A note

[atanu 0]

Thousand prostrations to you my Guru.

 

Dear friends,

 

I am posting a small – ok not so small write up on Advaita. This is how my understanding has evolved. I also understand that the truth is beyond the intellect. So, most arguments are of no avail. Like I said earlier: A report written by me will not understand me but I will understand the report.

 

Although I will appreciate critical comments and queries, I will try to ignore guest comments (I am scared of the anonymous barbs and missiles that this site encourages and fosters).

 

I pray that let this not create any new controversies but may it be helpful.

 

Advaita

 

The Rational Debate

 

What is truth? A truth must encompass understanding of the Avidya – what we call science, within it.

 

That the objective truth, independent of the observer’s limited faculties and still more limited machines, will never be known is already known to science. An observer when measuring introduces uncertainty in the objective truth. This is known as uncertainty principle in science. Even when mind attempts to grasp truth it uses some energy which interferes with the objective truth. So, we in India know from times immemorial that all knowledge exists in Brahman, that knowledge needs no rational derivation and that intuitive flash, as during meditation when mind is non-existent, reveals the knowledge. But since expression is again through limited faculties, the objective truth can never be expressed and understood; but, it can be realized. Moreover, the faculties are given by the Lord, so that the truth as understood through realization is disseminated as accurately as possible; thus this effort. All that is eternal in the following are from Siva-Ramana. All that is non-eternal emanates from the effort of Jiva.

Einstein and others have shown that matter is huge storehouse of energy. Uncontrollable amounts of energy would be released if matter were to be fully converted to energy; matter and energy are the same. Modern physicists also know that a set of proton-antiproton-pion particles can evolve out of void and again resolve into the void. Such creation, apparently out of nothing, goes on all the time. Physicists now know that what we call void is repository of all forms and unlimited energy. But physicists only have a hint but no definite knowledge that the void is also conscious and intelligent. God is this non-dual void equipped with infinite consciousness. No one will ever know the equations that govern the super intelligent void. A report written by me will not know me but I will know the report.

 

The concept of trinity: Brahma as creator, Vishnu as sustainer, and Rudra-Shiva as destroyer, is a concept of forms, like we perceive the essence of water as liquid, gas or ice under different conditions. Which of these is greater and which comes first are wrong questions.

The truth is that He is one. He is all pervasive Vishnu and He is auspicious Shiva. Shiva is Vishnu and Vishnu is Shiva; not like milk and curd, but like a single moment of time, which appears as night time to some part of the world and which appears as day time to the other part of the world.

 

Introduction to Advaita

 

Spiritualists differ from atheists in their belief of a living spirit that gave rise to everything. Atheists, on the other hand, believe that the matter itself diversified and gained intelligence.

 

Advaitists (non dualists – followers of Shankaracharya) believe presence of only one spirit permeating everything whereas dvaitists (dualists – followers of Madhavacharya) believe God to be separate from his creation. The highest truth of Advaitism is that everyone is potential God, but due to the limited power of mind – an instrument of the God that is within, this truth is veiled from most people.

The original debate was between the ancient dualist Vedantists and the ancient Buddhists, the former believing in the individual soul (jiva) as true, the latter denying the existence of such an individual soul. According to ancient Buddhists, the soul consists of a bundle of qualities called sensations and feelings. A mass of such is what is called the soul, and this mass is continually changing. Since the assumption of a eternal non changing substance (soul) which is behind the qualities, and which is not the qualities, can never be substantiated – not from the argument of self-identity and not from memory that I am the I of yesterday because I remember it, and therefore I have been a continuous something -- the argument of the ancient Buddhists seems to be stronger that we do not know, and cannot know, anything that is beyond the bunch of qualities that one knows to be as I.

The Advaitist theory of the soul reconciles these. The basic principle of Vijnana-vada (Buddhism) is that all you see outside is the creation of the mind. Vijnana is the consciousness in the mind or consciousness itself as the mind, which projects itself as an outside world of perception. The world actually does not exist. However, Sankara says the objective world exists.

Supposing it is accepted that mind is creating things by perception (Avidya), then you have to agree that the trees in the forest are created by your mind. If the mind is wholly inside and if there is nothing objective outside but only the consciousness appears to be outside (according to Buddhist doctrine), then how did the idea of 'outside ness' arise in the mind? Then, even if you agree that there is some appearance outside, and really things do not exist, the appearance has to be outside. This outside ness must be accepted first. There cannot be an appearance of something outside unless there is really something outside. A rope appears as a snake but even for that appearance, the rope must exist. If rope also does not exist, then the snake will not be there. The position of the Advaitist is that it is true that we cannot think of the substance as separate from the qualities, we cannot think of change and not-change at the same time; it would be impossible. But the very thing which is the substance is the quality; substance and quality are not two things.

 

It is the unchangeable that is appearing as the changeable. The a-priori cause is not something different from the post priori effect – the phenomena, but it is the very cause which has become the effect. There is a soul which is unchanging, and what we call feelings and perceptions and even the body, are the very soul, seen from another point of view. We have got into the habit of thinking that we have bodies and souls and so forth, but really speaking, there is only one.

 

The perception is either of the body or of the soul. Try to think of yourself as a soul, as a disembodied something. You will find it to be almost impossible, and only a few who are able to do so will find that at the time when they realize themselves as a soul they have no idea of the body. So what is soul-jiva appears as body and what is one Brahman appears as many.

From the dualistic standpoint this universe is a creation of matter or force emanating from the play of a certain will, which is separate and higher from the manifested universe. Thus a man from such a standpoint has to see himself as composed of a dual nature, body and soul.

According to this theory, we have a body and behind the body there is a fine body. This fine body is made of very fine matter, which is the receptacle of all our Karma, of all our actions and impressions, which are ready to spring up into visible forms. Behind the subtle body, lives Jiva or the individual soul of man. This Jiva is a part of that universal substance, and it is also eternal; without beginning it exists, and without end it will exist. It is passing through all these forms in order to manifest its real nature which is purity. Jiva has no end and no way to merge with the supreme soul that is God. Jiva or soul is a concentrated point of desire; it is rather the bound soul and no one can be bound unless there is a desire at a spatio-temporal point.

The human being is a shape taken by a mass of desires. What is desire? Upanishads hold that it looked like a spark of fire. As from a huge conflagration several sparks may jet forth in all directions, so from this great conflagration of 'Brahma Fire', many little sparks shot out which were the individuals. The 'shot-off' sparks asserted individuality of their own, like appointed officials assuming independence. Since, fulfillment of desire is possible only through an object, the sparks will for themselves a material embodiment, for which purpose it draws particles of matter, -- earth, water, fire, air and ether into itself. This physical embodiment assumed is called the body.

 

These physical embodiments are the conglomerated parts and formation of the five elements. This centre is also called the ego. Its purpose is to pull everything into itself and reject everything else, which are the dual functions of desire -- ego. Having taken birth for the purpose of fulfillment of desires, the desiring centre forgets that the body cannot last long and death of the body is inevitability. However, with unfulfilled desires remaining with the Jiva, it has to re-incarnate in another body.

But here two questions arise: is the individual spark not a part of the God himself and whether the spark has a beginning and an end. When the spark eventually ends where does it go?

 

Most dualists conceive of the goal as the highest heaven, where souls will live with God for ever. But Jiva will never be the God. They will have beautiful bodies and will know neither disease nor death, nor any other evil, and all their desires will be fulfilled. From time to time some of them will come back to this earth and take another body to teach human beings the way to God. The personal God of dualist is a glorified man.

 

Advaita holds that this cannot be the goal or the ideal; bodiless ness must be the ideal. The ideal cannot be finite and there cannot be an infinite body. That would be impossible, as body comes from limitation. There cannot be infinite thought, because thought comes from limitation. We have to go beyond the body and beyond thought too to overcome the limitations and attain eternal freedom. According to Advaita, this freedom is not to be attained, it is already ours. We only forget it and deny it.

 

Immortality and bliss are not to be acquired, we possess them already; they have been ours all the time. Advaitist believes "I am the birth less, the deathless, the blissful, the omniscient, the omnipotent, ever-glorious Soul.” The theme is to see the Lord in everything, to see things in their real nature, and not as they appear to be. Advaita recognizes neither good nor bad, but knowing all as coming from the Self. It means seeing the Lord in hell as well as in heaven; seeing the Lord in death as well as in life; the earth is a symbol of the Lord, the sky is the Lord, the place we fill is the Lord, and everything is Brahman. And this is to be seen and realized; not simply talked or thought about. The Impersonal God of Advaita is a living God, a principle. The impersonal idea includes all personalities, is the sum total of everything in the universe, and infinitely more besides.

 

Rationality Test

 

There are two principles of testing the validity of knowledge. The one principle is that the knowledge should validate all particular experiences; and the second is that anything of which the explanation is sought is to be explained so far as possible from its own nature.

Personal God of the dualist is the sum total of all consciousness but is different from the manifested effect. The manifested Jiva is condemned eternally to live a separate life. But a difficulty arises -- it is an incomplete generalization. We take up only one side of the facts of nature, the fact of consciousness, and upon that we generalize, but the other side is left out. Is the spark that is Jiva is not part of the God himself? So, in the first place it is a defective generalization. The second insufficiency relates to the second principle: everything should be explained from its own nature. If the God is outside of nature, having nothing to do with nature, and this nature is the outcome of the command of that God and produced from nothing, it indicates that the effect is not the cause, that the cause is entirely separate from the effect.

 

Every experience shows that any effect is but the cause in another form. The Advaita says the cause of all that is apparently evil is in the unlimited Lord. It also says that the cause of all this apparent evil is in us. What is the cause of evolution if not desire? And who desires? The animal wants to do something, but does not find the environment favorable and therefore develops a new body. Who develops it? The will is almighty but it is the primordial will.

 

In summary, Advaita holds that only one exists. It is not true that there are two -- something changing, and, in and through that, something which does not change; but it is the one and the same thing which appears as changing, and which is in reality unchangeable. We have come to think of the body, and mind, and soul as many, but really there is only one; and that one is appearing in all these various forms.

 

Advaita by the application of the second principle of arriving at the truth: that the explanation of everything must come out of the nature of the thing, leads to a bold idea; that the Impersonal Being is in ourselves, and we are That. "O Shvetaketu, thou art That." You are that Impersonal Being; that God for whom you have been searching all over the universe is all the time yourself -- yourself not in the personal sense but in the Impersonal sense.

 

 

The Debate

 

The highest ideal of the Vedanta is very difficult to understand, and people are always quarrelling about it, and the greatest difficulty is that when they get hold of certain ideas, they deny and fight other ideas. But why Monism, as propounded by Sankara and as experienced by numerous Self realized sages and men, is opposed by the majority in India? The truth is one but the paths to the truth are many. The truth is independent of our perception organs that actually have the potential to hide and distort the truth.

 

The greatest truths are documented in the Upanishads by masters who were deeply involved in understanding the ultimate principles of the cosmos. But there are provisions for establishing the monism aspect of philosophy and also the dualistic aspect. To clarify and to reconcile these statements in a harmonious manner, and to point out that different expressions do not mean contradictory presentations, Brahma Sutras was written by Bhagavan Sri Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa. Sutra is a thread that connects different parts of the vision of Truth.

The Brahma Sutra makes an initial statement: Brahman is to be known. Commentators have written many pages to explain the meaning of one Sutra only, "Athato Brahma Jijnasa". Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabacharya, Nimbarkacharya, all wrote great commentaries on the Brahma Sutras.

