We have discussed the topic on the indicators of Ishvara. What are the scriptural means in connection with Ishvara? The world comes from brahman, seeing this worldly cause-effect and with the same intellect, for revealing the non-duality of brahman to the seeker, there is an ascription (adhyaaropa) on the part of the scripture. This causality of brahman cannot be immediate (pratyaksha), since brahman is not immediate. It cannot also be inferred, since unlike smoke-fire, there is no syllogism here. Without syllogism, there can be no inference. Then the children of inference simile or upamaaana, circumstantial inference or arthaapatti and non-perception inference or anupalabdhi, will not have any effect here. Vedas or word-means cannot also reveal Ishvara, since Ishvara is prior to Vedas. Sages, seers, senses were born later, but Ishvara was there prior. How can they ever infer Ishvara or his world causality!
There are three kinds of inference: 1. Inferring the cause from the effect. 2. Inferring the effect from the cause. 3. Inferring both (saamaanyato drishta). Inferring the father from the son, and inferring the son from the father, these are the first two kinds of inference. And even without a cause-effect relationship, there can be an inference, like inferring speed by looking at change in space, this is the third kind of inference.
Looking at the visible creation, and inferring its cause, is a standard type of inference. But, that the cause is brahman, cannot be inferred. The Nyaya school calls it an atom, and the Saankyha school calls it Prakriti, the Buddhists call it chitta, and the Maaya school calls it maayaa. But maayaa is under the control of the maaya-wielder, that is why we can infer that the world is a play of some aware maaya-wielder. That maaya-wielder is brahman, this is the shruti means according to Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 4.10. This statement of the shruti comes from a viewpoint of ascription-negation, since the shruti later negates it by saying "he does not act" etc.
Here is what the glosser Shree Sureshvaraachaarya says. The material cause of this magical duality is ignorance. When the magician shows birds and animals in his tricks, are they actually real? No, but all of them are seen. Why are they seen? Because you cannot see the magician, but you only see the magic. This maayaa is not seen, the play of maayaa is seen. Our ignorance alone is the cause. When we cannot see the real thing, we begin to believe in the fake thing. The real nature of the world is the non-distinct-from-inner-awareness brahman, that is not known, and that is why the world is known. The ignorance of its real nature alone is the material cause of this world. In reality, since we do not know brahman, we ascribe cause-effect upon it. It is negated when we realize our self as brahman. When one knows the rope, there is no snake, no garland there. What was being called a snake was always a rope, what was being called a garland was always a rope. The object was always one, but since it was not recognized, it was called whatever it was seen as. When ignorance is removed through brahman-knowledge, then all differences are negated.
Question: When Nyaya followers see the world, in other words, see the effect, see the diversity, peculiarity, and seeing the transaction of cause-effect in immediate objects, they infer that the intelligent cause of this world is one omniscient, omnipotent Ishvara. Even thought he is aware, he is always distinct than souls who are of limited knowledge, limited power, disconnected, worldly, subservient. Then, is the brahman in the form of the cause of the birth of the world etc. proven through inference?
Answer: No. Vedanta does not accept that Ishvara is proven by inference. It accepts that he is immediate. But the immediacy of Ishvara is not like that of a pot. It is like the "I" sees the "I" without eyes. Similarly, Ishvara is immediate without the aid of senses. In Vedanta, brahman, supreme self, self, Ishvara are proven to be immediate in this meaning. Let us delve further into this point.
"Watch" is a word which is in the mouth. It's meaning is a metal-created watch. Now, imagine that someone has heard the world "watch", he has also seen a watch, but does not have the knowledge of the connection between the word and the object. In that state, even if he is staring right at a watch, he will not have the immediate knowledge that "this is a watch". Now when someone says "this is a watch", then at that point, will the watch be inferential or immediate? It will be immediate.
Similarly, this statement of knowledge of identity between the self and brahman, is not to reassure us about brahman. Reassurance cannot even remove the existence veil (asattvaapaadaka aavarana)! If you believe that Ishvara exists, then can that belief remove the veil of the intellect in the form of "Ishvara does not exist"?
Vedanta asserts : Without indirect knowledge, existence veil cannot be removed. Without direct knowledge, experiential veil (abhaanapaadaka aavarana) cannot be removed. Only through the great statement can the experiential veil be removed and then the direct Ishvara becomes immediate.
