07-14-2004, 02:02 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you understand the concept of 'Atman' in Vedanta? Do you understand
why Atman is equated with Brahman? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having adored the feet of the primordial hunter, in whose locks play the billows of the Ganges, let me with all humility offer my understanding of the matter in concise terms.
Now, the basic axiom that we have in place is :
BRAHMAN, THE ABSOLUTE, IS THE <b>ONLY</b> REALITY
If the individual soul is accepted as Brahman, it has reality because Brahman is real. If we argue that the individual soul is different from Brahman, then reality is denied to such an individual soul.
In other words, despite the pluralities exhibited by the universe, things exist
in the first place only because of their underlying reality - Brahman. It is useful to qualify the term reality with the adjective "underlying". On the face of it, it may seem that there are many realities in the universe but they all have one underlying reality called Brahman.
Now all this tends to get a little abstract! Let us get back to terra firma using a much beloved analogy. The pot has a reality (existence) only because the underlying clay is real. If we argue that the pot is different from the clay, we are denying its quintessential reality. The pot is just a connotation given to a mass of clay that has assumed a particular shape. Quintessentially, whatever you may choose to call it, it is just clay.
Similarly, we may say that the "jeeva" is a connotation given to the Brahman
that has assumed a particular form. Or, to put in the traditional way, the
differences we perceive are of "nama" and "rupa" (name and form).
Thus, we may say that the knower of Brahman is freed from the shackles of
births and deaths because after all this is the denouement of nama and rupa
with the underlying reality remaining steadfast and unchanging. Actors come and
go upon the stage but the stage itself lingers on long after the curtains have fallen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This much I have understood. At this point, since Sunder has so aptly chosen the Panchadashi as the Prakarana grantha, let us weave in some excerpts from the Panchadashi into our discussion. The following passages do not reflect my
understanding of the matter, but what the wise have written :
<b> The witness, like the lamp in a dancing hall, reveals all these as âI seeâ,
âI hearâ, âI smellâ, âI tasteâ, âI touchâ as pieces of knowledge.
The witness, like the lamp in a dancing hall, reveals all these as âI seeâ, âI
hearâ, âI smellâ, âI tasteâ, âI touchâ as pieces of knowledge. </b>
[P'dashi, X. 10, 11 ]
Before we embark on the nature of consciousness etc, I must confess that I had
some rather crass and mundane doubts which were to some extent answered in the Panchadashi. (Since I was talking about births of the jeevas etc I thought I
may delve on it here. The translations and intepretations are adapted from 2
elegant Ramakrishna Math books, "Quest for Absolutism: Panchadashi for
beginners, by Swami Ramanujananda and "Pachadashi of Vidyaranya" by Swami
Swahananda).
<b>All this is talk of the underlying substratum is all very well. Then how is
it that the knower of the Brahman behaves like an ordinary man?</b>
" My behavior as an ordinary man is not due to perverted thought. It is due to
impressions and habits gathered over a long period. " [P. VII.262 ]
<b>It is common experience that even wise Brahman knowers are not ready to give up their "enjoyments". Why ? </b>
Due to ignorance there is a superimposition between the Consciousness and the
Jeeva. Because of this superimposition, the Jeeva appears to be real; the
enjoyments of the Jeeva also appear to be real. Hence the Jeeva does not want
to give up its enjoyments. All great men are after all Jeevas only. [P. VII.200]
<b>How do we explain the sufferings of the knowers of truth? </b>
This world of duality is like a magical creation, with its cause incomprehensible. What matters it to the wise man who does not forget this, if the past actions produce their results in him ?
<b>But even after getting the title "knower", will he not be free from the
resultant of past action ? </b>
The function of knowledge is to remind us that the world is unreal. The function of the resultant is to award pleasure and pain to the Jeeva. [P. VII.175]
(Let me not debate this here since this thread is for Panchadashi, not my
personal world-view. These things can get quite subjective, you know. But so
far so good. The established position of the scriptures is quite obvious: fructifying "Karma" yields pleasure and pain to the Jiva).
<b>Can we expect that knowledge (of brahman) brings an end to the resultant of
past action (ie. the fructification of Karma) </b>
Knowledge and Resultant are not opposed to each other. For example, people who
know that there is no reality in a magical performance eagerly await such a
performance. Dream objects cause joy and sorrow. Similarly, imaginary objects
bring joy and sorrow in the waking state also. [P.VII.176-177]
<b>What is the view of the Gita on this ?</b>
Sri Krishna says : O son of Kunti, natural tendencies have imposed certain duties
on you. Out of delusion you refuse to perform them. But your own nature will
compel you to perform those duties.
