At present the mind is not subtle, pure or one-pointed enough to delve deep. Endowed with the four-fold qualifications one may seek to liberate oneself by means of right enquiry.
1." The Reality alone is eternal; everything else is ephemeral. This conviction alone is discrimination between the permanent the impermanent"
The word viveka comes from the root 'vic' meaning to separate. In a state of ignorance,' man uses it merely to recognize objects and concepts of the world comparing, contrasting and categorizing them or distinguishing between the conducive and the non-conducive. When the same faculty is used for discriminating the real from the unreal, it liberates man. All bondage is either due to lack of thinking, incomplete thinking or wrong thinking. But actually do we really think? Some thinking happens. Uncontrolled, irrelevant, dissociated and distracted thoughts occur at random and then this thinking leads to worry, anger, tension and quarrels.' Viveka is the capacity of the intellect to distinguish, categorize and recognize one thing from another. This is present even in animals. You hold out grass in your hand for the cow it comes to you. You hold a stick it moves away from you. 'But man alone has this faculty to enquire into the relation between the part and the whole, the means and the goal, the good and the pleasant, the Self and the non-Self, the eternal and the ephemeral. Most of us use this faculty to differentiate between two perishable objects.' If only this faculty could be exercised in distinguishing between the imperishable and the perishable it would have secured liberation for us.
The truth is mixed up with untruth and therefore a discriminative enquiry is needed. On enquiry we realize that the only constant thing in the world is change. And for every change there must be a changeless substratum. And this substratum again can’t be many. It is beyond time, space and causation. This changeless reality is called Brahman in our scriptures. It is only when one intensely realizes the changing nature of everything that the changeless can be distinguished from all else. However, it should be noted that the student at this point does not know what Brahman is. He only has a conviction of its truth and has the ability to reject what is impermanent. A viveki is one who is keenly alive to the problem of imperfection and the one who has a clear goal.
2. Dispassion (vairagya): the absence for the desire for the fruits of one's action here and hereafter. As long as one feels the substantiality of things in giving joy one cannot prevent likes and dislikes for them. We have to do away with even the last clinging to this world of senses. 'Dispassion is the strength to give up the sorrow-giving, impermanent and joyless objects mentally or physically.' It is to avoid both likes and dislikes for an object. Vairagya is the natural result of a vigorous discrimination. That dispassion is lasting which arises out of discrimination rather than despair. The apparent disinterest one feels when the object of desire is not available is not dispassion. A person is not practising dispassion if he is keeping away from sweets because he is diabetic. Similarly there is no point in beggar saying he has renounced everything. We can understand a prince like Buddha renouncing but what does the beggar have that he can renounce.
Then again there is the 'monkey renunciation' that comes to us at the loss of dear ones. For a while we feel we cannot live anymore. We tend to be thoughtful about the events of life. A little time passes and we are back to square one. Of course, many times it is the blows in life that actually bring us to our senses. But the impact lost only for a while and we are back into those old ruts of thought and action. The pull of stomach and sex is too powerful to keep our minds on such lofty ideas.
Dispassion also arises out of the choice less yet dedicated performance of one's duties. Also, when actions are performed as dedicated service of the lord, likes and dislikes decreases and dispassion increases. You must have the mettle to accept the truth, embrace the truth - truth for its own sake. Even if it means discarding all that mean most to us. Just imagine what an attitude one has to possess. That is why there are so few adherents to truth even in this age of science.
Dear, among those that take to religious life, most of them choose it for a better life in heaven. Just as we go for a life insurance to see that our dear ones are well provided after we are gone, there are men who practice charity and other observances as an after life insurance. Our prayers are all so selfish. Not that all the prayers are bad, but religion which was the means for us to rise above the worldly concerns we have made it a means to the attainment of worldly ends. The whole thing has become so degraded. 'What is heaven but only a prolongation of this wretched existence? If there is less of sorrow there, there is also less of truth. It would be nice if we could do away with all these heavens. Going to heaven we only augment our illusions. So, all that is between the earth and the heaven has but one name -earth. The dwellers in heaven have no sorrow so they don't care for others sorrow. They don't weep for us. If they want they could pull us out of this miserable existence. But they will not.' The gods in heaven are as much in need of truth as we are and are as insecure about their office as any political leader.
The heaven is not a permanent place for the soul. Just as the attainment of a position on earth is a result of action and after the action has been exhausted you no more retain the post. Similarly once the fruit of ones good actions are exhausted one has to come back to earth. 'A limited action can only bear a limited result. For being complete or perfect an unlimited effort or action is required. But no action or a series of finite actions is infinite and therefore action cannot lead to perfection. Even good actions like charity, study or worship, are finite by nature. Completeness falls in the category of the "already accomplished" and no action or effort is required is required to accomplish. I need not make an effort to acquire a head over my shoulders.'
Self-knowledge, as we shall see later on, is not the direct result of action. It always exists. The Vedantic discipline merely removes ignorance, the barrier to this Knowledge, and the glory of the Self shines forth. This discipline may be compared to the wind that blows away a dark cloud hiding the radiance of the sun, immediately revealing the solar orb. As the sun is not the product of the wind, so also the Self is not the product of the discipline. But worldly happiness is the direct result of our action.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Vedanta Stints - VIII
“How is it that one takes the material universe and its objects to be real? If reality is one, why do we see a world of multiplicity Does this world then have any absolute in the background? Are our lives directed wrongly? Is our existence nothing more than wallowing in this inexplicable drama of life?