With regards to Ishvara, we do not just accept inference or indirect-knowledge-oriented Vedantic statements. With only belief and faith, doubts are suppressed. Only through indirect knowledge is existence veiling removed. Only through the great statement can the experiential veil be removed. The discussion of Vedanta will not infer Ishvara. The self has always been immediate, but that this self is the space-time-object-non-disconnected brahman, this knowledge can only happen through the great statement. The great statement is not for the immediate realization of the self, it is for the immediate realization of the undivided nature of the self. Shruti is not logic, nor is it inference. There is a self-entity which is immediate it one aspect. Shruti aims to make it immediate in all aspects (sarva aansha).
In this, all logic, argument, inference which aids the shruti meaning is acceptable to Vedanta. Vedanta does not prohibit these. But that beyond-senses entity which is the brahman essence, does not rest on logic or argument or means. If immediate means themselves are not possible, then in the absence of any signs, how can inference etc. reach it?
Then what is this experience of brahman which, free from not-self-shape and quiet mind, does not show itself as different from its substratum and illumination! This is that "you" aspect (tvam padaartha). It is ok that during that time, all thought flows are quiet and it is not showing anything other than its substratum. Even so, that quiet, self-illumined, substratum-nature,that-aspect, it alone is the non-dual brahman. There is still a need for this knowledge, and for this, a means-created means-thought-flow (pramaa vritti) is needed. These means cannot be immediate or inferential since there, the only means will have to be a statement which will tell the self-illumined substratum of the quiet mind, that it is the non-dual brahman. So then, the great-statement-created generation of means alone is that single solution, there is no other, otherwise it will only be a self-state (aatma sthiti), not an experience of brahman. The conception of brahman (brahmaavagati) is the goal, not the conception of the self, since the conception of the self is available in the form of the I-sense. There is ignorance of its brahman-aspect.
The knowledge created by the great statements, with the undivided meaning (akhandaartha dhee), is the real means in the knowledge of the essence. In this, any logic, argument, inference needed for the purification of the "that" aspect and the "you" aspect is acceptable to Vedanta. But this statement-created knowledge of Vedanta is different than the inference of the Nyaaya school.
Question: In Vedanta, shrutis are accepted as the supreme means. But the shruti is the means in the action investigation (sharma jignyaasaa) of Poorva Mimaansaa also. Then what is the difference in shruti means between brahman investigation and action investigation? Why is there no similarity in them?
Answer: Action or dharma is not an object of realization (saakshaatkaara). Action aims to deliver results in the form of happiness, here and hereafter. Action is something that is done, performed. Therefore, the doer of action is independent. He can act, not act, or act incorrectly. It is subordinate to the intellect of the doer as to how he incorporates matter, action and enjoyment, whether he does it as prescribed or he does not. This is the reason why the result of legal or illegal action attaches itself to the doer. After performance of the action, the doer becomes either a sinner or a saint. The topic of action investigation is human-intellect-science, this is the summary of this discussion.
Contrary to this, in brahman investigation, brahman is the object of realization. The knowledge of an object doer not require the intellect of a knower to know it, not know it, or know it incorrectly. It is subordinate to the known object, in other words, it reveals exactly how and what the object is. To know something as it really is constitutes knowledge, to know something as something different constitutes delusion. The knower does not have the independence that he knows the post as a man. Knowing the post as a post alone is knowledge. Knowing the post as a man is delusion. And this post knowledge is subordinate to the post alone, not to the intellect of the knower. We can say that knowledge is object-science (vastu tantra), not doer-science (kartru tantra).
To perform action, to perform worship, all of these are based on the foundation of the doer. But knowing the self as brahman is not subordinate to the doer. The doer can choose to perform action-worship, to not perform it, or to perform it incorrectly. But he cannot perform essence investigation incorrectly. that is why essence knowledge is not under the purview of sin or merit.
It is also not the case that the knower accept brahman as attributeless, with attribute, as a "this" or a "that". Knowing the brahman entity as it is in reality is the knowledge of the essence. That is why the knowledge of the essence is neither the subject of action, nor of worship, nor of yoga. It is neither the object of argument, nor that of inference. Its factual non-disconnected internal-awareness-non-distinct nature is indicated by the means-thought-flow of the shruti statements.
Shruti illuminates the essence and gives commands in the form of injunction (dharma). In other words, shruti praises the essence and enjoins injunction. Therefore, the shruti is a scripture in both senses - "shaasanam" and "shansanam".
