the lamp of knowledge

Anukampartham, out of compassion; tesam eva,
for them alone, anxious as to how they may have bliss; aham, I;
atmabhavasthah, residing in their hearts-atmabhavah means the seat
that is the heart; being seated there itself; nasayami, destroy;
tamah, the darkness; ajnanajam, born of ignorance, originating from
non-discrimination, the darkness of delusion known as false
comprehension; jnana-dipena, with the lamp of Knowledge, in the form
of discriminating comprehension; i.e. bhasvata, with the luminous lamp
of Knowledge-fed by the oil of divine grace resulting from devotion,
fanned by the wind of intensity of meditation on Me, having the wick
of the intellect imbued with the impressions arising from such
disciplines as celibacy etc., in the receptacle of the detached mind,
placed in the windless shelter of the mind withdrawn from objects and
untainted by likes and dislikes, and made luminous by full
Illumination resulting from the practice of constant concentration and
meditation.

Ishwara and Brahman

Q Surely, once I realize that 'I am brahman', I realize that there is no jIva and I also realize that there is no Ishvara either. If I know that everything is brahman, I must also know that there is nothing other than brahman. Of course, the jIva cannot dismiss Ishvara as unreal because both are equally real from the vyAvahArika standpoint of the unenlightened. But surely, once there is enlightenment, it is known that both are equally *unreal*.

A.
Let me try to clarify with an example.

I happen to accidentally some dhatura seeds. Very
shortly I find myself in a strange forest. There are
fires burning all around. Hundreds of goblins are
shrieking and I am filled with terror. I meet a
passerby who I find to be not as terrified. He tells
me to mutter "RaRa" continuously and that this would
protect me from these goblins. When asked about "RaRa"
he tells me that RaRa is the God of this world and if
I chant his name I will be saved. I proceed to do the
same and this seems to alleviate my anxiety
temporarily, and seems to give me some solace.

Shortly therafter, I find myself lying on my couch in
my home, smiling sheepishly at my hallucination,
finding it sublated by my appreciation of reality.
Now in that hallucination, the entire forest was
unreal, as were the goblins, as was the Lord RaRa.
The whole package was nothing but I alone projecting a
completely unreal world

This is how a lot of neo-vedantins and some so-called
traditional vedantins also view Ishwara.
That this is a fictitious character who is relevant
only as long as my duality delusion lasts, and upon
the end of the delusion i come this realization, and
find my"self".

The trouble with this sort of a approach is based on
the mistaken idea that this world is a illusion and
that enlightenment results in a grand sublative
disappearance of the illusory world.

This is neither true nor what vedantA conveys.
Let us examine this a bit further.

Thuis jagat that we cognize is not my mental
projection but Ishwara srshti. If it was my mental
projection it would be a dream or worse a
hallucination - and would disappear in a poof with
self-realization - what would be left would be
nothingness - now misguided interpreters of ajAtivAdA
will say - this is precisely what GaudapAda talks
about - that nothing IS, and again i am afraid this is
incorrect.

If this were correct, there would be no realized souls
amidst us, let alone would they have any ignorant
people to teach and guide.

The truth is that the world remains the same
regardless of whether a person attains
self-realization. The sun still rises in the east and
sets in the west, the starts still twinkle in the
moonlit skies. Then what?
The realization is this and this only, that there is
no separate subtantive thing called world. Everything
is the Self alone, everything is Ishwara alone, and
everything is I alone. That Ishwara i am - tat tvam
asi.

It is infinity alone that I as a conscious entity
cognize and categorize, assign names and forms, and
interact with. All these names and forms are in
essence I, or Ishwara. What about now? Now also it is
the same but because "i" the notional ahankAra am at
this point viewing this Infinity through the prism of
my own beginigless ignorance, i suffer from a sense of
separation from the Infinite, the Whole.

It is this notion alone that is discarded in the
process of self-enquiry or vichArA. When I come to the
realization that my true nature is of Knowing alone,
that in and through every cognition, the known, the
knowing and the knower are all Me alone, the very
consciousness principle, that, wonder of wonders, I
the true subject, the Saakshi, alone am the Support of
all there Is, that the Divinity that is immanent in
and through all of manifest Nature is really my only
true nature, then in that simple choiceless Awareness
alone is Divinity and abidance in that Divinity alone
in which my sense of limitation has permanently died
is Being.

The culmination of vichArA can only result in an
absorption into the Total - and the Total is IshwarA!
Who got sublated? me, the phantom.
What remains? Truth, God, Consciousness.

When One realizes the truth about Himself he cannot
but discover it to be the Truth of the whole Jagat.
Then He is Divine - everything He as though cognizes
is nothing but the Divine. In the words of the Gita -
"Yo mam pashyati sarvatra sarvatra sarvam cha mayi
pashyati;
TasyAham na pranashyAmi sa cha me na pranashyati. "
"One who sees Me in everything, and sees all things in
Me-I do not lose out of his vision, and he also is not
lost to My vision."
and further
"Samam pashyan hi sarvatra samavasthitam Ishwaram;
Na hinasty Atmana AtmAnam tato yAti parAm gatim."Since
by seeing equally God who is present alike everywhere
he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he
attains the supreme Goal.
And notice the similar lines in the Kaivalya Up.
"Sarva bhutastham AtmAnam sarva bhutAni ca Atmani
Sampasyan brahma paramam yanti, na anyena hetunA."
Seeing the Atman in all beings, and all beings in the
Atman, one attains the highest Brahman – not by any
other means.

