Summary:

In this session, we explore the nuances of how the universe of attributes arises from attributeless consciousness. The concept of maya (knowledge-power potential) and its manifestation as Ishvara is discussed. We delve into Vedanta's approach of showing all realities here and now.

The relationship between maya and Ishvara is explained, along with the concept of pravaha-nityatvam. We examine the nature of the jiva (individual being) and its beginningless ignorance due to maya's veiling power. The session also covers the logical impossibility of avidya (ignorance) having a beginning.

Chapter 2 introduces methods to correct the tendency to conceptualize Brahman as an image. It emphasizes the importance of inquiry (mimamsa) and explains the three stages of engagement in Vedanta: Shravana, Manana, and Nididhyasana. The session concludes by discussing the criteria for valid means of knowledge (Pramana) and the process of contemplation in Vedantic study.

FINISHING OFF CHAPTER 1 WITH NUANCES:

• HOW DOES UNIVERSE OF ATTRIBUTES COME FROM ATTRIBUTELESS CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS?
  • So far, we’ve seen time-space-objects collapse into concepts which collapses finally into Awareness. But still doesn’t answer how time-space-objects came about.
  • How can attributeless Awareness create universe of attributes? It has all-knowledge-power potential (called maya), which brings about time-space-objects. Upon manifestation, knowledge-power potential is called Ishvara.   It also manifests jivas, who don’t know that right now all that is here is knowledge-power.  Jiva only sees is forms, missing out on knowledge-power (Ishvara), potential (maya), Awareness.
• VEDANTA SHOWS YOU WHAT IS HERE AND NOW:
  • Nobody was there to know what was going on before universe. What makes Vedanta knowledge, is it shows all realities here-now:
    • (a) Presence because of which changing universe is known (Awareness).
    • (b) Before form comes into manifestation, there was potential (maya), and will change tomorrow. And tomorrow is connected to today. There’s order. It’s not like today man body, tomorrow horse.
• WHY IS THERE CREATION?
  • Here-now, there is only one attribute free Awareness, which never underwent change, but does have potential to manifest jagat.
  • To ask “Why to do we have creation?”, implies Awareness actually underwent change, but creation is only appearance. No creation as-such. EG: Dream forms are appearance of Intelligence (concepts). To ask “why are there dream forms?”, is to miss the fact they are nothing but One Intelligence actively reshuffling itself to take appearance of forms. And while Intelligence is mithya, wherever there is mithya, that’s exactly where satyam (Awareness) is, knowing to me right now as my very self-evident I.
• RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAYA & ISHVARA:
  • Woman has potential to be mother. When child comes, woman gains name “mother”. In both cases, woman is still there. In same way, when knowledge-power potential (called maya), manifests time-space, same knowledge-power is called Ishvara (cause of universe). Can’t call maya “cause of universe” because universe hasn’t come.
  • Furthermore, within manifest universe, there is constant manifest (Ishvara) – unmanifest (maya). While other Upanishads will reserve maya term only for prior-to-universe. In both cases, it’s knowledge-power.
  • Maya/Ishvara = pravaha-nityatvam: Knowledge/power that survives time, undergoes change between manifest-unmanifest. Within manifest universe (knowledge-power manifesting as time-space-objects), also changes. When unmanifests, goes into potential. So Ishvara never goes away (anadi).
• WHAT ABOUT JIVA?
  • Jiva doesn’t know it’s true nature due to maya’s avarana-shakti (veiling power). Veiling power is beginningless (anadi) – meaning veiling power always was. And at level of the sentient being, this power produces ignorance (“I don’t know __, __, etc). Since you are a sentient being, it means you were ignorant since beginningless time.
  • Technical explanation of why the jiva is considered anadi (beginningless):
    1. The nature of avidya (ignorance): Adi Shankara emphasizes that avidya is anadi (beginningless). In his commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.1.35, he states that avidya cannot have a beginning because if it did, we would need to explain its cause. Any cause of avidya would itself require knowledge to bring about ignorance, which is logically impossible. Therefore, avidya must be beginningless.
       • Explaining Further:
         1. Definition of avidya: Avidya is not mere absence of knowledge, but a positive entity that obscures the true nature of reality. It's the fundamental ignorance that causes the misapprehension of the non-dual Brahman as the diverse world of names and forms.
         2. The logical problem of avidya having a beginning: If we assume avidya has a beginning, we encounter several logical contradictions:
            • Cause of avidya: If avidya had a beginning, it would need a cause. What could cause ignorance to arise?
              • It can't be Brahman, as Brahman is pure consciousness and knowledge.
              • It can't be the jiva, as the jiva itself is a product of avidya.
              • It can't be another form of ignorance, as that would lead to infinite regress.
            • State prior to avidya: If avidya had a beginning, there must have been a state prior to it.
              • If this prior state was one of knowledge, how could ignorance arise from knowledge? (Since knowledge is absence of ignorance).
         3. Shankara's argument: In his commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.1.35, Shankara states: “Na hi vidyamānāyāṃ vidyāyāmavidyotpattiḥ sambhavati, prakāśe tamaso vat.” (When knowledge exists, the origination of ignorance is impossible, just as darkness cannot arise in light.) This statement encapsulates the logical impossibility of avidya having a beginning. If there was a time when avidya didn't exist, it would mean there was perfect knowledge. In such a state of perfect knowledge, ignorance could never arise.
         4. The beginninglessness of avidya: Given these logical considerations, avidya must be beginningless (anadi). It has always been there, not as an absolute reality, but as an apparent reality that obscures the true nature of Brahman.
         5. Implications:
            • The beginninglessness of avidya doesn't mean it's eternal or real in an absolute sense. It's beginningless from the empirical standpoint but is ultimately unreal (mithya) from the absolute standpoint.
            • Understanding avidya as beginningless is crucial, as it shifts the focus from trying to trace the origin of ignorance to directly addressing its removal through knowledge (vidya).
    2. The inseparability of jiva and avidya: The jiva‘s existence is intrinsically linked to avidya. As stated in the Vivekachudamani (verse 28), “The jiva is nothing but Atman in association with the upadhi of antahkarana.” This upadhi (limiting adjunct or superimposition) is a product of avidya. Since avidya is beginningless, the jiva's apparent existence as a separate entity must also be beginningless.
    3. The logical impossibility of jiva's origination: If we posit that the jiva had a beginning, we encounter insurmountable logical difficulties:
       1. If jiva originated from Brahman, it would imply that Brahman is subject to change, which contradicts its nature as immutable (kutastha nitya).
       2. If jiva came from nothing, it would violate the principle of causality (karya-karana siddhanta) upheld in Vedanta.
       3. If jiva arose from knowledge, it would be absurd, as knowledge is the very antithesis (opposite) of the jiva‘s ignorant state.
    4. The analogy of waves in the ocean: It’s impossible to pinpoint when a specific wave “began” in the Ocean. Any apparent beginning is merely a change from prior form. Ocean doesn’t “create” waves at a specific time; they are expressions of the Ocean itself. Likewise, we can’t identify when a jiva “began”, because it’s apparent individuality was a modification of Intelligence which was manifesting forms (sentient and insentient) since beginningless time. Using an analogy, the wave (jiva) was always forming and receding into the Ocean (Ishvara). The wave’s truth was always the water (brahman). But owning to Ignorance of the water, it continued to take its existence as one amongst many.
    5. Ignorance causes superimposition which reinforces ignorance: In his introduction to the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, Adi Shankara elaborates on adhyasa. The jiva‘s sense of individuality is a result of superimposing attributes of the body-mind complex on the Atman. This superimposition (due to ignorance) is beginningless, as it's not possible to trace its origin in time.
       • Metaphor: The rope was always a rope. But whenever the weary traveler quickly walked by it at dusk (when there’s insufficient light to fully make out the object for what it is), he always saw a snake. The rope (brahman) was always a snake (misapprehension of actual reality) for the traveller. Why is this the case? Because the traveller was busy getting to places (wife/business/kids/friends/etc). So many places to get to in this world!
    6. The scriptural support: Numerous Upanishadic statements support the beginninglessness of jiva. For instance, the Katha Upanishad (1.2.18) states, “The intelligent Atman is not born, nor does It die.” The Bhagavad Gita (2.20) echoes this: “It is not born, nor does It ever die.”
• HOW TO END THE JIVA? Only way for jiva to end is to remove ignorance and recognizes “Awareness alone is, which hasn’t undergone any change”. Jiva is the only thing in existence that’s anadi (beginningless), but not anatam (forever).  Then jiva’s past causes are immediately disowned, just like waking up after a dream – identity instantly changes from thief-character to Waker.
• NEW-AGE NONSENSE: Since jiva needs to make individual effort to discover one’s truth, the new-age statement like, “Raising collective consciousness” is fruitless and illogical. Because each jiva has to remove one’s own ignorance. It’s a personal journey. Understanding this, you no longer carry the burden of “saving people”, because whole thing is within Ishvara, and some student will decide to pass on Vedanta. Thus there’s no question of “coming back to save others”.