Action is belief-dominant and knowledge of brahman is direct experience dominant. Knowledge of brahman alone is the experience of the self. Injunction (dharma) is the process by which results are given in the future to doership and belief! Injunction requires action. Prior to performing action, and during performing action, action is not experienced. But after the performance of the action, the result of the action is experienced as peace and happiness. Counter to this, brahman is experienced directly. Not only this, brahman is an already-gained entity unlike the result of action. It is always available in the form of the self.
That there is heaven, there is rebirth, there can be a doubt in this. But "I am", in this there is no doubt, it is directly known. What am I? This knowledge is under doubt since the mind is possessed of various opinions on this topic. But when the intellect does to see the mind but sees the witness of the mind, and knows it to be brahman with conviction due to shruti, then the intellect becomes negated. Then what you are, who you are, you begin to illumine it. This is knowledge of the essence.
[key] In Vedanta, injunction (dharma) investigation and brahman investigation are accepted as an aggregate of action. In other words, first, by injunction oriented investigation, you experience yourself as the doer-enjoyer-disconnected-worldly soul distinct from the body. After that, when the investigation of brahman dawns, you convince yourself of the meaninglessness of performance of injunction. Substitute desire with desirelessness, attachment with dispassion, and injunction performance with hearing-contemplation-meditation. Through this alone will you gain the knowledge of the identity of the self and brahman.
Question: Brahman cannot be an already attained entity. If it were, then "this is a pot", why cannot it be seen like this? An already attained entity can always be known through direct means. Accepting only shruti means as the sole means is not valid.
Answer: Brahman is an already attained entity. Day and night we deal with it, but we do not recognize it. The self, "I" alone is that entity. Who exists who does not know his "I"? But the brahman-ness of that "I" is not known to everyone. Brahman exists, and brahman is "existence knowledge infinite", this indirect knowledge is also known to many, but they do not have the knowledge that "I am the self" is "existence knowledge infinite". Without this direct knowledge, the brahman-ness of the "I" will not arise. To reveal this secret is the task of the shruti's great statements.
Brahman cannot become an object of means since it is beyond the senses. That is why it does not come into the realm of direct and other similar means. The substratum which illuminates a whole variety of absences of disconnectedness, only that can be the infinite existence, infinite consciousness, brahman. It alone is the topic of the great statements.
Vedanta says this. The supreme self did not disappear only through improper action, only through desire, forgetfulness or incorrect thinking. If that were the case, then he would appear through proper action, worship and yoga. But he does not. Therefore, the reality is that the non-dual, imperishable, self complete, self illumined, all-substratum entity is not directly visible only due to ignorance, by not recognizing it. Therefore, the supreme self is knowledge-directed alone, and such a type of knowledge which opposes the ignorance of the self illumined all-substratum.
"He who says that I know of the supreme self through the intellect, he does not know" (Kena Upanishad 2.3). The knower can contact the known only through the means, but he cannot contact his self through them. The means always favour the known, it always shows the known as distinct from the knower. Therefore, any experience of brahman via the intellect will be distinct from the knower, will be inert and transient.
Brahman is a non-dual entity. It is called self complete by being the all-substratum, not in its nature (svaroppa). Since it is the refuge of the direction element present in east west etc. it is called self complete or all pervading. Since it is the refuge of time which is present in a second month, year, eon, etc. it is called imperishable. There is one entity present in this matter-formed magic show, of which, brahman is the substratum, and for that reason it is called existence, not in its nature. Brahman is called consciousness since there is one common intellect-knowledge in particularized knowledge such as pot knowledge, cloth knowledge etc., whose substratum is brahman. Such an infinite brahman can never be the object of any mind. But one who knows it as the witness of the mind, refuge of the mind, only he alone knows it. This knowledge can only be conceived through the great statements of Vedanta.
The brahman awareness, being non-dual, is our true nature alone. Therefore, if we cannot avail of it, that is solely due to ignorance. Devotees accept that the supreme self is ever attained in the form of the inner controller, but is lost due to forgetfulness and turning away from him. That is why, they accept realization of the supreme self by remembering him and turning towards him. The action oriented people, whether they are theist Poorva Mimaamsaa followers or atheist Buddists and Jains, roam endlessly in the action created pleasures and action created veiling. They do not have any connection with the absolute truth. Eventually they will have to discard action and take up dispassion in order to realize the absolute truth. Without the scripture of Vedanta, there can be no arousal of knowledge in our natural flow of impressions.