It is only the ignorant who look at self-realization
and god-realization as two different entities - who
look at atma-vichAra as being superior and bhakti as
being inferior. In the words of Shankaracharya
"mokSha-kAraNa- sAmagryAM bhaktireva garIyasI*" - Among
the instruments of moksha, bhakti is the most
important.

That is because what one seeks, what one is devoted
to, what one yearns for is one and the same thing -
the Infinite within, or the Infinite without - isnt it
obvious then that the one that seeks the without or
the within is the phantom - what is true is only the
Infinite!

If I say I found God but could not lose my identity,
my notion of separation from Him who is the All, in
that realization, then my devotion my bhakti is
incomplete. In this way Jnana completes devotion. If I
say I have found myself, but find it empty, bereft of
Divinity, of all-encompassing Love, then my
self-discovery is incomplete as well, and in this way
devotion alone will culminate in a true understanding
of advaita.

This is precisly what is meant when Neem Karoli Baba
said "I do nothing, God does everything" - there is no
mixing up of levels here at all!

What is the one thing that every realized Master has
discovered is, sublimate the Ego, and what remains is
only Truth, and that Truth is God. "I am the way and
the truth and the life"
And it is for the direct appreciation of this eternal
transcendental Truth that Vedanta provides an
intellectual framework.

It is precisely for this reason that a parAbhaktA and
a JnAni are one and the same - one cant be a
parAbhaktA without dying onto oneself. When as JnAni
one has died to onself what remains is an appreciation
of one's own inherent intrinsic Divinity.
That is why the spontaneous bhakti of a Jnani has no
comparison. If you see the numerous stotras that Adi
Shankara and many many other realized Masters have
composed, this fact becomes very clear. These were
certainly not outpourings of devotion to a fictitious
character named Ishwara meant for equally fictitious
beginners in the unreal field of self-knowledge to
serve as illusory tools to help train their
undeveloped minds by making them focus on a unreal
God. These represent spontaneous outpourings of a
realized intellect, that revels in its intrinsic
Divinity - "Shivoham Shivoham"
If one has ever had the fortune of witnessing a
jivanmukta in bhakti"bhAva" - be it Ramakrishna
Paramahamsa, or Ramana Maharshi or the Sage of Kanchi,
one will be able to relate to this simple fact - this
is a devotion that is spontaneously expressed from the
wellspring of Pure Being - and is nothing but
All-encompassing Love.

Ishwara is the totality, he is BOTH immanent and
transcendent. From the standpoint of the ego he is
Personal. From an absolute, He is Impersonal. Either
way He Alone is.
What then is jnAna?
When in Awareness
one "dis"-cover' s oneSelf,
then there is neither acceptance of Ishwara
nor
rejection of Ishwara,
but
a simple, choiceless recognition of Ishwara
as one's own "Be"ing.

Thought of the day

Tavaagna chakrastham thapana shakthi koti dhyudhidharam, Param shambhum vande parimilitha –paarswa parachitha Yamaradhyan bhakthya ravi sasi suchinama vishaye Niraalokeloke nivasathi hi bhalokha bhuvane

The one who worships Parameshwara,
Who has the luster of billions of moon and sun
And who lives in thine Agna chakra- the holy wheel of order,
And is surrounded by thine two forms,
On both sides,
Would forever live,
In that world where rays of sun and moon do not enter,
But which has its own luster,
And which is beyond the sight of the eye,
But is different from the world we see.

Thought of the day

It is like the sun looking at the sunflower and thinking, 'I am the sunflower', forgetting at that moment that the sunflower is only its footprint. Neither on the earth-plane was man his own self, nor in the sphere of the jinns, nor in the heaven of the angels. He was only a captive of his own illusion, caught in a frame; and yet he was not inside it, it was only his reflection. But he saw himself nowhere, so he could only identify himself with his various reflections, until his soul realized, 'It is I who was, if there were any. What I had thought to be myself was not myself, but was my experience. I am all that there is, and it is myself who will be, whoever there will be. It is I who am the source, the traveler, and the goal of this existence.

'Verily truth is all the religion there is; and it is truth which will save।'

("The Way of Illumination" Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan)

Free will, Determinism, PrarabdhA.