Here is a passage I found rather difficut to comprehend -
(Vedanta is full of such passages. This one is an illustration)
<b>From where do these sufferings come? Are we to understand that the
reflection of Consciousness has these afflictions? Are we sure that the Atman is free from these afflictions? </b>
The reflection of consiousness itself is free from afflictions. Is there any necessity then to say that Pure Consciousness is free from afflictions? The trouble with the Jeeva is that he identifies himself with the bodies.We have already seen that the Atman is real, and also that there is superimpostion because of ignorance. the reflection superimposes reality on the the bodies and imagines bodies are the self. [VII.229-232]
[But how can it not be so? The Jeeva is programmed by instinct to do so].
<b>But, fundamentally, what is the Jeeva? </b>
Jeeva is the reflection of consciousness; It is not there for absolute. [P.VIII.24]
<b>What about the Absolute? </b>
The absolute is the witness of the intellect and the operations.
(I think here we are converging at a point of common interest. The earlier posts of RR on the nature of consciousness and Sunder on the immanent Consciousness as the agent the which perceives "differences" comes into perspective. Any further elucidations from will be most welcome)
<b>May we know the relationshio between the Jeeva, the Absolute, and the mind? </b>
The Absolute can be compared with the FACE;
The mind the MIRROR; and the Jeeva to the REFLECTIOn. [P. VIII.24-26]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But Rene Descartes and more recently Chalmers takes a stance that consciousness is non-material. Descartes adopted the view that the seat of consciousness lay in the pineal gland. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> What are the various views in currency about the ATMAN? </b>
There are philsophers who say that the Atman is atomic in size, or that it is
as large as the universe or that the Atman is as big as the human body. Each of
them has an argument and is ready with a scriptural quote.
<b>Those philosophers who say that the Atman is ATOMIC in size, what is their
argument </b>
The declare that the Atman can exist in nerves and capillaries having the width
of a thousandth part of a hair. Therefore the Atman must be atomic in size.
They quote several Vedic texts to the effect that the Atman is smaller than the
smallest. An example is the Svetasvatra Upanishad 5.9.
Then, again, there are the views of the Digambaras who propogate a doctrine
that the Atman's size is that of the body.... {VI.78 onwards}
He then goes on to state the view point of the Sankhya School. {See VI.98-101}
<b>Then what is our conclusion? </b>
The Atman is NOT Atomic in size; not medium in size; The Atman is infinite,
Omnipresent, all-pervasive, undifferentiated... [P.VI.86]
My main purpose of presenting this medley of passages from the P was to kickstart the discussion by giving a general flavour of the text and the general standpoint of the traditionalists. May the votaries of the other Darshanas as well as the heretics pick up the gauntlet and enter the feisty bullring of philosophy!!
why Atman is equated with Brahman? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having adored the feet of the primordial hunter, in whose locks play the billows of the Ganges, let me with all humility offer my understanding of the matter in concise terms.
Now, the basic axiom that we have in place is :
BRAHMAN, THE ABSOLUTE, IS THE <b>ONLY</b> REALITY
If the individual soul is accepted as Brahman, it has reality because Brahman is real. If we argue that the individual soul is different from Brahman, then reality is denied to such an individual soul.
In other words, despite the pluralities exhibited by the universe, things exist
in the first place only because of their underlying reality - Brahman. It is useful to qualify the term reality with the adjective "underlying". On the face of it, it may seem that there are many realities in the universe but they all have one underlying reality called Brahman.
Now all this tends to get a little abstract! Let us get back to terra firma using a much beloved analogy. The pot has a reality (existence) only because the underlying clay is real. If we argue that the pot is different from the clay, we are denying its quintessential reality. The pot is just a connotation given to a mass of clay that has assumed a particular shape. Quintessentially, whatever you may choose to call it, it is just clay.
Similarly, we may say that the "jeeva" is a connotation given to the Brahman
that has assumed a particular form. Or, to put in the traditional way, the
differences we perceive are of "nama" and "rupa" (name and form).
Thus, we may say that the knower of Brahman is freed from the shackles of
births and deaths because after all this is the denouement of nama and rupa
with the underlying reality remaining steadfast and unchanging. Actors come and
go upon the stage but the stage itself lingers on long after the curtains have fallen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This much I have understood. At this point, since Sunder has so aptly chosen the Panchadashi as the Prakarana grantha, let us weave in some excerpts from the Panchadashi into our discussion. The following passages do not reflect my
understanding of the matter, but what the wise have written :
<b> The witness, like the lamp in a dancing hall, reveals all these as âI seeâ,
âI hearâ, âI smellâ, âI tasteâ, âI touchâ as pieces of knowledge.
The witness, like the lamp in a dancing hall, reveals all these as âI seeâ, âI
hearâ, âI smellâ, âI tasteâ, âI touchâ as pieces of knowledge. </b>
[P'dashi, X. 10, 11 ]
Before we embark on the nature of consciousness etc, I must confess that I had
some rather crass and mundane doubts which were to some extent answered in the Panchadashi. (Since I was talking about births of the jeevas etc I thought I
may delve on it here. The translations and intepretations are adapted from 2
elegant Ramakrishna Math books, "Quest for Absolutism: Panchadashi for
beginners, by Swami Ramanujananda and "Pachadashi of Vidyaranya" by Swami
Swahananda).