The natural flow of the world is lost in enjoyment of sense pleasures and expansion of desires, which can go right up to the limits of law. That is why it contains attraction, inertness, sorrow and difference. In this state, the scripture proclaims the message of injunction for the halting of doership which is the root of attraction and aversion. It proclaims worship, for the polishing and upliftment of thought flow. It proclaims yoga, for the focusing of the mind and quietening of desires. That same scripture also illumines the already attained identity between the self and brahman for the qualified seeker.
Only a knower of the Upanishad will know brahman, not anyone else. (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.26).
How is the target known by the means? In this there are three methods:
1. Object-created immediate knowledge method: The object itself is so sharp that it enters into the means and reveals itself. For example, let's say we are sitting quietly and a garbage truck passes in front of us. The odour will be so strong that it enters the nose, by which we the knower have a immediate knowledge of the odour.
2. Connection of consciousness-created immediate knowledge process: There is a knowable object in front of us. It could either be gold or copper. Now when we go close to it and observe it carefully, then the consciousness particularized by the object and the consciousness particularized by the means (eyes etc.) get connected, and the knowledge of the object happens. In this process, the consciousness rides on the means-thought-flow, identifies with the knowable, and reveals the knowable.
In reality, "pot" and the pot-shaped thought-flow, both are illumined by one knowledge alone. There, we see a oneness of consciousness. The internal organ is inside our body. When the pot object enters it properly, then that which is the thought-flow-particularized consciousness (knower) is the pot-particularized consciousness (knowable) alone. This means that via the thought-flow (means), we (knower) become one with the pot (knowable). This is called thought-flow-pervasion (vritti vyaapti). The nature of this oneness is the knowledge that "this is a pot". After that, there arises an arrogation about the pot knowledge that "I know the pot". This is result-pervasion (phala vyaapti).
So then, for the object which is another, a seen, inert, the afore mentioned two processes reveal it in an immediate manner. Either the object itself enters into consciousness and gives immediate knowledge, or consciousness enters into the object and gives immediate knowledge.
3. Both these processes do not work in case of knowledge of an aware object. To begin with, awareness is not another, it is one self, it is not the seen, it is the seer alone. Second, since it is the self, it is in no way ignorant. Generally, the known "I" is a subject. This alone is the immediate knowledge of the aware. The self is always brahman, there is no need to borrow and stick brahman-ness upon it. The delusion that the self is not brahman, and that the soul etc. are the true nature, has to be removed. The time when this delusion is removed alone is the immediate knowledge of brahman-ness, since all delusions are caused by the ignorance of brahman-ness. Therefore, the process of knowing the aware is the process of destroying ignorance. That which is already attained can only be known by word-means.
In word-means, only by Vedantic statements, in those, only the great statements, and in those, only those that purify the that-aspect and the you-aspect and demonstrate their proven identity in the maturation of intellect This is the brahman-shaped-thought-flow (brahmaakaara vritti). Only in this can we find the immediate experience of brahman by the self. The intellect alone contains delusion, therefore, the ignorance in that plane of reality which is countered by the knowledge-thought-flow against ignorance alone can remove ignorance, nothing else. In Vedanta, this is the means for Ishvara knowledge. Therefore, it is the instrument which created immediate knowledge of the Ishvara entity. Faith in Ishvara, worship of Ishvara etc. all of these are scriptural word-means, but if we want to experience Ishvara immediately, then the only means or instrument is the great-statement-created undivided-thought alone.
`
People explore the scriptures to find out when, where, to whom, of what, why did ignorance happen. Which means they want to know what is the time, space, refuge, object, cause and fundamentally, what is ignorance? Not knowing the self as it is, is ignorance. Knowing it as something different is delusion. The cause of ignorance is ignorance, otherwise there will be a logical problem which is untenable. Now, once you accept the erroneous appearance (individual soul-ness) of the self, you have to accept space, time and arrogator etc., not otherwise. When you do not know the one infinite non-disconnected self-illumined substratum, then, its first and last form is time, its lengthwise expansion form is space, the refuge object is imagined in the form of subject-object, and in that there is ignorance, this is imagined. In other words, the ignorance of the infinite alone appears in the form of space, time, refuge and object. Ignorance happens by staying in ignorance.
Vedanta does not prove ignorance or maayaa in the self, but in fact, removes it. But it is the removal of that which is ever-removed. Otherwise, if ignorance existed, and is now removed, then where did the time-formed delusion get removed? If ignorance was here (in the soul) and maaya was there (in Ishvara), then where did the space-formed delusion get removed? If "I am ignorant and I am ignorance about brahman" then where did the refuge-object difference-formed illusory imagination get removed? And if "Ignorance is some entity" you accept this, then ignorance can never be removed.