Q.
How does one explain death from a plane crash or murder in terms of responsibility if it is a predestined event? How can in the case of a plane crash one explain a simulataneous predestined event involving so many people being compatible with their individual free-wills? Primarily though, do any of our actions stem from free-will or are they predetermined?
A.
Whenever there is a violent event like an accident or murder what happens is one person's abuse of his freemay be resulting in an abrupt end to another person'slife before that person's prArabdha karma may have had a chance to get fully fructified.
Of course it is entirely possible that this may beenexactly by design based on the "victim"'s prArabdhakarma (as when Krishna tells Arjuna that theseKauravas have already slain by me – all you are is a nimitta – a instrument for this to happen - Ch11 -mayyevaite nihatAh pUrvameva nimitta-mAtram bhava).
But there may be situations when one takes birth with a certain prArabdha-designated course chartered by destiny and someone else’s abuse of free will may have brought about a premature end to that – what happens in this case is of course that Ishwara’s ever-perfect Order takes over and the residual prArabdha of the victim which is now added onto the prior sanchitakarma fashions his next equipment suitable for its own ordained self-expression.
With regards to the improbabilities of the probability of orchestrating prarabdha - it may perhaps be worthwhile here to pause for a second and remind ourselves of where we stand -a human body alone has trillions of bacteria in his gut and on his skin, each representing a separate jiva. in the time it takes me to blink a few trillion of them have died and another trillion born -perhaps reborn if this alone was their field of activity.If you add up the trillions of plant,animal and microbial life both land and multiple time more so in sea, you have a dazzling array of infinite jivas - all on just Earth - bhulokA - there are quite possibly manifold more jivas in the other lokas as well.
Confining ourselves to the time-scales of the bhulokA alone, a year ofBrahma is composed of 360 day/night cycles of Brahma, or 720 kalpas,or 8.64 billion human years. Each kalpa (composed of a 1000 mahAyugAs)is reigned over by a succession of 14 Manus, and the reign of each Manu is called a manvantara. A single manvantara is approximately 71maha yugas. A maha yuga is 4,320,000 human years. There are fourteen Manus in one kalpa - in this (the Shwetavaraha) kalpa we are in the period of the seventh (vaivaswata) Manu. One blink of Brahma-ji and crores of our lifetimes are already over - such is the Divine Order, ordained in turn by karmas accumulated over an infinite number of prior births over an infinite number of prior cycles of creation and destruction. What then to speak of determination of death in one lifespan? So in and through all this "theistic" determinism - is there any scope for this infinitesmally small human being to have free will? Yes - the very Order has bestowed upon the human - a power - that is called icchAshakti - the capacity to desire, to have an intention, or sankalpa. This icchAshakti, a deliberate capacity to choose - is lacking in animals and plants - the tiger has to choose between two deer and decides to run after one of them - it looks like he did exercise a choice but it really was no choice - were the scenario to replay a hundred times over the tiger would have chosen that one deer only, at that one time and place only, as such alone is the diktat ofthe Order. In the case of humans alone, is a very small and limited capacity "to will" "freely"
The freely is in quotes because there are constraints. A big percentage of what he wills is pre-determined by a variety of factors that have led-up to that one point in time and cannot truly be considered as being a component of his freedom to choose. However it cannot be denied that there is a very small portion of his subsequent action that is completely untainted by any colourations from the past.
This is what gives rise - simultaneously and seemingly paradoxically -to the twin concepts of moral responsibility as well as forgiveness - depending on which aspect of this construct one wishes to lay more emphasis on (- and that itself is to a large extent governed by our own prior colorations primarily alongwith a small portion of "free" will!)
We can liken this to a torrential stream consisting of our prarabdhakarmas which is violently hurtling us inexorably towards pre-ordained destinations along the banks - we have little control over the torrents save our own capacity to make small deliberate movements ofour own vehicles - the key here is that these small deliberate moves have the capacity to add up, to summate, into not only helping us navigate but also change the kaleidoscope of our river-banks, as well as the vehicles themselves, lending them greater senses of potency,and channeling them into easier landscapes where perhaps the torrents themselves are forced to ease up some, ultimately to be stopped by the dam (sethu) of self-knowledge as built by a benevolent Guru, by carefully building on the words of the Shruti.
Practically speaking what this means is that anything I do, or someone else does, we have no way of EVER knowing the percentage of what part of this was pre-ordained and what part of it we had some choice in.[In one point in the Yoga Vashishta it is said that at exactly the same point in every creation, the same act of the Bhagwad Gita is repeated with the same players Arjuna and Krishna - talk about complexities of orchestration!] And moreover the result of this action or karmphalA is again determined indirectly by the factors responsible for that action and also to a limited extent on the intention that went into that action. The amount of effort one puts in can within the constraints of the system influence its result. (One important point though - this entire karma bundle can and does get burnt to ashes in a single flame of jnAna - this Krishna himself alludes to in the Gita,Ch4 - so one does not need to despair that "if my next many lifetimes are already predestined am i not assured of not attaining self-knowledge in this birth?")
Every moment of time, with every blink of the eye,
we are atinfinity's cross-roads,
at once at the mercy of the next moment,
at once the victims of the prior,
at once the masters of that ONE moment.
What we need to do,
what we can do,
indeed what we alone can do,
infact what alone we can do,
is to mindfully seize the moment and to act, by tremendous effort,
by our own recurrent firm sankalpa, to ensure that our actions consistently over time are in keeping with dharmA, are less tainted by our raga-dveshAs,
are more "act"ions and
less "re-act"ions,
humbly recognizing all along the fact that what they are is mostly about purva-samskAra that is aided to some part by our own purushArtha
- then slowly but surely we change the very tone of the torrent of prArabdhA that will dictate our future actions, which in turn will await our future sankalpAs to sync with.
For such alone is our lot - no choice, but to choose.

thought of the day

The Divine gives light to the mind and shines within it.
Except by turning the mind inward and fixing it in the Divine,
there is no other way to know Him through the mind.

Shree Ramchandra

Click here for a melodious recitation by Lata mangeshkar.

Shriramachandra kripalu bhaju man haran bhavabhai darunam,

Navakanja-lochana, kanjamukha, kara kanja pada kanjarunam.

O my heart! Sing praises of Sri Ram, Who absolves the greatest fears due to the cycle of life and death, and Whose eyes, mouth, hands, and feet are like a newly blooming red lotus

Kandarpa aganita amit chavinava neel-neeraja sundaram,

Pata peet manahu tadita ruchi shuchi noumi, janaka sutavaram.