Vedanta strictly believes in the competence of a student for the teaching to bear fruit. When a teaching is give to an incompetent it is only put to misuse. That is why there was a time in India when the Upanishads were taught only to anchorites who had given up all worldly attachments. The also have a name 'aranyakas' or 'forest books'. Monkhood was the condition for receiving the truth. Because the ultimate truths are the truths of the spirit and in the light of them the actual life has to be lived. This required complete devotion to truth leaving no room for secular concerns. Even if they were taught publicly it was in the manner that revealed sense only to an initiate and unintelligible to the profane. That is why they were clothed in such verbiage as would require a right training to extract the meaning out of them. The democratization of Upanishads is to the credit of Adi Sankaracarya , the greatest protagonist of non-dualism, in the 8th century A.D.
Dear, are really interested to know the Truth? Even the few that seem interested are only seeking a comfortable Truth. They are seeking an excuse for their present condition. For them religion becomes a journey and consequently an excuse to remain what they are. They go to churches all their lives but no good turns out. "They are like the bell that calls the people to the church but itself never enters the shrine." They are excited about the various ways to Truth than in Truth itself. For them 'way means postponement; way means tomorrow and tomorrow never comes.' There are people who make so much of fuss about some uncommon phenomenon calling it a working of a divine hand and 'reign of God' and what not. For them a momentary excitement from the ordinary run is what religion is all about . Their cocktail parties would go on uninterrupted with the talk about God coming as a parenthesis. Like politics, cinema, share-market God is also a subject of discussion at our tea-table.
I tell you dear we only make an excessive show of our piety and casual concern about things divine. If tomorrow we come to know that God lives in our neighbourhood, do you think any great change will come upon us? In order that he does not disparage our whims by his 'pinching sermons' we shall see to it that He is crucified. In confessions you will find St. Augustine saying that they were days when his prayers were of the kind- "God give me purity and chastity, but not yet." We are the same lot of men but have only improvised our words. The basal fact remains the same. Naturally with people like us these statements about the absolute truth and ethics would be 'casting pearls before a swine.' Only to ensure that the words of the scripture don't go a waste in our sullied minds the seeker of Truth is expected to fulfill certain qualifications before entering into the study of the scripture.
The four-fold qualifications are:
1. Discrimination between the permanent and impermanent (viveka)
2. Dispassion to the enjoyment of the fruits of action here and hereafter (vairagya)
3. The group of six accomplishments (satka sampatti) or the inner wealth beginning with control of the mind.
4. Intense desire for liberation (mumuksutvam).
Vedanta strictly believes in the competence of a student for the teaching to bear fruit. When a teaching is give to an incompetent it is only put to misuse. That is why there was a time in India when the Upanishads were taught only to anchorites who had given up all worldly attachments. The also have a name 'aranyakas' or 'forest books'. Monkhood was the condition for receiving the truth. Because the ultimate truths are the truths of the spirit and in the light of them the actual life has to be lived. This required complete devotion to truth leaving no room for secular concerns. Even if they were taught publicly it was in the manner that revealed sense only to an initiate and unintelligible to the profane. That is why they were clothed in such verbiage as would require a right training to extract the meaning out of them. The democratization of Upanishads is to the credit of Adi Sankaracarya , the greatest protagonist of non-dualism, in the 8th century A.D.
Dear, are really interested to know the Truth? Even the few that seem interested are only seeking a comfortable Truth. They are seeking an excuse for their present condition. For them religion becomes a journey and consequently an excuse to remain what they are. They go to churches all their lives but no good turns out. "They are like the bell that calls the people to the church but itself never enters the shrine." They are excited about the various ways to Truth than in Truth itself. For them 'way means postponement; way means tomorrow and tomorrow never comes.' There are people who make so much of fuss about some uncommon phenomenon calling it a working of a divine hand and 'reign of God' and what not. For them a momentary excitement from the ordinary run is what religion is all about . Their cocktail parties would go on uninterrupted with the talk about God coming as a parenthesis. Like politics, cinema, share-market God is also a subject of discussion at our tea-table.
I tell you dear we only make an excessive show of our piety and casual concern about things divine. If tomorrow we come to know that God lives in our neighbourhood, do you think any great change will come upon us? In order that he does not disparage our whims by his 'pinching sermons' we shall see to it that He is crucified. In confessions you will find St. Augustine saying that they were days when his prayers were of the kind- "God give me purity and chastity, but not yet." We are the same lot of men but have only improvised our words. The basal fact remains the same. Naturally with people like us these statements about the absolute truth and ethics would be 'casting pearls before a swine.' Only to ensure that the words of the scripture don't go a waste in our sullied minds the seeker of Truth is expected to fulfill certain qualifications before entering into the study of the scripture.
The four-fold qualifications are:
1. Discrimination between the permanent and impermanent (viveka)
2. Dispassion to the enjoyment of the fruits of action here and hereafter (vairagya)
3. The group of six accomplishments (satka sampatti) or the inner wealth beginning with control of the mind.
4. Intense desire for liberation (mumuksutvam).
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Vedanta Stints - VII
Brahman is of the nature of knowledge or intelligence. But it is not the knowledge in our ordinary sense of the term. He is Consciousness that makes me aware of my knowledge as well as my ignorance. When a sense object is perceived by my senses the mind cognizes the object but the consciousness knows the cognition. The consciousness is aware of my knowing.
