| You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : September 2001 |
From: K. Sadananda (sada_at_anvil.nrl.navy.mil)
Date: Wed Sep 19 2001 - 06:26:00 PDT
damodara svarup <damodarsvarup@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Shree damodara
I will try to explain to the best I can without going overboard. I
would not mind Shree Mani stepping in to close the discussion
whenever he feels that the discussion is beyond the scope of this
list. I would strongly recommend those who are interested the
reference I gave in Brahmasutra notes particularly the adhyaasa
Bhaasya where these aspects are extensively discussed in the IIIrd
chapter. One should also read the second chapter that discusses the
difference between loukika anumaana and shaastriiya anumaana.
-------------
I have some doubts which arise from the Sadanada's
explanation.
-Perception of this world, as well as one who
perceives and that which is perceived is only due to
illusion
-----------------
Unfortunately illusion is the incorrect translation of vyavyahaarika
satya and the concept of maaya in advaita. I do not have any better
word either. Is bangle or ring - at the various names and forms of
golden ornaments - are the real or illusion? From the transactional
purposes, they are indeed real - bangle is different from ring and
ring from chain. What one does with a ring is different from what one
does with bangle. Name is to a form and form is an attribute -
utility is for those names and forms. They are real in their
relative sphere of reference - this is vyavahaara or transactional
purpose. But in through the form the essence is nothing but gold.
Hence what is relatively real is different from absolutely real -The
definition that is given in advaita - trikaala abhaaditam satyam -
that which remains non-negatable in three periods of time is the
absolute real.
In your above statement, world is perceived by perceiver. But
perceiver is not illusion. He is the conscious entity that remains
eternal as the essential conscious entity- this is true even in
VishishhTa advaita. The conscious entity cannot be negated
(abhaadhitam) at any time since 'he' has to be to there even to do
the negation process. Hence Krishna's declaration - na enam chindanti
shastraaNi .. etc-
Even in VishishhTaadvaita - in fact I should say in all Vedic
religions adhyaasa or error is accepted to some degree - the
fundamental error is I am the body or mind or intellect - the
equipments that I possess. The whole teaching of Giita starts
because Arjuna has this fundamental problem identifying one self
which is a chaitanya vastu with the jada vastu - matter, the body,
mind and intellect as I am this - this being an object and I being
a conscious entity. Once one identifies I am this body and the other
body belongs to my teacher or pitaamaha etc all the attachments and
associated sufferings result - that was Arjuana's problem and our
problem too. The cause for this error in both philosophies is again
attributed to 'aj~naana' or ignorance. The ignorance is anaadi or
beginningless, as it has to be. The liberation therefore is removal
of this ignorance. Up to this is common in both.
The nature of the ignorance is perceived differently in each system.
Bhagavaan Ramanuja emphasizes the 'bhakti ruupaka j~naana' while
Shankara emphasizes 'swa swaruupa j~naana' or aatma swaruupa j~naana
as all in all, which according Ramanuja that is only one part while
the other part involves the 'paramaatma swaruupa j~naana' -
understanding of shesha-sheshii - or organic relation between jiiva
and paramaatma. In the paramaatma j~naana, aatma swaruupa j~naana is
inclusive since He is all pervading as antaryaami - that is the
organic relation or a-dvaita aspect in the vishishhTa a-dvaita.
-------------------
-Individuality of the jiva, as well as of Iswara is
also only perceived due to the covering of illusion
--------------------
One has to be very careful here. Illusion is does not give true
import of the word maaya used in advaita- let us use instead the word
maaya - it does not really cover anything. - it is 'as though
covering' - it is an explanation to explain the currently perceived
'vyavahaara satya'. From the absolute level even this explanation
falls flat since there is no need to explain anything where there is
only Brahman.