For removal of this ignorance, words and statements pertaining to consciousness are needed. It is like, if someone is in deep sleep, we call them by saying "O Devadutta, wske up!". And that sleeping person wakes up. The question is, how did the sleeping person hear these words? Did he wake up after hearing the words, or did he hear the words and then wake up? If he were not awake, then how did he hear the words? And if he did not hear the words, how did he wake up? Is there something else between the end of sleep and the cognition of the word meaning? In the Vaartikaa of Shree Sureshvaraachaarya, this is resolved by saying that there is an inexplicable power in words. As soon as the words filled the immediate knowledge of brahman into the thought flow that "O brother! You who are the witness of this thought flow, witness of the absence of thought flow, the witness of the pot-ness, cloth-ness of the thought flow, witness of the space between two thought flows, you are that brahman, and all these are happening in one imagined aspect of you. You are the immediate direct brahman". Instantly, the brahman-oriented delusion of the self disappears. This is the miracle of the power of words.
How does the realization of brahman happen? If you want to see a pot, you need eyes as well as light. With the help of light, the darkness of the pot is dispelled and the eye thought flow pervaded the pot, in other words, the thought flow became pot-shaped. This is thought flow pervasion. After that, one arrogation of knowledge arose in "I know the pot". This is the result pervasion. In the knowledge of an object, thought flow pervasion and result pervasion has to happen. If you want to see light itself, there is no need for another light for result pervasion.
Then if you want to see your eyes, then just via the mind, thought flow pervasion will happen. If you want to see the internal organ, then by being perceived by the witness, it will directly become the known. But now if you want to see the witness, then the witness can never become a seen. Then we have to say that the effort to see the witness is proven to be ignorant. There can be no stage, state, situation that can be attained without the witness. Therefore, in waking, dreaming, deep sleep, samaadhi, creation, sustenance, destruction, etc. that which is the witness of the seen and its absence, that is me - such a conviction about one self is tantamount to "seeing" the witness. Even this has thought flow pervasion, but no result pervasion since it is a conviction about one's own self.
If brahman is another, it will be a seen, and therefore will be inert. But brahman is aware alone. Therefore it cannot be a seen and cannot be non-distinct from the self. Now the shruti asserts that very brahman as the all-illuminator and the all-substratum. Therefore "I the witness self alone am the substratum brahman of waking etc. states as well as the visible world in them" this conviction happens. Once there is a shape of this conviction thought flow, individual soul-ness and all other such illusory assertions are destroyed. This is the knowledge of the identity of the self and brahman. Even in this experience, thought flow pervasion happens in the form of brahman shape (in reality the ascribed brahman notion shape) but there is no result pervasion since it is an experience about one's own self. When in this experience, the reflection or the soul itself is proven illusory, then where is the reality of the arrogator?
There is no result pervasion in brahman knowledge. It means, for the knower of brahman, there is no arousal of the arrogation that I have known brahman because here, the main meaning of the knower alone is brahman, in that, the imagination of means-ness is misfortune. When was the knower ever ignorant of himself? The brahman-nature of the knower was unknown, this was a delusion, and that was removed through the word-means-created undivided-meaning-thought. After ignorance is removed, "the self-illumined brahman I am ever established as I am in my true nature" this knowledge spontaneously blazes.
The substratum awareness of the entire world, and the substratum awareness of the internal organ, are one and the same. The witness awareness of the internal organ alone is the same witness awareness of the entire world. Due to the minor adjunct (internal organ) and the major adjunct (causal adjunct) maaya, there is no difference in the adjuncted nature of awareness. The same great space, due to the minor adjunct pot is called pot space, and similarly due to the major adjunct house is called house-space. Even with these minor adjuncts, it itself is called the great space, since space is ever free of any difference and is one.
By performing discrimination on the this-aspect and the you-aspect, due to the great statement, the difference in the literal meaning and the oneness in the indicated meaning is known. If this is known by anyone in the world, then this alone is called the experience of the non-dual brahman - besides brahman there is nothing else. No soul, no world, no Ishvara, differences may be visible, but there is nothing besides brahman. If is this is attained through any language, any teacher, persons of any country, in any time, then it is due to the Vedic constitution alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment