimes called neo-Advaita. It diverges from the Advaita as systematized by Śaṅkara because Vivekananda was adversely influenced by Yoga philosophy, incorporating some of their teaching and denigrating the scriptural authority of the Vedas. I am not addressing this further in this article. Read the excellent book by Anantanand Rambachan – ‘The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas’ – if interested. (Amazon UK; Amazon US)

My own book ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta – Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’ also has an account of the differences, and sources of confusion. (Exotic India; Amazon US). (N.B. there only seems to be a hardback available at Amazon UK at present, at a ridiculous price. Exotic India is much cheaper. It is in US but has free postage to UK. Alternatively, probably cheapest of all from the publisher, Indica Books, in India.)

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 (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realization’ than their disciples.

Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realization has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realization’ has taken place.

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 →

Dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda

Posted on by

There has just been a brief discussion on the Advaitin List under the heading of ‘Quotes from samkshepa shaareeraka’. This was effectively on the perceived consequences of accepting the theory of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda – the creation theory that claims that the world is the mental imagination of the jīva; a theory equating to the Western belief of solipsism. Sri ‘Sudhanshu Shekhar’ made the original post and Sri ‘Bhaskar YR’ represented the objections (with which I agree). Rather than joining in, I thought I would ask ChatGPT for an ‘opinion’ and its response seems to me to be very reasonable. (I even find myself more disposed to DSV than I was before!) Here is the exchange:

Q: How do Advaita believers in dṛṣṭi- sṛṣṭi-vāda explain how they can discuss the topic with other believers and non-believers?

A: In Advaita Vedānta, particularly within the framework of dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda (the doctrine that perception precedes creation), explaining and discussing the philosophy with others presents an interesting challenge. Since dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda asserts that the world arises in accordance with the perceiver’s experience, the question arises: how can multiple individuals engage in a discussion if each person’s world is subjectively projected?

Continue reading →