Let us pose a question to ourselves - Why and how does a conscious
entity- I or you damodara, anyone mistake ourselves as I am this body
- I am so and so born on such a data etc. We know that the body is
matter or jadam and we are not the body and we are chaitanya vastu-
How does this identification of chaitanya vastu with achaitanya vastu
takes place? - avidya is accepted by both philosophies - avidya in
advaita involves not knowing our true nature -When I do not know who
I am, I take myself as what I am not - That this happens is our
experience and our fundamental problem - how this aj~naana leads to
vikshepa - or projection or taking myself what I am not is considered
as part of the 'adhyaasa' or error. - Shankara defines adhyaasa as -
satya asatya mithuniikaraNam - mixing up of real and unreal - 'I am
this" - this being body (sthuula or suukshma etc)- 'I am' part is
real and 'this' part is unreal and mixing up these two as one entity
is the fundamental error for all of us. - concepts of 'aarvaraNa'
and 'vikshepa' associated with avidya are based on - shaastriiya
anumaana - logical deductions based on shaastra statement as ' aham
brahma asmi' to 'aham jiiva asmi' notion.
------------------
If Brahman is One without a second, what is the
shelter and origin of illusion?
--------------------
Please understand even this maaya itself in the realm of 'maaya' - it
is a concept brought in to account the apparent disparity between
what is the absolute truth to what is our day to day experience.
Please note that avidya or ignorance is anaadi in both philosophies.
If something real one can talk about 'shelter' and origin etc. -
trikaaala abhaaditam satyam is how advaita defines as absolutely real
- if the illusion gets dissolved in moksha then it is bhaaditam.
One can either accept this as it is as product of anaadi avidya or
resort to another explanation as paramaatma liila - either way - the
buck stops there. If you are comfortable with the later explanation
that is fine, but the fact remains that these are only trying to
account what is in the state of ignorance to that which is beyond the
ignorance.
-------------
How illusion which is nonintelligeble concept in
eternity can have any influence on Brahman which is
the ultimate Reality?
--------------------
You are absolutely right here - In fact you are essentially
presenting Bhagavaan Ramanuja's puurvapaksha - particularly the seven
untenables of avidya as discussed in advaita. This requires an
exhaustive analysis which I am planning to present when I am done
studying Shree Bhaashya. I must say - Shree Madhusuudana saraswati
addresses many of these as well as objections raised by post-Shankara
philosophers in his 'advaita siddhi'
But to answer in brief - there is none. Brahman is absolute reality -
one without a second. All the explanations are not at paaramaarthika
level but only valid at vyavahaarika level. The fact remains that I,
a chaitanya vastu, taking myself as achaitanya vastu and you can pose
yourself a question how is this non-intelligible jadam having
influence on the ultimately real - me the chaitanya vastu. The
influence is only as long as I take myself or identify myself with
the jada padaartham - If I stop identifying it what influence it will
have in my real nature. In eternity there is only one - and there is
nothing else to raise the issue of any influence.
Most of the questions and ambiguity arises when one tries to have one
leg in vyavahaara and the other leg in the paaramaarthika level and
get mixed up in these two references where one is in the realm of
ignorance and the other is knowledge.
------------------
Even if illusion has any influence on Brahman, still
in order to appear as this universe, Brahman needs
either to divide, becomes variegated or transform
which is not possible?
---------------------
True - Hence Brahman does not divide or transform or become
variegated. Brahman remains as Brahman even pure and untransformed.
- That is advaita.
Now you are asking creation - how does that occur. Since I and you
are seeing this creation we are asking how did this come into
existence. Hence creation is there for those are who are perceiving
- the perception involves - perceiver, perceived and perceiving -
before we start questioning the validity of the perceived, which is
the universe and the cause for it - one needs to enquire the validity
of perceiver and perceiving. - That is why all Vedantic achaarya-s
address first the epistemological issues before they discuss the
ontological issues.
This is very involved topic - not that I do not want to discuss this
but I have written on these topics extensively on advaitin list. I
would recommend those interested to study these from achieves -
particularly my discussion with Shree Nanda Chandran posted a month
ago. If anyone has any problem in identifying or down loading it,
feel free to write to me and I will mail the relevant discussions.
