<i>Gato va, Mrithpindo va, Anurapi cha, dhoomo'gnir achalah
Pato va, tanthur va pariharathi kim ghora shamanam...
Vrutha kanta kshobham vahasi tarasaa tharka vachasaa
Padhaamboja bhaja shambor parama saukhyam vrajashudhi.
-- Shivanandha Lahari (6)
(The various examples used by logicians, like Pot (and space), clod of earth, atom, smoke, fire, or mountain, cloth, and thread etc, which of these can save you from the face of death? You are unnecessarily wasting the water in your throat. Do bow to the lotus feet of Lord Shiva which alone purifies your mind.</i>
Sridatta, Yashasvi bhava. Keerthimaan bhava soumya.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i><b>BRAHMAN, THE ABSOLUTE, IS THE ONLY REALITY</b></i>
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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the above statement, Brahman is first termed "Absolute". The moment something is "Absolute", there cannot be more than one of it.This is a top down approach where, the Absolute is first defined, and explanations are given to justify the statement. For a beginner, it can only be *assumed* that there should be is Absolute Reality (or a Substratum) from which this visible and invisible universe has emerged from. This is purely a logical deduction (for a beginner). As one can observe that any material that exists in this universe HAS TO BE the product (or effect) of some cause. The Universe is a continuous transformation, and is a beautiful play of Energy (Sarvam Shakthimayam Jagath.)
We know that matter is frozen energy, or energy is mobile matter. We also know that Positive and Negative charges (Protons and Electrons) come together in a freakishly disciplined way - and in large numbers - to form different elements. Thus positive and negative charges, when combined with each other, and with the help of heat (agni), and pressure (vayu) etc forms matter.
It is also known that Hydrocarbons are the basic building blocks where an unexplained phenomenon called 'life' can manifest. This 'life form' is distinguished from other inanimate/inert matter by it's unique quality called 'Consciousness'. This consciousness is possible in matter which has hydrocarbons, and has water content in them. These oraganic conglomerations of matter are called 'organisms'.
Here it's worth noting that charvaka and related schools may claim that consciousness is produced by chemical combinations. If it is so, then the "I"-ness which is constant throughout one's life does not change with change in harmone levels. (The consciousness is same in Waking, dream and deep sleep, and during happiness,anger, and depression alike.)
Here, consciousness, which is unchangeable, and unlimited identifies itself with matter to which it is figuratively 'attached'. Consciousness is never dependent on matter for it's survival (this will be known only in Thuriyam where PURE consciousness exists, with absolutely no awareness of objects.)
[ I take cue from Yogasutras of Patanjali (as a pramana), to describe the various states of the Dhrashta (the Experiencer - aka consciousness.) ] The Experiencer is the Unchanging, Absolute. It views the physical world via a connection called the ego. The Ego, is at best a virtual entity that acts as a pivot, binding the Experiencer to the material body. The virtual entity (Ego), relies on the Mind, Intellect, sense-organs and organs-of-action to go about 'its' duties.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There cannot be two "Absolute Realities" existing simultaneously. i.e. One Reality cannot be contradictory to Another. Thus, different view-points of an Absolute Reality can, must, and will exist. These are called 'relative' reality (or Rtham. or Rytham.) IF there are two incompatible versions of the same reality, then one of them (or sometimes both of them) will not be true. E.g. the Sky is blue, Vs. the Sky is black... Both these "apparent realities" are false as ether (or space) cannot have a color of it's own.
In the same way, as the Akasha (ether) has no quality, and yet is seen as blue owing to perception. The Absolute, which has no qualities, is seen as one with attributes and qualities.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A pot is not clay per se. It is the effect (or product of clay.) By definition, the effect SHOULD have atleast one quality or attribute different from the cause. The pot has clay for it's substratum, but there is also the potter's efforts in shaping it up, and the fire's work in tempering the clay into a pot. So also, any cause needs an agent to shape it into effect. (Ashishtaanam, thatha kartha, karanam cha prithakvidham, vividhaah cha prithak cheshta, dhaivam chaivatra panchamam.) Thus, for a cause to become an effect, there should be an agent/force acting upon it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jeeva is indeed another name for Brahman. Just as a water-drop is the same exact H2O as that of the Ocean. The name (waterdrop and ocean) or the form (tiny vs gigantic) may differ, but the substratum is the same. The confusion (and difference) exists is only with respect to the Jeeva, not with respect to the Parama.
Here it's worth mentioning that Bhakthi is the Bottom-up approach where the water drop says, "I am a tiny drop, you are the Ocean, O Lord", and then merges into the ocean. Thus losing it's identity. While Gnana is the top-down approach where the OCEAN recognizes itself and thus all waterdrops (jeevas) instantly is recognized as it own self. That's all the difference there is. (I did not lift this off any book.. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nyaya defines Samshaya (doubt) as a situation when one has two or more contradictory views about the same object, and does not know which view is valid. While Panchadasi answers most questions, I would recommend you to read the Bhagavat Geetha, Brahma Sutra and the Major Upanishads (again.) For me, the doubts were cleared by the Brahma Sutra (Shankara Bhashyam.) and the Mandukya Upanishad - Gaudapada Karika. Regarding birth of the Jeeva etc, I recommend reading the Panchagni Vidya (with a Guru if possible), to understand the dept of understanding of our Great Ancestors.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?