CHAPTER 2:

The question posited in Chapter 1, “What is the presence and it’s nature?” was answered at 2 levels:  Sat-cit and Ishvara.

Teaching of Vedanta is over. Following chapters (2-4) will polish out possible errors in knowledge and refine the vision of Oneness further.

Kena Upanishad, Chapter 2, Verse 1:

यदि मन्यसे सु-वेदेति दहरम् एव अपि
नूनम् त्वम् वेत्थ ब्रह्मणः रूपम्
यत् अस्य त्वम् यत् अस्य देवेषु अथ नु मीमांस्यम् एव ते मन्ये
विदितम्

yadi manyase su-vedeti daharam eva api
(If you think [you] know [Brahman] well, [even if it's] but little)
nūnam tvam vettha brahmaṇaḥ rūpam,
(Surely you know the form of Brahman,)
yat asya tvam yat asya deveṣu atha nu mīmāṁsyam eva te, manye viditam
(What [aspect] of It [you know] and what [aspect] of It [exists] among the gods, now indeed I think it is to be pondered by you, [I] think [it is] known [to you])

(Teacher): If you think, “I know Brahman very well,” then, you know only very little of Brahman’s nature (that is expressed) in the human beings and in the gods. Therefore, Brahman is still to be inquired into by you. (Disciple): I consider (Brahman) is known.