I bow to Sri Ram, Whose beauty cannot be compared with that of the cupid Kamdev, Whose pleasing appearance is beyond any measures, Whose body is like a newly formed dense blue cloud, Whose yellow robes are shining like lightening (on His cloud like body), Whose beauty is gleaming, and Who is the consort of the daughter of Janak (Sita)

Bhaju deenbandhu dinesh danav-daitya-vansha-nikandanam,

Raghunand anandakand koshalachandra dasharatha-nanadanam.

Sing praises of Sri Ram, Who is the friend of poor, Who is the Lord of Sun, Who expurgated the lineage of demons from Danu and Diti, Who is the dear one of Raghu, Who is like a cloud of happiness, Who is like a moon for Kausalya, and Who is dear one of Dashrath

Sira mukuta kundala tilaka charu udaru anga vibhushanam,

Aajaanubhuja shara-chaapa-dhara, sangrama-jita-khara dushanam.

Sing praises of Sri Ram, Who has a beautiful crown on His head, Who is adorned with ear-hoops, Who has a beautiful colored mark (tilak) on His forehead, Who has expanded and beautiful organs decorated by ornaments, Who has long hands reaching His knees, Who holds a bow and an arrow, and Who defeated Khar and Dushan in a fierce battle

Iti vadati tulasidasa shankara-sesha-muni-mana-ranjanam,

Mama hridai kanja-nivaasa kuru, kaamaadi khala-dala-ganjanam

Tulsidas says this; Ram, the enticer of Shiv, Shesh (Sheshnag), and saints, reside in my lotus-like-heart and destroy the evils generated by desire

Thought of the day

Aham naiva mantha na gantha na vaktha,
Na kartha, na bhoktha, na muktha asramastha,
Yadaaham mano vruthi bheda swaroopa,
Sthadha sarva vuthi pradheepa, shivoham.
I am neither the thinker nor the one who goes nor the one who speaks,
I am neither the doer (of actions), nor the recipient of the fruits theroof, nor the one free from abodes,
I am one with different roles according to the thought of the mind,
For I am that Shiva, who is the cause of everything.

Brahma Sutra; Shankara Bhashya; 6

Now there is a question.
This question can either be taken as a simple question, from a student, a jijnasu, or it could be in the form of a objection from the opponent.
This type of a binary format is utilized in such a way as to present a dialog for ease of understanding

Koyam ahdyAsa nameti jape

smrti rUpaha

paratra pUrvadrshta avabhAsaha

Koyam adhyAsa - On what basis are you saying there is adhyAsa. What is this adhyAsa.

Such is now defined. 2 examples are offered - one signifying fright the other attraction - snake on rope and silver on shell respectively.

Paratra AvabhAsa - something other than is experienced, is seen. So instead of a rope some other thing is seen i.e. a snake. What is this snake? It is smriti - smaryate iti - that which is remembered; rupAha - form - what is seen is from memory - i.e. it is a object with similarity that is seen from or based on memory (smaryamAna sAdrshyam); why? because of prior experience - pUrva drshtasya - This particular defintion by Shankara is so carefully worded that (as we shall see subsequently) no matter which school of epistemology you belong to - they all agree about this crisp defintion of what constitutes adhyAsa - koyam adhyAsa - what they all differ in is the how and the why.

Further the term avabHasa is quite important. You see a rope, आईटी in a particular way of a certain length. You think of a snake. Is this adhyAsa? It is smrti rUpah, it is of course pUrva drshtasya, but it is not adhyAsa - it is simple association - "i see a rope - i think of snake". For adhyAsa to happen there has to be absence of experience or knowledge about the rope. There is ONE unitary cognition. "This is snake" IN that particular cognition there is no rope! Hence the importance of the word avabhasa
WHen you recognize an object as it is it is jnanam when you dont and take it differently it also jnanam but it is viparyaya jnanam or mithya jnanam and this is adhyasa. And because it is adhyasa it has badhah - badha means sublation - in the wake of knowledge (of the reality of the object) that object goes away - that going away it is called badhah or sublation. Let us take the shell - it has a certain shine and that shine is one of the ingredients for adhyasa - it evokes in me the memory of silver - smrti sadrshah - purvadrshta - of what was similarly seen - (belongs to that jaati)...When the silver appears there is a pravrtti there is a desire iccha for that silver and therefore that desire is for the "real" silver alone - ishtatvat iccha...and hence there is krtih - an action on your part to pick up that silver and shabdhah - this is "s-i--lver" - this is called svarupa adhyasa or artha adhyasa. shuptau idam rajatam iti. Shupti i dont see at all - idam rajatam - this is silver - that is all i see. This is also called jnana adhyasa. In this adhyasa how much is the adhyasta? Is the whole shupti transformed into rajatam? No it is no - very important. Then how much? Only rajatam vishesha amsha is. The samanya is the idam or this-ness is called adharam. The idam is adhara. WHat is adhistana? the rajatam or vishesha alone is adhyasta. Bhrama is silver. To see silver ajnanam alone is the upadanam. Bhrama ajnana upadana vishaya.
Idam is not ajnana vishaya - "this" is something very well known to you. When you see the shell later - idam does not go away - it is abadhita - what goes away is badhita vastu which is silver alone. Abadhita idam vastu is called adharam and what appears after the badha is called adhistanam.
Adhistanam is something that appears after the badha.
What was appearing at bhamasthale/bhramakalepi at the place/tine of adhyasa also is called adharam.
Asti-bhati-priyam of an object like idam amsha is common and is adharam. It becomes the adhistanam for dvaitam of jnata-jneyam. Adharam is never negated. Whatever is negated is only aropita - ahankara adhyasa is negated - this jnatr-jnana-bheda alone is negated.
Ishwara srshti being there - body/senses/objects/jnatr-jnana-jneya will continue, but the bhrama of duality will not be there because ajnanam goes away, upadhi continues - this is called badhita adhyasa. As though jnata as though jneyam will continue because it is sopadhika adhyasa. Nirupadhika adhyasa - ahankara adhyasa upon the atma - ajnana is the only hetu for it , therte is no upadhi - so Ego goes away completely.
neha nanasti kinchana - iha atmani nanasti kinchana - in the adhara there is no question of there being anything else.
One is adhara the other is adhistana. This is a very important distinction to make. Adhistanam alone badhyate.
Now in order to explain adhyAsa or an erroneous perception 5 different views have been proposed by different schools of thought - it is important to note in this context that at this stage Adi Shankara is not interested in going into details about these various positions - his primary aim at this very preliminary juncture is to simply point out that while different schools postulate different views about the source of this error they all agree upon the basic definition that he has postulated. It would suffice then to simply examine these views very briefly at this juncture just to familairize ourselves in a broad sense with their positions.