In a state of dreamless sleep I don't perceive any object. It is an 'objectless awareness'. I get up saying "I did not know anything". Here there is the persistence of 'I' consciousness though there is no object given to my perception. Just like the light at the theatre will continue illumining even after all the participants have left the stage similarly the atman is luminous even when there is nothing for it to illumine. The mind, as it were, dissolves during the deep sleep and so I remain ignorant and my consciousness is aware of this ignorance in the form 'I did not know anything'. And, if you remember the interval, which David Hume takes to be the one in which, he says, he is born as a new man is nothing but this deep sleep state. But he forgets that even to take notice of this interval there is a consciousness which enables the later recollection of a happy repose of sleep.
Brahman is self-luminous. It needs no other light to illumine it. You don't need a lamp to see the sun. It is self-revealing. When the objects are present before the consciousness it illumines them. Even if there are no objects to illumine it, it is still self-luminous. All things borrow the light of Consciousness. It is the light of the lights. We don't require anything else to make us aware of our presence. It is not as Descartes puts it, "I think, therefore I am." Consciousness is prior to everything. “I am, therefore I think". Therefore the point of start is us. Not the world or the God. The journey is always from the known to the unknown; not from the unknown to the know.
And, religionists have always been positing God, the unknown to us and materialists are positing the world, again an unknown. It is not immediately known. It is known only by the medium of the senses. It is not a part of our being like consciousness, which at no moment leaves us. It is a certainty and in turn certifies the world for me.
Now the blissful nature of Brahman: Brahman is the one without a second. He is self-complete. There is no lack of anything in Him therefore He is all-blissful. Actually speaking, there is no he or she with respect to Brahman. It would be right to say 'it'. Also, there is no fear in Brahman. Fear comes; jealousy comes, when there is another. But there is nothing else apart from Brahman the one without a second.
Our existence is secured in Brahman not in the petty fancies that we take to be part of our individuality. We cannot compare the infinitude of bliss with the happiness of this world. Bliss is a positive happiness. It is an uncaused happiness, Ananda. All our happiness is nothing but an infinitesimal portion of that bliss. It is the bliss desiring which the ascetics give up their home and hearth and even the pleasures of the heaven. "When you realize what true happiness is, pleasure becomes a mere substitute for it."
We cannot, with loyalty to reason, say that there is a distinction of subject and object in existence. It is the deluded understanding that making itself a center breaks existence into internal and external. It is merely an empirical experience lacking in critical intelligence. What all comes to be perceived whether internal or external is nothing but existence, a divisionless mass.
Existence if it has to be perceived has to become the content of consciousness. If this content itself is unrelated to consciousness, it cannot give us any knowledge. Everything is contained in our consciousness. My perception is a perception in consciousness. The conscious subject perceives the object in consciousness. Therefore existence has to be consciousness. Existence is consciousness or existence is in being conscious of it mean the same. If we cannot be conscious of something that means that something has no existence. Anything that is known has existence and this implies that it reveals itself to our consciousness. 'I am' implies 'I know I am'. Pure Being and pure consciousness are one and the same. You can get an idea of the fact that in our dream, which is not outside yourself, we come to create a world of your own. We see ourself climbing a rocky mountain. All this is nothing but a creation of our mind. The supposedly insentient rock and the sentient people are all alive only in our consciousness. The things borrow their existence from our consciousness.
Now dear, coming to the bliss aspect of the atman or the Brahman (In the Upanishads the two terms have been used interchangeably). If you only observe you find that your liking or love for someone or something is because it pleases you. You like everything for your happiness. Even a suicide is an attempt at getting rid of a problem that is inexorable, thereby seeking a relief for oneself. Not that we hate ourselves; but we do not like something that clings to our otherwise happy self. It is again an attempt to please oneself. But one thing that escapes our notice is that we love ourselves unconditionally. We never ask, "Why do I love myself” A wonderful statement comes in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad " The husband is not dear for the husband's sake but for the self that is in the husband; the wife is not dear for the wife's sake but for the self that is in the wife; the son is not dear for the son's sake but for the self that is in the son, " It continues in the same strain extending to various spheres and to our own bodies; as also gods.
Self-love is at the root of all our love. But it has quite a different connotation from selfishness. The self I am talking of is not the puny self but the supreme SELF. The Self that only is. (It is the love for the real but only misdirected in our lives. Our vision ends up with this tiny physical organism.) The love for the real is what Self-love is; the love that is buried in our inmost being and every breath is only to reach out for that bliss. "Who would breathe if this bliss wouldn't be in the air"? In some rare individuals, the realization of their infinitude bursts forth and suffuses the whole world with this sense of bliss. Their very presence enamours people. They influence is irresistible, for what is just a faint glimpse in us dazzles forth from their being. In the past, we had such in hundreds.
