Evolution, intelligent design and evolution

Q

So Advaita does not believe in evolution and is founded on Intelligent design?

Am I correct?

A

Advaita pertains to a paramarthic truth - What is True

is Brahman alone, one without a second.

At a vyavaharic level, it is not opposed to science.

The watchmaker theory is very much in tune with the

vedanta - anything "put together" must have a

efficient cause.

Evolution is accepted in vedanta - but the focus is

different. According to Darwin, evolution is about

survival. In its most basic sense atoms and chemicals

interact - per chance life begins - and from this

point on its a eternal struggle for this created life

form to survive and perpetuate its species - helped by

this innate survival instinct more refined bodies are

fashioned. - I do not know which is more far fetched -

this or adam,eve and the apple!

In Vedanta evolution is about dissolution of the

I-sense and "dis"covery of one's true nature - so good

deeds beget better shareeras and environs in future

births each leading the jiva progressively in the

direction of that rarest of entities - the human birth

and even in this one endowed with viveka and

mumukshutvam - the very gateway to moksha. This too is

"evolution" isnt it? While better births than a human

one is accepted from the standpoint of enjoinment of

fruits such as devas etc these are decidedly inferior

as one has to again be reborn once the "frequent

flier" miles expire.

Again all these theories have limited value for a

vedantic student/seeker - the focus must forever be on

what is satyam - theories about what is in the realm

of mithya should only be understood to the extent they

help one account for what is seemingly seen - to be

discarded once their puport is served.

Theism and advaita

Q.

I get an impression that certain parts of vedas proclaim montheism, others polytheism, some trans-theism and yet others atheism. Is it not internal contradiction?

A.

Your question is a good one and I am happy to attempt to share my understanding.

The reason there may seem to be contradictions is simply because there is a difference in perspective.From the standpoint of the limited, there is a limitless, from the standpoint of a someone who is limited in time and space, there is an eternal, infinite, presence.

There are no two opinions about this.

Vedanta's beauty is in going beyond this subject-object construct, in breaking through this matrix and saying that the limited, the jiva, the bound, only has a notional existence. There is no "real" thing called a jiva who is ever at any point in time "separate" from the whole "Ishwara" and that these divisions are only mithya.

At all times there is only One, vastu or existent entity and it is Truth, it is Consciousness and It Alone Is, One, without a second. You may choose to call it Brahman or God as well.

In your dream, there is a entire universe you create. And yet you are not intricately involved with anything in the dream. Time passes, there may be multiple catastrophes, and upheavals in that dream creation, yet, you the sleeper remain untouched.

From the standpoint of the multitude of entities in the dream, they all have a sense of separation - both from each other as well as from you the dreamer.

But the reality is that you the dreamer alone are the dream. No aspect of the dream is ever separate from you.

So from the perspective of the dreamworld you are the dream creator, sustainer and destroyer.

But there is an aspect about you that is unrelated to the dream.

Even after the dream is over you still exist. The dream now exists only in potential form.

The same it is with Brahman or God. From the standpoint of this manifest universe, He is both the efficient and material cause. From a transcedental standpoint, He alone Is. Thus "transtheism", or if you transcend the jiva's existence as being mithya, "atheism" (because there is now no other thing you can speak of)

From the wordly standpoint, there are any number of deities presiding over varying aspects of creation. And that is because the Divine is immanent in and through every aspect of manifest creation. Hence alone, in our culture, each and everything is sacrosanct. So you look at the Sun - and ask - is this God? The answer is a resounding yes. It is God. After all what is not God in creation. So if you invoke the Lord in the Sun you can give a certain name and form to him - and call it Lord Surya. And you can symbolize the seven rays as a chariot with seven horses. And if you invoke the very same divinity in the Earth, you can call it Bhoomi Devi. And so on and so forth.

So yes there is polytheism. But what is worshipful or who is worshipped are at no point multiple entities - it is the very same entity that is invoked at different times and by different people based on their temperaments. Thus monotheism.

To give an example, if it is dark I switch on the light, if it is hot i switch on the fan, - at both times the only thing i am really invoking is electricity. The names light and fan are really only different forms in which electricity can bless me depending on which form i choose to invoke it in.

So all these "-isms" whether polytheism or monotheism or atheism or transtheisms are all valid concepts which all have their own place, as long as there is an understanding of the overall construct in which they are placed.

Dreams and Reality

Q.

Thank you very much, Shyamji. I am still having great difficulty with the

concept. I realize that all analogies are limited when applied to Brahman

but in the Ocean-wave analogy, I get the sense that the water (Paramaatma)

is not deluded, but the wave (Jivaatma) is. If the two are essentially the

same, how can we talk about one being deluded (by Maya) but not the other? A few points/examples may help in this regard.

A.

First of all when we say the two are essentially the same, we are not talking about two identical entities.

We talk about a identity of two things - jivatma and paramatma - which are seemingly different.

It is like saying energy and mass are essentially the same, when they are seemingly different.

So let us not lose sight of the very key words - "essentially" or "in essence".

What Vedanta says is that there is the Whole, the Infinite and there is a something that is (taken to be) infinitesmally small, but which is in essence swallowed up in the Infinite, the Whole, and its small-ness is purely notional, and disappears when subject to proper enquiry or atma-vichara.

I shall try to explain this with a second "stock-example" (- my apologies for my complete lack of creativity!) - the dream example.

I see a dream. Two friends in this dream go on a hike. It starts raining. They rush into a hut they see along the way. They are glad to see an old man with a long beard in the hut. He is kind enough to give them food and water. They then sit to talk with him, and they talk about how fortunate they were to find his abode, whereupon he tells them - listen, do you know something - the two of you, me, this hut, this forest, are all nothing but brahman. And who or what is brahman? - he/she/that which is pervading the entire dream. Now the two friends look very surprised - with due respect dear sir, how can it be - they claim! You are doing the talking, we are listening, we just had warm rotis, our clothes were drenched in the rain - and all this was nothing but brahman? who is this brahman?

He is both the efficient and material cause of that dream.

He is the sleeper "I"

As far as that dream Universe is concerned I lent both satta - existence - and sfurti - consciousness - to the dream. The hill, the trees, the rain clouds, the rain, the water, the food, my friend, the old man, everything in and through was me and me alone.

And yet, did I for a second become old to become the old man. Did a particle of me get wet in that rain? Did i develop both the two friends' hunger and again its lack of on eating the dream food which was again only me? no. Now let us reverse the question - was the old man me> ? yes. were the two friends me? yes. Once i resorb the dream unto me, and the old man, the friends, even that mountain, all are destroyed - will i still continue. yes. So the dream friends and the "real" sleeper me are in essence the same - yet he the dream "jiva" was as though created and i, the sleeper, am as though the creator - the vishwanatha for that dream vishwa.