Atma khyati
Anyatha khyati
Akhyati
Anirvachaneeya khyati
Asat khyati
Atmakhyatiasatkhyatiakhyatikhyatianyatha

tathaanirvacchaneeya khyati ye tattukhyati panchakam
kechitu yatra yad adhyAsaha

anyatra anyadharmaadhyasaha it vadanti
kechittu yatrayad adhyasaha

tadviveka agrahana nibandhanaha bhrama iti anyetu yatra yadadhyasaha

tasyaiva viparita dharmanattukalpana achakshate sarvatapitu anyasya anya dharmavabhesatAm

na vyabhicharati

pracha loke-anubhavaha shuptikAhi rajatavat avabhasate

eka chandra sat driteyavat iti.

Some indeed define the term 'superimposition' as the superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another thing. Others, again, define superimposition as the error founded on the non-apprehension of the difference of that which is superimposed from that on which it is superimposed. Others, again, define it as the fictitious assumption of attributes contrary to the nature of that thing on which something else is superimposed. But all these definitions agree in so far as they represent superimposition as the apparent presentation of the attributes of one thing in another thing. And therewith agrees also the popular view which is exemplified by expressions such as the following: 'Mother-of-pearl appears like silver,' 'The moon although one only appears as if she were double.'

Atma khyAti - this is also called idealism or subjectivism.
The school of philosophy that adpots this is the yogAchArA school of madhyAmkia Buddhism or kshanika vAdins.
There is no external object. Only internal cognition is externalized as objects.

Buddhi is a stream of momentary consciousness.

So Snake is one momentary consciousness; Rope is another momentary consciousness;
Without being able to appreciate this you think consciousness is continuous and hence there is adhyAsa.
Atma's dharma is vijnAna rUpah - momentary flicker of consciousness. Because of avidya which is anAdi one is unable to appreciate its momentariness. vijnAna atmA itself is superimposing snake on rope or silver on shell.

What is the problem with this? Why should we reject this?

Well, for one, if both snake and rope are momentary both are illusory - then what is bAdhA? what is sublation? - if you accept adhyAsA superimposition of false on real then you have to accept sublation or bAdhA - so how do you explain "going away" of silver?

Possible answer - sublation is this - the "external"ity of silver goes away. what remains is atmA. or AtmA alone is.
BUT
this AtmA itself is momentary.
So near
yet
So far!!

AnyathA khyAti
The school of philosophy that espouses this is vaisesikA and naiyAyikA, parinAmAvAdins, vishishtadvaitA.

They dismiss the atmakhyAti by saying - how can you dismiss externality completely? If you keep walking you will hit the wall. The wall is not your projection. I throw a rock at you - you will experience how real the external object is. On what basis are you saying there is no external object - based on what pramAna? You always feel the silver is out "there" - no one ever says i see silver in me. If you say - yes - in dream one experiences this - then we reply that is why it is a dream and this is reality. When you are in a dream that can happen - but the reality of wakehood is that objects are always seen to be outside. There is distance involved, non-acquisition of the same object involved, etc. There is no basis on which you can establish or even postulate that there is total absence of externality to objects. Then how to explain adhyAsa - he has his explanation - listen -

AdhyAsa is accepted as bhramA. Silver is not unreal. Silver is real. There is a real thing "silver."
The cognition of the silver or "silver-buddhi" is also real. It is not unreal like vandhyAputra - son of a barren woman - it is not totally unreal like gagabubu.

Then what is mistake? The mistake is anyadeshasta-kalasta - the real silver is in another place in another time. What is bhramA - that i see the real silver here - thats all.

Shell is real and outside. Silver is real and in your buddhi. Because of a limitation of the sense organ, a defect in the indriya or defect in perception, and samskara, I am seeing "that" silver - belonging to a different time and place, here.

[The problem for the vaisesika is the world is real - if he accepts adhyAsa his philosophy is in trouble.]

What is the problem with his explanation?

The pravrtti, the attraction, is to "this" silver alone! Why are we talking about the silver in the shop, etc - no one is saying "that" silver is unreal. But this silver - in front of me - which i am attracted to, which i perceive a value in - is not real - what is real is only a shell.