We get a taste of this bliss in the deep sleep. That is why it is so refreshing and we willingly throw ourselves into the state of oblivion to taste this bliss. Bliss is our very nature. That is why happiness never weighs us down but sorrow does. One's own nature can never be a burden to oneself. Our hunt is always for happiness; to restore our lost glory. So, the whole thing goes like this: 'I am', 'I know I' am and 'I know I am dear to myself'. Thus do you see how existence is consciousness and this consciousness is bliss.
The Brahman transcends the subject-object relationship. It is not limited by time, space or causation. All space is in Him, He is not in any space; all time is in Him, He is not in time; Himself non-causal, He is the cause of everything. He negates space like we negate the dream-space when we wake up from our sleep. Brahman is the unconditioned pure being .He is the negation of all attributes and relations. Though it is spaceless, without it space cannot be conceived. Though it is timeless, without it time could not be conceived; though it is causeless, without it the universe, bound by the law of cause and effect, could not be conceived to exist. Proximity in space, succession in time and interdependence of the law of cause and effect is due to Him. He is at the root of everything.
If anything is taken to be real it is only so far as it has borrowed the reality of the Brahman. He is more real than the sense-objects we perceive He is not a philosophical apparition but the real substratum for the apparition that we perceive. "I am He" is a constant note in our inmost being; the realization consists in affirming, "He is me".
In a state of dreamless sleep I don't perceive any object. It is an 'objectless awareness'. I get up saying "I did not know anything". Here there is the persistence of 'I' consciousness though there is no object given to my perception. Just like the light at the theatre will continue illumining even after all the participants have left the stage similarly the atman is luminous even when there is nothing for it to illumine. The mind, as it were, dissolves during the deep sleep and so I remain ignorant and my consciousness is aware of this ignorance in the form 'I did not know anything'. And, if you remember the interval, which David Hume takes to be the one in which, he says, he is born as a new man is nothing but this deep sleep state. But he forgets that even to take notice of this interval there is a consciousness which enables the later recollection of a happy repose of sleep.
Brahman is self-luminous. It needs no other light to illumine it. You don't need a lamp to see the sun. It is self-revealing. When the objects are present before the consciousness it illumines them. Even if there are no objects to illumine it, it is still self-luminous. All things borrow the light of Consciousness. It is the light of the lights. We don't require anything else to make us aware of our presence. It is not as Descartes puts it, "I think, therefore I am." Consciousness is prior to everything. “I am, therefore I think". Therefore the point of start is us. Not the world or the God. The journey is always from the known to the unknown; not from the unknown to the know.
And, religionists have always been positing God, the unknown to us and materialists are positing the world, again an unknown. It is not immediately known. It is known only by the medium of the senses. It is not a part of our being like consciousness, which at no moment leaves us. It is a certainty and in turn certifies the world for me.
Now the blissful nature of Brahman: Brahman is the one without a second. He is self-complete. There is no lack of anything in Him therefore He is all-blissful. Actually speaking, there is no he or she with respect to Brahman. It would be right to say 'it'. Also, there is no fear in Brahman. Fear comes; jealousy comes, when there is another. But there is nothing else apart from Brahman the one without a second.
Our existence is secured in Brahman not in the petty fancies that we take to be part of our individuality. We cannot compare the infinitude of bliss with the happiness of this world. Bliss is a positive happiness. It is an uncaused happiness, Ananda. All our happiness is nothing but an infinitesimal portion of that bliss. It is the bliss desiring which the ascetics give up their home and hearth and even the pleasures of the heaven. "When you realize what true happiness is, pleasure becomes a mere substitute for it."
We cannot, with loyalty to reason, say that there is a distinction of subject and object in existence. It is the deluded understanding that making itself a center breaks existence into internal and external. It is merely an empirical experience lacking in critical intelligence. What all comes to be perceived whether internal or external is nothing but existence, a divisionless mass.
Existence if it has to be perceived has to become the content of consciousness. If this content itself is unrelated to consciousness, it cannot give us any knowledge. Everything is contained in our consciousness. My perception is a perception in consciousness. The conscious subject perceives the object in consciousness. Therefore existence has to be consciousness. Existence is consciousness or existence is in being conscious of it mean the same. If we cannot be conscious of something that means that something has no existence. Anything that is known has existence and this implies that it reveals itself to our consciousness. 'I am' implies 'I know I am'. Pure Being and pure consciousness are one and the same. You can get an idea of the fact that in our dream, which is not outside yourself, we come to create a world of your own. We see ourself climbing a rocky mountain. All this is nothing but a creation of our mind. The supposedly insentient rock and the sentient people are all alive only in our consciousness. The things borrow their existence from our consciousness.
Now dear, coming to the bliss aspect of the atman or the Brahman (In the Upanishads the two terms have been used interchangeably). If you only observe you find that your liking or love for someone or something is because it pleases you. You like everything for your happiness. Even a suicide is an attempt at getting rid of a problem that is inexorable, thereby seeking a relief for oneself. Not that we hate ourselves; but we do not like something that clings to our otherwise happy self. It is again an attempt to please oneself. But one thing that escapes our notice is that we love ourselves unconditionally. We never ask, "Why do I love myself” A wonderful statement comes in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad " The husband is not dear for the husband's sake but for the self that is in the husband; the wife is not dear for the wife's sake but for the self that is in the wife; the son is not dear for the son's sake but for the self that is in the son, " It continues in the same strain extending to various spheres and to our own bodies; as also gods.