I pervade the dream, i am immanent in the dream, i transcend the dream, and yet i remain unsullied, unattached, pure, auspicious - shivoham shivoham.

How did i do this? Using my power called maya.

Where is maya? It is my intrinsic power.

So there are two things - me and maya?

No ..no..there is only one, thing, Me. maya is not a separate thing that i wield like a spectre.

I cannot distill or separate out this power of mine called maya - you can perceive it by its effect - in having successfully given an appearance consisting of this universe of plurality that was perceived.

When there was the dream I was, when there is no dream or rather when the next dream is in potential form, i still am. In fact i alone am.

Now what prevents the dream people from recognizing their innate oneness with me? ignorance or avidya alone - about what? their true nature.

[of course one crucial difference between this example and with Brahman is - Brahman is in complete control over his Maya - our maya in "creating" a dream is so-called "borrowed maya".]

There is no question of Brahman coming under the influence of maya or a part of Brahman being susceptible this or any such conceptualization.

Strictly speaking omnipotence, omniscience are all never applicable to Brahman - Brahman is the Whole, One, without a second. These adjectives apply to Brahman only from the standpoint of the jiva, - the jiva regards himself as an entity with limited power - so he has to look to Brahman as all-powerful, he regards himself as being a mortal - so Brahman is Omniscient - he regards himself as being a karta-bhokta - so regards Brahman as a karma-phala-daata. And this Brahman, in relation to this jiva, is said to be "saguna" Brahman or maya-sahitam Brahman.

This does not mean there are two Brahmans - or two parts of Brahman - or two levels of Brahman - or two anything - this is precisely what advaita - Non-duality - is all about.

It is simply from the perspective of the ignorant jiva that these terms have any relevance.

So yes, while the wave with a sense of an individual wave-ness and water are in essence one and the same -from the perspective of the water - it is ever water alone.

[It is only to answer meaningless questions like when did brahman become ignorant [- for the benefit of someone at that stage of development -] do some people talk about the fall of man or that man is "brahman that got deluded" or irrational hypotheses of this sort. Ignorance on the part of the jiva is ever-beginingless - if he had a-priori knowledge he would not and could not get ignorant "to begin with".]

The two names of Mother become more clear now "nirmoha" - without moha - Herself being in complete control of Her Maya-shakti and "mohanashini" - the one who, by means of the Shruti words, removes the cause of delusion on the part of the hapless jiva!

Ya Devi Sarva Bhuteshu Bhrantirupena Samsthita

Namastasyei Namastasyei Namastasyei Namo Namaha

My prostrations to you Mother.

the wave and the ocean

Q.

I am a relative novice and am having difficulty understanding much of this.

I would greatly appreciate it if you or anyone else could answer these

(elementary) questions. If these have been answered elsewhere, kindly point

me there.

These are basic tenets of Advaita:

1. There is only Brahman, nothing else.

2. The Universe is merely an illusion, it is superposed on Brahman –

it appears to be there, but is not.

If the above is true, to whom does the illusion occur? I am not asking WHY

there is the illusion or WHO is causing it – I accept that it is due to Maya

– but to WHOM is the illusion happening?

1. Since we (Jivaatmas) are inside the Universe, we are part of the

illusion, hence cannot be the observers as the illusion cannot observe

itself. Is this statement incorrect?

2. Brahman cannot be the observer since the substratum cannot be the

observer (just as the rope is not the observer - the human is). Is this

correct?

3. If Jivaatma is the observer are we not saying that Jivatma is

distinct and different from Paramaatma (the Brahman) which contradicts the

first axiom that there is only Brahman, nothing else?

4. If we say that Jivatma is having this illusion and also accept the

fact that Jivaatma and Paramaatma (Brahman) are one and the same, are we not

saying that Paramaatma having the illusion, hence is not all knowing since

illusion/ignorance cannot happen to the omniscient?Q.

A.

I can share with you my understanding, with the help of a "stock example" - the wave and the ocean.

1. There is only Brahman, nothing else.

There is only water, nothing else.

2. The Universe is merely an illusion, it is superposed on Brahman –

it appears to be there, but is not.

Here the word illusion is misleading. The ocean with millions of waves is not really an illusion "superimposed" on the water. That there is an ocean, that there are waves, is mithya because in essence there is only water. there is no wave minus the water. the wave is only a notion. Similarly, the Universe of duality, of time and space, is mithya - it is in essence the vastu - Brahman - it is nonseparate from the Whole.

If the above is true, to whom does the illusion occur?

The illusion or duality occurs to the ahankara or i-notion of the jiva. In our example, if we consider one wave in the ocean as having a notion of spearateness - i was born 10days ago, i am blue in color, my name is Devadutta, 4 days ago i married to this wave next to me called XYZ, we now have these 3 little waves that are next to us called A,B and C, i know at some point i am going to die - this "i-notion" - that i am this "discrete and distinct" entity - is who the illusion occurs to. The reason for this notion is ignorance or avidya - about his true nature, which is beginigless.

1. Since we (Jivaatmas) are inside the Universe, we are part of the

illusion, hence cannot be the observers as the illusion cannot observe

itself. Is this statement incorrect?

This i-sense being only a mistaken,mis"placed" notion, can neither be said to be inside the ocean nor outside the notion, it can neither be said to be real, nor even unreal, as long as the particular wave Devadutta holds onto that notion.

2. Brahman cannot be the observer since the substratum cannot be the

observer (just as the rope is not the observer - the human is). Is this

correct?

As far as water is concerned, there is neither ocean, nor waves, no illusion, nothing to observe, nothing but Itself, One, without a Second. The water is merely a unattached substratum in which is this whole play of waves, wave droplets, etc are born again and again and die.

3. If Jivaatma is the observer are we not saying that Jivatma is

distinct and different from Paramaatma (the Brahman) which contradicts the

first axiom that there is only Brahman, nothing else?

The wave as Devadutta considers himself separate from the ocean. Until he realizes otherwise, Mr.Devadutta the wave is very much a small wave and the Ocean is very much infinitely large and powerful.

Once he understands with the help of Shruti as well as a competent Guru, his true identity is only water, then all distinctions come to an end. He as a wave may still be "10days old", his physical location in the ocean need not change, (in the sense that he does not have to travel to a separate location in the ocean called Vaikuntha or Brahmaloka), but he is no longer deluded, his "identity-crisis" is over.

So yes, there is water and noting else, but only when this is dis-covered to be a fact by the i-sense of the wave - for itself. as would be obvious this realization will result in an annihilation of the i-sense itself.

4. If we say that Jivatma is having this illusion and also accept the

fact that Jivaatma and Paramaatma (Brahman) are one and the same, are we not

saying that Paramaatma having the illusion, hence is not all knowing since

illusion/ignorance cannot happen to the omniscient?

Once again, from the water's (paramatma) standpoint, there is no distinction, no illusion. The wave is just a namaroopa - a form and a name - and its perspective is purely vyavahara - the wave only has transactional "reality".

The water Alone is.

Lord Dakshinamurthy

In our tradition as you well know we give a particular name and form to this aspect of Ishwara as a bestower of Jnana, the Ultimate Guru, as Lord Dakshinamurti.

The symbolism associated with His name and form is well-known as follows:

The entire manifest Universe is represented in His form in a eightfold aspect (yasyaiva murthy ashtakam)

The body or idol itself represents Prthvi or earth.

He has a different earring on each ear representing both the male and female aspects.

The Ganges on his head represents water.

The damaru in one hand represents space or akasha.

The headband bandhana that ties the hair reveals the presence of vayu or wind.

The flame in one hand represents of course fire or agni.

On the head is the Sun one one side representing all the luminous bodies, on the other the crescent moon representing all the planets and satellites.

The four disciples represent Sanaka and other jivas who first receive the teaching.

The vedas on one hand represent the shruti, the pramana, the means of knowledge, and the japamala represents the sadhana for attaining the right preparedness of mind and intellect without which the knowledge cannot take place.

Obstacles (apasmara) to this knowledge (raga,ddvesha,kama,krodha) represent the figure under his foot whom he (effortlesslly) vanquishes.

The chinmudra finally represents "tat tvam asi" - the union of angushtha the thumb representing ishwara and tarjanya the index finger representing the ego.

The angushtha is ever asangah - unassociated with the fingers but without it the functioning of the other fingers is impossible. The three other fingers represent the three gunas (or three avasthas) and the process of the ego dis-identifying himself from them three and instead uniting with parameshwara is what the chinmudra symbolizes.

The halfopen eyes symbolize awareness of both within and without.

Thus in this particular form we have the entire srshti represented as well as a representation of the Ultimate Guru, who gives us knowledge of the Absolute.

There is some question on whether he taught in silence.

The very opening lines of the dhyanastotra to Dakshinamurthy start with "maunavakhyaprakati ta"
But in the stotra itself we are told that he utters "tat tvam asi" ("tat tvam asi iti veda vachasaat yo bodhayat ashritan") How do we reconcile this. Was He silent or did He say tat tvam asi? If He "silently" said "tat tvam asi" then is this really silence?

What is intended to be conveyed is that the silence indicates that the meaning of the (liberating) words He utters "tat tvam asi" is not to be taken in its direct sense(shabdavachyam ) but in an implied sense (shabdalakshyam) . Because right now when someone says "thou" we take the "thou" to be something it is not, and we take "that" to also be something else. Hence, it is not in the direct sense that we are to understand "I am Brahman" but in an implied sense alone.

Even after saying tat tvam asi unless the mind is prepared for the teaching it is mere "words" and "sound" alone; one goes beyond the (literal) words to the "silent" understanding of the truth that is conveyed.

naanaachchhidra ghaTodarasthitahaa diipaprabhaabhaasvaraM

GYaanaM yasya tu chakshuraadikaraNa dvaaraa bahiH spandate .

jaanaamiiti tameva bhaantam anubhaatyetatsamastaM jagat.h

tasmai shriigurumuurtaye nama idaM shriidakshiNaamuurtaye

Intellect : both the problem AND the solution

Is the intellect the cause of samsara or it the solution to get out of samsara?
Let us understand this with an example/

Suppose I wake up one day and find that I am seeing everything in double(duality) ...and ask someone with clear vision, hey - are there two things here or one? and he tells me "Undoubtedly there is only one thing. That you are seeing two indicates a defect in your vision."

Now what can you do to correct your vision. If your ears hear a hundred times about there being no duality will you stop seeing it? If you meditate on there being no duality a hundred times, will you stop seeing it? Of course not. Enquire into what is wrong with it by going to a specialist, and get the cataract removed. And then alone can you see doubtlessly there indeed was never any duality.

Now in the above illustration, the culprit causing the delusion of duality was the eyes, and what was important in getting your vision restored was also the verysame eyes, only now there is nothing to obscure their vision .

This body is a chariot

There is a wonderful example of the chariot (ratha-kalpana) first described in the Katha Up - arguably the most famous illustration amongst all the Upanishadic ones - it was not only used by Bhagwan Krishna in his teaching to Arjuna, but Bhagwan Vyasa himself projects his entire Gita, nay the entire Mahabharata, onto the canvas of this dramatic image.
We have Arjuna, the brave but bewildered jiva, caught between the opposing forces of dharma and adharma, who fortunately has this wondrous "partha-sarathy" (charioteer to Arjuna or Partha), to help steer him in the right direction.

Now in this particular illustration, the chariot itself is the deha, the body, and the indweller in the body or the Master of the body is the JIva, the transmigratory weary traveller who is lost in the maze od samsara. So immediately it is clear that this Jiva is someone "other than" this body/mind/intellect that house him as it were.

The horses represent the sense organs. If they are uncontrolled, then this chariot is going nowhere; it is never going to be steered in any direction, let alone the right one, no matter who the driver is.

So one of the first steps in any spiritual pursuit is sense control or control of the sense organs, or dama. Feasting the sense on all manners of sense-gratification can never go hand-in-hand with an iota of growth spiritually.

The reins of course represent the mind. The way to control the horses is through the reins and the way to get the senses from going astray is by controlling the mind. The mind is composed of a flow of thoughts, which in turn prompts the organs into various actions. Now agitated, now dejected, etc. Having a intellect with no hold over the mind is as dangerous as being in a chariot with a driver who has no hold over the reins. When the intellect refuses to participate in these distracting thoughts, the latter lose their hold and the intellect is able to remain in full control of the mind. This is the second spiritual discipline - which we call shama.

Now everything is upto the charioteer, the intellect. If the intellect does not hold the reins tight, it is not going to be long before they enable the horses to astray. So it is important first of all for the intellect to move the chariot itself away from all sources of much distraction and noise, lest it become practically impossible to maintain any semblance of control. This brings us to the third spiritual discipline called uparati or withdrawal - withdrawal from an (over)indulgence in worldly affairs.

Not only that the intellect now must have a very firm idea of what the goal is - if the intellect simply has all the above steps in place, but is confused as to where to steer the chariot towards, then the poor jiva is only going to be going around in circles (quite literally in the cyclic dance of birth and death).
In the Gita Bhagwan Krishna uses a very important word to describe this "vyavasayatmika buddhi" - a single-pointed committment towards reaching the goal. Related to this is also where one more spiritual discipline in and that is "samadhana"

Not only now must the destination be clear, the intellect now MUST have a road-map to get there - this is where the Shastra comes in,as does one of the most important disciplines or qualities of all - shraddha. Scriptures and the intellect's faith in them.

If the intellect is constantly questioning the validity or otherwise of the roadmap it has been provided, it is never going to go anywhere.

But for that fortunate Jiva, whose intellect,mind, senses, are all composed and aligned, and the roadmap is clear and unambiguous, the journey is assured of success in reaching the goal of liberation or Moksha. Not otherwise.

The "Math" of Maya

Concept of Maya

In the Mangala Sloka(invocation) to this Beeja Ganita(algebra),
Bhaskaracharya says that supreme which is Infinite, does not suffer
diminution when creating the world out of Himself, or gain addition
when the created word attains Laya(merger) in Him. For, if the
addition of even a fraction can make a difference to the infinite,
then it could not have been infinite before such addition. Similarly
infinite cannot become less than the infinite when any thing is taken
away from it. The Infinite is poorna, full and limitless Supreme. The
Prapancha (Universe) which is infinitely varied, is also limitless
Supreme, the limitless Supreme will remain intact. Therefore, if this
Poornam ( the infinitely varied form of the objective Prapancha) is
taken away from that Poornam (the subject which is Infinite), that
Poornam, the subject Infinite, alone will remain.

This may be illustrated mathematically as follows : if 2 is divided
by 2, the quotient is 1. With 2 as the dividend, if the divisor is
progressively reduced as 1, 1/2, or 1/4 etc., the quotient will
respectively be 2, or 4, or 8,etc., Thus the divisor becomes less and
less, the quotient will become more and more. When the divisor is the
least, that is infinitesimal, approximating to Zero, the quotient
will be infinity. This is known as the Khaharam - Kha standing for
Aakas, signifying poojyam (zero), haaram, meaning taking away or
dividing.

How do we verify the correctness of an arithmetical question in
division? We multiply the quotient with the divisor and check whether
the resulting is equivalent to the dividend given in the question. In
this Khaharam, or division. In this Khaharam, or division of any
number by zero, the number that is divided stands for the Prapancha
9the pluralistic universe of infinite variety), the divisor, zero or
Poojyam, which in mathematical language is an indefinable factor,
approximating to nothingness, stands for Maya, and the quotient is
the Infinite, that is Brahman. For the purpose of creating the
Prapancha, which is dividend, Brahman , which is the quotient ,
multiplies itself by Maya, which is divisor. Even as I divided by
Zero, or 2 divided by Zero, or 3 divided by Zero, will give the same
quotient, when the Infinite is multiplied by Zer, it is
undeterminate, and therefore, it can take the values 1,2,3 etc.,
which are Bheda sankhyas, or numbers connoting differences, standing
for the plurality of the world. The Upanishad says that the One
Absolute determined to become many, and for that purpose. It
associated itself with Maya, and become Many. When this Absolute
Infinite multiplied Itself in association with Maya, which is
tantamount to zero, it appears as 1,2,3,4 etc., the several objects
of this Prapancha. But when any number is multiplied by Maya. The
dividend, which is the plurality of the prapancha is the Infinite
variety. The quotient, which is Brahman, is Real Akhanda and Ananta.
In the Saanti Mantra, Poornam adah is the quotient , Absolute
Infinity, and Poornam idam is the dividend, pluralistic Infinity.
Advaita anantam multiplied by Poojyam is Dvaita anantam. if the
latter is divested of is Maya -- by a process of Khaharam-dividing by
Poojyam which is Maya -- we get the Advaita anantam. Maya multiplies
the formless Infinite which is One only without a second , into an
infinity of finite forms. Th One alone , that is real, has value; the
Many, which are products of Maya, are like Maya, without ultimate
value. So Brahman is not affected either by diminution from It
(creation or Srsti) or by the addition to It(merger or Laya) of
Prapancha, which has no ultimate value.

The Divine Mother is the Creative Principle of the universe, the Maya
Sakti aspect of Brahman, which makes the Infinite One appear as the
Infinite Many. She presents the formless Supreme in finite forms. It
is only by her grace that one can transcend the Maya and obtain the
advaitic realisation of the One without a second.

Self-realization - what is it?

Some excerpts from a discussion that took place on the advaitin e-list
******************
When we ask a question "is a jnani embodied" or "does a jnani have a
body" - we are by default talking about a particular namaroopa.
So the discussion itself by default - by the very nature of the
question - has become centered onto a locus - which is this 5 feet 8
inches person, 55 years old, living in Bombay, etc who in our eyes
is "a realized one". If we are talking about Brahman, then of course
it is One, without a second. But, we cannot bring a "jnani" into the
picture, and then enquire about Brahman minus any namaroopa.

There are two aspects to a jnani just like there are two aspects to
a ajnani. The sat aspect and the namaroopa or mithya aspect. For a
jnani there is abidance in the sat aspect, a Knowing, or Being, and
hence alone an abiding understanding of the mithya aspect FOr a
Jnani, everything is nonseparate from Brahman including this body -
he harbors no ownership over anything including "his" body. IN Lord
Krishna's words the tattva-vit - the knower of truth - clearly
understands that in reality "guna guneshu vartanate" - elements are
interacting among themselves.

As an example, you see a flower. what you are seeing are only
particles. in fact, you yourself are only particles. in fact
particles are seeing particles. in fact there is no seeing at all.
there are only particles. the whole "seeing" is only as though.

Similarly having understood his non-separateness from Brahman, the
seeming association with this mass of flesh blood and bones does not
create any delusion of ownership to the mind-intellect of the jnani.
Just as "mayyeva sakalam jaatam" - this body is also included in
the "sakalam" - what is the problem in that? - If you ask him when
is he giving a talk tomorrow? - he can easily say 8am - if you ask
him who he is - he is brahman - illuminating a namaroopa Swami so-
and so, and this namaroopa Swami is giving a namaroopa talk at a
namaroopa time - the reality being that there is no swami, no
talking, no time, no "thing" other than Brahman. Again, this is
purely a matter of understanding - intellectual understanding only -
there is no other kind. Prarabdha, being namaroopa, applies to the
prarabdha body and the prarabdha mind alone - how can it apply to
the satyam that the jnani knows himSelf to be.

In fact in the concluding verses of the vairagya shatakam, there is
some chillingly beatiful lines - the original sanskrit is as
movingly poetic as it is profound -
"Oh Mother Earth! Oh Wind, my Father! Oh Fire, my friend! Oh Water,
my good relative!Oh Sky, my Brother! With clasped hands this is my
concluding salutations to you!My association with you all resulted
in an accumulation of great merits, culminating in pure knowledge,
which helped me overcome the marvellous sway of Maya! May I now be
One with the Transcendent Truth!"

So the elements are thanked for partaking in a form that has helped
me across the sea of Samsara via the "amrtasya setu" of self-
knowledge.

Now while it is true that self-ignorance is only "as though", and
Shruti, bhashyas, Guru, etc is also only "as though", moskha also is
only "as though". As Swami Dayananda-ji often says - "the Whole
blessed thing is only "as though". One cannot categorize "self-
ignorance" in a as though bin and then put self-knowledge in
a "actual" bin.
The intellect which harbored a notion of separation, understands its
delusion for what it is. "If one thinks of oneself as free, one is
free, and if one thinks of oneself as bound, one is bound."Thinking
makes it so." - Ashtavakra Samhita

So when you say "If self-realization means `understanding' my real
nature as described in our scriptures and taught by our gurus, then
I am self-realized since 1989" - that is true - if you understood "I
am" - but then you say "However, I am still like Duryodhana" - who
is this "i" who am still like Duryodhana - the "I" that illumines
your "i am self-realized" is also the "I" that illumines your "i"
that laments about being like Duryodhana. Abide in that "I" and all
notions about your ownership or relationship with this body, this
mind etc vanish. But as we all know, that is eaiser said than done -
it requires effort (action) - effort greater than emptying an Ocean
with a blade of grass one droplet at a time - why - for preparing
the mind to gain jnana-nishtha - and that is possible only by
accruing chittashuddhi/chittanaischalyam.."I will be self-
realized only when my real nature shines forth in all its glory" -
can be a problem if one is waiting for a "mother of all events" to
happen - some awe-inspiring spectacular transcendetal
transformation! - that itself is labeled an obstacle to parAvidya -
why? - Because reality is being given to mithya - if mithya is real
then something has to happen for it to go away. If the dirt on my
cloth is real then i have to wait for a detergent to act, so the
cloth can be seen in its pure form.
Here my real nature IS shining forth in all its glory - HERE and
NOW - it has no choice but! - it is this ahankara "i" that has a
mistaken notion about my separateness or nonidentity with mySelf.
Self-knowledge puts mithya in its place - namaroopa clearly
understood is seen to be nothing but Brahman alone - "neti neti"
once understood, culminates in "poornamadam poornamidam"
*******************************************
From a jnani's perspective everything is Brahman alone.
To a ajnani there are three things - i, this mithya jagat, and the satyam
Brahman.
To a jnani both the i and the mithya jagat which very much includes "his"
karya-karana sanghata.
When everything is known to be Brahman then there is no "other thing" to label
as "mithya" - the entire mithya is seen to be satyam alone.
Let us examine the BG and Krishna's words..
yoga samnyasta karmanam jnana sachinna samsayam atmavantam na karmani
nibadhnanti dhanamjaya
4.41 O Dhananjaya (Arjuna), actions do not bind one who has renounced actions
through yoga, whose doubt has been fully dispelled by Knowledge, and who is not
inadvertent.
And Shankara in his commentary clearly explains this as follows:
The Lord says: He is jnana-samchinna-samsayah, one whose doubts (samsaya) have
been fully dispelled (samchinna) by Knowledge (jnana) characterized as the
realization of the identity of the individual Self and God. O Dhananjaya, he who
has thus renounced actions through yoga, atmavantam, who is not inadvertent, not
careless; him, karmani, actions, seen as the activities of the gunas (see 3.28);
na nibadhnanti, do not bind, (i.e.) they do not produce a result in the form of
evil etc. Since one whose doubts have been destroyed by Knowledge-arising from
the destruction of the impurities (of body, mind, etc.) as result of the
practise of Karma-yoga-does not get bound by acitons owing to the mere fact of
his actions having been burnt away by Knowledge

Further in a different section
tad-buddhayas tad-atmanas tan-nisthas tat-parayanah gacchanty apunar-avrttim
jnana-nirdhuta-kalmasah vidya-vinaya-sampanne brahmane gavi hastini suni caiva
sva-pake ca panditah sama-darsinah
The sama-darsinah that is being talked about is with reference to none other
than the tad-buddhaya - the Ones whose intellect is absorbed in that. Please
read Shankara's commentary on this ensuing section.

The point is yes - the Enlightened Seer is non-separate from Brahman. He does
not harbor any vision other than that of Brahman. "Safely" encoscned in that
vision, any transactions that "his" body has to engage in is witnessed
unattachedly.

So let us say a question is posed to ,just to take a example, say Ramana
Maharshi, "He" of course hears the question, understands it, and can articulate
a appropriate reply. Which karya-karana-sanghata partakes in this transaction -
from our standpoint - "his own" - after all some other ear cannot hear the
question and some other intellect cannot formulate an answer - right?
In fact if every enlightened person were to be "absorbed" into "Brahman" who
could ever find a Guru? If then, you actually find one, you can be sure he has
not yet been enlightened! :-)

Now if you say - no..no..from the standpoint of the Maharshi He is with
certitude absorbed into nirguna Brahman, he is akarta, etc..then my answer is
yes - of course from HIS standpoint He IS akarta.. He has no abhimana over
anything including the body-mind that is "as though" housing Him from the prior
prarabdha of "ITS" ajnana-based ahankara.

Ok...now..you may say fine - in that case, since he is akarta, let us simply say
that Ishwara or Grace is speaking and He Himself is not, Grace or Ishwara or
Devi is writing the Upadesa Sara and not the Maharshi. He never decides to do
anything as He does not have a will - it is Ishwara's will or the Cosmic will.
Well let me ask you this then? Who is writing this email right now? Who else but
Ishwara or Grace alone.
Who is reading this note right now? Ishwara alone. The eyes reading it -
Ishwara. The intellect processing it - Ishwara. Even the mind accepting or
rejecting it - Ishwara alone! But what do I, the ajnani, do - I misappropriate
ownership of this body/mind/organs and say these are "my" eyes, this is "my"
view; this is "my" thought. Why? Because of kartrtva buddhi/abhimana/ahankara
alone.

For a Jnani nothing changes except this wondrous misappropriation comes to an
end - why? because the avidya-born "agent" responsible for is dead and gone.So
when a Jnani speaks what is heard is as good as Ishwara's words, what is written
is as good as Ishwara's thoughts - there is no avidya based "individual" who
seemingly comes in the way.

Now to your question "can a jnani have a satyam and a mithya part?"
Let us hear Krishna's words:
"apareyam itas tv anyam prakrtim viddhi me param jiva-bhutam maha-baho yayedam
dharyate jagat"
O mighty-armed one, iyam, this; is apara, the inferior (Prakrti)-not the higher,
(but)-the impure, the source of evil and having the nature of worldly bondage.
Viddhi, know; anyam, the other, pure; prakrtim, Prakrti; me, of Mine, which is
essentially Myself; which, tu, however;is param, higher, more exalted; itah,
than this (Prakrti) already spoken of; Jiva-bhutam, which has taken the form of
the individual souls, which is characterized as 'the Knower of the body
(field)', and which is the cause of sustenance of life; and yaya, by which
Prakriti; idam, this; jagat, world; dharyate, is upheld, by permeating it.

Here is Bhagwan Himself! - saying he has a mithya aspect - Prakrti and a satyam
aspect - Atman or Brahman. Can what is true for Bhagwan not be true for a Jnani?
:-)

It boils down to this - for a ajnani - Maya or Prakrti is samsara, a raging
tormenting sea that requires tremendous effort to cross and transcend - for a
Jnani the very same prakrti is His - His vibhuti.
He IS the sustainer of this show of plurality and this plurality is also HIM
alone.

The wave having arisen, has to recognize itself as water - having done that -
its wave"ness" then is immaterial - it can rise it can fall it can rise and fall
again and again - every wave is its wave alone - nothing can take away from its
abiding sense of poornatvam as water.

Like I said in my previous email, one can from a paramarthic standpoint say that
there is only satyam,JNANAM,anantam Brahman, and naught else. But as soon as we
utter the word "JNANI", at once there comes into play three things - a ajnani
who is handing out this label, a "individual" Jnani, and Brahman, whom the
ajnani has faith the aforesaid Jnani is "one with". The blemish is in us. The
Seers "know" - in the words of the Mundaka - atma vido viduh - the "Knowers"
know!
**************************************
It is absolutely true that there can never be sat and asat in the same locus -
they being of opposite polarity like night and day. In the Gita itself we have
the immortal lines "nasato vidyate bhavah naabhavo vidyate satah." But
Bhaskar-ji mithya is NOT asat - this is the beauty of Vedanta. There is
nonduality IN the very duality that is apparent and hence mithya. Mithya does
not have to go away - mithya understood is nothing but satyam. The pot does not
need to be broken to appreciate the clay much less the gold necklace melted into
"pure" gold. Mithya and Satyam are forever in the same locus! Anything other
than satyam jnanam anantam brahman has two aspects - the sat aspect and the
mithya (NOT asat!) aspect. Take Ishwara - what is sat about Ishwara is Brahman,
what is mithya is Maya - his inscrutable "anirvachaneeyam satasatvilakshaneeyam"
Power. Take a Jnani - what is Sat about the Jnani is the verysame Brahman -
which he is established in - what is
mithya is Ishwara's Maya-prakrti - that fashioned this karya-karana-sanghata
borne out of "a" avidya-borne ahankara which no longer is - that sanghata now is
only "as though" harboring him - in reality the Jnani as Brahman is
all-pervading, One, without a second.
But this does not mean that his intellect and mind are "gone" - if that were so
- like I said in my previous post - please explain to me how could anyone teach?
who would be a Guru? Only a brahmavit, a tattvavit, a brahmanishthaa, can be a
Guru - when Krishna says "tattva-vit tu maha-baho guna-karma-vibhagayoh guna
gunesu vartante iti matva na sajjate" - if a tattva-vit has no mind and no
intellect then please explain to me if this "iti matva" is possible or makes any
sense?

What prolific intelligence Bhagwan Shankara had to write all these bashyas! -
what an Ocean of compassion! - and all this intelligence without an intellect??
and compassion without a mind?? Can Brahman -- which is akarta, nirguna, asanga
have Compassion? So if you say Bhagwan Shankara wrote the Shankarabhasyams ;-),
and many other works, one has to perforce admit that as an individual Bhagwan
Shankara (and this is true for any other Jnani - take your own ParamaGuruji as
another example) did have a razor-sharp intellect and a overwhelmingly
compassionate mind.
This does not in any way compromise on advaita precisely because of the
difference between "mithya" and "asat" Advaita is understanding the nonduality
that is inherent in the duality. Understanding that my eyes, the intellect that
sees, the act of seeing, and what is seen are One and that One is "I" - the
light of all lights -jyotisam jyoti, shrotrasya shrotram, etc. THIS is
nonduality IN duality.

Then alone can this Brahma-vit bless so many others - not because "he" has a
obligation to - but because Grace or the Cosmic Order is allowed to use his BMI
to benefit others - there being no "ahankara" to impede Its functioning. See
what Shankara says in his commentary on BG 3.22-25," if, like Me, you or some
one else possesses the conviction of having attained Perfection and is a knower
of the Self, it is a duty of such a one, too, to help others even if there be no
obligation on his own part. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yatha, as; some
avidvamsah, unenlightened poele; kurvanti, act. saktah, with attachment;
karmani, to work, (thinking) 'The reward of this work will accrue to me'; tatha,
so; should vidvan, the enlightened person, the knower of the Self; kuryat, act;
asaktah, without attachment, remaining unattached. Why does he (the enlightened
person) act like him (the former)? Listen to that: Cikirsuh, being desirous of
achieving; lokasamgraham,
prevention of people from going astray. 'Neither for Me who am a knower of the
Self, nor for any other (knower of the Self) who wants thus prevent people from
going astray, is there any duty apart from working for the welfare of the world.
Hence, the following advice is being given to such a knower of the Self:' I do
not know about you, but to me in the unambiguous words, Krishna is not talking
about Knowers of the Self who have been rendered bereft of both mind and
intellect.
The mithya involved in this transactionality does not compromise on the advaitic
substratum in which it occurs.

Ahankara is purely notional. To pretend that manas and buddhi can "resolve" into
Brahman, can be sublated into "Pure Being" or any concept of that kind is absurd
- manas and buddhi ARE Brahman - everything IS Brahman - then where can there be
any question of something that will resolve into Brahman - that too at a point
in the future time when time again is Brahman - it is like saying the wave's
waveness will one day resolve into water - there is no wave other than water! -
there is no intellect other than Brahman. And so by referring to a Jnani's
intellect we are not partitioning Brahman - even conceptually.

So for a Jnani - the body, mind and intellect are also not other than Brahman,
his shishyas if any are also similarly not other than Brahman, their asking him
questions is also Brahman and his answers is also Brahman Alone.
Advaita is never compromised in "His" vision.

Objects and Existence

When epsitemological issues are taken outside of the context of self-
knowledge or atmavidya, it often ends up spiralling into verbiage,
part of the problem being the very intellect one utilizes in this
exercise, (often of diminishing returns), is a byproduct of the very
ignorance whose scope it seeks to transcend to arrive at an
understanding.
I doubt I can offer any more clarity than what Sada-ji has been
explaining, but perhaps I can attempt to simply offer a more basic
viewpoint - part of this is in a dialog format to facilitate
understanding.

First two very basic but extremely crucial points about Vedanta.

The only vastu with absolute existence is the subject I - the
knowing principle.
Second, this awareness is a JNAPTI - a know-ING principle and NOT a
JANATI - or a know-ER - another very crucial point.

Now as long as these two points are crystal clear, let us try to
understand this issue of existence of an object a bit better.

I see a tree.

There are three things involved here - a reflected consciousness or
ahankara-saturated "seer" i, a act of seeing, and a object - a tree.
There is a fourth thing, which in a absolute sense is the ONLY
thing, which is the Absolute Consciousness or Knowing Principle,
that enables this whole transaction or vyavahara - which alone IS -
all the other three are only as though being mithya. And
yet "I" "see" a "tree".
Why? Because of beginingless ignorance or avidya - this entity
the "knower" derives "knowledge" about an "object" the tree.

Now let us say in this particular case this jiva is conversing with
another jiva about the age of the tree (to take Michael-ji's
example).
"what is the age of this tree?"

Question is quite simple.
Is it really?

What is the "tree" - "the tree" is a nama-roopa in the mind of the
knower "i".
Is the tree the wood>? yes and no. without the wood there is no tree
but the tree in "reality" is this peculiar "thing" or "object" that
is relevant only to this knower who knows it to be a "tree".
So yes once having known it as a tree one can study the carbon decay
or half life etc etc and say

"based on my scientific calculations the age of this tree is 5
million years."
"Now what is 5 million years old?"
"Did you not hear me - this tree."
"Really? Is the tree 5 million years old or the carbon in the form
of the tree? And really the subatomic particles? What exactly is the
tree? Is there are a defined stark supra(-or infra-)sub-sub-atomic
particle boundary between the tree and the non-tree in the Universe
5 million years ago or whenever in an absolute sense?"

OK you say - Why this hairsplitting? Do you agree that this tree is
5 million years old? Yes. Then do you mean to tell me that 5 million
years ago based on my highly reliable scientific evidence that this
tree did not "exist" simply because there was no one to see it?
Reasonable question?

Well let us analyze it. The only thing with absolute existence is
Brahman. This tree, and any "object" cannot be said to "exist" as a
second thing, - independent of the subject, an observer or knower.
OK - how about this - this tree exists as Brahman - after all if
Brahman is everything and is also never non-existent, then this tree
5 million years ago can very well be said to be "existing" - in fact
it provides a continuity for Existence.

Not so. Brahman is neither subject nor object - it is beyond the
Subject-Object divison - any "object" independent of a subject is
no "object" - subject in potential form - Brahman is, ekameva
adviteeyam. subject resurfaces - so does seeing, hearing, and so do
objects.
Where/When Brahman alone Is - there is no avidya, and without avidya
there is neither knower nor a object to be known nor a knowing as in
an act of knowing (Janati) Hence alone it is equally incorrect and
downright absurd to say thet Brahman-knower knows this Brahman-
object or Brahman-tree.
This 5 million year old tree can only exist for me - the avidya-
borne knower-me of today - who knows this tree to be 5 million years
old. That is all one can say about it. The avidya under the spell of
which I label this tree a tree cannot be said to exist independent
of me - it pertains ONLY to me - there is no Absolute avidya which
created a tree suspended at a particular point in time and space,
independent of a observer, a ahankara/jiva, to which the avidya
pertained.

OK- how about Ishwara? Why cannot we say Ishwara knows the tree
exists? After all Ishwara as Brahman endowed with Its Own Maya-
shakti created this tree. OK
with you - the jiva, Mayasahitam Brahman Ishwara, and this tree. I
think you see where we are going with this again.

What is Absolute is only awareness or Jnaptih. Choiceless,
objectless awareness. What is Relative is mithya and will always
involve a subject, a object and error or adhyasa.
Minus the subject, you automatically minus the error, no question
now of an object- either existent or nonexistent, there is only
Brahman, One, Nondual।
*******************
There are certain schools of thought, primarily Buddhistic, which deny existence to any objects - dismissing them as complete illusions in nothingness or just
having a momentary existence based purely on cognition or perception.
Vedanta matter-of-factly dismisses these theories by pointing out the truth
about a vastu, the substratum.

So an object does not borrow its existence from the perception but from the
satyam which is its substratum - so object IS, mind IS and perception IS.
All being mithya and everything that is mithya has Existence which is borrowed
from satyam alone - there cannot be anything in mithya which has existence
depending on anything OTHER than satyam, and hence alone nothing in mithya can
be nonexistent including time and space.

BUT one thing - whenever we speak of mithya we are by default in the realm of
avidya and hence the discussion cannot begin with a perspective which does not
include the jiva. Without jiva/ avidya/ (nonperception of substarum)
agrahana+anyathAgrahaNa (consequent projective perception of "another") / -
without this whole process there is no duality and without duality there is no
object, no mind, no perceiving or seeing or any means of objectification.
Brahman cannot perceive - cannot know - where Brahman IS there is naught else.

As an example, take a cloud in the sky which is shaped like a castle. From the
standpoint of the sky, there is only sky - no castle. But for a person seeing
the sky he is able to see a castle which is 100 feet tall, etc - he may even be
able to study the "castle" and say based on the density, etc it formed so many
days ago, and may burst at such and such time, etc. The existence of this
"castle" in this case is not predicated on the perception of the jiva, in the
sense that its existence is borrowed from the sky alone - but the attributive
existence i.e. the nama-roopa existence, its being a 3 storied castle, and blue
in colour, etc is relevant purely from the observer's viewpoint।
******************
Any "object" can be relevant only in the sphere of a observer,
a subject, i.e a conscious entity, (and by default entails the triputi
of subject, object and the act of congnition itself - all of which
share the very-same substratum of Awareness or Consciousness). Object
is not a self-existent entity in isolation, even if one were to state
that "it is self-existent being Brahman". Only the "is"ness of an
object is Existence, and this "is-ness" does not have any object in
its field - it is namaroopa aspect of an object alone that renders it
"an object" and this aspect is ever-relevant only in the realm of a
conscious subject. In my humble opinion there is a mixing of levels
when one says "Object IS."
Yes, the model of panchikaranam is used to explain the process of establishment
of different categories of objects - both gross and subtle - with their
individual constitutions based on the combination of gunas. Note also the first
part of this sutra which talks about the origin of the subtle bodies i.e. pancha
jnaana indriyas (5 sense organs) in the verysame breath as the creation of the
gross elements. The point being that manifest "creation" which in turn is based
on the accumulated vasanas/karmas/namaroopas of the prior creation cycle entails
the entire setup to be in place - a transactional matrix of gross and subtle
bodies and objects - so as to enable a field for the exhaustion of the
accumulated karmas, in this eternal dance of samsara.
This model helps explain as an example how the lotus flower is endowed with a
peculiar and particular group of properties. Like anyother flower, it is "put
together" in a particular way with a stamen, a pistil, a corolla, sepals, etc.
Each of this is again "names" and "forms". What exactly is a sepal? And so on
and on and on until you get to particles and sub-particles and so on. Certainly
a conscious subject cognizing this flower does not lend either form, colour, or
structure either to the flower or to its consitituent parts . But what exactly
is the "f-l-o-w-e-r"? This cannot be defined or determined except by the
conscious observer. Just a week prior this very same "flower" was a "bud". (Even
in the realm of quantum theory, physicists have difficulty defining an object
because nosooner does one define a object n that it is no longer n but has
become n1.) Only when a conscious entity perceives this particular arrangement
of a stamen, pistil, etc does
the word "flower" assume a "attributive reality" - it is a mithya reality no
doubt - the satyam aspect of the "flower" is nothing but awareness alone. But an
avidya-steeped "as though" entity, the subject, "as though" distinct from this
object, now "as though" projects the word "flower" onto it, and takes the
nama-roopa flower as the sole reality of that object.

Vedanta

The primary truth of Vedanta is that it is not authored by a person or a group
of persons, not even by a God or by a particular religious sect aka "Hindu" -
there is no individual-based experience or sect-based philosophy here. So if
some asks whose philosophy is Vedanta? All we can say it is sanatana - eternal.

Secondly the teaching is not something that is unavailable to everyone,
something esoteric, something that is out-of-body or transcendental, something
that is uniquely achievable in some undescribable trance or "state" of no-mind -
it is a Universal teaching that has a solution in the form of a Universal
knowledge, that is Universally available in the here and now. According to
Vedanta, what is "to be known" is both "known" and "unknown". Being "unknown" it
is not cognized, and being "known" it is re-cognized to be something other and
hence "not known". Because of this alone is a teaching possible, hence alone can
a learning be successful.

Thirdly, Vedanta is not exclusionary but in many ways, instead all-inclusionary.
Nothing is rejected - be it religion, prayer, yoga, values, dharma, ritualistic
worship, austerities, even work and relationships - everything is assigned a
place, a role, in the overall schema of the evolution of an individual.

Vedanta first defines a problem that is Universal. The problem is one of
limitation and hence fear.
I find myself to be limited, and hence in a state of "constant craving". I am
never happy with my status quo - I find myself lacking at every stage of my
life, and whatever I gain - be it money, power, fame, relationships, - fail to
deliver me from this innate sense of incompleteness. I fear losing what I have,
I fear losing my loved near and dear ones, and most of all I fear my own
imminent and sadly inevitable demise.
Now Vedanta tells such a person a fact - You are Eternal, the Limitless Whole,
the very Substratum of this Universe.
Any rational human being with any sense of logic and a spirit of scientific
enquiry cannot but reject this startling statement of fact outright. It is the
most natural reaction. To say that I, a puny little mass of flesh, bones and
excreta, constantly decaying, trying to make two ends meet while all the time,
the shadow of Death awaits, anxious for my devourment, - am Eternal, my very
nature is Happiness, - the whole thing seems a rather elaborate joke.
BUT if the Grace of God is smiling upon you, you take a step-back, rub your eyes
and ears, and say, wait-a-minute - perhaps this is worth looking into a little
further, perhaps there is something more than what meets the eye here - perhaps
this is worth my time enquiring into.

Upto this point, the teaching has not really begun. Two things now are paramount
- purushartha nischaya and shraddha. Purushartha nischaya is a choice, a
deliberate choice on the part of the individual, when after experiecing life for
a certain lenght of time, it has become clear to the individual that anything
that accrues to him in terms of wordly acquisitions is not going to solve his
fundamental problem and there-in is generated a certain degree of dispassion
towards a mad hankering after things and people. An enquiry into the Self, or a
devotion towards God, becomes the overwhelming concern of life. Shraddha loosely
translated as faith, is an acceptance of the validity of the statement of the
scriptures we call Shruti, which are the eternal Vedopanishads, and in the words
or Upadesha of our Guru or Acharya.

Once this is in place the teaching begins. And thanks to a teaching process, a
sampradaya enunciated and established for the most part by Bhagwan Adi Shankara,
the words of the Shruti are unfolded.
Hearing this teaching is what is shravana.
Now of course during the course of this teaching, one encounters a seemingly
endless stream of doubts, most of which are answered during the course of the
teaching itself.
What is real? what is unreal? what is changing? what is eternal? What is the
self? what is the nonself? What is seen? Who is the seer? How is anything known?
What is delusion? What is real? What is apparent? Why is there delusion? and for
whom? How will it go? How can mere word-knowledge of a sentence or sentences
deliver me from Death? and suffering? What is the Universe? How did it get
created? Who is God? What is God? What is my relationship with the God and the
Universe?

And in this the Scripture uses various methodologies or prakriyas. The words of
the Scriptures are not fantasay tales of a Eternal Heaven nor are they
meaningless phrases about unknown words like Mu and barking dogs. The words are
very deliberate, the sentences very carefully contstructed, metaphors deliberate
and pregnant with wisdom. Often times the intellect is intentionally bewildered
by paradoxes so as to break it loose of its shackles of perfunctory
thought-processing - for example it will be said the atma is anoroaneeyan
-subtler than the smallest atom or particle and soon as the intellect formulates
some concept about this it declares the atma to be mahato mahiyan - larger than
the Universe itself, and at the same time seated in the "cave" of your
intellect! While declaring that this knowledge is beyond words and beyond the
mind Yatho Vacho Nivartante, it also declares just as emphatically that "by the
Mind alone It is to be known." The Shruti,
[through the Acharya], in Her infinite patience and compassion, and slowly,
ever-so slowly, approaches the seeker thus and leads him or her from one rung of
understanding to another.
Inspite of this there can and do arise multiple doubts along the path - this is
where the second stage of this path comes into play - mananam - a reflection
over these areas, and getting them clarified either through repeated
self-reflections or through the Guru.
Once all the doubts have been put to rest, the third stage of nidhidhyasana or
an internalization of these teachings has to take place. Until when? Until there
is persistence of doubt of whether there is further internalization required.
There is quite simply abidance in the Self-Awareness.

So yes, Vedanta also says that concepts need to be discarded, but there needs to
be a method. "What is in your cup? Water. Dropt it. I did. Now what is in your
cup. Nothing. Drop it!" - this kind of an approach to teaching is quite alien to
Vedanta. Of course once Vedanta is understood, then we can appreciate the beauty
in many such cryptic statements, but Vedanta itself is very deliberate in its
approach, it is taliored to a rational intellect, and is geared towards
unfolding an understanding based on methodical and dispassionate enquiry. There
is hence great emphasis on grammar, on rules of logic, and most importantly
reverence for a teaching tradition that has been handed down over the ages.

Sadashiva Samarambham Shankaracharya Madhyamam
Asmadacharya Paryantam Vande Guru Paramparam

"I salute the Guru parampara which starts with SadaShiva, which is anchored by
Adi Shankaracharya in the middle, and is continued by a lineage of Acharyas
(including my own Guru)"