 

The Sutra refutes the Buddhistic doctrine of the Vijnanavada or Yogachara which teaches that the external would is a mental creation – an absolute Maya. The question is why the world appears to be external to the thinking mind. What is it that projects the world as an outside element independent of the mind? When the Sutra refutes the doctrine of the mind itself being the world, it corroborates the well-known feeling of everyone that the world is outside the mind. Does then the Sutra say that the world is real in itself? Sutras lead us to understand that there in an objective reality called the world but no human mind can conceive or produce such a world. Here comes in the great distinction made between Ishvara Srishti (creation by God) and Jiva Srishti (creation by the individual). The world is a projection of God's Mind, and not a creation of the individual mind. World creation is Ishvara Srishti and interpretative experience of the world is Jiva Srishti or individualised viewpoint.

 

But the differences of dualism and non-dualism are apparently accentuated by the Brahma Sutra. The basic difference between the non-dualists and dualists is that the latter holds that individual Jiva is different from the supreme God who is a personality and Jivas will ever be inferior and different from the Supreme one. Dualists who adore God with love will attain the Kingdom of God but will not become God. The former hold that the Jiva is That only but it may not know the truth due to ignorance or Avidya.

 

That the attainment of Brahman is the final goal of everyone is agreed by everyone. All debate on the meaning of Brahma Sutras, which all schools hold as valid and inviolable hinge on interpretation of few fundamental statements:

 

• Brahman is that from which proceed the creation, preservation and destruction of the universe

• The knower of Brahman will not return to mortal existence

• The liberated soul is free only in so far as it can enjoy the bliss of perfection equally as Brahman, but it cannot have the power of creation, preservation, and destruction etc. of the universe.

 

 

The Brahma Sutra does not clarify whether Liberation - Moksha is the attainment of a personal God or it is something else. Ramanuja and the Vaishnava Acharyas say 'Yes, It is like that only; because you cannot become God.’ But Acharya Sankara cannot accommodate himself to it -- if you cannot become God, you will be finite again; if you are finite, then you have to return, having not attained Moksha and that will contradict Sutra: The knower of Brahman will not return to mortal existence.

 

These problems have made Acharya Madhva to state that there is no connection between the individual and God. Madhva's philosophy is that the individual soul, Jiva, is a servant of God, dependent entirely.

All agree that when a jiva becomes one with Brahman it gets moksha or liberation. But three Acharyas -- Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva -- have their own definitions of liberation. Ramanuja views it as similar to mixing of water with milk. The two join together and become apparent one substance, yet water is not milk; the soul does not get identified with God. Madhva's view of liberation is like loss of individuality, like mixing grains of rice and grains of sesame. If sesame seeds and rice seeds are mixed together, each seed may think that it has lost its individual existence by communicating itself with other seeds. But in the case of Sankara, Moksha is like water mixing with water -- It is total oneness. It is intuitive here that soul being subtle, example of Til and Rice is the one most inappropriate.

 

Attaining Brahman, according to Ramanuja, the soul does not merge in God. It enjoys the Glory of God. Our body is made up of so many cells; can you say the cells themselves are you? And Ramanuja concludes that the entire world, all individuals are like cells or adjectives in the body of God. So is the case with the individuals attaining God; they are inseparable from Narayana, Vishnu, God Almighty, but they are not themselves Narayana. Ramanuja's doctrine is that the relation between God and the world is like individual soul-body relation. Acharya Sankara states that relation is a wrong concept altogether. Relation means accepting the existence of two different things. If there are two different things, they cannot become one; if the two cannot become one, duality will persist; if duality persists, there will be no attaining Brahman, which Brahma Sutra grants.

 

All difficulties arise from interpretation of the definition of God, Brahman, given in the Brahma Sutra, at the very beginning. Who is God? It does not say that God is the Supreme Absolute, indistinguishable, indivisible Eternal Being. The definition given is peculiar: Brahman is that from which proceed the creation, preservation and destruction of the universe.

 

Due to apparent contradiction of the three statements duality philosophy is prevalent and which is the cause of much misery and strife in our environment.

 

What my Guru has told me

 

As the Supreme cannot be defined absolutely without also deviating from the truth so the definition of the God in Brahma Sutra is a tentative definition that points to the truth, but is not an absolute essential definition.

 

The definition of God: Brahman is that from which proceed the creation, preservation and destruction of the universe, does not mean that His primary function is to create-sustain-destroy. Actually creation-sustenance-destruction takes place due to presence of an inherent tendency in the undifferentiated Brahman to enjoy the taste of differentiation that leads to creation and sustenance which create illusion of duality. But with the destruction oneness again returns. This is a continuous cyclic process due to inherent opposing tendency in Brahman to taste differentiation and to remain one.

 

When he ceases from creation, what is His nature? The jiva will not return if it attains identity with the real Absolute Being, Brahman. But it cannot remain as Brahman if it desires to create or sustain because that will start a process of differentiation again. So called creation-sustenance-destruction creates the ripples such as waves on the surface of an ocean and these ripples by forgetfulness lose touch with Brahman. Waves forget that they are the ocean.

Acharya Sankara surmised that the tentative definition of God as described in the Brahma Sutra is a Saguna God with attributes but not what God is actually, independent of the activity of creation, preservation, and destruction.

 

Acharya Shankara is also valid when he states that 'Anavrittih Shabdat' -- 'you will not return' -- means conditional liberation, but not absolute liberation. Any desire, however small will create bondage and the very need to create is a desire. The Sutra, 'Jagat Vyaparavarjyam' -- the liberated soul in Brahma-Loka will have all the freedom except the power of creating the world; is not contradictory to Advaita at all, since true liberation means freedom from all desires. A desire to create will nullify Liberation.

In a different way, creation would mean creating an apparent second beside you and that will limit your freedom and create bondage again. Thus to be liberated a jiva cannot create.

 

Brahma Sutra glorifies the Advaita as the absolute necessity for absolute freedom and not the other way. Absolute freedom is possible only in a Timeless Existence. It also means that no one can know what Liberation is, if ego of separateness persists.

 

Advaita, upholding eternal one-ness as the truth, it does not deny duality on temporal basis. It however, only says that the multiplicities are temporal and hence are not the essence. And that moksha-liberation means complete freedom from desires.

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

Dear Atanuji,

 

Nice to see you back atanuji. Its been many days you have made a presence here. why such a gap ?

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Shri Dhuupa theerthaya Namaha

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Shri Guru Raghavendraya Namaha

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya Namaha

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jai Shri Krishna

[maadhav 0]

dear atajuji,

 

although i am a vaishnav, i respect avaita.

we hindus alwasy have debated it peacefully and in public.

the great vaishnav aachryas have debated it with teh top most advaitis of their times. the conclusion of these recireded history of the debate says dvaita is best for most people. krishna also says it it gita. so, i do not want to debate this because i am not as sharp as ramanuj, madhva, nimbarka, chaitanya or vallabha; and you are not as sharp as shamkracharya. why re-invent the wheel? why debate somethign which alread has been epertly debated? one good answer is for education. debate is a good process for learnig and educating. but if the concluson of a debate is not followed/ lived by/ then it is useless for the person.

 

teh another reason for not doing this debate is that we all the hindus are under therat from islam and xianity in india.

these two ideologies are up with fill forice to wipe out sanatan dharm and the vedic culture. so, our effort shoudl be not debate on internal issues/philosophies, but the external enemy ideologies in india. so, can we nite for this purpose? if so, good. if not, can you agree that something needs to be done to check islam and xianity in india - the devabhoomi, the land of the hindus? if you say, then great. let us unite to fight, or let us fight wirh our individual ways. so, suppose advaiti do not join vaishnavas to fight islam, what different ways advaiti would fight islam in idnia?

-------

my secondary and minor comment on your note words are as follows. i do not want to debate advaita. but this is just for fun.

 

<< Thousand prostrations to you my Guru. >>

 

your guru is seen different from you by you.

this is dvaita.