Self-love is at the root of all our love. But it has quite a different connotation from selfishness. The self I am talking of is not the puny self but the supreme SELF. The Self that only is. (It is the love for the real but only misdirected in our lives. Our vision ends up with this tiny physical organism.) The love for the real is what Self-love is; the love that is buried in our inmost being and every breath is only to reach out for that bliss. "Who would breathe if this bliss wouldn't be in the air"? In some rare individuals, the realization of their infinitude bursts forth and suffuses the whole world with this sense of bliss. Their very presence enamours people. They influence is irresistible, for what is just a faint glimpse in us dazzles forth from their being. In the past, we had such in hundreds.
We get a taste of this bliss in the deep sleep. That is why it is so refreshing and we willingly throw ourselves into the state of oblivion to taste this bliss. Bliss is our very nature. That is why happiness never weighs us down but sorrow does. One's own nature can never be a burden to oneself. Our hunt is always for happiness; to restore our lost glory. So, the whole thing goes like this: 'I am', 'I know I' am and 'I know I am dear to myself'. Thus do you see how existence is consciousness and this consciousness is bliss.
The Brahman transcends the subject-object relationship. It is not limited by time, space or causation. All space is in Him, He is not in any space; all time is in Him, He is not in time; Himself non-causal, He is the cause of everything. He negates space like we negate the dream-space when we wake up from our sleep. Brahman is the unconditioned pure being .He is the negation of all attributes and relations. Though it is spaceless, without it space cannot be conceived. Though it is timeless, without it time could not be conceived; though it is causeless, without it the universe, bound by the law of cause and effect, could not be conceived to exist. Proximity in space, succession in time and interdependence of the law of cause and effect is due to Him. He is at the root of everything.
If anything is taken to be real it is only so far as it has borrowed the reality of the Brahman. He is more real than the sense-objects we perceive He is not a philosophical apparition but the real substratum for the apparition that we perceive. "I am He" is a constant note in our inmost being; the realization consists in affirming, "He is me".
Vedanta Stints - VI
Atman is the Truth; the knowing subject within us. This is the truth at the microcosmic level. But there are many other individuals apart from us and consequently they also have the Self as the reality behind them? Then are there many selves? Empirically 'yes', absolutely 'no'. The final Truth is absolute. There cannot be two Truths just as there cannot be two Absolutes. That which is called Truth at the microcosmic is also the truth at the macrocosmic level. And this is called as Brahman in Vedanta.
Brahman is the unknown and the unknowable. To be known, a thing must be made an object. Brahman, as pure consciousness is the eternal subject, and therefore cannot be made an object of knowledge. “You cannot see the seer of seeing, you cannot think the thinker of thinking, and you cannot know the knower of knowing". “Brahman is Truth, knowledge, and Infinite". Now it is not different from the atman or the Self. We have a declaration in the Upanishads "this atman is Brahman"(Mandukya Upanishad).
Self-realization amounts to God-realization and God-realization is synonymous with Self-realization. You are only so far from God as you are from yourself. "Know thyself' is the dictum because the Truth is buried within every entity. To lay hold on it is to get at the ultimate Truth of things. The famous Vedantic statement- "Thou art that"- points at this Truth that we are essentially one with the infinite being. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "The one who has seen the Son has seen the Father."
The goal of Vedanta is to establish Brahman. The word 'Brahman' comes from the root, brh, which means 'to grow': growth or expansion that is unlimited. When we say "as large as an elephant", the adjective large qualifies the noun elephant. We can also say that the largeness is limited or restricted by the noun, elephant. But we have nothing that would limit the growth or the largeness of Brahman. It is its own measure. It is a non-dual reality, the one without a second. It is attributeless, uncognisable, indefinable, the imperishable and all pervading.
This Brahman is said to be of the nature of absolute existence-consciousness-bliss. Mark you these are not the attributes of reality but reality itself. Pure existence is same as pure consciousness and pure bliss. Brahman is Existence, the "Being ness" of an entity; the ultimate residuum that cannot be negated. The name and form may change but an entity survives in its "isness ". Brahman is not the empirical existence like pot, table etc., but the absolute existence without which the objects will not be perceived to exist. “The unreal has no existence and the real never ceases to be"(Bhagavad Gita). The unreal is that which changes, the real is the unchangeable. Brahman is Existence absolute. Just as a rope is an unrelated substratum of the illusory snake, the Brahman is the substratum for the illusory appearance of the world.
The whole universe is one unit existence. You cannot move a single atom in the universe without moving the whole world behind it. Every change in the environment has a subsequent effect on me. 'Science has come to prove that we are spots of matter in the vast ocean of energy. The energy that was in the sun a few days ago is in the plant today, tomorrow in a human being, day after in an animal.' It is all a dance of energy. And again from another point of view we are all in an ocean of idea one point is called my mind, another point is your mind and so on.
Brahman is the unknown and the unknowable. To be known, a thing must be made an object. Brahman, as pure consciousness is the eternal subject, and therefore cannot be made an object of knowledge. “You cannot see the seer of seeing, you cannot think the thinker of thinking, and you cannot know the knower of knowing". “Brahman is Truth, knowledge, and Infinite". Now it is not different from the atman or the Self. We have a declaration in the Upanishads "this atman is Brahman"(Mandukya Upanishad).