" 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 ] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Knower sometimes behaves like a child or like a lunatic also (Bala-unmattha vad eva.) There is no rule binding the Knower (naiva thasya krithenartho na'akruthenaeha kaschana.) The same also applies to Avatara Purushas. E.g. A teacher may have graduated, but will behave like a student when teaching kindergarten. He/She will come to school every day, will sing nursery rhymes etc, but he/she is definitely not a student. The same way, a Guru, though interacting with the world, does not fit into the understanding level of a mere mortal.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How do we explain the sufferings of the knowers of truth?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignorance and suffering are non-entities. They do not exist in real. They are only terms and terminogies. Here is a wonderful story that illustrates this point. http://www.salagram.net/atheists-unscientific-page.htm
Can we expect that knowledge (of brahman) brings an end to the resultant of
past action (ie. the fructification of Karma)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is a passage I found rather difficut to comprehend -
(Vedanta is full of such passages. This one is an illustration)
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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ABSOLUTELY.. Consciousness itself does not undergo pleasure or pain. It only is a Witness to both pleasure and pain, and this is only when it identifies itself with the entity that undergoes suffering.
If you have a new car, and it gets scratched.. Is your heart feeling the pain of the car? If a house has burnt down, it would cause pain which is directly proportional to your attachment with it. Thus consciousness itself cannot undergo suffering, it only SAVOURS (or Witnesses) the pain/pleasure of the objects that it is attached to. If Consciousness itself undergoes pain, then there is no agent that can be conscious of this. (just like the brain does not know it's own pain.)
Hope this makes sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Atman is NOT Atomic in size; not medium in size; The Atman is infinite, Omnipresent, all-pervasive, undifferentiated... [P.VI.86]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Atman IS ATOMIC, and because it is atomic, it is infinite. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Atomic really means <b>indivisible</b>. Something that cannot be further subdivided. If there is something that Absolutely cannot be further subdivided, then, there can only be ONE of it's kind. There cannot be two of it. If there is two of it, then it's already divided. Thus Brahman is Atomic, and hence infinite. (Anor aneeyaan, mahatho maheeyaan.)
This is what I opine. Feel free to add/correct this.
Pato va, tanthur va pariharathi kim ghora shamanam...
Vrutha kanta kshobham vahasi tarasaa tharka vachasaa
Padhaamboja bhaja shambor parama saukhyam vrajashudhi.
-- Shivanandha Lahari (6)
(The various examples used by logicians, like Pot (and space), clod of earth, atom, smoke, fire, or mountain, cloth, and thread etc, which of these can save you from the face of death? You are unnecessarily wasting the water in your throat. Do bow to the lotus feet of Lord Shiva which alone purifies your mind.</i>
Sridatta, Yashasvi bhava. Keerthimaan bhava soumya.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i><b>BRAHMAN, THE ABSOLUTE, IS THE ONLY REALITY</b></i>
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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the above statement, Brahman is first termed "Absolute". The moment something is "Absolute", there cannot be more than one of it.This is a top down approach where, the Absolute is first defined, and explanations are given to justify the statement. For a beginner, it can only be *assumed* that there should be is Absolute Reality (or a Substratum) from which this visible and invisible universe has emerged from. This is purely a logical deduction (for a beginner). As one can observe that any material that exists in this universe HAS TO BE the product (or effect) of some cause. The Universe is a continuous transformation, and is a beautiful play of Energy (Sarvam Shakthimayam Jagath.)
We know that matter is frozen energy, or energy is mobile matter. We also know that Positive and Negative charges (Protons and Electrons) come together in a freakishly disciplined way - and in large numbers - to form different elements. Thus positive and negative charges, when combined with each other, and with the help of heat (agni), and pressure (vayu) etc forms matter.
It is also known that Hydrocarbons are the basic building blocks where an unexplained phenomenon called 'life' can manifest. This 'life form' is distinguished from other inanimate/inert matter by it's unique quality called 'Consciousness'. This consciousness is possible in matter which has hydrocarbons, and has water content in them. These oraganic conglomerations of matter are called 'organisms'.
Here it's worth noting that charvaka and related schools may claim that consciousness is produced by chemical combinations. If it is so, then the "I"-ness which is constant throughout one's life does not change with change in harmone levels. (The consciousness is same in Waking, dream and deep sleep, and during happiness,anger, and depression alike.)
Here, consciousness, which is unchangeable, and unlimited identifies itself with matter to which it is figuratively 'attached'. Consciousness is never dependent on matter for it's survival (this will be known only in Thuriyam where PURE consciousness exists, with absolutely no awareness of objects.)