• MEANING OF: “If you think you know Brahman well, you know Brahman little”?
  • If you know Brahman as an object, you haven’t got it.
  • Mind tendency goes to images: Only way we understood things is by creating images, so naturally wants to create image of Brahman, then convince itself it’s got it.
  • How to Correct Brahman-as-Image Tendency:
    1. METHOD 1: Analyze any form, see it’s satya-mithya relationship:
       • Take flower. Where there’s flower, there’s intelligence that makes stem/petal/fragrance what it is. Thus keep forms as they are, and cognitively see deeper (flower is one of manifestations of all knowledge-power).
       • Can also bring to mind, “Flower carries potential to survive for 2 days”.
       • Reduce petal to: Atoms > Concepts > Awareness.
    2. METHOD 2: Mental Reminder of the Knowledge
       • Remind yourself, “Wherever mind goes, that’s where Awareness is”. Let mind follow any thought; it’s never outside Ishvara/Awareness. Meaning no situation is capable of taking you away from reality. Because each situation is made out of Ishvara (Intelligence). Knowing this, question “How do I keep this in my mind?” disappears.
• OTHER BEINGS: Furthermore, yad asya tvam yad asya deveṣu: What is in you, is also in Devas.
  • Deva: Jiva with a more refined body-mind, in different realms, different times. But it’s still a Form > Potential for form to change (maya) > Intelligence (Ishvara) making form what it is > Meaning whether something is known or unknown, reality is same.
• MIMAMSA: Therefore, if you’re stuck thinking “what’s out there”, then mīmāmsyam manye: Reality is to be inquired into by you.
  • What is Mimamsa? Pramana-pravrtti. Engaging in the means-of-knowledge for length of time, until knowledge is transferred, thus showing what it’s intended to show. Applies not only to Vedanta, medicine, Physics, etc.
  • Engagement in Vedanta has 3 stages:
    1. Shravana:
       • Teacher needs to show what Upanishads are attempting to convey. “Are you part of Ishvara, away from Ishvara, etc”.  Often people ask  “Whose interpretation are you teaching Upanishads”; show they don’t know what Pramana means (it’s not an interpretation, but shows what-is).
       • Literal meaning is “listening”, but implied meaning is Tātparya-niścaya: Having intention of ascertaining (what is communicated). Wanting to know what author talking about.
       • 6 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT:
         • How to know whether it’s OWN interpretation (OR) you’re ascertaining what’s being communicated?  No one can contradict it’s logic.  EG: Different Indian schools (Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Sankya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa) accept Vedas as means-of-knowledge.  Why are there interpretations different of One reality? They tried to understand, but also added personal (pratibhasika) interpretations.
         • Purpose of Criticizing: Criticizing other traditions is not to insult them, but to help you see opposing logical flaws. If mind is not ready, one will feel threatened and project onto teacher, rather then considering the critical view. It’s like Einstein saying “Classical physics says time is absolute, Modern Physics says it’s relative. It’s ok, everyone has right to an opinion”.
         • How Do I Know Who Is Saying The Right Thing? For something to be valid means-of-knowledge (Pramana), must meet 2 conditions…
           1. Anadhigatam (unique):
              1. EG: Nothing else can do the job that ears can do. Thus ear is a means-of-knowledge, like no other. 
              2. Summary: Means-of-knowledge is valid if it gives me knowledge that other means-of-knowledge can’t.
              3. Related to Vedanta: Words of Vedanta have to give me something that my senses/inference can’t give, else don’t need Vedanta.
           2. Abhāditam (non-negatable):
              1. What means-of-knowledge gives, is non-negatable.
              2. EG:
                 1. If you hear music (hallucinating) no one else is hearing, it’s negatable by sane people.
                 2. You are alive!  (Can't contradict this, because just to respond means you're alive)
              3. Related to Vedanta: What’s being said, can’t be contradicted from any standpoint. 
    2. Manana: (Make shastric teaching your own living reality)
       • If Shravana is in reference to what Vedanta is talking about, Manana is in reference to “Do I understand what Vedanta is talking about?”. They’re not two different stages. Interwoven. Therefore you raise doubts, indicating you’re attempting to make it personal, to resolve discomfort or resistance to the teaching. Need to expose your flaws, show vulnerability.  
       • Also engaging with teacher, gives teacher opportunity to correct you, and you clear others unspoken doubts too.
    3. Nididhyasana:
       • Contemplating on what you understand.
       • PROCESS: Take one topic, and begin thinking about it. EG: Suppose hear about “pramana”. Then ask “What is Pramana? What makes it non-contradictable?”. Ask questions about separate topics, then their relationship to other topics.
       • BEFORE-AFTER: To get to knowledge, you’re contemplative. After knowledge, you’re still contemplating.

—

Recorded 11 July, 2024