Self-realization amounts to God-realization and God-realization is synonymous with Self-realization. You are only so far from God as you are from yourself. "Know thyself' is the dictum because the Truth is buried within every entity. To lay hold on it is to get at the ultimate Truth of things. The famous Vedantic statement- "Thou art that"- points at this Truth that we are essentially one with the infinite being. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "The one who has seen the Son has seen the Father."
The goal of Vedanta is to establish Brahman. The word 'Brahman' comes from the root, brh, which means 'to grow': growth or expansion that is unlimited. When we say "as large as an elephant", the adjective large qualifies the noun elephant. We can also say that the largeness is limited or restricted by the noun, elephant. But we have nothing that would limit the growth or the largeness of Brahman. It is its own measure. It is a non-dual reality, the one without a second. It is attributeless, uncognisable, indefinable, the imperishable and all pervading.
This Brahman is said to be of the nature of absolute existence-consciousness-bliss. Mark you these are not the attributes of reality but reality itself. Pure existence is same as pure consciousness and pure bliss. Brahman is Existence, the "Being ness" of an entity; the ultimate residuum that cannot be negated. The name and form may change but an entity survives in its "isness ". Brahman is not the empirical existence like pot, table etc., but the absolute existence without which the objects will not be perceived to exist. “The unreal has no existence and the real never ceases to be"(Bhagavad Gita). The unreal is that which changes, the real is the unchangeable. Brahman is Existence absolute. Just as a rope is an unrelated substratum of the illusory snake, the Brahman is the substratum for the illusory appearance of the world.
The whole universe is one unit existence. You cannot move a single atom in the universe without moving the whole world behind it. Every change in the environment has a subsequent effect on me. 'Science has come to prove that we are spots of matter in the vast ocean of energy. The energy that was in the sun a few days ago is in the plant today, tomorrow in a human being, day after in an animal.' It is all a dance of energy. And again from another point of view we are all in an ocean of idea one point is called my mind, another point is your mind and so on.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Vedanta Stints - V
What is the link getting hold of which I can retrace my steps to the Absolute? Where is that splendour of Truth which is constantly pulling me against the proclivities of my surface conscience? Do I have a ghost of an idea of the things that I categorize as absolute? If not, what steers me, as it were, towards this wild goose chase? Is there nothing that which I can lay my trust? If yes, what is it? There is and surprisingly it is 'I'; the only thing that I am sure of, one that never departs me. It is at the back of all my thoughts, words and deeds.
I have a name Amit by which I am called by others. But, when I have to call myself, my name is 'I'. I say 'I' and I am available to myself. But isn't it a pleasant contradiction to say that I am available to myself. At what point am I drawn away from myself that I have to return to myself? We may say that my 'I' is not the 'I', which was a little earlier. My ‘I’ has changed to some other 'I'. This is the contention of a few philosophers like Hume and Locke.
According to Hume we are never the same person that we were a little earlier. We are dying every moment and are born again. He says that 'I' is but a continuous stream of consciousness that is moving so fast that it gives a feeling of a single entity. We understand by this that even if you try to catch the 'I' at this moment what you actually get hold of is a different 'I'. It is so fleeting. It is also the contention of the school of Buddhism, which believes in nihilism. The impact of all the previous content of consciousness on the forthcoming consciousness is perceived as 'I'. The present is informed by the past. The content is being delivered into a new case but the rate at which this occurs leaves the interval unnoticed.
Now this argument is hollow on the face of it. It is taking the content of consciousness to be consciousness itself. The nature consciousness is to be conscious. There is no ceasing of it. If there is any break in being conscious then that interval will be one of unconscious. Now to perceive this interval there must be some conscious being. Now this witnessing consciousness may itself suffer a break, and then there must be some other consciousness taking notice of it. Thus, it leads to infinite regress. You have to posit one to take notice of the other. So, you have to give in saying that consciousness never suffers a break. And consciousness is never plural. There is no red consciousness, green or white. You may be conscious of red or green or white. It is the same consciousness that tells you that one of your hands is in the cold water and the other in the hot. There is no 'hot consciousness' and 'cold consciousness". We shall also see later what is that interval which Hume took for a suspension of consciousness.
Schrodinger, the quantum physicist, says, "Consciousness is the singular of which the plural is unknown." Mark you, a physicist is saying this! It echoes the decree of Vedanta that my consciousness is not different from yours: the content may differ. We say 'I am angry', 'I am happy', 'I am in love', the thing to be noticed is that the predicates have changed but the subject hasn't. In truth, I am the 'I' without predicates; the simple I. And this I is pure consciousness, Suddha-caitanya; one homogeneous whole. Divested of its predicates my 'I' is not different from your 'I'. We are in essence one with each other. This is what prompts Jesus to say, "Love thy neighbour as thyself'.
It is a constant factor. Everything changes and it takes notice of the change, it remaining unchanged. A moving river implies an unmoving riverbed. This permanent Substance is what is called as the soul, or the Self (atma), the witnessing consciousness. It is what enlivens all the other senses. It is what enlivens the mind. Mind by itself is inert. Due to its fineness it reflects the consciousness of the Self. Intellect has been called as the seat of the Self in Vedanta; because of its subtlety it best reflects the glory of the Self. The finer the intellect the greater is the manifestation of the Self. We pray in the mornings to the 'adorable effulgence that enlivens everything to enlighten our intellects' in the Gayatri Mantra.