Next is a-khyAti
This is the philosophy of Prabhakara school of pUrvamimamsA, and also importantly of sAnkhyA.
A false appearance of silver is caused by viveka agrahanam.

In any bhramA there is sambandha - a relationship between object and eye - indriya - and whenever there is this sambandha - there is jnAnam - cognition takes place.
This indriyajanya jnAnam - cognition born of contact of object with a sense organ - is satyam - is real.

But it is seen to be a shell - why? Because of some fault in the indriya - in the eye, in the faculty of sight. There is hence vishesha jnAna abhAva - the characteristic knowledge of the shell does not take place.

"This" or "Idam" is indriya sannikarsham jnanam.
Because of dosha in the indriya there is vishesha jnana abhAva of shell.
Memory of silver is evoked and a real silver walks into your brain.
Thus this memory based cognition is also real. Hence you have iccha, desire for "it", you perhaps start walking towards "this".

So perception based cognition is real,
memory based cognition is also real.

We have two pieces of knowledge - both real.
Due to a defect in perspective i am unable to appreciate them as two - bheda agrahanam - and see silver as idam - and see the memory cognition as "this".

A example is given of two trees - if i see them from a distance and in a particular angle - from a particular perspective where they are both aligned - it appears as one tree. Once i come close and change my perspective it is very clear there are two trees.

So this misperception is part of the Order - really speaking there is no adhyAsa no error - hence a-khyAti.

So what is bAdha? what is sublation - with a restoration of my discriminatory capacity, i see the 2 cognitions were indeed separate. I realize the silver was a memory cognition. So all the pravrtti, icchA, desire,etc towards the silver "here" in "this" object goes away. Silver jnAna does not become unreal.

Very ingenious and quite convincing?
So on what grounds do we reject it?
Problem is had you seen the real shell there would have been no silver at all!
You may still have remembered a silver but that would only be an association.

Then there is asat khyAti
The shunyavAdins or Nihilist school of Buddhism espouse this theory.

The silver is totally nonexistent, unreal. Meaning on a real shell what is projected is totally asat - unreal - like the horn of a man.

Problem in this case is - do you see or dont you see>? what? this totally unreal silver? if yes, isee - then how is it asat?

Finally there is the vedantic position of anirvacchaneeya khyAti - this alone is the truth. With regards to the snake on the rope, the silver on the shell - no definitive categorization can be made. It is neither sat - real - nor asat - unreal. It is sat-asat-vilakshanam - hence anirvacchaneeyam - doesnt mean indescribable in this context - means no categorization can be made in this regard.

If snake was asat, unreal, it would never appear. asat chet na prateeyate.
If snake is sat, real, it would never disappear (upon cognition of rope) - sat chet na bAdhate.

Now all of the 5 khyAtis - one thing they all accept is paratra avabhAsaha.

(....to be continued)

Thought of the day

To be patient means to suffer something that hinders or hurts us, and still retain our self-composure.
How many difficulties, with their consequent unpleasantness and discord, could be smoothed over and almost entirely eliminated by patience. Patience always elevates and strengthens our character.
We need it not only with others but also with ourselves. Sw.Chinmayananda

Brahma Sutra; Shankara Bhashyam 5

Three objections are raised in regards to the possibility of such error

1. it is not tenable


2. it is not perceptible i.e. I do not see it


3. it has no cause

These objections are answered or will be answered by saying
The fact that it is not tenable is a alankAra for us, the fact that there can never be a real association between atma and anatma is what we assert and want you to see for yourself.
The second objection is answered by pointing out that when you say I am ignorant of this – you yourself are pointing to a witnessing principle that is illumining your ignorance; else how do you know that you are ignorant? The I involved in the superimposition is partly known - it is not a completely unknown entity like svarga - and in addition to being partially known, the other requirement for adhyAsa is buddhi or intellect - if these two factors are there adhyAsa is certainly possible and is also seen whenever we use expressions like I am sukhi, I am dukhi, you are admitting that there is a mixing up of I the atman with different states of the mind and so something that is a matter of your experience – how can you dismiss?
Thirdly, now, if you do experience such a mixing there must be a cause, there must be an ingredient that is involved and this is hence a matter at the least for further enquiry.

Further

tathApi anyonyosmin

anyonya atmani anyonya atmakathAm

anyonya dharmascha adhyasya

itaretara avivekena

atyanta viviktayoho dharmadharminoho

mithyajnana nimittaha satyanrte mithinikrtya

aham idam mama idam iti

naisargikoyam lokavyavahArah

Even though yadyapi, committing such a error is not possible mithya iti bhavitum yuktam

TathApi – Inspite of this, Even so, this is a matter of common experience – what a marvel it is; that regrettably, the impossible is made possible aghatita ghatana – because we see that indeed it is our common anubhava – it is lokavyavahAra. The term lokavyavahara refers to both the universal knowledge (erroneous) as well as experience born of such knowledge, as well as the activities or transactions that stem from such a experience – why does this happen; how is this possible? Because of itaretara avivekena – lack of discrimination between what is atma and anatma. Idam is taken as aham – see how beautifully and powerfully Adi Shankara conveys to us at the very outset the magnitude of the problem here - "this" is taken as "me". So with complete conviction i says "I am a man" "I am this body," This is tAdAtmyadhyAsa. And yet again, sometimes there is some confusion even at this level when I am able to look at as an object - and then i say my body is tired, my mind is in anguish, etc - here one develops a sense of objectivity to the body/mind but one retains complete ownership of it - mama idam. This is samsargadhyAsaha. Difference is seen, but is owned. The very first adhyasa is I am this body and then follows in its wake a whole host of adhyasas - I am a male, i am sad, happy, etc etc - so first is dharmi adhyAsa then follow all the dharma adhyAsas. Then why mention dharmadhyAsa separately (anyonya dharmascha) - because with reference to the sense organs there is no dharmi adhyAsa - no one says "I am the eye" but one readily takes on the dharma of the eye by saying "i am blind" whence blindness belongs to the optical apparatus.

So what is seen is a mixing up mithinikrtya of subject and object - satyanrte - why specify satyanrte - why not leave it at simply anyonyosmin - mutually superimposing -this is to specify that of the two entities invovled one is sat and the other is mithya - otherwise if A is being superimposed on B and B is being superimposed on A and each is sublated what one is left with is shunyA!

How can such a lokavyavahAra be possible - it must have a special kAranA - after all like we already saw - the two things being superimposed are tamahprakAshavat viruddhasvabhAvayoho - of opposing polarity like light and darkness - it is nothing but mithya and ajnana - mithyajnana.
This term has become a source of great contention and schools of thought have emerged based on alternative interpretations of this one complex word.
Mithyajnana in this context does not mean false knowledge - i.e. mithya plus jnAna - why?
Let us examine this a bit in detail.
We have already seen that there is a mixing up of levels and that this is lokavyavaHara. If Shankara were to simply say that this is due to false knowledge then he is leaving a whole lot of things unexplained. He has to complete the sentence by pointing to the cause of this problem. This is indicated here by the word nimitta - cause - what is the cause mithya and ajnAna.
If one were to say that the cause for this false knowledge, as indicated by the term lokavyavahAra, for this mixing up or superimposition is false knowledge, then one is left having to explain what is the cause of that false knowledge - it is absurd to say the cause for the tree is the tree. We cannot expect Shankara to leave out a gaping unanswered hole in this sentence of why? and we are assured that he doesnt by his own use of the term nimitta. This way the entire essence of the what how and why of adhyAsa is fully conveyed in one masterful sentence.

Mithya here is a ontological word - meaning anirvachhaneeyam. That which cannot be categorized - it is neither existent nor nonexistent. It is avidya - and has two shaktis - a Avarana shakti called ajnAna and a vikshepa shakti called avidyA. This avidyA is what is referred to as avyaktA in the Bhagawad Gita. Because of avidyA alone there is agrahana and because of mAyA there is anyatha grahana.

Now another school of thought interprets it such - mithyajnAna is not mithya plus jnAna but ajnAna alone - but this ajnAna is abhAva alone. It is absence of knowledge. Why can't we take it like this? Why say mithyA refers to anirvachhaneeyam when it can just as well as refer to abhAva or nonexistence ? Absence of anything is absence alone. Between knowledge absence, and wealth absence and pot absence, the absence is the same - there is no difference in the absence - nonexistence is nonexistence alone, and this nonexistence cannot be a nimitta - a cause for anything. Can we say sat-chit-ananda plus abhAva created the world or is the cause for adhyAsa? There is no special thing called "jnAna abhAva" and to explain creation you need to have a cause other than abhAva.

Also even if we were to contend that absence of knowledge (ajnAna) alone is the cause for this superimposition, then who should this absence of knowledge belong to? where should this ajnAna abide? in the cause of the effect? Of course in the cause. We cannot say jivA is the effect of the false knowledge and still contend that ajnAna belongs to the jivA. So this would necessarily mean that ajnAna belongs to the Atma. So satyam jnanam anatam brahman now has a attribute - ajnAnam. And attributeless Atma can never have any attributes let alone one of ajnAna - Atma is ekamEva, and morover it is ekarasaha - uniform. So Atma can never have ajnAnam. So ajnAnam in the sense of abhAva - or absence of knowledge cannot be said to be a nimitta for this superimposition.

So having established that ajnAnam cannot be nonexistent, now can we swing the pendulum to the other side and say this ajnAnam is existent- no! - if ajnAnam is real it can never go away - this ajNanam is purely notional - it is opposed to knowledge - jnAna nivrttyaha adhyasa - and hence alone the term mithya beautifully explains it as anirvachhaneeyam.

Now another point - vishayaprayojanam. Is Shruti or knowledge obtained from Shruti opposed to mithyaJnanam or false knowledge? No. It is opposed to ajnAnam alone.

When i see a snake where there is a rope, then "snake jnAnam" is not the cause for the snake, absence of rope knowledge alone is the cause for the snake. If I need to see the rope, can I (or do I need to) first remove the superimposition of the snake? Can i first remove snake -knowledge? No.

This superimposition can never be removed without seeing the rope - mere removal of snake knowledge will only replace some other superimposition on the rope if the rope ie yet unseen. Secondly without seeing rope how will you definitively this snake knowledge is false?

So when I see the rope - do i remove snake adhyAsa or gain rope-knowledge?