<b>All this is talk of the underlying substratum is all very well. Then how is
it that the knower of the Brahman behaves like an ordinary man?</b>
" My behavior as an ordinary man is not due to perverted thought. It is due to
impressions and habits gathered over a long period. " [P. VII.262 ]
<b>It is common experience that even wise Brahman knowers are not ready to give up their "enjoyments". Why ? </b>
Due to ignorance there is a superimposition between the Consciousness and the
Jeeva. Because of this superimposition, the Jeeva appears to be real; the
enjoyments of the Jeeva also appear to be real. Hence the Jeeva does not want
to give up its enjoyments. All great men are after all Jeevas only. [P. VII.200]
<b>How do we explain the sufferings of the knowers of truth? </b>
This world of duality is like a magical creation, with its cause incomprehensible. What matters it to the wise man who does not forget this, if the past actions produce their results in him ?
<b>But even after getting the title "knower", will he not be free from the
resultant of past action ? </b>
The function of knowledge is to remind us that the world is unreal. The function of the resultant is to award pleasure and pain to the Jeeva. [P. VII.175]
(Let me not debate this here since this thread is for Panchadashi, not my
personal world-view. These things can get quite subjective, you know. But so
far so good. The established position of the scriptures is quite obvious: fructifying "Karma" yields pleasure and pain to the Jiva).
<b>Can we expect that knowledge (of brahman) brings an end to the resultant of
past action (ie. the fructification of Karma) </b>
Knowledge and Resultant are not opposed to each other. For example, people who
know that there is no reality in a magical performance eagerly await such a
performance. Dream objects cause joy and sorrow. Similarly, imaginary objects
bring joy and sorrow in the waking state also. [P.VII.176-177]
<b>What is the view of the Gita on this ?</b>
Sri Krishna says : O son of Kunti, natural tendencies have imposed certain duties
on you. Out of delusion you refuse to perform them. But your own nature will
compel you to perform those duties.
Here is a passage I found rather difficut to comprehend -
(Vedanta is full of such passages. This one is an illustration)
<b>From where do these sufferings come? Are we to understand that the
reflection of Consciousness has these afflictions? Are we sure that the Atman is free from these afflictions? </b>
The reflection of consiousness itself is free from afflictions. Is there any necessity then to say that Pure Consciousness is free from afflictions? The trouble with the Jeeva is that he identifies himself with the bodies.We have already seen that the Atman is real, and also that there is superimpostion because of ignorance. the reflection superimposes reality on the the bodies and imagines bodies are the self. [VII.229-232]
[But how can it not be so? The Jeeva is programmed by instinct to do so].
<b>But, fundamentally, what is the Jeeva? </b>
Jeeva is the reflection of consciousness; It is not there for absolute. [P.VIII.24]
<b>What about the Absolute? </b>
The absolute is the witness of the intellect and the operations.
(I think here we are converging at a point of common interest. The earlier posts of RR on the nature of consciousness and Sunder on the immanent Consciousness as the agent the which perceives "differences" comes into perspective. Any further elucidations from will be most welcome)
<b>May we know the relationshio between the Jeeva, the Absolute, and the mind? </b>
The Absolute can be compared with the FACE;
The mind the MIRROR; and the Jeeva to the REFLECTIOn. [P. VIII.24-26]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But Rene Descartes and more recently Chalmers takes a stance that consciousness is non-material. Descartes adopted the view that the seat of consciousness lay in the pineal gland. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> What are the various views in currency about the ATMAN? </b>
There are philsophers who say that the Atman is atomic in size, or that it is
as large as the universe or that the Atman is as big as the human body. Each of
them has an argument and is ready with a scriptural quote.
<b>Those philosophers who say that the Atman is ATOMIC in size, what is their
argument </b>
The declare that the Atman can exist in nerves and capillaries having the width
of a thousandth part of a hair. Therefore the Atman must be atomic in size.
They quote several Vedic texts to the effect that the Atman is smaller than the
smallest. An example is the Svetasvatra Upanishad 5.9.
Then, again, there are the views of the Digambaras who propogate a doctrine
that the Atman's size is that of the body.... {VI.78 onwards}
He then goes on to state the view point of the Sankhya School. {See VI.98-101}
<b>Then what is our conclusion? </b>
The Atman is NOT Atomic in size; not medium in size; The Atman is infinite,
Omnipresent, all-pervasive, undifferentiated... [P.VI.86]
My main purpose of presenting this medley of passages from the P was to kickstart the discussion by giving a general flavour of the text and the general standpoint of the traditionalists. May the votaries of the other Darshanas as well as the heretics pick up the gauntlet and enter the feisty bullring of philosophy!!