I have a name Amit by which I am called by others. But, when I have to call myself, my name is 'I'. I say 'I' and I am available to myself. But isn't it a pleasant contradiction to say that I am available to myself. At what point am I drawn away from myself that I have to return to myself? We may say that my 'I' is not the 'I', which was a little earlier. My ‘I’ has changed to some other 'I'. This is the contention of a few philosophers like Hume and Locke.
According to Hume we are never the same person that we were a little earlier. We are dying every moment and are born again. He says that 'I' is but a continuous stream of consciousness that is moving so fast that it gives a feeling of a single entity. We understand by this that even if you try to catch the 'I' at this moment what you actually get hold of is a different 'I'. It is so fleeting. It is also the contention of the school of Buddhism, which believes in nihilism. The impact of all the previous content of consciousness on the forthcoming consciousness is perceived as 'I'. The present is informed by the past. The content is being delivered into a new case but the rate at which this occurs leaves the interval unnoticed.
Now this argument is hollow on the face of it. It is taking the content of consciousness to be consciousness itself. The nature consciousness is to be conscious. There is no ceasing of it. If there is any break in being conscious then that interval will be one of unconscious. Now to perceive this interval there must be some conscious being. Now this witnessing consciousness may itself suffer a break, and then there must be some other consciousness taking notice of it. Thus, it leads to infinite regress. You have to posit one to take notice of the other. So, you have to give in saying that consciousness never suffers a break. And consciousness is never plural. There is no red consciousness, green or white. You may be conscious of red or green or white. It is the same consciousness that tells you that one of your hands is in the cold water and the other in the hot. There is no 'hot consciousness' and 'cold consciousness". We shall also see later what is that interval which Hume took for a suspension of consciousness.
Schrodinger, the quantum physicist, says, "Consciousness is the singular of which the plural is unknown." Mark you, a physicist is saying this! It echoes the decree of Vedanta that my consciousness is not different from yours: the content may differ. We say 'I am angry', 'I am happy', 'I am in love', the thing to be noticed is that the predicates have changed but the subject hasn't. In truth, I am the 'I' without predicates; the simple I. And this I is pure consciousness, Suddha-caitanya; one homogeneous whole. Divested of its predicates my 'I' is not different from your 'I'. We are in essence one with each other. This is what prompts Jesus to say, "Love thy neighbour as thyself'.
It is a constant factor. Everything changes and it takes notice of the change, it remaining unchanged. A moving river implies an unmoving riverbed. This permanent Substance is what is called as the soul, or the Self (atma), the witnessing consciousness. It is what enlivens all the other senses. It is what enlivens the mind. Mind by itself is inert. Due to its fineness it reflects the consciousness of the Self. Intellect has been called as the seat of the Self in Vedanta; because of its subtlety it best reflects the glory of the Self. The finer the intellect the greater is the manifestation of the Self. We pray in the mornings to the 'adorable effulgence that enlivens everything to enlighten our intellects' in the Gayatri Mantra.
Vedanta Stints - IV
In the previous post, I talked about individual ignorance. It is true that illusory world is unique to each individual soul called jiva in Sanskrit, but there is universal ignorance too. This is called as Maya in Sanskrit. Everyone perceives the outside world. We encounter a vast variety of things of undoubted existence. All agree upon the fact that the sun rises in the east. That they sit on a palpable chair. They dash against each other and rub their heads in pain. But it is difficult for us to believe that it could be the result of an illusion. That too an illusion that has such a wide coverage!
No dreamer, be it a philosopher himself, while dreaming is ready to adopt the attitude of an unaffected witness of his dream. It is so real to him. The dream world has its own laws for the while. So do we have laws pertaining to this world of ours. Though organized, it is still a dream. Edgar Allen Poe said, "All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream ". How much would you care for a dream? Do we go about preparing ourselves in the waking state for the struggle we are to undergo in a dream?
Ignorance can only perfect your illusions refine them all the more if you happen to doubt their reality. It is ignorance at the root of our individual existence or individuation. We are all the centers of ignorance. And because the ignorance is like we have a like existence. When ignorance becomes unlike then my world is not your world. Then the world of dead is not the world of living; the world of gods is not the world of humans. I am led to conclude that when it comes to ignorance even our relative world is as good as an illusory one. Just because the false satisfies us, enables us to dream our petty dreams, brings before us an exciting diversity devoid of which life is of little meaning to us we hold on to it. And just that the ignorant in this world are in majority we need not shake hands with them in joy.
No dreamer, be it a philosopher himself, while dreaming is ready to adopt the attitude of an unaffected witness of his dream. It is so real to him. The dream world has its own laws for the while. So do we have laws pertaining to this world of ours. Though organized, it is still a dream. Edgar Allen Poe said, "All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream ". How much would you care for a dream? Do we go about preparing ourselves in the waking state for the struggle we are to undergo in a dream?
Ignorance can only perfect your illusions refine them all the more if you happen to doubt their reality. It is ignorance at the root of our individual existence or individuation. We are all the centers of ignorance. And because the ignorance is like we have a like existence. When ignorance becomes unlike then my world is not your world. Then the world of dead is not the world of living; the world of gods is not the world of humans. I am led to conclude that when it comes to ignorance even our relative world is as good as an illusory one. Just because the false satisfies us, enables us to dream our petty dreams, brings before us an exciting diversity devoid of which life is of little meaning to us we hold on to it. And just that the ignorant in this world are in majority we need not shake hands with them in joy.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Vedanta Stints - III
According to Vedanta philosophy there are three modes of existence:
1. Absolute existence [paramathika]
2. Relative existence [vyavaharika or behavioural ]
3. Illusory existence [pratibasika or seemingly real]
1] The state that is fullness of being is the Absolute. It is a homogeneous state, pure, non-dual. Actually no predication is possible of it. All predication is actually a denial, an antithesis of what appears. What we understand of infinite is that which is not finite. We do not catch at infinite but only understand it as not finite. There is no positive understanding of it possible for our limited minds. What has been spoken of it is only an approximation to it. All that is spoken is only to turn down something that is blatantly false. "The one which the mind cannot feel, but by which, they say, the mind feels know that to be the Brahman and not this what people worship here"(Kenopanishad).
2] Then we have the work-a-day reality. It is not absolutely real, but only fits in with our practical life. Because we experience it, it cannot be relegated as unreal. We are tormented and made to run hither and thither in our daily life that we cannot say it is unreal. It would be deluding oneself. As long as we are under the delusion, the delusory snake is the only reality for us and not the actual rope. There is no consolation to us in that fright and flurry caused by the delusory snake. No amount of philosophizing about the delusory snake would bring solace to us. The urgent and the imminent becomes the real. The world that is a continual sight to us is taken to be the real, and so does our concern and fight against it take a real hue. But at the very first touch of the apprehension of Reality this world crumbles down. If the absolute is the parameter to judge it, it loses its validity. When we come to question the relation of one thing with the other, fact and truth, existence and essence, substance and quality stand vying each other. A paradox stares into our face. One finds that the variety is only a surface reading that gets corrected as we realize the underlying unity of things. It is like following in the trail of the chain one gets hold of the sunken anchor of the ship. Gladly, this very realization proves a catastrophe to our relative standards. They are no more relevant in their own context. It is like the king's coin going base in his own country. And all mysticism and Modern Physics is doing away with this irrelevancy.
3] Now, the third is the illusory world; my own world in which I take one thing for the other (post for a ghost), borrowing the reality of the real to support the unreal, unknowingly. The unreal thrives over the borrowed reality and, as it were, shuts our eyes to truth. Then it is an equally well-supported world. It has for the time being become a concrete reality for me. No one shares this world with me. Even if one does share it my ignorance is no way related with him. Otherwise my ignorance would amount to making a fool of the whole world and simultaneously my being wise would mean wisdom for everyone. It is a case of individual ignorance and this ignorance is also the source of distinction among individuals.
1. Absolute existence [paramathika]
2. Relative existence [vyavaharika or behavioural ]
3. Illusory existence [pratibasika or seemingly real]
1] The state that is fullness of being is the Absolute. It is a homogeneous state, pure, non-dual. Actually no predication is possible of it. All predication is actually a denial, an antithesis of what appears. What we understand of infinite is that which is not finite. We do not catch at infinite but only understand it as not finite. There is no positive understanding of it possible for our limited minds. What has been spoken of it is only an approximation to it. All that is spoken is only to turn down something that is blatantly false. "The one which the mind cannot feel, but by which, they say, the mind feels know that to be the Brahman and not this what people worship here"(Kenopanishad).
2] Then we have the work-a-day reality. It is not absolutely real, but only fits in with our practical life. Because we experience it, it cannot be relegated as unreal. We are tormented and made to run hither and thither in our daily life that we cannot say it is unreal. It would be deluding oneself. As long as we are under the delusion, the delusory snake is the only reality for us and not the actual rope. There is no consolation to us in that fright and flurry caused by the delusory snake. No amount of philosophizing about the delusory snake would bring solace to us. The urgent and the imminent becomes the real. The world that is a continual sight to us is taken to be the real, and so does our concern and fight against it take a real hue. But at the very first touch of the apprehension of Reality this world crumbles down. If the absolute is the parameter to judge it, it loses its validity. When we come to question the relation of one thing with the other, fact and truth, existence and essence, substance and quality stand vying each other. A paradox stares into our face. One finds that the variety is only a surface reading that gets corrected as we realize the underlying unity of things. It is like following in the trail of the chain one gets hold of the sunken anchor of the ship. Gladly, this very realization proves a catastrophe to our relative standards. They are no more relevant in their own context. It is like the king's coin going base in his own country. And all mysticism and Modern Physics is doing away with this irrelevancy.
3] Now, the third is the illusory world; my own world in which I take one thing for the other (post for a ghost), borrowing the reality of the real to support the unreal, unknowingly. The unreal thrives over the borrowed reality and, as it were, shuts our eyes to truth. Then it is an equally well-supported world. It has for the time being become a concrete reality for me. No one shares this world with me. Even if one does share it my ignorance is no way related with him. Otherwise my ignorance would amount to making a fool of the whole world and simultaneously my being wise would mean wisdom for everyone. It is a case of individual ignorance and this ignorance is also the source of distinction among individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