---------------------------
Is there any scriptural proof which says that
individuality of consciousness, either of the jiva
(infinitesimal) or Iswara (unlimited) is just due to
covering of illusion and not its eternal intrinsic
characteristic?
----------------------
The four mahavaakya-s that advaita emphasizes are from scriptures only.
Let me address this briefly - There are pure advaitic statements and
dvaitic statements in upanishats. Shankara takes the advaitic
statements are primary and dvaitic statements secondary. Madhva
takes the other way around. Bhagavaan Ramanuja unifies these two as
self-consistent organic relation of unity in diversity.
One should study all and choose what appeals to one heart. If you do
not like any one of the explanation - you can present your own.
Remember we are not reinventing the wheel. We are blessed by many
great achaarya-s who have addressed these issues from various angles
and many of these questions were asked and answered in the past.
There is nothing wrong to ask again for ones understanding but it
helps a lot to study what or how other achaarya-s have addresses
these questions.
----------------
Also I am not able to understand the example given by
Sadananda about the gold and ornamets, which implies
substance and form to be reality and illusion.
Both substance and form are real concepts and I do not
understand this comparison were form is identified
with illusion.
-------------------
Let us look at this way.
Gold is real
Bangle made of gold is also real.
Is there a difference between these two realities? - Is bangle same
as gold or different from gold? Bangle is only a form for that gold
for which I give a name 'bangle' - Bangle can be destroyed and can be
made into a ring - then bangle is gone and it is ring now. But gold
is not destroyed in this transformation - gold remained as gold -
only form and name changed- as bangle it is gold and as a ring it is
only gold - gold remained as gold in all these transformations.
Hence we already have to degrees of realities. One that changes and
one that does not in these transformations. Or more correctly one
that remains the same untrasferable, eternally remaining the same -
absolutely non-transferable - while the other appears and disappears
as forms with names associated with forms. Even though we may call
both gold and bangle are real - one can appreciate the difference in
the degrees of realities - one that does not undergo any
transformation and the other that keeps changing. Yet in all these
transformation if there are two separate entities - bangle and gold -
In that case you can have the bangle and I will take the gold anytime.
It is the glory of gold to be able to exist in many forms yet still
remains as just one entity 'gold'. By the by these example are from
Ch. Up only - teaching of Uddalaka to his son Swetaketu.
A word about illusion and delusion (moha)- illusion is seeing the
plurality and delusion is taking the perceived plurality as reality.
The problem comes from the second. Giita addresses the second aspect
- Arjuna in the end declares - nashhTo mohaH - now because of your
teaching I lost the delusion - taking the nama and ruupa as
absolutely real - there is my teacher and my pitaamaha and these are
my kith and kin , how can I kill them etc. These names and forms
have only relative reality. That is what vyavahaara satya is all
about.
-------------------
I can agree that advaita as a concept might be true,
but in my heart i cannot accept this to be
attributless onenness - but rather organic unity.
----------------
Damodar - I am very happy for you. I consider these as working
hypotheses and one has to proceed using these to discover oneself
what is the real truth. Shankara says so or Ramanuja says so etc
does not mean much until I inquire what is the ultimately the truth -
For that only nidhidhyaasana emphasized by both achaarya-s is
issential.
God bless you and proceed by all means in the direction that appeals
to your heart - there lies what is good for you. If the truth is one
- we all end up there.
yo yo yaam yaam tanur bhaktaH shraddha archtum icchati|
tasya tasya achalaam shraddham tam eva vidadhaami aham||
Whoever and whoever and in whatever and whatever form one worships me
with devotion in that and that form I provide him unvagaring faith.
This includes the path that one takes up towards Him.
Hari OM!
Sadananda
>
>Yours sincerely,
>damodar
>
>Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize
>chat events. Visit http://in/ groups.yahoo.com
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
> - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
>To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
>Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--------------------------------------------------------------
- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/