 

<< A report written by me will not understand me but I will understand the report. >>

 

it is not sufficient you understand your report.

most readers should understand it easily, else it is your failure. a report is not a live thing. it cannot understand any one. but i know your point.

 

<< What is truth? >>

 

a truth, any truth is silent.

it needs a conscious being with interest to understnad it.

why understand it? because the truth - knowing it- a conscious being can choose how to live in a better way more peacefully or enjoy more. e.g. a mango is a thing. it will not tell, "come eat me. i am delicious and nutricius." you, a conscious being have to have curiosity to experiment with a mango to find what to do with it. the knowledge (the truth) about a mango is infinite, all the way to the composition of atoms and sub atoms components. you cannot study it fully in one life. the question is then how much knowledge you need for a mango. for all practical purpose it is sufficient to know a mango is a delicious fruit you can eat and get healthy. or better, know that it is made by krishna. so serve it to krishna first, and then take prasadam, distribute prasadam to others.

 

now, whey you are hungry, would you rather eat a mango quickly, or sit to know the truth about the mango all the way to the atomic structure before eating it?

 

suppose you know all the truth about a mango.

what is the use of it (the deeper truths)?

what problem it will solve for you, your family, your town, nation, and the world? it will simply build an ego in you that you are a great ph d gyana yogi of mango. then you will expect respect from people all around you. and you will agree that (false) ego is a hinderance in progress towards god.

 

when some read - satyam eva jayate -

it makes them think satya will win for them and they do not need to do anything. this passivity is wrong.

 

a better vedic word is- asto ma sat gamaya.

here is the activity of moving from ignorance to knowledge of the truth. but just knowing is not enough. one has to live by the truth, else it is useless. when you know the truth that the vedic culture and dharma is very valuable for any genertion of the world polulation for ever, we needs it to be practiced well and unchecked in india. for this we need work to do. this is seva to us and the future genertions and to krishna. would you agree?

 

<< There are two principles of testing the validity of knowledge. The one principle is that the knowledge should validate all particular experiences; >>

 

yes.

however, science (meaning rationality based on the five senses and logic of intellect) fails to explain some phenomenon. e.g some light phenomena can be explained only by the wave theory, and some other phenomena can be explained only by the quantum theory- particle theory of light. so both these theoried are partially true. or they are not true but mimicking truth to some extent.

 

<< and the second is that anything of which the explanation is sought is to be explained so far as possible from its own nature >>

 

then the nature or the truth of each should be known.

we do not need to know it beyond certain level for our practical purpose of living. but if it is known, then it will converge to one reality; because truth is one only, and the system of god is coherent - non conflicting with each other. still it may seem there are conflicting forces in nature.

 

<< According to Advaita, this freedom is not to be attained, it is already ours.>>

 

yes, but it needs wisdom to figure how to use that freedom

for our benefit/secure happiness.

 

<< The highest ideal of the Vedanta is very difficult to understand, >>

 

so, one tries to explain,

and other tries to understand.

this is dulism.

 

if you and i are one,

then whatever you say, i should have know it already.

you coming here and posting is due to dualism.

 

in conrast, bhakti is easy and safe. says krishna.

 

<< It also says that the cause of all this apparent evil is in us. >>

 

this could mislead to mean that islam slaughtered the hindus for 1000 years, and it is our fault that we are hindus. the real meaning of your word is that the evil is in the nature and deeds of the asuras, not suras.

we are/ought to be/ strive to be suras.

we understand this from krishna's words in daivasura sampad vibhaaga yoga chapter of gita. to live like suras is not enough to preserve dharma and rashtra interes. we need to go out and make the asuras understand it so that they can give up asuric ideology, if they do not and when it come to the protection of dharma and rashtra interest, then to fight is the last choice, but it IS a valid choice recommended by krishna/dharma.

 

so, would you still prefer to debate advita or join to do something about pursueing our dharma and rashtra interests?