It is only through gain of rope knowledge. Without gaining knowledge of the rope, I cannot sublate the erroneous notion of the snake. So only Jnana is responsible for removal of adhyAsa. No other factor can be said to be an instrument for removal of adhyAsa. Similarly Shastra as a pramAna has nothing to do with the adhyAsa - there is no connection between adhyAsa and the vastu except ajnAna. And since ajnAna (not mithya jnana nor jnana abhAva) alone is jnAna virodhi, Shruti pramAna serves to give us the jnAna that serves to eliminate ajnAna - and thus alone there is vishaya prayojanam for Shruti. JnAna nivrttyeva ajnanam. One cannot knock off avidya by any factor besides jnAna. Once mithyAjnAna is taken as false knowledge then of course it cannot go away by "mere" jnAna, Sabda (or mahAvAkya) is no longer a pramAna, and then one is forced into conjuring up all manners of theories to explain this away. The bottomline is - one cannot postulate a removal of adhyAsa without the simultaneous gain of knowledge of the vastu.

Now next question is when did this ajnAna start - ignorance can never have a beginning in the sense that one can never arrive at its beginning - ignorance is not brought into being - hence the term naisargika - if it was mithya-jnAna then t would be agAntuka - the fact that is mithya and ajnAna alone accounts for the term naisargikA.

(to be continued..)

the paradox of effort

Q. It seems, universally there is an inherent urge in all human beings always to excel others, to be superior and to be significant. Since this is a universal phenomenon, there must be a valid reason for this. Is it because of the knowledge ‘Aham brahmAsmi’ though not known clearly, but available with the human beings, and because of the fact that human beings are self-conscious?
A.
Due to beginning-less avidya the ahankara or Ego is constantly equipped with a sense of separation as a consequence of its mistaken self-identity. As a result it suffers from a feeling of incompleteness. What i am is inadequate. What i am is not acceptable to the ego. This self-non-acceptabil ity leads to a constant need for validation. This need for self-validation is what drives us to various works, to karma, to excel, to push our boundaries of effort, to reach into and test the depths of our potential, to constantly strive, to excel..only to envy... The more we achieve success the more we feel we are earning the validation of the world - be it parents, spouse,children, friends, colleagues, etc. This very need to strive for external validation betrays the fragility of the ego's bottomless structure - the pathos of its eternal dilemma - how can it ever hope to become complete by retaining its self-identity, and from engaging in a continuing, ever-futile, series of self-effort, when its real identity, though, ever available, can only be realized in the incandescence, that illumines its own annihilation.

Thought of the day

"There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now!"

Ramana Maharshi.

mAyA panchakam

Nirupama nithyaniramaskhepy akhande

Mayichithi sarvavikalpanadhishunye

Ghatayathi JagadhIshajeeva bhedham

Thwaghathitha ghatanaa patiyasi mAyA. 1

Máyá which is skilful in accomplishing the impossible brings about the distinctions of the world. Èùvara, and jèva in my consciousness, which is unique and eternal, partless and impartite, and which is free from all distinctions.

Sruthi satha nigamantha sodhakan

Apyahaha dhanadinidarshanena sadhya,

Kalushayathi chathushpadadhyabhinna,

Aghatithagatana patiyasi mAyA. 2

Máyá which is skilful in accomplishing the impossible deludes at once, alas, even those who can clarify hundreds of Veda and Vedánta texts by showing up wealth, etc. and makes them non-different from quadrupeds.

Sukhachidhakhanda vibodhamadvitheeyam,

Viyadanaladhi vinirmathe niyojya,

Bhramayathi bhavasAgare nithantham,

Thwagathitha ghatanaa patiyasi mAyA. 3

Máyá which is skilful in accomplishing the impossible makes the Self, which is of the nature of bliss and consciousness which is impartite and non-dual, whirl round very much in the ocean of samsára by associating it with the created ákáùa, air etc.

Apagathagunavarna jAthibhedhe,

Sukhachithi vipravida dhyahamkruthim cha,

Sphutayathi suthadArageha moham,

Thwagathitha ghatanaa patiyasi mAyA. 4

Máyá which is skilful in accomplishing the impossible causes the appearance of notions of ``I am a Bráhmin'', ``I am a Vaiùya'', etc., and the passion for son, wife and house in the bliss-consciousness which is free from the distinctions of quality, colour, and caste.

Vidhiharihara vibhedham apyakhande,

Batha virachayya budhaana api prakamam,

Bramnayathi hariharavibhedhabhAvAn,

Aghathitha ghatanaa patiyasi mAyA. 5

Máyá which is skilful in accomplishing the impossible deludes, alas, very much Harim Hara, and others, though wise, by introducing the distinctions of Brahmá, Hari and Hara in the unitary reality.

Thought of the day

nAsti vidyA samam chakshu nAsti satya samam tapaHa
nAsti raga samam duKham nAsti tyAga samam suKham

There is no sight comparable to knowledge.
Knowledge enables one to see beyond what is visualized.

There is no discipline comparable to Truth.
It takes tremendous discipline to speak what is truth under all circumstances.

There is no sorrow comparable to desire.
(This cannot be described more beautifully than by Bhagwan Krishna in Ch2: dhyayato visayan pumsah sangas tesupajayate sangat sanjayate kamah kamat krodho 'bhijayate krodhad bhavati sammohah sammohat smrti-vibhramah smrti-bhramsad buddhi-naso buddhi-nasat pranasyatiWhile contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.From anger, delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost, one's destruction is total.)

There is no happiness comparable to renunciation.
(In the words of the the Kaivalya Up Na karmana na prajaya dhanena tyage naike amrtatva manushu - Neither by works nor by progeny nor by accumulating wealth but only through renunciation is there any attainment of beatitude)