[ I take cue from Yogasutras of Patanjali (as a pramana), to describe the various states of the Dhrashta (the Experiencer - aka consciousness.) ] The Experiencer is the Unchanging, Absolute. It views the physical world via a connection called the ego. The Ego, is at best a virtual entity that acts as a pivot, binding the Experiencer to the material body. The virtual entity (Ego), relies on the Mind, Intellect, sense-organs and organs-of-action to go about 'its' duties.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There cannot be two "Absolute Realities" existing simultaneously. i.e. One Reality cannot be contradictory to Another. Thus, different view-points of an Absolute Reality can, must, and will exist. These are called 'relative' reality (or Rtham. or Rytham.) IF there are two incompatible versions of the same reality, then one of them (or sometimes both of them) will not be true. E.g. the Sky is blue, Vs. the Sky is black... Both these "apparent realities" are false as ether (or space) cannot have a color of it's own.
In the same way, as the Akasha (ether) has no quality, and yet is seen as blue owing to perception. The Absolute, which has no qualities, is seen as one with attributes and qualities.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A pot is not clay per se. It is the effect (or product of clay.) By definition, the effect SHOULD have atleast one quality or attribute different from the cause. The pot has clay for it's substratum, but there is also the potter's efforts in shaping it up, and the fire's work in tempering the clay into a pot. So also, any cause needs an agent to shape it into effect. (Ashishtaanam, thatha kartha, karanam cha prithakvidham, vividhaah cha prithak cheshta, dhaivam chaivatra panchamam.) Thus, for a cause to become an effect, there should be an agent/force acting upon it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jeeva is indeed another name for Brahman. Just as a water-drop is the same exact H2O as that of the Ocean. The name (waterdrop and ocean) or the form (tiny vs gigantic) may differ, but the substratum is the same. The confusion (and difference) exists is only with respect to the Jeeva, not with respect to the Parama.
Here it's worth mentioning that Bhakthi is the Bottom-up approach where the water drop says, "I am a tiny drop, you are the Ocean, O Lord", and then merges into the ocean. Thus losing it's identity. While Gnana is the top-down approach where the OCEAN recognizes itself and thus all waterdrops (jeevas) instantly is recognized as it own self. That's all the difference there is. (I did not lift this off any book.. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->)<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nyaya defines Samshaya (doubt) as a situation when one has two or more contradictory views about the same object, and does not know which view is valid. While Panchadasi answers most questions, I would recommend you to read the Bhagavat Geetha, Brahma Sutra and the Major Upanishads (again.) For me, the doubts were cleared by the Brahma Sutra (Shankara Bhashyam.) and the Mandukya Upanishad - Gaudapada Karika. Regarding birth of the Jeeva etc, I recommend reading the Panchagni Vidya (with a Guru if possible), to understand the dept of understanding of our Great Ancestors.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?
" 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 ] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Knower sometimes behaves like a child or like a lunatic also (Bala-unmattha vad eva.) There is no rule binding the Knower (naiva thasya krithenartho na'akruthenaeha kaschana.) The same also applies to Avatara Purushas. E.g. A teacher may have graduated, but will behave like a student when teaching kindergarten. He/She will come to school every day, will sing nursery rhymes etc, but he/she is definitely not a student. The same way, a Guru, though interacting with the world, does not fit into the understanding level of a mere mortal.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How do we explain the sufferings of the knowers of truth?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignorance and suffering are non-entities. They do not exist in real. They are only terms and terminogies. Here is a wonderful story that illustrates this point. http://www.salagram.net/atheists-unscientific-page.htm
Can we expect that knowledge (of brahman) brings an end to the resultant of
past action (ie. the fructification of Karma)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is a passage I found rather difficut to comprehend -
(Vedanta is full of such passages. This one is an illustration)
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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ABSOLUTELY.. Consciousness itself does not undergo pleasure or pain. It only is a Witness to both pleasure and pain, and this is only when it identifies itself with the entity that undergoes suffering.
If you have a new car, and it gets scratched.. Is your heart feeling the pain of the car? If a house has burnt down, it would cause pain which is directly proportional to your attachment with it. Thus consciousness itself cannot undergo suffering, it only SAVOURS (or Witnesses) the pain/pleasure of the objects that it is attached to. If Consciousness itself undergoes pain, then there is no agent that can be conscious of this. (just like the brain does not know it's own pain.)
Hope this makes sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Atman is NOT Atomic in size; not medium in size; The Atman is infinite, Omnipresent, all-pervasive, undifferentiated... [P.VI.86]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Atman IS ATOMIC, and because it is atomic, it is infinite. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Atomic really means <b>indivisible</b>. Something that cannot be further subdivided. If there is something that Absolutely cannot be further subdivided, then, there can only be ONE of it's kind. There cannot be two of it. If there is two of it, then it's already divided. Thus Brahman is Atomic, and hence infinite. (Anor aneeyaan, mahatho maheeyaan.)This is what I opine. Feel free to add/correct this.